The New Humanism

Observing the new humanism from my old perspective I am struck not only by its lack of positive belief, but also by its need to compensate for this lack by antagonism toward an imagined enemy. I say "imagined," since it is obvious that religion is a declining force in Britain. There is no need to consult the pronouncements of the Archbishop of Canterbury: the response to the bus campaign abundantly proves the point. But a weak enemy is precisely what these negative philosophies require. Like so many modern ideologies, the new humanism seeks to define itself through what it is against rather than what it is for. It is for nothing, or at any rate for nothing in particular.

--"The New Humanism" by Roger Scruton, The American Spectator (3.09)

First, for transparency's sake, I am a Christian of a type: a seeker after God as a follower after Christ, at least to the extent I understand His essential spiritual teachings and example. And I also count myself something of a traditional humanist, at least so far as I understand that term. I do not consider the highest understandings and expressions of each to be incompatible with the other, and certainly not mutually exclusive.

But I am now more than a little troubled by a shameless, unapologetic appropriation of the proud and worthy name of humanism. It is a tradition that has long and consistently stood for the highest regard, respect, and caring for all humanity, and a kindly tolerance for cultural and religious differences. For now comes an angry, edgy group of self-important anti-theists, counting among their proselytizing leaders the fundamentalist Darwinist, Richard Dawkins. The article's author, Mr. Scruton:

This humanism is self-consciously "new," like New Labour; it has its own journal, the New Humanist, and its own sages, the most prominent of whom is Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene and vice-president of the British Humanist Association. It runs advertising campaigns and letter-writing campaigns and is militant in asserting the truth of its vision and its right to make converts. But the vision is not that of my parents. The new humanism spends little time exalting man as an ideal. It says nothing, or next to nothing, about faith, hope, and charity; is scathing about patriotism; and is dismissive of those rearguard actions in defense of the family, public spirit, and sexual restraint that animated my parents. Instead of idealizing man, the new humanism denigrates God and attacks the belief in God as a human weakness. My parents too thought belief in God to be a weakness. But they were reluctant to deprive other human beings of a moral prop that they seemed to need.

I understand that some might rightly say that the rise of this publicly aggressive, anti-theistic initiative by those who have made a religion of Darwinist theory is a predictable response to the long-standing public aggressiveness of anti-evolution, anti-science fundamentalist Christians, those who express their faith to the world primarily as conservative cultural and political advocates. For unlike the U.K., these kinds of Christians in the U.S. are forces to be reckoned with. And I also understand there has long been a troubling strategy by marginal political or cultural groups of appropriating honored philosophic or patriotic descriptors or names to provide cover for and misdirect understanding of their marginal views. For this anti-theist group, humanism will do nicely.

So, yes, publicly aggressive, intolerantly judgmental, and poorly informed elements of the Christian or other faiths have likely invited this response. What else might we reasonably expect in response to the threatening, ignorant denial of evolutionary and environmental science by influential fundamentalist Christians? And a result, perhaps the least of the harm done, is that a proud name and tradition could be smeared and changed irreparably--much as the name "Christian" has been. "Humanism" may no longer be viewed the way Mr. Scruton or his parents understood it; and the expectation that faith and humanism can share the same common ground with respect and good will may no longer be realistic. Hear Mr. Scruton on the humanism of his parents:

They regarded humanism as a residual option, once faith had dissolved. It was not something to make a song and dance about, still less something to impose on others, but simply the best they could manage in the absence of God.

All around me I encountered humanists of my parents' kind. I befriended them at school, and was taught by them at Cambridge. And whenever I lost the Christian faith which had first dawned on me in school assemblies I would be a humanist for a spell, and feel comforted that there existed this other and more tangled path to the goal of moral discipline. Looking back on it, I see the humanism of my parents as a kind of rearguard action on behalf of religious values. They, and their contemporaries, believed that man is the source of his own ideals and also the object of them.... All the values that had been appropriated by the Christian churches are available to the humanist too. Faith, hope, and charity can exist as human causes, and without the need for a heavenly focus; humanists can build their lives on the love of neighbor, can exercise the virtues and discipline their appetites so as to be just, prudent, temperate, and courageous, just as the Greeks had taught, long before the edict of the Church had fallen like a shadow across the human spirit. A humanist can be a patriot; he can believe with Jesus that "greater love hath no man than this, that he should lay down his life for his friend." He is the enemy of false sentiment and lax morals, and all the more vigilant on behalf of morality in that he believes it to be the thing by which humanity is exalted, and the proof that we can be the source of our own ideals.

