ftp.xmission.com

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ ftp.xmission.com / 2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar / ftp.xmission.com / pub / lists / abolition-usa / archive / v01.n321 < prev next >

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 2000-06-12 | 43KB

From: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com (abolition-usa-digest) To: abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #321 Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest Sender: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk abolition-usa-digest Tuesday, June 13 2000 Volume 01 : Number 321 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:40:21 -0400 From: Ellen Thomas <prop1@prop1.org> Subject: (abolition-usa) Gore - Trenton NJ - Oxygen Women's Forum tonight 9 pm - --=====================_28446434==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by pooky.myhouse.com id OAA18172 Al Gore to appear in the "Oxygen Women's Forum" tonight at 9:00 EST=20 Al Gore will participate in the first "Oxygen=92s Women Forum" tonight at= =20 9:00 pm EST on June 12th in Trenton, N.J. An audience of women from=20 the Trenton community will assemble to speak with Al Gore and ask him=20 questions about issues important to women. The event will be televised=20 on the Oxygen Network, C-Span, and New Jersey Public Television (NJN).=20 A live webcast and interactive chat will accessible at=20 http://www.oxygen.com/befearless. You can also ask questions in advance=20 at http://www.oxygen.com/befearless ______________________________________________________________ * Peace Through Reason - http://prop1.org - Convert the War Machines! = * Online Petition - http://www.PetitionOnline.com/prop1/petition.ht= ml ______________________________________________________________=20 - --=====================_28446434==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by pooky.myhouse.com id OAA18172 <html> Al Gore to appear in the "Oxygen Women's Forum" tonight at 9:00 EST <br> Al Gore will participate in the first "Oxygen=92s Women Forum" tonight at <br> 9:00 pm EST on June 12th in Trenton, N.J. An audience of women from=20 <br> the Trenton community will assemble to speak with Al Gore and ask him <br> questions about issues important to women. The event will be televised <br> on the Oxygen Network, C-Span, and New Jersey Public Television (NJN). <br> A live webcast and interactive chat will accessible at <br> <font color=3D"#0000FF"><u><a href=3D"http://www.oxygen.com/befearless" e= udora=3D"autourl">http://www.oxygen.com/befearless</a></font></u>. You can also ask questions in advance <br> at <a href=3D"http://www.oxygen.com/befearless" eudora=3D"autourl"><font col= or=3D"#0000FF"><u>http://www.oxygen.com/befearless</a><br> <br> <br> </font></u><br> <div>______________________________________________________________</div> <br> <div>* Peace Through Reason - <a href=3D"http://prop1.org/" EUDORA=3DAUTOURL>http://prop1.org</a> - Con= vert the War Machines! *</div> <div> Online Petition - <a href=3D"http://www.petitiononline.com/prop1/petition.html" EUDORA=3DAU= TOURL>http://www.PetitionOnline.com/prop1/petition.html</a></div> ______________________________________________________________ </html> - --=====================_28446434==_.ALT-- - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:45:05 -0400 From: ASlater <aslater@gracelinks.org> Subject: (abolition-usa) BTL Q&A: Ralph Nader's presidential bid aims to shake up the GOP-Democrat duopol >>Return-Path: <amanzo@snet.net> >>Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:34:07 -0400 >>From: "Anna Manzo (Between The Lines)" <amanzo@snet.net> >>Reply-To: betweenthelines@snet.net >>X-Accept-Language: en,pdf >>To: betweenthelines@snet.net >>Subject: BTL Q&A: Ralph Nader's presidential bid aims to shake up the=20 >> GOP-Democrat duopoly=20 >> >>BETWEEN THE LINES Q&A >>A weekly column featuring progressive viewpoints >>on national and international issues >>under-reported in mainstream media >>for release June 12, 2000 >>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D >> >>Ralph Nader's presidential bid aims to shake up the GOP-Democrat duopoly >> >>* The Green Party presidential candidate >>explains why he's running for the White House >>and how he hopes to build a viable progressive >>political party >> >>Ralph Nader, the nation's most prominent consumer advocate and citizen >>activist, is running for president again this year under the banner of >>the Green Party. First gaining prominence after writing the >>ground-breaking book, "Unsafe at any Speed," Nader has for 40 years >>fought for citizen's rights, product safety and a clean environment. He >>is the founder of many activist organizations including Public Citizen >>and led the fight for the Freedom of Information Act. >> >>Running with Native American rights activist Winona Laduke as his vice >>presidential candidate, Nader is campaigning across the nation on a >>platform of democratic renewal, targeting the abuses of corporate >>power. Working with state Green Party members, he