Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/2/08 09:42 PM, Slizor wrote: Quick question: when did the suicide bombings and general (that is to say, widespread) terrorist operations by the Palestinians begin?

I would imagine they began sometime after the state of Israel was established promptly following WW2, which consequently displaced millions of palestinians from a homeland they had occupied from many centuries turning them all into homeless refugees, or maybe it was after large percentages of their population (somewhere around 70% if I remember right) were ethnically cleansed by the newly esablished army of the Israeli state. Either way looking at it I would be more inclined to describe the operations of the genocidal Israeli army terrorist (though I hardly enjoy labeling anything as such) than I would the actions of a handful of disempowered refugees who are simply trying to reclaim their homeland by means they deem tactically effective.

Follow-on question: In light of this information, does anyone want to change their narrative of Israel's history and the supposed intentions of the Palestinians?

yes

At 3/6/08 02:50 AM, sdhonda wrote: So, you base this on a bunch of studies from the 60s and 70s?

Highly relevent...

Seeing as how the studies deal with specific effects television can have on the human brain, and since even now (a whole forty years later) humans still have brains (or at least some of us apparently) I would say the effects are relevant, even highly relevant (as you put it). However maybe I am wrong and over the immense span of forty years our genetic code has altered enough to make these scientific observations completely irrelevant.

At 3/5/08 11:01 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 3/5/08 05:14 PM, carbanonzo wrote: as well as the photobiological effects of television light in regards to the body as well as the mind.

ok, so what are the effects of these lights?

An entire field of study has been devoted on the effects on our bodies. It's strange to think about but when we see anything we are in a way ingestinglight. Light travels through our eyes then into our brains traveling on set neural pathways in our brain down to our endocrine system (in humans at least) particularly effecting the pituitary gland located at the base of our brain, which secretes hormones regulating homeostasis. However through studies on animals a wide variety of effects have been documented. The one I am most familiar with is a study by Dr. John Ott. One involving fluorescent lights (which work in nearly the exact same way that television lights do). I believe it was three thousand rats were placed under different shades of fluorescent light for extended periods of time. The Results:
Light Source survival rate
Ordinary Daylight 97%
all fluorescents 88%
white fluorescent 94%
pink fluorescent 61%

The cause of death was cancer. Other studies have been conducted. Some lights cause hyperactivity in chinchillas, some sped up ovarian growth rates in female rats, others caused the heart cells of chicken embryos to rupture.
I will admit however there has been little study on the specific effects of television light on human beings, however the studies do go to show the immense effects artificial light is capable of having on us.

At 3/5/08 07:21 PM, Chickidydow wrote: Its a little thing called temperance, which basically means every once in a while your supposed have your tv off like a prom dress.

Obviously we all retain the power to shut our televisions of. The studies I was referencing weren't addressing that particular point, more so they were referring to the way television effects your brain whilewatching. One may watch as little television as one desires, but when we do television will inevitably effect our brain in that same way every time.

At 3/5/08 06:40 PM, homor wrote: anyone who doesn't put the effort into spacing out thier writing shouldn't be given the pride of having someone else put effort into reading it.

oh... sorry... I forgot everyone on newgrounds posted in MLA format

At 3/5/08 05:34 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote: Okay, you can throw away your computer now.

Actually a computer screen (as well as videogames) don't effect the mind the same way television does. The crucial difference between them is that while television simply presents you with auditory and visual input that you sit back and ingest and (other than changing the channel or turning it off) can't have any major impact on, video games and computers present a stimuli that (unlike television) can be acted upon and manipulated in a variety of ways that require use of a critical thought process, and thusly the alpha-state brainwave activity associated with television watching never sets in. The idea being that since television watching warrants no action or response to the stimuli the brain will give it none.

I have recently done some reading on the cultural effects of television, and how these effects are manifested culturaly through a televisions effect on the individual mind. Jerry Mander's "Four Arguments for The Elimination of Television" is one of the only comprehensive books to look at television as a dangerous cultural influencing machine, as well as the photobiological effects of television light in regards to the body as well as the mind.

The first and most famous study on the way television effects the mind was conducted in 1969 by Herbert Krugman. The study involved monitoring a subjects brain-wave activity while they viewed a television. What suprised Krugman was how fast Beta wave brain activity gave way to Alpha wave. Alpha wave known as slow wave, are predominately found during periods of sleep or low mental activity. While in "alpha state" the left side of the brain, the one associated with any kind of logic or anylitical thinking effectively drops out of active participation. This is not simply due to boring programming as one might assume, in all repeated studies the results have been the same. To quote the sentence of Krugmans study that launched a complete overhaul of advertising theory television transmits "information not thought about at the time of exposure". What this conclusion means is that television at the time we are watching it shatters communication between the two hemishperes of our brain, bypasses any anylitical or logical filter we could pass the information through, and simply travels to our subconcious memory banks. One could go so far as to say that there is no need to implant subliminal messages in television, as in it's own fantastic somewhat frightening way television is subliminal messaging.

