Republicans launched a new website at the end of May called America Speaking Out. This website was meant to be a forum for common citizens to voice their opinions, submit ideas, vote, and comment on others’ ideas in order to create a better dialogue between politicians and their constituents. I think this is an excellent idea, but the implementation has been lacking in several key areas. Aside from that, I received a particularly troublesome e-mail from Congressman Kevin McCarthy regarding the America Speaking Out website, the full text of which is below:

You’re Speaking Out And We’re Listening

America Speaking Out Community:

First – thank you and congratulations for being a part of a ground-breaking project that is changing the way Washington works. In just three weeks, 300,000 Americans have visited AmericaSpeakingOut.com to submit their ideas for a new governing agenda, casting close to 350,000 votes.

Even in this early stage, it’s clear that issues of spending and debt are weighing heavy on the minds of many Americans. The top user-submitted idea in the Fiscal Accountability – Spending category comes from user darby, who says:

“I very much want to see a strong Balanced Budget Amendment…We need this desperately.”

Developing and sticking to a budget is one of the most fundamental tasks for families and small businesses alike. Unfortunately, it’s become clear that for the first time in over 30 years, Speaker Pelosi and Democratic leaders in Congress aren’t even bothering with a budget. So the runaway spending continues, increasing our debt and deficit to record levels, without any apparent end in sight.

But your ideas are being heard.

Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) has submitted a plan to cut spending on America Speaking Out. In a video on the America Speaking Out homepage, he outlines the same frustrations we’ve heard from so many of you: Washington’s fiscal failures are unacceptable. We need to know where you stand on fiscal accountability and spending. Tell us how you feel by voting on and debating this idea or submitting your own.

Vote on Rep. Ryan’s idea or submit your own now.

Keep speaking out,

Congressman Kevin McCarthy

This e-mail was laden with so many inaccuracies in such a short amount of text that I was compelled to respond. Below is my e-mail response to Congressman McCarthy:

Congressman McCathy,

I want to thank you and your party for developing a website that allows average Americans to voice their opinions and provide an open dialogue with your constituents. However, I do take exception to some of your assertions, particularly in this e-mail.

You assert that it is the Democratic Party’s fault for exorbitant spending seen in government leading to citizens’ frustration. Your comment regarding the Democratic lack of adherence to a budget insinuates that they are responsible for all of the deficit spending that has put our country into a position where we have the highest public debt level of all time. This is factually inaccurate, and I am prepared to support that statement.

During the period of 1981 to 2008, Ronald Reagan accumulated $1.26 trillion in deficits, Bush Sr $934 billion in deficits, Clinton $324 billion in deficits, and W Bush racked up $1.98 trillion. This amounts to a total of just about $4.5 trillion in deficit spending BEFORE the current administration even took office. I acknowledge that the Fiscal 2009 and 2010 budgets have only added, and significantly, to this accumulated deficit figure. But it is quite simply unfair to burden the Democratic Party today with a statement like, “Unfortunately, it’s become clear that for the first time in over 30 years, Speaker Pelosi and Democratic leaders in Congress aren’t even bothering with a budget” – when the budget numbers offered by the CBO does not support that statement at all. It appears to be another incidence of partisan rhetoric meant to incite the public in order to win House and Senate seats in the fall. For your constituents, such as myself, who are interested and educated enough to fact check your statements, the statements you made below are merely examples of reasons not to trust you or your party. Please refer to the information contained at this link for supporting facts and documentation.

I would also like to make a few other points pertaining to the technicalities of economics and US government spending, which do not support your message.

Firstly, government spending is one of four main components of our GDP. Simply cutting government spending without shifting the goods/services produced to a private entity directly reduces GDP, and therefore, our economy. It is not as simple as “spend less” – because that short-sighted notion would have us in recession territory even if all other GDP components were held equal. Not all of the citizens in this country understand how the economy works, and they are therefore not qualified to remark on how cutting government spending effects our economy. So it is great for a politician to get the crowd all fired up on spending reduction platforms, etc., but those who know understand the reality is far more complex and can lead to destructive consequences if not implemented properly.

