Brian,

Apparently my off-hand comment about military spending (I assume that is
what you refer to as "belligerence") hit a nerve. Perhaps I should have
refrained, since it is off-topic. I sense real anguish from your having
been in armed conflict so many years ago. 

But perhaps because of such unpleasant experiences you read way more
into what I said than what I intended. I was merely pointing out a
seeming inconsistency. It seemed obvious to me that if someone wants to
claim that military spending should be reduced when the world isn't
getting safer, he needs to back it up with some kind of reasoning. I
doubt that the essay would have fared well in a college class - or in
court. 

I will say just this much more. If the costs associated with auto
accidents are not decreasing, should insurance companies reduce
premiums? If assault and burglary are not decreasing, should spending
for police protection be reduced? As for cause and effect, what
motivates people to become criminals - the existence of policemen or
their own greed? Most people who become policemen and soldiers and most
people who pay taxes to support the police and the military do so not
because they like crime or war, but for protection from belligerents who
are willing to engage in such behavior to promote their agenda. 

As for "pseudo-scientific nay-saying," contrary to elitist rhetoric that
is not redundant. Not all nay-saying is pseudo-scientific, any more than
all yea-saying is scientific. When it comes to military spending you
seem to be a nay-sayer, yet I doubt you would regard that as a bad
thing. 

I implore you, please don't stoop to such name-calling. And don't imply
that someone is to be ignored because you suspect the source of his
funding. In discussing our differences I provide evidence for my claims
and I try not to demean you. But when, without providing evidence, you
insult and imply base motives you demean yourself and reduce your
influence. If you find that someone is falsely posing as an expert or is
being dishonest to mislead people, show his lack of credentials and
expose him. (You should do this even if you agree with his agenda, since
surely you don't believe that the end justifies the means.) That is
exactly what Marita Noon does in her position paper. 

As for the term "nay-sayer," it is invariably used by yea-sayers as a
pejorative to impugn those who encourage others who have jumped onto a
bandwagon without considering whether it is traveling north or south, to
jump off. Since you assert that people should not jump onto a bandwagon
before understanding where it is going, wouldn't you call such
encouragement a good thing?

 

Gordon Davy