I see and hear a lot of black men tell black women to choose better and it's comical. What if choosing better means being with a man who may not be the same race as me? Everyone who reads my blog knows that I talk about responsibility and accountability. I have held myself accountable for the things that have occurred in my life. I take a daily evaluation of who I am because I know that I am not above of offending anyone. However, I will not be shamed by men who most times aren't married, have children all over the place, and down other black women who think differently from them. No, I don't know every black man, just like how all black men don't know all black women but they still judge us anyway. The very people who feel that my advice isn't good enough track record isn't so squeaky clean either.
I'm get so tired of a lot of black men telling black women to choose better when at least 72% of black children are born out of wedlock, that's 8% away from being above average at failing to build a solid family structure. It's harder to walk away when people are married and it shows that a man is planning to stick around. A lot of these black men spread their seed everywhere and are nowhere to be found in their children's lives. Be a father who is in their children's lives beyond baby and toddler stages but middle school, puberty stage, awkward stage, high school, college, and beyond. Don't let this be you!!! Casper the friendly ghost!!!
Single parents like myself understand the consequences of our decisions, we see it every day. We don't need people like you reminding us about our story when you don't have a clue about the details of our story. Don't judge just by what you see alone even silent movies/films have subtitles. I refuse to have men who don't pay my bills tell me about my life the only person's opinion that I care about is the Lord Jesus Christ, He's the one who brought my two children and I through every hardship.
Both black men and black women need to get it right, please stop trying to make it seem like it's all our fault. Because guess what? It's not, the numbers don't lie. I'm so tired and no I am not bitter, I am smarter I have learned from my mistakes. Regardless of what some of you men think learning from mistakes means not choosing from the same group of men again. The probability of getting a good quality black man is a numbers thing, not a color thing, not a hurt thing, and not a bitter thing; it's a reality thing. Check the statistics. If 72% of black children are born out of wedlock there is only 28% who are doing right so some of you black men who tell us to choose better are part of the problem too. It's hard to choose better when there isn't much to choose from. A lot more black men are marrying out and black couples have a low marriage rate and high divorce rate. Let that sink in really deep before you judge and give mediocre advice. It's time for an epiphany my brothers, I had mine a long time ago. MY EYES ARE WIDE OPEN!!!


Minecraft Modification Workshop was a workshop series that I facilitated at a local library with youths, and it grew out of my dissertation research on critical play. My dissertation study investigates critical video game play. This critical play occurs when gamers recognize how games themselves are complicated systems implicated in society at large and then modify games based based on their cultural, economical, and political concerns. My research asks how teachers can facilitate this critical video game play among youths in an afterschool program by designing and modifying games collectively. This research is timely and significant to educators, scholars, and the general public in that it develops ways for teachers, students and players to utilize popular video games for learning in various domains from a critical and design-oriented perspective. According to Entertainment Software Association's 2015 survey, 42% of Americans play video games on a regular basis, and it is estimated that the global video game industry is worth $1.93 trillion dollars. There is an urgent need for education researchers to investigate the pedagogical implications and applications of increasingly popular video games that not only addresses the benefits of this interactive medium, but also provide a repertoire to dismantle the the sexist, racist, classist, cis-gendered, heternormative and ableist assumptions built into popular titles.


Dulux Texture Fine Cover is a flexible acrylic texture for application to bricks, cement render, fibre cement and masonry. Apply with either a conventional paint roller to create a fine sandy effect or with a texture roller to achieve a bolder style. Dulux Texture Fine Cover provides a light relief texture profile making it easy to create your perfect look.


text:
Home › Technologies 2023
Automatic cargo vehicles make it easier for soldiers to work on the battlefield
Eeyore Donkey Days. Mules of a pack transport company from the Indian service corps in the mid-30s at a base in what is now Pakistan
For centuries, beasts of burden of various types and subspecies have been used in military operations. As we can see in the archival photos, these are horses, mules and camels.
Today, animal-drawn transport is mainly in demand by insurgents who are prepared for the slow movement of animals, unpredictability and a significant amount of material and human resources in exchange for low cost and incredible adaptability to the environment.
For the world's leading armed forces, the presence of manned helicopters and all-terrain supply vehicles has been mandatory in combat areas since the 1960s. Despite the advantages in speed and carrying capacity that they have over other methods of transporting goods, they are not always suitable for the material and technical supply of hostilities, they are affected by cost, availability, terrain, vulnerability or banal caution. On the contrary, automatic supply systems are becoming more intelligent in connection with the need to reduce the negative impact of the combat load
In today's asymmetrical battlefield, insurgents still eagerly use time-honored, non-mechanized, inhuman logistics tools such as pack caravans, while acknowledging their unpredictability and the fact that they carry a large logistical burden of their own. On the other hand, it seems that the world's leading armies are least willing to turn back the clock, preferring to explore inanimate solutions in which, ironically, mechanical analogs of mammals costing millions of dollars can be found.
With a high degree of probability, one day such inanimate supply systems could simply be abandoned, viewed as "intricate and fun" technology suitable only for home use. However, in recent decades, the use of robotic technologies has gradually expanded in the defense sector, and now uninhabited mechanical systems are considered as potential means that reduce the need for human resources and save lives in the field of logistics (and in any other too).
Initially, these systems were interested at the command level, mainly for reasons of protecting their forces and saving manpower. Currently, however, heightened interest is also manifested at the user level, where a lot of experience has been accumulated of the direct negative influence of the mass of military equipment that a dismounted soldier must carry on a daily basis in a theater of operations, for example, in Afghanistan. If a soldier's capabilities on the battlefield are not to be diminished by excess weight to carry, then some form of mechanical assistance appears to be in dire need.
Ground-based automatic systems could, at a minimum, save lives and provide supply routes in the disputed territory.The additional "muscle power" they provide could also enhance the planned firepower and combat resilience of infantry units on the front lines. To these could be added power-driven unmanned air supply systems, most likely in the form of unmanned helicopters. This is, for example, the Marine Corps project for a promising cargo UAV (Cargo UAS) or missiles in a vertical launch container similar to the NLOS-T (Non-Line of Sight-Transport) missiles of the American army, which offer potentially other ways bypassing ambushes and directed landmines through the use of the "third dimension".
With a constant shortage of manpower and demands for border protection, the Israeli army was among the first to adopt an unmanned patrol platform in the form of the Guardium Automatic Ground Vehicle (ANA). It was developed by G-NIUS, a joint venture between Elbit and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). The range of missions voiced for the Guardium includes patrolling, route checking, convoy security, reconnaissance and surveillance, and direct support of hostilities. In its basic configuration, the vehicle is based on the TomCar 4x4 off-road vehicle, 2.95 m long, 2.2 m high, 1.8 m wide and 300 kg payload. The maximum speed in semi-autonomous mode is 50 km / h.
In September 2009, G-NIUS showed off the Guardium-LS, a longer version optimized for logistics. It is based on the TM57 chassis and is similar to the vehicle adopted by the British Army as the main company-level manned supply platform called the Springer. The length of the Guardium-LS is 3.42 m, it has an increased carrying capacity of up to 1.2 tons (including towed load). It can operate in controlled or automatic modes, has the same set of systems as its predecessor in the patrol version, including the Elbit / Elisra EJAB warhead suppressor; optoelectronic station IAI Tamam Mini-POP, consisting of a thermal imager, a daytime CCD camera and an eye-safe laser rangefinder; GPS navigation system; laser sonar (LIDAR) for avoiding obstacles; and stereoscopic cameras. It also has "pursuit" sensors that automatically follow the directions of a person or other vehicles in a convoy.
IAI's "field porter" Rex is designed to carry 200 kg of equipment, without refueling can work for three days
Direct support of hostilities
Another potential military logistics assistant from the G-NIUS family is the AvantGuard, currently also in service with the Israeli army. It uses Guardium control technology, but the platform is a modification of the Canadian company's Wolverine tracked vehicle. It is smaller and is designated Dumur TAGS (tactical amphibious ground support platform). The four-wheeled vehicle is powered by a four-cylinder 100 hp Kubota V3800DI-T diesel engine, has a top speed of 19 km / h and can be operated either in semi-automatic mode or controlled from a wearable remote control. Its weight is 1746 kg, payload is 1088 kg, it can be used for the evacuation of the wounded and other logistic tasks.
A new model among the ANA is the Rex "field porter" shown by IAI's Lahav Division in October 2009. It is based on a small robotic platform that accompanies 3 to 10 soldiers in automatic mode and is capable of carrying 200 kg of equipment and supplies for up to three days without refueling. According to the company, "the robotic vehicle follows the leading soldier at a predetermined distance using technology developed and patented by IAI. Using simple commands, including stop, drive, and follow, the soldier controls the robot without distraction from his main task.Controlling the robot in this way allows for intuitive interaction and rapid integration of the product in the field in a short amount of time. " The Rex measures 50x80x200 cm, has a maximum speed of 12 km / h, a turning radius of 1 meter and a maximum gradeability of 30 degrees.
Analogies with the canine family, but in a completely different implementation, can be seen in the four-legged apparatus developed by the American company Boston Dynamics. The project was funded by the US Department of Defense Advanced Research and Development Administration (DARPA) with contributions from the Marine Corps and the Army. Big-Dog is a robot weighing about 109 kg, 1 m high, 1.1 m long and 0.3 m wide.Its prototype was evaluated at Fort Benning as an auxiliary device for foot patrols, carrying an 81-mm mortar barrel stove and tripod. The typical load of this prototype for all terrain types is 50 kg (up and down a 60 degree slope), but a maximum of 154 kg was shown on flat ground.
The BigDog modes of movement include crawling at 0.2 m / s, rapid at 5.6 km / h, trotting at 7 km / h, or "jumping gait", which in the laboratory allowed to exceed 11 km / h. The main propulsion unit is a 15 hp water-cooled two-stroke engine that drives an oil pump, which in turn drives four actuators for each leg. BigDog has approximately 20 sensors, including inertial sensors to measure attitude and acceleration, plus sensors in the joints to measure movement and actuator force in the legs; all sensors are controlled by the on-board computer.
