Submit an Article | Bookmarked Articles

Viewing Articles About All - Page 28

How Poor People Live.	June 24, 2006, 5:02AM
by: MrMikeyRisin
I wish I could take credit for this but it is off of Victor Wooten's website. One day a father of a very wealthy family took his son on a trip to the country with the firm purpose of showing his son how poor people live. They spent a couple of days and nights on the farm of what would be considered a very poor family. On their return from their trip, the father asked his son, "How was the trip?" "It was great, Dad." "Did you see how poor people live?" the father asked. "Oh yeah," said the son. "So, tell me, what did you learn from the trip?" asked the father.! The son answered: "I saw that we have one dog and they had four. We have a pool that reaches to the middle of our garden and they have a creek that has no end. We have imported lanterns in our garden and they have the stars at night. Our patio reaches to the front yard and they have the whole horizon. We have a small piece of land to live on and they have fields that go beyond our sight. We have servants who serve us, but they serve others. We buy our food, but they grow theirs. We have walls around our property to protect us, they have friends to protect them." The boy's father was speechless. Then his son added, "Thanks, Dad, for showing me how poor we are."
topic: Philosophy
[reply] [8 comments]

Prejudice and Acceptance	June 17, 2006, 11:44PM
by: lovelette81
Prejudice is something that is hidden in all of us. Even the most liberal people have a secret part of them that judges others. This is normal and part of human nature. But what is not normal is letting prejudice rule you. There are many good people on this website who are kind, well-read, well-spoken, and very nice to talk to. But there are also people on here that let prejudice rule their lives. You can recognize those people right away. Their dislikes section is far larger than their likes section. They claim to hate: wiggers, cutters, preps, emos, rap, Christians, parents, scenesters, juggalos, and injustice. It's it so ironic that they claim to hate injustice and prejudice, but they claim to hate whole groups of people based on stereotypes and limited experiences with those types of people. The people who claim to dislike preps or emos or wiggers may meet someone like that who they really empathize with, and they may even build a friendship. And while I'm on the subject, what is a wigger anyway? A white person who embraces 'black culture.' What is black culture? Is it all about rap music, baggy pants and bling? Is that all it takes to be a wigger? Than what does it mean if there's a black person who chooses not to embrace those things? Does it make them any less of what they are? No. So, really the whole wigger putdown is just a continuation of racial stereotypes. Just be who you are and don't let anyone judge you. Do what makes you happy. Listen to the music you like, wear the clothes you enjoy, and be friends with the people you love regardless of what other people think. And to the judgemental people, if you used all of that energy to love and understand people instead of mocking them and hating them, the world might be a better place.
topic: Life
[reply] [7 comments]

Spitting into the wind on Immigration	June 14, 2006, 5:32PM
by: Cure
Fuss in Washington notwithstanding, there's an easy way to reduce illegal immigration. It doesn't involve building fences or spending hundreds of billions to create an intrusive bureaucracy to hunt down illegals one by one and deport them. Just introduce a fraud-proof national ID card with biometric information; make it illegal, with real penalties, for employers to hire anyone, citizen or immigrant, who doesn't have one. Presto. Businesses would no longer be able to profess the impossibility of judging who's legal and who isn't. Most of the jobs illegal immigrants do would disappear, and many if not most of the immigrants would leave for the same reason they came--better opportunities elsewhere. Before we go down this road, however, would we really like the consequences? With 12 million illegals in the country, whole sectors of our economy exist only because of immigrant labor. Farms would shut down along with jobs for suppliers of seeds, packaging and ancillary services. Jobs for waiters, maître d's and chefs would vanish, not just those of immigrant busboys, kitchen hands and cleaners. Some 1.2 million illegals are believed to work in construction. If the cost of home building goes up, demand goes down: Less wood is sold, fewer nails, fewer power tools, fewer pickup trucks. Contractors would make less profit; ergo, Harley-Davidson would sell fewer Road Kings with all the chrome and finery. Armchair wonks say, "Enforce the law and damn the consequences." Every time the government does, however, a few of those couch warriors suddenly become vocal activists on the other side. It's their employer, their brother-in-law, their neighbor who finds himself facing criminal charges. It's their house that doesn't get finished. Don't be surprised if some of the latest politically inspired crackdowns end the same way. Blowback in the Cincinnati area is already growing against the arrest last month of four foremen for Fischer Homes, a well-liked local home builder. In search of a respectable argument, liberal enthusiasts for a border clampdown have lately adopted the obnoxious and condescending reification of "unskilled labor" popularized by some economists. It may be true in some sense that illegals hold down the wages of low-wage workers, but it tells you nothing useful. It tells you only that the supply of immigrant workers has an impact on the wages of mostly immigrant workers for jobs that mostly would not exist if immigrant workers weren't available to fill them. The very category "unskilled labor" is misleading. Any American worker, however backward, has one important skill advantage over most illegal immigrants: English. And all workers have a skill that leads to more skills: They can learn. In turn, a decently functioning job market rewards people for acquiring skills, not for remaining unskilled--perverse is the idea of wanting to reduce labor competition for unskilled jobs in order to make unskilled jobs more desirable. OK, let's ban unskilled immigrants altogether. Let's welcome all the doctors and engineers who want to come but reserve the no-skill jobs for Americans. Let's make it so attractive for Americans not to acquire skills that we can close our schools. Think of the money we'd save. If this is crazy, it's only so because of the crazy premise. Immigrant workers are a resource--no economy is better off for taking resources away. Mexicans--let's admit this is largely about the Mexican wave--have crossed the border for jobs ever since there was a border. And amnesty was once routine because the statute of limitations on illegal entry ran out in five years. If the hypocrisy of our current system bothers you--and it should, because it allows workers to come and toil for us without granting them legal status--it's no denigration of the idea of law and lawfulness to admit to ourselves we have a bad law on our hands. What's a better approach? Even guest worker solutions are artful fudgery--a guest worker won't go home any more reliably than an illegal will. So how about just open the door to anyone willing to put down a refundable entry deposit (say, $2,000) in return for a biometric work card? At a stroke, this would take the profit out of a vast underground industry. Chinese "snakeheads" cadge upwards of $40,000 per illegal immigrant. Latin "coyotes" get $2,000 or more. Not to mention the sizeable business done by document forgers and traffickers in stolen Social Security numbers. This deposit could be charged off against future income tax liability (note, not payroll taxes), an incentive for immigrants to stay legal and move up into the bracket-worthy classes. It could be refunded when they leave the country--an incentive to return home if jobs become scarce in the U.S. Polls say Americans want immigration cut down and they don't want amnesty for illegals, yet the Senate just passed an immigration reform that would increase immigration and proffer amnesty. The system works!--at least it works better than it did when Congress jumped off a cliff with the Volstead Act, knowing that though Americans liked the idea of liquor prohibition, they'd end up hating the consequences. This doesn't please the border warriors, but they're spitting into the wind. In his table talk, a certain German dictator observed that religions have far more stability than states, which tend to come and go, swept away by the tides of history. The U.S., a young nation but already one of the world's longest-lived political states, has a chance to beat the odds thanks to our freedom from any of the usual fatal exclusivisms. But it will have to accept that it exists on a continent whose fastest-growing cultural force is Spanish speakers.
