I'm pretty sure people are going to be highly suspicious if they suddenly find a bonnet on their head with a wire leading out of it to their car battery;)
From a physicists point of view, the universe is not inherently hostile. Quite the opposite in fact. There are many properties and constants of the universe, and if they were just ever so slightly different, we couldn't exist.
Some even think that our universe was created by a "different-universe-us", "this-universe-us", to meet our exacting needs. See http://www.biocosm.org/
Wind and solar in tandem is constant and reliable, with the added investment of storage mechanisms, like pumped hydro or thermal salt. But it is very expensive to setup something like pumped hydro for wind, and thermal salt storage of the heat from sunlight is a pretty young technology.
I'd be curious to see a comparison of costs between a complete wind farm + pumped storage setup and solar + thermal salt storage, against the total cost of a new nuclear plant. Nuc plants range from like 5 billion to 10 billion right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants
I don't have time to google numbers, but I would assume that it would be comparable costs.
"Owners of the Chevrolet Volt and Vauxhall/Opel Apera will need a little local knowledge about uphill sections of their route, after the company finally lifted the lid on its technology this week. Drivers will need to anticipate steep, long hills well in advance so they can engage a special "Mountain Mode" which engages the petrol engine early to make electricity to allow full power up hills. Claiming that pending patents (granted on September 21) prevented it from revealing more about the extended-range battery car's technical specification, GM revealed its new car will operate in four major modes, one of which, Mountain Mode, will need to be activated at least 20 minutes before reaching said mountain if full power is to be maintained. General Motor's engineer Larry Nitz claims the four-mode system extends the existing 40-mile battery power range by another couple of miles and makes the driveline between 10 and 15 per cent more efficient."
Well, I'll answer with just my opinion on why I trust a scientific consensus:
I trust that the scientific method has become more objective and accurate over time and that scientific knowledge is moving towards truth on average. References to old scientific paradigm shifts like flat-earth, or earth-centric universe do not apply. That was not an age of real science like we are in now. I guess I'm trying to say that I believe the scientific method to currently be our best process for discovering fact. If a theory makes useful predictions and is not falsified over time, experiment after experiment, the theory is marching towards 'the truth'/facts, etc...
Ok, given the above, the reason I trust a scientific consensus of those in a certain field, is that they are most able to understand the methods and data used to create some prediction, hypothesis, theory, etc...
If the AMA, Doctor associations, Nursing Associations, all say "to be healthy you need to do X", it would be illogical to ignore that advice in the absence of any evidence contradicting it.
The 'weather/climate experts' (to simplify things), those capable of understanding the validity of climate science research, all agree that X is true, it is illogical to not trust that consensus.
Back when everyone agreed that the earth was flat (not really true if you look up history, but I digress), I probably would have been one of them. If I were a carpenter, and every scientist in every city in my country said the earth was flat, without contradictory evidence available to me, it would be logical to believe that the earth was flat.
But we all know that science has 'grown up'. Methods have improved. Peer review and repeatability do their jobs well, and the results speak for themselves. Men on the moon, flying planes, etc.. science works, and it gets better all the time.
So the chances of all the thousands of climate papers being wrong, due to some massive paradigm shift, or widespread mistake in climate thinking, is tiny.
Skreems, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Haven't you heard, increasing taxes from 36% to 39% on upper income brackets is going to destroy America. After all, let us not forget the 1990's when the country was indeed close to hell on earth. I think it may have to do with the numbers 3 and 9. 9 - 3 = 6. One third of the way to 666, coincidence? I think not.
I can only shudder in horror at the thought of a 90% tax rate. I'm fairly certain that the universe would implode.
I beg of you, please watch Fox News, and for sure listen to Rush Limbaugh. They can explain these things far better than I can.
How many auto workers did it re-employ though? That was its specific purpose (in addition to trying to cut emissions, get people spending again, etc...)
"Asking businesses to pay more taxes during the middle of the worst economy since the Great Depression is undeniably stupid."
citation please.
The 1950's up to Reagan had huge top tax rates (up to 94%) and the country enjoyed a long period of stability and prosperity. And again in the 90's, Clinton raised taxes 3% on the top, and it did not have any job less effect.
Henry Ford was once asked why he paid his workers so much, and the answer was "so they could afford to buy my cars".