At 3/3/08 08:45 AM, BuddhaGeo wrote:

At 3/3/08 05:15 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 3/3/08 03:29 AM, BuddhaGeo wrote: The majority of them Christians would note that it's Leviticus, which is found in Old Testament; therefore it doesn't apply to them.

The laws don't apply? lol (Luke 16:17 NAB)

Everybody knows the bible is vindictive, evil and full of hate and suffering. Also slavery, sexism, castration and lots of other wonderful things. Whether you choose to ignore them it entirely upto you.

Chill out; I just pointed out what the majority of the Christians would respond to such a statement.
I'm an atheist.

I completely agree with you, though I would just dismiss it as an apologetics excuse, many christians argue that the old testament is a testament to an old god (ironic?) and doesn't apply to modern day, as now after repressing people for thousands of years with the threat of fire and brimstone, god has generously given us his only begotten son, woo fuckin' hoo.

From The Book of Leviticus
15:19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. (15:19-30, 33)
15:20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
15:21 And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
15:22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
15:23 And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.
15:24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. Sex with menstruating women
A man who has sex with a menstruating woman "shall be unclean seven days." But in Lev.20:18 God says that such a man and his menstruating partner "shall be cut off from among their people." Which is the correct punishment?
15:25 And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean.
15:26 Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation.
15:27 And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
15:28 But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.
15:29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
15:30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

At 3/3/08 02:32 AM, Republican1235 wrote: i dont understand why crack and other drugs are illegal. they feel just as good as alcohol and are just as deadly as tobacco. i should have the freedom to smoke as much pot as i want (i dont smoke) as long as it doesn't take away anyone elses freedom. the war on drugs is also redirecting our forces from much, much more important things: Homeland security, The war in Iraq and Afghanistan. and the war on terrorism. Until someone has proof that the 9/11 hijackers were high, I say scrap or at least lessen the DEA.

Specifically for the drug cannabis more commonly know by the spanish slang name given to it (marijuana) was rendered illegal through serious amounts of lobbying in congress. This lobbying was done on behalf of the oil industry. Perhaps you've done research on the "green" benefits of hemp or marijuana. If I remember the statistic correctly approximately 10,000 products can be made from hemp. In fact the use of cannabis as a medicine was widespread until the 1930`s, when the pharmas realised that crude oil had similar hemical signatures. Except that oil-derived medicines have many side effects, however due to the "laws" of supply and demand (if you would like to call them that) it was obviously in the interest of the oil industry to charge people for a scarce resource that they could hardly fathom the infastructure to produce themselves and charge for it; rather than to let people from an abundant resource that they could grow in their backyard thus eliminating the oil industries ability to capitalize on it. As for other drugs, I wouldn't doubt that the reasons for their illegality are similiar.

Keep in mind this information is completely in relation to telivision, which while similiar to videogames, has one fundamental difference: telivision is simply images pouring into you a stimuli with no possible response, while videogames present a stimuli that can be manipulated a responded too. Though they are still similiar in obvious ways.

In his book "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" Jerry Mander explores in the latter chapters how images and light effect human beings. Apart from just seeing light it enters our body setting of several chemical reactions that travel as far as the pituary gland effecting our endorcine system. A study was conducted on animals focusing on light effects on them. Certain lights caused cancer rates to rise in rats, others caused the heart cells of chicken embryos to rupture. There is an entire field of science known as photobiology dedicated to the study of lights effects. Then through the process of memory images are obviously in some way chemically ingrained in our brain. Though this does not prove videogames induce homicidal tendencies it provides grounding for the idea that light has concrete effects on our bodies as do images. So one cannot simply ignore light and images as passive in relation to our bodies and minds. So it goes without saying then, that repeated violent images (such as those in video games) have some influence on our mindset and behavior.

At 2/28/08 05:38 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

At 2/27/08 10:38 PM, arcansi wrote: As we all know, Auto Immune Defeciency...

I read nothing beyond this point.

Someone who doesn't even know what AIDS IS (ACQUIRED Immunodeficiency Syndrome) can not possibly have anything valuable to say.

;

Though I disagreed with the individuals premise for his post, I hardly believe a single typing mishap or small factual error is enough to nulify the legitimacy of the entire rhetoric. Though in this particular case you saved yourself some trouble.

At 2/27/08 10:55 PM, KeithHybrid wrote:

As we all know, stupidity is a currently uncurable, lethal and contagious disease! So why are people allowed to walk around in public with a disease that they can spread to anyone around them?

LOLZ

At 2/27/08 10:38 PM, arcansi wrote: As we all know, Auto Immune Defeciency is a currently uncurable, lethal and contagious disease! So why are people allowed to walk around in public with a disease that they can spread to anyone around them?
There is a new strain of AIDs that has originated in California, and it is far more contagious and painful than the regular strain. I just dislike the thought that the guy sitting next to me on the metro could have an currently uncurable disease.

