This July 4 comment is adapted from my book What's So Great About America. For more information on that or my other books, go to dineshdsouza.com

America is today the most loved society in the world--and the most hated. At a time when we are constantly lectured about our nation's flaws, it is useful to be reminded of the other side of the story. This July 4 weekend, it's worth thinking about what this country does right. The forgotten truth is that America is still the most attractive society in the world, and its appeal is felt even by the children of the America-haters.

Whatever the flaws of American policy and American culture, let's remember that immigrants from every continent continue to brave dislocation and hardship to come to America . Why do they do it? The conventional wisdom is that immigrants come to for one reason: to make money. This notion is conveyed in the "rags to riches" literature on immigrants, and it is reinforced by 's critics, who like to think of America as buying the affection of outsiders through the promise of making them filthy rich. But this Horatio Alger narrative is woefully incomplete; indeed, it misses the real attraction of Ameica to immigrants, and to people around the world.

There is enough truth in the conventional account to give it a surface plausibility. Certainly America offers a degree of mobility and opportunity unavailable elsewhere, not even in Europe . Only in America could Pierre Omidyar, whose ancestry is Iranian and who grew up in , have started a company like eBay. Only in America could Vinod Khosla, the son of an Indian army officer, become a shaper of the technology industry and a billionaire to boot.

In addition to providing unprecedented social mobility and opportunity, America gives a better life to the ordinary guy than does any other country. Let's be honest: rich people live well everywhere. In fact if you are very rich, my advice to you is not to live in America . The reason is that in most countries, but not in the United States , money buys you the pleasure of aristocracy-the pleasure of being a superior human being. Americans, however, share a social ethic that is deeply egalitarian. Americans believe that no matter how much money Bill Gates has, he is not better than they are.

America's greatness is that it has extended the benefits of affluence, traditionally available to the very few, to a large segment in society. America is a country where "poor" people have television sets and microwave ovens, where maids drive rather nice cars, where plumbers take their families on vacation to Europe . Recently I asked an acquaintance in Mumbai why he has been trying so hard to relocate to America . He replied, "I really want to move to a country where the poor people are fat."

The typical immigrant, who is used to the dilapidated infrastructure, mind-numbing inefficiency, and multi-layered corruption of developing countries, arrives in America to discover, to his wonder and delight, that everything works: the roads are clean and paper-smooth, the highway signs are clear and accurate, the public toilets function properly, when you pick up the telephone you get a dial tone, you can even buy things from the store and then take them back. The American supermarket is a thing to behold: endless aisles of every imaginable product, many different types of cereal, fifty flavors of ice cream. The place is full of numerous unappreciated inventions: quilted toilet paper, fabric softener, cordless phones, disposable diapers, and roll-on luggage.

So, yes, in material terms America offers the newcomer a better life. Still, the material allure of does not capture the deepest source of its appeal. Recently I asked myself how my life would have been different if I had not come to America . I was raised in a middle-class family in India . I didn't have luxuries, but I didn't lack necessities. Materially, my life is better in the United States , but it is not a fundamental difference. My life has changed far more dramatically in other ways.

Had I remained in India , I would probably live my entire existence within a modest radius of where I was born. I would undoubtedly have married a woman of my identical caste, religious and socioeconomic background. I would face relentless pressure to become an engineer, like my father; a doctor, like a couple of my uncles; or a computer programmer. My socialization would have been almost entirely within my ethnic community. I would have a whole set of opinions on religion and politics and society that could be predicted in advance. In sum, my destiny would to a large degree have been given to me.

By coming to America , I have seen my life break free of these traditional confines. At Dartmouth College, I became interested in literature, and switched my major to the humanities. Soon I developed a fascination with politics, and resolved to become a writer, which is something you can make a living doing in America, and which is not easy to do in India . I married a woman of English, Scotch-Irish, French, and German ancestry. Eventually I found myself working in the White House, even though I was not an American citizen. I cannot imagine any other country allowing a non-citizen to work in its inner citadel of government.

In most of the world, even today, your identity and your fate are largely handed to you. This is not to say that you have no choice, but it is choice within given parameters. In America , by contrast, you get to write the script of your own life. What to be, where to live, whom to love, whom to marry, what to believe, what religion to practice-these are all decisions that, in America , we make for ourselves. Here we are the architects of our own destiny.

Some critics, both in and abroad, have noted that this freedom to shape one's own life is not an unmixed blessing. Freedom can be used well or badly. Some Americans do indeed make mistakes with freedom, as the country's high divorce and illegitimacy rates suggest. These are unfortunate social trends, but we should remember that while freedom allows vice its scope, it also gives greater luster to virtue. It is no great achievement for an Indian couple to keep its marriage together, because the social stigma against divorce is prohibitive. By contrast, American couples who stay married deserve greater credit because they have chosen the good when the good is not the only practical option.

Those who have tasted the exhilaration of freedom-which entails responsibility for one's own choices and one's own life-can hardly imagine living in any other system. The core American idea is the "pursuit of happiness," which means that happiness is not a guarantee, but that you have a chance to find it for yourself. No wonder that so many young people throughout the world are magnetically attracted to what America represents: they find irresistible the prospect of being in the driver's seat of their lives. So, too, the immigrant discovers that America permits him to break free of the constraints that have held him captive, so that the future becomes a landscape of his own choosing.

