Why it is important to be political

There are real consequences to government policies. Although we are discouraged from being a part of decisions, these decisions shape our way of life in many ways.

Hurricane Katrina is an excellent point of reference, as many political decisions are at the root of this disaster. Yes, it was natural, but the results could have been mitigated by proper policies. Some specific policies that could have helped include a focus on reducing land loss in deltas, training local disaster-relief personnel, building better sea walls, improving emergency preparedness planninng, etc. Read this article for more information.

Environmental policies
There are so many environmental problems that together contribute to the incredible devastation of natural disasters. Though hugely problematic, global warming isn't necessarily the most pressing issue. For example, land loss and ruined coastal wetlands, which act as natural storm barriers, means deluges of water are not absorbed but instead cause increased flooding. Water pollution, such as the Mississippi spells out increased danger during and after floods as well. This is just a few examples.

To be continued (Part II).... In the meantime, please read an open letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush

Get your war on

Satirical and nastily funny.

Example:

"Do you swell with pride when politicians say 'never again'?"
"Darfurnitely not."

Darfur as a Resource War

David Morse eloquently demonstrates the connections between the Sudan's oil resources and the genocide in Darfur.

He juxtaposes our "giddy assumption" that the narcissistic automobile/celebrity obsessed culture can continue indefinitely when we know it can't" with the horror that is occurring in places like Darfur in order to keep us flush with oil. Why doesn't the media show this? Perhaps we aren't willing to make "the connections that would threaten our petroleum-dependent lifestyle."

Is it Food?

Or is it a "food product"?

Faced with a bewildering array of substances that may or may not be good for our bodies, we find ourselves scratching our heads. Increasingly, the answer to the question 'Is it food?' is 'I’m not sure.'

According to this article, there are many clues to determine if it is food or not.

1. Economic clues: "Food may be expensive, but it rarely brings outrageous profits to those who produce it. Food products, on the other hand, bring enormous, occasionally obscene profit to manufacturers."

2. Visually: Food has little/no packaging like this:

while food products are wrapped in cardboard, plastic, foil, graphics, like this:

3. Historically: Was it available before 1903, the year hydrogenation was patented?

Their simplest solution the the dilemma, however, is this: "Simply avoid anything that's advertised."

Weird and interesting plan to curb carbon-dioxide emissions

Concerned about global warming? So are the British. Unless they want to take a lot of naps, they realize we better do something.

But do what? Well, for starters, measure personal carbon-dioxide emissions.

Is God playing Sim City? If so, is He losing or winning?

This article: Weird Science on the Religious Right examines several anti-facts promoted by religious groups among the political right. For example, the myths about holes in condoms, abortion causing breast cancer, the effectiveness of remote prayer, the dangers of emergency contraception, and of course, about human origins.

Read the comments. Very funny. Just Some Dude says in relation to the problem of evil (why is there evil if an omnipotent, all-good higher power exists?): "Is this higher power just up in heaven playing Sim City or something?". Then smidget2k4 discusses the simcity disasters (giant alien robots). OldRedleg2 responds: "Hey, you guys have just hit on how the Rapture can be incorporated into (choke) Intelligent Design."

For even more of this sort of surreal religious weirdness, check out Rapture Letters.

Did you ever wonder what it would be like to see a water balloon pop in space?

Now you can find out. (MPEG or Quicktime)

Nuclear power = 7 times more expensive than conservation

Opponents to nuclear power cite more than potential danger. They say Nuclear energy can't solve global warming, both because of the high cost and low efficiency, not to mention that nuclear energy is only electric (i.e. it doesn't solve 2/3 of America's energy needs such as home heating, and automobiles).

Of, course, it's still better than coal, which the new U.S. Energy bill promotes, by granting $14.5 billion in tax breaks and subsidies, most of which will go to producers and users of oil, coal and natural gas.