Single most effective green practice humans are capable of is: "do not reproduce"!!!!

Unfortunately the survival of the species instinct easily overwhelms the rational observation that the exponential increase of the human population is destroying the only lifeboat in space that we are/were fortunate enough to occupy. If we (the US) cannot even place men into low Earth orbit to man the $150-200 billion ISS what is the likelihood we are going to be able to jump ship and head for the Stars utilizing a reaction propulsion system vehicle large enough to carry a crew and settler complement of 100's or 1000's before we go over the lemming cliff we are racing pellmell toward.

I agree that once these become habits they become easy. And in fact I would say that they enhance my life: the bags I use at the grocery store do not cut into my hands or break (as the flimsy plastic ones do); the walking I do is good for me and gives me time to reflect; the CSA brings me in closer touch with local farmers and builds community; etc.

Ellen, your (sub)title wins my personal poll in the category of punny charm :–)

The tacit approval by the media (commercial and public) of the debasement of scientific theory, based upon evidence and mathematics, and scientists in preference for absolute pronouncements from lay pseudo-experts really rankles my pseudo-scientist (engineer) sensibilities. Currently the arenas which cause me the greatest consternation include but are not limited to the following: (1) Earth as an infinite source of natural resources (2) peak oil is no big deal (US with 2% of Earth's proven oil resources consumes 20% of world oil output is going to drill baby drill it's way to energy independence) (3) global warming is no big deal (renamed climate change to reinforce the no big deal concept) (4) biggest and most rapid die off of the Earth's fauna in approximately 65 million years is no big deal (most humans unaware and unbelieving when so informed) (5) that the 7 billion humans infesting the Earth are responsible for all of the above is no big deal (twice as many humans are born each day as die) (…….)

Jeff, yes, the Ws are the basis of any good coverage. As for reporter opinion…the practice you reference–talking to reporters about a story–is an inexpensive way to provide analysis and context, using a person who is well-versed in the story (i.e., the reporter on the ground or beat). Ideally, there is a clear line between analysis and opinion, however, I agree that that line is crossed from time to time, even on NPR or NCPR.

What is news? Listening in to Diana talking intimately to her lover? John Edwards affair? Whitney Huston's drug and alcohol use and the Governor of NJ wanting to lower flags in her honor. Is it the opposition to that action on grounds it gives undue recognition to a drug addict or recognition to wonderful singing? It is no longer all the news that is fit to print.

The journalism class I took focused on the Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How. The Why and How can be factual or opinion if one is not listening closely. All Things Considered has about five minutes of news followed by 25 minutes of stories. Those stories often have someone asking a reporter "what do you think" and similar questions- not facts but conjecture.

The incentive to get viewers, listeners, or readers; to solicit supporters or advertisers is the motivation of sensationalism and gossip. Headlines like "Bimbo Feeds Homeless" for some reason draw more interest than "Bakery Supplies Bread" to Shelters.

My guess about why the fourth estate consistently registers pretty low in public opinion polls relates to the tremendous polarization of today's politics. I think our tendency to find bias in media coverage is fed by the extreme polarization in our sociopolitical fabric. This perceived bias in the news media causes us to lose confidence in that media.

Hmm, that was not very specific, was it. I must try harder next time.

How about the current swallowing and regurgitation of "the economy is turning around". A most egregious example here is the ludicrous definition of unemployment which discounts long term unemployed persons by considering them slackers who have decided they no longer want to work thereby enabling the unemployment rate to be touted as below 9% when in actuality it is likely greater than 20%. Occasionally the mention of this dichotomy is mentioned in passing by newscasters whilst they concentrate on the "good new" that unemployment claims have fallen again. Perhaps the Democrats made a mistake by pushing the Republicans to renew additional unemployment funding; hell, throw a bunch more folks into the slacker group and the unemployment figures might drop into the 6-7% range. What a deal.

I can do this till the cows come home; how many more examples do you want?

Pete, If I agree government and business are corrupt, what does that say about us? Are we not the "they" who comprise the support for these organizations as functionaries, employees and consumers? How does one point fingers at "them" and not look in the mirror?

Why Minnesota? Because it sits atop America's heartland.