I just signed on to a letter to President Obama (I love saying that!) urging him to consider expanding the use of Open Source Software in government.
Here’s an excerpt from the letter:
Open-source software brings transparency to software development. There are no “black boxes” in open-source software and therefore no need to guess what is going on “behind the scenes.” Ultimately, this means a better product for everyone, because there is visibility at every level of the application, from the user interface to the data implementation. Furthermore, open-source software provides for platform independence, which makes quick deployments that benefit our citizens much easier and realistic.
Right on. Here’s my contribution:
Open Source Software promotes trust, collaboration, and empowers everyone involved in the process. It also ensures that the end result is excellent (not just commercially viable). I have been working with libraries to help them understand the similarity in the underlying principles of librarianship and Open Source….and I agree these same principles are shared by the Obama administration: transparency, empowerment, access. Yes we can!
Can you sign the letter to President (love it) Obama? Why…Yes, you can!

This whole kerfuffle over Obama’s “bitter” statement demonstrates what is so wrong with the so-called journalists of today and politics in general. Here’s another situation where we can only say….thank god for bloggers. Here’s how David Coleman (a Huffington Post blogger) described what Obama was doing at the time the statement was made. Evidently the statement was made in response to a campaign volunteer volunteer who was going to go out and talk to Pennsylvanians on Obama’s behalf. The question was “What should we be telling the voters we encounter?”
According to Coleman “Obama’s response to the questioner was that there are many, many different sections in Pennsylvania comprised of a range of racial, geographic, class, and economic groupings from Appalachia to Philadelphia….he urged the volunteer to tell Pennsylvania voters he encountered that Obama’s campaign is about something more than programs and talking points.”
Here’s what Coleman wrote that really drove it all home for me:
“The response that followed sounded unscripted, in the moment, as if he were really trying to answer a question with intelligent conversation that explained more about what was going on in the Pennsylvania communities than what was germane to his political agenda. I had never heard him or any politician ever give such insightful, analytical responses. The statements were neither didactic nor contrived to convince. They were simply hypotheses (not unlike the kind made by de Tocqueville three centuries ago ) offered by an observer familiar with American communities. And that kind of thoughtfulness was quite unexpected in the middle of a political event. In my view, the way he answered the question was more important than the sociological accuracy or the cause and effect hypotheses contained in the answer. It was a moment of authenticity demonstrating informed intelligence, and the speaker’s desire to have the audience join him in a deeper understanding of American politics.”
Meanwhile, all you see is the little clip that leaves all the intelligent context out and creates an impression of Obama that is diametrically opposed to what really happened.
Here’s the whole Coleman post if you are interested in more.

I struggled quite a bit with my decision to vote for Obama in the California primary but since then, it has become crystal clear to me that I made the right decision. At least it’s the right decision for me.

I submit two excellent creations that speak to the head and the heart and explain why it is so important for Barack Obama to become our next president:

Head:

Heart:

I usually just toss out those annoying Christmas cards you get from companies, service providers or others who just use Christmas cards as mail-in billboards, but Barack Obama sent me a card this year and to my surprise, it changed me!

Turns out I’m not the only one who had a reaction to Christmas cards from presidential candidates. The Daily Kos shows the Christmas cards sent out from the Obamas, the Edwards and the Clintons and asks the question, “which Christmas card is more presidential?”

I have to admit that until receiving Barack’s card, I felt sure that it would be a big, bad mistake for him to run for president in 2008. But then the card arrived. Just look at that picture! This guy is the perfect candidate. He’s handsome, confident, and not too white and not too black. His wife looks intelligent yet supportive. And they have two charming children who clearly LOVE their dad! The whole family is appealing, direct and open. I want to be an Obama!

In contrast, the Clinton’s card is kind of fuzzy and there’s icey frost all around the edges. As if Hillary isn’t already associated with coldness! What were they thinking?

The John Edwards family photo is slightly disturbing. Only two members of the too large family of five are looking at the camera (in contrast to the Obama’s who all look right at you – well except the Zen-like Malia). Only John and his oldest daughter (like, way older) are looking at the camera. What’s with that? Can you really trust these people? As much as I like John Edwards, I’m not too happy with what comes through in this picture.

Anyway, I guess we shouldn’t use Christmas card photos as a measure of our presidential candidates…but still, they say 1000 words!

And with this post, you can see why I haven’t bothered to blog all month….

Anyway…Happy New Year to you! My wishes for 2007 are peace around the world, growing acceptance of our diverse humanity, respect for the Earth, and more funding for libraries!