Julie

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 25 posts - 401 through 425 (of 430 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Anybody but McDermott #623372

    Julie
    Member

    Sorry, JohnM, I’d like to clone Jim McDermott! We need more like him.

    in reply to: Bad driving #621989

    Julie
    Member

    Jerald, in such a situation, it might help you control your angry thoughts to calculate how much time you were you losing. A second? Maybe two?

    in reply to: Urban Backyard Ferals #621587

    Julie
    Member

    Thank you for the resource list; I’ll investigate. My biggest concern is effects on the native wildlife/birds; I’ll be interested to see what methods have been used successfully to make this work.

    Would placement of feral cats have a net effect of reducing or expanding the total number of feral cats? On the one hand, more of them might get neutered. On the other hand, more of them might survive.

    in reply to: Remember when… (WS reminiscing thread) #621471

    Julie
    Member

    Not that long ago, but I miss Games Plus in the Junction.

    in reply to: Any Scooter Owners on WSB? #620840

    Julie
    Member

    Dear VelvetBulldog,

    Thank you; you reinforce my confidence that many riders of motorcycles/scooters/etc are reasonable and considerate folks. I do like your “no ridiculous revving” rule! I realize that on rare occasions the little engines need a bit of a “kick”, but I rather suspect most of the revving I hear is of the ridiculous “look at meeeee!” type. Or is it just a nervous tic?

    in reply to: Any Scooter Owners on WSB? #620838

    Julie
    Member

    2 cheers, and a request: I promise to pay attention and share the road! Please, please, bitte, por favor–buy the quietest one your can find? We don’t need more noise; someone in my neighborhood buzzes by on one of these several times an hour, some days. It’s extremely annoying! Surely they must have effective mufflers for these.

    in reply to: Rant – WS Farmers Market #619481

    Julie
    Member

    Shibaguys, I do understand that you’re asking a limited question about why dogs are banned from the WS Farmers’ Market, and what the law says about this.

    But you’ve posted this question in a discussion forum, so, although I have no information as to why or whether dogs may be banned from the Market, I do feel entitled to express my opinion, as a customer, that I prefer people not bring dogs into the Market area.

    I don’t object to dogs in general, and there are individual dogs I like. I appreciate the many courteous dog owners who take good care of their dogs, keep them leashed in areas where there are people or wildlife, train them well, clean up after them, do not treat them as living fashion accessories–and don’t insist on bringing them into shops, restaurants, and other areas where there are people who may, for various good reasons, prefer to avoid their presence.

    in reply to: Evolution survey #615785

    Julie
    Member

    “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.”

    –Mark Twain, (Pudd’nhead Wilson’s New Calendar, in Following the Equator, 1897)

    in reply to: Evolution survey #615773

    Julie
    Member

    Ken: Did you notice the innocent-appearing Senate bill (6893) “regarding intellectual freedom” on college campuses? (If you read it, you may detect a whiff of “teach the ‘controversy'”.) It’s dead for now, but you can bet it will be reintroduced sometime.

    in reply to: dogs off leash #615744

    Julie
    Member

    Oh, but JoB, don’t you know? Those dogs are “under voice control”….

    Yeah.

    in reply to: Let’s hear it for Sen. Clinton…or not #613771

    Julie
    Member

    Clarification: The parties still get to choose who’s on the ballot, and how many, with their party branding, with whatever system they choose. It doesn’t make sense for someone to run as a Democrat if the Democrats haven’t agreed they can use the label. (As an example, Pierce County will be using IRV for local and county elections starting this year. The Pierce County Democratic Party has decided to allow up to three candidates to run as Democrats in their local races.)

    And, yes, we need to shorten the campaigns. I also think we need to publicly fund these shorter campaigns, and we need proportional representation. Many reforms needed. IRV is just one.

    in reply to: Let’s hear it for Sen. Clinton…or not #613769

    Julie
    Member

    You’re all going to think I’ve got a one-track mind; I really do have more interests and issues than this, but I can’t resist pointing out that if we used an instant runoff system, Kaleigh would be able to vote for Edwards, without throwing away that vote, and JoB, add, BobLoblaw, and anyone else whose heart was with Clinton (or Obama), but worried about whether Obama (or Clinton) might more likely win against the Republicans, would be able to just rank their first choice ahead of their second choice, and rank all Republicans last.

    Magpie is like many voters in not wanting to affiliate with either major party; she or he, and the many voters who feel more affiliated with a minor party, could under an instant-runoff system participate fully without “throwing away” that vote. Their true opinions would be counted, and not lost in the two-party tug-of-war. (Magpie, I defend your right to vote, but I deeply disagree about Jim McDermott!)

    If you ended up voting for Obama, but you really think Clinton would be the better president (or vice-versa), your true opinion is not reflected in your vote. The plurality voting system we have forces us to engage in this kind of strategic voting; strong evidence our democracy isn’t really reflecting the opinions of the citizens, and is therefore less democratic than it should be.

    in reply to: Let’s hear it for Sen. Clinton…or not #613754

    Julie
    Member

    “A democratic vote is going t be a vote for middle class pocketbooks and an end to the war.”

    Neither of these is as important as climate change. This war, misguided, tragic, and disastrous as it is, will kill thousands of people–more thousands if it ends later, fewer thousands if it ends sooner.

    Climate change, on the other hand, will kill millions of people through displacement, starvation, and thirst–it will happen more gradually, and be harder to see, and it won’t, for the most part, be people in this country. It will also wipe out many non-human species. I think we have a responsibility to those millions of people and those species. So my democratic vote is a vote for immediate and drastic action addressing climate change, above all.

