« Podcast: Dr. Ela Bhatt, "Organizing Working Poor Women: The Sewa Experience" | Main | Miles and Sunstein Featured on SCOTUSBlog »

December 10, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Kimball Corson

Pardon the double post. The fist comment did not post and then did later after the second one was launched.


I seem to have struck a nerve. Well that need not be a negative thing. God could be an invention. Then again, absence of God could be an invention -- by scared and threatened people who are too weak to follow His laws and are terrified of judgement. The most compelling case for disbelief seems to be heavily pregnant with the idea of escaping judgement, just read Darwin's theory of evolution. Be careful with the notion that knowledge means wisdom. There are fools who do not believe, geniuses who do, and vice versa. It signifies nothing. It was popular among rationalist thinkers in the late 19th century to make the assumption that advances in textual analysis, along with archaeological discovery and scientific breakthrough would disprove the Bible. Still waiting. Virtually every time we find out something new in these fields it supports rather than challenges Scripture. From evidence of the flood of Noah's time to Roman writings about Jesus and his fantastic claims coming from disbelievers. Yes I believe, and yes I do not require insurmountable proof to do so. I recently read a wonderful article that put succinctly a point of view that I share, "...If God were good, then He would make Himself obvious. Not really. God makes himself just sufficiently evident to allow us freedom. If He were easy to find, we'd all believe and thus have no real choice. If He were almost impossible to find, it would be cruel and unfair. He chooses the middle path. He's there if we seek to look, but not so if we don't care. He's the great lover, not the satanic rapist. He desperately wants us to love Him and return to Him, but we have to make that decision ourselves" without a doubt none of this will win either of you over. I do not expect it to. I spent enough time trying to call for balance in the discussion of Mormons to find no one here feels balance over rhetoric to be advantagous. Fine enough. I needed to assert my belief into this discussion since neither of you are here to discuss or debate Mormons, but instead to uphold your righteous crusade against the foolish believers that make your world such a horrible place to live. Horrible enough to talk about it, but not terrible enough for you to actually do something about it. LAK from your writing alone, such venom, such hatred, you must have been mistreated by someone strong in belief. I hope you can find some internal peace in time. Kimball I don't really disagree with anything you have said. though your arguments on faith or more appropriately those who believe is straw man at its worst. If someone has faith in something you can't accept because it is nonsensical or outright rubbish, then does that make the person less of a worthwhile being ? Are they less deserving of your respect because of the contempt you have of their faith ? I disagree with Mormons like both of you, but I can engage one without disrespecting him or her at the same time. I know LAK lacks the subtlety or nuance to engage in purely reasoned discussion about what we find negative in the faith, but I think we could hash out a good list of issues without poking holes in their origin. I want to engage based on what they teach, but I concede their origin story is something I have a hard time avoiding myself. I find myself playing devil's advocate just to try and make this a conversation and not a hate rant. I guess this thread digressed and we couldn't hold it together.


Does Traditional "Christianity" Follow Christ, OR Anti-Christ?



"It was popular among rationalist thinkers in the late 19th century to make the assumption that advances in textual analysis, along with archaeological discovery and scientific breakthrough would disprove the Bible. Still waiting."

"Virtually every time we find out something new in these fields it supports rather than challenges Scripture. From evidence of the flood of Noah's time to Roman writings about Jesus and his fantastic claims coming from disbelievers. "


I should have know you were an ignorant creationist. Yes, the world is 6000 years old. Carbon dating doesn't work. That dinosaurs and mammal fossils are never found together, let alone human fossils, is a function of what? The flood?

OMG I can't believe I wasted my time with someone who believes the world is 6000 years old. F Me.

Legion, where do you draw the line with your wishy washy reasoning? Am I to respect Osama's religion that calls for my death and killing of innocents in the name of God?

Un f-ing real.


"absence of God could be an invention -- by scared and threatened people who are too weak to follow His laws and are terrified of judgement."

Perhaps the dumbest thing I have read in years. I pray to your God that you didn;t attend the University of Chicago. If you did, I ain't giving them another cent.

No, I didn't get wronged by someone of [irrational] "faith," all Ihave to do is turn in my TV to see how wrong organized religion is and how stupid those are who believe in it.

