It’s not too soon to ask if aircraft drones equipped with small nuclear weapons are in our military future. The answer is yes, but it is less certain the psychology and limits of using such technology are as clear. As the United States and Russia embark on a new era of nuclear arms control in their effort to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, a new pact prohibiting unmanned nuclear armed drones seems a survival imperative.
Tactical conventional weapon drones are currently used with precision impact against terrorist operations in Pakistan and other conflict points. They spare conventional pilots the extreme danger of being shot down, can circle target areas for hour at a time, perform exacting reconnaissance, have a long history of success and can be remotely controlled thousands of miles from the battlefield. They are now clearly an established instrument of American foreign policy. Despite issues of “collateral damage,” such drones are highly effective.
Remote warriors simulating lethal drone technology…is delivery of nuclear weapons using such robotics next?
As nations assess future military capabilities, it is not surprising that strategic use of drones (including such devices with tactical nuclear weapons) is on mankind’s doorstep. But crossing the tactical/strategic nuclear boundary when considering robotic air warfare is a threshold that we dare not cross. Before it gets too late, this technology should be arrested, contained and outlawed on a planetary scale.
Recent open discussion in the military press has centered on whether strategic bombers should be replaced by nuclear-armed drones. In the June, 2009 issue of Armed Forces Journal, Air Force Research Institute Professor Adam Lowther pondered “whether it’s time to pursue a long-range, unmanned and nuclear armed bomber.” ArmedForcesJournal.com published a November, 2009 article by Col. James Jinnette, warning the “defense establishment has become seduced by the idea of unmanned airpower,” some of which may be controlled by artificial intelligence. He points out that judgment and “creative capacity” may be pushed aside by such technology. With these voices, future militarization takes on a most serious debate, as the world is embarking into uncharted intellectual killing territory.
According to PW Singer in his TED talk of February, 2009, robotic war “changes the experience of the warrior, and even the identity of the warrior.” (See video). The easier and faster it is to initiate a tactical nuclear attack, without endangering crew lives, the more we hide behind robotics to accomplish our human instinct to kill. According to Singer, “Another way of putting this is that mankind’s 5000 year old monopoly on the fighting of war is breaking down in our lifetime.” The more we rely on machines, computer programs and remote control technology, the closer we approach the point of no return by (ironically) further dehumanizing war. Tactical military robotics with conventional weapons can save lives, but nuclear equipped robotics can help end all life.
Much of 20th Century nuclear policy was based on the psychology of “mutual assured destruction.” Human emotions controlled the threats. It is that mindset that has helped us reach 2010. Another reason we have survived is that humans have instincts, and, at the personal level, the desire to survive. It is those qualities that helped avoid an accidental nuclear exchange in 1995 when Russian Rocket Forces mistook a scientific missile launch for an ICBM attack. It is the exercise of reason and intuition that spared America during the 13 days of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The more we encumber the exercise of human judgment (despite it’s frailties) by relying on highly complex but remote technology via nuclear delivery systems, the more inhumane, mechanical and likely nuclear war actually becomes. Machines lack consciousness, and if programmed improperly, they can be subverted to misunderstand logic.
Scrutinizing psychology and technology, consider five practical questions posed by nuclear armed drone capabilities.
- If pre-positioned drones with tactical or strategic nuclear weapons are employed, there will be less time to recall them in the event of human miscalculation. True, once existing (and ready) intercontinental ballistic missiles are launched, there are precious few minutes to avert nuclear destruction. missile defenses would be of no value, given the extreme maneuverability of drone aircraft. The current time buffer to detect and kill an incoming threat is significantly reduced, however, by drones already at the target area, waiting for the command to destroy. If war is the result of human failings, we exponentially enhance mutual destruction if by allowing for robotic nuclear delivery systems which are far more flexible and timely than modern ICBM’s.
- If nuclear armed drones are deployed as instruments of national policy, we risk international isolation and condemnation from angered and threatened populations which are in harm’s way. (The Japanese have been outraged by the forward positioning of nuclear forces for decades). Nuke drones may actually increase the specter of war itself from threatened international actors such as nations and organizations with the ability to embrace, and use, identical technology.
- Since U.S. Preditor drones have already been hacked during the Bosnian war, and reportedly by Iraqi and possibly Afghan insurgents using open source $26.00 software, what is to prevent enemy high-tech warriors from taking control of future unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s) and re-directing them? (See December 17, 2009 CNN report).
