David Bollier writes," Even with the proliferation of the Internet's many networking functions, today's centrally distributed "mass media" -- the gatekeeper-controlled systems of broadcasting, cable and satellite TV -- are likely to remain in place for years to come." He wrote this in 1996 before the world came into the new millennium and it remains true to date.
First, although Palestinians are Semitic, anti-Semitism means being anti-Jewish generally or, in an individual case, unfairly. Secondly, Zionism means a love of Zion religiously, historically or culturally and the most it implies politically is the desire that there should be a sanctuary for those of the Jewish religion, nation or race. This seems to be a fairly harmless “ism”. Anti-Zionists, however, take the opposite view and there have historically been many Jews, who do not accept the secular State of Israel as a realisation of this ideal.
The Jewish Community is disappearing. They are inter–marrying with mates from other religions and many of these unions result in the Jewish spouse leaving his or hers inherited religion.
One thing I’ve noticed is always that there are plenty of myths regarding the finance institutions intentions any time talking about foreclosure. One fairy tale in particular would be the fact the bank desires your house. The financial institution wants your money, not your own home. They want the amount of money they loaned you together with interest. Keeping away from the bank will only draw the foreclosed realization. Thanks for your article.
Hayes had indeed lost the popular vote, by more than two hundred and fifty thousand ballots. And he might have lost the Electoral College as well had it not been for the machinations of journalists working in the shady corners of what’s been called “the Victorian Internet.”
so too will television be forced from its central place on campaign budgets," and the internet will be the main source of campaign advertising (Morris 13).
The internet is incredibly inexpensive because "anyone can start a website [and it is] difficult to command top dollar for internet advertising." (Morris 13).
In this essay, I review five recent books about the role of the Internet in democratic In times when commentators observe a worldwide “crisis of democracy”.
On the night of November 7, 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes’s wife, Lucy, took to her bed with a headache. The returns from the Presidential election were trickling in, and the Hayeses, who had been spending the evening in their parlor, in Columbus, Ohio, were dismayed. Hayes himself remained up until midnight; then he, too, retired, convinced that his Democratic opponent, Samuel J. Tilden, would become the next President.
In the article Why Internet voting is bad for democracy by Froma Harrop of the Seattle Times, it is argued that Internet voting discriminates against societies have-nots, as well as those citizens that are not technically savvy; namely the older generation.
Once the votes had been counted, attention shifted to South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana—states where the results were disputed. Both parties dispatched emissaries to the three states to try to influence the Electoral College outcome. Telegrams sent by Tilden’s representatives were passed on to Smith, courtesy of Western Union. Smith, in turn, shared the contents of these dispatches with the Hayes forces. This proto-hack of the Democrats’ private communications gave the Republicans an obvious edge. Meanwhile, the A.P. sought and distributed legal opinions supporting Hayes. (Outraged Tilden supporters took to calling it the “Hayesociated Press.”) As Democrats watched what they considered to be the theft of the election, they fell into a funk.
There's no need to decide between an interview with a
candidate's grade school sweetheart, a 5,000-word analysis of his
position on health care or a comparison of campaign platforms.
History, Mark Twain is supposed to have said, doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Once again, the President of the United States is a Republican who lost the popular vote. Once again, he was abetted by shadowy agents who manipulated the news. And once again Democrats are in a finger-pointing funk.
Journalists, congressional committees, and a special counsel are probing the details of what happened last fall. But two new books contend that the large lines of the problem are already clear. As in the eighteen-seventies, we are in the midst of a technological revolution that has altered the flow of information. Now, as then, just a few companies have taken control, and this concentration of power—which Americans have acquiesced to without ever really intending to, simply by clicking away—is subverting our democracy.