The computer also processes IP radio signals received from the remote operator. It gives BigDog the direction and speed it needs, plus stop / start, crouch, walk, walk fast, and slow run commands. The stereo video system developed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory consists of two stereo cameras, a computer and software. It usually detects the shape of the surface directly in front of the robot and recognizes a free path. LIDAR is also installed in the BigDog apparatus to automatically follow the instructions of a person.
Guardium-LS is an optionally manned variant of the ANA G-NIUS Guardium, with which it has common control, visualization and electronic jamming systems. A mini-POP optoelectronic station is installed at the top of the cockpit, behind which there is a multi-element circular antenna for the EJAB explosive device suppressor
The four-legged BigDog robot, shown at the Fort Benning Infantry Center as a porter for patrol teams, automatically follows the assigned team member.
Boston Dynamics / DARPA BigDog four-legged robot overcomes a snowy slope
Rough Terrain Walking
Early on, BigDog demonstrated that it can walk 10 km over rough terrain for 2.5 hours, but Boston Dynamics is currently working on expanding design constraints so that the robot can overcome even more difficult terrain, have roll-over stability., reduced noise signatures and less operator dependency. The current voiced goal of the DARPA-sponsored LS3 (Legged Squad Support System) program, which is funded by BigDog, is the ability to carry 400 pounds (181 kg) for 24 hours.
Demonstration of the LS3 Robotic Walking System to the Marine Corps Commander and Director of DARPA
The more or less traditional R-Gator supply vehicle, developed by John Deere in collaboration with iRobot, can be operated in manual or automatic modes. The car is equipped with a three-cylinder diesel engine with a capacity of 25 hp, the six-wheeled R-Gator has a 20-liter fuel tank, which is enough to cover 500 km. The transmission is stepless, the device has a maximum speed of 56 km / h in manual mode and 0-8 km / h in remote or automatic modes.
The vehicle has dimensions of 3, 08x1, 65x2, 13 m, its own weight is 861 kg, the volume of the cargo compartment is 0.4 m3 and the carrying capacity is 453 kg (towed 680 kg). R-Gator's standard video system includes fixed front and rear (for driving) color TV cameras with a field of view of 92.5 degrees and a stabilized panoramic zoom (25x optical / 12x digital) camera that rotates horizontally by 440 degrees and vertically by 240 degrees. degrees, has autofocus and sensitivity of 0.2 Lux F 2.0. This camera can be optionally replaced with a day / night optoelectronic / infrared zoom camera.
The basic communication kit R-Gator (with frequency options 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz or 4.9 GHz) has a minimum control range of 300 m, it is connected to an operator's laptop based on Windows OS or a portable control unit. The GPS Robot Positioning System from NavCom Technology can be combined with an Inertial System to improve accuracy. It is equipped with one rear LIDAR sensor and two forward LIDAR sensors that detect obstacles up to 20 meters away in remote and automatic modes.
It is worth briefly recalling the closed program that Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control System carried out with its ANA MULE (Multifunction Utility / Logistics and Equipment). It was one of the "cornerstones" of the ANA family of systems, originally considered part of the canceled Army's FCS (Future Combat Systems) program.
It was assumed that the machine will be manufactured in three versions: assault ARV-A-L (Armed Robotic Vehicle - Assault Light) equipped with optoelectronic and infrared sensors and a laser rangefinder / pointer for targeting; MULE-CM (Countermine) equipped with GSTAM1DS (Ground Stand-off Mine Detection System), which allows detecting and neutralizing anti-tank mines and marking cleared passages, as well as performing limited detection of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and other tasks unexploded ordnance disposal; and MULE-T (Transport), capable of carrying 862 kg (otherwise for two compartments) of equipment. All three options were supposed to have the same autonomous navigation system from General Dynamics Robotics Systems, designed for semi-automatic navigation and obstacle avoidance.
The MULE was specially designed to support the armored forces and had a commensurate rate of advance (maximum highway speed 65 km / h). In principle, it was supposed to have two MULE per platoon, but then this concept was revised and centralized control was defined at the battalion level.
ANA MULE had a total weight of 2, 26 tons. The main frame was supported on six independent, spring-loaded, swivel wheels, the hubs of which were fitted with electric motors from BAE Systems. This combined diesel-electric system was powered by a 135 hp Thielert diesel engine.
Branch support machine
In parallel, Lockheed Martin was working on its Squad Mission Support System (SMSS), which it funded as an independent research project to meet the urgent need for a manned and automated squad vehicle and logistics for light and fast response. With a mass of 1.8 tons, this 6x6 platform has a cruising range of 500 km on the highway and 320 km on rough terrain. The machine can be controlled either by the driver on board or by the operator remotely ("controlled autonomy"), or it can operate in an autonomous mode. The declared payload of the machine is over 454 kg, it is able to overcome a step of 588 mm and a trench with a width of 0.7 m. At full load, the cruising range is 160 km on the highway and 80 km off-road.
One of its features is the presence of a charger, which is powered by a diesel engine and which can be used to charge the batteries of personal radio stations of the squadron's personnel.SMSS can carry small AUVs, as well as two stretchers for the evacuation of the wounded. The winch at the front and the attachment points at the rear are for self-recovery.
SMSS Block 0 prototypes were tested at the Army Infantry Center at Fort Benning in August 2009, after which the company produced the first two Block 1 prototypes out of three. They have attachment points for transportation on the suspension of a UH-60L helicopter, improved noise signature management and reliability, and an upgraded set of sensors to increase the level of autonomy. In mid-2011, two SMSS systems were deployed in Afghanistan for operational testing, where their operational merit was confirmed.
It is worth noting that at the 2009 AUSA exhibition in Washington, Lockheed Martin showed SMSS in conjunction with its HULC (Human Universal Load Carrying System). This power-driven exoskeleton, in addition to its various tasks, is seen as a useful addition to SMSS as a means of unloading its cargo on the "last mile": the point at which the terrain becomes impassable for vehicles. With a dead weight of 13.6 kg, the HULC helps the owner to carry loads up to 91 kg.
A pragmatic approach using ANA technology was adopted by Oshkosh Defense for the DARPA-funded TerraMax project. It combines remote control and autonomous capabilities with a standard military support vehicle and is expected to reduce the number of people required to conduct day-to-day support convoys in modern combat areas in the long term.
Within the TerraMax team, Oshkosh is responsible for hardware integration, modeling, wire-based control, setpoint tracking, and general layout. Teledyne Scientific Company provides highly efficient algorithms for task execution and route planning and high-level vehicle control, while the University of Parma is developing a Multi-Directional Vehicle Vision System (MDV-VS). Ibeo Automobile Sensor is developing a dedicated LIDAR system using Ibeo's Alasca XT sensors, while Auburn University integrates a GPS / IMU (Global Positioning System and Inertial Measurement Unit) package and assists with the vehicle's control system.
The TerraMax is a variant of the 4x4 MTVR military truck from Oshkosh, equipped with an independent TAK-4 suspension, 6.9 m long, 2.49 m wide, 2 m high, and weighing 11,000 kg with a payload of 5 tons. It is equipped with a six-cylinder, four-stroke, turbocharged Caterpillar C-121 diesel engine with a volume of 11.9 liters and a power of 425 hp, allowing a top speed of 105 km / h. The autonomous control system of the apparatus, developed as a set of devices, includes a video system with cameras; LIDAR system; navigation system GPS / IMU; an automated electronic system with multiplexing Oshkosh Command Zone; navigation computers for summarizing sensor data, map data management, real-time route planning and high-level control; as well as CANBus-controlled brakes, steering, engine and transmission.
Lockheed Martin SMSS during testing at Fort Benning training camp in August 2009. SMSS acts as a support system for a dismounted department there.
The battery-powered exoskeleton from Lockheed Martin allows the wearer to carry 200 lb (91 kg) out of the reach of the ANA. Throwing speed on a flat surface is 16 km / h
An Oshkosh MTVR TerraMax self-driving truck passes a road junction during the Urban Challenge, followed by an escort vehicle. Such technology could find application in future combat support convoys, saving lives and saving manpower.
Convoy guide
Taking part in various DARPA-funded robotic vehicle competitions, including the Urban Challenge, Oshkosh signed a corporate R&D agreement (CRADA) with the US Army's TARDEC Armored Research Center in early 2009 to adapt TerraMax technology for convoy missions. In accordance with CRADA's three-year agreement, the CAST (Convoy Active Safety Technology) simulation system is being installed on the TerraMax. It is designed to act as a route indicator for convoys and transmit information about the route to the following automatic vehicles, while it must operate safely among people, animals and other vehicles. Subsequently, in March 2009, Oshkosh announced work with the Navy's Surface Weapons Research Center to evaluate the use of the TerraMax as an MTVR (R-MTVR) robotic truck in various combat mission scenarios.
Relatively recently, Vecna Robotics has appeared on the market with its ANA Porter. It is described as a cross between personal cargo transfer systems and standard military vehicles, and is designed to move cargo weighing from 90 to 272 kg. The mass of the basic 4x4 vehicle is 90 kg, the length is 1.21 m, the width is 0.76 m and the height is 0.71 m.
It can be configured to carry various goods at a maximum speed of over 16 km / h, the maximum mileage is 50 km depending on the terrain, and is powered by a lithium polymer battery. The battery is charged in the field by an optional solar charger or generator. The maximum control distance depends on the line of sight (up to 32 km).
The Porter, currently an experimental model, is offered with a semi-autonomous control kit that features position control for load balancing plus follow me and escort modes, or with an autonomous control kit that includes GPS navigation, route planning and terrain mapping. Among other tasks, several ANA Porters could be used in autonomous columns or perform joint surveillance of the perimeter.
The Marine Corps' Cargo UAS program is an example of the search for the capabilities of a new generation of unmanned aerial delivery platforms. The Marine Corps Weapons Laboratory (MCWL) issued a requirement in April 2010 for the display in February 2011 or earlier of a cargo UAV capable of operating in remote areas.
Capt. Amanda Mauri, head of projects for airborne combat components at the MCWL laboratory, said that the requirements for the cargo UAV were mainly determined by the combat experience of Afghanistan. The MCWL worked with the Combat Development Center and other corps agencies to determine the mass of supplies that a company-sized unit in Afghanistan could handle in one day, and came up with a figure of 10,000-20,000 pounds of cargo. "In terms of distance, 150 miles round trip, it is based on the distance from the forward operating base to the forward bases, but obviously they are constantly changing," she said.