topic: Rants
[reply] [29 comments]

The concequence of change	June 10, 2006, 11:49AM
by: Murderous_Breeze
Ive been on this earth for almost 18 years now, not nearly long enough to understand even %3 percent of it, but the one thing i understand about this society and world we live in, is that we do not need to understand anything. This article is going to be complicated maybe to some of the readers, its whats been on my mind lately, and i thought to express it as easy as i can. Well since the dawning of civilization, we as humans have been interested in understanding and learning our surrounding environment, i think its called evolution. We try to give our ideas to one another in order for the problem to be fixed, sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesnt, and when it does work, the people get labeled in history as great heroes and thinkers, but when it doesnt, we get put in the section of a nazi leader im sure you all know of. But one thing ive been thinking about is that, their is no need to understand this world and its true purpose and way of existance, alot of you may say it will with future problems and we can expand our knowledge of science and math. As we humans evolve we get smarter and more stupid at the same time, we unlock parts of our brain but also we unlock the true meaning of ignorance and we INTEND to destroy the land around us and the people inside, then we are forced to deal with the problems that we had created, and create new problems, a ever circle of screw ups. Where am i going with this you may ask? Well its simple, i have read alot of articles and re-read even my one about masonry and realised something very crucial to our existance, we should stop and think about what we really are doing. Alot of people out their dont believe that one person can make a difference, that if one person stands up among the rest of them and says "NO! thats wrong!" then he is silly, but it all starts with one person, that one person is the spark that the fuse needs to be lit. We must all look at the concequence of all our actions, maybe good, maybe bad. Giving that homeless guy that looks like a junkie that extra 5 dollars for his next hit makes you think you have done good, but in reality you have just given him less time to live. I find this article very important, alot of you will not, but i hope you atleast think about this. My main points here are this: Evolution can be a miraculous and sometimes marvel of a spectacle in modern life and future assurance of our preservation of life, but is it really going to save us? or destroy us? their are millions of animals out their and plant life that are facing extinction, you hear about it on the news, but people get sick of it, thinking its not a big thing, but it really is happening. We are changing for the worst, and we as individuals need to stop it, not try to understand it. Secondly. And this is probably the most important part of this article, and these will be my closing statements. Treat others the way you wish to be treated, give a hand to those who have lost a hand, give hope to those who have been raped of it, give a life to those in need of one.
topic: Life
[reply] [0 comments]

Elvis Presley: King of Controversy	June 4, 2006, 4:53PM
by: lovelette81
"His music is made by cretinous goons singing sly, lewd, in plain fact, dirty lyrics. It manages to be the martial music of every delinquent on the face of the earth. It is the most brutal, ugly, desperate form of expression it has been my misfortune to hear."(A quote made by Frank Sinatra, Manson 245) It's hard to believe that this person is speaking about Elvis Presley, but not too long ago, Elvis was considered to be very controversial. People saw him as a threat to the American way of life--racial isolation, sexual repression, and fear of the unfamiliar--and did everything that they could to ban him and his music. The media did as much as possible to undermine his success. Some of the more popular musical artists in the early 1950's were Frank Sinatra, Patti Page, Perry Como, Vera Lyn, and Bing Crosby. (wikipedia.org) Their music reflected the ideals of the time; their songs were mellow, family-friendly, and non-threatening. Teenagers listened to Hit Parade, which bowdlerized the more popular songs of the time to make sure that nothing improprietous corrupted their innocent youth. The most popular musical styles of the day were torch songs, country, and big band jazz. Bebop and R&B (which was still called "race music") were still relatively unknown to most people. "Race music" was a general term used to describe music created by Black artists. Blues, jazz, soul, and gospel were all lumped together under this term and White America, was for the most part, isolated from Black music. In such a time of segregation, the only way that Black music could gain popularity is if it were anglicized by a popular White musician. Singers like Pat Boone made their whole living off of whitewashing Black music. (wikipedia) People were still too racist to fully accept a Black artist, but music producers knew that Black music had the possibility to become popular--as long as a white man was singing it. "If I could just find a white man who had the Negro sound and the Negro feel, I could make a million dollars"(Szlatmary 54) In 1954, Elvis Presley recorded "That's Alright." Strongly influenced by Black artists, he achieved the sound that the producer was looking for. "When Moore, the lead guitarist, heard the playback, he was shocked. He told the bassist, Bill Black, that he feared the racially ambiguous sound slamming out of the speaker would spark local outrage in the segregated city of 300,000 and possibly generate enough denunciation to drive the group out of town"(White 47) Moore was right to be concerned. When "That's Alright" was aired on the radio people's feelings ranged from bewildered to outraged. Almost immediately after the song stopped, people began to call the radio station. "The largely White audience was accustomed to hearing Black artists and even some white performers adapting Black fare to their own discreet idioms. But the lean, shiversome energy of "That's All Right" was unnerving in its newness."(White 51) The song was a blend of country and traditional Black music--rockabilly. Tim White described it as being the "death knell of segregation and the seed of an agonized orgy of national self-hatred and cultural shame," but that was a huge overstatement. People were extremely reluctant to accept rockabilly music in a time when ambiguities of all kinds were suspect. Elvis knew that his style was imitative of Black music, and unlike other musicians of the time, did not perpetrate the pretense that he had no influences. "The colored folks been singing it and playing it just like I'm doin' now, man. Down in Tupelo, I used to heard old Arthur Crudup bang his box the way I do now, and I said if I ever got to the place where I could feel all old Arthur felt, I'd be a music man like nobody ever saw."(Elvis, webinfoctrac) People were threatened by the emergence of Black music into popular culture, and Black musicians were angry that their style was being stolen. Elvis Presley's most popular song, "Hound Dog" was stolen from Big Mama Thornton. It was her only claim to fame, holding the number one spot in the Billboard Music R&B chart for nine weeks. Black musicians were outraged and Laverne Baker even petitioned to change copyright laws so that White musicians couldn't cover songs by Black musicians (classicbands.com) White people were unaccepting of rockabilly music as well. Encyclopedia Britannica, with obvious racism, referred to rock n' roll music as "jungle music."