Are you fired up about america nothing communicates like honesty

One day I was tuning up and down the radio dial as I drove down the Interstate. Time after time, I landed on talk shows featuring callers that were simply dismayed at the direction America is going.

They were frustrated that so many important issues were either being glossed over or ignored by federal, state, and local government. It was clear that a great many people were highly concerned, yet felt helpless to do anything about it.

That's when I decided to design some t-shirts with patriotic messages and try selling them at public events. Boy did it work! Typically we set up our tent and sell dozens of shirts to people who thank us right and left for putting their feelings into words on a t-shirt they can wear and be proud of.

And that brings us to an even more important point. Americans have a FIRST Amendment RIGHT to speak their minds. It's not the Fifth Amendment or the Thirteenth Amendment -- it's the FIRST and perhaps most important.

But while speaking our minds is clearly at the foundation of what it means to be Americans, the vast majority of us feel we can't make a difference. Therefore, we don't even try.

Over and over I hear from people who are fired up about major issues, yet keep their thoughts to themselves. Often they mistakenly feel they're the only one who feels that way.

After wearing one of my shirts they quickly see the purpose of our tees to stem the tide of division and empower those who are willing to STAND.

Instead of everyone going their own private way, concentrating on being politically correct, you have people enthusiastically sharing ideas, passions, and concerns. And you know what, folks? That's where real solutions come from.

We shouldn't plug away at our lives while we trust all the important issues to the government. There are a lot of good people in government, but they don't have all the good ideas. And government, by its nature, can't solve problems well WITHOUT the help of its citizenry.

So speak up! Write a letter to the editor, call a radio talk show, put up a website, and tell others what you think. And most important call your elected officials to let them know you're alive and well. You will feel better. You will have more impact. And you will be living the life of a truly patriotic American.

How to maintain your mental health

: In recent years people have realized the importance of proper diet and exercise, and recent surveys show that over the last 20 years people are eating better and working out more often, resulting in people living longer, but people are still lacking in their understanding that their mental well being is just as important as their physical health. Today most people get on average 4 to 6 hours of exercise every day, and make sure that everything they put in their mouths is not filled with sugars or preservatives, but they pay no attention to their mental health, no vacations, not even the occasional long weekend, 60 hour weeks, taking work home with them and even working weekends. All of this for hopes of one day getting that big promotion. What good will it do you when your brain overloads and you have a breakdown in the office. In the end your physical health will suffer no matter how well you eat and how often you exercise. You will wind up with high blood pressure, stress and tension all of which raises the chances of you having a stroke or heart attack. In hopes of helping you avoid this I am providing you with the things I do to keep my mental health in tip top condition. My absolute favorite thing to do to refocus myself is to go for a long ride on my Harley. Nothing brings the world back into focus like riding free like the wind, there is no better forms of therapy as far as I am concerned. Another great way to relieve the stresses in your life and help put a sparkle in your mental health is a trip to the casinos. Most people go to the casinos and expect to go home a winner, I do not. I go to have a good time. I enjoy the skill required in blackjack or poker, or just like pressing my luck on the roulette wheel or slot machine. I also make sure not to take my credit cards with me to the casinos. Every week I put a few bucks on the side and when I have enough to go to the casino I go, and have a real good time. This way I can blow every penny I bring with me and know I am not hurting my self financially. Sometime I just like to sit at a poker table, blackjack table or roulette table and just make small bets. This may not be as exciting as risking large sums of money, but in the end I play longer, and I probably win more often. The best part is because I do not expect to win I am not disappointed when I don’t win, and on those occasions that I do win beside going home with more money I have a supper big smile on my face because the night was all that much better. Another reason why I love the casinos is how far they are from where I live so I can take my bike out in the morning have a good 3 hour drive to Atlantic City then at the end of the day I get to enjoy another 3 hours on my Harley, and if the weather is really bad I can either take my truck or just stay home and log on to one of the many online casinos available to choose from. I also enjoy watching an hour or 2 of television every night, some light sitcoms are a great way to lighten your minds load, and laughing out loud for 30 seconds every day is a great way to release stress. Video games are also great for stress release, if you are mad at your boss what better way to get it out of you then boxing, just imagine you are pounding on your boss and hope you don’t lose. I hope you try some of these methods or think of some of your own to help keep the stress down in your life and keep your mental health in as good of condition as the rest of you.

Deauville la magnifique

: Les grands hфtels de Las Vegas, Macao et Monte Carlo font tout pour obtenir le privilиge de les faire jouer. Ils sont la source assurй de gros profits car statistiquement, ils vont perdre. Les hфtels n'hйsitent pas а mettre а leur disposition un avion privй pour les faire venir ainsi que leurs meilleures suites. Quant on est en mesure de perdre des centaines de milliers de dollars, tout le reste peut иtre offert. On peut dire en franзais "un flambeur". Mais pour nous, simple debutant ou joueur non encore confirmes, je vous propose de decouvrir le casino a la francaise: DEAUVILLE. Le Casino de Deauville est l’un des premiers casinos du groupe qui comprend entre autre les casinos Barriиre de : Besanзon, Ribeauvillй, le Palais Casino du Touquet, Carnac, Dinard, Enghien-les-Bains, l’unique de la rйgion parisienne, Chamonix, Cannes, Sainte-Maxime, Biarritz et bien d’autres rйpartis entre la France, la Suisse, la Belgique et Malte. Depuis 1990, le capital de l’empire est rйpartit entre Barriиre-Desseigne, le Groupe Accor (34%) et Colony Capital (15%). Le chiffre d’affaire du casino de Deauville s’йlиve а lui seul а :215,3 millions d’euros en 2004. . Dйcouvrez а la fois le luxe et la sobriйtй du Casino Deauville! Son immense palais blanc vous ouvre ses portes sous ses prestigieux tapis moelleux et une architecture incomparable, pour mieux vous faire vibrer au son des cliquetis rythmй des jackpots, les tables rutilantes, ses bars et ses restaurants toujours avenants… Dans cette ambiance festive et chaleureuse, venez retrouvez au Casino Barriиre de Deauville tous vos jeux favoris. Casino Deauville c’est 325 machines а sous rйparties en 3 salons, 6 tables de Boule, sans oublier ses Machines а Rouleaux et Vidйo Poker de 0,10 а 20 euros Entrez dans la salle de la Boule. Vous y retrouverez 6 tables avec mise minimale de 2 euros. Le Casino Barriиre de Deauville porte l'hйritage de la splendeur du passй. Dans ce dйcor somptueux, vous pouvez varier les plaisirs а chaque instant. Vous y retrouverez les jeux а mise minimale d’un euro : 2 tables de Roulette Franзaise (mise minimale de 5 euros), 1 table de flash roulette Franзaise (mise minimale de 10 euros),
4 tables de Roulette Anglaise, 10 tables Black Jack, 4 tables de Stud Poker, 1 table de Punto Banco, 1 table de Craps. Mais Casino Deauville, c’est aussi ses spectacles tels le festival swing et ses loisirs tels le Golf.
Celui-ci, situй sur le Mont Canisy, а quelques minutes du centre de Deauville, offre une vue exceptionnelle а la fois sur la mer et toute la campagne environnante, dans une tranquillitй absolue. Vous y retrouverez les parcours а 9 ou 18 trous. Des compйtitions y sont aussi organisйes. Alors pourquoi attendre plus longtemps ! Rejoignez vite le Groupe Casino Lucien Barriиre а Deauville ! Le seul Casino а vous offrir en plein cњur de la Normandie le plaisir des jeux mйlйs au plaisir du sport !

Communication par internet entre franchiseurs et franchises

: Cette communication entre franchiseurs et franchisйs peut donc se faire aujourd'hui via Internet ou cвbles de d'interconnexion reliant les franchises via leur rйseau et permet de rentabiliser le travail des franchisйs par le gain de temps en recherche d'informations si ce dernier est correctement utilisй. Les franchisйs peuvent alors passer leurs commandes en ligne et contrфler les dates de livraisons. La plus part des grandes franchises utilisent le systиme "а la minute", qui permet de connaоtre au moment prйcis l'йtat des stocks ou encore les livraisons effectuйes а leur franchisйs. Cela a donc rйellement permis d'activer le processus et signifie йgalement que le franchisй peut mieux rйorganiser ses stocks sans кtre а court au moment X. Les systиmes les plus pointus permettent йgalement aux franchisйs de s'approvisionner auprиs d'un autre franchisй si le franchiseur est а cours de stock. Les demandes peuvent кtre connectйes au rйseau et toutes les ventes peuvent кtre relayйes auprиs des franchiseurs. Cela implique donc que la plus part des cas des demandes d'ordres peuvent кtre retirйes directement par le franchisй. Pour le franchiseur, cela est fantastique car il n'est alors plus nйcessaire de perdre du temps а rechercher le franchisй disposant de la quantitй adйquate dйsirйe qui pourrait rйpondre urgemment а la demande. Les franchisйs en tire un avantage certain car ils voient leur travail diminuй et leur permet de passer plus de temps sur les problиmes marketings et la gestion de la relation clientиle. Par ailleurs, les franchisйs peuvent maintenant payer en mкme temps en ligne le franchiseur et les fournisseurs sans avoir recours aux carnets de chиques, enveloppes et postage. Une solution simple de payement en ligne donne de nombreux avantages que ne peuvent procurer les mйthodes de payements classiques. En plus d'augmenter leur facilitй de caisse, ce systиme leur permet йgalement de rйduire les risques de fraude. Par exemple, une grande sociйtй de jeux carte possйdant bon nombre de franchises. L'une d'entre elle se retrouve а cours de jeux que l'on vient de lui demander. Un simple passage sur Intranet et elle peut alors renseigner exactement son client quant aux dйlais de livraison du produit. D'autres systиmes encore plus perfectionnйs permettent de voir leurs comptes, rendant alors leur travail plus aisй grвce а une analyse plus objective. Le comptable est ainsi capable de voir en temps et en heure toute transaction effectuйe et de rйcupйrer les donnйes des autres franchises. Mais l'Intranet permet aussi а l'entreprise d'y dйposer ses brochures, de visionner les derniиres vidйos publicitaires de la sociйtй et йventuellement aider les franchiseurs en leur adressant un feedback sur la maniиre d'amйliorer leur politique marketing pour le futur. Ils peuvent йgalement tenir leurs opйrateurs informйs de faзon rйguliиre de maniиre manuelle. Pour cela, un accиs Internet haut dйbit est obligatoire, les franchisйs dйveloppant habituellement leur business depuis leur ordinateur. Cela implique au franchiseur de devoir former son franchisй quant а l'utilisation et la maintenance de leur outil informatique. es franchiseurs aiment adopter ce systиme afin de renforcer l'image de marque de la compagnie et faire participer activement leurs franchisйs au cњur de cette derniиre. Toutefois, les dangers de l'utilisation d'Internet (ou intranet) sont nombreux. Si le serveur principal des franchiseurs tombe en panne et ne dispose pas de back up adйquate ou une facilitй d'accиs d'autres serveurs, tous les rйseaux des franchisйs peut кtre pйnalisй.

Newspapers and political bias

title:Newspapers And Political Bias

author:David G. Hallstrom, Sr.

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_118.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16

category:politics_and_government

article:

Almost every weekday, for the last thirty some years, I have purchased three or four newspapers and read them at lunch time. I do this in order to relax and in some cases learn something. One of the 'newspapers' I buy is the Los Angeles Times and I am going to use that 'newspaper' as my example for this article. In my opinion the Los Angeles Times has always been a somewhat liberal paper. I never minded that as some of my views were also somewhat liberal. A while back, however, the paper was purchased by the Tribune Company and the paper went from taking a slightly liberal slant to taking a very liberal slant and it went from reporting the news to trying to influence the news. Now, the paper seems to have gone off the deep end and is trying to control the news and brainwash it's readers.

As long as I can remember, newspapers have used their front page to report hard news, news that they considered to be of great importance to their readers. The Los Angeles Times and many other newspapers now seem to be using their front pages to influence their readers. Now, in addition to slanting their stories to the left or right, many newspapers are slipping op-ed pieces (I am all for op-ed pieces as long as they are printed in the op-ed section of the paper and listed as opinions or editorials. I like reading other people's viewpoints. After all, I might learn something new.) into the news sections of the paper and even onto the front page.

Today, December 23, 2005, the paper ran, on the front page, above the fold, near the center, a piece headlined "GOP Hitting Limits of Agressive Tactics". To be fair the paper did insert in smaller type, above the headline, the words "News Analysis" (I wonder how many readers know that 'news analysis' is just another way of saying editorial opinion. I also wonder how many people even read the words 'News Analysis'.). This piece was written by a 'Times Staff Writer' who as far as I can tell, has never written a hard news item in his life. The only pieces, written by this writer, that I have ever read have been anti Republican, anti Bush and anti anyone and everyone who is not to the far left, opinion pieces. This piece slams the Republican Party and the Administration, praises the Democratic Party, gives a few partial statistics, lists several half truths and gives the writers opinion as to how the Republican Party is out to harm the environment, destroy the poor, overrun the Democratic Party and ruin this country. It does everything but report news, yet it is made to appear as a hard news piece. I would not mind this piece if it were published in the op-ed section of the paper (Everyone has the right to his or her opinion.) but, it offends me that it was published on the front page where news items belong.

Right (pardon the pun) below that piece is a piece headlined "U. N. Hit by a Bolt From the Right". This piece about, John Bolton, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, seems to be innocuous, but if you read the whole piece you come away with the impression that Ambassador Bolton is a bullying right wing trouble maker who is ruining our relationships with our allies and with the U. N.. This piece is again an opinion or editorial. It is not hard news or even news. It would have been okay in the op-ed section, but it did not belong on the front page.

Neither of those pieces belonged on the front page. The only reason to have them there, is to attempt to influence the thinking of the paper's readers.

The foregoing are just two examples of how the paper is trying to control public opinion. Whenever the paper publishes something good that has happened in Iraq or Afganistan the insert, into the piece, several bad things. Everytime they publish something good about a Republican, or even a moderate Democrat, they insert something negative. Negative pieces about Moderates and Conservatives are published on the front page or near the front and positive pieces are published near the back. Positive pieces about the left are published on the front page or near the front and negative pieces about the left are published near the back. In today's paper they published a piece about the President defending our spy program. Where did they publish it? On the last page, page 32, of the national news section. They also published a piece about the President okaying troop cuts in Iraq. This piece was published on page 3 of the national news section, however, in the piece they also mention that there have been 2,150 U. S. deaths in Iraq, that a soldier was killed by a bomb and that the President "is under growing pressure to pare back U. S. troops in Iraq". Again, the paper can't print something positive without printing something negative, when it comes to the President.