I'm not scared of God's judgment, I'm scared of the judgement of the invisible hairless purple cats that live in trees that rule the Universe.



ahhh yet another nerve struck. Well while we are off topic at least it is engaging. LAK you have stated much that I never claimed. Carbon dating does work, it may not be the most exact science(as in specific year other than year range) but it gives us a damn good idea. the reason dinosaur and human fossil's aren't found together is because we never existed in tandem. Respecting religion, which I never asked, and respected a person's choice of faith are two differing things. I respect their right to practise their faith free from our objections so long as they do not advocate hurting people, violence is where I draw the line. That is a pretty common sense line to draw I don't think there is much contention in that. Not to say they cannot be criticized, but criticisms can be constructive or hurtful. I prefer to foster discussion as opposed to wallowing in my own ignorance. And here we get to your real problems LAK. Damn, psyche students would love to have you on a couch for a while. Your anger at religion is over what you have seen on your TV, now for a rational person wouldn't you agree that given the media's penchant for focusing on what they want and not what actually happened that maybe you haven't got the entire picture here ? Playing with half a puzzle still gives you at best only half the image. You have yet to construct a coherant argument I can at least give you some credit for, after all I am Canadian. I like giving people the benefit of the doubt, and I know you have it in you from previous discussions. I baited you and I am waiting for a worthwhile response. Forget the purple hairless cats, they are more forgiving if you leave them alone, focus instead on only what I have said. why not take this chance to open up and learn something about yourself, if you are comfortable to talk about it of course. I'll star it off. How old were you when you first started feeling animosity towards faith in general or religious people in specific ?


I have no use for you. Sorry Bud. This is my last exchange with someone like you. You have *nothing* to offer me.

You can end like a good Christian by explaining to me why I should respect Osama Bin Laden's "faith" which warrants killing innocent people in the name of his God. And If I shouldn't respect his faith, what criteria am I supposed to use in rejecting it? The tenants of your faith? If so why your faith over his? Or ethics? And if its ethics, why should his faith be the only one subject to ethical scrutiny and reason? Or do you walk on water and know people who live more that 120 years?

Oh, and if you're not some creationist, do feel free to clarify what you meant by your hysterical quotes above too.

You didn't go to the U of C did you? Did you go to college at all?

Good luck. You'll need it.

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."


no doubt you have no use for me, I'm a bit too challenging. To clarify I did not attend U of C. I came to this site by way of a high school buddy who does. You can draw your own line, as you already have, as to when to respect and when to show distain or contempt for and I draw mine as I previously stated when violence becomes part and parcel. That includes my own religion thank you. I am not telling you how to make a judgement, just that yours is hastily acheived and not as perfect as you may think. If you truly dwelt on this you will find your own answer, but from your comments I doubt you will spend much time in the forseeable future.

The hysterical quotes were bait to confirm my earlier assertion that your unreasoned hatred is not ruled by reason despite your claims to the opposite. Religious people are not always so narrow minded as to not have thought on our own about what we believe. Just because your country has a region where few people think deeply enough about the divine, doesn't mean that everywhere else religious minded people are so dim. As you have not even deemed me worthy to offer any thing for my consideration other than wild accusations, I will take solace in the fact that you closed your comments with a quote from Einstein as opposed to something original.

I will return the favour in my own manner,
"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." Universal.

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." just for you LAK

"Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. " On tolerance without venom.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." From my personal collection

And finally "We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality."

All of these quotes were from Einstein.

Anyone can use quotes, they do nothing but offer a second opinion confirming our own prejudices. I'm half offended by your lack of arguable material and half content with the knowledge that at least you may learn something if you take anything I said to heart. If you hit up Toronto would love to argue over a good drink(out of igloo season obviously).


If that sounded smug to you as it does when I read it back, my apologies, I just traded in my civic hybrid for a buss pass to help alleviate all this smug in the air.


To be sure and clear, none of the Einstein quotes above support organized religion or theism. None support any kind of theistic conception of God that meddles in human affairs, has will and intent, saves souls, provides immortality. There is a huge bright line between your irrational and cowardly belief in ghost stories and walking on water and burning bushes and parting seas and immaculate conceptions, all of which are counter to science and reason and truth, and having a sense of awe at the magnificence of the universe or recognizing how little we know and understand about it. Nor does being a rationalist or even atheist imply that reason can solve all problems of human existence.

