I don't read this column very often. This offering doesn't inspire me to read it any more often. Too shallow.

Predicting the future, as anyone who has done so and failed will attest, is tricky business. Predicting the future of humanity is supremely tricky, as the author of this column will find out.

It is easy to predict that technology will save our way of doing things, and our species, but this belief is more conventional wisdom than sound analysis or reasoning. As such, it is in the realm of religion. The religion of materialism.

Even a mild sense of intuition would give pause to advocates of endless expansion. Not this author:"Synthetic biology and nanotechnology, alone, will offer humanity almost unlimited power to rebuild nature and the physical world. "

Almost unlimited power. Almost unlimited power. You cannot have almost unlimited power!!! (Think Jim Morrison in The soft parade. See it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNplOezgI9M)

What few economists or anyone else are willing to realize is that we have a worldwide infinite growth economic system operating on a finite planet. By its very nature this system must grow in order to survive. This characteristic is known as the growth imperative. Withoug a promise of increase in output, and thus profits and income, the economy dries up, and goes into decline.

All of world human history has been a growth trajectory, with various indigenous tribes being isolated exceptions. Once they are "integrated" into the mainstream culture, they join the grand trudge to infinite growth.

Or oblivion. No amount of the king's economists, pundits, or other assorted know-it-alls is going to be able to put this Humpty Dumpty together again, I predict. We have to chage our way of being on this planet if we wish to survive as a species. This is a tall order, but the option - increasing everything - output, population, pollution, species extinction, global warming - is no option at all. That is, unless you pray at the church of materialism.

Pretty good. I would add an eleventh commandment: Put political criminals in jail for long sentences. If murder, torture and kidnapping are involved, then life without parole. If there are no personal consequences, then we all reap, some sooner than others.

I also don't think spine is the problem with the news media. Corruption is the problem. It is a corrupt industry. Example: National Public Radio can be assumed to be the gold standard for "American" journalism. If any show host or reporter on NPR writes a book they can get a lengthy interview on "Morning edition" or "All things considered." Recent interviewees have been Scott Simon and Cokie Roberts.

In the past, commentator Frank DeFord was interviewed about his book about a "crippled woman." If these people were not employees of NPR, they would not likely be interviewed about their books.

Ergo, NPR is a corrupt institution. If the gold standard of "American" journalism is corrupt, then the rest of the industry descends from there. Corporate owned, the "private" news outlets have a culture of corruption. In this context, having William Kristol as a columnist fits perfectly. At the New York Times, they cannot conceive of his presence as being a bit tawdry.

Wow! Three pages of argument. It was more than I had patience for. These are entertaining times. Supposed intellectuals are going to great lengths to rationalize their support for Hillary Clinton.

Though clumsy, Barack Obama is no elitist. He meant what he said, which is why he saw no reason to apologize. He spoke to the wrong audience. He should have been speaking directly to the rural and small town people of Pennsylvania.

Where Obama can be faulted is if his statement is derived from something he made up - a theory - versus what he actaully learned from talking to actual guns, God, and gays voters. I know a number of this type of person. Many are just ignorant slobs - and I mean this from personal experience. Sad to say, there is a strong element of barely functional human beings in this country, and when they delve into the realm of politics, they are dark-siders. Often they are blowhards, and they recite verbatim what they hear on hate media.

What I find most common about this type is that what they are really concerned about is power - for themselves. By blowing hard about politics, they attempt to dominate the atmosphere around them.

The more intelligent and decent of the "white" working class men I know are the ones Obama is trying to reach. For example, er, hypothetically, guys who run a car repair business. Any business is fragile, and they deal with a lot of practicalities, one of which is race. If the business is on the margins of where different groups live, then there is a tension between attracting paying customers from all backgrounds versus deterring criminal and other non-paying clientele. Unfortunately, minority neighborhoods have a higher rate of poverty and crime, so a businessperson in the area would tend to develop various rules of thumb, and attitudes that are prejudicial.

One thing I can say for sure, sadly for Mr. Lind, is that this type would not be very likely to vote for Hillary Clinton. It's an uphill battle for Obama too, but at least he actually cares about these people. Hillary Clinton, based on all evidence I have seen, cares only about Hillary Clinton. I have no qualms about stating that if she is the nominee, I will happily vote for Ralph Nader. For those that say it only gives the presidency to McCain, my reply is that maybe that is what this country deserves. A bitter, bitter lesson is headed our way, no matter who becomes president. With McCain, it is likely to be learned more quickly.