Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Biofuel Bonanza not so Sweet for Brazil's Sugar Cane Cutters
guardian.co.uk — Half a million jobs and 500 years of tradition are to be phased out in Brazil's booming sugar cane industry to satisfy western demands for more socially acceptable work practices in the biofuel sector.
domfosnz- 461 diggs
- digg it
- MacBookForMe, on 06/05/2008, -12/+4Let them pay to educate for other service jobs to preserve the Amazon rain forest
- Rubab, on 06/05/2008, -9/+1ahh thia world.. fuel and we..
- SkippyDoorknob, on 06/05/2008, -0/+6Truer words have not been said.
Wait..what?
- SkippyDoorknob, on 06/05/2008, -0/+6Truer words have not been said.
- kittyknox, on 06/05/2008, -7/+1good story
- samoan27, on 06/05/2008, -4/+23The age old right for children to work is under attack! Kill the Prime Minister of Malaysia!
- jawagas, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1Bonus Pt.s for the reference!!
- formerfatguy, on 06/05/2008, -7/+1Great story, thanks for the heads up Dominic
- EatingPie, on 06/05/2008, -6/+7FTA: "Behind the move to phase out sugar cane cutters are tales of exploitation that have damaged the image of Brazilian biofuels in big importing countries... Critics have accused Brazil's sugar cane industry of presiding over child labour, high accident rates and workers earning as little as $1.35 (67p) an hour. Employers insist that pay is three times that level."
The darn well should come under fire. Of the cited 500,000 employees, how many are children? And how many are working for $1.35 to $3.90 per hour? Those are the labor prices that caused the cane industry to collapse in Hawaii -- a big win for the Brazilian industry. But now they're upset that developed countries demand humane working conditions?
-Pie- nick111, on 06/06/2008, -2/+1The conditions were getting harsher and harsher as well - and the incredibly strenuous nature of the work meant that many of them were physically crippled by the time they reached their 30s/40s.
And they weren't paid by the hour, they were paid by the amount of cane they cut - and this price was systematically pushed down as workers forced themselves harder and harder, doing longer hours etc.
Nightmare scenario.... all of the inevitable free-market-fundamentalists who will say b'b'b'b what about the corporations? what about f' f' f' f' f' freedom? can go ***** themselves.
- nick111, on 06/06/2008, -2/+1The conditions were getting harsher and harsher as well - and the incredibly strenuous nature of the work meant that many of them were physically crippled by the time they reached their 30s/40s.
- ouzome, on 06/05/2008, -11/+5We shouldn't be able to tell other countries what to do....wait I would say that if I were a liberal!
- Tenlow, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1You should say that if you're a decent human being. How would you feel if China started telling the United States how it should handle things? I bet you wouldn't stand for it. Since you say you're not a Liberal, I'm going to assume you're a Conservative. Let me lay this one on you, since conservatives seem to be synonymous with Christian:
Luke 6:27-36
27 "But I say to you who listen: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
28 Bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
29 If anyone hits you on the cheek, offer the other also. And if anyone takes away your coat, don't hold back your shirt either.
30 Give to everyone who asks from you, and from one who takes away your things, don't ask for them back.
31 Just as you want others to do for you, do the same for them.
32 If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.
33 If you do [what is] good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that.
34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners to be repaid in full.
35 But love your enemies, do [what is] good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is gracious to the ungrateful and evil.
36 Be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful."
So by demanding others bow to your will, you are doomed to eternity in hell. If you believe in that sort of thing.
- Tenlow, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1You should say that if you're a decent human being. How would you feel if China started telling the United States how it should handle things? I bet you wouldn't stand for it. Since you say you're not a Liberal, I'm going to assume you're a Conservative. Let me lay this one on you, since conservatives seem to be synonymous with Christian:
- pooter654, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2cutters lose again
- leerayIG88, on 06/05/2008, -3/+2that blade reminds me of Rambo the movie.
- Harbinger67, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2As opposed to Rambo the musical?
- ZenMojo, on 06/05/2008, -3/+4As someone who has worked ***** jobs, I have to say: "When the ***** job is the only job, give me the ***** job."
