Obama Calls Today's Ubiquitous Gadgets and Information "a Distraction" 545
zaphod was one of several readers unhappy with the sentiment expressed in President Obama's graduation address to the students of Virginia's Hampton University, writing: "According to Obama, 'information becomes a distraction' when it comes to iPads, the Xbox, etc. (All items he admits not knowing how to use.) He's basically saying we are getting too much information too quickly, and from 'unreliable sources.' Of course, he's referring to talk radio, blogs and other mediums that tend to disagree with his political views."
CNET has a slightly different, less critical reaction, focusing on the differences among the actual devices named; they note that the Xbox is not an iPad.
Transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether the President and his administration like it, this form of information sharing is very likely here to stay. Perhaps the best reaction would be to embrace it and use it as a positive differentiator from other administrations.
"Can Be" Not "Becomes" and a Biased Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
'information becomes a distraction'
I think it's more accurately stated that 'information can be a distraction' but, you know, it can also be a very useful tool both in learning and communicating. Everyone can have a Facebook account and everyone can read blogs but the programmer that spends much of his time reading reading blogs about programming and uses Facebook only to keep up with his friends periodically is going to outpace the programmer that spends 90% of his time on Facebook and 5% of his time reading movie reviews on blogs.
So, by and large, it comes down to -- surprise surprise -- responsible time management. Yes, too much information via the internet and mobile devices is a double edged sword. I cannot keep up with the papers on arxiv but if I learn to manage my time and quickly recognize which papers are worth my time then it is very valuable to an academic. Or I could spend my time playing Farmville. Both occupy my time and can be distractions.
Information is a very powerful tool, no matter how much you want to blame the method and frequency of delivery it's ultimately up to you what you do with it. I read transcript [buzzstation.net] and honestly I thought it was closer to this dualism than the summary lets on.
Of course, he's referring to talk radio, blogs and other mediums that tend to disagree with his political views.
I don't think so. He actually encourages reading both sides:
This development can be both good and bad for democracy. For if we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we will become more polarized and set in our ways. And that will only reinforce and even deepen the political divides in this country. But if we choose to actively seek out information that challenges our assumptions and our beliefs, perhaps we can begin to understand where the people who disagree with us are coming from.
For once the Slashdot summary seemed to be even more politically charged and biased than the actual politician. The correct message is to manage your time well and exercise caution. Sound advice actually.
That was then, this is now (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently he didn't consider Xbox a distraction when he was running in-game campaign ads on it.
That was then, this is now. After all, you can't trust media to be "accurate" if it isn't state controlled, like in China. Now. Before, you couldn't trust the media *because* it was state-controlled. Like HuffPo. Oh, wait...
Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Firewall (Score:5, Insightful)
He meant that as information becomes decentralized, the government cannot control its distribution. The Users become the Producers and Creators, and also their own Network. Dissent can become viral, and that buffoon Robert Gibbs can barely stamp out a cockroach let alone an Internet meme. The best education also entertains, and the most effective dissent begins with satire.
"It's OK to enjoy your Bread and Circuses, Americans," Obama concluded his speech. "Just be sure that they are government issue. Thank You and Good Night."
I missed that speech (Score:5, Insightful)
I was intending to watch it but then I got a tweet from my bff and had to update my Facebook page and status on Foursquare.
+5 Insightful (Score:5, Insightful)
Right on, and that is precisely the problem we have right now: most of the citizens do not care. People are not just unaware of the issues facing America and what their government is doing; they seem not to care about any of it at all.
Re:"Can Be" Not "Becomes" and a Biased Summary (Score:1, Insightful)
I completely agree with you, but I think people who can manage time effectively as you do are in the very very very minority. And by that I mean, when you start including all the people not in IT or reading /.
Law of averages.
Obama has a point, but methinks he lacks finesse (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Can Be" Not "Becomes" and a Biased Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
For once the Slashdot summary seemed to be even more politically charged and biased than the actual politician. The correct message is to manage your time well and exercise caution. Sound advice actually.
I'm confused now - is slashdot part of the leftwing mainstream media conspiracy? Or is it part of the right wing independent news sources conspiracy (which are too small to be called mainstream, yet command a huge listening audience)??
Re:That was then, this is now (Score:3, Insightful)
It has become all too obvious that President Obama, himself, is the true distraction.
Misrepresented comment (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama wasn't calling out particular devices. 5 years ago it would gave been "laptops on wifi, iPods, MP3 players, Cellphones with net connections, Playstation and Nintendo mobile" Yes both iPods and mp3 players :) adds that presidential touch.
In any case he's warning an at risk group of university students to focus on their education rather than being distracted by always on media and Media.
These speeches aren't always 100% addressing the greatr society. Sometimes they specifically address the physical audience.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:1, Insightful)
I wish they would start a department of truth in the government to tell me what I should be thinking.
I'm assuming you've read 1984?
Re:+5 Insightful (Score:3, Insightful)
Personal opinion != Government policy (Score:5, Insightful)
This was a graduation address, not a state of the union speech. He's not laying down policy here. He's speaking to a very specific audience (graduating students) about a very specific topic (transitioning from school to the workforce). This was not the preamble to new legislation, nor should it be misconstrued as such.
IMHO, Eisenhower's Council on Youth Fitness was a far more intrusive condemnation of how we spent our leisure time than this.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:5, Insightful)
Careful. You're liable to get modded down by someone.
