I've previously written via email to TPM about this but heard nothing, so I thought I'd vent here.

TPM recently began using "Opinion Central" to solicit user feedback.  This product is relatively notorious (simply google "opinion central" to see what I mean) and it's a shame TPM continues to use it.  There are plenty of reasonable ways to get user feedback: this ain't one of them.

To recap briefly the issues with Opinion Central:

1) This popup window resists attempts to close it: it minimizes itself after you restore it from the taskbar (e.g., to close it), and it prevents you from minimizing the TPM browser window.  You end up having to "sneak up on it" via judicious window positioning, or killing it from the taskbar.

2) It occasionally interferes with multiple tab browsing in firefox -- when the popup is showing, edit boxes in other tabs will sometimes refuse to work until you close the Opinion Central window.

This product is using sneaky javascript in an attempt to preserve itself and keep the focus on its host website.

I think that sucks, and I think TPM should treat its users better: it's great that you care what we think, but don't jam a notorious survey product down our throats to try and find out.

I get it.  A lot of people are uncomfortable with guns.  A lot of people think the world would be better off without guns.  Lots of folks aren't familiar with guns and wouldn't know a "machine gun" from a "semiautomatic."   And finally, lots of folks don't care to find out -- they think guns are scary and that they hurt people (and maybe they have a loved one was injured or killed by a gun).

Despite my gun collection, I agree that it would be a nicer world if nobody had guns.  Unfortunately, that's simply not the reality we live in.  The genie's left the bottle: the horse has long since left the barn.  Guns are prolific in our society and no amount of law will reverse that.

Given the reality we live in, I've chosen to get training and to keep a number of firearms in my home.  In the very unlikely event that some terrible day comes, I will be prepared to defend my family (or hunt to eat).  I respect the views of others who choose another path...but I cannot accept those who, out of their own fears and/or ignorance, would disarm me or my family.

I was disappointed to read of President Obama's push to reintroduce the 1994 'assault weapon' ban.  It was a really bad idea in 1994, and it's a really bad idea today.  Those who support the idea: do you realize that you're criminalizing rifes which are fundamentally IDENTICAL to other, perfectly legal rifles?  Do you realize that "machine guns" are already illegal (and have been since the 40's)?  Do you realize that so-called "assault rifles" are in no way more powerful nor mor dangerous than any other rifles...and despite Hollywood's depictions, assault rifles are only ever used in a vanishingly small % of crimes?  What's really your motivation here, beyond the usual BS 'saving the children' argument-which-we-use-for-everything?

I wonder how many TPM readers support this latest round of disarming-the-populace (and what their reasons are)?

This is pathetic, people.  Pay your freakin' taxes. 

I don't blame Obama for bad selections, I blame the selectees for hubris and trying to cheat on their taxes.  Seriously, Tom, you live the lifestyle such that you could incur a 6 figure tax liability for a driver and you don't pay that tax bill??

If the democrats want to be the party of ethics and change they need to walk the talk.

IMHO it was stupid to even suggest that this would be the most ethical administration ever.  Stop trying to boil the ocean, Mr. President, and fix the economy.  Save the rest of it for Term #2 (which btw you won't have if you can't get the economy fixed).

Frustrated--

lfc

That's right -- despite my general aversion to anything associated with the worthless little fink McClellan, I'm going to go with the 54% of the population I who will be voting for the man we'll soon know as President-Elect Obama.

I just read that the Federal Highway Fund is almost entirely out of cash -- and that they will now have to fund pro-rata, previously committed-to projects.

This is the fund which pays for our highways, bridges, etc -- and isn't this the same fund McCain was suggesting we tap into to pay for his forward-thinking "summer gas tax holiday"?

I just read that the Federal Highway Fund is almost entirely out of cash -- and that they will now have to fund pro-rata, previously committed-to projects.

This is the fund which pays for our highways, bridges, etc -- and isn't this the same fund McCain was suggesting we tap into to pay for his forward-thinking "summer gas tax holiday"?

I just read that the Federal Highway Fund is almost entirely out of cash -- and that they will now have to fund pro-rata, previously committed-to projects.