Computer image of ANA Porter by Vecna Robotics, which has already passed the prototype stage
Consequently, the capability claimed by MCWL for the demonstration phase was to deliver a minimum of 10,000 pounds of cargo (20,000 pounds in practice) over a 24 hour period over 150 nautical miles round trip. The smallest item of the entire cargo package must be equivalent to at least a standard wooden pallet (48x40x67 inches), weighing a minimum of 750 pounds with an actual weight of 1000 pounds. It must be able to independently take off from a forward base or unpaved road out of line of sight, and also be controlled remotely from its terminal; the cargo must be delivered with an accuracy of at least 10 meters.
The platform's performance is the ability to fly at full load at 70 knots (130 km / h) at 15,000 feet and hover up to 12,000 feet. The UAV must also interact with existing air control agencies in the deployment areas, and its radio control frequencies must be compatible with the frequency requirements in the deployment areas.
In August 2009, the MCWL laboratory announced the selection of two applications for the competition for a cargo UAV: these are the K-MAX systems from Lockheed Martin / Kaman and the A160T Hummingbird from Boeing. The MQ-8B Fire Scout UAV from Northrop Grumman was excluded.
Lockheed Martin and Kaman formed the K-MAX team in March 2007; it has integrated a Lockheed Martin UAV control system into the commercially successful K-MAX medium-lift helicopter, which is widely used in the construction and woodworking industries.
AirMule by Israel Aeronautics features an innovative internal powerplant allowing operation in confined spaces
A160T Hummingbird with 1000 lb cargo nacelle
The K-MAX design features two counter-rotating criss-cross propellers, eliminating the need for a tail rotor, increasing lift and reducing seat footprint; Kaman says this allows all 1,800 horsepower from the Honeywell T53-17 gas turbine engine to be directed to the main propellers, increasing lift. With a maximum load of 3109 kg, the K-MAX can fly at 80 knots for a range of 214 nautical miles; without cargo, the speed is 100 knots, the range is 267 nautical miles. Essentially a modified manned platform, the K-MAX can be manned as needed, as the onboard controls are retained.
Jeff Bantle, vice president of rotorcraft programs, said the team "focused on meeting Marine requirements rather than exploring other ways of developing the platform. He explained that the group was working on a modification to the aircraft and a number of systems were added, including direct and indirect vision communication systems, tactical data link, flight control system and redundant INS / GPS system (both redundant)."

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
The royal family's early history
This is how clever the Royal family are from the Queen to Princess ... - mirror.co.uk
What is the early history of the royal family and how did the current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, come to be able to succeed to the throne
by Matthew Clifton (article) and Jane Flowers (video)
19 May 2018 at 09:08 19 May 2018 at 09:08
Don't miss on the latest updates
Click on the topic that interests you to follow it. We will keep you updated with the news you shouldn't miss.
Meghan Markle and Harry are marrying in their 30s; is this a modern trend? - Video
THE Royal Family'S current heritage line dates back to the early 20th century when the House of Windsor was created in 1917 and is a branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, itself derived from the House of Wettin, who succeeded the House of Hanover. The reason they changed the name to Windsor was due to anti-German sentiment during the first world war.
Queen Elizabeth II then sanctioned that all future generations would be under the banner of Mountbatten-Windsor, this is a combination of her and her husband's family names.
Early history and faux-modernity
Currently the royal family have reigned in the UK for 1209 years which spans 37 generations.
Dating the monarchy back shows us that all monarchs are descendent of King Alfred the Great who begun his reign in 871 but this also means that the current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II and her husband, Prince Phillip are distantly related and share the same great-great grandmother, Queen Victoria.
There are a lot of newspapers and magazines claiming that Harry and Meghan are showing that the royal family are trying to modernise and one of the reasons they cite, is because they are an early 30s couple who have lived their lives and chosen to marry late like a lot of regular people. However, this is in part due to the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, which means that members of the British Royal family are not allowed to marry before the age of 25.
Follow the page Royal Family
Matthew Clifton
Research columnist and Senior Blaster with BN who specialises in history and foreign policy (in particular western involvement in the Middle East). Creator of Naturally Unnatural, however, I have had to take an extended break from updating it, due to an increase in workload elsewhere.
Follow matthew on Facebook Follow matthew on Linkedin
Read more on the same topic from Matthew Clifton:
Sajid Javid dismissed that the Conservatives had an Islamophobia issue The relationship between the media and Islam is of deep-rooted negativity Gaza reporting highlights negative inherent Muslim biases
Jane Flowers
Blasting News recommends Prince Charles will stand in for Meghan's father at her wedding The privatisation gamble in the 60s and 70s Star Sports live cricket streaming India vs NZ 1st T20 at Hotstar.com Video


text:
Q: jedi-vim and YCM python indentation I'm using YouCompleteMe vim plugin for Python dev. YCM uses jedi-vim to autocomplete python code. However, I want to configure python indentation to 2 spaces not 4 (Google Python style). How can I do this? I tried add python.vim in /ftplugin and set tabstop=2 shiftwidth=2. but it didn't work.

A: this solved the problem: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=174117 so adding an after/ftplugin/language.vim  in .vim folder

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


The Daily Frail – LIVE!
Patrick Costello is bringing his inspirational teaching style to live video!
The Daily Frail is vidcasting live every weekday morning from Patrick's Facebook page.
Step One: Tune in at Patrick's Facebook page (link) at 7 AM Eastern time.
Step Two: There is no step two! It's that easy!
Tabs are provided for each workshop. Look for the link in each video post, or join Daily Frailers and get an automatic update whenever Patrick makes a file available.
Join us tomorrow at 7 Am Eastern time on Facebook for the next episode of The Daily Frail – LIVE!
Make wonderful music. That's all I hope to get out of this.


text:
PREGNANT MOMS
JENNIFER GIRARD
President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, President George H Bush, President George W Bush, President Ronald Reagan, Nancy Reagan, President Jimmy Carter, Rosalynn Carter, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, Ben Bernanke, John F Kennedy Jr, Gloria Steinem, Philip Glass, John Edwards, Carol Moseley Braun, Governor Rod Blagojevich, Governor George Ryan, Mayor Richard M Daley, Mayor Rahm Emanual, Cardinal George, President Vicente Fox, President Pervez Musharraf, China President Hu Jintao, Mortimer Adler, Walter Cronkite, Pearl Bailey, Ed Paschke, George Lucas, Martha Stewart, Oprah Winfrey, Jane Fonda, Richard Gere, Vince Vaughn, Aretha Franklin, Cathy Bates, James Earl Jones, Edward James Olmos, Barry Manilow, Robert Redford, Kevin Spacey, Rosie O'Donnell, Nancy Sinatra, Tom Paxton, Bruce Willis, Patrick Swayze, Jim Belushi, The Osmonds, Harold Ramis, Boy George, Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, Frank Thomas, Scottie Pippen, and the Dalai Lama.
Jennifer has had work featured in national publications.
JenniferGirard@jennifergirard.com | 773.929.3730 | © 2020 by JENNIFER GIRARD
Click Here for Current Galas and Events


text:
McGinn for Mayor
Posted on October 7, 2009 October 12, 2009 by John Jensen
Mike McGinn (photo by Martin)
After the primary, we expected to write a tepid endorsement for Mayor. Mike McGinn's philosophy seemed to err toward buses far more than our usual preference of a mixed investment that includes rail. But as we grew to understand McGinn more, we realized that his positions were more influenced by right-of-way than by mode. He wants bus lanes so buses don't get stuck in traffic. He wants light rail through the west side of the city, instead of a streetcar that would travel in the same lanes as cars.
Although this emphasis on right-of-way should not obscure the other differences between buses and trains, there is no doubt that high-quality transit investment is a major stated priority of Mike McGinn. Indeed, the major deficiency in Metro's RapidRide is a shortage of dedicated bus lanes, and McGinn envisions the capital investment necessary to take this important step.
McGinn's highly visible promise to put another light rail line on the ballot raises many questions. His plan would, at a minimum, complete a study — conducted by Sound Transit — to answer these questions sooner rather than later. It is the first step toward getting more light rail faster, which is the always the first priority of this blog. With luck, McGinn's plans could yield us much, much more.
Joe Mallahan, his opponent, only offered the ridiculous assertion that voting on light rail would put an education bond measure at risk. He is apparently a blank slate on transit; his statements have been either entirely banal boilerplate about fighting for more bus service or unwarranted attacks on streetcars. Furthermore, he has accepted contributions from anti-transit sources like John Stanton. It's especially difficult to tell how a Mallahan administration would turn out, but the signs are worrying, and the chances of further progress are slim.
McGinn's campaign has focused heavily on the SR-99 tunnel. The editorial board believes that the tunnel is poor policy and a terrible investment, although we disagree on just how bad. Regardless, the State has already reneged on several key elements of the original tunnel deal, such as expanded transit funding and the notorious cost overrun provision. The City should not accept these unilateral changes without a fight.
McGinn has committed to finishing the First Hill Streetcar that is in planning stages. Mallahan can't seem to make up his mind — implying that a cost over-run of even a dollar justifies canceling the project (he doesn't apply that fiscal logic to the SR-99 tunnel).
McGinn believes in a serious investment in light rail and in intelligent improvements in bus service. Nickels's commitment to transit is a tough act to follow, but McGinn is the best candidate to try just that.
Vote Mike McGinn for Mayor.
Our editorial board is Martin H. Duke, Ben Schiendelman, and John Jensen, with valued input from the rest of the staff. Read our Seattle City Council and King County Executive endorsements.
CategoriesUncategorized TagsKing County, Metro, Seattle, Sound Transit
97 Replies to "McGinn for Mayor"
Chris Stefan says:
Also remember Judy Clibborn is one of Mallahan's advisors on transportation issues. Sure on the one hand making friends with the chair of the house transportation committee is a good thing, on the other hand Clibborn is anti-rail especially when it comes to East Link.
Unfortunately I can't vote for either McGinn or Mallahan. I don't believe either one is suitable to run a large American city, for a huge number of reasons.