While there's some truth to what Obama says about being having so much information that it becomes a distraction (similar comments have been made about disclosure overload [shoemoney.com]: everyone writes incredibly long, boring, impossible-to-parse "terms of service", "EULA", and other bits attached to products...), the original article does have a point about most people's definition of an "unreliable source" being "a source I don't agree with."
Obama's political opponents flourish in certain media. So it's in his best interest (while being rather divorced from honesty and reality) for him to call them names and tar them as "unreliable." Likewise, the media sections that do love Obama - such as the alphabet-soup media - are more than happy to not cover certain stories. And this follows from all walks of life, just not Obama. For instance, let's take the Israeli/Palestinian bit.
Did you know that within a week of signing the Oslo Accords, Yassir Arafat was back on Palestinian radio, comparing the Oslo Agreement to the Truce of Medina (whereby Mohammed the "prophet" entered into a 10-year truce, then broke it two years later because he figured his army was now big enough to win), calling Oslo "the great deception"? No? Why not? Probably because the alphabet-soup media was, at the time, invested in Oslo.
Did you know that the Waqf, the Palestinian "authority" on the squatter's mosque at "Al Aqsa", have been deliberately excavating and destroying irreplaceable archaeological artifacts from beneath the site [jcpa.org]? And why not? Again, the story's been buried.
Take the recent terrorist attack at Times Square. At 5pm that day, I was listening to ABC News, when they announced the search was on for a "40 year old white male" at the urging of the Obama administration. Whoops! You can find plenty of coverage of media spokesboobs talking about how they "didn't want" it to be what it clearly is: another taliban-type attack.
Information can indeed be distraction [wikipedia.org], but just as important is realizing that bias expresses itself in many forms. You can tag certain things with certain words - I freely admit I consider the Waqf to be illegitimate, from studying the history of the squatter's mosque, but others can freely feel differently. You can write tilted stories that blatantly misuse or misrepresent statistics [wikipedia.org]. You can write "statistics" that have almost no connection to reality, due to bad sampling or tilted questions, and then quote them in a seemingly "neutral" piece "covering" the survey results. Or you can just bury a story entirely. Anyone who trusts one side's media or the other, exclusively, is setting themselves up for trouble.
Re:Transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that a lot of people here are missing the point. It's not that people have access to too much information (i.e., that he doesn't agree with), but that the gadgetry itself and the triviality it promotes is absorbing so much time and attention that we're ignoring other things that might be more important to our civic lives. It's gotten to the point where kids (in particular) aren't even coming up for air sometimes.
That said, who knows where it will all lead, or whether it will be for better or worse or something in between. I'd like to think that we're strengthening democracy and public participation, but my fear is that control and manipulation may win the day...
Exactly, Obama should have said (Score:5, Insightful)
the Truth becomes a distraction.
No longer can government officials just hide behind friends in the press (print/broadcast). Very much how blogs turned up the heat on big media in 2004 it was a signal that many in government failed to see, that is, we the people can watch you, we can report on you, and we will.
Hence the little "trial balloons" floated about going after blogs and their commercial associations (reviewing products, people, etc). Anything to get some leverage on the new free voice. Can't wait for the changes to election laws going after blogs.
Nah, the blogs are grassroots and grassroots are the one thing DC is having a problem with. Trying to counter with their SEIU fake gatherings to offset Tea Partiers got exposed by blogs, not the news media. Face it DC, you can lie through the press but the press won't be our main source going forward.
It also works well for the leaders of other countries, namely Iran. Technology may for the short time give the regular person the upper hand until it can regulated into oblivion
Re:Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Firewall (Score:2, Insightful)
I think what he's getting at is that, as users become content producers and create their own network, being wrong can become viral. A web of blogs linking to other blogs as sources can become so far dissociated from truth that factual information can be hard to come by. Opinion is often recirculated until it becomes accepted fact; a problem that /. is certainly not immune to. That's the risk; Obama is clear that the possible benefits include dissent from centralized false-truths.
Re:Transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
it would be easy to get the information people are seeking from credible, reliable sources
Nope. The man who has a watch always knows the time. A man who has two is never sure.
Information won't be credible ever again, and that's a good thing: while there certainly will be propaganda from those who have the power to spread it, it'll be merely a drop in the bucket.
Wow, you guys are touchy. (Score:5, Insightful)
look what's coming out of the woodwork... (Score:5, Insightful)
"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,"
"some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction," in the clamor of certain blogs and talk radio outlets.
What Obama is saying, is that in this day and age of massive media coverage you shouldn't always believe what you read. He's encouraging the students to find alternate sources of information, to actually investigate something before spouting off and further propagating the Chinese Whisper... You know, basically what most of the people replying to this article did.
Re:Transparency (Score:3, Insightful)
It's gotten to the point where kids (in particular) aren't even coming up for air sometimes.
There was plenty of air in my room, I had enough with a handful of friends and those who chose to run around kicking a ball, were intellectually on level with my pet turtle. But thanks for your concern.
Re:+5 Insightful (Score:5, Insightful)
Right on, and that is precisely the problem we have right now: most of the citizens do not care. People are not just unaware of the issues facing America and what their government is doing; they seem not to care about any of it at all.
From my perspective as an outsider who does catch a fair bit of America-centric media, the problem the US is having isn't that its citizenry doesn't care. It's that there are several extremely loud contingents of the population that are misinformed, not uninformed.
And those groups are also being used by embedded interests.
Re:It's not rocket science. (Score:2, Insightful)
He's the President of the USA but cannot work out how to use an iPod or xBox?
And this is coming from the man who "accidentally" let it slip, whilst he was campaigning for the Presidency that he had an iPod of his own.
