Buy Xanax Without Prescription Best Prices Guaranteed

Since many of our troops are committed to the War in Iraq, we find ourselves once again facing an even more dangerous situation here at home. That's right, the War on Christmas. Because the politically correct mainstream media refuses to cover this silent scourge, it's a little-known fact that the War on Christmas now accounts for more deaths in the United States than any other single cause except for diseases and misfortunes. Every time the clerk at the Seven-Eleven says "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas," it is a terrorist attack akin to flying a building into a plane, except this happens 1000 times every day. So what can you do to survive this trying ordeal (and maybe kick some butt back)? Here are five tips for surviving the War on Christmas: 1. Remind everyone that America is a Christian nation, founded by Christians on Christian moral standards (as Jesus said, "If they raise the tax on tea again, I'm going to fucking riot!"). They have no choice but to celebrate Christmas, and wish you a merry one. It's in the Constitution... or the Bible maybe... whatever, same thing. 2. Build a Yuletide fallout shelter. You can find construction plans for a sturdy backyard bomb shelter for sale via mail order - check the back pages of a 1966 Popular Science magazine. When the big one hits, it won't be the godless atheists you are fighting - it will be your own neighbors. Stock plenty of provisions such as egg nog, canned Christmas Goose and mistletoe. When the evil radiation of agnosticism begins to clear, send out a dove and do not leave the shelter until it returns with an olive branch. 3. Refuse to shop at any big-box retailer whose employees do not vigorously and specifically bombard you with Christmas blessings. Remember, multi-billion dollar corporations have feelings and care about you as a customer - going to Best Buy instead of Circuit City really makes a difference in the world. Boycott any store with a "Season's Greetings" banner, except for the big sale next Sunday, because seriously, I heard they will have this DVD player for like $29 and they will only have 10 per store so I'm going to camp out Saturday night. 4. Don't forget the true meaning of Christmas. A lot of secular humanists and other fascists will blather on about the spirit of giving, the importance of charity, fellowship and good will towards your fellow man, and other hippy garbage. Also, Santa Claus Frosty the Snowman are not the reason for the season. The true meaning of Christmas is how important it is that Jesus' mom did not have sex before he was born. This is very important. 5. This last tip is absolutely the most important thing you can do this holiday season to survive the War on Christmas: whine and cry about it day and night. Bitch and moan to your friends, family and coworkers. If you have your own cable news show, talk about how offended you are, and how the liberals have gone too far this time, and how political correctness is sending America down a slippery slope toward Sodom and Gomorrah and Maoism. For god's sake, write letters to the editor of your local paper! Construct unfunny "observational humor" jokes to point out how ironic it is when liberals oppress Christians in the name of multiculturalism (BTW you don't understand irony). Strain to work in that zinger that your golf buddy faxed you in 1993 about 'Billary' Clinton, make relevant pop cultural references to the ACLU and feminists! Pontificate over and over about how much better things were in the good old days, when every five and dime had a big, gory crucifix on the wall and we went downtown to see the department store displays but then we saw a black person once in 1973 so we moved far, far out to the suburbs and I hear they are opening a Country Kitchen isn't that exciting! Why don't you call, what am I, chopped liver? You kids get off my lawn! Remember, when a cashier making $6 an hour doing a boring, repetitive job is required by company policy to numbly acknowledge your presence, and they don't do it in your preferred manner, you are being oppressed! You should feel indignant - who will protect Christianity if not you? It's not like you're part of the overwhelming majority. It's not like all three branches of government at the federal, state, and local level are dominated by Christians. You are the scrappy underdog in this Culture War (by Bill O'Reilly), imagine a Hanukkah boot stomping on the face of humanity for all eternity! Thanks to Business Week for bringing this issue to my attention.

