Text Comments Out In YouTube "National Discussion" of Health Care 287
theodp writes "While the White House has invited the nation to Join the National Online Discussion on Health Care Reform, it is currently only accepting 20-30 second YouTube video responses — text comments have been disabled. Which raises a question: Should a video camera be the price of admission for participating in an open government discussion, especially when issues may hit those with lower incomes the hardest? BTW, the response-to-date has been underwhelming — 101 video responses and counting — and is certainly a mixed-bag, including a one-finger salute, a talking butt, a woman "Showing my Apples", and other off-topic rants and unrelated videos."
Sounds bytes (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds to me like the administration is looking for raw material they can put into commercials to run in districts that oppose Obama's plans.
I.e,. this might be a huge casting call in disguise.
I'm fairly skeptical these days when Obama says he wants to involve the general population in a discussion. His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana. It appears that at least sometimes, he's only pretending to take the general citizenry's views into account, even when he's saying otherwise.
Re:Sounds bytes (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm fairly skeptical these days when Obama says he wants to involve the general population in a discussion.
Skeptical is good.
His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana. It appears that at least sometimes, he's only pretending to take the general citizenry's views into account, even when he's saying otherwise.
I have little doubt there was significant internal discussion about the issue. It probably resulted in the consensus that the topic is political poison and they should avoid any public commentary. They still are concerned about the next election and need a longer period for policies to take effect and show a difference if they want many of their initiatives to last for the long term. I've been underwhelmed by the public participation programs put into place. It is hard to distinguish between the administration not hearing and the administration willfully pretending they did not hear anything, but at least on the marijuana issue it is pretty likely to be the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
... His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana. It appears that at least sometimes, he's only pretending to take the general citizenry's views into account, even when he's saying otherwise.
President Obama did come out and speak to the Marijuana question, but he answer it in a non-serious manner. See here: Legalizing Pot Won't Grow Economy [cbsnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds bytes (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep. The anxious need for schadenfreude is precisely what motivates me. You got me! I am also not the author of Progress and Nihilism [slashdot.org].
Luckily for you, I am stupid enough to miss the fact that your question is loaded. It heavily relies on the false premise that the President is able to fix this problem. My attention span is short enough that I forget that this is the man that managed to run a presidential campaign against 9 more experienced rivals and then won the general election against a decorated veteran and a war hero. Couple that with the fact I and everyone else has no idea that large-scale campaigns (in order to be successful) must run daily polls on every angle of their message. Then you'll really have us scratching our heads as to why would a President with resources 10,000 times in excess of the resources of a candidate is not commissioning scientific polls, but is rather making a gesture appeal to one of the most loony audiences he can find.
I hope my dim mind sees the light for at least a brief enough moment to realize that appealing to loons in order to create the illusion of being a populist is just ANOTHER trick in the hands of con men. It is more creative than putting ring men among those who question you, but it is still just a sleight of hand.
aawee schadenfreude... it's soooo cute when shills learn from what they see on TV. Let me quote you another line from Alan Shore (since you are so clearly a fan): "sincerity...once you learn to fake that, there'll be no stopping you."
Re:Sounds bytes (Score:5, Insightful)
"That's the reason why you can't acknowledge that Obama is a much better president than Bush"
I'm pretty sure Obama is much more intelligent and is a vastly better speaker than Bush but that could just mean he will be more adept at manipulating the American people than Bush was. Bush/Cheney used blunt force to control the American people. Obama's team seems to me much better at deceit and making everyone one happy about being sold down the river. Take for example, all of these gimmicks to pretend like they are listening to the American people through the web. Listening through YouTube and Facebook is mostly designed in to suckering large numbers of Obama supporters, especially young people, in to thinking they are being heard when they really aren't. Congress and the White House still listen to lobbyists and corporations first, ordinary Joe's not at all, its going to take a seismic shift in our system for that to change, and its very unlikely to happen. Power just doesn't shift that radically without a major upheaval to force it, like a revolution.
