Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Speaking of camp... :/ sorry to butt in but I was in the neighborhood. Anyway, speaking of camp: some Star Wars fans have been camping out for months in front of the Hollywood Mann Chinese Theatre where every Star Wars movie has premiered, over here in Los Angeles... except... it was just recently released to the media that episode III will premier at the Arclight Cinema, in the cinerama dome approximately 10 city blocks away from the Mann Chinese... all I have to say is... "lol."

Former President Bill Clinton personified the trend.

When first accused of having an affair with a former White House intern, he angrily denied it and then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton blamed a "vast right-wing conspiracy." After he was caught lying under oath to conceal the affair, he lashed out at the politics of personal destruction. In his presidential library, he avoids personal responsibility and devotes most of an exhibit on his impeachment to blaming Republicans for trying to unseat him.

By the time he launched his presidential campaign in June 1999, George W. Bush, too, saw a problem.

"My first goal is to usher in the responsibility era, an era that stands in stark contrast to the last few decades, where our culture has said: If it feels good, do it, and if you've got a problem, blame someone else," Bush said. "Each American must understand that we are responsible for the decision each of us makes in life."

But he hasn't taken responsibility for failures in his government, nor has he assigned it to those who work for him.

To be sure, finding people responsible for failure during wartime is sometimes controversial.

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was constantly second-guessed by congressional committees. Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee said one of those committees was worth two divisions to his side.

After Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941, the government investigated and punished several senior military officials. Similarly, at the height of World War II, then-Sen. Truman led an investigation into war profiteering by American businesses, exposing shoddy work and saving billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

After the United States was attacked in 2001, Bush resisted attempts to find flaws in the nation's intelligence or security apparatus. Once he relented, investigations found fault, but Bush didn't assign responsibility or take it.

Investigations also faulted intelligence services for wrongly stating that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded. Again, Bush didn't assign responsibility or take it.

In fact, policymakers who expressed skepticism about parts of the administration's case for war weren't asked to return for Bush's second term, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage.

Those who publicly or privately trumpeted the false intelligence were either retained or promoted, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice; her former deputy, Stephen J. Hadley; and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

After it was revealed that prisoners were abused in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Bush condemned the practice. Rumsfeld offered to resign, but Bush rejected the offer.

At a recent congressional hearing, a senior military investigator said top U.S. officials had failed to set clear rules for interrogating prisoners, but he added that it wasn't his role to assign responsibility.

In business, high-flying, highly paid executives presided over a corporate culture that some critics likened to the Gilded Age of the late 1800s.

"The CEO became a cult hero," said Todd Gitlin, a sociologist at Columbia University. "The CEO class came to believe what the cover stories said about them, that they were sublime geniuses who made vast amounts of difference in the success of their companies."

When Worldcom's Ebbers claimed he wasn't responsible for financial crimes committed at his company - a defense other indicted executives planned to use - it signaled what Gitlin called a moral collapse.

"If you think that being the CEO and being rewarded gets you off a hook rather than on it, then your moral principle is that ignorance is bliss," Gitlin said.

One thing that's allowed the powerful to abandon responsibility is lack of societal pressure. In 1996, Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole discovered that voters were uninterested in fund-raising abuses at the Clinton White House. "Where's the outrage?" Dole repeatedly complained.

Gitlin attributes it to the cult of personality. "There's been a metastasis of celebrity," he said. "Celebrity is taken to be a moral position. To be a celebrity is to transcend mere categories of good and evil."

Staudenmaier, the historian, said people are distracted. He suggested that's what happened in the Roman Catholic Church.

"When you're paying more attention to the definition of doctrinal correctness, which has been the case for 20 years, you find people looking past the question of whether people are doing a good job with the power," he said.

At the same time, he said, Americans became more exclusively focused on profits in business and on the war on terror in government.

Said Staudenmaier: "You take your eye off the ball and you get bad behavior."

