Slashdot Mirror

Unfortunately the "reform" we got was not exactly what we needed. When bankruptcy judges themselves are saying the law is too harsh, it seems like it is doing more than just trying to "reign in the freeloaders".

I can't believe that /. forgot about Star Wars Anniversary

Well, when you consider the money students (and by extension, their parents) bring in to the univ through alumni funds, sports tickets, targeted advertising, the college loan bribery scandal, and loan companies profiting off of said bribery scandal...

why yes, yes they are.
Might as well have the asset tags...er, student ID's have tracking capabilities so those carbon-based ATMs don't get away.

Speaking of stupid ideas.... See this from a while back... UAW has also previously done other similar idiotic things...

Actually, I like this take on his approval rating: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/ [msn.com] heh. 25% my ass.

While I love the outcome of that poll it has 2 rather large short comings. First, it is self selecting which means the sample pool can not be guaranteed to look anything like the larger body it is meant to reflect. And Second, the votes are very easy to spoof, with a little scripting and time a single person could easily spam thousands of votes and skew the results in what ever direction the wanted.

-Rick

Look, now you've gone so far as to get a registered to Democrat tell you to get of your big D high horse.

"Off the table" Pelosi and the rest of her DLC following Dempublicans are playing political patty-cake while this travesty of a revenge act against the completely wrong party goes on full swing. The big media-hogging "mainstream" (*snicker*) Democrats are doing they're best to do nothing as furiously and noisily as possible to end this... End this what? War? No. Police Action? Maybe. Disarmament? Heh. Regime Change? Oops, that didn't work out so well... Well, whatever the hell it is, it's failed (by any sane measure) and the Pelosi crew are to busy milking it politically to stop it.

If you really want to support democratic ideals, you're going to have to look a bit deeper into the party to find them. Kucinich is probably the most well known example.

Oh, and here is how mainstream Pelosi is in her thought process...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

Off the table.

Actually, I like this take on his approval rating: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/ heh. 25% my ass.

That old thing again? How absolutely DROLL!

I mean, everyone knows he never said he invented the internet. If I'm wrong, find the quote, and it's original publication. Good luck.

BTW, Did you know that the legislation wandering around Washington in the late 80s to open arpanet up to the public was referred to around town as "the Gore Bill?"

Any more I can shoot down for you?

Oh, one more thing, if you want some current data about the winds of politics, check out this poll from MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

Similar to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032542/site/newsweek/

If you link to something from there, I'd expect Newsweek to get the byline, not MSNBC.

Ya know, with all the hype around Creative Commons, I'd expect slashdot editors (I know, I know) to pay more attention to getting the attribution right....

...Atlanta police decided the most important thing on their plate was to confiscate every dildo in the city.

Laughed out of that, they started up on killing old women during no-knock drug raids.

Independent tests do not support the army's conclusions. Since there is already some question about the validity of the army's tests (e.g. the designer of the vest that "won" in the army's test says that dragon skin is actually better, the person who conducted the army tests left to work for a dragon skin competitor, etc.) I don't think just repeating the army's conclusions (or quoting the Washington Compost as doing so) really proves anything.

--MarkusQ

Unfortunately, he didn't get very far.

No, the odds of a catastrophic house fire with smoke detectors, etc, is about 1 in 500.

By contrast, the odds of being struck by lightening are about 1 in 240,000. Think about that... a child is approximately three times more likely to get struck by lightening as to be sexually abused by a stranger.

So, tell me again how it is you're not being unreasonably paranoid?

You're abit confused. The things your upset about aren't liberal/conservative things but republican/democrat things. There are more sides to the political compas than left and right. What you're worried about is a result of our slow descent into fascism, which both of the major parties are guilty of.