Does his wife have to put music on it for him? Or his children maybe?
You're absolutely right--he must be some kind of a slacker moron, because in his copious free time he doesn't even bother to keep up with the latest gizmos. He's probably wasting his time figuring out useless crap like how to make the planet a better place for his children or some shit like that. I mean, really, what kind of fucktarded N008 can't even be bothered to surf over to pirate bay to rip off his own music?
A warning. (Score:2, Insightful)
They hate these new devices because they don't control them yet. Look at totalitarian states all around the world, all politicians' DREAMLANDS because they control every facet of information and the minutiae of everyday lives of their subjects. I don't care if your politician is Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan, or Barack Obama. They all dreamed of a place they can control us from. That is why in our society we have to keep them in check. We have to let them know who is boss and that they are chosen to SERVE US. If they can't get over the yellow press, the "rumors" the "false information". if they can't calibrate their message to appeal to the mass of us, that is THEIR problem and not ours.
Barack Obama, your Chavez is showing. At least we know how to recognize it, we learned it in the time frame between 1763 and 1789.
Now to be down-ranked into oblivion by the enlightened leftosphere...
The Apple iPad, it doesn't burn at 451 degrees but by golly we'll figure out a way to eliminate it's subversive information delivery capability!
Oh, and BHO... The Xbox is an entertainment platform. Maybe the Whitehouse should mandate what games are played on it, like:
The Healthcare Bill: Acquiesing your personal freedoms to the bueracracy 2011. Learn how to avoid fraud detection by the Healthcare Police. Work your way up from menial claims clerk to head of the HHS, or in Death Panel mode, decide who gets the life saving operation and who doesn't!!!
Sounds like a lot of fun. maybe even more than Madden NFL 2011.
Of course what was written above is just a warning and not a foretelling of events to come.
"he's referring to talk radio, blogs (Score:4, Insightful)
and other mediums that tend to disagree with his political views"
in obama's defense, calling talk radio and blogs as "mediums that tend to disagree with his political views" is like describing the ebola virus as "organic matter that tends to disagree with your right to live"
talk radio and political blogs are seething venomous pits of propaganda, whether from right or left, and are not valid sources of anything. nevermind the laughable idea they offer polite respectable disagreement to your political views. is a ranting lobotomized alzheimer's patient infected with rabies a "disagreement with your political views"?
mindless partisan hate (left OR right), which is all talk radio or political blogs are, is are completely useless. echo chambers for people who have turned off their minds. completely unthinking, loud, tired, endlessly rehashed pointless drivel. talk radio and political blogs are septic systems of the mind, and are not valid reactions to anything anyone says or does, whether right or left. the less talk radio you listen to and political blogs you read, indeed, the clearer your mind. reading a blatantly left wing or right wing blog probably instantly (temporarily) lowers your iq
in such a respect obama is 100% correct. if gw bush said the same thing, he would be correct to. because it doesn't matter the source of the observation, because the observation is not an attack on the right or the left. if osama bin laden told you it is important to wash your hands after using the toilet, does the source of that observation make the statement immediately suspect? no: its important to wash your hands after leaving the toilet, even osama bin laden recognizes this. therefore, it is equally true what obama says about talk radio and political blogs, whether said by him or sarah palin about left wing blogs. left OR right wing: talk radio and political blogs are poison to the mind
so obama's observation is completely valid. talk radio and political blogs are not coherent sources of impartial information. talk radio and political blogs are mental filth and they destroy civil society by turning it into a race to the bottom of mindless attacks and smears
Republican rhetoric (Score:2, Insightful)
What is this bullshit? Sounds like someone's still bitter about losing the election.
Re:Transparency (Score:1, Insightful)
The scary thing is that there are people reading this that probably don't know it's sarcasm.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:2, Insightful)
That's Half the Problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you that we have allowed the internet and entertainment media to distract us from our daily lives, but I believe that this is only half the problem posed by entertainment & informational technology.
The other half of the problem, as Obama perhaps tried to allude to but didn't quite fully specify, is that when we permit ourselves to be overloaded with information, but lack the expertise to evaluate its validity and worth, we are easily manipulated by lies, half-truths, and biased points-of-view. That's why we need news and media experts to help sort, highlight, and evaluate the information that we lack the expertise to do ourselves; they help identify for us what is important.
Think of it like Antique Road Show without the experts. Information is like the stuff that we collect in our attics. We need content experts to help us understand and recognize the value of what we possess, as well as convince us to throw away the things that aren't worth anything. Without the experts, we become informational pack rats; we possess everything, but know the value of nothing.
And when ignoramuses start to throw around information that they don't understand, we aren't empowered; we're misled.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it pretty hilarious that the responses to this topic basically prove him right. People didn't read the article, nor the speech, they just responded with their own political bent, conspiracy theories or a knee jerk reaction that all the distraction is good.
Can you imagine any kind of protest on a college campus these days that would push for real reform? No, everyone's checking the facebook or watching videos.
What's that over there? Something shiny?
Argh (Score:1, Insightful)
Whoever wrote that summary needs a hard kick in the head and a ban from Slashdot, shit like "Of course, he's referring to talk radio, blogs and other mediums that tend to disagree with his political views." should stay in troll comments not on the front page.
This /. article could have been a good discussion about information and its possible overload on human connectedness, in the sense of getting important news/information, how to filter through it and avoiding extreme views.
But thanks to the troll summary we get none of that, just extreme views, people who pretend to know what Obama is thinking and discussions that have almost no connection to what he really said. Basically falling into the trap he and others before him have warned about.