Hello all,

I know it's been a while since I was last here, but I couldn't help but come back to make a topic after reading this article on my home page. This article left me both aware and a bit worried about the current situation of not only the U.S. but the world. I'm not so much worried about the world though, because most terrorrists seem to have the balls to claim responsibility for their actions, unlike our leaders. Anyway, I'd like to thank you in advance for taking your time to read this article, and I am eagerly looking foward to hearing your responses, opinions, and facts you can share in regards to this issue.

Personal responsibility waning, experts say

Tue Apr 12, 4:10 PM ET Top Stories - Knight Ridder Newspapers

By Steven Thomma, Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Simple and direct like the man who put it there, it was a bold statement that summed up his approach to leadership and represented a value of the generation that helped him build a new America after World War II.

"The Buck Stops Here," said the no-nonsense sign on President Harry Truman's desk. Today, it sits in a Missouri museum. And with it perhaps the sentiment it represented.

It was more than a slogan. The notion of accepting responsibility without passing the buck or blaming others when things went wrong was central to the work ethic and moral tone of the time.

By contrast today, almost none of the leaders of the country's great institutions ever step forward and take responsibility for failure or even honest mistakes. It is sometimes imposed by others, notably juries, but less so by the broader American society and virtually never invoked voluntarily in politics, business, religion or popular culture.

In government, for example, no one was held responsible for major failures in intelligence in either the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks or what former CIA Director George Tenet called the "slam dunk" conclusion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Instead, President Bush awarded Tenet the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor.

In business, Worldcom CEO Bernard Ebber's defense against criminal charges was that the boss isn't really responsible for his company. A jury didn't agree and convicted him.

In the Roman Catholic Church, the man who presided over the country's worst sexual-abuse scandal, Boston Archbishop Bernard Law, eventually resigned his American office. But he retains his higher status as a cardinal, is well regarded in the Vatican where he now works and will soon be one of the elites who choose a new pope.

In popular entertainment, bad behavior once routinely punished on screen now can be excused or celebrated. In the 1960 movie "Oceans 11," for example, rogues led by Frank Sinatra don't get to keep their stolen money. In the 2001 remake, thieves led by George Clooney get away with the cash.

Historians, philosophers, political scientists and sociologists cite many reasons for the decline of an ethic of responsibility in America over recent decades, including:

- A culture of narcissism or self-absorption;

- The rise of celebrity worship and entitlement;

- The distractions of the war on terrorism.

Whatever the reasons, most experts agree that how people feel about their obligations has changed, particularly for those in positions of power and influence.

"Responsibility is waning. The strong sense of holding people responsible is getting more and more difficult," said Joan McGregor, a philosopher at Arizona State University. "We still hold people responsible all the time in a legal sense. But in a moral sense, it's as though no one is responsible any more."

It wasn't always so, particularly in the brief period during and after World War II when the country was dominated by what Tom Brokaw would later call the Greatest Generation.

When enormously popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur disobeyed presidential orders, Truman fired him, risking his own political standing.

President John F. Kennedy took "sole responsibility" a few months into office when the invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs turned into a debacle. He fired the CIA director and deputy who initiated the plan.

But American society changed in the second half of the 20th century, much for the better, some for the worse.

Post-World War II affluence produced a mobile society, one that tore up the roots of closely bound ethnic communities in central cities. Many moved to suburbs where neighbors didn't automatically know neighbors and didn't necessarily share the same culture. People didn't feel as responsible to strangers as they did to those who'd known them - and might judge them.

The divorce rate shot up. The number of people living alone escalated. As Robert Putnam noted in his landmark 1995 book, "Bowling Alone," the number of people who bowled rose, but the number who did so in organized leagues dropped. The fabric of American culture highlighted by membership in organizations, noted by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830s, came apart.

"People begin to live in a way where they don't share a lot of symbolic meaning with the people near them," said the Rev. John Staudenmaier, S.J., a historian at the University of Detroit Mercy. "They don't want to share. They don't come from a world where the commitments you make bind you."

