Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you.
-----------------------------------------
Many apologies on the long delay between posts, however there is a few things going on.
A) I do have a day job. This week I was on the 8:00AM shift, the busiest one. Next week is the late shift (9:00AM), not much for me to do, but I can post more. The 7:00AM shift also gives me the freedom to post because I leave work earlier. This week, more posts!
B) The Valley of the Shadow got reviewed! Thanks to Brent over at the Weblog Review. If you have a Blog, go there and sign up. My rebuttals to the review:
1) I am not a technician, thus the long page down on the second column. But I do participate in "link exchanges" with other Blogs. The Blog roll is from Stop the ACLU, they were an early linker to this Blog. I am old fashioned, if you support me, I will support you.
2) Donations, donations, donations! When I was in DC, I took a class about fundraising at the National Republican Congressional Committee [NRCC]. I did event fundraising for a non-profit in New York. First thing I learned, you lose if you do not ask. If I can raise the money now, next year, I can say the Valley raised $7,700 on it's own, and the target will be doubled for a military charity. If I raise the money, those donation posts go away until next year.
C) I have been trying to promote the California Encyclicals. To do that, I met Hugh Hewitt at the Los Angeles Book Fair at UCLA. I've been trying to get through to the Los Angeles Times (DC and LA). If you are a reporter, or Party person, I am available for interviewss regarding the Encyclicals.
D) Presidential politics - Yes there were early debates, but what counts for me is the last two debates before New Hampshire. Whoever is left standing have a better shot at making it to the Convention. Have I decided? Watch this spot.
E) Personal notes - I am cleaning my room and preparing for a 3000 mile journey. Like the Encyclicals, I want to help the GOP get another majority around the country. It requires my help. If you are able to help me help the GOP, email me.
F) Comment on this: It is intellectually lazy to Hate President Bush because as Thomas Jefferson said "That which is popular is not always right" Discuss.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
3 comments:
Welcome to the Valley! Please comment about the post and keep to the subject.
There is only one person (JSF) keeping track of comments, so as long as what you write is civil and close to the purpose of the post, you will see it.
Keep this in mind: Politics should not be Personal; then you have a place here.
Write! History will remember your words!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
LinkWithin
Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's always right also means it's not always wrong either. I guess you could say that it's intellectually lazy to hate Bush because the reasons for hating the guy are so obvious that it's a no-brainer. It's much more intellectually challenging (though dishonest) to try to come up with ways to spin away his lies, corruption, arrogance, pandering to the religious wingnuts, sending our troops out to die for no damn good reason, etc. Good luck with that.
ReplyDeleteJason,
ReplyDeleteKnow what was popular in early American history? Slavery. Popular from the 1600's until 1865. Know what else? Treating african Americans as second class citezens (sp?) in the North and the South. That was popular for 100 years. Something else that was popular? Stopping sexual harrasment. However, the moment a Democratic President was accused, those laws became worthless. Please, talk to me of contridictions then. But if the presidency is important to the Democrats, why despise a temporary office holder? The rhetoric used by the Dems today will be used by the GOP tommorow.
President Jefferson was quite correct in his statement concerning the decision making process.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that to make a blanket statement of intellectual laziness on the part of one party or the other is a dangerous tendency.
In my mind it is reminiscent of the fools both liberal and conservative that utilize the terms "judicial activism" or that characterize the Supreme Court of the United States as "activist" or "non-activist" in nature because, by and large such characterizations are dependent on the viewpoints of the individual.
American law by its very nature expands or contracts subject to the will of populace although, the will of the public at large is not truly independent in the sense that its decision making processes have been influenced by a variety of factors.