Ruby on Rails is garnering a lot of praise as an easy-to-use, database-driven Web framework for developing Web applications. Most of the documentation for Ruby on Rails centers on Macintosh, with the remainder seemingly only for Windows machines, but RoR is perfectly usable on Linux computers too. This article explains how to install and begin developing with RoR in Linux.

San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer has spoken out on his role in the passage of Proposition 8 in the aftermath of the ensuing protests, asking, "What is the way forward for all of us together? Even though we supporters of Proposition 8 did not intend to hurt or offend our opponents, still many of them, especially in the gay community, feel hurt and offended. What is to be done?"

Niederauer, who is credited with bringing in the Mormon church and the massive finances of its donors, urged people to tone down the rhetoric: "Tolerance, respect, and trust are always two-way streets, and tolerance respect and trust often do not include agreement, or even approval. We need to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. We need to stop talking as if we are experts on the real motives of people with whom we have never even spoken. We need to stop hurling names like 'bigot' and 'pervert' at each other. And we need to stop it now."

The SF Chronicle reports:

"During the campaign, Niederauer issued statements, sent flyers and gave a videotaped interview posted at www.marriagematterstokids.org. But Niederauer's most prominent action was drawing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose members responded with intensive grassroots organizing and an estimated $20 million in campaign contributions from individuals that accounted for half of the Yes on 8 campaign's total. Niederauer noted that many other Christian denominations supported Prop. 8, including evangelical Protestant, Orthodox and historically African American churches. The Mormon church has said Niederauer, previously the bishop of Salt Lake City for 11 years, played a pivotal role in its joining the cause. 'We were invited to join the coalition,' Michael Otterson, managing director of public affairs for the church, told The Chronicle in an interview shortly after the election. 'We didn't unilaterally go into the battle.' Otterson said Niederauer's letter persuaded the Mormon church that they wouldn't be fighting this battle alone, a status that would have made them vulnerable."

Niederauer wants everyone to accept the procreation argument for the family and the "marriage" label, and wants gays to accept "a contract for the benefit of a relationship between adults" but not call it marriage.

He forgives "single parents, grandparents, foster parents and others" who "fail to realize" the ideal procreative one man-one woman model but doesn't deny them his permission to marry, because they are heterosexual.

Basically, Niederauer wants gays and lesbians (many of whom do procreate through surrogates, etc, I might add) to accept our status as second-class citizens and move on.

Read his full message, entitled "Moving Forward Together," AFTER THE JUMP...

S.F. archbishop defends role in Prop. 8 passage [sf chronicle]

***

SAN FRANCISCO CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP NIEDERAUER - "MOVING FORWARD TOGETHER"

“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” In the weeks since the adoption of this amendment the media have carried many speculations about the role of the Catholic bishops in California, and about my role in particular, in the passage of this proposition. It is my wish to clarify here what was done and why it was done, and offer some thoughts about the way forward amid so many misunderstandings and hard feelings.

Five years before my appointment as Archbishop of San Francisco, in the year 2000, Proposition 22 was placed on the California ballot. This statute, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, passed with 61% of the vote. On May 15th of this year, the California State Supreme Court declared that statute unconstitutional and legalized same-sex marriage in California. Around the same time, Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment qualified for the ballot.

The Catholic bishops of California, organized as the California Catholic Conference, and speaking through their office of public policy in Sacramento, endorsed Proposition 8 and urged Catholics, and organizations of lay Catholics, to work for its passage, by means of grass roots activity and contributions from their resources. We bishops also endorsed Proposition 4, regarding parental notification of a minor child’s intended abortion (defeated at the polls) and we opposed Proposition 6, a “tough on crime” initiative inconsistent with the principles of restorative justice (defeated).

The Archdiocese of San Francisco did not donate or transfer any Archdiocesan funds to the campaign in favor of Proposition 8. As far as I know, that is also true of other Catholic dioceses in California. The Archdiocese did pay, and appropriately disclose, printing and distribution of flyers to parishes.

