'Why do we support Israel?', when you personally do not. Of whom is this "we" you write?

You seem to suggest it is US citizenry and so I am forced to conclude that you are not yourself one of the "we", since you so clearly do not support Israel.

No need to be coy here, friend. You have an agenda, shout it out: Israel = Bad. We get it. Thanks for stopping by.

I write with total certainty that "Rob" from Wattree's post, the Finns of cmaukonen and the anti-Poles of Dickday all have at least one thing in common: They all hate Jews! Better than nothing, I suppose, no?

Don't worry - once folks like them get the remaining Jews out of Israel under the banner of saving the Palestinians, they'll be much easier to kill. Palestinians... love em... hate em... who cares? Now the Jews... that's a different story... Who wouldn't want to see the holocaust resume? Even secretly. Come on admit it, you know you want it. Wattree's friend Rob simply has more courage than you.

The fundamental problems are the reality of a finite resource-base (i.e. planet earth) and inadequate technology to efficiently leverage those resources in support of a massive human population.

These in turn lead to a simple, undeniable reality: We currently cannot support a meaningful level of existence or lifestyle for all humans, which in turns leads us to the whole ball of wax...

You are only as "rich" as those around you are "poor". The reason that some of us can afford high-end sports cars and McMansions (e.g. unbridled consumerism) is the exact same reason why some of us cannot.

Galileo used to engage in a technique he called "thought experiments". When unable to carry out an actual experiment due to some seemingly insurmountable physical, financial or temporal constraint, he would simply ask himself "What would happen if I *could* do the experiment?" It is useful here for us to conduct a thought experiment of our own...

Say tomorrow we wake up to find every single dollar, every asset, every bit of commonly accepted "wealth" were somehow magically redistributed in a precisely even fashion amongst every human inhabitant on Earth. What would this mean? If everyone on earth had, at the same instant, exactly $100 - no more, no less - how much would a seller charge for a loaf of bread? What about a Mercedes S-class? Or a new refrigerator?

The "End of Affluence" is far too imprecise. What we are seeing is not the end of affluence - but rather the continual transfer of affluence from ever more people to ever fewer. Under the constraints of limited resource utilization, the only way for the rich to get and stay rich is to live with poor who cannot afford what they can.

Hence, we are "...in the midst of a global economic shift...". But it is a shift that is very far from being 'new'. It spans the course of human history.

The only semi-permanent solution is ever-increasing technology. Technology that allows for more efficient resource utilization. With each new (and sadly infrequent) major technological breakthrough, so too comes a limited period of increased utilization efficiency, and relative "affluence" for all. Though even this is a red herring, as ultimately our capability to innovate will continually be outstripped by our carrying capacity.

There are only so many resources to go around, and those who can afford them can do so only because others cannot.

Interesting to note that president-elect Obama's (and Howard Dean's) vaunted "50 state" campaign strategy was actually only 49. The state he did not contest? Mississippi? Kentucky? Alabama?

Nope. You guessed it - Oklahoma. Anyone care to venture a guess why?

State with the largest percentage of McCain voters? Arizona? Alaska? Texas? West Virginia? Arkansas? Tennessee?

BZZZZ! Once again - Oklahoma.

I developed a mathematical model that allowed me to predict results of the recent presidential election based solely on factors like demographics, past voting record, etc. In no way did I use any of the polling data. One of the most telling indicators in my model for several of the states was what I classified as the "white baptist ratio". Oklahoma was tops. Gentle readers draw your own conclusions.

Rather than giving up on every-day C.C. usage altogether, I am thinking the better long-term solution might be to more directly attack the problem you describe: the emotional re-education of the consumer to avoid the immediate gratification/delayed consequences that credit cards might (though not necessarily) enable.

The plastic is just the plastic, and holds no inherent evil. It is the user of the plastic who makes it either a devastating weapon, or a useful tool.

"They" are. The problem isn't the cards, it's the debt. Put down the excess groceries, pay the balance every month, and no prob Bob! A bit of extra security (as you noted), delayed-payment (think of all those extra pennies your hard earned $$$ accrue in your savings account while waiting for the payment due date), and throw in some reward points/miles to boot.

What about shorter assaults? Does the duration, breadth and depth of the assault carry some weight when deciding whether or not to prosecute? Or instead does the law truly apply to all, as you succinctly imply with your question What is more important, inter-party comity and national reconciliation, or the Law?

By these metrics, we should also demand prosecution of Bill Clinton. And frankly, every president I can recall throughout my lifetime.

Not arguing that "W" should not be prosecuted. Rather the opposite - that he should. So too should Clinton, King George the First and Reagan were he still with us.

Those big $$$ collegiate sports programs are good. Sure, they may come at some expense to the relatively small proportion of student athletes, but they do serve to bring in all those dollars for groovy new things that benefit the entire student body - like sports complexes... and buildings... and stuff. Which universities use to justify their skyrocketing tuition rates for all the other students, which... oh wait. Nevermind.

Indeed wells in our Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition were always considered sacred.

... and then a few sentences later...

But unless we build upon the sense of social justice so recently renewed in our election of Barack Obama, we are ignoring fissures that will come back to haunt us. So we must find ways to convince minority groups of all kinds to come together. To foster community. To honor human dignity in each person.

Ultimately I decided against writing a comment asking about what seemed to be religionopoly in the original post. Naturally I was interested when I saw your comment on this very topic, which so closely mirrored my own initial viewpoint. Though can't really say I was surprised. ;)

Anyhooo, may I humbly suggest you invest more time in a detailed rereading of the post and TheraP's comments. I have reached a conclusion that he/she was referencing his/her own religious experience under the caveat he/she was doing so specifically without excluding non-J/C/M religions. He/She chose those three as an illustrative point to speak from personal experience, and expressly not as a definition to which we were all beholden.

Funny, for all these years I've had it backwards.

Many thanks for the upgrade, Al.