(author unknown, digitialdreamdoor.com) Parents were afraid of how it might influence their children, and ethnocentrics took it as proof that Black people were trying to take over the world. The only people who seemed to enjoy it were teenagers, especially the girls. The 1950's were a time of sexual repression. Everything was expected to be wholesome and free of anything even remotely suggestive. If it wasn't it was banned, boycotted, or destroyed. But Elvis wasn't wholesome, and girls loved him for it. "A sneering, rebellious expression covered Presley's face. The singer grabbed a microphone as though he was going to wrench it from its metal base, and he barked, snarled, whimpered, and shouted into it."(Szlatmary 32) Elvis was different than other musical artists of the time. He showed passion in his performance. He was wild compared to the other performers and that's what made girls notice him. "The extreme reaction to Presley came from teens, especially teenaged girls who had just reached adolescence. They perceived him as a sexual call to arms."(Szlatmary 33) Parents, reporters, and critics were all frightened and a bit horrified by the way girls reacted to him. They went wild when they saw him, fainting and rushing the stage. Some girls even attacked him at his concerts. "On July 4, 1955 fans shredded Presley's pink shirt and tore the shoes from his feet. One female admirer suffered a gash in her leg at the concert. 'But who cares if it left a scar,' she told a reporter. 'I got it trying to see Elvis and I'm proud of it.'"(Szlatmary 33) An even bigger source of consternation was Elvis' dancing. His bumping and grinding was considered to be inconceivably obscene. It drew so much protest that when he appeared on television, they cameras only shot him from the waist up. Reporters had a field day. "From watching Elvis Presley, it is evident that his skill lies in another direction. He is a rock and roll variation of one of the most standard acts in show business; the virtuoso of the hootchy-kootchy. The gyration never had anything to do with the world of popular music and still doesn't."(Hopkins 97) Cosmo magazine described Elvis as "behaving like a sex maniac in public"(wikipedia.com) and one clergyman called Elvis' dancing "the whirling dervish of sex."(Webinfoctrac) Critics accused him of being uncouth and uncivilized. A music critic in 1956 was disgusted by "the sight of young Mr. Presley caterwauling his unintelligible lyrics in an inadequate voice, during a display of primitive movement difficult to describe in terms suitable to a family newspaper."(Webinfoctrac) Elvis was even accused of trying to corrupt children. "It is at an age when the awareness of sex is both thoroughly natural and normal. But what is new is the willingness of reputable businessmen to exploit these critical factors beyond all reasonable grounds. When Presley executes his bumps and grinds, even the twelve year old's curiosity may be over stimulated."(Hopkins 98) Elvis Presley was simply too controversial for such a repressed culture. Magazines wrote articles on him, calling him a jailbird or a dope peddler. They attacked his diction, the quality of his voice, his movement. (Hopkins 98) He was met with even more disapproval by religious people. Elvis was seen as the "King of Sin" by religious authorities. As soon as he appeared on the Ed Sullivan show, Catholics began to boycott both Elvis Presley and the Ed Sullivan Show. A newspaper article was written about it. "Presley and his voodoo of frustration and defiance have become symbols of our country and we are sorry to come upon Ed Sullivan in the role of promoter. Your Catholic viewers, Mr. Sullivan, are angry." (Hopkins 101) A Minneapolis-based Catholic youth magazine launched a campaign for "clean lyrics in pop songs" and targeted Elvis Presley's "Wear My Ring around Your Neck" because it promoted going steady. (classicbands.com) People became even more upset when Elvis released his Christmas album. They felt that to have such an evil person singing religious songs was sacrilege. His album was banned by many radio stations. One disk jockey was fired for playing Elvis Presley's version of "White Christmas."(classicbands.com) When a disk jockey in Canada heard how many radio stations were banning Elvis' Christmas album, he played the entire album on air and incited listeners to call in and tell him their opinion. Out of eight-hundred callers, only fifty-six found the album offensive. (classicbands.com) In actuality, Elvis was a deeply religious man. There's an anecdote that Elvis was giving a concert and at the end, a woman walked up to him and put a crown on his head and said "You're the King!" Elvis took the crown off of his head and said "No, honey. I'm not the King. Christ is the King. I'm just a singer."(wikipedia.org) "Elvis illustrates the fine line in traditional Southern culture between Puritanism and hedonism, between blues shouting and gospel singing, between Saturday night and Sunday morning." (Reed, webinfoctrac) Despite his popularity, Elvis was a deeply religious man. Sociologist, John Reed said "Aside from the way he moved his lower-body, he was a gospel singing mama's boy." (Reed, webinfoctrac) People were weary of rock n' roll in general, not just Elvis Presley. They were afraid of the reactions it caused and its suggestive undertones. "Tin Pan Alley has unleashed a new monster, a sort of nightmare of rhythm. Some of our new disk jockeys have put emotional TNT on their turntables. Rock n' roll gives young hoodlums an excuse to get together. It inflames teenagers and is obscenely suggestive."(Hopkins 99) The man who spoke these words seems to have a point. There were, and still are, many riots at rock n' roll concerts. Alan Freed organized the first rock n' roll concert for March 21, 1952 and there were massive riots. (wikipedia.org) Six years later, Alan Freed was indicted for inciting a riot when the audience stormed the stage at a concert he was promoting. (digitaldreamdoor.com) When Bill Haley and the Comets toured Europe in 1957, there were violent riots and there were frequent riots at the Orioles concerts in 1949 (digitaldreamdoor.com) When Elvis Presley performed at the Mississippi-Alabama fair in 1956, a hundred National Guardsmen surrounded the stage so that they could control the crowd. (wikipedia.org) A rock and roll show in Connecticut was cancelled because authorities were afraid that there would be riots too aggressive for the police to control. Later on, the state of Connecticut banned rock concerts entirely. (digitaldreamdoor.com) A lot of people saw censorship as the solution for the problems being caused by rock n' roll, so radio stations became even stricter about what could and could not be played on the air. Many communities banned the playing of rock n' roll not only on the radio but in any public setting. (digitaldreamdoor.com) When a radio station in Alabama received over 15,000 complaint letters about "dirty records" being plated on the air, they promised they would censor all controversial music, especially R&B and rock n' roll. (classicbands.com) The managers at a St. Louis radio station completely banned rock and roll music. The disk jockey's gave every record a "farewell spin" and then smashed all of the records into pieces. Robert Convey, the station manager, called the action "a simple weeding out of undesirable music." (classicbands.com) In a time of sexual repression, rigid social rules, racial segregation, intolerance of anything considered controversial, and strict religious policies, Elvis Presley was considered wild, out of control, and a threat to every moral code America held dear. Critics denounced him, parents feared him, priests condemned him, boys emulated him, and girls lusted for him. He was a symbol for all of the things they feared; sexual abandon, hedonism. He was a threat to the racial divides as well. It's for those reasons that Elvis Presley was banned, boycotted, and loved.
