Slashdot Mirror
The Coming Digital Presidency
Ranjit Mathoda writes "Marc Andreeson, the cofounder of Netscape, met Senator Barack Obama in early 2007. Mr. Andreeson recalls, "In particular, the Senator was personally interested in the rise of social networking, Facebook, Youtube, and user-generated content, and casually but persistently grilled us on what we thought the next generation of social media would be and how social networking might affect politics — with no staff present, no prepared materials, no notes. He already knew a fair amount about the topic but was very curious to actually learn more." As a social organizer and a lover of new technologies, Mr. Obama could be expected to make good use of such tools in getting elected, and he has done so. What may not be as obvious is that Mr. Obama appears to have a keen interest in using such technologies in the act of governing. And whether Mr. Obama becomes president, or Mrs. Clinton or Mr. McCain do, these new tools have the potential to transform how government operates."
A bit presumptuous to assume that, with Democrats fighting like cats and dogs among themselves now, the "Coming Digital Presidency" won't actually feature a 72-year-old man who probably thinks YouTube is a new type of waterpark ride.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
One nice effect of being a digital President: on the Internet, one rarely has to flee under sniper fire.
I really like the idea of a presidential candidate who is interested in technology and bright enough to find ways to apply it to reaching a goal. On the other hand, I really don't like the idea of whitehouse.gov becoming a government-run myspace which encourages people to give the government even more personal information about themselves. I guess my problem is that I find this an appealing characteristic in a candidate, but a scary characteristic in a President. How inconvenient.
Dugg for education and healthcare policy.
Burried for tax hike
Yes, I'm looking forward to digital democracy.
prez2008 has thrown a hamburger at you! Do you wish to throw one back? [yes][no]
It's an *e*, not an *o*. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Andreessen
My initial thought (however cynical it may come across?) is: Is this really just another plea of "Hey general public, I'm Obama and unlike the other candidates, I'm hip and in-touch with the current generation! Vote for me!" ?
The candidate I saw leveraging the power of the Internet the most, early in this election, was Ron Paul -- and it looked like most people just used it to smear the guy. EG. "Nobody but spammers and a few computer geeks with loud mouths care about him!"
Yes, the future of politics has much to do with the Internet as a communications medium. Unfortunately, the majority of people using it as a "primary" source of information and content is the younger generation. Folks (like my parents and all of their friends) who are retirement age voters, by contrast, generally pay NO attention to a speech given over YouTube, or what a candidate posts on a FaceBook or MySpace page. And the 40-something and 50-something crowd? It's a "mixed bag" right now. Some are very "net-savvy", while a good percentage of others write it off as "the computer stuff my kids are into".
I think you've got to let a few more election years come and go in this country before the MAJORITY of voters will really be "on-board" with the Internet as their information source, vs. traditional media like television, newspapers and radio.
i wonder if it is a crime to headshot a president in halo 3?
"By the people".
Before socializing over the internet I used to socialize with my peers: people like myself. Naturally, environment of study or my work was also environment for talking about politics and stuff that matters.
In the beginning the user base of Internet was very close to that circle. With the rise of the internet the user base of it became more and more wide, including more or less all people. The society became reflected fully on the internet.
Social networking site are business companies who are oriented on mass consumptions, mass reading and advertisement for the masses. The people you are likely to meet on those sites, the people who most likely to vote on those sites are most likely NOT people from your circle, not people who share your educational and professional experience.
That is why I developed an aversion to sites like digg.com. That is why moderated sites like slashdot are much better.
Watching social networking sites, like livejournal.com, or myspace.com, one inevitably sees what the American society looks like, what the majority looks like, how easy is to brainwash this majority with propaganda.
"By the people"?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
I'm assuming Barack is not interested in setting up a facebook group for just members of Congress. I'll bet he will introduce legislation regulating these applications.
I am not interested in a nanny state. I want to be in charge of raising my children, not the Government.
A nice idea but to stop the inevitable trolling you're going to need some decent moderation. But then you'll probably get risk averse moderators taking down potentially inflammatory comments who will then be criticized for stifling free speech. And then when the people who might want to join in hear that free speech is being stifled over at opengov.com they'll come to /., and similar sites, in their hoards to moan about how repressive their government has become. Flame wars will be inevitable. /. will seize up, I'll have to go back to work. It's just another no-win situation.
I find the entire idea of creating a wired democracy to be revolting. The best government is seen in its effects and not heard. I don't want to think about government or politics in my day to day existence and would much rather just have the professionals that I elect get on with the business of governing competently. I don't want big crusades - I've had enough crusades with Bush. When I elect a President and a Congress, I don't want them asking me my opinion every 30 seconds. I want to know that they thought through the issues and made the best decisions they could, kept the army in powder, the navy afloat, the planes in the air, the satellites working, the bridges up and the roads in good repair. If it turns out that they do something that I politically don't agree with, I can -actually live with that-, so long as they bring a general air of competence to the table.