Last May the staff of the Conference office informed me that leaders and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) had given their support to the campaign for Proposition 22 in the year 2000, and were already considering an involvement in connection with Proposition 8. Accordingly, I was asked to contact leaders of the LDS Church whom I had come to know during my eleven years as Bishop of Salt Lake City, to ask them to cooperate again, in this election cycle. I did write to them and they urged the members of their Church, especially those in California, to become involved.

It is important to point out here that a wide range of churches became active in favor of Proposition 8: in addition to Catholics and LDS members, evangelical Protestant churches and churches with many African-American members joined the effort, and, among the Orthodox churches, the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of San Francisco and three other Orthodox bishops signed and published a joint statement in favor of Proposition 8.

That is what was done. Why was it done? Some voices in the wider community declare that there could be only one motive: hatred, prejudice and bigotry against gays, along with a determination to discriminate against them and deny them their civil rights. That is not so. The churches that worked in favor of Proposition 8 did so because of their belief that the traditional understanding and definition of marriage is in need of defense and support, and not in need of being re-designed or re-configured.

Some of our opponents respond with this question: Even if these churches saw the California State Supreme Court decision in May as damaging to the institution of marriage as they understood and valued it, shouldn’t they have kept quiet and stayed on the sidelines? Some would say that, in light of the separation of church and state, churches should remain silent about any political matter. However, religious leaders in America have the constitutional right to speak out on issues of public policy. Catholic bishops, specifically, also have a responsibility to teach the faith, and our beliefs about marriage and family are part of this faith.

Indeed, to insist that citizens be silent about their religious beliefs when they are participating in the public square is to go against the constant American political tradition. Such a gag order would have silenced many abolitionists in the nineteenth century and many civil rights advocates in the twentieth. Quite a number of important political issues regularly touch upon the ethical, moral, and religious convictions of citizens: immigration policy, the death penalty, torture of prisoners, abortion, euthanasia, and the right to health care are some such issues.

Members of churches who supported Proposition 8 sincerely believe that defining marriage as only between a man and a woman is one such issue. They see marriage and the family as the basic building blocks of human society, existing before government and not created by it. Marriage is for us the ideal relationship between a man and woman, in which, through their unique sexual complementarity, the spouses offer themselves to God as co-creators of new human persons, a father and mother giving them life and enabling them to thrive in the family setting.

Are there many instances in which this ideal fails to be realized? Of course there are. Single parents, grandparents, foster parents and others deserve praise and support for their courage, sacrifice and devotion in raising the children for whom they are responsible. Still, the proponents of Proposition 8 subscribe to a definition of marriage that recognizes and protects its potential to create and nurture new human life, not merely a contract for the benefit of a relationship between adults.

Whatever others may say, the proponents of Proposition 8 supported it as a defense of the traditional understanding and definition of marriage, not as an attack on any group, or as an attempt to deprive others of their civil rights. The fact remains that, under California law, after the passage of Proposition 8, same sex couples who register as domestic partners will continue to have “the same rights, protections and benefits” as married couples. Proposition 8 simply recognizes that there is a difference between traditional marriage and a same sex partnership.

What is the way forward for all of us together? Even though we supporters of Proposition 8 did not intend to hurt or offend our opponents, still many of them, especially in the gay community, feel hurt and offended. What is to be done?

Tolerance, respect, and trust are always two-way streets, and tolerance respect and trust often do not include agreement, or even approval. We need to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. We need to stop talking as if we are experts on the real motives of people with whom we have never even spoken. We need to stop hurling names like “bigot” and “pervert” at each other. And we need to stop it now.

For our part, we churchgoers need to speak and act out of the truth that all people are God’s children and are unconditionally loved by God. While we argue among ourselves, the people who need our help with hunger, unemployment, homelessness and other problems wait for us to turn together toward them. More particularly, we Catholics in the Archdiocese of San Francisco need to minister to the needs of all Catholics in this local Church. Whoever they are, and whatever their circumstances, their spiritual and pastoral rights should be respected, together with their membership in the Church. In that spirit, with God’s grace and much prayer, perhaps we can all move forward together.

