I am sorry for a dumb question, but how the Internet changed the events in Iran???
 

As I sit hear thinking of a campaign that has had an instant change in the way we think...what comes to mind instantly is the many internet emails I recieve from friends and family about our soldiers and how they continue to keep us safe. Keeping them in our thoughts and prayers on a daily basis...if only the web were around when my friends were serving in Vietnam. Would that have helped to welcome them home in a more loving way. I know things were different than...but war is war. Soldiers are still soldiers and need our respect and support. They are the ones putting their lives on the line for us everyday. My mom and dad were both in WWII, that's how they met. I take pride in knowing both mom and dad enlisted as well as my brothers.
Thanks for the blog, keeps me thinking.
 

I really admire what you said, Digital. WWII and Vietnam Vets would have benefited so much more if we had the Internet. More people could have expressed their love and concern along with their views.

 

hmmm...I dont know, but this may be a good example for web campaigning:

During my studies of East Asian politics I was very fascinated by the power of South Korea's "netizens". There was a huge campaign "from below", the people on the night before the election in 2002. I don't know the exact details anymore but Roh Moo-hyun, I think, was ousted by his party (too young, too inexperienced, just a man from the province...), the party was scared that they might lose the election because of their candidate. So, the very last minute Roh built his own party (uridang) with those who were still supporting him and informed the people via his own website encouraging everyone to go to the election and vote! Every voice counted, so people that saw the news on the page (and supported him) spread the word through texting, mailing, publishing on their websites and networking/blog pages.

The impossible happened and he became president of SK from 2003 to 2008. Putting all corruption scandals and his suicide aside...but Roh back then had a very low chance to being elected after he was kicked out of his party. Only thanks to the people (esp. the internet community) this was possible! Some people called these events the beginning of Internet Democracy...however, I am not up-to-date anymore to what extend the internet still plays a role in politics over there, but I could imagine that people are debating strongly on the internet.
One reason for this is that the internet allows young and old to debate with each other, something that would not be possible in real life as the younger have to respect the elder and may not contradict them, even though the elder may be wrong.

As for Mr Roh...I was neither a supporter nor an oppoenent to him, but it was very shocking for me to hear that he jumped off the cliffs (apparently to clear his family out of the scandals around him). May he rest in peace.

 

..Yeah, we certainly can use the internet to spread facts and knowledge that can help us save this wonderful planet we call our home. And I actually feel I see proof of this every day... People are coming together via the net, for a common cause; joining forces, "shouting from the roof tops" and demanding change. Blogs, like yours, and other's, who believe in educating and bettering themselves on these subjects, can make a difference. They might reach people who otherwise wouldn't be so receptive. I have seen people make the change over just one documentary, over one entry in someone's blog, and even over a video on YouTube. I think that only our imagination can curb how many we can reach with our agenda. Yes, even groups on Facebook can raise awareness, and people join to help prevent poverty. ....
....Then you have campaigns such as RED, ONE and Make Poverty history, who all have had great influence and raised awareness using the net. Also there are fair trade internet shops popping up all over. Sites like “The hunger site” and “The Rainforest site”, where you can click to donate money, and where you can buy fair-trade products. Other places you can play games to give rice and water. To me there seems to be a lot of such sites going around, and it makes me so happy. On my blog I have banners to three such things, and so my followers and I click and play every day. How can I not? It takes such a little effort, and yet can have a profound effect. I actually do feel positive about the fact that the likes of “save the planet” and “help the poor” campaigns, seem to spread wider, and be louder, than those trying to oppress the gravity. ....
.. ..By the way, did you see the amazing film "HOME"? Wow, I felt so tiny, so insignificant, and yet also so big, as you realize just how much of a footprint each of us leave every day. I felt ashamed as a human being. Luckily, as the film states; there is hope! However, we have to make the change now, and not linger and procrastinate to see what happens. ..
 

I don't know if this counts.   Youtube has become very viral when ever something...... interesting happens it pops up on youtube. As it says "Broadcast yourself" people have become famous on youtube...not on television, but they do get some mention on T.V....... on occasion.  People are more interested in visuals than anything else...over 90% of language is Visual(body language), probably explains why Youtube is doing quite well on the web.  I'm not to sure how this has changed the way we think, but...who knows it probably changed the way ..someone.. thinks out there on this big blue earth.

Peace and love
-Mel

 

At the time I wrote it there were no comments ........I should have used more deductive reasoing.....Hehehehe......Guess mine doesn't count.....anyways the internet has opened up so many paths to helping the world with donations an sites for organizations like freerice.com, walk for hunger organization, Animal rights, and so much more it's an amazing tool and alot of times it is abused.

 

Hi Mel, I am only just going through the blog, and I think you are so right when you address what you find in UTube. What you said is very true. Also the different clips candidates put out there along with other prominent people.

 

I am thankful for your honest sharing, yay internet! 
 

