MyVote

9 Chickwood lane

My Vote — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:02:11 EDT

Fall fashion line

My Vote — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:59:09 EDT

full of hot air

My Vote — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 13:22:14 EDT

John McCain might wish to portray correct tire pressure as akin to big game hunting with a pea-shooter but those of us who have looked into it know that the savings are considerable. Also, as long as we are addicted to our cars, a dozen little tweaks by enough of us will cut our fuel consumption by a lot given the average 10,000 miles a year each of us drives.

I've seen the figures on how much fuel an automobile consumes just overcoming its initial inertia from a dead stop and they are staggering. Correct tire pressure reduces that number and provides the exact traction meant for the specific vehicle.

I was incredulous when my tire dealer recommend I not increase tire width for better stopping. After he insisted and I thought about it, what he claimed made sense. When you apply the brakes the weight is shifted to the front of the car where most of the stopping power happens. That, in turn, pushes the tire more to the ground and flattens the tire a bit to do exactly what it is designed to do. Any more of that and cornering tread is affected which does different things for different reasons.

For all of the same reasons, particularly fuel economy, balanced tires are critical as is front end alignment. Both, when not correct, will hurt your mileage and quickly wear out your tires.

Warning signals for the above are, uneven tire wear, tires that seem to wear out quickly, and any shimmy in the steering wheel. What you spend to have those things fixed will be repaid in tire savings alone. Better gas economy will just be icing on the cake.

AFP: Ocean 'dead zones' expanding worldwide

My Vote — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 13:45:34 EDT

Many problems can be viewed in simple terms. The solutions may not be simple, but recognizing them becomes a good deal clearer if they are not muddied by simplistic thought.

If the occupants of this planet rely on nothing but fossil fuel to heat homes, run factories, power transportation, package goods, etc. we, and our planet, will have a diminished life span. Well before the fuel is exhausted the planet's ecological balance will be sufficiently disrupted by the known and unknown pollutants to kill us off.

The same is true for our reliance on fertilizers and indiscriminate disposal of farm waste which feed the earth but starve the waters.

The messages are coming at us from every direction, we need to reverse our ways of doing business, but the simplistic thinkers keep looking for single cures. The problem, the real problem, is that we all thought there were silver bullets to solve problems. Not only do we need to find creative substitutes. Those substitutes need to be diverse or we will repeat the same base mistakes again. Even a crow does not fly in a straight line. There are continuous course corrections and allowances.

The first celebration of Earth Day in 1970 was not a celebration at all but a wakeup call to stop and think about the consequences of our actions - what we consume, and what we leave behind. What has gotten lost in the span from then to now is an emphasis on balance (ecology). We are now, 38 years later, aware and conscious of the environment, but even that is a simplistic view. We still leave a trail of waste behind us that will eventually kill us before our time.

The AFP article on "dead zones"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080816/ts_afp/environmentwarmingoceansanimals

Wikipedia on the original goals for Earth Day
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Day

Ecology "is the scientific study of the distribution and abundance of life and the interactions between organisms and their environment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecology

broaden your brain box

My Vote — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:43:17 EDT

check your local PBS Friday night listings for time and station

response

My Vote — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:25:45 EDT

In comments to a post I submitted yesterday Lincoln Park Dem wrote:
If you are asking if the loss of the GE and a loss of the majority in the Houses is worth refrom in our Party, my answer is very loud, "NO.".

Should we let people die i wars and lose thier homes, starve, go without health care for another 4 years.

Not if I can help it and not if the majority of Deocrats can help it.

and highserenity wrote:

MY VOTE
Did you get what you wanted on this blog?

Again, you are told, that THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO TRY AND CHANGE THE DNC OR CAMPAIGN AGAINST DEMOCRATS OR FOR CAMPAIGN FOR REPUBLICANS

that time would be AFTER WE GET AS MANY OF OUR OWN ELECTED AS POSSIBLE.

THEN AND ONLY THEN CAN WE AFFORD TO CLEAN HOUSE

Which of our candidates are you working for if any?

