[allmendream]

in 1969, when (Robert R.)Wilson was in the hot seat testifying before the Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Sen. John Pastore demanded to know how a multimillion-dollar particle accelerator improved the security of the country. Wilson said the experimental physics machine had “nothing at all” to do with security, and the senator persisted.

“It has only to do,” Wilson told the lawmakers, “with the respect with which we regard one another, the dignity of men, our love of culture. It has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things we really venerate in our country and are patriotic about. It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending.”

[Zero Sum]

in 1969, when (Robert R.)Wilson was in the hot seat testifying before the Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Sen. John Pastore demanded to know how a multimillion-dollar particle accelerator improved the security of the country. Wilson said the experimental physics machine had “nothing at all” to do with security, and the senator persisted.

“It has only to do,” Wilson told the lawmakers, “with the respect with which we regard one another, the dignity of men, our love of culture. It has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things we really venerate in our country and are patriotic about. It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending.”

These remarks by Wilson are nonsense. A government-funded accelerator has NOTHING to do with "our love of culture," and NOTHING to do with whether or not we are "good painters, good sculptors, great poets." It is neutral on these points, and one could certainly argue that it is negative regarding "the respect with which we regard another" and "the dignity of men" in that he asked the government to fork over the hard-earned money of American citizens just so he could get a new toy (given that it had nothing to do with national security or any other proper role of government, that's exactly what it was.)

If this sounds harsh, understand that I say this as a student of science and a lover of discovery. However, the insinuation that this country wouldn't be worth defending if he didn't get his new toy was the height of petulance. His "argument" was nothing short of insulting. Most of us, I believe, can find enough to love about this country and about what it stands for, enough to be in awe of and to be patriotic about, simply by the virtue of what it is and what liberty means, to be sufficiently worth defending.