topic: Essays
[reply] [6 comments]

Live. Learn. Listen	June 3, 2006, 8:27PM
by: untold truth
Ok so before you read this know that this essay was written for my challenge and change class and we had to write on some particular scenes from the movie "Waking Life" if you haven't seen it yet, you should. it's a kickass movie. And now the essay. The first scene I chose was the one where the guy sets himself on fire. I think this scene talks about chaos and how man seems to crave it, that I almost completely agree with. Since the dawn of the human race there has been violence. The caveman could beat another caveman because he stole his food. And then later on we progressed into wars with each other, because the other person was wrong in how they viewed life. People do come up with brilliant ideas that could really help out the world, but then in the end, it just goes to hell in a hand basket. I mean, Hitler came in and tried to take over the world and create a “perfect race”, and that was a bad idea. The concept I think came from good intentions, but then he went overboard and killed people because they didn’t fit into his mold of the “perfect” person. That just blew the idea out the window. But the concept that started the idea was good, to have everyone united, people would not have to fight or go to war, a place where everyone got along and there was no need for useless death. And then he went crazy and killed people, and in doing so helped to prove my point that man cannot seem to live without chaos. I think it’s the shock-and-awe system that gets peoples attention. And I don’t mean the war tactic, I mean shocking people into reality. Showing then that what is happening is wrong and it needs to be fixed. Things like Gandhi fasting to the point of death, the student protest in Tiananmen Square, pictures from Auschwitz, the Nazi concentration camps for the Jews during WW2, things like these are moments that force people to stop and think about what is going on in the world, they force them to think about the chaos and horrors in the world. The media can play a part in society that’s beneficial for everyone. They can let us know about the things that are wrong in the world, the things we need to fix, but they can also take that power and totally abuse it. It’s a fact that black crimes have gone down a considerable amount but the media still over-sensationalizes the crimes and shows black crimes something like 1000% more then what is actually happening in the world. I think that the media is an outlet for this craving of chaos and it helps to sate the thirst for destruction that we seem to need to get by in life. The media is a way for us to get used to the idea that there are evils out there and they can’t all be beaten, and evil sometimes does win. Life is not a romance novel where the good guys win and the bad guys fail, it’s not the way it is. So people use the media as a way to get us used to the idea that we can’t always win. It also shows us the useless pissing contests between countries that end up in war, but its shown in a way that will make us hate the country who threatens our “morals” and it shows us in a way that keeps us patriotic to our country. Most wars are pointless; it’s just a waste of life. But then again, there are sometimes where someone needs to step in and say “um..hello?! This is wrong and stupid.” Take Hitler again. His concept, good, but after he went crazy, war was needed to stop him. So although a lot of the wars are pointless there are times where it is needed to prevent further destruction and chaos. Back to the media… it disconnects us from society, making tragedy seem like something surreal. The media portrays the downfall of the human race as something that is just to be observed, not fixed. They show us exactly what is going on, how we are destroying our selves, and how we are damaging the very place in which we live, and we still do nothing about it. Why?? Shouldn’t we care about stuff like that? Shouldn’t we want to fix where we are going wrong? Isn’t that what we should be doing? It seems that the only way to get some attention from people is to do something extreme to prove your point. NOT something that affects other people, like bombing a building or shooting someone, but to yourself, to make an example of yourself for the world to take notes on. The guy who set himself on fire was doing just that. He was proving his point to the world. He was sending everyone a message, because that was the only way that he could get his voice heard. So it seems that the saying “actions speak louder then words” is true. Words just can’t communicate the way that actions can, especially body language. Body language is a key part to all of human existence. Our bodies can tell a story even when no words are spoken. Things like stress, happiness, exhaustion will show. When you are feeling a certain emotion, oftentimes people can tell, because of your body language. And when you just can’t say the words, you can find an action to help get your point across, a gesture, a piece of artwork. Everything can become a symbol if you just look and see the possibilities. Now the train guy got me to thinking, we all go through life thinking that we have everything figured out and our world is set in stone, but in the dream state, we can’t always control what happens. It’s a non-definitive state of being, where there is no real time and no real space that we can say is concrete. So if we are so hell bent on control, then why haven’t we jumped into the dream world to try and control what happens there? Why haven’t we devoted money to science labs to figure out what’s going on and how to control it? I think it’s because we try not to think of the dream world as something that we can dominate and control where we have someway to let ourselves just be free. It makes sense, at least to me, that we would want some place where we could go and just do whatever we please and not have anyone say anything about it. The dream world is about the only place we have left to go to keep away from all the pressures of life. Also, while in a dream state, we can figure things out that we don’t understand in the living world. Our sub-conscious helps us solve problems that we can’t figure out when we are awake. We often travel through situations in our dreams that help us realize the answer to the problems we are currently having in our daily lives. I’ve heard people say that they never dream at all, but in actual fact, most people have about 100 dreams a night, you just don’t remember them. But when you wake up in the morning, after a sleep where you apparently didn’t have any dreams, sometimes you can fix a situation that you couldn’t the day before. This could be because you were figuring out the solution in the dream world. I think that we have to live in the moment, everyday of our lives because life is just bringing us down, and we’re all drowning. People in general seem to crave that instant when everything is real, we all want a real moment with real people where we are seen for ourselves and we’re not disconnected anymore. For major parts in our lives, in things like school for example, nothing but a minimal robot reaction is required of us. Solve the problem. Write this out. Sit there and listen. There are few times when a real reaction occurs. We have to be able to expand our minds and let ourselves be free if even for a moment. We have to be able to open ourselves up and look at everything and take everything in so we can break free from the robot reactions and live free for a moment. We seem to live for those kinds of moments instead of actually having them. Those moments that we catch are small and in between, because we, as the human race, tend over-rationalize things. When we begin to rationalize, we ruin these precious moments because we lose that sense of freedom. We try to think over what is happening to us instead of just letting the moment happen, which is why those moments are so fast and fleeting. When we try to tell people about our experiences we never know if it gets across. Words are a form of our expressions to each other. We make sounds to tell each other about what is happening or what is about to happen, we talk to communicate. When we talk, we try to feel some kind of connection with the other person. We want some kind of spiritual bonding to take place so that we know that the other person understands where we are coming from. But can they really understand? I mean, yes, they must have some kind of pre-existing notion of what we are talking about, but I don’t think its possible for them to understand exactly how we feel, because it’s a deeply personal thing that just can’t be