seeing this post I was abruptly apalled by your entire lack of consideration for peoples rights. Though it could be said that people who walk around with fraglantly contagious diseases are violating the bodily sanctity of the people they inect, I realize as you should that aids is most commonly a sexually transmitted disease and cannot be transferred without direct fluid exchange between two individuals. So to say that you "just dislike the fact that the guy sitting next to [you] on the metro could have a (not "an" as you put you only do that when it is next to a word that starts with a vowel "c" is not a vowel)currently uncurable disease" is completely absurd, because unless you immediately started having unprotected sex with him or searched his body for an open sore then deliberately made contact with it with an open sore of you own YOU WOULDN'T GET THE DISEASE. Hoping that no one would exhibit such an obvious and pointless disregard for other peoples rights I decided to do some research on the new strain you mentioned, perhaps HIV is airborn now, I thought.
Then I was abruptly apalled by your ignorance. First I conducted a search for "new strain of aids" the most recent articles were published in 2005 so this strain is hardly new, furthermore the articles mentioned nothing about the disease being more contagious as you said, it simply said it was drug resistant, scary, but no logical reason to quarantine people. But for the sake of being thorough I cross referenced my orignial search terms with the word "california". The most recent article, published in 2002, simply mentioned an african strain, no less or more contagious than all the others, winding up in two american children. It would seem that the strain you are speaking of exists only in your mind. Though if I am wrong, and the HIV virus, against all scientific and logical reason, made the evolutionary jump from being bloodborn to airborn, a process that should take millenia, in a few short years, then I'm sorry.

I beleive people with AIDs should be quarintined for the safety of the general public. The upside about this is when people are quartintined, more research will go into the cure for AIDs as the government will have to end the quarintine ASAP.

I hardly doubt that the fight to cure HIV/AIDS suffers from any lack of money or effort so much as it suffers from the slow process of discovery and scientific methodology. The reason we can't vaccinate people against HIV is the same reason we can't vaccinate people against the cold, it evolves rapidly (though not so rapid as to make a jump from bloodborn to a more contagious form of airborn in a few years which as I said takes millenia) soon after a person has been vaccinated the virus will have subtly evolved (or at least somehow changed) to a form in which the antibodies created by the vaccine can no longer physically recongnize it. So in order to cure AIDS a whole new type of medicine will have to be comprised which regardless of all the money or effort thrown at it will take time.

The only reasons i see why not to have a quarintine, is that the infected people will have some freedoms sacrificed. But isnt their freedoms just as important as our safety? Will they not have food, shelter and company?

The statement " But isnt their freedoms just as important as our safety?" is completely irrelivent because of the way HIV/AIDS is transmitted, so if a person took even the smallest inkling of responsibility for their own safety and body then they would have NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.

Now dont misunderstand me, im not talking about locking them in cells, that would be imprisonment for something they didnt do. Im talking about what we did with the yellow fever breakout, mark a quarintine island, where they can have a more normal life without spreading a fatal disease. This way we'd all be safe, and they would get better, more attentive treatment.

Earlier I mentioned your "obvious and pointless disregard for other peoples rights" now while you may not consider taking people against their will uprooting them from their family, lives, community, and everything they have ever known and taking them to a small island and forcing them to live there a violation of rights, I (and most other people who aren't sociopaths) do.

At 2/26/08 01:32 AM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: Yes.
And if you openly disagree you're proving yourself wrong.

Not to be insulting, but that doesn't make sense, could you perhaps explain first what this statement is pertaining to (the post above it perhaps?) and how that statement is produced as a logical conclusion from that.

At 2/26/08 12:14 AM, Musician wrote: What's your opinion? do you think that the concept of war is built into humans? do you think war is a learned and that humans can give up war altogether?

I'm interested in hearing your opinions.

"On the battlefield, the soldiers pull down masks over knit brows and clenched teeth. As the sun rises through the tear gas, we thank our lucky stars we still have a common enemy so we can put off our rifts and rivalries for another day. We carry with us our disappointments in ourselves, in each other, and in our dreams- and also our shame, our arrogance and fear, our matryr complexes, our despair. We know better than to hope for victory: after this fight, even after any revolution, there will always be another conflict, another line to draw. Even if every government and board of dictators abdicated and no one stepped forward to replace them, we would simply commence fighting each other. This is what we do, it is all we have learned, it is all we can do with our bitterness."
-Expect resistance: A Field Manual

Though looking historically at primitive tribes who are living in what could be described as a most "natural" state one can see they are quite peaceful. One example "They do not bear arms and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance... Their spears are made of cane." This is Christopher Columbus writing in his log speaking of the Arawak indians(Taken as a quote from Howard Zinn's " A People's History of the United States" a wonderful albeit terrifying read I would recommend to you all). Rudementary weapons speak to a rudementary understanding of war, why? Because war is hardly necessary. Though not to say that primitive societies were completely peaceful, however I would describe the minute skirmishes of Barbarians or Savages far less barbaric or savage than the mondern day wars that are waged. That involve massive bombings of the wars non-participants, chemical attacks, torture of the enemy etc.

Though returning to the question, it can be said from evidence and observation that human beings are naturally peaceful, cooperative and for a part submissive. However while I do not believe that war is hardwired into human instinct, it is woven in to the very fabric of the struggle to survive, which will inevitably put us at odds with nature, our enemies, and ourselves.

At 2/20/08 03:01 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 2/20/08 12:38 AM, carbanonzo wrote: After all it is the only time where we can really effect our society is it not? However the first problem is contained within that very sentence it is the only time we can effect any manner of change.