"As long as we guard against sloppy investigation and make sure we corroborate what we see on the web, real interconnectivity can occur."....so true, and so much a part of your past few blogs. I was floored to see how quickly people "made assumptions" based on biased reporting. The Darwin article made NO MENTION of why the American distributors turned down the film, the video from the 9/12 Rally was 6 minutes of edited film to prove an agenda(I'm sure someone else could have looked at the same 12 hours of film and shown protesters who knew their stuff and were there for the right reason). We ALL need to be very, very careful to research before we spread something...check Snopes, google the topic and see if all of the facts are present, or watch a WHOLE interview instead of the clip that was shown out of context. Both sides do it, because it *works*. At least ask one of our fellow bloggers here who thinks differently than you what they think, before assuming to know what's going on.
  As for "viral" stuff, I can think of several small things that have happened to me personally. The internet has given me a group of girlfriends whom I adore. Two from here on the blog, and 8 from Barb Ritchie's RUNHP website. We travel together(especially to see certain actors!), support each other through cancer and family crises, meet up in NYC whenever we can. Through your blog, we all helped Sgt Cat when she was stationed in Iraq. We all stayed in a chat room together the night Katrina hit, while we waited word of our "sister" Frannie in New Orleans...then sent her care packages when it was over. We all rejoiced when SgtCat adopted her precious little girl.
 Figgie, DonnaSiciliana, Deidre, LeAnne, Mel, Flow, Theresa, Jeanne, Mary and Liz...I love you very much. Thank you Charlie for "introducing" us.

 

Oops, and we can't forget "Cancer Schmancer"!!

 

Fran does a beautiful job in spreading the word on My Space, Facebook and other sites. :)

 

And you left out lil old me!LOLDoes outside US not count? I..ll be over next year you can be assured even if we have to pay an "entrance fee"
take care

 

I'm sure most people try to think along these terms, although many fail to live by them, myself included. But if each and every one of us can even put one of these ideas into motion, we can all help create a greener world. Don't you think. I think most would agree that most of these ideas make good common sense.


http://www.care2.com/greenliving/reducing-food-packaging.html#comment-227868

 

here is one with the same philosophy, different agenda.  ..www.motherearthnews.com.. it is designed for the rural demographic.  You wouldn't believe how many "Constitutionalist" "Survivalists" and other groups already use most of the 'green' energy technology because they are sick and tired of paying the exorbitant energy prices from the government power companies, the deadly perservatives from the food industry etc.
 

Charlie,  Your blogs are amazing and I often wish I had the time and extensive vocabulary needed to respond to them.  It is nice to read something positive for I, too, believe strongly in this planet and in people and am an absolute cockeyed optimist.  Sure, we will stray from time to time but overall we are a pretty remarkable bunch who, in spite of controversy, can pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and get it right eventually.  The internet has just given us a faster way to achieve this.  Yes, I know it can often screw things up in a big way, but we as a people are smarter, for the most part, and can right the wrongs.  Thanks again for your mind provoking thoughts and the challenges you put before us.  And don't stop writing......you're one of the few who really has something to say.  You should be in politics.  Luv ya................Bobbi
 

Now ..this.. is something I can relate to.  Hmm... how about one where we put an end to pig farms, pet and animal abuse, and whaling?  Or maybe a one where we save wildlife and all that inhabit it?  I made statement about it once on deviantart.com, would you like to hear it, Charlie?

 

..How do you save wildlife when you cannot employ population control measures? And I am not speaking about endangered species, I am talking about your everyday run of the mill deer, and elk and other assorted vermin. I come from a hunting state (Montana) and if it weren't for the hunters, even more wildlife would starve out in the winter, not to mention destroy our crops. Stopping animal abuse is a great thing, I think those that abuse animals should suffer the same fate.  It is sad when we lose a species, but there is a natural order of things as well, ie, the dinosaurs, where nature has to give way to survive.  I agree that the rampant slaughter of certain species was wrong, but so is the other end of the scale that says no to all killing that produces overpopulation, starvation and disease, we do have a commission to provide responsible animal husbandry.   

Charlie, I guess this is one of those instances where the internet can be useful to debate both sides of the fence.  Too bad that it is only the extremes that are out there, being used and exploited while those with common sense are overlooked.  ..
 

Sounds pretty republican, if you ask me.  And speaking of politics, it's the government's fault that certain animals, like wolves, for a fact, are off the endangered species list, when in reality, they're still considered endangered because of all the hunting going around, and republican governers, such as Sarah Palin, are allowing all this so they can get their greedy hands on hunters' money!  Damn, I am sooooooo switching to independant!

And there's another thing.  Yeah, hi, elk are extinct!  My guess is that some hunters were going overboard on the hunting, causing them to extinct.  I'm not saying whether they did or not, it's just a simple thought.  Nothing more, nothing less.  However, Lisa, I appreciate your attempt at setting a balance, and I praise you for it.  God bless you.

Charlie, how do feel about this?
 

I'm so glad you mentioned wolves and what MS PALIN is doing to them. Palin herself stated she kills wolves because they kill moose and  and elk. I mean, it's not that they're going after privately owned livestock, which I don't believe in either, but I won't get into that. The wolves are out there in nature doing exactly what mother nature intended them to do. THey go after the old and sick, not what will look best on their wall> The wolves keep the herd strong, but PALIN and her associates consider wolves to be "competition" which must be eliminated.

 

..Palin also stated that "wolf and bear populations are extremely healthy in this state, and that predator control is intended to create more opportunities for humans to harvest moose and caribou for food, while maintaining healthy populations of predators."  Wolves are not endangered.  Why is it ok for one predator to hunt, but not another? You talk about mother nature like we are not a part of it.  Once again there are laws in place, and if you do not report violators then why think that more laws are going to work?

Now I understand that YOU do not eat meat, but that doesn't mean NOBODY eats meat. I understand vegatarians, but what I don't understand is why some vegatarians feel they have the right to tell me what to eat, what to wear, when I don't have the right to tell them what to eat and what to wear...
 