There is irrational faith, like the kind you and Osama have (that you are able to distinguish between believing some humans burn in eternal hellfire because they don't accept Jesus as their savior, and Osama Bin Laden's violence is nothing short of laughable and indicative of your poor thinking) and there is a rational faith in love and the goodness of humanity grounded in reason, not opposed to and inconsistent with it. Some leaps of faith are bigger than others, and some so big you have to be some kind of fool or ignorant or psychotic to make them. Only one of them crashes planes into buildings for god or smiles while they believe the person they are smiling at is going to rot in hell for eternity.

Thanks for the offer of having a drink but I'll pass as I have intelligent educated people of faith who don't believe in scripture to discuss these issues with.

And please don't misappropriate Einstein for you retarded Christianity ever again. You don't have the brain power to understand what he was talking about, and it certainly wasn't Jesus.

Kim Corson

In support of my contention that Neo-Christians and their ilk lie more than the rest of us, believing that ends justify the means in order to get political power, I submit the following piece of an AP blurb:

"As apresidential contender, Mitt Romney has the looks, the money and the campaign machine. He also has something of a candor gap.

"When confronted with questions that might conflict with his message of the day or political record, the Republican candidate has shown a tendency to bob and weave or simply dismiss history. He has done so all year, providing an easy target for his opponents.

"'If a person is dishonest in his approach to get the job, do you believe he will be honest in telling you the truth when he does get the job?' former minister and Romney opponent Mike Huckabee said Saturday.

"This past week, Romney did it again over questions about whether he was planning to air negative ads — in particular on the subject of illegal immigration — against John McCain. The Arizona senator has been surging in New Hampshire, where Romney is angling for back-to-back victories after a hoped-for win in this week's Iowa caucuses. . ."

Kim Corson

Up a ways, LegioNofZioN writes, "The most compelling case for disbelief . . . " in essence relates to wishful thinking. Not so. The best case for disblief is the lack of scientific evidence supporting belief, the incredible improbabilities attending, for example, the Nicene Creed, and the strong evidence for other explanations to what we observe than belief, e.g., Darwin's analysis, modern genetic theory, etc. Historically, belief has been the mask for ignorance.

Kim Corson

That Einstein was a good physicist does not make him a considered and competent philosopher or moral historian.


First to Kim, I agree with you on Mitt, and his bobbing and weaving. I do not think him to be any more genuine than any other candidate and in fact it is his lack of clarity that makes me question his ability to run your country. I don't think Huckabee is any better, I think Huckabee has many faults just the same but he does seem more often to be honest. I wouldn't vote for either of them were I an American.

As to the Einstein quotes, I again agree with Kim. His area of expertice was physics so the idea of using him as "proof" or rather support for his views on religious were just reaching. As such my quotes were not to support religion but a way to break down LAK's harried reasoning by showing that quotes mean little. they were also meant as subtle jabs at LAK personally.

As for my "compelling case for disbelief", I think Kim on this I must add that the Nicene creed and the council of Nicea that determined which books would be allowing into the modern bible, is not about ignorance at all. the council determined that the only books that could truly be included in the Bible would be the ones written within the lifetime of the followers of Christ. The only one included that did not follow this criteria closely being the revelation. This is why the Gnostic bibles are derided as they even at that time, saw them as tantamount to rewriting the story to advance their cultural beliefs.

and now on to LAK. The quotes were not to support God, or organized religion as that has not been my purpose here. at least Kim knows how to stay on topic in terms of Romney and Mormons. the quotes I used, LAK, were to educate you as to how little you know, and how sophmoric it is to use Einstein quotes to win an argument not at all about physics. It's like quoting the bible to prove the theory of relativity, too much of a stretch and it just doesn't fit in. As for people smiling because of carnage, where do you come up with these ? I had to show this thread to some friends at work so we could all have a laugh. People regardless of religion have celebrated enemy losses since time imemorial. that is a human condition not a religious one. use some of that acclaimed rational thought you have been touting so much in here.
"Thanks for the offer of having a drink but I'll pass as I have intelligent educated people of faith who don't believe in scripture to discuss these issues with." are you for real ? If one has no belief in some form of scripture, then how is one faithful ? Faithful to what ? Now to be sure I am not saying they need be literalists, but seriously do you even read what you write before you post it ? If you are an adult and not a student I fear for your common sense, as apparently you don't have much. the Einstein quotes were not to support religion but to undermine your argument. I thought that much was clear to anyone who read it. LAK I thought you were done with me, shouldn't you be gone now ?