See, right here is where you go wrong. Unfortunately, it's your thesis statement. Voting is only ONE of the ways you can effect change.

... you just have to be not-lazy to effect it in other ways.

I agree with you at least your second statement. In fact I agree with that statement in the essay " I could be asked "Doesn't this society allow us voting as the only means of change that is 'within (our power)'"? It must then be pointed out that the revolutions of ages past and the very rights we enjoy today have been fought for and won not by politicians but by people: the IWW securing workers rights, first and second wave feminism granting suffrage and a place for women in society, the civil rights movement that put an end to an era of widespread segregation, and the dissidents at the Boston tea party that in the dark night created a spark that brought an entire nation to light (though their descendents have failed to keep the candle lit). We must forget about voting and remember our own abilities and responsibilities to organize with and within our communities to make them better places, to share and provide for ourselves and neighbors to ease the burden on all of us, to shelter our friends as they too shelter us. It is not the politicians responsibility it is yours and mine and everyone's." And in fact since the point of the entire post was to expose voting as disempowering and how we must overcome that factore I would not define the sentence you quoted as my thesis statment. "We must forget about voting and remember our own abilities and responsibilities to organize with and within our communities to make them better places, to share and provide for ourselves and neighbors to ease the burden on all of us, to shelter our friends as they too shelter us." Is a statement I would more consider my thesis as it is more embodying of the point of the essay.

As for your first statement, I disagree with that, only in the fact that I don't think voting is very effective at enacting any sort of real change, in fact the statement " After all it is the only time where we can really effect our society is it not?" was more sarcasm on my part than anything. Though when I said it was the "only time where we..." I realize the obvious supplements to voting i.e. petitioning, writing your congressmen, direct action, charitable donation etc. I was just speaking to the fact that voting has become a monolithic structure in our culture, it is our "weapon of mass change" we are told to "rock the vote" "vote or die" so on and so forth. Rarely if ever, are we encouraged to take a real participatory role in our society. In my experiences with people the only time they ever try to effect mass change is through voting. So for practical purposes you were right, voting isn't the only time we can effect change (as the end of my essay speaks to) but for large part of society it is the only time they do and I feel the reason why this is is because voting has become so monolithic.

At 2/20/08 02:11 AM, LardLord wrote: You want us to clap for you? Give you a standing ovation?

Unless you completely disagree with our Constitution, and think you could do things better on your own (go start your own fucking country), I suggest you continue to vote. There is absolutely no reason why you can't both "remember your own abilities and responsibilities," and also vote. In fact, I think the point is debatable that civic responsibility cannot exist in this country, without casting your vote, and your voice.

The way a Republic works is by electing representatives. Some are corrupt; some aren't. Get the fuck over it, or move away, man.

While your bad attitude isn't appealing, thank you for the wonderful suggestions. "Go start [my] own fucking country" and "move away" both seem like wondefully plausible and effective solutions to the problem. Though I have a few concerns, and I shall voice them in the form of a question. "start [my] own fucking country"... where? The entirety of the globe has been siezed and privatized and now is in the hands of the world's elite who are doubtful to give it up at a price I can afford. Although I could always just "move away" then I ask again move away to what? Another industrialized republic nation where voting still exists and is just as disempowering as it is here? Taking the problem into account that makes moving away just seem like a waste of money (though one I can afford better than "starting [my] own fucking country"). Or perhaps maybe the solution to a complex problem isn't as simple as starting my own fucking country or moving away.

"There is absolutely no reason why you can't both 'remember your own abilities and responsibilities' and also vote"

Actually there is, and I demonstrated it in my original post. Though I suppose instead of utilizing any manner of reasoning or logic to refute it you just decided to ignore it completely and make a statement that is contrary to it.

At 1/26/08 07:44 AM, Al6200 wrote:

At 1/26/08 01:37 AM, Pyropter wrote: The baby is unborn and insentient, so it wouldn't necessarily be murder, per say.

The baby is unborn, but what makes you think it's insentient? It has a functioning nervous system, and a complex, developed brain.

Once a child is more fully developed it has a "complex, developed brain" and "functioning nervous system" but at conception the "baby" is about the size of a grain of sand and has neither. Though I won't deny it will develop them, though at the point it does fully develp both those organs (The 28th week of pregnancy) I don't think a vacuum aspiration abortion (which is the most common and effective) would even be responsible or plausible.

At 1/13/08 08:25 PM, JOEBIALEK wrote: On this 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, I would like to share my views on the issue of abortion.

Life begins at the point of conception. No one can deny that after a human being is conceived it will develop into the very same being as those debating this issue. What astounds me is that those who favor abortion went through an identical development stage as the being they are condemning to death. Would these very same people agree that a similiar choice should have been made about their own existence? Abortion today is used primarily as a birth control of convenience because people are too self-centered to take precautions. They prefer their own pleasurable self-indulgence over the care and sanctity of the life they created. What ever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions in this country? Is it too much to ask a woman who has conceived to place the child into adoption? Nine months of discomfort is nothing compared to life in prison for voluntary manslaughter! Does the father of the child have a say in this? And what about the constitution of the United States? Are not all people conceived in this country deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I believe abortion is a crime against humanity and should be outlawed. We need to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and get back to cherishing life in this country. For a country that murders it's children cannot be far from self destruction.

