cunt sauce

Trever1er with the dope flicks

abno drsex hour are dope writers.

spelling_error_fayget_oner.jpeg

sargenteno wsor car!

Organic farming maintains the quality of the soil When a virgin field is tilled and then fertilized with synthetic fertilizers, it will lose between 50 and 65 percent of its nitrogen and soil carbon over fifty years. After that, increasing inputs of fertilizer—and thus of fossil fuel energy—will be needed to maintain yields. If that no longer pays, the land will be abandoned, becoming a wasteland on which little grows. Organic farming has a different philosophy. It sees farmers as stewards of the land, harvesting its fruits while they care for it so that they can leave it to future generations in a condition as good as, or better than, it was when they started farming. So organic farmers maintain and enrich the soil by adding organic matter. That increases the number of worms and micro-organisms. Soil rich in organic matter needs less irrigation because the soil holds moisture better. It is also less likely to blow away in the wind, or wash off with every storm. A study of two adjacent wheat farms on similar soil near Spokane, Washington, found that over a 37-year period, the conventional farm lost more than 8 inches of topsoil, while the organic farm lost only 2 inches. The scientists concluded that the productivity of the organic farm was being maintained, while that of the conventional farm was being reduced because of high rates of soil erosion. Organic farming fosters biodiversity The expansion of intensive modern agriculture, with its monoculture crops and intense use of pesticides and herbicides, threatens endangered species. Rare plants are indiscriminately sprayed with herbicides, along with more common weeds. Insecticides eliminate the prey of many birds, and small mammals may be poisoned too. Organic farms, in contrast, use no herbicides, fewer pesticides, have more organic matter in the soil, and tolerate hedges or other uncultivated areas. All this makes them a haven for endangered species of plants, insects, birds, and animals. In a survey of the evidence published in the journal Biological Conservation in 2005, scientists reviewed seventy-six percent separate studies comparing the impact of organic and conventional farms on such things as plants, soil microbes, earthworms, spiders, butterflies, beetles, birds, and mammals. They found that the majority of these studies demonstrated that the abundance and richness of species tends to be higher on organic farms. Significantly, the differences applied particularly to species that have experienced a decline because of the intensification of modern agriculture. In 2005, a five-year, government-funded study of British organic farms gave further support to that conclusion. Organic farming reduces pollution from nitrogen runoff Conventional agriculture relies heavily on synthetic fertilizers, especially nitrogen. World-wide, the use of nitrogen as a fertilizer has increased tenfold in the last fifty years. Half to two-thirds of this nitrogen makes its way into rivers and other ecosystems, affecting both freshwater and marine environments. The most dramatic result is the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Like the dead zone in Chesapeake Bay ... the Gulf of Mexico dead zone is caused by too much nitrogen, but here the dominant source—56 percent, according to the U.S. Geological Survey—is chemical fertilizer runoff rather than animal manure, which contributes 25 percent. The Gulf of Mexico dead zone has grown dramatically over the past twenty years, and when it peaks each summer, it now covers an area larger than the state of New Jersey. The peak comes a month after the spring use of nitrogen fertilizers in the Midwest Corn Belt—a month is the time it takes for the water from the Upper Mississippi to reach the Gulf. The expanding dead zone is disrupting fishing. This is only one of 146 dead zones around the world, and not even the largest—that is in the Baltic Sea. Nitrogen fertilizer runoff is largely responsible for most of these. Forty-three of the dead zones occur in U.S. coastal waters. A shift to organic farming, which does not use synthetic fertilizers, would dramatically reduce water pollution from nitrogen, and so shrink the dead zones. Organic farming avoids the heavy pesticide and herbicide use typical of conventional farming Conventional farming relies heavily on pesticides, including insecticides and herbicides. Pesticide use per acre more than doubled between 1931 and 1997, although it has decreased slightly since then.... Organic farmers are permitted to use only a very limited range of insecticides, selected because they are natural products or their safety is well-established. Hence, organic farms will not, to the same extent as conventional farms, release insecticides into the air or nearby rivers. They are not permitted to use any herbicides at all. Organic farming uses less energy for a given yield than conventional farming Organic farms do not use synthetic fertilizers, the manufacture of which requires a lot of energy. According to a study funded by the British Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, organic crops used 35 percent less energy per unit of production and organic dairying 74 percent less. Scientists at the University of Essex found that organic farmers in a range of different countries required only 30 to 50 percent of the energy consumed in conventional farming systems. Organic farming stores more carbon in the soil, thus off-setting carbon dioxide emissions Organic farming increases the amount of organic matter in the soil—matter that would otherwise rot above ground and produce carbon that would go into the atmosphere. So if organic farming spreads, that might reduce the severity of climate change. But how great an advantage organic farming has over conventional farming here is controversial. The Rodale Institute has carried out a 23-year study of the amount of carbon stored in the soil of its model farm and calculated that if the organic methods it uses were applied on all the cropland in the United States, 580 billion pounds of excess carbon dioxide could be sequestered in the soil every year. That's about four times the quantity of emissions that would be saved if the fuel efficiency of all cars and light trucks on U.S. roads were doubled. But questions can be raised about how long annual carbon savings could continue, since eventually the organic matter will decompose and release carbon back into the atmosphere. There are two offsetting factors relative to climate change and organic farming to consider. It is often claimed that conventional farming produces higher yields per acre, on average, than organic farming. Therefore, if we need to produce a given quantity of food, we might use less land to produce it if we use conventional methods. Suppose we then took this extra land and planted it with trees, as part of an agro-forestry project. According to some estimates, trees absorb about eight times as much carbon per acre as soil can, even organically cultivated soil. That suggests an alternative strategy for storing carbon: grow the food we need by conventional methods on fewer acres, and plant trees on the rest. Of course, this presupposes that conventional farming really does produce higher yields than organic methods. The Rodale Institute conducted a 22-year comparative trial of conventional farming and organic farming. Although the yields from conventional farming were higher in the short-term, over the entire period of the trial, corn and soybean yields were just as high on fields farmed organically.