---

I cannot recall in all of my years seeing an entire Congress with such a low approval rating. There certainly has never been a worse president. Nor has our country been vulnerable to so many potential catastrophes at one time. Why then would anyone posit that voters would opt for any Republican challenger over a Democratic aspirant who promised to do better than the Democratic incumbent?

Any one of those incumbents could have/should have mirrored the courage of Kucinich or even Gravel and been throwing furniture on the tracks to derail the Bush destruction machine. But nooo, far too many of them have wallowed in their own feces, afraid to take a stand, afraid to offend their corporate backers, afraid to jeopardize their well polished seats in the hallowed halls.

There has never been a better time or a more desperate need for reform - because the same ole same ole is what brought us here. More of it is no solution - it IS the problem.

We have the power, We have the momentum. We have the evidence fresh in the public's eye what the Republicans offer does not work. Now is absolutely the time to put forth the best representatives the Democrats can muster to prove we can do better. If we blow away the opposition with righteous action as opposed to superior numbers we can cement the Democratic Party in the public's mind well into the future. If we fail to deliver, if we deliver the same timid compromises to appease the corporate puppet masters, we will have the same battles to fight in another 4 years.

To suggest pushing forward the best candidates who support our agenda is a road to defeat simply flies in the face of what democracy is all about. Aside from that, it is simply wrong, wrong, wrong.

What is more important than a Democratic majority - a democratic majority

My Vote — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:47:36 EDT

Some time ago when I first joined PB people hashed over issues and provided information, and argued over candidates and provided information. There was no oversight to speak of, almost to a fault. The stated goal, however, was "Community Blogs (PB) on Democrats.org are designed to give a voice to the millions of Democrats across the country who have something to say about the direction of their country and their Party."

The front page of Democrats.org was where one could find the Party line, but one had to search to find PB and what "the millions" had to say. PB was unlike the Republican site where all of the submissions were screened to meet (and conform to) their Party line.

Personally, I don't believe millions of Democrats across the country really want to promote Democratic candidates who do not represent democratic principles. Even if their number is in the minority, it definitely behooves the Party to listen.

I have read here about posts and comments being deleted and members being banned. I don't know how much of that is fact. I do believe that if all that is now acceptable on PB is the Party line then the goal has been changed or been violated. Either of which should be of concern to all of us.

Earlier today I received an email from Rachel Moss of Democracy for America. In it she voiced what I believe are problems within the wider Party which need to be confronted. She wrote...

Some Democrats don't seem to know whose side they are on.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz represents a safe Democratic seat in South Florida. She's also the co-chair of the DCCC Red to Blue program -- whose mission is to elect more Democrats to the House. But she won't campaign against South Florida Republicans. In fact, she's repeatedly spouted lavish praise for Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen instead of supporting the Democratic opponent: DFA-endorsed candidate Annette Taddeo. Just exactly whose side is Rep. Wasserman Schultz on?

Democratic Senator Daniel Inouye from Hawaii, the third-longest serving member of the Senate, is busy shuttling back and forth to Alaska where he is actively campaigning for his longtime buddy, the indicted Republican Senator, Ted Stevens. He's not campaigning for DFA-endorsed Democrat Mark Begich. Evidently building a filibuster proof majority in the Senate is not a priority. Whose side is Sen. Inouye on?

Rep. Kendrick Meek also represents a safe Democratic district in South Florida -- but he's not out there stumping for DFA-endorsed Democrat Joe Garcia. Instead he's holding campaign events with Republican extremist Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart. Whose side is Rep. Meek on?

If you thought these safe-seat Democrats were going to work hard to elect more Democrats this election, you were wrong. They are too busy out campaigning for their Republican buddies.

There is a difference between bipartisanship and throwing your team under the bus. Our DFA-endorsed challengers have enough of an uphill battle against incumbents who have had years to fill their campaign coffers with money from lobbyists and Washington special interests. They already have the RNC smear machine working overtime against them. They don't need Beltway Democrats undermining them every step of the way.