Robert Jastrow, one of the noted astronomers of our time and, as it happens, a former professor of mine at Dartmouth, died earlier this year. This is my overdue tribute to his life and work.

Jastrow was one of the great popularizers of science. One of his books, Red Giants and White Dwarfs, became a national bestseller and conveyed to a whole generation of Americans the excitment and mystery of space exploration. When American astronauts landed on the moon, Jastrow provided expert commentary for the TV networks covering the event.

But Jastrow never permitted popularization to get in the way of serious professional accomplishment. After getting his doctorate in physics from Columbia, he became head of the theoretical divison at NASA. Later he was appointed head of the Goddard Space Institute. In 1992 he became chairman of Mount Wilson Observatory in California.

In addition to medals for scientific achivement, Jastrow also won acclaim as a gifted teacher. At Dartmouth, I always found him friendly and accessible. Later our paths crossed because Jastrow became an energetic and resourceful defender of President Reagan's strategic missile defense initiative, dubbed by its critics as "Star Wars."

While critics like physicist Hans Bethe said Star Wars would never work, the Russians agreed with Jastrow that it would, and they desperately sought to outlaw it. (Obviously if the Russians felt it was a boondoggle they would have supported it, since this would be a great way to waste America's defense budget.) In his last years Jastrow became increasingly skeptical of claims that global warming is destroying the planet. He saw global warming as an effort to exploit science for ideological ends.

One of Jastrow's gems is a little book called God and the Astronomers in which Jastrow, although himself an agnostic, made a startling argument. He argued that "the astronomical evience leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world." Jastrow not only documents his claim but shows why leading scientists including Einstein resisted the new discoveries, because they threatened the dogma that scientific laws enjoy eternal validity. Jastrow showed that in reality the laws of physics themselves came into existence with the Big Bang; beyond or apart from our universe, there are no such laws.

Jastrow's story reads like a detective novel, with the only difference that the facts he recounts are true. And here is his stunning conclusion: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Frankenstein's back, with a resounding endorsement of Barack Obama. I refer, of course, to the reemergence in public of former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Albright chastized Bush and defended Obama's statement that he would be happy to talk to Iran and other enemies of the United States. Albright blasted the current approach to the Middle East and made the anodyne point that it is just as important to converse with one's adversaries as it is to converse with one's friends.

The problem, of course, is not with talking with folks like Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. The problem is: who is going to do the talking? Certainly a President McCain has the experience and resolve to sit across the table with the bad guys and not fall for their deceptions or give in to their pressures. With an unseasoned guy like Obama, whose global experience may be confined to an occasional visit to the International House of Pancakes, who knows?

With Albright too it is credibility that becomes an issue. On May 11, 1996 this woman was asked by a television interviewer for "60 Minutes" whether she was troubled by the fact that Clinton-supported sanctions had resulted in the death of 500,000 Iraqi children. "It's a hard choice," she replied, "but we think it's worth it."

Leftists should keep Albright's response in mind when they wail about civilian casualties as a consequence of Bush's war in Iraq. Iraq Body Count keeps track of these casualties, and they are less than one-fifth the number of innocent civilians (mostly children) killed in the aftermath of sanctions. Sanctions had no effect on Saddam or his henchmen, who didn't miss a meal. Rather, they hurt the most vulnerable members of Iraqi society.

These facts remind us not only of the shortcomings of sanctions, which are not likely to work better with Iran than they did with Iraq. They also remind us that bad things in the world must be measured not against utopia but against what came before. Bush's Iraq war has resulted in a steep reduction of Iraqi deaths compared to the 300,000 people Saddam deposited in the mass graves and compared to the even greater number of deaths that Clinton's policies seem to have produced.

Still, I come back to Albright's original dismissal of half a million deaths with the calm affirmation: it's worth it. Can you recall another secretary of state making a remark more shockingly callous than Albright's? How this Frankenstein became the first female secretary of state remains a mystery.

And it is this same person who would presume to lecture us on what we should now be doing with Iran. I don't think we need more advice from Albright. Rather, what we need from her is an apology, followed by an overdue withdrawal from public life.

The recent Pew Forum study on religion, widely reported in the media, shows that the vast majority of Americans remains religious: 92 percent believe in God. This percentage has remained relatively stable for more than half a century.

Atheists remain a tiny proportion of the population with some interesting anomalies: 21 percent of self-identified atheists say they believe in God, with nearly 10 percent of them "absolutely sure" of it. What this means is that 21 percent of self-described atheists are highly confused and 10 percent are certified nut-cases.

What got the most attention, however, was Pew's discovery that a majority of religious Americans believe that other religions make valid claims about God and can lead to heaven. Around 80 percent of Catholics, Protestants and Jews, as well as 55 percent of Muslims, reject the idea that their religion is the only way.

