Ok, be honest-- Anyone here who is the same person today..

[Bluerthanblue]

as they were 20yrs. ago?

I'm sure as hell not- and I'm really GLAD that I'm not- we're supposed to 'learn and grow'- not stay stagnant.

*'s press confrence re:Miers really bugged me when he said-

Thirdly, I know her well enough to be able to say that she's not going to change, that 20 years from now she'll be the same person with the same philosophy that she is today. She'll have more experience, she'll have been a judge, but, nevertheless, her philosophy won't change. And that's important to me. It was important to me when I picked Chief Justice Roberts; it's important for me in picking Harriet Miers.
.......
It's important to me -- again, I'll repeat to you, I don't want to put somebody on the bench who is this way today, and changes. That's not what I'm interested in. I'm interested in finding somebody who shares my philosophy today, and will have that same philosophy 20 years from now. And after spending a lot of time thinking about this nomination, there's no doubt in my mind that's -- that's the way Harriet Miers -- there's no doubt in my mind it's the way Chief Justice John Roberts is, as well.


Let's remember, 19 years ago, * was still drinking- waking up on his 40th birthday with a hangover- is he saying that that is REALLY who his is today? Pretty telling- sadly, possibly truer than he would like.

"I'm saying I'm not going to talk about what I did in the past. What I did 20 to 30 years ago, in my judgment, is irrelevant. What matters is who I am today." G.W.Bush on the campaign trail 1999


I'm alot more flexible (in thought) than I was 20yrs ago- and much more tollerant- I'm also very aware of how wrong I have often been about things I believed to be absolutes-

Anyone else feel similar, or am I a freak?

[Coexist]

1. that is a shout-out to those conservatives who are worried that

they placed "conservatives" on the bench who turned out to be in favor of Roe - and appear to be moderates on several other key conservative pets.

[melody]

12. they don't want conservatives, the RW wants stupid people on the bench

That's the problem - they can't find anyone stupid enough to think like them who has actually graduated from college.

[Marnieworld]

2. You're right.

The only people who don't change as time passes are dead.

[realisticphish]

3. of course not

embryo to college student is ony hell of a transition :D

but seriously, i used to be apathetic about politics, even in 2000. thank god THAT changed

[OldLeftieLawyer]

4. Well,

you're taking seriously the words of an alcohol- and drug-damaged freak who wasn't all that bright before he hit the substances.

Anything he says is a lie, so draw your own conclusions.

[tompayne1]

5. just like

it did not matter that adolf Eichmann killed millions of people. It only mattered that he was very sorry and that he had changed. (ok so i lost because i brought up nazis but the parallels are just to similar.

[Kralizec]

6. I had probably just learned how to spell my name, so the change for me

is drastic. LOL!! But in the past 3 years I have changed tremendously.

edit: spelllllllling

[seabeyond]

7. told huby about a year ago, i know he didnt marry. oh well. n/t

[raccoon]

8. You're not a freak, unless we both are. LOL

Twenty years. Life happens, and our outlooks, attitudes, opinions may change.

With shame, but with repentance, I admit that 20 years ago I thought somewhat like a Republican (pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps). I hasten to add that I don't think that way any more. From personal experience, I have learned better than that.

I'm much more patient than I was 20 years ago.

I can't imagine anyone who would NOT change in that length of time.

[Bluerthanblue]

28. Perspectives are like windows...

they need to be cleaned periodically- and some like diapers, that need to be changed when they begin to stink.

Some parts of us remain the same, but if we're alive- (fully so) we can't NOT change- and glad to be a freaker with you, and the other open minds here-

(I've got much to be ashamed of that i believed fervently in 20yrs ago, but the realization, and recognition that I didn't STAY stuck in the muck, is worth it.)
There shouldn't be shame in learning- rather shame in clinging onto things that prove harmful, or no longer life-giving or worthy.