You simply can't listen to a couple hundred million people randomly spouting off in YouTube, Facebook or on a web site. The Obama people are mostly just conning their supporters in to thinking if they say something on a website someone will actually listen. Chances are very slim of that happening, like winning the lottery slim.
I voted for Obama and I hated Bush/Cheney with a passion, but I am rapidly starting to agree with Bill Maher that in a lot of ways Obama really is Bush Lite. His popularity among Americans is about the same as Bush's at same point in their presidencies. Only thing Obama has is the rest of the world likes him while most of the world hated Bush from the get go.
Obama has continued SO many Bush policies unaltered he has mostly proved what everyone says, there isn't a dimes worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats any more. To name a few issues where there is no "Change":
- Warrantless spying on American citizens
- Bush tax cuts for the rich continue
- Tax cuts for middle class, are tiny, are going to get killed in a year or two and are a joke
- Gitmo is still open and it appears it really hasn't changed much from where Bush/Cheney left it
- Squandering money he doesn't have like a drunken sailor, just squandering it in slightly different directions
- Iraq war strategy is essentially the way Bush left it
- Afghan/Pakistan war strategy, escalation, and I wager its how Gates planned it under Bush
- Insane claims to justify secrecy just like the Bush administartion
- Multipage signing statements outlining all the parts of new laws from Congress he will ignore.... just like Bush.
- Response to the economic crisis no different than Bush/Paulson other than the retarded $700 billion stimulus which squandered money to no good end, its was mostly Democratic pork. Bush/Paulson would have just handed out more money to Wall Street so it would have been Republican pork.
- He maybe banned torture but I imagine the Bush administration had already been shamed in to stopping that, and Obama let all the people who enabled it at get away with violating U.S. and international law. Its criminal all the enlisted soldiers at Abu Graib did hard time for doing something that was White House mandated policy and happening at U.S. prisons around the globe.
- Defense spending is at the same staggering levels where Bush left it
Only areas its clear Obama is diverging from Bush so far:
- Cap and trade bill which, if it even makes it through the Senate, wont solve anything other than kill more U.S. manufacturing jobs. For cap and trade to work it has to be global or polluters who can move, will move. They could have made a better bill by slapping tariffs on China and India until they join a global cap and trade system. China and India are going to add more pollution than the U.S. will ever cut under that bill.
- This health care bill. First strike against Obama he said "No Manda
Super'bama! (Score:3, Insightful)
Or perhaps, he is just waiting for the right time to take up the topic. Just because he hasn't legalized weed in the first few months of his presidency does not mean he is ignoring the issue. Don't you suppose that, while anti-drug laws are pointless and archaic, they are SLIGHLTLY less important making sure that the economy doesn't implode further, getting out of the Iraq war, winning the
Re: (Score:2)
A) That's not his job.
B) If he wanted to help fix the economy he should bring troops home to reduce spending.
C) The people who are going to fix the economy are people like you and I.
D) Legalizing marijuana would also help reduce spending.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana.
Are you serious? Of course Obama didn't make weed legal even though it's quite popular in some circles. Popular opinion doesn't dictate good governance!
Re:Opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
The Obama administration is far, far better than any Bush administration.
I agree. They are much, much better liars. Listening to Bush lie was boring. It was obvious. It insulted my intelligence. While Obama's lies are grandiose. They are eloquent. They take at least 10-15 seconds to parse through before the waaaait-a-minute moment. It's a pleasure. We are very fortunate to have a much more skillful entertainer in the White House.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't bush-era science policy anti-clowning?
That was great. Absolutely brilliant! /hatoff
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Promises of financial "transparency", yet his actions regarding this are more of the same Bush policy. Banks still get to lie about their solvency, GS, JPM, and others still have their hand right in the taxpayers wallet via the treasury. Bailout Nation continues.
Ending the war in Iraq. Still no exit strategy. More money being spent, more people being sent over.