By the way, who is putting pressure, on the President, to 'pare back the troops in Iraq'? I know that I'm not. I don't know enough about what is needed in Iraq to make that type of suggestion. As far as I can tell, most of the 'pressure' is coming from the far left, their spokespeople, the people that have bought into their ranting and the 'talking heads' that love to go on talk shows and show everyone how 'in the loop' they are, even though they usually turn out to know less than we do. Maybe we should pull back troops and then again maybe we should not. The only people that the President should be listening to are his Generals and certain people in the intelligence community, the Department Of Defense and the State Department. He should not be listening to his opponents (They have their own agenda.), reporters, publishers or the Hollywood Elite. They may think they know everything, but they don't.

Casino et football font ils bon menage

: En effet, Casino 888.com sponsorisait le FC Toulouse et PartyGaming le FNCA de Nantes! Oui mais voila, c'йtait sans compter sur la Ligue Professionnelle de Football. Dimanche dernier, sur les maillots du FC Toulouse, on retrouvait bien les couleurs du casino mais les signes ???.com. Qu'est ce donc ???.com me direz-vous. Il s'agit tout simplement de son sponsor Casino 888.com. Pourquoi? Alors que les joueurs ont pour obligation de porter les couleurs et le nom du casino, la Ligue professionnelle a, quant а elle, dйcidйe d'exclure les casinos de la publicitй et du sponsoring. D'oщ l'omission. Or, tout le monde l'aura compris le sigle - faisait bien rйfйrence au casino sponsor de l'йquipe. La Ligue explique son refus. Du fait de l'arrestation de certains gйants de casinos en ligne depuis le mois de septembre, dont le derneir en date de Bwin arretй en France, la ligue se voit le droit d'interdire la publicitй, le sponsoring pour les paris en ligne. Samedi, une autre йquipe, la FC Monaco a rencontrй le mкme problиme que le FC Toulouse lors de son match face au Mans. Un reprйsentant de l'йquipe explique que, sans cette alternative, le coup d'envoi du match n'aurait pu кtre donnй. On se souvient encore des paroles de Jean-Luc Gripond, vice-prйsident du club nantais, "le FCNA a dйcidй de s'associer а un nouveau sponsor disposant: "premiиrement une dimension internationale, et notre football a besoin de partenaires de cette dimension, deuxiиmement un lien avec les nouvelles technologies, ce qui reprйsente pour nous le futur".
Qu'en est il aujourd'hui? Un enquкte a йtй menйe ( voir notre article Bonnes Nouvelles pour les Casinos en Ligne). Les paris sont monopole d'йtat en France et on pourrait penser que l'arrestation des cadres de BWin s'est opйrйe au bйnйfice de la Franзaise des jeux. Aussi, peu de temps aprиs, la Commission europйenne a dйcidй de s'intйresser de plus prиs а la question du monopole d'Йtat pour les paris et les jeux. La volontй de la commission est clairement affichйe, soit les Йtats membres les considиrent nйfastes pour leurs ressortissants et interdisent totalement les jeux en ligne, soit ils les autorisent et permettent aux sociйtйs comme 888.com d'offrir leurs services sur le marchй.

The boss endorses barack obama

Folk rock legend Bruce Springsteen endorses Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama. The musician recently posted a letter on his official website that stated his support for the Illinois Senator. The endorsement was posted before a debate between Hillary Clinton and Obama in Philadelphia.

In Springsteen’s letter to fans, he said he supported Obama because he reached out to the same demographic of the USA that the folk rocker’s songs reached out to. The musician believes that Obama’s ideals and dreams for the country reflect his own. He even criticized the detractors of the presidential hopeful for taking attention away from important issues to distract voters.

Bruce Springsteen is only the most recent celebrity to jump on the Obama train. Since the beginning of the caucuses and primaries, all presidential hopefuls have received both financial and vocal support from various celebrities. While some celebrities are content to host fund-raising events or send in checks, others accompany their candidate to public outings and debates and speak out about why they chose a candidate.

The musician is known for his eloquent lyrics and soulful music that deal mostly with the problems of America. His songs have been tied to progressive politics as his lyrics express the concerns of ordinary middle class men and women to make ends meet. Known as “The Boss”, Springsteen is recognized as an icon for the blue collar demographic and it is believed that this will help Obama connect more with those voters. Springsteen also endorsed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in the 2004 elections.

Senator Obama has had a lucky string of celebrity endorsers who passionately speak for him and draw attention to his causes and ideals. Most notable among Obama supporters is the talk show host, media mogul, entrepreneur and philanthropist Oprah Winfrey. The internationally known “Queen of TV” publicly spoke about her reasons for endorsing Obama. She sincerely expressed her belief that Obama should be the next president.

However, Obama is not the only one with big names backing his campaign. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York also has star power enlisted in her campaign. Some prominent Clinton endorsers are Madonna, Barbara Streisand, Steven Spielberg, poet Maya Angelou, the novelists Anne Rice and John Grisham, Quincy Jones, America Ferrera of Ugly Betty fame and musicians 50 Cent, John Mayer and Jon Bon Jovi.

It has been a bit more difficult for Republican candidate John McCain to get endorsements from the predominantly Democratic world of show business. However, he did manage to garner some support from celebrities. Action stars Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone, actor Tim Selleck and Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling are some of the names that support the Arizona senator.

Other celebrities who have endorsed Obama are George Clooney, Will Smith, Halle Berry, Matt Damon, Will. i.am of the Black Eyed Peas, Scarlett Johannsen, Morgan Freeman, Usher, Stevie Wonder, Sharon Stone, Ben Affleck and former basketball player Charles Barkley.

Do we teach our children to lie

title:Do We Teach Our Children to Lie?

author:Casey Dawes

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_68.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16

category:politics_and_government

article:

As I write this, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice Presidential Chief of Staff under President Bush has been indicted under five counts of lying, perjury and obstructing justice. I do want us to be clear on the meaning of the word "indicted." It doesn't mean convicted or proved. It means there is a formal charge against someone for committing a serious criminal offense.

There are many ways in which we lie.

In 1837, Hans Christian Anderson published a fairy tale called "The Emperor's New Clothes." In it, the emperor is duped by con men into believing that invisible thread would make beautiful clothes. He convinces himself to disbelieve his eyes; his vanity makes him oblivious to the truth. Everyone around him, afraid or wishing to gain favor, tells him to his face that the clothes are beautiful. Privately, they wonder that they can't see what the emperor can see, or laugh at his vanity. It isn't until the emperor is parading through town in his underwear that a child loudly and rightly declares that the emperor has no clothes.

Teaching Children to Lie

In the Anderson fable, the mother tries to shush the child before his words reach the emperor's ears. She is afraid of what will befall her child and herself for offending so mighty a man, regardless of where the truth lies.

And so we teach our own children to lie in many ways. See if you can relate to any of the following as happening to you as a child or, perhaps, something you told your own children.

• You call someone old, fat, ugly or some other "not nice" phrase and you are told people don't say things like that.

• Your parent's tell you to tell the person on the phone that they aren't home.

• Telling the truth about something you did caused your parents to severely punish you.

• You told the teacher you "forgot" your homework when you didn't do it because you knew you'd get a second chance.

• When someone else was blamed for something you did, you kept quiet.

• Someone who didn't like you lied about what you did.

• Someone in authority did something wrong and you were told that it didn't matter because he/she was in charge.

• You were told not to tell the truth because something bad would happen to you.

Each time something like this happens, our children die a little more inside. Their sense of right and wrong is altered and they begin to operate from a defensive mode, not a truth-telling mode.

As we grow, our lies become more elaborate and consistent. Yet each time we lie, either through omission or commission, we move away from the innocence that is our natural gift as children.

Next time you are tempted to tell your child or grandchild that it's o. k. to avoid the truth in certain circumstances, think about the long-term results of teaching a child to lie.

I wonder what Scooter's parents taught him.

Cory booker s outside of the box approach to political problems

title:Cory Booker’s ‘Outside of the Box’ Approach to Political Problems

author:John Carling

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_214.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16

category:politics_and_government

article:

Thinking ‘outside of the box’ can help you to view problems in a different light. This can help you find solutions you have previously struggled with. This type of approach to problem solving often improves the quality of solutions or ideas. Within the political arena it is unusual to find a politician who incorporates this type of unorthodox thinking and problem solving to drive change. One example is Cory Booker the mayoral candidate for Newark, NJ.

Cory Booker has a long history of employing unorthodox solutions to solve pressing problems. Booker, 36, a Stanford, Yale, and Oxford educated Rhodes Scholar is preparing for his second electoral battle possibly against 20-year incumbent Newark Mayor, Sharpe James. James, who has yet to announce his intentions of whether he will seek a sixth term, defeated Booker by a narrow margin in the 2002 mayoral contest.

The symbolism of the potential bout runs deep: The city’s longest sitting Mayor squaring off against a man who was the youngest ever elected to the city’s Municipal Council. Many have labeled this the test of a new generation, others, a final showdown between the city’s entrenched political establishment and broad-based reform.

There is little doubt that Cory Booker, if elected, would bring a new approach to governing. Over the course of his four years as Newark’s Central Ward Councilman, a seat that he surrendered to run for mayor in 2002, Booker was battered by many of his fellow council members and by the mayor for opposing status quo lawmaking. Booker recalls his frustration during his short tenure on the council. “I was consistently voted down 8 to 1, 7 to 2 on what I thought were common sense decisions.”

Booker’s reaction, despite his own admission that he at times felt defeated, was to press forward but from a different direction. “Some of the greatest issues facing my former constituents are those of crime, gangs, and drugs. There simply aren’t enough police on the streets, particularly in the neighborhoods where they’re needed most,” stated Booker. Mr. Booker vividly recalls receiving a phone call from the tenant president, Elaine Sewel, of Garden Spires, a high rise housing complex under siege by gangs and drug dealers. “She was pleading with me to do something,” stated Booker. “She said ‘you’re my councilman. Help me.’ My response was that I had no power in City Hall, the police wouldn’t listen to me, and that there was nothing I could do.”

The Transformation

“It took a few hours-- a few hours too long if you ask me-- before I decided to act in the spirit of the great leaders whose shoulders I’m standing upon” stated Booker. The then 29-year-old councilman bought a tent and set up camp in the parking lot of the troubled housing complex where the security booth was burned to the ground and the guards forced to flea by drug dealers several weeks earlier. After a 10-day hunger strike, feces and debris thrown on top of his tent, and threats on his life, Booker and the dozens who joined him received a visit from Mayor James. Booker had accomplished his mission, having negotiated with the gangs and drug dealers on the property and drawing attention to a series of problems which he believes are still all too prevalent in his city.

It didn’t stop with Garden Spires. The great success of his hunger strike led Booker to realize that he could compensate for the resistance he faced in City Hall with grassroots action. He bought a used recreational vehicle and lived in it for six months, parking on the worst drug corners in the city. While he was repeatedly awoken by the blasts of gunfire, he wasn’t deterred as his presence drove drug dealing from neighborhoods that hadn’t experienced peace in years.

After his six months on the streets, Booker returned to his home of several years: Brick Towers, a high rise public housing complex that he led in a fight against its slumlord as a young lawyer resulting in a successful federal prosecution.

The Future

Only time will tell with any certainty if Cory Booker’s unorthodox approaches to affecting change will persist. Any doubt, however, seems handily diminished by a track record that is strong to say the least and as many Newarkers have come to expect nothing less from Booker. In a city which Booker cites as having “incredible and unbounded promise stemming from remarkable resources, the greatest of which is the spirit of its people,” his radical tactics may be just what Newark needs for it to achieve its potential.

The example of Cory Booker shows the possibilities of an ‘outside of the box’ approach to political thinking. This approach to problem solving requires attributes that are not normally associated with politicians. These include a willingness to take a new perspective on dealing with day-to-day problems, an openness to new ideas, and a desire to create value in new ways. Actions speak louder than words however, and results are achieved only when these new ideas are acted upon. And the truth is that at the end of the day, real results are the measure of the politician.

Hillary hillary hillary

Where should any self respecting Blog or article whether by remote computer repair, remote helpdesk, outsourced pc repair, online computer repair, or computer man start?

Hillary is soooo far outside traditional American Statesmen like the 55th Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives, Thomas Phillip "Tip" O'Neill, Jr., democrat, and the 35th President of The United States of America, John F. Kennedy, democrat, and America's contemporary needs she is laughable if she (Hillary) were not so serious...soooo dangerous!

Computer Man's brother, who shall remain nameless, is a dyed in the wool democrat and homosexual. Da computerman? I used to be republican until the republicans became democrats and the democrats became socialists.

These days Computer Man is independent, more like Joe Lieberman. Anyway, the last time brother/sister/what-ever was seen he/she adamantly and proudly proclaimed "I am a mean, vindictive bitch just like Hillary...don't believe me?...cross me and find out".

Well the time is at hand when we start to think about a new leader for the free world...a President of the U. S...a Commander-N-Chief of the military. Neither the race nor the gender matters to Tennessee Mountain Man, but to get the nation (the world even) caught in the Clinton crosshairs again? I think not and I believe Kathleen Wiley, the secret service, and the military would agree.

Consider these:

Female Leaders Extraordinaire:

Golda Meir:

"Golda Meir (Hebrew: גולדה מאיר‎, Arabic: جولدا مائير, born Golda Mabovitz, May 3, 1898 - December 8, 1978, known as Golda Meyerson from 1917-1956) was one of the founders of the State of Israel.

Meir served as the Minister of Labour, Foreign Minister, and then as the fourth Prime Minister of Israel from March 17, 1969 to June 3, 1974.

As the BBC put it, Golda Meir was the "Iron Lady" of Israeli politics years before the epithet was coined for Margaret Thatcher. David Ben-Gurion, the nation's first Prime Minister, once described her as "the only man in the Cabinet." She was Israel's first (and, to date, only) female Prime Minister, and was the third female Prime Minister in the world"

Margaret Thatcher:

Champion of free minds and markets, she helped topple the welfare state and make the world safer for capitalism

Benazir Bhutto:

"Bhutto went into self-imposed exile in Dubai in 1998, where she remained until she returned to Pakistan on October 18, 2007, after reaching an understanding with General Musharraf by which she was granted amnesty and all corruption charges were withdrawn."