Secondly, Defense, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid represent over 60% of the 2009 US Federal Budget. Where I am going with this point is that reducing spending in other areas is admirable, and most likely very necessary for under performing programs, however it does not address the core of the problem. Almost none of the ideas submitted in the Fiscal Accountability addressed these major budget burdening programs. They focus on small-dollar, low-impact budget items that are great for stroking the ego and making each other feel good, but do absolutely nothing of a material nature to change the status quo. Until Washington is ready to admit that Social Security, Defense spending, and Medicare and Medicaid are the true reasons for our “runaway spending”, then nothing will change. You will assuredly fool most of citizens, but not all of us. Those of us who are actually engaged, doing research, and trying to be informed about their government are well-versed in the knowledge of what levers are truly driving deficit spending.

I appreciate your time and efforts for listening to the people. I am an accounting professional who is very interested in fiscal accountability and responsibility, but I do not think that the ideas you are receiving on America Speaking Out are going to get to the root of the matter. I also do not believe that making false assertions about a rival political party is appropriate or helpful in moving our country forward to a better, more balanced, budget.

Best Regards,

Jason Morgan

I don’t want to seem ungrateful for their attempt at creating a better relationship between politicians and their constituents, but I do wish that we could move past the finger-pointing phase and get down and dirty with some real solutions.

Similar Posts:

• Obama’s Historic U.S. Federal Government Budget: How Bad is It?
• Obama’s Spending Freeze was McCain’s Idea
• A Democrat Is Keynote Speaker At Republic National Convention
• Economy Artificially Inflated by Federal Government Budget
• Why The Third Party Will Never Happen

Technology has not only made it easier for information to flow, as well as the internet to grow, but it has also enabled hackers and software designers to create little computer bugs that invade your computer. These little bugs, ‘botnets’, serve as a burrowing type of insect that infiltrates your computer and then executes certain actions which could range from crashing a system to stealing money from it. This is fascinating for no longer is hacking and identity theft a personal issue; instead it is mass produced from the same technology it is infiltrating. Hackers and ‘botnets’ pose a very real threat to businesses’ and individuals’ security. Therefore, it is imperative that every company allow full disclosure and discretion when dealing with the risks associated with being on the internet. Businesses should integrate standard protocols to prevent against internal sabotage or financial theft. They should stress the importance of not connecting to unfamiliar sites or even opening emails from unknown senders. The same could also be said for individuals, whose varying degree of interests poses different security risks.

Individuals can be reckless at times with their internet usage by sharing all sorts of information over the web. The realization of Web 2.0 has allowed the world to be connected at all times with everyone through social networking sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, and even MySpace. Web 2.0 is very real and rumor is that Web 3.0 is on the horizon. Web 2.0 has allowed for information to be immediately available. An illustration of this could be seen when the first report to tell us that a plane landed in the Hudson River due to bird attacks came from a bystander with a camera phone and a Twitter account. Twitter has become so large and integrated, those celebrities, politicians, physicists, and even common folk are connected to it. However, Facebook is the giant of this Web 2.0 revolution having the most people connected to a single website in the world. To put this in perspective, if Facebook were a country, it would be the third largest country in the world behind China and India (400 million).

It is clear that more and more people are connected to the internet through social networking sites. It is clear that businesses are becoming globalized and must share information over the internet to properly operate outside of its headquarters. It is also, unfortunately clear that people use the internet to steal money through hacking or simply performing corporate espionage born out of bitter feelings or financial gain. These same hackers have also developed the tools to invade the privacy of your home and shovel out information, ranging from bank statements or social security numbers in a particular direction. The threats are real and present. Both businesses and individuals would be wise to diversify their data infrastructure, purchase top of the line computer protection software, and use excellent discretion.

Image Used in Post

Organic growth image is courtesy of Flickr user jurvetson published under the CC license.
Similar Posts:

• Facebook Lite Has Launched: Another Lolcat is Born
• The Social Media Revolution: More Overwhelming Than You Think
• Tax Day Tea Party
• Facebook Vanity URLs are Now Live: Get Yours Today
• Follow Us on Twitter @Babeled

One thing is for certain, cartoons have some form of impact on the children that watch them.  I would argue that the quality cartoons that I watched as a kid, like Voltron, Thundercats, He-Man, and G.I. Joe helped mold me into the man I am today (No wonder I constantly want to save the world). Out of curiosity, I asked the founding Babelers what their favorite childhood cartoons were. Here are their responses . . .

Jason Morgan

I’m not sure whether nostalgia clouds my perception or whether it is really true, but I feel that the cartoons I watched growing up in the 80′s were far superior to those today. This makes it difficult to decide which cartoon really was my favorite, but I would have to say that Transformers was a cut above the rest.

