Sex For President 2000: The First Round Of The Second Sixties. Thanks, Boomers.

George Walker Bush vs. Albert Gore, Jr.

This is an installment in the series Sex For President, which considers the 2012 U.S. presidential race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in the historical context of previous U.S. presidential elections. To read more about the premise of Sex For President, read the first installment:

George Walker Bush vs. Albert Gore, Jr.

Daytime soaps almost went (and eventually many did go, permanently) bankrupt for about a month in late 2000 because of this election, which was so unbelievable it couldn’t have been written. Or could it? Depends on who you ask, I guess. But as I mentioned previously in this series, it just doesn’t matter. After the Y2K bust, Americans were ready for anything. Or so we thought.

Both of these guys were good looking fellows. Before his chin started threatening to double, Al Gore, Jr. was naturally photogenic. It was hard to take a bad picture of him. No matter what his point when he spoke, he always gave the impression of being the voice of reason in the room. But he also was soft, a mama’s boy, an occasionally whiny policy wonk who could put you to sleep with minute articulations of the case he was trying to make. As reasonable as he was in his manner, he could also be a bore.

Bush’s sharper facial features, coarser hair, leaner physique, and glint of mischief in his eyes suggested a personality less inclined to make decisions by internal philosophical inquiry than by gut feelings or common sense. Bush’s disposition seemed more casual than cordial, and more passionate beneath the surface than Gore, but more decisive in a tough moment. Earlier in life, Bush might punch a hole in the wall in a drunken rage, but he would also defend your honor, maybe even before he found out if you had any.

So Bush had an inner Yosemite Sam. Gore was a handsome, Anglo-liberal version of Ben Stein‘s public persona, minus the sarcasm. If Bush had convictions we weren’t sure he understood, then Gore had convictions we weren’t sure we cared about. Of course, I’m making gross generalizations here. Gore could be funny. Bush could be articulate. But as today’s academically dominant relativist pseudo-intellectualism screams from the parapets of our ivory towers, it is not the facts that are important here. It is rather the truth.

Of all the elections we’ve covered so far in this series, 2000 is the one that I must admit was a wash. So we let the lawyers decide. And of course, when you let the lawyers decide, even the winners wonder afterward if it was worth it.



George W. Bush

A Heart Of Worship: Keeping The Main Thing The Main Thing

Worship LeaderVictoria Osteen’s little faux pax recently made waves in the Christian worship community. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she was inarticulately saying something basically sound. Actually, while I’m sure I agree in part with many, including one particular blogger named Hardin Crowder, on Victoria Osteen’s statement, I actually have some disagreement with him on what constitutes good worship, mainly because I think his definition of successful corporate worship needs some clarification.

There’s only one reason for humans to exist, and that is to worship God, even by our mere existence testifying to His majesty. In turn, there’s only one reason for a worship leader to exist, and that is to encourage others to worship by setting an atmosphere of worship, providing a vehicle for worship, and in doing so, removing all obstacles to worship to the best of his or her ability. That’s it, folks. Anything outside of that is a distraction. Anything outside of that is blasphemy. Anything outside of that is evil. Clear enough?

Let’s take a passage from Mr. Crowder’s blog post on Victoria Osteen:

Hardin Crowder – What Worship Really Means

“If people are singing sincere praises to God then worship was good. It shouldn’t matter whether we enjoyed the songs, the singing, the worship leader, the praise band, or the style of music. Honestly, worship shouldn’t be defined as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ based on whether or not you got something out of it. Worship isn’t about you.”

“People?” What people? The drummer? The pastor and his wife? The worship leader? Her friends and family?

Is Mr. Crowder correct? Not necessarily. After all, if none of the subjective, material ingredients comprising a worship service matter at all, why have any of them? Why make any choices to serve as those ingredients, if none of them should have any affect on the quality or accessibility of congregational worship?

I’ll tell you why. It’s not about those things, per se, but those things chosen poorly or executed poorly can poison a good worship opportunity. A mature worship leader succeeds when his heart for worship manages the available resources well, setting aflame the congregation’s heart for worship. Period.

