Sometimes I think so. A friend twisted my arm until I joined. Once I did, I was inundated with ridiculous games and moronic requests to accept non-tangible "gifts." Today, I've successfully blocked most of those apps but I still wonder what the hell I'm doing on Facebook.

I have one relative who freaks out if I don't post regularly, but mostly I forget who I'm "friends" with and wonder if any of them could give a crap about the random stuff I post. At least once a week I think about quitting, but posting links to things I've written or events and organizations I support has proven helpful in the past.

So, for Cousin [redacted] and for the love of networking, I guess I'll stay.

Some folks, though, definitely put Facebook in the "evil" category:

Pop quiz! What do you call "the act of creating deliberately confusing jargon and user-interfaces which trick your users into sharing more info about themselves than they really want to?"

Give up? Don’t feel dumb. Even the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a free speech, privacy, innovation and consumer rights advocacy organization, had a tough time wrapping its collective brain around the concept as it built its tutorial to help users through Facebook’s most recent privacy changes. So EFF turned to Facebook and Twitter users for help.

Suggestions for a term to easily describe mishegas such as “Facebook's bizarre new ‘opt-out’ procedures” rolled in. These included "bait-and-click," "bait-and-phish," "dot-confidence games," "confuser-interface-design,” and though EFF didn’t mention the social network specifically, more than a few that made creative use of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s name, such as this one called out on EFF’s site from @heisenthought on Twitter: “How about ‘zuck’? As in: ‘That user-interface totally zuckered me into sharing 50 wedding photos. That kinda zucks’"

Read the rest of this MSNBC.com article, by Helen A.S. Popkin, and find out how to protect yourself Facebook here.

With logic like this, it's no wonder so many of us are fat.

For sheer shark-jumping, fridge-nuking outrageousness, you just can't beat the American Beverage Association. In a must-read/listen NPR report, the ABA's senior vice president for science policy, Maureen Storey, made the claim that soda should play a crucial role in children's hydration needs:

...Children who have been exercising may not drink enough water to get back to the hydration point that they need to be at. So with a little bit of flavoring and a little bit of sweetness, they will drink enough then to get back to where they need to be.

Are you kidding?

Read more from Tom Laskawy at Grist.org.

In related news, a local group is urging all of us to stop drinking pop. Check out NoFizzCLT on Twitter.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been attempting to classify coal ash as hazardous waste for three decades. So, what's the hold up? Guess. Powerful corporations and lobbyists who don't want to pay the price for cleaning up their own messes.

Meanwhile, we lowly average citizens pay the price with our health, as does our river.

In good news, the EPA has announced a 90-day public comment period so you can let them know what you think about Duke Energy's two unlined high-hazard coal ash ponds that sit on the edge of Charlotte's main drinking water reservoir. (Note: There are two other coal ash ponds in the Charlotte area as well.)

To comment:

E-mail your comments to RCRA-Docket@epa.gov. Be sure “Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640" in the subject line.

Or, fax your comments to 202–566–0272; Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQRCRA-2009-0640.

Read more about those ponds, and the man that's watchdogging them, here.

Here's a message directly from that watchdog, our Catawba Riverkeeper David Merryman:

May 4, 2010 (Charlotte, NC) – The United States Environmental Protection Agency announced two regulatory options for dealing with the disposal and management of coal ash wastes from coal-fired power plants today. These proposed regulations seemed imminent following the spill of 2.6 million cubic yards of coal ash wastes in Tennessee on December 22, 2008. Despite growing apprehension among environmental groups that regulations were mired in controversy and stuck in Washington’s “red-tape,” the EPA released two proposed options that could result in two very different regulations for coal ash wastes.

“The time has come for common-sense national protections to ensure the safe disposal of coal ash,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “We’re proposing strong steps to address the serious risk of groundwater contamination and threats to drinking water and we’re also putting in place stronger safeguards against structural failures of coal ash impoundments. The health and the environment of all communities must be protected.”

“The four coal ash ponds along the Catawba River have long been under the radar. These proposed rules are a first step towards helping protect our drinking water supply,” stated Catawba Riverkeeper David Merryman.

One option provided today, Subtitle C, would designate coal ash wastes as hazardous and require coal ash ponds, also known as surface impoundments, to be “effectively phased out.” Subtitle C also ensures compliance with regulations through state and federal enforcement and permitting criteria.

Another proposed option, Subtitle D, would regulate coal ash waste under a non-hazardous designation, which requires less stringent storage and use requirements. While Subtitle D would require coal ash ponds to be retrofitted with a composite liner, it would not “phase out” coal ash ponds. If pond owners elect not to line the existing ponds, Subtitle D requires the owner to discontinue usage of the coal ash pond and implement closure of the pond within five years. Opposed to the state and federal authorizations in Subtitle C, Subtitle D only requires self-implementation of corrective actions as well as closure and post-closure care actions, if compliance is not attained within a five year period.

“Our Catawba River - our drinking water supply - deserves absolute assurances that the four coal ash ponds along its banks will be cleaned-out, lined, monitored and closed for usage as soon as possible,” said Merryman. “Subtitle C provides those assurances.”

Both Subtitle C and D would allow for coal ash wastes to be used for beneficial uses, such as “concrete, cement, wallboard and other contained applications that should not involve any exposure by the public to unsafe contaminants,” under the Bevill exemption. Also under this exemption is the use of coal ash waste in agricultural applications, so long as they are deemed beneficial. “EPA supports the legitimate beneficial use of coal combustion residuals,” said Mathy Stanislaus, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, the agency office that will be responsible for implementing the proposals.

Following today’s announcement, the public has 90 days to provide comments to the EPA regarding these proposed Coal Ash regulatory options. As stated on EPA’s website, “EPA decided to co-propose two rules to encourage a robust dialogue on the most effective means to address the human health concerns and structural integrity issues associated with coal ash impoundments and landfills. Both options have advantages and disadvantages.  EPA wants to ensure that the ultimate decision is based on the best available data and is taken with the fullest possible extent of public input.”

Listen to people in Tennessee talking about how coal ash has affected their lives:

Uh, I meant weeds ... with an 's.' Super weedS.

But, hopefully I got your attention. If you're a gardener or a food eater, you'll definitely want to read this:

Just as the heavy use of antibiotics contributed to the rise of drug-resistant supergerms, American farmers’ near-ubiquitous use of the weedkiller Roundup has led to the rapid growth of tenacious new superweeds.

To fight them, Mr. Anderson and farmers throughout the East, Midwest and South are being forced to spray fields with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand and return to more labor-intensive methods like regular plowing.

“We’re back to where we were 20 years ago,” said Mr. Anderson, who will plow about one-third of his 3,000 acres of soybean fields this spring, more than he has in years. “We’re trying to find out what works.”

Farm experts say that such efforts could lead to higher food prices, lower crop yields, rising farm costs and more pollution of land and water.

“It is the single largest threat to production agriculture that we have ever seen,” said Andrew Wargo III, the president of the Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts.

Read the rest of this New York Times article, by William Neuman, here.

Say it ain't so. North Carolina's best-known, and government funded, terrorist organization doesn't like the media? I'm shocked.

Erik Prince, the reclusive owner of the Blackwater empire, rarely gives public speeches and when he does he attempts to ban journalists from attending and forbids recording or videotaping of his remarks. On May 5, that is exactly what Prince is trying to do when he speaks at DeVos Fieldhouse as the keynote speaker for the “Tulip Time Festival” in his hometown of Holland, Michigan. He told the event’s organizers no news reporting could be done on his speech and they consented to the ban. Journalists and media associations in Michigan are protesting this attempt to bar reporting on his remarks.

Despite Prince’s attempts to shield his speeches from public scrutiny, The Nation magazine has obtained an audio recording of a recent, private speech delivered by Prince to a friendly audience. The speech, which Prince attempted to keep from public consumption, provides a stunning glimpse into his views and future plans and reveals  details of previously undisclosed activities of Blackwater. The people of the United States have a right to media coverage of events featuring the owner of a company that generates 90% of its revenue from the United States government.