AH, so the wolves and polar bears are killed to give humans a bigger opportunity to hunt for "food". Are you sure that's the ONLY reason? When would you ever see a moose or elk head on the den wall of a wolf or bear. Bottom line is, humans are TROPHY hunters.  And for God's sake, humans don't even try to be humane in their killing, whether it's hunting or farm raising their prey. It seems the more cruel they are, the better they like it. You really think aerial hunting using helicoptors in the dead of winter is fair sport? You really think that grabbing pups and cubs and shooting them point blank in the head is fair sport? Why don't these "hunters" face their conquest on the ground, or is that not maucho enough? There is much more to this than just keeping population under control. And if you want to know how farm animals are raised for food, just read up on what really goes on down at the factory farm, and just MAYBE that fancy package of chicken you see at your local super market won't be so appealing any more. MAYBE it will turn your stomache like it did mine twenty years ago. Then again, maybe it won't. Who knows, maybe animal cruelty simply tastes good to you. Oh and if you think I don't report law breakers, think again, although what good does it do, since violaters simply get a "slap on the wrist" and nothing more.

 

You are correct, we will never see things equally.  Both of us are willing to debate the views we put out there, but we look at things totally different.  You say you are a vegetarian, and every body should be a vegatarian because man is cruel to animals.  We cannot have hunting because man is cruel to animals.  If it is something that you perceive as wrong, it should be outlawed.  And that is the same mentality that I have been battling against my entire life.  You don't want to get rid of the violators, you want to get rid of what they are violating.  You mentioned Vick, prime example, you don't believe that what he did all dog owners do, therefor nobody should own dogs.   But that is what you say about all hunters and all ranchers. And where you contradict yourself is that whereas you don't want to ban dog ownership, you do want to outlaw all ranching and all hunting.   And that mentality is wrong.  It is the exact same kind of mentality that says 'Al Queda is evil, Al Queda is Muslim, Muslim is evil."  And I will fight that mentality to the end.  If a person had cancer, you wouldn't just kill the person would you? No, you would cut out the cancer. It should be that same mentality that governs our actions, our laws.  You have stereotyped hunters, ranchers, smokers, soldiers and pro-lifers.  Who else do you stereotype?  You want to oulaw the way of life for millions of good people, just because of a few bad people, I will fight you on that and not budge.  I will fight it online, on the street corner and on the legislative floor. 
 

The reason I was wondering where you were from is simple. I just wanted to give my friend on the wildlife relocation committee a place to put on his list to relocate preditors and vipers. 
 

And once again, this is where I wonder where you are from.  For me, and most hunters, I group trophy hunters in the same catagory as child abusers.  Aerial hunting is illegal, even in the state of Alaska, except when it is necessary (and only that can be detemined by the legislation, not the individual), and even Ms. Palin disagrees with that form of hunting.  In fact, it is illegal to use dogs or horses to hunt as well in most states.  Now, should I chose to pay $75 for my hunting and fishing tags, and go out and fill up my freezer with food, providing my family with protien and fish for a year on that, why is that wrong?  I get up at the crack of dawn, don my winter snivel gear and haul my tail into the mountains, leave my truck and hike another ten miles or so following the trail, make my kill, haul that carcass back the ten miles to my truck to take home.  THAT is what the majority of hunters do. They don't waste, and as for the trophy on the wall, if I chose to pay tribute to the magnificence of that animal, I am not wasting anything by sending the head to a taxadermist.  To say all hunters are trophy hunters is like saying all parents are child abusers, just because some are, doesn't mean all are. As for hunters just getting a slap on the wrist, if getting your vehicle permanently impounded and getting a $10,000 fine on the spot, without the benifit of court is a slap, then I would hate to know what would be a real punishment. You want to read about it, and not just read all of it, just the portions that goes along with your own personal beliefs, forget about the rest of it, or even the truth, then sit in judgment on something that you only read about, not anything that you have actually experienced. 

Now you use the term 'factory farm' from where I come from, those are called dairy and cattle ranches.  And yes it is ever so cruel to get out of your nice warm bed in the middle of night during a bilzzard to go out and make sure that the water for your animals hasn't frozen, or break the ice on that water.  It is cruel to get up in that same blizzard to patrol the range to make sure that you got all of your pregnant cows in to the birthing pasture so that you can continue to get up in the middle of the night to go check on those cattle during the birthing season just to make sure that your investment doesn't die off in the middle of the night due to a complication during the birthing.  Now, I am just talking about cattle, which the vast majority of have zero survival instinct, the kind that will let the wolves snatch it's baby right out from under it without care. I can see where it is cruel to have to tend to these animals every single day, day in day out. By the way, I don't read about them, I am from Montana, I live with them, with the cattle, with the ranchers.  Smart people do not abuse their investment, and to say that all do, just because a few boneheads do is down right moronic. 
 

..HMMMMMMMMMM  After your comment on Elk being extinct, I did some research.   To me, and Webster, extinct means : having no members of the species or family in existence, as is the case with many organisms known only from fossils.  If elk are extinct, you need to send them the memo, because there are over 20,000 in Northern Yellowstone alone.  It is impossible to track the actual numbers because they primarily inhabit the Rocky Mountains, and a lot of that land is inaccessable to man. Even with the limited hunting tags sold, that wasn't enough to stop the starvation of several thousand head of elk last year alone. 

