New York Times on the Web Forums Books Features

Favorite Poetry

Contemporary or classic? Sonnet or free verse? What is it about poetry that strikes the imagination -- or turns some people away? To post poems in a single-space format, type (BR) at the end of each line but substitute < > for ( ). This is a "break line" indicator. It will allow the next line to appear right under the previous one, making the poem easier to read.

rshowalt - 08:00am Sep 24, 2000 EST (#6259 of 6739)

Willy_Nilly. I can be reached at 804-275-7141, or at mrshowalter@cannylink.com . Because of the importance of what you say, your importance, and because some central questions are matters of FACT, and not art or poetry, I'll be trying to get a proposal to you. I'll have some help from another person, more distinguished and connected than myself, who also posts on this and other NYT forum boards.

Some facts have to be checked. It might be better done in private. We could do it in public, later, if the private approach did not work.

It is my belief that once we are looking at the same set of facts, "reading from the same page", we'll agree on the substance of what needs to be done. Once agreement goes so far as the basic facts, I'd trust you to solve the problem, yourself, more beautifully and effectively than I could possibly do.

An error's been made. Something very unpoetic. A sign error. That sign error, when understood, changes perspectives. Something thought to have stability over a certain range, is instead dangerously unstable. It could easily destroy the world.

The error can be established by CHECKING, beyond any reasonable question or evasion. That done, people in authority can do what needs to be done, effectively and much better than an outsider could.

I'll be taking a simple position. When the stakes mean that answers matter a great deal, the checking needed to establish what the right answer is must be considered to be morally forcing.

I can't think of a clearer example than the case of nuclear weapons, which are now out of comparison more dangerous, and less useful, than you now think.

Because our nation is relying on unworkable weapons, our nation is far less defended than it should be, and at grave risk because of the weapons themselves. These weapons are providing us with a perverse and false sense of comfort. They should scare us to death, so we can act, eliminate them, and avoid mass death.

rshowalt - 08:18am Sep 24, 2000 EST (#6260 of 6739)

There was a long, meticulously written thread that Lunarchick and I had worked hard on, concerning paradigm conflict. I intended to use it, and had said so in some email correspondence. Perhaps this is a coincidence. Where I'd hoped to find the thread, I found this.

We have had to suspend our talk boards temporarily while we conduct essential maintenance. Please bear with us as we work to improve the service. We hope to have the talk boards working fully by Monday.

Guardian Unlimited

Of course this may be coincidental, but it is a coincidence I'd like to point out.

Bob Showalter.

flyingvprod - 09:51am Sep 24, 2000 EST (#6261 of 6739)
If a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man.- Kubrick

You don't get it Bob, in my humble opinion. I'm not saying you don't have the right to say it, nor am I saying the crud aint your idea of lame art, but the bomb saved lives. You don't think there was mass death before the bomb? Come on man, get real. History smashes your trust and love theory all to bits. There is more to it.

rshowalt - 10:20am Sep 24, 2000 EST (#6262 of 6739)

I'm not a trust and love person, when it comes to relations between nation states. I think weapons are important and necessary. I think deterrance is necessary, that the military is necessary. I think the U.S. needs a strong, facile, effective defense.

I think THESE PARTICULAR weapons are prohibitively dangerous, for clear traceable reasons.

We should get rid of nuclear weapons, because they are dangerously defective, and because they do major psychological and moral damage to us and to our enemies. That would make our military defense stronger, not weaker.

Now, we're fixated on nuclear weapons, and they give us a false sense of security, when single 16 year old kids can do major damage to our military institutions. What could a nation state, with 1000 or more people with similar skills, do to us? We're not well defended. We're terribly unready to face the real non-nuclear threats out there.

(The big nuclear threat is indiscipline, which is growing in the Russian nuclear forces by leaps and bounds, and which has been serious for a long time. Because ONE MISTAKE probably blows up the world. The system is that unstable, there's a sign error.)

We should get rid of these obsolete, ugly extirmination threat weapons, and settle in to the serious business of defending the U.S. in a dangerous world. Other nation states will have symettric military needs.

One nice thing is that, with information systems getting better and better, non-nuclear first strike maneuvers are getting harder and harder to do. That means that, when you get rid of the nucs, you get the condition for stability that President Clinton (who else writes so well as Willy_Nilly?) stated so clearly - defensive weapons with an edge over offensive weapons.

It would take some adjustment to get to this posture, for the U.S. and other nations. But as facile as we are technically, not too many.

Get rid of the nucs, and military balances are radically stabilized, in the world with the communication links that now exist.

Just the condition the President stated occurs almost automatically.

jemoyer - 10:56am Sep 24, 2000 EST (#6263 of 6739)
life is not meant to be a slow form of suicide

So let's see some poetry already...

kate_nyt - 01:27pm Sep 24, 2000 EST (#6264 of 6739)
Community Producer, NYTimes.com

Afternoon, all-

This forum is for poetry only. Please move any discussion of nuclear weapons to the Missile Defense forum in the Science area. It could use the help!

Have a good Sunday,

Kate

(475 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Books Features Favorite Poetry