THE LIMITS OF SCIENCE

• Science is unable to tell us why the Universe came into being
• Science is unable to explain why there are scientific or natural laws, or why they are so consistent and dependable
• Science cannot explain why the Universe is so amazingly fine-tuned to support intelligent life on our planet
• Science cannot explain why as human beings we are persons and not merely objects
• Science can tell us nothing about why the mind exists and functions as it does
• Science can add nothing to the inner quality of life
• Science cannot define or explain ethical principles
• Science is not able to answer life's deepest questions

(with thanks to the excellent, concise little book "Evolution" by James Napier, in the current "Teach Yourself" series of books on various scientific subjects)

The Bible, however, offers a succinct reason for existence: "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Gen. 1:1 (Is God finished "creating"? I do not think so...)

And the conversation goes on...


TTC

THE DESCENT OF MAN

I take my title, of course, from Charles Darwin's excellent two part volume of the same name first published in 1871, a "sequel" or companion volume to his first-published (1859) "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection." It won't be my intent here to delve deeply into the subject of evolution, which I have done enough in several other posts on my site here (cf. the post on Henri Bergson's philosophy, for instance). However, Darwin's great work is full of insights and statements that bear repeating in a contemporary Blog forum, since I find, as in philosophy, that we in our era are still pretty much debating the same things about such subjects as biology, ethics, philosophy, the understanding of nature ("physis" in the Greek; hence our word "physics"), cosmology, religion, and so on and on. There is nothing new under the sun, as the writer of the phenomenal Book of Ecclesiastes stated so wisely all those years ago.

Of course, Darwin has been terribly misunderstood and maligned in the US over the past many years. I often point out that it is obvious that many of the people talking loudly about the problems with "Darwinism" have never read him; and certainly not thoroughly or thoughtfully. Most have no idea what they're talking about. For those of us who are "believers" and people of faith, there really need not be such a big problem with reconciling Darwin's work (cf. the excellent recent book by Dr. Francis Collins entitled "The Language of God" - Collins was head of the Human Genome Project). This is especially true when based upon a very careful and painstaking scrutiny of the natural world and religious belief (remember Darwin, although a polymath as were most of the great European scientists and thinkers of his day, was first a naturalist). I often point out - and this bears repeating here - that in his "Origins..." Darwin admits in print that he has no idea about the 1.) origin of matter, and 2.) the origin of consciousness. These remain the two great questions of the ages.

But he did become certain (with good cause) that life on this planet (and in the Universe, by extension) evolves - "changes over time" due to many environmental and genetic variables; that natural selection is the process or "engine" by which this happens, and that there need not be any "special creation" of species (as is the central point of his "Descent of Man").

To that end, I want to share several noteworthy quotes from his excellent work, keeping in mind that "Descent" deals at first primarily with human evolution (not necessarily addressed so directly in his first work "On the Origin..."); and the second part of this volume deals with a comprehensive review of natural selection as according to sexual characteristics attributive to various species.

As I alluded to the various loud-mouthed (but normally intellectually ill-equipped) Darwin detractors above, here is a memorable zinger straightaway in the Introduction to "Descent":

...but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert this or that problem will never be solved by science. (Take that, obscurantists!!)

It is common to believe that Darwin originated all the fundamental tenets of evolutionary theory by himself. This is, of course, not true, as he himself states:

...the conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other species of some ancient, lower, and extinct form, is not in any degree new. (He cites the thinking of Lamarck, Alfred Russell Wallace, Thomas Henry Huxley, Charles Lyell, and Ernst Hackel.)

It is often asserted that all human tribes and peoples have some sort of belief in a God or "higher power." Not so, says Darwin, citing several anthropologists of his day: numerous races have existed and still exist who have no idea of one or more gods and who have no words in their languages to express such an idea.

Moreover, there was (and still is) a widespread belief in animism, pantheism, records of dreams as "bifurcations of body/spirit" dualism, and all sorts of "spirits." Darwin: with savages, belief in bad spirits far outweighs belief in good spirits. Interestingly, "D" goes on to associate modern ideas of a "good God"/beneficent Creator with highly advancing civilization and the development of monotheistic beliefs.

