It sounds like his speech wasn't as much anti-tech as it was against political and cultural apathy.
Yes, I understood what he was getting at but the ol' "I don't know how to use these new fangled technologies!" ploy is getting so frustrating. Why do politicians feel they have to pander like this? It doesn't make me love them more, it makes me lose respect.
I think the main idea of the speech was fine. It was the idea of media as a distraction tactic from real issues, of news as entertainment being a problem. However, he could have phrased that in a way that didn't feel like a dis to tech people.
It sounds like his speech wasn't as much anti-tech as it was against political and cultural apathy.
Yea that's what I got out of it and it's completely true (especially with Liberals :-p)
Liberal rant time (of a local democratic party chair)! How many people will turn out to the primaries and try and pick someone from either party that best fits. For example in PA, there are 4 democrats running for Governor and 2 or 3 Republicans. They all have different backgrounds and come from different area's as well as different views on things. Will there be a large amount of people turning out to vote? Maybe 10-20% of people registered in a particular party. And you know what even with hotter races on the Democratic side, you'll find that way WAY more republicans will show up for the primary and any general off year election. People in general are hard to even get involved. I got involved at a local level and was placed at the top of the organization in a year, not because I was good but because there was no one else with any drive or interest. This coming election if everything holds is going to be disastrous for this country. Your going to have people elected into office that are to the right of most republicans. Normally electing these crazy people would spell disaster in the general election but I'm not so sure this time. People especially 20-30 year old's seem to think that they got the president, I don't need to worry anymore or well President Obama or Congress didn't do 100% what I want so I'm going to stay home this year. Good luck with that. People in New Jersey and Virginia are learning that lesson. (Cuts to education and removing Sexual preference from the anti-discrimination rules) As much as people want to think both sides are bad. There is a very motivated group who will always go "Both sides are bad" Vote republican. (a Fark Clique that is pretty true in reality) I'm getting a little carried away here... Anyhow, I see a lot of people especially geeks completely ignoring politics. All I know, is I'm watching a lot of people lose site of what is a fact and what is a opinion and if we continue to not know how to judge sources we are going to be in big trouble especially if the people with critical thinking skills stay home. It's A LOT easier to motivate ignorant people, it only takes a couple of half-truths.
Also guess what, the new-fangled ploy always works because it's the old people who come out to vote every year and every primary.
It sounds like his speech wasn't as much anti-tech
What bothers me specifically is this:
"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..."
Why would you say that, unless you were trying to appeal to nontechnical people or otherwise distance yourself from the topic?
"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..."
Why would you say that, unless you were trying to appeal to nontechnical people or otherwise distance yourself from the topic?
Obviously he plays with his DS and his Wii and plays mp3's on his Blackberry while using a netbook.
Because you might be honestly admitting that you don't know how they work, as it might be a relevant point in the discussion.
Yeah. My dad is a fairly technical person for his age, 55 or so. He's formatted computers and setup stereos with no trouble. But sit him done in front of an Xbox or a PS3 and he has absolutely no freaking clue.
Because you might be honestly admitting that you don't know how they work, as it might be a relevant point in the discussion.
Yeah. My dad is a fairly technical person for his age, 55 or so. He's formatted computers and setup stereos with no trouble. But sit him done in from an Xbox or a PS3 and he has absolutely no freaking clue.
Exactly. And really, there's no shame in admitting you don't know something.
Oh, I still like Obama a lot and I am still going to vote in the mid-term elections. I think he has been doing a very good job. I just felt like "Oh, not you too!" when he said the thing about not knowing how gadgets work.
I find 99% of people really don't understand technology. Sure they can use it, but only like trained monkeys. If something unexpected happens they don't know how to react.
Ummm . . . can you say NOT a Luddite? That is exactly the opposite of what a Luddite would advocate.
If anyone else is in any way dismayed by the statement, please remember that the article says that it was given at a commencement address. Speakers at these addresses normally say at least one thing that comes off as a poorly delivered joke at their own expense. Steve probably doesn't know this because he hasn't been present at many commencements.