Some say it's a marketing ploy. Others say its saving a future for human civilization on Mother Earth. Some say while it is much healthier for the natural systems of the planet, it cannot foster the survival of the entire human population. Discuss.

I told myself i wasn't going to respond but i can't resist. What is the point of discussion and an argument to you? Is it to go off on rants and attack one another with condescending remarks? Or is it to come to a better understanding of the issue at hand through an exchange of ideas, points, thoughts? The point I am trying to make here brother is that just because Al Gore has had in the past a strikingly high utilities bill, it does not make what he has to say in "Inconvenient Truth" false. He is full of shit in the sense that he is not doing all he can to lower his impact on the natural world, but that doesn't make him a liar AOD, that makes him a Douche. What you are experiencing is an informal fallacy of logic, Ad Hominem (Against the Person), and further more you are passing that flaw in logic down to the entire environmental movement. Also looking back, you don't even come close to producing the classic arguments against organic agriculture for anyone to even debate with you about in an intelligent "truth seeking" manner, but instead bash the character and preconceived ideologies of the "leftist hippie/yuppie scum" type. Eco-conscious people can only do what they are financially able to do. Not everyone can afford to shop organic but that doesn't mean that recycling cans and eliminating plastic bags from everyday use is fruitless. Stop Hatin' Playa! avatar_buddhist_oner.jpeg

Actually Thich Quang Duc was a Vietnamese Buddhist Monk that killed himself in Saigon. Cool image/story though.

Good video. After watching it i met up with a friend and started talking about the general ideas Erich Fromm talks about in the interview. My friend actually already owned Fromm's book Man For Himself and let me borrow it. I'm going to start reading it tomorrow after I take my final.

How funny we are talking about this. I just listened to a similar topic on National Public Radio.. " An estimated two to three thousand non-citizen vets of US wars face deportation. " Non-Citizen US War Vets Facing Deportation Despite Military Promises of Citizenship We take a look at the threat of deportation that non-citizen veterans of American wars continue to face despite US military promises of citizenship. We talk to Rohan Coombs, a Jamaican-born US vet who was in the US Marine Corps for six years and served in the Persian Gulf War. He spent eight months in prison for a marijuana-related conviction. The day he was to be released he was told he would be deported. He speaks to us from an immigration jail. We also speak with immigration attorney Craig Shagin. [includes rush transcript] http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/5/non_citizen_us_war_vets_facing

"i got warts all over my ass. just kidding." words of an infamous prophet indeed.

more scans please, horsecock!

rape is a symptom of a culture that is driven towards hatred and violence. unless we remedy the system in place that drives people to act this way we will never see the change we seek. philosophyoner

Don't apologize it was well deserved hah. What I am trying to say when i make my "moral purity argument" is that if someone like Al Gore lived a self sustaining life in the woods like the una-bomber, it wouldn't stop the destruction of our natural world by everyone else. He is reaching millions with his message. He is trying to change things on an industrial level. Calling him out would be like busting out an Anti-Deforestation activist for using a cardboard picket sign. It is true that Gore is extremely wasteful with his household utilities use and he has actually cut down on that since his public humiliation (I would like to see him cut down even more). But to attack him for traveling the world spreading his message isn't fair and does not refute the factual evidence he provides. Because I throw my cigarette butts on the sidewalk does that mean when I say "littering is destructive to the environment" I am full of shit? Anyways unless you have more to say, i think we've had enough enviro talk and need more Illegal Immigration talk. I went to a Cinco de Mayo party last night "long live la puebla" and got into a heated argument with people about Mexican immigration. Even with a Texican (ancestors were mexican until borders were changed). Anyways I kept trying to explain the ROOT of the problem but kept getting shouted over with people bitching about the symptoms of the problem. I think alcohol may have contributed to the lack of intelligent discussion.