Popular culture echoed the changes with the rise of the anti-hero. The voluntary Hays Code, which prohibited movies from glamorizing crime, was dropped. So was the Television Code, with its prohibition against showing criminal behavior being rewarded. Even the Comics Code Authority, with its requirement that good must always win, faded.

Americans adopted a new post-1960s attitude that society - not the individual - was to blame for errant behavior. They created no-fault divorce and no-fault auto insurance. Increasingly, they also turned to lawsuits to blame others for their own choices.

*continued below*

OoOoh there's a new "characters remaining" counter when posting now! Yaaay! Anyway.. I just wanted to post this awkward 404 message that came out in pachuco/calo spanglish just for your amusement:

artesonado.com
Bienvenido al famoso error 404
El de la file not found, ese.

Vamos, que the page cannot be encontrada.
The página you are buscando might have been removed,
had its nombre cambiaded o bad escrito
or is temporarily escacharrada.

You can always volver a casa otra vez, tranquilo.

I'm not a supertitious guy, but... don't jinx it.

At 2/8/05 12:40 PM, Proteas wrote: The rest of the images on that site are a different story.

*full body shiver*

You browsed around? O.O I am sorry Proteas, I feel your pain together with you.

On another note, my Yahoo homepage never ceases to amaze me.

Just in case the link doesn't work for any reason:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne...&u=/afp/afplifestylejordan

Anyway, I found this little story to be one of the BEST and WORSE cases of Cyber love I have ever seen. Have a look-see please and let me know what you think about it if you have the chance. It's almost like... poetic justice... or was it irony? Maybe a little bit of A and a little bit of B. But anyway, enjoy.

*looks about reading something about skunk and befell being banned, shrugs*

So I was scouring the net for something to beat that old goatse image still fresh in my mind (don't even get me started on the lemon party one). I found this. If you're not over 18, you have no business clicking the link. When I saw the picture I was primarily grossed out like what happened with Goatse, however, upon closer observation of this picture, I actually found that this woman had many hidden nooks and crannies ;o I mean you can't even see where her... you know, should be. Anyway, I was so moved by this image that I decided to link it here since it brought back disturbing memories of the goatse and lemonparty images, you bastars, especially you Shrike *shakes fist* for linking me to them.

At 1/26/05 03:10 AM, Maus wrote: Ozcar = Worst active mod on NG.

Once again proving the fact that "there are idiots everywhere!" ^>^

Strange: Conan O Brien was re-runned today, the musical guest were your (Maus) beloved Scissor Sisters x.x I was driving to the gym yesterday, lo and behold the marquee outside of the Wiltern theatre: January 31st Scissor Sisters," furthermore, who joins my party in Paper Mario 2? the lovely Ms. Mowz! ;o Maus get out of my life!!!!

<3

At 1/22/05 04:47 PM, spanishfli wrote: You've upseted future BeFell by stirring up sad memories...

O.O the evil Republican ways of the dark side have allowed him to age beyond his years. Is it just me or... do I see a little Freddy Kreuger influence in that pic?

No, but seriously, one of the only ways to get rid of terrorrism (at least people who would become terrorrists) would be through some thorough ethnic cleansing, and frankly, I don't think the U.S. (or anyone else for that matter) wants to go the way of the Nazis. At least, I hope that's not the case...

At 1/21/05 06:20 AM, nXXt wrote: Agree, but that doesn't mean anything. Iraq was the same story.

That's exactly what I, for one, would like to avoid from happening again: another Iraq/mistake. Besides, Iran doesn't have that much oil >.> right?

Omfg It was Captain_Bob too! And he's got a sword >:o
</envy>

Rather than waste more money and lives on another military strike, why not send in U.N inspectors first? If they don't find anything, like they didn't find anything in Iraq, I suggest we avoid another pointless war started on "what if" or "possibly" statements. It's the most-retarded kind of reasoning.

At 1/21/05 02:02 AM, darkmage8 wrote: While amusing, I'm just guessing that a lot of people would be a tad more than pissed if the U.S destroyed Al-Jazeera.