This is the fund which pays for our highways, bridges, etc -- and isn't this the same fund McCain was suggesting we tap into to pay for his forward-thinking "summer gas tax holiday"?

I just read that the Federal Highway Fund is almost entirely out of cash -- and that they will now have to fund pro-rata, previously committed-to projects.

This is the fund which pays for our highways, bridges, etc -- and isn't this the same fund McCain was suggesting we tap into to pay for his forward-thinking "summer gas tax holiday"?

Disclosure: I've donated to and am actively supporting Obama.  I grew up in the deep south and have had plenty of run-ins with racism of all sorts: the subtle and the overt.

I read with dismay the posts here tut-tutting at one Republican or another and asserting that calling Obama "uppity" is racist.

Please, <b>for the love of God</b>, get a grip and stop this idiotic knee-jerk cry of "racist" when someone hits Obama with a charge of being eliteist.  Just as the Republicans are going overboard with their assertions that any question of Palin is "sexist," we would all do well to cut out the hyperbole.

You do a tremendous disservice to the causes of fighting true racism and sexism when you incorrectly brand things that aren't these things as such.

This is how Dubya and crew made the word "terrorist" meaningless.  Stop it.  Please.

Disclosure: I've donated to and am actively supporting Obama.  I grew up in the deep south and have had plenty of run-ins with racism of all sorts: the subtle and the overt.

I read with dismay the posts here tut-tutting at one Republican or another and asserting that calling Obama "uppity" is racist.

Please, <b>for the love of God</b>, get a grip and stop this idiotic knee-jerk cry of "racist" when someone hits Obama with a charge of being eliteist.  Just as the Republicans are going overboard with their assertions that any question of Palin is "sexist," we would all do well to cut out the hyperbole.

You do a tremendous disservice to the causes of fighting true racism and sexism when you incorrectly brand things that aren't these things as such.

This is how Dubya and crew made the word "terrorist" meaningless.  Stop it.  Please.

Disclosure: I've donated to and am actively supporting Obama.  I grew up in the deep south and have had plenty of run-ins with racism of all sorts: the subtle and the overt.

I read with dismay the posts here tut-tutting at one Republican or another and asserting that calling Obama "uppity" is racist.

Please, <b>for the love of God</b>, get a grip and stop this idiotic knee-jerk cry of "racist" when someone hits Obama with a charge of being eliteist.  Just as the Republicans are going overboard with their assertions that any question of Palin is "sexist," we would all do well to cut out the hyperbole.

You do a tremendous disservice to the causes of fighting true racism and sexism when you incorrectly brand things that aren't these things as such.

This is how Dubya and crew made the word "terrorist" meaningless.  Stop it.  Please.

It seems Hillary hasn't learned that people have memories (and those who don't have YouTube): she continues to press her "Obama wants to prevent you from voting" line of attack...this time in North Carolina.  Ignore, of course, the real issue: the people calling on her to show tact and grace and bow out are doing so in light of the fact that any reasonable couning of delegates shows she simply can't win the nomination.  It has zilch to do with preventing people's voting.

The breathtaking thing here, as I mentioned in my last post, is that she positions herself as a champion of voter's rights -- and yet seeks to remove, ex-post-facto, the already cast votes of those who voted in earlier primaries.  That's the basic message of her "you know, the pledged delegates can vote for whomever they want" argument.

Or maybe I'm getting this all wrong??

It was with some sadness that today I read Hillary's speech wherein she said that none of the pledged delegates were [i]actually[/i] pledged...they could vote for whomever they wanted.  In effect, the will of the voters in those states doesn't matter at all -- the pledged delegates can just do as they so please.  Pretty rich irony for someone who for weeks has been demanding that the voters in FL and MI get a voice.

It's a sorry state of affairs that she's stooped to this level in her quest to win the nomination via, it seems, any means necessary.  Her track record of changing the agreed-to-rules when it suits her, combined with her vivid and self-serving recollection of events which never took place (Bosnia, most recently) have really turned me off from her.  It's a shame, too, as I have heard her speak and liked how she presented her thoughts, and I was (and am) a huge admirer of her husband. 

I have been fairly ambivilent about the two of them, but she's doing a good job of putting a bad taste in my mouth.