That noble form of humanism has its roots in the Enlightenment, in Kant's defense of the moral law, and in the progressivism of well-meaning Victorian sages. And the memory of it leads me to take an interest in something that calls itself "humanism" ...

But these traditional humanists may now be relegated to their quiet, anonymous back seats as the "new humanism" assumes a more strident public voice, much as people of more traditional religious spirituality were shouted down by the strident voices of the cultural, political soldiers of the religious right. So this is what it has come to: culture wars, too often fueled by misunderstandings or misrepresentations of matters of faith and spirituality.

Regrettably, history clearly informs us that it is all too sadly human and too troublingly predictable. It makes me careful in relating the nature of my Christian identity, for I want in no way to be confused with the intolerantly judgmental, anti-science, politically-oriented Christian cultural warriors. How can you miss the point of Christ so badly? And now I must also be careful in relating my sympathies and solidarity with the honorable notions of humanism, for it is being defined anew as a strident and uncompromising anti-theistic voice in the public forum. And it is addressing all people of faith, whether or not they are among the aggressively intolerant, judgmental forces of the cultural and religious right. May God help us. And, too, may the more moderate voices of wisdom step forward to lead us.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/10/the-new-humanism

Barack Obama's Foreign Policy: A Good Start

America's president has made a good start in foreign policy. But the hard choices are still to come...

So far, the outline at least is fine. Mr Obama has resisted the temptation to tear up every one of George Bush’s policies, but he has transformed the tone. The fight against al-Qaeda is to continue, but without the preaching that alienated America’s allies or the torture that betrayed its values. He is pulling out of Iraq, but on a cautious timetable. He is sending more troops to Afghanistan, but reviewing the strategy of a war he admits America is failing to win. He is extending his hand to adversaries, but without yet making America look like a soft touch.

--"All very engaging," The Economist (3.12.09)

A good start, indeed--especially considering that, as The Economist allows, "For impeccable reasons, Barack Obama has concentrated since becoming president on fixing America's economy." And also considering the many other legislative and policy issues he is already addressing. When has a newly minted president come out of the gate with such an array of critical issues demanding his immediate attention? And when has a president so tirelessly, timely and ably met that challenge? "Very engaging," indeed.

Of course, the loyal opposition, pundits and columnist obliged to fill talking time or printed space, and sometimes his own party, seem almost too eager to share their concerns or express their doubts. (See also, "Why Washington Worries: Obama has made striking moves to fix U.S. foreign policy—and that has set off a chorus of criticism," by Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek (3.23.09.)) Even The Economist appears to feel the need to strike a calculating, self-serving pose of caution to provide cover for it's open praise of Obama's speed and effectiveness in changing the tenor and direction of US foreign policy in many important areas.

What remains unclear is not whether Mr Obama is clever or tough. It is his basic reading of the world. Does he see China more as a rival than an ally? Too soon to say. Is Afghanistan winnable? Watch that review. Is Palestine solvable? Mrs Clinton’s recent visit, showing sympathy but changing no policy (Hamas remains beyond the pale), leaves the question dangling. Will he risk pre-emption against Iran or does he believe it can be contained? The mullahs would love to know.

The first big clue to Mr Obama’s instincts may come in his treatment of Russia... So far, Mr Obama has not had to confront these hard choices. Soon he will.

Yes, of course it is understandable that many would exercise restraint in relating Obama's notable progress, and avoid trumpeting "a good start" as more than it is. They fairly, rightly say, "So far, so good," not wanting to get ahead of themselves or President Obama's initiatives or successes. But it's also true that many of us are breathing a deep, audible sigh of relief, feeling our spirits lifted and our hopes reinforced by the impressive level of energy the new president has so timely committed to so many needed initiative in so many problem areas. In addition to restoring a functioning financial system, there is the critical need for healthcare reform and access, alternative energy research, and a more realistic policy addressing the threat of global warming.