McGinn's inability to flesh out his transit campaign promises only highlights his lack of competence. He's making the promises his target market wants to hear, but don't look too closely. The sole campaign promise that made up his entire platform for the primary proved to be a fraud, and people are still looking past that.
I WISH he could do what he wants to accomplish with transit, but I don't vote for people just because they say they'll do things I like. Competence counts.
My mayoral vote will be a write-in for Greg Nickels.
If write-ins aren't allowed, I will abstain.
Huh? McGinn said he'd have a study done and identify funding sources, why should he have to get detailed and specific? That is why you have experts look at corridors, alignments, and financing in a study. After that it is up to the voters.
Either Mallahan or McGinn is going to be the next mayor. You have a chance to have a say in the decision, but if you want to opt-out of participating because proposals aren't fleshed out to an EIS level of detail then fine, but I'm surprised you've been able to vote for any candidate in any race in that case.
Tim Whittome says:
I am with you on this one, Michael. I too would abstain on the mayoral election if I was a Seattle voter but I am out in Issaquah. I probably would write in Greg Nickles too if I lived in Seattle. I don't have confidence in either mayoral candidate.
Kevin Nolan says:
Does any one in this indolent city remember the Nisqually earthquake, "The Rattle in Seattle" that shut down the viaduct for a week. Does any one remember the 24/7 grid lock through the downtown corridor? The tunnels a done deal! Don't waste our time trying to undo something that the viscous citizens of this city are too stupid to realize is a good thing. Big picture people. Big picture! Both candidates are idiots which is exactly what this city deserves!
Zed says:
I don't remember the 24/7 gridlock in the weeks after the Nisqually quake because there was no 24/7 gridlock. It's hard to remember something that didn't happen. Rush hour was slightly worse and lasted a little longer, but other than taking a little longer to get out of downtown it wasn't that bad. The city was hardly strangled.
Sorry, I normally agree with the views expressed on STB, but on this one I disagree.
I think McGinn picking a fight with the State over the tunnel will be disastrous for this city. We can't build LR without State permission, and McGinn blowing up the tunnel agreement isn't likely to garner any favors from a State government that is already generally anti-Seattle and fully committed to the tunnel.
Besides, most of the Nickels machine that brought us the first phase of LR and now ST2 is lining up behind Mallahan. You can give a lot of the credit for LR to Nickels, but a lot of credit goes elsewhere too. With a big chunk of the Nickels machine backing Mallahan, it's hard to see how a vote for McGinn would be much more than a vote for stalemate.
But hey, we will see. Personally I think that no matter who wins the mayorship we aren't going to see much progress in the next 4 years, but at least with Mallahan we won't go backwards a decade and revisit the tunnel agreement – that at least is a small measure of progress.
What agreement? There's no SEPA-mandated EIS, there's no stakeholder consensus and less than 6 weeks prior to her decision, Governor Gregoire laughed at Dino Rossi for suggesting a double-deck deep bore tunnel under Second. And a year before her decision, she said she'd tear down the viaduct in 2012 with or without Seattle's permission.
There's no SEPA-mandated EIS
Indeed, WSDOT may be breaking the law by taking actions that assume their preferred alternative is the final one selected.
I do think it's both sad and amusing that the EIS is used as a tool of battle by opponents of anything.
The EIS is a step in the process of getting something done, not a weak point to place a wedge.
No, it's not a "step", it's law.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=43.21C.030
They didn't even get past section a.
joshuadf says:
Not only is doing the EIS a law, but if I understand correctly if the EIS found deficient WSDOT will essentially have to start over on the entire process. A faulty EIS was the primary cause of failure for Portland's "done deal" Mt Hood Freeway:
http://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/entry/view/mt__hood_freeway/
Ben Schiendelman says:
lazarus, if the tunnel is progress, transit is backwards.
We didn't lose our streetcars because of a problem with them or with transit. We lost them because we subsidized highways so much they couldn't compete.
If we want to get back to an efficient transportation system, we have to stop building things like this.
We have a chance to stop it. Why would we do anything but jump at that chance?
Transportation is not a stark choice between roads or transit, or forward or backward, or good or evil, or however you want to phrase it. Investing in the tunnel isn't going to kill transit, nor is it "backwards".
This region needs a multi-modal approach to mobility (including freight mobility), and we simply aren't going to solve our transportation problems by focusing on only one element to the exclusion of all others. I personally believe that we should shift the balance towards transit and away from roads, but note that I said "balance".
We have an opportunity to solve the viaduct problem by having the State pay for a tunnel. Why would we do anything but jump at that chance?
As a side note: It wasn't the road subsidy that killed transit, but rather the subsidy existed because the culture of the time was that roads were preferable, more modern, and represented "progress". I think we know better now, but that doesn't mean that selected roads projects still shouldn't go forward.
"going to solve our transportation problems by focusing on only one element to the exclusion of all others"
Which is why it's absolutely insane that the State is whittling down its contribution, placing a cap on its own liability and has decided that the long stakeholder process is meaningless and that they're doing a tunnel anyway. They effectively focused on only one element to the exclusion of others.
Mallahan has pledged to work with the state to remove the stipulation that Seattle pay for the cost overruns on a State managed project. This is a very good thing, but ultimately that clause might not be enforceable anyhow.
We're not going to get anywhere by picking a big fight with the State over something that has already been settled. I think Mallahan understands that.
Ben, our city has had the philosophy of increasing pain to drivers for decades now. You can't get around the city, you can't park. That pain extends to many bus riders, I might add.
The philosophy of "increase the pain" has by now been proven not to work. Proven. Making our commutes longer and more difficult helps neither the citizens nor the environment.
Right now we're suffering for the sins of our fathers (transit voted down for decades). Only relieving THAT pain will help. Our one little Link line is a tiny baby step. Now build something that will help our neighborhoods to get around, THEN start thinking about reducing through roads.
And you might want to research the demise of the streetcars a little more fully.
You do know that to finance the city's share they'll be raising the tax on parking, right?
The "city share" is roughly the same regardless of whether or not the state builds the DBT. You don't save anything by telling the state "no".
Why are you so certain the tunnel will be on or under budget?
Again, Mallahan has pledged to work with the state to remove the stipulation that Seattle pay for the cost overruns on a State managed project. This is a very good thing, but ultimately that clause might not be enforceable anyhow.
Mallahan is the only candidate to have made this pledge.
Then it won't be built. The State has a very strict cap on its contribution, and you won't see it rise, especially if I-1033 passes.
Off the main topic but related to the last reply: 1033 better not pass!
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with building tunnels. Even Sound Transit has or is building the odd one or two. The question before us as always is what is the function of everything? The function of the tunnel in this instance is to clear the waterfront of noise and one of the ugliest road/concrete structures it has been my misfortune to see. The viaduct is ugly, nosiy, old, a mecca for crime and damaged beyond repair and I think we can all here agree on this at least. The viaduct needs to go and so then the question becomes, what do we replace it with and why? A surface street option in my opinion strips that transit corridor completely of its orginal function – to move freight away from the port and to function as a north-south pressure valve for traffic on the I-5 which created that purpose for the viaduct as the I-5 came later. OK, so if we concede that the viaduct is about moving traffic from south of Seattle to north of Seattle, then clearly converting the existing viaduct into an at-grade street throughway, isn't going to achieve too much. It also doesn't do much for reclaiming the waterfront or for environmental noise. So, let's give the road interests their tunnel and free up some space on this blog to discuss what should go in other city corridors that do not function as throughways to get people into and out of Seattle as fast as they can. At this point, we can discuss our beloved rail and streetcars. They work beautifully over the short and regional distances that we discuss on this blog. We do not need to serve the interests of the car community in getting people to and from work in these corridors. Light Rail, buses and streetcars with all their attendant transit-oriented-development peform their functions in these respects admirably and beautifully and most of us here hail their success. The SR99 corridor is not the same – it is a through city corridor for car and freight travel and neither rail nor a surface option is going to help them very much.
All these arguments are aside from the relevance or otherwise of reopening a discussion on how best to replace the viaduct. The sooner that thing comes down the better and reopening a discussion of replacement options just prolongs the pain.
Anandakos says:
This is a very cogent comment, but it has something that just hideously grates on the Northwest ear: "the I-5″. It's not "the I-5"; it's "I-5". The "the" form arose in LA; please let it die there.
Mickymse says:
But what if we DON'T "concede that the viaduct is about moving traffic from south of Seattle to north of Seattle," Tim?
1/5 of the traffic alone is going to/from Downtown and SW Seattle. That traffic is currently helped by a viaduct, but not a tunnel.
What about traffic to/from Downtown and NW Seattle, which is also not served by the tunnel?
How about the study which shows that adding tolls to the tunnel to help pay for it dramatically reduces the number of vehicles traveling on it?
Despite the blatant lies from some elected officials, WSDOT's own studies showed that the Surface/Transit/I-5 option was extremely viable, and should be studied as part of the EIS.
Adam B. Parast says:
What other elected official has said that they will study a west side Seattle LRT line if elected? None that I know of. Feasible or not McGinn has put a Ballard to West Seattle rail line back on the table. All Mallahan can do is talk about how he will make the city better for business and safer for suburbanites that are scared of walking downtown. Give me a break. This is Seattle. I want a mayor that cares about Seattleites.
All Mallahan can do is talk about how he will make the city better for business and safer for suburbanites that are scared of walking downtown.
Don't forget he thinks it should be easier and cheaper for people from Redmond to drive into town and park.
lorax says:
Constantine has also said he will work towards Ballard-WS light rail. Hasn't gotten the press that McGinn did though, maybe because Dow never promised the expedited schedule that McGinn (wrongly, but well-meaningly) suggests is possible.
I find myself again thinking that for all the attention being given to McGinn and Mallahan, the cause of transit would be far better served by paying attention to the considerably more consequential race on the ballot: King County Executive.
Andrew Smith says:
I agree with Adam on his characterization of Mallahan has someone who would focus on making the city better for suburbanites, but I wonder about his business commitments. As Publicola pointed out yesterday, Seattle has long been losing competitiveness in job creation to the suburbs.