- Given the potential for literally thousands of these lethal UAV’s pre-positioned across the globe, does it make sense to create new nuclear delivery vehicles which could replace or supplement existing missile technology? The Obama Administration publicly seeks reduction and eventual elimination of ICBM’s, but if all we are doing is substituting one class of vehicle for another, arms control efforts would merely be a shell game. Furthermore, if stealth technology is employed in shielding UAV’s, national technical means of verification (a key issue which is holding up a new treaty between the United States and Russia) would be next to impossible.
- Can failsafe controls be employed effectively in nuclear UAV’s in an era of shrinking budgets across the globe? Rational military experts need double redundancy and recall controls up to the last seconds before pushing the button. We must not let technology get ahead of common sense.
There should be absolutely no debate that completely automated doomsday drone machines should be abolished in the upcoming arms treaty currently under review in Moscow and Washington. The likelihood of such a prohibition, is, of course, fraught with many human complexities. Just as in global warming and climate change, the world needs to wake up to the next great challenge of arms control, and avoid what happened with “the bomb.” We tried to control it, but well after it was too late to contain.
Let’s promote a multi-lateral treaty banning nuclear drone warfare.
With all the high security technology at its disposal, the White House reportedly still relies on the old fashioned clipboard to check the guest list for those officially invited to State dinners. Staffers who may have referred to written notes as Michaele and Tareq Salahi entered what are supposed to be among the most protected grounds in Washington on November 24 would have relied on an old, and outdated method, to make sure those who are not authorized to attend are kept out by the Secret Service. Sorry, but the clipboard system is just not effective.
The White House claims Mr. and Mrs. Salai were not on the guest list. Whoever was present from the Secret Service did not, by initial accounts, take the additional step to check portable or tablet computers to make sure the couple was authorized to enter the State dinner. Apparently they did not use their mobile smart phones or radio communication system to contact other officials who could quickly verify the background and clearance of the Salahi’s. Instead, security officials allegedly only looked at papers on a clipboard and did not see the couple’s names before the telling security breach at the east end of heavily fortified White House complex.
According to Politico.com on November 28, which quoted the AP, the White House Office of the Social Secretary did not have a representative present at the security checkpoint initially crashed by the fame seeking couple. If not present in person, Social Secretary staff could have been electronically contacted within an instant. Any last minute changes, inquiries or updates to the authorized guest list could be noted for all involved to see, at any checkpoint. However, based upon media accounts, that was not done at the initial security entrance. If someone was present from the Social Secretary’s office in the East Wing visitor portal, a second opportunity to use a laptop or phone to avert this embarrassment was missed.
If potential visitors are not on the official list, simple technology provides quick opportunities to make sure they are allowed to gain entrance or signal they are trying to trespass. If readers of this blog can use a laptop or cell phone, surely the same can be utilized by those checking out individuals seeking to gain entry to Executive Mansion events. It is no excuse that it was raining that night and people wanted to get inside quickly.
The incident highlights a missed opportunity to use technology, at the highest levels. Instead, Salahi and his wife got within inches of the President, the Vice President, the First Lady and the Indian Prime Minister. Using a laptop and the right database, an e-mail…or even simple texting (with or without MMS), could have averted this serious security breach. Clipboard lists just do not provide the immediacy of last minute verification. This is not 1961; we are no longer dealing with Selectric typewriters.
This incident is not the first time the Executive Branch has been slow to use available technology. When President Clinton entered the White House in 1992, there was dismay on the part of his staff at the lack of faxes, beepers, voice mail, lap tops and high speed e-mail. Since then, our technology is faster and more capable. Of all venues in the nation, the White House should be using the latest secure and proven technologies. No matter what the capabilities, such devices and the immediate information they can provide are of no use if simply ignored.
The technology gap demonstrated in advance of the Obama Administration’s first state dinner is curious. The White House complex is full of intricate detection devices and systems to prevent intruders, but old fashioned thinking and clipboards do not fulfill the mission of protecting the Chief Executive. Any lack of security and adherence to procedures at the White House is a shared emergency for us all.
Port security, worldwide, has been compromised by a forseeable, and avoidable, mistake.
That humans make mistakes is obvious. Sometimes those mistakes carry little, if any consequences. Sometimes errors can be overwhelming. If there is one current theme in our efforts to achieve nuclear security, it is that we are ”mistake prone.” What comes of these blunders…only time will tell.
Take the example of nuclear material and bomb detectors intended for use at world-wide cargo ports.
Clearly it is wise to develop technology for detecting nuclear devices which can be secreted into the country in shipping containers. It is a colossal mistake, however, to run out of a key ingredient, a raw material essential to the development of such technology, because someone forgot to make sure there was enough helium-3 to make functional the 1,300 to 1,400 machines planned to spot uranium or plutonium.
According to the New York Times on November 23, helium-3 is derived from decayed tritium, which comes from hydrogen bombs. The last time we made tritium was in 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell. Since then, the available supply of helium-3, which detects neutrons which are given off by plutonium bombs, has diminished. While there are substitutes for the scarce ingredient, none are reported to be as effective or as discriminatory when discerning between nuclear weapons and ordinary things cargo like kitty litter and bananas.
According to the Times report, “The helium-3 problem is another symptom of the decline of nuclear technology.” Why the Department of Homeland Security did not seem to know it could not deploy all of the detection machines because of a limited amount of helium-3 is a mystery. It signals a serious mistake in planning. According to Representative Brad Miller (D-North Carolina), “I have not heard any explanation of why this was not entirely foreseeable.”
The problem of bombs and nuclear components being ushered in with cargo containers is not new or limited to the U.S. It is a real and present danger across the globe. (See video).
The helium problem is particularly troubling. The miscalculation about how much was available could be catastrophic if a smuggled weapon or nuclear material is actually used because of the lack of detection equipment at American and foreign shipping ports. While there are other technologies to try to prevent a shipping container disaster, this was to be one of the most promising.
Such nuclear negligence takes other forms.
Back in 1998 and again in 2000, the United States and Russia agreed to open up a joint early warning center on formerly Soviet soil to detect and analyze missile launches in an effort to avoid accidental warfare. Delayed by 11 years, the center has still not opened. However, since the agreement was made, nuclear brinksmanship has morphed into a state of complexity, and continues to do so. There are still old warheads for which there is no accounting, and more terrorist organizations and rouge governments seek nuclear capability. The Times reported on November 14 that legal issues (like who is responsible for the construction of the center) have held up opening the facility.
Amazing. We are living in the time of North Korean nuclear weapons, Iranian development of nuclear technology and an unstable Pakistani warhead arsenal. Even Myanmar is suspected of wanting “the bomb.” Al Qaeda seeks the bomb. It is ironic that Russians and Americans can cooperate with the complex International Space Station, but jointly we can’t open a building which might help prevent World War III.
The importance of such an early warning center is crystalized by recalling recent history. According to the International Relations Center in October, 2001, ”U.S. nuclear attack warning systems generated more than 1,150 serious false alarms between 1977 and 1984.” On January 25, 1995, the Russians thought an American missile was headed their way. In the minutes before a retaliation launch was being contemplated, the path of the missile was determined to be non-hostile. Even though told of the launch (designed to probe the Northern Lights), someone forgot to tell Russian rocket commanders. We came close…very close, to the end…because of nuclear negligence.
Yes. We are being too lax…too trusting that things will not go wrong. What’s most troubling is the fact that both of these examples of malfeasance fit into the “completely avoidable” category. They are examples of how accidents and incidents are allowed happen, and by then, of course, it is too late. We cannot rely on good luck to avoid nuclear devastation. Quality control in our efforts to avoid nuclear winter needs to be job one.
The legal definition of negligence is clear. It is ”the failure to use reasonable care.” U.S. Courts explain ”Reasonable care is that degree of care which a reasonably careful person would use under like circumstances. Negligence may consist either in doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do under like circumstances or in failing to do something that a reasonably careful person would do under like circumstances.” Applying these definitions, the helium-3 and early warning center examples shout NEGLIGENCE.
No reasonably careful individual would plan for and develop vital equipment to safeguard our ports that cannot ultimately be widely deployed because of a scarce ingredient. No reasonably prudent person would agree that early warning center is crucial and should be opened, and then just argue about legalities while our enemies seek access to technology, which if used or even threatened, make our other disputes trivial. We don’t just need one joint early warning center. The world could benefit several, jointly hosted by rivals.
Too many Americans think that since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, that we are safer, in terms of nuclear security, than during the days of the Cold War. In fact, we are in a much more perilous situation thanks to the likes of proliferation profiteers and power hungry extremist regimes.
It is telling that the “Doomsday Clock” devised by the Board of Directors of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has been just 5 minutes from midnight since 2007, closer than it was during the cold war. (In 1990 the clock was 10 minutes to midnight). We add to our peril and risk a closer proximity to the fateful midnight hour by the excercise of a culture of nuclear negligence in an era of enhanced risk. Since ICBM’s are no longer the only delivery vehicle, cooperation and planning cannot get caught up in details and tunnel vision.
We cannot afford to get sloppy when it comes to averting present-day nuclear threats, and yet, with the examples of helium-3 and the joint warning center, ”mistake prone“ is our reality. To err is human, but to commit too much error in these hyper nuclear times may ultimately be inhumane. We must do better.
All countries are at risk with cargo container trucks. Above, China inspects a North Korean freight carrier.
Keeping those with power in touch with average Americans is our responsibility.
Those who are not influence brokers or “insiders” still have the chance to be heard…by sending mail. Once we write and convey our thoughts, it is up to our leaders to take the time to listen.
How many of your local, regional and state officials read 10 letters a day from their constituents?
Write and ask them.
Before the last Presidential Election, these students understood the power of letter writing…
When the New York Times announced, on October 19, staff cuts of 100 in the news room, an information chill reverberated from Manhattan. A reduction of 8 percent of the news staff is a deep wound for those who seek truth. Last year 100 other news staffers at the Times were cut. What will next year bring? The journalistic icon is not alone. Last year alone, reports National Public Radio, American newsrooms lost approximately 5,900 jobs. That is a disaster.
We all know the reasons for tight news budgets…decreasing advertising revenue, competing free web content, and high newspaper delivery costs. No matter what the reasons, the forced Jenny Craig diet hitting newsrooms across the nation is resulting in enhanced national ignorance. And what’s worse, we, the news consumers, are letting it happen, as if we have no part to play in finding a viable solution in the delivery and consumption of news. News flash: It’s not just news editors and media owners who have to figure out how to keep a healthy press, the burden is just as much on the readers. You, me and our neighbors.
Newspaper circulation is not the only problem. As CNN’s ratings recently fell to abysmal levels in prime time, we all should worry. Arguably the hardest working anchor on television, Anderson Cooper, should not be seen by a mere 211,000 viewers per night, as reported by the Times on October 27. There are over 305 million people in the United States. That only a couple hundred thousand are viewing the most aggressively produced news program on the tube is not only eye opening, but scary. In the case of CNN’s prime time ratings, the issue is a lack of curiosity in an age of blog mania…not just economics. The American news audience has been sucked into a state of complacency…and believes that entertainment and opinion is a legitimate substitute for cold, blunt news. As a result, programs like 360 lack substantial viewers.
Whether it be in print or on television, the conveyance of genuine information is being suffocated by technology, economics and inattention by the consumer.
With all the available media choices, we are vastly uninformed about the facts that make up the news, but over-infused with opinion. “Cable news” is not that at all…it has morphed into “Cable Opinion.” American media has been hyper-opinionized with pundits, in large part due to constrained budgets that try to make up for loss of reporting talent and resources. In order to get audiences, conflict among talking heads has been emphasized at the expense of reporting.
We need hard news and the resources to know what is happening in our frenetic world. Good journalism requires the researchers, the investigators, the reporters, the people that verify information, go to the story, smoke it out and do the hard and often dangerous labor to find and report the facts. A free and informed nation cannot claim to know what is going on when news which is presented as mere analysis and spin. We have enough opinions to deal with per capita. Everyone is an expert these days…and the more we hear, the less we know if we don’t have a wide range of objective news sources to decide issues and options for ourselves.
Media economics and consumer inattention is slowly suffocating the stream of information that reaches our households, and we get less and less input. The inevitable result…we will know less about our world, our government, our health, our science, our arts and…well, our everything.
Cutting staffers in the Times is disturbing not only because it demonstrates a great newspaper in decline, but it is, along with the Wall Street Journal, one of the only major news operations that has the global scale and resources to investigate and gather the news. Similarly, the decline of Ted Turner’s original model for transmitting news by cable and the low numbers on CNN are almost inexplicable given the moderate majority in the United States.
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of assignment editors in media land who wish they could assign a team for months at a time to dig, probe, seek and ultimately publish detailed pieces that will improve our understanding of present day, but are frustrated because they cannot devote sufficient resources to such an effort. As newspapers get thinner and contain less and less content, we are confronted with knowledge disconnect. We think we know what is going on by reading news aggregators, but as credible reporting and sources diminish or disappear, there is less content to collect and re-distribute. As we lead our busy lives, what we don’t read we may not know.
News consumer, it’s time to stand up and be heard. We must be a part of the solution. It starts with the New York Times. NYT…Don’t make that next round of staff cuts. The more you trim your news operation, the more you accelerate diminished credibility.
If you have to, charge for the free content provided by the Gray Lady on the I-Phone. Follow the example of the Wall Street Journal and seek payment for premium content on the web. Develop a micro payment system for readers on the internet. For those that use the free NewYorkTimes.com site, support the paper by paying the $165 a year for the amazing Times Reader service. (It’s the best and easiet fusion of newspapers and new media, with the traditional newspaper look, that’s out there right now).
Around the nation, those concerned with threats to the media should have community meetings with news executives to brainstorm for financial solutions which will keep media on track to providing true information.
We should not have to rely on a Mexican billionaire to bail out the Times, we should do it ourselves. For those of you that dislike the Times, and favor more conservative voices, keep in mind…your paper may be, and probably is, next to cut resources. Inaction on the consumer front is no longer an option, no matter what newspaper you favor. Let’s fully explore and debate what the concept of non-profit news organizations means to journalism. We should examine membership fund raising drives akin to the model of National Public Radio and its stations. There are probably hundreds of thousands of people who would agree to pay a membership fee to support the Times, the Journal and other newspapers in exchange for exclusive services heretofore not offered on the web.
Here’s another idea…invest in stock of media companies to boost their capital reserves and investments and become part owners of the very institutions we rely upon to inform us. Perhaps mutual funds devoted solely to investments in media outlets should be created, so readers can have a personal stake in journalism through an easy investment vehicle.
Finally, let’s start educating our children and young adults about the difference between opinion and fact. Every high school and college graduate should be able to take, and complete, a course about the meaning of genuine journalism and its importance to society. We should infuse curiosity into our national consciousness. We don’t do enough of that with traditional teaching methods.
As consumers we cannot always receive but fail to reciprocate. Now is the time to stand up, economically and consciously, or one day, the news we get will be worthless, lacking in detail and scope…a mere reflection of a disinterested America.
In case you have not read it, we are well down that path in 2009.
For more on this topic, see the Sunday Morning CBS News presentation, “Stopping the Presses For Good” on our sister site, SharedEmergency.com, reported by Jeff Greenfield. (Broadcast April, 2009).
It’s simply not acceptable to assume that the American government cannot pass meaningful and responsible climate change legislation in time for the December United Nations Copenhagen conference on global warming. We need to be active participants, setting the example, not passive reluctants who fail to show we are ready to act. Yet, despite years of urgent debate and scientific study, Washington may not have legislation ready to prove to the rest of the world that it means business.
Congress, if you have to, work overtime. Reduce your vacation time. Labor night and day. Get the job done. Give the new American Chief Executive, and our nation, momentum on this singularly crucial challenge. Congress can multi-task and deal with more than just health care reform. There is no reason to wait until early December to take up this issue, a concern which was reported in the New York Times on October 16.
American leadership and creativity is needed on the “five tracks” of the Copenhagen conference as identified by Michael A. Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations in his recent article, “Copenhagen’s Inconvenient Truth.” (Foreign Affairs, September/October, 2009). The blueprint includes: Mitigation (“near-term commitments to cutting emissions”), Adaptation (“Efforts to deal with unavoidable climate change”), Finance (“Schemes to pay for emission cuts”), Technology (“Frameworks for advancing and distributing low-carbon technology”) and Creating A Vision For Long-Term Cooperative Action. Capitol Hill should not cede leadership to other nations by embracing paralysis and indecision on this issue.
And one more thing…President Obama needs to be head the American presence to Copenhagen, to showcase our committment to deal effectively, and urgently, with global warming issues. But as of the date of this post, his presence is not assured. If this President is truly concerned about our changing natural environment, his absence from the UN conference will be an overwhelming distraction and side track progress.