So, if the economy rightly commands priority on his attention--and it does--and if there are so many other deserving problems that Obama is also addressing--and there are--who would have it any other way? But perhaps we could also be forgiven our sense of relief and thanksgiving that so much has already changed for the better, for the wiser and more hopeful, in an area that so recently was the principal concern of Americans and others around the world: the approach, role and priorities of the US in addressing it's international interests and relationships.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13278173

60-Minutes, Bernanke: Recession Bottoms '09, Recovers '10--IF US Continues to Strengthen Financial System

"Mr. Chairman, I'm gonna start with a question that everyone wants me to ask: when does this end?" 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley asked Bernanke.

"It depends a lot on the financial system," he replied. "The lesson of history is that you do not get a sustained economic recovery as long as the financial system is in crisis. We've seen some progress in the financial markets, absolutely. But until we get that stabilized and working normally, we're not gonna see recovery. But we do have a plan. We're working on it. And I do think that we will get it stabilized, and we'll see the recession coming to an end probably this year. We'll see recovery beginning next year. And it will pick up steam over time."

Asked if he thinks the recession is going to end this year, Bernanke said, "In the sense that this decline will begin to moderate and we'll begin to see leveling off. We won't be back to full employment. But we will see, I hope, the end of these declines that have been so strong in a last couple of quarters."

"But you wouldn't say at this point that we're out of the woods?" Pelley asked.
"No," Bernanke replied. "I think the key issue is the banking system and the financial system."

--Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke interviewed by Scott Pelley on 60- Minutes (3.15.09)

I have for some time been an unapologetic supporter of the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke. He appears to me the right man, with the right background, for this troubled season. And last night on 60-Minutes, he talked to Scott Pelley in a wide-ranging discussion on the state of the economy, the financial system, and what has to be done now. This is something chairmen of the Fed just don't do. If you haven't yet seen this, you really should. (Just click the link and click the video.)

Why invite an interview now? Because it is so very important for all Americans to get past their understandable resentment and anger at all the money that the US must spend to restore some of these undeserving financial institutions to health--whether through lending or buying "toxic" assets, whether by borrowing itself, "printing" money, or providing lines of credit. And, yes, it will be this and the next generation of Americans who will bear the cost and effects of both the original financial failures and the necessary government financing to restore them.

Nonetheless, we must also understand that, as Bernanke assures us, we came "very close" to falling into a financial depression at the time the first traunch of TARP funds were lent to financial institutions--and only that TARP lending and other Treasury programs allowed us to avert it. A failure now to continue the necessary refinancing of the country's financial system will most likely mean that our financial condition will get much worse for much longer with worse implications for us and our children. And our attention must not be diverted by troubling issues like the merits of AIG bonuses (payable, it turns out, under the terms of binding performance contracts, wisely written or not).

You could say Bernanke is carrying water for Obama and the administration's program. If that is true--and it likely is--he takes on that role only to the extent that he believes in the correctness and importance of it. Ben Bernake isn't owned by Wall Street or the White House. Rather, he appears to me animated and inspired principally by the opportunity to serve his country, and by is his steady, independent commitment to use all his estimable knowledge and experience to help lead it through this frightening time. He joins the short list of critical leaders we must count on, and he appears to me worthy of our trust and high expectations.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/12/60minutes/main4862191.shtml

Two Sufi Poems & Psalm 16

Golden Compass 1

Forget every idea of right and wrong
Any classroom has ever taught you

Because
An empty heart, a tormented mind,
Unkindness, jealousy and fear

Are always the testimony
That you have been completely fooled!

Turn your back on those
Who would imprison your wondrous spirit
With deceit and lies.

Come, join the honest company
Of the King's beggars--
Those gamblers, scoundrels and divine clowns
And those astonishing fair courtesans
Who need Divine Love every night.

Come, join the courageous
Who have no choice
But to bet their entire world
That indeed,
Indeed, God is Real.

I will lead you into the Circle,
Of the Beloved's cunning thieves,
Those playful rogues--
The ones you can trust for true guidance--
Who can aid you
In this Blessed Calamity of life.