What's up with the Obama administration wanting to changeMiranda Rights? It's real simple, if the terrorist is a foreigner they don't get Miranda. If they are a citizen they get Miranda and are charged with treason.
Do we really want ANY President screwing around with Miranda?
Actually, the article you cite doesn't say anything at all about a President "screwing around with Miranda." It says that the Attorney General speculated that Congress might think about broadening the Public Safety Exception. Anyone with any reading comprehension skill can easily see that what the article says is far different than the President or the Administration wanting to "change" anything.
BTW, it's not "real simple" as you say in your characterization of a "terrorist is a foreigner they don't get Miranda. If they are a citizen they get Miranda and are charged with treason." The Fifth Amendment applies equally to citizens, non citizen legal residents, noncitizen visitors (tourists), and illegal immigrants if the alleged crime occurs within the jurisdiction of a U.S. Court. The case law on this is pretty clear. They have constitutional protections whether they are told about them or not.
All I know, is I'm watching a lot of people lose site of what is a fact and what is a opinion and if we continue to not know how to judge sources . . .
I'd like to hear a show about this. Life is not debate team. When someone like Steve cites to an article from FOX News, the New York Post, or some other such suspect source, it shouldn't be a problem if someone says, "Look, your source is suspect and unbelievable." Using debate team rules, of course, the offender can whine, "Ad hominem. You can't judge my source. If my source says that Obama has a third nipple, you have to find a source that says he doesn't."
Didn't he also state is a previous speech (Asia, last year?) That he did not have or use twitter even though he had one at the time?
Wow. That's a really awful indictment. Would you be satisfied if he was burned at the stake, or should he be hung, drawn, and quartered for such notorious and outlandish mendacity?
I thought the sites I linked to (AFP/Google and the Wall Street Journal) were reliable sources? Do they become suspect when I link to them?
When I used "President" I was using it to refer to the administration. Read the articles linked to by WSJ, they say this is being pushed by the Obama administration. Unless Holder has gone rogue this initiative must have the president's approval.
Editorial is still opinion. That being said, I can see the logic behind wanting to have the exception to the Miranda when dealing with terrorist situations...but seriously, how long does it take to read someone their rights and start questioning them right away? The TImes Square guy sung like a bird apparently, and I don't think he would have said any less if they read him his rights before drilling him. On the other hand, you don't want some clever asshole planting a bunch of bombs, getting snagged mid-plot, and then saying "I want mah' lawyer!" as soon as he's arrested while there are ticking bombs someplace. I'm not sure how I feel about it, honestly. Part of me understands the want to rapidly get information and take decisive action when an attack in imminent like the T.S. bomb, yet I have squeamish feelings about adding exceptions to Miranda.
I'm glad to see credit where credit is due, but a couple of those are specious. "Re-established the United States standing in the world," for example, is a fairly broad, hard-to-verify claim. Also, I'd like for the exact wording of the claims to be listed on the site for comparison and contrast.
Shouldn't the goal be to hire qualified people? If the person is qualified for the job and there is a need they should be hired regardless of the disability or lack thereof.
Shouldn't the goal be to hire qualified people? If the person is qualified for the job and there is a need they should be hired regardless of the disability or lack thereof.
So you can't hire someone who is disabled and qualified.. I see.
So you can't hire someone who is disabled and qualified.. I see.
They can if there is a legitimate job opening but they should not if they are only hiring the person because they want more disabled people on the payroll.
He's either trying to imply something or make a completely moot point.
The point is that policies like this are flat out discrimination. The government is hiring people solely on the fact that such and such person is a minority. Disability, like race or sex, should not have any impact on job placement unless that disability prevents the person from executing the job.
In an ideal world, free of discrimination in society, disability, like race or sex, should not have any impact on job placement unless that disability prevents the person from executing the job.
---------
It's much like the "Lets get more girls into science and engineering." projects. We're having to compensate for the damage that's been done over the years.
Comments
I think the main idea of the speech was fine. It was the idea of media as a distraction tactic from real issues, of news as entertainment being a problem. However, he could have phrased that in a way that didn't feel like a dis to tech people.
Liberal rant time (of a local democratic party chair)!
