my care2
make a difference

community & fun

shares

share your passions, stories, inspirations, and more

Example
Feb 1, 2009

I am demonstrating blogging to a workshop student.

Imported from external blog

(0) | () | | send green star | flag as inappropriate
Visibility: Everyone
Tags:
Posted: Feb 1, 2009 6:29am
Seattle Raging Grannies support Nickelsville
Oct 16, 2008
Seattle Raging GranniesEight of the Seattle Raging Grannies (including me) visited Nickelsville today and sang for the Nickelodeons. Some of them sang along with us. I forgot to take my camera! So I can't post a photo of today. In substitute, here's a photo of Seattle Raging Grannies singing at the Nickelsville Die-In, our last community rally before raising Nickelsville.

From the Seattle Raging Grannies:

We support the homeless people of Nickelsville, who are providing shelter and safety for themselves in a hard time.

We admire the courage and compassion of University Christian Church and we thank them for their gift to the community of Seattle, in hosting Nickelsville.

We call on Mayor Nickels to acknowledge the realities of homelessness in Seattle and stop the senseless sweeps of homeless encampments.

The Mayor knows that developers are destroying low-income housing three times faster than it is being created. The Mayor knows that thousands of homeless men, women, and children are left outside after all shelter space in Seattle is full. The Mayor knows that Alan Painter, the head of the Department of Human Services, told the Seattle City Council that all of the shelters are full. The Mayor has no excuse for harassing Nickelsville or its supporters.

The Mayor needs to stop wasting money on harassing homeless encampments, and turn his full energy to real steps to end homelessness. Stop the destruction of low-income housing. Open more emergency shelters. Stop portraying homeless people and advocates as the enemy, and help Seattle come together as a community.

The mission of the Seattle Raging Grannies is to promote global peace, justice, and social and economic equality by raising public awareness through the medium of song and humor. seattleraginggrannies.com

Two of the songs we sang were written/adapted especially for Nickelsville.

THERE IS A RENTAL IN THIS TOWN
(tune: There is a Tavern in the Town)

There is a rental in this town, in this town,
And there my fam'ly settled down, settled do-o-own.
We ate and slept and played there every day,
And paid our rent so we could stay.

Chorus:
    Fare thee well for we must leave thee.
    Do not let this parting grieve thee.
    Our rent jumped sky high believe me,
    And so we-e mu-ust part.

Adieu, adieu kind friends, adieu, yes, adieu.
We can no longer be with you, be with you.
We'll hang our clothes on a weeping willow tree,
And sleep in Nickelsville for free.

And:

NICKELSVILLE
(tune: Back of the Bus)

If you miss me at the front of the bus
You can't find me nowhere
Come on up to the driver's seat
I'll be driving up there.
I'll be driving up there, I'll be driving up there;
Come on up to the driver's seat, I'll be driving up there.

If you're looking for shelter
You can't find it nowhere
Come on up to the greenbelt,
Folks are camping up there.
Folks are camping up there, Folks are camping up there;
Come on up to the greenbelt, Folks are camping up there.

If you miss me in the greenbelt
You can't find me nowhere
Come on over to Nickelsville,
Folks are building up there.
Folks are building up there, Folks are building up there;
Come on over to Nickelsville, Folks are building up there.

If you miss me at Nickelsville
You can't find me nowhere
Come on down to the jailhouse,
We'll be bunking down there.
We'll be bunking down there, We'll be bunking down there;
We'll be bunking down there.

If you miss me at the jailhouse
You can't find me nowhere
That's cause we all stood together,
And we're still building up there!
We're still building up there!
We're still building up there!
That's cause we all stood together,
And we're still building up there!

Sing On!

Imported from external blog

(0) | () | | send green star | flag as inappropriate
Visibility: Everyone
Tags:
Posted: Oct 16, 2008 5:48pm
Seattle Raging Grannies support Nickelsville
Oct 16, 2008
Seattle Raging GranniesEight of the Seattle Raging Grannies (including me) visited Nickelsville today and sang for the Nickelodeons. Some of them sang along with us. I forgot to take my camera! So I can't post a photo of today. In substitute, here's a photo of Seattle Raging Grannies singing at the Nickelsville Die-In, our last community rally before raising Nickelsville.

From the Seattle Raging Grannies:

We support the homeless people of Nickelsville, who are providing shelter and safety for themselves in a hard time.

We admire the courage and compassion of University Christian Church and we thank them for their gift to the community of Seattle, in hosting Nickelsville.

