Thank you, Garrison; this was just the tonic for my weary soul. I'm depressed about the apparent demise of the Democratic party and my only recent realization that black/white partisan groupthink is not exclusively Republican after all. But you are a breath of fresh air, and I'm so glad you're not an old fart who picks on the young. I hope to age as graciously as you.

You seem to know a lot about this stuff, and I wanted to ask you a couple questions about the evolutionary role of tribalism.

1. I like this discussion. It reminds me of the "old days" of salon. Even though lots of you are contemptuous of Hedges and complain about this article even being here, I think it brings out the best in a lot of salonistas, who show their good knowledge and reason when refuting him. I also like agreeing mentally with these letter writers, many of whom I've been disagreeing with to the point of tedium and childishness in the last several weeks on matters of politics.

2. Speaking of which. I've seriously come to revisit a certainty I've had until now, which is that there is a difference between the progressive and conservative brain. I honestly thought, based on nothing more than personal experience, that right-leaning people think differently, more reductively and partisanly, less open-mindedly, more black-and-whitely (if you will), than liberals. (I assumed that this is something that would eventually be borne out in genetic or neurologic science). The weird world of salon in the past two months has completely upended that assumption for me, which is fine. (It's always good to learn new things, to adjust to the facts on the ground, to change, right?) The level of partisanship; of tribalism; of digging in, building forts, and slinging dung into the opposing camps of Clinton v Obama has convinced me that even we on the left are capable of blind allegience. (btw, I'm not merely talking about the fact of our disagreeing. I'm referring rather to intelligent, professional people looking at the same facts (or ads, or intemperate remarks, or speeches) and quite literally seeing and hearing different things, things which affirm each side's views).

I bring all this up b/c I can no longer assume that something I'm so certain of is really all that certain anymore. So, for those who bemoan all the "middle-of-the-roaders," whether politically or religiously, I have to say I've become skeptical of certainty itself. I think it's OK for people to not really know what they believe, even to leave it unexamined for a while if it makes their lives miserable to do so. Harris and Hitchens clearly take to task not so much the believers but the mousy unbelievers who refuse to trumpet their unbelief. Well, people have different personalities and priorities, and while I admire the loud assertive viewpoints of Harris and the like, if only to add to the myriad collective, I don't have the same contempt for people who choose to remain quiet. For many, it is perhaps b/c they just aren't certain of anything. I sometimes think the more frustratingly gray everything feels, the closer we are to the truth.

3. I agree with those who say that Hedges is conflating all atheists with just the few he mentions. I am happy, frankly, to be informed of the neocon status of Harris; I didn't know that, although I remember thinking when I read his book that he was disproportionately harsh toward Muslims in particular, which should have been a red flag. And his contempt for pacifists was disconcerting.

4. Nevertheless I find Hedges to be thoughtful and some of his characterizations dead-on. Hitchens as amoral in the way of Ann Coulters struck me as pitch-perfect. I enjoy Hitchens occasionally but realize retrospectively that I have never found him morally compelling.

Does anybody know if Bill Kristol is a believer? I mean, I know he's Jewish, but that doesn't necessarily translate into belief in God, does it? Does he go to temple? Does he write much about God? It really is an interesting phenomenon that the neocon movement seems made up of intellectual non-believers and Christian fundamentalists. As much as one may argue with Hedges' conflating all atheists into one camp, this irony about the neocon bedfellows is worth the price.

There's an article in the latest Discover magazine that might interest you, about whether or not war is inevitable. Some anthropologists talk about chimp and b(not baboon, what's the other "b"-ape that is more passive?) behavior and suggest that when scarcity of resources is not a factor, war and aggression seem "evitable." Kind of interesting. It's written by John Horgan.

And thank you for that little jewel of a mental picture: Chimp Cheney.

But aren't those examples of non-OR thought really OR? From what I understand, OR says "all else being equal" take the simplest explanation. So don't your examples actually say the same thing? Just wondering.

this is the story of my life: Believe in something stubbornly until the untruth of it hits me in the face personally, then feel washed in enlightenment and embarrassed about my previous narrowness, only to repeat on another topic entirely. I'm a very linear thinker who tries like hell not to be. A work in progress I guess, but at least I'm trying.

On the drug thing, not sure of what you speak of specifically, but I have some DARE stories I can share with you another time. The sheeplike mentality of suburban school districts is mind boggling. I'll check out your letters.