Earn free rice for the hungry-- and improve your vocabulary!

I stumbled upon a new web site today that is just plain addictive: FreeRice
It offers a simple but addictive vocabulary exercise that's pretty much like the old Reader's Digest "It Pays to Enrich Your Word Power" feature, but with a catch: each time you select the correct definition, ten grains of rice are donated. It's funded by advertising and implemented by the UN's World Food Program; since its launch on October 7th over 263 million grains of rice have been donated-- almost 16,000 pounds!

A Space Race for Energy?

Here's my October column from the St. Cloud Times


There needs to be an energy race

By Derek Larson
St. Cloud (MN) Times

October 3, 2007

Fifty years ago Thursday, on Oct. 4, 1957, the Soviet Union stunned the world by announcing the launch of the first artificial satellite. Beating the American Vanguard program into orbit by five months, the object known worldwide as Sputnik launched the space race and a technological revolution.

In recent interviews with The Associated Press, Boris Chertok, a 95-year-old veteran scientist who worked closely with Sputnik project director Sergei Korolyov, noted the frantic pace of the effort was also marked by poetic moments. Though a more complex, conically shaped scientific satellite was already being planned by another team, Korolyov had a specific vision for the symbolic first mission. "The Earth is a sphere, and its first satellite also must have a spherical shape," Chertok remembers him insisting.

Even the launch team failed to grasp the importance of its accomplishment when the initial beep was received from space. "At that moment we couldn't fully understand what we had done," Chertok recalled. "We felt ecstatic about it only later, when the entire world ran amok. Only four or five days later did we realize that it was a turning point in the history of civilization."

Though the space race was a product of the Cold War, deeply rooted in militarism and ideological conflict, the technologies and educational advances it produced were instrumental in shaping the second half of the 20th century.

Greater crisis

Today we find ourselves in the midst of another, greater crisis than even the Cold War: Our immense appetite for energy and dependence on fossil fuels are changing the Earth in ways we do not yet fully understand.

What is certain is that our use of fossil fuels is unsustainable. Now that the scientific consensus on climate change has finally been presented as such by the media, the public has begun to realize that addressing the problem need not mean the end of modern civilization, but simply requires us to be smarter about our energy habits. Changing how much energy we use and where we get it are the two keys to a sustainable future.

What America — and consequently the world — needs today is a new space race focused on alternative energy sources and increased energy efficiency. As the world's largest consumer of energy we have a responsibility to lead others toward a sustainable future.

But the levels of commitment, investment and expertise directed toward this critical task has been inadequate. Patchwork quilts of state incentives and inconsistent federal support have left alternative energy projects in a perpetual boom/bust cycle that has stalled research and development. Cheap energy, made possible by misguided government subsidies and a reliance on dirty coal-fired power plants, has made our citizens oblivious to the real costs of their actions.

Urgent matter

If our children are to enjoy a lifestyle anything like ours we must act now, demanding more from our political leaders and taking the lead ourselves when they fail to do so.

By launching an energy initiative on the scale of the space program, the United States could become the world leader in energy innovation. Within a decade we could expand our economy, dramatically cut our carbon emissions, eliminate all oil imports from the Middle East, and begin to swing the balance of trade with Asia back in our favor by selling our new technologies to countries like China.

The space race demonstrated some of the things Americans do best: We can rally behind our leaders, mobilize the world's largest economy toward a common goal, develop innovative technologies and change the future for the better. The opportunity is here again today. What we lack is the vision and leadership to make it happen on the necessary scale.

As Boris Chertok noted, Sputnik marked a turning point for human civilization. We could make another, if only we had the will to face the challenge instead of pretending it didn't exist.

Mixed feelings about Sen. Larry Craig

Here's my September column from the St. Cloud (MN) Times

Senator's story is a shame, for many reasons

When he leaves office September 30th, Idaho Senator Larry Craig will become a footnote in history. "“Who was Larry Craig?"” people will ask, and the reply everywhere outside his home state will be simply "“the senator caught playing footsie in the men’'s room."” The sad thing is that it’s not clear that he actually did anything wrong at MSP last June. It'’s the suspicion that he'’s gay that cost him his seat. In the die-by-the-sword world of Republican politics there’s little room for a “family values” conservative with a secret in the closet– even if that secret is simply a wish to hide an embarrassing misunderstanding with an undercover cop.

There are few enough reasons to leap to Craig’'s defense. He is among the most conservative members of the Senate, a man who has spent a career working against the interests of average Americans and in support of extremist positions that benefited the few at the expense of the many. His long voting record provides ample fodder for analysis, which progressive interest groups have scored as follows:

0% from the Alliance for Retired Americans for opposition on senior issues

0% from the League of Conservation Voters for his votes against the environment

0% from the American Public Health Association for his votes against health care

0% by SANE for his votes against peace policies

0% from the Human Rights Campaign for his votes on GLBT issues

15% from the AFL-CIO for supporting workers

20% from the National Education Association for supporting public schools

25% from the ACLU for supporting civil rights

In contrast, Craig’s ratings from the American Conservative Union, the US Chamber of Commerce, the Christian Coalition, the CATO Institute, the NRA, and the anti-tax National Taxpayers Union are all above 75%. He has been an outspoken supporter of school prayer, privatizing Social Security, an expanded death penalty, school vouchers, gun rights, and President Bush’'s policies in Iraq.