We call on Mayor Nickels to acknowledge the realities of homelessness in Seattle and stop the senseless sweeps of homeless encampments.

The Mayor knows that developers are destroying low-income housing three times faster than it is being created. The Mayor knows that thousands of homeless men, women, and children are left outside after all shelter space in Seattle is full. The Mayor knows that Alan Painter, the head of the Department of Human Services, told the Seattle City Council that all of the shelters are full. The Mayor has no excuse for harassing Nickelsville or its supporters.

The Mayor needs to stop wasting money on harassing homeless encampments, and turn his full energy to real steps to end homelessness. Stop the destruction of low-income housing. Open more emergency shelters. Stop portraying homeless people and advocates as the enemy, and help Seattle come together as a community.

The mission of the Seattle Raging Grannies is to promote global peace, justice, and social and economic equality by raising public awareness through the medium of song and humor. seattleraginggrannies.com

Two of the songs we sang were written/adapted especially for Nickelsville.

THERE IS A RENTAL IN THIS TOWN
(tune: There is a Tavern in the Town)

There is a rental in this town, in this town,
And there my fam'ly settled down, settled do-o-own.
We ate and slept and played there every day,
And paid our rent so we could stay.

Chorus:
    Fare thee well for we must leave thee.
    Do not let this parting grieve thee.
    Our rent jumped sky high believe me,
    And so we-e mu-ust part.

Adieu, adieu kind friends, adieu, yes, adieu.
We can no longer be with you, be with you.
We'll hang our clothes on a weeping willow tree,
And sleep in Nickelsville for free.

And:

NICKELSVILLE
(tune: Back of the Bus)

If you miss me at the front of the bus
You can't find me nowhere
Come on up to the driver's seat
I'll be driving up there.
I'll be driving up there, I'll be driving up there;
Come on up to the driver's seat, I'll be driving up there.

If you're looking for shelter
You can't find it nowhere
Come on up to the greenbelt,
Folks are camping up there.
Folks are camping up there, Folks are camping up there;
Come on up to the greenbelt, Folks are camping up there.

If you miss me in the greenbelt
You can't find me nowhere
Come on over to Nickelsville,
Folks are building up there.
Folks are building up there, Folks are building up there;
Come on over to Nickelsville, Folks are building up there.

If you miss me at Nickelsville
You can't find me nowhere
Come on down to the jailhouse,
We'll be bunking down there.
We'll be bunking down there, We'll be bunking down there;
We'll be bunking down there.

If you miss me at the jailhouse
You can't find me nowhere
That's cause we all stood together,
And we're still building up there!
We're still building up there!
We're still building up there!
That's cause we all stood together,
And we're still building up there!

Sing On!

Imported from external blog

(0) | () | | send green star | flag as inappropriate
Visibility: Everyone
Tags:
Posted: Oct 16, 2008 5:48pm
Seattle Raging Grannies support Nickelsville
Oct 16, 2008
Seattle Raging GranniesEight of the Seattle Raging Grannies (including me) visited Nickelsville today and sang for the Nickelodeons. Some of them sang along with us. I forgot to take my camera! So I can't post a photo of today. In substitute, here's a photo of Seattle Raging Grannies singing at the Nickelsville Die-In, our last community rally before raising Nickelsville.

From the Seattle Raging Grannies:

We support the homeless people of Nickelsville, who are providing shelter and safety for themselves in a hard time.

We admire the courage and compassion of University Christian Church and we thank them for their gift to the community of Seattle, in hosting Nickelsville.

We call on Mayor Nickels to acknowledge the realities of homelessness in Seattle and stop the senseless sweeps of homeless encampments.

The Mayor knows that developers are destroying low-income housing three times faster than it is being created. The Mayor knows that thousands of homeless men, women, and children are left outside after all shelter space in Seattle is full. The Mayor knows that Alan Painter, the head of the Department of Human Services, told the Seattle City Council that all of the shelters are full. The Mayor has no excuse for harassing Nickelsville or its supporters.

The Mayor needs to stop wasting money on harassing homeless encampments, and turn his full energy to real steps to end homelessness. Stop the destruction of low-income housing. Open more emergency shelters. Stop portraying homeless people and advocates as the enemy, and help Seattle come together as a community.

The mission of the Seattle Raging Grannies is to promote global peace, justice, and social and economic equality by raising public awareness through the medium of song and humor. seattleraginggrannies.com

Two of the songs we sang were written/adapted especially for Nickelsville.