However, trickle down theory is bunk as we've seen wages decrease (against cost of living) over the last 10 years, and the measly 39% (from 36) tax that will be applied to the high income bracket is only going to affect 3% of the REAL small businesses, which John Boehner admitted. He clarified his admission by saying, "well yes, but those 3% of businesses have the majority of the small business wealth.".......see anything wrong with that?
That 3% of small businesses are S-Corporations. Google a bit on what businesses organizing themselves as S-Corps. You'll be surprised how "un-small" they are.
Republican had 10+ years to do something for the average American, and they did jack squat. Their "low taxes" did NOT create any jobs, and the average income in America went DOWN.
I really don't understand average citizens that vote Republican. It is easy to demonstrate that Republican Policy has not benefited the average person. Republican policy is based on ideology, not reality.
It isn't as simple as the million bloggers who say "he's buying them from himself!".
And yeah he has another office that you mentioned, but work does get done in his home, including large gatherings of influential folks as well as staffers.
Talk about reading from the same script. Googling for "Al Gore House" returns a million bloggers repeating lies and echo'd without much fact checking on most major news outlets.
And you completely glossed over the fact that despite higher energy use, Al Gore is trying, worldwide, to lower use. Bush didn't even try, and that alone shows you who cares.
It reminds me of a time when I was eating dinner out with a friend. I used a 2nd napkin and he said, that other napkin was just perfectly fine, we all need to start conserving a bit more, etc...
My take on things, is that individuals are never going to voluntarily start reducing energy use to the point where it will make a difference. The masses will always be selfish. It is going to take regulations to make a difference, something that Al Gore is hoping to make happen.
I just wish he was less 'doom and gloom' and spoke about it from an economic perspective. There have been quite a few ted talks describing how being green saves money, creates jobs, etc... that would sell much better across party lines.
Others replying to you have mentioned rebates, but sometimes those deductions and rebates are much better than people think.
For instance, here in Oregon, at one point in time between federal, state, and local deductions and rebates, you actually made money to install solar panels on your home:) That has since been fixed, but they still add up to over 50% off the retail price.
"Sometimes it's what you *do* rather than what you *say* that tells me everything I need to know about you..."
Exactly. That's why what Gore has been doing, travelling, lecturing, raising awareness, getting scientific opinion out to the people in a understandable way, etc.. tells me that he is helping the environment many times over what GW Bush is doing.
It tells me one of them cares, and one of them doesn't. Al Gore's home doubles as an office for a large staff, and every drop of his carbon is offset.
Rather than "the public missed it", wouldn't it be more accurate to say, GW Bush/the W.H. felt no need to announce it? I follow politics ~fairly closely, and this is the first I've heard of it.
It really surprised me that there were terrible snow drivers somewhere in the NW (I've lived in the NW all my life), but upon moving to Portland, I found them:)
Making money doesn't automatically make what you are doing ethical.
1. If a doctor advertised a service "free aura alignments", and people were willing to pay, and he made a lot of profit on it, fine. Customer is happy, doctor is happy, but other doctors (in the Best Buy case, other 'tech' people) should appropriately frown upon that practice.
2. Sure, but some things take such little time that providing them free might actually increase sales. If the reputation of the store spreads around town and customers are saying, "Go to best buy, you buy something from them and they do all this stuff for free...". This is exactly the same as getting some gas for your car and the attendant washes your windows while you wait for the tank to fill. Adding value to the customer experience without incurring any real business cost.
3. See above.
4. This would be true if the task in question was something that people can't do themselves. The skills required to even use the device are the same skills required to update the firmware. If the client can't update the firmware, it is doubtful they will even be able to play a game:)
But I think it is appropriate that people who are knowledgeable about tech feel BestBuy is taking advantage of people. Just like you did being payed 95 an hour to install something that can be completely automated.
Just because someone is willing to pay doesn't make it ethical.
If we were talking about the medical field, would it be more clear? For example, a doctor prescribing unnecessary treatments just because "the patient was willing to pay". In this case, the doctor's consent affirms the patients (wrong) thinking that they need X procedure.
BestBuy, and You, have the right to make money in any legal way you see fit of course, but....
"BestBuy is providing a service which some consumers appreciate. If you are not one of them then shop somewhere else."