These findings, however, hardly suggest that pluralism has overtaken truth as the defining feature of American religion. First of all, Christianity is the only religion to hold another religion to be wholly true. That religion is Judaism. Second, Catholics and Protestants have become increasingly convinced that it is fidelity to creedal Christianity--and not the denominational differences of past centuries--that is decisive for salvation. Finally many people don't realize that just as Christianity sees itself as succeeding and incorporating Judaism, so Islam sees itself as coming after and incorporating both Judaism and Christianity. Consequently I'm not surprised that most Muslims view Jews and Christians as fellow monotheists rather than hell-bound infidels.

Soon my Orange County debate with atheist Christopher Hitchens and Jewish radio host Dennis Prager will be up on the web and I'll link to it. The debate, amusingly billed as a Christian-Atheist-Jewish showdown, had some fiery and fascinating exchanges. At one point Hitchens sought to alienate me from the Jews in the audience by asking me if good and decent Jews can go to heaven. I said I believe they can. This is no denial of the central Christian proposition that Christ is the way to salvation. The Bible clearly specifies that there is salvation through Christ for his followers.

But Scripture and Christian teaching leave open the question of what happens to virtuous non-Christians who either lived before Christ or who have not had a chance to accept him. My hope and belief is that God's mercy can extend to them also, as it did to Moses and Abraham and the God-fearing Jews of the Old Testament. If so, they too would be saved through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, even if they did not consciously and explicitly embrace that sacrifice. As for atheists who reject God and affirm with Hitchens that they want nothing to do with heaven, we can be reasonably confident that God will respect their free will and reluctantly grant their wish.

There are two kinds of pluralism: the kind that holds that truth does not matter, and the kind that holds that truth matters greatly but as flawed human beings our reason and experience gives us only limited access to the truth. The first kind of pluralism is deadly for religion, and is typically embraced by flaccid people who are too lazy to think or who have been seduced by postmodernist flimflam. The second kind of pluralism is the shared ground of debate between intelligent believers and unbelievers. The stakes could not be higher.

Nietzsche has been dead for more than a hundred years, yet today his reputation is higher than ever. Indeed Nietzsche is probably the leading philosopher to whom liberal intellectuals and academics look for inspiration and guidance. For example, the late Robert Solomon of the University of Texas at Austin, in his book Living With Nietzsche, proclaims Nietzsche to be the most insightful and relevant thinker for our time.

How can this be? Nietzsche was openly and contemptuously opposed to most of the cardinal tenets of modern liberalism. For instance, he hated democracy and equality and proclaimed both to be the pathetic legacy of Christianity. He denounced socialism in even-more-harsh terms, declaring it fit for only cows and women. Speaking of women, Nietzsche was not exactly a feminist. Among his pungent sayings: "Whenever a woman is a scholar there is usually something wrong with her sex organs." Or, "When thou goest to woman, do not forget thy whip."

In addition, Nietzsche exalts what he terms "master morality" and condemns what he terms "slave morality." And what is slave morality? Basically it is the liberal virtue of compassion which Nietzsche treats entirely as a vice. For Nietzsche it is the losers of society--the slaves--who have invented compassion as a virtue in order to tie down the masters who rightly and uninhibitedly dominate them. Nietzsche views slave morality as motivated by resentment, jealousy and inferiority complex all masquerading as righteousness. You cannot embrace Nietzsche's doctrine without seeing, say, Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King in an entirely new light.

Moreover, Nietzsche condemns compassion even on the part of the giver. Nietzsche argues that "to see others suffer does one good" and that "to be unwilling to help can be nobler than the virtue which jumps to help." Nietzsche declares that compassion, far from being praiseworthy, is actually a cunning way for people to make themselves feel superior to others, and then to congratulate themselves for being in a position to help those lower people. Again, one comes away from reading Nietzsche with a far less benign view of people like George Soros and Nancy Pelosi.

So why does the cultural left, as represented by liberal intellectuals like Solomon, love Nietzsche so much? I think there are two reasons. The first is that Nietzsche is a rabid atheist. Not only does Nietzsche declate that "God is dead" but he also insists that Western society must rid itself of all vestiges of Christian morality. This goes way beyond atheists like Richard Dawkins who feebly proclaim themselves "cultural Christians."

Second, Nietzsche is an unabashed elitist. He contrasts the elite with what he terms "the herd." This is a wonderful distinction that enables half-educated liberals to say to themselves, "Hey, when Nietzsche scorns the herd he must be talking about my parents and my pastor and all those people who think that I am a selfish loser and a nerd. And when Nietzsche praises the lone rebel who dares to reject morality in the name of a higher conscience, well, he must have had me in mind!"

P.S. Read the childish and abusive reaction from atheists (including some who can do no better than pretend to be me) to see that this analysis strikes a chord. "When you cannot answer a man's argument, do not panic. You can always call him names."

Is it 1976 all over again? Is Obama the new Jimmy Carter?

I get this idea from, of all people, Democratic strategist Bob Beckel. Beckel was on TV the other day saying that Obama was looking a bit like Jimmy Carter in 1976. Beckel intended this as a compliment. After all, Carter came out of nowhere to steal the Democratic nomination and then went on to win the election. Obama too has vanquished a woman who was thought to be invincible for the Democratic nomination.

