Obama vs Technology?

[timesjoke]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/ipad_is_ibad_for_democracy_obama_FrUMkdTNGHlfZ5JOKSgMVO

 

"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," Obama said at Hampton University in Virginia.

 

 

 

 

 

So now information is a distraction?

 

So what is the alternative there Mr. Obama? Don't be informed? Don't question? Don't be concerned with the details and simply trust you to do what is needed?

 

 

 

I didn't see you and your liberal gang blindly trusting in Bush while he was President, during the Bush Presidency it was considered good to be informed, good to question, good to complain about the establishment, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly the sharing of information to large groups is bad?

 

 

Here is the "REAL" problem, Obama and the liberals/socialists control ABC, CBS, and NBC, they do not control all of these other information sources so that lack of control is what makes them bad in their eyes.

[eddo]

did he mean "information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation" for himself personally,

 

or for all of society?

 

 

from what you quoted, it seems that he is referring to himself, and saying that since he doesn't know how to work electronical things, it hinders him.

[timesjoke]

did he mean "information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation" for himself personally,

 

or for all of society?

 

 

from what you quoted, it seems that he is referring to himself, and saying that since he doesn't know how to work electronical things, it hinders him.

 

 

No, that is why I posted the link, he was offering it as a warning to a graduating class to not take these other forms of information sources too seriously, that these alternative platforms offer some people the chance to blog or comment and gain popularity outside of the established news sources. What he means is he can't control those other sources so they should not be paid attention to by the masses.

 

 

Obama has already taken direct shots at FOX news for daring not to "toe-the-line" and even tried to bully FOX away from certain announcements while only inviting ABC, NBC, and CBS. To give those other three credit, they did stand up to Obama and refused to let them get away with it but the real point is Obama "WANTED" to exclude FOX only because FOX refuses to kiss Obama's behind. Everyone can say what they want about Bush and every other Republican President but not one of them have demonstrated the kind of spoiled brat mentality Obama has shown to those who do not agree with him. Bush got hammered every day by the main Networks and he may have had fewer interviews, but he never refused to do interviews or tried to block certain Networks from the news pool just because they said things he did not agree with.

 

 

If Obama was any more thin skinned, he would be transparent.

[ToriAllen]

I think maybe you are being a bit nit-picky about this particular quote. I tend to agree that technology has increased to the point that it can be distracting. If you've ever played playstation and suddenly realized two hours of your life are gone, I'm sure you could agree, at least in part, that we have many more distractions now than we did twenty, or even ten years ago. The number of laptops surfing the net during class are astounding.

 

Now, I differentiate between technology and information. Information is much more valuable; however, the internet has opened the door to a lot of worthless, useless, waste-of-time information. I think it has also made people lazy, even more so than they previously were. Let me explain…

 

Do you have any idea how many bull-crap chain letters I get that people just pass on without checking the validity. Why? Because it happens to agree with their views… Ugh, not good enough. Even if I love the message and it correlates to my views, if it purports to be true or be based on fact, I do my best to check the validity. I refuse to pass something on and attach my name to something that is false. This is a very simple example, of-course. But it does point to the problem. Most people are too lazy to investigate the information they get to insure it is correct. The fact that you are on a site like this debating issues like this shows that you are not ‘most people’. However, Average Joe out there does a Google search and reads the first one or two links that pop up on the subject, whatever slant those may have, and accepts what they say.

 

The internet is also full of worthless knowledge. You can follow celebrity lives from what they eat for breakfast to what they wear to bed at night. Useless, useless crap. People now fill their heads with all this useless crap instead of information and knowledge that really matters. You ask someone an intellectual question, and they say, ‘give me a second and I’ll Google it.’ But, I bet they know which celebrity cheated on their spouse last week, or which one got pulled over for drunk driving without having to Google it.

 

Whatever his agenda may be in saying it, he has a darn good point. I’m not a big Obama fan, and I don’t agree with 90% of his policies, but I can’t discount everything he says just because I don’t like his politics. The simple fact is, people have the attention span of gnats and technology is only making it worse. I say this with the utmost love of my fellow man: People are stupid. I think the epidemic is getting worse, and that is what Obama is really getting at, but he just can’t come right out and say it.

[timesjoke]

I understand your point, and if the majority of Americans had said this I would not really care but when the President of the United States goes out of his way to say some forms of communication are "bad" and should be avoided I feel a chill go down my back wondering what is comming.

 

 

New policies start with ideas, first those ideas are just thoughts, then people start to talk about them. Suddenly there is a campaign to pressure change. Right now Obama being the most powerful politician in America is in the talking about it stage and what is he talking about? He specifically mentioned bloggers and such in his speach, he talks about certain ideas gaining traction and cannot be controlled. When the President of the United States is saying certain kinds of information should not be listened to......what is the next step?

