In retrospect it is always easy to see the moral corruption and decay that occupied the worlds of the mighty before the fall justly comes, how hard it is at times however to realize that these corruptions were present even in the garden.

America today has neither the corruption, nor the cruelty that existed at its birth, nor what one might call its height. Let us not forget that during the vibrant rise to power of the 50's a large portion of this country lived under apartheid rule, and people though horrified were accustomed to people being disappeared or murdered in public spectacle.

Rome was not a once great paradise brought low by corruption; it was a corrupt society that eventually collapsed under its own weight. When that collapse occurs is the question on everyone’s lips.

America has existed for scant over two centuries, with only its most recent history that of "empire". Even if we were to assume equal corruption and incompetence in our current system as existed in Rome, we still have a few hundred more years of empire before we even come close to its own corrupt rule.

Even if America were to become the old sick man of the west as the Ottomans were of Europe, we are likely to continue on as a sick man for quite some time, if for no other reason than our neighbor’s fear of our eventual collapse.

In the end, Jackson, Grant, Tweed, and Agnew all have been in our nation since the beginning. It is doubtful their presence is more notable now than then, though perhaps we are more watchful in our days now. America will likely dissemble in time, most nations do, but the time line is far from obviously closer today than it was under FDR or Abraham Lincoln.

In truth, to compare empires perhaps much can be said of the Mayans as some have theorized that a national fear of its collapse accelerated its collapse precipitously. If we believe strongly enough that we are an empire in decline perhaps we can make it so.

Exactly from what expertise does Dr. Stiglitz state that President Bush's policies are accelerating Climate Change?

Perhaps in the circular argument that advancing trade advances energy use, which in turn advances Climate Change, but are President Bush's policies on trade so much more detrimental than any other industrialized nation's?

The problem with climate science is that too many dilatants (like Dr. Stiglitz) are using their expertise in other fields to hook their theories to the rising star of climate change. This leads to misunderstandings and miscalculations by the public with regard to the best policy towards climate change.

In truth, the industrialization of China, India, and Africa are what are accelerating climate change, and that industrialization is going forward regardless of our trade policies. It is only by linking global trade that a world governing body (the WTO) can seek to exercise any influence on independent sovereign nations.

The WTO is the only world law enforcement agency to which the US belongs, and the only one which can hold any sway over China.

Dr. Stiglitz may wish to condemn the poor of the world to subsistence farming and the high infant mortality rates that follow, but throughout history industrialization has uniformly lead to a better educated, healthier, and more affluent society. The rich do get richer (as the robber barons of old and new show) but their wealth is a fraction of the wealth of the nation as a whole. It is the national wealth, through taxation and redistribution that has aided the poor of the world, but without industrialization that national wealth would not grow, wealth would not redistribute down, and most importantly there would be no impetus from governing bodies to change things. Industrialization requires technical expertise, which requires education, which leads to social reform, without the need for an educated workforce; a government has no reason to educate its populace.

The way globalization may be operating now may not be a perfect machine, but it is the machine that drives the world forward, and will bring about a wealthier world population.

Economic models that deny this ignore historical precedent and place short term losses over long term gains.

Somehow, even though I know people will just plotz for it...I can't help but imagine David Chase totally blowing all predictions out of the water with a classic TV ending. soemthing that just stops, and winks at the camera, and says, "you do realize all this fuss and bother is over a TV show right?"

Maybe David Chase takes himself too seriously for this, or the Sopranos means too much to him to end on a joke, but I got to think no matter what he does millions of internet discussion boards will be filled with "how he blew it last night" come monday morning. So why not just turn it right back on the audience and have him wake up next to Suzane Plaschett (or however her name is spelled).

So was it all a dream? Does it end in Ron Howard's Office with AJ pitching a series? Maybe it's a novel Tony, I mean Kevin Finerty is writing now that he's gotten out of the Solar Cell Game. Maybe Tony never came out of his Coma, and this has all been his punishment in Hell, to awaken, and lose it all, over and over again.

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men....not me.

I just hope Carey winds up with Mr. Big.