<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Aaron Hood</title>
	<atom:link href="http://aaronhood.net/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://aaronhood.net</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 17:07:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on RA Training by Lynn</title>
		<link>http://aaronhood.net/ra-training/comment-page-1/#comment-79</link>
		<dc:creator>Lynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 17:07:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aaronhood.net/?p=150#comment-79</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve been looking for some suggestions for Returning RA training and stumbled upon your blog...any suggestions you have would be greatly appreciated.  Once I have my schedule organized I would be happy to send it your way as well.

There are a few things that I currently do with returners but I am  hoping to enhance the training even more.  I always start my returner training with a sort of brainstorming/group work session getting them to think about how they felt as new RAs, what skills they, as returners, bring to the team and also what things they think they can learn from their new teammates.   I also get them to think about how they are going to stay movtivated throughout training and throughout the year.  Another session I do with them is a case study.  I give them time during some of the other training sessions to work on it (can be done in groups if you have a lot of returners) and then they have to present to a panel of &quot;judges&quot; and there is a prize for the best score.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been looking for some suggestions for Returning RA training and stumbled upon your blog&#8230;any suggestions you have would be greatly appreciated.  Once I have my schedule organized I would be happy to send it your way as well.</p>
<p>There are a few things that I currently do with returners but I am  hoping to enhance the training even more.  I always start my returner training with a sort of brainstorming/group work session getting them to think about how they felt as new RAs, what skills they, as returners, bring to the team and also what things they think they can learn from their new teammates.   I also get them to think about how they are going to stay movtivated throughout training and throughout the year.  Another session I do with them is a case study.  I give them time during some of the other training sessions to work on it (can be done in groups if you have a lot of returners) and then they have to present to a panel of &#8220;judges&#8221; and there is a prize for the best score.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on RA Training by Aaron</title>
		<link>http://aaronhood.net/ra-training/comment-page-1/#comment-69</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:53:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aaronhood.net/?p=150#comment-69</guid>
		<description>What we&#039;ve decided to do is highlight a few training sessions that would be repetitious for our returning staff and are creating new sessions that would be concurrent. 
We had concerns about staff cohesion and decided that tweaking the schedule a little bit would allow us to appropriately address concerns that returning RAs weren&#039;t getting anything out of training and that staff cohesion would suffer if the trainings were entirely separate.
I can send you our schedule once it&#039;s a little more finalized if you&#039;d like.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What we&#8217;ve decided to do is highlight a few training sessions that would be repetitious for our returning staff and are creating new sessions that would be concurrent.<br />
We had concerns about staff cohesion and decided that tweaking the schedule a little bit would allow us to appropriately address concerns that returning RAs weren&#8217;t getting anything out of training and that staff cohesion would suffer if the trainings were entirely separate.<br />
I can send you our schedule once it&#8217;s a little more finalized if you&#8217;d like.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Acronyms and Accuracy by Eric Stoller</title>
		<link>http://aaronhood.net/acronyms-and-accuracy/comment-page-1/#comment-58</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Stoller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Apr 2011 23:16:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aaronhood.net/?p=161#comment-58</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s why I really like Queer as an identity.  It&#039;s an identity that can be broader and less limiting than L, G, or B.  Models that box people into categories can be very constricting. Binaries generally fail at defining people. Nice post Aaron.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s why I really like Queer as an identity.  It&#8217;s an identity that can be broader and less limiting than L, G, or B.  Models that box people into categories can be very constricting. Binaries generally fail at defining people. Nice post Aaron.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Acronyms and Accuracy by gary h.</title>
		<link>http://aaronhood.net/acronyms-and-accuracy/comment-page-1/#comment-55</link>
		<dc:creator>gary h.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:58:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aaronhood.net/?p=161#comment-55</guid>
		<description>Great post. I never thought about the use of acroynms like this before. one question i now ponder: how do those who identify with &#039;one of the letters&#039; feel about it? Something I know I need to think about</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post. I never thought about the use of acroynms like this before. one question i now ponder: how do those who identify with &#8216;one of the letters&#8217; feel about it? Something I know I need to think about</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Acronyms and Accuracy by Aaron</title>
		<link>http://aaronhood.net/acronyms-and-accuracy/comment-page-1/#comment-54</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:52:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aaronhood.net/?p=161#comment-54</guid>
		<description>That point was brought up to me by a colleague who identifies as bisexual. Bisexuality is one of his research foci because he feels like bisexuality has been left out of the conversation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That point was brought up to me by a colleague who identifies as bisexual. Bisexuality is one of his research foci because he feels like bisexuality has been left out of the conversation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Acronyms and Accuracy by Tom Fritz</title>
		<link>http://aaronhood.net/acronyms-and-accuracy/comment-page-1/#comment-53</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Fritz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:47:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aaronhood.net/?p=161#comment-53</guid>
		<description>Great Post Aaron! I think we do need to be more aware of the acronyms we use, and this is the first time I have ever actually made the connection with bisexual being a stage in Cass instead of a destination. 

