"Is opposition to the Wall Street bailout (supported by both parties' establishments) left or right? How about the view that Washington is inherently corrupt and beholden to the richest corporate interests and banks which, through lobbyist influence and vast financial contributions, own and control our political system? Is hostility towards Beltway elites liberal or conservative? Is opposition to the Surveillance State and endless expansions of federal police powers a view of liberals (who vehemently opposed such measures during the Bush era but now sometimes support or at least tolerate them) or conservatives (some of whom -- the Ron Paul faction -- objected just as vigorously, and naturally oppose such things regardless of who is in power as transgressions of the proper limits of government)?"

Thank you for these completely cogent questions. I do not think there is any making sense of the current political phenomena outside of such questions. The service you render for me is not demonization, not by a long shot, but the clarity of thought you provide. The questions of Glenn Beck's motives and goals have mild interest, like the question of a celebrity's love life, but do not matter to me nearly so much as understanding clearly what forces are in play.

I describe myself as a leftwinger, but it would be truer to say that as dubious as individual stupidities make me, I am equally dubious of bureaucracies.

Where is the political leader who can follow the implications of the principles you so coherently set forth and fuse them into a new and helpful vision? I would happily vote for such a man or woman and would welcome any "rightwingers" who wanted to vote with me.

There is also the fact that environmentalists are not predicting the end of the world. Just that it will become extremely unfriendly to human (and other if not necessarily all) life. The problem we have is that we can't imagine the world without us, though the evidence would argue the world can. So we focus not on ourselves but on the damage to the environment. But it really is a question of our survival too. Who could we possibly be without all the other species?

The best statement on this I have ever read was written years ago by Richard Wilbur, a poem called "Advice to a Prophet." Plain, simple, clear, powerful.

Perhaps timbuktom was being satirical, but I had no trouble understanding Adam Smith's prose, and wonder how much credence should be given to intellects who are incapable of following what is actually very clear and thoughtful language. It is, true, written in a more formal style than is customary today. It requires, true, a bit of effort and perception from the reader.

If effort and perception are too much to require of a reader, what value can that reader add to the discussion?

Agree with Dawkins whole-heartedly that evolution is real. Have no respect for creationist thinking. I too find it useless to argue with people like Wendy Wright, whose opinions are based on reputed authority, not evidence.

Where I differ with Dawkins is his conclusion that one must necessarily be atheist if one is reasonable. It seems quite reasonable to me to admit all the evidence of science and yet to notice that there seems to be something extra and inexplicable about existence. There seems to me to be a contention between those who feel that only what can be observed by scientists is real--that we are setting forth the "rules" by which reality must operate--and those who assume the "rules" are descriptive--that the model science creates, however well we fine-tune it, cannot possibly be the whole truth. As I have put it, double stars are not doing calculus when they orbit each other. We do the calculus to model what they do. They just DO what they do.

If Dawkins didn't want to be seen as strident, perhaps he could have called his book something other than The God DELUSION. That seems to me rather a deliberate provocation.

Dawkins has created one of the more effective metaphors in scientific thought, the metaphor of the meme. It is, however, a metaphor, not experimentally demonstrated science. Dawkins is a splendid thinker, but not infallible.

There was a story in Discover magazine to the effect that someone had invented a "God" helmet, supposed to electronically stimulate the "part of the brain" responsible for visions of the holy (though it only worked on about forty percent of the subjects). He tried the helmet and it did nothing for him, so his conclusion was that God does not exist.

I would have thought it equally logical to conclude that maybe the helmet doesn't work.

Seriously doubt it is or ever will be possible either to demonstrate the existence of the holy scientifically or to disprove its existence. For me, science is the most trustworthy way to examine the nature of the universe we live in. Whether there is pattern behind what is manifested is beyond my scope. I have opinions, but do not feel the universe must conform to those opinions.

I am quite certain however that this juvenile species, humankind, has not advanced so far that we understand all the whys and wherefores. None of our opinion-mongering really matters. If this awesome universe is not holy, it will, as they say, do until something holy comes along.

Hooray for the British for doing the right thing! Maybe they will move enough evidence into the open to make our twisted secrecy policy pointless.

Thank you for another informative piece.

This is a small matter, but "cover-up" is hyphenated only when it is a noun. As a verb, it is written "cover up."