If I didn't know better I would think I was reading a Fox news forum.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you see any pics of the guy? No? Sorry, but they were off by a decade and if you want to claim that the picture made it so he could be mistaken for something other than what he is, then the video is too grainy and distorted to be useful.
The point was, the description was off-base, and it was off-base on wishful thinking from certain media personalities and Obama administration officials who were hoping to tie the situation to "anti-Obama sentiment."
Re:That was then, this is now (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone else been noticing the difference between what comes out of any president's mouth, and what his administration actually does? The term "distraction" isn't far off the mark.
Fixed that for you.
Re:+5 Insightful (Score:2, Insightful)
Add to that the 'cheerleader' mentality of I only pay attention to sources who pander to my beliefs and prejudices (I only stop at McDonalds owned by [your party here]).
Basically, they just care enough to know the daily talking points. They will attend a rally and join the crowd echoing their nonsensical views. They will make and hold up a sign. They will forward an email. They will talk to their like minded friends at the coffee shop. And in the end they feel like they are contributing to the process. And, of course, they are. Just in a negative way.
The daily deluge of idiotic nonsense about political issues flows on like the Niagra River and nobody is trying to solve the real problems of this world in a thoughtful way (by the way, what's that roaring sound?).
We need to get back to a world where a good solid education, subject matter expertise, lifetimes of first hand experience and especially scientific method aren't devalued to the point where gut instinct (and prejudice) continuously rule the day.
It is not that gut instinct has no value. At times, gut instinct can save your life. But it shouldn't be your only option just because you have decided it is too much work to have better options. Or, because the better options continuously conflict with our viewpoint (and therefore they are clearly "wrong" and cannot be depended upon).
Please care enough to have better options.
Also, find first hand sources (like actually reading the legislation you so vehemently oppose or so enthusiastically support).
No one should be considered an informed citizen just because they know today's talking points.
Re:i can't hear you over my short attention span (Score:3, Insightful)
C'mon... how many replies will this thread get from posters supposedly working at the office/wherever?
Information Overload (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe he's talking about Information Overload which is indeed a problem.
Think about those managers that are completelly Blackberry driven (those that almost always give the highest priority to their BB, even in meetings) and now consider the quality of their decision making: for people that get so many e-mails and are so on top of things, they usually are surprisingly uninformed and unthinking in their decisions.
Maybe Obama's statements should be read as:
- President of the USA says that nowadays people have too many things pulling their attention and receive too much low-value information
and that has negative consequences with regards to their knowledge and wisdom.
instead of:
- Well know Democrat politician tells people what they're doing wrong.
You know, even though he's the lider of a political party in a highly politically polarised nation, he's still the fucking president of the US of A and he didn't got there by being stupid. Maybe he's capable of an informed opinion ...
<RANT>
It pisses me off to no end that me, an European, have to be then one pointing out the he's a man that has succeeded in getting elected to a highly coveted position, which few can achieve and that maybe his non-political opinions, at least once in a while, should be heard instead of dismissed outright because of his political affiliation
</RANT>
Re:"he's referring to talk radio, blogs (Score:1, Insightful)
But of course coming from someone (based on your sig) who does not believe in the concept of "property", it is not surprising you lump the right and left together and then attempt to dismiss them both. This is called an Association Fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy [wikipedia.org]
Re:NEWS: Obama makes a speech and people take a fe (Score:3, Insightful)
Then he should make a flowery commencement speech, not a campaign stump speech. Or do you disagree?
Insightful (Score:4, Insightful)
If I had any mod points I'd bump you up. The parent does exactly what Obama complained about: he takes a politically neutral subject and contorts it in such a way that "information overload" all of a sudden becomes "liberal media conspiracy." Gotta love how he insinuated that the evil liberal media was in cahoots with the terrorists. He really exposed himself with "Taliban-type attack." He probably meant Al-Qaida, but they're all brown, so what's it matter?
Gotta love how he claims that you can use statistics to lie and spread misinformation. You don't have to use statistics. Accusing the media of conspiracy for not covering certain stories more in depth is so logically absurd that he must be intending on spreading misinformation himself. There's a much easier explanation: incompetence. But not on the media's part, on the part of the reader base. People care more about stories about Pandas having sex than they do about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict so the media invests more time and money covering Panda stories. The BBC, which tends to support Obama more than most American media outlets, actually does cover stories such as Oslo more in depth rather than just gloss over them. This seems to indicate that the ineptitude of the American media probably has more to do with our culture than some conspiracy between Obama, terrorists, and Ted Turner.
The fact of the matter is that if you get your daily news from Sarah Palin or Ariana Huffington's blog, you're not getting reliable information. The internet is full of unreliable information from all angles of the political spectrum, so it's doubtful that Obama was seeking to silence political opposition with these comments.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:5, Insightful)
People know when they're wasting time playing too many games and browsing too many blogs. Obama is just encouraging the graduates to do something with their lives instead of frittering them away. For some crazy reason a lot of people in here find that threatening, can't imagine why.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:4, Insightful)
// sammy baby liked this.
It's true. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Can Be" Not "Becomes" and a Biased Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Seeing so many knee-jerk Obama-is-a-facist right-wing reactions ON SLASHDOT of all places, and all modded to 5 Insightful, is downright scary. Has Fox News won the information war?
Re:Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Firewall (Score:2, Insightful)
Dissent can become viral
So can lies. Don't get so offended when people state that fact that you have to project malicious motives onto others. Your post is a perfect example of what Obama was referring to: armies of mindless parrots, squawking about in a giant echo chamber, mindlessly repeating falsehoods.