Re:Opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
bleh... I'll stop... I am sure you'll want to jump in and divert attention from what I said to some way of saying that "but look at what the crazy evil stupid Republicans are doing." After all, it's Sunday night. And Timothy posted this one with what I can only suspect was a bucket of pop corn ready at his side.
Re:Opinion (Score:5, Informative)
on the financial situation, though, you're way, way off. the "Fannie Mae regulation" you're thinking of wasn't a Fannie Mae regulation - otherwise it wouldn't have applied to other banks. you're presumably thinking of the CRA, which did apply to other banks, but wasn't designed either to put banks at the crazy risk they put themselves in (it contained explicit language against such behavior) or to support securitization of the loans (enabled by a later amendment). the numbers on CRA default rates, compared to the "general population" also doesn't support putting much blame there.
the notion that there is some idealized money supply inherently consistent with a given level of economic activity is laughably naive. you set monetary policy as a tool to achieve a given end; the current economic level is context for that activity. i've not seen (but would be quite interested in seeing) any serious, quantitive analysis of the Fed's handling of money supply that makes a strong case that they could have avoided the housing bubble without serious consequences (like astronomical inflation).
and no, of course greed is not new. but we've spent 20+ years disassembling the regulatory structure designed to keep our greed in check, which had worked very well for about 50 years before that. greed drove the disassembly, of course, coupled with a religious devotion to a particularly warped conception of the free market and crypto corporatism.
Re:Opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
It absolutely *stuns* me, I mean jaw drops, cannot move holy shit WTFOMGBBQ that still to this day after millions of man hours dedicated to and billions of pages written dissecting each and every micrometer of the global mess that is known as the financial meltdown. That there are *still* individuals such as yourself so self assured in your absolute delusion drooling "freddie and fannie forced to give loans" even makes sense, let alone was what brought the entire worlds economy to its knees.
Truly you are an intellectual giant. To somehow miss the entirety of the worlds press output and conclusions in dissecting the cause of the crash and manage to attribute it to a few US home mortgages that were given due to some legislation in the 90's takes some *serious* mental horsepower.
Here's the cause of the financial meltdown for you in easy to digest pieces.
1. Banks begin selling mortgages directly to investors.
2. This makes banks a huge amount of money, and so they start handing out mortgages willy nilly so they can sell even more, even to people who they would *never* have lent to before. But now they don't care AS THEY DON"T OWN THE MORTGAGES. -- see that's the bit where they *chose* to give out the crap mortgages. But of course now they try and blame it on the government so corporate lick-spittle dimwits would sell themselves down the river to protect said banks.
3. They package these BAD mortgages up as AAA rated mortgages with the complicity of criminally fradulent ratings agencies.
4. They sell these corrupt mortgage package on to investors rated AAA when in fact they should be rated -ZZZ GTFO.
5. Investors then on sell them, sometimes even *back* to the banks, the packages stop representing any sort of true wealth at all and become fake paper wealth, only held up by the stupidity of huge investment firms and financial institutions.
5. A few people default on their mortgages...investors suddenly realize that their AAA rated mortgages actually are mixed up with extremely high risk mortgages as well.
6. Investors shit themselves and sell them ASAP.
7. A couple of mammoth financial institutions take big hits.
8. AIG insures said institutions...except AIG actually doesn't actually have any money to give them.
9. Banks, financial "institutions" and half of wall street are stuck with a few trillion dollars worth of "toxic" assets, that is packages that are so extraordinarily complicated and recursive that noone knows who actually owns what and how much is real wealth and how much is fake ponzi bullshit scheme wealth.
10. Dimwits somehow blame all this on some ridiculous 1990's legislation that doesn't even GOVERN 70% of the institutions at the top of the problem.
11. Thieves in said institutions use the ensuing shit fight by useful idiots blaming the "over entitled poor people" to stage the biggest plundering of a public treasury in the history of the world.