***END OF STATEMENT***

In their coverage of World AIDS Day, several media outlets, including CNN, The Washington Post, The Indianapolis Star, and The Wall Street Journal, praised or uncritically reported praise of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). However, none of those outlets noted criticism of PEPFAR's requirement that starting in fiscal year 2006, 33 percent of funds set aside for prevention under the act that created PEPFAR be spent on abstinence-until-marriage education -- a provision the Bush administration reportedly lobbied Congress to add. According to many of the government officials responsible for managing PEPFAR abroad, as well as the Institute of Medicine (IOM), this requirement hindered PEPFAR's effectiveness in preventing the spread of AIDS. Congress removed the requirement when it reauthorized PEPFAR in 2008.

The following media outlets praised or uncritically reported praise of Bush's AIDS relief efforts:

• On the December 1 edition of CNN Newsroom, CNN correspondent Kathleen Koch stated that Bush's AIDS policy is "something that the president is quite proud of" and that "[t]he strides that the U.S. has helped make globally in the fight against HIV/AIDS" are "a really important part of his legacy."
• A December 2 Washington Post article reported that "Bush called his program to combat HIV/AIDS 'one of the most important initiatives of my administration' and praised it as a resounding success." The Post added: "The administration's HIV/AIDS initiative is a particular point of pride for Bush, who has received praise at home and abroad for his leadership on the issue."
• In a December 2 article, The Indianapolis Star uncritically reported that U.S. global AIDS coordinator Randall Tobias said that under Bush, the "U.S. has led the global fight against AIDS with the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief."
• A December 1 post on The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire blog reported that "[t]he White House is expected to roll out a series of retrospectives on President George W. Bush's achievements throughout the month of December" in order to "burnish" his "record." The post went on to report that "in remarks at the White House, Bush started with a recap of his substantial accomplishments on AIDS relief" and also uncritically reported Rev. Rick Warren's assertion that "[n]o man in history, no world leader has ever done more for global health than President George W. Bush, and I think we need to recognize that and I thank you for that."

None of these reports mentioned criticism of PEPFAR's abstinence-until-marriage requirement. According to a 2007 IOM report, "the abstinence-until-marriage budget allocation ... hampers ... PEPFAR's ability to meet the [prevention] target":

PEPFAR's approach to achieving the prevention target involves planning and implementing prevention programs and activities that are evidence-based, harmonized with country plans and priorities, and appropriate to each country's unique epidemiologic and cultural context. However, the abstinence-until-marriage budget allocation in the Leadership Act hampers these efforts and thus PEPFAR's ability to meet the target. Despite the efforts of the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator to administer the allocation judiciously, it has greatly limited the ability of Country Teams to develop and implement comprehensive prevention programs that are well integrated with each other and with counseling and testing, care, and treatment programs and that target those populations at greatest risk.

IOM further found that "the Committee has been unable to find evidence for the position that abstinence can stand alone or that 33 percent is the appropriate allocation for such activities even within integrated programs."

Moreover, in a 2006 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted the assessments of the "focus country teams" made up of the "U.S. agency officials responsible for managing PEPFAR in the focus countries." According to the GAO, "about half of the focus country teams told us that meeting the [abstinence] spending requirement can undermine the integration of prevention programs":

Satisfying the Leadership Act's abstinence-until-marriage spending requirement presents challenges to most country teams. Several focus country teams indicated that they value the ABC model [Abstain, Be faithful, or use Condoms] as an HIV/AIDS prevention tool and noted the importance of AB [abstinence/faithfulness] messages, particularly for certain populations. However, about half of the focus country teams told us that meeting the spending requirement can undermine the integration of prevention programs by forcing them to isolate funding for AB activities. Further, 17 of the 20 PEPFAR teams required to meet the spending requirement unless they obtain exemptions from it reported that the spending requirement presents challenges to their ability to respond to local epidemiology and cultural and social norms.

