Apparently the good folks at Twitter don’t think we’re smart enough to make our own decision as to whether or not we want to see @replies from the people we follow that are directed towards people we don’t follow.

Twitter Blog: Small Settings Update

We’ve updated the Notices section of Settings to better [...]]]>

Apparently the good folks at Twitter don’t think we’re smart enough to make our own decision as to whether or not we want to see @replies from the people we follow that are directed towards people we don’t follow.

Twitter Blog: Small Settings Update

We’ve updated the Notices section of Settings to better reflect how folks are using Twitter regarding replies. Based on usage patterns and feedback, we’ve learned most people want to see when someone they follow replies to another person they follow—it’s a good way to stay in the loop. However, receiving one-sided fragments via replies sent to folks you don’t follow in your timeline is undesirable. Today’s update removes this undesirable and confusing option.

Confused? That’s understandable and exactly why we made the update.

The problem is that is how many of us find new people to follow, by seeing who our friends are replying to, then clicking through to follow the conversation.

During the process of writing this blog post, @biz updated their post to state the following:

Spotting new folks in tweets is an interesting way to check out new profiles and find new people to follow. Despite this update, you’ll still see mentions or references linking to people you don’t follow. For example, you’ll continue to see, “Ev meeting with @biz about work stuff” even if you don’t follow @biz. We’ll be introducing better ways to discover and follow interesting accounts as we release more features in this space.

So if it’s not a direct @reply (where @ is the first character of the tweet), then you’ll still see the mention … but taking away our choice is still lame. Bring back #openreplies. Turn off @replies by default if it causes too much of a server load, but give us the option to see all posts (even @replies) from the people we follow.

Chaffetz won’t earmark road funds, gives state cash – Salt Lake Tribune

Washington » Rep. Jason Chaffetz plans to punt about $15 million to the Utah Department of Transportation instead of earmarking it himself, saying merit — not politics — should determine what roads get built [...]]]> … I think he’s doing the right thing, here:

Chaffetz won’t earmark road funds, gives state cash – Salt Lake Tribune

Washington » Rep. Jason Chaffetz plans to punt about $15 million to the Utah Department of Transportation instead of earmarking it himself, saying merit — not politics — should determine what roads get built with federal cash.

The move is rare for a House member and a first for a Utah congressman.

“I don’t need to have all of the control. In fact, I don’t want it,” said Chaffetz, a Republican who railed against earmarks when he ran for office and who has refused to ask for one since joining the House in January.

Congress is expected to pass a new transportation bill later this year that would give every member of the House a pot of money to spend on “high priority projects” in their areas. Federal lawmakers have until May 8 to submit their pet projects and a transportation subcommittee is holding a hearing today to discuss these earmarks.

It’s common for cities and counties to make direct pitches to members of Congress for the funds. But Chaffetz said it makes more sense to allow transportation officials to determine what the biggest needs are.

Now, some people in the blogosphere are jumping all over Chaffetz for going back on his word about earmarks, stating that this is, in fact, one of those earmarks that he’s against.

But I disagree.

According to the Office of Management and Budget an earmark is defined as follows:

OMB defines earmarks as funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

• Earmarks vs. Unrequested Funding. At the broadest level, unrequested funding is any additional funding provided by the Congress — in either bill or report language — for activities/projects/programs not requested by the Administration. Earmarks are a subset of unrequested funding. The distinction between earmarks and unrequested funding is programmatic control or lack thereof of in the allocation process.
• Earmarks and Programmatic “Control.” If the congressional direction accompanying a project/program/funding in an appropriations bill or report or other communication purports to affect the ability of the Administration to control critical aspects of the awards process for the project/program/funding, this IS an earmark.

  Note: The definition of “control critical aspects” includes specification of the location or recipient or otherwise circumventing the merit-based or competitive allocation process and may be program specific. However, if the Congress adds funding and the Administration retains control over the awards process for the project/program/funding, it is NOT an earmark; it is unrequested funding.

• Earmarks Include:
  1. Add-ons. If the Administration asks for $100 million for formula grants, for example, and Congress provides $110 million and places restrictions (such as site-specific locations) on the additional $10 million, the additional $10 million is counted as an earmark.
  2. Carve-outs. If the Administration asks for $100 million and Congress provides $100 million but places restrictions on some portion of the funding, the restricted portion is counted as an earmark.
  3. Funding provisions that do not name a recipient, but are so specific that only one recipient can qualify for funding.

Source Earmark Definition.

Normally, the way the process works is this. Congress and the Department of Transportation work together to come up with an appropriations bill. Each state and each district within that state are allotted a certain amount of funds for projects within the district.

Cities and counties within the district then lobby their representative to try to get certain specific projects funded with these Federal dollars. This is the earmark process.

What Chaffetz is doing is saying, “I’m not going to participate in the earmark process; I’m going to let the Utah Department of Transportation decide what the best projects in my district are.” Since these Federal dollars will most likely be used to fund the widening of I-15 in Utah County (a project that is already budgeted with state dollars), this will most likely have the effect of freeing up $15-million in state funds that can be used for other projects anywhere in the state, not just in the Utah 3rd.

And personally, I think this is the right thing to do …

But some in the local progressive community are using this opportunity to essentially call Chaffetz a hypocrite, by over simplifying and stating that any money coming to the Utah 3rd through this process is an earmark. To me, this is a prime example of what Sarah Palin (another person who scares the crap out of me) calls “Gotcha” politics. People are looking for any reason to call out a politician with whom they disagree and will point to the smallest of issues to say “Gotcha! I knew you were a hypocrite!”; except it doesn’t fly in this particular case.