12. Occasional dimwits continue to blame the government - in some sort of bizarro world NOT for their lack of regulation in order to prevent such an enormous pyramid scheme from being concocted in the first place...but for somehow *forcing* these institutions to fraudulently package shit mortgages that they *chose* to give out as AAA rated investments, making trillions of dollars profit by doing so and trying to pass them along before it all fell apart as is typical of any ponzi scheme.
13. Give it up and learn FFS.
That said the Federal Reserve bears alot of responsibility for the low cost of money making credit to easy to get for the large firms. Of course the fact that the VERY SAME large firms make up the majority of the seats on the Federal Reserve makes blaming the government even stupider.
Except of course for giving the Federal Reserve that sort of power in the first place. Which is a call for more regulation...not less.
Re:Opinion (Score:4, Insightful)
This is somewhat OK, but one of your points is grossly understated and you're missing one. The 'oh the banks are greedy and everything is their fault' is a very popular line these days, and certainly they have their share of responsibility.
#0: A lot of people who can't afford expensive mortgages buy them. This happened before #1 and was, indeed, at the behest of the Federal government (both Clinton and Bush). Fur further information: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/business/19cisneros.html?scp=8&sq=federal%20housing%20clinton&st=cse [nytimes.com]. I don't know about you, but even if the Feds decide that the national rate of home ownership should be closer to 75-85% as opposed to 50% (to say nothing of why such a number should be arrived at by fiat rather than by, I don't know, what people can afford), and even if banks then begin falling all over themselves taking advantage of government policy that both enables and encourages them to begin (at best) foolish or (at worst) predatory practices, this still required buy-in from untold numbers of individual, real, human beings, who looked at their mortgage like most people look at their credit cards these days: free money! Nobody held a gun to their heads, and obviously a huge squadron of trained, pushy mortgage brokers can have a field day with a chunk of the population that suddenly has access to large dollar amounts and isn't familiar with how everything is going to work 1, 2, or 10 years from when they sign the papers -- but the idea of living according to your means isn't a new one, or even a difficult one.
#7: 'A few people default on their mortgages.'
A year ago, there were 500,000 foreclosures in the two months alone -- (source [consumermo...eports.com]). It's interesting that you would choose a word like 'few' to play down the impact of the average, everyday joe in this equation. It's as if you feel more comfortable blaming banks and businesspeople (oh noes! they make money so they are evil!) even though you've got quite a few other facts in order here. Don't get me wrong - I'd be happy to line up some of these mortgage brokers or the execs who issued the AAA bond ratings and do terrible things to them, but the government opened the door for all of this to happen. Your description of banks issuing bad mortgages because they don't own them is not really accurate. If the banks actually had no exposure to these mortgages, then WaMu and Countrywide wouldn't have gone under. They 'chose' to give out crap mortgages because the government (via Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) was guaranteeing quite a lot of them. If the market establishes that half of Americans can afford homes and half can't, and then somebody in Washington decides that that number should be 75%, then you are fairly rapidly entering the area where somebody is going to be issuing a mortgage to somebody who can't afford it. No bank in their right mind would do that in a free market -- and even in our market, some banks went hog-wild with the false sense of security and the thought of collecting interest from so many new mortgages, while other banks still got into the deep end but realized a little sooner that you can't wave a magic wand and cause nearly a hundred million people who previously couldn't afford a mortgage to afford one.
The Government waved that wand and so the blame in this picture is theirs in that they opened the door, but it took a lot of self-important bankers and brokers to complete the disaster. It does seem ironic that 'more government regulation' is somehow the answer.
Sincerely,
A dimwit
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism"
I remember that one....
Those people kneeling behind their cars with razor blades look pretty silly now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If he doesn't do anything, how is "the cause" advanced? You think he'll suddenly legalise pot in his second term?
Sure, his other policies make him the best choice, but on this one, he has no credibility.
If there
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's an attempt to filter out the crazies (Score:4, Funny)
Apparently it's not working.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, and when lampposts where first invented, the crazies took turns seeing who could sit atop them the longest.
Remember - Youtube didn't even exist for the 2004 US Presidential election. We have a long way to go, but probably within our lifetimes, such behaviour will become the exception rather than the norm.