Now back to Kim. I don't disagree with your contention that some religious people in the states believe that "Any Means Necessary" Malcolm X pre enlightnement crap. the end justify the means and all that. But in fairness, so to do most political people regardless of Republican or Democrat credentials. Look at Pelosi and her stance on torture. While its happening its ok and she avoids it like the plague, then once your government discontinues waterboarding she makes it her personal crusade. she knew and never objected when it started, so how principled is her position now ? The same kind of political double speak permeates our Canadian political parties the leftist NDP, the centrist Liberals an the centre right Conservatives (there are far right parties but they get no traction in this country). the Liberals commited us to war in Afghanistan after denying G.W. Bush aid in Iraq. then the Liberals were swept out of power after years of corruption. the new leaders, the Conservatives fresh from a 12 year banishment due to their own past corruption continued to keep our presence in Afghanistan strong despite casualties, while the Liberals used the deaths to bash to Conservatives even though it was the Liberals who commited and sent us in there in the first place. Politicians are a dangerous breed. Lying is their lifeblood and they cannot get far without it. regardless of their stated beliefs and ideals they all sell out to acheive and to keep power.

Something about that LAK, may make a fine politician one day.



You are showing your severe ignorance and lack of any ability to think with nuance. Einstein is my personal hero. He was as anti-religion a thinker as has ever existed. That he believes in some kind of panthesitic notion of "god," and finds the Universe profoundly beautiful and mysterious is not to be successful in taking a "jab" at me. I believe the same. I was done with you, but I can't let you mislead yourself or any others by offering quotes of his and suggesting they somehow support religion or any absurd theistic conception of God. You are not. Einstein was a philosopher of the highest order, and someone who knew more about the Universe than anyone. That you should think he has no authority to comment on religion and the nature of the universe is absurd.

That you can't conceive of having faith without blindly believing in irrational sources of dogmatic authority makes me want to cry. Perhaps you should read some Kierkegaard. He does a wonderful job at discussing and arguing for faith without appealing to any scripture. His arguments actually fail miserably when he tries to stretch them to conclude that that faith should go toward Christianity.

Believe it or not, reason and ethics have their limits, and it is impossible to prove definitively that living an ethical or loving life is actually worth it. But there is a lot of evidence and strong evidence to support it, none of which is anti-intellectual or irrational or inconsistent with known truths. That is a far cry from having a "faith" that requires believing things that run counter to reason and science and truth and empiricism and personal experience.

And yes, I hate to inform you that if you are a Christian, you believe the only path to heaven is believing that Christ was the son of god (by a virgin woman, of course) and died for your sins, including that original sin born of hatred for women. Your "personal" savior. Implicit in this belief is that those who do not believe that Christ walked on water or was the son of God or died for our sins don't go to heaven. Where do they go again? Or are you one of these pathetic Christians who can't even recognize the icky parts of their own ghost stories? Pathetic. At least Catholics are consistent.

Kimball Corson

Zion: I think that the criterion of a book's inclusion in the Bible was not so much at all that it was written "within the lifetime of the followers of Christ," but rather that it was not in contravention of the developed theology of the Council which, among other things decided that Jesus was Devine. Many early Christians were gonostics and so were many excluded books written by them. Elaine Pagels has suggested the Bibile would make much more sense if the Book of John were replaced by the Book of Thomas. However, the Book of Thomas had a fatal flaw for Catholics. It eschewed the doctrine of intermediation which the Church thought was imparative to its survival and so that book was excluded.

LAK: I am surprised to read you believe Einstein was a great philosopher -- not, I suggest (reason: nothing really philosophically new by him and what was there was not particularly well developed --and, further, that you now admit to a pantheism of sorts, implying a supreme something revealed in the natural world. I don't disagree, nor do I think Neitzsche would either. I am just surprised to read that you admit to it now, inasmuch as -- if I recall correctly -- you did not earlier on this blog when you eschewed any form of disem which I argued was a possibility that should be left open.