And these falsehoods aren't even harmless urban legends and ghost stories. They have clear political motives and serve someone's interests. Can't you get a clue from that? Do you like being a pawn?
You aren't responsible for what others say, but once you repeat it you are to blame for any lies you spread. So do some fact checking. You know, personal responsibility and all that.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:0, Insightful)
You're calling a mosque that was built in AD 685 a "squatters' mosque" and you HONESTLY expect people to think you are a reliable source of information?
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, he is welcome to his opinion, and may even be right, on this issue. In a sane world I would just say, So what?
Unfortunately he is in a position to "do something" about it.
And if being a "distraction" isn't enough, soon you'll hear "all those electronic devices aren't good for the environment"...
Re:i can't hear you over my short attention span (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree. I think "Ooh, shiny!" sums up a lot of the trouble America faces on a regular basis. It's like the country has evolved into a perpetual everyone-has-ADD state. Television, radio, and the interweb all promote this with their little 5-second-news clips, on-demand programming, or popup flash games. Instant gratification and a short attention span, while completely ignoring news and happenings that aren't 'entertaining', does not help us preserve our country and liberties at all.
If wars could be reduced to a quick-button event in a flashy video game, we'd so rule the world. Ender's Game anyone?
Re:Insightful (Score:5, Insightful)
He really exposed himself with "Taliban-type attack." He probably meant Al-Qaida, but they're all brown, so what's it matter?
Considering that the latest information links the Times Square bomber with the Taliban, and that the Taliban has been doing car bomb attacks against forces in Afghanistan, I think that you are the one being exposed as not informed.
Additionally, he was giving examples of things not generally reported (or even sometimes mis-reported) by the alphabet news. It is clear if you get past your own biases that he was using those examples because his interests lead him to be more informed than average on those types of stories, not because he believed that there aren't other types of stories (which might not support his political opinions) that the alphabet news doesn't report (or misreports) as well. His point appears to be that most media report with a political bias and if you don't sample from those which have opposing political biases you will be misinformed.
But your response is typical, "I disagree with your politics, so you must have nothing worthwhile to say."
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:5, Insightful)
Couldn't agree more. It's impossible to find unbiased news on TV anymore. Whatever happened to accurate coverage, and when did Mainstream media decide to only cover stories that favor their side?
Unbiased news never existed. It's only recently that we have opposing views in media that expose the bias. When all the media is saying the same thing, bias is harder to spot. It gets accepted as truth by default. Since we now have differing views on different channels, we can compare them and the bias becomes obvious.
Getting the same story from different views is a good thing. I've learned that the other side is not evil. They want the same thing I do. They just have a different idea as to how to get there.
Re:NEWS: Obama makes a speech and people take a fe (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why I sympathize with Obama. I know exactly what it's like to have people over-parse and over-analyze your words, when they'd just understand if they had some common sense. For fuck sake, he's making a flowery commencement speech, not policy.
You must have loved Bush!
Re:Insightful (Score:3, Insightful)
I am reminded of a quote, the source of which I cannot remember, which goes approximately thus: "A liberal is a person who publicly prides themselves on listening to all contrary points of view, but is quite astonished and outraged to discover that any actually exist."
Of course, given how often both sides are closed-minded, the source is probably a republican. So take it at your own risk.
I consider it a point of pride when I can make a +5 Insightful post that still gets at least 4-5 mods down of "troll" or "overrated." It means I correctly said something important and meaningful while pissing off both the right-wing crackpots and left-wing scumbags.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:3, Insightful)
"Just as bad?" Really? Too much of my job consists of email, and somehow I don't think it fly if I switched all that time over to playing video games. Love him or hate him, but do you honestly think Obama would be President Obama today if all the time he spent on the blackberry he'd instead spent playing XBox? Really now.
I do think Obama's remarks could have just as easily included other time sinks, such as TV. But apparently the Obamas do have an opinion [people.com] about that too: "Like any family, the Obamas have their TV rules. The kids get to watch only on weekends."
Re:Transparency (Score:1, Insightful)
As opposed to G.W.:
Gitmo employed as illegal prison
Iraq war started.
Afghan war started
Patriot Act imposed
Record Job Loss
Deficit tripled (although no one knew because Iraq and Afghanistan were off the books)
Partisan Politic
Administration was lobbyists
Slow, make that no response to Katrina.
Tortured prisoners
All that despite the fact that he was never elected in 2000.
Obama may not have accomplished what he set out to do, that's what happens when you have to respond to a crashing economy, but he's a world better than G.W. ever was. Still not liberal enough for me.
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the tru (Score:1, Insightful)
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This is hard. What is the whole truth?
The UK recently had a telling case. A BNP politician (racist party) was canvasing and a fight broke out. On Have I Got News For You (British political comedy show) they showed the footage. The guy punched a dark skinned (probably Muslim immigrant but that would from that footage have been a presumption) in the face. Oooh bad. What they didn't show is the few seconds before that, when that guy spitted in his face.
Careful editing to show the BNP in a bad light? The BBC is famously anti-racist and no, this is NOT a good thing. The BBC is supposed, especially in election times, to be impartial and give equal time to ALL parties, including those they disagree with. This is important, after all the BBC which controls the state TV, is the state TV, could ruin any party that has in its agenda say the end of the BBC.
What makes it clear the Hignfy cast has an agenda other then fair and equal treatment of all parties is that when Prescott (labour) punched a guy who threw an egg at him, the cast pretty much applauded it. So it is okay to punch a white protester who attacks you, but not a Muslim? Talk about bias. You might agree with the bias, but it is still bias.