Please know that I am not attacking you personally.  You say you are against animal abuse, but don't mind the starvation of those animals due to overpopulation, or in the case of cattle, sheer stupidity. Somebody HAS to set the ballance, common sense HAS to prevail.  Think about it, if they passed a law tomorrow that made killing all animals illegal, where would it lead?  As I have stated, I am an advocate of responsible animal husbandry, tell me where the responsibility is in your scenerio.  ..
 

I've been campaigning for this for years. Been a strict vegetarian for almost 20 years. Thank You!!

 

You're welcome, Vivian.
 

Another cause very near to my heart is the necessity to have anti smoking laws. I realize we've come a long way, but we need to go much further. There are still many people who believe it's their "right" to smoke ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, no matter what, even when their smoke violates someone elses right to breath chean air. Second hand smoke has been proven to be more lethal to the nonsmoker than first hand smoke is to a smoker. At least the smoker gets it through a filter. Not so with a nonsmoker. I really can't believe some folks carry a small child in one arm, and hold a lit cigarette in the other, taking puffs and exaling right into the young childs face. To me, this is a form of child abuse.

 

Miss Vivian, it has taken me a few days to put my emotions mostly aside on this topic.  Most anti-smokers just want to impose their will onto other people.  And this is what I feel you are trying to do.  You throw 'clean air' out there like a talisman.  To me, clean air means air free of pathogens, carcinogens, virus', microbes and other assorted airborne bad guys, not just free of cigarette smoke. If you are sitting in a room with a smoker, you are breathing the exact same air that smoker is breathing, first hand smoke, sencond hand smoke, and third hand smoke.  My question for you is would you rather be in a room with 5 smokers, or in a room with just one running car?  Those that blow smoke in a childs face are wrong, without a doubt, but so are those that sit in 5 o'clock rush hour with the windows down and the kids in the back seat.  So many people want to blame all the ills on one thing, make that topic the bad guy, at least we can fight it.  Wrong. What happens when everybody quits smoking, because that is the socially responsible thing to do, and you still have children dying of lung disease, still get asthma, who are you gonna blame then???  If someone wants  'clean air' they are going to have to live in a vacuum, because in the real world, the air is full of pathogens, carcinogens, virus', microbes and other assorted airborne bad guys, not just cigarette smoke.
 

Oh if only you knew me. But since you don't, here goes. If people want to smoke, they have every right to kill themselves, if that is their choice. But they certainly don't have the right to impose their filthy habit onto me. Why should I be forced to smoke against my will, and yes, that is indeed what happens when someone lights up and puffs in my face. According to some of these people, they have every right to do just that. Sorry to say, some smokers are the rudest most arrogent people they are. Who knows, MAYBE you're one of them, since you feel that Myself as an anti smoker forces my belief onto them. Smokers think they own the world. What do you think of this. You're driving 70 miles an hour on the freeway, and it's a nice day, so you decide to turn off the air and roll down the windows. You pass a car, and the driver keeps flicking his ashes from his lit cigarette out the window, and burnt ashes blow into your window. Even worse, when the JERK is finished with his smoke, throws the used butt out the window, and it flies into someones car and lands on your lap. Do you think this is right. Well, EXCUSE ME, what is wrong with that car's ashtray? That's why it's there? Have you ever walked down a public sidewalk and someone is smoking outside their business and when finished, just throws the butt out without even looking and it hits and burns someones leg. AGAIN, excuse me, ashtrays were invented for a reason, but some smokers don't give a dam. They believe it's their right to smoke anywhere and discard their used butt any way they see fit. Are YOU one of these? By the way, I have personal experience with both of these, so I know.

As far as OTHER pollutants in the air, I am well aware of all of them. Some of them can't be helped, such as sitting in rush hour traffic. THIS can't be controlled, but smoking can and must be restricted in public places. ANd for the record, second hand smoke IS more dangerous to the non smoker. There are medical proffessionals in my family, and I have been told this by many of them. And ask any firefighter this, and I HAVE, many times. What's the number one cause of accidental fires, and 90 percent of the time, you'll be told, it's a carelessy put out cigarette or cigar. But none the less, if you choose to light up and choke yourself to death, by all means, you have every right to do so, but you have NO RIGHT to kill me along with yourself, and if this means I am the anti smoker who is forcing her beliefs onto others, so be it!

 

Now as far as other pollutants in the air, they CAN be helped.  The EPA has laws, right, says you cannot dump more than x per million parts into the, lets say water, or you get fined.  There are STILL companies out there that are willing to pay the fine rather than pay the upgrades to comply with regulation, therefore the law doesn't work, fix it.  What have I done this week to help reduce pollution, I have carpooled with 3 other people to go to work, and to go to the store, therefore reducing the amount of pollution in the air.  While I was going to the store, I also called a lady I knew that is a shut-in and asked her if she needed anything, doing a good deed for somebody else. I forgot something at the store, instead of getting in my car to go to the store, that is just about 2 miles away, I donned my coat, took my granddaughter and walked to the store.  I missed work all last week, because I was sick. I could have gone to work, but my special form of ethics does not allow me to go to work to share my illness with everybody else. So YES it can be helped.  There are jerks out there that do stupid things.  When that stupid is criminal, then it is dealt with, most of the time. But when that stupid is just stupid...well it is just too bad it is against their right to be given an attitude adjustment.  
 