But since you asked so nicely. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/09/28/AR2006092800824_pf.html12 Democrats voted for the torture bill;
over 48 million warantless death sentences of non-enemy non-combatants without a trial or even consulting a judge.http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortions tats.html
Here's a couple things from my state of oregon. 4 months after voters in lane county rejected a tax increase, the county commisioners enacted an even larger income tax against the will of the voters which the voters then had to petition to remove.http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/05/1 3/ed.col.kutcher.0513.p1.php?section=opinion

A few months after voters statewide petitioned to have a bill voted on and then passed defining marriage as beween a man a woman, The senate passed a bill allowing for civil unions for gays with all the same rights as marriage except that it won't be recognized in other states.http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar ticle?AID=/20070422/OPINION/704220333/-1/OPINION01 02


oh and lest we forget the recent firings of shock jocks for being raciall incensitivity; While Opie and anthony blissfully return to the airwaves after just saying they were sorry for having an entire segment on raping laura bush and condoleeza rice.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18631899/ Sorry for all the references, but from the sounds of it you get all your information by listening to the guy with the bullhorn while you walk past city hall in the middle of a work day.

For Woodall, the biggest speed bump lies elsewhere. "The egos of program managers at DOE are holding up the revolution," he told MSNBC.com.

"Remember that Einstein was a patent examiner and had no funding for his 1905 miracle year," Woodall added. "He did it on his own time. If he had been a professor at a university in the U.S. today and put in a proposal to develop the theory of special relativity it would have been summarily rejected.

The cost of making a one-hour drama episode has tripled in the last 15 years from about $1m in the early 1990s to $2.7m, according to some studio executives. Costs of thirty-minute comedies have also spiralled to $1.5m from around $700,000. Quality TV squeezes networks

Cable TV began as a community antenna service. There were adds from the beginning - but none that directly benefited the cable provider or subsidized the cost of original programming.

I know you were being sarcastic, but before calling people names, you should do your research:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16331166/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegfried_&_Roy
http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/Week -of-Mon-20031006/007813.html

First, his funding - yes, he gets a lot of money from public sources, undercutting the argument that the real reason that so many prominent climatologists support global warming theories is to get funding. As far as I know, he no longer gets money from oil and coal interests.

Secondly, his intentions - I believe that Lindzen is basically a good, honest scientist who believes what he says. I also think he's a regular human being (as are all scientists) who is capable of fooling himself. You can witness that by looking at some of his seemingly (to me, anyways) self-contradictory comments, but I'll get to those later.

Now, let's address the actual article in question:

There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true.

So, I've decided to go back through some previous things he's written, and I basically find the same pattern: he admits that humans are most likely contributing to global warming, but he neglects to even speculate as to how much. Why do you think that is? Or, if you think I've mischaracterized him, can you find any evidence to the contrary?

Finally, I'd like to stress that I am not a climatologist. However, other climatologists have critiqued his Newsweek article.

Finally, something about Lindzen that does make me ponder. Recently, the BBC attributed this to him:

This attitude has strong backing from Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who describes Exxon Mobil as "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US."

I appreciate the recommendations. However, it seems to be impossible to rent 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' since it hasn't been released on DVD (or if it has it isn't available on netflix). Based on what I've read on wikipedia it seems that it isn't really worth watching. Most (if not all) of the main points in the movie seem to be based on dated material that have already been debunked. I read the wikipedia article for 'An Inconvenient Truth' as well and couldn't find any significant counter-claims or criticisms to even most of its main arguments.

In 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' they claimed that volcanoes emitted more CO2 than human activity. However, this is false (and has been known to be false) for quite some time and even the director has admitted that this claim wasn't true. A couple of plots in the movie were also wrong (with one plot showing a time series that seemed to end at the present rather than 1988). Frankly, for this and the other reasons listed on the wikipedia article I see no reason to watch this movie. I have watched other movies on 'controversial' topics such as how the world is believed to be only 6000 years old or so according to Creationists (yes, they make movies too). It is rather tedious writing down their claims, doing some simple research, and subsequently debunking one after another one of their claims. Unless the movie is made with significantly better quality-control than the one you mentioned I will be happy to just read the summary.

Brief excerpt from wikipedia article:

HP is selling computers as fast as they can stamp them out:

Sales in the quarter leaped to $25.53 billion, a 13 percent jump from the $22.55 billion HP rang up in the same quarter last year. The increase was spurred partly by booming sales of laptop computers and servers. Revenue in the Personal Systems Group, which includes laptop and desktop computers, grew 24 percent to $8.7 billion, while sales in the Enterprise Storage and Servers unit climbed 8 percent to $4.6 billion. Hewlett-Packard's profit falls 7 percent despite a dramatic increase in PC and and server sales

Do they keep Vista? Of course they do.