In Chapter 3, Darwin does admit to one of the most commonly defended aspects of the difference between humans and other animals, that being their "moral sense." D: this is the most important difference between man and the lower animals. He goes on to cite Kant's thinking on altruism, etc. However, he does note innumerable documented instances of altruistic behavior in animals - by instinct, at the very least. Modern evolutionary theorists tend to consign altruism to strictly evolutionary reasons (preservation of the species), but I beg to differ personally. They may have a point, but there are several instances of humans performing heroically "altruistic" feats from purely unselfish motives; in fact, their motives are inspired by their beliefs in a holy God (Mother Teresa, for starters, and a host of missionaries around the world and throughout history).

The superiority of humans in reasoning processes is attributed to homo sapiens' larger brain size. Stemming from this is the evolution of language among humans, which stimulated intellectual development in manifold ways. Communication fostered new methods of survival, food collection and storage, the development of burial rituals, the beginnings of ritual mysticism, etc. Moreover, "D" attributes a high significance to the idea that early man was arboreal and came down out of the trees, which fostered bipedalism, which in turn enabled the more efficient locomotion of early man. A decided advantage for survival's sake... The Tierra del Fuegian "savages" Darwin loves to cite in this work (he studied them intensely during his voyages to South America and the Galapagos) retained many of the original advantages to survival of our species, shared with many other animals: a highly developed sense of smell, ability to run quite fast, and a high degree of cunning in the hunt for food. These traits have not been retained in most of today's varieties of humans. (Who is more prepared for survival if civilization suffered a catastrophic breakdown?!)

Interestingly, regarding warfare, Darwin notes that was seems an integral part of the natural order. This is hard for moderns to swallow, but I would add that the early Greek philosophers thought the same thing. "Victory in warfare;" "tribe supplanting tribe" -these were seen as obvious evidences of natural selection at work. Darwin regarded the ancient Greeks as "some grades higher in intellect than any race that have ever existed." Quite controversial thinking today, but it is an intriguing point. The success of nations and ethnic groups in the struggle for survival, abundance of food, and general prosperity are seen as evidences of natural selection writ large. Darwin thought the same about his contemporary western European civilization (the highest of the age). (One wonders what he would have thought a century later - after the two most devastating and destructive wars in human history!)

Those who still think that Darwin is the "arch enemy" of Christianity would be surprised that in this work, "D" give lofty praise to it (in comparing it to primeval beliefs). He characterized Christianity as "the highest form of religion - the grand idea of God hating sin and loving righteousness was unknown in primeval times."

And how about some of his rhetoric, which is similar to those in the Intelligent Design camp: the world, it has been often remarked, appears as if it had long been preparing for the advent of man... He remarks about "humble creatures" who have "marvellous structure and properties..."

The second major division of Darwin's "Descent" deals with "Sexual Selection" among species. (Sorry feminists: Darwin believed men to be "superior" to women in power, intellect, etc. - a prominent theme here). But many good points are made here which survive to our day:

• humans around the globe share many characteristics, and this is very uncanny: tattooing, ornamentation (especially for sexual purposes), music, dancing, "making rude pictures," hierarchical religious and governmental organization, the practice of polygamy (especially by the various alpha males) and even some polygynous cultures, et.al.
• that several facts of human biology, common to other mammalian species, point toward the veracity of Darwin's central tenet regarding the common evolution of man with other mammals - "rudimentary" organs (such as wisdom teeth, nipples on men, appendixes, etc.), similarities of embryology, and "reversions" of certain characteristics of the human species (reverting to a lower vestigial form).
  

It is in this work that the classic evolutionary lineage, still understood to our day, is articulated: that man descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits, and from the Old World (the out-of-Africa theory). Man evolved after a long sequential chain of events producing various classes of life on this planet: out of the water - amphibians - reptiles - and on to mammals.