But you always know whose side Democracy for America is on. We fight for the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Make sure we have the resources to win and elect progressive Democrats everywhere.

If you visit the Democracy for America site you can check out their endorsements. And, of course, you can contribute.
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/

from Wikipedia:

Democracy for America (DFA) is a political action committee founded by former Vermont Governor Howard Dean after his unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2004. The original name of the organization was Dean for America. Deanâ��s vision was to build a network of progressive candidates to compete in every state and district. To succeed in this, DFA provides training and organizational support to state and local DFA groups nationwide to create a grassroots network that promotes fiscally responsible, socially progressive Democrats at all levels of government.

DFA ran Deanâ��s successful campaign for chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Deanâ��s brother, Jim Dean, now chairs Democracy for America.

AP - Mukasey: No prosecutions in Justice hiring scandal

My Vote — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:40:12 EDT

"not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime. In this instance, the two joint reports found only violations of the civil service laws."

This is so much crap. These civil service LAWS were written, in part, so that interpretation of the law would be administered as even handedly as possible. Clearly, those specifically cited for breaking these laws anticipated those hired would push a right-wing, christian-conservative agenda. Evidence has been presented that more qualified people were denied employment in favor of less qualified but with the desired "credentials".

Mukasey evidently is not concerned with this assault to the system and wishes us to accept, "no harm, no foul."

crap !

What's that you say?

My Vote — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 15:11:30 EDT

My participation here on PartyBuilder has brought me to a striking realization. The same words mean different things to different people. Sometimes that might translate into, "we hear what we want to hear". Sometimes it just might be that our attention is drawn to what is a priority within our own consciousness.

I just read an article from Politico titled, "Obama shifts affirmative action rhetoric". The link which directed me there read, "Obama shifts rhetoric on affirmative action". To me those two sentences didn't convey the same message and I had to stop and wonder why.

I have to say the difference (or even the existence of a difference) between the two was not apparent until I had read through the article. My impression going in was to expect another shift toward the right by our presumed nominee. At the end of the article I decided that was not the case and I was ready to fault the headline. It was at that point I noticed the slight change in the Yahoo teaser link and the actual Politico headline.

Taken out of context they do mean exactly the same thing, and to be fair to Yahoo they, for no discernable reason, frequently offer slight variations on the source headline for all manner of stories.

The point I would like to put forth is that we are aware certain news sources do slant or distort information for their own agenda. We are probably not as aware of our own receptive vulnerabilities and quite often ignore that others with whom we try to communicate have their own.

Personally, I do not think liberals have any need or obligation to shift toward the "right". I believe we are correct and they are not. We do, on the other hand, desperately need to craft our message in reasonable, logical, and persuasive terms. The preconception we face from the other side is that liberals are emotionally impractical. Pragmatism is the alter at which conservatives now worship. And we can readily see how this has predictably morphed into egocentric greed and avarice.

Surely we can reasonably argue this is an unsustainable position for our country and our people.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080810/pl_politico/12421

reminder

My Vote — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 20:47:31 EDT

check your local PBS Friday night listings for time and station

Matt Ortega

My Vote — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:46:03 EDT

The PB site's function is to entice people to democratic principles and to the Democratic Party. It is therefore counterproductive if new visitors are discouraged (if not repelled) by encountering repugnant posts and even more repugnant responses. Clearly some moderation is necessary.

By no means do I think the DNC holds any obligation to provide resources for those who wish to tear down the Party. The stated purpose of PartyBuilder, however, is to provide a tool to define and direct the Party. There may exist a fine distinction between what needs to be destructed before reconstruction can happen. That aside, there are evidently some who visit the PB site and only create distraction, by design or simply by default because they have nothing positive to contribute.

We Democrats are very sensitive to the charge of censorship. It is my opinion that the PB administrators cannot and should not bump someone from the site just for being a jerk. But if someone from the DNC bumps a member from this site because of what they have said it will be called censorship. And correctly so. I would suggest we, the members, have a much stronger dislike for the way some posts (and comments) are directed rather than their content. We don't like the "how" as much as the "what".