How appreciative would the consumers be if they found out that everything they bought was unneeded and that they were led along and basically 'tricked' into wasting money, where the trick in question is not being decent enough to just explain to them how to do it, or provide a pamphlet explaining it, etc..
I know in the computer world it isn't always as cut and dry as I make it seem: some people are 100% unwilling to try even the most basic tasks....but when the task in question is literally as basic as the skills required to use the device itself....a honest tech person shouldn't try to sell them that task.
I haven't seen anyone mention vasmir yet http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/travelinginspace/future_propulsion.html
Wouldn't this be the ideal drive type to power a probe? Extremely efficient and can basically accelerate continually, then flip around and begin de-accelerating (or maneuver near other objects to let gravity slow it down). Wikipedia says that Nasa is going to test it in space in 2011 or 2012.
While sometimes you can hunt around for a better theater experience, you can't hunt around for a better dvd publisher. I pay 20 dollars for a disc, that has commercials and previews on it..... hate that. I just recently learned about hitting stop twice then play to bypass commercials, but it doesn't always work.
"I find it rather disturbing the UNIX ideal that sysadmins should be programmers."
You don't need to be an expert, but you'd better be moderately proficient in at least the basic concepts. Vice versa for the programmer. I'm on the programming side of things, and I can't imagine how I could do my job without understanding the hardware, memory configurations, various quirks of different operating systems, backup limitations, etc...
Likewise, my sys admin knows enough about programming to understand when a certain patch may affect something I've done, what types of memory sizes are required for various java heaps in different programs, what global variables are important to keep in certain user profiles, etc...
Much of that knowledge is just a transfer over time as we work together. When I come across a sys admin who has zero programming knowledge, I know he's one that either isn't interested in learning, doesn't talk to his users/programmers at all, or is just plain bad at IT.
"The weak link between money and policy change is counterintuitive but understandable, the authors say. The balance of power in Washington already hugely favors the rich. The status quo reflects the considerable advantages the wealthy have managed to secure in the law, down through the generations."
I'm not sure why the authors consider the link weak when the status quo is the goal of the wealthy, and they continually achieve that goal year after year.....
Your link to uchicago wasn't working, slashdotted perhaps. I'll read it later, maybe the authors explain further.
This is an old post, so most likely no one will ever read this:), but I couldn't let this pass:
"One is to reduce the power of governments, which simultaneously limits the power available for corporations to influence."
That is correct, but the ramifications of it will create an even worse situation. Say the government's only job was defense. About as small a Fed. government as possible. Then corporations would just turn to state governments to influence. Say there were no state governments and no federal government at all: 100% freedom. Then the corporations would literally govern us, most likely with private armies.
Reducing the power of government is the exact wrong thing to do if you want to minimize the power of nation/world-wide corporations.
I take issue with pretty much everything you said (like suggesting that government should have productive income rather than taxing.....), but only felt like commenting on the above.
But posting things in Public forums/sites is not Private. It is no different than if you put up billboards all over town describing what you did last night, with pictures, and then expect that to be private.
"Tax cuts are NOT the government inserting money; the money is yours and the government simply takes less of it. If you want people to have money, why not let them keep it instead of taking it from the people, running it through the government, and then giving only some of it back to the people, because you had to spend a good amount of it on governmental overhead?"
You need to prove that the average American's income goes up over time with low tax rates and 'trickle down' to help them. The last 30 years of data shows otherwise.
Or... like other Republicans (I'm assuming you are), you can continue to stick your head in the sand and preach ideology over facts. Personal freedom! Liberty! Small Government! Low Taxes! ---all the while income disparity between rich and poor grows, the average income adusted by inflation drops, jobs ship overseas (yay free market!), our freedoms diminish (patriot act) and the size of government grows substantially through 3 republican presidents (reagan, bush sr, bush jr).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure people are going to be highly suspicious if they suddenly find a bonnet on their head with a wire leading out of it to their car battery ;)
I was curious. I found one from 2007 in Canada.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2008/06/13/qc-parasiris0613.html
I wasn't able to find one in the US in the first couple pages of results though.
From a physicists point of view, the universe is not inherently hostile. Quite the opposite in fact. There are many properties and constants of the universe, and if they were just ever so slightly different, we couldn't exist.
