TED's argument that the talk is overly political would appear to be supported by the fact that this article appears on a site dedicated almost exclusively to po

TED's argument that the talk is overly political would appear to be supported by the fact that this article appears on a site dedicated almost exclusively to politics. Out of 56 non-external article links the site's home page, only three lead to non-political articles. Those are, respectively, a story about congressmen having their houses burglarized, a take on the BrainGate robotic arm story, and a stub of an article mentioning that 13% of US citizens are born abroad. Having read the text of the talk, it is in my opinion completely political, and while I may agree with his basic point; he fails to cite examples of where implementation of his propositions had any positive effect. The tone of self-righteous loathing used when describing his ideological opponents does little to encourage sober consideration of his arguments. As a final point, the speech makes no attempt to address the bear in the room, i.e., the question of whether it is right to take by force from one person and give to another, regardless of how beneficial the effects. It's an extremely political talk being publicized by an entirely political web site with a title more suited to a Girls Gone Wild commercial than talk on socioeconomics. "Too Hot for TED" indeed.