..........Accidents............The major cause of fire deaths in private residences is accidents such as leaving a curling iron on, an electric blanket, or a dropped cigarette or an electric heater too close to flammable material...........Electrical Wiring, Electrical Outlets and Faulty Wiring..........Whether it's in an electrical outlet or a short in the wall, many fires are caused by electrical wiring. Older homes are particularly susceptible. Many homes that were built in the 50's -70's have aluminum wiring that increases the chance of fire...........Appliances..........Lamps, toasters and even baby monitors can short out. Be particularly careful with older appliances and extension cords. Even new appliances can be the source of a home fire. To be safe, appliances should be unplugged when not in use. Unfortunately, not all appliances can be unplugged, leaving your home at risk 24 hours a day........... ................................Heating..........Heating is another major cause of residential fire deaths. This is especially true in southeastern states and among wood stove users in the north...........Unattended Stoves..........Another cause of residential fires is cooking, but not due to defective stoves or ovens. Often, it is because of unattended pots or the burner being left on accidentally -and who hasn't done that at least once or twice?..........Children Playing with Matches..........Children and grandchildren playing with matches are a major source of home fires. According to the Burn Awareness Coalition, burns are the number one cause of accidental deaths in children under two, fire and burn injuries are the second leading cause of accidental deaths in children ages 1-4, and the third leading cause of injury and death for ages 1-18. Matches and lighters in the hands of young children are a significant factor in fire fatalities. Educating parents and grandparents to the seriousness of this issue is paramount.......
 

Fact: the #1 cause of lung cancer is Radon, NOT cigarette smoke.  Fact: your car will put out more toxins in one day than my lifetime of smoking.  Now, when I smoke in public, I put my cigarette out where it belongs, I don't throw them on the ground, in the city or in the wilderness, nor do I throw them out the window of a moving car, nor do I agree with those that do.   If you want anti-smoking laws just because somebody is a jerk, then wouldn't it be fair to make laws against everything that somebody is being a jerk about? Do you call the highway patrol everytime you see somebody throw anything out their window?  Whether it is a cig or garbage?    I don't know, how one could discern the difference between dust and ash going down the road at 70mph, but I would get the lisence plate number and call the hp if a butt had found it's way into my lap, because THERE ARE LAWS ALREADY IN PLACE for that kind of thing. There are laws in place, if you do not do your part in helping to maintain these laws, then what gives you the right to request new laws that you wont help to maintain?  
 

And what exactly do you think is in cigarette smoke? All those poisons are there as well. Believe me, I've done my research, but none the less, my allergies are not affected by my car, but it sure is by being in a room with smokers. It IS a proven fact. Second hand smoke KILLS, whether you wish to believe it or not. A perfect example of this is Dana Reeve. She never smoked a day in her life, yet smoking slowly killed her, because she had been around second hand smoke as she performed for years in night clubs. Oh, and as far as reporting the law breakers who toss their smokes out of a moving car, believe me, I would report them in a heartbeat, but unfortunately the violating car is never in front of me where I can see the plate, but rather beside me, but again, what good would it do? The voilator will simply get a "slap on the wrist" and nothing more.

 

Nice to have you back V, was wondering what happened to you.  I totally understand about computer problems.  Now you and I will never see eye to eye on this because of our different backgrounds, experiences and educations.   But there is no way that you could possibly believe that if everybody quit smoking today then cancer and disease would go away.  I cannot believe you think that cigarette smoke is more toxic than car exhaust.  Now I am sure you don't want my opinion on why cars should not be excused, but I am going to put it out there for all anyway, and bless Charlie for being kind enough to publish it.  See, the reason I believe that cars cannot be excused is because the Department of Energy was developed THIRTY years ago to come up with ways to move away from fossil fuels.  To develop alternate energies and alternate engines.  While the car manufacturers put out a few failed attempts out there for the world to see and then charge an arm and a leg  for the new technology that isn't up to standard yet.  Does anybody honestly believe that there hasn''t been the invent of cars that are not dependable on fossil fuel in thirty years??  So NO cars cannot be excused.  We have the ability to come up with the technology, why haven't we?? Could it possibly be that those in the fossil fuel business don't want to lose their trillions of dollars?? Could it possible be that we, as human beings are for sale?  It is not logical to have the same technology in this one area when all other areas of technology have progressed.  Even today, our President wants engines that are more fuel effecient, therefore more environmentally effective, yet I still doubt you can be in a vented room with a running vehicle, regardless of how fuel effecient it is if it is still burning fossil fuels. That is NOT responsible stewardship of our wonderful and only planet. And in a day and age where if we can imagine it, we can make it happen, we are still using the gasoline combustable engine.  To me, it doesn't add up. 

Now lets talk about the Environment PROTECTION Agency.  What a crock that is.  There are several companies every month that dump both biological and chemical toxins into our air, water and land every month.  They get a slap on the wrist from the EPA, pay a fine, then go back to business as usual, dumping those toxins.  The EPA takes those fines in on a regular basis instead of forcing those company to come into compliance with the laws they have passed or without shutting them down.  Once again that is NOT responsible stewardship of our wonderful and only planet.  While you sit here and debate the hazzards of cigarette smoking and how bad it is and how is should be banned from the face of the earth so that everybody can be well again, we have deer, elk, fish, rabbits, bears, wolves, bobcats, etc dying of cancers, tumors, and disease that has absolutely nothing to do with smoking.  And as long as we sit and bicker about it, nothing is going to get done about it.  I cannot believe that cigarette smoke is the main cause of heart and lung disease it doesn't make sense.  I am not saying it doesn't cause disease and cancer, after all, anything can cause it.  But it doesn't make sense to me how we can have so many more people so much less exposed to cigarettes and still have the phenomenal rise of cancer and disease.  To me, the numbers don't add up, and when they don't add up, then it can only be logical that what we have been told is the common denominator is, in fact, a lie.  Three million people will die this year, one million of those will be due to auto accidents.  That leaves the remaining to be divided between heart and lung disease, breast cancer,  other cancers, negligent medical care, murders, simple old age, etc.  The numbers don't add up, and if one plus one doesn't equal two, then it is wrong.

