SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (7717)12/17/2003 7:25:29 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 10965
 
Flying into the future
George Will (archive)

December 17, 2003 | Print | Send

WASHINGTON -- The 12-second flight 100 years ago this morning reached a height of just 10 feet, less than the 63-foot height of a Boeing 747, and covered just 120 feet of ground, less than a 747's 195-foot wingspan. But the Wright brothers' fourth and final flight that day in North Carolina lasted 59 seconds and went 852 feet. So by sunset the 20th century's themes -- farther, faster, higher, now -- were, so to speak, in the air.

Almost everything -- commerce, war, art -- would change as aviation began altering, as nothing had ever done, humanity's experience of the most basic things: time and space. Politics, too. The first important politician to campaign by air was a militant modernist, Adolf Hitler. The newsreels screamed: ``Der Fuhrer fliegt uber Deutschland.''

Aviation's infancy was not for the fainthearted. In the early 1920s an airmail pilot named Dean Smith, on the Chicago-to-Omaha route, cabled his superintendent:

``On trip 4 westbound. Flying low. Engine quit. Only place to land on cow. Killed cow. Wrecked plane. Scared me. Smith.''

Airmail was one way government subsidized aviation, which drew government into deep involvement with technology. So, of course, did the great driver of social change, war. In their new book, ``Reconsidering a Century of Flight,'' Roger D. Launius and Janet R. Daley Bednarek note how rapid was the development of the airplane ``from a machine in some ways most lethal to those who used it to a machine of great lethality to those against whom it is directed.''

In 1905 the Wright brothers testified to Congress that airplanes' military uses would be ``scouting and carrying messages.'' Forty years later cities would be laid waste from the air. But city bombing was not as lethal as was feared. In April 1939 the British government, anticipating city bombing, issued to local authorities 1 million burial forms. The actual British casualties from aerial bombardment, 1939-45, were 60,000.

One early theory, refuted by experience, was that strategic bombing might make wars less bloody by bypassing bloody clashes between armies, such as the First World War's trench warfare, and instead quickly inducing an enemy's surrender by disrupting his ``vital center.'' The fallacious assumption was that modern economies and societies are fragile.

It was nearly a century after Kitty Hawk, and due less to developments of aircraft than of munitions, that military aircraft really became lethal for targets smaller than whole cities. Until recently, the question about bombing was how many sorties it would take to destroy a target. Suddenly, because of precision munitions, the question is how many targets one sortie can strike. In World War II about one bomb in 400 landed close enough to affect -- not necessarily destroy -- its target. Now nine out of 10 do.

The most astonishing consequence of aviation is not its military applications or their civilian echoes. (After World War II, Harley J. Earl, General Motors' chief stylist, turned his fascination with the twin tails of the P-38 fighter into automobile tail fins that defined the chrome-plated 1950s.) Rather, the amazing consequence was the banality of flight -- the routinization of mobility -- especially after 1958, when Boeing's 707 speeded the democratization of air travel. Unfortunately, this had some negative public health consequences because viruses -- HIV, for one -- also became mobile.

From the first, flight expressed the essence of the modernist movement -- freedom understood as the absence of limits, and a future of infinite possibilities. While developing cubism, Pablo Picasso sometimes painted wearing aviator's gear. His response to the April 26, 1937, bombing by Germans of Guernica during Spain's civil war -- a rehearsal, or overture, for what was soon to come from Europe's skies -- moved Picasso to produce what may be the 20th century's iconic painting.

Cubism itself was influenced by a perspective no previous generation knew, that of the earth -- the geometry of its urban grids and rural plots -- seen from above. The Eiffel Tower had provided Europeans their first downward vision of their environment. Robert Hughes, the art critic, says that what was spectacular was not the view of the tower from the ground but the view of the ground from the tower. Until then, almost everybody lived their entire lives no more than 40 feet -- the height of an ordinary apartment building -- above the ground.

Modernism shaped another expressive activity that flourished in tandem with aviation, the competition to build the tallest skyscraper. In Manhattan, epicenter of the competition, the race was eventually won by the twin towers of the World Trade Center, where 98 years after Kitty Hawk the histories of aviation and architecture intersected.

