Hi Susan, > Plus because so many posts during the Clinton years were not brought to vote > there are many more posts to fill during this administration. So it's all how you see the numbers > or want to see them, on either side.
Thanks for the information. I've said here before that I tuned out and turned off of national politics years ago and only recently began paying attention again so I'm still learning. > The fear with "Conservatves" is NOT that they will NOT uphold the law. But their interpretation > of it. >From what I understand, conservatives do not like judicial activism which threatens to subvert constitutional rights. >I also am a staunch and strict believer in the separation of church and state. I am too, all the way. > Can't agree more, that the moderates are the majority. But they seem apathetic and wishy washy or > as I said before NO Backbone! They are the ones who need to sort out the semantics and rhetoric. > They have always been the the ones to keep the playing field level. Right now it tips one way and > then the othe , but this boat doesn't sail very smoothly or does rarely. This is due to a fears > of not being re-elected I think. I've heard and read a lot of the same criticism of moderates. They do need to find their backbones and voices and quit skulking around trying to be blandly pleasing to everyone, thinking that is what will get them re-elected. Just as an aside there was talk here recently when Riordan was running in the primary for governor sort of along those lines. Riordan (who I absolutely adore) has always been so consistently and classically liberal that most always believed or assumed he was a Democrat. Many Republicans thought he would be great as a candidate because he would appeal to a broad cross section of voters. However, he did not take any real stands during his campaign and some felt that he was just coasting on his genial personality and popularity. I heard commentary that "if people have the choice between a real Democrat and a pretend Democrat, they are going to vote for the real one." So much for geniality. A real working, activist and hopefully enlightened sorting out of the semantics and rhetoric is what is so crucially needed in these times. > However, remember before everyone had a computer? Whether it > was business or personal, nobody thoguht they would be able to afford it. We did and look how > relatively economic it is to own one yourself or to have huge networks set up through out the > world. Everyone said, they'd never do it cause it would be too expensive. I have this sense that some people have interpreted my remarks about it being expensive to mean that I am either opposing it or am trying to discourage it. I am not at all. I've supported alteratives for as long as I've heard of them, investing in them as long as 20 years ago. I'm only trying to suggest financial realities to be considered. I've worked a little in this area and have seen first-hand the numbers and they are not low. > Also, if they had earnestly dedicated themselves > to alternatives then and to the research it would have been cheaper and the technology or the new > resource may be further advanced and researched. We have to do this and NOW. We do not have a > choice, in my opinion. I remember one of my uncles telling me a story probably 30 years ago about how some people he knew back in the early 50s developed various fuel efficiency devices and who were then either paid off or threatened by some of the "big boys" to go away so there has definitely been obstruction for many years. One has to wonder how many others had developed technology 50-60 years ago that was also suppressed. >Counting on enjoying a big ole Martini at Jonifest this year! Me, too! Kakki
