In addition to what the Saudi's want

http://mises.org/daily/3934

This is not new news. 

Counter to intuition, ethanol as it is in our current market is not a good idea.   Corn is a tasty vegetable, but when it comes to our market, it represents a huge problem.  Since the 70's corn has been an influence into politics on an international level, affecting sugar prices, tariffs, taxes, and foreign relations. 

I am not proposing an end to the corn industry as a whole, but we should seriously reconsider a reshaping of the current structure of the economics surrounding corn in general. 

You are what you eat!

http://emilie.hermit.net/content/nutrition-diet-you-are-what-you-eat-bites-back

Well actually, this might be more true that you realize.  Apparently, some plant DNA survives the digestion process and is absorbed into our bloodstream.  Woah!

 Its not like any of us or going to start turning green, become solar powered, or mutate into something out of Little Shop of Horrors, but there are apparently some benefits to this.  The article cites that the microRNA leftover from the plants we eat actually acts to lower bad cholesterol.

Since this is leftover from the plants we eat, we can assert that it isn't just about getting the nutrients, its about getting the food as a whole, its not just the beta-carotene, its the carrot.  This makes some sense as the human body has evolved to not produce some essential amino acids because they can be derived from a healthy diet.  Likewise, a healthy, high-plant diet would be beneficial in that an ability to use some of the plants genes to decrease problem chemicals in our body appears to be a healthy adaptive trait. 

Community development

When I think of NASA, I think of field trips, space exploration, development, rockets, and I get excited.  I believe though, that I am in the minority.  For a while now, many people have viewed NASA a side-show to amuse the nerds and a non-necessity for the advancement of the human race, or even more specifically, the USA as a nation.  

With the onset of global climate change and the expanding research role of NASA, the projects therein have become a thorn in the side of many new economic and political interests:

http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/2476-republicans-to-eliminate-nasas-climate-science-budget.html

Don't doubt that there is a bias here, because there is.  But even still, the bias hints at real motivations within and behind the workings of congress.  NASA's biggest problem here is its reluctance to advertise and market itself as a worthwhile endeavor to the public.  Typical news coverage of the organization has been infrequent and usually only when something goes wrong.  E.g. the Hubble miscalculations, the Challenger incident, etc.  

And now it is being attacked for its investigation into climate change.  

I don't believe that cutting the budget for NASA will assuage the pangs of fiscal irresponsibility that we are experiencing either.  Especially since one of the biggest problems resulting from that irresponsibility is employment for educated people.  

NASA's days are numbered if it doesn't change the public perception of its programming.  

Global Warming

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=update-1-reutersipsos-more-american

More Americans are beginning to "believe" in global warming!

I have always been fascinated by the linguistics people use when confronted with an idea that they do not agree with, especially when the idea is something that is factual.   What I am talking about is the use of the word "believe." By using this word, the idea in question is removed from being potentially factual and placed in the realm of opinion where it can be dealt with without having to remodel one's view of the universe.  Furthermore, an individual who uses this kind of language can dismiss the idea without considering the context or the facts backing up the claim. 

For a while now, climatologists and other who study the effects of weather and the changes in its patterns have been warning us of the impending dangers of continuing to live the wasteful and toxic lifestyles that we do.  Such claims ave been met with zealous opposition that rivals religious fanaticism.  The article touches on some of the most recent opposition faced by climate change (the new global warming) advocates; e.i. Rick Perry and his crusade against even admitting that the earth is a warmer place than it was 10, 20, or even 50 years ago, despite the mountain of evidence against this.  One of Perry's methods in combating the fact that our planet's climate is changing is to relegate this fact into the realm of opinion.  The diction he uses regarding the ideas and evidence of climate change is same as what one would use regarding an opinion, primarily by using the word "believe."

How does one go about changing the minds of millions of people, especially when they refuse to even regard your argument as even vaguely factual?