New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Politics
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

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 Thursday.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (3403 previous messages)

rshow55 - 01:53pm Aug 1, 2002 EST (#3404 of 3404) Delete Message

rshowalter - 01:05pm Jun 10, 2001 EST (#4691 Robert Showalter mrshowalter@thedawn.com

In the December 19, 1999 WEEK IN REVIEW there was this:

Ideas & Trends; Insurers Come in From The Cold on Cancer by GINA KOLATA and KURT EICHENWALD

Abstract: Growing number of insurance companies agree to pay for experimental cancer treatments administered to policyholders who participate in clinical trials sanctioned by federal health agencies; experts call development momentous; for almost two decades, cancer researchers have been fighting over inadequate federal payments for clinical trials; change has come as courts and state legislatures, faced with desperate patients, have begun to require insurers to pay for experimental therapies . . . .

The phrase "come in from the cold" is used in the paper from time to time - and was used today. For reasons that made sense in context, after this article I asked a NYT writer, writing under a pseudonym rather easily breached - if that was a signal to me to debrief -- and was led to believe that it was. The debriefing, by email correspondence, took my full attention for some months, and much of that writer's time, for some months. I was led to believe that the CIA was involved -- and at the end of the debriefing, after an enormous amount of work, I was told that the mathematical research unit with which I'd been associated had been disbanded, and there was no place for me. I would have appreciated being told that before spending months of intense effort.

I feel sure, for what I believe are good reasons, that the NYT writer involved then is also "dirac" MD4639 rshowalter 6/8/01 10:27pm . . . MD4627 rshowalter 6/8/01 5:16pm . . . MD1742 rshowalter 3/29/01 8:09pm

- - - - - - - - -

I believe that Dirac is one of George Johnson's pseudonyms. Now, it seems to me that this is a point about the "debriefing" is worth reviewing now, because it deals with what I can reasonably ask, and what I can reasonably assume the government and the NYT know.

All the same, what was done, and the decisions made by "Johnson" and "CIA" involving the debriefing may have been entirely understandable, based on what they knew.

Under the circumstances involved I did not feel able to broach certain key points to "Dirac." I was communicating through a pseudonymous, utterly deniable, channel. People looking at the corresponse may understand my reasons. My reasons to keep from dealing with certains subjects made sense to me in light of circumstances described in MD2769 rshow55 6/29/02 7:59am , though perhaps others might think I was inept or unduly cautious in making that judgement. Perhaps I should have shown more courage.

One reason I didn't communicate some things was that I hadn't finished a key part of the job I'd been set. I hadn't met Casey's criteria for coming in through the New York Times. Casey had been clear that, before I could expect the NYT channel to function well, I had to have my ideas clear enough so that they could propagate through the culture -- or at least had a chance of doing so. Then, I had to meet face to face. Until my work on paradigm conflict with lchic - - I didn't have things to that point. When I did have explanations at a level where I thought they fit Casey's criteria - in September 2000 - I did make an effort to come in throught the NYT - with consequences I did not anticipate, which have occupied me and others since.

The awkwardnesses with that effort to come in may have occurred because I'd "jumped the gun" with Dirac. But at the time my debriefing with Dirac started, it seemed reasonable - and as it proceeded without communication channels opening, I did the best I could. Johnson may have done so, as well.

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense


Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE button below.
See the
quick-edit help for more information.






Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us