This is my sig.
What, no "I for one welcome our new digital executive branch overlords"???
..... *groan*
Most presidents have had a full complement of 20 digits, along with 2 hands, 2 feet,
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
John McCain has requested that you join the Sith in the Jedi Vs. Sith War.
You have GOT to be kidding. You're actually using a Google search of news.admin.net-abuse.email for "barack obama" as some kind of "evidence" of something? news.admin.net-abuse.email is the preferred home newsfroup of every k00k, forger, impostor, sock-puppet and whack-job on Usenet. It's the home of countless flame-wars, ridiculous accusations and general raving stupidity. My god, I wear a tinfoil hat AND a condom when I read that group. If that's the best you've got, then you should just go back under your bridge, troll.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
By the authority invested in my family pedigree, I, George W. Bush, do hereby declare the U.S. Federal Government legislative and judicial branches subordinate to the Executive Branch.
Criminally Forever,
George W. Bush
This US is a republic, not a popular democracy. The American founders were well deeply concerned with the possibility of mob government - hence (for example) the Senate, the Electoral College, and our system of checks and balances. (Yes, a gross simplification, but this is my lunch break.) The Founders were afraid of the mob for good reason. So should we.
The idea of using Facebook, MySpace, and Digg as instruments of government is, in some ways, breathtakingly foolish. Reading the content on Digg - full of conspiracy theories, slander, and bigotry - seems reminiscent of the chants of a mob, not the (theoretically desired) reasoned vox populi.
The anonymity of the Internet, combined with the speed of activity on the Web, seems to lead in many cases to an amplification of our baser instincts. Do we want our political leaders receiving input from commercial Web sites, with no means of identifying who or what is promoting certain causes?
For months Digg was filled with article after article promoting the merits of Dr. Ron Paul, the coming Messiah who will Redeem America. After Dr. Ron Paul, savior, left the race we have the new and exciting stage of articles promoting the merits of Senator Obama, the Messiah who will Redeem America. True, their could be an upswell of support from individual users, but are we perhaps seeing an organized campaign(s) manipulating Web 2.0 sites for their own purposes? With anonymity of site users, who can tell?
I've watched as the social media sites race to extremes. The load, most obnoxious writers gain the most attention; well reasoned arguments are often more dull and are ignored. Debates on sites such as Daily Kos revert on a daily base to name calling, ad hominen attacks, and sheer bloody-mindedness. Is this how we want our leaders to be influenced? In many cases on Daily Kos you'll see the same author online throughout the entire day, every day writing "diaries" and defending their positions. Who the hell are these people? How can they afford to avoid work to write their blog entries? Are those who use FaceBook a representative sample of the population, or the young, hip, and independently wealthy?
Social Media sites dramatically lower the costs of individual citizens involvement in the political process. That's a Good Thing. Yet if we don't anticipate and accept the manipulation of those sites by external agencies and those with far too much time on their hands, we're bloody damn fools.
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */
Seriously, do we really want our commander in chief preoccupied with MySpace and Facebook? It's entirely likely that they'll just pass off those tasks to other government employees. Then, of course, in that case, do we really want to be PAYING the salaries on these employees? Small, unobtrusive government is the way to go - the less they know about and use these types of applications and services, the less control and say they have over how we use them.
Presumptuous? Possibly. Statistically likely? Certainly.
The summary currently reads, "And whether Mr. Obama becomes president, or Mrs. Clinton or Mr. McCain do, these new tools have , by the People and for the People communicates and operates."
It should be (as stated in TFA), "And whether Mr. Obama becomes president, or Mrs. Clinton or Mr. McCain do, these new tools have the potential to transform how a government of the People, by the People and for the People communicates and operates."
Kind of a big difference there.
What the fuck is AHBL? Ass Hat Black List?
That's what it sounds like to me.
Obama's preacher is a racist, a white person voting for him would be like a black person voting for a white man whose preacher is a Klansman.
That's silly. Everyone knows someone that is a racist, and really, truth be told, we are all probably racist on some level. Faulting Obama for knowing someone who is a racist is like faulting someone for watching TV. It's just that common. Granted, I'd use it in a political debate on slashdot because I'm a troll that way, but the reality is, we're all a bit racists and we just have to confront that rather than pretend that listening to a bit of hip hop every now and then makes us culturally better. It's not how we think when we see people that matters as much - that whole approach is catholic guilt applied to race. But, its, do we judge people on the merits of their ideas, not the color of their skin.
