6 tips for putting your words to music –


 

I am not a songwriter but I love to read definitely hear the spoken word.

My interest is in the art of movement, specifically dance, but great words put on paper in innovative patterns can soothe invigorate irritate and make you feel good.

They also say, Music is said to soothe the savage beast least we talk about our souls

… So, since

we all love to love …

1) Make it personal because reading someone’s experience with love at first sight, first love, lust , a long term love or a one night stand brings a sense of connection folks sometimes look for and set to music can only enhance a good lyric ..right

2) Be yourself because as an avid reader and lover of music I do go out of my way to learn the lyrics to a song I like love and feel  the performer is genuine in their delivery and not trying to be something else,  can actually be heard seen felt through the spoken word

3) The kind of music that makes an impression on me also provides imagery a vision of something or what the song is about; even if it is abstract, the image is sort of like a coffee table object.  Always up for interpretation depending on who is listening reading or learning the lyrics … of course, when it comes to love … when someone is singing to you … take the time to listen; I heard that once and then again you may have heard the song but weren’t feeling the notes

 What gets folks onto the dance floor …

4) Rhymes Reason and Rhythm because who doesn’t like the art of movement …and more often than not that is what kind of music makes great artist move up into the stratosphere … in my opinion. I dance because I have to and anything that has a great hook a great bass  or syncopation definitely will get played more than once in my house. The rhythm of life

5) Always assume a video of your creation is a possibility so … be that visionary

🙂  Always believe you were born to make music  (:

“nofollow” to all links

“This post was created in partnership with eAccountable.

All opinions are my own.”

Clicking 2x on graphic will maximize it

Arizona On Steroids


By 

Will the Supreme Court Issue a License to Discriminate?

The nationwide outcry over Arizona’s anti-LGBT law was swift and severe. Amid mounting pressure from leading Republicans in her own state as well as the business community and others, Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the law on Wednesday night.

Unfortunately, Arizona is far from the only state where lawmakers are contemplating bills that would give the government, private businesses, and others the a license to discriminate under the guise of “religious liberty.” As Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards wrote yesterday, “this didn’t start with Arizona, and it won’t end with Arizona.”

Indeed, proposals similar to the Arizona law have been introduced recently in states across the country, including Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Kansas, and South Dakota, and Tennessee.

The Missouri proposal was actually introduced in attempt to model the Arizona bill, but the backlash over Arizona helped propel measures in other states to outright defeat or at least has them on ice for the moment.

As bad as these bills are, they pale in comparison to the damage the Supreme Court could do with an erroneous ruling in the upcoming Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases. While these cases are specifically about the Affordable Care Act’s birth control benefit, the High Court could open the floodgates to discrimination in the name of religious belief.

ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser explains how the Supreme Court could essentially impose an Arizona-style law on steroids nationwide:

If this issue sounds familiar, it should, because it’s the exact same issue behind two of the most high profile Supreme Court cases being hear this term — Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius. In both of those cases, for-profit businesses object, on religious liberty grounds, to complying with Obama Administration rules increasing access to birth control. One of the most important questions presented by both cases is whether a for-profit corporation can have religious faith at all, and if so, whether it can use that supposed faith as the basis for a legal claim.

So if the Supreme Court agrees with the plaintiffs in these cases that corporations aren’t just people, but they can also be people of faith, the outcome will be very similar to what would happen if Congress had taken the bill Brewer just vetoed, passed it at the federal level and then President Obama had signed it into law — except, of course, for the fact that no one on the Supreme Court was actually elected to make law.

Last year, some of our Center for American Progress colleagues wrote about the dangerous slippery slope we could all go sliding down if the Supreme Court agrees that corporations are not only people, but people entitled to religious beliefs. Such a decision poses a very real threat to core civil rights protections in this country:

  • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, or religion. But if for-profit corporations have religious beliefs, they will be able to argue they have the right to side-step Title VII and, for example, hire only those who sign a “statement of faith” or share the same religious beliefs.
  • The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which is part of Title VII, protects against sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, but for-profit corporations may try and use their newly found religious rights to fire unmarried pregnant employees.
  • The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, or religion, unless you qualify for certain religious organizations exemptions. If for-profit corporations have religious rights, then property-management firms may argue their religious beliefs do not support certain lifestyles such as living together before marriage. They may choose not to rent or sell to those engaging in the unapproved conduct.
  • Many states have public accommodations laws that prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation. A holding that a corporation can be exempt from basically any federal law because of its owners’ religious beliefs could lead to similar state law exemptions. (See Elane Photography v. Willock.)

The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in these cases on March 25, so the timing of this growing national backlash against discrimination under the guise of religious liberty could not be better. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is frequently the Court’s swing vote, has a long history of supporting LGBT rights, including authoring last year’s historic decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. That decision has nationwide marriage equality barreling back toward the Supreme Court at breakneck speed.

As Millhiser wrote earlier this week, the Arizona backlash could be of tremendous benefit in the upcoming cases:

The last time a conflict between gay rights and religious conservatives reached the Supreme Court, Kennedy broke with his fellow conservatives and sided with gay equality. […]

But if Kennedy views Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood and a broad attack on the idea that religious employers have to comply with the law, and specifically, with laws protecting gay people, then he is much more likely to uphold the birth control rules.

The plaintiffs’ legal theory in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood would, in the words of a brief filed by attorneys from Lambda Legal, “mark a sea change – not only in allowing business owners’ religious views about family planning to burden decisions employees are entitled to make for themselves, but also in opening the door to similar denials of equal compensation, health care access, and other equitable treatment for LGBT people, persons with HIV, and anyone else whose family life or health need diverges from their employers’ religious convictions.” If birth control loses in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, it is all but certain that gay rights will be next on the chopping block.

