Further Proof that Big Brother has arrived

Medical accutane sale News Today has made every effort to make certain that buy generic cialis online all information is factually correct, comprehensive, and up to date. betnovate online If you already take an antidepressant, be sure to tell generic nasonex your doctor before starting Stribild treatment. Both subtypes of PLL generic dexamethasone have been recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) classification pamoate purchase low free price system as distinct from CLL. End-of-life care, also known as asacol in uk palliative care, aims to help the person with dementia feel buy metronidazole gel without prescription as comfortable as possible during the later stages of the generic colchicine disease. Early signs of cancer may be vague and subtle, gentamicin eye drops prescription such as extreme tiredness that does not ease with rest. low price remeron The stomach is a complex organ that mechanically digests food diflucan no prescription with its movements and chemically digests food using gastric acid. Doctors.

“By 2016, I’ll make you a bet. We’ll have [cameras on] almost every block.”

- Mayor Daley of Chicago

Via Chicago Sun Times

No Tags

Who Should I Vote For?

Vote for the person who represents what you believe. However be aware of the five traits of a charismatic politician.

1. They find everything fascinating

Interesting people find everything interesting: their fellow humans, a leaf, the sound of the ocean, even a pebble on the ground. JFK was noted for his ability to consume several thick tomes in one single sitting. They pay incredible attention to detail; it has been said that Bill Clinton has the ability to recall the names of people he shook hands with years prior. Life is in the details, and good politicians should be able to recall the names of every foreign dignitary and the voting record of all their major rivals.
The only way to verbalize particularly fascinating or insightful ideas is to actually be fascinated by the ideas which are being conveyed. There is no way to fake this. If a candidate has shallow knowledge of a particular platform issue, their rhetoric will reflect their lack of passion.

2. They relate well to their audience

The archetype for the late 20th century politician would have to be President Clinton. Not only was he artful with his diction, he was able to adapt instantly to any social setting. His appearance on MTV, marked by the famous “I didn’t inhale” (talk about artful), was a lesson on suavity and assimilation. His other famous TV stunt, a Jazz saxophone performance on The Arsenio Hall Show, was like watching Woods 30′ chip-in at Augusta: a remarkable performance by a professional in the prime of his career doing exactly what he does best. By showing America that he was actually in touch and even somewhat cool (especially in comparison to the incumbent George Bush), he was better able to relate to the general public and thus gain their trust. The elder President Bush was only able to watch his opponent on television, wholly aware of his own inability to relate to the common citizen.

3. They always leave you with a sense of wanting more

Comedians save their best joke for the end of their set. Magicians save their best trick until the finale. Lawyers save their best rhetorical defenses for the closing arguments. They are all trying to leave the audience with a sense of wanting more. By verbally slapping the audience with a brilliant piece of logic in the closing sentences of a closing argument, a shrewd lawyer can negate holes in the mind of the jurors and swing the panel in their favor.

A good ending can be almost a panacea. It allows listeners to dissolve any logical fallacies they’ve discovered prior to the conclusion and turns their attention solely on the piece of information in climax. So the charismatic politician takes this idea one step further and sandwiches their audience with a great opening, then boring political rhetoric, then a great close. One of the better speeches in the history of this young nation was extremely short as Presidential speeches go, but featured a great opening and a great close and almost certainly left the audience wanting more. A gifted politician is always giving his audience the gift of missing him.

4. They often have hyper-masculine or other sexual auras

A politician is a salesman who is selling himself as the product. The strong and distinctive voice, from Roosevelt to JFK to Clinton, is a testament to the power of a strong masculine aura. America adores its combat heros; it’s the reason why former Generals get elected President. It’s the reason why an actor with practically no prior government related experience can beat an incumbent on a recall for the highest position in the California state legislature. The gamblin’, rough-and-ready cowboy is in every young American boy’s imagination and every young female’s heart.

Ann Coulter is engaging because of her contrasting hyper-masculine demeanor combined with her attractive feminine appearance. It is human nature to assume that an extraordinarily masculine person would also be a good leader. Here comes the Governator to kick the “wussies’” asses, take their women (funny how those accounts of Arnold’s infidelity and harassment only increased his popularity), and fire .50 caliber ammo through all of his predecessors “girly” contracts. What about the first televised Presidential debate featuring a sickly, sweaty, stooped over Nixon and a dynamic, effervescent Kennedy? Sex sells, especially in politics, because it is an area which is mostly devoid of attractive personalities.