Some even think that our universe was created by a "different-universe-us", "this-universe-us", to meet our exacting needs. See http://www.biocosm.org/
Wind and solar in tandem is constant and reliable, with the added investment of storage mechanisms, like pumped hydro or thermal salt. But it is very expensive to setup something like pumped hydro for wind, and thermal salt storage of the heat from sunlight is a pretty young technology.
I'd be curious to see a comparison of costs between a complete wind farm + pumped storage setup and solar + thermal salt storage, against the total cost of a new nuclear plant. Nuc plants range from like 5 billion to 10 billion right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants
I don't have time to google numbers, but I would assume that it would be comparable costs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/car-manufacturers/vauxhall/8058746/VoltAmpera-secrets-revealed.html
"Owners of the Chevrolet Volt and Vauxhall/Opel Apera will need a little local knowledge about uphill sections of their route, after the company finally lifted the lid on its technology this week. Drivers will need to anticipate steep, long hills well in advance so they can engage a special "Mountain Mode" which engages the petrol engine early to make electricity to allow full power up hills.
Claiming that pending patents (granted on September 21) prevented it from revealing more about the extended-range battery car's technical specification, GM revealed its new car will operate in four major modes, one of which, Mountain Mode, will need to be activated at least 20 minutes before reaching said mountain if full power is to be maintained. General Motor's engineer Larry Nitz claims the four-mode system extends the existing 40-mile battery power range by another couple of miles and makes the driveline between 10 and 15 per cent more efficient."
Well, I'll answer with just my opinion on why I trust a scientific consensus:
I trust that the scientific method has become more objective and accurate over time and that scientific knowledge is moving towards truth on average. References to old scientific paradigm shifts like flat-earth, or earth-centric universe do not apply. That was not an age of real science like we are in now. I guess I'm trying to say that I believe the scientific method to currently be our best process for discovering fact. If a theory makes useful predictions and is not falsified over time, experiment after experiment, the theory is marching towards 'the truth'/facts, etc...
Ok, given the above, the reason I trust a scientific consensus of those in a certain field, is that they are most able to understand the methods and data used to create some prediction, hypothesis, theory, etc...
If the AMA, Doctor associations, Nursing Associations, all say "to be healthy you need to do X", it would be illogical to ignore that advice in the absence of any evidence contradicting it.
The 'weather/climate experts' (to simplify things), those capable of understanding the validity of climate science research, all agree that X is true, it is illogical to not trust that consensus.
Back when everyone agreed that the earth was flat (not really true if you look up history, but I digress), I probably would have been one of them. If I were a carpenter, and every scientist in every city in my country said the earth was flat, without contradictory evidence available to me, it would be logical to believe that the earth was flat.
But we all know that science has 'grown up'. Methods have improved. Peer review and repeatability do their jobs well, and the results speak for themselves. Men on the moon, flying planes, etc.. science works, and it gets better all the time.
So the chances of all the thousands of climate papers being wrong, due to some massive paradigm shift, or widespread mistake in climate thinking, is tiny.
At least, that is how I see it.
Skreems, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Haven't you heard, increasing taxes from 36% to 39% on upper income brackets is going to destroy America. After all, let us not forget the 1990's when the country was indeed close to hell on earth. I think it may have to do with the numbers 3 and 9. 9 - 3 = 6. One third of the way to 666, coincidence? I think not.
I can only shudder in horror at the thought of a 90% tax rate. I'm fairly certain that the universe would implode.
I beg of you, please watch Fox News, and for sure listen to Rush Limbaugh. They can explain these things far better than I can.
How many auto workers did it re-employ though? That was its specific purpose (in addition to trying to cut emissions, get people spending again, etc...)
"Asking businesses to pay more taxes during the middle of the worst economy since the Great Depression is undeniably stupid."
citation please.
The 1950's up to Reagan had huge top tax rates (up to 94%) and the country enjoyed a long period of stability and prosperity. And again in the 90's, Clinton raised taxes 3% on the top, and it did not have any job less effect.
Henry Ford was once asked why he paid his workers so much, and the answer was "so they could afford to buy my cars".
