{Darrell Cook}, executive director of Mountainland Association of Governments, said if the dedicated bus system linking Utah Valley University, Brigham Young University and Provo’s East Bay works as expected, the system could, in time, be replaced by a light-rail system.

There would seem to be a natural progression for public transit that city planners could prepare for that would allow for public transit to be tailored to the current needs of a community with a defined growth potential as ridership needs increase over time. With advanced planning it should be relatively painless to meet expanding needs by starting early without investing prematurely in expensive systems.

The transition from BRT to light-rail is a last step along one line of progression, but I think there may be two progressions available. There is the regional transportation which starts with simple bus service and graduates to more complex bus service (with BRT and dedicated bus lanes etc.) before converting dedicated bus lanes into light rail - assuming that the growth and ridership supports each successive transition. Then there is the longer range transportation between metropolitan areas which starts with shuttles or express buses and eventually graduates to commuter rail or even high-speed rail. There may even be a step between the express/shuttle phase and the commuter rail phase that can be filled with DMU’s.

If early development incorporated the possibilities of future transit options then it might be easier and less costly to build and maintain transit commensurate with population.

{Al Gore} said the goal of producing all of the nation’s electricity from “renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources” within 10 years is not some farfetched vision, although he said it would require fundamental changes in political thinking and personal expectations.

“This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative.”

I would love to be proven wrong on this, but I’m skeptical of the 10 year time-frame. The only real question in my mind is, will Barack Obama endorse this idea before I publish this post?

I guess my personal expectations are among those that he predicted would require fundamental changes.

The more I think about such technologies the more optimistic I become that human enginuity will eventually allow is to lower our energy usage and raise our energy production from clean and limteless resources such as wind, solar, and gravity (hydro-electric dams which generate power from the force of falling water) to the point that we will no londer need to rely on fossil fuels. Such a transition should also be welcomed by anyone who thinks we have passed peak oil production or who is worried about manmade global warming.

When I couldn’t find the month-old story on Google News I registered with Digg and submitted the story myself (I had already found the link that leads to an article stub when coming from the sites of mere mortals like myself) - through Digg the link produced instant access to a valuable story.

When I learned that Wordpress would be adding native tag support in version 2.3 I decided that I would create my plugin to work with tags after they arrived. Life got busy so I never worked on the plugin until version 2.5 came out (partly because I wanted to convert the post_meta “keywords” from DRPP to tags). I finally buckled down and created my Similarity plugin this week. I have tested it on version 2.3.3 and version 2.5 (I assume it will work with any version of 2.3).

Latest version: 1.1 (May 1, 2008)
This version adds a randomizer in case there are too many posts that are all equally related.

To install it simply unzip the file linked above and save it in your plugins directory under wp-content. In the plugin manager activate the plugin. Settings for the plugin may be altered under the Similarity page of the Options menu (version 2.3) or Settings menu (version 2.5).

Options include:

• • Number of posts to show - this is a maximum, it won’t invent connections that don’t exist, set it to 0 (or less) and it will display all matches.
  • Default Display if no matches - if there are no matches this is what will be displayed, this is not displayed if there are matches, but fewer than the set maximum.
  • Text and Codes before the list - assuming you want to do a list this is where you would place the <ul> or <ol> You may also place any other code you would like to have preceeding the list.
  • Text and Codes after the list - this would be the place for </ul> or </ol> You may also place any other code you would like to have following the list.
  • Output template - this would be where you place the <li> tags. There are also 4 template tags you may use (in any configuration you can imagine) to define how the results are displayed
    • {link} - provides a link - equivelent to <a href=”{url}”>{title}</a>
    • {strength} - outputs the calculated degree of relatedness
    • {url} is the permalink for the related post
    • {title} is the title for the related post

The plugin allows for two function calls anywhere in your page templates (both use the same options):

• • <?php sim_by_tag(); ?> - determines similarity based on the tags applied to the posts
  • <?php sim_by_cat(); ?> - determines similarity based on the categories assigned to the posts

I got an email as part of an email list I didn’t know existed with the announcement about Mr. Barr. As soon as I located the way to unsubscribe I visited the campaign website. I decided to write about it because of how familiar some of the features were - they looked like they had been lifted off of the Ron Paul website. Some of the widgets he had looked like leftovers from the Mike Huckabee website. It turns out that the firm that designed Bob Barr’s site also designed Ron Paul’s site. (I have no information on who designed the Huckabee website.)

Unless Obama is convicted in October of having McCain assassinated in September there is no way we will be hearing about Barr in November. If he, or any other third party candidate, gets into any debates he will be largely ignored as every minor candidate is (as determined by the media) during each debate where they are allowed a backstage pass - I mean a place at the debate.

Later, the discussion began to focus on blogs and media and I realized that running a blog as an elected official amounts to a certain degree of personal transparency. It indicates a willingness to put yourself out there on record where others can challenge you through comments and other responses. It also provides original source information about your positions where you can explain yourself without a media filter. This can prove very beneficial to any honest public official because anyone who is taking the time to look will be able to see how well you do at sticking to principles or how thoughtful you are in correcting a mistaken opinion as you gain more information.

For those who would say anything to get elected, that inconsistency would become apparent quickly when they blatantly ignore the positions they espoused on the campaign trail or else offer up lame excuses for changing their positions.

Of course blogging politicians will not solve all our problems, and those who do blog are not all perfect, but that willingness to leave a lasting trail and be held accountable is definitely suggestive of a good candidate and a good public servant.

I have been trying, with pretty good success, to be consistent at writing here. I had hope of ensuring that my blog would be consistent enough to hold the interest of those who read it, and attract responses to continue refining my thinking. At one point I had an average of more than 2 comments for every post on the blog. That may not sound like much to some people, but considering the large number of posts from when I started the blog where there was nobody to respond I felt pretty good about that. Then I went through and added something above 100 posts from my earlier blogging and the comment count was again well below the 2:1 ratio I had achieved - I’m almost back to that ration thanks to much feedback from a half a dozen regular readers.

I have recently recognized that I have been holding back somewhat because of that relatively arbitrary goal (the 2:1 comment ratio). I have avoided writing about things that don’t feel very current or likely to generate some interest. I have decided that being picky is not my strong suit and I would like to make more strides on another goal that I had made - to go through all the founding documents (especially the Federalist Papers). I have decided to push for two posts per day until I achieve that goal - one covering Federalist papers, and another like what I have been posting regularly (that way I won’t put off studying one of the Federalist papers just because I saw something interesting to write. Hopefully that study will make my other writing and thinking deeper and more grounded in principle.

Wish me luck.

The only argument that I can imagine in favor of the straight party option on a ballot is that someone might accidentally vote for the wrong candidate when they mean to vote for candidates from a single party. Imagine that they vote D, D, D, D, D, D, R, D where that R was a candidate for the school board that they accidentally mixed up the name since there was less advertising for that race.

This is where technology can help us. Since we have already moved to touch-screen voting machines (here in Utah as well as many other places) we could change the straight party selection so that instead of casting our votes for us that selection would make the candidates from our chosen party stand out (change color, larger font - there are plenty of options) but the voter would still be expected to select the individual candidates for their votes to be cast in each race.