Passive voice

So here is a brief encounter with how to avoid using passive voice; it sums it up pretty well in five steps. I advise this article not without a few notes of my own: step two references auxiliary verbs. These are "helping verbs" that include such ambiguous actions as:: can, do, must, ought, and will. Step three (using grammarcheck) is important, as it is a good way to see if you've actually succeeded in changing the voice. I warn you thoroughly, this is not as useful as it sounds in the long run. The last paper I wrote for Dr. Jay using this method, I spent so many HOURS relying on this method, that I worked (all night) until the deadline, so,  everything in moderation (especially moderation). Next, the specific strategy mentioned in step four is for all you thinkers out there. "Is the subject doing the action?" is an excellent check for this sort of thing. Try it out on someone's blog. Finally, step five is legit. Silliman is a swell- he'll advise you better than anything on the internet ever could, so ask if you still don't get it.

Hay, Monsanto...

Some sources cite a "broad scientific consensus" that GM foods are safe to eat, and no ill-effects have been observed in humans. Other sources I've read have specified effects like cancer, infertility, and birth defects. The problem with trusting any source on the topic is that Monsanto is so involved in both government and food regulation, that the "science" behind GM foods is inherently faulty, and this conflict of interest obscures the truth. Either way, the actions of this corporation have been far from ethical, and their army of lawyers have struck fear into the hearts of simple farmers, whose lives have been turned upside down by the unbridled avarice of this powerful arm of the food mafia. While I don't want to be too quick to jump too far into any anti-GMO movement, as I don't think that GMO's are inherently immoral, I do believe that Monsanto is.
Here's a quick clip of my band rocking against Monsanto in Providence.

Post by Pavlov's Dogs.

Nuclear savior? Or nuclear doom?

I can't make up my mind on this nuclear energy debate. On one hand, nuclear energy (by fission) seems to provide a fairly safe, clean and (mostly) reliable energy source, which could quickly replace many of the carbon intensive sorts of energy we are currently dependent on. Simultaneously, the dangers of nuclear energy are quite clear. Occasionally, massive disasters occur, although they are rare. However, smaller incidents are possibly more commonplace than are reported. The effects of these types of radiation are still unclear. Newer means of containing waste (which is actually quite small compared to airborne carbon waste) show some promise.
The arguments for both sides are very strong, so I am naturally skeptical towards anyone who is inherently bent towards one way or another. One type of energy that is rather promising is nuclear fusion, which, while still under development, is the most soup de jour of our practical energy options, providing a much safer, cleaner source of energy without the worry of toxic waste or meltdown.
I guess, presently, the verdict depends on how immediately we need to change our energy system, and if nuclear energy is actually carbon efficient (given mining, construction, decommission, etc.). I can't help but feel like both sides of the argument are overemphasizing their points due to a largely unsolvable debate. For instance, one could argue that water power (massive sudden flooding) presents a much greater risk to nearby residents than nuclear does, but at the same time, a large enough disaster (Fukishima) could effect the entire planet, at least by a little bit. Tricky.