5. They always make you think they have your best interests at heart

An adept statesman can make a voter believe that he is actually more important than just one individual. Politicians in their speeches use the royal “we” instead of “I” to create a sense of togetherness. It’s “us” versus the system, “we” are “united” against this Bush administration, a “coalition” to boycott Knott’s Berry Farm. He also makes you believe that he is “working for the little guys,” and he can still hear their voices despite the “underhanded smear tactics” of his opposition trying to reframe the “real issues.”

list from prometheusinstitute

No Tags

Icaro Doria

Colombia
colombia.bmp

USA
usa.jpg

Brazil
brazil.jpg

Icaro Doria is Brazilian, 25 and has been working for the magazine Grande Reportagem, in Lisbon, Portugal, for the last 3 years. He is part of the team (with Luis Silva Dias, João Roque, Andrea Vallenti and João Roque) that produced the flags campaign which has been circulating the Earth in chain letters via e-mail. Icaro gave us a small statement about the campaign, translated by Isabell Erdmann:

The magazine Revista Grande Reportagem is a Hard Journalism magazine, on the same line as the Times. The idea was to bring across the concept that the magazine offers profound journalism about topics of real importance to the world of today.
This is how we thought of the concept Meet the World.

We started to research relevant, global, and current facts and, thus, came up with the idea to put new meanings to the colours of the flags. We used real data taken from the websites of Amnesty International and the UNO.

The campaign has been running in Portugal since January 2005. There are eight flags that portray very current topics like the division of opinions about the war in Iraq in the United States, the violence against women in Africa, the social inequality in Brazil, the drug trafficking in Columbia, Aids and malaria in Angola, etc.

With regards to the email presenting the campaign as being done by a Norwegian diplomat, this information is completely wrong. There is no Norwegian diplomat called Charung Gollar, there was no presentation in the UNO, and the campaign is not called ‘The Power of the Stars’. This was all invented and is going round the world via email.”

Thanks go to Brett.

No Tags

WOW

So, many of you may have seen this on another ninja worthy site, The Brilliant Mistake [props], after checking it out I couldn’t help but post it here as well, as everyone should peep it. Keith Olbermann: Ninja. Olbermann has stepped it up like no other recent journalist in this crazy ‘Special Comment’ on Clinton’s appearance on FOX, and the following uproar from politricks and their media. So watch this clip.

And peep The Brilliant Mistake on the regular, right after you check MNP!!!

[note: this man really spoke the truth on MSNBC and didn’t find himself flippin’ burgers!?!? damn son.]

No Tags

Impeach the Goon

Spread this list to as many people as possible. Thanks alpha80!

10 Reasons to Impeach Bush…And One Reason Why the Cowardly Democratic Leadership Shouldn’t Be Afraid to Do It

As prospects grow for a Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives, and perhaps even the Senate, this November, the idea of impeachment is gaining attention. Yet even as polls show increasing numbers of Americans supporting the idea of removing Bush from office before the end of his term, Democratic Party leaders keep backing away.
This is not simply bad politics. It is cowardly, wrong and dangerous.
Let’s look at the facts.

President Bush has committed grave offenses against the Constitution and against the people of the United States. Among these offenses are:

1. Initiating a war of aggression against a nation that posed no immediate threat to the U.S.–a war that has needlessly killed 2500 Americans and maimed and damaged over 20,000 more, while killing over 125,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children.

2. Lying and organizing a conspiracy to trick the American people and the U.S. Congress into approving an unnecessary and illegal war. (forged “Yellow cake” document, “signed” by a man who hadn’t been in office for 10 years, at the time of the supposed signing.)

3. Approving and encouraging, in violation of U.S. and international law, the use of torture, kidnapping and rendering of prisoners of war captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the course of the so-called War on Terror.

4. Illegally stripping the right of citizenship and the protections of the constitution from American citizens, denying them the fundamental right to have their cases heard in a court, to hear the charges against them, to be judged in a public court by a jury of their peers, and to have access to a lawyer. (Jose Padilla, etc.)