But as a conscientious human being fully aware of Brazil's cane cutting practices: ***** that. - krnldmp, on 06/05/2008, -3/+2I didn't click the ads so maybe someone else can tell me. Is that USB battery supposed to be ingenious because the power available from your USB port doesn't actually come from a coal fired generation facility? Also, are a pair of those rubber dog/sex toys supposed to take the place of a proper amount of laundry detergent in your mythology?
- cave, on 06/05/2008, -2/+9Being a Brazilian citizen currently residing in Rio, I am thankful that the developed nation's concern for cane cutters' working conditions is keeping our govt on their toes.
I find it shameful that our own people don't give a ***** about where their cheap ethanol comes from, but OTOH I can understand it: when you're having a hard enough time to make ends meet yourself, sometimes it's hard to think of the people who are doing even worse than you, cutting cane for $1/h. - davidhallstrom, on 06/05/2008, -7/+1One more strike against biofuel.
- ppvanzella, on 06/05/2008, -2/+4When you think you've got a too ***** of a job, go to the nearest wallgreens and pick up an anal thermometer. Go home and read the instructions. At the very bottom of the paper, you'll see "individually tested".
Now, who has the ***** job? - greenm1981, on 06/05/2008, -3/+2I hope the government of Brazil is prepared to deal with the structural unemployment that this move implies. Unless private sector investment increases sharply, the government is going to have to spend some money to ensure that their economy doesn't slip into a recession.
- cave, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3A lot of these workers are at an age where they are still supposed to be in high school.
- brickwalkway, on 06/05/2008, -3/+0Here's a short doc about Biofuel in Brazil....worth a watch if you don't know much about the subject.
http://m2hb50calhmg.blogspot.com/ - riceweb, on 06/05/2008, -4/+2While 500,000 jobs may be at risk here, I wonder, should we care? It's not as if these people will stop working, they'll just find new work, likely increasingly in the service sector. There will almost certainly be adjustments to be made, but that's the case with all of us.
Every day I read tech blogs to stay current, I work side projects that will pay for a rainy day if it comes, and this fall I will begin taking night classes to broaden my appeal to employers. I even keep my resume up to date. And I know that millions of Americans do the same, many with even more zeal than I do. So why should we not presume that these workers will be able to adjust just as we all can and do?
I say, bring on the mechanization!
- Peder M Rice- byikes, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1quote
for a rainy day if it comes
/quote
change that to:
for a rainy day WHEN it comes
it comes for us all, your very wise in your preparation. I would bet that all 500,000 don't have rainy day funds. You are correct that the world will go on and the people will adjust.
- byikes, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1quote
- thethinktank, on 06/05/2008, -3/+8Okay, 500,000 jobs threatened by Sugar Cane Biofuel, with a small percentage being children. Yet Brazil's ethanol program provided 700,000 jobs in 2003 alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazi ...
Queue the nonsense "biofuel is evil!" comments. I only with they knew they're reciting Big Oil talking points. - Intelmit, on 06/05/2008, -4/+1Here is how biofuel can be made from corn in place of sugarcane.Brazil is a rich natural resources. We can make such fule by this method
http://www.ehow.com/how_2313861_own-e-fuel.html
We need energy for the people and by the people.So it always has be a balance between ecology and energy needs.
Regards - Intelmit- thethinktank, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2I support Corn Ethanol quite a bit, but not as an alternative to sugar cane. Corn ethanol is not a perfect fuel, and should only be used as a transitive fuel while the supply of algae/soy biofuels and sugarcane can support the market. We're a few years away from that, but suggesting corn ethanol over sugar cane ethanol? That's a mistake.
Its important, however, to ignore the "no food for fuel!" nonsense-- that is a talking point developed by the oil lobby and spread by PR firms to push the "food into fuel" myth. In reality, corn-based ethanol accounted for one quarter of one percent of the 4.3% increase in domestic food costs in the last year. Unfortunately, there are quite a few diggers here that have bought into the "food into fuel" myth, and use it as a reason to cast down biofuels.