You want it all your way, you got most of it, but that is not enough, and that is wrong.  You use propoganda and rhetoric to make your points, and close your mind ot any other possible facts, yet tell me I am wrong. You have taken smoking out of the workplace, out of the play place and it still has not cause a ripple in the increase of heart and lung disease, you can take it out of everywhere and you would have the same result, it wouldn't make one bit of difference. 
 

Every cancer patien has three things in common, they drink water, they breathe air, and they have all been exposed to cigarette smoke.  So yeah, smoking kills.  But, for every one person you can find with lung or heart disease due to smoking, I can find ten people with lung and heart disease that aren't.  You chose to believe that smoking is the only bug ugly bad guy out there, where I chose to believe that it isn't.  And since we have no smoking in the workplace, or any public place for that matter, and smoking is at an all time low, tell me who the bad guy is that is causing the rise in heart and lung disease today.

As far as allergies are concerned, my allergies are not exacerbated by cigarette smoke, but they are by the majority of perfumes and colognes out there.  When I go to the grocery store, I have to get one of the store workers go down the laundry soap isle to get me my detergent, or I will end up in the hospital.  You don't see the millions like me petitioning to have perfume outlawed, do you?  I can understand that you don't want to be exposed to cigarette smoke, why isn't it good enough that you just don't visit establishments that caters to the smoker? I understand taking smoking out of the workplace, but tell me why it isn't ok to set aside a place where the smoker can go to stay out of the elements, that non-smokers don't have to go??  To me it sounds like a spoiled child that will only share on her terms, or not at all.
 

I agree with you Vivian. All you have to do is watch a few episodes of "Mad Men" to understand why my generation(baby boomer) gets bronchitis every time they get the sniffles. I agree that people have the right to do whatever they'd like IN THEIR OWN HOME(or car), but smoking should be on the list of things kept to yourself.
  So many times, on conservative message boards, real right-wing libertarians will "demand" that homosexuals, drug users, alternative religions, etc keep their lifestyle behind closed doors and not inflict it on others...then blow a gasket over the unfairness of tobacco taxes and their "right" to smoke whenever and wherever they want. They feel like lepers, forced to stand outside in the rain or banished to a corner of the parking lot. As a non-smoker who CHOOSES  not to smoke, I have no problem with those laws and applaud them. I know it's hard for smokers to understand...they are usually hard-working, tax-paying citizens who feel like their freedom is being taken away. Even though there are lots of lung-irritating pollutants out there and childhood asthma is on the rise despite parents "smoking only when the kids aren't around"...I still think my right to breathe trumps a smokers right to smoke when and where they like.

 

Thank you ZMP. It's amazing that we finally agree on something. And yes, it's true. Smokers complain that their "right" to force everyone around them to smoke and choke along with them is being taken away. If they want to smoke and choke, fine, but keep those disgusting fumes to yourselves!

 

Of course your allergies wouldn't be affected by being in a room with a car.  You still don't get it.  You will pass by at least three running cars today, I mean pass by their tailpipes, without thought, tailpipes that will put thousands of times more carcinogens into your lungs than you will ever be exposed to in being around a thousand cigarette smokers, but cars can't be helped, they have an excuse, but the human being that is smoking has no excuse to induldge in their habit.  You complain and campaign hard against smokers, your right, but you excuse car drivers, not right.  I haven't heard you utter one word about you being on a campaign to force car manufacturers to provide the people with truely clean running engines that can handle clean running fuels.  And since my car runs on ethanol, I still put less cancer causing carcinogens into the air with my cigarette smoke.  Now, just because you cross over into my space, it doesn't automatically become your space.  And me personally, if I see somebody on their way out to smoke and I have garbage that needs to go out, I am nice enought to ask them to take it with them on their way out and repay the favor some other time.  Why does it have to be so hard to provide a smoker with a place to smoke that is out of the elements and out of peoples way???  Why does it have to be such a battle??? Personally, I think everybody should quit smoking and quit drinking and quit gambling for 6 months, see how all of the anti-everythings feel about picking up the slack in over $50 BILLION of lost taxes. And since I don't buy gasoline, it wouldn't bother me one bit to see gasoline go up to over $5/gal, and property taxes double it wouldn't bother me because I lease my land from the gov't so I don't pay property tax, and car registration double or even tripple, and since I have a lifetime registration on my car, guess what, all of this to make up the loss of the of the money collected under the "sin tax". Under the "sin tax" the local, state and federal government collects over $100Billion dollars a year and those that pay those taxes keep getting regulated and restricted and other people wonder why they are complaining.  It doesn't have to be a battle to let us have a small place in the work place to go, where we are out of your way and out of the elements.  Why does it have to be such a battle?
 

Okay, with computer problems these last few days, I haven't been able to respond till now.

First of all, cars CAN be excused, because in this day and age, MOST people have to drive. Cars are an every day necessity. There's no if ands or buts about that. Now as far as getting car fuels that is less toxic, what makes you think I'm not working on it? I would love for my husband and I to be able to get one of those environment friendly hydrids, but unfortunately for the majority of the aveage blue color worker, it's not in their budget. Trust me, I've investigated and have searched. Now, I won't bother arguing more about which is more toxic, cars or cigarette smoke. For me, it's cigarette smoke.