is hoping to gain >>ballot access in all 50 states. Despite receiving little national media >>attention, some recent polls indicate Nader currently has more support >>than conservative commentator Pat Buchanan, who is running to head the >>Reform Party ticket. >> >>Between The Lines' Scott Harris spoke with Ralph Nader as he campaigned >>in his home state of Connecticut. Nader explains his goals for the 2000 >>race and how he hopes to build a viable progressive political party. >> >>Ralph Nader: We're campaigning in all the states of the union. We're >>campaigning with citizen groups, focusing on their various struggles for >>a better life all over the country. We're raising $5 million including >>matching funds, and we're determined to build a major progressive >>political party that has democratic power instead of corporate power, >>which is undermining our democracy and buying and renting our two major >>parties, Republican and Democrat. They're becoming more and more >>look-alike. >> >>Between The Lines: In regards to your candidacy, many commentators are >>talking about the spoiler effect, something which could dissuade people >>from voting for a third party candidate like yourself. If indeed, the >>polls are correct, you might win 10% in California and elsewhere, maybe >>snatching a victory from Al Gore, that's what the mainstream press is >>saying. What would be gained do you think, for the Green Party if that's >>happened? What's the positive and negative? >> >>Ralph Nader: Well, first of all, most people in this country, including >>those who stay home in presidential elections -- and that's half of them >>-- think the political system is already spoiled. So how do you spoil a >>spoiled system? How do you spoil a system that gets more rotten, more >>indentured to big business and global corporations, a system that has >>two parties converging on one another, being paid by the same vested >>interest? It's time for a change, for heaven's sake. >> >>Every four years, people go to the polls, vote least worst; both parties >>keep getting worse every four years. We've got to build a new >>progressive political party just the way we have in our past history >>from time to time when the concentration of wealth -- including the >>people's wealth -- in too few corporate hands becomes extreme. And I >>think that 1 percent of the richest people in this country having >>financial wealth equal to the bottom 95 percent of the people -- that's >>pretty extreme. >> >>Between The Lines: In terms of building a progressive third party -- >>it's been many decades since there's a been a viable third party that >>could challenge the power of the Republicans and Democrats -- what's the >>missing ingredient? What do you think is possible now with the Green >>Party and your candidacy's contribution? >> >>Ralph Nader: I think determination and organization. Most third parties, >>first of all, are single issue parties. The Green Party has a very broad >>agenda. It covers issues dealing with labor, consumer, environment, tax >>payers, clean government, the whole global corporate world order, >>revitalizing neighborhoods and cities, moving toward abolishing poverty >>as many Western countries have done years ago. So, that's one. >> >>The second, I think, is more organizing. We've got to have more >>organizers to keep the party going before and after the election. And >>the third, is to keep attracting good people. >> >>Between The Lines: Can you tell us a little about the difficulty of >>getting ballot access in all 50 states, which I know is one of your >>goals, as well as becoming a participant in the presidential debates, >>which is the equivalent of a free paid advertisement for any politician >>who wants to be known nationwide. >> >>Ralph Nader: Well, the debate commission is a private group created by >>the Republican and Democratic parties, dominated by them and funded by >>auto, tobacco and beer money. It's a pretty sleazy operation. The single >>purpose of the debate commission is to exclude competitors and third >>party candidates. They don't mind going at each other, because the >>public and the press expect them to. >> >>What they don't want is to have third party candidates open up whole new >>issue areas that they don't want to talk about, like corporate crime and >>the lack of law enforcement, like all the corporate welfare and the >>subsidies. Like real authentic universal health care that's accessible. >>Like repealing Taft-Hartley and passing labor laws like other Western >>nations have that let people have a fair chance of organizing their own >>trade unions so they can defend their interests against these global >>corporations. >> >>So they don't want to talk about it. You know, George W. Bush doesn't >>want to talk about his being a corporate welfare king, having raked off >>over $13 million from the Texas Rangers, whose value escalated because >>it was based on a tax-funded new sports stadium. And Al Gore, of course, >>doesn't want to talk about how little he's done on the environment in >>the last eight years, and