I want to share a fascinating blog entry I read today. It's a little long but very well worth it. Check it out... http://donlucifer.blogspot.com/2005/07/lucifer.html
I was listening to the Ventures earlier today and was very disappointed that there wasn't a liner notes booklet like was in the Les Baxter cd case. I have some ideas about their music, but it will require research that I'm not up to right now. Anyway, I can thank my cool cat Hoe Daddy for playing that music when I was growing up. It's so cool!
Hey, George Bush, here's your chance! Nominate me to be a Supreme Court Justice. Nowhere in the Constitution does it specify that the nominees must be actual judges. There are no requirements listed (Article Three) so anyone could be nominated. All Mr. Bush has said is that his nominee must have a 'strict interpretation' of the Constitution. I fit that requirement. My strict interpretation might be a little different from the usual, but it's strict. By the way, ALL Americans should study our Constitution (I first misspelled that as 'Constituition') and the Bill of Rights. Everyone should read it with their own eyes so they know exactly what it does and doesn't say. The US Constitution is a remarkably short document. Our Founding Fathers did that deliberately. It was never intended for our nation to require so many laws. They intended for the federal government to have as little as possible interference and governance in our individuals lives. They had faith that 'We the People' would have enough sense to know how to live our lives "... to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." Perhaps that was too optimistic of them, but I don't think so. And I don't think it requires a law degree to be able to understand what it says and means. So, Mr. Bush, give me a call and I'd be thrilled to serve my country in that capacity.
Now on to a current hot topic, the whole anonymous source hoopla. I have to say that I fall into that catagory of people who think if it's anonymous then it's not good. I understand that there are sometimes (probably rarely) when a person giving information is in mortal danger by whistle blowing or divulging some horrible injustice or criminal activity. But this current situation involves someone talking who shouldn't have been talking in the first place. You don't protect that. That's stupid. You don't protect people for selling a juicy story. Journalists aren't the same as therapists and doctors. And they are the ones who are driving this issue anyway. Just like when they cover their coverage of events. That's not news; that's self glorification. But I was watching some cnn coverage of this topic while I was washing dishes and doing laundry. I liked what one woman said about it. I don't remember exactly how she put it or who she was even (selective listening is the result of having three young kids who all talk at the same time), but she basically gave this anonymous source grief for causing such an uproar. She asked how could he let things get this far. I agree with her. I think whoever is this source is a coward and only concerned with his reputation. That's not a protected reason for remaining anonymous.