Certainly within those individuals lifetimes prospective employers will commonly and frequently use the simple tools required to determine a candidates "internet retard" score, automagically picking up
Re: (Score:2)
So...it's crazy if I write "jews did wtc you are Muslim, not American" but if I say it on a camera it becomes sane?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Using YouTube is an attempt to filter out the crazies? That's even crazier than the finger guy!
thank god (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This (and this [xckd.com])
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
True... but have you ever looked at the average YouTube video?
Unfortunately nutjobs usually have lots of time on their hands and are masters of minimal effort.
Article title is flat-out wrong (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA:
If I were the staff member in charge of wading through the discussion, I wouldn't want to have to use Youtube's craptastic comment system either.
You do not need a camera to post vids on youtube (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You do not need a camera to post vids on youtub (Score:5, Funny)
You are the person who invented sending four line comments in powerpoints aren't you. Now we have your ID we are going to hunt you to the ends of the internet. You can't run and you can't hide. Our advance team is in Montréal already. They will be arriving at your home soon. Stay there so that at least you die surrounded by the things you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Price of admission (Score:3, Insightful)
Looks to me like a computer is the greatest part of that admission price. The camera (assuming the computer didn't come with one) is just an extra fee.
Re: (Score:2)
Who needs a camera? (Score:3, Insightful)
MS Paint and Windows Movie Maker.
Say it in 24 bit color, baby!
the internet isn't some magic solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, as a technical question it's now easy for everyone to communicate with their public officials! But what exactly are these officials supposed to do with ten thousand poor-quality comments? Institute a Slashdot-style moderate system? A digg-style voting system? (Obama did actually try that last one.) Develop a new version of spam filter that is some sort of "shitty comment with no useful content" filter? It seems what they're trying here is exactly what the submitter criticizes, a "barrier to entry" filter, with the hope that people who bother to make a video about their idea at least have an idea they've thought through for 5 minutes. Looks like that may have failed, too, but I can't blame them for trying.
In a different context, Gerhard Fischer pointed out [illinois.edu] in 1996 something similar about the internet not being a magical solution for education:
Video lectures (Score:4, Informative)
> The "Nobel Prize winner" myth: Every school child will have access to a Nobel Prize winner
In some ways yes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn8PNMTSlwo [youtube.com]
Plenty of other lectures/talks from MIT, Stanford, and other universities around the world are available online.
> it is doubtful that Nobel Prize winners will look forward to getting a few thousand e-mail messages a day.
I'm sure Feynman isn't too worried about that :).
FWIW, you can learn a lot from people without sending email to them, or communicating with them.
Re: (Score:2)
That's something you could do in the pre-internet era, too, though: it's not like we just invented the idea that you can make some sort of video recording of lectures. There's an improvement in accessibility, since it's now easier to widely distribute those videos for free, versus charging even nominal fees to duplicate and mail out VHS tapes. But there's no fundamental change in what kind of communication it is.
There had been a lot of educational buzz in the 80s and 90s about how the communication itself w
"national discussion"? (Score:5, Insightful)
I often hear (on NPR, usually) politicians calling for a "national discussion" or a "national debate" on some topic.
Exactly what is a "national discussion/debate"?
It seems to me like things usually work out this way: news organizations cover some topic, congress and the President start discussing it, lobbyists come onto the scene, and in the end the Congress either (a) sells us out to lobbyists, or (b) makes a completely irrational piece of legislation.
So is calling for a "national discussion/debate" really just an attempt to dress, as democratic, a decision which the common citizen has no capacity to influence? That is, like what happens with so-called "town-hall meetings"?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Excellent point. Its ridiculous to think that we the people have any control or influence over our government. They do what they want and make it appear as if you asked for it.
They rarely ever do what the people ask them to. They instead will give them a bill for example: "National Health Care reform act" which sounds great on a glance but it will be full of corporate hand outs and designed in a way that doesnt help the people at all get what they voted for.