Though Darwin is willing to admit that there is some degree of uniqueness to the human species, such as man's "advanced level of intellect" (mind) and "moral disposition," he remained nonetheless convinced in the end that natural selection could account for it all. He remained attached to his view that the lower mammals have most of the same qualities of man "in kind, though not in degree."

Personally, I do detect some dissonances in Darwin's views of man, since, as in the "Origins," there are some troubling and stubborn facts regarding humans for him, and their seeming uniqueness. These would include the stubborn fact that man is the only animal with a highly developed set of languages and language principles; man has the highest capacity to use reason for survival with the least effort and suffering (cf. agriculture, hunting, manufacturing, etc.), and so on. For Darwin (and this remains today), the primary success of humans is attributed to our evolved ability to combine language with our large brains to affect intellectual development - certainly a unique feat in the history of this planet.

The developed "moral qualities" always intrigued Darwin. He felt it had more to do with mankind's evolution into larger societies and communities; a shared response to the danger and vagaries of life as experienced in community. Naturally, then, "morality" and ethics evolved to meet those needs, especially through "social instincts" and "sympathy" (his words). The development of our "consciences" as "governors" or "supreme judges" or "monitors," gradually resulting in the articulation of beliefs about a Supreme Being, or God, were natural outgrowths. These were accomplished, in Darwin's words, in the "more civilized races."

Darwin concludes "Descent" with reflections on his first sighting and working among the South American "Fuegians." He was aghast at the "savages" who, to him, were "utterly repulsive"; using "torture" and "infanticide" routinely. In spite of all this, and perhaps in contrast to this, mankind in many societies had risen to great heights in morality and religious and scientific understanding. Since the evidence clearly indicates that humans have "risen to the top of the organic scale," perhaps humanity could evolve towards "a still higher destiny in the distant future."

I would point out that Darwin's thinking points toward a philosophical understanding of existence described under the rubric of "teleology" (the fact that existence is going towards some sort of end, or goal). I wonder if Darwin realized it? While this is not necessarily held to by modern evolutionists (who stress randomness much more in natural selection), Darwin definitely believed in a teleological form of evolutionary theory; things went from simplicity to complexity; there was some sort of "plan" or "reason" for it all, so it seemed.

One steps back from all this, ponders the colossal achievement and courage of Charles Darwin, and the work that has gone on with the "evolution" of his theory among the world's greatest thinkers and scientists over the last 140 years, and asks a thoughtful question: Why indeed the movement of existence from simplicity to more complexity, both in micro (our planet) and macro (the cosmos at large)? Why the increase in scientific knowledge and understanding over the ages? Why the apparent "uniqueness" of the species homo sapiens' to ponder the Universe, fly spacecraft to other planets and beyond our solar system, create monumental works of art, music, and literature - and so on and on? This is precisely the history of the cosmos we understand today. Why should it be thus?

Why indeed...


TTC

NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN

While the current financial crisis is especially disturbing and challenging to those of us who try to keep a somewhat optimistic viewpoint about the general teleology of things, it is indeed nothing new. On my shelf here in my office I have several finance volumes detailing all manner of wild and scary times in the financial markets in the history of Capitalism, which I highly recommend for your reading and edification.

First and foremost is Charles Mackay's "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds." Even more pertinent to this time is Charles Kindleberger's excellent work entitled "Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises." A cursory glance at the history of financial convulsions in the U.S., from the 1870s (severe), 1907 (again severe and scary), of course the Great Depression era, the 1973/74 market break and "oil crisis," and so on provide the investor with a somewhat re-assuring (small compensation!) knowledge that "we've been there before" and survived. It is never pleasant to endure what we've been going through, but then again 1987 was not pleasant, 1990 was no picnic, 1994 wasn't so hot either, and 2000-03 was a freaking catastrophe. No sooner than the country gets somewhat "recovered" from the previous debacle than another unfolds, and this one is taking down pretty much everybody and everything. "No place to hide" is the reality of this awful market and time.