In the speech, Prince proposed that the US government deploy armed private contractors to fight “terrorists” in Nigeria, Yemen, Somalia and Saudi Arabia, specifically to target Iranian influence. He expressed disdain for the Geneva Convention and described Blackwater’s secretive operations at four Forward Operating Bases he controls in Afghanistan. He called those fighting the US in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan “barbarians” who “crawled out of the sewer.” Prince also revealed details of a July 2009 operation he claims Blackwater forces coordinated in Afghanistan to take down a narcotrafficking facility, saying that Blackwater “call[ed] in multiple air strikes,” blowing up the facility. Prince boasted that his forces had carried out the “largest hashish bust in counter-narcotics history.” He characterized the work of some NATO countries’ forces in Afghanistan as ineffectual, suggesting that some coalition nations “should just pack it in and go home.” Prince spoke of Blackwater working in Pakistan, which appears to contradict the official, public Blackwater and US government line that Blackwater is not in Pakistan.

Read more from Jeremy Scahill at RebelReports.com.

I grew up in Alabama where Gulf Shores was "the beach." It's where we played in the sugar-white sand, frolicked in the sea-foam green water and where my paternal grandfather made ends meet as a shrimper.

To me, no place was more beautiful.

But the last time I visited, roughly seven years ago, I vowed to never return. Why? Because the once lovely view was scarred by oil rigs just off shore. I decided to preserve my fond childhood memories and find a new beach.

Now look what Gulf Shores is threatened with:

Oil gushed into the Gulf of Mexico unabated Saturday, and officials conveyed little hope that the flow could be contained soon, forcing towns along the Gulf Coast to brace for what is increasingly understood to be an imminent environmental disaster.

The spill, emanating from a pipe 50 miles offshore and 5,000 feet underwater, was creeping into Louisiana’s fragile coastal wetlands as strong winds and rough waters hampered cleanup efforts. Officials said the oil could hit the shores of Mississippi and Alabama as soon as Monday.

Many variables will dictate just how devastating this slick will ultimately be to the ecosystem, including whether it takes days or months to seal the leaking oil well and whether winds keep blowing the oil ashore. But what is terrifying everyone from bird watchers to the state officials charged with rebuilding the natural protections of this coast is that it now seems possible that a massive influx of oil could overwhelm and kill off the grasses that knit the ecosystem together.

Healthy wetlands would have some natural ability to cope with an oil slick, said Denise Reed, interim director of the Pontchartrain Institute for Environmental Sciences at the University of New Orleans. “The trouble with our marshes is they’re already stressed, they’re already hanging by a fingernail,” she said.

It is possible, she said, that the wetlands’ “tolerance for oil has been compromised.” If so, she said, that could be “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

Read the rest of this New York Times article, by Leslie Kaufman and Campbell Robertson, here.

Not only are off-shore drilling platforms an eyesore, they're hazardous to everything that breathes. And, as communities along the Gulf Coast can attest, when things go wrong, local economies can be destroyed.

We don't want this nightmare here. Just say no to oil drilling off the coast of North Carolina. Contact your representatives in Raleigh. Make your next car an electric car or a hybrid. (I bought a Ford Fusion Hybrid this year.) Drive less. Walk more. Use less plastic — it's made from petroleum products after all.

In fact, click here for a list of a few of the things made using oil for evidence of society's full-on addiction to crude.

Voting with your dollars is one of the most powerful things you can do to pry America's claws off the oil teet.

Interesting ...

The EPA draws inspiration from The Biggest Loser in a new competition that pits 14 buildings against each other to see which can trim its energy usage the most.

The National Building Competition is explicitly modeled after the weight-loss reality TV show, spotlighting structures that include a 23-story Manhattan office building, a San Diego Marriott hotel, a Colorado elementary school, and a Chapel Hill, N.C., dormitory. The 200 applicants were required to use a host of energy-efficiency tools from the EPA and Department of Energy. The 14 contestants are having their energy use measured from September 2009 through this August. The building that saves the most will be announced the winner on Oct. 26.

It's an attempt to inject a shot of drama into the, uh, titillating world of building efficiency.

Read the rest of this Jonathan Hiske's article, and check out some geeky graphs, at Grist.org.

Here are a few things you can do to make your home more energy-efficient:

Bravo.

It’s official: The Ritz-Carlton, Charlotte has garnered LEED Gold certification from the U.S. Green Building Council.

That establishes the 18-story uptown luxury tower as the first hotel or resort in the Ritz-Carlton chain to earn green building credentials.

The honor also secures the Ritz as the Queen City’s first green hotel, beating out Ballantyne’s Aloft hotel.

The hotel has a host of sustainable features. For example, its green roof includes a pair of beehives to help pollinate the hotel’s in-house herb garden. The lobby is finished with stone from a regional quarry and Forest Stewardship Council-certified wood. The hotel’s dining and beverage services taps organic, local and natural products. Unused food is donated to Second Harvest Food Bank of Metrolina.

And there are no disposable water bottles at the Ritz.

Read the rest of this article, by Susan Stabley, and find out about the hotel's new mascot on The Charlotte Business Journal's website.

Back in October, when the hotel first opened, WCNC offered Charlotteans a sneak peak:

Is anyone, or anything, really 'green' enough? I mean, can't we all do a little bit better?

Nitpicking might get you a random headline, but it also firms up the long-held belief that Greenpeace is one of the more militant and obnoxious environmental organizations in the U.S.

I understand the dire need for forward movement in the environmental movement, however bullying people and organizations to see things or do things your way doesn't seem like an effective way to promote change.

And, might I add, Facebook has become an excellent way to rally supporters for a variety of causes — including Greenpeace's. Surely Facebook can get a star for that, right?

After an emotional breakup with the timber industry, Prineville, Ore., was thrilled to get friended by Facebook.

The social networking site chose the high-desert timber town of 10,000 to take advantage of its cool nights and dry air in hopes of making its first-ever data center an energy efficiency landmark.

But the concept failed to impress Greenpeace.

In a report posted on the Internet last month, the environmental group praised Google and Yahoo for tapping hydro power - but challenged Facebook for building in coal country.

The feud shows how hard it can be for the computing industry to meaningfully reduce its environmental footprint. It can add to its green glow through energy efficiency, but Greenpeace argues that IT companies should care more about where the power comes from.

As the nation works to green up the grid to combat global warming, data centers are demanding more energy than ever. A 2007 Environmental Protection Agency report estimated that from 2000 to 2006 data centers doubled their consumption to 61 billion kilowatt hours. That's 1.5 percent of the grid and enough for 5.8 million households.

"If you want to really be responsible for your carbon footprint, you should be trying to provision your electricity supply with renewable energy as much as possible," said Greenpeace climate policy analyst Gary Cook.

Read the rest of this Miami Herald article, by Jeff Barnard, here.

Greenpeace competed in Facebook's Cause Competition in 2008. During that competition, they asked supporters for money for this campaign:

Wow. Forty years old. Shall we consider the volcano in Iceland the Earth's version of black balloons? Actually, no.

The volcano is spewing less carbon into the atmosphere than all of the airplanes it grounded.

Carbon deficit: Feeling guilty about the carbon-belching SUV you want to buy to annoy the pretentious Greenie next door? Don't. Britain's Environmental Transportation Association estimated that the flight clampdown had eliminated some 2.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere between April 15 and April 19 alone. But hasn't the Icelandic volcano emitted even more? Not so. It is spewing a mere 15,000 tonnes a day, according to one estimate. So go for it – the carbon gap is begging to be filled and your new Ford Explorer or Jeep Cherokee is just the machine to do it.

Read more about why Eric Reguly says we should all love that volcano of aviation misery in The Globe and Mail, here.