What good is having a safer city if all the jobs are in the suburbs? Las Vegas is full of nightlife, entertainment and its own sort of arts and culture, but it's not a great place to start a new business. We need a city that's teeming with jobs as well as cultural events and entertainment. Focusing on making the city safer for those who want to come here to party or see a sports game isn't the right goal.
So I want a mayor who can focus on making the city better for Seattle residents, those who work in the city, and those who want to work in the city but have fewer opportunities than they do in the suburbs. I don't know whether McGinn or Mallahan is the better candidate conceptually on this last point, but I know that transportation options like more light rail will help with job creation.
In the long run we won't know who would do better on job creation since we can only pick one, but I think more light rail would greatly help.
I hate following up one comment with another, but I think Mallahan's work as a VP at T-Mobile in Factoria are a red flag as someone who thinks the city should be where jobs growth is. To many, Seattle's play town, show town and party town, but Bellevue's work town. I get the feeling Mallahan is one of those.
I live and work in Seattle, but I only play, go to shows, and party downtown.
So what? If you played in Bellevue would that prove me wrong?
Transit Voter says:
If the Nickels' machine is really lining up with Mallahan, then it's because of the AWV tunnel project, NOT because they think he will become a convert on light rail transit.
I am with you on this one.
I like McGinn: a community organizer with civic pride and a good head on his shoulders.
yup says:
Well said. McGinn wants to spend money on transit, Mallahan wants to spend money we don't have on the tunnel. The contrast doesn't really get any starker than that.
Lazarus, why do you think we need state permission to build more light rail?
McGinn's announcement was to use existing taxing authorities for the city, including general revenue (property taxes, business taxes, etc.) and transportation benefit district (car tabs, sales tax, etc). It likely would require more of a Portland-style line than what we have with ST, but it's a huge step in the right direction.
Because any realistic calculation of the revenue available from those sources doesn't give you a total that is sufficient to pay for Ballard-West Seattle line. Doesn't mean it's not a good idea, but the city (and ST) just don't have the financial resources to do it without more revenue options from the state.
Actually they do, you can pull in a lot of money with a property tax levy.
It would have to be something like 10 times the cost of the Housing Levy. Plus, a property tax levy is not one of the revenue sources that McGinn emphasized in the rollout of his light rail plan–he focused on license fees and LIDs, which are more fair than a property tax but really wouldn't raise the amount of money necessary.
Don't get me wrong, I think we desperately need a westside rail line, but I don't think they city has the statutory revenue capacity to pay for it right now, especially once they pay for things like Alaskan Way seawall replacement and utility relocation.
John Jensen says:
As far as I know, he talked about ("emphasized") the transportation benefit district which includes property taxes.
I don't know whether we'll be able to fund things locally. Studying the issue 7 years ahead of schedule is a big deal, though, and could create momentum for ST3 even in the worst case. We might come out of it building another bus tunnel or something, sure. But getting the ball rolling is a larger step than doing nothing. Especially if that ball has electoral consequences as it would with McGinn.
lorax, a transportation benefit district alone would give us enough for ballard-west seattle if we did it with the same level of service as Portland.
Exactly. There really needs to be some realism in these projections, and so far there hasn't been any. So far all we have is the "opportunity" to dumb down the Central Link standards so we can build this line more cheaply.
This is the same approach the SMP took when they got into budget problems and it resulted in such design features as single tracking. Lets not repeat the mistakes of the SMP.
McGinn explicitly mentioned the big money saver: take existing public street ROW. Maybe it's a "dumb" idea, but it's been successful in downtown Portland, Denver, Dallas, etc. If McGinn and ST bring such a design to the public, I expect Seattle voters to pass it.
Hmm, and which lanes would you reassign if you were mayor?
Kind of depends on the alignment doesn't it? However there are a number of streets where dropping the two way left turn lane and parking on one side gets you more than enough room for two Link tracks.
In downtown Seattle you could take the far left lane of either 2nd/4th or 4th/5th for rail for example.
I agree with your endorsement. For any voters who support transit, it's a no brainer.
I prefer voting for someone with a track record of community organizing and activism versus someone who could not fulfill the minimum requirement of citizen participation – voting. Seriously, how can any Mallahan supporter justify his horrible voting history?
Whew! I was surprised when you endorsed Nickels, but understood your logic. McGinn is the best all around choice, but definitely the best for those who hold transit as a priority. He's a smart guy, willing to listen, and sincerely interested in making the right decision. Mallahan is slick and polished…not a lot of substance and definitely no real intent to advance Seattle's transit.
Jeff Welch says:
anti-transit sources like John Stanton
What is being used to justify the accusation that John Stanton is "anti-transit"?
I find this rhetoric – that an activist, politician, or voter who doesn't support Rail Above All is somehow "anti-transit" akin to accusations by the right over the last 8 years that anyone not supporting the Iraq war is "anti-American".
It's ridiculous.
Perhaps the large sums of money he's spent to defeat every transit measure that has been on the ballot in King County in the last 15 years.
Horse manure.
Not horse manure, fact. Search the state PDC reports if you don't believe me.
Martin H. Duke says:
A typically cogent rebuttal.
Jeff, seriously.
http://www.cascadiaprospectus.org/2008/01/regional_governance_debate_wil.php
Also the Rice-Stanton proposal for "governance reform" to take Sound Transit's money for roads.
Newsflash: transit uses roads. Next non-sequitur.
Are you seriously suggesting that additional highway capacity is a transit investment?
That's hardly a non-sequitur, sure transit uses roads, but to take money from a transit agency so billions can be spent either widening freeways or building new ones hardly is a pro-transit position even if you believe all transit should be bus based.
I simply fail to see how building nonsense like "I-605" or the cross-base highway helps transit any.
With ST2 investments, by 2030, most of our transit use will NOT use roads.
That's a beautiful statement. Brings tears to my eyes.
If they took the money and built grade-separated busways, then OK, but for adding general purpose lanes and highways that transit will not use, NO thanks.
Who's going to spend billions of dollars on bus service?
There are anti-rail people who are serious about better bus transit, including many people affiliated with Metro. I think Doug McDonald, for instance, is seriously interested in more funding for BRT.
But Stanton is nowhere to be found when things like TransitNow go to the ballot. He's only interested in BRT when he can use it to sow FUD about light rail.
If I recall correctly Stanton actually spent money to defeat TransitNow.
eldan says:
Thanks for posting this. I had been wondering why you hadn't just supported McGinn all along, and I appreciate now being able to follow the thought process.
Well you won't be surprised to read that I disagree with the STB for the first time on this one. Having gone to the recent debate between Mallahan and McGinn, I can safely say that neither candidate appeared to me to be up to the task of running a major city. Under Mayor Nickels, Seattle had aspirations to be a great and engaging world city, dynamic on mass transit and environmentally strong. To those of us fed up with the constant dithering and talking endlessly about the whats, wherefores and whens of just about everything, Greg Nickles tried to look beyond this to achieving something. He didn't do it all and he wasn't perfect in all areas, but I shared his vision for where Seattle needs to go and how to get there. It strikes me with both Mallahan and McGinn that we are going to have to reinvent some of the wheel with a new philosophy and a new vision for governance of a great city. Neither of them has much experience of governing and if McGinn gets in, he will immediately start a fire fight on the tunnel with both the County and the State and make few friends in the process. If Mallahan gets in, it doesn't sound as if he likes much in the way of mass transit beyond the tunnel. Neither candidate has said much if anything about the Mercer Street mess and I don't know where either of them stand on continuing funding for King Street Station restoration. With such a poor choice of folks for November, the STB Board would have been better off stepping aside on their mayoral endorsement and seeing how this one plays out. Its all well and good for McGinn to talk about light rail for the west side of the city, but this has not been on anyone's agenda, would be light years away because someone has to first think about it, then someone has to oppose it, then we have to discuss the merits and demerits, vote, establish who if anyone wants to build and run the thing. It is not as if planning is as advanced as ST2 and East Link won't be up and running until the early 2020s at the earliest and later if revenues don't rebound.
I urge the STB Board to reconsider their opposition to the tunnel and to consider whether yet more delay on this project is really in Seattle's best interests. It is rare to have the City, the County and the State in almost agreement on anything and so let's capitalize on this moment and make the most of it. To take any one of the core constituencies out of the synchronicity of this, propels us down the road of yet more pointless arguing and is an inefficient use of our democratic powers. To continually second guess elected leadership, risks getting elected leaders whose timidity secures neither leadership nor the right of elected representatives to use their delegated authority to govern. In my albeit limited experience of seeing our elected representatives at work, I can say that it is extremely hard to look forwards when you have to be looking over your shoulders. Unless funding completely collapses for the tunnel option, I would prefer that Olympia, King County and Seattle be allowed to proceed as planned since the beginning of the year. WSDOT has already begun some work, Seattle has some great plans for regaining the waterfront as a liveable part of the city and King County has done whatever it needs to be doing I guess as part of its enthusiasm for the project.
Other than on the tunnel, I have strong reservations along with the STB Board on Joe Mallahan's ideas and apart from his stance on the tunnel, I am sure that Mike McGinn will prove OK as a future mayor. Overall though, based on matters as they currently stand, I couldn't really see either of them as mayor and feel especially happy. I would, however, be more than happy to be proven wrong. Seattle's future is important to me, even though I am not a Seattle voter.
The "agreement" on the tunnel is a sham. The Governor already stabbed King County in the back by vetoing the MVET that was to pay for the county portion of the project. The financing plan is a house of cards, none of the stakeholders has fully funded their portion. Even the state portion is well short as WSDOT's own studies show there is no way for tolling to bring in the $400 million it is supposed to. Meanwhile we have no idea what is going to happen when the cost overruns hit (and there almost certainly will be cost overruns, this is a high-risk project without a lot of padding in the budget). Very likely the City will be placed in the position of either having to just fork the money over or filing a lawsuit against the state. There is also talk by certain state officials of using the Port's taxing authority to put King County taxpayers on the hook through the backdoor.
Furthermore WSDOT is almost certainly violating NEPA, SEPA, and the Shoreline Act by moving forward on certain project components prior to even issuing a DEIS. Soliciting bids now for the tunneling contractor means there won't be any serious consideration of any other alternatives.