[raccoon]

31. I like that what you said about perspectives. nt

[Stand and Fight]

9. I agree completely.

I used to be a firm believer in the death penalty. Now because of a personal experience I detest the very notion of state sanctioned murder.

I'd say that's a pretty significant shift. Right on level with shift in one's views on abortions.

[jane_pippin]

10. No. I'm not even the same person I was yesterday, or an hour ago.

Everyone changes whether they like it or not. Fighting it to hang on to a version of yourself or a belief that has since evolved is a waste of time and, I think, a draining, counter-productive pursuit.
But, fear of change seems to be a big part of the Bushbot mindset so this kind of code-talking from him is no surprise.

[Ladyhawk]

11. I went from Republican fundy to Democratic atheist. n/t

[McKenzie]

13. deep stuff time...or my pathetic attempt at it

I am in my 40's. When I look back (jeez this sounds like some dewy-eyed old fart wittering on already) I realise that there are certain aspects of my character that have always been there; we all know that about ourselves anyway. Many of those characteristics are not very good ones - short fuse and a tad impatient, for example. Whilst those characteristics are still there I have learned to prevent them from being displayed too overtly by altering my behaviour. Exceptions to losing my temper immediately include having to look at that fucking Automatic Updates balloon popping up every time I boot up telling me my computer might be at risk as result of AU being switched off. Bill - if you are reading this I switch it off because my privacy is at risk if I leave your nifty little feature turned on - please code it out in future M$ OS's or I really will go back to Linux.

Deep breath and back to the serious stuff. I think we are meant to change mentally for reasons that are evolutionary. My example of learning to control my bad behaviour fits that hypothesis but it goes way deeper than that I suspect; the control thingy could be termed "learning", rather than evolution, I suppose. Nevertheless, if one accepts that the human body is anatomically efficient - we are bipeds, have binocular vision etc - and one also accepts that evolution is a dynamic/linear process, then one has to accept that the next evolutionary step for our species is in the brain and that can only happen if our brains grow, and thus change our thought processes. I think...swallows hard...a focus on the non-material is the key to it all. Conversely, pointless materialism stops us evolving as we are meant to do.

If my amateur hypothesis is correct then Miers et al represent evolutionary dead ends which gives me some hope for the future. It might take another few million years of course but at least the buggers will die out eventually.

Enough of my clever comments - I'm off to Dundee with some friends to hear Ian Rankin (author of the Inspector Rebus novels). If you are in Micky Coyle's around 18:00 GMT I'll buy you a beer.

[Bluerthanblue]

25. not pathetic at all, you bring up a good point-

maybe those who refuse to learn and grow WILL be 'dead-ends'-
Just wish they weren't driving my car- even for the short-term.

Wish I were in Dundee- 'have to take the low road there, not much for flying. (in aircraft)

Materialism IS a big diversion for humans- and never more so, than the american consumer or hoarder. Things become too important, and living begins to revolve around storing up, and hoarding, taken to the extreem human doings rather than human beings.

peace-

[gratuitous]

14. No way, and thank God

I hardly see how Bush can presume to guarantee the actions of someone else at any time, ever, much less for the next 20 years. He's clearly off his rocker, and if Miers doesn't say something about that, then she's as nuts as he is. A moment's consideration of that ludicrous statement is all it takes to realize that the person who said it isn't playing with a full deck.

[Bluerthanblue]

27. yeah, I forgot how * looked into "Putie's soul"...

wonder if he saw what I'm seeing.- Someone who isn't going to just go with *'s agenda without a fight- Wondering if the cold war might be re-warming.... with new aliegences...???

Maybe too full a 'deck' eh? like several extra "jokers"-

Miers looks scared shitless to me- not that 'looks' are very 'credible' alot of the time- (especially given the looking into Putins eyes incident I just cited) but, there is something very...... troubling about her demeanor, and history when taken together.... I'm not comfortable with her at all so far...