Look at the Perfect One
At the Circle's Center:

He Spins and Whirls like a Golden Compass,
Beyond all that is rational,

To show this dear world

That everything,
Everything in Existence
Does point to God.

Keeping Watch 1

In the morning
When I began to wake,
It happened again--

That feeling
That You, Lord,
Beloved,
Had stood over me all night
Keeping watch,

That feeling
That as soon as I began to stir

You put Your lips on my forehead
And lit a Holy Lamp
Inside my heart.

Psalm 16
(excerpted)

I said to the Lord, "You are my Lord;
I have no good besides You."

The Lord is my portion, my inheritance, my cup;
He provides for me always.

The lines have fallen to me in pleasant places;
Indeed it is all beautiful to me.

I will bless the Lord who counsels me;
Indeed, He instructs me even in the night.
I have set the Lord continually before me;
Because He is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.

Therefore, my heart is glad and rejoices...

The Lord makes known to me the path of life;
In His presence is the fulness of joy...

1 From I Heard God Laughing: Poems of Hope and Joy, interpretive renderings of Hafiz by Daniel Ladinsky.

Business Roundtable: US Healthcare Most Expensive, Delivers Less

If the global economy were a 100-yard dash, the U.S. would start 23 yards behind its closest competitors because of health care that costs too much and delivers too little, a business group says in a report to be released Thursday. The report from the Business Roundtable, which represents CEOs of major companies, says America's health care system has become a liability in a global economy.

--"Report: Health care 'value Gap' hurts U.S.--Americans spend a lot more than top countries, but aren’t as healthy," msnbc.com (3/12/09)

One of the strongest, most credible voices in the business community is finally on board. Who knows why it took them so long to recognize that broad-based reform and access to the American healthcare system is not only in the best interest of the poor, infirm and unable, but increasingly young adults and the vast middle class who are without adequate health care; not only in the best interest of reducing the burden on taxpayers, but increasing the productivity of our economy; not only a social good, but as much a hallmark of civilization and societal accountability in the 21st century as public education; not only an answer to a distended, perpetually increasing cost for American business, but one absolutely critical to it's health and global competitiveness, perhaps even it's survival.

I could ask again, "How many times must we be told?" But could this powerful new voice weighing in represent our national tipping point? Can conservative politicians representing the interests of the medical industry continue their blinkered view and obstructionist pose in the light of this important constituency having moved in the constructive direction of reform?

Sometimes it is useful to consult the increasingly compelling studies and findings--the facts, if you will. From the msnbc.com article:

Americans spend $2.4 trillion a year on health care. The Business Roundtable report says Americans in 2006 spent $1,928 per capita on health care, at least two-and-a-half times more per person than any other advanced country. In a different twist, the report took those costs and factored benefits into the equation. It compares statistics on life expectancy, death rates and even cholesterol readings and blood pressures. The health measures are factored together with costs into a 100-point "value" scale. That hasn't been done before, the authors said.

The results are not encouraging. The United States is 23 points behind five leading economic competitors: Canada, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and France. The five nations cover all their citizens, and though their systems differ, in each country the government plays a much larger role than in the U.S. The cost-benefit disparity is even wider — 46 points — when the U.S. is compared with emerging competitors: China, Brazil and India.... Other countries spend less on health care and their workers are relatively healthier, the report said.

"What's important is that we measure and compare actual value — not just how much we spend on health care, but the performance we get back in return," said H. Edward Hanway, CEO of the insurance company Cigna. "That's what this study
does, and the results are quite eye-opening."

The article reminds us that President Barack Obama has repeatedly said that the costs have now become unsustainable and the system must be overhauled. Are we ready as a country to do what it takes to carry out meaningful reform that provides basic heathcare to all Americans at a much lower overall cost to business and society? All we have to do is be open-minded enough, smart enough, disciplined enough, and committed enough to perform up to the standards of those very countries we have for so long looked down our noses at and considered so much less disciplined and productive than ours.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29641091/

Bernie Madoff's World

Among Bernard Madoff's many dupes were his closest friends, including two tycoons he loved as surrogate fathers: the late Norman F. Levy-whose girlfriend, supermodel Carmen Dell'Orefice, would lose her life savings-and the prominent philanthropist Carl J. Shapiro. Amid the sobs, screams, and curses in Aspen, Palm Beach, and New York, with victims sharing their stories, the author gets behind Madoff's affable façade, to reveal his most intimate betrayals.