Now, to get to the next issue, you don't have to ever worry, I would NEVER intentionally cross over to your space while you're in a haze of smoke, but let me ask you this: While you're standing in your own two feet of space, does the fumes that come from the end of your cigarette stay within your two feet of space, or does it drift? See that's my point. For example, I back in the mid nineties, I lived and worked in Reno for a couple years, and worked in Circus CIrcus-in the MIDWAY, which because was a gaming area for children, smoking was not permitted-even though many ignored the rule. Anyway, without the lawbreakers, the midway is directly above the casino where smoking was allowed. WEll guess what, I chose the midway for work, BECAUSE it was PRESUMINGLY smoke free, but it was useless. Smoke from the casino constantly rose above into the midway, and I was STILL choking on fumes. Perhaps a separate ventilating system might work, but thats another issue. Also, I had to put up with jerks standing right in front of my locker in the locker room, where unfortunately it was legal(at the time), and the times I dared to ask POLITELY for someone to put out their cigarette so I can get to my locker without choking, was useless!   So you say you
re bitter, well that makes two of us. I will say this, go right ahead and stand in your space and smoke, but make sure those fumes stay in your space with you. Don't let it drift into MY space.

 

My biggest problem is when somebody crosses the street to get up in my face about smoking and infringing on their right to "clean" air.  As a smoker, I have no problem going outside, whether it is 134 degrees or -27, and all points in between.  But, as a smoker, the government collects $34 Billion, yeah billion, a year in taxes, where do you think the gov is gonna recoup those losses from? Definately not the wealthy.  But that is beside the point, when I am outside smoking, and I get harrassed, there are times that I really want to hit the person upside the head and say "Hey ya stupid f#$%, I wouldn't be polluting your air, if you weren't in my space," but hitting somebody upside the head is illegal, and my daddy always told me that I couldn't fix stupid, so I vent online.  If a non-smoker decides to get into the face of a smoker, then they really don't have a right to complain.  It is kinda like getting a restraining order against your boyfriend and then going to his house and complaining that the law isn't working.  And the other problem I have is that everbody is blaming every ill on smoking.  My sisters pastor got lung cancer, now ya know he didn't get it from smoking, being an avid non-smoker and his lifestyle didn't allow him to go where smokers like to hang out, but he got lung cancer because he was arround somebody that smoked 15 years ago.  Where is the logic in that??  Then say I want to open a coffee shop, smoke shop, bar or casino that caters to the smoker, I cannot get a permit because the anti-smoker's rights have been violated by not being welcome in that extablishment.  That is where I complain about rights.  Why is it that a smoker cannot open anywhere that caters to smokers, a place where non and anti-smokers don't need to go, why is it against their rights and not the smokers??  As an intelligent person, would you go into a store that said "Smoke Shop" and complain that there is cigarette smoke in there? And don't even get me started on the smell on smokers clothes, like none of have been passed by or had somebody sit down next to us, or come to work wearing the most aweful cologne.  The kind that cause nausea and headaches.  So I do have a problem about rights. I don't have a problem visiting a non-smoking establishment, I do have a problem that a smoking establishment is illegal. Where is the fairness in that?   Every legal vice has establishments that cater to them except the smoker.  If you are against public nudity, you wouldn't go into a stip club, then why, as a non-smoker would you go into a smoking club? Now I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.  There is no ballance, there is no fairness, so yeah, there is anger.  
 

In theory, I have no problem with you smoking in "your space", but honestly, do you really think that the fumes that come from the end of your cigarette realises it MUST stay in your space. Unfortunately, smoke drifts, but still I would not cross the street and get in your space. I would use a hand held fan to help blow the smoke away from me, but sometimes that's unavoidable. I work in a supermarket, and when smokers take their dozon smoke breaks a day, they stand right outside the back door that leads to the dumpster where we take our trash. In other words, the non smoker must pass through a haze of smoke to get to the dumpster. I have no problem with anyone smoking in their space, until their smoke crosses into MY space. If they can keep their smoke from drifting, then all I can say is go ahead and smoke away to your hearts content. In another post, you were curious as to where I live. I live in Florida,(grew up on Miami Beach, and live in Gainesville now),  but I'm not sure what differene it makes.

 

..I uderstand that we will never see eye to eye on this subject.  I have heard you express your dislike of cigarette smoke, and your understanding of the effects of cigarette smoke.  I have agreed that it was necessary to take it out of the general population of the work area.  I have agreed that it is a carcinogen and it has the ability to cause cancer and disease. What I have disagreed with is the fact that in the outdoors, we need to be more tollerant of nasty smells. Outside, it reduces the carcinogens down to a minimal level, and what you get is truly just a nasty smell.  It is no more harmful than that nasty perfum you occationally smell.  I am going to explain why and how I have developed such a firm stand on this subject.