I think Beckel has a point with his Carter analogy, although Beckel does not seem to have thought it through deeply enough. Actually it goes even further than he imagines. Obama, like Carter, has had no preparation for the high office he seeks. Carter's background was in peanut farming; Obama's is in community activism. Yes, Carter was governor of Georgia and Obama has served briefly in the Senate. But no one can seriously argue that either brings to Washington anything like the experience necessary to run the United States of America.

Second, Obama, like Carter, tries to be all things to all people. Carter campaigned largely on vacuities like "change" and "cleaning out Washington." Sound familiar? Of course Americans after Watergate wanted Washington cleaned up and they wanted change. And of course Carter gave it to them, although it wasn't exactly the change they sought: stagflation, economic recession, runaway interest rates, U.S. hostages in Iran, a Soviet bear on the prowl, and what Carter himself called a national "malaise."

Obama is hoping that once again Americans will fall for his content-free campaign. And so far he seems to have the white liberal intelligentsia completely fooled. A classic example is my former debate opponent Alan Wolfe, who has endorsed Obama on the sole grounds that it's about time America let a black man into the Oval Office. Wolfe is not the brightest light in the academic firmament--I think of him as white America's answer to Cornel West--but he is one of the biggest opportunists this side of the Nile. Consequently his support of Obama shows which way this academic weatherman thinks the wind is blowing.

I don't know if Obama, like Carter, will make it to the White House in November. But the best thing about Carter was that, by being a complete disaster, he helped Reagan get elected in 1980. Even so, America paid a high price for Carter's foolishness--several countries fell into the Soviet orbit, and Iran fell into the clutches of the radical mullahs. Who knows how costly an Obama presidency could be? I for one hope it's not 1976 all over again.

The conventional wisdom holds that John McCain should lean to his right in making his choice for a vice presidential candidate. This wisdom is completely wrong. Most of the names being bandied about would make terrible choices for McCain. I don't claim to be a political expert in the manner of Dick Morris, but I think the best choice for McCain would be Colin Powell.

Yes, Colin Powell. And here are the reasons why. First, Powell has an independent mind. He is not a captive of the right, and consequently he reinforces the public perception that McCain is not a pawn of Bush. True, Powell served in the Bush administration, but his disagreements with Bush are well known. Obama is trying to portray McCain as a Bush clone. Powell will help McCain convince independent voters--the ones he needs most--that his administration would not constitute a third Bush term.

Second, Powell has experience. The man has served honorably and responsibly in more high positions than Obama and all the other Democratic candidates combined. Moreover, Powell has gravitas while Obama merely has the gift of the gab. So Powell helps to highlight how green and goofy Obama really is. The point is not to contrast one African American with another, or to show how Powell like Obama has immigrant roots. Rather, it is to dissolve the race issue by showing that capability and experience, not race and skin color, are the real issues here.

Finally, who apart from the Obamorons can doubt that Powell would make a capable president? This is especially important given the fact that McCain is over seventy. A Powell choice would also reinforce the big question about the man at the top of the Democratic ticket: Is he ready? I am not going to say that Obama can never be a good president, but I seriously doubt that he is mature enough to climb into the saddle. Who would you trust--Powell or Obama--to better handle a national emergency?

Now all of this could be idle speculation, because Powell may not want to be vice president. I keep hearing about how his wife is so completely against the idea. But this could be one of McCain's first tasks: to persuade Powell to do it. This wouldn't be the first time that this soldier has been asked to put personal considerations second and to take on a great challenge for the future of his country.

When Richard Dawkins published The God Delusion, philosopher Michael Ruse was quoted as saying that the book "makes me embarrassed to be an atheist." What especially galls Ruse is Dawkins' pig-headed insistence that anyone who embraces the Darwinian account of evolution cannot remain a Christian.

Ruse is a noted philosopher at Florida State University, an atheist champion of evolution and Darwinism, and author of several critically acclaimed books including Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?

I've been reading Ruse's book, and in it he counters Dawkins' simple-minded argument that God has been proven irrelevant since chance and natural selection now constitute "the blind watchmaker." Ruse writes, "It still leaves open the option of God's designing at a distance. Perhaps God put His design into action through the medium of unbroken law. Perhaps a God who works in this way is superior to a God who has to intervene personally and miraculously."

But doesn't evolution contradict a literal reading of the first chapter of Genesis? Yes, but Ruse points out that there are only two groups of people who insist on reading Genesis in a close-mindedly literal way. The first group is ignorant fundamentalists. And the second group is ignorant atheists like Dawkins.

By contrast, Ruse shows that from earliest times thoughtful Christians like the church father Augustine read the creation account figuratively. And for nearly two thousand years the Catholic Church has followed in this tradition. Ruse adds that while Calvin was a bit more literal-minded than Luther, both leading reformers also allowed for non-literal understandings of creation. Indeed Calvin introduced his doctrine of "accommodation" in which he argued that the Bible is sometimes written in a form as to make itself intelligible to people who are not well educated and don't have a sophisticated understanding of science.

