Well a few thoughts.

- "fashion" in the sense of the latest,
seasonal "in" stuff is indeed fairly foolish. But "fashion" in the sense of high
quality, comfortable clothes that fit well - that's not foolish at all.
Seperately from how it effects how others perceive you - for me, at least, it
effects how I deal with the world. When I am in a t-shirt from a tradeshow, worn
blue jeans, scuffed shoes, and a worn coat - I project a more casual, less
serious air to the world.

In contrast, when I am in a pair of pants that
fit, are well made, and clean, an interesting yet well fitting shirt, perhaps
with a nice sweater or a good jacket, polished shoes, and a clean outercoat - I
project an air of confidence and comfort that changes how I deal with others. It
can be a subtle thing - but by reducing minor aggrevations (slightly scratchy
fabrics, shirts that don't quite fit right, etc - there is less negative and
more positive surrounding me as I deal with the world.

I have clothes
that range from Italian designer to thrift store specials - when I spend the
time to care a bit about how I appear, it follows me into the rest of my
interactions that day.

Likewise, with respect to grammar and spelling -
especially online - I find it can be a proxy for context and seriousness of the
interaction. Casual, hurried interactions with little (usually) thought given to
them tend to also be full of grammar and spelling errors (SMS messages being the
perhaps worst case of this, though it might be argued that they are evolving
into communications in a new, pidgin language)

In contrast, a well
thought out and edited email or long-form blog post/webpage shows a different
level of focus and attention than the majority of blog or email communications.
This extra step communicates to me a greater investment in the communication -
and hence in the interaction.

For example - if someone sends me a
request to forward an introduction via a service such as LinkedIn or Spoke that
is full of spelling or grammar errors (or is even just to casual for the type of
communication) I tend to refuse to forward it for the very reason that the
communication appears unprofessional.

In contrast, a well written,
clearly written, concise email, even from someone I know only loosely is much
more likley to get read and acted upon - as their attention to detail is
telling.

My first screen in any mail or email I get is often right on
the addressing of the communication - anything sent to me as "Ms. Clark" or
"Mrs. Clark" is immediately significently negatively viewed (I am male -
something that anyone who meets me or spends a little time looking me up online
should easily be able to determine). It takes a great deal to get past that
initial gaffe should it be made.

If you think of Fashion as being
related to Design - perhaps you can also rethink its seemingly lack of purpose.
Good, classic, well fitting clothes do serve purposes - they employ various
tricks to hide/emphasize different aspects of the wearer. They change how the
wearer stands, sits, perhaps walks - all of which then, in turn, change how he
(or she) interacts with the world around them.

In part this may be a
West Coast vs. Midwest thing - here in the midwest, clothing besides being
comfortable/covering is also often functional. In the winter, especially, layers
offer great protection from the elements.

Shannon

(my rule of
thumb for ties - I try to wear only ties that random strangers on the street
might stop me and remark "cool tie" - that is a piece of clothing that goes
beyond "working" with my suit to commanding positive attention - usually works
pretty well, though it can be hard to find ties that fit this some years,
especially the past few)

Well Illinois, while now seemingly a "safe" Democratic state has a long
history of electing Republicans - not clear to me by a longshot that Durbin's
seat if a safe one in 2008. (I'm an independant in Chicago)
Don't forget
that Illinois while currently having a mostly incompetant Republican party, a
Democratic governer, two democratic senators, and a major democratic mayor
(Daley) we also have the current speaker of the house (Republican Denny Hastart)
and his seat is a fairly safe one.
Something I am slightly surprised at -
has noone suggested the John Kerry be the next minority whip? I suspect in terms
of senority he is low on the totem pole, but I am also fairly certain that
Massachusetts will keep on electing Democrats for the foreseeable future.
Shannon Clark <http://searchingforthemoon.blogspot.com>
2004-11-04 06:36:03 PM link <http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/comment/2372>

