http://www.youtube.c...h?v=oN2ii7GARfk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDY3C0ABFM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S1VmqyTUBk

Well, it wasn't Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

Has anyone seen American Violet?

Pay taxes. Give 10% to my local church. Buy groceries. Save the rest and let it grow interest. Decide where the funds will do the most good and that is where I would spend.

Actually it was my boyfriend who explained that part.

As long as the ladies are sweet to him, yes. He loves being at the center of a group of affectionate women who make him smile and put him in a playful mood.

But during that time he was not always in a domestic environment. He spent time recording and touring.

He used the words "can't deal with the heat", which seems to imply a perceived lack of capacity to cope with said agitation. On the topic of divorce, letting go of the bitterness is the most important thing, so I have been told.

I understand and of course I can see it objectively. Senator Franken's amendment is entirely appropriate and consistent with criminal law and the United States Constitution, as he has stated. But even without the passage of this amendment, Congress would still have the right to supersede a criminal contract, because it is unlawful to enforce a criminal contract. That is basic contract law. Rape is a crime. A business contract will not protect anyone from criminal prosecution for rape. Arbitration law was never intended to apply to damages resulting from criminal matters. Congress could pass an amendment that would allow the mafia to rob banks and then submit the loss issue to arbitration, but it would run into the same problem, that is, basic contract law. You cannot enforce an illegal contract.

There is no exception. But the issues involving Mr. Polanski are varied, including his right to a fair trial. It's a balancing process with the different issues, and his lawyers are not trying to throw out years of stare decisis. In the case of Jamie Leigh, those who committed criminal acts want us to believe that they had the right to do so, and withholding her right to redress just because they had her sign a document so they would hire her. The criminal courts will never look kindly on that kind of situation, because it is simply bad law. They don't want to see any more cases of this kind, so they will uphold the same criminal law that has applied in the past and maintain the right to redress as usual. They will not allow people to sign that right away just because they needed employment to make a living. But in this case it is not the judicial arm of government, but rather the legislative one. Yet it is the same basic principle of providing redress to victims of crime that guides both. Neither will allow you to sign that right away. Arbitration was never intended to apply to criminal issues, only civil ones and then with the intent to limit awards of monetary damages in order to reduce costs. And if "constitutionality" were truly more than a smokescreen issue, you would see Democrats voting along with Republicans. Here the Republicans have engaged in party politics, and to some of them, Halliburton is like a sacred cow. I notice that Lindsey Graham also voted against passage. He has been taking heat lately for his support of environmental legislation favored by Democrats. He may have wanted to be seen as loyal by other Republicans in regard to the Franken amendment. If it had been Republicans who had introduced the bill instead of Franken, then they would have all supported it.

It's just one more question that I would get right on the bar exam. Convoluted theories about "objectivity" are a smokescreen. The real issue is criminality.

"Women in houses - I can't deal with their heat" means that he is comfortable? I think it may be a variation of the idea that if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

I think that 'She Said' is a cryptic song. It leaves you to wonder. He probably laughs when everyone comes up with a different interpretation of it, and he probably has his own. He'll probably never tell us what he meant. It's more fun to keep us guessing. 'Women in houses - I can't deal with their heat', to me indicates that he may be more socialized to women in familiar environments such as concert halls, hotels, airports, pubs, soccer stadiums, offices and so on, rather than in domestic situations where they sometimes explode, become strangely unglued, and behave in a manner that he finds unfamiliar. So he retreats to places where the women are easier for him to relate to, like recording studios.

64°F currently 70°F high 63°F low Clouds, light rain and wind Heavier rain in the mountains

This was a crime and there is no excuse to limit redress to arbitration. Criminal law prevails. To deny the people their right to redress when someone has committed a crime against them is unconscionable. Halliburton is not strictly private enterprise, or it would not be taking government funds, probably taxpayer funds, to conduct its business. To attempt to reduce this issue to one of mere constitutionality while pretending that the rape was less significant demonstrates the caliber of the individuals who had the gall to suggest it. It's a little like arguing that the mafia has the constitutional right to rob banks.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=EOheWvkjq78 http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Gq0b1yufOYM

It is unconscionable to put party politics ahead of the basic rights of citizens. To have the arrogant gall to even suggest that the only redress available to a victim of a crime should be limited to arbitration merely to convenience private industry is about the same as telling the mafia that they can do whatever the hell they want and get away with it.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=_yaFuVJaOW0

I am blissfully oblivious and have no idea what the hell he is singing about there, thank God.