It’s a creative endeavor. It requires multiple parties lifting God up in concert (that is, together). Of course it matters if “you” got something out of it. It also matters if I do, the worship leader does, and the lady behind me does. It matters just as much as it matters that when a married couple has sex, they both “get” something out of it, but by focusing on their spouse’s needs, not their own. We should be pleased in worship, but we should get that pleasure from focusing on God’s love for us, and His ability to deliver it, instead of focusing on our personal needs in a particular setting.

And yea, I guess we’re all supposed to be able to worship God while being smothered with a pillow over a cauldron of boiling oil with our hair on fire in the middle of a tornado, but shouldn’t we hope to have better conditions in a worship service?

To be sure, we certainly have them, at least here in the United States, for the moment. And individually, we should strive for worship in all circumstances. But isn’t that easier to do when you can hear the voice and words of the worship leader clearly? Isn’t worship easier when the backup singers are on pitch? If the drums don’t overwhelm the keyboard? If the words on the screen match what the leader is singing? If the worship band members aren’t vying for position behind the scenes? If the worship leader is paying attention to where the Spirit is moving, and where it is not? If 95% of the congregation is standing there politely, waiting for the worship leader to get a clue and move on five minutes ago, who is responsible for that?

I’ll tell you who’s responsible: either the worship leader, or, in the long term, the one who put the worship leader in that position. There is no way to get around it: without fail, any organization is always a direct reflection of the management. The worship leader should be quick to recognize what invites worship and what discourages it, and have the fortitude to make decisions concerning them, because as worshippers, we all individually and corporately should offer God our best, whatever that is.

Those examples given above are distractions to worship, just as musicians overplaying their instrument or doing endless, indiscriminate vocal coloraturas and other kinds of vamping are. Such conditions provide unnecessary temptation for even the most sincere worshippers to pay attention to the worship leaders, and not the God being worshiped.

Even so, while worship leaders and teams should strive for technical and presentational excellence, those are secondary concerns, really. The primary determinant for successful worship is a humble heart. Not everyone is equally skilled, or equally gifted for leading worship. And some who should sing their hearts out and dance wildly in the congregation are nonetheless unsuited for leading worship, because even though their heart is right on, they haven’t the proper skills or gifts for others to follow.

But all things being equal, and assuming a modicum of talent and skill is available, the heart is what matters. A heart for worship, indeed, overcomes a multitude of other problems. But a heart for worship isn’t just an enthusiastic performance. A heart for worship submits our desire to perform to our sensitivity to the move of the Spirit, that sense of where the worship is going, and going there with it, regardless of what the original plan was. A heart for worship causes its bearer to disappear in worship, but not alone, not unconscious of the congregation being lead.

A heart of worship is a sharing heart, one which makes room for others to give their best offering of praise to God. It never operates out of fear or ego. It is not afraid pass the baton, exchange duties, switch roles, step back, or even step out altogether to let others assume center stage, understanding that when worship is the focus, the spotlight is always on Jesus, so there is nothing to lose by sharing. A heart of worship wants to see others develop and share the fullness of their gifts and calling, even at the expense of attention to itself.

When a heart of worship leads, it understands that everyone in front of the congregation during worship is a worship leader, and so everyone leading worship should be a growing Christian, and active pursuit of that relationship should be evident in their general demeanor and lifestyle. Mind you, not perfection— pursuit. A heart of worship will choose to incorporate a modest gift with a humble heart over a towering talent with a haughty heart every single time. To a heart of worship, mercenaries and glory hounds need not even apply.

A heart of worship recognizes that pride and a sense of entitlement are the greatest threats to worship. It addresses, and where necessary, removes those threats as swiftly as grace will allow. A heart of worship never lets anyone’s ego hold the integrity and joy of the worship team hostage, because the price of ego is too costly to worship to allow it to stand unmet or unchallenged. To others and even themselves, there will be moments when the leader must say, literally or figuratively, “Get behind me, Satan!” Even in the Kingdom, power abhors a vacuum, and if the leader won’t fill it, someone else usually less fit to lead will. But exercising that power is not for the fearful, needy or faint of heart. That is why a worship leader’s first instrument should always be humility, and on it, a worship leader strives to be a virtuoso, which ironically, often means doing less, not more.

This is why instrumentation is so arbitrary to a heart of worship. Because when a heart of worship is combined with God’s calling to lead, worship can be lead a capella, with a pair of spoons if necessary, or with a full orchestra when appropriate and available. When a heart of worship is available, no particular instrument or combination of instruments is indispensable, because the heart is there.