Ruse 's conclusion introduces subtleties that seem entirely beyond the capacity of Dawkins. "Is the Christian obligated to be a Darwinian?" Ruse answers no, but urges Christians to take evolutionary biology seriously because they don't want a Christianity practiced in the dark. "Is the Darwinian obligated to be a Christian?" Again, the answer is no but Ruse adds this advice: "Try to be understanding of those who are." Finally Ruse gets to the big one. "Can a Darwinian be a Christian?" To which he offers the resounding answer: "Absolutely!"

Science is wonderful at doing certain things, like popping warm toast out of my toaster and making heavy objects float and fly. Without science we wouldn't be able to do those things. No wonder that science enjoys a position of high prestige in our society.

But the achievements of science blind many people to the fact that science is a limited tool for understanding ourselves and the world. In some areas science has showed astounding progress, but in other areas science has taught us no more than we knew since the time of the Babylonians.

Consider some of the most important questions facing us as human beings: Why are we here? Where ultimately did we come from? Where are we going? Science can provide us with very limited answers. As the philosopher Wittgenstein once put it, one has the feeling that even if all possible scientific knowledge could been obtained, the biggest questions of life would remain largely untouched and unanswered.

Skepticism is of course a central tool of science, but many skeptics make the mistake of failing to apply skepticism to science itself. They are skeptical within science but they are not skeptical about science. They naively believe that science can answer all the questions that require answers. Thus they demand of science what science has never provided and is not likely to provide in the future.

I call this the "atheism of the gaps." The basic idea is that if science hasn't figured something out, just wait a few years, because the brilliant scientists are working on it. Have faith that they will come up with good answers in the future, just as they have in the past. In other words, we should assume that people who are smart enough to make toasters are also smart enough to figure out whether there is life after death.

Yes, it's laughable, and that's why I'm sorry to see smart fellows like my friend Michael Shermer succumbing to this science-worship. Shermer is the editor of Skeptic magazine and author of some fine books including most recently The Mind of the Market. We've done several God v. atheism debates, the most recent one before 2,500 people at Fresno State University. It was one of our liveliest, and you can watch that debate here.

Shermer used to be a Christian fundamentalist. He always gets off a funny line about how he used to go door to door handing out literature, and now as an atheist he wants to go back to those people and take back the stuff he gave them. In a way, though, Shermer remains a believer. He still places his faith in men in white robes. Only these men happen to work not in pulpits but in laboratories. Science is now Shermer's religion.

In a couple of my debates, I asked Shermer what kind of scientific evidence he would require to be convinced that God exists. I asked him, "What if we discovered a new planet tomorrow and emblazed on it were the words: YAHWEH MADE THIS. Would you then believe that there is a God?" Shermer said no. He would automatically conclude that some chance combination of chemicals must have generated those words. In short, he is closed to supernatural explanations, no matter what the data, and is only open to natural explanations.

This I consider a selective sort of skepticism that is actually a lamentable sort of dogmatism. I see it also in Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. In a way they are much narrower than religious believers. That's because the religious believer admits both natural and supernatural explanations. By contrast, these unbelievers have closed themselves off to all possibilities that don't fit their naturalistic outlook. One may say that science has blinded them to the things that science cannot possibly tell them.

Now that Barack Obama has pretty much wrapped up the nomination, it's time to raise a question that lots of people have been talking about privately but not publicly. Is it possible that Michelle Obama is the force behind Barack Obama's refusal to embrace traditional patriotic symbols? Could Obama's wife be largely responsible for the candidate's damaging associations with crackpot race-baiters like the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the Reverend Michael Pfleger? In sum, could Obama's wife be a large part of his political problem?

Obama himself seems, at least on the surface, relatively free of the kind of corrosive racial resentment that is so common among African American activists of our day. This resentment is especially puzzling as it often comes from people who, far from being victims, have actually enjoyed benefits and privileges that they would probably never get if they happened to be white.

Consider the case of Michelle Obama. She was raised in a two-parent, middle-class family. She applied to one of America's top universities, Princeton, and was admitted. Of this experience, Michelle says on the stump, "All my life I have confronted people who had a certain expectation of me. Every step of the way, there has been people telling me what I couldn't do. When I applied to Princeton, they said: you can't go there, your test scores aren't high enough."

Which is all very moving, except that her test scores weren't high enough. Michelle Obama is part of the affirmative action generation of above-average but far-from-stellar performers who were granted preferential admission to America's most elite institutions.

Michelle notes that she graduated with honors in her major. Again, the problem is that her undergraduate thesis is on the web. You might expect that she wrote about Shakespeare's sonnets or the political evolution of W.E.B. Du Bois. Well, no. Essentially Michelle Obama wrote about the problems of being a black woman at an Ivy League university.

Here is a typical passage: "By actually working with the Black lower class or within their communities as a result of their ideologies, a separationist may better understand the desparation of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight."

Alas, the grammar is all wrong here. More than once, the tenses are garbled. People are ignorant "of" the plight of the lower class, not ignorant "to" their plight. And"desparation" should be spelled "desperation." To wreak so much havoc on the English language in one sentence, without conveying anything of substance, is perhaps deserving of a prize. Is this what her professors were thinking when they granted her honors? Whatever the Obamorons say, let's remember that that these are not mere typos; they reflect an estranged relationship to the English language. Moreover they appear not in a daily blog but in a thesis that is supposed to reflect the culmination of one's college career.

