...that Nader doesn't have much of a chance to win. Just like he didn't have much of a chance of taking over the auto companies back in the 60s and 70s, but what he does have a chance to do it to inject some perspective on the role of corruption in our government.

It doesn't take too much in the way of cynicism to believe that if a candidate wanted to reduce the amount of money needed to spend to become president that the media would pull the rug out from under their feet...after all, campaign spending translates as ad revenue for broadcasters and other media outlets and why would they slit their own throats, financially speaking?

Nader brings attention to this open pathway for corruption and yet all we hear from the whiners is how he somehow, singlehandedly ruined everything. The fact that he gets this sort of treatment from both sides of the the popular political spectrum tells me he's definitely has something to bring to the table and if we ignore it, or adamantly misinterpret it to suite our infantile desire to "back a winner", we do so at our peril...and in fact we've been doing so for quite a while. Just look at the farce of a campaign that's going on now. If you're tired of this, take a breath and really examine Nader's position and for once in your life stop seeing politics as some sort of extension of the super bowl. Go team.

...gee, what an idea! It just goes to show that no matter what sort of simple minded idea we latch onto, as long as it roughly equates to something as we understood it in 8th grade science class, we go for it.

The biofuel idea was good but as it has been instituted using food crops (obviously because they are profit motivated) it's become a prelude of just how ignorant and clumsy the attempts by international business people in coalition with not-very scientific climate crusaders will be if their solutions for global warming are enacted.

I'm all for addressing climate change but have no faith in the institutions and strategies that are being designed to address it.

I've yet to hear any candidate talk about fusion...how 'bout you?

If human nature were such that people consistently chose mates from their own cohorts (allowing for the instinctual taboo of the communal midden) we would presumably see that in our history, but what we see is that women and men choose partners based on percieved "fitness". Women when young realize instinctively that men of their own age do not necessarily mean that their offspring will be successful nor will their social status be raised as it would with a male who's already a socially recognized and fully invested member of the heirarchy in our social setting. Men realize that older women may not be able to provide as many offspring. Late when women are older they are aware that men of their age are dying off and younger men may be the best solution that instinctively drives our decision making (despite what our echo chamber of a big brain box might create as a fanciful picture of the process). The notion of same age couples is an artifact of our public school system and an imposed structure that closely parallels ideas as presented in scripture and myth. Trying to legislate against this is sensible as a way to protect the young against the brain injured types, but to fail to recognize the sociobiology of our mate selection process and to believe the mythic model leads us to where we are now...screwed and stupid.

...like usual, it had it's ups n downs. I can't imagine it will have much impact on the voters, though. Can we presume that we'll see Obama appear in the upcomming weeks? In which case Fred Armison can appear as a black religous community leader from chicago who frequently contributes to the dialogue the church is famous for; Louis Farrakahn.

Funny, isn't it, that if Obama was going to a church that hosted a right wing xian nutjob there'd be some consternation in the congregation of Obama believers...but here? Nuthin but crickets. That is worrisome to me.

Have to whole-heartedly agree with the previous poster. Charles C. Mann's "1491" is indispensible for having a current understanding of the natural and cultural history of pre-columbian Americas.It's nothing like what we were taught in school. Absolutely captivating. Now, back to the ox goring! Any of the candidates going to the upcoming science debates?

...but could we slip a little birth control into the mix?

...is wear a a whole chestfull of flag pins and challenge his opponents, or at least those who criticize him for not wearing one, to match his blatant patriotism. It would make sense here in the age of irony. It won't actually defuse the issue but it will bring the real concept of what it is to be a good citizen into the public forum and poke a hole in the bogus kind of patrotism we see so frequently in our imagery charged media environment.

...that this massive production comes on the heels of recent scientific evidence, hard evidence in contrast to the soft evidence previously offered, that pretty much sews up the debate as to what killed the megafauna. Sorry human self-haters, but the cosmic impact of 12.9 thousand years ago is practially irrefutable. There goes some very interesting theories, including the one that says humans did it all by themselves. But don't worry there's plenty of extinction going on right now to make up for the confusion. CO2 global warming? Ocean acidification? Shutdown of the thermohaline? Mercury poisoning? soot? Nature bats last and she uses a might hammer from outer space.