THERE IS A RENTAL IN THIS TOWN
(tune: There is a Tavern in the Town)

There is a rental in this town, in this town,
And there my fam'ly settled down, settled do-o-own.
We ate and slept and played there every day,
And paid our rent so we could stay.

Chorus:
    Fare thee well for we must leave thee.
    Do not let this parting grieve thee.
    Our rent jumped sky high believe me,
    And so we-e mu-ust part.

Adieu, adieu kind friends, adieu, yes, adieu.
We can no longer be with you, be with you.
We'll hang our clothes on a weeping willow tree,
And sleep in Nickelsville for free.

And:

NICKELSVILLE
(tune: Back of the Bus)

If you miss me at the front of the bus
You can't find me nowhere
Come on up to the driver's seat
I'll be driving up there.
I'll be driving up there, I'll be driving up there;
Come on up to the driver's seat, I'll be driving up there.

If you're looking for shelter
You can't find it nowhere
Come on up to the greenbelt,
Folks are camping up there.
Folks are camping up there, Folks are camping up there;
Come on up to the greenbelt, Folks are camping up there.

If you miss me in the greenbelt
You can't find me nowhere
Come on over to Nickelsville,
Folks are building up there.
Folks are building up there, Folks are building up there;
Come on over to Nickelsville, Folks are building up there.

If you miss me at Nickelsville
You can't find me nowhere
Come on down to the jailhouse,
We'll be bunking down there.
We'll be bunking down there, We'll be bunking down there;
We'll be bunking down there.

If you miss me at the jailhouse
You can't find me nowhere
That's cause we all stood together,
And we're still building up there!
We're still building up there!
We're still building up there!
That's cause we all stood together,
And we're still building up there!

Sing On!

Imported from external blog

(0) | () | | send green star | flag as inappropriate
Visibility: Everyone
Tags:
Posted: Oct 16, 2008 5:48pm
The "litmus test" question
Oct 15, 2008
In both the Presidential debate and the Washington State gubernatorial debate tonight, the candidates were asked about future court appointments.

Whoever is governor 2009-2012 will be appointing a replacement for Judge Gerry Alexander when he retires.  The first question of Gregoire and Rossi was: "Who's on your list to replace Gerry Alexander?  Will you have a litmus test?"

The Presidential candidates were asked a similar question during their debate: would they consider appointing a Supreme Court judge whom they do not agree with on some issues -- like abortion and same-sex marriage?

I was annoyed by how everybody answered this question.  Everybody falls over themselves to affirm, "I would never apply a litmus test, I will appoint the most qualified person."

Of course all appointees should be the most qualified persons available.  And one of the qualifications for the position of Supreme Court judge (on state or federal level) is commitment to the constitution.

The following are fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution:
  • All rights and powers originate in the people. 
  • Government, at any level,  can only exercised the rights and powers explicitly granted by the people.
Ergo, any person who says, "The right of privacy is not established in the constitution" is not qualified to be a judge.

To some extent both liberals and conservatives recognize the existence of a "public sphere" in which our interactions with each other can be legislated and adjudicated, and a "private sphere" in which government should not intrude. We may disagree on where the line is drawn, but for any conservative to deny the existence of a private sphere contradicts everything they say about why government should be limited.

As I see it, a judge who would consider it constitutional for government to regulate sex and reproduction, and who would authorize the state to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will, is not qualified for the position.  That would be an honest answer from Gregoire or Obama -- and Obama, at least, did bury a recognition of that in the midst of "oh no I wouldn't."

And an honest answer from Rossi or McCain would be that they believe that constitutional principles were violated in the Roe vs Wade decision, and therefore any judge who would not overturn Roe vs Wade is not qualified for the position -- and McCain did bury a recognition of that in the midst of "oh no I wouldn't."

I would have been a lot happier if they were direct about it.  I would be a whole lot happier if our Washington governor candidates were even close to that direct.

Imported from external blog

(0) | () | | send green star | flag as inappropriate
Visibility: Everyone
Tags:
Posted: Oct 15, 2008 4:17pm
The "litmus test" question
Oct 15, 2008
In both the Presidential debate and the Washington State gubernatorial debate tonight, the candidates were asked about future court appointments.

Whoever is governor 2009-2012 will be appointing a replacement for Judge Gerry Alexander when he retires.  The first question of Gregoire and Rossi was: "Who's on your list to replace Gerry Alexander?  Will you have a litmus test?"