how he's betrayed his own written promises. >> >>So we've got to build public opinion. Already the latest poll shows over >>52 percent of people want me and Buchanan to participate in presidential >>debates. I think once people realize how fast they're going to fall >>asleep with the drab debating the dreary, that'll go up to 70 percent. >> >>And if that doesn't win access, then we have to see whether other major >>media will sponsor these debates in ways that Bush and Gore can't >>ignore. >> >>The ballot access issue, for most states, is OK, but in about 10 states, >>it's pretty tough. Oklahoma is difficult with 37,000 signatures >>verified; North Carolina, 51,000. It's not just that, but we have a very >>tight time period to get these signatures. So, if you've got money, like >>Buchanan -- he's paying $2 to $3 per signature in some states -- he can >>get on. We're relying very heavily on volunteer signature gatherers. I >>think we'll definitely get on the ballot in 45 states -- obviously, >>Connecticut, New York, and Massachusetts and others. We may go to 48, >>49, 50 states. >> >>To contact the Green Party, call (202) 265-4000 or visit their Web site >>at http://www.votenader.org >> >>AOL users: <a HREF=3D"http://www.votenader.org">Click here</a> to get more >>information Ralph Nader's Web site, www.votenader.org. >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------= - - - ----- >> >>Scott Harris is WPKN Radio's public affairs director and executive >>producer of Between The Lines. This interview excerpt was featured on >>the award-winning, syndicated weekly newsmagazine, Between The Lines, >>for the week ending June 2, 2000. Access text and RealAudio archives of >>BTL radio shows at: http://www.btlonline.org. >>AOL users: <a HREF=3D"http://www.btlonline.org">Click here</a> to see the >>Between The Lines Web site. >> >>Listen to this interview excerpt with Ralph Nader at: >>http://www.wpkn.org/wpkn/news/nader060200.ram ; >>AOL users: <a HREF=3D"http://www.wpkn.org/wpkn/news/nader060200.ram >>">Click here </a> to listen to the interview.. >> >>This week's full program: http://www.wpkn.org/wpkn/news/btl060200.ram >>AOL users: <a HREF=3D"http://www.wpkn.org/wpkn/news/btl060200.ram ">Click >>here </a> to listen to the entire half hour program. >>(Needs RealPlayer G2 or RealPlayer 7) >> >>Between The Lines Q&A is compiled and edited by Anna Manzo. To get >>details on subscribing to the radio program or to publish this column in >>print or online media, contact Anna Manzo at (203)544-9863 or >>betweenthelines@snet.net. >> >>=A9 Copyright 2000 Between The Lines. All rights reserved. >> >> >> Alice Slater Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE) 15 East 26th Street, Room 915 New York, NY 10010 tel: (212) 726-9161 fax: (212) 726-9160 email: aslater@gracelinks.org http://www.gracelinks.org GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network for the elimination nuclear weapons. =20 - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:27:15 PDT From: "Abolition2000 Pacific Region" <abolition2000@hotmail.com> Subject: (abolition-usa) "Changing the Terms of the 'Nuclear' Debate" Dear Abolitionists, Greetings and Aloha from Hawaii: I, in fact, do not tend to favor "abstract rhetorical analysis." As someone whose place has been ravaged by other nations' nuclear experimentations, I cannot afford to engage in abstract rhetorics!! But Dr. Hallett is a teacher at our university's peace institute. And I was only forwarding his email message for possible comments from others. Should you choose to respond, please email him directly at: bhallett@hawaii.edu Thank you all very much. Best wishes to the movement for nuclear abolition, whichever the terms we use to describe what we are working against!! :) Richard Salvador University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu, Hawaii - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:48:27 -1000 From: Brien Hallett <bhallett@hawaii.edu> To: Richard Salvador <salvador@hawaii.edu> Subject: Changing the Terms of the Debate Richard-- Below you will find the draft of the piece I spoke to you about concerning my efforts to develop the idea that "nuclear war" and "nuclear weapons" are misleading terms that opponents of our current policies should never use. If the opponents are ever going to command, and not just "influence," those policies, they must "Change the Terms of the Debate." The piece is about 4,000 words. In addition to yourself, should you know anyone else who likes abstract rhetorical analysis such as this, please send it on to them. Their comments and criticisms are, of course, always welcome. Brien. * * * * * * * * * * * * Brien Hallett Institute for Peace University of Hawaii 2424 Maile Way, #717 Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 Tel (808) 956-4236 FAX (808) 956-5708 bhallett@hawaii.edu Changing the Terms of the Debate Scenario 1: Congressman: General, how many nuclear weapons does the United States need to provide for its national security? General: Congressman, I'd say about 5 or 6,000. Scenario 2: Congressman: General, how many instruments of nuclear genocide does the United States need to provide for its national security? General: Congressman, I'm not sure. I'd have to think about that some. The debate I am interested in is the debate over America's nuclear policy, a debate begun quite unexpectedly on 6 August 1945. The terms I wish to change are two--nuclear war and nuclear weapons. The reason for wishing to change these two terms is to increase clarity in the debate, it being self-evident that a debate founded upon confused and misleading terms must be confused and misleading in its entirety. For example, as long as the debate over slavery in America was framed in terms of Negroes being unequal to whites in intellectual and cultural abilities, a coherent, if misleading, case could be made for the continuation of slavery. However, as soon as the terms of the debate changed to acknowledge that Negroes were not unequal, but fully equal, the debate also changed dramatically. But is there any indication that the two terms, nuclear war and nuclear weapons, are misleading? It would seem so. For example, General George Lee Butler has observed that, Nuclear Weapons are the enemy of humanity, indeed, they're not weapons at all (Butler, 1999, p10). Needless to say, General Butler speaks with a certain authority when he says that nuclear weapons are not weapons at all. He acquired this authority through an intimate association with all aspects of the issue during his thirty-three year Air Force career, a career that culminated in his assignment as the last Commander-in-Chief of the Strategic Air Command (SAC) and the first Commander-in-Chief of the US Strategic Command, SACs successor. The consequences of General Butlers observation are simple: If nuclear weapons are not weapons, then it follows that nuclear war is not war. This is the case because it is impossible to imagine war without weapons, and, by extension, it is impossible to imagine a nuclear war without nuclear weapons. But, if nuclear weapons are not weapons and nuclear war is not war, then any debate that uses these inaccurate terms must be confused and misleading by definition. To clarify such a debate by adopting more accurate terms, therefore, becomes an imperative of intellectual and moral honesty, if not of political honesty. Unfortunately though, General Butlers clarity on what nuclear weapons are not is not matched by an equal clarity concerning what they are, for, he continues, They're some species of biological time bomb whose effects transcend time and space, poisoning the earth and its inhabitants for generations to come (ibid.). To change the term, nuclear weapon, to the term, some species of biological time bomb, does not take one very far. Instead of clarifying the debate, it muddies it even further. In addition, it is rather too emotional. Rather more headway can be made, however, by considering another of General Butlers observations, ...these [post-Cold War] decision-makers [of Americas nuclear policy] are still disposed to see the world darkly, a Hobbesian brew of lurking enemies wherein Americans tire of engagement and nuclear weapons reign at once as ultimate threat and final salvation (Butler, 1999, p5). According to General Butler, post-Cold War decision makers find themselves in a Catch 22. On the one hand, they are charged with defending America, with providing for her security in a dangerous world. On the on other hand, they feel that Americans are exhausted, no longer willing to engage or shoulder Americas international obligations. The way our of this Catch 22, in their view, is to rely on nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons can be relied upon because they are incredibly powerful, providing the decision-makers with the ultimate threat and final salvation. That is, more bang for the buck, to recall an earlier formulation of the same idea. What General Butlers two observations add up to is two different perspectives. For decision-makers, including General Butler when he commanded the US Strategic Command no doubt, nuclear weapons are incredibly powerful and, hence, extremely useful. For General Butler since he retired, nuclear weapons are incredibly consequential and, hence, extremely useless. They are consequential because their effects transcend time and space, poisoning the earth and its inhabitants for generations to come. As a result, nuclear weapons are not weapons; they are instead the enemy of humanity, some species of biological time bomb. While headway can indeed be made by acknowledging that two perspectives exist, the distance travelled is not very great. For, my purpose is not to change perspective, but to change the terms of the debate. With respect to perspective, change is simply not possible. The fact of the matter is that nuclear weapons can be viewed from at least two different perspectives. Nuclear weapons are, in point of fact, incredibly powerful and incredibly consequential. General Butler is not schizophrenic; he has only change his viewpoint. When he was a decision-maker, he saw them as the incredibly