Then we can go into how the tunnel "agreement" completely ignores the entire stakeholder process that was just finishing up prior to the big announcement early last year.
All of the 5 final alternatives considered by the stakeholders were able to handle the projected traffic volumes in the corridor according to WSDOTs own studies, so the argument that a surface/transit solution won't work is a load of BS.
Oh and speaking of WSDOT studies, the traffic numbers from WSDOT are all over the place depending on which study you look at. That doesn't give me a high level of confidence that the tunnel is actually the right solution to the needs of the corridor. At best the tunnel will only be taking 50% of the current AWV traffic and at worse 20%. It is quite likely building the tunnel will actually increase VMT and increase congestion by bringing more vehicles into the middle of the city. This is especially true if the low-end numbers are closer to the truth of how much of the current traffic the tunnel will really be handling.
To loop this back to the mayor's race, yes McGinn will almost certainly be picking a fight on day one with certain elements of state government. But this turkey of a highway deserves a much closer look at the details by people who don't have a stake in seeing it built. The county isn't likely to get to involved since without any funding from the state they aren't going to be doing their portion of the project anyway.
On the other hand I'm worried Mallahan might just try to hand over city money to the state to cover any budget shortfalls or cost overruns. True he won't be able to get far without a majority on the council, but just the fact he might be willing to do so scares me.
As to the Mercer mess, McGinn has said he supports moving the project forward as currently envisioned. Does he really need to say much more? Mallahan at first said he didn't support the Mercer fix, then after talking to Vulcan said he supports doing something but wanted area property owners to contribute more of the project cost and that he didn't support the current plans, I think he also said something vague about wanting the Mercer fix to handle more traffic (who knows? maybe he wants to bring back the Bay Freeway).
King Street Station is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things so I'm not surprised either candidate hasn't had much to say about it. If I had to guess I'd say McGinn favors moving forward as planned, for that matter I don't see any real reason for Mallahan to try to stop the renovations unless he's looking for a cheap stunt to give him some "fiscal conservative" street cred.
For light rail, the key to doing anything else will be doing a study sufficient to possibly put together a ballot measure which is essentially what McGinn has proposed. Essentially this is simply providing funding to Sound Transit to speed up the Seattle portion of the studies they were going to do as part of the planning for ST3. McGinn certainly isn't the first person to suggest this as I know several people who've discussed it with City staffers and Mayor Nickels. As for who would build it and run it, McGinn has already said he wants Sound Transit to do it. Why the hell should Seattle wait 20 years to expand light rail beyond what is in ST2 especially if the voters are willing to fund expansion sooner rather than later? Sound Transit is certainly capable of handling more than one complex project at a time. Hell depending on how exactly things work out a Seattle funded expansion of Link could easily open well before ST2 is finished.
In conclusion I believe Mike McGinn shares the vision of Mayor Nickels for Seattle to be "a great and engaging world city, dynamic on mass transit and environmentally strong". If you don't believe me look at the work Great City (an organization McGinn founded) is doing. Heck if anything McGinn's vision is made of even stronger stuff than Nickels.
Unfortunately I can't agree with the McGinn endorsement either, and my decision is strictly related to the tunnel. If he'd drop the anti-tunnel stance, I could probably get behind him, but it's a deal-breaker for me.
I am so tired of Seattle being a place where we debate to death. The earthquake which stressed the importance of replacing the viaduct was almost a decade ago. We finally have a decision after a decade of debate, and now, someone new wants to come in and add years to that process. We shouldn't forget the reason there is this debate in the first place – this thing could fall at any time, killing potentially thousands of people in the process.
As a Ballard resident, I use the 99 corridor on almost a daily basis. When my clients took me to the Eastside or South Seattle/Tacoma, I used the viaduct to get there (whether heading south, or connecting to I-90 near the stadiums). The viaduct provided an easy route to the airport. And, there was easy access to downtown via the exit at Denny Way. I don't understand all the whining about loss of access for Ballard, because all of these options would still be there with the tunnel.
McGinn's plan to expand I-5 at the expense of reducing capacity on Hwy 99 is expensive and ignores the effect on regional transportation. From neighborhoods in the western parts of Seattle, the problem isn't so much I-5, but getting to I-5. Mercer Street, 45th Street, 85th Street, Denny Way, and the West Seattle Bridge are all gridlocked today during the rush hours. You try and move this regional traffic to I-5, and you significantly increase congestion on all east-west arterials within the city limits. So McGinn's proposal to block the tunnel not only would gridlock downtown, but also places like Wallingford and Northgate.
So then you say, well the goal is to get people out of their cars. And this is a good goal. But there is no realistic plan to do so. McGinn might be talking about a potential vote to extend light rail to the westside, but a) it's talk with no credible support from KC, ST, or the city of Seattle, and b) he's talking about a system which is more streetcar than the light-metro we're currently building. Places like Queen Anne and Belltown have congestion and density to support an underground line, not an at-grade couplet concept. As far as increased bus or bike commuting, he proposes nothing specific to build true bus lanes or additional bike paths. So in short, he's throwing out a bunch of alternatives without any specifics, lukewarm support from the important players, and no identified funding source.
McGinn will be dangerous for Seattle. I'm tempted to write-in Nickels, but I don't want a lack of enthusiasm to help McGinn ride into office. So I have no choice but to hold my nose and vote for Mallahan.
Constantine, on the other hand, is someone I can happily vote for.
Ryan,
Even if you don't agree with McGinn on the tunnel it makes no sense to vote for Mallahan. That's like saying you didn't like Al Gore on labor issues (and I didn't in 2000) so you voted for Bush. Huh? If you can't vote for McGinn, write in a qualified person like Ed Murray as a protest vote. Nickels is apparently ineligible to win, but I suppose he works too as a protest vote.
I don't agree with your tunnel arguments but all I will say is that you should look at the "previously studied alternatives" section of the WSDOT SR-99 website. Don't take my word for it or tunnelfacts.com, look at what the professional highway engineers say about the viability of the surface option.
I should add that I chose a poor example–of course Mallahan is no Bush, but the point is that if you care about transit you should at least cast a protest vote for someone who is MORE transit friendly.
Unfortunately I can't agree with the McGinn endorsement either, and my decision is strictly related to the tunnel.
It's funny that Mallahan's followers are so obsessed with the tunnel, even knowing full well that almost every previous study has shown that every option can handle the traffic and maintain optimal mobility. It's just that the tunnel removes access to Downtown, Interbay, Ballard and the industrial waterfront.
note the current deep bore portal designs are different, north from south. look at the WSDOT visual simulation on their project web page. toay, you and I can drive from Ballard to I-90 via the AWV exiting via the 1st Avenue South. in the deep bore, it appears the tunnel lanes are in the center. what is the first interchange we could use going southbound? could we reach I-90 at Edgar Martinez Way?
as other poster have stated, even if one supports the deep bore McGinn is the much better choice: he knows the city better, he has been a leader and organizer, he is better on transit and land use issues, has has voted. some deep bore supporters assert that it is done deal. then why not McGinn, if he cannot stop it?
serial catowner says:
I'm very pleased to see the idea of just taking over road lanes for transit getting so much traction here. But I'm certainly surprised by the brisk turn-around in public opinion.
You see, it was just last week that I suggested that very thing, and not one comment was made in support. And even that was a v.2.0 upgrade from the number of times commenters have explained to me that I must be a total looney to even think such thoughts.
Sadly, if it is possible to use road lanes for transit, it becomes even more important to build the tunnel. I say 'sadly' because McGinn's installed user-base of tunnel-haters won't buy that, no matter how desirable it might be to use existing bridges and grade-separated ROW for rapid rail travel from West Seattle to Ballard and other points north. This kind of thing is called an "internal contradiction". McGinn should be for a quick rail line, but if it involves letting the state build a tunnel, he has to be against it.
As is usual in these matters, it seems to many in Seattle that vast issues will hang on the result at the polls. Having lived through many elections, I can assure you that if your candidate loses, you will feel for about five minutes that life also will end, and after that you probably won't think that much about it. If your candidate wins, however, you may have a vastly extended period in which to regret what has happened.
Chaz says:
You do realize that your tunnel argument is predicated on the idea that the tunnel as envisioned is going to take the same number or more trips that the viaduct currently facilitates? However, that assertion (from what WSDOT tells us) is untrue and most likely this tunnel will result in more traffic on surface streets. The main problem with the tunnel is that it is an unfunded boondoggle being sold as something it is not.
You do realize your comment is totally wrong and not supported by WSDOT? The conservative estimate of trips carried by the tunnel is about 50%, and those are trips that are taken off the streets, not put on the streets.
And no, my tunnel 'argument' is not based on your wacky upside-down view of reality.
It really depends on which set of WSDOT numbers you use, I've seen everything from the tunnel serving 20% of current viaduct trips to 60%. This is before any added induced demand is factored in or modeled. Also keep in mind that most of the models don't factor in the effect of tolling.
The problem is what happens to the other 40% to 80% of the trips? Do they disappear? Do they go to surface streets? Do they go to I-5?
I see Chris beat me to it. I'm not sure why you assume that I want all the trips to hit surface streets. My point was that the tunnel will not serve all the trips (some estimates say not even a majority) current funneled off of surface streets by the viaduct. Yet the tunnel is being sold as a replacement not a modification that it is. So yes in a zero sum world you're right that any, trips off the surface is good for at grade rail. However, my point is that taking today as a benchmark no plan currently leads to a reduction of surface trips. A smart replacement would handle as many trips as possible and the data don't seem to suggest that most trips will remain off the surface. At best half the trips currently off the street will be dumped onto them. If worst estimates are assumed, and WSDOT has been all over the place, then the tunnel would barely serve most trips and cost a lot to do that.
In the last three sentences it should read "surface and I-5" but more surface trips is I think the issue at hand in this conversation.
The deep bore tunnel would increase use on Alaskan Way by 5x and almost all freight would be restricted from the tunnel, seeing a marked increase in travel times.
So much for that, huh?
This is a bunch of silliness about a very simple concept. Some AWV trips start or end downtown- call it 50%. Some trips don't- they start further out, go past downtown, and end further out- call it 50%.
