I too felt that Mr. Goldstein's article was a bit on the shrill side. What we are seeing here is the dawn of the move from traditional "chemical" based pharmacology that's been around in one form or another for thousands of years to something next generation. Similar to the move from pen and paper to electronic computation and communication that dawned 50 years ago and hopefully the move from hydrocarbon energy production to something non-CO2 producing in the near future.

Yes, we need to recognize what could happen without succumbing to Luddism. All technology is created with the intent of solving problems or improving our own extistence. However, if history has been any judge, the profit motive always seems to squelch any kind of reasonable logical decision making, not to mention debate on these matters.

A perfect example is the intention of Celera Genomics Group to actually patent "100 to 300 (human) genes" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/487773.stm). BTW, this BBC article is from over 6 years ago. Though Mr. Goldstein probably wouldn't be as concerned about this as the average observer, since in the piece he paradoxically seems to downplay the traditional devotion to DNA as the "Holy Grail".

I have to admit that you have a valid point that Salon is "playing into the hands" of the torturers. Very good!

You might want to take a second look at the pictures though. You may notice that Salon obscured the faces of the torture victims before publishing them.

There's a saying that goes, "Bright sunshine is the best disinfectant". Lord knows we need some major sunshine and ton of apologies on this one.

Many readers might want to know that the U.S. as torturer is not a new post 9/11 phenomenon. There are a large number of collaborated reports of torture during the Vietnam war. Even testimony that there were prepared classroom instructional materials depicting many details such as where on the genitals to clip the wires from the field phone for administering electrical shock torture.

The only difference in this case is the injection of digital cameras, CD burners and the internet into this "Lord of The Flies" environment.

This is the third review of "V for Vendetta" that I've read. The Village Voice was so-so, The New Yorker basically trashed it and I would put this review somewhere in between. All the reviews seemed to have some common threads: that the high level poli-sci dialogue between V and Evey is simplistic, questioning the wisdom of exaulting a terrorist who blows up the Parliament building and basically accusing the film-makers of ripping off 1984 (BTW - to the reviewer referring to "that actor" that was also in 1984, yes, that would be William Hurt).

I get the feeling that in these politically tense times, all these reviewers were going in with high expectations that this film would be the "killer app" catalyst that would wake up the American people, take Congress from the Republicans in November, impeach Bush and launch a 1000 year era of enlightenment. Personally, I think I've only seen 1 movie in the last 5 years where I had high expectations going in and it actually lived up to it.

Well, you know what? It's a movie! I'm sure it will get some people thinking and for most people it will be entertaining.

Hmmm, I guess in another decade or so these folks will be lobbying to have witches burned at the stake, reinstitution of the Rule of Thumb (if you don't know where we get that phrase, Google it), polygamy and legalizing involuntary chastity belts.

When I read these pieces, I always start wondering how long before "The Handmaid's Tale" can be considered non-fiction.

I used to like Hillary's intelligence and policy positions and could look the other way as far as her attitude when interacting with voters and the press which I found to be condescending. Sometimes very condescending. But now that her policy positions have moved so far to the middle that she could easily bruise Joe Lieberman's left arm with her right elbow I find her much less palatable. Heck, let's be honest, half the time she makes Arlen Spector look liberal. Beside the fact that she's been inside the Beltway for 13 years now and has WAY too much face time with Tim russert, et. al., there's already a gaping opening for month after whithering month of attack ads related to homeland security: her husband was a consultant advising Dubai Ports World concerning the P&O takeover! This combined with the fact that both of them are the ultimate lightning rods for anything "culture war" related must be leading to a lot of licking of chops over at the RNC.

I live in New York and I find Chuck Schumer to be much more out front in criticism of the Right in general and the administration in particular.

Had anyone ever heard of Bill Clinton before 1991? THAT'S what we need. Someone from outside the Washington establishment, someone smart, someone with more charisma than Gore and Kerry combined - no wait - someone with MORE charisma than those two combined and yes, someone fun.

Sorry Hillary, but if you are on the ticket in '08, the Blue state will be an endangered species.