President Bartlett has been slipping away from the West Wing for the entirely of this, the last season. Rightly, the focus was on the personalities and machinery of replacement. The problem was the replacements were not as interesting as the machinery, so the plot ran character rather than characters moving the plot.

Dramatic writing is about someone doing something; we viewers watch people act and react. This last season seemed to be giving sermons about the personal and institutional corruption inherent in running for office. Had it not been for moments of revelation - when Vinick discovers he's been sold to the far right as anti-choice, when Santos has to "drink the kool-aid" and support ethanol - we would not have been able to discern any moral quandary about individuals and processes.

Problems did not seem to affect the candidates, did not wear on their minds, souls and sprits the way they do in real life, the way they must if government is to have any relevance to governance. As a viewer I was not moved, not moved to root for any candidate or character in the show, not moved to evaluate the real life politics that this fictional version of political life displayed. Yet, I was hooked because I wanted to be able to follow a through line, see cause and effect, hear informed talk about issues, watch people go to work.

I wanted to be left with questions, left believing there would be another episode that I would not be privy to see. I wanted Santos – or Vinick, had he won – to take Carter’s admonition that the president has the most power in the first fifteen minutes after inauguration, and see them choose what key provisions of the new administration’s agenda to sign onto law. Instead I am left with lesser and lesser characters sitting in chairs waiting for something to happen to them.

I find it interesting that Armstrong's falling from religious belief leads back to it. From a distance, her attraction to a permeating deity looks a lot like fear. Her books carry an undertone of intense need and desire for contact that goes unmentioned in any criticism of her work, goes unmentioned in discussions of religious belief and religion in general.

Neither do people talk about the politics of religion except to talk about the violence "inherent" in Islam and the violent history of Christianity. Religion is a wonderful motivator and organizing principle, but because it requires the surrender of ego in devotion to ritual, system and hierarchy, it is exclusionary and can be oppressive.

Eliminating ego is neither possible nor is it desirable. Progress is a result of inquiry, of skepticism, curiosity and of the ego that feeds those traits. What is required of us is compassion, sympathy and a sense of the self in a larger context. That context does not have to be a deity.

While Armstrong's view seems to be expansive, she fails to notice that no matter the belief system the ultimate answer is simply, "I don't know." We can only have a limited understanding of cause and effect. We cannot account for infinite variables; indeed, the idea of infinity is restricted by our construct of time, which is, itself, egotistical.

What we can do is derive our own meaning from events and learn to be kind. We can try to substantiate that gossamer, religious idea of unconditional, universal love into a practical, albeit limited, version that makes our lives more fulfilling and easier to live. We can be human and have that be enough.

The arguments between RFK Jr. and Mr. Manjoo miss the point.

As another poster said, the core issue is making sure there is a right to vote and to have your voted counted correctly. This may require independent oversight of all voting machine companies as well as laws which give recourse to the public should the machinery be tampered with or prove faulty. Of course, it has to be stronger than current, much ignored laws against hiring contractors convicted of defrauding the government.

Problems with voting machines are legendary. Whether the machine is political like Daley's (vote early and vote often!)or mechanical like Diebold's, unless there is a trail to follow, it it impossible to know who affected what. Of greatest danger is allowing a private interest to own the code that determines how votes are assigned. Should that private interest be invested in one candidate over another, a code could be written that tips the scales yet falls within the allowable margin of error.

Here in SF a few years ago boxes of uncounted ballots were found in the Bay. No good explanation ever floated to the surface. Last week there was a classified ad through Kelly Services asking for people to deliver and pick up voting machines using their own trucks. So much for secure voting.