Additionally, in a November 2006 report titled "Bush's AIDS Initiative: Too Little Choice, Too Much Ideology," the Center for Public Integrity stated that Bush's AIDS relief policy "has enabled his administration to funnel tens of millions of dollars to Christian faith-based organizations that support his ideology and form his political base." The report quoted Dr. Paul Zeitz, executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance, asserting that PEPFAR "is failing to stop the global spread of AIDS and failing to help lead the world to stop this deadly disease. ... We have a flawed framework with flawed policies that have kept us from being where we should be by now."

According to a May 2, 2003, New York Times article, the abstinence-spending provision, added to the United States Leadership Against Global HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 as an amendment in the House, "was endorsed by the White House. Lawmakers said Vice President Dick Cheney called House members today to lobby for it."

A February 21 New York Times article reported that amid Democratic efforts to remove the abstinence spending requirement from PEPFAR, Bush "defended the requirement":

[F]or the first time on the trip, Mr. Bush faced tough questioning from an African reporter about his administration's requirement that one-third of the AIDS initiative's prevention funds be spent on programs promoting abstinence.

The independent Institute of Medicine has said the abstinence requirement is hindering prevention efforts. Democrats in Congress, debating reauthorization of the initiative, want it dropped.

Mr. Bush's questioner on Wednesday told the president that the requirement was not realistic, because "multiple sexual relationships or partner relationships is the reality" in African societies, "though it's not spoken of in public."

As he has in the past, Mr. Bush defended the requirement, but he then went a step further.

"I monitor the results," he said. "And if it looks like it's not working, then we'll change. But thus far I can report, at least to our citizens, that the program has been unbelievably effective. And we're going to stay at it."

Additionally, a February 18 article on the San Francisco Chronicle's website reported:

"It is a balanced program. It is an ABC program: abstinence, be faithful and condoms. It's a program that's been proven effective," he [Bush] said, speaking at a news conference with Tanzanian President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete, an enthusiastic supporter of the effort.

"I understand there's voices on both ends of the political spectrum trying to alter the program," Bush said. "I would ask Congress to listen to leaders on the continent of Africa ... analyze what works, stop the squabbling and get the program reauthorized."

Congress subsequently passed the reauthorization bill, and Bush signed it on July 30. According to a 2008 GAO report, the bill "removes the abstinence-until-marriage spending requirement and calls for the Global AIDS Coordinator to ensure that abstinence and fidelity programs are evidence-based and country-based."

From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the December 1 edition of CNN Newsroom:

HARRIS: Today, World AIDS Day. Take a look at this. That means four people will be infected while I'm on your television screen. Today is the 20th World AIDS Day. Globally, 33 million people are believed to be infected with HIV. CNN's Kathleen Koch is at the White House, where a gigantic red ribbon decorates the North Portico. Kathleen, good morning to you. Quite a sight.

KOCH: Yes indeed, Tony. This very same ribbon actually graced the North Portico, if you'll remember, last year on World AIDS Day. And it's important to point out that this is a really -- something that the president is quite proud of, the strides that the U.S. has helped make globally in the fight against HIV/AIDS, a really important part of his legacy. And he and the first lady came out on the North Lawn about an hour and a half ago underneath this great, huge ribbon that's gracing the North Portico.

And the president talked about how his President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, known in the shorthand version as PEPFAR most of the time -- how it finally has reached the goal that it set back in 2003, when it started, of increasing the number of people who are receiving anti-retroviral treatment for HIV/AIDS from 50,000 -- that was the number in 2003 -- to 2 million within just five years.

BUSH [video clip]: When PEPFAR began, only 50,000 people living with HIV in all of sub-Sahara Africa were receiving anti-retroviral treatment. Around the world, we've also supported care for more than 10 million people affected by HIV, including more than 4 million orphans and vulnerable children. More than 237,000 babies had been born HIV-free thanks to the support of the American people for programs to prevent mothers from passing the virus on to their children.