Biofuels remain the greatest opportunity for energy dependence, economic growth and national security for the USA. (arguments about electric cars don't account for the fact that there would still be hundreds of millions of internal combustion engines on the road that NEED FUEL. electric cars should be the future, but we'll need fuel to get there. better that be clean, green biofuels than foreign, OPEC dictator gasoline...)
- thethinktank, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2I support Corn Ethanol quite a bit, but not as an alternative to sugar cane. Corn ethanol is not a perfect fuel, and should only be used as a transitive fuel while the supply of algae/soy biofuels and sugarcane can support the market. We're a few years away from that, but suggesting corn ethanol over sugar cane ethanol? That's a mistake.
- lylepratt, on 06/06/2008, -2/+2gah..what are we..Socialist France? Don't you people understand that by imposing those regulations we just lost 500,000 brazillians their jobs.
They HAD JOBS one day and could eat and clothe their families, now they NO JOB because us Americans are too on our high horses. But it doesn't matter because its obbbbviously better for those people to starve to death than to let the labor market in brazil run its course. Further more, with the excess labor force created by this massive layoff, wage prices will be KEPT LOW due to the labor surplus.
If we would have kept our hands out of their business, these workers would have continued to be employed and the price of labor would have continued to INCREASE.- DifferentAngle, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1Funny how America was not mentioned but the UK was...
- ziptrip, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Clearly you didn't either read or comprehend the article. The actions by the Americans, UK, et al are in response to inhumane working conditions and exploitation of working Brazilians. Of course, by your logic, it's okay for a child to work for 1$ an hour in dangerous conditions where it's possible he could die or be maimed for life. Perfectly okay, right? No, it's not okay. I'm certainly not going to buy sugar from such a company who uses such practices and that is the crux of the argument. They can either reform their practices or we can observe the right to not buy their product. End of story.
- Stochio, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1You know how gay people are probably pissed off when Bill O' Reilly rants on like an idiot? Poor people are pissed off in that same way at you for denying them a job. One is on a social issue. One is economic. But if you don't have economic means, you don't have social outlets. Freedom is one and the same. You can't separate the two. You're making the decision to protect someone else in the exact some maddening way that people on the other side of the aisle do for a whole host of other issues. Such arrogance. Let people feed themselves for effs sake.
- DifferentAngle, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1Funny how America was not mentioned but the UK was...
- artofficial, on 06/05/2008, -4/+1I'm all for Bio-fuel, but these practices should defiantly not be allowed to continue.
- Stochio, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2rationale? None. Buried.
- artofficial, on 06/06/2008, -0/+0Humans have used biomass fuels in the form of solid biofuels for heating and cooking since the discovery of fire. Following the discovery of electricity, it became possible to use biofuels to generate electrical power as well. However, the discovery and use of fossil fuels: coal, gas and oil, have dramatically reduced the amount of biomass fuel used in the developed world for transport, heat and power.
Liquid biofuels have been used since the early days of the automobile industry. Nikolaus August Otto, the German inventor of the internal combustion engine, conceived his invention to run on ethanol.[citation needed] Rudolf Diesel, the German inventor of the Diesel engine, designed it to run on peanut oil, and Henry Ford originally designed the Ford Model T, a car produced from 1903 to 1926, to run completely on hemp derived biofuel.[3][4] However, when large supplies of crude oil were discovered in Pennsylvania and Texas, petroleum based fuels became inexpensive, and soon were widely used. Cars and trucks began using fuels derived from mineral oil/petroleum: gasoline/petrol or diesel.