Dr. Condoleezza Rice:

"Dr. Condoleezza Rice became the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor, on January 22, 2001.

In June 1999, she completed a six year tenure as Stanford University 's Provost, during which she was the institution's chief budget and academic officer. As Provost she was responsible for a $1.5 billion annual budget and the academic program involving 1,400 faculty members and 14,000 students.

As professor of political science, Dr. Rice has been on the Stanford faculty since 1981 and has won two of the highest teaching honors -- the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching."

Hillary Rodham Clinton?!

Now, honestly, tell me Hillary Rodham Clinton, the purveyor of lost documents and friend of her security advisor Sandy Burger, belongs in that distinguished company!?

"KATHLEEN Willey, who claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the Oval Office in 1993, says he and his senator wife, Hillary, are up to more dirty tricks. Willey tells World Net Daily she was recently the target of a burglar who broke into her house and swiped a manuscript of her new book, which contains revelations that could supposedly damage Hillary's presidential bid.

"Here we go again," Willey told WND. "It scared me to death. It's an awful feeling to know you're sound asleep upstairs and someone is downstairs." "Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton" will hit stores in November. A rep for the Clintons had no comment."

Are you kidding? Hillary Clinton should not even be mentioned in the same breath as Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto, or Condoleezza Rice or Kathleen Willey for that matter !!!!!!!

Hillary just does not measure up to Female World Leaders who were and are Presidents, Heads of State, or Premier Ministers. Compare for yourself on the Worldwide Guide To Women In Leadership website at URL http://www. guide2womenleaders. com

People are soooo tired of the Bush Dynasty at the close of 2007! Can you imagine the degradation of America in a Clinton (2 for the price of one) Dynasty?!

//s// computer man

Las maquinas tragamonedas

: Si estas atraнdo por los juegos de azar, aquн te presentamos lugares recomendados en los cuales encontraras modos de pagos que te beneficiaran y demбs consejos. Siempre que juegues en maquinas tragamonedas deberбs asegъrate de jugar a max bet de una maquina progresiva. Esto es, ya que muchas maquinas solo pagan el jackpot (gran premio) si haz jugado max bet. Por eso, no debes tomar el riesgo, de jugar en maquinas progresivas si no si de todas formas no ganaras el jackpot. Verificar las reglas de cada maquina progresiva es esencial antes de apostar en casinos en lнnea. Las maquinas tragamonedas son emocionantes tanto en lнnea como en vivo, ya que sus ganancias son dictadas por un sistema de nъmeros al azar posicionados en programaciones de casinos. Siempre debes asegurarte que el sitio que elegiste apostar es serio y ha adquirido buena fama en su trayectoria. Si apuestas, es casi seguro que disfrutaras la emociуn del desafiу de poder ganar el gran premio que ofrecen las tragamonedas. Las maquinas progresivas son las ideales ya que el pozo incrementa a medida que mas apostadores eligen aquella maquina para hacer sus apuestas. Es asн como puedes observar como las maquinas aumentan su pozo y mбs y mas jugadores las eligen. Las maquinas tragamonedas son muy populares debido a sus increнbles premios, solo invirtiendo una o dos monedas puedes ganar cientos miles de dуlares. Es asн como muchos jugadores son famosos por haber ganado el jackpot en las maquinas progresivas. En la mayorнa de los casinos en lнnea, muchas maquinas ofrecen grandes jackpots, mientras otras tienen mas pequeсos. Hay aquellos que ofrecen 250,000 dуlares, o mas, los cuales se los lleva un jugador con suerte. Luego la maquina comienza de nuevo con una suma menor hasta volver a llegar al jackpot. La parte menos conveniente de las maquinas progresivas es que tienes menos posibilidades de ganar sumas menores menos seguido. Es decir, puedes llegar a ganar de pronto el jackpot, pero es menos probable ganar sumas mas pequeсinas que en otras maquinas. Es por eso que debes elegir la maquina tragaperras dependiendo en lo que buscas. Si buscas jugar por diversiуn y ganar sumas pequeсinas, no debes elegir la progresivas. Pero la suerte tambiйn influye por supuesto! A continuaciуn te presento una lista de 9 sitios en lнnea para apostar en maquinas tragaperras que son de confianza y tienen buena reputaciуn. Disfrъtalas y verifica bien cada maquina antes de jugar! 1) Royal Vegas Casino 2) 7 Sultans Casino 2) Fortune Room Casino 3) Desert Dollar Slots 4) Sci-Fi-Casino 5) Casino Tropez 6) Carnival Casino 7) Vegas Villa Casino 8) Slotland Casino 9) Slots. com

Concepts of socialism

title:Concepts of Socialism

author:Andy Carloff

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_127.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16

category:politics_and_government

article:

Introduction - What Is Socialism?

Socialism is the belief that children should not have to go to sleep hungry at night. Socialism is the belief that sweatshops are an abomination to the ethic of humaneness. Socialism is the belief that no man should worry about their family's welfare because of a boss replacing the older employees with younger ones. Socialism is the belief that everyone should get paid as much money as they deserve for their job, the belief that we should not have to crawl through each day, the belief that other people should not be the ones in control of our lives. Between the crevices of the individual personality, Socialism arises as naturally as a desire to be affectionate. It arises in ourselves, like any characteristic, this one being dedicated to fairness. Socialism is the belief that cruelty is a vice and kindness is a virtue. This is Socialism.

Specifically, Socialism is the control of the economy to reasonable standards. Laws and regulations which control the sale and purchase of any item or service is a form of Socialism. It has been stated by numerous philosophers that Capitalism, lawlessness in economy, will produce the best effects in the economical standard. Ayn Rand is known to have called selfishness a virtue. Capitalism can be defined as a complete lack of regulation in the economy. That employers have no obligation to pay their workers. Capitalism can be defined as a restrictionless economy. The alternative to Socialism and Capitalism is Communism. In a Communist economy, all of the property is owned by all of the people. Every economical transaction in a Communist government is regulated, as opposed to a Capitalist government, where no economical transaction is regulated.

Justification -- Why Socialism?

With the Industrial Revolution, the way of life for the average man changed forever. No longer were things hand-made in shops -- the process of production was entirely different. Instead of the old way of doing things, the machine increased productions hundreds of times. With factories and quick production, the average man was forced into a horrible plight. Those who still ran shops and built things hand-made quickly went bankrupt. Factories could sell more of their products for a cheaper price. The worker thus was forced into working, the only alternative being starvation and the death of his family. Thus, the worker became dependent upon his wage. It was the equivalent of food for him. With no other source of income, the worker was forced into the position where he was: unappreciated and overworked. There have been those who have said that this Industrial Revolution was the beginning of Capitalist exploitation. It is true that these early factories forced men, women, and children to work in horrible, unbearable conditions. The machinery in the mills was dangerous, resulting in the death and maiming of many of the workers. For the children, there was an overseer with a whip to make sure they worked every hour there. On top of these inhumane conditions, the workers were paid pennies an hour. These were the inhumane and cruel conditions created by the employer for the worker. The employers could get away with it, too, because the workers could only go to another factory with conditions which were matched. Thus the worker was forced into a hole that he could not get out of: every job opportunity offered the same indignifying conditions, dirt-cheap wages, as well as ludicrous hours. Some had to work 16 hours a day. Capitalism has caused a horrendous amount of destruction around the world and the Industrial Revolution only lit the fire underneath it.

However, as I said, many believe that the exploitation of Capitalism began with the Industrial Revolution. Some would disagree with this point, claiming that Capitalism did not exploit. The exploitation of Capitalism, even in the 20th century, was widespread and brutal in all its forms. Bosses and businessmen were vindictive in their pursuits of wealth. The rights of the workers meant nothing to them. They broke up unions, silenced dissent of opinion, made workers dependent upon their jobs, destroyed hope, made peace unattainable, fostered violence, nurtured hate. For them, nothing was too brutal, and every method that could improve profit was embraced. With this great ethic of competition, all consideration for the workers was stripped and given to profit. Greed, the so-called "virtue of selfishness," spawned so many, terrible cruelties. All for the sake of wealth, these businessmen committed the deeds which would turn the stomachs of every humane-minded person. As Capitalism had it, there were no restrictions and there were no limitations. These men, these Capitalists, held no value for the rights of their workers. Monopolies slowly formed and the rights of workers shrinked. Conditions worsened for the worker as the most tyrannical of the heartless businessmen survived. Life for these workers was a struggle. They crawled through every day and did not know what know what affection was. Work hardened their hearts and weakened their spirit. Their life was condemned to the exhausting and excruciating toil which consumed their days.

In this great republic, when the workers were forced into unbearable toil without any consideration given to them, what did the politicians and leaders do? In a republic, the population elects the rulers. What did the rulers do once in office? The mistrusted government officials shook the hand of hypocrisy and brought corruption to an entirely new level. Corporations bought out representatives and senators. It was no longer a nation for the people and by the people. It was a nation for the rich and built on the sweat, blood, and tears of the people. The Capitalist economy became a haven for legalized slavers. The corporate interest was held over the public interest; this can be simplied as saying that more effort was put into being selfish than inhumane. Ayn Rand, the Capitalist philosopher, called selfishness a virtue. When we compete, she argued, then prices are lower and conditions improve. The leaders and rulers of the nation ascribe to this "virtue of selfishness" -- they imposed a rule that gave no consideration to the workers, they allowed their people to die in their factories, they betrayed the public interest, made ignoramuses of themselves, enforced brutality -- the politicians which abused and manipulated public interest only so that they could enrich themselves, cruel and unfeeling in their endeavors -- they were Capitalists, not Socialists. Heartlessness and brutality: these were the vices embraced by the government officials and businessmen who were concerned more with the amount of dollars they have than the amount of suffering inflicted on the common man.

The Capitalists are fond of Social Darwinism. They will be quick to side with the Evolutionary Theory of Natural Selection. The strongest, quickest, and smartest will outlive others -- this is their prediction. They will even point to the wild and how animals are themselves competetive with each other and striving to survive. However, even Charles Darwin noted numerous times that animals have a kind of sympathy for each other. To quote Charles Darwin...

"Many animals, however, certainly sympathise with each other's distress or danger. This is the case even with birds. Captain Stansbury found on a salt lake in Utah an old and completely blind pelican, which was very fat, and must have been well fed for a long time by his companions. Mr. Blyth, as he informs me, saw Indian crows feeding two or three of their companions which were blind; and I have heard of an analogous case with the domestic cock. We may, if we choose, call these actions instinctive; but such cases are much too rare for the development of any special instinct. I have myself seen a dog, who never passed a cat who lay sick in a basket, and was a great friend of his, without giving her a few licks with his tongue, the surest sign of kind feeling in a dog." [The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, chapter 4, part I.]

As seen within nature, even animals have a tendency to show compassion for each other. When an animal sees another animal suffering, there is a chance that it will offer its sympathies and aid that animal. This has been noted by many biologists and confirmed by many eye-witness accounts. However, when a Capitalist sees another suffering, he looks for a way to profit from it, and then claims that he is no worse than any animal.

One of the largest vices of Capitalism is the eventual formation of monopolies. When a monopoly is in control of a certain product universally, either through legal or economical means, it not only abuses the worker but it abuses the consumer, as well. If a car company, for example, owns the steel mills to make its cars and owns the rubber plantations to make its tires, then the competitors are driven into the ground. The golden rule of Capitalism is that competition between companies creates better products at less costly prices. The competitors, however, know that they will profit more and they will progress better when there is no competition. With control of the resources to produce a certain product, such as a car, there can be no competition. A competitor in need of steel to make cars, and rubber to make tires, would not be sold such items from their competitor. In this scenario, only one business gains control of an industry and no matter what price he sets, there is no one to compete with him. A car industry may sell their car for $10,000 to $100,000, whether or not it only cost them less than one thousand. After all, when this car business is the only one operating, there will be no place else to obtain a car. In fact, not only can the price be unreasonable, but the condition of the car can also be unreasonable -- it may have a badly running engine or other failing functions. This possibility of a monopoly by businesses in industries has been practised by many entrepreneurs.

Communism falls prey to the same flaws of Capitalism. In a Capitalist system, the privilege to guide and control society, to mold the workers into machines themselves, is given to the businessmen. The employers hold no regard for the workers and slowly, the classes quickly seperate: the rich becoming richer and smaller; the poor becoming poorer and numerous. On the shoulders and backs of the workers, the politicians and the corporate leaders made themselves rich to unimaginable degrees. A Communist system, however, gives complete control and responsibility to the worker, making everyone equal. In a Communist economy, whether or not you work hard at your job or excessively, trying to accomplish the most for yourself and your society, you will earn the same meager wage. The corruption of both the Communist and Capitalist states is appalling, both falling victim to corrupt leaders; still, though, corruption is much more prevalent within Capitalist systems. The difference between a Communist and a Socialist state should not be difficult to see: in a Socialist economy, workers are paid the amount that they deserve for their work. Under Communism, the pay is horrendously low because the doctors receive as much pay as the janitors. Under Capitalism, the pay is horrendously low because the corporate leaders have no interest in paying workers anything more than a slave wage. Under Socialism, the pay is adequate, fair, and deserving.

It is obvious that within a Capitalist economy, the rights of the workers are given no weight. To what justification do the workers have when it comes to guiding their own lives for themselves? It is the fact that the worker has built the foundation of every industry and that the worker is the backbone of every strong economy. It is the worker who created the products that make our lives easier, the worker who understands his creation, the worker who builds the things that society uses. Since it is the worker who makes the system produce what it produces, it is the worker who has the right to decide what system that is. Given the current stature of Capitalism, only a heartless tyrant or an unthinking fool would choose it over Socialism. As workers, those of us who foster production, create society, and make the things that make lives easier, we deserve the right to construct society according to our wishes. In this manner, it is obvious that we side with Socialism: the belief that every individual is deserving of the opportunity to better themselves in a fair economy, the belief that every individual has the right to safe working conditions and reasonable working hours, the belief that humaneness is our ultimate goal.

www. punkerslut. com

For Life,

Punkerslut

The rights of the guilty a treatise on crime and punishment

title:The Rights of the Guilty - A Treatise on Crime and Punishment

author:Andy Carloff

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_109.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16

category:politics_and_government

article:

Introduction

When philosophers and social critics speak of justice, there is always a great emphasis spoken about protecting the public by imprisoning those who pose a harm to the public. Then, with observations upon the mechanics of society, these philosophers sought out not only to defend the public, but to defend those accused by the public. To simply imprison a man or woman on a crime was not enough. Individuals who have been accused of crimes must be allowed to face their accusers. Before anyone is imprisoned, they must be convicted by a jury of peers, based on evidence. Every person is innocent until proven guilty, and the idea of "guilt until proven innocent" is a cruel, foolish idea that must be disbanded altogether. These basic premises have been created to defend those who are accused, the public, the society, and, in general, those who are innocent and deserving of protection. All so often, there is a defense of the rights of the innocent, whether it is the public or the unproven accused. What, however, often seems lacking from these theories of justice are the rights of the guilty.