KOCH: Now, for the last hour or so, the president has been participating across town in a civil forum in global health here in Washington. And the president receiving a touching video tribute, not only from U.N. -- the head of the U.N., Ban Ki-moon, but from Bono, from Bill Gates. The president also reflected on how he got involved in fighting this global pandemic of AIDS, and he talked about, if he'd done nothing about it, how he would have, quote, "disgraced the office of the presidency." And he also discussed how he was surrounded by people who felt this was just such an important cause for the United States to take up, people including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Now, looking at the program, the president did just in July sign legislation that will authorize another $48 billion, Tony, to expand the program.

HARRIS: All right, Kathleen Koch. Wow, that's quite a figure right there.

KOCH: Quite a lot.

HARRIS: Yeah. At the White House for us, Kathleen, thank you.

Several media figures have recently promoted the notion of division among supporters of President-elect Barack Obama, claiming that "the left" has been or should be disappointed with his Cabinet selections. But the media figures fostering this notion of significant disappointment with Obama's actions rarely offer actual support for their position, which is undermined by recent polling data. A USA Today/Gallup poll released December 2 found that 94 percent of Democrats "approve of the way Obama is handling his presidential transition." The poll also found that 89 percent of Democrats approve of Sen. Hillary Clinton's nomination to be secretary of state and that 79 percent of Democrats approve of Obama's decision to reappoint Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

In a December 2 USA Today column headlined "Left behind: Obama's centrist Cabinet picks must have Democratic ideologues wondering what happened to the change they can believe in," conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg wrote that Obama's Cabinet picks have yielded "dismayed followers" among "the left." Goldberg wrote:

You almost have to feel sorry for the left.

President-elect Barack Obama was supposed to be their guy. That woman, Hillary Clinton, was the centrist, reach-across-the-aisle type. They picked Obama because he was going to be the "transformative" leader who didn't need to compromise with the right or even with reality. Heck, Obama the Wise would magically change reality itself, right around the same moment he'd force those pesky oceans to recede.

[...]

Obama promised to turn the page on, first and foremost, the Bush years, but also the political approach that marked the Clinton years. Nonetheless, he has not only embraced Hillary, he also has hired Bill Clinton's Treasury secretary, Larry Summers, to head his National Economic Council, tapped former Clintonite fixer Rahm Emanuel to be his chief of staff, and former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta to run his transition.

[...]

Even Bush holdovers, nominal and actual, outnumber and outrank serious progressives in the Obama Cabinet. Leading the pack is Robert Gates, President Bush's secretary of Defense -- the man who oversaw the very troop surge in Iraq that Obama opposed. Timothy Geithner, head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, will run the Obama Treasury Department. But Geithner has been a de facto right-hand man of current Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Indeed, of all Obama's confirmed or reported picks, only Eric Holder, Obama's nominee for attorney general, will cause any furor from the right. Even so, the former Clinton deputy AG is no darling of the left.

To his dismayed followers, Obama says fear not, I am the change. "Understand where the vision for change comes from, first and foremost," he told supporters. "It comes from me. That's my job, to provide a vision in terms of where we are going, and to make sure, then, that my team is implementing."

Similarly, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes wrote in a column posted on the Weekly Standard's website as of December 3 that Obama's Treasury Department and national security selections indicated "he's pragmatic (so far) in one direction -- rightward. Who knew?" Barnes wrote:

So the scoreboard looks like this: Three of the four cabinet posts that matter most are going to those with views acceptable to the center-right of the Democratic party. That's Geithner, Clinton, and Gates. The fourth, attorney general, will provoke a confirmation fight if Obama chooses his buddy Eric Holder, famous as President Clinton's deputy attorney general for facilitating the pardon of Marc Rich.

Three out of four isn't bad. Conservatives aren't jumping for joy. But imagine how the left wing of the Democratic party -- the dominant wing, after all -- feels. Let down would be an understatement.

[...]

If Obama wants to pursue economic and national security policies that would thrill MoveOn.org, William Ayers, and the Democratic left, he has a funny way of showing it. The only reasonable conclusion is he's spurning the left.

Obama has dozens of lesser posts to fill, and no doubt he'll use some of those jobs to assuage the left.