true, i knew someone would bust me out on that, hah! i think all humans are hypocrites and that is why there are so many problems in this world. plenty of people have voiced their opinion on here about the iraqi war over oil resources, yet no one has a problem with driving 50 miles to their favorite freight layup every week. but if you are putting your graffiti to political causes (i don't, i am a hypocrite as previously stated), i think that is legit. the job of the activist is not to strive for moral purity. the job of the activist is to bring down the cause in which he finds unjust. purity doesn't change or solve anything.

pesticide companies used to be chemical weapon manufacturers during the world wars. they created a product to get rid of their overstock of active nerve agents. synthetic pesticides would actually be unnecessary if farmers practiced poly-culture methods as opposed to mono-culture methods, but the govt doesn't encourage or give any financial incentive for a farmer to go poly, as seen in agricultural subsidies given to strictly mono-cultural grows of raw material crops. its all fucked. but i think this thread is going off topic. back to illegal immigration. maybe i will make a "the joys of organic" thread one of these days ha.

Fields, Scott. "Do Agricultural Subsidies Foster Poor Health?." Environmental Health Perspectives 112, no. 14 (October 2004): A 820-A 823. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed May 4, 2010).

Yeah you are right about the differences between NAFTA and free trade, but you are a little off when it comes to farm subsidies and the "organic gimmick". Fresh Fruits and Vegetables make up less than a tenth of a percent of the total subsidies given out to farmers. "In 2003, the most recent year for which comprehensive statistics are available, the top 10 percent of all subsidy recipients gobbled up 68 percent of the money, and the top 5 percent got 55 percent. Take, for instance, Riceland Foods in Stuttgart, Arkansas, the largest single recipient of farm welfare. In 2003 it received $68.9 million in subsidies for producing rice, soybeans, wheat, and corn—more than all the farmers in Rhode Island, Hawaii, Alaska, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Nevada, and New Jersey combined. The second-largest recipient of farm welfare in 2003 was Producers Rice Mill, also in Stuttgart, Arkansas, which received $51.4 million. The agricultural welfare rolls also include many Fortune 500 companies, such as Archer Daniels Midland and International Paper, plus corporations most people don't associate with farming, such as Chevron, Caterpillar, and Electronic Data Systems." Local organic food is so expensive because it is more labor-intensive and it doesn't come from the cheap-labor capital of the western world, Central and South America where most of the fruit and vegetables Americans consume come from. Compare it to shopping at American Apparel as opposed to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart gets their clothes from sweatshops in Honduras or Nicaragua, that is why they are cheap. You as the consumer of Wal-Mart goods do not see the REAL price in the goods. The real price was paid in the form of cheap labor, by the impoverished worker who has no other choice but to work for a couple bucks a day sewing together you T-shirts and Jeans. Or the Pendleton Organic clothing line from Portland. Everything is grown organically in Portland, but assembled in Mexico. Its cheaper for them to grow wool and cotton here, then send it across the border to be assembled and then sent back to be sold than to skip the transportation and pay someone a decent (or at least living) wage here to assemble it. When they label it as "Organic", that is where the marketing gimmick comes in. (clothing and cosmetics do not need to have a usda certification to claim they are organic) While organic is becoming quite the marketing issue when it comes to businesses (Wal-Mart has recently tried to reduce the USDA standards on what can be considered organic) they have to be certified to claim they are organic and they have to endure periodic audits and evaluations of their soils, product, and operations. What qualifies as organic you may ponder? With produce, it cannot be grown with synthetic fertilizers or synthetic pesticides and it cannot be genetically modified. A civil penalty of up to $11,000 can be levied on any person who knowingly sells or labels as organic a product that is not produced and handled in accordance with the National Organic Program’s regulations. The reason why a lot of the annoying, smug, lefty types are willing to pay more for fair trade coffee and local organic food is the fact that they know it is supporting something they believe in, and the money they spend is like voting for what kind of products they want in the market place. I'm not going to go into the whole environmental tip of why organic is better, but i will just say that an organic shopper is someone who "practices what they preach".

This does nothing to support your argument of a NWO. There needs to be global treaties like the Kyoto Protocol to manage our planet because all of the Earths natural systems are interconnected. Coal burned in NYC can travel across the ocean and form acid rain over England for example. Sulfur Dioxide and Nitric Oxide (2 main components of acid rain) travel in clouds around the region and even world, this is well researched and supported by accredited universities and independent scientists around the world. International treaties are needed. If one country remained ecologically pure, it wouldn't make a difference when its neighbors are fucking the atmosphere and hydrosphere up. Also international governance is necessary because if lets say the USA went carbon neutral, a country like China or India (or vice versa) would remain doing it the cheap, dirty way and not only continue to contribute to climate change, but also out-compete our economy. Zig, I'm not going to go through the rest of your quotes, I have heard enough from you and I don't think i can ever discuss anything with you in a serious manner again. You are either too stubborn to admit you are wrong or you are an illogical nut job.

You know whats ironic? We are communicating on a website in which most of the content is in documenting the vandalism of public and private property and there are people complaining about OTHERS being a drain on society? HA!

incorrect. rhymefest and eyedea (hey, he's white too) are both better.

and your complaining about this?