First of all, great article. You really show how dire the situation is out there.

The US spends more on military than all other countries combined. They are spending eighty billion dollars on attack submarines, three billion apiece on new destroyers, and hundreds of billions on two different new models of jet fighter.

All useless for our current situation. Yet the people who need it most, the people whose lives depend directly on military spending---the soldiers themselves---don't have the supplies they need.

Who is going to get fired for this? Who is going to go to jail for this? My guess is no one.

ps- the numbers above I got from a New Yorker article that shows the other side of the funding game:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060807ta_talk_surowiecki

There's a whole generation of people who don't know anything about 9/11. They just read about it in the history books (for those of them who have already learned how to read).

I'm sure Stone had the 5 year-olds in mind when he made his movie, because he knows that all of us who actually lived through it don't need that part of their lives dramatized.

We can see this constant struggle to get things to market fast in genetic engineering of plants and food. Half the world seems to think that genetic engineering will save the world (especially those in developing countries). The other half seems to think that unleashing GMOs will spiral out of control and destroy agriculture as we know it.

To me, both sides seem extreme, but neither side is saying, "Wait a minute...let's test the long term viability of the stuff before we condemn or praise it."

Is this something that we can hope for with nanotech? Can prudence and safety win over greed? Where do we draw the line between prudence and fear of change?

These are exciting times for the field of nanotech and I hope we can find something good out of it that doesn't cause too much damage to ourselves or the environment.

I agree with hh above that it is really WEEE that we should be most thankful for. Anything that gets producers to think about what's going to happen to (and pay for) their products when they are discarded is a good thing for the consumer and the environmentalist.

For the consumer, it discourages companies from producing throw-away electronics because they will have to pay for it downstream.

For the environmentalist, fewer things go in the landfill including packaging and toxic electronics.

To Patrick---

I know you are trying hard here and are greatly out numbered, so I'll cut you a little slack. :-)

> Do you support the infanticide of deformed or handicapped children?

No.

> Do you support the infanticide of children that are the product of rape or incest?

No.

But, there is no contradiction from my standpoint, since I do not see fetuses as people. But, judging from your comments, I think you do. By your own logic, you are also saying that the law has to make allowances to make it OK to kill a human at some points.

If the fetus and the mother are equal in the eyes of the law (ie- they are both people) then the only morally noncontradictory stance is that *all* abortions are illegal. The only way that you can say that it is morally allowable to have an abortion *ever* is to say that fetuses somehow have fewer rights than mothers. In this case, the fetus in not truly a human being yet, and therefore abortion is OK in some situations.

Then this leads me to my next question: are fetuses the same thing as people? Why or why not?

The first questions I ask to die-hard pro-lifers are: "Do you think abortion is morally OK to save the health of the mother? What about in cases of incest or rape? What about if the fetus is diagnosed with having major birth defects that will likely cause an early and painful death?" I think most would answer Yes to the first, fewer to the second and fewer to the third. These are exceptions that many pro-lifers that I know of make exceptions to.

If the answer is no to these questions, then I believe that the person is cruel and heartless.

The next question is (to those pro-lifers who think that at least one of the above situations is OK): why is abortion morally redeemable in these (extreme) cases when it is still "killing a child"? If a fetus is a child, then it would be morally equivalent to kill a young child if the child is a product of rape or incest.

Personally, I (like many pro-choicers out there) do not think abortion is a good thing, or even morally neutral in many situations. However, I do believe that it is *sometimes* the best choice. It is only the mother (who has access to good information) who can make that decision.

My point is that there must be a middle ground in that abortions must not be encouraged, but they must be available.

Maybe there is a flaw in my logic, and so I welcome comments on it.

I seem to remember an outcry from the Democratic blogosphere when the Republicans used the ad mentioned here.

Why is it OK for Democrats to use pictures of coffins for their purposes, but not for the Republicans to use pictures of coffins to gain support for their own?