What Caught My Eye Today

2008 Presidential Race - Not sure if you heard or not, but there was a presidential primary in Pennsylvania today. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama collided in the Pennsylvania primary, the last of the big-state contests in a Democratic presidential campaign growing more negative the longer it goes. With 158 delegates at stake, Pennsylvania offered the largest prize remaining in a primary season that ends on June 3. Obama began the night with a delegate lead, 1648 1/2 to 1509 1/2, out of 2,025 needed to win the nomination. Both rivals sought to shape expectations in advance. Obama said he expected to lose, but narrowly, and worked to limit any gains Clinton made in the delegate chase. The remaining Democratic contests are primaries in North Carolina, Indiana, Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia, Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico, and caucuses in Guam. The last update from the networks, had Clinton ahead 55% to 45% with 3% of the polls reporting.

Pollution - Short-term exposure to smog, or ozone, is clearly linked to premature deaths that should be taken into account when measuring the health benefits of reducing air pollution, a National Academy of Sciences report concluded. Sounds like a no-brainer, doesn't it? But as usual, nothing is ever as it seems. The findings contradict arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits. Just out of curiosity, why not? I'm thinking an increase in saved lives would be a substantial benefit. Then again, I'm a closet tree hugger, so what do I know. The report by a panel of the Academy's National Research Council says government agencies "should give little or no weight" to such arguments. The panel went on to say, "the committee has concluded from its review of health-based evidence that short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths." Reading between the lines here, I'd say that the White House and the National Academy of Sciences don't exactly see eye to eye on this issue.

Sudan - The conflict in Darfur is deteriorating, with full deployment of a new peacekeeping force delayed until 2009 and no prospect of a political settlement for a war that has killed perhaps 300,000 people in five years, U.N. officials said. Seriously, if you are feeling blue today, I'd skip to the next item right now. This isn't going to get any better. In grim reports to the Security Council, the United Nations aid chief and the representative of the peacekeeping mission said suffering in the Sudanese region is worsening. Tens of thousands more have been uprooted from their homes and food rations to the needy are about to be cut in half. The conflict began in early 2003 when ethnic African rebels took up arms against Sudan's Arab-dominated central government, accusing it of discrimination. Many of the worst atrocities in the war have been blamed on the janjaweed militia of Arab nomads allied with the government. The Sudanese Ambassador to the United Nations claims that "in our own calculations, the total number does not exceed 10,000." I know, maybe we should demand a recount. 10,000 versus 300,000? Something is out of whack here. I have a hard time believing that there are any ulterior motives in inflating the number of lives lost, though clearly the Sudanese government thinks there is.

Food - The World Food Program says the first global food crisis since World War II threatens 20 million of the poorest children. Well, heck, maybe you should skip this one too. Nothing to cheer about here either. The skyrocketing cost of food staples, stoked by rising fuel prices, unpredictable weather and demand from India and China, has already sparked sometimes violent protests across the Caribbean, Africa and Asia. The World Bank estimates food prices have risen by 83% in three years. That's almost as much as gas prices. Wow this is serious. Evolving diets among burgeoning middle classes in India and China will help double the demand for food — particularly grain intensive meat and dairy products — by 2030, the World Bank says. Many analysts claim that people in the West will need to eat less meat — and consume, or waste, less food in general. Seems so simple when they put it like that. All they're asking is for people to fundamentally change their lifestyles. Now, I'm a cynic by nature, but don't you think that if this was something people could reasonably be expected to do, that there wouldn't be such a proliferation of obesity. Though, looking at this from a slightly different perspective, if we run out of food, I'm betting that obesity rates will probably start to decline. Now we're talking.