What Does Air In Your Bladder Mean?

Where is the democracy of the referendum?

Sunday 21 and Monday, June 22 more than fifty million Italians were called to the polls to express their views on a referendum of three questions, three different crosses to mark the box 'yes' or that' no ". But all Italians knew what it was? The answer can be understood by the percentage of actual voters, a record in negative in nearly 150 years of the Italian Republic: 23.3% in the first two questions, 23.8% in the third. This data provides ample evidence that people are not going to vote simply because they did not know what they should speak up, because of the remembrance never too little freedom of information, and not because they are interested in the so-called direct democracy. I say this because some "guru" of politics, both right and left, saw this statistic as a total disregard for the sacred institution referendum and not as a clear statement of position, however, suggested by some political factions. In fact these calls from this or that party were the only times where news and newspapers have spoken of the referendum, were not seen or debates or analysis by which the voter could understand the pros and cons of the questions abrogation. The only granted by the second national TV spot from the shorter ones were always the same formula: "in case of victory, yes, the majority of the premium will go to the party that took the most votes," but no one has explained what this phantom "majority premium" or even "in case of victory, yes, the opportunity to apply will be abolished in most jurisdictions," but no one has explained what we are and what the districts serve italioti couch potatoes to the poor. A lack unintended? No. Just another way to show who is boss. But one day the nodes will be laid on the table.

Letters Announcing Doctor

media: weapons of mass distraction

runs the network for some time a cartoon that tells the devolution of man from primate to Homo sapiens, adding after that a man and sits hunched in front of the TV. Is this really the future that awaits us? A total dependence on the mass media?

The intent of the means of mass communication is in their definition: to pass a message, the same, to an audience as large as possible to the mass precisely. This category includes television, print, Internet and to a lesser extent, radio and cinema. Each of these media often helps to create a single thought, a superficial spreading, a person to accept what we are told and think of it as absolute truth. About

amplifies this phenomenon is definitely the TV that, quick messages to and understood by all, requires thought patterns to passive users, as happens with the press, do not have the opportunity to respond stating their opinion and are therefore only forced to receive the message and take it for real. But this does not happen with the Network, being a community, giving equal space to anyone who has ideas, opinions, information sharing, with the option for the recipient to object. In Internet prevail, however, quick messages that need immediate interest, which precludes their investigation of a case. On the Internet there is also the presence of social networks and chat, all technologies that, together with mobile phones, are created and developed to promote the direct and continuous communication between people, forming community groups and sometimes global, require some obstacles to having free opinion, without conditions, that is influencing the musical tastes, how to dress, how to relate to others, stemming the creation of a distinguished personality. In fact, the baseness of the issues faced by newspaper and television is reflected on society, on the ability of reasoning and linear thinking of each individual, leading to a set of anonymous people, empty of content.