Subsequently Michelle went on to further appointments and even managed to cash in big time on her skin color and marriage to Barack Obama. She was hired by the University of Chicago hospitals to run "programs for community relations, neighborhood outrecah, volunteer recruitment, staff diversity, and minority contracting." Here her salary was $400,000 a year.

One might expect that the reaction of someone who gets so many privileges to be grateful to a society that makes them possible. But no. Michelle Obama thinks that her very success is an example of white oppression. By a bizarre twist of logic, she converts "you're not good enough, but we'll take you anyway" into a message of "they said I wasn't good enough, but I proved them wrong."

Ordinarily these psychological peculiarities may be of little interest, except perhaps to a therapist. But Michelle now stands next to a man that may be elected president of the United States. Barack Obama wants everyone to "lay off" his wife. He doesn't seem to realize that this is not a reasonable request concerning a woman who clearly influences him and who stands to have public influence in her own right. Moreover, for months the media has been laying off her precisely because she is his wife. Like Michelle, Obama seems to confuse preferential treatment with ill treatment.

Of course we've had controversial first ladies in the White House before. The Obamas, however, aren't there yet. Will Barack Obama be ultimately forced to distance himself not just from the Reverend Wright and the Reverend Pfleger but also from his own wife?

First it was the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and now the Reverend Michael Pfleger. What's with Obama's crackpot preacher pals?

One is white and one is black. And there are probably more of them that the Obama campaign is trying to muzzle as we speak. But does Obama seem peculiarly unfortunate in his choice of mentors and allies, or is there an ideological basis to what these preachers are saying?

Chicago, where Obama is from, is the capital of what may be called the Black Liberation Theology movement in the United States. This movement is a legacy of the 1960s, and has more to do with Malcolm X than Martin Luther King.

Malcolm X, you may recall, denounced Christianity as a racist religion which had created what he called a "blond, blue-eyed Jesus." Malcolm X called on blacks to repudiate this bigoted religion. He himself embraced the Nation of Islam with its own peculiar theology.

Some black activists, notably a theologian named James Cone, agreed with Malcolm X. But their solution was not to abandon Christianity. Rather, they countered what they saw as the white man's Christianity with a kind of black equivalent. In this view, Christ was not blond and blue eyed but rather black and Afrocentric. Picture Christ with an Afro and dashiki leading a revolutionary liberation movement against the white Pharoahs and you'll get the picture.

Cone and others spearheaded a new interpretation of the Bible which is now read as a story of emancipation from white racist oppression. Unfortunately what black liberation theology does is to take all the old racial stereotypes and simply invert them. Consequently the new theology was no less race-conscious and prejudiced than the one it sought to replace.

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright explicitly associates himself with black liberation theology. I don't know about Pfleger, but his rhetoric also reflects the same themes. Ironically there are some whites like Pfleger who are attracted to the doctrine of white oppressors and black martyrs. Presumably these whites hope that by allying themselves with black virtue they can escape the moral stigma of being white.

Obama and his campaign managers have been trying to promote the lie that this bizarre cult of black liberation theology is actually mainstream teaching in the black church. And again there is a strain of condescending white liberalism that is quick to agree. "Yes, of course they say crazy things in the black church, Mildred, but you have to understand the terrible things those people have been through."

In reality you only have to sample black churches across the country to see that this is a calumny against black Christians, who are mostly traditional in their understanding of the Bible and who don't spend their Sundays chanting "God damn America!"

I'm relieved that Obama has finally summoned the good sense to quit the Reverend Wright's Trinity Church. Ultimately what Obama needs to repudiate is not only the odd Reverend who happens to embarrass his campaign but the racist ideology that calls itself black liberation theology.

Each year, some two million Muslims from around the world make a pilgrimage to the holy site of Mecca. For some in the West, nothing could be scarier than two million Muslims, all dressed in white, touching their heads to the ground and shouting "Allahu Akbar." Reading the usual pundits, you get the idea that Mecca is a breeding ground of Islamic radicalism.

To figure out if this is true, a group of American researchers surveyed more than 1500 Pakistanis who went on the pilgrimage to Mecca in 2006. They discovered that these men had overcome great obstacles to make the trip. It costs arond $2500 to go to Mecca, and that's three times the annual salary of a typical Pakistani. Still, nearly 140,000 Pakistanis applied to go in 2006. Only 80,000 visas were granted by the Saudi government.

Since the Saudis granted their visas based on lottery, the researchers had the clever idea of comparing the attitudes of those who returned from Mecca to those who didn't get to go. They wanted to see if the pilgrimage to Mecca strengthened or undermined Islamic radicalism. Incredibly, the researchers found that the Pakistanis who went to Mecca returned with attitudes more moderate and less sympathetic to Islamic fanaticism and terrorism.

But isn't Mecca dominated by radical clerics who, when they aren't eating or sleeping, lead chants of "Death to America"? This is the propaganda you hear from groups like memri.org that selectively publish material intended to give an exaggerated picture of the influence of the Muslim radicals. In reality, the overriding theme of the visit to Mecca is the traditional theme of universal Muslim brotherhood.

