Quite a WOW! to my reading was Richard Perle's Opinion piece in the UK's The Telegraph [www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/08/09/do0901.xml].
RP is the chairman of the Defense Policy Board at the Pentagon, so RP's opinion is in need of note. As is his position relative to this world's 'big stick' war machine.
The piece strives to justify war for the sake of it. His term pre-emption amounts to no more nor less than that.
And his parallel twixt Saddam Hussein and Hitler that not going to war means appeasement the sad result of which led to a prolonged european war and was "far worse" than an immediate war by pre-emption, is predictable grey grail.
Yet more to the point of now and why should pre-emption be even so much as considered justifiable comes in this passage..
..The decision to use force is most difficult when democratic societies are challenged to act
pre-emptively. That is why the Continental powers waited until Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 *and America waited until after September 11* to go after Osama bin Laden.[** my emphasis]
Clear inference if ever there was one that an attack such as 9/11 WAS ANTICIPATED.
But why? What had been happening to require surveillence and the implied alertness? Is RP telling us that ObL was charged by Saddam Hussein to pursue the atrocity? Or is he leading us to that conclusion and thus a need for pre-emptive action?
It would seem not from the passage immediately following
Hitler's self-declared ambitions and military build-up, like bin Laden's demented agenda, were under constant scrutiny long before the acts of aggression.
Specific to ObL isn't it, yet again emphasising a "constant scrutiny" of the man and his associates.
But why? Constancy sets a tone that bungling detection and prevention of 9/11 was out of the question, and thus the why and answers are more important than ever. Lest folk conclude that some US agenda was being pursued which invoked surveillence and alertness for other reasons than 'alien' attack. Such as results from constant provocation? Could such scrutiny have been utterly counterproductive--directly provoking the 'acts of aggression' by what it has deemed unstable. unacceptable or intolerable people?
War response for deliberate attack on one's people or assets -- the big stick - is historically and perhaps even acceptable to what RP describes as "feckless peace lobbies" - but without full disclosure and the pros and cons of this warmongering protagonist the call for pre-emption can IMHO only be accorded the perverse carrot response.
PS: JUST IN CASE YOU'RE WONDERING WHAT KIND OF culture Richard Perle comes from here's an insight from the wsj's onlinejounal about a Vietnamese refugee who trained in science, moved to Maryland and helped create the thermobaric bomb.
...Duong promised herself she would fight for the principles of her adopted homeland.And now, if all went as planned, the BLU-118/B would slice into a tunnel in the Afghan mountains, unleash the chemically engineered hell that she and the rest of the country's top explosives experts had wrought, and America's enemies would die.
ENDS -dickenz-

Drug discoveries by drugcos are 'dropping'. And, according to 'experts' at the Boston Drug Discovery Technology 2002 Conference, this could spell big trouble for R and D.
Which is an interesting remark given how well the whole industry has done since 1989 for instance. Then only 25 drugs made it to blockbuster status of $500M each. By 2001 this had climbed to 129.
But greed and cashflow (aka payback) has caused faster launching of drugs to help this attainment along. Till now and "sustainability" has entered the industry equation.
Now patent expirations must also be accounted(patents push prices and with patent period lapse and competition high price is hard to maintain let alone justify.)
Pete Tollman, Pres. of a Boston Consulting Group, says that 75 per cent of the cost of bringing a drug to market is spent on failures. So minimizing failures is the name of the game.
A Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' culture to R&D is being advocated rather than the present 'boom and bust'
.
-dickenz--

The Federal Communications Commission's 3-1 decision to require television manufacturers to install digital tuners on all sets 13 inches or larger by July 1, 2007, elicited approval from a key lawmaker and the tv broadcast industry, who argued that it was necessary to move
the transition to digital tv forward. "It simply makes little sense to continue selling consumers an analog, 1950s-era technology" when
government policy is to move tv broadcasts to digital technology, said Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., ranking Democrat on the House Energy
and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
The move is opposed by the Consumer Electronics Association
(CEA), which represents tv manufacturers, as a costly government mandate. The CEA argues that the price of a television set would increase
by an average of $250 because of the decision.
-dickenz-

Australians are onto a turbine making power from methane and waste coal product while in Kentucky wood chip and coal slurries are getting the use-now and clean-up hurry up...And yes, the anthrax
found long ago in Antarctica is no-problem according to the
good NZ authorities.. Meaning to say, hols are back on.. guys
enjoy the in-flight movies :-)
-dickenz-

Last Wednesday the National Resources Defense Council - on behalf a number of leading environmental groups - filed court action against the Navy and national Marine Fisheries Service. The latter, it seems, has granted the Navy a five year exemption from the Marine Mammal Protection Act. To allow them to conduct marine tests up to 12 miles offshore of a new low frequency sonar surveillence system. Enviros believe this could seriously impede and/or kill dolphins, orcs and whales' communication. The sonar, we are informed, was designed to detect new super-quiet subs being developed for weapons and "terrorists".
-dickenz-