Nevertheless, before World War II, and during the high demand wartime period, biofuels were valued as a strategic alternative to imported oil. Wartime Germany experienced extreme oil shortages, and many energy innovations resulted. This include the powering of some of its vehicles using a blend of gasoline with alcohol fermented from potatoes, called Reichskraftsprit.[citation needed] In Britain, grain alcohol was blended with petrol by the Distillers Company Limited under the name Discol, and marketed through Esso's affiliate Cleveland.[citation needed]
During the peacetime post-war period, inexpensive oil from the Middle East contributed in part to the lessened economic and geopolitical interest in biofuels. Then in 1973 and 1979, geopolitical conflict in the Middle East caused OPEC to cut exports, and non-OPEC nations experienced a very large decrease in their oil supply. This "energy crisis" resulted in severe shortages, and a sharp increase in high demand oil-based products, notably petrol/gasoline. There was also increased interest from governments and academics in energy issues and biofuels. Throughout history, the fluctuations of supply and demand, energy policy, military conflict, and the environmental impacts, have all contributed to a highly complex and volatile market for energy and fuel.
In the year 2000 and beyond, renewed interest in biofuels has been seen. The drivers for biofuel research and development include rising oil prices, concerns over the potential oil peak, greenhouse gas emissions (causing global warming and climate change), rural development interests, and instability in the Middle East.
Ditto..
- trumpydumpy, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2This is why we should legalize hemp for ethanol and biodiesel.
http://www.hempcar.org/ - unpolloloco, on 06/06/2008, -3/+3Just to point it out, instead of working for $2 a day, 400,000 people will be out of work completely. Barely being able to afford food is better than not at all.
- Barackalypse, on 06/06/2008, -3/+4So is this considered a victory for the social justice liberals whining about exploited workers? Is unemployment a better situation for these workers now that they've been automated out of jobs partly because of complaining in rich countries over how workers in poor countries are treated? I hope you liberals have learned by now that everytime you meddle you end up screwing things up worse. Your exploited workers are now unemployed, the people you gave welfare too are now trapped in a cycle of poverty, your free public primary education system in large cities is failing miserably, Social Security and Medicare are inching closer to bankruptcy, and your solution to all of this is more government.
- trumpydumpy, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2You are right, we should just allow kids in sweatshops to continue working, because who would want those children to be out of work? Your logic is ridiculous, just go ahead and blame the liberals, it's always the liberals, isn't it. What you fail to recognize is that this is most likely the choice of Brazil in order to maximize profits. Although I do agree with you that welfare, public education, social security and medicare are largely failures, this has a lot to do with republican handling of these institutions. Although I believe we should get rid of the welfare and social security systems, I do believe every American should have access to free education and health care. The republican, so called "neo-conservatives" have nearly bankrupted this country with big government and this senseless war. So where is your argument again? Understand that not everyone is far right or far left, there are some of us who sit in the center. I know the media would like you to believe otherwise. I can still think that workers should be treated properly while not supporting abortion or gay marriage... isn't it amazing how that works.
- Stochio, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3No, he's not saying it's "always the liberals." He's being very specific. He's saying this specific policy is (a) liberal and (b) idiotic.
What does this sentence mean: "What you fail to recognize is that this is most likely the choice of Brazil in order to maximize profits"? Brazil is a plot of land with a border and a few laws. Brazil doesn't make decisions. Who then? Gov't officials? Owners? Customers? Employees?
"This has a lot to do with republican handling of these institutions." You know, I've heard this talking point a lot lately and I don't think it makes any sense. More democrats hold government jobs than republicans, so I don't see how it has any legs. Besides that, it is a line that goes back at least a hundred years. The refrain of the collectivists has always been "If only we had the right people, then everything would be fine. What specifically are republicans doing in this secret conspiracy to undermine your favorite institution? You realize that sounds rather nutty, right?
"I do believe every American should have access to free education and health care." Who pays? Everyone *else*, right?- trumpydumpy, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2"No, he's not saying it's "always the liberals." He's being very specific. He's saying this specific policy is (a) liberal and (b) idiotic.
What does this sentence mean: "What you fail to recognize is that this is most likely the choice of Brazil in order to maximize profits"? Brazil is a plot of land with a border and a few laws. Brazil doesn't make decisions. Who then? Gov't officials? Owners? Customers? Employees?"