powerful answer to the decision-makers Catch 22. He asked how to provide for American security in a dangerous world and concluded that the power of nuclear weapons would do just that. Now, that he is no longer a decision-maker, he sees them differently, as incredibly consequential, which they certainly are, too. He has now asked how his children and grandchildren would be effected by nuclear weapons and nuclear war and concluded that they would be effected adversely. Different perspective, different question, different answer. With respect to terms, change is possible, if extremely difficult. The fact of the matter is that any time one can identify two different perspectives, it should be possible to find two different terms to express each perspective. For example, in the abortion debate pro-life groups call it murder, while pro choice groups call it abortion. That both sides in the nuclear debate use the same terms to express their divergent perspectives is, therefore, quite remarkable. This lack of alterative terms would not be a problem if the terms used were simple, neutral, emotionless technical jargon, like floppy disk or stethoscope. Unfortunately though, nuclear war does not simply describes a certain type of conflictual situation; nuclear weapon does not simply describe a technologically marvelously thing that explodes. Both are politically and rhetorically potent terms, radioactive, as it were, and freighted with exceptionally strong histories, connotations, and emotions. This being the case, all too often discussions of the terms are derailed and frustrated when their connotational or emotional baggage crushes logic and reason. A need, therefore, exists to shelter any discussion of the terms from the emotions that whirl around the them. With this goal in mind, let me begin with an adage, turn it into an analogy, and see how far I can push it before it breaks down. A well known adage asks, Is the glass half empty or half full? The optimist responds, Half full. The pessimist, Half empty. To turn this adage into an analogy, however, one must take its dilemma seriously. Seriously, then, which is it? Half full? Or, half empty? Needless to say, the answer is not immediately obvious. A debate is clearly in order. For, to decide the issue, either the pessimist must convince the optimist that the glass is half empty, or the optimist must convince the pessimist that the glass is half full. Before the debate can begin, however, the terms of the debate must be established. This is the case because serious debate is impossible if the pessimist and the optimist are allowed to use their preferred terms: If the pessimist is allowed to say that the glass is half empty because it is half empty, while the optimist is permitted to say that the glass is half full because it is half full, each would be talking past the other; neither side would be engaging the other. This type of one-sided debate is most particularly loved by politicians, since it allows them to please the crowd they are speaking to while talking past the substance of the issue at hand. In fine, before any serious debate can begin, both sides must agree on its terms. Either the optimist must accept the pessimists description of the situation and say that the glass is half empty, or the pessimist must accept the optimists description of the situation and say that the glass is half full. As can be seen, which description is accepted has enormous consequences. For, the term chosen all but determines the outcome of the debate. Not absolutely, of course, since force or ignorance can always overturn logic and reason. But, with a moderate commitment to reason and logic, whoever determines the terms of the debate will win it. Thus, should the pessimist establish that the glass is half empty as the accepted description of the situation, then the optimist will have the impossible task of arguing that an half empty glass is really half full. Likewise, should the optimist prevail, the pessimist will face the impossible task of arguing that an half full glass is really half empty. At this point, the analogy breaks down. It cannot be pushed farther. In terms of the fraction one half, the analogy breaks down because the adage is built around a unique mathematical happenstance. The equipoise that naturally falls out of a division into halves is not repeated with any other fraction. In terms of the character of each side, the analogy cannot be pushed farther because no moral value can be assigned to the two positions in the debate. Unable to say that optimism is morally superior to pessimism or that pessimism is morally superior to optimism, no mechanism exists for deciding which preferred term should be excluded from the debate. True, one might construct the following argument: Pessimism is a morally deficient attitude because it offends against the virtue of hope by promoting the sin of despair. Consequently, its description of the situation must be disallowed since it will inevitably lead to a morally repugnant conclusion, a conclusion which diminishes hope and encourages