What do you do When you find out you are wrong? Not just wrong about one thing, or a little bit wrong. What do you do when you find out you are very wrong, and consistently wrong, and there are really big consequences? President Bush, after three years, seems to finally realize he has been wrong. Well, not really. But he has finally acknowledged the big consequences part. Part of the problem has been that he has only gotten advice from those willing to tell him what he wants to hear. So the formation of the Iraq Study Group was a good thing, right? Finally, some independent experts would weight in, and tell the President some things he wouldn't like to hear. Except they weren't really experts. And their advice has little to do with Iraq. And Bush isn't really listening anyway. So how do we win the war in Iraq? Maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't hurt to ask the real experts - the military people actually in Iraq. In fact, one of our troops has given us a PowerPoint presentation. That's right, it's even in the preferred format of upper management everywhere. Seriously, go there right now and watch the presentation, it's only 18 slides. It's a revelation. Not because this one soldier, Capt. Travis Patriquin, is a military genius, or that his ideas are a silver bullet that will magically solve all problems. It's amazing because Patriquin's presentation actually talks about the reality on the ground. He presents actual ideas, grounded in reality, that could actually be tried. This is a amazing. Think about it - this administration has spent years propping up non-ideas (like staying the course) as if they were ideas. They have spent more time and effort denying reality than dealing with it. I had almost forgotten what ideas taste like. It has been so long. Unfortunately, this presentation is the last insight we will get from Capt. Patriquin. He was killed last week. His "How to Win the War in Al Anbar" may go down in history as the first PowerPoint presentation to make a positive change in the world. Or maybe it will be ignored. Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but based on 6 years of the Bush administration, my guess is it will be the latter. You know what this reminds me of? This reminds me of every large company or organization I've ever worked for or dealt with. The people at the top are so disconnected from the people at the bottom that they begin to congratulate themselves for the disconnect. "I don't need to know how widget X works, in fact I shouldn't know at all. I need to think about strategic business decisions." We don't want to waste the chief executive's time with tactics, he has strategy to strategize about. We can lay off engineers, they just have domain knowledge, they don't contribute to the bottom line like sales. We need programmers with 5 years of Java and J2EE, don't worry about anything else, it's just business logic. We can outsource our call centers to India or Kansas or where ever - all they need is a script to work from, hire a consultant to develop the script. We need professional project managers, certified experts in the art of scheduling and tracking--they don't have to understand the project they're managing, what are you daft? Tactics matter. Actual information that reflects reality matters. They say it's not what you know, but who you know. That might be true in job hunting and getting political appointments, but apparently it doesn't win wars.

Since the dawn of time, man has wondered: will Apple come out with a iPhone, and will it match the success of the iPod? This is the Internet, of course, so by the dawn of time I mean three or four years ago, well before the Motorolla Rokr came out. Despite whipping the rumor mill into a frenzy, the Rokr ended up being not much of an Apple iPhone and was immediately overshadowed by the iPod Nano. Now, it seems Apple may be actually coming out with an iPhone in early 2007. And you are going to want it. Here's why. (A quick disclaimer: I don't have any inside info about Apple or the iPhone. This list is an educated guess. I like to think of it as "analysis" rather than "idle speculation.") 1. Simple controls. My very first cell phone, a Kyocera 2135, had a keypad, a directional pad, a total of four buttons and a couple of menus. Since then, as I have gotten new phones and new plans, the number of buttons and menus has increased at an exponential rate. It looks like amazing progress, a Moore's Law of mobiles, except most of the time, I'm just trying to make a stupid phone call. The evolution of the iPod has been a study in simplification, to the point where all you have now is the clickwheel, unless you have a Shuffle, in which case you have even less. 2. Consistent controls. When you get a new phone, how long does it take for you to get used to it? Forget any new features for now -- what about just using the "dial", "hangup", "OK", and other common buttons in different contexts? Earlier cell phones were often better current phones in this regard, probably because they had less functionality. When a phone has both a dial and an enter button (like the Treo), you're not always sure which is appropriate in which situation. I can almost guarantee the iPhone will embrace the "it just works" attitude Apple is known for. I know my contact list is getting way too long to navigate with up/down arrows, and even jumping by letter is becoming tedious. Look for the contact list to work the same way a playlist works, and expect to spend a lot less time figuring it out and more time just using it. 3. Innovative controls with obvious affordances. Big words, but all I'm saying is that the interface will be different from what's out there, but won't require much explanation. Affordnaces are surfaces and shapes that imply use - for example, a handle on a door implies "pull" while a horizontal bar implies "push". My guess? A haptic interface for common, atomic actions. Instead of needing to find and press a little button to hang up, maybe you can just shake the phone--think erasing an Etch-a-Sketch. 