5. Authorizing the spying on American citizens and their communications by the National Security Agency and other U.S. police and intelligence agencies, in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

6. Obstructing investigation into and covering up knowledge of the deliberate exposing of the identity of a U.S. CIA undercover operative, and possibly conspiring in that initial outing itself.

7. Obstructing the investigation into the 9-11 attacks and lying to investigators from the Congress and the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission–actions that come perilously close to treason.

8. Violating the due process and other constitutional rights of thousands of citizens and legal residents by rounding them up and disappearing or deporting them without hearings.

9. Abuse of power, undermining of the constitution and violating the presidential oath of office by deliberately refusing to administer over 750 acts duly passed into law by the Congress–actions which if left unchallenged would make the Congress a vestigial body, and the president a dictator.

10. Criminal negligence in failing to provide American troops with adequate armor before sending them into a war of choice, criminal negligence in going to war against a weak, third-world nation without any planning for post war occupation and reconstruction, criminal negligence in failing to respond to a known and growing crisis in the storm-blasted city of New Orleans, and criminal negligence in failing to act, and in fact in actively obstructing efforts by other countries and American state governments, to deal with the looming crisis of global warming.

Each one of these offenses (and it is not meant to be a complete list) would be sufficient on its own to require the president’s removal from office, and in some cases, where an actual statutory crime can be charged, his subsequent indictment and trial. Together they cry out for impeachment and removal.

There are those, like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who argue against impeachment, claiming that it would be a diversion from the “important agenda” of the Democratic Party. Aside from the fact that there is not much “there” there in the so-called agenda of the so-called opposition, the reality is that the Democratic Party, should it manage to win a majority in House and Senate in November, will be unable to accomplish a single thing with President Bush in the White House, since the president has already claimed that he has the power to violate and ignore 750 acts and laws passed by a Congress led by his own party. Before the Democrats can count on a single bill of theirs becoming the law of the land, they will have to remove this usurper from office. Even ardent conservatives should be afraid of leaving stand actions that, if unchallenged, will set a precedent for all future presidents, Republican and Democrat, making American presidents into tyrants answerable to no one.

There are those who fear that impeaching Bush would mean turning over the White House to Vice President Dick Cheney. This is nonsense. The vice president has long been known to be the real president, and any constitutional crimes that are exposed in the course of impeachment hearings will quickly be traced also to Cheney’s office. The vice president, however, does not have the president’s Constitutional immunity from prosecution, and would likely be indicted and forced to resign long before Bush’s impeachment got to a Senate trial. Nor would impeaching Bush mean turning the White House over to Rep. Dennis Hastert. Besides the fact that Hastert is reportedly facing his own legal troubles, impeachment is not even going to occur unless the Democrats take over the House in November first, and that would make the next person in line after Cheney none other than Democrat Pelosi.

There are people, especially in the media, who say impeachment is a bad idea both because it would allegedly cause a “constitutional crisis” and because it would lead to public anger at Democrats who promoted another divisive political battle. This is both unprincipled and absurd. First of all, impeachment is no constitutional crisis: the Founders thought it so important that they included impeachment of the president in the same Article II of the Constitution that defines the president’s powers. If anything, we are facing a constitutional crisis right now. Impeachment is an integral part of the governing process. Secondly, polls suggest that a majority of Americans favor impeachment — certainly more than ever favored impeachment of either Clinton or Nixon. People have had it with the sanctimoniousness, the dishonesty, the staggering incompetence and the nasty political dirty tricks of this administration. Third, they want an opposition that will stand on principle. But finally and most importantly, the crimes of this president and this administration are so grievous that it is shameful to even talk about practicalities and political advantage. The president simply must be impeached, because as the Willie Sutton of Constitutional violators he is putting the Republic and the Constitution at grave risk. The only principled and valid discussion about strategy is about how best to achieve impeachment, not about whether to seek impeachment.

No one should imagine that a successful impeachment of President Bush would usher in some wonderful new world of honest and progressive government. The Democratic Party long ago lost its soul and its right to call itself a party of the people. But if the American people, in the course of this 2006 election year, force the Democratic Party to do that which their leaders are afraid to do–to impeach this criminal president–there is a chance that those same people will also push the Democratic Party to do other things that it has not done in decades: namely to act in the interests of ordinary working people instead of the same moneyed interests that own the party of Lincoln.

No Tags