Michael Benson on 17 Mar 2001 15:34:23 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Armor, Amour |
This thread is interesting, in the way these powerless discussions that sometimes unfold can be interesting, even as decisions are made that are so far from even referencing the popular will that they may as well be taking place on Mount Olympus. I think everyone -- Jordan, Ted, Schultz -- brought some interesting views to it. But I would suggest that approaching the subject through the prism of what this so-called defensive shield _says_ it is (armor, old or new; protection; SDI, prophylactic or otherwise) is fundamentally mistaken. This particular concept of protection bears about as much interest in establishing an actual functional strategic defense against missiles as the Bush governor's office did in establishing the true will of the people of Florida in the last presidential election. (The failure of _all_ the actual tests of the incipient system, even the ones where they tweaked the odds in favor of the intercepting missiles, was a notorious embarrassment in Washington over the last few years. Add to that the well-documented accounts by whistle-blowers from inside the defense industry, which attested to a massive campaign of deception by the contractors that their technology was working, and you have the makings of a fiasco much worse than the ongoing one concerning that Marine Corps tilt-rotor aircraft the Osprey. You know the one -- it has so far killed more Marines than have died in combat since the bombing of that Beirut barracks in the early 80's). This is not "less a shield and more a weapon," at least not according to the literal dictionary definition of a weapon. As Ted suggests, it's more about something imaginary -- in the same way that the value of money is imaginary. So to pull a phrase from Oliver Stone's JFK, the only way to establish the truth here is to "follow the money." Looking for the amour side? Then let's view the "money shot" -- which is not about the pornographic orgasmic expression of a woman on the plane landing at Ronald Reagan Airport (appropriate though that may be), and is certainly not about repelling all those potential warheads from "rogue states" which would never dare launch in the direction of the US anyway. (Why do that when it would be so much easier to import a suit-case sized bomb, position it in some Washington or NY basement, and issue an anonymous ultimatum? If X tons of cocaine make their way into the US every week, what's the problem sneaking a small nuke in?) No, the money shot here is of course entirely about the cash itself, that very same stuff with the English and Latin inscriptions on it, and with those anti-warhead warheads nothing but multiple independently targeted money delivery vehicles (MITMDV). Their willing targets paid richly for that status by throwing fist-fulls of C-notes into the immense open wallet of the Bush campaign over the last two years, and now they'll get a massive return on their investment, the most orgasmic of monetary bull's-eyes in fact, whether or not the damn things can hit even a barn-sized hot air balloon with a target painted on its side. But I'm wanted back at the park. Regards, MB _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold