{2} Why "reds" are "nukes" - Debate with Louis N. P.

Rolf Martens rolf.martens at mailbox.swipnet.se
Thu Aug 1 23:39:41 MDT 1996


Barkley,

For a reply, I refer you firstly to my posting of today '{3}
Why "reds are "nukes"...' and secondly to "things to come".

While waiting, you might perhaps put on a recording of that 1946
rendering of the Tad Dameron tune by that last name or something,
to put you in the IMO suitable mood (or at least feel the "Zeitgeist"
of, say, 1945-1975 - today still here, even more, only "sub surface".)

Rolf M.



>To Rolf Martens,
>     This is almost certainly a waste of time, but
>your statement that Ronald Reagan was technically
>correct about storing nuclear waste under a desk is
>all wet.  I would suggest that you look at the recent
>articles, one last year in _Scientific American_ (probably
>a bourgeois propaganda rag in your eyes) on the waste
>disposal problems at the Hanford facility in southeast
>Washington state.  They are horrendous, with estimated
>cost over $50 billion and enormous drums full of waste,
>a bit more than what would fit under a desk.
>     BTW, I agree that we should think more seriously about
>nuclear energy as an option in the face of the greenhouse
>effect and other limits.  There are new safer technologies
>out there.  But dismissing the waste disposal problem as you
>have, damages your credibility in the same way that your pal
>Adolfo's efforts to justify mass murder damage his.
>Barkley Rosser
>
>
>     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---





More information about the Marxism mailing list