The best hope for the monarchy is that Prince Charles dies before the Queen. We spend our lives here educating a new generation to understand that rational behaviour requires us to reach conclusions and make decisions by examining evidence. Yet now we have the heir to the throne demanding — not in a throwaway remark, but in an entire book to which he has just put his name — that we should reject science and evidence in favour of following our instincts. This is surely disturbing."Disturbing"? Surely he must be joking! It's gum drops and caviar! Why, trying to stop this attitude was recently described by Ann Althouse's "second" husband, Meade, as a "dead end" and a "New Age witch hunt" rather than any kind of worthy attempt to assist rationality in regaining a foothold in Western society. How can it be "disturbing" if it isn't bothering good ol' Meade? Meade reads The New York Times.
Meade knows everything.
(And is it just us or is there one hell of a lot of smug in the Althouse/Meade household(s) when a camera shows up?)
But then what can we expect when, in a recent debate on the Althouse blog, Meade's "second wife" - top lawyer Ann Althouse - countered the charge she's a NewAger by spelling words backwards and making anagrams? Now that's disturbing,...
An acquaintance of the Prince argued to me recently that we should not worry about his behaviour because anybody who spends time with him quickly sees that he is potty, and thus harmless.Yea, we've heard that before. Why, we're pretty sure it's exactly what Meade has in mind, too.