The Presidential candidates were asked a similar question during their debate: would they consider appointing a Supreme Court judge whom they do not agree with on some issues -- like abortion and same-sex marriage?

I was annoyed by how everybody answered this question.  Everybody falls over themselves to affirm, "I would never apply a litmus test, I will appoint the most qualified person."

Of course all appointees should be the most qualified persons available.  And one of the qualifications for the position of Supreme Court judge (on state or federal level) is commitment to the constitution.

The following are fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution:
  • All rights and powers originate in the people. 
  • Government, at any level,  can only exercised the rights and powers explicitly granted by the people.
Ergo, any person who says, "The right of privacy is not established in the constitution" is not qualified to be a judge.

To some extent both liberals and conservatives recognize the existence of a "public sphere" in which our interactions with each other can be legislated and adjudicated, and a "private sphere" in which government should not intrude. We may disagree on where the line is drawn, but for any conservative to deny the existence of a private sphere contradicts everything they say about why government should be limited.

As I see it, a judge who would consider it constitutional for government to regulate sex and reproduction, and who would authorize the state to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will, is not qualified for the position.  That would be an honest answer from Gregoire or Obama -- and Obama, at least, did bury a recognition of that in the midst of "oh no I wouldn't."

And an honest answer from Rossi or McCain would be that they believe that constitutional principles were violated in the Roe vs Wade decision, and therefore any judge who would not overturn Roe vs Wade is not qualified for the position -- and McCain did bury a recognition of that in the midst of "oh no I wouldn't."

I would have been a lot happier if they were direct about it.  I would be a whole lot happier if our Washington governor candidates were even close to that direct.

Imported from external blog

(0) | () | | send green star | flag as inappropriate
Visibility: Everyone
Tags:
Posted: Oct 15, 2008 4:17pm
The "litmus test" question
Oct 15, 2008
In both the Presidential debate and the Washington State gubernatorial debate tonight, the candidates were asked about future court appointments.

Whoever is governor 2009-2012 will be appointing a replacement for Judge Gerry Alexander when he retires.  The first question of Gregoire and Rossi was: "Who's on your list to replace Gerry Alexander?  Will you have a litmus test?"

The Presidential candidates were asked a similar question during their debate: would they consider appointing a Supreme Court judge whom they do not agree with on some issues -- like abortion and same-sex marriage?

I was annoyed by how everybody answered this question.  Everybody falls over themselves to affirm, "I would never apply a litmus test, I will appoint the most qualified person."

Of course all appointees should be the most qualified persons available.  And one of the qualifications for the position of Supreme Court judge (on state or federal level) is commitment to the constitution.

The following are fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution:
  • All rights and powers originate in the people. 
  • Government, at any level,  can only exercised the rights and powers explicitly granted by the people.
Ergo, any person who says, "The right of privacy is not established in the constitution" is not qualified to be a judge.

To some extent both liberals and conservatives recognize the existence of a "public sphere" in which our interactions with each other can be legislated and adjudicated, and a "private sphere" in which government should not intrude. We may disagree on where the line is drawn, but for any conservative to deny the existence of a private sphere contradicts everything they say about why government should be limited.

As I see it, a judge who would consider it constitutional for government to regulate sex and reproduction, and who would authorize the state to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will, is not qualified for the position.  That would be an honest answer from Gregoire or Obama -- and Obama, at least, did bury a recognition of that in the midst of "oh no I wouldn't."

And an honest answer from Rossi or McCain would be that they believe that constitutional principles were violated in the Roe vs Wade decision, and therefore any judge who would not overturn Roe vs Wade is not qualified for the position -- and McCain did bury a recognition of that in the midst of "oh no I wouldn't."

I would have been a lot happier if they were direct about it.  I would be a whole lot happier if our Washington governor candidates were even close to that direct.

Imported from external blog

(0) | () | | send green star | flag as inappropriate
Visibility: Everyone
Tags:
Posted: Oct 15, 2008 4:17pm
The "litmus test" question
Oct 15, 2008
In both the Presidential debate and the Washington State gubernatorial debate tonight, the candidates were asked about future court appointments.

Whoever is governor 2009-2012 will be appointing a replacement for Judge Gerry Alexander when he retires.  The first question of Gregoire and Rossi was: "Who's on your list to replace Gerry Alexander?  Will you have a litmus test?"