No surprise: pilgrims returning fro Mecca were 25 percent less likely to hold that different tribes or ethnicities could not live in harmony. Remarkably, pilgrims were also more likely to believe that all religions can co-exist. Moreover, the Pakistanis who went to Mecca were less approving of suicide bombings and other such tactics as the Pakistanis who stayed back.

Call this the Mecca effect. I predicted it in my book The Enemy at Home, in which I argued that America can find common ground with traditional believers and not just anti-Muslim activists like Hirsi Ali. The results of the Mecca effet, and the study cited here, are beautifully outlined in a recent article in the online magazine Slate written by Professor Ray Fisman of Columbia University. You can read the article here.

Yes, I know that the Islamophobes will come back with their regularly-recyled quotations from the Koran about "killing all the infidels" and so on. But equally alarming quotations can also be found in the Old Testament. The important thing is to see how those texts have been interpreted and how people have acted upon them. Muslims have had many empires through the centuries: the Ummayad, the Abassid, the Mughal, the Ottoman, and so on. Tens of millions of Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians have lived under Muslim rule. In any Muslim empire was it either policy or practice to systematically kill all the non-Muslims? No.

So we have to learn to think afresh and to take into account real evidence. Prejudice against practicing Muslims and against religious believers in general is rife in certain segments of Western society. But such prejudices should not be the basis of making public policy.

In his book A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness, V.S. Ramachandran says it "never ceases to amaze me" that "all the richness of our mental life--all our feelings, our emotions, our thoughts, our ambitions--is simply the activity of these little specks of jelly in our brains. There is nothing else." Here is the voice of materialism, the doctrine that holds that matter is all that there is, and mind is simply an epiphenomenon of matter. It is the intellectual foundation of the new atheism espoused by Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett and others.

Dawkins, Pinker and Dennett offer nothing to prove the doctrine, and neither does Ramachandran. The best Ramachandran can do is cite exotic ailments: the fellow who could recognize shapes but not faces; the fellow who thought his mother was an imposter in disguise, the patient who responded to pain with laughter, and so on. Turns out that these peculiarities emerge as a result of damage to particular parts of the brain.

But so what? When I bash my radio, the sound stops. Does that mean the radio is creating the sound waves? Isn't it more reasonable to say the radio is simply the instrument or conduit that makes it possible for us to hear those sound waves? Similarly when it rains on the Wimbledon tennis court, play is cancelled. Does this mean that the tennis court is responsible for Federer's serve? No, it simply shows that Federer's serve requires a tennis court for us to be able to watch and appreciate it. In the same vein, all that Ramachandran's outlandish examples prove is that the brain is the site or venue where mental activity takes place. The brain may well be the necessary vehicle for mental activitity. It does not follow that brains and minds are identical.

In his excellent new book The Spiritual Brain, neuroscientist Mario Beauregard turns Ramachandran's argument on its head. He shows that if matter can shape mind, it's equally true that mind can shape matter. In my last post I offered one line of Beauregard's evidence, focusing on placebo and nocebo effects. Here I offer a second. Beauregard matches Ramachandran with his own list of ailments: patients suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder, patients who are depressed, patients who have various phobias such as fears of spiders and cats, and so on.

It turns out that many of these disorders are the result of mental traumas of one sort or another. These traumas leave scars or effects on the physical structure of the brain. Drugs can sometimes help, but frequently they have unpleasant side effects. So what many skilled health care professionals now do is they train the patients to think differently about their condition. For instance, patients who are scared of spiders are shown and taught that most spiders are quite harmless. Eventually the patients train their minds learn to control their paranoia.

Now here is the remarkable thing. When the patients learn to use their wills to control their fears, researchers have discovered that this mental activity also changes the workings of the patients' brains. In other words, mental activity can change the very structure and distribution of the neurons and circuits in the brain. Call it "mind over matter."

What Beauregard is saying that that since minds can regulate brains, therefore minds are not the same as brains. And if my countryman Ramachandran is amazed that little pieces of matter can shape our mental life, I am equally amazed that purely mental events can remake the physical operations of our brains. One day we will figure all this out, and then I predict we will find that minds are much more than an epiphenomenon of matter.

Conventional wisdom holds that the human mind is nothing more than the human brain. This belief derives from materialism. By "materialism" I don't mean the mania to shop unceasingly at the mall. Rather, I mean the philosophy that material reality is all that there is. Immaterial or spiritual realities are, in this view, simply epiphenomena of the material world.

We find the materialist view ably expressed in Francis Crick's The Astonishing Hypothesis. What Crick finds astonishing is that our thoughts, emotions and feelings consist entirely in the physiological activity in the circuitry of the brain. Daniel Dennett argues that "mind" is simply a term for what the brain does. And how do we know that the brain and the mind are essentially the same? The best evidence is that when the brain is damaged, the injury affects the mind. Patients whose brains atrophy due to stroke, for instance, lose their ability to distinguish colors or to empathize with others.