What's worse, if they replaced it with FOX.

Does the RPG/Pokemon thing and levels up/evolves. About damn time too >:\ Looks like it's easier to reach Lv11 than it was to reach 10... someone wasn't consistent with the exp pts, ah well I'm not complaining! :D

At 1/19/05 12:33 AM, BeFell wrote: Don't be stupid many people said September 11 presented a wonderful opportunity to build national unity. Just because someone points out opportunities that come with tragedy it doesn't mean they are not compassionate.

It was an opportunity to build unity, not a wonderful opportunity, there's nothing wonderful about a catastrophe, just putting the word into the sentence gives people the wrong impression about what you're saying, if you avoided the word "wonderful" the complaints might significantly decline. Using the word wonderful makes the person sound somewhat sadistic. If the person were truly and deeply compassionate then maybe they would watch their words a little more carefully or at least bother to correct themselves before making such a statement that would cause people to be offended.

And oh yea Maus, Boxer is a kickass senator :P She's one of the only things I like about California.

Ah I distinctly remember those oldschool episodes. I remember that when I was in high school and I was learning about racism and stereotypes in the U.S. that was the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw the "mammie" image of the black lady that looks after Tom/Jasper the cat. I also remember the little asian imitation he did when he was hit by the trashcan lid, and I remember Jerry looking like a black stereotype when he was electrocuted. I have to say that it was funny at the time, and the image is still funny today, regardless of any stereotyping taking place or not, it was funny as hell, I wasn't laughing because of any cultural influence on it at the time, I was laughing because of the sudden change of features, if they looked like that all the time I wouldn't laugh, but I would laugh if all of a sudden their image changed to something more... caucasian or whatever.

Anyway, those types of things shouldn't be changed simply because they should serve as an educational tool for people to see the way that people though back then and compare it to the way that we think now, not so they can change it and say "oh no, it's wrong, it's all wrong, it never existed" that's just... there's just something wrong with that.

But butts are funny :( at lest cartoon butts are. They show ass on The Simpsons all the time! I swear -.- this is exactly why I want to become a CEO someday, so I can make different decisions than the ones these idiots make. How are you going to compare Peter Griffin's ass with an actual dude in his underwear getting spanked by strippers and licking whipped cream I mean... there are no shades of grey in between.

At 1/17/05 09:20 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Besides, even the most intelligent people can make stupid voting decisions, like voting straight down party lines or writing in silly imaginary candidates like Gilligan, Fred Flintstone, Lyndon LaRouche, or Scooby Doo.

LaRouche? Yeouch, lol I needed that. Funny thing is, I'm on my college campus right now, and there's always a group of LaRouche supporters that set up a table full of LaRouche propaganda about 200ft away from where I am right now and they accost you at every chance they get in order to try and "open your eyes." Frankly I think it just makes people close their ears instead. They're already prepping themselves for 2008. What was embarassing was that LaRouche got less votes than lame-ass Leiberman >.< that's just a damn SHAME!

At 1/18/05 10:41 AM, Uziel wrote: The EC is fine the way it is. If you think it denies democracy, remember that the winner of the popular vote almost always wins the electoral vote aswell. If you feel your vote is wasted when your state goes the other way, it's just because more people in that state support the other guy. It happened to me. And what does it really matter. The system does not favor one candidate over the others.

Almost always is not something we want when it comes to electing the leader of our country and our representative in the eyes of the world for the next four years. Furthermore, how do you know the system doesn't favor one guy over the others? Go ahead and dig some dirt and I guarantee you'll find some scandals or issues with voting. Why do you think people are still claiming voter fraud after the 2004 election? Wait until inaguration day, many people are claiming corruption, and I damn well wouldn't be surprised if there were some. Personally, I have bigger fish to fry though so I'm not all that concerned with that right now.

At 1/18/05 04:30 PM, Tal-con wrote: Hey guys !! I finally show my real picture on Newgrounds, and it's up for photo shop !! Check it out cause i wanna see what fun things you guys can do with it. clicky

Hm :/ there's not much else to do with it, it's already done... unless you add some witty comment(s).

At 1/17/05 08:31 AM, bcdemon wrote:

Unions suck, end of story.

i didn't know they were playing in Europe, that really sucks for us. As for unions, they only suck if they screw you over and you use them wrong. The union can be your best friend when you need it and it helps you out of a tight spot.

At 1/17/05 01:30 PM, LadyGrace wrote:

At 1/17/05 04:16 AM, stafffighter wrote: Reasons I'm still single.

All the same as mine. Without the gay stuff of course.

Well... no offence to you, but in my experience, sweet guys like you usually are attracted to gorgeous bitches. Next time, try and pick up a nerd in the computer lab or something. They'll be more loyal and totally devoted. And there are some damn hot nerdy chicks.

They're all one and the same for me :/ to me the nerdy ones are the hot ones that have that hidden kinky side :( yet they just "want to be friends" and not "friends." gh3y.

At 1/17/05 01:42 PM, Maus wrote: Yeesh. Why do you people choose to be straight, anyway? :P

For the same amount of reasons you choose not to be. Loved the "pussy whipped" pic btw.

At 1/17/05 01:52 PM, HuckleBerryClock wrote: You are born straight, and people who are gay have chosen to follow the ways of the devil. Don't be ignorant.

Omg wtf a clock? I take the "Tabula Raza" theory (blank slate). You are born ignorant, knowing nothing, you become whom and what you are because of your genes and your experiences.

At 1/17/05 02:06 PM, HuckleBerryClock wrote: In what way does me being a clock have ANYTHING to do with me being ignorant or not? I'm sorry, but that's just arrogant fucking bullshit.

Good defense argument, you're a smart one, thank God! I'm sorry if Gooie got the jump on you, he tends to do that... I still remember the first time I posted here :\ Anyway, you shouldn't be surprised of the raction HuckleBerry, the (present) clock reputation precedes you... and that's not necessarily a good thing.

At 1/17/05 02:25 PM, Proteas wrote: I don't know what the brand name is, but there is some kind of hair care thickening agent in Afro-American hair care section of Dollar Store (assuming there is one in L.A.). It's a rub in gel/cream that you use twice a day, AND IT WORKS.

Wtf? Afro-American? In L.A.? Whur he at f00? Wait a sec Proteas... are you salking about "Soul glo" or something? I'm just playing... I'm bored and sleepy, but I'll definitley look into what you said, thank you Proteas.

At 1/17/05 02:44 PM, BeFell wrote: Did you guys ever consider that you can't get girlfriends because you're whiny hippies? Women like real men not vegetarian metrosexuals.

You mean real men with special mormon underwear? Holy crap I better let my beard grow out and turn into an American Grizzly! Don't make me look for that picture of you with the Francais moustache, the unibrow and the beret damnit.

I apologize for another long and tedious post :/ things just got SO INTERESTING! I got absolutely giddy ^>^

At 1/17/05 10:58 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 1/17/05 07:20 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote: Ooooh I'm past my "evil" phase, for now. Back to Neutral.

Fence sitter...

Pardon my ignorance but... how the hell does that constitute sitting on a fence?

At 1/16/05 10:40 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote: But then there's the simple fact that criminals don't acquire guns legally in the first place. Stricter gun laws only affect people that want to legally own firearms. You think a gang member gives a shit what the exact legal language is when his firearm is already unlicensed and unregistered? People that want to legally own BMGs need to have federal criminal background checks, and whatnot - you think all those gang member you see with guns actually submitted to background checks to get them?

Yes that crossed my mind while I was writing what I wrote, however I just let it slide for no particular reason, I'm glad you caught it though. Wouldn't stricter gun laws also mean that people who carry guns illegaly, even if they're legal in the state, but they're not licensed to them, would face stronger convictions? I know that strict gun laws apply to owners of guns using them illegally, but wouldn't it be stricter on people using guns that are legal in the state, yet aren't registered to them? The gang members don't have to be checked to own the gun, the own it illegally, therefore the gun law would be stricter on said person. I'm way too sleepy, come to think of it, if anyone is caught in the state of California with the .50 caliber, they'd all be punished about the same though eh? Because the gun is illegal either way. I was trying to make an argument about other guns that are legal within the state, but I'm just gonna go to bed instead.

