with Cary on this one. Yes, not only should you absolutely engage your relatives in discussions of topics of vital and imminent importance to the welfare of the planet, but it's your moral obligation.

If you're worried about fallout, and it sounds like you are, I suggest taking a very careful and measured approach to the topic. I'm not saying tippy toe, just make preparations by trying to approach the topic from their point of view, organize your arguments and supporting evidence in a logical fashion, and then launch straight into it with a considerate yet direct, unapologetic manner.

You really have nothing to fear since you have the moral, practical, and scientfic high ground.

Good luck and have fun.

"Some forms of wastefulness are obscenely obvious. Some are less obvious, but just as wasteful."

The fight to move the economy to cleaner, more renewable energy sources won't be won by skirmishing over a million little (obvious or less obvious) battlefronts. It's a battle of big ideas.

Someone who "gets" it may not optimize every facet of their life for optimal efficiency, but at least they'll have the ability to take the effects of their consumption into consideration when making every day decisions.

Maybe they'll reconsider the 14MPG Hummer for a comparable 16MPG SUV. That way, they figure they can still get a stomp'n SUV, but also send a little message to GM that this consumer thinks the Hummer is just a little too cool for it's own good.

Maybe they'll start to wonder why their 16MPG SUV isn't getting more like 22MPG already? And maybe they'll conclude if there was just enough political willpower, control over writing fuel efficiency standards could be taken back from the auto industry to set standards that are better for consumers, and in the long run, better for the competitive stance of the US auto industry against Japan.

The big decision of whether to buy a Hummer or Prius doesn't matter. What matters is that people start to take energy consumption into account when making little decisions. Then all these random little decisions to occasionally do a little bit better instead of a little bit worse than before will accumulate over time and turn the tide.

Let's see, we have a love triangle with no relevency, a court drama In Spaaaaace, Susan wants her baby back, and a "Chosen One"/Final-5 mystery that seems to get rekindled and killed without getting anywhere each time they bring it up. And they're the ones that keep bringing it up -- not me, I don't care anymore.

I loved the show up to the Rescue. Even my wife, who otherwise dislikes sci-fi, got completely hooked right away. Now we can't stand it -- I have no idea how such a good show could totally jump it so quickly. I really don't need a show that lets me read parallels to current events or evaluate subtle moral dilemmas. Just please make a good sci-fi show.

Jason

AnOptimist: "I heard in person a few speeches given at Stanford a few years back on the same subject and heard Standford's top scientists applaud the presentation and comment on its validity. Why, I wonder, did that story not appear on Salon? I wonder."

Yes, there are many great scientists who believe in God, but probably not as many as you think. Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham (Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, 23 July 1998, p. 313) surveyed members of the National Academy of Sciences and found that among these greater scientists only 7 percent believed in a personal god. Biological scientists had the lowest level of belief in a personal god -- 5.5 percent as compared to 7.5 percent among physicists and astronomers.

That belief statistic is down from the last time Nature magazine published the beliefs of eminent scientists in 1934 and found only 15 percent believed, which was down again from the previous study in 1914 that found 30 percent of eminent scientists believed in god.

It seems the more you know about science, the less likely you will need a creator.

-Jason

The best part is that we're not just talking about an audience of a spectrum of 100M+ Americans. Murdoch has dominion over the entire right wing, mainstream media.

This will really move the debate forward. It will no longer be believers versus skeptics, it will be about degrees of effectiveness in combating global warming.

It's also an opportunity for Dems to shine a light on 30 years of shameful, selfish, self-deceiving hypocracy of the Replican party and it's media supporters as they're directed to flip-flop on this increasingly visible issue.

Jason

The olympics is not only an historic marker for China to trumpet it's emerging influence on the world stage, but it's also an historic opportunity for the media to focus the world's attention on China's human rights record.

While the opening coverage of the 2008 Olympics should congratulate the people of Beijing for the wonderful improvements they have made to their city, and trumpet some of the great social and economic strides that have been made by the Chinese government; the international media should not become trapped in an echo chamber of Chinese propaganda.

Protests are inevitable. At the first sign of violence against peaceful protesters, the international media should prioritize the human rights issue above the sporting event. The international media needs to send a message to the Chinese government: it will be held to a higher standard during the games and there will be no parades while serious human rights violations are occurring. If the international media holds this line, the Chinese government will have no choice but to learn how to deal with dissent in a peaceful manner or else sacrifice the billions they invested to polish their image to an Olympic legacy that will be remembered as a season of protests and crackdowns.

I searched their website and couldn't find any mention of voting machines for sale.