This is certainly a useful article. I must point out that, although they had nothing we would recognize as scientific proof, the sages understood the principle very well. That is why the emphasis is on practice, not appearance. One realizes that one's convictions may be illusion and not fact. This requires a certain detachment from desire, which comes from the same structure as conviction.

Reason is a difficult habit. It requires a great deal of effort to establish as a guiding principle. It does not occur "naturally."

It seems to me that people who follow the more difficult and reasonable path are likely always to be in the minority, no matter what evidence we marshall or how reasonable our arguments are.

Nevertheless, how can one submit to blind conviction, knowing that it is blind? How can we hope to be happy following our desires when those desires are themselves inaccurate understandings of the way things work?

Perhaps self-interest would be a better motivater than either neurobiology or the forbidding commandments of poorly-understood and "exotic" disciplines.

Death--well, that's no big news, is it? I believe most humans have been aware of its inevitability through most of human existence. They may not have had the wherewithal to amass Shields's statistical reflections, but they had the idea.

Since this culture has been fortunate enough to have, until recently, decent medical care, and good information on health, many have been able to put the thought of death out of their minds till age forced it on them.

The thing that bothers me most is not that I am failing and will die, but how oblivious the culture is to the existence of its older citizens. Many can still compete, but cannot get hired. They are too old and know too much, and perhaps remind the younger of their own fates too strongly. Yoga is extremely helpful when you age, but what do you see on the covers of yoga magazines? Young beautiful children performing with forbidding flexibility. The "old" people in tv ads are obviously middle-aged people with temporarily whitened hair. In the U. S., the wisdom of the rest of humanity has been reversed: The young are supposed wise and in the know, and the old are supposed foolish and irrelevant. And so on and on.

Of course there are people who fit these stereotypes. So what? A fool is a fool. Age has nothing to do with it.

Incidentally, for a long time, if you have practiced hard, savvy and acquired skill trump sheer youthful vigor in physical as well as mental ways. You can definitely improve your basketball after fifty. Your math and physics and poetry and grammar, too.

The fun of developing abilities can compensate for the other losses. When that is no longer possible, only love and appreciation can sustain you. If you have not yet learned love and appreciation, begin practicing now.

Re the Bible: How about the fact that the "prophecy" usually appended as "evidence" that Jesus is the Messiah states that the Messiah will come from David's lineage--which Joseph indeed does, but according to the Virgin Birth claim, Joseph isn't the father and we don't know Mary's lineage because they didn't think it was important at the time?

In my hunger for some sort of public discourse that isn't slanted to neoconmen, I was for a time reading the Huffington Post (say, wasn't she a rightwinger a while back?).

Can no longer do so because of the slant. If you are not an Obama supporter, you are persona non grata. As it happens, I favor Clinton (by the way, I lived in Arkansas throughout the Clinton-as-governor years--there was nothing to Whitewater then, and there is nothing to it now).

What you say about examining Obama is entirely correct. One does not expect perfection of politicians, but one may certainly examine them for major failings.

Here's my question: Has anyone noticed the degree of vituperation heaped on Clinton by Obama supporters? I, like many other Clinton supporters, have no major objection to Obama and will certainly vote for him if he is nominated (my doubts about him have to do with his lack of directness, and a certain impression of haughtiness, as if he feels he ought to be excused from the rough-and-tumble). I see similar comments all the time from Clinton supporters.

But when I read the emails sent in by self-proclaimed Obama supporters, I am horrified. Too many seem to feel they are completely justified in calling Clinton a monster, bitch, or whore. Check out the letters in response to today's Huffpost story on the Obama aide who called Hillary a monster for an example of what I mean. Would somebody please tally the vituperative letters from each side--my strong impression is that 4 out of 5 letters from self-proclaimed Obama supporters are abusive toward Clinton. I also have the impression the ratio is far higher than the ratio of abusive letters about Obama from Clinton supporters.

Two things need to be said: Self-righteousness is not righteousness, and vitriol is not only repulsive, it is immoral.

Seriously, if you support Obama, shouldn't you ask yourself what sort of people you are keeping company with? Shouldn't you repudiate this screaming nastiness?

The human cost is unthinkable. Unbearable. So let's take baby steps. The press made a lot of noise to the effect that the Soviet Union came apart because they spent too much on the military, thus wrecking their economy.

Does that sound at all familiar? Is the press under the impression that we are immune to the same forces?

And by the way, a lot of us vigorously opposed both the independent executive action (under the Constitution--remember it?--a war aint a war till Congress declares it) and George Bush.

Damn I hate that modern cutesy babytalk for shit. Poo. For crying out loud.

Why is it people will turn around and look in the toilet bowl but won't look at the crap that comes out of their mouths?