Is it really that hard to figure out? Yeah, that's what I meant, the actual plot of land itself was making the decision... This is being pushed by The Brazilian Sugar Cane Industry Association (UNICA) who said "80% of the 500,000 jobs would be gone within three years and admitted that moving to a tractor-based system would cause pain and upheaval for its migrant workforce."
and
"Manual labour is also blamed for poor environmental practices such as crop wastage and the burning of stubble. Mechanised systems will be able to harvest more of the crop and allow Brazil to use by-products for powering electricity plants, argues UNICA."
So, therefore, just as I have said, this is the Brazilian sugar cane industry (there, is that better?) making this decision in order to maximize profits.
"This has a lot to do with republican handling of these institutions." You know, I've heard this talking point a lot lately and I don't think it makes any sense. More democrats hold government jobs than republicans, so I don't see how it has any legs. Besides that, it is a line that goes back at least a hundred years. The refrain of the collectivists has always been "If only we had the right people, then everything would be fine. What specifically are republicans doing in this secret conspiracy to undermine your favorite institution? You realize that sounds rather nutty, right?"
Please direct me to the statistics that show there are more democrats in government. And even if there was, it doesn't matter, because the democrats are usually the ones that vote for social programs. Republicans typically vote against funding these institutions, it isn't a conspiracy it's just what they do. Instead, they vote to fund wars and the military-industrial complex. Sounds rather nutty, right?
"I do believe every American should have access to free education and health care." Who pays? Everyone *else*, right?
Are you trying to tell me you think people shouldn't have access to free education? Did you go to a public school? Not that I think all public schools are run properly or that we don't have a problem with public education, but I still believe every child should have an education, regardless of their parent's wealth. Just like I believe everyone should have access to free health care. And yes, everyone else should pay for it. Just because you aren't sick right now doesn't mean you won't be 10 years from now, and wouldn't you be pissed if you were broke at the time and didn't have insurance. You sure would be glad other taxpayers covered your bills so you could continue to live. Look at Canada, they have free health care for everyone and it hasn't ruined their economy. People there are more than happy to pay taxes to make sure their fellow Canadians are healthy. Then again they aren't selfish like most Americans.
- trumpydumpy, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2"No, he's not saying it's "always the liberals." He's being very specific. He's saying this specific policy is (a) liberal and (b) idiotic.
- Stochio, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3No, he's not saying it's "always the liberals." He's being very specific. He's saying this specific policy is (a) liberal and (b) idiotic.
- nick111, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2There's the voice of someone who's never bothered to look at just how badly these people were being exploited.
Did you make the same argument at children working down mines? Chimney sweeps?
Bet you did. The same logic applies - and it was liberals that ended these abuses. It's liberals who fought for and won the labour rights, voting rights, housing rights, education rights etc etc that you currently take for granted, and conservatives opposed them every step of the way... and are now rolling them back.
It took generations to fight for a 40 hour working week and in a very short space of time pathetic weaklings like you have pissed it up the wall, and now you're enslaved to debt, interests and a myriad of miscellaneous "services" that should be your right as a citizen, but instead serve as an instrument to enrich the already wealthy... because stupid ***** like you think it's a good idea to privatise everything.
Congratulations. You now have a ruling class.- Stochio, on 06/06/2008, -1/+21) I started working at age 9. Piss off.
2) What are housing rights?
- Stochio, on 06/06/2008, -1/+21) I started working at age 9. Piss off.
- trumpydumpy, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2You are right, we should just allow kids in sweatshops to continue working, because who would want those children to be out of work? Your logic is ridiculous, just go ahead and blame the liberals, it's always the liberals, isn't it. What you fail to recognize is that this is most likely the choice of Brazil in order to maximize profits. Although I do agree with you that welfare, public education, social security and medicare are largely failures, this has a lot to do with republican handling of these institutions. Although I believe we should get rid of the welfare and social security systems, I do believe every American should have access to free education and health care. The republican, so called "neo-conservatives" have nearly bankrupted this country with big government and this senseless war. So where is your argument again? Understand that not everyone is far right or far left, there are some of us who sit in the center. I know the media would like you to believe otherwise. I can still think that workers should be treated properly while not supporting abortion or gay marriage... isn't it amazing how that works.
