Speaking of hope, there's an incredibly stupid column by Cal Thomas about hope in today's paper (it probably came out a while ago, but my local paper publishes at its own pace
. Here's how it begins:<br><br>"Hope is a dangerous thing," s...g with despair.
<br><br>If you follow out the logic of hope being dangerous, then this gentleman, who is a Baptist minister, is also suggesting that believers shouldn't believe because, after all, what if the belief turns out to be misplaced. By implication he's also suggesting that we ought not to fall in love because to do so is obviously to leave ourselves open to disappointment and suffering. And surely we ought to abort all fetuses because children are so much objects of hope--if nothing else of hope that there will be a future, period.<br><br>But then the real purpose of the column is to argue that Obama is not someone we ought to even consider a good choice because he offers ungrounded hope: [color:blue]The "hope" being sold by Obama and his true believers is misplaced. Obama cannot deliver; he cannot save; he cannot improve individual circumstances by redistributing wealth and talking to America's dictatorial enemies. He is selling snake oil.</font color=blue><br><br>That may be true, or not. But to introduce the whole business with the idea that we ought not to hope . . . what a douche bag of an article!<br><br>[color:red]</font color=red> [color:orange]</font color=orange> [color:yellow]</font color=yellow> [color:green]</font color=green> [color:blue]</font color=blue> [color:purple]</font color=purple>