Jan
20
2009
I noticed a few odd things in his speech. You can read the whole speech here, but I want to acknowledge and comment on a couple aspects of it.
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.
As I noted in my last blog, while the crowd may be classless, he was very gracious to his predecessor.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.
Mar
16
2007
I saw this at several blogs, including Sister Toldjah, and at first I thought it had to be a joke. It isn’t.
We now have, in our culture of uber-sensitivity, abortion sympathy cards:
Do you know someone who’s had an abortion?
Are you having trouble knowing what to say?
Do you want to let them know you care?
Remember, each person’s experience with abortion is unique. These e-cards were created to address the range of experiences people can have with abortion. As you consider which e-card to send, think about the person you are sending it to. What do they need to know? What are they feeling? What message will provide the most comfort?
The group bills itself as an “After Abortion Resource” center.
Exhale was created by and for women who have abortions. The founders of Exhale — Aspen Baker, Susan Criscione, Carolina De Robertis, Anna Goldstein and Laura Perez — gathered together for the first time, on the floor of a Berkeley apartment, in June 2000. These five women came together because they, or someone they knew, had personally experienced the lack of non-judgmental services available for women and their significant others after an abortion.
May
08
2006
Note, the article referenced below implies that the Monroe School district was attempting to deny access to a Bible Study Group. The article states that A policy change at Monroe High School aimed at keeping public funds out of Bible studies is striking a blow to a less controversial student activity.
The implication that the Monroe SD had said intention was fairly straight forward, and in part was what my blog was based on. A call to the Herald reporter revealed that Monroe High was not actively involved with any bible related clubs in the course of this ruling. It was taking its action in an apparently preemptive move based on the results of a federal lawsuit in Bethel School in 2002.
The intention of the article was to imply that the policy’s inception had been to deny a bible club access when it was implemented by Bethel SD, and that Monroe SD was implementing a similar policy, for reasons unstated.
I would note that the accusation that the policy was implemented to deny the gay club formal recognitions, which was addressed and denied in the article, may actually be the accusation closer to the truth. See below for more information and a history of the lawsuit.
Aug
13
2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article305638.ece Apple blunder gives Gates iPod royalty By Katherine Griffiths in New York Apple Computer may be forced to pay royalties to Microsoft for every iPod it sells after it emerged that Bill Gates’s software giant beat Steve Jobs’ firm in the race to file a crucial patent on technology used in the popular portable music players. The total bill could run into hundreds of millions of dollars. Although Apple introduced the iPod in November 2001, it did not file a provisional patent application until July 2002, and a full application was filed only in October that year. In the meantime, Microsoft submitted an application in May 2002 to patent some key elements of music players, including song menu software. Apple and Microsoft were two of several companies that developed portable players, but the iPod, with its sleek design and user-friendly controls, has dominated the market. IPods make up three of every four portable music players bought in the US and account for almost one-third of Apple’s sales. Piper Jaffray, a US analyst, believes Apple will sell 25 million iPods this year, bringing the total sold in the four years since its launch to 35 million. In July, the US Patent and Trademark Office rejected Apple’s application, saying some ideas were similar to an earlier application filed by a Microsoft employee, John Platt. The dispute, which emerged this week on the closely watched website, Appleinsider.com, could lead to Apple having to pay a licence fee for the technology of up to $10 a machine. David Kaefer, Microsoft’s director of intellectual property licensing and business development, said: "In general, our policy is to allow others to license our patents so they can use our innovative methods in their products." Apple has signalled it will resist the move. A spokeswoman said Apple would continue to try to get its patent recognised. The company could take the case to the patent office’s appeals board. "Apple invented and publicly released the iPod interface before the Microsoft patent application was filed," it said in a statement. The battle comes as Microsoft is squaring up against another competitor, Google. Microsoft last month launched a lawsuit against the search-engine giant, accusing it of poaching a top executive to head a new research laboratory in China. The Redmond, Washington-based company also sued the executive, Kai-Fu Lee. Apple Computer may be forced to pay royalties to Microsoft for every iPod it sells after it emerged that Bill Gates’s software giant beat Steve Jobs’ firm in the race to file a crucial patent on technology used in the popular portable music players. The total bill could run into hundreds of millions of dollars. Although Apple introduced the iPod in November 2001, it did not file a provisional patent application until July 2002, and a full application was filed only in October that year. In the meantime, Microsoft submitted an application in May 2002 to patent some key elements of music players, including song menu software. Apple and Microsoft were two of several companies that developed portable players, but the iPod, with its sleek design and user-friendly controls, has dominated the market. IPods make up three of every four portable music players bought in the US and account for almost one-third of Apple’s sales. Piper Jaffray, a US analyst, believes Apple will sell 25 million iPods this year, bringing the total sold in the four years since its launch to 35 million. In July, the US Patent and Trademark Office rejected Apple’s application, saying some ideas were similar to an earlier application filed by a Microsoft employee, John Platt. The dispute, which emerged this week on the closely watched website, Appleinsider.com, could lead to Apple having to pay a licence fee for the technology of up to $10 a machine. David Kaefer, Microsoft’s director of intellectual property licensing and business development, said: "In general, our policy is to allow others to license our patents so they can use our innovative methods in their products." Apple has signalled it will resist the move. A spokeswoman said Apple would continue to try to get its patent recognised. The company could take the case to the patent office’s appeals board. "Apple invented and publicly released the iPod interface before the Microsoft patent application was filed," it said in a statement. The battle comes as Microsoft is squaring up against another competitor, Google. Microsoft last month launched a lawsuit against the search-engine giant, accusing it of poaching a top executive to head a new research laboratory in China. The Redmond, Washington-based company also sued the executive, Kai-Fu Lee.
