Hankster Summer Friday: Live-blogging Friday Afternoon July 23, 2010

5:09 pm -- Ok, one more thing -- isn't that the way on Friday nite???  You packed up your stuff, turned off your computer, and your boss calls.... Not a problem! Here's the deal:

There is a New York City Charter Revision Commission hearing in Harlem on MONDAY -- yes, you got it -- Monday, July 26 at Adam Clayton Powell Jr. State Office Building, 163 West 125th St. 8th Floor -- Bring ID and be there or be - well, you know the drill.....

PS -- boy I love hyperlinks!!!
Have a good weekend, try to stay cool!
Ciao!
The Hankster



4:55 pm -- Now concluding Hankster Summer Friday -- going off the air. Thanks for the input. One last reminder to check out Evan's post on The Hankster "Party Politics from a Psychological Perspective" and Damon Eris' post on Poli-Tea "Political Psychology and the Perversion of Political Representation Under the Conditions of the Two-Party State" [this is why I love Poli-Tea!!]


4:25 pm -- ok, we're back. So, here's another burning issue:

Sometimes people ask me why the fonts are so inconsistent on The Hankster, and I usually say it's because of the Two Party Domination. Personally I don't like it. Some other folks don't either. But it could also be because Tech Becomes Us.... - eh?

Ahhh... I feel better now that I can include hyperlinks in my posts.



4:05pm This email just in from Sarah Lyons, spokeswoman and press secretary for independentvoting.org

This week IP Manhattan chair Cathy Stewart testified before the NYC Charter Revision Commission which is reviewing the city's charter.   In her testimony Stewart stated:  New York City is right now in the midst of something unusual and very positive. It's engaged in a public dialogue on ways to reform our electoral process and the centerpiece of that democratic dialogue is the debate on non-partisan elections... Stewart went on to praise the Citizen's Union, "which has so diligently examined the issue and so eloquently presented the urgent case for putting the question to the voters this November." She also noted that the public debate on non-partisan elections had helped to underscore the differences between the city and  state Independence Party.   You can read the entire statement below and see press coverage of her remarks. Sarah Lyons Press Secretary Independence Party of New York City www.ipnyc.org Testimony by Cathy Stewart before the NYC Charter Revision Commission. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cathy Stewart had the full attention of the Commissioners at Wednesday's Charter Revision hearing in the Bronx when she spoke candidly about the debate about nonpartisan elections, the positive role played by the Commission and Citizen's Union, and the differences between the city and state Independence Party.  Daily News blogger Celeste Katz previewed her testimony. Watch video of Cathy Stewart's testimony here. Testimony of Cathy L. Stewart To the New York City Charter Revision Commission July 21, 2010 Good evening. I'm Cathy Stewart, chair of the New York County Independence Party and I also serve as the coordinator of the New York City Independence Party. New York City is right now in the midst of something unusual and very positive. It's engaged in a public dialogue on ways to reform our electoral process and the centerpiece of that democratic dialogue is the debate on non-partisan elections (sometimes referred to as "Top Two"). Much credit goes to Mayor Bloomberg, who set this process in motion when he convened the Charter Revision Commission. And to the Citizens Union, which has so diligently examined the issue and so eloquently presented the urgent case for putting the question to the voters this November. The Independence Party of New York City, a long time champion of a Top Two system, is gratified by this vigorous and healthy public debate. During the course of this process, many people have asked me what the difference is between the New York City Independence Party and the state Independence Party. I imagine the Commissioners have read some of the press coverage about the legal and ethical troubles engulfing our state chairman Frank MacKay. The public debate on Top Two in New York City has helped to underscore the difference between the city and state Independence Party. For the city party, our concern has always been the democratic reform of the political process to give more voters-including independents-the right to participate. And we thank the Mayor and the Commission for creating the opportunity for a vigorous public study of non-partisan elections. Sadly for us, this vibrant debate is in sharp contrast with the conduct of Independence Party's state chairman. Frank MacKay has spent years effectively outlawing democracy inside the party, reducing the party's agenda to the most cynical patronage and quid pro quo, and now, if press reports of the ongoing investigation by law enforcement are accurate, may also have committed criminal offenses in the name of "party building." As is well known, the Independence Party of New York City has long opposed MacKay's politics and practice. Our thanks go to the Commission which has made it possible for an evolving democratic debate that is challenging and changing the minds of many New Yorkers. We, the Independence Party of  New York City, will continue to participate in that debate and to support what is best for the people of New York City.  # # # Video Progress Report on IPNYC's campaign for Nonpartisan Elections ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On May 25th, the New York City Independence Party held its twelfth annual Spring Chairman's Reception hosted by Manhattan Chair Cathy L. Stewart.  Independent Mayor Michael Bloomberg was the special guest and the program included this short video progress report on IP's campaign to get an initiative for nonpartisan elections on the ballot for voter approval.  A new poster to build public awareness for the issue was also unveiled at the event. Watch the video.

3:54pm:  Friend d.eris at Poli-Tea sez I'd have sworn I read an article a few months back saying that the CSM went to a fully online-only model. Has it not begun, or was that wrong? Or are they only sending print editions to subscribers?

And here's the bag -- just for you doubting Thomases out there!!!!

What? You're "live-blogging" Friday afternoon?

Yes that's right, Hanksteristas. We've hit the Big Time!

And here's what's on my mind this afternoon:

I was just reading an article in the Christian Science Monitor on the train today (for non-New Yorkers, that means I was fortunate to get a seat offered to me by a young woman who might have noticed my exhaustion -- or was that exasperation? -- from walking a block and a half to the #7 train on the NYC subway line in 100 degrees and 98 percent humidity, to go to work...) about technology and how as a society we might be impacted by it. Seems there are 2 minds on this -- a pro and con. (We do live in an either/or yes or no democrat or republican gay or straight black and white kind of a world after all!) 

If memory serves, the con people think that our brains are being re-wired to scan information, not read books and not think for ourselves, and to get hung up in hyperlinks that lead to --- nowhere?.  Not sure, I forget the details of this position...

The pro people think we have more access to knowledge, surfing the internet is more like how life is where you go from one thing to the next not categorically but "naturally" or "realist-like" [my interpretation] and that everything is ok. Or we don't know if it's ok, but it's ok that we don't know whether it's ok. Or maybe it doesn't really matter. Well, now I'm not sure what they said because I had so many opinions and so little time to think about them because I had to get off at Grand Central and switch to the 6.

Nevertheless, I thought the article was really interesting and I'm wondering if I should put a hyperlink here or not.... Oh, what the hell! Here's the link to the Christian Science Monitor, but you'll have to wait for the online version of Tech Becomes Us by Gregory M. Lamb. (Yes, I cheated and got up from my desk to retrieve the hard copy from my bag of the CSM, which I now subscribe to and which comes to my mailbox -- no the one downstairs that you have to use a metal key to open... -- so that I could tell you the name of the article and the author. And no, it's not online yet.)

PS -- Does anybody think it's a marketing money-making thing?