If you take the 50% that doesn't want to go downtown and put it in a tunnel, you have not changed anything about the 50% that does go downtown. If the tunnel induced new trips, those would be trips going past downtown. Meanwhile, the 50% that do want to go downtown will still want to go downtown. Guess what? If you don't build the tunnel, they will still want to go downtown. Yes, over time fewer of them will want to go downtown, and if you think filling downtown with unbearable traffic jams is a good way to persuade them not to go downtown, maybe not building the tunnel is what you want to do. Don't be too surprised if not everyone agrees with this approach.
This really isn't rocket science. If you're having trouble understanding how this works, maybe you should get some little toy cars or matchsticks or something, and game it out on a table until you do understand.
Sure, if you follow the "just build a tunnel already" mindset, yeah, you'll have problems with congestion. Especially since the tunnel fanatics seem to have no solutions beyond "just build a tunnel already", even with knowledge that the state and county have pulled funding for all the stuff that was supposed to prevent downtown from becoming total gridlock.
And you have Mallahan, who is totally okay with not having any extra transit.
Good job, guys.
Sorry you don't seem to follow. What you initially said was that one should support the tunnel if one wants to use existing ROW for rail. I tried to point out that the tunnel isn't necessarily going to take trips off of the road in places where ROW and traffic will/are an issue. That was based on the fact that the tunnel will necessarily dump more cars on roads where the aren't now, for far more money than dumping them onto surface streets and I-5 using other viaduct "replacements." Which is to say supporting the tunnel as envisioned for ROW reasons isn't as simple as you describe and I'd say dubious. Also, one can support rail ROW and reject the current tunnel as a solution to the AWV without some huge tragic "internal contradiction." All of this is to say that the benefits of the current tunnel idea don't necessarily match the costs, even when ROW is factored in.
Wow, it's like the tunnel is some kind of Klein bottle or something. In reality, of course, there is no mysterious extra dimension opening into the center of the tunnel and disgorging extra cars at both ends.
The roads that feed the Viaduct will dump X number of cars on the surface if the Viaduct is removed and not rebuilt. If a tunnel is built, the roads feeding the Viaduct will dump Xminus tunnel vehicles on the surface. X minus tunnel vehicles will be less than X. Because X minus tunnel vehicles is smaller, you will need to spend less on surface roads to achieve the same result if the tunnel is built.
As for what I said, it was basically that if you can take traffic lanes for transit, we should let them build the tunnel, and take that. I'm beginning to understand that while the mighty McGinn can take traffic lanes for his transit, that could never happen with the tunnel.
Did you know that the original tunnel under the Thames was used for something different about every thirty years, and that it's still in use today, 150 years after it was built?
You are totally overlooking induced demand and its reverse. If the tunnel is built people will make extra trips that don't happen today, they may even make so many new trips that congestion is actually worse than prior to increasing capacity. The converse also happens where a capacity reduction results in reduced congestion because the number of trips is so greatly reduced.
For that matter look at when they had to reduce capacity on I-5 for a week a couple of years ago. So many people avoided driving to work alone during rush hour that there was actually less congestion than during a normal week.
I follow what serial is saying… BUT there's one key point missing.
The Surface/Transit/I-5 option increases the capacity of Downtown streets and I-5 to carry vehicles, and requires transit to increase throughout the corridor.
The tunnel makes NO CHANGES to I-5, FEW changes to the Downtown street grid, and currently has inadequate funding for new transit.
That's why the tunnel could increase congestion more than the Surface option. It simply doesn't prepare enough for the additional trips expected on the streets once the Viaduct is removed.
I loved this comment from the Ballard News-Tribune: "Neither candidate would commit to a public vote on the deep bore tunnel when pressed by an audience member."
See it here.
In a morning story from the PostGlobe McGinn wins union endorsement:
Mike McGinn scored a significant endorsement this morning, when he was endorsed by the United Food and Commercial Workers union, local 21.
More of a relief than a surprise McGinn finally has an official union endorsement. The United Food and Commercial Workers Union has been a strong backer of McGinn but the timing of the official endorsement should give him a bump in the polls.
It will be interesting to see if any of the CWA locals endorse in the Mayors race. Given CWA's history with T-Mobile I somehow doubt they will be endorsing Mallahan in any case.
Hint to the McGinn campaign: start talking to people at CWA locals 7800, 7803, 37082, and 37083 about an endorsement if you haven't been already.
What does a "transit-convertible" tunnel mean? I assume it means that the tunnel or half of it could be converted to rail if all cars were removed. But that's very far into the future. Even if car travel shrinks in 10-20 years, it will only mean less cars in the tunnel, not no cars in the tunnel. Closing the tunnel to cars would require proof that they could all be moved to I-5 without congestion, and traffic would have to reduce by half before that would happen, maybe in 40 years or more.
I think Ben and others have pointed out a number of times that any notion of converting the 99 tunnel to rail is pure fantasy.
Ha ha, in about 12 years you guys are going to be so amazed at what is happening to your world. I am beginning to agree with you that the region lacks the imagination for radical changes. And hey, genteel poverty turns out to be way better than expected.
Well, like I said, taking some existing streets and using them for transit would be the cheap and quick way to do it- and even on the transit blog, public opinion is dead-set against it.
I'm beginning to understand why your generation is leaving us with this traffic nightmare.
I for one think you're dead on. I've long been a fan of Portland's Max. Nothing says changing transportation modes like taking streets away from cars.
Catowner,
If there is a serious proposal to convert existing lanes — any lanes, any road — to transit, you'll find this blog leading the charge. In fact, when examining the McGinn light rail plan, which you crapped all over, I mentioned that as a cheap and effective way to achieve his objectives.
Don't confuse indifference to your comment as opposition to the idea.
However, aside from the political obstacles, the technical obstacles to adding rail stations to the deep-bore tunnel are nearly insurmountable. This has been explained again and again. Supporting the deep-bore in the hope that it'll be converted to transit is delusional.
I think it's likely that at some point we'll become less car-centric. However, smug assertions about what gas prices are going to be in 12 years are tiresome. If you're so sure, put your money where your mouth is and start trading oil futures — it'll be a much more productive use of your time.
Martin, I'm glad the STB community is focused on the practical, although I'll admit I usually skip the blow-by-blow on bus service changes etc. I try to stay practical too- who wants to listen to an old fool thinking as far ahead as 10 years in the future? After all, they might discover more oil and the price of gas would start going down.
But you're right, of course- there are better ways I could spend my time.
Pingback: No on I-1033 - Seattle Transit Blog
Previous PostPrevious Not Just for Commuting
Next PostNext WSDOT submits Track 2 ARRA funding request


text:
'Financial Issues' with Dan Celia Adds Third Hour Starting Today
*** NEWS RELEASE ***
Beth Harrison, Hamilton Strategies, 610.584.1096, ext. 104, Media@HamiltonStrategies.com, or Deborah Hamilton, 215.815.7716 or 610.584.1096, ext. 102
Daily Radio and TV Show from Financial Expert and Nationally Syndicated Host Focuses on Economic Headlines and Biblical Stewardship; Now Airing 9 a.m. to Noon ET
PHILADELPHIA, Pa.—Beginning today, June 1, the "Financial Issues" radio and television program, led by financial expert and nationally syndicated host Dan Celia, will add a third hour, now airing from 9 a.m. to noon ET.
"In these economically turbulent times, there is no shortage of headlines to discuss," Celia said. "Those who want to honor God with their finances are especially interested in what they can do in this market to not only have impact here on Earth, but eternally. It's exciting to be able to reach even more listeners and viewers with a third hour of 'Financial Issues,' and we are grateful to God for the growth He has allowed us to enjoy."
"All of us at Financial Issues Stewardship Ministries take seriously our mission to help people across the country embark on a journey of financial freedom and biblical stewardship," he added. "One of the greatest charges any of us have is to be good stewards of all that God has entrusted to us."
All three hours of "Financial Issues" now stream on the ministry's own YouTube Channel, Financial Issues with Dan Celia. The ministry also recently introduced the new Financial Issues live-streaming app; learn more here. Besides more than 630 radio stations, "Financial Issues" is seen on the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) television network, reaching 45 million households, BizTV, which reaches millions more in major markets, and Dove-TV in the Pacific Northwest. To view Celia's recent show clips, click here.
In his ministry, Financial Issues Stewardship Ministries (FISM,www.financialissues.org), Celia hones in on biblical investing and advises Christians how they can honor God by choosing companies that are not associated with immoral or anti-biblical issues, such as having stake in abortion, pornography, same-sex marriage or other matters that should be very concerning to Christians. Through FISM, Celia educates investors by researching the organizations that corporations support and then encourages biblically responsible investing so that God is honored.
Read more about Celia, FISM and the "Financial Issues" program here. Visit the Financial Issues Stewardship Ministries web site at www.financialissues.org, its Facebook page, on YouTube at Financial Issues with Dan Celia or on Twitter @financialissues. Download the new Financial Issues app here.
To interview Dan Celia of Financial Issues Stewardship Ministries, contact Beth Harrison, 610-584-1096, ext. 104, Media@HamiltonStrategies.com, or Deborah Hamilton at 215-815-7716 or 610-584-1096, ext. 102.


text:
IBWLC is not affiliated with the Ida B. Wells family or any other endeavor bearing her name.
Black Women's Economic & Political Power Breakfast
Thank you to everyone who helped make our 2022 Annual Black Women's Economic & Political Power Breakfast December 9 a success!
Best wishes on the new year and stay tuned for our 2023 activities.
The purpose of Ida's Legacy is to develop the next generation of progressive African-American women candidates who are willing to speak truth to power and work in the best interests of their constituents, keep voters informed and engage political activists around public policy decisions that positively or adversely impact their respective communities.
Ida's Legacy is inspired by the bravery and selflessness of Ida B. Wells-Barnett, whose advocacy for quality education, a free black press, women's rights, civil rights and the safety and protection of all American citizens is still relevant.
Ida's Legacy will follow in the footsteps of its namesake to build a political power base of African-American women in the ongoing pursuit to improve the quality of life of marginalized people and communities.