Check out this quote from The Economist: "...public credit depends on public confidence...The financial crisis in America is really a moral crisis (refer to my last post), caused by a series of proofs... that the leading financiers who control banks, trust companies and industrial corporations are often imprudent, and not seldom dishonest. They have mismanaged funds and used them freely for speculative purposes. Hence the alarm of depositors and a general collapse of credit..." Sound familiar? Funny thing: this is a quote from the November 2, 1907 edition of the magazine!

Indeed we do have a "moral" problem in this country with gambling on a grand scale. Hedge funds and derivative traders should be declared a public nuisance and banned. Companies such as AIG and Citigroup (among many others) who can't seem to manage what should be (and always were) wonderfully profitable businesses should not receive taxpayer bailouts to pay for their stupidity. Indeed, all big companies with worthless, corrupt, and unbelievably incompetent management should be allowed to fail. At the very least (referencing the current hullabaloo re: the proposed "bailout" of that giant dinosaur known as GM), there should be serious "strings attached" and requirements made of these awful companies if they are to indeed receive public funds, and the American taxpayers and workers should be the ones to ultimately benefit, not the corporate officers, who are summarily and uniformly worthless and deserve to 1.) not be paid for a year or two, 2.) at least be forced to take some serious paycuts, and/or 3.) be fired and put out to pasture. Perhaps they could log some time volunteering in some of our homeless shelters and rescue missions to get a clue... And lay off the $4000 per hour call girls...

I saw a t-shirt recently worn by an individual I know to be hard-working. His attitude correlates with mine, and I think it apropos to our time. It went like this: "Work hard - millions of people on welfare are depending on you."

The same could apply to GM, AIG, and so many others if taxpayers will be footing the bill for their colossal incompetence. Letting our biggest corporations get hooked on government "welfare" isn't setting the best of precedents.

But what else is new?

TTC

WHERE HAVE ALL THE GOOD TIMES GONE?

"Wondering if Upjohn had it wrong - will this depression last for long...? Won't you tell me: Where have all the Good Times Gone"? ("Where Have all the Good Times Gone" - from the immortal rock and roll classic album "Diver Down," from Van Halen, 1982).

Remember back when American rock (and culture) had the kind of testosterone that the boys from Van Halen had, strutting about unapologetically with great rock music like this? Wow - I really miss those days, and would trade them in a heartbeat for the mixed-up, homosexualized and feminized mess of a wussy "culture" we have now. Ditto for the mess of an economy, which brings me to the lament of this post. (Thank you, Diamond Dave, Eddie, Alex, and Michael for the inspiration. For those of you who don't know, Upjohn was a pharmaceutical company in that era which manufactured the wonder drug of the era for "feeling better"; but I'm getting a double entendre from the word "depression" here - you can figure that out, hopefully)

Things in this country are a mess. I'm sure you are aware of that, unless you are a multi-millionaire safely ensconced 100% in cash and are laughing at the piranha feeding frenzy in global financial markets; not to mention the contentious election here in the US. We've been heading down several wrong paths for most of my entire adult life. I am old enough to have heard all the same political rhetoric many times before, from both sides (if you can even call these "sides" - aren't we all tired of the poor choices we have with the current two party monopoly on power in this country? I sure am... One party likes to tax and spend, and the other likes to borrow and spend - what a choice).

I've also seen crashes, recessions, and other financial debacles several times before. There's "nothing new under the sun..." We've been there before. Does anybody remember the early 1990s Savings and Loan crisis? The RTC having to dispose of mega millions of dollars of junk real estate back then? The big stock crash of 1987? (I was there - it was incredibly painful, me being a much younger man, having enjoyed the run-up, but not enjoying the big crash down and scary, uncertain aftermath; what a time.) The year 1990 was no picnic for the markets, either. Ditto 1994; and of course the mother of all Tech crashes - the long, slow, agonizing death of the Nasdaq from the unbelievable top of March, 2000 to the smoldering ashes of late 2002/early 2003. Miserable years...