shared with words. Although you would think that it would break us apart, it most often brings us together. Men and women each have their own form of language. Both are very opposite in how they communicate, but those differences frequently compliment each other in a way so well that we can understand each other better. They each have different ideas on what things like love and war are like; they each have different opinions on how the world should work. In the end, it’s that difference that brings us together. It’s that separation that brings us closer. If we all thought the same, that might be a bit boring. So, our differences compliment each other and bring us closer together. In any kind of relationship, we want that kind of connection that brings us closer. We want to be able to communicate and be understood, and although the kind of understanding that someone wants could only be done through telepathy, we still want someone to be there for us, we want someone there who will make sure that we are ok. We want some sort of transcendence through our words, something that will take us higher then we’ve ever been before. That’s why the relationships we build with people is so important, we need that feeling of safety and protection, but we also need that feeling of exhilaration that we get when we connect with people. So whether you take your graces form Gandhi or your parents, try to make the best of your life that you can. “Try to be the best you” as my mother said, which means trying to do something and working hard at it. Make an example of yourself for those around you. If you don’t have the guts to do something extreme like fasting to the point of death or lighting yourself on fire, just live your life to the best of your ability. Live as an example for those around you so that, if they choose, they might pick up on it and live their lives possibly for the better. I think that by living your life by making honest connections with people and having those free moments that you can cherish, is one of the best ways to live. You have to try and be yourself, and if you screw up once in a while, who cares. Creation comes from imperfection. The mistakes and the cracks in our lives can make our relationships with those we are close with better. Some people even say that mistakes are the Divine’s intervention, saying that it wasn’t the way to go. So either way, shit happens, you’ll get over it. Live. Learn. Listen. That’s all that counts.
topic: Essays
[reply] [6 comments]

The Da Vinci Code- book and movie	May 30, 2006, 5:13PM
by: XangelXmysticsX
I watched this movie with the book fresh on my mind, as I had finished the book three days before I saw the movie. The book was magnificent. The movie, in comparison, was not so good. Where the book made the main female character an intelligent equal to the two main male characters, the movie made the female ignorant, and one of the men knew everything. Where the book made some of the characters innocent but misguided, the movie made them out right bad guys. The ending of the movie was drastically different than that of the book. If the movie had have been made BY THE BOOK, it would have equaled "The Passion" in the awe factor. I do like the movie ending slightly better than the book ending. The movie- as if I'd never read the book: Outstanding! A little bit of action, some blood, and a lot of subtitles. A typical Ron Howard film, actually. (Side note- whodathunk- little Opie making an anti church movie?) Leaves you on the edge of your seat wondering what's next, whodunnit, and why? The book: Great mystery novel. Dan Brown is a bit of a genius. He weaved bits and peices of truth in with a plot and story line and came up with something that the Catholic church boycotted! (Ironically, the book talks about the Catholic Church covering up history... then they boycot. I find that hilarious.) As I was reading, I was trying to figure out all of the clues just as hard as the main characters were. It's understandable that so many thought this book was non fiction. Dan Brown must have done quite a bit of research for this book.
topic: Movie Reviews
[reply] [3 comments]

Music - no biological imperative? *and* it's kinda useless? Hm.	May 25, 2006, 3:29PM
by: sonicdemonic
I don't know much about music, other than these few details of its history, which have made the differences all the world round for the way we hear the seventh degree flattened, for instance. Would-be martinets take heed! Nothing can pillage a system quite like those who **pillaged** a system - in the old days, when cutthroat courtesy and the sweep of a ballroom gown, the murky howl from the black-and-white set perched under the lightbulb, cased by peeling paint walls and St. Cecilia's fading portraiture, arranged for our distinct viewing pleasure - (oh, sonique, you ramble, playing at capriccios!) - well, in the old days, when all that would have commanded some respect..!). Well. We owe it to ourselves to strip away all the music that started its life outside the composers' minds, on paper, as a pure abstraction, and ended by degradation in concert hall and drawing room (surely what happened to Schubert's beautiful Fantasia in F minor, for four hands (at one piano) - reduced, in Scriabin's sneering estimate (and sexual snobbery) as "music fit for girls to practice together" (some feminist theorists have - whether rightly or not I know not - claimed this to be Scriabin's unconscious statement of the Fantasy Involving Two Women that allegedly stalks all men. But more on the surface, surely Scriabin's view reflects the degree of disdain repeated hearings, unintelligent, uninspired hearings, made on its audience as well.? Thank god for the anti-sentimentalist wreath that wrapped the world with the rumblings of the Hitlerian menace! It went hard at winning the Second World War and the Cold War after, in the process winning back Schubert from the enemy! Sentimental no longer, now Schubert was the young suffering poet of song, of the Winterreise! Ah, Schubert..! Now we celebrated you too much, you and your death at 31, for all the over-SENTIMENTAL reasons..! Is it true a hundred noble countesses claimed you died in their arms? Nonsense! We'll never learn how to be musical like this. Tally ho, lads! Tip top! All that! Post-war, tempi were clipped, rhythms mechanical, music was ordered to a high degree. Strands of disorder began to occur in the 50s avant-garde with the young Ligeti. (The old Ligeti, now in his 80s, is helping us rediscover sentimentality again, go figure!) Sexually our parents burned in their teenage years but really wanted to go at it to prove their dreary parents and that fucking missionary position wrong once and for all. And now? In European/American Art Music since 1200, we can point to some definite high points: The invention of the Trine. Dissonance. Resolution of dissonance. Metric irregularity. The development of the musical phrase so plastic, so textured that it could be stretched or shrunk without suffering any cogency or aesthetic value? (of course, it helps if such a phrase could please be palindromic, at least numerically if not pitchwise..! But distort one end in the first half of the pd, and distort in an opposite direction the opposite end in the last half of the pd. Now we have a mirror palindrome in which the nature of the reflection itself has been mirrored. If, for instance, the distortion were "turn white", the mirror would show the image turning black. The mirror, as metaphor, can no longer be a mirror. It can only be the unseen hand of the craftsman, changing the scenery from within - not a reflection, but a live, active tableau with an inner life in miniature. This is why I like the Mazurkas of Chopin, but even more so his crystalline Preludes. That is a self reverential construct if ever there were one. "The canon is good because it says it's good". It's frankly in love with itself, isn't it, and mathematically pretty creaky too. So what if it sounds good - and here I agree. Sounding good is not enough. How the lines interact on paper, and the printing style - the look - of the piece lie together, well, now, that's just SUGAR. A canon valuable only because it states its own value is not a cannon after all, but a popgun ;). Let he who has ears to ear... decline. Musica Fichta! O Cecilia, salve musica! Salve me! Salve nos! Inner symmetry begets outer value, or so they wanted us to believe, those older masters. If we composers were expected to work from the inside out, to dine literally within, in the servants' dining-quarters with the commonfolk, how were we to avoid Schopenhauer's conviction? "...you cannot do better than accustom yourself to regard this world