1. Take ALL votes, from ALL states, break them down to as granular a level as possible,
   overlay it with GIS software.
2. Next add in voter registration data - so high vs. low voter turnout areas can be
   seen.
3. Now add in data from prior elections, including primaries (noting if primaries are
   by party or open) and start to look at ongoing trends.
4. Combine with census data to get a measure of "possible" voters vs. registered vs.
   voting.
5. Add-in economic data about households - how many children vs. parents; how many non
   -citizens; what general income ranges (including if possible whether income is earned
   or unearned.)
6. Combine with data from other sources, such as marketing data that might note car
   ownership; gun ownership; shopping habits for each region; home ownership vs. rental,
   size of home, attached vs. detached, level of property taxes etc.
   Now comes the fun stuff.
7. Add-in available housing stock, homes for sale, businesses for sale.
8. Look at infrastructure data - wireless cell phone coverage, DSL/Cable modem
   availability, etc (i.e. can the area support high tech workers)
9. Look at and add in specifics about "time of residency before you can register to
   vote" (and "time of residency before you can run for office, locally, statewide and
   from that district nationally)

The goal is to identify areas of the country - ideally in current "red" zones - where with planning a group of people of voting age, acting together, could move in and literally "take over" that district and area.

It should be possible for a relatively small number of people, acting together and taking a longterm view, could by shifting where they live and work change the electoral map to the point of electing anyone whom they might want to elect - starting at a local level but likely including state house and senate (perhaps even in some lightly populated states governers) and ideally House members (Senators might be more difficult, though possible perhaps in a few small population states.

This is a long-term, many people, very high cost plan - but it could quite literally reshape and reorganize politics in the US.

It is also not without precedent - people of similar interests have historically lived together - so why not do it specifically for a political purpose? Why not do it in a way that can shape and influence elections nationwide?

How many progressives work in careers which they can pursue anywhere in the country
with decent infrastructure?

How many people have careers which they can transfer to other regions (teachers,
police, firemen, clergy, restaurantuers, etc?

How many people feel so passionately about the future of the country that they would be
willing to move out of comfortably "blue" states and into "redder" districts?

Further, how many of those districts are so small and economically challenged that they would not welcome the influx of new home buyers (the key of course being to arrive enmasse - ideally in a way in keeping with the "new urbanist" movement - so my personal choice would be to do this in ways that might also have the side benefit of reinvigorating small cities and towns and discouraging urban sprawl, but that is my personal bias.

This process might start by "taking back" some of the red parts of otherwise "blue" states (Part of New York, large parts of PA, some parts of New England such as Maine, etc) But clearly a focus of this should be two other critical parts of the country - the south and the west/southwest.

The sparsely populated plains states might be one place to start. As well lightly populated parts of the south another.

If this process simply started with people who already lived in a given state all moving to the same districts, to the same towns - gradually taking over local, state, and then nationwide elected offices in the process we could take over.

Mid-term elections - plus any interim elections next year - could be the difference in the Supreme Court if enough justices can hang around for a few more years.

Candidates, such as Barack Obama, who can pull votes from all demographics (sure it helped that Keyes is a lunatic, but still, Obama one the largest victory in Illinois senate race history, something close to a 50% margin which was about 20% higher than most early estimates)

Consolidate the few gains & bright spots (California to a degree, Illinois, New Hampshire) and focus on supporting local officials - Texas shows how vital local, state officials are in deciding the ground rules and playing field for national races (gerrymandering meant that the democrats lost lots of house seats)

Try to find ways to protect import national resources, such as wilderness preserves in Alaska, from likely attempts to drill into / destroy them.

Support and if possible fund serious science - California's 3 billion dollar fund for stem cell research is a good thing generaly speaking - but research into critical issue
such as global warming is fairly critical as well.

Attempt to help the remaining Democrats find ways to craft subtle and effect bills or ammendments that can help protect and preserve vital national issues and/or minimize the damage that the Republicans can do - this is likely not easy, but for example Barak Obama here in Illinois was able to get state bills passed in a bi-partisan manner that helped many people - the issue is in how they are framed, presented, and "sold". See also http://www.hopestreetgroup.org for one non-partisan group I work with that works on public policy issues, striving to find ways to work in a bi-partisan manner.

Work with many, many other people to see if there is a way to create a viable, realistic, alterntative to the Democrats and the Republicans (or alterntively and perhaps more realistically, find a way to do a take-under of the Democratic party and shift it completely into a centrist, progressive position.