Get Involved... Let Them Know

Recent Congressional Votes -
Senate: Conference Report for Water Resources Development Act of 2007
Senate: Biden Amendment: To express the sense of Congress on federalism in Iraq
Senate: Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
Senate: Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt
Senate: Making continuing appropriations for FY2008
House: Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
House: Making continuing appropriations for FY2008
House: Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act
House: Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007

Upcoming Congressional Bills -
Senate: National Defense Authorization Act, FY2008
House: Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007
House: MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act of 2007
House: Improving Government Accountability Act
House: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude discharges of indebtedness on principal residences from gross income

Upcoming Votes

National Defense Authorization Act, FY2008 - H.R.1585

The Senate is scheduled to continue work on this $459.3 billion bill that would fund the Department of Defense for the 2008 fiscal year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007 - H.R.3246

The House is scheduled to vote on this bill that would provide a comprehensive regional approach to economic and infrastructure development in the most severely economically distressed areas of the U.S.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act of 2007 - H.R.2740

The House will vote on this bill to require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improving Government Accountability Act - H.R.928

The House will also vote on this bill to enhance the independence of Inspectors General.

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude discharges of indebtedness on principal residences from gross income - H.R.3648

The House is scheduled to take up this bill, which would ensure that any mortgage debt secured by a principal residence will not be taxed.



Time to contact your Senators and Reps and/or get MegaVote to find out what they are voting on, how they are voting and what they are going to be voting on.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/megavote/

Please get involved.
Just an e-mail every now and them when it is something that is important to you, something that affects you... though they all do.
I know I can be a pain in the ass sometimes, but this is not about one side or the other, about how you ask them to vote... just get involved because if they think that no one is watching they will behave with impunity, or more than now.
If you can spend time talking to us in here, you can e-mail your reps from time to time.
Please.

[HungLikeJesus]

The work I've been doing the last few years has put me more and more in contact with staffers for Senators and Congressmen, state and federal, and the Colorado Governor's office and the Western Governors' Association.

They really do want to know what people think and what they're interested in.

The field representative for Congressman Mark Udall called me last week because he wanted to learn more about some work that we were involved in, and asked me to send him some reports so he could learn more about the subject.

When ever I've called one of the staffers about something, they've called me back with an answer within a day or two.

So I think that rk is right, if there's something coming up that is important to you, call the offices of your Senators and Congresspeople.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Just an e-mail every now and them when it is something that is important to you, something that affects you... though they all do.

I'm not eligible, so I can't be involved.
I just wanted to send you a for using "affects" instead of "impacts". One of my pet peeves is people, even professional journalists, using "impact" when they are too lazy to stop and think whether it should be "affect" or "effect".

[DanaC]

What if you actually want to use the word 'impact'? In order to add emphasis with a less neutral term?

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I'm not eligible, so I can't be involved.
I just wanted to send you a for using "affects" instead of "impacts". One of my pet peeves is people, even professional journalists, using "impact" when they are too lazy to stop and think whether it should be "affect" or "effect".

Agreed, like people who use non-words like proactive... I try not to, but I lose some respect for people when they use them.

[DanaC]

In what way is 'proactive' a non-word?

First, it was made-up by a bunch of business speakers trying to have their own business/motivational speak that ended-up escaping their little world.
Secondly it is a double-positive, making it meaningless.

[DanaC]

pro·ac·tive /proʊˈæktɪv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[proh-ak-tiv]


-adjective serving to prepare for, intervene in, or control an expected occurrence or situation, esp. a negative or difficult one; anticipatory: proactive measures against crime.


[Origin: 1930–35; pro-1 + active]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

OMG it's in a dictionary! LOL.

[DanaC]

First, it was made-up by a bunch of business speakers trying to have their own business/motivational speak that ended-up escaping their little world.

You just described how a great many words have entered our language over the centuries. Specific interest groups have always come up with their own vocabularies and it has often leaked into the world around them.

Language is a changing, fluid thing. It isn't set in stone. The word proactive, has been around for over half a century. Much about our language has changed in that time.

Secondly it is a double-positive, making it meaningless.

Not really. The 'pro' part refers to the sequence not to the act intself. It s the use of action to forestall something, not just a very positive version of 'active'.

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Or, while we're at it, the misuse of "hopefully," in the sense of "it is to be hoped," which isn't at all what the word says.

Au jus being mishandled is something I've already soapboxed about. We can put it down to complete ignorance of a foreign tongue.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by DanaC

What if you actually want to use the word 'impact'? In order to add emphasis with a less neutral term?

Well sometimes it may be appropriate, but I think it should be coupled with "on" (or "upon"). Consider:
1. The changes have not yet impacted the economy.
2. The changes have not yet impacted on the economy.
3. The changes have not yet had any impact on the economy.

I'm fine with 3. I find 2 dubious. 1 makes me want to slap any "professional" who utters it.

I'm happy with proactive. It is the opposite of reactive. It means taking the initiative.

I have been banned from four supermarkets for abusing the staff about the sign which says "Twelve items of less". FEWER! FEWER!!!! FFFFEEEEEWWWWWEEEEERRRRR!!!!!!!

hang on ahhhhh

[DanaC]

*grins*

I agree on the usages you just listed for impact.

The "fewer" versus "less" issue, however, I take slight issue with . "Fewer" is the correct Standard English usage; however, many dialects of English have very low usage of that word and if someone has been raised with "less" as the appropriate word, then I have no problem with that. Standard English is just the dialect that won out as the most desirable and 'correct' version of the language. The dialect of the most powerful (politically and economically) region of England at the point where language was standardised has become the most 'correct' version of English.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by DanaC

*grins*

I agree on the usages you just listed for impact.

The "fewer" versus "less" issue, however, I take slight issue with . "Fewer" is the correct Standard English usage; however, many dialects of English have very low usage of that word and if someone has been raised with "less" as the appropriate word, then I have no problem with that. Standard English is just the dialect that won out as the most desirable and 'correct' version of the language. The dialect of the most powerful (politically and economically) region of England at the point where language was standardised has become the most 'correct' version of English.

Well, I'm not really too fussed about less/fewer, although I do think professional signwriters ought to make the effort. Now, about apostrophe's with plural's ...

I will, however, end a sentence a preposition with. And I am happy to boldly split an infinitive that no-one has split before. These rules were introduced to make English resemble Latin in it's grammatical structure and both cause people like Yoda to talk, hmmmmhmm, and are instruments of snobbery and class warfare.

I reserve the right to pick and choose ... no matter how inconsistent I may seem. So long as I am consistent in my various inconsistencies, I do not see a problem.