Now Serving: COOKIES to the United States Government!

COMPUTER WORLD, New Zealand 29 Aug 2009:
Concerns raised over US government cookie policy change

A blog post signals the potential use of cookie on government websites
By Grant Gross Washington | Tuesday, 11 August, 2009:

"A potential change in the US government's policy that would permit the broad use of web cookies on government sites could "allow the mass collection of personal information," according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)." MORE HERE

Federal Websites: Cookie Policy

Posted by Michael Fitzpatrick and Vivek Kundra

"During the Open Government Initiative outreach, Federal employees and the public have asked us questions about the federal government’s policy on cookies. As part of our effort to create a more open and innovative government, we’re working on a new cookie policy that we’ll want your input on. But before we get into that, let’s provide some context.

"In June 2000, the OMB Director issued a memorandum (M-00-13, later updated by M-03-22)) that prohibited Federal agencies from using certain web-tracking technologies, primarily persistent cookies, due to privacy concerns, unless the agency head approved of these technologies because of a compelling need. That was more than nine years ago. In the ensuing time, cookies have become a staple of most commercial websites with widespread public acceptance of their use. For example, every time you use a “shopping cart” at an online store, or have a website remember customized settings and preferences, cookies are being used.


"This past June, we blogged about ways to enhance citizen participation in government through basic policy changes, including revisions to the current policy on web-tracking technologies. We heard a lot of informal comments on that blog, so we decided to pursue the more formal comment route through the Federal Register. The goal of this review is to develop a new policy that allows the Federal Government to continue to protect the privacy of people who visit Federal websites while, at the same time, making these websites more user-friendly, providing better customer service, and allowing for enhanced web analytics."

...read the rest of the article HERE

Playing the Racist Card: A Weapon of Mass Delusion

rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm) n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

As the political climate continues to heat up, the singular waste-basket Weapon of Choice by people who can't wrap their heads around what might actually be happening to the United States is "The Race Card." It is a Weapon of Mass Delusion, aided and fueled by the devil we can call Denial.
It has been thrown at me, of course. And to my amusement, it has been thrown at me in various forms, even by members of my own extended family.

I have been trying to come up with the perfect comeback to The Race Card/WMD when it is thrown at me. Of course, there is no perfect comeback, only responses that are satisfying TO ME. My internal response to the accusation: "God knows my heart." Amen. My external response, that I usually say outloud, is "Please provide me with specific examples that pertain to me." No one has been able to respond to that request.

I'd like to present here a specific example of "racism" (prejudice, ethno-centricity, bias, xenophobia, whatever word you want to choose) that occurs in everyday life that no one blinks an eye at. It's my "favorite." When my sons have to fill out a form at school that asks for "race," here are their choices: Asian-Pacific Islander, Native American, African American, Hispanic, and White.

What is wrong with this picture?

Why is this relevant anymore? What is the collected data used for? Why aren't we past this? And what does one pick if they are of mixed race? Why aren't we all simply called "Americans?"

I would ask of those who can't hear or be open to what I present to please not call me a racist, but my pleas won't work. For my mother, who hinted at the possibility I was a racist, I had her look into my eyes and remind her "You raised me. Do you REALLY believe that of me?" I offered the same response to my father, who was rightfully concerned that I was placing myself in an argumentative corner where my identity could become lost within a fruitless endeavor. Thankfully, he believes in who I am and we could engage in very healthy political conversation.

Last summer, well before the General Election when I warned family and friends of signs that the US Constitution was not being supported ( Chicago NPR interview, 6 September 2001), one family member in creatively crafted words basically said I didn't like "certain people of color". The Race Card/WMD had never been thrown at me before in my life before that occasion. All I could do was answer sarcastically that yeah, my whole argument is based on making myself look like a racist. (A sort-of apology was offered later.) Another relative of mine thoroughly believes that my recently adopted state of residence has "ruined" me. Laugh Out Loud with me, will you?

So that leaves me with that "perfect response" dilemma. Do you see? My perfect response can only be to myself. God knows my heart.

And, back to the questionnaire about race choice? My oldest son told me just yesterday that "Other" was a choice, too. He wrote in "Caucasian." And thankfully, God knows his heart.

Racist in the making???

What a Real Town Hall Feels Like

Real information by real people with no spin - feels positively refreshing!

The Saturday, August 8th Town Hall on Health Care presented by the Houston Tea Party Society provided essential information and resources for all voters interested in the legislative issue at hand.

People by instinct know and feel by gut when the truth is being presented and when it is being covered up. (Check out this review of a recent local town hall meeting from Lone Star Times!) In my opinion, all of the guests at this event told what needed to be told, all from their unique and genuine perspectives. This is so valuable and vital to contributing to the current debate about the government-run health care initiative before us. I can say with confidence that a great number of Texans know that the federal government's main stream media-driven propaganda and the pushover-politicians’ rhetoric on health care "reform" does not offer the same level of honesty that was presented at this event.

Texans are waking up to the giant, over-growing federal government’s unconstitutional encroachment on the freedom-loving citizens of Texas. The Federal Health Care initiative will hurt Texas, and it will be especially harmful to the Houston area. Read The Texas Public Policy Foundation's report prepared for and co-authored by Dr. Art Laffer, which states that this "reform" will cost Texans an additional $4,500 in taxes annually.

The Houston Tea Party Society is to be commended for its part in this awakening. As described by one guest speaker at this event, we are at a “tipping point” in this country - we have the Houston Tea Party folks to thank in helping us all tip toward the right direction.

Picture Fun! Can You Spot the Difference?

Look at these two pictures. The people are protesting. They are not breaking the law. Government lets them do this because in our country we have a Bill of Rights! But these pictures are different too! Can you name the difference out loud?

Do you see the difference? Let's look at two more pictures of people. If you can not find the answer, that's O.K.! You can ask a grown-up to help you!
Remember to tell the grown-up, "No! The difference is not race, silly!"

(answer below)

Thanks for playing! Send me the correct answer and if you like, I'll send you a Pocket Constitution!

¡ɯǝɥʇ ɥʇıʍ ƃɐlɟ uɐɔıɹǝɯɐ ǝɥʇ ǝʌɐɥ ʇɥƃıɹ ǝɥʇ uo sǝɹnʇɔıd ǝɥʇ uı ǝldoǝd ǝɥʇ :ɹǝʍsuɐ

"Facts Are Stubborn Things"

To: flag@whitehouse.gov

Dear White House,

I am informing on myself. I believe that the national health care bill known as H.R. 3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 is entirely in violation of my rights under the United States Constitution. I have publicly expressed this view in multiple public forums.

However, if you could direct me to the Article or Amendment in the Constitution of the United States that provides the Federal government the authority to do so, I will certainly reconsider my position and offer public apologies.

Otherwise, I must warn you that this individual (myself) will continue to speak out against what I believe is the true intent of this proposed legislation.

Lori J. Macomber