Effective worship leaders understand that in successful worship, the heart is the canvas, the music (for purposes of this discussion) is the medium, the members of the Body are the artists, the leaders are mere facilitators, and the audience is God, and God alone. Because a heart of worship has only one object of worship; worship of any other leads to sickness and death in one degree or another.

But we have been taught a more excellent way. Let us run after it. Let us rest in it. Let us pass that heart down to younger generations, because the day will come for them as well, when a heart for worship is all they have, if they have it at all.

When the body is spent, and the kids don’t call anymore, and everything smells of mothballs, what keeps this married couple together and in love? It’s not the sex, folks. It’s the heart. So let us cultivate it now, a heart of worship for our Bridegroom.

Refreshingly, Obama, The President, Opens Up. And It Could Be Worse.

Real Talk? It’s easy to point and bitch. Disclaimer: Although I’m an active voter, I didn’t vote for Obama. Or, by the way, McCain. Or Romney.

That all said, our current President in this country is Barack Obama, and that won’t change for the next 2.5 years. How many of us, outside of a campaign stop, have really listened to President Obama for more than five minutes? Not a sound bite, not a photo op, not a headline, not a partisan retort, not his press secretary, but President Obama himself, sans teleprompter, just talking about real issues, candidly, off the cuff?

Yea, the interviewer is relatively friendly. Thomas Friedman is here representing the New York Times, but it’s also notable that he’s the Op-Ed columnist, not the managing editor. And yes, Mr. Friedman didn’t ask about Bengazi, or IRS profiling, or immigrant children in makeshift detention centers. But I think this is the first hour in 5 years I’ve ever heard Obama, a now-seasoned President Obama, speak so frankly and at such length his view of our country’s role in world politics.

These are important issues. Who are we, the United States? Who are our friends? Who are our enemies? Why do this, but not that? Obama here articulates well his view from the command chair, and sheds light on who he is and what the reality, the opportunities and constraints, of the United States’ impact on geopolitics are.

Lastly, I have to say I am impressed with Obama’s acknowledgement of our country’s uniquely influential position in the world, the case for maintaining that position, and the increasing security of that position as far our as we can see.

While I still have significant disagreements with Obama on a number of issues — education, healthcare, immigration, most social issues, global warming — and I believe that at the end of the day, Obama serves more globalist interests than interests of the United States, I am nonetheless impressed with his practical maturation as the President. Lacing up the boots has given Obama much more respect for our country and the role of President in representing it.

We consume so much crap on the internet, and we spend so much time doing it. If we care to judge Obama so patently as a fool or a king, shouldn’t we give an ear to our President when he opens up so readily? I think we owe ourselves that opportunity.

Now Barney Gets Frank



Well, Barney Frank, recently retired Democratic U.S. House Representative from Massachusetts, now boldly proclaims that Obama lied when selling Obamacare to the American public, telling us that we could keep our current coverage if we liked it (Barney Frank ‘Appalled’ by Obama Administration: “They Just Lied To People”).

First thoughts: Really? Barney and I agree on something? Can anyone out there please confirm for me that the sky has not cracked, and that Jesus has, in fact, not returned?

Second thoughts: Now that he’s got no skin in the game, Barney wants to get religious. Barney Frank’s vote for the Affordable Care Act makes him no less complicit in that lie than Obama’s signing of it into law. He lobbied for it just like Obama did, selling something to the American public he had not digested and didn’t understand, because that’s what he was told to do.

This underscores the reason that lobbyists, who, with their employers’ lawyers, draft most bills of consequence these days, should be outlawed in Washington, D.C. Bills should be debated and voted piecemeal, point by point, and/or executive line item veto power be given to the President.

Would that slow the legislative process down? Sure it would. Would it be a bad thing if the U.S. Congress passed fewer laws that more Americans could better understand? Nope.

The ACA, the version that President Obama signed into law, with riders (click here),  is actually 974 pages long. The table of contents alone runs 35 pages.

But several versions of the law were debated before the law was passed, and one of those versions was 2400 pages long, or about 1.3 million words (Is Obamacare Really That Long?). The average adult reading speed is about 300 words per minute. At that rate, it would take a single congressman 57 hours to read, a married congressperson with children, much longer. Not to cross check, fact check, digest, and generate proposed changes. Just to read it, not to understand it. This recalls a joke I heard years ago:

“What do you get when you cross a lawyer with a godfather? You get an offer you can’t understand.”