Transformers was a great cartoon with an awesome good versus evil plot line. Nothing beats intergalactic robot wars. The premise of shape-changing robots also made for phenomenal toys to go along with the show.

My runners-up for awesome childhood cartoons are Thundercats, GI Joe, Voltron, and Scooby Doo.

Jack Gamble

Transformers, hands down. There are still some unanswered questions though. Like when Optimus Prime transformed into the truck on Cybertron his trailer suddenly showed up even though he was in robot form when he came across the Space Bridge. Also, was the Optimus trailer ever hit by a tornado and were there red necks inside that went on the news to describe what the “tor-nader” sounded like?

Also, how did Omega Supreme’s base show up when he landed on another planet? The robot transformed into a rocket and a launch pad, yet somehow the launch pad made the trip?

Let’s not even talk about how Soundwave violated the law of conservation of matter and energy when he transformed. I also think the size of Devastator, or any of the combiners for that matter, was disproportionate to the sum mass of the individual Constructicons.

Not all was bad, at the very least there wasn’t a lame cube in the cartoon that easily explains the Transformers existence. I prefer the Terminator scenario personally.

Greg Molyneux

Wow. Too many to count really. In the interest of being decisive I am going to go with ThunderCats. Quality storyline, moral accountability, bad ass tech, and some outstanding characters. Let’s face it Mumm-Ra held it down as an all time bad guy, Panthro layed the smack down, Cheetara was smokin’, and Tygra was a tool—completely.

“Sword of Omens, give me sight beyond sight.”

Jeff Ruemeli

My mom told me that my favorite cartoon as a small child was Scooby Doo. This was before I made my own cartoon choices. What follows is a Cartoonaholics confession. This is a compilation of any and all (probably more like just some) cartoons that I regularly watched as my favorite. In no particular order.

• Loony Toons
• Animaniacs
• Batman
• Super Friends
• Herculoids
• Simpsons
• Liquid Television
• Rescue Rangers
• Duck Tales (a woo ooo)
• Laugh Olympics
• TaleSpin
• South Park
• Undergrads
• Muppet Babies
• Spider-man
• Ironman
• X-Men
• Transformers
• He-Man

Similar Posts:

• Transformers: Baa Weep Grahna Weep Ninny Bong
• A Computer Desk
• I Need You Gloop and Gleep!
• Babeled On: The 1980s
• Who Is Jason Morgan?

Crime Against Humanity

The Nazi’s performed atrocious hate crimes, or as Shoshana Zuboff states “crimes against humanity” through mass genocide.  Many Nazi’s of the time did not commit these hate crimes and genocide independently.  Instead, they were wrapped up in a psychological whirlwind whereas they performed their horrible crimes because they were too scared to stand up and do the right thing.  They performed their crimes without thinking about the consequences of their actions because their entire nation was committed toward the same thing.  As strange as it is to compare Nazi’s to the subprime mortgage industry, they both understandably committed immoral acts through a common goal of domination, or profit maximization.

The Economic Crime

The subprime mortgage industry is indeed guilty of performing “crimes against humanity” for through their actions they neglected or ignored to make sure they were doing the right thing for everyone.  Sure, in our capitalistic structure of an economy, it is always a company’s goal to make more money.  However, the people involved in this industry simply made money by being socially irresponsible.  They made their money at the cost of millions of people losing their lifetime investments, their houses, and more importantly their livelihood.  Just as the Nazi’s were too scared to be the “whistleblower” and do the right thing; the people and companies involved in the subprime mortgage industry were too scared as well.  Either out of fear or sheer greed, these companies did the wrong thing.  They simply focused on making a lot of money and while one could say focusing on money and committing mass genocide are completely different things, I would, like the author, argue that they are not so dissimilar.

The key to understanding this comparison is not focusing on the actual acts that were performed by either party, for killing and maximizing profits are indeed different.  The key is focusing on the inactions of both the Nazi’s and the subprime mortgage industry.  There were investors and companies involved in the subprime mortgage industry that at some point had to have realized that what they were doing could have major economic repercussions.  However, due to fear or greed, they simply kept their defunct industry going.  Afterall, the entire industry was making a ton of money off this idea and if it’s good for everyone else, it is surely good for them.  They, like most humans, followed the flock without thinking for themselves.  Once they got involved and saw their profits rise, it became too difficult for them to exit.  They became addicted to the money, like everyone else in their industry, and due to this greed they kept pushing the subprime mortgage industry further and further until it eventually crashed.