4. Streamlined interaction design. Current phones include a lot of functionality - calling, text messaging, taking photos, shooting video, sending email, surfing the web, etc. The current solution is a burrito-like seven layers of menus and icons. If Apple is smart, the iPhone will make sure the most common tasks will be the most visible and easiest to get to. Think of the actions you perform the most with your current phone - making a call, finding a contact, hanging up, etc. The main difficulty for Apple will be effectively combining music player and phone functionality without adding a whole layer of menus or icons. Something like Front Row might be a step in the right direction. Listening to music is a more passive activity that calling, and you don't want to add a "switch to phone mode" step when the phone rings, so It's not exactly the right metaphor. 5. No more disgusting face grease on your screen. This is, in my opinion, the holy grail of cell phone design. There have been a few phones that tried to address this issue, but the vast majority of phones are shaped such that you must press the screen to your face to make a call. I know what you're thinking. "But my face isn't oily and gross." Yes it is. Take out your phone and really look. Perform this experiment: clean the screen and buttons, eat a couple slices of pizza, and call your grandma (you really should call more). Now look at the screen. I cannot imagine Steve Jobs allowing skin oil and other human excretions on his beautiful devices, let alone requiring it just to make a call. I have seen the press conferences, this is a man who exfoliates. I'm not sure how exactly they will get around this one, but is it possible they might make a phone... actually shaped like a phone? I have never had this issue with a landline phone. 6. No more lock in. I'm not talking about the elimination of Apple's one major lock-in scheme, requiring iTunes for purchased, DRM-ed music. But notice that with the iPod there are no limits on loading up your own MP3s, photos, etc. My guess is the iPhone will be similar. This is actually revolutionary for a cell phone. There is a good amount of hardware and functionality built in to the phone in your pocket that you don't have access to. It's because the carriers will block anything they would compete with any service they offer (or think they might offer some day in the future). They also like to lock you in to a contract when you purchase the phone. Apple, debuting a shiny new must-have cell phone, just might have the leverage needed to just say no. 7. It will look really, really nice. This is subjective, and I'm sure there are a few people out there not impressed by the iPod. It's clear, though, that Apple knows how to fashion artifacts that a large number of people drool over. And this mass of drooling people seems to include geeks, hipsters, famous people, and all the popular kids at school. 8. Integrated voicemail, chat, SMS and email. This isn't a new idea, and there are plenty of carriers and startup companies promising to do this really soon now. As far as I know, there really isn't a solution that makes the different forms of messaging work together that has been adopted by the general public. It would require integration with the service providers (difficult) or a chip beefy enough to encode audio, but imagine if you could store and manage voicemail and SMS as easily as you do email, through a simple visual or audio interface. There is plenty of hard drive space on an iPod, so why not apply the Gmail concept of effectively infinite storage to voicemail? 9. No camera. I'll say up front that I'm not nearly as confident about numbers 9 and 10, but I have a feeling the iPhone will not have a camera. Why not? It is a little-known fact that people only use their cell phone cameras in two situations: the first week after purchase, and when drunk. The cameras themselves are not very good, the shots are low resolution, and the carriers have made it their mission to make getting the photo to your computer or printing it at Walgreens difficult and expensive. So why not leave it out? That's one less thing to squeeze into the form factor, one less item in the menu, less clutter. 10. Connectivity. At the very least, expect to be able to connect to anything an iPod can connect to now. The iPod does not have wireless features like the Zune, but it seems like the Zune was crippled for DRM purposes. Cell phones are inherently wireless, so it will be interesting to see what Apple does here. Is it possible they might make bluetooth actually live up to its promise? Specifically, it would be really nice if it was easy to beam contact info, photos, etc. to others. This is 2006, there's no excuse for making us strain to hear someone's number in a loud club or try to manually enter names and numbers while being jostled by a crowd. And every phone I've ever played with that can store or take photos makes it a major chore to ever get them off the damned phone. I'm not too sure this will happen, because getting the bluetooth turned on with my wifes iBook was a chore, and getting it to actually connect to my Treo was a pain too. Of course, there's no guarantee the iPhone will have any of the above.  It's possible that Motorolla or Nokia's next phone will cover enough of the items above to become the next must-have gadget.  But they've had plenty of chances.  I'm guessing it will take a company with a new perspective to make a really great phone, and Apple just might be that company.