I have heard so many stories of people who allow their darkest memories to overtake their compassions. I have heard confessions of men and women who allowed their passions to become sick and twisted before they became humane and kind. "Those men who are guilty of rape," I have heard, "Should be tortured. They should have their testicles removed and they should be murdered, and then brought back to life to be killed again." I have heard such cruel stories of torture, brutality, and inhumanity that should be, or was, given to the guilty. Passionate mothers speaking about the potential brutalities that should be given to pedophiles. Impassionate conservatives speaking about the long and violent prison sentences that should be given to drug dealers and users. When a person has their son, daughter, spouse, lover, mother, or father murdered, they sometimes make a plea that the guilty should be tortured to death -- while other times, their passion is expressed in a beautiful manner, and they make plea of society to be just, generous, and fair. When I speak of the rights of the guilty, I am not talking about those wrongly convicted of guilt, or those potentially convicted on unfair grounds. I am speaking of those who have, by all our understanding and reasoning, committed the crimes that they did -- the truly guilty. It is within this essay that I shall make an attempt to defend the rights of those who have broken our laws.

A Defense of the Guilty

When I make a defense of the guilty, on what grounds can I make it? When we begin to think about those who fill up the category of guilty, such as murderers, rapists, thieves, and other assorted lawbreakers, we immediately think about terminating their rights to protect society. The right to liberty, for example, to walk around and do as you will, is immediately stricken from those who are convicted of murder or rape. Those very basic rights that are granted to everyone, even the right to vote, are restricted by those who have committed harsh enough crimes. Amidst all these claims that the public must be protected from the criminal element, there are shouts for vengeance, for "justice," for punishment, even for torture and execution. So, why would I, or anyone for that matter, defend the guilty?

To answer this question, allow me to create a hypothetical scenario. Imagine that someone is convicted of a misdemeanor, or some small petty crime, whatever it may be. Perhaps it was something as simple as running a run light, or not stopping at a stop sign. Perhaps it was something a bit more complicated, but not more criminal, such as drunk in public, or trespassing, or jaywalking. Perhaps it wasn't just the crime alone that needs to be taken into consideration for this hypothetical scenario. Just maybe the convicted criminal in this case was unaware of the laws. Or, perhaps, the laws were created as a restrictive force, arguing that drunkenness or jaywalking are not in themselves unjust, but could possibly lead to unjust results, such as violence or physical harm. And, in violating these laws, our criminal did not cause violence (because he was drunk) or did not cause physical harm (because he was jaywalking), so he kept in the spirit of the laws. Taking this scenario one degree further, perhaps this convict is a productive member of society, who generously gives some of his payroll to non-profit organizations, and is active in Democracy. And, finally, perhaps this convict had a legitimate reason for breaking the law. Perhaps he was drunk in public because he was drunk at a friend's house, but was then thrown out into the street. Perhaps he was jaywalking to avoid a gang of kids that seemed intimidating. With all these things considered, we have my hypothetical scenario.

Would we be just and humane, if we were to strip this convict of all rights? If we subjected this man to torture, to endless time in prison, to execution, would we be just? Certainly not. When we are examining this one case of this convict, I imagine no reasonable person would want to visit much of any punishment to this convict. In fact, no reasonable person would say that this person -- admittedly guilty -- should be denied rights. While this person did commit a crime, why should we deny that he has rights? Some people may continue with their diatribe, "Once guilty, a person has no rights! Once a person has committed a crime, they have no rights!" But, the more we consider this scenario I brought up, the more I think people will be convinced that being guilty alone is not enough to strip a person of all rights.

Now, let me take the previous scenario and slowly strip away different aspects. Perhaps the person who committed jaywalking or drunk in public is not a productive member of society. Perhaps they do not contribute to non-profit organizations or are productive members of society, or had a legitimate reason to commit the crimes. Perhaps it was a restrictive law that, violated by the criminal, did in fact lead to violence and physical harm. Then, let's change a few other things. Maybe it wasn't something as simple or harmless as jaywalking or trespassing or public drunkenness. Perhaps it was something a bit more serious, such as aggravated assault, or grand theft auto, or breaking and entering. Maybe burglary was involved. Let's upgrade this scenario to even more devastating crimes. Perhaps it really was rape, perhaps it really was murder. In the initial scenario, an honest, hardworking person committed a crime that harmed nobody, while holding a very legitimate excuse for it. In the final scenario, after all the alterations had been made, a criminal had committed a crime that did in fact harm others without holding any legitimate excuse at all.

In the first scenario, of a man who has committed the crime of perhaps simple jaywalking, it seems that everyone would be in agreement that he should not be stripped of his rights -- at least, certainly not all of them. We should not simply offer him up to the butcher's blade or to the stake that we might burn him. Certainly not. That would be the very definition of cruelty and inhumanity. That is not to say that such simple crimes have not met such brutish punishments. In other times and other nations, simple crimes have met with such inhumane sentencing. When we look back to these accounts, of such simple people inflicting such horrendous pain, for a moment, we are convinced that civilization has brought more misery than it has alleviated. Poets in these sad times would count stars, hoping to find some sort of god that would promise them a peaceful, happy end to what has been a struggle through life. Some of them would found a religion in mortal death, treating the wispful moments as poetry dedicated to a better future. And, fortunately, my friends, we have reached a better era.

When we look at the second scenario, of a man who has committed murder or rape, we see that the same attitude is not given to them as the man who committed the simple crime of jaywalking. Attitudes vary greatly. The man who committed the simple crime that harmed no one: nobody believes that he should be stripped of all of his rights. But, the man who committed the terrible crime of rape or murder, there is a great amount of people who are ready to inflict insurmountable suffering, torture, and miseryon to these convicts if the law permitted it. The curse of the death penalty is still existent in this part of the world. So, when we are comparing these two lawbreakers, what is the point I am trying to demonstrate? To that, I shall say in the next section...

The Rights of the Guilty

Before discussing the question of the rights of a convicted rapist or a convicted murderer, let us discuss the questions of the rights of a petty criminal. Let us consider the rights of a person who committed a simple crime, such as jaywalking, and let us use the above illustrated example of this criminal -- who is only a "criminal" by definition of a person who has broken the law. I imagine that there is a consensus that this man should not be stripped of his rights. He certainly does have some rights that must be considered and accepted. For example, even though he is convicted of breaking the law, in America he still has the right to freedom of speech (first amendment), he still has the right to life, liberty, and property, and none shall be taken from him without due process of law (fifth amendment), the right to a sentence that doesn't involve cruel or unusual punishment (second amendment), among others that can be found in the bill of rights. But, when giving this guilty man rights (emphasis on guilty, because this is the point of question in this essay), it is obvious that he is deserving of these rights. However, as a criminal, it is clear that certain rights will be taken from this manner, at least restricted.

For example, if this man committed a simple crime such as jaywalking, and the state feels impelled that he ought to be held accountable for his crime, perhaps they will ask that he pay a small fee or spend one or two days in jail. He still retains his right to vote, his right to freedom of speech, his right to be secure in his own possessions, life, and liberty. There is a restriction, though. If he pays the fee, that restriction will be interpreted as a restriction of property. If he spends the one or two days in jail, that restriction will be interpreted as a restriction of liberty. Once he has paid for the crime in which he has committed, then he shall be allowed to pursue the rest of his life as he sees fit, and the state (or the public) shall have nothing to do with him again until his mischeviousness acts up again. Perhaps his crime was slightly more extreme and actually harmful to society. Perhaps the crime was petty theft, shoplifting a $3 item. Or perhaps it was criminal property damage, a youth irked on by his mates to throw a rock through a window. In this case, a similar punishment will be invoked. The person convicted of the crime will be allowed the choice of paying a fine or spending time in jail. The essential idea behind both of these is the protection of society, that the criminal learns by his punishment to never commit such acts again. Optimistically, the law acts as a re-education program. Unfortunately, it fails miserably in practice.

To simply put it... we are to treat this guilty man as any citizen of the state, but as one guilty of this one crime. What are the restrictions put on a person who is guilty? They ought to fit the crime. However, these are simply restrictions on normal citizenship. The idea that simply being guilty means a complete revocation of all rights must be thrown out entirely. If an injustice is met upon the guilty, it is equally unjust as an injustice that is met upon the innocent. If a man is guilty of jaywalking or petty theft, pays for his crime, and then is stabbed to death, it is just as much a crime as a man who is not guilty being stabbed to death. Both are citizens of a Democracy. Perhaps being stabbed to death is too harsh on an example. If a man guilty of jaywalking or petty theft pays for his crime, and then the judge or the police or someone else in the justice system decides to steal their property, it is equally unjust as the police stealing the property of an innocent man.

The very essential ethic that I am trying to demonstrate here is that all people are deserving of rights, and guilty alone is not enough to strip a man of all of his rights, any more than race or class or gender (or species, for that matter). If a police officer steals from the innocent, the innocent should have a method of making greviance (i. e. our system has rejected this, and if there is one guilty in our nation, it is the government). If a police officer steals from the guilty, they should equally have a method of making a greviance. A person guilty of commiting some crime or another should not be seperated by the law as one who is guilty. He should not be treated differently, except accordingly to his crime. Once the guilty has paid for their crime, they must, they absolutely have to, be treated equally as those who have been innocent all along.

All of this, I imagine, seems to be hardly controversial, and I imagine that few people will disagree with me thusfar. However, let us consider someone who has committed a much more grevious crime. A criminal who has murdered or raped -- what regard ought we hold for this person? I contend that we should hold the same attitude as the person who has committed jaywalking or petty theft: so long as he pays for his crimes, he should be held (legally) on an equal level with those who have committed public drunkenness and paid for their crimes. What is the point I am trying to demonstrate here? That a man guilty of rape or murder, so long as he pays for his crimes, should not be treated without caprice. If a murderer in prison is raped by a fellow inmate, while the guards did nothing, then it is equally unjust as an innocent person being raped by a fellow citizen while police did nothing. A murderer is not beyond the pale of consideration simply because he is a murderer. If he is paying for his crimes, why should he be subjected to the brutality of others? He should, in fact, be allowed to pay for his crimes without suffering the cruelty given to him by others. The attitude exists that, "But that man is a murderer. If he has done that, he simply has no rights." This attitude must be utterly and irrevocably destroyed. A murdered who has paid for his crimes must have the rights of any other citizen of the Democracy, just as a petty thief who has paid for his crimes must have the same rights as any other citizen of the democracy. If a guard were to attack and beat a convicted murderer in prison, it is just as much a cruelty as a guard attacking and beating a convicted jaywalker, or a police officer attacking and beating a peaceful protestor. The element of brutality in all of these examples comes from one distinct source: the idea that individuals who have committed no crime, or have paid for crimes they have committed, have no rights -- and it is this idea that must be entirely discredited if civilization is to make progress.

An Efficient Prison System

Now that I have demonstrated the rights of the guilty, there is the question of the prison system. Before continuing in this section, I think that there must be some statements that are made on our current prison system. For the most part, our prison system exists for the sole sake of imprisoning individuals whose crimes were preventable. All property theft crimes, for example, are the cause of poverty -- which stems, undoubtedly, from the intrinsic failures of the Capitalism system. In prison, 20% were sentenced for property crimes. Then there are drug crimes, which may aptly be described as thought crimes, of which 21% were sentenced for. 49%, however, were sentenced for violent crimes. However, for a great deal of the time, violent crimes were committed with the motive of property or drugs. A mugging, for example, is considered a violent crime, though its intent is the same as the property crime. Essentially, muggings would be entirely eliminated if the Capitalist system was overthrown. I imagine that a very, very, very small part of violent crimes would exist in a system where the means of production were owned and operated by the public. So, then, what of those violent acts, of people whose rage controls them more than their reason, of men whose lust controls them more than their sense of justice? I can only hope that an efficient, intelligent educational system can give the people enough knowledge to control their urges. Whether the impulse comes from lust or from fury, whether these impulses are rooted in deep-rooted issues or primitive psychology, I can only hope that an efficient educational system will solve this problem. Compulsary schooling will have to be eliminated in its entirety. Students will have to be taught to empower themselves. They will learn the richness of history and the intrigue of science. And, they will be taught to be respectful and gentle to those around them. These teachings will not be given as orders, but will be demonstrated to children as sound, logical, and reasonable.

But, what of those individuals who, despite the progress of Socialism, would commit property crimes, even if by mere habit? What of those individuals who, despite a humane education, would still commit murder or rape? I admit. It is unlikely that Socialism and Communism would entirely wipe out property crimes -- but I imagine that property crimes would be eliminated almost in their entirety. It is also unlikely that a rationalist, humanitarian education would entirely wipe out violent crimes -- but I imagine that many of them would still be prevented. If society breeds a generation based on the slavery of compulsary schooling, founded on the insipid and absurd classroom tactic, and harboring the principles of oppression and cruelty, then society will be breeding a generation of murderers, rapists, and thieves. However, if society breeds a generation based on free schooling, with the idea that children should be taught how they know rather than just what we know, and proudly holding the idea that it is best to be kind, generous, and warm with your fellow creatures, man and animal alike -- then, in this sort of society, I imagine rape would be very limited, and I imagine that murder would be a rarity.