So, I ask myself (and you) this question once again, noting the signs of our current times - "Where have all the good times gone"? Up in a puff of smoke... Seemed like we might be able to muddle our way out of the mess back this past summer, but then came September - and the bottom fell out. Now world governments are throwing money, interest rate cuts, and all kinds of Keynesian fiscal stimulus at the moribund global economies (and stock markets) to try and revive the patient with whatever weapons they have in their arsenal. Will these measures revive us? Only time will tell... If we are really lucky, we will at least crawl along a bottom here; perhaps move sideways for quite some time; perhaps attempt some sort of lame "recovery." That's if we're lucky. I'm afraid to contemplate what will happen if we do not stanch the bleeding at this point. Catastrophe perhaps. Maybe Ravi Batra's old prediction (remember his book predicting a "greater Depression" in 1990?) will finally come true. He and many others have been saying it for years - just like predicting rain - one is bound to be right at some point, just like an unprogrammed VCR used to flash the correct time twice per day! "Predictions" are for fun to make peoples' tongues run, at any rate. Nonsense...

How did we get here? Many reasons. But allow me to highlight one of the most obvious and insidious reasons: we have a national penchant for gambling. It's a terrible national sin. Seems to be written into the genetic code of Americans and their financial mandarins - to take OPM and gamble with it on some hair-brained scheme. Why is Las Vegas so popular? Gambling on cruise ships? "Playing" the stock market? Speculating on over-priced real estate? We never seem to learn, and history seems to have a nasty habit of repeating itself. To paraphrase Leibniz, as quoted in Peter Bernstein's fantastic book Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk - "phenomena do seem to repeat themselves - BUT ONLY FOR THE MOST PART. " Leibniz's thesis was that there was indeed some type of "eternal return" of phenomena, but the returns were not precise replicas of their predecessors. Such is what we have now. The game always either migrates or mutates; it isn't precisely the same. And the gambling epidemic on Wall Street the past many years has been of epic proportions.

I'm talking about the so-called "derivatives" that we all hear about ad nauseum these days. Every jackass has a "hedge fund," and too many sheep-like have opted to invest in them, in one way or the other. Only an idiot could run a very profitable business like a bank into the ground, but, ahem - in case you hadn't noticed - that is precisely America's problem. We have a LOT of freaking idiots running our corporations. Over-rated, incredibly overpaid, and totally undeserving fools, knaves, and idiots!! They have been gambling away their shareholders money (emphasis on the shareholders' money - let's make no mistake regarding to whom corporate funds belong) on any number of fool schemes, whether it be Collateralized Debt Swaps and securities (the re-packaging of loan portfolios and selling them to the highest bidder; one group of global idiots buying another group of global idiots' debt portfolios in search of higher yields and or capital gains by selling these "securities" to the "greater fool') or by investing in hedge funds or their characteristic derivative instruments.

In plain speaking, if you have trouble understanding any of this - beware!! Be afraid!! And back away... Even Warren Buffett has stated many times that if he has any trouble understanding any investment or concept re: an investment, he backs away; that, to him, is a red flag. As it at all times should be to all of us, too. Would you care to match wits with Buffett? I didn't think so...

To try and make a long mathematical and scientific/philosophical story as short as possible, I need to stop here and refer you to four of the best books ever written on the story of investment and risk: 1.) the afore-mentioned Against the Gods... - by Peter Bernstein, which delves in depth into most every type of statistical analysis and traces their historical origins and applications; feasibility, etc.; brilliant book and readable for someone with at least one course of college statistics; 2.) Benjamin Graham's fabulous book The Intelligent Investor (with the forward by Warren Buffett and valuable appendices); 3.) John Bogle's (founder of Vanguard Investments) The Little Book of Common Sense Investing; and finally 4.) Burton Malkiel's all-time classic (and constantly re-written and updated) A Random Walk Down Wall Street. Oh how I wish I would've encountered and read these books at a much younger age - woe is me!! But I am probably like most of you - I listened to any number of what appeared to be "sophisticated" and "knowledgeable" pied pipers who constantly told me I could "beat the market" if I only heeded their "inside knowledge" or trading system/scheme. What vile horse doodle!