So, while trolling around the internet I found this video: [youtube]uT4dpFpiTgk[/youtube] The first thing to say about this video is that it is an advertisement.  I mean, it seems innocent at first.  They tell you that we have no perception of beauty because computers and make up artists and photography tricks, then they say that it's dove brand that wants you to know this.  Have you seen any of dove's advertisments in, say Cosmo or Red Book?  Okay, so now they are on a liberal viewpoint that says 'hey, we don't want to hide natural beauty by making every woman self concious because she has freckles or her hair doesn't do that "thing" that model's hair does.  But, they were just as bad as any other group of big business circus freaks. Not to say that I am not glad that they are aware of what they are doing to America and the rest of the world's youth.  Which is making a lot of girls who will never be happy with the type of body they have or the color of their skin or lips or eyes or hair, ect.  I am glad that they are taking a stand on it.  Good job, Dove.  They are even pushing it so far as to have women who are not impossibly thin as their models.  Making you the consumer feel that it's okay to have a big booty or some nice hour glass figure.  Atleast if their ads are sucessful. But not everyone is happy with Dove brands right now.  Follow me here, if you will.  Apparently these blond, blond women feel that Dove discriminated against them because no blond women were featured in a beauty ad.  Well, sorry that you were left out, ladies.  It sucks to be a racial minority.  A beauty racial minority.  Because blonds haven't been featured in every sexy ad since sexy ads were discovered by the ancient Norwegians long long ago. One of the quotes that I feel captures the feelings of this racial beauty minority group is the following: "Therefore, your reversed discrimination instantly makes you a hypocrite and abolishes any validity to your so called tolerant views on beauty." What do these blonds mean by this?  Do most blonds even know most of the words in this sentence?   Does this sentence even make sense in the context of the rest of this petition?  The world may never know. But, I digress.  I just wanted to give a shout out to Dove for having a campaign to make women feel like it's okay to be a normal looking woman.  I think this ad may save some suicidal teen's life one day.  Thank you Dove!

A new report on immigration from the Missouri House is making the staggering claim that abortion leads to a shortage in the American workforce and thus leads to illegal immigration to fill the positions that should have been held by these aborted people. First off - I am not making this up. This is not a joke post. Secondly, the report was created by a "Republican-led legislative panel" so considering the Republican stand on abortion, you can be sure that THEY are not making it up - they truly believe that abortion leads to illegal immigration. With the midterms over and the Republicans scrambling to regain popularity they are trying to wrap three huge domestic issues - immigration, abortion and unemployment - into one little study to show how they are all related, and that the Government truly does care about domestic issues (since they ain't winning any voters over with their messes outside the country). I wasn't aware there even WAS a shortage of American workers. If there is an unemployment rate at all (currently around 4.7%) then there is no shortage. Employers aren't begging people to come work illegally. They're perhaps begging people to come work under the table to avoid withholding taxes or to come work for dirt cheap but the problem there is not a shortage of American workers, it's a shortage of employers willing to pay a living wage and pay taxes on & benefits to their employees. According to the article, National Right to Life estimates 47 billion abortions have been performed since 1973. Committee chairman Ed Emery says "If you kill 44 million of your potential workers, it's not too surprising we would be desperate for workers." Let's see...if we had 44 million more people, we'd probably be more desperate for health care too. Probably more desperate for welfare. We'd probably have a larger population of unfit mothers, drug users, kids crammed in schools, and uhm...unemployed Americans! Since all six of the Democrats on the panel refused to sign the report (one called it "embarassing") and all 10 Republicans signed it, this report clearly smacks of partisanism. Either all of the Republicans are flaming idiots or they are just signing whatever comes through to their "Republican Led Committee" inbox. One Republican panel member, says the linked article, contends that he "didn't recall the report linking abortion and illegal immigration." Unfortunately my Google-fu is as weak as the AP writer's is who broke the story, so we won't be able to read the report ourselves to see if the Republicans possibly came up with a million other reasons why illegal immigration is a growing problem in the US or if they have just settled on abortion. They might as well kill two unwanted birds with one stone, eh? What do you think? Are the Republicans crazy? Are the Dems just trying to make them look crazy? Or is abortion actually a good argument for why illegal immigration is a problem in the United States?