DEBRIS.COMgood for a laugh, or possibly an aneurysm

Quoting the Union of Concerned Scientists “earthwise” newsletter (vol 7, no. 1)…

Is the “Earth Friendly, Farm Friendly” seal a good indicator that the food I’m buying was sustainably produced?

No. Consumers wanting to support sustainable agriculture should avoid products bearing this seal, which was created by the Center for Global Food Issues. This offshoot of the Hudson Institute — a think tank funded by corporate agribusiness, chemical and pesticide manufacturers, the biotechnology industry, and others — opposes organic farming and efforts to reduce the use of medically important andibiotics in farm animals, while supporting the crowding of animals onto “factory” farms.

To learn more about food labels, check out the Consumers Union Guide to Environmental Labels.

The CFGI website claims,

Earth Friendly, Farm Friendly is intended to provide farmers with information and tools to produce more food per acre, leaving more room for nature, using techniques and practices which have been scientifically proven and endorsed by experts.

It sounds noble, assuming farmers were turning over their surplus land to make nature preserves. Somehow I don’t think that’s the goal though. Maybe I’m misunderstanding.

My in-laws were taking care of the baby the other day, and I caught myself thinking, Why are they speaking German to him? He won’t understand that!

This is such a great idea: high-capacity Powerbook batteries.

I had two stock Apple batteries. I was careless; I never maintained them. Now, both batteries together don’t last an hour. They’ve gone bipolar. That is, they need more lithium. (a little DSM-IV joke for you therapists in the audience)

My new 4800mAh battery is being exercised right now: spinning a CD through iTunes, on eternal repeat with full-screen visuals. The fan is kickin’. My old batteries couldn’t do this even if wired in series. So far, I’m impressed.

The players:

Me, the wife, the 14-day-old

The task:

Identify who said what.

The dialog:

[thump thump thump thump thump]

“Buuuuuuurrrrrrp!”

(encouragingly) “There you go! That was a good one!”

“Hey, how come you don’t say something nice when I do that?”

Yahoo has released a collection of over 200 recent photographs under the headline Pictures of the Year 2004

There are a lot of sports photos in there. I’m not a sports fan. I know that makes me a the minority, but how small a minority am I?

I sorted the 209 photos into arbitrary categories chosen to illustrate all the things I don’t need to see photos of.

Most of the “other” photos were of politicians. As much as I think George W. Bush is a disaster, I didn’t put those photos in the “disasters/war/violence” category unless he was pictured doing something disastrous, war-mongery, or violent, like posing with troops, or dressing like them, or personally feeding an old-growth redwood, complete with tree-sitter, into a chipper in the guise of “healthy forest management.”

As a public service to Yahoo, I’ll suggest a new set of categories for their Best of 2005 series. These are the photos that will keep me coming back day after day.

Hook me up, Yahoo; I’ll be your low-hanging fruit!