Now that I'm older and wiser, I have dug much deeper into the library of human knowledge and finally acquired some common sense. Credit my love affair with philosophy. An investor's best intellectual friend in times like these... At any rate - if you have money in the markets - any market - "skin in the game" is the current saying - you need to RUN - not walk - to your nearest book store/library and dig into these books.

Allow me to school you here and give you far better advice in a nutshell than I've ever gotten in my life from anyone - friend, family, or foe. You CANNOT beat the market over the long term. It is impossible. Do not try. Run from any investment concept that is not simple or that you cannot readily understand, especially from anything involving "hedges" and "derivatives," just fancy-schmanzy talk for instruments (like options and futures) that allow one to go long and short the market. Most especially run from the leveraged mutual funds and the like (Rydex made these famous) - you will lose your rear before you know it. And also run from Forex gamblers - just a bunch of adrenaline junkies who will lose whatever trading capital they have in short order.

Here's how the universe works, in a nutshell: if you had any kind of "foolproof" knowledge about how to "beat" the market, you could, in fairly short order, corner the world's wealth. Ain't going to happen... Don't give any thought to using this or that newsletter or technical voodoo system to try. Statistics prove that any phenomena ALWAYS revert to the mathematical mean. Oh, you - or even Warren Buffett - or any investment "hotshot" - might go on a statistically lucky streak and win for a good while - just enough to fool you - but your time of being skewered by cold, hard, mathematical reality is just beyond the horizon. To paraphrase the Bible - "be aware - your sins will find you out." Most every statistical phenomenon can be plotted as a bell curve (cf. height, weight, etc.) - there will always be outliers on both the right side (big winners - beating the market - they must be very smart?!) and left (losers - are they dumb? or just statistically unlucky? - I'm being facetious, of course).

Most of the players will cluster towards the big bell in the center - the mediocre center. These folks will be really lucky to match the market's overall performance over time. And the outliers will eventually revert to the mean whenever their systems or schemes run their course - and they always do (yes, even Warren Buffett. I owned 2 shares of BRKA shares way back in the mid/late 90s and did ok with them for a few years - Buffett was the greatest thing since sliced bread in those years; but over the last ten years, those shares have done nothing - barely trading just above where they were ten years ago when I sold them. At least he hasn't lost any money, as have most!!)

And this is the lesson for all those ridiculous "hedge funds" and their pompous, worthless, over-compensated, and intellectually incompetent "managers" - none of you can beat the market over the long term, and if you believe you can, you have been masterfully deceived. Right now, many of you are paying for your hubris, and your customers are getting their rears handed to them. Let's hope that part of this recent crash will prove to be a "cleansing" period and many of these hedge funds will go permanently out of business, along with their pitifully greedy "managers." Good riddance... You have distorted the global financial system for much too long...

Of course, many Americans probably thought they'd "know when the end was about to come and get out in time" with at least some of their gains. Funny thing - crashes never happen like that. Hindsight is always 20/20, and we humans are just incredible at deceiving ourselves. And in like fashion, much of the recent malaise is of OUR OWN making. Shame on us; hopefully we can learn from this mess and get back to some investing basics - like buying, holding, and dollar-cost averaging into solid, broad-based ETFs (such as the DIA and SPY); stay far away from speculations; invest only in stocks paying generous dividends that you automatically reinvest; and, very importantly - asset allocate (for our own good and financial survival - see Malkiel's book "Random Walk" for more enlightenment; plus John Bogle's book "Common Sense Investing").

Everybody got caught speculating on over-price, junky real estate (condo-flipping and the like); far too risky equities schemes, etc. Now that we've had another taste of nuclear armageddon when it comes to the markets, perhaps we can start to make a base and recover somewhat. Hopefully most of the "bombs" have gone off globally and fiscal stimulus, much lower commodity prices, and so on can start to ameliorate some of the damage. (There's no cure for high prices like high prices...)