But it’s now a little too real to be funny, isn’t it?

Here’s an example of a single page of the version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that Obama signed. I dare you to read the whole page:


18 Sec. 1001\2715A PHSA PPACA (Consolidated)

‘‘(e) PREEMPTION.—The standards developed under subsection
(a) shall preempt any related State standards that require a sum-
mary of benefits and coverage that provides less information to
consumers than that required to be provided under this section, as
determined by the Secretary.
‘‘(f) FAILURE TO PROVIDE.—An entity described in subsection
(d)(3) that willfully fails to provide the information required under
this section shall be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 for
each such failure. Such failure with respect to each enrollee shall
constitute a separate offense for purposes of this subsection.
.—The Secretary shall, by regulation, pro-
vide for the development of standards for the definitions of
terms used in health insurance coverage, including the insur-
ance-related terms described in paragraph (2) and the medical
terms described in paragraph (3).
‘‘(2) INSURANCE-RELATED TERMS.—The insurance-related
terms described in this paragraph are premium, deductible, co-
insurance, co-payment, out-of-pocket limit, preferred provider,
non-preferred provider, out-of-network co-payments, UCR
(usual, customary and reasonable) fees, excluded services,
grievance and appeals, and such other terms as the Secretary
determines are important to define so that consumers may
compare health insurance coverage and understand the terms
of their coverage.
‘‘(3) MEDICAL TERMS.—The medical terms described in this
paragraph are hospitalization, hospital outpatient care, emer-
gency room care, physician services, prescription drug cov-
erage, durable medical equipment, home health care, skilled
nursing care, rehabilitation services, hospice services, emer-
gency medical transportation, and such other terms as the Sec-
retary determines are important to define so that consumers
may compare the medical benefits offered by health insurance
and understand the extent of those medical benefits (or excep-
tions to those benefits).
As added by section 10101(c)
A group health plan and a
health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insur-
ance coverage shall comply with the provisions of section 1311(e)(3)
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, except that a
plan or coverage that is not offered through an Exchange shall only
be required to submit the information required to the Secretary
and the State insurance commissioner, and make such information
available to the public.
Replaced by section 10101(d)
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan (other than a self-in-
sured plan) shall satisfy the requirements of section 105(h)(2) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to prohibition on dis-
crimination in favor of highly compensated individuals).
‘‘(b) RULES AND DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—…


Fun, huh? Now multiply that content by 974, and you’ve got the idea. So, would you pore over 974 of these? Or, would you rather just pass it so you “can see what’s in it?”

This, in a nutshell, is what’s wrong with the federal government. Yes, I know congressional representatives have staff. But the point is, when I could ride my bicycle to the Capitol building from my house in Asheville, NC  (45 hours – see?) before my congressperson could finish reading a single version of the bill (57 hours), that’s just too damned long, purposefully. And I do mean damned, because we’re just beginning to see what has been foisted upon us.

Something’s gotta give, folks. And it will. So do yourself a favor: stay clear of the fan.













Kate Upton

Could you text me that look, sweetheart?
— Picture courtesy of Kate Upton on Twitter

      Roxanne Jones, a woman who has apparently made her mark in sports journalism, recently posted a column on CNN‘s website concerning the motherly advice she gave her son when he left for college. Her advice to him was simple, best summed up as, “Beware the cray-crays. Here are a few hundred condoms to get you by. Just get a text confirmation from the girl before you have sex.” This is the same woman who, speaking about crass uses for texting back in July, quotes relationship author Michael Masters saying, Texting is not the place for anything serious.”

      Now, obviously I have a different view of sexuality than Ms. Jones, but every woman I knew in college considered penetration of her vagina a pretty serious matter. I don’t know; maybe vaginas are easier to come by these days. Not that I inquired often. But even if texting had existed then, I can’t imagine having asked any of them to text me their consent first. I suppose a Post-It note would have been the equivalent.

