...exactly how much should our elected officials use their own judgment, and how much should they follow shifting public opinion?

My opinion is that the voters are the boss and should be treated as such. That doesn't mean the voters micro-manage - precisely the opposite, in fact.

I also think you're hiding something in your black-and-white presentation of the issue. It's not just voters versus judgment, its voters versus financial contributers, with judgment frankly tacked on at the tail end. So when people argue that politicians should ignore the "shifting public opinion" in favor of sound judgment, they're making a false case: what these representatives are actually doing is ignoring public wisdom in favor of narrow, greedy special interests who want to make money at the voters' expense.

In fairness, I think this is a good example of where representative Democracy works best. McCain tells us what his judgment is, and we get to decide that his judgment isn't sound and therefore not elect him. Seriously, why would anybody trust the judgment of someone who thinks this war is working?

But are you really proposing that all issues should essentially be held up for public vote? Literally a direct democracy?

While I, personally, think that would be a great idea, I can see its impracticality. Assume for a moment direct, secure voting - in theory we easily have the technology to accomplish that - why not have the legislature merely draft the bills and the electorate decide if they pass? Of course the "why not" is easy - the electorate for the most part isn't going to have the spare time to learn the nitty-gritty of all that stuff. But... I like direct democracy.

I'm not nearly as happy with the current system in California for direct-vote initiatives; it's a system for bypassing the legislature and is largely used by special interests for precisely that purpose. Voters have demonstrated a disproportionate willingness to create budget deficits. I think every spending proposal should include the tax to cover it.

Anyway, I think we've gotten kind of far afield, here. All I was really saying originally is that I want the politicians to respect the opinions of the electorate, rather than insulting our intelligence. I wasn't suggesting that they be strictly bound by opinion polling, but rather that they take a proper attitude of deference to those who hired them and whom they purportedly serve.

I had a girlfriend who complained to me that her breasts were abnormal. I took her to collegehumor and we browsed their GGW-type photos for a while, and she felt much better about her set. It's easy to get a badly distorted view of what's normal for any body part which is mostly kept concealed.

There is other evidence to suggest that many of the worst symptoms of aging are actually defense mechanisms against cancer. The symptoms of aging generally come from reduced cell growth, and cancer is the result of unrestrained cell growth, so the hypothesis fits.

There was a study done where they shut down a protein associated with aging and slowing down cell growth in mice. The modified mice never aged - but still on average died relatively young from cancer.

Maybe they'll market a "Nova Pill - 'It's Better to Burn Out Than to Fade Away'" which will suppress the aging protein, restoring the youth of the elderly for a brief period before it kills them. (This will lead quickly to the observation that while "youth is wasted on the young" it's the elderly who'll make a REAL mess of it - having little left to lose.)

...you need to figure out how to separate the two functions...

While I appreciate your faith in my abilities (j/k), that may never be possible in the general case. The whole problem of cancer is that cancer cells are potentially indistinguishable from healthy cells. The point here is that they are not two different functions in the first place.

Certainly some cancers are more readily identifiable than others. Many are routinely destroyed by the immune system, and some animals are better at that than we are - but as far as I know none are immune. Tortoises can live a long time and never suffer significant senescence, but they're not immune to cancer and a low metabolism is a big part of that lifespan.

Why is it good for left-wing organizations to be "promoting" school-based events, but not for right-wing organizations to do the same?

Because we're good and you're evil. Duh. ;)

On a more serious note, I find your attempt to equate opposing a message with opposing free speech to be a worthless strawman argument.