If the members were provided a mechanism to initiate a bump, the reason would be a very simple and democratic expression of "community standards". I'd be satisfied to see a link on every member's posting, "flag as objectionable". X number of hits triggers a warning. Y number of hits and the member is gone. A member might be restricted from flagging the same person more than once. The bar should be set high and the administrators could override if they felt necessary.

Such a procedure would make the administrative tasks easier. And I guarantee the discourse would become more civil, thus providing a more conducive arena for greater membership and, hopefully, more diverse input.

what the top political cartoonists say

My Vote — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:39:28 EDT

for Griffith

My Vote — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:54:06 EDT

The worst sin

My Vote — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:33:12 EDT

There is much potential available from this PartyBuilder board. Unfortunately, way too many posts currently offered have become, as is this one, opinion pieces. Not only that, they are agonizingly repetitive. Off the top of my head I can think of a dozen members who's posts are 100% predictable. The writers say pretty much the same thing and offer nothing of substance and nothing constructive - and they do it multiple times a day. Certainly too much of the site's content has become personal. If you're bored and have nothing better to do but flap your jaw (or keyboard), do what everyone one else does - get in your car, get on the highway, get in the left lane, get on your cell phone.

I would like to offer a hypothesis: what if god gave us each an inner voice as a protective device? Because if we just uttered whatever was on our minds very soon we would be bludgeoned to death by anyone close at hand who simply became tired of listening to the crap.

I'm confident that not one of the guilty will recognize themselves as the target of this post, but just for the sake of argument, the next time you feel to compelled to vent your spleen just pretend nobody really cares. Even if they respond they are only doing so to reinforce their own prerogative to do the same or feel the same, or simply to protest feeling like a tree on a deserted island waiting to fall.

It saddens me that PB has become a repository of the inane. The site has become boring, and that is the most unpardonable breach of all.

My kingdom for an "ignore" button.

The Trolls Among Us

My Vote — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:28:10 EDT

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?th&emc=th

I am a strong advocate of privacy. I suspect the world might be a better place, at least for a while, if every one wore niqab, the full-face veil. After a while voice would become the currency to replace actual weight of character, but that's another topic

As with everything, context is all. One man's anonymous freedom of speech is another's licence to become an anonymous sniper. The linked story appears in today's NYT. In part it deals with people, mostly young, whose pleasure in life seems to emanate from bringing discomfort and pain to others. They do this from behind a cyber-veil, from behind a monitor.

I am a big fan of bringing down the pompous, but to do so cruelly is a giveaway that the perpetrator lacks the intellect to do it well. While I don't care much for violence I do rank it a good deal higher than cruelty. The idea of a bully getting his ass kicked troubles me not at all.

Most of us read the story about Megan Meier who was provoked to suicide on MySpace. The linked story tells of the parents of another youngster whose parents received cruel telephone calls after their son committed suicide. Someone even posted a YouTube parody on the tragedy.

I will guarantee one thing. These types of harassment would not happen face to face. They are not isolated instances as we adults would like to believe. A significant number of our youth are growing up to be physical and moral cowards. Blame it on our materialistic society, our unethical political and corporate leadership, parents inability to control and influence. Blame it on whatever, but it is important that we recognize the problem exists.

The examples I've cited are extremes but they, like the pending extinction of certain species, are forecasters of bad things for our society. We need to divorce religion from schools but start teaching ethics. We need to stop genuflecting before our candidates and push for more civics education. We need to elevate the value of character to its rightful position.

And on PB, we need to post as though a cc was going to our moms.

It's all, "Leave it to the next guy."

My Vote — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 19:48:44 EDT

You know all of that external infrastructure which no one wants to fix? Well, the internal infrastructure of our country is in much the same shape. Pervasive rot has been ignored and covered over by layers of paint for too long a time. "We the people" have allowed the fox to guard the hen house and the chickens are coming home to roost.