Stay tuned for more on the potential consequences of the Hobby Lobby case.

BOTTOM LINE: Religious liberty is a core American value and progressives believe in religious liberty for all, not just for some. Religious liberty means religious liberty for everyone. And that includes the freedom from having the theological doctrines of your boss or those of business owners in your community being forced upon you.

The Arizona law and the upcoming Supreme Court cases are not really about religious liberty, they are about minority of individuals seeking a license to ignore laws and regulations they disagree with in order to discriminate against LGBT people, women, and others.

the Senate ~~ CONGRESS 3/3 snow day ~~ the House


capitolsnowclosed

The Senate will convene at 2:00pm on Monday, March 3, 2014.

Following any Leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 5:00pm with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

At 5:00pm, the Senate will proceed to Executive Session to consider Executive Calendar #659, the nomination of Debo P. Adegbile, of New York, to be an Assistant Attorney General with up to 30 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form.

At 5:30pm, there will be a roll call vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Adegbile nomination.

During Thursday’s session of the Senate, cloture was filed on the following items in the following order.  The number of post-cloture debate hours for each nominee is in parenthesis.

–        Executive Calendar #659, Debo Adegbile to be Assistant Attorney General (8 equally-divided hours);

–        Executive Calendar #568, Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico (2 equally-divided hours);

–        Executive Calendar #569, Pamela Reeves to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee (2 equally-divided hours);

–        Executive Calendar #565, Timothy Brooks to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas (2 equally-divided hours);

–        Executive Calendar #571, Vince Chhabria to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California (2 equally-divided hours);

–        Executive Calendar #636, Rose Gottemoeller to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security (8 equally-divided hours); and

–        Motion to proceed to Legislative Calendar #309, S.1086, the Child Care and Development Block Grant.

As a reminder, when cloture is filed sequentially on several items, the Senate will consider one motion at a time. If cloture is invoked on the Adegbile  nomination, there would be up to 8 hours for debate equally divided prior to a vote on confirmation of the nomination. If cloture is not invoked or upon disposition of the nomination, the Senate would immediately proceed to the cloture vote on the Hernandez nomination. If cloture is invoked on the Hernandez nomination, there would be up to 2 hours for debate prior to a vote on confirmation of the nomination. Upon disposition of the Gottemoeller nomination, the next vote will be on cloture on the motion to proceed to S.1086, the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act. We hope to vitiate the cloture motion and adopt the motion to proceed by consent and begin legislating on the bill.

The previous order with respect to Executive Calendar #659, the nomination of Debo Adegbile to be Assistant Attorney General and the subsequent nominations on which cloture was filed on Thursday, February 27th was modified. The details are below.

 On Wednesday, March 5th, following any Leader remarks, the time until 11:45am will be equally divided and controlled between Senators Leahy and Grassley or their designees.  At 11:45am, there will be up to 3 roll call votes:

–        Motion to invoke cloture on the Adegbile nomination

–        If cloture is invoked, all but 4 minutes of post-cloture time will be yielded back and the Senate will immediately vote on confirmation of the Adegbile nomination

–        Following disposition of the Adegbile nomination or if cloture is not invoked on the Adegbile nomination, the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar #568, Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico.

We expect cloture to be invoked on the Hernandez nomination.  We expect to recess following the cloture vote for the weekly caucus meetings. There will be up to 2 hours of post-cloture debate time on the nomination; we may reach a consent to count the time during the recess so that a vote on confirmation of the nomination occurs at 2:15 or alternatively, the confirmation vote will be a little later Wednesday afternoon.  Upon disposition of the Hernandez nomination, the Senate will process the following cloture motions:

–        Executive Calendar #569, Pamela Reeves to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee (2 equally-divided hours);

–        Executive Calendar #565, Timothy Brooks to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas (2 equally-divided hours);

–        Executive Calendar #571, Vince Chhabria to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California (2 equally-divided hours);

–        Executive Calendar #636, Rose Gottemoeller to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security (8 equally-divided hours); and

–        Motion to proceed to Legislative Calendar #309, S.1086, the Child Care and Development Block Grant.

As a reminder, when cloture is filed sequentially on several items, the Senate will consider one motion at a time. If cloture is not invoked or upon disposition of the nomination, the Senate would immediately proceed to the cloture vote on the next nomination listed. If cloture is invoked on a nomination, the corresponding amount of debate time will occur prior to a vote on confirmation of the nomination.

Upon disposition of the Gottemoeller nomination, the next vote will be on cloture on the motion to proceed to S.1086, the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act. We hope to vitiate the cloture motion and adopt the motion to proceed by consent and begin legislating on the bill.

WRAP UP

No Roll Call Votes

 

Legislative items

Completed the Rule 14 process of the following items in order to place the bills on the Legislative Calendar:

–        S.2066, Prohibit Intentional Discrimination by IRS Employee (Cruz)

–        S.2067, Prohibit Treasury from assigning tax status to organizations based on political beliefs and activities (Cruz)

–        S.2062, the Constitutional Check and Balance Act (Paul) and

–        H.R.3865, the Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act (Republican request)

Executive items

Permitted the Intelligence Committee to have until Thursday, March 6, 2014 to report PN1243, the nomination of John P. Carlin, to be Assistant Attorney General for National Security.

============================================

Last Floor Action:2/28
1:30:46 P.M. – The House adjourned pursuant to a previous special order.

The next meeting is scheduled for 12:00 p.m. on March 3, 2014.

================================================