Great Game! ... But Where Are the Dead Pelican Cards? - Nikki Lorenzini

BP came out with a board game back in the 1970s. It was called the BP Offshore Oil Strike. Four players search for oil while building platforms and constructing pipelines. The object of the game is to be the first to make $120 million. There are hazards in the game as well: players may suffer a large-scale oil spill and have to cover the clean-up costs. Hazard cards say things like: "Blow-out! Rig damaged. Oil slick cleanup costs. Pay $1 million."

Does this sound familiar?

The game has eerie similarities to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico right now. While it's tempting to think this is just an ironic twist of fate, it seems odd that an oil company would produce an oil version of Monopoly. The game came out during the oil crisis of the 1970s, so maybe it was a way of drumming up support for more US-based drilling? Or was it just another kooky marketing ploy? I know Hess has their trucks that they sell every year at Christmas, but who the heck at BP thought of putting out their own version of Monopoly?

Why would anyone at BP think this was a good idea in the first place? While I'm sure BP knew a spill like this could possibly happen, I don't think if they really believed it was likely they would have forecast it with a board game like this. On the other hand, there certainly have been other examples: according to the BBC, more than 7,000 spills (large and small) have occurred in the Niger Delta between 1970 and 2000.

Whether you're inclined to put together conspiracies or not, you have to admit it's a pretty strange thing when a game turns into reality.

Are You Qualified to Vote? - Shaun Hautly

You shouldn’t vote, because you don’t know anything.

Well, let me be nice and say you’re at least proactive in reading this political/current events blog, and are slightly more informed than the average American. Obama won the 2008 election because of marketing. Not because of his experience, points of view, visions, or accomplishments, but because of how well he was marketed. People voted for the word “change,” not for the man. Others voted for McCain because they are pro-life, anti-gay, gun nuts, gung-ho for the war, or any other number of conservative reasons.

Americans need to understand that our president is not a dictator. His views do not become law. He doesn’t even get a vote. He has veto power: that's it. I’ve said this before: Bush was pro-life, yet we still had abortions.

So I propose this new rule for voting:

If you want to vote, you first have to take a test that assures you understand what you’re voting for and how it will affect the country. Questions will include things about the basic structure of American government, the roles of the leaders for whom you’re voting, and the implications of any propositions on the ballot. If you miss ANY of the questions, your votes for those categories will be void. You will not be notified of this. They just won’t count.

Lobbyists prey on the obedience of uninformed voters. Slam campaigns and other publicity stunts skew polls and influence weak voters. This system would make sure that our votes are coming from well-informed citizens. It will also push average citizens to become MORE informed.

If anyone argues against a policy like this being added, it’s because they’re uninformed and afraid of losing their opportunity to vote. However, this policy has NO weak spots. If there is a valid argument against this, I’d love to hear it.