But in his book The Spiritual Brain, neuroscientist Mario Beauregard shows why the Crick-Dennett position is based on a fallacy. Yes, the brain is the necessary locus or venue for the mind to operate. It does not follow that the two are the same. Beauregard gives a telling analogy. "Olympic swimming events require an Olympic class swimming pool. But the pool does not create the Olympic events; it makes them feasible at a given location." Far from being identical to the mind, Beauregard argues that the brain "is an organ suitable for connecting the mind to the rest of the universe."

A provocative idea. Beauregard produces several lines of evidence, but there I focus on just one: the placebo effect. The placebo or sugar-pill effect is one of the most widely-attested phenomena in medicine. One medicine journal notes that "the history of medicine is the history of the placebo effect." So powerful is the impact of the sugar pill that today the effectiveness of drugs is measured by the FDA in comparison to the placebo effect.

Yet as Beauregard points out, the placebo effect is an embarassment to the simple-minded conception of the mind as an ephiphenomenon of the brain. The reason is that this effect shows the mind shaping the brain. The mental expectation of being cured leads to an actual alteration in the physical workings of the brain, and the patient experiences a measurable physiological improvement. One doctor who cured a patient through the placebo effect was asked what he gave the patient that produced such an incredible result. His answer? "Hope."

Beauregard also writes about something I didn't know much about: the nocebo effect. "The nocebo effect is the harmful health effect created by a sick person's belief and expectation that a powerful source of harm has been contacted or administered." So if patients are strongly convinced that a particular pill will give them nausea, they frequently become nauseous, even when the pill they have taken is not the one they expected but only a sugar pill.

Materialism is based on the assumption that the only way to alter the mind is to alter the physical operations of the brain. But Beauregard uses the placebo and nocebo effect to show the reverse. The mind can also regulate the operations of the brain. Beauregard writes that he placebo and nocebo effects are not triggered by the sugar pill but rather are "triggered by the patient's mental state. In other words, they depend entirely on the patient's state of belief."

But if minds can control brains, them minds are not the same as brains. This leads to the unavoidable conclusion that there is an aspect of thought and feeling that lies outside the realm of the material. This is what Beauregard calls "the spiritual brain." Atheists too have one, even if they refuse to admit it.

Why are secular liberals so unhappy? This question is provocatively discussed in Arthur Brooks' new book Gross National Happiness. Brooks is a sociologist and statistician at Syracuse University. I am reading his book while vacationing with my lovely wife on the beautiful island of Santorini. So it's natural for me, watching the most beautiful sunsets in the world, martini in hand, to think about the question of happiness.

Brooks' book is full of interesting data. We learn, for instance, that money does buy happiness, but only upto a point. Poor people and poor countries are unhappy, and by the self-description of the people involved. So the movement from grinding poverty to the comfortable middle-class brings a huge gain in happiness. But interestingly economic improvement at this point brings diminishing marginal returns. This is not to say that rich people aren't happier: they are. But not by very much.

Brooks also shows that, in his own words, "people who say they are conservative or very conservative are nearly twice as likely to say they are very happy than are people who call themselves liberal or very liberal. Conservatives are much less likely to say they are dissatisfied with themselves, that they are inclined to feel like a failure, or to be pessimistic about their future." Conservatives' mental health is far better than that of liberals.

Equally fascinating, Brooks notes that "faith is an incredible predictor, and cause, of happiness. Religious people of all faiths are much, much happier on average than secularists." Specifically, 43 percent of those who attend church weekly or more call themselves "very happy," versus 23 percent who attend seldom or never. Observant Jews and Christians are by Brooks' measure the happiest people in America.

So why are secular liberals in general so miserable? I offer two reasons. The first is that liberals are political utopians. They consider human nature to be wonderful, and they expect freedom to be used wonderfully well. So they are always bitterly disappointed when they discover that this is not the case. Conservatives, by contrast, have a dimmer view of human nature. So their expectations are more modest. When things don't turn out half-badly, conservatives are pleasantly surprised. They are happier because it takes less to make them happier.

It's not too hard to figure out why religious people are happier. Belief in God gives people a powerful sense of higher purpose in life. It assures people that the universe is in the benign hands of a omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate higher power. It offers people a code for how to live. It gives us a reason to hope in cosmic justice, which is better than the imperfect justice of our terrestrial world.

By contrast, secular people have little to hope for. They are sure that they came from nowhere--the chance product of random mutation and natural selection--and are going nowhere. They know that terrible things happen, and they don't believe there is any purpose in this. No wonder that secular people have so few children: they have much less reason than religious people to believe in the future.

So why is an atheist like Richard Dawkins so frequently wearing a conspitated scowl? And why am I usually smiling? Some may attribute these differences to our genetic temperaments. Others may put it down to the fact that I live in sunny California, eating healthy nouvelle cuisine and going on walking tours in Santorini. Dawkins, by contrast, lives in dank, rainy England and eats abominable English food. ("May I offer you some more kidney pie, Professor Dawkins? It's somewhat bland, I know, but perhaps it will work as a laxative.")

But Arthur Brooks would probably say that our temperaments are also the consequences of two very different worldviews, one producing the wholesome optimism of What's So Great About Christianity, the other the angry bitterness of The God Delusion. Read Brooks' new book yourself to see if he's right.