--"Madoff's World" by Mark Seal, Vanity Fair (4/09)

This is an engaging, absolutely fascinating piece about the life and times of Bernie Madoff. How do you characterize such a person? What manner of psychopathology causes or allows a person to systematically loot and destroy his most intimate friends and thousands of others--and with no apparent sense of wrong done, guilt, or remorse. And certainly no sense of obligation for restitution. As fascinating as it is troubling.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/04/madoff200904

It's the Environment, Too (@#$%&+!)

The IPCC predicted a sea level rise of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century, which could flood low-lying areas and force millions to flee. But more recent research presented at the conference suggested that melting glaciers and ice sheets could help push the sea level up at least 20 inches, and possibly as much as 39 inches. "Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change with poor nations and communities particularly at risk," the statement said.

--"Climate experts warn of 'irreversable' shifts," msnbc.com

How many times must we be told? Over how long a period of time? Yet, like children, we cannot be depended upon to exercise common sense and responsibility. Rather, we must always wait until our toys are damaged, our fingers burned, or more to the point, the rising tides of global warming lap up on our doorsteps. And then amid an enraged, flailing fit of resentful blame-mongering, we will point our stretched-out index fingers in every direction but our own. We could pray to be saved from the childish irresponsibility that seems so often the predictable response of our human nature. But all we do is find holes to stick our heads in.

Yet the evidence keeps washing into the holes of our refuge. From the msnbc.com article:

Hundreds of leading climate scientists wrapped up a three-day conference with a warning Thursday that global warming is accelerating beyond the worst predictions and threatening to trigger "irreversible" shifts on the planet."The worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized," a team of scientists wrote in a concluding statement.

It noted that policy-makers already have a range of tools to mitigate global warming. "But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to de-carbonize economies," it said.

And in these difficult economic times, President Obama's ability to see a unique opportunity to deal with the pressing need for healthcare reform and energy diversification finds support among some conference particpants:

Earlier Thursday, British economist Nicholas Stern, the author of a major British government report detailing the cost of climate change, told the conference that the global recession presents an opportunity to build a more energy-efficient economy. "Coming out of this we have got to lay the foundations for a low-carbon growth, which is going to be like the railways, like the electricity, like the motorcars, this is going to be over the next two, three decades the big driver in investment," Stern said.

The conference leaders called out desperately for political leadership and action among the world's largest nations, and stressed the importance of a sense of immediacy in doing so. But why do I have the sense that the tone of desperation they felt necessary is the strongest, most dispiriting indicator that their message continues to fall largely on deaf ears? In my 2006 essay, "Cassandra's Tears," I addressed at length the larger politcal and human issues of global warming. It was on this note that I ended:

But if views are now changing, will they change fast enough? Leading voices and most people are starting to call for remedial action. It is surely time to agree on a plan, the course and scope of our action, and the need to effect it now. But if we continue to delay, or further allow delay, and those in authority fail to act or prescribe too little, who can we then blame? By then, all we can do, the only act of honesty left to us, is to look in the mirror with despair and resignation, and recognize in ourselves both the face of Apollo’s resentful self-interest and that of Cassandra’s tears.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29658424/

Harvard's Masters of the Apocalypse

In this piece from the Sunday Times (London), a recent Harvard MBA offers some interesting observations about the role of poorly prepared and questionably oriented MBAs--and particularly Harvard MBAs--in the financial market failures we now find ourselves suffering through.