despair. Such an argument could be constructed. Yet, it stretches the analogy just a little too far. The problem is not that few would wish to consign the pessimists of the world to eternal damnation solely on the basis of their description of a glass of water. Rather, it is the degree of abstraction involved. Pessimism and optimism are complex attitudes that ramify in a myriad of ways under different circumstances. To suggest that the moral value of pessimism can be adequately abstracted from a single situation- its description of a glass of water--is not permissible. Fortunately though, when one turns to the two nuclear terms here under consideration, this problem of abstraction does not occur. The nuclear debate, of course, has its optimists and its pessimists. The optimists are proponents of current American policy; the pessimists are opponents of it. Ignoring the way the initial os and ps hop around, the optimists are proponents because they see how it solves the security Catch 22 described by General Butler above. They see with exceptional clarity the incredible power of the uncontrolled release of the strong atomic force that bind a nucleus together. The pessimists are opponents because they see with exceptional clarity the incredible consequences of the uncontrolled release of the strong atomic force that bind a nucleus. Shifting from the abstract to the visual, the proponents are optimistic because they see the incandescent mushroom cloud rising majestically into the heavens, a sight that represents unlimited power. The opponents are pessimistic because they see the ashen moonscape of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a sight that represents unlimited death. So, is the nuclear glass half full or half empty? The optimistic proponents say that it is half full, and, being only half full, America must have more and more of this incredibly powerful elixir. The pessimistic opponents say that it is half empty, and being half empty, America has already had much too much of this incredibly consequential poison. Incredibly powerful elixir or incredibly consequential poison. Incredibly consequential poison or incredibly powerful elixir. Both views accurately and truthfully describe the situation. For, who would be so bold as to deny either that the mushroom cloud represents unbelievable power or that Hiroshima and Nagasaki represent unbelievable consequences? As already noted, a problem now arises: My purpose is not to change perspectives, which is impossible, but only the terms of the nuclear debate, which is possible. Changing perspectives is impossible because perspective is not conventional. Perspective, after all, changes as ones viewpoint changes. Every optimist agrees that, from the pessimists perspective, the glass is half empty, just as every pessimist agrees that, from the optimists perspective, the glass is half full. Perspective is not the issue. The issue is linguistic. In the first place, the issue is one of transforming an image into a lexical item, of articulating the perspective and rendering it as a term in a debate. In the second place, the issue is one of deciding which lexical item, which of the two mutually exclusive terms will be accepted as establishing the terms of the debate. Needless to say, the point of the analogy just above was to illustrate the second issue. In that analogy, as in most debates, the first issue has already been taken care of. The opposing perspectives have already been transformed from image into word. Strangely though, despite the radically different perspectives with which proponents and opponents view the uncontrolled release of the strong atomic forces, only one of the two perspectives has been so transformed. The opponents image of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has never really been articulated into terms suitable for debate. To be sure, John Hersey and many, many others have described the ashen perspective in words, but not in a lexical item such as half full that was a suitable alternative to nuclear war or nuclear weapon. In part, a suitable lexical alternative has not been developed because the entire debate arose so unexpectedly on 6 August 1945. In August 1945, the incredible power of the majestically rising mushroom cloud was much more in evidence than were the unbelievable ashen consequences. After all, did the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings not end the war and save lives? In part, alternative terms were not developed because the only people who could speak with knowledge and authority in 1945 were the veterans of the Manhattan Engineer District, scientists for the most part who had spent the previous two years developing an atomic bomb for use in history's first atomic war. As a result, the terms were fixed and the debate was well underway before the alternative perspective could develop alternative terms to express its viewpoint. Initially, of course, the terms used were atomic weapons and atomic wars. Then, when the technical ability to unleash the forces of fusion were developed in the 1950s, the