The Nazi’s Crime

In Nazi Germany, the citizens out of fear or nationalistic pride (greed) followed the flock as well.  Once the Nazi’s came into power under Hitler, Germany was the most profitable it had ever been in its history.  Just as in the subprime mortgage industry, the Nazi’s were enjoying the value that was added to their nation.  Due to this addiction to value maximization, both parties, through inaction, did the wrong thing.  Regardless, if their inactions were based on fear or greed or pure ignorance, they both committed “crimes against humanity”.  The Nazi’s directly killed millions of people, while the inactions destroyed peoples’ lives.  The effects of the subprime mortgage industry could have indirectly killed people through suicide or heart attacks.  The subprime mortgage industry destroyed the infrastructure of the U.S. economy, as well as destroyed the trust of the public regarding businesses.  Both the Nazi’s and businesses, at large, acted without regard for the consequences that could follow.

Change Is In Order

Companies, more specifically people, need to change.  People shouldn’t be afraid of thinking for themselves and standing up to do the right thing.  If you think that what you or your company is doing is immoral, then you should be the “whistleblower” and act with moral confidence, regardless if you lose your job or profits.  For far too long, companies and people alike have ignored moral principles in the business world and created an environment where people are brainwashed into falling into line.  It seems that companies have only one thing in mind and that is profit maximization.  While I agree that profit maximization should be the goal of every organization, companies put unnecessary pressure on their employees to ensure that this is realized at any cost.  While these companies are surely to blame for their negligent actions, I believe that these crimes can be further generalized into how a company is valued.Wall Street and the business world generally judge and value based off financial statements, i.e. the income statement.

Companies are truly a victim of circumstance for they want to be the best and for them to be the best they have to show they have the most money.  Due to Wall Street using financial statements to value a company, companies in general will do whatever they can to ensure they are the best, at any cost.   Companies need to practice moral principles when dealing with making money.  However, for companies to change and act with moral fiber, Wall Street (the business world) needs to change their valuation methods.   Wall Street should give more credence to the value that the companies are adding to benefit people and the world.  Of course, they should still use the financial statements in valuing, but they need to look at more variables and intangibles for what they are promoting is possibly destroying.

Image Used In This Post

Not So Fast You Greedy Bastards image courtesy of Flickr user cogito ergo imago published under the CC license.

Similar Posts:

• Santelli For Senate
• Barack Obama in Fannie Mae’s Pocket
• Economic Crisis: 11 Ways to Help Yourself and Your Country
• Top Five Quotes Every Wall Street Executive Should Read
• Regulation Philosophies Differ For Banking & Financial Markets

Yes, indeed we are stupid-if we want all that but don’t want to pay for it. Nobody ever said “the American People are excellent economists.” It’s one or the other folks…I’m just sayin’.
Similar Posts:

• The Dana Carvey Show Was Awesome
• Beware the Supermajority
• The Danger of Peace
• The Jack Gamble Interview
• Kidd Chris is Philadelphia Talk Radio

Growing up in the 1980′s and 90′s, I was unaware of just how new most of our knowledge of geology, plate tectonics, and volcanoes is relative to other sciences. On the heels of this realization I read about a pair of geologists that were the first to identify Mount St Helens as a volcano in 1978, and how their conclusion was mostly dismissed by area residents.

For a little over a month preceding the 5.1 magnitude earthquake at 8:32 AM on May 18th, 1980, the area surrounding Mount St Helens had been experiencing greatly increased seismic activity. Geologists flocked to the area, setting up an array of measuring devices, outposts, and monitoring stations to record as much data as possible. It was found that the north face of the mountain was beginning to bulge outward by around five feet, which was an indicator of the massive landslide to come.

The significance of the 1980 Mount St Helens eruption is far-reaching. It was the first opportunity modern scientists had to examine this type of volcanic eruption in-progress, allowing for the collection of vast amounts of scientific data. This eruption was impressive in terms of scale.