 

 

 

I agree that to a certain degree, there is a lot of useless crap out there, but there is just as much crap on ABC, CBS, and NBC, but they are "okay" because they preach the party line, the only things Obama is speaking out against are the things he does not control and when people in power start talking about how bad a specific thing is, I know, maybe not today, but there will be movements to "deal with the problem" at some point in the future.

 

 

 

 

 

Let's get real for a second, Obama set records using these 'alternative information' methods to get elected. He uses tweeter, the whitehouse website, Flickr, and even facebook almost every day. Obama has no real problem with these alternative information sources, he just has a problem with not being able to control what he does not like.

 

 

He used the speech to warn that new media and new technology are "putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy."

 

New pressure?

 

Bush was blasted almost every day on these alternative sources, we certainly did not see Obama or a single Liberal come out against these bloggers and such then, because they liked it when \bush was the victim, but now that the "new pressure" is on Obama's back, suddenly it is a bad thing, and people should not be listening to them.

 

 

 

My concern is freedom of speach Tori, when we have powerful political figures talking about how one kind of free speach is bad, one kind of groups free speach is bad, what is the logical next step? I don't believe it is the place of any political figure to tell people what they should listen to, what is next? Controlling what people listen to.

[ToriAllen]

My concern is freedom of speach Tori, when we have powerful political figures talking about how one kind of free speach is bad, one kind of groups free speach is bad, what is the logical next step? I don't believe it is the place of any political figure to tell people what they should listen to, what is next? Controlling what people listen to.

When it gets to a point where he starts telling people what they should and shouldn't listen too, it's bad, but it is still just an opinion. Regardless, he wasn't really saying go to this website but not this one, subscribe to this blog but not this one. He made a general statement of the sort that I think if Bush had made it, the arguements of the parties would be reversed.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how to use xbox and playstation to catch up on my politics. Since they were specifically listed, I can't help but think they have something good in them if I could just figure out how to unlock it.

[ImWithStupid]

 

I'm still trying to figure out how to use xbox and playstation to catch up on my politics. Since they were specifically listed, I can't help but think they have something good in them if I could just figure out how to unlock it.

 

 

[attach=full]2776[/attach]

 

http://gigaom.com/2008/10/13/confirmed-obama-is-campaigning-on-xbox-360/

 

:lol:

[ToriAllen]

[attach=full]2777[/attach]

 

http://gigaom.com/2008/10/13/confirmed-obama-is-campaigning-on-xbox-360/

 

:lol:

lol. You'd think he'd be promoting it then... Free games for all the college grads....

[timesjoke]

[attach=full]2778[/attach]

 

http://gigaom.com/2008/10/13/confirmed-obama-is-campaigning-on-xbox-360/

 

:lol:

 

Good point IWS.

 

Obama spent a lot of money getting his political advertisement you show there inserted into a popular game.

 

 

 

Obama is the only canidate to use video games this way to the best of my knowledge, but at the same time he is at that graduation telling kids they should not pay attention to other sources of information?

 

 

 

 

So do as I say, not as I do? I am curious Tori, why do you believe Obama would use all these alternative methods for his campaign but now he is saying they are bad? Hell Obama is still using twitter, Flickr, and facebook, he is famous for his admission of being addicted to his Blackberry, even the secrete service tried to get him to stop using it because it was a security concern and Obama refused to stop using it. Obama has no issue with all these alternative information sources himself so why would he tell other people these other sources are bad now?

[ImWithStupid]

Kagan Argued for Government 'Redistribution of Speech'

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

 

(CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan said the high court should be focused on ferreting out improper governmental motives when deciding First Amendment cases, arguing that the government’s reasons for restricting free speech were what mattered most and not necessarily the effect of those restrictions on speech.

 

Kagan, the solicitor general of the United States under President Obama, expressed that idea in her 1996 article in the University of Chicago Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine.�

 

In her article, Kagan said that examination of the motives of government is the proper approach for the Supreme Court when looking at whether a law violates the First Amendment. While not denying that other concerns, such as the impact of a law, can be taken into account, Kagan argued that governmental motive is “the most important� factor.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/65720

[ToriAllen]

So do as I say, not as I do? I am curious Tori, why do you believe Obama would use all these alternative methods for his campaign but now he is saying they are bad?

Because he's human. He's as entitled to his opinion as you are to yours. Obviously, anyone will like certain outlets that help them and dislike those that oppose them. I don't care for NPR but I like Fox; that's my opinion.