- JayTee44, on 06/06/2008, -0/+0@ barackalypse: You make some good points. Does anyone ask if there is any alternative for these people? How about phasing out the cane cutters slowly, or by attrition? How many millions of brazilians work for even less, at even more hellish jobs?
I'd like to see the focus be on farmers who hire children and work them to death- this is going on in many places- we ought not be focused on a particular industry. - quetranza, on 06/06/2008, -2/+1This is what "fair trade" means. You get to feel better about yourself -- while someone in the third world is out of a job. Hope you still feel good.
- FairDinkumMate, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3This is a terribly researched and reported article on a very interesting & important issue. The main focus of the article is the replacement of workers with tractors & claims up to 400,000 job losses.
"The sugarcane harvest area in Brazil is around 5.2 million hectares (UNICA, 2006) and employs 1.2 million workers (Parra, 2005). With the new burning law, approximately 2.9 million hectares (55% of total cane acreage) will be mechanically harvested. Each combine harvests around 1,300 hectares per year and replaces 60 seasonal workers. This means that the 2,231 combines will displace about 134,000 workers, or 11% of the sector's labor force." SOURCE: http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2006-2/tilling/2006 ...
The only state that I am aware of(I live in Brazil) to have enacted laws so far banning the burning of sugar cane is Sao Paulo(the most populous state & largest sugar producer). The main reason for this as outlined by Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva(a very strong advocate for the country's poorest workers) was environmental. I have family in Riberao Preto which is a city of 600,000 people in the middle of the country's largest sugar cane area & can tell you first hand that the pollution caused by burning is tremendous.
Are the working conditions of many cutters terrible? YES. Are there examples of child labour in use? YES(although minimal as there is plenty of adult labour available & they are paid the same). That said, Brazil is a developing nation. It has a minimum wage of R$360(£113 or US$221) per month for a 44 hour week. No Brazilian government would ever consider trading machines for jobs to improve labour practices. The current Labour government is too worried about the workers that would lose their jobs & the opposition would not upset the business owners that rely on the labour. The Federal plan to outlaw burning is a 20 year plan. The reason Sao Paulo is the first state to do so is that it has by far the largest economy in the nation & is best able to withstand the disruption. Some farmers are moving their operations out of this state to avoid the laws. This is bad in some ways, but good in others as will help to shift some jobs into smaller, less wealthy states.
The Amazon argument is a red herring with regard to sugar cane. The Amazon has far too much rainfall to be an efficient sugar growing area. Sugar is grown in Brazil almost exclusively in the south of the country. That said, some Soy farmers that have been displaced by sugar in the south have illegally bought, cleared & used land in the Amazon for farming. This is not from necessity as 40% of Brazil's arable land is still unused. These people do this solely because of money. Land in the Amazon is cheaper than legal farming land precisely because it is not meant to be able to be used for farming(or any other commercial venture). On top of this, these farmers then clear the land & recoup a lot of their purchase price by selling the wood they clear. The Brazilian government is trying very hard to deal with this illegal land clearing(they are now using satellite imagery) but this is not as easy as people think. The Amazon forest is 5.5 million square kilometres in size(11 times the size of France or 8 times the size of Texas) of which 60% is in Brazil. This is obviously a huge area to watch over to see if someone clears enough land for 1 farm.
I hope that my comments are interesting to some of you & encourage you to realise that Brazil is trying very hard to do the right thing whilst dealing with some difficult social, economic & environmental issues. - siktath, on 06/06/2008, -2/+1Awesome! There's nothing better than watching the Socialists hurt the poor!
- bjornski, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1The only time a capitalist gives a ***** about the workers is to bitch about paying them too much.
- sndream, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Congrats to those who stand to fight for the poor.
Finally, they are longer exploited by the greedy corporation and forced to work in a low paying crappy job. They now just have no job at all, free from the exploit of every one.
Also, if the sugarcane or other farming activities are not causing the destruction of the rain forest, then what is? Do the rain forest just cut itself down and set itself on fire?? Stop worrying about global warming, if they keep on destroying the rain forest, they are going to disrupt the rain fall pattern and risk converting it to the Amazon Desert.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by