During the November 26 edition of his Cincinnati-based radio show, Bill Cunningham characterized Obama's Cabinet selections as "Reagan's economic team, Clinton retreads, and George Bush's national defense secretary" and stated, "If you're a Democrat and a liberal, especially an African-American Democrat liberal, are you this stupid?" He continued: "Don't you grasp what he's doing to you? Or are you gonna sit with your -- with your mouths shut, not voicing concern about the guy you thought you were electing, and you weren't electing him." Cunningham later stated:

Maybe Barack Hussein Obama is a brilliant politician. He gets the liberals to vote for him, then he governs like a conservative. And the liberals are so stupid; they're never gonna vote against Obama, right? In fact, I look forward -- if you voted for Obama, especially if you're an African-American -- more than 97 percent voted for Obama -- you should have a big sign put around your neck that says, "I am a dumb ass." Because you thought you were voting for change. Instead, you were voting for Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Get the signs out, put them around your neck like a sandwich board, and say, "I am a dumb ass."

In a December 3 Politico article headlined "Obama enemies are cheering," senior political writer Jonathan Martin reported that Republicans are "heaping praise on Obama's national security and economic teams" and uncritically quoted "Republican strategist and the former spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq" Dan Senor's claim that Obama's "real fight will be with the hard left of his own party." Martin wrote:

Patience isn't easy, especially for a GOP that is already frustrated at having taken severe beatings in consecutive elections. Yet the hope is that Obama's moves, however shrewd in the sunshine of his honeymoon period, will eventually create openings.

"This may be frustrating for Republicans," acknowledged Senor. "But it's an opportunity. It signals that Obama's real fight will be with the hard left of his own party. We should stand with him when he breaks with the left. It's looking like it will be a target-rich environment. This is a much better course than nit-picking on details, while he's doing the right thing on big issues."

In a December 1 CNN.com commentary, Julian E. Zelizer asserted that "[s]ome of Obama's core supporters are surprised and upset with his [Cabinet] choices," but did not cite or quote any of these purported "core supporters."

Also on December 1, Kirsten Powers wrote in a New York Post column, "They're Ba-a-ack: Obama Hires Hill -- and Bill," that Obama's selection of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state "infuriates many Obama supporters. Pulling the lever for Obama was supposed to usher out the Clinton era of baby-boomer entitlement and drama." Like Zelizer, Powers did not provide any examples of "infuriat[ed] Obama supporters."

But a USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted December 1, undermines the suggestion of significant disappointment with Obama. That poll found that in addition to Democrats' approval of Obama's handling of the transition and their support for Obama's selections of Clinton and Gates, 77 percent of Democrats indicated that Obama's administration will be "more effective" because he has chosen individuals who held positions in Bill Clinton's administration, with only 3 percent saying those choices will render his administration "less effective."

From the November 26 broadcast of the Clear Channel's The Big Show with Bill Cunningham:

CUNNINGHAM: You know, (Watchdog on Wall Street radio show host) Chris Markowski, Obama is redoing the Bush administration. For the last two years, he complained from pillar to post, from New Hampshire to California, all 58 states -- complained vociferously, Obama did -- about the conduction of the Iraqi war, especially the last two or three years. He voted against the surge, correct?

MARKOWSKI: Yep.

CUNNINGHAM: And who did he keep as -- as secretary of defense?

MARKOWSKI: Gates is back.

CUNNINGHAM: Robert Gates, who was in charge of the surge.

MARKOWSKI: Yeah.

CUNNINGHAM: And I'm thinking, "Wait a minute, I got Paul Volcker, I got Robert Gates, I have a slew of moderate to conservatives appointed by Obama." And I hear nothing from the African-American community or lefties that this is a remake of the Bush-Reagan administration.

[...]