LAK, I was right you will make and excellent politician. Talk about bobbing and weaving, you're worse than Romney on this. Let me again, this time is plain basic language you can understand, explain the quotes. First point, they were not meant to support religion. I quoted them to poke holes in your argument and usage of quotes to support your cultural prejudice. It's not about proving my point, its about showing the lack of thought in your point. Lazy thinking, that is my charge to you LAK.

My point about the faithful and scripture still stands. Faithful means you are faithful to comething, if you believe in something you have no source from in some scriptural sense then you are not faithful, but spiritual. Like Shirley MacLaine with her crystals or transcendental meditation types who follow a guru, there is a difference between faithful and spiritual, and you seem to miss this. A phonics work book from grade 1 and a dictionary can do wonders. Now you said some of the tennets of my faith in such a negative way, while I agree with what you said in the last paragraph, God is above me, and if He wants to let people in, thats His call. I know what the bible says, and what I believe but it is foolish to limit God to only what was written. If He is creator of all, then he isn't bound by the same rules and laws we are, and as such I marvel at Him, because I will never understand Him.

Kimball, I have heard the point of view you shared, but more than consistancy of message (the four gospels do not mirror each other exactly and some contradict) their goal was to include what could be substantiated as from that time, again, other than revelation. If any of the Gnostic bibles came form the same time period there would be followers of it today, in substantial numbers. Evangelicals would flock to it, but alas, none but the ones in the New Testament come from the lifetime of the followers of Christ.


"I quoted them to poke holes in your argument and usage of quotes to support your cultural prejudice. It's not about proving my point, its about showing the lack of thought in your point."

And how is it you think you accomplished this? I'm confused. Nothing you quoted in any way undermines a call for the complete rejection of religious dogma.

Your point about faith is simplisitic and incorrect. Go read "Fear and Trembling" or "Either/Or" by Kierkegaard, or go read "The Art of Loving" by Eric Fromm which discusses faith in the context of living a life of love. Neither discussion requires blind belief in scripture or other sources of irrational authority. The fromm discussion explicitly distinguishes between having faith in irrational sources of authority, and having faith in one's own and humanity's capacity for love, in fact. The religious certainly do not have the market on faith cornered. Maybe stupidity.


LAK I would spell it out again but I grow weary of your empty ramblings. Faithful, means having faith in something. Being faithful to something, now what is there to be faithful to if you have no starting point from which to gather your faith ? Someone had to tell or show you you something in order for you to be faithful to it. Thus what you really mean is spiritual (it's a less specific label). As simple as this explanation is, it is the context that millions of faithful Muslims and Christians adhere to. you may attempt to nuance different meanings out of it, and you may succeed, but that does not change the way a majority view it. Spirituality is different, in that no adherance or faithfulness to anything is required, thus a more accurate description of what you mentioned. Arguing semantics is a pointless excercise, we disagree with each other. Maybe the religious do have the market cornered on stupid, but the proof is in the pudding and no person alive can taste that.


"Being faithful to something, now what is there to be faithful to if you have no starting point from which to gather your faith ? Someone had to tell or show you you something in order for you to be faithful to it."

And therein lies a lot of your ignorance. No starting point? One can and should base faith on one's own experience. Aspects of existence that are outside of conclusive proof are experienced by all humans all the the time. I can have faith in another person, faith in myself, faith that love and humility are the right way to go about life rather than being some kind of power and money hungry selfish person.

Kierkegaard's discussion of the "knight of faith," and the teleological suspension of the ethical in "Fear and Trembling" is a famous writing about faith which proceeds from Hegelian themes, none of which have to do with Scripture. Please go read it as you are terribly terribly wrong about what "faith" is and isn't. It's not just believeing ghost stories becasues someone told you. You sound foolish claiming it is when such an important Christian thinker like Kierkegaard spent his life arguing otherwise. He wasn't speaking of "spiritualism" when he describes the "knight of faith." He is speaking of Faith, and his first example 9other than Abraham being willing to kill Issac had to do with the love of a woman and personal experience and the limits of the ethical and the teleological inevitability of necessity of having to suspend the ethical and believe despite even overwhelming evidence ounter to that belief.

you're wrong here. Sorry.