Very eye opening post, and I am taking some time to reflect on my own use of these acronyms in my daily work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great Post Aaron! I think we do need to be more aware of the acronyms we use, and this is the first time I have ever actually made the connection with bisexual being a stage in Cass instead of a destination. </p>
<p>Very eye opening post, and I am taking some time to reflect on my own use of these acronyms in my daily work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Social Justice Leadership by Matt Woodward</title>
		<link>http://aaronhood.net/sjl/comment-page-1/#comment-30</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Woodward</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2010 04:45:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aaronhood.net/?p=59#comment-30</guid>
		<description>Amazing presentation Aaron, thanks for sharing!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amazing presentation Aaron, thanks for sharing!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Independence by toto</title>
		<link>http://aaronhood.net/independence/comment-page-1/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>toto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 12:39:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aaronhood.net/?p=13#comment-2</guid>
		<description>fyi

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). 

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
	
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). 

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president.  The National Popular Vote bill does not try to abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.  Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President (for example, ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote) have come about without federal constitutional amendments, by state legislative action. 

On June 14, 2010, after a detailed study of the issue in 2009 involving over 6,500 League members from over 200 local Leagues, the League of Women Voters endorsed the National Popular Vote bill at their annual convention in Atlanta.. &quot;We support the use of the National Popular Vote Compact as one acceptable way to achieve the goal of the direct popular vote for election of the president until the abolition of the Electoral College is accomplished&quot;

The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill. 

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state&#039;s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%;  in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%. 

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 30 state legislative chambers, in 20 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, and Oregon,  and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>fyi</p>
<p>The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). </p>
<p>Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.</p>
<p>The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes&#8211;that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). </p>
<p>The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president.  The National Popular Vote bill does not try to abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.  Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President (for example, ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote) have come about without federal constitutional amendments, by state legislative action. </p>
<p>On June 14, 2010, after a detailed study of the issue in 2009 involving over 6,500 League members from over 200 local Leagues, the League of Women Voters endorsed the National Popular Vote bill at their annual convention in Atlanta.. &#8220;We support the use of the National Popular Vote Compact as one acceptable way to achieve the goal of the direct popular vote for election of the president until the abolition of the Electoral College is accomplished&#8221;</p>
<p>The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill. </p>
<p>In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state&#8217;s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado&#8211; 68%, Iowa &#8211;75%, Michigan&#8211; 73%, Missouri&#8211; 70%, New Hampshire&#8211; 69%, Nevada&#8211; 72%, New Mexico&#8211; 76%, North Carolina&#8211; 74%, Ohio&#8211; 70%, Pennsylvania &#8212; 78%, Virginia &#8212; 74%, and Wisconsin &#8212; 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska &#8212; 70%, DC &#8212; 76%, Delaware &#8211;75%, Maine &#8212; 77%, Nebraska &#8212; 74%, New Hampshire &#8211;69%, Nevada &#8212; 72%, New Mexico &#8212; 76%, Rhode Island &#8212; 74%, and Vermont &#8212; 75%;  in Southern and border states: Arkansas &#8211;80%, Kentucky &#8212; 80%, Mississippi &#8211;77%, Missouri &#8212; 70%, North Carolina &#8212; 74%, and Virginia &#8212; 74%; and in other states polled: California &#8212; 70%, Connecticut &#8212; 74% , Massachusetts &#8212; 73%, Minnesota &#8212; 75%, New York &#8212; 79%, Washington &#8212; 77%, and West Virginia- 81%. </p>
<p>The National Popular Vote bill has passed 30 state legislative chambers, in 20 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, and Oregon,  and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes &#8212; 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.</p>
<p>See <a href="http://www.NationalPopularVote.com" rel="nofollow" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.NationalPopularVote.com?referer=');">http://www.NationalPopularVote.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