"No one can deny that after a human being is concieved it will develop into the very same beings thatare debating the issue", actually you are able to deny that. After the point of conception (I believe the statistic is....) 1 in 5 fetus' abort themselves and will never develop. Even for those embryos that do develop there are still birth defects that would put them far away from ever having the potential of being functioning human beings. A grotesque example would be harlequin fetus syndrome (in which the childs eyes never develop and are replaced just by muscle mass in the eye sockets, it is born without lips, it's skin is fracture over it's entire body leaving it's muscle exposed thus dooming it to an intense albeit short life of pain). I have also heard accounts of children being born without a functioning brain (or any brain at all) or without hands or feet or a face, many fetus' simply do not develop in time.

I have heard it stated that voting (for those of us in the United States) is our "civic duty" and "responsibility". When younger I took these statements at face value. Recently however I felt they deserved a more critical examination. Voting, shouldn't we do it? After all it is the only time where we can really effect our society is it not? However the first problem is contained within that very sentence it is the only time we can effect any manner of change. Couldn't this be seen as something contradictory to the nature of change as a concept? Shouldn't change be viewed as something of a fluid? Constantly moving, constantly shifting, constantly changing? Not something that is dictated only to happen in intervals of every 2, 4, or 6 years. Of course maybe that isn't where the change is embodied, perhaps it is embodied in who we elect? Our politicians of course! After all they are the vangaurds of this precious democracy and of us their beloved people! I was all wrong, nevermind just stop reading right now... of course... I could surmise that a look into ANY congresswoman's or man's or president's or senator's bank records would almost certainly reveal that an ample amount of money was being deposited by corporate interests. It should be fairly obvious, but for the sake of statement I shall state: it is almost certain that all the "campaign contributions" and "lobbying" that takes place in political circles is essentially bribery on the part of corporate interests to employ the politician to enact legislation on behalf of them. So this essentially brings me to the conclusion that the .0000004166% worth of voting power I have to determine their career is outweighed by the millions of dollars corporate conglomerates are equipped to fill a politicians pocket with.

Still, despite the reasonable conclusion that whomever I elect to represent me will not in fact be representing me but instead be representing the corporations whom are essentially his employer, the fact remains that that .0000004166% of power is mine to wield, shouldn't it be my responsibility to wield it properly? With responsibility being the keyword I ask yet another question, does voting empower us with responsibility or is it simply the illusion of such? To establish some sort of objectivity in this matter I shall employ the dictionary to set out what responsible shall mean: answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power. How can a responsibility consist of advocating a job to someone else of giving away our responsibility to someone whom is so far removed from our lives and personal struggles that they shouldn't possibly be held accountable for them. By taking such a monolithic role in our society, by being presented as the only medium for change voting in effect takes responsibility away from people. The earlier definition I presented of responsible may seem contradictory to this whole argument, so it must be defined what is "within one's power". I could be asked "Doesn't this society allow us voting as the only means of change that is 'within (our power)'"? It must then be pointed out that the revolutions of ages past and the very rights we enjoy today have been fought for and won not by politicians but by people: the IWW securing workers rights, first and second wave feminism granting suffrage and a place for women in society, the civil rights movement that put an end to an era of widespread segregation, and the dissidents at the Boston tea party that in the dark night created a spark that brought an entire nation to light (though their descendents have failed to keep the candle lit). We must forget about voting and remember our own abilities and responsibilities to organize with and within our communities to make them better places, to share and provide for ourselves and neighbors to ease the burden on all of us, to shelter our friends as they too shelter us. It is not the politicians responsibility it is yours and mine and everyone's.

That is why I don't vote.

Poverty could more be defined as a social calamity than widespread instances of poor choice. I've heard people make the argument that the only reason people live impovershed lives with minimum wage disempowering jobs is a lack of education and effort. This argument is at once easy to see through, "everywhere there is a cafeteria or a resteraunt there are going to have to be people who wash the dishes and it's sure not going to be the owners. Some of my coworkers had been to college and had nothing to show for it but debt" (Qtd. "Expect Resistence" by the Crimethinc. Ex-workers Collective) this could be extended from doing something as simple as eating at a resteraunt towards more day to day occourences in industrialized society. Buying food at a grocery store for instance, we must acknowledge the fact that in order for us to recieve the food we are purchasing in such a way there is going to be some poor disempowered worker who will have to spend a large part of his life in the hot sun tediously harvesting said food. An industrialized society requires such infastructure, to say that a persons poverty is simply due to her tendency to be lazy in school and poor decision making when it came to education is rediculous. It is however odd that the very people who maintain the infastructure that holds up elite society are the ones so disempowered and mistreated by that very society.