Its all a magic trick with lots of misdirection. P
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He was black?
Re: (Score:2)
Micheal Jackson or the doctor?
Already a restriction (Score:2, Insightful)
Surely it raises another question: Should internet access be the price of admission for participating in an open government discussion, especially when issues may hit those with lower incomes the hardest?
If you're going to restrict discussion to those with access to the web it doesn't seem a giant leap to expect them to have a cheap and cheerful webcam.
Re: (Score:2)
So long as you can get a library card, you can get Internet access at your local library.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely it raises another question: Should internet access be the price of admission for participating in an open government discussion, especially when issues may hit those with lower incomes the hardest?
If you're going to restrict discussion to those with access to the web it doesn't seem a giant leap to expect them to have a cheap and cheerful webcam.
Well the other options are travel to DC and testify or write in a letter. Neither of these are eliminated anyway. The former is way more expensive than internets and the latter makes two way discussion more difficult.
Doing it this way isn't raising the barrier to only include people with internets/webcams. It is lowering the barrier to include at least the people who have them.
Then write a letter (Score:5, Insightful)
If your opinion is so valuable then write a letter and mail it to the President or your elected representative.
Re: (Score:2)
I've gotten those pre-printed responses too. They don't even take the time to sign the replies with their own hand.
No thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
There can be no winner.
If they accept online text-based comments, they get trash from birfers and the like.
If video responses, they get trash and criticism of creating an expensive barrier to entry.
If paper comments, they get pre-printed junk and criticism of wasting paper.
A solution is not to go to the masses (where it is the unemployed loons who have all the spare time), but to have a summit to which people (from all areas) are invited. Take away as much of the tribal clumping as possible, and bring it ba
Re:Then write a letter (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, I'm sure he gets letters from everyone. So if you really wanna make an impression, you need to give him a present. I think a chocolate gun would be a good present and you should run up to him really fast to give it to him.. because he's so busy.
Video Camera's aren't the barrier of entry (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Video Camera's aren't the barrier of entry, owning a computer/mobile device that has internet access is.
What? Don't they have computers in cafés or libraries in the US?
They didn't go far enough. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An inconspicuous line in the before-you-press-submit spiel that says "Put ## at the start of your writing" with an implied "This tells me you aren't some kind of moron who doesn't read or follow basic instructions before flapping his jaws. If you don't your submission goes on the bottom of the crap pile."
It's a compromise. You honestly don't know this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Color me trolled.
Look, this is plainly a compromise that tries to cull wheat from chaff. Don't believe me? Go look at any major American newspaper website. Pick any random story and dive into the comments. Now, take note of the insults, the extremely partisan rhetoric (from all sides), the bad grammar, the incredible misunderstandings of the entire point, and, yeah, even hopes that one or the other subjects go die.
It's simply much easier for anyone to click reply and type out, "HURR DURRR UR A FAGGG." Sure, you can do the same with with a web camera -- and apparently some folks are doing so -- but I bet there are going to be much less to go through than if everyone could pop a comment under the story.
Re:It's a compromise. You honestly don't know this (Score:2)
Hm... maybe if they run a spell check on all comments and use the result as a spam filter. The comment only gets read if the spell check is minimally satisfied.
I used to have faith (Score:2)
They DO take text comments ... (Score:5, Informative)
... only from Facebook users via their Facebook site. The link is on the referenced page.
Don't you mean... (Score:2)
A video camera, computer, internet connection and YouTube account?
Moderator? (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only person who's concerned that the Whitehouse has been allowed to be the moderator of such discussions?
After all, the administration has a political agenda, and therefore an incentive to bias the discussions on any particular topic of debate. Deciding details such as the length and form of submissions can be a powerful device for controlling the topic and direction of debate. At that point, it's a rather useless vehicle for arguing a side that the administration doesn't want advanced.
Re: (Score:2)
They're hardly the moderator of such discussions. Dozens of other newspapers, TV channels, and websites are also moderating discussions on the subject.