 

However, that's not what I'm getting from the very general statement he made. I use facebook ALL the time, but I think it is a horrible distraction. I've 'wasted' hours and hours of my life that could have been spent much more productively posting on debate sites like this. There are tons of things I know are bad for productivity and rot the brain that I do anyway. Again, I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill, and I do not think that particular comment had anything to do with limiting free speech or any rights at all. It seems much more like the general technology is a distraction argument and I really don't think I can explain it any better than I did in my first post, so rather than repeating myself, I'll just say: Refer to previous post. I refuse to do to him what the liberals did to Bush and pick everything he says apart looking for some sinister motivation. Frankly, I think he has enough policy crap to pick apart, that singling out general statements, in a speech that most of the students probably weren’t even paying attention to, seems a little inconsequential.

[timesjoke]

I am just saying that ideas are the first step to policies, talk about them and see how people react.

 

I do believe he is being two faced where he used all of the things he now says is bad and the only reason I feel he has changed his mind is because he now feels the pressures instead of the benefits.

 

 

Hopefully there will be enough "change" in the midterm elections to halt and even scale back a lot of the radical things he has already done but I still say that when someone as powerful as the President of the United States is trying to say certain things are bad, that usually means they want to do something about what they say is bad.

 

 

 

We will see how things go, lol.

[timesjoke]

The White House press office is behaving more and more like an independent media outlet, bypassing traditional news avenues in favor of releasing its own "exclusive" video, voicing administration opinions on its official blog and blasting out updates via Twitter.

 

The trend has raised questions among the press corps about whether the administration is looking to just tap its own resources to make major announcements. President Obama leans more on internal media as he continues to criticize the "24/7" media environment -- singling out cable news, radio and blogs for occasional lectures -- and appears to be abandoning the prime-time press conference forum he used to discuss major developments during his first few months in office.

 

"They're doing a very adept job of using new media in the White House," said Pete Snyder, CEO of New Media Strategies. "Whether it's from the constant updates of information at the White House website to ... bypassing the mainstream news media in answering questions and thoughts via Twitter to their use of the photo-sharing site Flickr, really to show the softer side, the more human side, of the administration."

 

But the White House says the office is just trying to get information out as directly and efficiently as possible.

 

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs used his new Twitter account on Tuesday to distribute an Associated Press article reporting the Minerals Management Service would be split into two agencies -- and seemingly confirm the news at the same time. He used the same account to break the news in March that Obama would be delaying his trip to Indonesia and Australia to work on the health care bill. Asked how heavily his Twitter account would factor into the news cycle, Gibbs bemoaned technical difficulties with his White House e-mail account and said: "I would say Twitter is a quick medium to get information out and we'll probably use it more often."

 

 

The technologically adroit administration has gone far beyond Twitter in promoting its activities and establishing its own self-sufficient media arm. The administration started its roll-out of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan with an internally produced video and interview posted to the White House blog. Bereft of hard questions, the video showed Kagan talking about her parents and growing up in New York City. She said in the video that she hopes people will see that she is open-minded, fair, has good judgment and "will faithfully apply the law."

 

MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Wednesday suggested on air that the White House was "crossing a number of lines here."

 

Asked on Tuesday whether the rest of the press might get a crack at a one-on-one interview with the nominee, Gibbs replied: "She's not told me that, no."

 

The White House even labeled its content as "exclusive footage" when it posted video of first lady Michelle Obama visiting Haiti to survey the earthquake damage last month. The documentary-style video showed footage of the first lady flying over the devastation and scenes from the ground and included a voiceover by Obama.

 

Meanwhile, Obama has not held a full-blown solo press conference since last July, when he convened the press corps at the White House to discuss health care.

 

He held a joint press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Wednesday at which two questions from the U.S. press and two questions from the Afghan press were allowed. He also came to the back of Air Force One last month to talk to the media, and he made an appearance at the daily White House briefing in February.

 

Earlier this month Gibbs ridiculed a reporter who complained that none of those constitute a traditional press conference. Gibbs noted that Obama took eight questions at the Nuclear Security Summit on April13.

 

Asked earlier in the year about the press conference drop-off, Gibbs complained that Obama had previously been accused of being "overexposed."

 

White House Correspondents' Association President Ed Chen has held a sit-down with Gibbs to plead reporters' case for more exposure.

 

Comparisons to recent administrations show that Obama, during his first year, opened up to the press in some venues and shied away from the press in others.

 

Obama had 47 informal, brief question-and-answer sessions with the press corps in the first year of his presidency. By comparison, President George W. Bush had 147 and President Bill Clinton had 252, according to statistics compiled by Towson University professor Martha Joynt Kumar.

 

Obama held four prime-time press conferences in the East Room, according to Kumar -- an unprecedented number for a president's first year, though he has not held one since. But in terms of total press conferences, he and Bush paled in comparison to Clinton. In their first years in office, Obama held 27 total press conferences, Bush held 19 and Clinton held 45.