However, trickle down theory is bunk as we've seen wages decrease (against cost of living) over the last 10 years, and the measly 39% (from 36) tax that will be applied to the high income bracket is only going to affect 3% of the REAL small businesses, which John Boehner admitted. He clarified his admission by saying, "well yes, but those 3% of businesses have the majority of the small business wealth.".......see anything wrong with that?
That 3% of small businesses are S-Corporations. Google a bit on what businesses organizing themselves as S-Corps. You'll be surprised how "un-small" they are.
Republican had 10+ years to do something for the average American, and they did jack squat. Their "low taxes" did NOT create any jobs, and the average income in America went DOWN.
I really don't understand average citizens that vote Republican. It is easy to demonstrate that Republican Policy has not benefited the average person. Republican policy is based on ideology, not reality.
You might want to read up on exactly what his offsets do:
http://killfile.newsvine.com/_news/2007/02/27/589194-al-gores-electric-bill-carbon-credits-and-a-lesson-in-economics
It isn't as simple as the million bloggers who say "he's buying them from himself!".
And yeah he has another office that you mentioned, but work does get done in his home, including large gatherings of influential folks as well as staffers.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45187224@N00/858729698/
Talk about reading from the same script. Googling for "Al Gore House" returns a million bloggers repeating lies and echo'd without much fact checking on most major news outlets.
And you completely glossed over the fact that despite higher energy use, Al Gore is trying, worldwide, to lower use. Bush didn't even try, and that alone shows you who cares.
It reminds me of a time when I was eating dinner out with a friend. I used a 2nd napkin and he said, that other napkin was just perfectly fine, we all need to start conserving a bit more, etc...
My take on things, is that individuals are never going to voluntarily start reducing energy use to the point where it will make a difference. The masses will always be selfish. It is going to take regulations to make a difference, something that Al Gore is hoping to make happen.
I just wish he was less 'doom and gloom' and spoke about it from an economic perspective. There have been quite a few ted talks describing how being green saves money, creates jobs, etc... that would sell much better across party lines.
Others replying to you have mentioned rebates, but sometimes those deductions and rebates are much better than people think.
For instance, here in Oregon, at one point in time between federal, state, and local deductions and rebates, you actually made money to install solar panels on your home:) That has since been fixed, but they still add up to over 50% off the retail price.
"Sometimes it's what you *do* rather than what you *say* that tells me everything I need to know about you..."
Exactly. That's why what Gore has been doing, travelling, lecturing, raising awareness, getting scientific opinion out to the people in a understandable way, etc.. tells me that he is helping the environment many times over what GW Bush is doing.
It tells me one of them cares, and one of them doesn't. Al Gore's home doubles as an office for a large staff, and every drop of his carbon is offset.
Rather than "the public missed it", wouldn't it be more accurate to say, GW Bush/the W.H. felt no need to announce it? I follow politics ~fairly closely, and this is the first I've heard of it.
It really surprised me that there were terrible snow drivers somewhere in the NW (I've lived in the NW all my life), but upon moving to Portland, I found them:)
Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMzeiMJQrvk&feature=related
Making money doesn't automatically make what you are doing ethical.
1. If a doctor advertised a service "free aura alignments", and people were willing to pay, and he made a lot of profit on it, fine. Customer is happy, doctor is happy, but other doctors (in the Best Buy case, other 'tech' people) should appropriately frown upon that practice.
2. Sure, but some things take such little time that providing them free might actually increase sales. If the reputation of the store spreads around town and customers are saying, "Go to best buy, you buy something from them and they do all this stuff for free...". This is exactly the same as getting some gas for your car and the attendant washes your windows while you wait for the tank to fill. Adding value to the customer experience without incurring any real business cost.
3. See above.
4. This would be true if the task in question was something that people can't do themselves. The skills required to even use the device are the same skills required to update the firmware. If the client can't update the firmware, it is doubtful they will even be able to play a game:)
OK.
But I think it is appropriate that people who are knowledgeable about tech feel BestBuy is taking advantage of people. Just like you did being payed 95 an hour to install something that can be completely automated.
Just because someone is willing to pay doesn't make it ethical.
If we were talking about the medical field, would it be more clear? For example, a doctor prescribing unnecessary treatments just because "the patient was willing to pay". In this case, the doctor's consent affirms the patients (wrong) thinking that they need X procedure.