Poverty is in some sense also hereditary. Through a study or our nation's geneology I feel it would be easy to prove that a large part of this countries wealth traveled here from europe and is maintained by those same families today, the obvious exception can be made for movie stars or suave businessmen who make a "big break" of some sort, but as the above argument demonstrates this exception can hardly be extended towards the girth of society. George Orwell examines the prospects an impovershed man can expect for his life in his book Down and Out in Paris and London, the exact quote I can't remember but it ran along these lines: He will never marry, he will never have a home or children, nor will he experience a steady diet. If these are the prospects of a poor man's life it can go without saying that "he will never escape poverty" should be added to the end of the list. I remember as a child in the car with my mother evertime she saw a homeless person with a sign she would almost without fail say "Why don't they just clean themselves up and get a job at McDonalds or something?" As a child this seemed perfectly logical. Now I realize that my mother has never in her life filled out an application for employment and not known what to put in the "living address" box. How demoralizing that must feel. Not to mention homeless people who've developed alcoholism or drug addiction, what kind of employment would they recieve?

At 2/18/08 10:38 AM, dELtaluca wrote: because there is no motivation to do the work, no matter how well you work, or how hard your job is you get the same as everyone else - whats the point?

For the span of existence people as well as animals have done what is necessary to survive. In a capitalist system this means going to work and taking orders from a boss, not having any accountability or responsibility, in other words being completely unparticipatory, people go out and do it every day in capitalist countries. A socialist system, like communism, requires responsibility and consensus of people, in spain during the civil war when the anarchists and communists effectively took control of parts of the country, people went out and did this. Also with the abolition of private property and the monetary system one takes out the dangerous middle man of a profit motive, but not the motivation to work. In a system without private property or money, one is no longer working for money to buy food but to directly support and maintain the infastructure that provides the food.

At 2/17/08 09:19 AM, Al6200 wrote:

At 2/16/08 11:35 PM, carbanonzo wrote:

Earth First is a primitivist organization - they oppose all technology and human progress.

While it is true that earth first is a primitivist orgonization I would harldy say that the beliefs of the orgonization that this author is affiliated with detracts from the value of the article, I would just define your statement as character assasination.

http://www.earthfirst.org/about.htm

The buzz about ethanol has grown tremendously in the past few years as oil prices skyrocket, :racist right-wingers look for a way to be independent of the Middle East, and lefties look for a quick :fix to global warming that doesn't require them to reduce their level of consumption.

Note all of the unsupported assumptions. "Racist right-wingers". What's his basis for this claim? Also, its interesting to see how he criticizes leftists for not wanting to reduce their standard of living.

Just as you made the point of noting the assumption he made of right wingers being racist I would once again point out that this could be defined as character assasination once again. While it is true that he does not have any rhetoric to back up his assumption it once again hardly has anything to do with the real content of the article. It would seem you are pointing it out simply for the purpose of pointing it out, and all the statement will serve to do is distract from the main points of the article (although it could be said that the author did the same thing by making his statement in the first place). Also I would like to note you've made a few assumptions of your own. "[earth first] opposes all technollogy and human progress" it would seem there that on behalf of earth first you are equating human progress with technological progress, without (just like the author) any sort of rhetoric or reasoning to explain that conclusion. "he criticizes the leftists for not wanting to reduce their standard of living" the paragraph that statement is in response to said "reduce their level of consumption" now unless you made some sort of typing mishap it would seem that there you are equating a standard of living with a level of consumption. In todays modernized society it is easy to draw these conclusions without thinking about it, but in an objective sense these conclusions should still be backed up by reasoning. Of course maybe they were irrelevant offhand remarks (just like the author's comment on right wingers was) in which case this whole paragraph is irrelavent.

In early March, Bush traveled to Brazil to secure massive imports of ethanol to the US. Bush's visit :was met not with praise for supporting Brazilian agriculture but with militant protests decrying the :environmental devastation and neo-colonialism perpetrated by Brazil's ethanol industry.

And this is relevant how? Of course the militants within Brazil will want to stop the ethanol industry - any economic stability and prosperity makes their communist message less reasonable, and their attempt to sell cocaine based on the desperation of farmers less practical.

Earlier you pointed out how the author made an unsupported claim, yet in this attempt to provide anecdotal evidence of the risidual effects of the ethanol industry on the the brazillian people (ie militant protests). Also noting the other assumption you make that the militant protests were due to the communist tendencies and not any real starvation that could have been caused by the ethanol industries land grab. Although maybe it is not an assumption, maybe you are brazillian yourself, which either means you are a very priviliged brazillian or I am wrong. Or perhaps you do have information to back up that claim, but just as earlier you pointed out the authors inability to back his claim up in the ARTICLE it would seem logical to point out your inability to do the same in your RESPONSE.

In the region of Ribeirão Preto, 900 women took over an ethanol plant owned by the agribusiness :cartel Cargill. They also decried the increased land consolidation that is occurring as wealthy :landowners grab more and more land for monoculture sugarcane farms.

...Besides, would Earth First like to think about why the US, a highly developed economy, doesn't have this "gloom and doom" corporate land consolidation?

To quote the author "an exploitative, colonial system that steals resources from the world's poor communities to maintain the consumer lifestyles of the First World." Perhaps that is why the US doesn't suffer from "'gloom and doom' cororate land consolidation" and Brazil does, though for the sake of saving typing room I'll leave out the paragraphs that it would take to explain why the dominant culture is killing the planet and the worlds poor, though if you were curious I would reference you to Derrik Jensen's book "Endgame".