It is not my intention in this piece to make a dissertation on the nature of mankind. Here I will only describe the nature of crime and punishment, as it would be most effective, and the intrinsic rights of the guilty. I will not be arguing for the purity and goodness of the soul of mankind any more than I will be arguing for the darkness and brutality of the soul of mankind. In fact, if one were to make a statement on the nature of mankind, they might as well make a statament on the nature of animal kind -- for, as Charles Darwin stated, "Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind." [The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, part 1, chapter 4.] Some obscure philosopher may argue that the nature of mankind is generally good, for men are breed without claws, without such powerful bodies that to end the life of another is a simple task. This is naturally the case, though, because men have been bred with a brain intelligent enough to construct spears, then swords, then guns, then missiles, then nuclear and atomic bombs. Some may argue that the compassion of mankind overwhelms any violent tendencies they have, but in every age, mankind has had the heart to use those weapons that I have previous listed. The indictment cannot be entirely placed against mankind, though. When we read our history books, perhaps for every good thing we find, there are five bad things. So, mankind would be good to evil at a ratio of 1:5. Then we read our poetry books, and this ups things for mankind in a good to evil ratio at about 2:1. We throw in the books of biology and physiology and we are no wiser, for we have only learned that mankind has the heart to love as much as he does to hate. The debate could go on endlessly. If I ever do decide to question the nature of mankind and animal kind, it will not be in this piece. I will not even go so far as to say that mankind is neutral, because capability of good and bad acts does not make one neutral entirely. The case for the debate, if I ever take it up, will surely be in another piece.

So, then, what can be said of our system of prisons? Of our current system of prisons, I will say this much: at least half of them don't belong there, the other half were put there without being given an opportunity. What is the condition of our current systems? It is rather appalling. By understanding and comparing myth with statistic, it seems that rape is commonplace, that beatings and violence have become an inherent part of prison society. Am I the only one who sees the clear contradiction of this system? Men who have violated our laws are placed in a prison where they are taught and instructed to violate the laws again once released. The statistic of those to return to prison is ridiculously high. Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime. [U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Criminal Offender Statistics, http://www. ojp. usdoj. gov/bjs/crimoff. htm] There is no doubt in the mind of any informed, rational person that the prison system of today is ineffective. Furthermore, a person who goes into a prison is subjected to other crimes. As I stated in the previous sections, the guilty have the rights of the innocent, except with certain restrictions. A man who is paying for his crime of murder or rape or theft should not be subjected to other punishments that have nothing to do with the crime that he has committed.

What would be an ideal prison system, then? Well, before I can answer this question, there is the question of the purpose of prison systems. If society has created prisons to inflict vengeance, then the most ideal prison system would be one outfitted with torture devices wall-to-wall, the most minimal of these torture devices reserved for individuals who committed jaywalking or drunk in public. However, if society has created prisons to protect the public, for the sole sake of defending justice and liberty, then the most effective prison system would be one that acted with this purpose, of protecting the public and re-educating the prison population.

How would these prisons be organized, then? Well, before I answer this question, there are other questions that must first be answered, no matter how elementary they may seem. Why are people sentenced to prison? The answer to this is obvious: they have demonstrated in a free society that they are a threat to those around them. What kind of people are convicts, then? They are people who, through their actions, have proven that they are unfit to live in a free society without harming those around them. What would be the most effective prison system, then? It would be a society in which civil liberties have been severely curtailed. In some respect, our politicians understand this idea. They have placed the prisoner in a cell behind bars, with the hopes that society is protected and this person is changing. By rotting for ten or twenty years, the prisoner is released to a society that is equally antipathic as some of his prison guards or fellow prisoners. This is nothow mankind can be reformed. It only degrades the spirit of the prisoner, making him a much more likely returning prisoner -- and the statistics back me on this. The prison systems of the United States of America are perhaps the single corporation that receive more return business than any other company. Robert Green Ingersoll in the 1800's would come to say...

"IN my judgment, no human being was ever made better, nobler, by being whipped or clubbed.

"Mr. Brockway, according to his own testimony, is simply a savage. He belongs to the Dark Ages -- to the Inquisition, to the torture-chamber, and he needs reforming more than any prisoner under his control. To put any man within his power is in itself a crime. Mr. Brockway is a believer in cruelty -- an apostle of brutality. He beats and bruises flesh to satisfy his conscience -- his sense of duty. He wields the club himself because he enjoys the agony he inflicts.

"When a poor wretch, having reached the limit of endurance, submits or becomes unconscious, he is regarded as reformed. During the remainder of his term he trembles and obeys. But he is not reformed. In his heart is the flame of hatred, the desire for revenge; and he returns to society far worse than when he entered the prison.

"Mr. Brockway should either be removed or locked up, and the Elmira Reformatory should be superintended by some civilized man -- some man with brain enough to know, and heart enough to feel.

"I do not believe that one brute, by whipping, beating and lacerating the flesh of another, can reform him. The lash will neither develop the brain nor cultivate the heart. There should be no bruising, no scarring of the body in families, in schools, in reformatories, or prisons. A civilized man does not believe in the methods of savagery. Brutality has been tried for thousands of years and through all these years it has been a failure." ["Cruelty in the Elmira Reformatory," by Robert Green Ingersoll, date unknown.]

So, then, what would be the most effective method of a prison? As I stated, it ought to be a society with severely limited civil liberties. What exactly do I mean by this? When these men were citizens and not prisoners, they were incapable of living their lives with the civil liberties afforded to them. To walk down the street without being aided by a police officer to his destination -- this civil liberty cannot be granted to him, for without the police officer, he commits crime. To possess knives or other hand-held weapons -- this civil right cannot be granted to him, for when he had it, he abused it. To be allowed to live his daily life without being watched by an authority -- this civil right cannot be granted to him, for when he was allowed to do what he wanted without asking permission, the result was a society scarred by crime. So, then, what should these prisons be like? Just as I said earlier that a man who has committed a crime and paid for it, should be treated identically as a man who has committed no crime (legally), a prison simply should be a society with limited civil rights, and a re-education program to help reform these prisoners. How would this society look like?

First, the traditional idea of a prison as an enormous building noted for its guards, it bars, and its walls, should entirely be thrown out. Teaching men how to live under the fist of oppression is now way to teach them how to live in a free society. It is perhaps the primary reason why those who leave prison are also the ones who immediately come back. I'm not particularly fond of the idea of one building housing all prisoners. One entire dark dungeon holding every prisoner helps keep all behavior much more hidden, much more withdrawn. Whether the secret activities of prisoners will result in harm to the guards, other members of society, or each other, an eye should be watching. Ideally, the housing of these prison inmates should resemble effective tenement housing. Each prisoner should be allowed his own quarters to reside, perhaps in a building with four floors, each floor holding four quarters, that way, it would resemble a square shape. This would allow ample sunlight and fresh air for each quarter. At a certain time each day, a prisoner would be restricted to his quarter, much like a cell, at a certain time (i. e. "lockdown"). Such a time, I imagine would be around 9 or 10 at nighttime until 8 in the morning. The idea of one entire public shower seems to have allowed for too much cruelty throughout history, so each quarter must be outfitted with its personal shower. Throughout the entirety of the grounds of the prison, there will always be some guards on duty walking through. The entire complex ought to be surrounded by a very high concrete wall, with armed guards on the top. The work area for all the guards will be outside of the concrete wall, to prevent prisoners from gaining access to weaponry or anything else that could be used to escape or cause harm. The guards are to be taught that they are aiding in reforming these prisoners -- that they are to act as compassionate masters, not as slaving overseers. I also imagine that such international, non-profit organizations should be allowed, at all times, to monitor the prisons.

In the previous paragraph, I have effectively drawn an example of the protection that society, the guards, and other prisoners, would be allowed. I have also granted a rather generous portion of liberty to people who have demonstrated that they have difficulty living in liberty. Why so? Well, the liberties that I did grant them, such as their own shower, their own quarters, the ability to walk around wherever they like in a courtyard at any time (except lockdown) -- all of these liberties can be granted to these prisoners. What makes me think so? Because they would be surrounded and watched by armed guards, plus an enormous concrete wall. There is another part of the life of the prison that must be considered, though. It is the work and recreation part. Traditionally, this is a combination of making license plates and lifting weights. That idea, also, must be entirely removed from the prison. These prisoners must be required to work, and their labors must be enough to pay for the prison system (the guards, the concrete wall, the quarters, etc.). I imagine that, even in an unfree society as this, that would amount to three to five hours a day -- so long as the these prisoners are paid the wealth they create. The industry that they engage in should depend on the prison. One might prefer farming, while another prefers manufacturing. Whatever the case, prisoners must work to pay for their stay at this place. It has been preferred that these prisoners stick to an industry that does not compete with other national industries. This idea is absurd. But, then again, so is the system of Capitalism, which allows these other national industries to be privately owned. However, all that is a debate for another time.

Then there is the consideration of recreation in this place. These prisoners ought to be afforded some wage for their labors, of which they can use to purchase certain recreational items. In our modern prisons, it is considered a crime if a man has a poster or a book that cannot be accounted for. This, too, must be entirely removed from our prisons. These prisoners, as I said, are paying for their crimes -- while they are in the prison, they are to be treated as ordinary citizens, with restricted liberties. They ought to be allowed to purchase such items as notepads for writing and sketching, books for reading, music discs, perhaps simple electronics, among other items that would be of recreational use to these prisoners. I think there would be minimum books or music discs available at the prison store, though, since there would be an enormous library there that would aid them, not only in their recreation, but also in their re-education. The courtyard to which the prisoners are confined must be equipped with public recreational activities, perhaps certain sporting or weight-lifting areas. It is important that these prisoners are allowed a form of recreation. The most important right of all is the right to cultivate your own mind and to sow the seeds of passion in your own heart. To deny this most fundamental right to these men would be to turn them in to tyrants. And, inevitably, the only victims of the system would be the prisoners and their to-be victims in society.

Finally, there is the consideration of the re-education in this place. I have stated, very thoroughly, that I am opposed to compulsary education in a free society. However, once we enter the realm of prisons, once we pass those walls that are meant to be keep a criminal element inside, I feel that such a society is only free in so few ways. A schooling system must be implemented in this prison that is a requirement, but I think the required portion ought to be no more than three hours. Combined with the work schedule, this will make for a 6 to 8 hour day. When a man spends more than half of his day in labor, then he is made to feel truly like a slave -- very unfit for a free society. Besides, the prisoner will be allowed plenty of time on his own. Time for which to think, which is the essential ethic of a real education: to provoke thought, even without formal lesson. Even when engaging in something seemingly as simple as a basketball game, the gears of the human mind can be turning in various channels and in different aspects that are unknown to all but that one person. The purpose of the re-education program is to teach the prisoners basic, fundamental, and practical principles that will help them live in a society of a free men. In a way, one might accurately call them "sociology classes," but they will be far more useful than just sociology.

With all this considered, it seems that this would be a very effective prison system. The work program will pay for the expenses of the prison, while teaching a workmanship ethic to those incarcerated. The recreational program will allow the inmates to engage in activities that make them feel free again. And the re-education program will give them a sense of belonging and worth once they return to living in a free society. With all of the restrictions put on these prisoners, I highly doubt that any harm would erupt from these new reforms. In fact, for individuals who have committed lesser crimes, I imagine there would be lesser security prisons for them. The judges of our time even recognize this absurdity of prisons helping people becoming better today, by using house arrest instead of actual prisons.

With all this said, I can only hope that the reader leaves this piece with a bit more inspiration, and a bit more knowledge, than when he began reading.

www. punkerslut. com

For Life,

Punkerslut

Casino prive et programmes d affiliation comment ca marche

: Le secteur le plus porteur de cette dйcennie reste le casino en ligne. Pour faire face а ce phйnomиne, les casinos mettent en place une stratйgie marketing vous proposant des programmes d'affiliation, de plus en plus rйpandu dans le monde des casinos virtuels. Si vous faite partie de la catйgorie des affiliйs audacieux des plateformes de gambling, vous serez accueillis tel un VIP lors de votre inscription et des outils marketing des plus performants vous seront alors mis librement а disposition. Sans oubliez bien йvidemment les cйlиbres banniиres, du matйriel crйatif afin de promouvoir le casino que vous aurez prйalablement choisi parmi la gamme proposйe. Attention toutefois de choisir avec attention, car cette activitй est un vrai business comportant ses propres rиgles que voici. Avantage du programme d'Affiliation: 1. Vous pouvez toucher une commission s'йlevant de 30 а 35% sur les casinos en ligne sйrieux. 2. Vous pouvez remporter des gains illimitйs. La seule chose que vous devrez faire est d'insйrer un logo que vous dйsirez affiliй sur votre site de gambling. Si l'espace venait а vous manquer, contactez les fournisseurs de jeux afin de trouver une solution intermйdiaire. Toute personne cliquant sur la banniиre sera dиs lors votre client. 3. L'inscription est simple. Remplissez simplement un formulaire en ligne et votre enregistrement sera complet. 4. Insйrez dans votre site une alette des jeux de casinos incontournables tels les jeux de cartes, les roulettes et les machines а sous, sans oubliez les jeux populaires tels le Keno, le Craps etc, et les jeux de grattage. 5. Prenez conseil et laissez vous assister dans le management du program d'affiliation par des professionnels, afin de pouvoir connaоtre et bйnйficier des meilleurs outils. Connectez vous йgalement sur les sites offrant les dernieres versions des produits existants. 6. Obtenez les meilleurs rйsulats. Convertissez votre traffic en argent. 7. Profitez des bonus, remises et autres promotions, sans oubliez les avantages attribuйs aux nouveaux inscrits. 8. Motivez vos clients par des promotions courantes. L'innovation et le professionnalisme sont les clefs de la rйussite des casinos en ligne et du gambling en gйnйral. Face aux fluctuations d'Internet et des derniиres tendances, les programmes d'affiliation des casinos restent le meilleur investissement.

Dangerous ideas

title:Dangerous Ideas?

author:David Ben-Ariel

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_7.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16

category:politics_and_government

article:

A three judge Israeli panel permitted certain women to have services at the Western Wall, noting they "have the right to pray according to their custom...It is unacceptable that concern about a violent reaction by any sector of the public will lead to denial of the exercise by another sector of its right."

Yet it is precisely because of the threats of militant Muslims that Christians and Jews have always been denied their religious right upon the Temple Mount. Based upon the ruling, "freedom of access" to the Temple Mount should finally be guaranteed for all, as Israeli law states.

Former Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert accused the government and Attorney General of FAILING TO PROTECT JEWISH RIGHTS UPON THE TEMPLE MOUNT and were permitting the Muslims to build another mosque there. "Priceless archaeological treasures are being destroyed in the process," Olmert was quoted by Israel Radio. A municipal official who wanted to see the site was turned back by police. So law-abiding officials are turned away from the Temple Mount while Muslim criminals flout the law and foxes run free?