A lifetime appointment that outlives the person doing the 'appointing' is not something to be taken lightly- or rushed into. "Giving him what he wants" shouldn't enter into ANY discussion about appointing SCOTUS Judges in my opinion.

Unless we are planning on a dictatorship.

[atommom]

15. That comment bothered me, too. The RW seems very concerned

about SC justices "turning liberal" once they're on the court. What's really happening in those cases is that they are learning, evolving, taking their duties as justices seriously, instead of just granting the RW everything on its wish list. Sadly, I don't see Roberts or Miers being open-minded enough to follow the same path.

If Miers truly won't change in 20 years on the SCOTUS, that alone should disqualify her.

[Qibing Zero]

16. This is their game - this is how they get votes.

Whenever they stay on message, whenever they promise you they will not change, and whenever they accuse someone else of 'flip-flopping' they are trying to win votes. People don't even consider the things you've just listed there. As long as they can project an image of being just like the 'average American' - the churchgoing, 'I believe in something and I'm going to stick to it', consistant average Joe - they're appealing to people all over the place. People fear change, and as we well know, that fear is used against the people every day.

Myself, aside from a very short list of things (the things I really love to do), I change more than I ever realize every single year.

[napi21]

17. Yes, I've changed in the last 20 years, BUT I changed a lot more

from 20 to 40 than I did from 40 to 60!

Since she is 60, I think the liklihood of substantial change is unlikely. HOWEVER, I think a lot of what the new SC does will depend on Roberts, and nobody is talking about that!

When they were holding the Roberts hearings, I checked to see just what the difference is between the Chirf Justice's job and that of an associate justice. The Chief Juustice has a lot of administrative work, but a big part of his job is to sway the opinion of the others to get as close to a no-dissent decision as possible.

One thing that we did hear about Roberts was that his collegues liked him, and I suspect he's a very persuasive guy. If I'm right, a lot more concern should rest with Roberts who's already on the court than with Mires or anyone else who might replace O'Connor.

[Bluerthanblue]

26. old dogs DO learn new tricks, not to

say you are an 'old dog' by any means-
I'm recalling my Grampy who lived to 94- and while I was only fortunate enough to know him for 12 yrs, even *I* could see him soften and mellow in the time we shared.
He was a strict, immovable man- very logical, determined, and independent. An 'old school' Md. - harsh with his family of 5 boys and one girl- but tender, patient, and even ....silly with his grandkids, and especially great-grands, mellowed, like a fine wine, or much used violin- like stones in the river, - the polish of many years on the front doorknob...

Roberts does worry me- especially such a 'young' judge being in charge of so many with more life experience, but.. none of us knows how much time we have here- the 'potential' for a long tenure is there, but who knows- and I have to hope that he'll pleasantly surprise those of us who are apprehensive about what directions he will 'grow' towards.

Change isn't always progress- but progress always involves change, even if it is just the passage of time....

[Ilsa]

18. Miers has already changed over the last ten years that Dumbya

has known her. Perhaps she is more flexible in some things, and less in others. She may see life as more black and white as she drinks more Bush Koolaid. :puke: It was another STUPID thing for W to say.

[progressoid]

19. Yeah, that creeped me out too - hell, everything he said creeped me out!

[Bluerthanblue]

20. whew... I'm grateful to know that the company I share here also

is one where growth, change, and wisdom are not only accepted, but encouraged. Thinking deeper about it, maybe this is INDEED a part of what sets us apart from the 'Conservatives'-

Change, especially change that involves admitting that what was once held as immovable- and turns out to be wrong when facts and experience bring us to a clearer understanding, is often very humbling. And that doesn't always 'feel good' at first, but is SO freeing.

When we examine what we might have just taken on as S.O.P - or 'tradition'..Daring to 'question' - or think with our minds and eyes open, is the only way that change- especially POSITIVE change can ever come about.

The world isn't flat-
The sun doesn't revolve around us-
and the real tough one, neither does the world-
Unless you are a toddler forever.