as a penitentiary, a sort of a penal colony, or [Greek: ergastaerion] as the earliest philosopher called it." "Amongst the evils of a penal colony is the society of those who form it; and if the reader is worthy of better company, he will need no words from me to remind him of what he has to put up with at present. If he has a soul above the common, or if he is a man of genius, he will occasionally feel like some noble prisoner of state, condemned to work in the galleys with common criminals; and he will follow his example and try to isolate himself." His point, though, is that acknowledging existence as a sort of purgatory, or penitentiary, is important because: "this view of life will enable us to contemplate the so-called imperfections of the great majority of men, their moral and intellectual deficiencies and the resulting base type of countenance, without any surprise, to say nothing of indignation; for we shall never cease to reflect where we are" Schopenhauer's conviction that we should see ourselves as superior, well, we found that tasteful! But the latter portions almost seem dreary, we long for the upward push of the might Philologist Friedriche, decades ahead. That striving for will..! Alongside the powerful sweep of the historical channel and tide that is the centuries' accumulated swirling force, a new force is emerging, making use of its own tonalities and in Eastern European and certain African cases, exceeding any Western template of the previous 1300 years in complexity. Pop music. But all these things lie ahead. Following will be a brief history and timeline of Western music since 1100 C.E., and 2010 C.E. (I say 2010 because i think the music of 4 years from now might be easier to predict using directly accelerated (by anticipated trends in media technology) formulae. 2010? Nightclubs? As long as they leave off the bum-cleavage glitter-dust - wave of the future! - the world's a safer place. After the history, the work: A double story. A story about the Great Human Experiment in Thinking about Music, and the Great Human Experiment in Making Music, which of course required Instruments - not a third section, so much as an interweaving thread crossing the two broader wings. I have lots of time to do this, as it's to no-one's initiative but me own, so don't be surprised if I end up ranting parts that I wouldn't print here because musical invective is out of place in what is purporting to be (and failing to be, thus far, ahem!) a moderately-paced, fairly serious story of the history of Cecilia's art. Wish me luck.
topic: Essays
[reply] [0 comments]

The Lonely Path We All Will Lead... HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ARTIC	May 25, 2006, 8:48AM
by: brokn_within_secrets
I must be the only person who seems to have a life full of deadly thoughts. The thoughts of not believing in fate, god, love, and more sinister and crazed thoughts that I don’t believe anyone will ever understand. You have to see why I don’t believe in these things, there are very many reasons for each of them. No one will ever honestly understand because my thoughts have caused me to be alone in a world I detest with no compatible passion. I sit everyday of my juvenile yet pathetic life and pity myself for not leading a life that I wish I’d have. Everyday I’m feeling numb and empty with no sympathy for any other living thing. If I have no sympathy for my self then why hold sympathy for some one else whose life seems more fulfilled then my own? I’m in a type of helpless denial that nothing can resurrect. My destructive drive is all that seems to keep my heart from slowly coming to a halt. The pain that I constantly feel is what drives me to make every one else’s lives full of the misery that impounds each little speck of my heart. Imagine how much happier and serene your lives would be with out such a twisted soul as my own. I’ve learned what pain and misery is and from it the “normal” people must learn. But as I constantly have to explain to the puny minded morons- there is no such thing as normal. For the simple fact that no matter whose eyes you’re looking through someone else is finding you as weird or creepy, it doesn’t matter what one person thinks. To you, you’re typical, but to others you’re peculiar. There for your not normal and you need to get over that simple concept. If only people would poses the knowledge to understand such simple possibilities. If only peoples minds could conceive anything other then self-doubt, revenge, or reassurance. The human race would over power every last sequence for which we lack in. And we would no longer have to hold back on our true feelings because every one would understand what were going through and how it feels. And for it we wouldn’t be judged or institutionalized. But for now our lives will survive by finding that one individual for whom we can confide all our: doubts, request, love, hate, and pain into. The one person who you can confide every death fulfilled thought into. The one person you will never honestly stop searching for because to some this person doesn’t exist. Whether you think you found that person and they aren’t trust worthy or if the person you believe to be that one person who can help, doesn’t realize the affect they hold on you. Then again maybe its true that such a person never exists to some and never will no matter how much time you spend searching for them. This conflict will remain in the question stage for as long as man kind shall live. It’s odd that some individuals believe that love is the key to survival. In my eyes love is really hate. When you love you put a burden upon yourself. You take down your natural guards and care and constantly confide in the one you love. But then a situation arouses and it ends. Hate fills your heart and darkness over powers your soul, leading to the reasoning of love really being hate. Darkness is a brilliant way to invade souls. Darkness will one day fill every ones soul and heart leading to the end of everything you believe in. The glory of the dark, its name alone is all that some seem to know. Now that shall invade all of your helpless minds. It takes brilliance to understand what kind of helpless acts will one day happen. And to know that wicked minds will one day rule this world. Whether the empty souls are here or not they will still rule because they understand. Empty souls seem to grasp the security needed in order to succeed in this deadly world. To excel in life is one of the things that seem to be the center of others fears. Maybe they fear that there death will come before they even get the chance to go any where in life. But whether they admit it or not, that is most likely the way they feel. How long would some one who has every thing going for them live in a depression stage? If you believe your better than someone who cries from feeling unwelcome or they cry because there afraid of living in one more fucked up day, and being depressed yet again, you deserve to take a dose of that individuals life . You would most definitely rot in there tormented hell. Just to live in such a world that takes every last strength left in your body. Just to live through another misery filled day. Learning of the horrid thoughts of wanting to cut down to your vein, just so you may watch the blood spill out to your death. The retched thoughts that are way too complicated for any other person to understand unless you’re ranked as one of the suicidal. You take so long to realize what type of pain you’re actually going through and you’ll see that you too are ranked as a suicidal individual. The thoughts you only got to experience through holding someone else’s pain are now piercing through out your head. And once again the suicidal humans have eloped their thoughts with some one else’s. And have conquered there own army of the suicidal dead. But if suicide is a constant thought in your head then you must be suffering from something so hard that your mind can’t seem to erase it .And if you keep these extravagant thoughts caged up then maybe you setting the “beast” lose will end your corrupted misery. Maybe I’m just delusional believing that speaking up about your true feelings will conquer your pain until it ends. The agony of defeating the one thing that has for so long felt real to you will disturb your new peaceful life, ending the secure life that you now hold and returning it to your misery packed old ways. Such brilliance shouldn’t go to waste. So minds of others will be corrupted. So I will stay on this retched world just so that I can watch us all burn in our tormented ways. Most of these things hold people in a state of denial. But one day they will admit and love what they now deny.