How many people will turn out to the primaries and try and pick someone from either party that best fits. For example in PA, there are 4 democrats running for Governor and 2 or 3 Republicans. They all have different backgrounds and come from different area's as well as different views on things. Will there be a large amount of people turning out to vote? Maybe 10-20% of people registered in a particular party. And you know what even with hotter races on the Democratic side, you'll find that way WAY more republicans will show up for the primary and any general off year election. People in general are hard to even get involved. I got involved at a local level and was placed at the top of the organization in a year, not because I was good but because there was no one else with any drive or interest. This coming election if everything holds is going to be disastrous for this country. Your going to have people elected into office that are to the right of most republicans. Normally electing these crazy people would spell disaster in the general election but I'm not so sure this time. People especially 20-30 year old's seem to think that they got the president, I don't need to worry anymore or well President Obama or Congress didn't do 100% what I want so I'm going to stay home this year. Good luck with that. People in New Jersey and Virginia are learning that lesson. (Cuts to education and removing Sexual preference from the anti-discrimination rules) As much as people want to think both sides are bad. There is a very motivated group who will always go "Both sides are bad" Vote republican. (a Fark Clique that is pretty true in reality) I'm getting a little carried away here... Anyhow, I see a lot of people especially geeks completely ignoring politics. All I know, is I'm watching a lot of people lose site of what is a fact and what is a opinion and if we continue to not know how to judge sources we are going to be in big trouble especially if the people with critical thinking skills stay home. It's A LOT easier to motivate ignorant people, it only takes a couple of half-truths.
Also guess what, the new-fangled ploy always works because it's the old people who come out to vote every year and every primary.
//Can you tell I'm annoyed at my local Democrats
If anyone else is in any way dismayed by the statement, please remember that the article says that it was given at a commencement address. Speakers at these addresses normally say at least one thing that comes off as a poorly delivered joke at their own expense. Steve probably doesn't know this because he hasn't been present at many commencements. Actually, the article you cite doesn't say anything at all about a President "screwing around with Miranda." It says that the Attorney General speculated that Congress might think about broadening the Public Safety Exception. Anyone with any reading comprehension skill can easily see that what the article says is far different than the President or the Administration wanting to "change" anything.
BTW, it's not "real simple" as you say in your characterization of a "terrorist is a foreigner they don't get Miranda. If they are a citizen they get Miranda and are charged with treason." The Fifth Amendment applies equally to citizens, non citizen legal residents, noncitizen visitors (tourists), and illegal immigrants if the alleged crime occurs within the jurisdiction of a U.S. Court. The case law on this is pretty clear. They have constitutional protections whether they are told about them or not. I'd like to hear a show about this. Life is not debate team. When someone like Steve cites to an article from FOX News, the New York Post, or some other such suspect source, it shouldn't be a problem if someone says, "Look, your source is suspect and unbelievable." Using debate team rules, of course, the offender can whine, "Ad hominem. You can't judge my source. If my source says that Obama has a third nipple, you have to find a source that says he doesn't." Wow. That's a really awful indictment. Would you be satisfied if he was burned at the stake, or should he be hung, drawn, and quartered for such notorious and outlandish mendacity?
When I used "President" I was using it to refer to the administration. Read the articles linked to by WSJ, they say this is being pushed by the Obama administration. Unless Holder has gone rogue this initiative must have the president's approval.
I'm not sure how I feel about it, honestly. Part of me understands the want to rapidly get information and take decisive action when an attack in imminent like the T.S. bomb, yet I have squeamish feelings about adding exceptions to Miranda.
I also just checked the Obameter and it's looking pretty healthy. 120 kept, 40 compromised and only 20 broken.
These folks are pretty good and in the past they have responded to emails and updated their stories when new facts are revealed to them.
What's up with this? Reinstate executive order to hire an additional 100,000 federal employees with disabilities within five years.? Shouldn't the goal be to hire qualified people? If the person is qualified for the job and there is a need they should be hired regardless of the disability or lack thereof. If the person is not needed than they should not be hired whether they are disabled or not!
It's much like the "Lets get more girls into science and engineering." projects. We're having to compensate for the damage that's been done over the years.