I WILL TELL YOU ABOUT HER 4TH WHEN I TRACK IT DOWN! THIS IS THE SYMBOL FOR LIVIN' LARGE THAT THE ROCK STARS DO. SHE IS A STAR WHO ROCKS ME! Read More »
I HAVE BEEN WAITING TO WISH HILLARY A HAPPY 4TH, AS I HOPED TO FIND OUT WHAT SHE DID. SO FAR, NO CLUE! SHE WAS A PATRIOTEER TO SHOW US A WOMAN CAN BE DEVOTED TO A JOB WITH RESPECT NO ONE EVER DARED, EVEN MYSELF, TO HOPE OUR FIRST SERIOUS WOMAN CANDIDATE COULD COMMAND! HILLARY YOU COMMAND ME "IN" CHIEF! LOL! HAPPY 4TH HILLARY! Read More »
RASCAL FLATTS AND AMERICAN MUSIC!
HERE ARE SOME FIRE WORKS BY OUR EMPIRE STATE BUILDING, A SETTING OF "SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE"! AN AMERICAN CLASSIC!
Read More »
My new hero is Judge, Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge for the Northern District of California.
Now that it seems apparent our Democratic-led Congress will roll over and let Bush have his way with the Constitution, the judicial branch may be our only hope to save the Constitution. Please read the article that Deb provided the link for below:
http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/deborahwilliams/CRbQ/commentary#comments
FROM THE NYT:
--------------------
"Judge Rejects Bush’s View on Wiretaps
By ERIC LICHTBLAUPublished: July 3, 2008WASHINGTON — A federal judge in California said Wednesday that the wiretapping law established by Congress was the “exclusive” means for the president to eavesdrop on Americans, and he rejected the government’s claim that the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief trumped that law.
The judge, Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge for the Northern District of California, made his findings in a ruling on a lawsuit brought by an Oregon charity. The group says it has evidence of an illegal wiretap used against it by the National Security Agency under the secret surveillance program established by President Bush after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Read More »Republicans love slogans -- they're short and they, therefore, cannot be substantive.
John McCain has resurrected the "liberal" and "tax and spend" slogans in this campaign. We cannot take this lightly. These are ingrained in the consciousness of middle Americans -- and much of it is our own fault (see my blog entitled "Elephantizing").
So, how do we frame the truth in slogan form -- something, as Jack Sparrow would say, "It's short, it's easy to remember...."
What is the truth?
Read More »Elephantizing refers to the process of training a baby elephant to stay tied to a stake with a rope.
When they first do this to the baby elephant, they use a thick, heavy chain. The baby struggles and struggles, but can't break free. He finally gives up in exhaustion, convinced he cannot break the chain.
Over time, they replace the chain with smaller and smaller chains and ropes, until the elephant will stay tied to a stake by a very small rope. By the time he is an adult, he could easily break the small rope, but, because as a baby he was convinced he could not break free, he accepts his confinement without question.
That is what they call elephantizing. Convincing someone they are powerless to break free of the chains that bind them.
How does this apply to us today?
Read More »Likewise, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" used to apply to judicial philosophy -- liberal being more like Justice Steve Breyers' version of judicial philosophy as he described in his book "Active Liberty." Liberal judicial philosophy believes that, because of the advances in technology and changes in society, there are no provisions in our Constitution that "strictly" apply -- word for word, therefore, you have to do research and make an attempt to understand, as best you can, what the founders would have done in today's case or circumstance. In other words, the founder's intent is the goal of a liberal judicial philosophy. Conservatives accuse liberal judges of "legislating from the bench" when they make an attempt to apply Constitutional principles to modern day life.
We now use the term "strict constructionist" to mean the same as a conservative judicial philosophy, but it is not entirely true. A strict constructionist would say that "data mining" is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, therefore there is no articulated right or special privilege to be granted or removed based on that subject. However, conservative judges who claim to be strict constructionists are not really so. The are conservative idealogues that wish to legislate from the bench as much as the liberals are accused of, but in the direction of their philosophy.
And both uses of these terms are different when speaking politically instead of judicially. Liberals are more bottom-up in their approach to government -- they believe in distributing power to the people. Liberals want the government to give the people as much freedom and protection as possible. Conservatives are top-down. They believe in consolidating the power among a few supra-sovereign elite at the expense of the freedom and protection of the people.
So, if left=liberal in today's terms, Betty Lou's film clip would not be accurate. Likewise with right=conservative. Being right politically is not being correct, it is believing in consolidation of power in the hands of a few.
We have at least two people on this blog who have family that are suffering that I know of.
How do you guys feel about publishing the equivalent of a prayer list daily so that we know who is needing our support on special issue? It does not have to exclude those who are not religious, that is why I chose not to call it a "prayer list."
What do you think?