• Released 24 megatons of thermal energy
• Horizontal pyroclastic flows leveled 230 square miles of forest
• Ash plume that went 15 miles into the atmosphere and covered parts of ten states
• Released 1.5 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere
• Epic landslide with about 2.9 cubic kilometers of debris from the collapse of the north face
• Killed 57 people, including a scientist with the US Geological Survey, David Johnston

The volcano in Iceland that disrupted air travel for several weeks has brought volcanoes, and their deadly consequences, back into the public view. The immense power associated with the forces held within our Earth’s bowels is easily forgotten on the tranquil surface we call home. Volcanic eruptions like the one in Iceland and Mount St Helens are reminders of how big and powerful the world we live in is, and how insignificant we are in the face of these massive forces.

I now live within 50 miles of Mount St Helens, and on every clear day when I am driving home from work I can see it in the distance, looming peacefully. It is hard to imagine seeing and hearing the eruption that happened 30 years ago today. However, as evidenced by the apparent increase in geological activity all over the world, we should never let our guard down when living in the shadow of that mountain.

Image Credit

Mount St. Helens 1978 – before the eruption courtesy of Flickr user Derek K. Miller under the CC license

Mt_St_Helens_HDR_2 courtesy of Flickr user brianholsclaw under the CC license
Similar Posts:

• An In-depth Look Into the Planet Mercury
• Don’t let Gaza become South Lebanon
• Cross Country Road Trip from PA to WA
• New Nuclear Construction: Turkey Point Unit 6 and 7
• Digital Pimp (Night Before Christmas)

What to do about space exploration has been a hot topic as of late. On one hand there is the drive to explore the unknown for the betterment of science and mankind.  On the other hand is the fact that over the past 5 decades progress in space exploration has been uncelebrated if not marginalized while pouring billions into a program viewed as outdated and inefficient.  The question posed to the Babelers is what is the future of the space program and the role private industry will play in the business of space.  Thanks to Tamahome Jenkins from Everything is History for stopping by to contribute to this one.

Tamahome Jenkins

I think space travel will be split into two groups, space exploration and space tourism. Private corporations will dominate the space tourism segment by building new ships to take passengers into low-earth orbit. The admission that people will pay to experience this will pay for itself sooner rather than later. This is a given, as private companies are already attempting this, and no government space agency has addressed this potential.

Space exploration, on the other hand, is an entirely different animal. It can be divided further into two segments, manned exploration and unmanned exploration. There hasn’t been a human outside of low-earth orbit since the last Apollo astronauts went to the moon in 1972. Leaving low-earth orbit is costly and dangerous, and for this reason private companies won’t try to take on manned-space exploration. Unmanned space exploration, though, will be a mixed bag. Governments will continue to send robots and machines into space, but there isn’t any profit to deep-space exploration, whether it’s manned or unmanned. Thus, only the most profitable companies with cash to burn will even consider taking part. Google has shown a willingness to spend money on unprofitable things for the greater good, so maybe they’ll send a Googlebot into space.

Jeff Ruemeli

Private industry is the only future the space program has. The U.S. government does not support NASA enough. I find it appalling that our current shuttles will be out of commission soon and the new ones won’t be ready for like 5 years. So we gotta pay another country to put our people in space. That’s right, once again we outsource more jobs. Wait, so that means…THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!

Greg Molyneux

First and foremost the importance of the Universe cannot dominate in obscurity for much longer. Once the pressing energy crisis is brought under control, space will be the singular focus of what remains to be conquered—the final frontier. It is human nature to push the envelope; to leave our comfort zone and venture off into the unknown. To deny that desire would be to deny our very existence, the essence of our humanity.

With that said I am in favor of an aggressive two-pronged approach: innovative and accelerated participation of the private sector, and global-leading influence and exploration from NASA.

To borrow on overly-used corporate euphemism, let the corporations go after the low hanging fruit. Let them handle lower orbit space travel, satellite launches, and perhaps someday ventures to the Moon. These endeavors can prove both profitable and beneficial. Space tourism will be the driver for this from an economic standpoint while the potential of Helium-3 on the Moon can pay large dividends to the global economy.

NASA needs to go for broke. As an American I would like to see space pioneering remain in house. I want NASA to push the envelope and continue to send out probes to all the little corners of the solar system. Each of these missions yield more and more promising information about our own neighborhood and come closer everyday to dispelling the myth that life is unique to those of us on Earth. I would encourage NASA and its Jet Propulsion Laboratory to develop better and more powerful systems that can propel us farther and faster into space.

