ABC News correspondent John Stossel has written about an interesting "turn" in events: where before the presidential election, Obama supporters spoke about "transcending racism", now that Obama occupies the Oval Office, accusations abound that anyone in opposition to Obama is "racist".

RTA for an interesting write-up.

Sadly, I see in this more of the same from the so-called Enlightened Liberal. They who proclaim that one must have an "open mind", accepting people regardless of their appearance, their beliefs, their object(s) of desire, they are the first to become overly critical (dare I say "condemning" or rejecting?) of those perceived to have "called the shots" for ages.

In other words, the Enlightened Liberals tend to take the approach of "accept everyone except those who oppose us".

Myself, I am not foolish enough to think that everyone will agree on everything. I'm also not foolish enough to think that the best way to find "peace" is to force people to my way of thinking.

...is if Slashdot allowed some form of a personal note on our friends/foes page, so we could write a short reminder of why someone made the list.

The reasoning wouldn't have to be visible by everyone, and it probably should not be, since the reason(s) wouldn't be anyone else's business.

From Macon Phillips at The White House:

Kinda sounds like shades of Hitler's Germany. :\

[Update: 8/18/2009:
Apparently the White House doesn't like getting flack when they get caught doing something this insidious. Attempts to email flag@whitehouse.gov now bounce back with a message saying, "The e-mail address you just sent a message to is no longer in service. We are now accepting your feedback about health insurance reform via http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck."

So... Instead of encouraging people to "snitch" on their friends and neighbors, they're calling critics unrealistic, in need of a "reality check". That's your government at work for you!]

I have an old laptop that was given me. It's a Sony Vaio PCG-F520...

It has Win2000 Professional on it, but I'd like to replace that with something a bit more... ...useful.

Does anyone have any recommendations for a Linux distro that would work well on it? GUI is useful, but not necessary...

At this writing, the Kapi' olani Health Foundation is hiding an HTML version of a "letter" purporting to be from Obama. (As of this writing, follow the link and look at the page source. Search for "Obama", and you'll find it commented-out.)

Considering that Obama claims this place to be the location of his birth, I can't help but wonder why they're hiding something like this. I would think that being the birthplace of a sitting president would be something akin to bragging rights.

I wonder what would cause them to do something like this?

Source: http://emmitsburg.net/humor/archives/political/political_15.htm

At least one person thinks so, and being Russian, he should know a thing or three about what Marxism is about.

• ...what happened to the Slashdot appearance? Something went wonky in the last couple days, where it's got more of a minimalist appearance. It's dog-ugly, if you ask me... ...not that anyone did.
• ...why it took Obama so long to decide that the US is "out of money". Is this something that surprised him, in spite of the way Congress has been throwing a couple trillion dollars around so irresponsibly? It's a typical Democratic view, that the solution to any problem is to throw money at it. Got health care woes? Throw money at it. Got problems with illegals entering the country? Throw money at them... The list goes on. Nowhere in their efforts do they call for any real solution.
• ...how many people reading this realize that they have the life they have today, largely because people before them were willing to fight to the death for their country. Americans have the freedom to speak their mind because people were willing to sacrifice everything to establish a country that fostered that very mindset. American politicians these days seem hell-bent on converting the US into a European-like state, complete with the hypocrisy that it all implies[1].

This weekend is Memorial Day Weekend in the United States. If you know a Veteran who has served in wartime or peacetime, please take the time to thank them for their service. It's the least you can do.

--
[1] It is Politically Correct to be "accepting" of different people, be they homosexual, heterosexual, anything in between. Almost any religion can be taught in school except Christianity, but if the "priest" is lesbian, that "little fact" will be conveniently hidden from any parents that might care to complain.

I'm NOT saying that it's okay to hurt or mis-treat people because they are different. I AM saying that no particular group should be given favoritism in the name of "fairness" or "political correctness".

In short, the hypocrisy lies in the fact that everyone should be "accepted" except those groups perceived to have been "favored" fifty years ago. Call them on this, and the Politically Correct crowd will quickly resort to name-calling and violence, the very sort of thing they accuse their opposition of doing. Funny, isn't it?

...before this little gem of hack "science" makes it onto the front page...

To be perfectly honest, I'm surprised it's not there already. The skript kidd13z that live there seem to eat that stuff up like candy.

So... Let me present two true situations, and maybe someone could please explain the logic in this:

• A suspected case of Swine Flu is reported in Rhode Island, and the local school department chooses to close the affected school for a week.
• A confirmed case of Swine Flu is reported in Fall River, MA. The patient is an employee of the Fall River public school system. The mayor (whose decision it is in these matters here) decides that all the schools will remain open. When asked which school the employee works at, the mayor refuses to answer, because he's afraid it will lead to identifying the employee.

I guess the trouble I'm having here is with the fact that I see potential spread of disease as more important than the identity of the one who may spread it.