topic: Life
[reply] [0 comments]

Reality of Recycling	May 23, 2006, 1:18AM
by: Illuminatus
1 Illuminatus “Rinsing out tuna cans and tying up newspapers may make you feel virtuous …” Why does the world recycle? Is it because it saves trees, or because it saves money? Maybe it is because places to bury trash are becoming less available. Saving the environment sounds like a good reason to recycle trash and recycling will create decent jobs, as well. All of these sound like excellent reasons to recycle. Unfortunately, none of these reasons are actually applicable to the recycling movement. “Recycling Mania” was started in the late 1980’s by a man named J. Winston Porter. He published a government issued paper about America’s waste problem. His paper was based on misinformation. However, America bought into the sparkling idea of a trash free future, when everything can be reused and nothing is wasted. The ugly truth behind recycling, although, is it is more costly to recycle than to produce from raw materials. Recycling does not save natural resources. Recycling usually has an adverse effect on the environment. Landfill space is not running out and landfills have become increasingly safer since the late 1980’s. Despite its adverse effects on society, recycling can be seen everywhere; from the huge recycling centers, to the three arrows plastered on everything from toilet paper to pop bottles. Almost everyone believes in recycling, but is it a substantiated belief? Or is it a waste on our economy, our environment, and our lives? 2 Recycling is a waste of money. It is not cost-effective. The United States government has recorded a net loss of over 33,000,000 dollars annually for the past 15 years (Jillete 12:50). That is 495,000,000 dollars wasted. Taxpayers have a collective 8,000,000,000 dollars ripped out of their pockets annually to fund the subsidies placed on recycling (Jillete 17:00). Subsidies may be granted to keep prices low (reference.com) .The government grants subsidies to recycling companies to keep prices low so that consumers will buy the product (Jillete 13:46). These subsidies mask the true cost of recycling. The true cost of recycling is 150 dollars per ton. To just throw away trash in a landfill will cost only 50 dollars a ton (Jillete 12:30). “The simplest and cheapest option is usually to bury garbage in an environmentally safe landfill” said John Tierney in his article “Recycling is Garbage” in the New York Times (Tierney) and Daniel K. Benjamin, a professor at Clemson University stated “In almost all communities it is more expensive to recycle than it is to landfill.” (Jillete 11:27). Recycling costs more than just throwing away garbage, but can we sell the high-quality products we make from recycling for a profit? The answer is no. One can make better quality, cheaper versions of stuff starting from scratch (Jillete 17:15). Most offices will not buy recycled paper because, in the process, the fibers are shortened and the paper is weaker and more susceptible to damage (Hah 23). Not only do the products not recoup their cost, they are not as marketable as virgin products, which cost significantly less to manufacture. Recycling is 3 expensive enough as it is, but adding in the salaries of the workers who work in the recycling plants, the cost of the energy to fuel these plants, the cost of the extra trucks to pick up the sorted recyclables and cart them off to the plant raises that cast even more. If it all goes as planned it will still cost three times as much to recycle than it will to just throw it away (Jillete 12:30). This does not account for an oversight or an accident. If someone accidentally left the metal ring around the neck of a glass bottle sent off for recycling, that metal ring would put a dark spot in the glass and that piece would have to be cut out and the whole batch re-melted. If two different colors of glass were mixed together, the recycled product would be an ugly mixture of the colors and that would have to be totally thrown out (Hah 13). What will make up the cost of that batch of glass? Losing all this money is justified though, because we are saving the worlds natural resources … or are we? “We are not running out of natural resources.” said Daniel Benjamin. He is right. Today there are more trees than ever since the 1920’s. Oil reserves have not even shown a significant decrease over the past century. In fact the EPA has stated three times in the 20th century that petroleum reserves will run out within 15 years. This has not happened. There has been no real decrease in known oil reserves. We are using oil, but with the widespread use of oil, human ingenuity has enabled us to double our output per unit of energy that we had fifty years ago (Benjamin 19). Oil is not the only resource that people are afraid of being depleted; the loss of forests is a huge fear too. The big problem with the 4 manufacturing of paper is that people seem to think we are running out of trees, but we are not. The amount of new growth in forests each year exceeds the amount of consumed paper twenty fold (Benjamin 18) because using natural resources motivates people to create new ones. (Benjamin, 20) If people use paper, they will grow more trees to make the paper. However, if people start recycling paper, the demand for trees will become nonexistent and we will not need anymore, so people will stop growing trees. Most of the virgin pulp used in the manufacture of paper is grown on tree farms built specifically for the manufacture of paper, if there was no manufacture of paper, tree farms would not exist. (Jillete, 18:17) “If you want more trees, waste more paper” (Jillete 24:34). There could not be more truth to Penn Jillete’s words. The more we use trees the more trees will be grown. If there is a higher demand for paper then there will be more incentive to grow trees for a profit. It is simple economics. “Recycling does not save trees.” – Daniel Benjamin. In reality the manufacture of paper is not the leading cause of depletion of the forested areas of the world. Tree loss can be directly linked to the government’s failure to protect private property, or treating forests as public property, not the manufacture of paper. Recycling does not save money, and it certainly does not save resources, but does it protect our environment? Recycling is amazingly enough, bad for the environment. There are five toxic substances in the manufacture of paper, while, eight are used in recycling. Almost twice as many harmful chemicals are used in recycling than in 5 manufacture. (Benjamin, 22) What is a recycling center to do with all these harmful chemicals? Recycling is a manufacturing process. It uses complicated machinery that belches huge amounts of harmful smoke into the air (Hahn 7). A truck comes and collects your recyclables. Not the same truck that was already in your neighborhood picking up your garbage. The