At 1/16/05 06:06 AM, Thelonius wrote:

At 1/16/05 05:36 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote: a half-assed argument while he was half-awake.

Congratulations, I think you just made the most worthless argument ever.

Congratulations I think you've just succeeded in being obvious. So I haven't slept well in a couple of days, and not all my arguments turn out picture-perfect, my aplogies, your magesty.

At 1/16/05 02:43 PM, Taxman2A wrote: Although I don't mention it that often, I am a Marine Officer who is in charge of a communications platoon.

That was all I needed to read in order to disprove what I said, all the rest of your argument was surplus. I read the rest of it though, and thank you for clarifying it. You do a much better job at not putting people down or stating the obvious unlike Thelonious over there.

Ooooh I'm past my "evil" phase, for now. Back to Neutral.

I derived another issue out of the current one in the "$10,000 for pretend mooning?" thread in case any of ya'll are interested.

If I may contribute something to the whole hair-line receiting thing, I'm going bald as well :( with every passing day I feel like I have less and less hair >.< damn faulty genes. Does anyone have any solution or suggestion that doesn't already involve Rogaine?

At 1/16/05 07:08 PM, Jimsween wrote: Randy Moss is an asshole. He hit some meter maid with his car and drove for like 5 miles with her on the hood. He barely plays football, theres some stupid joke abotu a dollar and randy moss and 4 quarters but I dont remember it.

He hit a meter maid? Wtg Randy Moss, I'd probably hit a meter maid, if she was being an asshole with me, like all of the ones I've spoken to have been in the past, and without good reason, but I would rather not get into that. I don't like being mean :\

After reading the replies in here (and they were a lot more replies than I thought this topic would recieve, and from a lot more smarter people than I thought would pay attention, thank you regs, snd such) I have stumbled upon another issue stemming from sports and players.

The issue I speak of is the Hockey "lock outs" in which the NHL is on a lock out of sorts, no games are hosted and such. Is it just me or does it seem like players (of all sports) recently care more about the wage than about the game? Wouldn't a player with a real passion be playing for the love of the game rather than for the pay? I mean... they get paid to play... that's all they're doing... is playing, sometimes, no, a lot of times not even to the best of their abilities. The only time I ever see players play to the best of their abilities is during huge events like championships or the All Star games, and even then there are some players that'll just choke in those types of situations (like Kobe did last NBA season). I find the whole situation of the players, and their need to be paid vast sums of money in order to play games, somewhat (if not completely) stupid. What do you think on this issue?

I'm in a bit of a dark mood today, don't know why... Anyway, I don't know about you guys but, don't you think this might be a bit of heavy fine for making an example of someone. Sure Randy Moss thinks that 10K isn't anything but... is it just me or does the sports media seem to love making an exaggeration out of black people doing things? Remember Janet Jackson's boob incident and the huge comotion over that? Now Randy Moss's "pretend mooning" he didn't even really moon the Packer audience, what the hell is that about? Ah well, different strokes for different folks I guess.

At 1/16/05 04:53 AM, Taxman2A wrote: It doesn't matter how the "troops were thinking", all that matters was how his chain of command chose to deal with the situation. If the command would have pursued it, he would have gone to Iraq, it's that simple.

The chain of command didn't pursue it, and it might have been for the reason you gave, and it might not have been, you don't know for sure, unless you're an officer that makes those kinds of decisions, if you are then I will unquestionably believe you because you're the person that makes the decision, but until then your suggestion remains as a "what if" statement.

And yes BeFell anyone who doesn't read a leganly-binding contract (especially when it puts your life on the line) might not be considered smart, thus might not even really be qualified to be college material in the first place.