I agree with Warren Buffett who once said that "derivatives should be banned." He likened them to "weapons of financial mass destruction." We have been witnesses to this recently. Whenever you get away from investing in actual "stuff" that has intrinsic value - as a true product or service does - you have a problem. And you need to be on the hunt for true value; something that is selling for much less than its stream of earnings would warrant; and most especially, a stock that trades for less than it can be liquidated for; something with tangible assets on its books (cash, real estate, etc.) I don't think that stocks like Altria Group or McDonalds will be going belly-up any time soon, for instance. Can't say that about some banks, insurance companies, etc. Buy into a company that has some sort of "moat" around its castle; a company selling products that consumers will always want or need; something they're "addicted" to, so to speak. Better yet - just invest in the various indexes, including the foreign indexes (Asia, Europe, and Emerging Markets - like the EEM fund), and dollar cost average into these over a lifetime; lock 'em up and forget about 'em; you'll be much better off.

Guaranteed - if I had read the four books I mentioned above many years ago, I'd be on easy street now, being the hard worker and strict, assiduous saver that I am. Unfortunately, I cannot buy back the years...

Finally, we have an election in a couple days. Looks for sure at this point that Obama will win and we will have a significant paradigm shift in Washington. At best, we'll get back to a little bit of the Clinton era. At worst, we're going to get the second term of Jimmy Carter after all! Obama's rhetoric overlaps a good bit with both of them. Americans tend to vote their pocketbooks, so in a rotten economy, such as we have now, anybody with even the slightest degree of eloquence who promises simpletons the financial moon (using whose money, I would ask??) will have an extraordinary advantage. Enter Obama... But our many national problems will remain. Some seemingly intractable. So sad and unfortunate... But I do have a glimmer of hope that we, as Americans, CAN actually begin to make our way out of this dark swamp.

It would start first with paradigm shift in ENERGY policy. And Obama is wrong about "biofuels." What a waste for such a puny payoff. FORGET biofuels - a significant move in this direction would only make commodities even more expensive due to the demand. Crappy risk-reward. McCain is right about nuclear power - we need to move in a big way in that direction as of yesterday! What are we waiting for? Win, win all the way around - domestic energy from an unlimited source, much safer technology to manage the power, and jobs, jobs, jobs for the lucky municipalities. What's not to like? Ditto for coal and natural gas technologies taking center stage. And more drilling off shore, as well - we need ALL OF THE ABOVE, pronto!!

Energy policy should be priority number one, to wean this country away from what I call "financial terrorism"; i.e., the reliance on foreign oil, which is another big source of our national economic malaise. Why do we stand for it? Incredible... Why do we stand for inefficient homes and offices when it comes to energy, as well? Why can't solar tech and and more energy efficient windows be standard issue when it comes to building homes right now? Where I live in Arizona, this need is especially acute. I worked on a Habitat for Humanity project recently where EVERY new house in the community (nice 3/2 homes in a little HFH "community" of sorts) had solar panels installed on the roofs of the homes - donated by our excellent local power company - SRP. Should be standard for all new homes here. I've seen solar panels all over the world where I've travelled, especially in the sunnier, hotter areas. We here in the US, as usual, are behind the curve.

Social Security: doesn't need to "go bankrupt." Why aren't we doing something constructive with this fund? It could be invested according to scientifically feasible, asset allocations into our markets and global markets as well - bonds, stocks, real estate trusts, energy, precious metals, etc. Just like you should be doing with your own funds, so should we as a nation be doing with Social Security, so every citizen could rest easier knowing he/she had some kind of basic social insurance pension to look forward to in their retirement years. Anything's better than what we're doing now (which is, essentially, nothing). I believe we can have our cake and eat it too on this issue, if the funds were intelligently managed. We need to start NOW.

The "good times" need not be permanently gone in this great country. I believe we're witnessing at least part of the national "cleansing" of greed and stupidity that has been inevitably coming our direction for quite some time. We have enormous challenges ahead of us, but with the light of human reason and good, old-fashioned Ayn Randian individual initiative, we can head in the right direction. As John McCain says so often: let's "Stand up and Fight"!

Whoever wins this election will have to face these challenges head on with the best team he can assemble.

Let's all get started individually right away...

TTC