this article reminded me of the thesis in The Story of B, a fictional account of the change from hunter-gatherer, sustainable cultures to the more aggressive, though seemingly pastoral agrarian cultures. Perhaps the Neanderthals were happy to move around, eat seeds and nuts and ocassionally enjoy the spoils of hunting, while the homo sapien was busy slashing and burning and killing off the wild things to make more room for his rows of wheat, corn, potatoes, what have you. It's strange in these days and times to imagine that agrarian cultures were the beginnings of the end--because they don't necessarily have to be. We know that now. However, the philosophical underpinnings, that we can control the earth and its fruits, are hard to uproot within the realities of our present culture. The level of consciousness needed to maintain a sustainable relationship to the Earth and her resources is outside the domain of the "free trade" paradigm because it's not even considered in the cost analysis. Until we count the actual costs (human resources, material resources) within a framework of "fair" and equitable rights (both for the earth and for humans) we'll never be able to make the balance sheet truly balanced.

Perhaps in the case of the Neanderthals and the world in general Free Trade simply means the moral complicity to kill the competition?

In the face of his 'moral colapse', his congregation turns even more vehemently to heterosexual marriage and all its trappings. I'm flabergasted and yet I'm not. The denial is so entrenched! Can we not for one moment take a breath? And say to this man repent not of your 'sin' but of your lies--to yourself and your family and your god who made you. You're gay. Relax already.

I come from a VERY conservative christian family and the thought that I or one of their other precious children or grandchildren could be gay would be a hard pill for them to swallow. So I understand the aversion even in the midst of christian piety and charity, but this continual denial of what is. There has always been and I imagine there will always be a certain percentage of the population who are homosexual. The only thing that will change--I hope--is that they will be able to express their sexuality in loving open relationships, rather than in repressed, homophobic rhetoric.

How can people be so engrossed in their own story about something that they are completely blind to the obvious? IT exists. It's not harmful to anyone. It's part of god--not apart from god.

Rather than accepting what is and uplifting the truth within it, they hide. Anything that is hidden festers....it's the way of things.

This is exactly the kind of articlde I love to read...eat it up like candy! Yum Yum. But it's also exactly the kind of article that makes people like my parents think that my leftist politics are "psycho". The rhetoric is so extreme that even though the points are true, they get lost in the rhetoric and conservatives like my parents who don't like the war, don't like the tax cuts, and generally don't think the country is going in a good direction STILL voted for Bush in 2004! I can't believe it either. They're reasonable, educated people. THey're good people.

Yet, with rhetoric like this, we'll never win them over. I don't actually know what, if anything, ever will. As to the question: were we ever that country? No. However, the power fo the word and the power of our projection is the greatest tool we have. It has created the beginnings of liberty and the consciousness of freedom. We have a long way to go, and yes, I hope this election is the beginning. But it's not the miracle cure.

Will we ever be that country? I hope so.

Granted--they've given every indication, but unlike the void of also-rans that have already dropped out, neither of them have risked their seat in the Senate to announce that they are running for '08.

And though it's sad that the arguments will be dwindled down to racism and sexism at least they'll be talked about and not just another year of the same--assuming they run that is.

And why are you giving him space to waste his breath. . . who's to say the way general elections are run make sense. . . .seems to me that this proportional representation is fair--and let's people know that in every state there are those who choose Clinton and those who choose Obama. It also gives those states that are generally discounted for not being 'powerhouse' states a chance to actually make a difference in this drawn-out race for the candidacy. How can it be bad for democracy? or the Democrats for that matter? Other than the natural down-turn and sometimes nastiness that comes out as elections continue on. . . .but that isn't the fault of the system, but a choice of the candidates.

Salon--do us all a favor and save your money next time. Don't give this windbag another chance to degrade your editorial standards.

Why is Obama the only one scathingly criticized and cited in the title when McCain and the republicans are just as guilty?

just curious why the democratic party is always the only ones who have to live up to moral principles.

Well I think we know who cheated on Hillary and it's not Barack Obama. I agree with you completely Catherine. She opened the field, which is great; but it doesn't give her an automatic in as vice president. We all know how much baggage she would bring with her--and it's too bad for her. If it weren't for her husband she might have been put on the ticket, given how loyal her spuporters are.

It is irrational and brings out all the standard euphemisms about women and power and politics. I for one would love to have Governer Sebalius as the VP candidate....

Sat Purkh

New Mexico