New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's
war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars"
defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make
the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an
application of science be successful? Is a militarized space
inevitable, necessary or impossible?
Read Debates, a
new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every
(2606 previous messages)
- 06:11pm Jun 17, 2002 EST (#2607
Keep us posted....I am very much innterested in your getting
- 08:51pm Jun 17, 2002 EST (#2608
The difference between
making a stable, resilient peace based on mutual,
balanced patterns of pluses and minuses, with understanding
an uncontrolled fight with undesirable, messy or
unpredictable end points
is sometimes a matter of clarity and pacing. If done slowly,
people involved learn "workable rules" -- if done too quickly -
somebody gets blindsided, or very badly scared, and there is
uncontrolled or undesirable conflict. Good negotiating lawyers know
about the pacings needed - and sometimes they achieve real beauty,
in situations that could otherwise be ugly.
There are points where people need a little time to think, and
time to feel. Right now I'm being careful, and think perhaps some
other people are, as well.
I have hopes, just now, of being completely unshackled and
having it happen in a way that is in the national interest
and capable of passing the test of community approval with
the community I have most in mind the somewhat elitist, but
down-to-earth community of people inclined to read the NYT.
I'm hoping all concerned can pass those tests.
Maybe too much to hope for, but just now, in addition to fears
and worries, I have some hopes.
I'm spending a lot of time running through a set of checklists.
Just "thought problems," but worth thinking about, it seems to me.
I've been in a mess, and have put some other people in messy
circumstances as well, sometimes knowingly, sometimes inadvertently.
Who could I apologize to, so that the apology would work in
practical human terms, and how, in detail, could I do it? I can ask
that in a longish list of cases. Not that I'll have a chance to do
so, of course - - , and not that it would be worth doing so --
though sometimes I'd like to.
But I'm hoping for graceful closure. With everyone understanding
what happened, and "reading from the same page," whatever their
feelings happen to be. So they can make workable, comfortable
decisions in future interactions. So people can move on with
understanding. The practical accomodations I know of achieve that.
- 08:53pm Jun 17, 2002 EST (#2609
Simply. Without excess, but with enough detail to do what they
have to do.
- 05:46am Jun 18, 2002 EST (#2610
- 12:29pm Jun 18, 2002 EST (#2611
Am I "totally unshackled" or "totally encircled" ?
Operationally, they are opposite states - different in
sign - totally free versus totally unfree.
Just now, I can't tell which state I'm in, and have some reason
to believe either of the two cases.
I have to check.
In doing so, I would like to explain some things, carefully, that
I believe many people do not know, and ought to -- including even
the wise and experienced people who staff the New York Times.
Could I "get to" Mr Ted Turner - - for
conversation, after reasonable people made reasonable exceptions?
Could I "get to" people involved in the Crusader
project - - - for conversation, after reasonable people made
reasonable exceptions to reasonable barriers to my access?
Could I "get to" _ _ _ _ _ _ - - for conversation,
after reasonable people made reasonable exceptions?
There are many questions of that sort. I have to check on some
things, as they apply to me, and to some degree as they apply to
other people, as well.
I don't think enough people understand how unfree, and how
paralyzed, America has become in some ways - free and wonderful as
it is in some other ways.
I'm trying to figure out how to do an honest, honorable,
not-too-invasive, and effective check. I have some hopes.
- 12:30pm Jun 18, 2002 EST (#2612
Some past communications on this thread, and with people of the
NYT, are relevant. And not, it seems to me, too embarrassing.
There's a lot of criticism of CIA, FBI, and other security
organizations, these days - and some of it, I believe, is justified.
But it seems to me that some reasons aren't being understood, and
some unfair conclusions are being drawn along with the fair ones.
Sometimes, relationships were set up in the past, perfectly for a
purpose. Then they were used a while, and the relationships became
perfectly wrong for that same purpose. There was a switching
of signs. It is a kind of logical disease of bureaucratic
organizations. Looking at it, moral indignation may help on
occassion, but understanding might help more.
There has to be exception handling for
organizations to work well. Much too often, these days, there isn't
any reasonable exception handling at all, in areas where it is very
much needed if the organizations are to function as they are
4/22/02 4:47pm .... "Whenever there are problems with
reliability of function (and these are very important) -- the most
powerful way to increase the efficiency of a society is to reduce
misinformation to increase reliability.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science