I don't have a solution, but I think I may have figured out what's missing from my perspective on democracy: pain — universal, democratic pain. In terms of the Iraq war, this country's burden is being shouldered by a select few. Some families and communities have been devastated by the war. Others, like mine, have been far too insulated. We can't truly share the responsibility for our democracy until we all share in its suffering.

And so, in the name of shared pain, I support the reinstitution of the draft.

As a parent of two teenagers, she continues:

If every parent does not have to fear losing a son or daughter — if every politician does not have to face that fear in his constituents — decisions to go to war will continue to be too easy. I believe that a true democracy comes from shared responsibility for our collective choices. If that choice is war, we must all share in its tragedy.

I wonder how much difference a draft would make, though.  I have the impression that the powerful have always been able to avoid the sacrifice of serving if they wanted to do so, draft or no draft.  Also, I have the impression that...even if there isn't unanimity...the subset of the population that has born most of the burden has generally also been supportive of the war from the beginning.  Still, it seems like it would be more appropriate for the burden to be distributed more evenly than it is, and a draft would help accomplish that.

Also, we took the training wheels off his bike this week, and he was up and riding in no time:

A struggling songwriter thinks he's hit pay dirt when he finds himself in the company of three chipmunks who can not only talk, but also sing in perfect, if high-pitched harmony.

It was OK.  I wondered if they skimped on the special effects because the munks at times didn't seem as well done as I'd have expected.  The boys enjoyed it, especially when someone was shaking his booty or making a rude noise.

I give it 3 out of 5.

For the last 8 years I've worked in R&D for a major chemical company surrounded by a whole gaggle of PhD engineers and other members of the "hard" sciences.  Time and again I've been surprised to find out that one of my colleagues is a church-goer.  With many of them that I haven't had deep conversations about faith, so admittedly some may be atheists or agnostics who happen to go to church for one reason or another.  However, there are also plenty that I do know well and know that they are strong believers.  As another anecdote, my own PhD advisor (who was and continues to be one of the most respected and influential professors in his field of science) is a Christian.  Somehow these sorts of surprises are reassuring to me in my own faith.

Prompted by Maher's statement, I did some googling.  A recent study pretty much fit my expectations, so I quit looking further.  ;-)

Based on a survey of scientists from 21 "elite" research universities, approximately 60 percent were either atheists or agnostics.  So, yes, ~60 is greater than 50 and is a larger number than the general public.  The study also suggested a bit of a surprise:

Scientists are less religious than the general population, a new study shows, but the reason has little to do with their study of science or academic pressures.

The findings challenge notions that science is responsible for a lack of faith among researchers, indicating that household upbringing carries the biggest weight in determining religiousness.

"Our study data do not strongly support the idea that scientists simply drop their religious identities upon professional training, due to an inherent conflict between science and faith, or to institutional pressure to conform," said Elaine Howard Ecklund, a sociologist at the University at Buffalo and co-author of the study.

That fits with my observations.  It's too simple to say that faith and science are incompatible and the scientific pursuits necessarily drive out faith.  Other factors are important, so I shouldn't be surprised that many of my scientist-pals in the mid-west, middle-America are people of faith despite the stereotype.

I'm sure if I looked a little harder, I could find plenty of evidence to the contrary (for example, this site quotes from various sources to draw different conclusions), and I'm not at all surprised that scientists tend to be less religious than the general population.  But I'm also convinced that the science vs faith divide isn't as cut and dried as conventional wisdom might claim.

This speech is the essence of what is so attractive about his message.  Unity not division. Hope not fear. And not or. Americans not Republicans or Democrats. This I can support wholeheartedly.

The other thing that has struck me in recent days is how prevalent the impression is that our racial issues are so far behind us that they are irrelevant to today's reality.  And that Tiger Woods, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, a governor or two, are evidence that all is hunky dory.  Come on.  There is no disputing the fact that, relative to their percentage of the population, blacks are underrepresented in positions of power (government, Fortune 500 CEOs, etc.), behind in economic advancement, behind in academic achievement, but drastically over-represented in prison.

As I figure it, faced with that evidence as well as even a superficial knowledge of our racial history (slavery, lynching, sundown towns, segregation, discrimination, bigotry, etc.), what explanations do we have other than 1) the blatantly racist view that blacks are naturally inferior in terms of morality, intellect, etc. or 2) the conclusion that the effects of our tragic racial history are still felt today?  This is no excuse for any individual to shirk responsibility for his own actions, but it does help us understand why some people might still feel angry and that there is still work to be done.

Various strangers' lives are affected and become intertwined by an act of violence.

I usually dig films like this, but this one not so much.  I give it 3 out of 5.

Here are some photos (more on Facebook and Picasa):