Finally, my two-pronged attack can find suitable mergers where appropriate that bring private sector and country together. Much like how the military works with Lockheed’s Skunkworks and Northrop Grumman on top-secret development for our military. With this type of synergy, we can finance the greatest engineering minds in the world to work on our systems, exclusive to NASA. Of course, military funding towers over a meager NASA budget by unrealized orders of magnitude. This line of thinking would require a paradigm shift in Washington and in the public. People need to realize just how important space is and why our monies are most needed to explore.

Gregory Rineberg

Not really sure how to respond to this Babeled On. I, personally, am a huge fan of the space program and I think that the U.S. should pursue more endeavors exploring the galaxy. We humans are constantly using up resources that are not only relied on by nations, but more importantly mother earth. I think that we should continuously explore more of the galaxy because we could discover more resources (innovations) to further our species’ survival. Hopefully, one day when Earth is so used up by us, maybe we could migrate to Mars. Don’t laugh, maybe with nuclear plants and by creating an artificial atmosphere, it could be possible.

As far as allowing the private industry to do it, well sure it would increase competition and perhaps efficiency. However, I’m skeptical. I think that the U.S. government and NASA, with support from the private industry, should start a new program to look for external resources. My thinking is two-fold. One, space exploration and discovery is great for nationalist pride. Two, perhaps more jobs would occur because of significant investment into the space program.

On an ending note, private industries are interested in solely making money, not necessarily in the best interests of the world. Although it’s debatable that the U.S. would have the worlds’ best interest in mind. I prefer to be ignorant of such claims and think that the U.S. will do the right thing.

Jason Morgan

The US space program has always been a world leader, except for that one time the Russians beat us. Now that the time is at hand for our species to begin capitalizing on the potential of space travel as a commercial enterprise, the US is decidedly taking a step backwards to allow private industry to move to the forefront.

I read an interesting article recently that discussed how this is typically the way the US handles emerging technologies. It began with industrialization, then computers, and now space exploration. In the past this model has worked for the country. However, I do not think that private industries are ready to assume the leadership role for space exploration in the US at this time. Only one private company has launched a manned space flight. This is highly misleading though because their ship only managed to gain about 100 km of altitude, which is only technically suborbital flight. So I do not think this can truly be classified as actual spaceflight. Suborbital flight requires approximately 60 times less energy than propelling a vessel to orbiting levels, so the commercial achievement is a bit overstated and is not truly anything close to real spaceflight. That is just getting to orbit, then consider getting to orbit and traversing the more than 300,000 km to the Moon. This is an enormous difference from the puny 100 km into the atmosphere achieved to date by commercial endeavors.

We are at a critical junction as a species with our endeavors concerning the heavens. Russia and China are poised to take the lead in Moon exploration, which may result in those two countries controlling the potentially game-changing resource known as Helium-3. This particular compound is not found in any great quantity on Earth but can be found in relative abundance on the Moon. We should not allow Russia and China to obtain control over this resource. We will again be put into a position where we are dependent on a foreign country for a natural energy resource, much as we are today with oil. Of course the significance of H3 has yet to be truly determined as there no current technologies in existence to harness it’s energy potential, but it certainly would seem that it could change the future of energy production for our planet.

Putting private industry into the leadership role before it is ready may handicap our country’s ability to compete in not just harvesting H3, but in all of the economic and scientific benefits that arise from developing a new industry. We may miss out on great commercial opportunities that would have allowed US companies to provide transportation, mining tools and equipment, and other technologies and commodities that will be needed to set up mining operations and transportation to and from the Moon. If the US makes a calculated error in allowing private industry to take over space exploration too soon, we could potentially lose out in such a huge way as to drop from the ranks of the most powerful nations because our economy will not be benefiting, but rather being depleted by, the human expansion into space and the harnessing of its resources.

Image Credit

Our Milky Way Galaxy.. photo courtesy of Flickr user Sir Mervs (pinoy biyahero) published under the CC license.
Similar Posts:

• NASA’s Ares I Launch Vehicle: U.S. Going back to the Moon
• Udvar-Hazy: The Smithsonian’s Newest National Air & Space Museum
• An In-depth Look Into the Planet Mercury
• The Mars Incident
• Cotai Strip in Macau is the Las Vegas of China

If you still weren’t convinced Facebook owns you, think again. It would be the third largest country in the world and receives more daily pageviews than the once unconquerable Google.