Benjamin Netanyahu: "The right of the Jewish people to its holy place - the Temple Mount - cannot be questioned...I believe it is necessary to arrange for Jewish prayer on the site, especially given that we permit freedom of worship to all the religions in Jerusalem...". And his office charged Palestinian officials with "disparaging Jewish holy sites and threatening potential worshippers" (in flagrant violation of Israel's 1967 Law for the Protection of the Holy Places and the Oslo Accords). His deputy director of communications, Michael Freund, responded to the PA mufti's declaration of war (that Jews "...must absolutely forget about having any rights over the Temple Mount...the Western Wall is just a fence belonging to a Muslim holy site") by saying "these statements are repugnant and they betray a contempt for Judaism's most sacred sites and beliefs. They are an affront to history and insulting to Jews everywhere."

Tzachi Hanegbi, former Israeli Public Security Minister, was quoted by Israeli media as telling the Knesset that the Temple Mount would soon be open to non-Muslims, with or without Muslim agreement:

"We cannot tolerate a situation in which worshippers of all faiths are not allowed to pray on Temple Mount...The time is close, much closer than one thinks, when Jews will be able to pray on this holy site."

Now, it's past time for Israel to take note of these public pronouncements and LIFT THE UNJUST ENTRY BAN ON DAVID BEN-ARIEL for simply saying and writing the same thing (for years). The Israeli police truly know and understand that the only security threat that came from my calls for this LONG OVERDUE JUSTICE were from the same Muslims who threaten to defy any changes in the deplorable status quo upon the Temple Mount.

I've been blessed to have served as a lowly volunteer on eight kibbutzim throughout the Promised Land of Israel. One of them was Kibbutz Sdot Yam, home to the Hungarian-born Israeli heroine, Hannah Senesh. While there I read Hannah Senesh: Her Life and Diary, that included this interesting observation: "When anyone in Hungary spoke of Zionism five or even two years ago, Jewish public opinion condemned him as a traitor of Hungary, laughed at him, considered him a mad visionary, and under no circumstances heard him out."

Thank God that the few Zionists were able to transcend the bitter criticism of the short-sighted majority! Thank G-d that such "mad" visionaries saw their dream become a reality: a Jewish Homeland!

During my brief appearance before Israel's High Court, the prosecution charged that I hold "dangerous ideas." I suppose the short-sighted prosecution would ban the Bible if he could since it contains the "dangerous ideas" that millions believe in! What are those "dangerous ideas?" That the Promised Land is promised to Israel and not to Ishmael; that the Temple Mount must be restored as the TEMPLE Mount and respected as Judaism's holiest site; that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel.

May Israel appreciate those who stand with them, who encourage them to be strong and overcome every obstacle, that the "dangerous ideas" may be recognized as innocent IDEALS and embraced, that Israel may live and prosper!

Spike lee top films and unforgettable controversies

Spike Lee is one of the most influential and provocative American moviemakers. Recently, he celebrated the 20 year anniversary for the release of his remarkable debut film Shes Gotta Have It. His films are groundbreaking in their controversial approach towards social and political issues and offer different perspective on race, class and gender issues in contemporary America.

Spike Lee was born as Shelton Jackson Lee in 1957 in Atlanta, Georgia to a jazz musician and an art teacher. When Lee was a young child, the family relocated to Brooklyn, which was used as a background for many of Spike Lee's movies. Lee's talent was recognized while he was still a film student in NYU. His thesis film Joes Bed Stuy Barbershop: We Cut Heads won 1983 Student Academy Award for best director.

Spike Lee's debut movie Shes Gotta Have It was released in 1986. The movie was shot in 12 days in a budget of 175,000 dollars. The film was written, produced and directed by Spike Lee. Shes Gotta Have It tells the story of Nora Darling, a young, independent African American graphic designer who cannot commit to any of her three lovers. Tracy Camilla Jones played the role of Nora Darling. Tommy Redmond Hicks and John Canada Terrell along with Lee himself played the three men in Noras life.

Shes Gotta Have It was a landmark film in its presentation of African American characters in an American movie and part of the explosion of 80s independent movie industry. The African American community embraced the movie, which displayed a non stereotypical group of young, intelligent black American people. The film won the Prix de Jeuness at the Cannes film festival for the best new film by a newcomer.

The 1992 biographic epic Malcolm X is considered by many as Lee's best film. The 195 minutes movie depicts the story of the African American activist Malcolm X, from his early childhood to his assassination. Lee uses the Malcolm X story to confront the audience with the racial discrimination and violence that black people went through during the 1950s and 1960s in America.

Spike Lee's name was associated with many controversies. He was often accused of anti Semitism and racism for portraying Jews and Italians in his films a stereotypical manner. His 2001 television miniseries about one of the Black Panthers founders, Huey P. Newton, stirred another controversy, which helped establish Lee's image as a provocative and radical figures in the American film industry.

Lee's latest project is the documentary When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts, which tells the story of New Orleans post and pre hurricane Katrina. The four hours documentary is about the New Orleans culture, the damage caused by hurricane Katrina and the recovery efforts. Lee does not spare his critic on the government inadequate reaction to the destruction.

5 Top Movies Directed by Spike Lee

Do The Right Thing: this 1989 comic drama shows what happens in Brookline when the interracial tension heats up during the hottest day of the year. Starring: Spike Lee, Danny Aiello, John Turturro

Mo Better Blues: Denzel Washington as a jazz trumpeter who makes all the wrong decisions regarding his musical career and relationships.

Jungle Fever tells a pessimistic interracial love story between an African American man and an Italian American woman.

Girl 6 looks at the life of a young black actress who prefers working as a phone girl than being abused by movie directors

25th Hour is dedicated to the last 24 hours in the life of a New York drug dealer before his jail term begins.

Poker betting limit how to pick one 4 u

: Before you head for the nearest empty chair at an open poker table, hold on. There is one very important factor that you must check and verify before you start playing. What? Check the betting limit of that particular table. Why? This is what determines the professional skills of the poker players you will face and will also help you calculate approximately how much cash you need for this particular round of betting. For the Casual Poker Fan: You should try and begin by selecting a table with a low limit. Here, you will enjoy the relatively casual ambience and friendly opponents, who will not have a lot of experience playing and thus you stand a fair chance of winning. The slight problem with such games is that such kinds of tables are difficult to locate. In addition, those playing at such tables tend to play in a very conservative manner and this slows down the flow of the game. If you are still interested in looking for such tables you will be able to find them at the downtown casinos and gambling halls or at poker rooms not located on the Las Vegas strip itself such as the Palace Station. Wish to Play Texas Holdem Instead? Here too, select the lower limit games such as the 4/8 version. In this game, you will be allowed to increase only by four dollars and hence the name. Then, when you come to the last two betting rounds, you will have to double it to eight dollars. Likewise, you can also find the following limits: two and then four, three and then six, four and then eight, eight and then sixteen, fifteen and then thirty, thirty and then sixty and the last one which is pretty different to find (and which unless you are prepared to dish out large sums, you should avoid.) forty and then eight during the last two rounds of betting. How Many Chips Should You Purchase In Such Games? What you can do is multiply the end limit by about twenty and then make sure you have that amount. For example, if you wanted to join a table where the limit is two and then four. Multiply four into twenty and you get eighty. So, this is the sum of chips you must bring in to the game by buying them from the cash counters in the casino. Another option is playing Texas holdem with no limits whatsoever, but beware. Such games pull pros and then you will find yourself at a big disadvantage. For the Experienced Poker Player: Most pros prefer playing Texas holdem than other poker games. And such professionals opt for games with no limit or that have a high limit of at least fifteen dollars. Beware, these tables (You can find them in the top casinos such as the Bellagio and others on the strip.) are places where you can lose hundreds of dollars in minutes so unless you are aware of this or unless you want to swim with the sharks because you consider yourself a shark too, stay away. Conclusion: Note that sometimes the tables might be occupied and it might take you a while to get a seat. Remember that this is not an online casino where tables are always open. Have patience and wait and do not leave and just join a higher or lower limit table than the one you have decided on. Remember that the outcome of your casino experience depends on this decision.

Peres came to power over rabin s dead body

title:Peres Came To Power Over Rabin's Dead Body

author:David Ben-Ariel

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_4.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16

category:politics_and_government

article:

I met Yitzhak Rabin in the Israeli Parliament in 1982 during Hanukkah. I was able to talk with him briefly and mention I was associated with Ambassador College in Pasadena, California.

That was a tactful way of saying I'm a Christian since I knew he personally knew Herbert W. Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God, including the Plain Truth magazine. Mr. Armstrong had presented him with a gift of Steuben crystal before.

I was a volunteer at Kibbutz Ramat Yohanan at the time, in Northern Israel near Haifa. Just so happens Rabin had lived there for over a year in the late '50s.

I initially considered Rabin - born in Jerusalem - a traitor for surrendering too much to sworn Arab enemies who had not changed their goal of genocide, only their tactics; for going against clear security concerns he once expressed. (I was in a cafe in Jerusalem when he was shot in Tel Aviv). I refused to attend his funeral, although I had attended Rabbi Meir Kahane's some years before.

Later I found out Rabin was apparently being pressured by the dark powers that be to continue to go against what he knew was wrong and that he resisted and was therefore MURDERED by them for coming to his senses.

I do not believe Yigal Amir murdered Rabin. ( I met Avishai Raviv several times - he's the government agent provacateur who goaded Raviv to murder Rabin). Amir is a patsy, the fall-guy, as is thoroughly expounded upon in Who Killed Yitzhak Rabin by Barry Chamish, his first book that broached the subject and clearly indicts the traitor and murderer Shimon Peres (whose Hebrew name appropriately means vulture).

I repeatedly condemn Peres as a kapo of compromise, a prostitute who serves his German-Jesuit EU masters, a traitor who has sold and is selling out Jews, Jerusalem and Israel and say as much in Beyond Babylon. I am on public record against his perfidy and continue to expose him. He was the Bolshevik in charge during my deportation, who was very much aware of an article published in Jerusalem where I mention the EU plans for Jerusalem's occupation.

The Israeli Secret Police (6 interrogated me) had a computer disk with my book on it and said many would read it/examine it during their investigation of me during their wild goose chase. I told them to make sure Peres read it....

Facts about the management of american ports

title:Facts About the Management of American Ports

author:Rusty Ford

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_224.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16

category:politics_and_government

article:

The last two weeks there has been an uproar over who manages our ports. The uproar began when it became public that the British company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., who manages terminal at 6 US ports was being bought out by Dubai Ports World. DPW is owned by Dubai which is one of the 7 Emirates of the United Arab Emirates. Since then there has been many statement made that have no bearing in fact. Any debate needs to be based on facts and not fear and political posturing. While I believe that no port operations should be managed by companies from out side the United States, I do not agree with using false information to promote that position.

Fact 1. DPW is not buying 6 American ports. All ports in the United States are owned by the states they are located in. In fact no part of the ports are owned by companies inside or outside the US. That said there are terminals, warehouses and other facilities that are leased to companies both inside and outside the US. DPW is buying P&O P&O which runs shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Fact 2. None of our ports are managed by companies inside or outside the US. Our ports are run by government bodies called Port Authorities . Many local Port Authorities contract out the management of individual terminals inside the port. Many times these terminals are leased to the company that manages them.

Fact 3. There are companies in America that can manage operations at our ports. I have seen several articles and many postings in blogs that say that our port operations are managed by foreign companies because there are no companies in America that do that kind of job. The truth is that two of the 10 largest port management companies are located here in the US.

Fact 4 The U. S. Coast Guard, Customs, port police and the Department of Homeland Security for all terminal operators. The operators themselves are not responsible for security. That being said there is a lot of information about how our ports are operated and possible vulnerabilities in the hands of companies out side our country.

Does facts 1, 2, and 4 mean that we should allow foreign companies to manage operations at our ports? I do not think so. It is one thing for a private company to out source jobs out side the US and another for our government to do so. If you look at the approval numbers for the President and the Congress you see that 65% to 70% of the people are not happy with the quality of jobs they are doing. We would all agree that it would be wrong to out source these positions to people in other countries who might do the job cheaper. Below are the top 4 reasons I thing we should not allow out sourcing the operations of our ports to companies out side the US.

1. Government: We are all familiar with the concept of government of the people, by the people and for the people. Ports are part of our government. The management of operations of our ports should be done by our people and for our people.

2. Security: Our ports are one of the most sensitive access points to our country. Even though we manage the security do we want people from foreign countries having access to every detail about how one of our ports is run, how to access the port, possible vulnerabilities of the port and access to how the ports security operates.

3. Taxes: Our ports are run by taxes and fees charged to the citizens of the US is it right to take tax money and give it to companies outside the United States. Even though some of those taxes are paid by the shipping company that uses the port. Those taxes are figured into the price of the goods and passed on to the consumer.

4. Economics: Many of our Port Authorities do not want to manage the day to day operations of our ports therefore they out source the management of the ports to private companies. Should our government be out sourcing quality management jobs to companies outside the US just because they pay their people less.

If you are interested in signing the petition to ask our elected officials to require the management of the operations of our ports to be by companies located here in the US then visit this site.

http://common-sense-america. com/port-petition. htm

Manifestation of corruption

The freedom of choice is the key aim of any democratic state and this principle has been developing fro ages. The person is forced, by circumstances or by desires, to make a choice between what is right and what is easy. Nowadays it is not difficult to pick an easy way and never regret about the consequences, though that are not favorably impressing. Good and evil are the two sides of one pole that keep the universe in movement. A misbalance may brig a lot of matters onto the surface that are more than shocking. An average individual is subjected to stress, various social interactions that can either carry a positive experience, or misleading conclusions and they put together force people to make decision that are easy but not right. A common thing nowadays that leads to another wave of stress and nightmares.

In the English language a linguist may find a good word, that correspond best to the state of things that are described with fear nowadays. This word is corruption and the definitions of it vary. The first is the state of decay, decomposition of any live matter on the Earth. Politicians, economists and other representatives define it implantation of illegal ways into the solid system for personal gain. There are so many manifestations of corruption that it is rather difficult to group them. The main are bribery, embezzlement, extortion, nepotism and other ways to corrupt the generally accepted system. Bribery is a crime that involves the offer or acceptance of money or other valuable matters in order to influence or take in control the sequence of actions involving the person that is in public duty. Embezzlement is the falsified ownership of property without the former agreement with the owner. Extortion is a criminal offense, which involves extortion money by threatening the subject by harming him, his property or the range of his acquaintances. Nepotism involves the favor of relatives and other close individuals in public matters. These types of corruption are more or less present in any independent state, regardless their political regime and religious believes.