      Really, is this the best that post-post-modern feminism has to offer? What about, “Son, keep in mind that everything that is permissible isn’t profitable, and all that glitters is not gold. Just because she offers a resounding ‘YES!’ doesn’t mean having sex right then is best for her, or you, okay?” Why not tell him that maturity is the ability to delay pleasure, and that maturity has its own rewards, now and later? Why not tell him that there is more to gain from that moment of decision than ejaculation, and more to lose than freedom from fatherhood and STDs?

      Hell, if we want to get as clinical as texting, why not just have the girl wear a screen printed undershirt (or bra), and when a she wants a guy, she just takes off her top right there, and the underlying garment says “YES!” That way, she doesn’t have to break the mood, he can take a cell shot of her pointing to it, and then they can get busy. ‘Cause that’s what it’s all about, right?

      Beneath Ms. Jones’ column, the comments begin, and the fools come out in droves. When someone suggests that maybe concerned men just avoid drunk women, another retorts,

        “To answer your question of why not avoid drunk women? That’s fairly simple, (sic) drunk people don’t always make the best choices. You cannot place the responsibility on men to avoid intoxicated women, when those men are intoxicated themselves, and you cannot absolve women of the responsibility of their actions while intoxicated.”

      From here on to the end of this piece, I speak to men only. Of course, everyone should take responsibility for their actions, whatever sex they are. But one can absolutely, and should, hold men responsible for whatever they do when they’re drunk, whether it’s having sex with a woman or plowing a car onto a crowded sidewalk. The alcohol didn’t drink the man; the man drank the alcohol. He’s accountable for whatever choices he makes subsequently, period.

      When did we cross the line of insanity in the United States, where men are encouraged to prance around like cocks at a hen-house, strutting and clucking with all their might to display their masculinity, while working feverishly to deny responsibility for the most biologically masculine act they can commit?

      We live in a culture where the most popular communal medium is largely financed by pornography, a culture where popular music on the play-lists of millions of teens is exemplified by the most popular song of the last three months with statements like, “you(re) the hottest bitch in this place” and “I’ll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two.” And then we expect a generation fed on this to act responsibly. Garbage in, garbage out, folks.

      The problem is, when young men choose to live irresponsibly, we send them off to adulthood with hundreds of condoms and some harebrained advice designed, not to guide them toward responsible, healthy boundaries, but instead to protect them from the legal liabilities of their unbridled impulses. What is real manhood, anyway, if not mastering our impulses?

      So when both sexes make stupid decisions, why should we hold the male more responsible? It’s fairly simple: women are more vulnerable, and always have been. Women are not as physically strong as men. Women are not as physically aggressive as men. Women, historically, haven’t been as privileged, as respected, or as honored as men. Consequently, rare has been the place or time in the last 6,000 years of recorded human history when women at large have been considered more than property to manage and trade.

      And most importantly, when humans have sex, it is the woman who is invaded. It is the man who breaks down the wall to enter, and leaves his troops behind to occupy the territory. It is the woman who is more likely to be injured, in the process or in the aftermath. It is the woman who puts her health at risk to carry a child, or suffers the medical risk, shame, and haunting guilt of an abortion.

      If she does carry the child alone, she is often forced to reckon whether to either raise or feed her child, because she can’t do it all alone. At the very least, it takes a village to replace a parent, assuming that is even possible, and not all villages are willing, able, or healthy themselves. So not only does she suffer, but so does the child. And eventually, by the way, so the the village.

      It is the woman who has a much greater chance of contracting an incurable or even deadly disease from the man, instead of imparting one to him. It is the woman who carries the label “whore” for the same choices that are celebrated as badges of honor among men, although phenomena like Chelsea Handler’s career and the slut pride movement show that licentiousness is shedding its skin as a vice among women. Still, “she’s a real slut” doesn’t have the same shine as “he’s a real stud,” does it?

      It is women around the world who are right now having their genitals mutilated and labia sewn together, their noses cut off, their faces burned with acid, and their throats slit, all because they have the right faith while living in the wrong place, or dare in some way to act like men have been acting en masse for thousands of years, or even because it is assumed that at some point, they might. It is women who were not heard for millenia. It is women who deserve the benefit of the doubt when senses, the common one included, are compromised.

     That said, there are women who, by character or conditioning, have learned to use what they have, their intelligence and/or their sexuality, to bring many a foolish man to despair or death. So how does a young man tell the difference between a siren, drunk or not, and an honorable young woman?