The Presidential candidates were asked a similar question during their debate: would they consider appointing a Supreme Court judge whom they do not agree with on some issues -- like abortion and same-sex marriage?

I was annoyed by how everybody answered this question.  Everybody falls over themselves to affirm, "I would never apply a litmus test, I will appoint the most qualified person."

Of course all appointees should be the most qualified persons available.  And one of the qualifications for the position of Supreme Court judge (on state or federal level) is commitment to the constitution.

The following are fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution:
  • All rights and powers originate in the people. 
  • Government, at any level,  can only exercised the rights and powers explicitly granted by the people.
Ergo, any person who says, "The right of privacy is not established in the constitution" is not qualified to be a judge.

To some extent both liberals and conservatives recognize the existence of a "public sphere" in which our interactions with each other can be legislated and adjudicated, and a "private sphere" in which government should not intrude. We may disagree on where the line is drawn, but for any conservative to deny the existence of a private sphere contradicts everything they say about why government should be limited.

As I see it, a judge who would consider it constitutional for government to regulate sex and reproduction, and who would authorize the state to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will, is not qualified for the position.  That would be an honest answer from Gregoire or Obama -- and Obama, at least, did bury a recognition of that in the midst of "oh no I wouldn't."

And an honest answer from Rossi or McCain would be that they believe that constitutional principles were violated in the Roe vs Wade decision, and therefore any judge who would not overturn Roe vs Wade is not qualified for the position -- and McCain did bury a recognition of that in the midst of "oh no I wouldn't."

I would have been a lot happier if they were direct about it.  I would be a whole lot happier if our Washington governor candidates were even close to that direct.

Imported from external blog

(0) | () | | send green star | flag as inappropriate
Visibility: Everyone
Tags:
Posted: Oct 15, 2008 4:17pm
The "litmus test" question
Oct 15, 2008
In both the Presidential debate and the Washington State gubernatorial debate tonight, the candidates were asked about future court appointments.

Whoever is governor 2009-2012 will be appointing a replacement for Judge Gerry Alexander when he retires.  The first question of Gregoire and Rossi was: "Who's on your list to replace Gerry Alexander?  Will you have a litmus test?"

The Presidential candidates were asked a similar question during their debate: would they consider appointing a Supreme Court judge whom they do not agree with on some issues -- like abortion and same-sex marriage?

I was annoyed by how everybody answered this question.  Everybody falls over themselves to affirm, "I would never apply a litmus test, I will appoint the most qualified person."

Of course all appointees should be the most qualified persons available.  And one of the qualifications for the position of Supreme Court judge (on state or federal level) is commitment to the constitution.

The following are fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution:
  • All rights and powers originate in the people. 
  • Government, at any level,  can only exercised the rights and powers explicitly granted by the people.
Ergo, any person who says, "The right of privacy is not established in the constitution" is not qualified to be a judge.

To some extent both liberals and conservatives recognize the existence of a "public sphere" in which our interactions with each other can be legislated and adjudicated, and a "private sphere" in which government should not intrude. We may disagree on where the line is drawn, but for any conservative to deny the existence of a private sphere contradicts everything they say about why government should be limited.

As I see it, a judge who would consider it constitutional for government to regulate sex and reproduction, and who would authorize the state to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will, is not qualified for the position.  That would be an honest answer from Gregoire or Obama -- and Obama, at least, did bury a recognition of that in the midst of "oh no I wouldn't."

And an honest answer from Rossi or McCain would be that they believe that constitutional principles were violated in the Roe vs Wade decision, and therefore any judge who would not overturn Roe vs Wade is not qualified for the position -- and McCain did bury a recognition of that in the midst of "oh no I wouldn't."

I would have been a lot happier if they were direct about it.  I would be a whole lot happier if our Washington governor candidates were even close to that direct.

Imported from external blog

(0) | () | | send green star | flag as inappropriate
Visibility: Everyone
Tags:
Posted: Oct 15, 2008 4:17pm
The "litmus test" question
Oct 15, 2008
In both the Presidential debate and the Washington State gubernatorial debate tonight, the candidates were asked about future court appointments.

Whoever is governor 2009-2012 will be appointing a replacement for Judge Gerry Alexander when he retires.  The first question of Gregoire and Rossi was: "Who's on your list to replace Gerry Alexander?  Will you have a litmus test?"

The Presidential candidates were asked a similar question during their debate: would they consider appointing a Supreme Court judge whom they do not agree with on some issues -- like abortion and same-sex marriage?