Another problem in the Fall River case: several reports indicate that the patient (identified only as being 28 years old) has not recently traveled. How, pray tell, did that person get this disease, then? What's being done about that? Is there an investigation to determine a probable chain of the disease's infection, so its spread can be limited? (Not likely on this last one-- by now, it's prolly too late for anything like that.)

The funny thing in all this is that the mayor has decided to run for re-election. *I* won't vote for the guy, largely because I haven't seen any reason to keep him in office... ...especially after this mess.

When I post something that catches my interest, especially if it's of a political nature, there are a lot of people that chime in.

When I post something that asks for information or clarification, few bother to say anything at all.

What I'm getting from this is that "Timex-grade blather" (thanks, Ethelred!) seems to encourage more people to say their piece, even if it's because the vocal minority feel the need to tell me why they think I'm wrong.

Hmmm...

Obama gave an economics speech at Georgetown University recently, and many people noticed that the "IHS" monogram had been blocked-out.

Some worry that this is a slight against Catholic tradition, but the White House (and some others) argue that it was intended to "limit distractions" so the eye wouldn't wander.

My question to photographers: Is there any truth to that hypothesis?

Of course, this begs another question-- if Obama's actual intention was to avoid any religious undertones, why would he allow his script writers to use passages taken from the Bible, and why bother with making the speech at a well-known Catholic university? (This "bonus question" is thrown out there for everyone, not just photographers.)

[Edit: initial post of this JE used "graphic design artists" instead of "photographers". I thought this was better-aimed at the latter, not just the former. Terms were changed accordingly.]

Obama, Obama, Obama... When will you learn?

The Media have put out photos and film clips showing Obama bowing in deference to Saudi King Abdullah on Wednesday.

Sigh.

For someone that really wants me to believe that he's the president, he's doing a piss-poor job of showing that he is what he claims to be.

NO president of the United States ever bows to any head of state. It is as rude as spitting in the Queen's face. It just isn't done.

There has been a lot of discussion in the recent past about President George W. Bush's apparent disregard for the US Constitution, usually surrounding a comment he made that it was "just a piece of paper".

The courts of this nation, on the other hand, apparently consider it worth less than that.

The problem surrounds a growing concern that Barrack Obama is not qualified to be president, according to the requirements of the US Constitution. The courts have, time and again, refused to hear the cases brought before them to address the matter.

Most recently, a case was thrown out when Alan Keyes (et al.) asked that the California Secretary of State review Obama's eligibility. In effect, the California Supreme Court is saying that it doesn't really matter what the US Constitution says.

Other cases (in a list copied from here) that have been brought include:

• New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
• Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
• Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
• Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
• Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support. [This is the case that was recently thrown out. --T]
• Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
• Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
• In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
• Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
• In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
• In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
• California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

The common point here is that the only "evidence" provided by the Obama campaign to support his citizenship claim is a proxy document issued by the state of Hawaii. This document is usually issued when a citizen (in this case Obama's mother) wishes to register a birth that happened outside a Hawaiian hospital (either because it happened at home or outside the country). The question is where the birth happened. Sufficient doubt is raised because one family member (Obama's half sister) is quoted giving two different Hawaiian hospitals as his place of birth, while other family members (on his father's side) claim they were present at his birth in Kenya. This becomes an issue, they say, because the law at the time require had age and time requirements that Obama's mother did not meet, so the place of actual birth is an important factor.

Despite his claims that he wants to run a "transparent government", Obama continues to refuse to provide documents that would settle the question once and for all. The manner by which he is doing this only makes him look more guilty of having something to hide.

If Obama decides to have a theme song, it should be this.

I have a spare system that will likely replace the system that my kids have right now. It's not top-of-the-line, but it's better than the system they have at the moment. Before I hand it off to them, though, I will be using it to play with the Win7 beta.

I don't have anything to say about the Win7 beta yet, as the monitor I had available when I installed it had a problem that rendered the graphics a bit blurry, making things difficult to see more than general shapes and forms. I could make out words if I concentrated on it, but that only made it easier to develop migraines. :( I happened to have another monitor in storage that I had forgotten about, and it seems to do nicely in spite of the fact that it was made a few years before Methuselah was born. XD

There's something that I was reading today on WND that I thought was particularly interesting, mostly because it refers to the fact that some people are coming to realize that the federal government has been overstepping their Constitutional authority for some time (the article refers to events that occured during the Clinton and Bush administrations), and they're doing something about it. So far there are about ten or so states with something on the books reaffirming the soverignty of the state, with several more that have something in the works along the same line. When I've had time to look into it a little more, I'll probably write something up here. :)

On the job search front, there have been several "nibbles", mostly from head-hunters looking for someone willing to do contract work. The idea of contract work makes me a little uneasy, mostly because I've never done it before. All my work experience to date has been full-time (that is, not counting student work study when I was in college). One in particular has the possibility of becoming permanent, so that's something to consider.