There are no existing ways to exclude corruption from the system. There are still public scientists working on special features of this social phenomenon. Common sense is most likely to betray when there is a possibility to become wealthier and more powerful. There are some actions taken to bring up good citizen, but nothing can go against human nature but the very soul and heart.

The science of science

title:The Science of Science!

author:Terry Connors

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_94.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16

category:politics_and_government

article:

What is Science!?

First of all, Science! is not the same as science. Science! is the study and knowledge of all things scientific, quasiscientific, or pseudoscientific. Anything that is obscure, incoherent, or improbable is made clear by the purveyor of Science! (also known as the Scientist!). The Scientist! has access to knowledge that even scientists do not have access to. They are truly the masters of all that is True and Scientific!

There are 3 characteristics of the practitioner of Science!

They always work alone. Scientists usually have teams of other scientists and technicians working with them. The Scientist!, on the other hand, works alone, in their own, small, often home-built, laboratory. The laboratory will be filled with various whirring, clicking, blinking, or bubbling pieces of lab equipment which appear to have no purpose since the Scientist! never touches them.

They work fast. In real science, scientists develop theories, test their theories, and then modify or abandon the theories as the evidence evolves. The process often takes years, if not a lifetime. In Science! the Scientist! gets his or her answer in a matter of days (or hours, or weeks, or minutes, depending on what timeframe is most dramatic). Usually, the Scientist! gets a bright idea, runs to the lab to test the theory, and then comes back with an unexpected, but clearly genius, answer to the mystery/problem/question in record time.

They are always right. Everyone else is always wrong. In real science, peer review is a critical part of the scientific process. In Science! peer review is not only unessecary, but is detrimental. Mainstream scientists never accept what the Scientist! has to say until events prove them to be soundly (and often, fatally) wrong.

Television, movies, and literature are full of practitioners of Science! One of the best example is the Professor in the TV Series "Gilligan's Isle." Does anyone know what he was a professor of? That's right! He was a Professor of Science! The professor understood everything from primative cultures, to weather phenomena, to electromechanics, to astronomy. A master of Science!, he could do almost anything (except patch a hole in a boat).

Science! has evolved over time. In the 50's and 60's, the Scientist! was a non-specialist (and usually male). Science! gave him mastery over every possible field of study (much like the professor in "Gilligan's Isle"). In modern times, the Scientist! is more likely to be a specialist, to acknowledge that, in the real world, most scientists are specialists. What they get wrong, however, undermines the one thing they tried to get right. For example, in the TV show Stargate SG-1. The character of Sam Carter is a Scientist! specializing in physics, while Daniel Jackson is a Scientist! specializing in archaeology. They both (especially Sam) have the attributes of the Scientist!, however. 1) They work alone, 2) they solve the mysteries of the universe in a few hours or days, and 3) most of the other scientists (when they show up with a theory) are wrong.

Another example of a modern Scientist! is the protagonist, Robert Langdon, in The DaVinci Code. Although Langdon deviates slightly from the typical Scientist! (the typical Scientist! is alone in his beliefs, but Langdon actually has the support of many of his peers), in other ways he is the same. He manages to solve the great mystery in the course of an evening, and there is never, at any time, a question that he may actually be WRONG in his beliefs.

And so, this is Science!. It is a product of movies, television, and literature, and it is real, in the sense that perception is reality. People think that all real science is done by lone geniuses who try to buck the system that keeps them down. If you ask most people, they will probably say that we would have flying cars and robots by now if it weren't for the scientific community hobbling the handful of geniuses in their midst. It is this mindset that has led to the proliferation of pseudoscience, and theories such as Intelligent Design. The best defense against the growing misconception of what science is and what scientists do, is education. We need to teach our children, and our adults, that Hollywood is Hollywood, and that a Hollywood Scientist! has as much basis in reality as a Hollywood action hero.

Sirius remembers september 11 in 2005 with commemorative events

title:Sirius Remembers September 11 in 2005 with commemorative events

author:Scott Fish

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_34.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16

category:politics_and_government

article:

SIRIUS satellite radio has made an effort to reach out to those affected by September 11. Uninterrupted coverage and observance held at the World Trade Center site. Reading of victims' names by their siblings and several other commemorative events will begin at approximately 8:30 am ET and conclude at 1:00 pm ET on channel 126. The observance will pause at four moments—twice to mark the times that each plane hit the towers, and twice to mark the time when each tower fell.

Said New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg:

"As New York City’s renewal continues, we pause on the anniversary of that terrible day in September of 2001 to remember those we lost, and to reaffirm our commitment to honor their lives—both by rebuilding Lower Manhattan and by creating a beautiful memorial that will touch millions of hearts. Sadly, the unconscionable acts of terrorism perpetrated against New Yorkers and Americans on September 11th continue to be carried out in other parts of the world, and our prayers go out to the families and victims. On the fourth anniversary of the September 11th attack here in New York City, we plan to mark this solemn occasion by asking siblings to take the lead in this year’s ceremony. In this small way, we acknowledge the special bonds they share with their beloved brothers and sisters who died that day."

Said New York Governor George Pataki:

"Time will never dull the grief of those who lost their loved ones on that tragic day, nor will it diminish our dedication to remembering our heroes and ensuring that a fitting memorial rises in their name. As we approach the fourth anniversary of September 11, 2001, we will particularly remember the siblings of those who were lost, as they have the privilege of honoring their loved ones at this year’s ceremony. On September 11, 2005, there will be, as there has been each year, a statewide moment of silence and ringing of bells at 8:46 am, so that people from all over New York State, indeed, across America and the world, can take a moment to remember the heroes we lost and the spirit of freedom that prevailed on that day. It is a spirit of freedom that will endure always, on the site of the World Trade Center, and in our hearts."

Bbc banned music top singles banned by the bbc

The British Broadcasting Corporation also known as the BBC is a public broadcasting corporation. Therefore, it allows itself to ban materials that deviate from certain standards of civility. During the years, many singles that were seen as too explicit, distasteful or bear the potential for offending the British public were banned from BBC airplay. Here you can read about some of them.

In 1977, when England was celebrating the Queens Jubilee, the Sex Pistols had released their second single titled God Save the Queen. The single includes controversial lyrics that rhyme the national anthem title with fascist regime. Moreover, the record cover displayed a picture of the Queen with a safety pin stuck in her nose.

The single was found to offensive to be air played by the BBC, but it did not stop it from reaching number two on the BBC official singles chart. According to the myth, God Save the Queen was the top selling single in the UK at the time, but it was held back of number one to avoid controversies.

Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin scandalous duet Je TAime ... Moi Non Plus, translated: I love you... me neither, was the first ever number one hit to be banned by the BBC. Although at the time of its release, in 1969, the sexual revolution was celebrated, the British radio still was not able to cope with such explicit lyrics, not to mention Birkins moans and groans.

The BBC ban and The Vatican denounce, did not stop Je TAime ... Moi Non Plus from being a top selling single in the UK and worldwide. In October 7, 1969, the single reached number one in the BBC official singles chart. At the same time, it had reached number 69 at the US singles chart.

Je TAime ... Moi Non Plus was a major influence on another BBC banned single, Donna Summers disco pioneer from 1976 titled Love to Love You Baby. After counting 23 faked orgasms performed by Summer in Love to Love You Baby, the British Broadcasting Corporation banned the song. However, it did not stop it from becoming a massive hit. Love to Love You Baby reached number four on the UK single charts but peaked to number two on the Billboard pop chart.

Relax by Frankie Goes to Hollywood is one of the most controversial singles as well as commercially successful singles in history. The BBC did not only ban the song it also did not stop BBC Radio 1 DJ Mike Read to publicly express his feelings of disgust from the single's explicit lyrics. In 1984, Relax stayed in the UK singles charts for 42 weeks. In five of them, it stayed in number one. By the end of 1984, embarrassed Auntie Beeb removed the ban. Relax is still very popular worldwide and it is one of the most recognized symbols of the era. The arguments on whether it gained such a huge success despite the BBC ban or the BBC ban helped promoting it have not been settled yet.

Paul McCartney and the Wings response to the 1972 Bloody Sunday events titled Give Ireland Back to the Irish, was banned by every media resource in the UK. It was forbidden from being broadcast by the BBC, Radio Luxembourg and the Independent Television Authority. In addition, the song title was not allowed to be pronounced on the air, so when it arrived to the BBC Radio 1 chart show it was presented as a record by the group Wings. However, Give Ireland Back to the Irish hit the top of the Irish singles charts.

Spin cycle

title:Spin Cycle

author:J Square Humboldt

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_130.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16

category:politics_and_government

article:

It's possible that a seminal moment in the history of electronic news occurred when a comedian confronted commentators ...

Not long after Jon Stewart --- host of the Comedy Central cable channel's amusing newscast, The Daily Show --- appeared on CNN's staid Crossfire and roundly scorched its principals in a well-publicized confrontation over journalistic integrity (or the lack thereof), the news network announced that Crossfire was being cancelled. Ostensibly, the network said this move was due to the departure of conservative commentator Tucker Carlson. However, he wasn't the original 'right-wing' representative on that show and there were surely more of that flock who would have willingly stepped into the position. CNN has probably assembled a litany of rationalizations for their decision to dump the program, but none of them will dare to broach the actual undertone of perception that would trump anything on their list:

In this day an age in the USA, a comedy show is more adept than a news show at presenting current events.

The crux of the matter is that contemporary electronic journalism is just as subject to the Prime Tenet of Marketing as any sales campaign would be, ie - to be successful, it is imperative to 'sell the sizzle and not the steak.'

Viewing this contention from another angle, respected newsman Ted Koeppel almost saw his redoubtable Nightline program shelved in favor of yet another late-night talk show featuring a comedian. Now that he's retiring, it's notable that the program will shift directions anyway, seemingly to assume a 'lighter' appearance in presentation to presumably better compete with the entertainers.

The sorrowful corollary of this point is that not only do the news operations overly heed the 'sizzle' mantra, so do many of the organizations who feed them their details. In the battle for dominance and perception, 'spin' is paramount.

Slanting a report to influence its perception has been in existence since the dawn of time, when Reporterpithicus --- or whatever version of man existed back then --- first related to someone else what someone told him. The tendency to spin has now evolved to where it has innately seeped into a troubling number of major news organizations. Anyone who has viewed a moment of Fox News can see for themselves how blatantly they have embraced this trend to promote their conservative leanings. MSNBC seems to be unusually beholden to the corporate world. CNN appears to abide the techniques of spin so as to not have their ratings erode any further.

Such policies clearly resonate in the minds and actions of their reporters in the field. Most seem to blithely absorb the spin given them by corporate and government spokesmen, given the bulk of milquetoast questions that now populate press conferences. Such practices and policies allow the Tucker Carlsons, Bill O'Reillys and Robert Novaks of the world to run amok, apparently encouraged to talk over any dissenting viewpoint as if they were thinly-veiled Jerry Springer clones in a stodgier setting.

Add the consideration that so many of those corporate and government spokesmen are so singly simple-minded about the message they're spinning, and it's no wonder a comedy offering like The Daily Show has risen in pop credibility to a level of perception that rivals the news programs. With so many thin platforms of substance just waiting to be skewered, Jon Stewart and his staff gladly accept a veritable cornucopia of material with every day's harvest of sound bites. The punch lines contained therein seem to literally grab them by the lapels and insist to be written.

If you want to confirm that point, watch an episode and see how many times Mr Stewart merely needs to raise his eyebrows after a sound bite in order to draw guffaws.

Toss in the fact that Comedy Central's video-to-mobile service is better defined for content than any of the news organizations, and The Daily Show is further cementing its image as the 'cool' news outlet for the younger set of voting age.

It's notable that, in late-20th century American politics, when media 'cool' was on the ascent, Democrats won elections. It was true for John F Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, and if that party could ever find a leader, it might be true again.

One would think the Republicans might take a hint and go back to the straight talk that struck enough of a nerve with voters to put them in the majority. Currently, that would advisably include an element of fallibility and contrition over recent policies and events. It remains to be seen if anyone in that camp is forthright enough to admit as much.

Otherwise, it's all but inevitable that the obfuscation of news spin and comedy fodder will further lower the quality of daily electronic information to a series of straight lines that grew from Chevy Chase's Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live portraying Gerald Ford as a bumbler and has now progressed to the possibility of The Daily Show becoming an A-list stop on the itinerary of any legitimate candidate.

With all due respect to that excellent comedy series, if such a thing ever happened, it wouldn't be breaking news. It would be broken news.

Counting cards how to escape detection

It is not a secret for anyone that casinos do not like blackjack counters and frequently ask them to leave or to play another game. Here, we will describe how casino management detects counters and how to act when caught. We also describe the countermeasures that casinos use against skilled players but most of all we show you how to count cards while not getting caught.

Do Casinos Object?

Most casinos have strict policies that ban any player from counting cards when playing blackjack, but some like those in New Jersey do not pay any attention to such players.

How Do You Know Whether A Casino Minds?

You do not. But you had better act as if they all do and thus save yourself the embarressment of being shoved out if they do mind and if they catch you red-handed.

How to Count Without Getting Detected?

Always keep in mind that since card counting is something that one does silently, the only method to detect it is through observing you and the manner you play. Thus, look out for the following:

1) Do not stare at the cards of other players. Glance once, count, and then move on.

2) Do not stare at the cards that have been discarded. Look quickly and then slowly move away by shifting your gaze nonchalantly from player to player.

3) Change your pattern of betting occassionaly.

4) Change the amount of betting money each round.

5) Even though you know it, loose a round or two. Do not bet big on those rounds. But likewise do not bet too small too. If the casino notices that you are always winning big and losing small, they might get suspicious.

6) Buy chips of different colours and then mix them around while playing to confuse the dealer.

7) Talk to the other players while playing, but this is especially difficult so practice this at home before trying it at a casino.

8) Pick your seat carefully: either the first chair or the third one so that you won't have to twist your head around as the cards are dealt.

9) Dress casually because smart and elegant clothes cause the dealers to think you are intelligent and they might watch you more closely.

10) Order an alcoholic drink and pretend to sip it because they are looking for those non-drinkers who are staying sober to count the cards.

The common denominator of all these is that you must never forget that the casino si watching you and how you play. Act accordingly!

Supposing that the Casino Catches On, What Should you Do?