truck, clouding the air with smoke, carts your paper off to a recycling center usually near a forest. Then the paper is put on one of the aforementioned machines which shred the paper up, putting more smoke into the atmosphere and polluting the nearby trees. Then the paper must be de-inked, this produces a sludgy chemical mess with no real way to dispose of it. Then it is bleached and the bleach must be washed out. What can be done with the bleach? Then yet another machine presses the pulp into paper, yet again more smoke polluting the precious trees. The easiest solution would have been putting the paper in the same can as the garbage (Jillete 19:00) (Hah 7). Recycling is not proven to produce less pollution than manufacture (Benjamin 20). Recycling does not save money or resources and is bad for the environment. But it has been said that we are running out of landfill space and the landfills we do have are very dangerous and that could be a problem. The Mobro 4000 is a boat that tried to make money by buying space in a Louisiana landfill for some New York trash. The boat tried to drop it off in North Carolina but they would not take it, so the Mobro 4000 spent weeks going up and down the East coast looking for someone to buy its trash (Jillete 9:18). The EPA 6 attached to this and put out a paper saying that we were running out of room to put our trash. (Landfills are holes that we compact our trash in and cover it up with dirt.) The problem with that report was that the EPA counted the number of landfills, not the capacity (Benjamin 10). The truth is that we have an abundance of room for our landfills. 10,000 people produce a seven foot tall pile covering an acre in one year (Hah 3). The average landfill is 172 acres in size and around 200 feet deep (Jillete 23:45). The average landfill can hold 48,000,000 people’s trash in one year. There are 295,734,134 people in the United States (census.gov). It would take only seven landfills to hold the trash for one year for everyone in the United States. There are 1,761 landfills in the United States right now (epa.gov). The world has enough space for about 252 years of trash. How much space will this take up? Only .00008% of the United States is currently being used for landfills. We are not running out of room. A 35 by 35 mile landfill only 200 feet deep will be enough room for 1,000 years of trash. No one is actually proposing that we build a huge landfill or not build any more for 250 years, it is just for perspective. Another concern people have about landfills is the dangers they involve. One such danger is leachate a fluid that is made when solids decompose. People are worried that the fluid will get into the groundwater and poison the water table. No such evidence has ever been found (Benjamin 11). Landfills now must meet certain requirements to prevent such dangers from happening. These are, several feet of dense clay must be laid down, a thick plastic liner is placed on top of the clay, and then several feet of gravel or sand, 7 as rubbish is laid down dirt must be used to cover it daily, leachate must be collected by pipes and sent to wastewater treatment plants (Benjamin 13). These measures make modern landfills a considerably less dangerous threat than celery, pears and lettuce (Benjamin 12). Even the EPA has admitted that the threat of landfills is non-existent (Benjamin 11). The dirt covering landfills daily stops toxic materials from migrate inside of the landfill more than a little bit, but they never get out of the landfill (Benjamin 14). Another so-called danger is the methane that forms when active decomposition takes place. (Active decomposition is the process by which organic compounds decompose and are returned to the earth (reference.com)). Methane is an energy fuel and all landfill collect this gas and use it to provide 60,000 homes with electricity for around 30 years (Jillete 27:20). Landfills can make improvements to areas they are in by converting them to parks when they are totally full. Cover them up, plant some trees and there is a park or better yet, a tree farm where you can provide America with more paper (Hah, 49). America is a huge continent with plenty of place to store its trash. There is no need to fear running out of space for another ten thousand years. Wasting money, time, energy, resources, polluting the environment and researching better ways to recycle at the expense of new productive technology. What argument does recycling have left? Recycling creates good jobs, what some may call “The Pot of Gold at the End of the Garbage Rainbow”. What is so great about these jobs? Well you get paid a decent wage sorting through trash perpetuating the wasteful act of 8 recycling. Sorting jobs are just dirty make-work jobs that accomplish nothing but wasting time and money. These good people could be out doing something productive but they are stuck on an assembly line sorting through others’ trash. Aluminum is also a good recycling product. It costs less to make recycled cans than to dig up new bauxite to make new ones. There is real money in aluminum. But only 30 percent of the aluminum in the US has been recycled (Hahn 4). If there is money to be made recycling aluminum why are we only recycling 30 percent? If something works you should do it. But the recycling movement is inefficient and can not use the good idea when it is given to them. Recycling is inefficient and wasteful. Recycling is bad; it does not save money, or energy instead it wastes time and resources. We are not running out of landfill space and recycling actually harms the environment. Recycling is a world-wide movement. But it is harmful to society, to every society. There are better activities we could engage ourselves in, more useful avenues for our time and money. People will do insane things for recycling because they believe it is right. Recycling is not right; America should not waste time sorting through egg-shells and coffee grounds when all your hard work is meaningless in the end. You will be better off throwing your garbage away instead of trying to recycle trash. “… but recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America” – John Tierney, New York Times. 9 Works Cited Benjamin, Daniel K. Eight Great Myths About Recycling. http://www.perc.org/pdf/ps28.pdf. September 2003. March-April 2006 Hahn , James. Recycling: Re-Using Our World's Solid Wastes. London : Franklin Watts, 1973. Jillete, Penn, Teller. Penn and Teller’s Bullshit Showtime. Los Angeles, CA. April 6, 2004 Tierny, John. “Recycling is Garbage.” New York Times, New York NY. June30, 1996. www.census.gov United States of America’s Census Bureau. April 12, 2006. April 13, 2006 www.epa.gov. Environmental Protection Agency of the United States of America. February 22 2006, April 2006.
topic: Current Events
[reply] [29 comments]

pages: back 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 next