Re: (Score:2)
The more any one group tries to abuse their power to control the means of communication (or abuse their power in any way, really), the faster people will start to see through it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, the objection is that the administration is allowed to choose which information it thinks is relevant to developing and promoting a health care plan? This differs from governments' usual way of making policy how, exactly?
I see the point that they're imposing some limits on how the conversation goes, but did anyone really expect anything different?
My point is just that there's a vast distance separating this kind of rinky-dink maneuvering from the government's having somehow actually succeeded in making
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This differs from governments' usual way of making policy how, exactly?
It doesn't, which is pretty much exactly my point. Whether you think the political process in general is working correctly or not, this "discussion" is extremely unlikely to be a meaningful part of it. It therefore amounts to propaganda: an attempt by the administration to appear to be more open to suggestion from the people and more in touch with modern culture than previous ones.
Sometimes I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry (Score:3, Funny)
I think I'll cry.
Re: (Score:2)
At least it wasn't a camaro.
Weedout? (Score:4, Interesting)
Raising the technical bar weeds out the sincere from the rest.
At least that was the idea until the talking butt came along.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly why they did this, btw. I guarantee. Everytime the government asks the people ANYTHING in a context where their comments don't have to be associated with their face, probably around 70% of responses revolve around legalizing marijuana. They're not doing it, so they don't want to read twenty thousand copies of it again. If they un-democratize the process, they only have to watch the first five seconds of a thousand copies of it.
*sigh* (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm beginning to see what they're up to. If the nut cases are busy writing hundred page rants (or making creative talking butt videos) then they're probably not out causing trouble.
One-finger salute, talking butt, 'see my apples' (Score:3, Insightful)
Just as intellectual as the rest of the farce known as politics. The only difference is that the professionals wear fancy suits and genuinely think they are saying something insightful.
Re:One-finger salute, talking butt, 'see my apples (Score:2, Informative)
Just as intellectual as the rest of the farce known as politics. The only difference is that the professionals wear fancy suits and genuinely think they are saying something insightful.
Sounds a lot like slashdot to me.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sitting in front of a computer in your underwear is NOT a fancy suit. Yes, it's fancier than a birthday suit, but it's still not fancy.
"What can you do for ME?" (Score:3, Insightful)
Very few have been asking the hard questions, like "What part of the Constitutional gives you authority to do this?"
For someone who is supposed to be a "Constitutional scholar", Obama does not seem to have much understanding of it.
YouTube (Score:2)
Wait, they put out a call on YouTube and they expected anything other than this as a response? It's *YouTube*, wtf did they expect? Have they never read the comments section on any random video on the site?
Yes but... (Score:2)
Yes but at least the Republican senators were willing to voice their opinions in the most eloquent manner they could.
Can't afford $10-20? (Score:2)
In response to your concern over responses from people with lower incomes: I think this is rather unfounded given that webcams go for as little as $10-20. That is certainly minute compared to the cost of the computer and the internet connection itself.
Elephant in the room (Score:2, Insightful)
The elephant in the room is of-course this: in the time of the largest US economic meltdown, in the time when the government must do one thing - cut spending and shrink to cut costs and stop printing money, in this time how is this reform going to be paid for? One most likely possibility is of-course the printing press.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the US is still in the midst of economic meltdown, cutting spending is the last thing they should be doing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the US is still in the midst of economic meltdown, cutting spending is the last thing they should be doing.
If I recall, the government of the Soviet Union spend quite a bit of money on the Soviet Union economy. Some might argue that is what caused their meltdown. But then again, some might argue that the only thing that anyone learns from history is that no one ever learns from history...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US is in economic meltdown and the only thing that it can do to save itself is to stop spending. Well, that and it must stop printing short term and long term money so that dollar inflation will stop. Then, if it cannot pay its debt, it must default, which will inevitably happen anyway. It will either be done honestly (unlikely) or dishonestly (most likely) - by printing money and inflating the dollar so that the bonds and dollars held by the debt owners will become worthless.