And that really is the problem with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The have shown the whole incident you would have had to basically spend 5 or more minutes in a comedy show to explain the full setting. Why did the argument start? Democracy calls on parties you don't like being allowed to take part in the protest. On the other hand, demonstrating against points of view you don't like is also part of it. Spitting on people is aggresive and you should expect to be punched, but if you are calling a person a waste because of his race you can hardly expect him not to react.
The problem is that how many people saw the incident only in the comedy show and not the full clip? Their point of view has now been altered by people with an agenda even if that agenda was only to get a laugh. And this is what we know about, how much else has ended up on the cutting floor of the news room? Maybe all the footage that showed the exact same ambulance in the middle east? Or the same childs body killed in different locations? How odd that was only found out later, not by the camera crew who after all had a close up look. Agenda or lousy reporting standards? And of course, I am now convinced these cases were wrong, and therefor all news from certain points of view is suspect so I now rather believe less official resources as well.
I am not suprised Obama is getting upset with all the crap "news" out there. Come on US, when you hear people claim about nazi death camps if healthcare reform is enabled, why don't you shoot the people claiming it for insulting your intelligence. Most countries in the world have social health care and no dead squads yet killing little timmy. In fact the most recent case of extreme medical behavior came from the US, where children in orphanages are forced to take part in medical experiments. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=34817839637 [facebook.com]
Capitalists doing exactly what the nazi's did. Gosh, how could that be! This is what the Tea Party wants to be done to children, rather then allow anyone regardless of income to have medical care.
Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And if you read any of this, how do you know any of which I tell you is the truth. I linked to facebook for a reason. If you want to check it, it will take you some effort. In fact to check all the claims in this post and the parent, you will have to do some digging. They are "true", but how do you know?
The press is the gatekeeper of democracy. If it starts to fail, democracy will soon follow. That boring paper with no page three girl that has boring headlines is the bastion of freedom. If all news becomes fox news or the daily mail, then the end of democracy isn't far away. And if twitter becomes the source of news we might as well kiss our asses goodbye.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:2, Insightful)
Yea..... Get back to me when he, actually, says something like that. Until then, I'm using my freedom of speech to suggest that you're paranoid.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:1, Insightful)
Not threatening. It's more like "are you my mommy?" Or as we say around here to things like that "!*&$ off, nanny."
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:3, Insightful)
Love him or hate him, but do you honestly think Obama would be President Obama today if all the time he spent on the blackberry he'd instead spent playing XBox?
Well, using cocaine didn't stop him or his predecessor, why would the Xbox?
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, exactly.
As Mark Twain put it, a lie could be half-way around the world before the truth could put its boots on--and that was before the internet. Now we have internet echo chambers where the ignorant can stay ignorant with the help of other fools, some of whom make a living at being fools, and where, if you just stay within the limits of the circle-jerk, you need never encounter an idea or piece of evidence that challenges your views.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:2, Insightful)
He also mentioned iPads. Those aren't game consoles. He's a hypocrite.
Re:Transparency (Score:3, Insightful)
We're still having to clean up his mess. Besides, you assholes are *still* complaining about Clinton and even Carter! So please, STFU.
Re:NEWS: Obama makes a speech and people take a fe (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, Obama starts debates on important topics he knows he doesn't know everything about. He even admitted so in said speech.
The fact that people are now debating the purpose of information technology in our lives is a good thing.
But misinterpreting the spark that started the debate is what annoys me. Steering the discussion toward what a Luddite he is, or how ridiculous the idea is, completely misses the point.
Sometimes people talk out loud and air their ideas just so they can refine them and make them better. Being someone who does that often, I find that to be a good thing. I think it's good to challenge your own ideas and to not commit fully until you understand the nuances better.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
OK... let's see what he's said about the Cambridge police: "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played," yet he claimed the police "acted stupidly." Let's also look at how he saw the Arizona immigration law: "Now, suddenly, if you don't have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to get harassed -- that's something that could potentially happen". Well, the immigration law specifically PROHIBITS stopping anyone based on skin color. I don't think the Arizona law is the way to go either-- but that's because border enforcement is the Federal government's right according to the Constitution, so we need to use legal means of getting them to stop shirking their responsibility.
In short, I think the President should have that knee-jerking problem looked at by a doctor-- I hear he has a great health plan.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously. I'd much rather have a president who used cocaine and lied about it...
Re:Transparency (Score:4, Insightful)
Information needs to be credible, otherwise experts are ignored and the population is left not knowing what is true.
On the right, take Evolution, Global Warming, Fiat Currency/Fed, and the 2004 elections. On the left is Vaccines and 9/11. So much information was thrown out at once that the real facts gets buried. Those who know the 'facts' only know what they know because they never bothered to consult actual experts. 30 years ago, most of these issues were pretty much solved. Evolution wasn't questioned, everyone was vaccinated.
The increase of people who have hours of AM radio to fill or in need of pay-per-click ads need content. Their content can either be generated by sites that occasionally strive for balance or have politically-neutral content (/. or fark at times) or just go full tilt and tell people what they think they want their audience to hear (most of AM radio and Fox).
In the past, editors with actual credibility were the gatekeepers to make sure that the news was even or at least consistent. These days anyone that can use a spell checker (and that's not even a requirement) can suddenly be a journalist and have a soapbox that reaches around the world. While there's a lot more sources of information to choose from, we as a population aren't geared to get our information from 5-10 different sources and determine what is true (see above for examples).