      Well, first, he stays sober. Second, he doesn’t look for the “hook-up.” He looks for a wife, and until then, he becomes the man who would deserve one. Thirdly, he holds out longer than it takes him to get the image of a woman, sloshed, naked, and in a submissive position, uploaded to the Internet, because he realizes that a woman is not a good time, a hole to fill, or a place to relieve himself. She’s not a chance atomic assemblage. Her worth, whether she recognizes it or not, is intentional and priceless. She is crafted for greatness and eternity. She is not fast food. And maybe she would believe that if she met a man who did.

      You generally find what you’re seeking. Seek love, get love. Seek trouble, get trouble. Of course, trouble is easier to find. So is death.

      This is why King Solomon, the man who had it all and, in the end, found it was all worth nothing, warned his sons, as recorded in Proverbs (especially chapters 5 and 7):

        “Do not let your heart turn aside to (the temptress’) ways,
Do not stray into her paths.
For many are the victims she has cast down,
And numerous are all her slain.
Her house is the way to Sheol,
Descending to the chambers of death.”

     Be deliberate and clearheaded as a man, respecting all women, whether they ask you to or not, and you will largely avoid  the suffering of fools. Men are ultimately responsible for all of their choices, including what they choose to ingest. Courts may judge the drink, but God is not mocked. He will judge the man.

     Therefore, men are also accountable to act responsibly, even when women don’t, because, like it or not, at the end of the day, men are more powerful, and less civilized, than women.

     As it turns out, nature hasn’t subscribed to Cosmopolitan yet. Regarding humankind, the sexual revolution may have temporarily clouded our thinking, but that doesn’t change human physiology or accountability.

Thanks, Mack.

Continue reading

Oh, Arctic, Schmarctic. Why The Fuss, Over, Well, ANYTHING???

Arctic Ice Bergs

Arctic Icebergs (Photo credit: Polar Cruises)

Fourth Attempt - Some Milky Way Detail

Milky Way Detail (Photo credit: Joe Plocki)


There seems to be a growing alarm over the effects of global wa… uh, climate change, especially as witnessed over the last few years in the Arctic. Giving examples is superfluous. But for you climate-change-denying-humanity-haters out there, just go to Google News and search for “Melting Arctic.” I spoke to a report of this a year ago in a post called “The Real Inconvenient Truth.” Can you believe, I originally thought I made that title up? The arrogance. Oh, well. If the Internet proves anything, it’s that there’s truly nothing new under the sun. But I digress.

Given the hysteria over these developments by so many of the world’s most respected scientists, I must confess — call me ignorant if it makes you feel better — I just don’t understand what the alarm is here. Granted, I am but the faint trail of an electron, luminated for a nanosecond on this “mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam,” as modern science’s equivalent of Ryan White once popularly opined. Even worse, I’m not nearly as educated in the world of empirical data as some other trails on this mote. Let’s just say I’m an undegreed trail, if you will. But this I have gleaned.

From what the multi-degreed trails can derive, the universe is constantly changing, and, in the big scheme of things, never mind the Earth, cooling. As far as they can tell, the universe came from pretty much nothing, and will eventually return to that. Life, if there is such a thing, appears and adapts, or dies out, right? And as the passing energy leaves it, other “life” fills the vacuum, right? If the Arctic melts, the sun goes supernova, and the Milky Way goes dark and collapses with all other matter into a point the size of a Higgs boson, or, if it just keeps drifting out into the wild black yonder until it is absorbed, well, that’s how it all began anyway, and no one will be left to mourn us, so what’s the problem? I would humbly posit that ice melting isn’t it.

But I’m game. If anyone worried about climate change wants to tell me why I should care, I’m happy to listen. I might be a mere ignorant subatomic trail, but I’m an open minded subatomic trail, willing to listen to substantially more aware subatomic trails.

Meanwhile, I’m with the wise man, who said, “For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity.”

Or the truth-teller, who said to his endaangered people, “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we may die.”

From an evolutionary perspective, it’s hard to argue with that. In other words, if we invented a magic vacuum cleaner that sucked enough CO2 out of the atmosphere to reduce worldwide levels back to those of 1713, and we all became subsistence farmers again, we’d still be doomed. “We’re made of star-stuff.” So why sweat it? Cheers, and pass the chips, mate!



Continue reading