What's on your mind today?

It's "What's on your mind Friday" on the show. What's bugging the heck out of you? Get it off your mind, and lighten your burden for the weekend.

It's also Friday the 13th. "Feel lucky, punk, well do ya." Great Clint Eastwood line from "Dirty Harry." Do you struggle with superstitions or worries because of the date? You just don't seem to hear as much about this anymore. Are superstitions dying out in the country as the baby-boomers grow older?

What were your thoughts on the Supreme Court decision yesterday on giving the "enemy combatants" at Gitmo the right to challenge for their freedom in U.S. Federal court?

Wherever You are in PA , Join in on the Gary Sutton Show Today!

We have an array of topics today that beg your attention:

What does the stepping down of Jim Johnson from the Democratic Vice-Presidential Vetting team say about Senator Obama's judgement in who he chooses?

The PA State Assembly is coming up on the budget deadline AGAIN, and again, it's not the irresponsible members of the State Assembly who get drilled, but rather "non-essential" workers on the public payroll who get furloughed. What should happen to the representatives and senators when they can't do a budget on time????

Should transgendered people be able to use restrooms not of their actual physical sexual orientation? Colorado has passed a bill that says, "Yes." What say you?

There is a new method of searching your person when getting ready to board an airplane. It's a glass cube into which you step, and it provides a three-dimensional look at your whole body. Problem is that there are screeners watching, and even though your face is blurred, they can see EVERYTHING! Privacy or protection? Which is more important??

The End is Near!

Better make your travel plans to Ocean City, MD quickly!

Tuesday's Tech Tip: Customize your start page

What's your browser's start page? When you fire it up, is your "home" screen plain-old www.google.com? Or is it some crappy product page from your PC's manufacturer?

As you know, you can set that start page to anything you want, so let's set it to something you want to see. Wait, you do know that you can set your start page to anything you want, right?

Sigh. Okay, in Firefox you click on Tools --> Options on the menu bar. See where it says "When Firefox starts ..."? There's a drop-down list. The "Show a blank page" option is nice for people who want to see nothing when they fire up Firefox. The "Show my windows and tabs from last time" is a pretty cool option for absent-minded people. Anyway, we want the "Show my homepage" option.

Now just type whatever you want into that field below for your homepage. You can type in "http://www.espn.com", "http://www.msnbc.com" or whatever you want.

How about doing the same thing Internet Explorer? I dunno. I don't use IE. Should be pretty similar, though. You Safari users are on your own, too, because it should "just work," right?

You know what I like? Google's customized homepage. Check out mine (click to enlarge):















You'll need to sign in to Google (your homepage will be "http://www.google.com/ig") and then customize the start page so it has what you want -- and how you want it -- on the page.

See, mine has local weather, my gmail account, general news, sports news, tech news, and, of course, the feed for Voices from Main Street. That's what I want. You might a link to your calendar, local gas price updates, local movie time or gardening tips. Do whatever you want. I'm okay with it. Really.

Just click on the "Add stuff" link and customize to your hearts content. You can even rearrange stuff by clicking on it and dragging it to its new spot. You can customize the stuff (called widgets) itself. You can even add themes to your whole start page. Knock yourself out.

New poll: Are you happy with your fitness level?

New poll: Are you happy with your fitness level?

This poll will tie into a fun "contest" we have coming soon.

The General Election finally starts

So now we have the two presumptive candidates and two parties squaring off for the heart of America. The third party called "The Clintons" seems to be fading in the west while Obama's star of "Change you can believe in" is rising in the east, and McCain is hoping that a new day is rising in Iraq as he hitches his presidential hopes to the star of the Surge.

The question this morning are numerous:

Will these candidates be able to really debate the issues, or will we continue to deal in some of the same ridiculousness that we have experienced during the primaries? Senator Obama's words were correct on Tuesday night when he said, "America deserves a debate on where the country is going in the next four years." Those words must be followed by a concerted effort to have a REAL conversation, not a political dodge with the American people. Both candidates need to pay attention to this admonition with a sense of urgency in solving real problems in this moment in time.

How much will race and age matter in the upcoming election?

How much will associations with the Jeremiah Wrights of the world matter?

What role will the experience factor play for people?

How much does soaring rhetoric lift people and can McCain possibly hope to match Obama if it does?

Where will Hillary's people go?

Who will be the VP candidates, and must Obama take Hillary to unify the party? If so, what does he do with Bill Clinton?

These are just a few of the thoughts on my mind as the dust clears today. What are yours?

Time for change in the way candidates are selected-- at least for the Dems

So what is the biggest change that is needed in this election cycle?

It's obviously the way the Democrats choose their candidate. This has been one of the biggest mistakes in process that they have ever made, all in the name of trying to please everyone.

In addition to the fact that weighted and proportional elections always keep the numbers at about 50-50 when there are two strong candidates, the so-called superdelegates add to this mess.

Let me get this right; the party that bills itself as the one that represents the people doesn't really trust the people, (the elected delegates) at the end. Instead, they build in their own little electoral college of 793 unelected officials -- the superdelegates -- which has the potential of negating the voice of the voters and elected delegates. Is this really fair?

The Republicans can hardly walk and chew gum at the same time politically, but one has to be impressed with the conciseness of their process. "Just the votes" is all that counts. No one seems to be complaining except that their candidate may be lame, and too old. And the process seems to have worked for them.

The Democrats have too many people at the table and they try to satisfy the particular interests of every group. In doing so, they out-think themselves consistently and get bogged down in rules that hang around their necks like the proverbial albatross. This year it has put them in a position where their party leaders have been weakened, their party is for the moment split, and one candidate will win the nomination without the popular vote (immaterial in playing by the rules, but bad perception for a party that still is steaming about the Election of 2000 being stolen in the same kind of situation).

Much like the Election of 2000, the will of the voter is being trumped by the will of an unelected group, the super delegates. Senator Obama could not get the nomination without them.

So, "CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN" for the Democrats will be a revamping of the whole process for next time, while they hope that this time it doesn't cost them another general election that seemed to be "in the bag" not long ago. GS