pots of mold

Cue cheesy Irish music.

This just in... time for St. Patrick's Day: "Changing Shades of Green," a report published by the Irish American Climate Project in which Kevin Sweeney, director of the project argues, "The lush greens could turn to brown and the soft rains that people talk about as a blessing -- 'May the rains fall soft upon your field' -- those soft rains could turn harsh."

In short, less rain means less potatoes and brown grass. Emerald Isle "will look and feel and be different. And that's the subtlety we want to explain here. We don't want to project that this is a catastrophe. What it is, is it's heartbreaking."

Reuter's

pay your rent and eat it too... or something like that

We've all seen the signs, "$1 Value Meal." Great! What a bargain! Ok, so not really. Tom Philpott of Grist breaks it down for you here: "people are gaining weight and getting sick because unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food -- thanks in large part to federal policies."

Sweetness and Power If the USDA's food pyramid recommends two to five cups of fruits and vegetables per day, its budget -- mandated by Congress through the Farm Bill -- encourages different behavior altogether. Will the real food pyramid please stand up?

Cheap corn, underwritten by the subsidy program, has changed the diet of every American. It has allowed a few corporations -- including Archer Daniels Midland, the world's largest grain processor -- to create a booming market for high-fructose corn syrup. HFCS now accounts for nearly half of the caloric sweeteners added to processed food, and is the sole caloric sweetener for mass-market soft drinks.

According to Drewnowski and his student Pablo Monsivais, cheap and abundant additives such as HFCS allow manufacturers to sweeten food liberally without adding much to their production costs. For people on a tight budget, these additives can also make cheap food the most efficient way to get calories.

Ok, I'll stop there, I don't want to bog you down with all this information. However, I do encourage you to read the article. Stop playing Solitaire and do something productive at work today.

Now, on the reason for this post... Pay Rent and Eat Too? This was an article published yesterday by, yet again, Tom Philpott. The sparknotes version: it discusses the rising food prices and who will pay the cost.

With food on the brain, here's your weekly dose (by the way, I know a good whale stew recipe if your interested):

How about Brunch? Do you need a drink to wash this down? I do.

Champagne Eye-Opener

2 cups sliced fresh strawberries
1 cup papaya juice
2 ounces Grand Marnier liqueur
2 tablespoons granulated sugar
1 (750-ml) bottle good quality Brut sparkling wine or Champagne
8 strawberry halves, garnish

In a blender or food processor, puree the strawberries. Strain through a fine mesh strainer into a tall pitcher, pressing with the back of a spoon to extract the juice. Add the papaya juice, Grand Marnier, and sugar, and stir to dissolve the sugar. Refrigerate until well chilled. Add the sparkling wine to the pitcher and stir gently to mix. Pour into tall Champagne glasses and garnish each glass with a strawberry half. Serve immediately.

a whale of a time

On Monday a Norwegian pro-whaling lobby argued that eating whale could save the planet. They cite that "harpooning the giant mammals is less damaging to the climate than farming livestock." But Greenpeace says, "The survival of a species is more important than lower greenhouse-gas emissions from eating it." The study shows "greenhouse gas emissions caused by one meal of beef are the equivalent of eight meals of whale meat."

You can read more of this debate on Reuters.

For Viewers Like You

It all began with a question on February 17, 2008: “Is PBS Still Necessary?” The New York Times published this article in light of the Bush administration’s proposition for “taking a hefty whack out of the federal subsidy for public broadcasting.” Sparking much controversy and leading to many conversations within the past week, the author, Charles McGrath argues, “The audience for public TV has been shrinking, while on the other side of the ledger, the audience for public radio has been growing.” He attributes the dwindling number of PBS viewers to the countless cable channels on which to view niche programming. He states that “there are not only countless more channels to choose from, but many offer the kind of stuff that in the past you could see only on public TV, and in at least some instances they do it better.” NPR on the other hand, “attracts fewer political enemies and cost much less.”

He concludes his article with this final statement: “At its best public television adds a little grace note to our lives, but public radio fills a void.” With a stab at NewsHour’s Jim Lehrer and a comment about the mustiness of the programming, McGrath opened the flood-gates for angry PBS viewers to put in their two cents.

Their tones, mostly defensive and in support of PBS funding, they argue that PBS provides “a gem that encourages not only free thinking and creative views, but education and objectivity.” Some argue that PBS’ programming is far from redundant because “not everyone has cable.” On the contrary, those who want to see budget cuts, argue the market should decide.

By analyzing the New York Time’s article and its massively generated responses, one can see that the positive comments vastly outweigh the negative. So, what I am about to say next might shock you. While I’m not going to dispute that PBS’ programming is high in quality, I am going to dispute the need for government funding. I, like Laurence Jarvik who writes in his book, Behind the Screen, feel that we should allow the market to decide. The government should not be in the position of using other people’s money to try to change people’s values.

“The best possible future would be for PBS to recognize that freedom of expression is strenghtened, not weakened, by the dynamics of the marketplace. A nonprofit, nonmarket system ruled by bureaucratic whim in response to political pressures reduces the range of possible programming available to viewers. If one truly values freedom, especially freedom of speech, one must honestly recognize that a free marketplace of ideas cannot possibly exist in an intellectual and administrative environment hostile to the very concept of the free market itself.”