The purpose of Ida's Legacy is to develop the next generation of progressive African-American women candidates who are willing to speak truth to power...Read more here
Ida B. Wells was the very definition of a renaissance woman–knowledgeable and proficient in more than one field. Born ahead of her time, she was an activist, crusader, disrupter, feminist, journalist and strategist. Despite being born a slave, Wells knew no boundaries...Read more here
In the 2016 presidential election, 94 percent of African-American women voted for Hillary Clinton to become the first woman President of the United States. In 2008, 68.8 percent of black women went to the polls to elect Barack Obama as the first black President. Click here now.
Visit our online store which features a number of shirts, sweaters, cups, and other items that show support for Ida's Legacy. Click here now.
Support Ida's Legacy
Ida B. Wells Legacy Committee
3533 S. King Dr. Unit 2S
office@idaslegacy.com


Solid Bronze Ring Pull for shutters, cabinets, windows.
Solid Bronze material is great for use in coastal areas or anywhere a rustic old world design is desired. From our "Solid Bronze Collection".
Mounting plate measures 2-1/2" tall by 2" wide.


text:
Cleveland Peace Action
Stopping violence, war, and terrorism trough peaceful, just, and democratic means
Travels With A Peace Flag
Fund Our Communities
Fund Our Communities Sign-Up
Move the Money
Influence Your Gov't
You are here: Home / Travels With A Peace Flag / Memorial Day Weekend Busy For This Vet – Indians game, Chagrin Falls, Shaker Heights
May 28, 2018 by Peace Action Cleveland
Memorial Day Weekend Busy For This Vet – Indians game, Chagrin Falls, Shaker Heights
I was able to squeeze in an additional opportunity to promote peace this weekend, thanks to the World Champion Houston Astros being in town to play the Indians in a three-game series that began Friday evening. My venue was the intersection of East Ninth Street and Carnegie Avenue, by Progressive Field, my typical hangout when greeting baseball fans "from both sides of the aisle." The location is perfect for conveying the peace message to considerable vehicle traffic as well as pedestrian traffic. It was an especially-busy high-traffic evening because the Celtics were in town to play the Cavaliers in their sixth game of the Eastern Conference Finals at the neighboring Quicken Loans Arena.
I hadn't been at the intersection since the Indians home opener on Friday, April 6th, when I was joined by my new Michigan friend Jonny Lewis, who came to town to meet me and see me "in action." (Jonny, a writer, actor and director, has a number of anti-war video shorts on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5K2EVpBgxt4KIKjT6tWrAQ)
As usual several people thanked me for my service and a few said they liked my flag. However, the majority ignored me or offered a terse, robotic "Hi" or "Hello" when I gave them an upbeat "Hi!"
One young man on a bike stopped to chat. Turns out he's an army veteran who was a bit uncomfortable with my presence. He asked why I was there and I said, "To promote peace. I'm trying to get across the idea that some war veterans are pro-peace. We're not all cold-blooded killers, rapists and arsonists."
Referring to the Vietnam War, he mentioned satchel charges being among weapons that killed Americans and I said, "That wouldn't have happened if we hadn't stuck our noses into Vietnam's civil war in the first place."
The young veteran said we were in Vietnam to stop "the spread of communism" and I quickly countered, "We were sent there to kill communists and now Vietnam, a communist country, is our ally against China. Bottom line: more than 58,000 American lives wasted…3.4 million Vietnamese men women and children blown to bloody bits and burned to death by our weapons of mass destruction."
He brought up the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and I provided a brief history lesson. "We provoked Japan to attack us. In the summer of 1941 we instituted a complete and total embargo on oil and scrap iron going to Japan. We were strangling that country economically and out of desperation, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. We put the embargoes in place because American companies were afraid Japan, after invading China in the 1930s, would take control of the tin, oil and rubber resources in southeast Asia–commodities important to American companies." I encouraged the veteran on at least two occasions during our conversation to read Dr. Howard Zinn's book "A People's History of the United States," which was my source for the information.
The conversation was friendly and we shook hands before he left. He thanked me for my perspective. I said, "Differences of opinion make life interesting. Life would be pretty boring if everybody agreed on everything."
The next day, Saturday, was my traditional gig behind the West Side Market, with about a half-dozen other proponents of peace. A few young people from China and Taiwan asked if they could take my picture with them and of course I happily obliged, encouraging them to circulate the photos as much as possible.
A middle age couple, each with a camera, also took photos. I said to the woman, "Some people have said to me, about my flag, 'Where are the stars?' or 'There are supposed to be stars on that flag.'" I told the woman that when people make such comments, I say, "The stars are in hiding. They are ashamed, embarrassed and disgusted by all the death, destruction, instability and chaos we have caused in the Middle East, beginning with our invasion of Afghanistan in October, 2001 and then Iraq in March, 2003. Millions upon millions of refugees, and it all started with us."
The woman was visibly stunned, as I noticed her jaw drop. She was shocked.
On Sunday, for about the 10th straight year, I stepped into the Blossom Time Festival Parade in Chagrin Falls. Usually I walk in front of the Chagrin Valley Little Theater entry, which this year was publicizing the play "Sister Act." However, this year I opted to walk in front of a late-model yellow VW beetle convertible which displayed a magnetic peace symbol on the hood, along with other magnets, channeling the 1969 Woodstock concert, but promoting "Woofstock," which is a dog rescue effort.
As you might imagine, there was minimal applause among the hundreds of spectators in conservative Chagrin Falls as I walked down East Washington street. However, one woman walked out of the crowd and approached me, thanking me for my service. Another woman approached me from the other side of the street, but said nothing, simply briefly applauding my presence. I told her, "Thank you. You made my day."
I heard boos on two occasions but simply waved at my antagonists.
Walking back up the East Washington Street hill to fetch my car, a woman with her two young daughters asked to take my picture with her teenage daughter and her 12-year-old daughter. Mom liked my message and we talked about the "fear-mongering propaganda" we hear from politicians.
Farther up the hill a spectator and I chatted for about five minutes. He identified with my message and during our conversation I mentioned Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, noting that "A week before he accepted the prize he ordered the deployment of 30,000 troops into Afghanistan.
"What a sick joke that was!"
My blood was already pretty warm while wearing my 50-year-old wool and polyester uniform on a July-like day when an obnoxious driver in a big black SUV stopped at a traffic light started razzing me, bringing my plasma close to the boiling point.
My immediate response, as is often the case with obstreperous folk, was, "Thank you. You're very kind. You must be a Christian, a follower of the Prince of Peace. Do you think Jesus would like my flag?"
He said something indicating Christ would not appreciate my flag. Yeah, right. Sure.
My adversary really got my Irish up when he alleged I was not a war veteran. The light changed and as he started to drive away, I shouted as loud as I could: "VIETNAM!! YOU BEEN IN A WAR? I DIDN'T THINK SO!"
Isn't it interesting that those who support war the most have never been in one. What a funny coincidence.
Today, Memorial Day, I stood in the shade of a tree not far from Shaker Heights City Hall, waiting for the parade to start. For the first time in about 10 years of joining the parade, I unfurled my flag. Normally I do not do that until I step into the parade. A woman who walked by with her youngster said to me, "Were you in Chagrin yesterday." I said, "Yeah. I get around."
Shortly before the parade started a man walked over to me, shook my hand, thanked me for my service and said, "I like your flag." I said, "Thank you. I wish everyone did." Turns out the gentleman was Jonathan Kuehnle, principal of Shaker Heights High School.
In past years I walked in front of people from Christ Episcopal Church and Plymouth Church, since members of those congregations are also fans of the Prince of Peace. But neither church was represented in the parade. So I decided to step in behind supporters of David Weiss, who is running for mayor of Shaker Heights. Driving behind me was a mammoth shiny like-new Shaker Heights garbage truck, which some parade observers no doubt would like to see me inhabit–but not in the driver's seat, if you catch my drift.
One elderly spectator along the parade route stepped up to me and patted my upper left arm, saying, "I'm glad to see you. I was afraid you wouldn't be here."
On the walk back home after the parade, a young mom pushing a stroller asked to take my picture. She said my presence was "a powerful image." I said, "Yeah, people won't soon forget it, especially those who don't like what they see."
Oddly enough, a minute or two later a spectator who became a nemesis some 10 years ago when I first stepped into the Shaker Parade started heckling me. He was one of those malcontents who had not forgotten my "powerful image" over the years.
We went back and forth for about five minutes and it was clear the poor man was on a different planet. He did not have his facts straight and his perspective was simply delusional. He was impossible to reason with, although we found common ground in that Hitler had to be stopped.
As we walked away from each other I cheerily shouted, "See you next year!"
He said nothing. No surprise there. I'm sure he's not looking forward to seeing me next year.
Filed Under: Travels With A Peace Flag Tagged With: veterans, vietnam, war
STOPPING VIOLENCE, WAR, AND TERRORISM THROUGH PEACEFUL, JUST, AND DEMOCRATIC MEANS
Get Involved / Email & Newsletter Signup
Every Saturday Lou is at West Side Market Peace Vigil
December 22, 2019 By Peace Action Cleveland
Don Bryant talks with Lou and others at weekly vigil. View on facebook.
Add me to the email list Mail me a newsletter I'd like to volunteer Please call me
StateAL AlabamaAK AlaskaAZ ArizonaAR ArkansasCA CaliforniaCO ColoradoCT ConnecticutDE DelawareDC District of ColumbiaFL FloridaGA GeorgiaHI HawaiiID IdahoIL IllinoisIN IndianaIA IowaKS KansasKY KentuckyLA LouisianaME MaineMD MarylandMA MassachusettsMI MichiganMN MinnesotaMS MississippiMO MissouriMT MontanaNE NebraskaNV NevadaNH New HampshireNJ New JerseyNM New MexicoNY New YorkNC North CarolinaND North DakotaOH OhioOK OklahomaOR OregonPA PennsylvaniaRI Rhode IslandSC South CarolinaSD South DakotaTN TennesseeTX TexasUT UtahVT VermontVA VirginiaWA WashingtonWV West VirginiaWI WisconsinWY Wyoming
2592 W. 14th St. Suite 109
View clevepeace's profile on Facebook
View @clevepeace's profile on Twitter
© 2001 - 2020 Cleveland Peace Action · All Rights Reserved · Login · Design & Hosting by M.M. Web