Two views of the sec def nominee, from slashdot that bastion of insightful discussion ^^

Robert M. Gates was the Central Intelligence Agency's deputy director for intelligence (DDI) from 1982 to 1986. He was confirmed as the CIA's deputy director of central intelligence (DDCI) in April of 1986 and became acting director of central intelligence in December of that same year. Owing to his senior status in the CIA, Gates was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran/contra affair and was in a position to have known of their activities.

I'm a student at Texas A&M (where Dr. Gates is currently university president,) and I'd have to say I disagree with this assesment of the man. He has done a great job here of seeing problems, finding a solution, and forcing it through even with strong opposition on some things. He has improved our faculty, decreased class sizes, and worked to change our image, all without ruining what many of us like about the university.

Could be interesting.

So Rumsfelds gone. I guess any change is good there. I personally hope it doesnt mean the US bails on Iraq though, they have to sort something out.

I agree with Bush in this respect, the troops should get out but only after something resembling a functioning state is established. But their strategy needs a rethink.

Also, will this be good for the Democrats come 2008?

I mean, if they proove themselves to be as impotent as they have been in the past 6 years, then come 2008 it could be good news for the Republicans.

Kinda late, but have any of you read James Lovelock's the Revenge of Gaia? What are your thoughts on his views regarding climate catastrophe, Kyoto our Munich, nuclear power et cetera.

In a BBC panel of boffins, they largely agreed with Lovelocks data, but disagreed with his assertion that nuclear was the only short term option. Though the panel noted that politicians would likely only act when it was too late. They also unanimously agreed that climate change is real, dangerous and significant in our own lifetimes.
BBC Source

Regardless of your views his book is a very interesting read in my opinion, with some challenging assertions.

I think given the need to dramatically cut back on CO2 emissions, nuclear power deserves a reevaluation.

Lovelock argues nuclear power is much better for the planet, a point we often miss. Our views of nuclear power are wrapped up, he argues, in the Wests paranoia surrounding cancer and the nuclear bomb.

He equates nuclear power as a short-term remedial measure, analogous to putting pressure on a wound, or giving oxygen to a patient on the way to hospital. Not a full-blown solution but something to buy us time on the path to finding a lasting solution. Lovelock suggests that fusion is in fact that lasting solution.

Lovelock says sustainability is a red hearing, major improvements in energy use only come through improved design, this all takes time we down have, and that technological shifts take on average 40 years to reach the mainstream.

I also found his little scenario surrounding a book of science to replace the Bible fascinating. Furthermore, his views on the power of religion and how it could be co-opted, to instill values that led to consideration of Gaia above our own societal or individual wants, equally intriguing. Particularly given the current climate of resurgent anti-science christain evangelism in the US. Equally Lovelock seems to be questioning the absolutism of the likes of Dawkins on the issue of religion.