[WePurrsevere]

21. Quite frankly those who SAY they haven't/WON'T change scare me a LOT more

then those who admit they have and may.

IMO living is about changing... growing... adapting... learning and progressing forward. As new and more accurate information and knowledge become available it is healthy and even important that we remain open to this new information and knowledge as well as doing our best to throw away what has been proven to be false, outright lies, misinformation, programming, etc that we have accumulated over time.

I think I read that Ms Miers became "born again" back about 20 yrs ago wasn't it? If so that may explain Bush*'s commments. Having BTDT and heavily exposed to the "born again" "I found it" fundie stuff one of the things that made and still makes me nuts is that so many of those "born again" fundie folks basically close their mind up and stop accepting anything except what is spoon feed to them by the Jerry Falwell's, Pat Robertson's, etc. If anyone (true Christian or non) tries to use science, facts or even BIBLE verses IN context that are not or against what is taught by these ministers you are told that basically you're the "Devil" and they close you and their minds off.

All we can hope is that she's a whole lot more open to actually THINKING for herself and growing then Bush "thinks"/says.

[Mutley]

22. Considering that I was 6 years old 20 years ago...

Yes. Yes I have changed. But I see what you're saying. My birthday is coming up and I've been thinking about the fact that I have changed so much in just the last 5 to 10 years: I can't imagine how different I will be 20 years from now. I would be quite depressed if I looked back on my life 20 years from now and I realized that I was still the same person.

[Shine]

23. No, you are not a freak! OF COURSE we change, with time

How can we NOT?

There's absolutely NO way Shrub can guarantee Miers "will be the same person" in 20 more years. Duh! What a stupid thing to say.

On the other hand, look at him. He's STILL an idiot! :eyes:

Shine

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. The "consistency" fetish among the right wing is bizarre

I think Nietzsche had it right on this one: it is a hatred of life, of everything that flows and becomes, a fetish for eternal being, not even the existence of a rock, which at the very least enters into processes of erosion. It's funny that people accuse Nietzsche of being a "nihilist" because he announced the death of God. The death of God is nothing other than the acceptance of change, of becoming. It is those that fetishize that which always stays the same that hate life, the true nihilists.

[RethugAssKicker]

29. Of course people change... But Bush was trying..

to assure the RW assnuts that Harriet is a die-hard regressive and she will never change and join us, the "enlightened ones".

[OxQQme]

30. No, not a freak

I just turned 65 two days ago (doesn't make me an expert....just saying) and i am saying, "We/All are 'born agains', moment by moment."

Some favorite words from Sheri Tepper's novel, "The Fresco":

"Can we not say, 'A newly achieved virtue is more worthy than a corrupted teaching?"

"Must we assume, 'Our attributes are worthy, only insofar as they are ancient?"

"If we cling so tighly to 'The Old' that we do not allow ourselves to improve in both beliefs and behaviors, of what value are they?"

How in the world did we get ourselves in this condition where the prez can, with a straight face, even be allowed to 'gift' us citizens with this attribute of steadfastness?

[cynatnite]

32. Most people do change over a long period of time...

You're right, of course. I would question anyone who remained consistent and unchanging over such a long period of time. It would show they are unbending and refuse to acknowledge any other ways than theirs.

[BarbaRosa]

33. 20 years, try 10 years ago

Ten years ago the repugs were all frothing at the mouth at any scandal (real or most commonly imagined) coming out of the WH. They were ready with multi-million dollar investigations, impeachment, et all.

Now, a scant ten years later, with a real criminal in the WH, lying with every breath he takes, they just shrug and say -oh well, I don't see anything wrong, why do you hate America?

[atommom]

34. And, let's be honest ... isn't a big part of intelligence the ability to

adapt our behavior to changing circumstances? Promising that a person won't change for 20 years is ludicrous ... not to mention dangerous. Ideological rigidity is not a trait that enhances our survival, folks.