In February, massive protests broke out in Mexico over the price of corn, a major staple in that :country. More than 75,000 people marched through the streets of Mexico City to demand an :immediate reduction of corn prices. Why are corn prices so high? Because ever-increasing amounts of corn are going towards ethanol production, and this increased demand has caused corn prices to skyrocket. Corn is now going toward feeding the US's auto addiction rather than the world's poor.

Poor nations that manage their economies well should never have to go through any starvation. Only the most poorly managed nations with the least industrialization go through starvation.

ethanol distillation also burns large amounts of fossil fuels. Most distilleries burn natural gas, :though more and more are relying on coal. One plant in Goldfield, Iowa, burns 300 tons of coal every :day! Overall, ethanol is incredibly inefficient, taking three units of energy to make four. Some argue :that it actually takes more energy to produce ethanol than you get from burning it.

Does this article even bother to cite sources? Who is this "Some" who argues that it takes more energy?

Many proponents of ethanol claim that it is "carbon neutral"; since the carbon in the ethanol was :originally sucked out of the atmosphere by the plant, they say it is a closed cycle. This ludicrous :claim completely ignores the massive amounts of fossil fuels used in the growth, transportation and :refinement of corn ethanol. In fact, when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the production and :burning of ethanol is only slightly better than burning gasoline!

But every type of power will have a distribution process, even solar or wind. By their logic, there is no way to have clean energy, since dirty fuels might be used to support the clean fuels.

The ethanol boom is one of many last-ditch attempts by industrial capitalism to continue its :existence in a rapidly approaching post-oil world. The pursuit of ethanol is simply the continuation of :an exploitative, colonial system that steals resources from the world's poor communities to :maintain the consumer lifestyles of the First World.

There is no quick techno-fix to climate change or peak oil. We cannot accept a new wave of :colonialism that offsets the problems created by our exorbitant First World lifestyles onto the Global :South. The only answer to these problems is a dramatic reduction in our energy and resource :consumption.

There's actually this new fuel source called "Nuclear Fission". It's clean, and reliable. However, because of these Earth First morons it's being phased out in favor of coal. What I hate is people who listen to these "environmentalists" and think that they oppose Nuclear Fission because they think it's dangerous and harmful. In reality, they hate it because it's clean and efficient, and allows us to continue to have a good standard of living

Sorry for the lack of a total critique, or that I took out certain parts of the article and your response. I did not do this to distort your opinion or dodge certain arguments. I did it simply for the sake of typing space.

This article is not one of I myself have written, though credit has been given to it's author. I am new to the newgrounds political forum and am seeking to create a topic for discussion that is probably not a common one around here, or most places for that matter. The following article is pertaining to the ramifications of widespread ethanol production. Beyond the fact that it requires just as massive and infastructure to process and distribute as oil does, a massive move to ethanol would cause widespread starvation, as fields that once provided people with food are now put to the purpose of providing industrialized countries with a fuel source.

ethanol and Eco-Colonialism

By Skyler Simmons
Earth First! Journal
Beltane 2007

The buzz about ethanol has grown tremendously in the past few years as oil prices skyrocket, racist right-wingers look for a way to be independent of the Middle East, and lefties look for a quick fix to global warming that doesn't require them to reduce their level of consumption. This January, President Bush announced a plan to produce 35 billion gallons of biofuels (mostly ethanol) per year by 2017. Yet there has been little attention paid to the real social and environmental impacts of ethanol production.

In early March, Bush traveled to Brazil to secure massive imports of ethanol to the US. Bush's visit was met not with praise for supporting Brazilian agriculture but with militant protests decrying the environmental devastation and neo-colonialism perpetrated by Brazil's ethanol industry. In the region of Ribeirão Preto, 900 women took over an ethanol plant owned by the agribusiness cartel Cargill. They also decried the increased land consolidation that is occurring as wealthy landowners grab more and more land for monoculture sugarcane farms.

In São Paulo, demonstrators responded to Bush's visit by marching through the streets, carrying stalks of sugarcane and clashing with police. Protesters noted that increasing amounts of the Amazon rainforest are being cleared for monoculture farms to produce ethanol. Suzanne Pereira dos Santos of Brazil's Landless Workers Movement, who helped organize the march, remarked, "Bush and the US go to war to control oil reserves, and now Bush and his pals are trying to control the production of ethanol in Brazil, and that has to be stopped."

In February, massive protests broke out in Mexico over the price of corn, a major staple in that country. More than 75,000 people marched through the streets of Mexico City to demand an immediate reduction of corn prices. Why are corn prices so high? Because ever-increasing amounts of corn are going towards ethanol production, and this increased demand has caused corn prices to skyrocket. Corn is now going toward feeding the US's auto addiction rather than the world's poor.