    The war will be difficult for anyone to end. I do want the next president to work to end it as soon as possible–but I think the environment must be a higher priority.

    in reply to: Anybody but Clinton — but McCain??????? #614980

    Julie
    Member

    I agree with Ken: we must remember to think long term. It’s very hard to keep people focused on anything farther out than next week, but ideally our choices take into account, first, the longest-term consequences.

    With that in mind, I’d argue that the Supreme Court, while crucial, is actually second. Environmental decisions (or lack of action) have longer-term effects even than makeup of the Supreme Court.

    But we might come down on the same side, anyway; McCain would be destructive to both these long-term causes.

    in reply to: A word about forum expectations #615065

    Julie
    Member

    lowmanbeach, I very much appreciate the intent to keep these fora civil, if lively. The profanity and profuse mindless back-and-forth insults you refer to on “some sites” gets so tedious, and tends to obscure substantive discussion so much, I generally avoid them–but appreciate having a place where I can learn what my fellow West Seattleites are thinking. Thank you!

    in reply to: Progressive Caucus Resolutions #614965

    Julie
    Member

    You’re welcome! The more people know about these, the better.

    in reply to: Progressive Caucus Resolutions #614963

    Julie
    Member

    And here’s a resolution on climate change that I hope people will consider submitting:

    http://www.2people.org/pub/page/show/talk/15158/

    in reply to: Wa Dem Caucus #613637

    Julie
    Member

    Here’s another resolution folks might want to consider introducing at their caucus; this one’s to strengthen the party platform on climate change (both Democratic candidates are weak on this most crucial issue. Let’s hold their feet to the fire!):

    http://www.2people.org/pub/page/show/talk/15158/

    in reply to: Wa Dem Caucus #613636

    Julie
    Member

    Please consider (especially if you’re unhappy with the candidate choices that remain to you) introducing a resolution supporting Instant Runoff Voting. (Resolutions introduced at the caucuses will not be voted on, but forwarded to a committee which will “condense and codify” them into “legal, precise, and hopefully coherent proposals”. They’ll then be voted on at the county convention (so being a delegate will give you a voice to support your resolutions).

    The resolution is posted here (and improvements are welcome!):

    http://www.moreperfect.org/wiki/index.php?title=Resolution_supporting_Instant_Runoff_Voting

    I introduced this topic in an earlier post, but it’s been a while so it’s maybe not on the radar anymore (I hope this link to the earlier post works):

    https://westseattleblog.com/blog/forum/topic.php?id=184

    in reply to: WA Caucus Resolution #614493

    Julie
    Member

    Ken, (looks like you had the same trouble with the “a” tag I did… I guess the syntax here is a little different–but it does list “a” under allowed markup. So I’m puzzled.)

    Interesting link!

    I welcome anyone from this unfortunate, courageous, and much appreciated committee you mention to go ahead and fix what needs fixing in my resolution at their leisure, to save time later. I purposely posted it on the MorePerfect wiki to give people the opportunity to go ahead and improve it. Not many have, and I’m very sure it could use improving.

    It will be interesting to see how this new method of handling resolutions works. It does seem it might be more efficient.

    in reply to: WA Caucus Resolution #614490

    Julie
    Member

    acemotel, I don’t think you should hesitate to keep asking questions!

    On the 34th District Democrats page,

    http://www.34dems.org/news_caucus.htm

    there is a “script for the precinct caucus chair”. (in .doc format). If you read through that, it will give you a better idea of how the caucus goes.

    An excerpt from the script states: “After each group has elected its delegates and alternates, we will fill in some paperwork. People will have an opportunity to introduce resolutions which will be forwarded to the County Convention.

    We will not debate and we will not vote on these resolutions today.

    We will then adjourn.”

    in reply to: WA Caucus Resolution #614488

    Julie
    Member

    Thanks, Ken; I’m glad you added that point.

    I also meant to point out that I don’t know about resolutions at the Republican caucus. The rules posted on the KC Republicans website do refer to a discussion of resolutions as one of the agenda items, so I assume one could bring a resolution forward there, too. I have put a start on a Republican version on the MorePerfect site, with the Democratic one, but it needs someone to add endorsements that would appeal more to Republicans.

    in reply to: WA Caucus Resolution #614486

    Julie
    Member

    I meant to add:

    So by all means, if you think something needs to be added to the platform, bring a resolution forward. I suggest working out the wording ahead of time and bringing copies for people to look at. Why not post it here, too? If people like it, they can bring it to their own caucuses (that’s why I’ve posted a link to mine here.

    This is supposed to be a democracy. We need everyone’s voices and ideas.

    in reply to: WA Caucus Resolution #614485

    Julie
    Member

    Ken, you’re right; we have to start with local & county. I suspect that once enough voters in enough counties have experienced it, there will then be a push for state.

    You’ll notice my resolution is backing IRV for state and local elections, for that reason.

    And yes, I’m sure it will be a fight. Changing the status quo takes a long time and a lot of persistence. But we have to start somewhere, and I think the caucuses are one place to start.

    acemotel, in the past, resolutions have been voted on at precinct caucuses. Those with enough support were forwarded to the next level. This year, I gather, there will not be time to debate resolutions at the precinct level, so all resolutions will be forwarded to the county convention for debate. But I’d like to get this introduced in as many precincts as possible; get it on more people’s radar, and it will likely be taken more seriously at the next level.

    in reply to: who yields? #614571

    Julie
    Member

    NewResident, some drivers will yell at you even if you’re doing the right and legal thing. Same thing happens to me, but I just pull over and wait for them to pass me and go ahead. I’ve seen too many accidents at both ends of my block, and don’t want to be in one. (As an aside, and quite unscientifically, I’ve noticed that since we’ve had the traffic circle installed at one end of the block (a year, maybe two), I’ve observed no accidents there. The other end of the block still has at least one accident a year.)

Viewing 25 posts - 401 through 425 (of 430 total)