On October 19, the BBC reported it is not at all certain that President Obama will attend the critical international meeting on climate change. According to the report, “Many observers believe that Barack Obama is the leader whose presence would do most to hasten a deal, but Mr Stern, the US administration’s chief negotiator, said the president’s attendance was not decided.”
We can do better. We must. Now.
As President Obama inches toward a fresh policy concerning America’s engagement in Afghanistan, four critical questions stand out to Shared Emergency.
1. Given the volatile nature of the Pakistani state, can we afford to remove our military presence and capabilities from the region to the north of that fractured (and nuclear) nation? If fragile Pakistan falls apart, which seems not too unrealistic given recent examples of political instability, America needs the capability to respond to nuclear and conventional threats from what is clearly the most dangerous place on Earth. Rather than being limited to naval capabilities, coalition bases in Afghanistan make sense, to be ready to strike from the north, when needed, in Pakistani areas which threaten American security interests. There are real and present threats (like Al Qaeda) in border areas, the Swat Valley, and Baluchistan (to name a few). Surgical strikes (using drones and missiles) from American bases into regions not controlled by Islamabad have been effective against enemy targets and should not be eliminated as a military tool.
2. Can coalition powers afford to give up military bases to the east of Iran? Like it or not, the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda may not be the only compelling reasons to sustain a strong military presence in the sketchy Afgan nation. With bases in Iraq and in Afghanistan, American and NATO interests may be better served by a long-term battle-ready footprint to counter, and react to, any Iranian adventurism.
3. Are tribal leaders too powerful for any meaningful development of a strong and secure Afghanistan? The discredited Karzai government is not really in charge, and the power of local warlords seems to be increasing month-by-month. What tactics can be employed to undermine the fiefdoms of these regional power brokers to make way for real long-lasting reform to make Afghanistan more secure and less of a terrorist threat? If the culture of Afghanistan is such that tribal chiefs will forever undermine efforts to centralize and stabilize the government, are we not fighting against an inevitable cultural tide of jihadism and indifference? Is the best answer to settle for a Guantanimo Bay type stronghold in a country which will, in the end, never truly welcome sincere “nation building?”
4. Is the White House ready for a major public education initiative on the future course soon to be announced? After 8 years of conflict and no end in sight, will the President and his national security team be able to make a compelling case that will be embraced by a skeptical and weary American public, so as to sustain whatever strategy is charted as our future course? Is the United States ready for a new military commitment in the mold of Europe and South Korea with decades of bases? Are Afghanistan Town Halls across our nation the next debate venues once health care is legislatively resolved?
As the debate in Washington continues, tell us what you think with your comments.
Bill Gates is correct. We need to develop technology to stop Typhoons, Hurricanes and Cyclones. No matter how difficult the task, the need to divert and tame monster storms increases each year. The ambitious Gates plan is correctly referenced as ”geoengineering.” Applied ethically, it can to save lives and property.
According to the Economist, in its 9.19.09 edition, “Ten of the developing world’s 15 largest cities are in low-lying coastal areas vulnerable to rising sea levels or coastal surges.” The article, entitled, “A bad climate for development,” adds, “In 1981-85, fewer than 500m people required international disaster assistance; in 2001-05, the number reached 1.5 billion.“
We should be praying Bill’s geo-engineering patents and strategies are implemented, and that others will follow with new ideas to calm down the planet. Weather related events and their impact seem to be getting worse by the decade, just as human capabilities to effect weather modification increase. To ignore the opportunity to employ technology in the fight against cyclonic events would be criminal.
Iran, Nuclear Weapon Proliferation, Afganistan, AIDS, Poverty, Taxes, Global Warming, Health Care Wars, Corruption, North Korea, H1N1, Religious Conflict, Alzheimer’s Disease, Pakistan, Typhoons, Congress, Cancer, Mean Streets…the Economy.
Just for a few moments, let’s forget it all…and see how Beethoven can completely absorb and relax you with color, geometry, drama, grace and pure engaging art.
If we collectively step back from our emotional and non-artistic responses to daunting problems, and put our thoughts in some creative structure…perhaps we might capture a bit of practical harmony and begin to solve some of our messy, but chartable, challenges.
Our thanks to VisualThinkMap.ning.com and musanim.com for this moment of musical introspection.