My dad was sick, he had emphazima, I watched it kill him for 16 years.  This is a case of where smoking actually extended his life.  He had a very rare form of emphazima, it was an early onset, the disease progressed so rapidly that he was diagnosed at the age of 36, an age that is mostly unheard of.  The reason he developed it was because the brain lacked the chemical to tell the lungs to quit cleaning itsself, therefor killing the airsacs.  Smoking not only gave it something to clean, but the tar settled on the cillia, the cleaners, and slowed it down, just not enough.  After he died, we got the death certificate that stated the cause of death be massive coronary due to smoking.  To my then 21 year old mind that made no sense to me.  That last time he was hospitalized, he had no heart disease and no heart problems, as anybody that has breathing problems have thicker blood causing the heart to have to beat harder and requiring blood thinners to help maintain the flow.  I did a lot of research.  First my dads case.  He did not have any heart issues when he went into the hospital, but he did develop shingles (the adult version of chicken pox) that left him with congestive heart disease. It had nothing to do with his smoking.   After a lot of research and questioning, I found out that the type of emphazima my dad had actually developed in his teens, long before he started smoking.  I did a lot of research and was appalled at what I found out. 

I have read case study after case study, I have read scientific study after scientific study, and I have read statistic after statistic, and have come to my own conclusion.  After all of that research, I took my conclusion back to my fathers doctor and made him change the cause of death.  Because this is how it worked back then:  If you smoked then your cause of death was put down as smoking.  It didn't matter what killed you, a car accident, an infection, an allergic reaction, any way you died, if you were a smoker it was smoking that killed you.  I saw how, in one instance, there were 4 people who died in a car accident, there was one smoker and one drunk person in the car, and none of them was the driver, and the cause of the accident was due to smoking and drinking.  My sister's pastor is another example of the stats, he developed lung cancer, just because he was exposed to cigarette smoke 15 years prior.  As for determining the actually effects of carcinogens from cigarette smoke being deadly and cancer causing, scientists pump 5000 times the amount of smoke that a normal smoker smokes into an airtight cubicle and watch how the mouse develops.  That is how the stats are developed.   You don't see the stats on the effect of the mouse that was exposed to cigarette smoke that is equivilant to what a smoker would encounter on a nght out to the club where there is smoking.  Today, we still use these same methods to develop our stats, even in our age of technology and information, it is hard to find the truth, and the truth is that cigarette smoke isn't even on the top ten list of cancer causing carcinogens in our air.  It is so easy to find those stats that goes along with your own personal bias, it is fooking hard to find the actual truth.  So, if you can show me facts, facts without bias, facts proving my facts wrong, then I will listen, learn and adjust my stand accordingly. 

..
 

These blogs are amazing! The Internet's a great invention. Whoever came up with the idea was very smart. With the internet thiese days, we're able to communicate with our friends from anywhere and use to it to search for very many things.

Before I graduated high school, I used the Internet a lot. It's helped people a lot by helping people understand their health problems or help other people find a cure for theirs. In my opinion, I think we may be lost without the internet. We're able to research more things that'll help everyone no matter what.

For example, we can use the Internet to find ways to save the environment and it helps people in debates. We're able to donate money to help feed the hungry and we can really keep in contact with our friends and family. Even when kids go off to college, they can keep in contact with their friends and family through e-mail and communicating sites.

Thanks so much for the blogs. They really keep me thinking about a lot of stuff that I never thought about. 

Ashley 
 

..This week has been so long and stressful for me.  But in spite of this fact, I also agree that the internet has been a great way for people to connect, to get educated, to have fun on, etc. Blogs are so fun and neat to keep up!  While I can't think of any specifics on campaigns at this moment (brainfreeze),  the internet has become a true icon.  ..
 

..People being able to film a current event with a cell phone and post it for the whole world to view and judge; is  great technology. I can't think of any campaign off hand.  Having 24 hour access to news and info is so helpful.  Being able to send your friends causes on facebook to join.  Raises some awarness too. I agree that we are living in some chaotic times.  We should try and use this technology to educate or rally troops for good causes.  Sounds good to me!  i think that we can also learn from each other!  ..
 

I would have to say that most of the informatio I receive on the interenet comes from Democracy Now! I very well informwed website. My brother is also a very well informed gentlemen on politics and other things...so I would say that he is my FIRST source and the internet is my second. I consider the internet to be an important source for communication and information. The  internet is FILLED with information, but it also teaches us to filter out or determine which sources are valid or not.
 

I know you specifically said, "'APART from what happened in the streets of Iran," but,  In response to Inmate's question, the internet didn't change the events in Iran, but it opened up a new way for us to hear about the news instantly, as it was happening, before the government had a chance to censor it, or pull the plug. And the images that  we see coming out of Iran everyday , all of which I wish I could forget,  and without which we would have been oblivious to the plight of the Iranian  people would have been buried in the archives of history for some future generation to discover.. 
The government has total control over the media  within the country , and it does not allow foreign journalists to report the truth. ,In fact journalists are often arrested, or deported  .  With the use of cell phone photos,  web cams, instant messaging and emails, it has been the people of Iran who have bravely uncovered the truth and shown us  the atrocities that are taking place.
 I speak to my mom every week over there, and not once has she ever mentioned anything about the recent events.  I don't even know if she knows what's going on, and frankly, I'm afraid to ask her on the phone for fear that someone might be listening in.  Without access to the Western media, I wouldn't be surprised if she were clueless.

 

I agree that despite the extraordinary "from the streets" view we had of Tehran, nothing "seems" to have changed. But I am not so sure that will prove to be so in the end. The clampdown that we all witnessed must have started some rumblings deep within the power structure. I believe that there is a level of embarrassment in some of the power-elite and that this gradual pulling off of the Emperor's new clothes will eventually open the door to significant change. I also believe that this new "revelation" of secret nuclear facilities, will add to the strain. Again, the Iranian power-elite have been shown as dishonest and untrustworthy, they are losing the faith of their own people. As long as the internal resistance is able to gently push and push, the structure will crumble.