George Bush will spend the last month of his term in office issuing pardons for his entire administration and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it. Nancy Pelosi could have allowed the articles of impeachment to go forward and perhaps, just perhaps, some justice might have been visited on the most corrupt duo in the history of our land. But, no, she chose to thumb her nose at her sworn oath of her office.

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God."

So much for Pelosi, but she's not alone. We have been saddled with do-nothing Congresses because our elected representatives are like deer caught in the headlights. They have become so divorced from the will of "the people" they don't know how to react. Dare they go against the contributors and side with the constituents? What to do, what to do? Where does the buck stop?

It stops with you and me. Get off the bandwagon and put the pompons away. "Obama will save us". "Hillary would have saved us". The truth is that neither one of those idolized Senators have done anything of note on our behalf. Barack Obama, however, will be the next president of these United States. It is up to us to provide him with a do-something Congress. It is up to us to provide him with direction.

None of our great presidents gave the people what they would accept. They gave the people what they needed and what they wanted, what they demanded and what they deserved. And they followed a moral compass which stayed on "the people". We do not have that today. Our entire political system is amoral at best, and immoral to an extreme. Contributors or constituents? What to do, what to do?

The equation is as simple as simple gets. If Obama has confidence Democratic voters will approve of whatever he does he will appease the Republicans to get their support. If Obama has confidence Democratic voters will approve of whatever he does he will appease the financial controllers to get their support. It is entirely up to us to send a message of "accountability expected" - or not. It is entirely up to us.

Will we get what we need or what we deserve?

fyi

My Vote — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:09:45 EDT

check your local PBS Friday night listings for time and station

"What did you do in the war, daddy (mommy)?"

My Vote — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:44:04 EDT

There are more wars going on than Afganistan and Iraq. There is a war with this crooked administration. There is a war on our planet. There is a war on our rights and our freedoms. There is a war on the economy. There is a war against chickenhawks who are ready to attack Iran. There are more. And what are YOU doing about any of them?.

Do you want to tell your young kids when they ask years from now that you sat on your ass and responded to fellow dems still waging the primary? Do you want to tell them how many times you gave the same response to the same stupid questions? Can you justify right now the time wasted on inane discourse?

If you can't think of something more constructive, go take a nap, you'll be needed in the trenches when you come fully awake.

Where you rank

My Vote — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:18:28 EDT

Each day we spiral nearer the bottom of the bowl but most of us are too dizzy to notice.

Stop for a second and consider how much of your time is wasted each day by businesses, corporations, and local and federal governments. Your mailbox is filled with junk you don't want - but it gets there at a discount rate which you subsidize. Automated phone menus save organizations time and money at your expense - your "benefit" is frustration and aggravation.

Customer service is a very, very bad joke. A prevailing attitude seems to be, if there is not a queue, they must be over-staffed. There are industries that depend for their profit on your giving up trying to get them to deliver what they promised. You'd fight that $20 parking ticket if it wouldn't take half a day to do so. Everyone's time is more important than yours.

This may sound like a rant and it is, but what does it tell you about the regard business, industry and government have for YOU? What's wrong with American productivity is we have so little time to be productive. We don't have time to go out of our way. We don't have time to nourish our spirits. We don't have time to relish what is truly important. We don't have time to deeply weigh issues which will impact our lives and the lives of our children. We have become a shallow people because, quite simply, we are spread too thin.

Automation is all about "them" not "us"

My Vote — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:07:00 EDT

David Pogue wrote a recent NYT Circuits column* about dumb software. He cited Delta air lines asking for destination when swiping your credit card checking in for your reservation. In other words asking for information they already have.
This post is about dumb software when filling out an on-line petition or the like. Most of us encounter this frequently. You are asked for your zip code and then the state. Please tell me, if anyone knows, is there a zip code in the US that encompasses more than one state?

* http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2008/07/31/technology/circuitsemail/index.html?8cir&emc=cir