Stay calm if the casino catches you counting cards and abide by their wishes quietely. Do not make a fuss. If they ask you to leave, do so. The faster you leave, the easier it will be for you to return later. Remember that if you make a fuss, they will all remember you, so desist from any unfriendly behaviour. Note that after shifts change, the new personnel won't know you so all you have to do is wait for that and then you can start playing again. You could also just enter the next casino and start earning money there instead of risking casino personnel from recognizing you.

How to defeat terrorism

: Stopping terrorism is not like gambling, in poker there are different variables that can affect the outcome but it fighting terror the only way to win is to fight to the end. Many people thing that the terrorist feel they have been wronged by something or someone and that giving them something will end the fight be it land or money, but history has repeatedly shown us that by appeasing the terrorists we are only giving them what they want, and prolonging the fight. They will continue to take everything they are given but they never stop wanting more. An example of this is clear in the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. Israel allows the PLO to return to the west bank and Gaza and form the Palestinian Authority, Israel supplied weapons and the Americans provided training to the Palestinians so they could start a army to fight crime and terrorism. Israel was repaid by the terrorists by suicide bombings in malls, restaurants, clubs and busses. More recently Israel pulled all Jews from Gaza and gave all the land to the Palestinians. The Israelis left behind infrastructure and greenhouses, which could have been used for businesses by the Palestinians. The moment the last troops were out of Gaza the terrorists destroyed what the Israelis left behind and again repaid them with rockets on Sderot and Ashkelon, two Jewish cities bordering Gaza. Many of you are thinking that these problems were brought on by the Israelis stealing Palestinians land, but what was it that the United States did that angered Al Qaeda? Many will say it is because America has troops in Saudi Arabia where the two holiest locations to the Muslim people are, these people are wrong. This fight is not about the terrorists wanting America out of the Middle East. This was is about the pride of one individual. Osama Bin Laden, and that’s all it is about. In 1991 when Saddam Hussein Invaded Kuwait, Saudi Arabia was worried and was looking to get help to protect its oil fields. Osama Bin Laden offered his assistance to help protect his homeland with the help of his Mujahadim, who had helped protect Afghanistan from the Russians in the 80's. But rather then gamble on Bin Laden's holey warriors, the Saudis asked for help from the United States, and this wounded Bin Laden's pride. Now Bin Laden is on a quest to show the world that he is the true protector of Islam, do not be fooled this is a war of religion. The only thing that has ever worked is not to try to negotiate with these people but to fight them with force. You will find that with any military action against terrorists once you start to make some headway they will start to yell about a Hudna or temporary cease fire. When you are in a poker tournament in Casinos Online or land based and your opponent is almost out of chips, do you back off and let your enemy regroup or go all in and force him out. The Only way to defeat terrorism is to fight terrorism whenever and wherever it shows its head, and to never let up on those who would use terror to forward their goals.

Nagin s naggin

title:Nagin's Naggin'

author:Sam I. Calderon

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_31.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16

category:politics_and_government

article:

Mayor C. Ray Nagin of New Orleans exhibits his superior intelligence on a local radio station last week. This so-called ‘interview’ was more of a three-year-old tantrum. They wonder why this city was out of control? Could it be they have a toddler running loose? Baby Ray said the following during the radio ‘interview’:

“You know the reason why the looters got out of control? Because we had most of our resources saving people, thousands of people that were stuck in attics, man, old ladies. ... You pull off the doggone ventilator vent and you look down there and they're standing in there in water up to their freaking necks.”

Excuse me, Ray. The looters got out of control because your local police force could not handle the situation. I don’t blame the officers, it was lack of leadership. The result of Ray’s leadership, or lack thereof is evident:

Chief of the Louisiana State Police, Henry Whitehorn, says there are numerous instances of police officers, many of whom are residents from flooded areas, turning-in their badges. The chief says the police have lost everything and don't feel it's worth going back to take fire from looters and lose their own lives.

One stranded tourist says after asking a police officer for help, he told her to "go to hell"; indicating it was every man for himself. source:www. allheadlinenews. com/articles/7000012729

A wise man once said, “A man’s true colors are revealed in times of distress.” Here we have a mayor with a major disaster on his hands. We expect a leader to step up and take charge as did Mayor Giuliani. Instead, the almighty Mayor sits comfortably in a studio blaming everyone and their fish, cursing the President and confused as to who is in charge. All this while people or drowning and starving. Is this guy nuts? Or maybe it’s his soiled diaper. Let’s slap on another Huggies as we delve deeper into his ranting. The following is a montage of his “I need” mentality:

“I need reinforcements...I need troops, man...I need 500 buses, man...Get every doggone Greyhound bus line in the country and get their asses moving to New Orleans...I need everything.”

He needs mental help. What really puzzles me, at the same time not surprising, is the fact that he has no idea who is in charge! The Mayor of all people has no idea who is in charge or what to do. I’m still trying to decipher why this city is in utter chaos. If the leader is killed in battle, the army crumbles and retreats. The leader, if there ever was one, went MIA after the first glance of Katrina.

“And I don't know whose problem it is. I don't know whether it's the governor's problem. I don't know whether it's the president's problem, but somebody needs to get their ass on a plane and sit down, the two of them, and figure this out right now.”

Just when you thought it couldn't possibly get any worse, here is his solution to the problem:

“Organize people to write letters and make calls to their congressmen, to the president, to the governor. Flood their doggone offices with requests to do something. This is ridiculous.”

Good thinking, Mayor. Let’s take one day to organize people, one day to write a letter and mail it, three days for delivery, two days to make it to the office of the congressman, one day to read and prepare a response. Eight days later we will begin the rescue and recovery effort thanks to the genius we call the Mayor of New Orleans.

The mayor is obviously in a state of confusion and denial, he gave himself away when he said:

“You know, I'm not one of those drug addicts. I am thinking very clearly.”

Okay, Mr. Mayor. Do you need water with those pills? Oh, it helps you think clearly. If this is Mayor Nagin thinking clearly, then we’ve got plenty to worry about. There were unconfirmed reports that after the interview Mayor Nagin was carried to his limo and taken back to his daycare center.

Hurricane Katrina has left behind destruction and death. Countless numbers have lost their homes. In the midst of tragedy and devastation heroes are born. In this case, a coward has been exposed. Thank you, Mayor Ray Nagin. You have added insult to injury. In fact, you have added salt to an open wound and spit in the face of the dying. Instead of physically lending a hand to rescue the victims, you distastefully reach for the microphone and spew your vomit of hatred in hopes of saving your pathetic political career. Sit down and shut up. Heroes will be found elsewhere. This is just my opinion...

How to buy a used car

Think of buying a car as a game of poker, the seller is your opponent he may be bluffing he may not, but just as you would at a poker room in a casino you have to try to read the seller like you would in a poker room in a casino.

Always remember to keep your eyes and ears open, when talking to someone about a used car. Make sure to ask lots of questions.

In a casino you are risking your money, in hopes of getting a big return, but when buying a car you just want to get your moneys worth, you want a car that will be reliable and dependable. You do not want a car that wont start on cold days or that stalls until its been running for a half hour.

Make sure to check the undercarriage and under the hood for rust. To a car rust is like cancer. Once rust is found it will spread unless it is cut off and replaced. Under the car and in the engine compartment you will find some rust it is only natural, but you want it to only be surface rust. This means if you take a wire brush to the rusted area you will brush off the rust and get to clean metal.

Next make sure to check the body of the car, for waves and any bubbling in the paint, this would indicate that the car was in an accident or some rust was incorrectly repaired. It is not uncommon for someone selling a car to have rust spots sanded down and painted over to give the car a fresh look, but what will happen is after a month or two the paint will start to bubble as the metal begins to rust again.

Next, look at the motor and mechanical parts under the hood of the car. The engine should be relatively clean from motor oil. If you see large buildups of oil in an area then chances are a head gasket will need to be replaces because of an oil leak.

All electrical and rubber parts should be checked for cracks. Cracks in rubber parts means that the rubber is old and dried out and will probably need to be replaced eventually.

Make sure to ask the owner if he has all the receipts for any work that has been done to the vehicle.

Another important piece of advice is to make sure to take the car for a good test drive. Do not be afraid to drive the car a little hard with the owner with you in the car, chances are they will understand, if they object then maybe there is something with the car they are trying to hide and you should move on to another car.

Many people will tell you that buying a used car is a gamble but if you take a good hard look at each car, and not get impulsive to buy, you can remove any gamble and guarantee yourself a jackpot of a car.

Auschwitz death camp lesson learned

title:Auschwitz Death Camp, Lesson Learned

author:David Snape

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_196.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16

category:politics_and_government

article:

Retiring

title:Retiring

author:Dennis Kemano

source_url:http://www. essayabc. com/articles/politics_and_government/article_134.shtml

date_saved:2007-07-25 12:30:16

category:politics_and_government

article:

After many, long, hard years working for the federal government, it was finally time for me to retire. It was a day I had waited for, all of my life. No more work and finally being able to enjoy life to its fullest, everyday, was something that I had dreamed of since I first began washing dishes at my hometown's local restaurant, at the age of sixteen.

The day came and went, almost as if it had never happened. I had a big ceremony and, afterward, a party, celebrating my retirement with large groups of co-workers, friends, and family. It was a day to remember with pride and the satisfaction of a job well done. I had worked hard all of my life and one of the many perks of working for the government was that I would be well taken care of in my retirement years. I was so happy that it was finally happening.

After the initial adjustment period to retirement life, I soon became involved in several private clubs and organizations, all for the enjoyment of spending time with others who all shared with me one hobby or another. One of the foremost of those hobbies, for me, was golfing. The best part about spending my time doing nothing but hobbies I enjoyed was that, not only did I never have to do anything except what I thought was fun, but I could do these things with my family, for the most part. Spending time with them made retirement even sweeter.

This went on for nearly a year. It was a period of my life that I would always remember with fondness. I can’t say the same for the next.

I began having problems with my bank account. Since retiring, I had been receiving a certain percentage of the pay rate that I had been previously making when I was employed – my “monthly retirement check”. These days, retirees had the option to receive their retirement pay in the form of direct deposit into their bank account. I had lived with direct deposit for so long, when I was employed, that I opted to continue with that method.

But, one day, the pay was not there. When it was finally sent to the bank, it was only half of what I was supposed to be receiving. I began the lengthy process of trying to correct this problem with the bank and with the financial contacts I had for federal retirees. I say it was “lengthy” because this problem was never corrected.

The next month, the same thing happened, as well as the month after that and the month after that. Serious frustration began to set in and were it not for friends and family pitching in, I would have otherwise had a very difficult time surviving.

The problem never subsided and I began to feel that drastic measures were going to be needed. As if on cue, things got worse. My payments seemed to have stopped all together! Deposits were no longer being made into my bank account at all. I tried a complementary couple of months to straighten things out with the bank and the federal financial advisor whom I had been in association with during the entire time of my struggle, but I soon knew it was time to step up to the plate and look at hiring a lawyer.

I searched for names of lawyers, in the phone book, and found several. By the end of the day, I had left messages on at least ten different voice mails.

I had resided to then make myself a cold drink and spend the early evening out on my porch, contemplating what to do next. I wasn’t outside on the porch for more than five minutes, before a shiny, black car pulled into my driveway. Out of the car stepped several men in dark suits and glasses. Their faces appeared to be made out of stone. The men were expressionless, as they approached the screened porch and asked for me by my name.

I concurred with whom I was and then I was ordered to accompany them in their vehicle. I protested, but not for long. When I was shown that underneath their jackets were firearms, I readily agreed to do what they said.

In their car, I rode in the back seat, sandwiched between two of them, while two more rode in the front. We had been driving for more than an hour and had reached a very desolate area of the state that I had never encountered before. It was now dark outside, I was in an unfamiliar area, and from the looks of things, we were the only people around for hundreds of miles.

None of the men had spoken a word since taking me away from my home. Finally, I could stand it no longer and piped up, asking what this was all about. One of the men, apparently confident that he could speak in all honestly at this point, proceeded to tell me exactly what it was all about. I was sorry I ever asked.

The men were special agents of a secret, black ops government organization that the public was completely unaware of. These men would receive a report at the beginning of the day, from an originator on Capitol Hill, complete with names of certain individuals, all of whom had recently retired from employment with the federal government. Each of these retirees was to be “disposed of” - murdered.

Out of 100% of all federal retirees, the government, nationwide, assassinated 20%. This was a conspiracy that had been in place since the late ’50’s. The federal government promised an ease of life with excellent retirement pay and benefits, barely unmatched by the private sector. But, what the public had failed to ever notice was the underlying plan of the government to only give a portion of the promised support. The 20% who were randomly exterminated, shortly after retirement, would provide the government a nice boost in savings, all at the expense of those who had dedicated their lives to working for their government, expecting nothing more than the same support in return, at retirement age.

The percentage of assassinated retirees was so small and so random, throughout the entire nation, that the trend had never been spotted...not by the media, not by sociological professors, not by any of the nation’s people.

Still, it was large enough to save the government millions in revenue, in the long run, and that was motive enough for them to make it happen. Of course, those in the secret organization doing the government's dirty work were the only exception to the rule and could retire without fear of taking a dirt nap soon afterwards. Otherwise, there would be no one willing to take such actions. The same was true for every senator, congressman and president there ever was.

I was guilty of never being aware of what had been taking place all around me, my whole life. I now hated myself for it. I wondered how many other retirees I personally knew who were also on the “hit list” and who would be fortunate enough not to be.

As I felt the pain of hard ground and stone beneath my knees, while at gunpoint, I listened to how my entire, immediate family would also soon be executed. After all, if something were to happen to me, all of my retirement money would go to them. And, they already shared some of the same benefits that I had. What good would that do the government? The family would have to go too.

Tears streamed down my face, as both of my hands were tied behind my back. I couldn’t believe that this is what it had all come down too. I couldn’t believe that my own government was going to cheat me this way, after I had put in a life-long amount of work for it, all because of greed on the part of those who were supposed to be our leaders.

Just as a gloved finger tightened on the trigger of the weapon that was pointed at the back of my head, I squinted and looked down, anticipating the impact of the bullet. I was regretful of the way things had turned out.

The gun fired.

BAAAAM!

And, just as it shot, I shot straight out of bed, my head skyrocketing toward the ceiling of my bedroom. I was doused in a cold sweat, gripping the sheets of my bed. I was now only in my twenties and my wife, now also much younger, lay next to me in bed.

“What’s wrong, honey,” she asked, now awake, due to my sudden jolt.

“Nothing babe…just thinking about getting a new job tomorrow...that’s all.”

THE END

[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 17 ]