It's disappointing that in his article, Mr. Scherer chose to focus primarily on the former President, rather than what the actual candidate (remember Hillary?) had to say, which was, to

me and a couple of thousand others in Iowa City for their joint appearance, inspiring. To be sure, Bill Clinton is hard to ignore. He's a master at working a crowd, and he can wing

it without notes better than Bush can read prepared text after rehearsing. But Hillary is impressive in her own right. Her

call for universal health care drew wild applause, as did her

plans for early childhood education. Judging by the chit-chat

that I heard in the crowd, many voters (myself included) have

yet to commit to a candidate. But if Hillary is given a fair shake by a media still fixated on her husband, she has as good a shot as any of the others, who are all a good antidote to

the out-of-control Conservatism that's derailed our country.

I'm going to listen carefully to what she has to say the rest of the way. I hope Mr. Scherer does the same.

Mr. Davies says that, to him, the universe is "deeply imbued

with meaning and purpose," and the tone of his comments suggests to me that he believes that the universe itself has a conscience. Davies seems to be saying that meaning and purpose were created whole out of the big-bang (or whatever), ready to be utilyzed as guides for living, as well as appreciated for their inherent splendor. Mr. Davies failed to say precisely what he thought was the meaning and purpose of the universe, but I'm sure he could suggest certain passages from the holy

books of any number of religions to clear things up a bit, regardless of his comments about steering clear of a "cosmic magician." I also believe that the universe if full of meaning and purpose, but only because I finally realized that I alone am responsible for interpreting and defining those wholly human aspects of existence. Finally, I wonder if Mr. Davies has the stats to prove his claim that "most physicists regard the laws of physics as god-given?" Bet he doesn't.

Despite attempts by Gen. Petraeus to demonstrate that the worm

is finally turning in Iraq, thus justifying America's prolonged

involvement, there remains a huge elephant in the White House

that the President still cannot see and which renders any positive critique of the surge meaningless: Bush has failed utterly to convince the American people that a victory in Iraq--however victory is defined--will make America safer and more

secure. No matter how many times he says it, it simply isn't true, and he offers no logical or sophisticated reasons why it would be true. For obvious reasons, Bush has virtually no credibility left with anyone beyond his ever-dwindling inner

circle of radical conservatives, fundamentalist Christians and

yes-men military officers. Bush has earned this mistrust from

the American people.

If it walks like a duck...

The old adage that America is a nation of laws and not men has always been an earnest, if somewhat idealized, summation of our country's commitment to equality. But Bush and his crew--with willing Democratic co-conspirators--have jettisoned any pretense of truth to that claim, rendering it quaint and obsolete. Their legal maneuvering to avoid prosecution for criminal acts is outrageous and sickening. That it is being

done ostensibly for the good of America, makes it all the more

so. This is all unbelievably ugly: a paranoid government threatening to withhold contracts from corporations that won't comply with illegal requests for private information; profit-monging corporations threatening to withhold information unless they are made immune from prosecution for what they know is illegal activity. Where is the respect for the law by

the law-and-order Republican Party? Where is the resistance to these attacks on democracy by the Democratic Party? Is anyone still sincerely working for the PEOPLE of the United States?

"big-dicked, alpha-male Bush administration?" Those guys act

like they've been compensating for small ones their entire careers.

There used to be these things called hmm... oh yea, phone booths that had telephones and you could make a call WITHOUT ANYONE HEARING YOU! Believe or not, in the distant past--from whence I came--it was actually desireable to be able to make a call WITHOUT ANYONE KNOWING what you were talking about. But times have changed, and now everyone with a cell phone absolutely insists that I know EVERYTHING that they are talking about. I long for my distant, ignorant past.

Haught thinks that belief in a providential presence is logical. So what's new with the faithful? After four pages of intellectualizing, all of his high-brow mumbo-jumbo still

boils down simply to: we can't explain it, so it must be god. And by the way, he loves you.

King is right: you wouldn't have to ask McCain about that time

that he cheated on his sixth grade math test, though that inquiry would have been more in character with that particular interview than a question about, say, how the senator can justify his willingness to spend another hundred years in Iraq, when the first seven have been such a unmitigated disaster. Maybe that part of the interview was edited out.