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:3, Insightful)
The truth might be slower than a lie; but technology makes *us* as fast as we want to be.
Lies come to us, but finding the truth has never been easier, if we want to look.
Just a couple points (Score:1, Insightful)
Firstly, I don't know why people are so offended because he used the iPad as an example of a device used for entertainment.
Secondly, I don't know why we all pretend to be so high and mighty all the time. I will be honest, if I ever take my computer to class, it's because it is a boring class, and I need entertainment to stay awake. I observe over half of the classroom doing the EXACT same thing.
Obama is right, there are a lot of distractions in this technological age. He was almost congratulating them for being focused.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:4, Insightful)
While technically the law does prohibit it, racial profiling is what is actually happening (you know, this whole "reality" thing you may have heard of). Hell, they even arrested a guy on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant because he didn't have his *birth certificate* on him. He had a CDL and everything, but that wasn't enough for the authorities.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:3, Insightful)
You are attempting to counter the poster's comment of unreliable source being defined as a source I don't agree with.
Your examples in your argument are that the two large sources of conservative republican rhetoric are full of shit and everyone knows it. Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck are full of shit but your disagreeing with them has no bearing on your anecdotal evidence.
Can you cite references of information that Rush Limbaugh has given out on his show that are inaccurate? Some tax payer numbers or legislation that he is lying about? I can't stand Glenn Beck, but I don't think he is lying. I kind of like Rush Limbaugh and find his knowledge of politics impressive. I have never heard him lying to his audience.
The left of the political realm has always comforted themselves with a warm feeling that the rest of us are just too stupid to know what is good for us. If we listen to a proponent of conservative politics, we are by definition, fools.
I believe that you have in fact made the original poster's point for him, no?
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:2, Insightful)
Still, that's not the fault of the gadgets. Mr. Obama seems to be focusing on the technology as the problem. He should emphasize personal responsibility more and try to sound less like he is blaming the gadgets themselves. It ain't my fault, the majority of people aren't bright enough to keep from being distracted.
But then, emphasizing personal responsibily really isn't his bag, is it?
LOL (Score:4, Insightful)
the founding fathers were paragons of the highest virtues of western LIBERAL thought, perhaps the ultimate gifts of the enlightenment in europe, which was a liberal radical reaction to the traditional right wing cesspools of monarchical despotism and religious fundamentalism
and now, today, much as people who call themselves christians spread intolerance in the name of a man who was a prophet of tolerance, we have people like you, who treat the constitution as if it were a religious fundamentalist document. and such brittle fragile minds are the "right"
pfffffffffft
sir: the constitution and the declaration of independence were and are perhaps the most radically liberal, completely nonreligious and completely nonaristocratic statements of faith in the wisdom of the common man, in a thousand years (well, there's the magna carta) and perhaps a thousand more
what the founding fathers wrote has echoed around the world and found admiration and imitation in dozens of other governments worldwide. their notions have continued to evolve, and have helped clarify the dignity of man and elevate him out of slavery/ slaveholding status, in this country and others, and to introduce universal suffrage, the vote for women, equality for women. all liberal notions, all continuing to evolve
nothing at all like this low iq right wing notion that the constitution is like the bible or quran, dusty words to be obeyed, not thought about. that only a few closed minds have some sort of monopoly on its interpretation, and, the best part: interpretted according to reasons just as random and weak as the accusations right wingers hurl at "activist" judges. fools: there is no greater activist judge than antonin scalia... the "originalist"?! ha! now that's a good joke
the constitution is a living document, a living pact with the highest principles of man: equality and dignity for all in the eyes of their government. that you take this inexorably LIBERAL document and somehow posit it as a right-leaning document is cynical, craven, and completely intellectually dishonest. at best, you're simply confused, son: in the name of being right-winged, you've drank the kool aid and walk around holding aloft a document of pure liberalism as if it were some sort of sacred totem object
someday you should actually read the constitution and the declaration of independence and stop treating it like a religious object of veneration like the shroud of turin. in the actual words on those actual pages, in the actual thoughts of our much esteemed founding fathers: you find western liberalism, fool
hilarious
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:3, Insightful)
And if being a "distraction" isn't enough, soon you'll hear "all those electronic devices aren't good for the environment"..
Sure, because a democrat saying something will be good for the environment is a sure-fire way to get political capital necessary to defeat a powerful economic interest group or groups. You know, kind of like how they just waved the green flag and instantly got rid of SUVs and guns?
If you actually are concerned about this, and not just spreading partisan FUD (and it is just FUD, environmental concerns catch the attention of the public for a moment but that rarely translates into actual votes when opposed to tax cuts and industrial lobbies), then you should realize two things, one: it was offhand advice for the audience that was in front of him, not a plan. Second: the only way the democrats could lose even more seats this midterm election is if they tried to take away cell phones, computers, and other things we distract ourselves with. Well, I guess that's not true, they'll find plenty of ways to let me down.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah it used to be the media only reported on stuff if they at least two credible, independent sources. Now they report what any idiot posts on twitter.
Maybe all the media used to say same thing because they were only reporting confirmed facts. Now that media reports opinions its a lot more diverse, but the only thing you can get from it is that opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and most of them are full of shit.
I already know that other people have different opinions from me, so just tell me the facts and stop wasting my time. I can look at twitter myself if I want to see what people's opinions are.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, give me a fucking break.
He's talking about people mistaking using gadgets for productivity and using only single sources of news rather than actually being productive, thinking for themselves and trying to actually be informed.
