<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for johnsusek.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://johnsusek.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://johnsusek.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 May 2010 23:30:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Trans-American Passenger Network by John</title>
		<link>http://johnsusek.com/2010/05/trans-american-passenger-network/comment-page-1/#comment-25</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 May 2010 23:30:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://johnsusek.com/?p=778#comment-25</guid>
		<description>A lot of these routes build on already-existing tracks. Existing agreements could be leveraged for all the issues you mention. I would be happy with just the major intra-regional connections, like Chicago to Detroit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A lot of these routes build on already-existing tracks. Existing agreements could be leveraged for all the issues you mention. I would be happy with just the major intra-regional connections, like Chicago to Detroit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Trans-American Passenger Network by dan sokol</title>
		<link>http://johnsusek.com/2010/05/trans-american-passenger-network/comment-page-1/#comment-23</link>
		<dc:creator>dan sokol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 00:40:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://johnsusek.com/?p=778#comment-23</guid>
		<description>Dream on.

Start with NIMBY, state&#039;s rights, right of way issues,etc 

It just aint gonna happen.

Dan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dream on.</p>
<p>Start with NIMBY, state&#8217;s rights, right of way issues,etc </p>
<p>It just aint gonna happen.</p>
<p>Dan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on About by Tuesday Velde</title>
		<link>http://johnsusek.com/about/comment-page-1/#comment-16</link>
		<dc:creator>Tuesday Velde</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:54:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://johnsusek.com/?page_id=2#comment-16</guid>
		<description>Hi, I had a concern about your textures listed on  http://www.johnsolo.net/tex/tex.php    As you stated &quot;I have also been asked about licensing on the textures. Consider them free to use for all non-commercial purposes. Please just credit me in your documentation or somewhere on your website.&quot;  However, I know these being used in Second Life, by Browse Items by Jewell Lamourfou (avatar name), she makes textures and sells them to other residents to make stuff with.  A texture pack usually runs around $1.00-5.00 (Limited Editions run that) USD a pack.  Her woods have been very popular and I imagine they are big part of her income from her store.  I was shocked to see she is not in compliance with your terms of service/end user license agreement, yet has one of her own on these. 

https://www.xstreetsl.com/modules.php?name=Marketplace&amp;MerchantID=26753</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, I had a concern about your textures listed on  <a href="http://www.johnsolo.net/tex/tex.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.johnsolo.net/tex/tex.php</a>    As you stated &#8220;I have also been asked about licensing on the textures. Consider them free to use for all non-commercial purposes. Please just credit me in your documentation or somewhere on your website.&#8221;  However, I know these being used in Second Life, by Browse Items by Jewell Lamourfou (avatar name), she makes textures and sells them to other residents to make stuff with.  A texture pack usually runs around $1.00-5.00 (Limited Editions run that) USD a pack.  Her woods have been very popular and I imagine they are big part of her income from her store.  I was shocked to see she is not in compliance with your terms of service/end user license agreement, yet has one of her own on these. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.xstreetsl.com/modules.php?name=Marketplace&amp;MerchantID=26753" rel="nofollow">https://www.xstreetsl.com/modules.php?name=Marketplace&amp;MerchantID=26753</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Electoral College Reform Map by mvymvy</title>
		<link>http://johnsusek.com/2010/01/electoral-college-reform-map/comment-page-1/#comment-10</link>
		<dc:creator>mvymvy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:59:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://johnsusek.com/?p=458#comment-10</guid>
		<description>How do you feel about . . .

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). 

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just  undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). 

The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded. 

The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill. 

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state&#039;s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%;  in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota – 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.  Support is strong in every partisan and demographic group surveyed.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon,  and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How do you feel about . . .</p>
<p>The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). </p>
<p>Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just  undecided voters in a handful of swing states.</p>
<p>The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes&#8211;that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). </p>
<p>The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded. </p>
<p>The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill. </p>
<p>In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state&#8217;s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado&#8211; 68%, Iowa &#8211;75%, Michigan&#8211; 73%, Missouri&#8211; 70%, New Hampshire&#8211; 69%, Nevada&#8211; 72%, New Mexico&#8211; 76%, North Carolina&#8211; 74%, Ohio&#8211; 70%, Pennsylvania &#8212; 78%, Virginia &#8212; 74%, and Wisconsin &#8212; 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware &#8211;75%, Maine &#8212; 77%, Nebraska &#8212; 74%, New Hampshire &#8211;69%, Nevada &#8212; 72%, New Mexico &#8212; 76%, Rhode Island &#8212; 74%, and Vermont &#8212; 75%;  in Southern and border states: Arkansas &#8211;80%, Kentucky &#8212; 80%, Mississippi &#8211;77%, Missouri &#8212; 70%, North Carolina &#8212; 74%, and Virginia &#8212; 74%; and in other states polled: California &#8212; 70%, Connecticut &#8212; 74% , Massachusetts &#8212; 73%, Minnesota – 75%, New York &#8212; 79%, Washington &#8212; 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.  Support is strong in every partisan and demographic group surveyed.</p>
<p>The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon,  and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes &#8212; 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.</p>
<p>See <a href="http://www.NationalPopularVote.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.NationalPopularVote.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Cover Showcase: Puttin&#8217; on the Ritz by Mary</title>
		<link>http://johnsusek.com/2010/01/cover-showcase-puttin-on-the-ritz/comment-page-1/#comment-9</link>
		<dc:creator>Mary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:59:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://johnsusek.com/?p=395#comment-9</guid>
		<description>Very interesting-- you won&#039;t find anything earlier than Harry Richman, 1930 is really early for workable sound, and this Broadway variety style is what made talking pictures work for the big studios. Though hindsight has made Busby Berkeley the winner  for depression musicals on films, &quot;Puttin&#039; on the Ritz&quot; is actually a few years ahead of his standard productions.  
I&#039;d say the Leningrad Cowboys get the original attitude of this song best, it&#039;s a whole lot more hardcore sarcasm than dreamy or about spending money, and from a time when the super rich were becoming permanent and the average guy was expecting better but losing ground. 
But though we might see art in some of these renditions now, the song and the movie were entirely about selling tickets, sheet music and records. So your putting the original up against these music videos is an insightful cultural comment all the way around. 
               Then there&#039;s always the best-sung version ever-- Peter Boyle in &quot;Young Frankenstein&quot;!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very interesting&#8211; you won&#8217;t find anything earlier than Harry Richman, 1930 is really early for workable sound, and this Broadway variety style is what made talking pictures work for the big studios. Though hindsight has made Busby Berkeley the winner  for depression musicals on films, &#8220;Puttin&#8217; on the Ritz&#8221; is actually a few years ahead of his standard productions.<br />
I&#8217;d say the Leningrad Cowboys get the original attitude of this song best, it&#8217;s a whole lot more hardcore sarcasm than dreamy or about spending money, and from a time when the super rich were becoming permanent and the average guy was expecting better but losing ground.<br />
But though we might see art in some of these renditions now, the song and the movie were entirely about selling tickets, sheet music and records. So your putting the original up against these music videos is an insightful cultural comment all the way around.<br />
               Then there&#8217;s always the best-sung version ever&#8211; Peter Boyle in &#8220;Young Frankenstein&#8221;!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