©2003 Washington Post Writers Group

townhall.com



To: calgal who wrote (7717)12/17/2003 7:25:38 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
Imagine Iraq War through movie lens
Jonah Goldberg (archive)

December 17, 2003 | Print | Send

The capture of Saddam Hussein raises a troubling question for Howard Dean and other critics of the war: What if this were a movie?

Let me back up for a minute. You see, I have an odd habit. OK, I have many odd habits, but that's not important right now. The relevant one is that sometimes, during major international events, I ask myself, "What if this were a movie?"

The reason I ask this question is threefold. First, I'm an incurable movie buff. Second, I find this to be a useful means of reducing the basic morality of a situation to a simple narrative. And, last, I think many people, including the majority of Americans, do the same thing.

For example, World War II was a hugely complex world-historical event with layers upon layers of interconnected subtlety, nuance and intrigue. But, at the end of the day, most people rightly see it as the familiar Hollywood story: Good guys joining up to stop bad guys.

The events leading up to Pearl Harbor may have been far more complex than a mere sneak attack, and it may be true that stopping the Holocaust was a motive discovered after the fact, but when it comes time to make the movie, that stuff ends up on the cutting room floor.

Conversely, some events don't make for good movie plots. World War I, a metaphysically stupid and disastrous event, is just too complicated and, more important, too morally ambiguous to make for a good plot.

It's true: Some events make America look bad. Bill Clinton, for example, understood this when he lied about not knowing about the genocide in Rwanda. What kind of movie would it make if a million men, women and children were being slaughtered with machetes while the U.S. cavalry stood by and did nothing? Clinton saw that the only defense in the eyes of history was that we didn't know it was happening.

Now, I should offer the caveat that this is not always the greatest way to look at the world. Policy shouldn't always be set by Walter Mittys who see the whole world as a movie set. But, it is a useful means of sifting out essential moral elements.

Ronald Reagan was notorious for doing this very thing, and whatever faults you may have with his foreign policy notwithstanding, his penchant for dividing the world between "freedom fighters" and tyrants worked out very well for him and for humanity.

One irony is that prior to Ronald Reagan, conservatives were usually denounced for not seeing the world through such a moralizing lens. Richard Nixon's and Henry Kissinger's realpolitik disgusted liberals (and many Reaganites) for its complete lack of sentiment and morality. A second irony is that today liberals are donning the green eyeshades as they bean-count costs and benefits in the face of staggering moral truths.

And that's why I think Howard Dean is in big trouble. When he says we aren't better off with Saddam in chains, he is essentially saying that it's utterly inconsequential that one of the greatest mass-murderers of the post-Hitler and Stalin era has been stopped. From a purely cold-hearted and calculating perspective, he may have an argument, though I don't see it. Ultimately, Saddam himself was a weapon of mass-destruction and his defiance of America encouraged our enemies.

But seen through a moral prism there's simply no defensible case on his side. In other words, what if this were a movie?

Imagine a film - set against the backdrop of a global war on terror - about a dictator who launched vicious wars of aggression for personal gain, causing death and destruction on a massive scale. Imagine a movie where the tyrant uses rape the way the IRS uses audits and where untold hundreds of thousands of citizens are murdered.

Imagine sitting in the theater as the first half of the movie recounts one scene of torture and mutilation after another. Then, enter the good guys. Risking exposure to chemical and biological weapons, they ride in and depose the tyrant, taking extraordinary care to spare the lives of civilians. They free a political prison of hundreds of children. They pull the tyrant from his rat hole and deliver him to justice.

Now that's a feel-good movie.

Yes, you can make the Kissingerian case that the war wasn't as good for America as the Bush Administration claims. That's a fair argument. But Dean & Co. thinks the whole war was a mistake. Indeed, he only "guesses" it was a good thing Saddam was deposed and he still insists the war wasn't a net good. Indeed, Dean insists his spoilsport interpretation of these events is what qualifies him to lead America. I think voters will reject him at the box office.

Jonah Goldberg is editor of National Review Online, a Townhall.com member group.

©2003 Tribune Media Ser