My main only squeeze and I were going through some old pictures of her father when we came across an envelope with a delightful stamp postmarked August 4, 1962. The stamp itself was issued in July, 1962 to commemorate Brien McMahon who authored the Atomic Energy Act.
Peaceful Uses 00: Brien McMahon commemorative stamp (1962)
There are several things I like about this stamp. In the era of "Duck and Cover" US policy makers must have had an interesting job. On one hand they had to scare the bejeezus out of Americans so that they can keep up the cold luke-warm war against the dirty, dirty Soviet Union. Nuclear bombs could fall, any day, out of the sky to fry some small town and its' apple pie. On the other hand there clearly was an interest in developing nuclear power for power generation as well as other uses. Nuclear power generation is relatively cheap, at least in the relative short-term.
So here is a stamp that tries to ameliorate that "scared shitless about nukes" feeling. The stamp itself is very conservative. It has a simple message and a simple design. To the left you have "Atomic Energy Act" and "Peaceful Uses" bracketing the symbol for nuclear power from the top and bottom respectively. On the right you have Brien McMahon. The conservative layout and simple message seeks to convey a feeling of stability and certainty in an era of increasing worry about the future. I wonder what people thought when they were licking this stamp during the Cuban Missile Crisis? My hunch is that the vast majority of people then, as now, saw the world as they wish to see it instead of as it truly is. It is easier to blame the Other for our problem instead of looking at ourselves to examine how we contribute to the problem.
Peaceful Uses 01: Brien McMahon commemorative stamp (1962)
Growing up with three brothers was a lot of fun and even though we were incredibly close, and continue to be, we fought as children, and adults, do. When one of us would complain to our parents about how the other is picking on us they would respond with: "It takes two to fight." In our childish wisdom we thought this response not only to be silly, but also incredibly unfair. Now that I am older, balder, wiser I can apply their words to children, but better yet I can apply it to how groups behave. Somehow the same adults who tell their children that it takes two to fight cannot understand their role when their country gets in a fight with another country. Countries scream and moan about how unjust and unfair the treatment of the other but no examination is made of their own role in the fight.
There are many systems of ethics in the world and they all have things to recommend them. We are taught virtues and vices as we grow up and we are supposed to adhere to the virtues and discard the vices. There are two distinct domains where adherence to virtues does not apply, or at best get special dispensation to ignore virtuous behavior. Business and nation-states seemingly don't need to regard virtues and vices are termed being realistic. This is curious, we are admonished to treat our neighbor well but treating neighboring countries or businesses well is regarded not only as a kooky idea but a subversive, dangerous idea.
Is this really how we want to raise our children?