BestBuy, and You, have the right to make money in any legal way you see fit of course, but....
"BestBuy is providing a service which some consumers appreciate. If you are not one of them then shop somewhere else."
How appreciative would the consumers be if they found out that everything they bought was unneeded and that they were led along and basically 'tricked' into wasting money, where the trick in question is not being decent enough to just explain to them how to do it, or provide a pamphlet explaining it, etc..
I know in the computer world it isn't always as cut and dry as I make it seem: some people are 100% unwilling to try even the most basic tasks....but when the task in question is literally as basic as the skills required to use the device itself....a honest tech person shouldn't try to sell them that task.
I haven't seen anyone mention vasmir yet http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/travelinginspace/future_propulsion.html
Wouldn't this be the ideal drive type to power a probe? Extremely efficient and can basically accelerate continually, then flip around and begin de-accelerating (or maneuver near other objects to let gravity slow it down). Wikipedia says that Nasa is going to test it in space in 2011 or 2012.
McMenamin's are nice for sure.
While sometimes you can hunt around for a better theater experience, you can't hunt around for a better dvd publisher. I pay 20 dollars for a disc, that has commercials and previews on it..... hate that. I just recently learned about hitting stop twice then play to bypass commercials, but it doesn't always work.
"I find it rather disturbing the UNIX ideal that sysadmins should be programmers."
You don't need to be an expert, but you'd better be moderately proficient in at least the basic concepts. Vice versa for the programmer. I'm on the programming side of things, and I can't imagine how I could do my job without understanding the hardware, memory configurations, various quirks of different operating systems, backup limitations, etc...
Likewise, my sys admin knows enough about programming to understand when a certain patch may affect something I've done, what types of memory sizes are required for various java heaps in different programs, what global variables are important to keep in certain user profiles, etc...
Much of that knowledge is just a transfer over time as we work together. When I come across a sys admin who has zero programming knowledge, I know he's one that either isn't interested in learning, doesn't talk to his users/programmers at all, or is just plain bad at IT.
"The weak link between money and policy change is counterintuitive but understandable, the authors say. The balance of power in Washington already hugely favors the rich. The status quo reflects the considerable advantages the wealthy have managed to secure in the law, down through the generations."
I'm not sure why the authors consider the link weak when the status quo is the goal of the wealthy, and they continually achieve that goal year after year.....
Your link to uchicago wasn't working, slashdotted perhaps. I'll read it later, maybe the authors explain further.
This is an old post, so most likely no one will ever read this:), but I couldn't let this pass:
"One is to reduce the power of governments, which simultaneously limits the power available for corporations to influence."
That is correct, but the ramifications of it will create an even worse situation. Say the government's only job was defense. About as small a Fed. government as possible. Then corporations would just turn to state governments to influence. Say there were no state governments and no federal government at all: 100% freedom. Then the corporations would literally govern us, most likely with private armies.
Reducing the power of government is the exact wrong thing to do if you want to minimize the power of nation/world-wide corporations.
I take issue with pretty much everything you said (like suggesting that government should have productive income rather than taxing.....), but only felt like commenting on the above.
Just be sure the butcher you use (or the farmer uses) is good. A very healthy grass fed steer can end up tasting very gamey if butchered improperly.
I'm not sure that diversity comes about because of stability. More likely it is simply higher temperatures (energy) and more rainfall (food).
But posting things in Public forums/sites is not Private. It is no different than if you put up billboards all over town describing what you did last night, with pictures, and then expect that to be private.
"Tax cuts are NOT the government inserting money; the money is yours and the government simply takes less of it. If you want people to have money, why not let them keep it instead of taking it from the people, running it through the government, and then giving only some of it back to the people, because you had to spend a good amount of it on governmental overhead?"
You need to prove that the average American's income goes up over time with low tax rates and 'trickle down' to help them. The last 30 years of data shows otherwise.
Or... like other Republicans (I'm assuming you are), you can continue to stick your head in the sand and preach ideology over facts. Personal freedom! Liberty! Small Government! Low Taxes! ---all the while income disparity between rich and poor grows, the average income adusted by inflation drops, jobs ship overseas (yay free market!), our freedoms diminish (patriot act) and the size of government grows substantially through 3 republican presidents (reagan, bush sr, bush jr).