Letter to Wired Magazine Editor

Recent letter to Wired Magazine editor:

As a new Wired subscriber, my first introduction to the magazine left me shocked and offended. Honestly, Wired's January 2009 article "Science We Can Believe In" by David Goldston read more like an editorial from a communist Chinese or Russian newspaper, than something I was expecting from a forward thinking technology magazine in the United States of America. Goldston makes the base assumption that U.S. government policies that force it's citizens to pay for other people's causes such as science and research funding, is widely desirable. While I might agree with many of the causes, we live in a constitutional republic with basic rights for which presidents and politicians swear to uphold. Forcing its citizens to pay for other people's causes and special interests is not an assumed role of government with which I or many Americans feel comfortable, let alone feel is constitutionally acceptable. The second base assumption by Goldston is that presidents and politicians somehow know how to better finance and manage (via policy) technology companies than the inventors, investors, innovators, employees, and managers of those companies. As an inventor, investor, and technologist, I find this implication offensive. When the topic of politics and technology comes up, I'd like to see much more information on how technology can free itself from government controls and financing, and relegate the radical beliefs expressed by the likes of Goldston to the 1% occasional rant. Granted, I'm a new reader. I'm just hoping I didn't pick up a subscription to a tech magazine sympathetic to socialist and communistic diatribes.