CUNNINGHAM: The fact of the matter is he has just appointed Ronald Reagan's chief economic adviser, Paul Volcker, and he kept George Bush's secretary of defense, who for the last two years has been in charge of the Iraqi war that he campaigned against. Does anyone other than me see the delicious irony in any of this? Remember "change you can believe in?" Every sign, every bumper sticker, the commercials he ran. USA Today's got a story today that during this election cycle, Obama ran 450,000 commercials on television. I said 450,000 separate commercials on television. And after the election, who does he keep? Ronald Reagan's economic adviser and George Bush's secretary of defense.

Wow. Now that's change you can believe in. If you're a Democrat and a liberal, especially an African-American Democrat liberal, are you this stupid? Don't you grasp what he's doing to you? Or are you gonna sit with your -- with your mouths shut, not voicing concern about the guy you thought you were electing, and you weren't electing him. I support Barack Hussein Obama. I think the guy's gonna do a great job. With Reagan's economic team and George Bush's military team, how can Obama fail? Twenty-nine minutes after the hour, Billie Cunningham. You've been suckered.

[...]

CUNNINGHAM: Every day that goes by it becomes more obvious to me that Obama suckered something like 62 million people into voting for change when change ain't coming. I said it before the election, and I'm saying it after the election: This guy's gonna run like a liberal and he's gonna govern like a moderate to a conservative. He has three things: Ronald Reagan's economic team, Clinton retreads, and George Bush's national defense secretary, which, when you think about it, is not bad.

[...]

CUNNINGHAM: At this point, the war is over. America won, and the soldiers will start coming home. So, Obama -- who talked about the disasters in Iraq, about the hundreds of billions of dollars that were wasted, voting against the surge; keeps as the secretary of defense a guy who was in favor of the surge and participated in the strategy that resulted in Obama's election by criticizing it. Obama said nothing nice about George Bush and Robert Gates during the campaign, but once he gets into office, he says, give me Bush's military policy, give me the Clinton retreads, and give me Ronald Reagan's economic team.

And I can't believe that the 62 million fools and idiots and misinformed that put this guy in office can be happy with this. Because, you know what? I am. If I knew that this was the Obama that was gonna campaign -- I didn't want to vote for McCain. I held my nose and voted for John Sidney McCain III. I didn't want to do it. If I would have known that Paul Volcker was gonna -- Paul Volcker was gonna be there, and Robert Gates was gonna be there, and that Bubba and Hillary would be secretary of state, dodging the sniper fire in Bosnia for years to come, I would have voted for Obama in a heartbeat.

[...]

CUNNINGHAM: Maybe Barack Hussein Obama is a brilliant politician. He gets the liberals to vote for him, then he governs like a conservative. And the liberals are so stupid; they're never gonna vote against Obama, right? In fact, I look forward -- if you voted for Obama, especially if you're an African-American -- more than 97 percent voted for Obama -- you should have a big sign put around your neck that says, "I am a dumb ass." Because you thought you were voting for change. Instead, you were voting for Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Get the signs out, put them around your neck like a sandwich board, and say, "I am a dumb ass." I love this guy. Bill Cunningham stands with Barack Obama. B.O., keep doing what you're doing, because you're making, to me, a lot of sense -- especially that stuff about no tax increases for high-income Americans. Good job, I like that, too.

Chris Pullman was the VP of Design at WGBH in Boston for 35 years.

Viewers of PBS will recognize Pullman's work in the opening title sequences of "Masterpiece Theatre" and "Antiques Roadshow" and the WGBH animated on-air signature, which is used at the end of every program produced by the public broadcaster.

Pullman recently retired and shared ten lessons he's learned over the years.

2 Work with people you like and respect.

Birds of a feather flock together. That is a natural thing. Most of the people here at WGBH are here (or certainly stay here) because of our mission. Certainly, my long tenure has been largely because of the people in this room with whom I've shared such personal and heart-warming recollections of our time together. Since April, when I first announced my intention to leave WGBH, the private expression of these feelings has been so gratifying, both personally and professionally, that I recently suggested that maybe we should institute the policy of encouraging individuals to make periodic "mock retirement" announcements, with the goal of releasing more regularly the flow of kind remarks for the nourishment of the individual, since we are otherwise so reticent to praise or encourage others in our busy, self-centered daily lives.