The HP is an entry-level laptop with an integrated webcam, Wi-Fi, a remote control for media play, a dual-core CPU, a gigabyte of RAM and respectable GeForce Go 6150 integrated graphics.

Walmart will throw in 1 GB of ReadyBoost Flash for $18, a pocketable HDTV USB tuner for $120.

Like all other torts, there is a standard that has to be met. The damage must be either foreseeable, or negligent. It's just that simple. And not foreseeable in a Slasdhot microsoft-hating way "Duh, it was foreseeable that their $hitty $oftware would lose money," but foreseeable in a "it's foreseeable that someone could be hurt if you point a loaded gun at them" way.

f somebody did sue microsoft on behalf of their shareholders as you mentioned, Microsoft would petition for summary judgment, and it would probably be granted. If you don't defend your patents and trademarks you LOSE RIGHTS to them. No judge in America would prevent a company from vigorously defending their IP.

And you say it isn't about IBM. You seem to suggest that there would be some public backlash against Microsoft for going after free software that most of their customers don't use to begin with. I don't have hard facts, but I'd stand by the idea that the majority of Americans own Microsoft products, and the majority of Americans have no idea what linux or OSS is. The Microsoft PR machine would frame the issue favorably to the company and the world would keep on humming along like it always has.

And what's with the moving target? You begin your first post by saying "You seriously don't think Microsoft would have to dip into that reserve?" And you begin your last post by saying "No, their revenue wouldn't dry up and neither would their reserves."

Apparently you missed the memo about the Oil companies actually taking pains to HIDE THEIR PROFITS because companies like Exxon made BILLIONS in *profit* not sales, profit. From the linked article : "When the FEO completes its investigation, he says, a "substantial percentage" of the nation's ten or so largest oil firms likely will be socked for at least $150 million in refunds to the public--assuming, of course, that his suspicions are correct and can be proved."
  They knew the people would be pissed because they would know they'd been had, so they announced their quarterly and yearly profits quietly.
Apparently other people think there might be some issues with their profits.

A.A

Apparently you missed the memo about the Oil companies actually taking pains to HIDE THEIR PROFITS because companies like Exxon made BILLIONS in *profit* not sales, profit. From the linked article : "When the FEO completes its investigation, he says, a "substantial percentage" of the nation's ten or so largest oil firms likely will be socked for at least $150 million in refunds to the public--assuming, of course, that his suspicions are correct and can be proved."
  They knew the people would be pissed because they would know they'd been had, so they announced their quarterly and yearly profits quietly.
Apparently other people think there might be some issues with their profits.

A.A

I have learned that past sky-high CO2 concentrations have been documented in peer-reviewed research journals. If we have hit peak oil, I doubt we will ever be able to reach these levels.

We find that CO2 emissions resulting from super-plume tectonics could have produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the modern pre-industrial value of 285 ppm.

This data is available from a variety of sources, with interesting commentary:

We are talking about carbon dioxide levels 6 to 10 times the present carbon dioxide level. When you have high amounts of carbon dioxide in an atmosphere up to a certain limit, which is considerably higher than it is now, the result is green plants grow very much better... And it is precisely at this time that the recovery from the first dinosaur extinction takes place. When the super plumes come and carbon dioxide increases, and the oxygen correspondingly increases as a result of photosynthesis... And yet the super plumes did not last forever and they started to die at the end of Cretaceous.... In any event, large dinosaurs really required to be living in an oxygen tent. An atmosphere in the neighborhood of 35 percent oxygen would be considerably more compatible with large dinosaurs than one in the neighborhood of 28. And so this suggested to me that this was perhaps a significant reason for the first dinosaur extinction, and probably one of the major factors in the second, the terminal dinosaur extinction, other than the birds. It also neatly tied together all of the really bizarre features about the Cretaceous... The Cretaceous is clearly a green house period as opposed to the present ice house that we have... Well, the rich carbon dioxide of course provides for a much greater biogenic diversity.

There is a great rejection of the global warming panic in the scientific community (it is unlikely that "big oil" funds have "bribed" so many faculty members of such prestigious universities, despite a smear campaign). Because of the tremendous expense of implementing Kyoto, should we pause in global warming remediation efforts that may border on the alarmist? It is not in any way difficult to find distinguished scientists who reject all calls for panic.

Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming... If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

If you don't think the U.S. doesn't have any real journalists you should check out Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. He's interesting, energetic, and covers stories that are rarely mentioned in the major news cycle. His special comments are also some of the best moments in modern TV news history:

Wikipedia entry
Special Comments

There's that and there also the case of the college instructor fired for discussing the Va Tech shootings even though the school asked professors and isntructors to do so. While I suspect there is more to that story than we are being told, no matter what he did it was in front of college students and not elementary school students. I doubt that whatever he did to get fired was worse than what these teachers did.

They started doing it in Texas last year.

The simple truth of it is, an aggressive response is almost guaranteed to save more lives. Look at 9/11...4 planes, 1 aggressive response. In every case the casualties on the flight were 100%, but in one case there were no secondary casualties. Columbine, UVA...in both cases the gunmen reloaded multiple times, and they had time to do it because people were barricading themselves in and trying to escape.

Hiding under as desk just doesn't work.

You're completely correct. First of all, the phrase "angel investor" should never be used to accompany a five digit figure --even "venture capital" is kindof out of place. Secondly, if they're investing (up to) $20k into a startup, it is they who are failing the IQ test. [in my experience] Serious venture investors want to see startups that have already bootstrapped a significant amount of funding (at least six if not seven figures), have PhDs onboard, etc. Now, obviously some industries and ideas have a much larger barrier to entry than others. For instance, I'm in the cinema field, where a cutting edge product might cost between $50k (low end) and $1M (high end). So designing, manufacturing (etc) these products has a much larger barrier than say, the guy who has a bright idea for the next digg.com or whatever web-two-point-oh site is hot this week (where $20k might actually pay a brilliant developer to write much of the code needed). But, even using the American Idol analogy-- if you were going to invest in a singer, someone who doesn't have any sofware/hardware development needed, just needs the cash to get into a studio and get recorded, that alone would cost more than $20k.

Twenty grand really is peanuts. Hell, some venture capital groups have proposal fees that can easily run a few thousand dollars (that the startup needs to pay just to present the business plan to them), not to mention cookie-cutter research for business plans alone can easily run $5-10k (I won't even get into custom research).

My advice if you need $20k of investment capital? Put it on your Visa (worked for Under Armor). Selling off a chunk of anything you genuinely believe to be a good idea should only be considered when you have no other available means to bring that idea to fruition.

Shell chairman Sir Philip Watts risks stirring up a controversy in America today when he calls for global warming sceptics to get off the fence and accept that action needs to be taken "before it is too late". - see http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12 374,912530,00.html

In a Stanford University address, BP's chief executive John Browne said the United States together with Britain, China and other heavily industrialized nations need to create an "international climate agency" to reduce pollution linked to global climate change. (Look it up on google, and select the cache, there is registration involved otherwise)

Shell CEO John Hofmeister "It's a waste of time to debate it," he said. "Policymakers have a responsibility to address it. The nation needs a public policy. We'll adjust." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14733060/

Bush would outline steps the government will take to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/artic les/2007/01/22/bush_set_to_tackle_global_warming/

Just the typical people you'd expect to be convinced by hippies. Stupid oil executives want us to believe in global warming so that they look good to their hippie friends. And that Bush guy just wants to court support from his hippie constituency.

That's the best you could find? Then consider what MSN's store is selling. NOW you know why nobody talks about it... ...if they know what's good for them.... Bwahahahahahahaha!

Funny how there was a 20 year "scientifically accurate, data-driven" global cooling scare inbetween.

Do you have any source for these claims?

Because as I understand it:

1) The estimated rise in temperatures is between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees Celsius.
2) In theory, Africa as whole would receive slightly more rain, but that the desificating effect of increased temperatures would counteract the increased rainfall and still result in the loss of 5% to 8% of arable land, that's estimates based on no human intervention. In reality desertification is already happening in Africa as ecological mismanagement and population pressures are contributing to the destruction of arable land.
3) In practice, Africa has received below average rainfall every year in the last three decades as compared to the century long average amount of rainfall. Sure, it might not be related to the rise in CO2 levels and global warming, but then what is driving a severe and protracted drop in rain fall.
4) The Trade Winds are not caused the Coriolis effect, they are deflected by it. They are formed by semi-permanent high pressure areas. There is a complex relationship between the trade winds and ocean currents. And there is reason to believe that warming of the ocean (and the loss of glacial mass at the North Pole) may affect the trade winds.
5) In fact, some scientists are claiming that global warming is already affecting the trade winds.
6) Humans do in fact have fundamental data on the subject of global warming and whether it's good or bad. What we are lacking is the detailed information on how exactly the effects will break down by country, by region, by person.
7) In this case change is actually bad. Why? Because it's going to cost a hell of a lot of money and probably cost a lot of lives to adjust to the changes. There is some suggestion that the genocides in the Africa may be related to global warming and the persistent drought conditions that have been afflicting it. There's no proof that global warming is causation because we don't have a spare planet to test our falsifiable theories on. Some of us will be better off after the changes, but on average I doubt the changes will outweigh the cost of those changes.
8) According to the temperature records that I could find, the current average annual temperature is higher than it has been in the last 2000 years, and is higher than the temperature average determined by averageing the predictors together for the last 14,000 years.

No, it was also bad because the wetlands that act as a natural buffer between the city and the ocean have been severely eroded over the past several decades. What caused them to disappear? The levees.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/ownership?Symbol=CNET

Interestingly enough, a study was just published which investigated fruit juice and obesity in children. They found that "contrary to popular belief, drinking pure 100 percent fruit juice does not make young children overweight or at risk for becoming overweight," even among kids who drank a LOT of juice.

Fruit juice is loaded with fructose, yet it's not making the kids fat. If your claims about fructose are true, then why is this the case?

Conincidental article on MSN today. Alternative routes to teaching for professionals that reward industry experience and past education:

http://spotlight.encarta.msn.com/Features/encnet_D epartments_CareerTraining_default_article_CareerCh angersChoose.html?GT1=9984

Hmm, "prohibitions on the spread of false information...."

Does that mean that if another city starts considering legislation to ban dihydrogen monoxide (like Aliso Viejo, California did in 2004), that the government could seek damages from the mainainers of DHMO.org?

When the Nintendo Gamecube settled into third place during the previous console generation, many publishers shifted their efforts to the vastly more popular -- and profitable -- PlayStation 2 and Xbox. But the surprise success of the Wii, which just crossed the five million sales mark (faster than any other console in video game history), has publishers scrambling to get their games back on Nintendo's mass-market machine.
(...)
After Ubisoft, Electronic Arts is the next major third-party developer to redirect resources to the Wii. Not only has the gaming giant set up Wii-dedicated development teams, but within the last month, EA has released no fewer than three Wii titles

Bloomberg reports companies like Electronic Arts, who has been ironically praised as one of the foremost Wii innovators, and Take-Two Interactive have been playing catch-up since Nintendo's E3 showing. EA tells Bloomberg they will have a dozen games on Wii this year, whereas Take-Two has three in the pipeline (likely comprised of The Bigs, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer and Manhunt 2).

That is true only if the Gestapo thinks it has further use for you.
If not, they will not hesitate to leave you hanging in the wind.

It's an unfounded pet peeve. All the dictionaries I consulted list at least one definition of verbal that means "spoken". I think it's quite clear from the context this is the intended meaning here.

Merriam - Webster: "spoken rather than written"
Dictionary.com: "expressed in spoken words; oral rather than written"
Encarta: "oral as opposed to written: relating to or consisting of spoken words, as opposed to written words"

Funny Story: Henrico County in Virginia ended their laptop program in the schools. They were selling them to the public for $50. They anounced the sale date and time in advance and it caused a stampede where a number of people were injured. After living in Richmond for 4 years it doesn't surprise me that this occured here. The story is available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8973616/

My school is too busy dealing with those pesky ninjas to turn their attention to pirates just yet.

98% you say?

Only if google exec are large wall street firms.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/ownership?Symbol=GOOG

Actually, it's more like 28%, which is still a lot for most public companies, but not complete control like you're implying.

Nothing people ingest is free of negative effects on someone with the possible exception of water.

I'm all for hating eBay for the genuinely annoying things they do, as well as their , their questionable exclusion of Google Chuckout and other non-Paypal payment gateways, but blaming them for some random nutjob buying something which isn't even against the TOS to list - or illegal to purchase - is really clutching at straws.