more appropriate terms nuclear weapons and nuclear war were adopted. In the absence of alternative terms, two consequences have naturally followed: First, no debate over how to most accurately describe the nuclear situation has ever occurred. The proponents view has prevailed without opposition: for the purposes of debate, all agree that the situation is best described as one of incredible power, the unbelievable power of nuclear weapons that would allow America to win, or, at least, wage, a nuclear war. For the purposes of debate, the alternative perspective has remained unnamed and unvoiced, if not unimagined. As a result, the alternative has not been forgotten, but the debate has not been framed in its terms of unimaginable consequences, either. Second, having fixed the terms of the debate, the outcome was foreordained. The optimistic proponents would win. Yes, the pessimistic opponents could and did influence the debate, but, whenever push came to shove, the unbelievable consequences would not be believed. Should America increase the number of her B 36s? Should America build a hydrogen bomb? Should America build a Polaris system? Should America MIRV? Should America deploy intermediate-range missiles to Europe? Should America build a B-1 and a B-2 bomber? In every instance, the incredible power as captured, concentrated, and crystalized in the terms nuclear weapon and nuclear war carried the decision. The incredible power was credible; the incredible consequences were not, at least in the eyes of the decision-makers. The consequences would not resolve the Catch 22 that dominated their preoccupations; the power of nuclear weapons would, and they already controlled the terms of the debate. To change both the terms and the outcome of the debate, then, alternative lexical items must be developed. If some species of biological time bomb is not acceptable, what is? To begin with, one should acknowledge that a neutral technical term does exist as an alternative to nuclear weapons. The term, nuclear explosives, establishes a technical distinction with chemical explosives. The distinction is that chemical explosives derive their force from the breaking of the weak or chemical bonds that hold together the molecules composing the explosive material, whereas nuclear explosives derive their force from the breaking of the strong or nuclear bonds that hold together the nuclei of the atoms composing the explosive material. When framing the terms of a debate, neutral technical terms are always welcome and, when suitable I will use the neutral term in what follows. In this case, however, nuclear explosives does not work as an alternative term for framing the nuclear debate. This is the case because it does not yield a term that would be equivalent to nuclear war. One cannot say that American security depends upon her possession of nuclear explosives so that she can deter a nuclear explosion. It just does not make sense. Other terms that might be considered are nuclear apocalypse, nuclear devastation, nuclear omnicide, or nuclear genocide. In part because it is the most inflammatory choice, I would suggest that nuclear genocide best describes the incredible consequences of nuclear explosions. More important though, genocide is an established term in international law, being defined in Article II of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide convention as, ...acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such.... And, indeed, any use of nuclear explosives would inevitably result in the destruction of all or a sizable part of a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such. Thus, the first step in changing the terms of the nuclear debate--transforming the ashen moonscape of Hiroshima and Nagasaki into a suitable lexical item--is accomplished by opposing the term nuclear war with the term nuclear genocide and the term nuclear weapons with the term instruments of nuclear genocide. The second step is to investigate whether there is any mechanism for deciding to prefer one set of terms over the other, acknowledging at the same time that both perspectives are equally true and valid. Unlike the case of the terms half full and half empty, the terms nuclear genocide and nuclear war do possess moral values that allow one to distinguish the morally superior from the morally inferior alternative. The two sets of terms have not been abstracted so far from the realities they describe to make the exercise pointless. Hence, while one can sympathize with the decision-makers who find themselves caught in a security Catch 22, squeezed between the indifference of an apathetic public and the myriad security demands of a dangerous world, still, ignoring the consequences of any policy is bad policy. True, the essence of practical politics is to ignore unpleasant consequences in favor of immediate gratification; nonetheless, the wisdom of such a course of action is much in doubt. Consequently, it is not unreasonable to frame a policy debate in terms of its consequences. This bias would seem to be especially relevant to