NBC lies about Obama going on Oprah during the campaign

March 19, 2009


50 seconds in, they say Obama took advantage of talk shows during the campaign, “yucking it up with Oprah” and they show him on Oprah. The notion is that Obama was featured on Oprah DURING the campaign as a way to gain votes. As if Oprah used her show to promote Obama.

We all know this is a lie because Oprah chose not to involve her show during the campaign at all (though in the past she did so with Gore and Bush).

“At the beginning of this presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates.


Republican Mayor resigns after sending racist email about the President

February 28, 2009


Video link of the story

Republican Mayor Dean Grose of Los Alamitos California is set to resign from office after sending a racist email about the President. The email read “No Easter egg hunt this year,” beneath a photo of the White House with a huge watermelon patch right in front of it.

To the FORMER Mayor and his supporters, it’s important to remember that this is 2009, not 1939. We should be over racist ignorance like this.

Amazing Whitehouse.gov slide shows!

February 23, 2009


You’ve got to check out some of these slide shows!
His photos almost have a cinematic quality to them, very very impressive!

President and First Lady

February 16, 2009


2 health conscience, highly educated, wealthy, cultured men. Completely different values

February 12, 2009

STEVEN FOWLER  (poor values)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA  (good Christian American values)

Response to Bush Chief of Staff Andrew Card who told Obama to put his jacket on

February 6, 2009

Original story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/05/bush-chief-of-staff-to-ob_n_164286.html







Hey Andy, are you racist or are you just ignorant? (or both)

Bill Clinton showed up to the oval office in jogging shorts once.

UPDATE: Good video

Copyright law: artists vs. the press

February 5, 2009

I am writing this post in response to the new found legal troubles that street artist Shepard Fairey finds himself in with the AP. Shepard Fairey became a household name after creating his marvelous HOPE and Progress art pieces that went viral and played such a major role in this past election. Now they might cost him in court.

I should start by saying that I am not a lawyer. However, I have read up a little on copyright law (most notably from the book “Electronic Highway Robbery” by Mary E. Carter) and I have been in contact with lawyers about copyright, patents and trademarks. So with that background and what I consider to be common sense, I have reached the following conclusion.

News organizations such as Reuters and the AP (the press) should not be fully covered by US copyright law, at least when it comes to art.

Why? Well first, let’s examine the copyright law.

To quote Electronic Highway Robbery by Mary E. Carter:

What can be Protected by Copyright?

Section 102(a) of the Copyright Act states:

Copyright protection subsists…in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

The basic requirements that a work of art must meet to qualify for copyright protection are that:

It must be original. The artwork must be an original.
It must be creative. The artwork must show at least a minimum amount of creativity.
It must be fixed in a tangible medium.

My argument hinges on the part of the law that says “mediums of expression“, which Ms. Carter refers to as “creative”.

Press photographers should be excluded from this category. They given special access to the President of the United States, not for “creative” purposes or a means to “express” themselves, but to inform the public.
In other words, the press acts as our eyes and ears receive information from the President because our real eyes and ears cannot legally be in attendance. Not every Joe blow with a camera has the privilege of gaining such close access to the President. In fact, it is my understanding that the press even accompanies the President on Air Force one.

The only reason that press photographers have the privilege of being so close to our politicians so that they can snap those close up shots, is because they are licensed for the purposes of serving and informing the American public. If that was not the case, then I and half the rest of the country could (and would) grab the Nikon or Canon, head to Washington, and take a front row seat at the next Obama press conference. In that context, I honestly could take “creative” pictures or use my photos as “expressions”. After all, they are my photos, my camera, so I can do with them as I please and I have no obligation to our nation at large.

But what’s not fair is to say only special licensed photographers can gain close up access to the President, and then turn around and treat their photos as art. These photographers are not there to make art. Again, if they are, then I should also be given access. I should have been there when the man shoes were thrown at Bush, so I can “express” how I saw it with my photos. I should have been there when Obama was meeting with all of the governors for the first time, so I could snap shots of Palin’s first facial expressions when meeting the President who “pals around with terrorists” and isn’t from “real America”.

I could take much more artsy photos than what comes out of the AP, guaranteed.

So do not tell me that the same copyright laws that protect Mickey Mouse (a true creative work), such that I cannot just draw up my own Mickey cartoons and sell them on DVD, also protects an AP photographer’s photos when they are only licensed to serve & inform the American public.