Representative Chaffetz: you still scare the crap out me … and I still disagree with 99% of your views. But you are doing the right thing on THIS particular issue; something I doubt that Jim Matheson (Democratic Representative in the Utah 2nd) will do as well.

Joe Andrew Jumps from Clinton to Obama

Former Democratic Party leader Joe Andrew announced he is switching sides in the primary battle, from longtime ally Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama.

Andrew’s announcement came without warning to either candidate. The Indiana superdelegate released a long letter this morning explaining [...]]]> From the Washington Post:

Joe Andrew Jumps from Clinton to Obama

Former Democratic Party leader Joe Andrew announced he is switching sides in the primary battle, from longtime ally Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama.

Andrew’s announcement came without warning to either candidate. The Indiana superdelegate released a long letter this morning explaining his decision, while anticipating Clinton “attack dogs” would seek their revenge.

“You can be for someone without being against someone else,” Andrew stressed in the letter, using italics for emphasis. “You can unite behind a candidate and a vision for America without rejecting another candidate and their vision, because in real life, opposed to party politics, we Democrats are on the same side.”

But as the contest drags on, he added, “it is clear that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue” a Democratic battle that threatens to strengthen the presumptive GOP nominee, Sen. John McCain. He said he would use his influence within the party to press uncommitted superdelegates to sign on with Obama as soon as possible. Speaking to reporters by conference call, Andrew said, “We need to try to stop this process now.”

And, of course, Andrew is right about the Clinton “attack dogs” coming out, in a response letter from several other former DNC officials released this morning:

More than 30 million Americans have already cast a ballot in our Party’s nomination contest and millions more will go to the polls between now and June 3. The record numbers of Americans who are registering and coming out to vote reflect the excitement about our candidates and the strength that our nominee will have behind him or her in the fall. The primary process will make our nominee stronger and better prepared to take on John McCain. Our Party only gains from having more voters –- including more new voters -– all across our country.

We encourage you to continue to fully consider Hillary Clinton and the fact that she is qualified and accomplished. Too much is at stake for us not to consider deeply the choice we must make for our Party and our country.

I’m trying to figure out how ripping the party apart, as the Clinton campaign continues to do on a daily basis will “make the nominee stronger and better prepared to take on John McCain” … the fact remains that over the past couple of months, both Hillary’s and Obama’s approval ratings have been dropping, and John McCain’s ratings have been improving.

The record number of new voters are young voters … voters who are overwhelmingly supporting Barack Obama. Do you really think they’ll stick around and vote for Hillary if they see the candidate who wins the popular vote, more delegates, and more states (including states which traditionally go Republican) NOT get the nomination?

Republican voters in states like Idaho, Wyoming and Utah will never vote for Hillary Clinton. These same voters may well cross party lines to vote for Barack Obama, because they see what the Republican party has done over the past 7+ years and they are ready for change as well … but if the choice is between Clinton and McCain, the vast majority of voters will stick to the traditional party lines … and the Republican party will carry these states yet again.

Barack Obama can turn more traditionally “red” states into swing states. Hillary Clinton cannot. And Obama would still carry the traditional “blue” states … and the traditional swing states would still be in play; there’s no real evidence that if they are leaning towards the Democratic party now that they’d change sides because Obama is the candidate.

After the last 20 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush politics, the last thing this country needs is another President who is as divisive as [...]]]> I’m sorry, but my dislike of Hillary is visceral. Oh … I’d vote for her come November if she is the candidate, but I’d rather have a less-experienced President whom is actually inspiring.

After the last 20 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush politics, the last thing this country needs is another President who is as divisive as Hillary would be.

I think that Barack Obama could actually bring the country back together, which to my mind is far more important than anything else; and if he chooses his Vice President and Cabinet wisely, he could be an incredible President on top, which would be a bonus!

Hopefully, this doesn’t make me a “Yes We Can” drone.

At least one of my friends disagrees, stating:

I would rather have experience rather than the empty shell of inspiration. Inspiration can’t lead a country. Divisive or not — the woman is intelligent and knows whose buttons to push and when. All of politics has to do with divisiveness.

I certainly respect that opinion, but I disagree … not about Hillary’s intelligence, because she is definitely an extremely smart woman; but in my mind, good politicians know how to navigate the divisiveness to build something approaching a consensus. They know how to compromise.

That’s the difference between people like GWB and Ronald Reagan … I was never a Reagan supporter — I am a good little Democrat, after all — but he had a way of appealing and reaching across the aisle … and that helped him accomplish his agenda.

Bill Clinton had this ability as well, which is how he managed to balance the budget and build a budget surplus, even with (for 6 of his 8 years) a hostile Republican majority Congress; a budget surplus which was completely squandered (and then some), by the current Republican administration (and the Republican majority Congress for the first 6 years of GWB’s presidency).

I don’t think Hillary would be able to accomplish the same thing, even with a friendly Democrat majority Congress.

But we’ll see. The best part about this year’s electoral process is that it is encouraging people to think and to get involved. People are excited about participating again … and that bodes well, no matter who is the candidate on either side, and no matter who is ultimately elected.

My opinion, anyway.

I’ve also realized that I need to start making some changes in my life if I want [...]]]> Going through the process that I have been over the past several months, one of the things that I’ve discovered (not that it was much of a surprise), is that I’m rather resistant to change. I hate it.

I’ve also realized that I need to start making some changes in my life if I want to move forward and not stagnate. Unfortunately; part of this process was getting divorced, which I still wish wasn’t necessary, but maybe it was.

Another is paying more focused attention to my career growth …

So, to that end, I’ve contacted a recruiter (on Kim’s recommendation) to help me find a new job; sent my résumé off to her today.

So I’m making that first small step towards change … and as K’ung fu-tze once said, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”