Social media’s integration into our mobile lives is creating new ways for us to interface with the people and places that surround us.

Still think it’s just a fad?
Similar Posts:

• Video Demo: Gmail gets Social with Google Buzz
• Facebook Lite Has Launched: Another Lolcat is Born
• Facebook Vanity URLs are Now Live: Get Yours Today
• Threats of the Internet
• What’s In Your Reader? New York Yankees Edition

In today’s economy, eating entirely organically is not always the cheapest option. That’s why the USDA Organic labels post a list of foods that you don’t have to buy organically, allowing you to pick and choose ‘to your organic taste.’

Onions

They aren’t usually sprayed with pesticides, which means you can eat worry-free.

Avocados

Even though these green guys are sprayed, they have a stronger, thicker skin that is peeled away upon consumption.

Corn

Just like avocados, corn is sprayed, but once husked, the corn kernal remained untouched of any harmful chemicals.

Pineapple

They have VERY tough skin, like coconuts, and will almost never be infected with chemicals.

Mangos

Great on everything, mangos skin protects the inside from pesticides. But be careful, make sure those mangos smell fruity, if not – steer clear.

Asparagus

Their lack of appeal to bugs means a lack of pesticides used when they’re grown. Don’t worry about these veggies being tainted, cause if you buy them firm and bright green, you’re probably good to go.

Sweet Peas

According to the Environmental Working Groups latest survey, peas are least likely to have pesticide residue. Still suspicious? The great thing about sweet peas is that you can easily grow these at home too.

Cabbage

Usually, you won’t find lots of harmful chemicals on cabbage either, because not alot of pesticides are need to grow it. One thing you’re sure to appreciate are the beta carotene, a.k.a. superfood, found throughout it!

Broccoli

Less pesticide is used on this vegetable because it doesn’t need a whole lot of pest control when grown. Avoid any yellow-looking broccolli that feels rubbery.

Sweet Potatoes

Another superfood beta carotene veggie, sweet potatoes are less likely to be contaminated because they are grown in the ground.

So, while you may not be able to be entirely organic, you can at least lay your head at night knowing that your pesticide free, proving once again that you can be ‘green-friendly’ both in what you eat and what you spend.

Image Credit

Open Onion image courtesy of Flickr user Darwin Bell published under the CC license.
Similar Posts:

• 10 Easy Ways to Reduce the Impact of Your Coffee Habit on the Environment
• Learning How to Grow Vegetables and Herbs in a Home Garden
• Bad Thanksgiving Form
• Planning a Green Wedding in 5 Easy Steps
• Designing the Layout for Your Vegetable Garden

A Working Example—Ugly for Effect

How it Works

Previously, screen shots were required for displaying tweets; sacrificing time, effort, and image quality. With Blackbird Pie, simply go to their site, paste in the URL of a singular tweet, and press ‘Bake it’. The Twitter application will then generate HTML code for you to embed. That simple.

The Drawbacks

First there’s performance. At least for now—and quite possibly much of the foreseeable future—there will be instability with the Blackbird Pie application. As we all know, Twitter suffers from plenty of performance issues of its own, see the fail whale. That said, embedding full text tweets easily is a very nice alternative to ugly screen shots.

Secondly, The HTML code itself is quite bulky—leaner code will go a long way in aiding the implementation of this product. There is a ton of inline styling within the code block, and as you can see above there is still lots of styling that needs to be done (understatement). Leading me to my next issue…

Visual appeal. As in, there is none. Despite the morass of HTML, burdened with inline CSS, the code snippet fails to render in a visually appealing way (understatement) on this here WordPress site. Now, I could take the time to dress up the styling easily enough, weed out the inline styling, such that it renders consistently and usefully with our site, but that is a skill set not all bloggers possess (or care to). I intentionally left the styling ugly to highlight this point. The product will fail from a usability standpoint if it is not going to display the tweets in a clean, useful manner.

The object of this application is simplicity. Until it reaches that goal it will remain a nice idea that is poor in practice.
Similar Posts:

• Google Wave: How to Embed Videos in Wave
• TweeterGetter: Pyramid Scheme or Social Networking Gold?
• Google Wave: Reply Inline within a Blip
• Follow Us on Twitter @Babeled
• Pardon the Outages: The System is Down