Despite his history of opposition to progressive policies across the board, many liberals find themselves uncomfortable with the situation Craig is in. Seeing his political positions rejected in an electoral defeat would have been cause for jubilation. Watching him dragged down in a sleazy media frenzy has been far less satisfying, especially because it’s just not clear what he did wrong. Granted, there may be a problem with men having sex in the restrooms at MSP. But is setting up a sting, using undercover cops to lure lonely men into confessions, a wise use of public resources? Are we really at a point where foot tapping is grounds for arrest? Where even the intimation of homosexual behavior can be criminalized? Should we be destroying people'’s careers by making private behaviors so public?

People will soon forget the details of this affair, just as they'’ve long forgotten Craig’'s role in the 1983 House page sex scandal, where two other members admitted to having sex with seventeen- year-old male pages. Dogged by rumors of homosexuality through much of his political career, Craig has been an ardent proponent of “family values” and backed a successful anti-gay marriage amendment in his home state in 2006. But there’'s much more to Craig than his sexual orientation, whatever it might be. In an ideal world it just wouldn'’t matter and voters would judge him on his political positions rather than rumors about his private life. Of course, our political world is far from ideal.

Pleading guilty to misdemeanor lewd conduct is hardly the worst crime ever committed by a sitting US senator. One need only listen to the posturing of Craig’'s Republican colleagues in the Senate, racing to outdo one another in condemning him, to understand that the issue is not the crime but the implication that he may be a closeted gay man. In his political world there are few worse crimes, and that’'s the true shame in this story. That, and that possibility that he is indeed a gay man who spent his career vilifying people like him for political reasons, and then threw that career away because he was unable to openly admit his true identity.

August column: Farm Bill matters to all of us

Farm bill matters to all of us
By Derek Larson

Published: August 01. 2007 12:30AM

If there's one thing liberals and conservatives should agree on, it's that we all need to eat.

The politics of compromise were on display last week as the House passed a farm bill that drew few headlines outside the agricultural press despite its almost $300 billion price tag.

But all Minnesotans should be paying careful attention to this legislation. The final bill will shape our agriculture and food policies for the next five years and offers a chance to reform outdated subsidy programs that give away tax money to agribusiness millionaires.

Unfortunately the House bill is a collection of half-steps that represents more missed opportunities than it does reform, and regular Minnesotans will end up paying for it.

If your first response is "I'm not a farmer so why should I care?" remember this: American farms are the safest, cheapest and most reliable source of food we have. Recent news about tainted food imports from China underscore that reality.

But federal farm programs also have tremendous economic impacts on Minnesota, pouring money into local (especially outstate) communities that ultimately pays wages, buys equipment and supplies, and helps keep small towns afloat.

Minnesota's cut

With about 80,000 farms in Minnesota, more than $1 billion in federal subsidies were paid in 2003-04, going primarily to corn, soybean and wheat producers.

The payments and policies established by the farm bill also affect food costs. One need only look to the rising cost of milk as an example, attributed by most to the skyrocketing price of corn due to ethanol production spurred by the federal energy bill.

Prices for beef, chicken, sweetened and processed foods, and anything else that uses corn as a significant input will likely increase as a result of this attempt to bolster energy production from farmland.

Critics of current farm policy are quick to point out that commodity subsidies distort markets and often end up in the pockets of wealthy agribusiness operators rather than helping small farmers.

Subsidies make it possible to profitably grow corn in amounts far in excess of market demand, at least until last fall's energy bill created incentives for ethanol that doubled corn prices.

Without those subsidies other crops — or perhaps no crops at all — would be planted and we'd have less high-fructose corn syrup to fatten our children on.

And who gets the lion's share of the subsidies? Three-quarters of farms in Minnesota report less than $100,000 in annual sales and 48 percent are less than $10,000.

But half of Minnesota farmers receiving the largest subsidies have sales in excess of $500,000 a year, and most of the subsidy payments go to the top 10 percent of farms, with an average payment of $46,000.

The bottom 80 percent averages just $3,630. Our tax dollars are going primarily to subsidize the largest producers of the least-needed commodity crops, corn and soybeans, rather than helping the small farmers who produce food for local consumption and employ thousands of our neighbors.

House bill

The House bill includes some limited attempts at reform, but the agribusiness lobby succeeded in reducing most of them to tokens.

Modest cuts were made to the overall commodity support system from the 2002 bill, but loopholes allowing nonfarmer investors to reap massive subsidy payments were left intact.

An income cap of $1 million was established for subsidy eligibility, though the Bush administration and a bipartisan group of reformers called for a more reasonable $200,000 limit.

Our tax dollars will still keep the price of commodities artificially high, still encourage production of unnecessary crops by unsustainable methods, and the bulk of subsidy payments will still end up primarily in the hands of wealthy agribusinesses rather than supporting the small farmers who support our local communities.

The process isn't over yet.

The Senate will take up the farm bill in September, offering another chance for reform. Hopefully they will seize the opportunity to fix the broken subsidy system while maintaining the good things that the farm bill includes — nutrition programs, school lunches, support for conservation and wildlife habitat, energy security investments, and yes, a helping hand to Minnesota farmers when (and if) they need it.