Agree or disagree, it's a really good article. I find it hard to understand how the author's ideas can be implemented without a surge in government regulation (which usually leads to more innovation stagnation, not less) - but the ideas are fascinating. It may be that for some of these problems government should be less involved, actually, since government's main role currently is to back the wealthiest, most powerful stakeholders, not promote competition. OTOH, in other areas it's obvious that major research efforts would pay off - though not if funded by a particular vendor.
Senator Kerry calls this a "tragic milestone," and the most catastrophic of the administration's mistakes made so far. Regardless of his mistakenly voting for the war at the time, he's right. For him to turn against the Iraq war is a flip-flop I would be happy with. Hopefully he has an exit strategy, even though he's not telling us about it at the moment.
This is why Bush must be defeated in November. I realize the economy is an important issue, but compared to 1000++ dead soldiers? Come on. Not to mention 7,000++ wounded, and the 11,000++ estimated by the Iraq Body Count . This is a slam dunk, as George Tenet would say.
Prediction: if Bush is [re]elected, the U.S. will engage in pre-emptive war against Iran and/or North Korea. Is that really what we want?
Comments