The environmental impacts of ethanol production are also troubling. Growing the corn is incredibly energy intensive, in terms of fuel consumption by farm equipment and the large amounts of fossil-fuel-based fertilizers used. In addition, large quantities of toxic pesticides must be used.

ethanol distillation also burns large amounts of fossil fuels. Most distilleries burn natural gas, though more and more are relying on coal. One plant in Goldfield, Iowa, burns 300 tons of coal every day! Overall, ethanol is incredibly inefficient, taking three units of energy to make four. Some argue that it actually takes more energy to produce ethanol than you get from burning it.

Many proponents of ethanol claim that it is "carbon neutral"; since the carbon in the ethanol was originally sucked out of the atmosphere by the plant, they say it is a closed cycle. This ludicrous claim completely ignores the massive amounts of fossil fuels used in the growth, transportation and refinement of corn ethanol. In fact, when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the production and burning of ethanol is only slightly better than burning gasoline!

The ethanol boom is one of many last-ditch attempts by industrial capitalism to continue its existence in a rapidly approaching post-oil world. The pursuit of ethanol is simply the continuation of an exploitative, colonial system that steals resources from the world's poor communities to maintain the consumer lifestyles of the First World.

Large-scale ethanol production can only lead to greater devastation of the Earth, as diverse ecosystems are converted to monoculture farms. Dispossession will increase as subsistence farmers and hunter-gatherers are forced off their land to make way for the US's new energy colonies.

A turn to ethanol as a fuel source also means shifting a considerable portion of farmable land from food production to energy production. As demand for ethanol grows, we will see increasing tension between First World people choosing to fuel their "green" cars and the rest of the world simply struggling to eat. The events in Mexico have no doubt foreshadowed what is to come.

There is no quick techno-fix to climate change or peak oil. We cannot accept a new wave of colonialism that offsets the problems created by our exorbitant First World lifestyles onto the Global South. The only answer to these problems is a dramatic reduction in our energy and resource consumption.

Skyler Simmons enjoys seeing liberals go into convulsions as they realize that biofuels aren't going to save the world.

At 2/16/08 05:39 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 2/16/08 04:34 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

At 2/16/08 01:57 AM, jcorishas wrote:

At 2/15/08 08:35 PM, Gwarfan wrote:

Well, I guess monopolies are a downer (and impossible to solve without government regulation), the supply and demand system could be abused, wealthy countries have upper hand on poorer countries, resources that could be used for a need are wasted on a luxury (farmland in Ethiopia used to grow cocoa for Hershey's chocolate to be exported instead of food, for example).

I think that's it.

Not quite. You see government can create their own monopolies, education system anyone?

Uh, the education system isn't a monopoly. People do still have choices like private schools and home schooling. Most wealth people ether send there children to private schools or get private tutors for them.

Whats great is the wealthy man and the poor man had the same education (free education system remember?) it's how they chose to live which dictated their living condition.

No most of them didn't, the rich tend to send there kids to private schools or get tutors for them. Not to mention that not everyone can be rich. No matter how hard everyone works no matter how cleaver everyone maybe, not every one can be rich, it's just not possible.

While I feel the latter criticism is all too valid I feel it contradicts the first one. You argue that the education system isn't a monopoly on our knowledge and conciousness as a culture by stating the obvious alternatives. But later expose two of those alternatives as strictly reserved for those who can afford them. The same could be said about other alternatives, I would imagine that being impovershed with a child turns the battle against complete destitution into a never ending one, it would prove difficult to take the time out of your day to educate a child, not to mention that one may be ill-equipped with knowledge to do so (especially when you probably couldn't afford the eletist education of a private school for yourself as a child, and are endow to your child the same monolithic monopolized education that your seeking to undermine by taking on this venture in the first place)

While the flaws inherent in the capitalist system are many, both in it's real world manifestation and in it's theoretical form, i.e. it's requirement of inequeality, the radically dispraportionate distribution of wealth ("The top 5 percent of families own more wealth than the bottom 81 percent. The top .008 percent hold as many assets as the bottom half of the population"), it's total discouragement of community or solidarity in people (isolated individuals means more buying units). Perhaps the biggest flaw with capitalism is embodied in a longstanding criticism of it that it can only maintain during wartime, the disadvantages of which are obvious. However this criticism I do not believe entirely true. Capitalism can easily be maintained during times of war because those times encourage rapid econommic growth, and THAT is what maintains capitalism. It becomes obvious looking at the economic situation after the WW2. A fast paced economy was the only thing that could pull America out of the depression (just like it was the only thing that could plunge it into a deppression) WW2 provided that, all the men had jobs in the military, all the women had jobs in factories, but now with the war over johnny was marching home jobless. With the nation geared up to a fast paced wartime economy losing all the jobs that the war provided would plunge america into another deppression so essentially a commodity boom was facilitated. People were encouraged (even told it was "patriotic" or their "civic duty") to buy more and more trinkets (washing machines, new cars, etc.) in order to maintain and grow a giant economic machine that couldn't afford to shrink. The glaring flaw with this is that unlimited economic growth is a planetary impossibility. Another major flaw is that since trickle down economics don't make any real world sense, and just don't function in the manner it's supposed to the rich minority were getting richer, and the poor majority were getting poorer and thus couldn't afford to perpetuate the cycle of commodity culture.