Americas nuclear genocide policy. The optimistic proponents of Americas current nuclear genocide policy will quite naturally object to any effort to change the terms of the debate. Their monopoly is long and well established; it suites their interests and needs very nicely, and, so, they will be most resistant to any change. Still, if the pessimistic opponents of the current policy wish to move from simply influencing policy to commanding it, no other option exists. As long as the terms of the debate are fixed by those whose perspective is the unbelievable power of the instruments of nuclear genocide, those whose perspective is the incredible consequences will never determine policy, as over fifty years of experience demonstrates. The point of attack, therefore, is not on this or that innovation in bomber, missile, or submarine technology, not on the choice between virtual or absolute abolition; rather, the point of attack is on the key terms that define the debate--nuclear war and nuclear weapons. In other words, why bother with the twigs when one can attack the roots? Instead of being on the defensive, opponents should go on the offensive, attacking the cogency of the key terms with which the proponents control the debate, attacking their fixation with power, and not consequences. For example, instead of debating the merits and demerits of dealerting nuclear weapons, opponents should be attacking the key term itself. Opponents should demand to know why the term nuclear weapons is used at all, since nuclear weapons are not, in reality, weapons at all, but the instruments of nuclear genocide. Dealerting nuclear weapons is a controversial policy; one might be for or against it. Dealerting the instruments of nuclear genocide is not controversial, inasmuch as America has no need to prepare for genocide, nuclear or any other. Once the decision had been taken to change the terms of the debate, the next issue would be how. Insomuch as the terms describing the unbelievable power of nuclear explosives have monopolized the nuclear debate for so long, how does one go about transmuting nuclear weapon into instruments of genocide and nuclear war into nuclear genocide? At the personal level, one can just make the change. As vegetarians try to provoke meat eaters into re-thinking their eating habits by changing the term meat to dead flesh, so opponents of Americas current nuclear policy can provoke proponents in the same way. When taken to task for using such inflammatory terms as nuclear genocide and instruments of nuclear genocide, one could seize the opportunity and redirect the discussion to fundamentals: True, the conventional wisdom is that one should speak of nuclear weapons and nuclear war, but is the conventional wisdom correct? Can weapons be nuclear? Can war be nuclear? General Butler, for example, thinks not. More to the point, which perspective should one adopt when discussing these issues? Should one emphasize the unbelievable power of so called nuclear weapons and their ability to solve Americas security dilemma? Or, should one emphasize the incredible consequences and their ability to end life as we know it on earth? Drug dealers speak of their incredible earning power; never the enormous devastation of their products. Is unbelievable earning power a reason to deal drugs?.... At the national level, it should be possible for opponents to convince one or two members of the relevant defense committees in the Congress to adopt the alternative terms. As the two scenarios at the beginning of this piece illustrate, this would lead to extremely surreal exchanges in committee when proponents were forced to explain why Congress should not adopt the terms nuclear genocide and instruments of nuclear genocide. At the international level, the Middle-Powers Initiative group could take the initiative in the United Nations General Assembly to introduce a resolution calling for all United Nations documents to substitute nuclear genocide for nuclear war and the instruments of nuclear genocide for nuclear weapons. The measure would not only change the terms of the debate radically; it also would pass easily, with only six negative votes, Israel voting against it along with the five declared nuclear powers. No doubt other opportunities and venue can be found. The point, however, is that the opponents of Americas current nuclear policy will never dominate the debate until they can change its terms, until they can shift its focus from the unbelievable power of nuclear weapons to the incredible consequences of the instruments of nuclear genocide. References Butler, George Lee. 1999. Ending the Nuclear Madness. Waging Peace Series, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, booklet #40, September. Brien Hallett teaches in the Matsunaga Institute for Peace at the University of Hawaii-Manoa. His most recent book is The Lost Art of Declaring War (University of Illinois Press, 1998). ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #321 *********************************** - To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.