He's not talking about removing the ability of anyone who dares disagree with him to speak their point, he's not talking about banning things, he's not talking about *anything* like the paranoid bullshit you seem to imagine.
Look, it's okay - I get it, you don't like the guy. That's fine. But at least, if you're not going to like him, do it for things he's *actually* said and done rather than shit you're imagining he might say or might do. It's people like you - who just decide they're going to ascribe all kinds of things to the other side(s) that are fucking up political discourse in this country.
I'll admit that I tend to lean left (and, to be honest, no mainstream US politician is nearly left enough for my tastes), but I like to think I'm at least somewhat intellectually honest. When Bush and company were in power I was just as bothered by the moonbats who were insisting that Cheney was going to stage a coup before the 2008 elections and other crazy shit like that as I am now bothered by the wingnuts who insist that Obama is actually an Atheist Muslim Socialist Fascist Do-Nothing Empty Suit Who Is Single-Handedly Ruining America By Doing Too Much.
You're certainly welcome to your paranoid delusions that he's going to go from "Hey, kids, think for yourselves" to "Chairman Obama has declared that any source of news other than MSNBC is bad for the environment" but all it's going to do is get you ignored by people who aren't insane.
Re:Insightful (Score:3, Insightful)
Journalistic mistakes happen. No news source will be perfect. But if you get your news from a source that obviously distorts all news, then try to say..well, the other news is just as bad, then you either are too lazy to research or you just hang around people that reinforce your own sever bias.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that we have become a nation of poorly thought out laws.
Our current immigration laws violate one of the founding principles of this country. Our Statue of Liberty even has this ideal inscribed on it. Everything you hear said about Mexicans today echoes that of the Irish, the Chinese, the Italians, and basically every other ethnic group out there when their mass immigration periods were happening such as the Irish potato famine. Our nation has become so weak that we must limit ourselves? It doesn't make any sense, you say amnesty hasn't worked, to that I say, when was amnesty ever attempted?
I live in Arizona, I know people from a great many different cultures and when you get down to it, we're all basically the same decent people. Yeah, we have our differences but they don't stop us from building a better society together.
The bottom-line is that we have 20 million people in this country that we either need to give a path to citizen or boot them out. Limbo is hurting everyone. I'd say give them a real opportunity to become citizens, those that don't then have no moral ground to stand on and deporting them should be less polarizing for people. Otherwise deporting 20 million people is going to be extremely costly in blood and money.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama is just encouraging the graduates to do something with their lives instead of frittering them away.
How did you get that out of his speech? It came across to me as a thinly veiled attack on "alternate" media sources. He specifically mentioned the ability of unsubstantiated rumors to spread like wildfire. The "tea party" movement sprung up through the very channels that Obama is concerned about. In the digital age where people can get information from any source they choose, the controls that the media has imposed over society are breaking down. In some cases the break down of controls allows some real crack pots to get their theories out there. Yet with the free exchange of information, those crack pots can be shouted down and debunked. Given that, I do not see what Obama is so worried about.
Actually, I do see what he is concerned about. He is concerned that the media is losing control. Every day, fewer people are believing the shit being shoveled by the main stream media. Fewer and fewer people are believing the same communications channels that allowed Obama to stand up get elected by vague, feel good promises of potential for change without ever putting forward any real action plans. When the Federal Reserve and the Treasury stand up and tell people, "Fear not, everything is under control.", the people can refer to a lot of alternative sources of information that inform them of the reality of the situation. When the generals and politicans get up and say, "Everything is peachy keen in Afghanistan." People can do their own research and realize that it is a complete mess over there and the United States government bit off more than they can chew.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:4, Insightful)
It reminds me of the Fantasy Football Nerds thinking that they're less nerdy than Dungeons & Dragons Nerds. Same diff, dude.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:3, Insightful)
It would not be racist if the majority of the people actually deported were Latinos. However, it *is* racist when you are arresting a bunch of people for possibly being illegal immigrants simply because they have brown skin. Basically, what you wind up with, is a situation in which any American, even those with brown skin has to worry about being randomly arrested and harassed.
Or, how would you like it if the police/FBI/etc started randomly arresting white gun owners since violent militia groups are overwhelmingly composed of white gun owners? Do you really not see the problem here?
Besides, there are other non-racist ways to go about combating illegal immigration. You could, for example, go after the companies that hire illegal immigrants. You could make the fines for hiring illegals so high that it is not worth the risk for them to do so. But, no, not in America. We can't go after businesses that do illegal things! That would be un-American!
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:3, Insightful)
It all depends on what report you've read. The initial report that caught my attention was framed as, "Obama warns students against iPads and iPhones." Upon reading the excerpts of the speech it became evident that he was warning against consuming any content on the internet. He further made the point that a "good education" is necessary to shield the mind against the distractions on the internet. It was a typical "Follow the herd and you will be okay." speech.
It is kind of worrisome that the President is taking it upon himself to "warn" students against the "dangers" of free speech and open communication on the internet. The message was framed in a way that made it seem like the internet is a dangerous waste of time that will distract students from the "important" things that their professors are trying to teach them. Heaven forbid that students should open their minds to sources of information that haven't been vetted by the educational elite and the textbook publishers.
Obamas advice is good advice (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd say it was a distraction (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:3, Insightful)
And I still want to know, why are they not simply going after the businesses that hire illegal immigrants? If you don't want illegal immigrants in the country stop hiring them!
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny thing, I've never actually met or read any posts by these mythical Obama-worshippers that I keep hearing about. In fact, every single time someone has referred to him as the Messiah, it's been a right-winger.