How is the VT event in any way remotely relevant to this Lifetime Achievement award, or - for that matter - how is the Webby award even newsworthy?

Population control would be impossible to create and maintain on a global scale; instead all we have to do is allow the natural course of supply and demand to naturally limit the population. The results WILL NOT be ideal and this mindset is somewhat callous but individual homo sapiens are meaningless on the scale of survival. As we are unable to support more people our populations will naturally be checked: diseases will run rampant, there will be massive clean water and food shortages which in turn will cause wars. All four of these things will check our population.

Might we do a great deal of damage to the planet? Yep we sure will.
Will the damage we do to the planet last forever? Not a chance in hell; if we manage to kill ourselves off some other species will slowly begin to take over for whatever reason. This is just how our planet works, get over it.

Oh and don't you worry, Global Warming is going to help with population control too! I predict that there will be massive destablization in China/India within the next twenty years: partially due to global warming, partially due to over population and most of it having to do with the preference for male babies over female babies in these countries (I believe India has this same problem, please correct me if I'm wrong). As it stands today, a huge imbalance exists and this imbalance will have the greatest affect on the poorer parts of China. This is going to be a huge issue, if men can't find women there will be an amazing degree of unrest. We are really such simple creatures...it's great :)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5953508

Sorry to bust your bubble, but it's already been thought of, many times.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12834398/

I think you missed the point, yes I know that they have been attached to power plants and other sources of CO2, I'm talking specifically here about the CO2 produced in fermenting stuff. Two alternative fuels right now are ethanol and biodiesel. I just noticed that the byproduct of fermenting (to make ethanol) might aid in the production of biodiesel. Then use this to take the leftovers from the fermenting to produce even more power. So basically it works like this:

1) Get a bunch of corn or something, start fermenting
2) Pipe the CO2 that is produced from fermenting wash into an algae farm, algae should grow a lot faster now
3) Distill the ethanol after fermenting is complete
4) Pump the rest of wash (after ethanol has been distilled from it) through this thing.

So you have 3 different areas generating energy.

The question is would it be worth it or not, would enough CO2 be produced to make an impact on the algae farm.

You just gave me an intersting idea. Algae farms have a problem that they aren't very productive without an external CO2 source. What if we used this device to produce energy, then pumped the remaining CO2 into an algae farm to produce even more energy.I'm not too sure about all the math behind it (I'll look into the numbers after I hit submit) so it may not be efficient at all but it just seems so obvious. I'm sure it must have been done before: ferment corn or something then pump the CO2 into an algae farm. Burn ethanol and make biodisel.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but it's already been thought of, many times.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12834398/

You don't understand. I don't have much time for this post, but I'll try to put down as much as I can. The shrewdness of this country's electorate has degenerated to the point that the majority are influenced primarily by irrelevant issues. These people dwell in a manufactured reality where gay marriage represents a threat to their families and where terrorism represents a greater danger than highway accidents. In this country, where racist advertisements win elections, the electorate has neither the patience nor the sophistication to vote in their own interest.

Few apprehend the deleterious impact of their thoughtless voting. The irrepreprable systematic sabotage of our most essential federal institutions, dignity and even our fundamental human rights are, quite simply, too complex, too overwhelming and too horrible to contemplate.

In a generation, who will even be capable of understanding them? Who will explain that China may justly demand payment for the bonds that financed the Iraq war? Who will explain that China also financed non-negotiable prescription drug costs? Who will rise against the inevitably racist, jingoistic populists who will seek to blame minorities and foreign countries for the effects our own electoral malfeasance?

Declining healthcare, deteriorating federal institutions, failing eduction, the second Iraq war, Katrina - these will have been but the beginning of the storm unless we can achieve the most improbable sort of governmental change. Can you think of any action made by the administration in the last six years to uphold the tradition of good, pragmatic, secular governance? The framers understood that the sort of thing we're seeing cheapens these values and that they are neigh impossible to restore. You heard it over and over in school - once we lose our institutions and freedoms, we will not easily reclaim them.

Like justice, truth, honor and trust, these things are as water. They are passing through our fingers and we have little hope of gathering them from the mud that will be our children's graves.