LAK, I don't expect you to agree with me, I don't think you are capable of understanding, in this case you are wrong. I see your perspective and although I don't dismiss its legitimacy in theoretical terms, I speak of actual experience and common usage of the term. I am not discussing faith in general as spirituality can involve faith but faithfulness as a construct. Having faith in other human beings does not make one faithful. Having faith in anything does not make one faithful. Faithfulness is about faith to something or someone, a concept even, in which one is true and adherant to. The faithful, which many beleivers describe themselves as, differentiate themselves from others who may share elements of faith but are not faithful to doctrine using the term spiritual. this is not a dictionary definiton but the terms an entirely large segment of society accept as their own. In the hip hop community the term wicked has come to mean something cool, and desirable. In the dictionary that is not the word's meaning, but now a whole generation of kids has grown up using the term to describe things they like. It is a part of the english lexicon. In this same manner has the term faithful been co-opted by the adherant religious to describe themselves. I can't be wrong here I'm speaking from personal experience about people I know and Love. Sorry but your refusal to acknowledge what is widely accepted has limited the viability of this conversation.


Then get off a U oc C board if you can't accept terms for what they are and how they are accepted and used outside of your cult and how they've been used by some of the world's great Chritian thinkers. Or do you want to go into a theology or philosohy class across the Midway and tell teh professor how to teach some of the most profound Christian thought ever produced and how to use terms. How you and your cultist friends misuse words to distinguish yourselves from non-believers is not authoritative. Go away and troll on boards for anti-intellectuals. This is the U of C law blog for God's sake. This is the institution of Mortimer Adler.

Kimball Corson

I take issue with both Zion and LAK. Conventionally understood, faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no [present means of] proof. Zion contends
"[f]aithful, means having faith in something. Being faithful to something, now what is there to be faithful to if you have no starting point from which to gather your faith?" LAK argues that faith does not have to have a religious or authoritative basis, e.g., faith in the human condition, love, etc. LAK is I think correct that faith need not be religiously motivated or based or grounded in the supernatural or other authority. However, I argue, once we move away from the supernatural read religious or deistic, we step into areas that impinge on those subject to rational analysis and the social sciences which then slides them away from faith per se as defined and into areas potientially proveable or consistently demonstrable, even if by varied outcome. The exception here are things believed true which are not, subject to present technical limitations which may change, presently knowable. However, that category is waining as the sciences progress and we more cleaverly use what we know or can demonstrate. Accordingly, LAK's areas of faith wain as well, pushing us toward the usual definition of faith and it proper application. LAK has, however, properly rejected Zion's position even thogh his areas of faith, according to definition, are under attach by the progress of the sciences and rational understanding. Indeed, Gods used to be developed to handle problems we did not understand, e.g., rain gods, fertility gods, etc. The press is increasingly toward rejection of the ethers of religion and unprovable, unseen authority. The progress of our specie is yielding that result. Increasingly, there is ever less for a religious mouse to fasten his tooth on.


time to switch directions : hillary is as cuddly as a cobra...obama is almost inspirational but like jimmy carter is too good of an individual for corrupt Washington...romney doesn't believe in dinosaurs or even global warming...giuliani can't manage his marriage much less a nation...and mccain has made enemies with lobbyists and big oil who really run the country...the only way to make real money and take power is to lie,cheat,steal or push people around and all the candidates do it...we live in a modern Rome...and modern barbarians are ready to sack Rome...choose wisely the next president...our lives may very well depend on it !

Kim Corson

From my travels (which I do full time), I discern a growing world tendency, evident in many countries including our own, toward insipient ungovernability. Chaos hovers at the edge. Many are discontent. Income mal distributions weigh in. The press becomes ever more selective about what it covers and pressures on it grow. Consumption by the wealthy becomes more conspicuous. Social programs slide or become ever more buried in red tape and politics. The environment groans. These are not a good times to hold your breath for world peace. Bush has badly set up back I fear and we will pay for it, one way or the other.

The comments to this entry are closed.