But does he lay enough responsibility at the doorstep of the cultures of the institutions themselves--and human nature under such cultural pressures and such fabulous financial reward structures for "being creative" and "making it happen" in meeting financial goals? Wouldn't it help if those institutional cultures had more of a bias toward ethics and accountability? But, regrettably, many of them appear to feel their obligation to shareholders--and more importantly, perhaps, their self-interest--causes them to define their ethical responsibility and accountabilities only in terms of the most aggressive interpretations of the law, if they consider them seriously at all.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article5821706.ece

A Conservative's Case Against Limbaugh

You may find this an interesting, challenging article if, over the last decade, you've become so alienated from the Republican party that you now prefer to be identified as an "independent," or even a Democrat--or even more so if you still uncomfortably hold onto a troubled Republican identity. This Newsweek article, "Why Rush is Wrong," by David Frum, a self-described conservative Republican and former speech writer for George W. Bush, addresses the vexing, broader questions about the identity and political future of the Republican party. The current self-appointed role and conceit of Rush Limbaugh serves only as a reference point for measuring the depth of the hole he believes the party is in.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279

The Limits of Merit & Choice

It's not a fabrication, a lie. It's just not the whole truth. And the part that's been omitted—or is it just ignored?—should provide the basis for us to consider providing better for those most in need. I'm speaking of our unwarranted overemphasis on personal merit and, as we've discussed elsewhere, freedom of choice.

It really does appeal to us, all of us. It panders to our self-esteem, our sense of self-determination and self-sufficiency, our self-congratulatory tendencies. We want to believe that we earned what we have—that we pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps, mapped out our plans, prepared ourselves, then worked hard, harder than the next guy, earning our way to our definition of success. And in a very real, experiential sense, it is true. (Most of us feel that's exactly what we've done!)

We also want to believe that it's not our fault if the next guy wasn't as ambitious, didn't prepare himself as well, didn't work as hard, wasn't as able. It's not our fault if he was too lazy or irresponsible, lacked discipline, character or interpersonal capability. It's not our fault if he wasn't intelligent, talented or savvy enough. It's not our fault if he was too different, unstable or disabled. We each get what we earn, what we deserve. (Isn't that right?)

And what of the poor, the competitive failures of whatever stripe? Why, they just suffer the natural consequences of their own failings and failure. And that's not our fault, either. How could it be? (So, why should it be our responsibility?)

Of course it's not your fault or mine—at least not most of the time. But most often, neither is it theirs. Notably, in a most real sense, we are no more the author of our successes than they are of their failures. Heresy, indeed! But let me briefly explain why, in more empirical terms, this is also true.

You understand the continuing discussion and research about nature and nurture, of course. We discussed it in Choices. You're familiar with the debate about how much of the way we are is the result of the genetic legacy of our parents and forbears, and how much is the result of the way we are conditioned and schooled, what we learn in our families, communities and cultures. What is not in doubt is that the combination of our genes, family, culture and education determines who we are, how we act, and the likely limits of our potential and achievements. And if most everyone still has some alternatives, some choices, those afforded the least able of our brethren, the least fortunate, are so many fewer and so much narrower, and their ability to act on them is so much less.

The irony is that we discuss it, make casual affirming observations about it in everyday life, even ponder it with personal satisfaction or dismay, but then go about our lives dealing with each other, making personal and organizational decisions and crafting public policy as though we didn't know it or didn't believe it. The truth is that the power and perceived importance of our public, cultural half-myths trump what we instinctively know and what science more resoundingly than ever confirms. The truth is inconvenient and unwelcome to our sense of independence, accomplishment and self worth. It can coexist only uncomfortably with those cultural values.

So, just how right, how defensible, then, is that laissez-faire foundation on which we stand? How fair or egalitarian, how ethical and moral, how humane and intelligent are our assumptions about getting what we earn or deserve? How even is the playing field, how just the result? Is it not true that there, but for the deal of the genetic cards, the spin of the birth-place roulette, go I—dross in the crucible of our competitive society, failed or failing, and much in need of the help and support of my community, my more fortunate brethren? Shouldn't the integrity of an accountable, civilized society demand a full understanding and honest acknowledgment of this reality? Wouldn't it then respond honestly, responsibly, and effectively to the needs of the innocent poor, infirm and unable? Wouldn't health care, education, and reasonable living conditions be their right as it would everyone's?

(My Christian faith informs me that we are each just who God intended us to be based on the dictates of our singular spiritual paths—and the genetic endowment and life circumstances that deliver us there. And more, that we have responsibilities and accountabilities for one another. That is the signal characteristic of faith community, and any real community.)

From my Cassandra's Tears essays
First written: July 2006
© Gregory E. Hudson 2007