One way or another the o
Re:Elephant in the room (Score:4, Insightful)
Keynes is absolutely wrong for what is happening right now - destruction of currency based on overspending, borrowing without having any collateral, losing the manufacturing capacity and generally becoming uncompetitive in the global market.
What is happening right now not a normal situation, so your normal theories are not valid.
Sham (Score:2)
The pattern so far is to pass complex pieces of legislation along strictly partisan lines so quickly that Congress can't read it and the public can't react to it. The last thing the administration wants is real public comment on this.
Irrelevant (Score:2)
The notion of a "town hall" at the Federal level is bunk. The comments or pithy videos selected will likely be produced or pushed by interested parties anyway, so the notion that poor people are being disenfranchised is irrelevant, since all citizens lack franchise in the propaganda state.
The government that the Democratic majority and presidency is practicing is the type of behavior that is common in the legislatures of states like New York. The "leadership" provides plums in the form of committee assignme
Re:Boo. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Easy answer (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we can tolerate the absence of people who can afford computers and not cellphone cameras.
The libraries near me are full of poor people using internet connected computers. My cell phone has a camera, but it doesn't do video and the only way to get images off of it is to pay absurd data transfer rates. Many people I see only have pay as you gocell phones with no camera capabilities. I think you might be a little disconnected from the realities of the lower class and their access to video cameras.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, who cares. I wonder what's up with this dude sometimes, but in terms of signal to noise in Obama stories (a rea
Re: (Score:2)
I think you might be a little disconnected from the realities of the lower class and their access to video cameras.
I immediately found a crappy one for $12. [amazon.com] It would certainly be good enough for this.
I found another one that's even crappier but will still let you upload short videos to YouTube for only $4. [amazon.com]
Either will let you participate in the "national discussion". It's a matter of style I guess.
When even disabling text comments on a YouTube video sparks talk of social injustice, we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You think libraries let you plug in Webcams and install drivers and talk and record video on site?
Either will let you participate in the "national discussion".
Not unless you own your own computer they won't.
When even disabling text comments on a YouTube video sparks talk of social injustice, we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find it.
There is serious inequality when it comes to being listened to by politician, but this is a pretty minor instance of that. I merely object to people who don't have any idea how hard this can be for many people spouting off based upon their preconceptions and ignorance of the difficulties many people face.
Re:Easy answer (Score:4, Informative)
Should a video camera be the price of admission for participating in an open government discussion, especially when issues may hit those with lower incomes the hardest?
Yes. I think we can tolerate the absence of people who can afford computers and not cellphone cameras.
And only land-owners should have the right to vote?
I know people that can afford a computer (at the public library), but who can not afford a cell phone (regular monthly expenses).
Re: (Score:2)
I think we can tolerate the absence of people who can afford computers and not cellphone cameras.
And only land-owners should have the right to vote?
I'm guessing just like me, he missed the fact that this was about voting.
Oh wait, I still don't see it - care to point out where it says that this was going to be used for voting?
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a vote. This is an informal RFC that's going to be largely disregarded just like everything else.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You sir are an ignorant bastard. I think we can tolerate the absence of stupid elitist slashdot posters that don't understand what a quality cell phone with video + internet data plan costs compared to entry level PC's and dial up internet so prevalent in most low income households.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is simply not a serious barrier comparable to e.g. owning land which separates people into demographics (landowners vs renters) having legitimate and distinctly separate policy interests. Not being able to produce a video in order to comment on a stupid Obama Youtube stunt doesn't really place you into a protected minority. Youtube is a private entity, and private entities
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Middle class people are the only people that really care about this issue. They are the ones that get screwed over if taxes go up to pay for health care. Rich people already have plenty of health care and the poorest of people either don't have to pay or have nothing to lose if they can't pay.
So, I'd say the middle class folks are the ones most affected by this issue and most, if not all of them, have internet access and some form of camera so they should be quite able to make some sort of reply.
I'm not say
Re: (Score:3, Funny)