I was annoyed by how everybody answered this question.  Everybody falls over themselves to affirm, "I would never apply a litmus test, I will appoint the most qualified person."

Of course all appointees should be the most qualified persons available.  And one of the qualifications for the position of Supreme Court judge (on state or federal level) is commitment to the constitution.

The following are fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution:
  • All rights and powers originate in the people. 
  • Government, at any level,  can only exercised the rights and powers explicitly granted by the people.
Ergo, any person who says, "The right of privacy is not established in the constitution" is not qualified to be a judge.

To some extent both liberals and conservatives recognize the existence of a "public sphere" in which our interactions with each other can be legislated and adjudicated, and a "private sphere" in which government should not intrude. We may disagree on where the line is drawn, but for any conservative to deny the existence of a private sphere contradicts everything they say about why government should be limited.

As I see it, a judge who would consider it constitutional for government to regulate sex and reproduction, and who would authorize the state to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will, is not qualified for the position.  That would be an honest answer from Gregoire or Obama -- and Obama, at least, did bury a recognition of that in the midst of "oh no I wouldn't."

And an honest answer from Rossi or McCain would be that they believe that constitutional principles were violated in the Roe vs Wade decision, and therefore any judge who would not overturn Roe vs Wade is not qualified for the position -- and McCain did bury a recognition of that in the midst of "oh no I wouldn't."

I would have been a lot happier if they were direct about it.  I would be a whole lot happier if our Washington governor candidates were even close to that direct.

Imported from external blog

(0) | () | | send green star | flag as inappropriate
Visibility: Everyone
Tags:
Posted: Oct 15, 2008 4:17pm

 
 Next >
 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.

Author

Anitra Freeman
female, age 60, married, 2 children
Seattle, WA, USA
Shares by Type:
All (121) | Blog (115) | Alert (3) | Message (3)
ads keep care2 free
SHARES FROM ANITRA'S NETWORK
Nov
1
(0 comments  |  discussions )
One says he's positive there are other innocent men still behind bars.By Rob Hoy Wednesday, October 14, 2009About 50 Oklahoma City University Law students heard from three men who were wrongfully convicted of crimes.Dennis Fritz was one of the speake...
Oct
25
(0 comments  |  discussions )
In 1982, 21-year-old Debra Sue Carter was brutally murdered in the small town of Ada, Okla.In 1988, former Lee’s Summit resident Dennis Fritz and his acquaintance Ron Williamson were charged and convicted of the murder. Fritz was se...
Oct
24
(0 comments  |  discussions )
May ALL your wishes come true and may ALL your fears and thoughts of darkness vanish into thin air!
Sep
1
(0 comments  |  discussions )
Over 300 Supporters Attend MAIP 2nd Annual Awards LuncheonSeven exonerees of wrongful convictions and a best-selling legal writer were among the speakers July 15 at the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project’ ;s Second Annual Awards Luncheon....
Aug
29
(0 comments  |  discussions )
Hello everyone! I am very sorry about the picture Icon;  my friend changed it and it was supposed to be an angel.  I don't know how to change it and my friend never get up before 11:00 and more???   so I don't want to get banned ...
Aug
18
(20 comments  |  discussions )
Greetings to my friends and loved ones!  *hatsoff* The following is an excerpt from an excellent publicatio n of the United Church of God,  titled "Jesus Christ- The Real Story".  This booklet is available free of charge from...
(0 comments  |  discussions )
(CBS) Scientists in Israel have successfully fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA, potentially undercutting what has been considered key evidence in the conviction or exoneration in crime cases, the New York Times reported.According to ...
Aug
15
(0 comments  |  discussions )
Greetings and Blessings to my friends and loved ones!  *hatsoff* I did not write the folowing post,  nor am I aware of it's authourship.  However,  it's a very important (and short) essay which I hope you'll read.  It's a si...
Aug
11
(0 comments  |  discussions )
In 1982, microscopic hair analysis of strands found on the body of a victim was used and Dennis Fritz and Ron Williamson were framed for the murder. Seventeen years later, DNA analysis of the same hair fragments was used to prove that these men were ...
(0 comments  |  0 discussions )
Published: 2009-6-9"Better 10 Guilty Men Go Free than to Convict a Single Innocent Man"Article provided by Paul CrammVisit us at www.kansascity-criminal-a ttorney.comThe essence of this quote forms the very cornerstone of the system of justice that se...

Copyright © 2009 Care2.com, inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved