Is It Possible to have an Entrepreneurial Government?

Certain Israelis affirm it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/world/middleeast/21israel.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

As to the strategic argument that reducing oil demand will lower oil prices and choke off the material resources of Islamic extremists--I think arguments could well be made that impoverishing the Arabs would also encourage extremism, especially since such impoverishment would be all the more painful and humiliating following a period of relative wealth.

"Freaky observers" and Other Cosmological Pranks

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=slogin

 

What has driven these poor fellows to win the crazy prize once again is the maddening problem of infinity--of both time and space. Starting from baseless assumptions, they invent a rigid, highly intricate superstructure of rules, then extrapolate out to the infinitely possible. It reminds me of scholasticism. Calculating probabilities about a universe whose size and nature you do not understand? What? They're trying to put the cart before the horse, when they have no cart. Or horse.

Amusing, though, from a certain viewpoint.
 

Fortunately, in science, accidents are notorious ambushers--in theory the cosmologist-metaphysicians may yet be ambushed by a useful accident. But, accidents only happen if one takes the risk of experiments, and these fellows are too clever to stoop to mere experimentation. Their only risk gathers itself from the unlimited competition summoned by a system of "science" that erects no barriers to entry. Then the question becomes, on what basis do theories overcome the competition? Aesthetics? Propaganda? Temporal priority? Fortunately, the losers can always invent another mad scheme.

The Pakistani Way

http://economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10424283

 

The book reviewed revisits the Pakistan-nuclear proliferation nexus managed by Mr. Khan. This is one of America's great foreign policy failures in recent times. If the book's interpretation is accurate, it begets some wonder concerning what other activities our political and intelligence leaders may have decided to let pass as they let Khan's network pass for all those years. Presumably we remain vigilant at least with respect to our rivals--but have we allowed other supposed allies to proceed with WMD programs under cover of our willful ignorance? And doesn't such a policy stance severely diminish our moral standing on counter-proliferation issues? Is this a certain reward now on offer for any nation that allies itself with us--however temporarily? It is difficult to conceive of a more foolishly short-term approach. Also, why did we let Khan run unfettered through the 90's? Pakistan was then less important strategically.

But, of course, the book may be wrong; maybe we just didn't know about Khan--wouldn't that be a relief? Then, our only problem would be somehow to correct our monumentally wasteful and incompetent intelligence services.