Honestly, I don't care if the Obamas don't like white people in their core, and crack "cracker jokes" over family outings, so long as they run the country well when they are in there. I mean, if Obama is hanging out in the office saying "I gotta deal with these toothless white trash" so long as he balances the budget, gets the economy on track, and brings peace to the country, then, who cares?
This is my sig.
Senator Obama seems to be utilizing the online medium as a means to spread messages and not answer them. I have been e-mailing the Obama'08 campaign website with questions on his policies and implementation strategies. To which I receive a form response asking me to be patient as they are inundated with questions and shall answer them accordingly, in the mean time I can sign up for the Obama campaign and use their web tools to spread the word.
The medium is not for staying in contact, it is simply another form of getting the word out and taking advantage of the social networking's concept of a "friend." When my online "friend" takes an interest in something, I may also examine it. This is what interests the politicos.
I don't understand this highly negative reaction. People are disenfranchised with the government, so surely it's a good thing that the government wants to find better ways for people to have a voice? It's really a question of communication, not control. That is, unless you believe this is a veiled way for government thought police to get into your brain. (Dons tinfoil hat.)
Your reaction reminds me of the typical paranoid position. If someone helps you they are interfering unnecessarily. If they don't help you, then they are conspiring to do you in. If they offer you the choice then they are manipulating you.
So the real question is - how would you like your opinion heard on issues that matter to you, such as the M$ hemogony or network neutrality? Or are you willing to take a stand and say that an ideal unobtrusive government does not need your opinion.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
it is clear that to rebuild D.C. you need to sweep away the rubbish from the old system to bring in the new. The 'new' in this case include new technology that bypasses the current old boy network. New voters that are not yet tainted by the old boy network. New rules of political interaction (via technology and new voters), new representation for those previously under-represented... in short a revolution. Communication has always been part and parcel of war. The side with the best communication always has an advantage. Technology brings that to any political revolution that would happen in the USA.
I think of such things as good but I wonder how long before the right wingers begin calling him the antichrist?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Nice of the author to presume that a "government of the People, by the People and for the People" is what we have to expect in the future. This would imply that the future will be any different from the past. And while some candidates may be running on a platform of "change", the rhetoric remains the same. At least for Obama, he's upfront about it; his commercials say "I am my brother's keeper", so we know to expect increased rights violations through regulation and taxation.
What choice is left? Well, there isn't one. Try again in 4 years.
PrezHugeDick111: a/s/l?
SexyNt3rn: 20, yes, under the desk
(Time Passes)
PrezHugeDick111: ive got one hand on the keyboard and the other on the button
SexNt3rn: OH YES! PUSH MY BUTTON!
PrezHugeDick111: my rocket launches into you're love canal
PrezHugeDick111: LOL, there goes Bolivia!
Why did he ask Andreeson? If Mr. Andreeson had a clue what the next big thing was he would have invented it already. His foray into the internet with Netscape was over 10 years ago. In internet years thats almost 3 generations. Its like asking your Grandpa about what going to be hot in women's fashion next year.
Skip ------ See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com
So, you completely ignore the first article which is evidence of can-spam non-compliance (failure to honor removal requests in a timely fashion), and seek to discredit a post based on one URL used as evidence. Here's a thread with samples. Direcmag New York Times. Legitimate information is legitimate information regardless of the source. Your point is well taken however regarding the signal/noise ratio on NANA*.
over blowing up buildings, churches, mosques, border lines, markets and Embassys.
Be careful, Mr Troll, iinm the first asshat to say that went to prison and his fat, too much makeup wife divorced his mammon-worshiping ass.
Obama's preacher isn't a racist. He went too far with "God damn America" (in one speech), but what he said was "God damn America so long as it's killing innocent people all the time", which is actually what any decent preacher who believes in damnation (they're all supposed to) would have to say. Because that's what the religion says.
There's absolutely no equation of Obama's preacher to a klansman. Klansmen are sick bastards joining a secret society with an unbroken tradition of universal hate (except for worshiping an imaginary idol of a White supremacy that almost ripped the country in half and destroyed it). Klansmen are murders, arsonists, rapists, and traitors, who demand the genocide and enslavement of the entire world, except a few people who look like them (but women are property).
Obama's preacher is a guy who sometimes shouts about racial and social injustice, and demands... that America stop killing innocent people, stop persecuting the Black community, face the fact that Hillary Clinton isn't in touch with the hardest problems many Americans face because of their race. Sure, he can get jerky and obnxious about it, and even be wrong about some of the injustices - and even more wrong failing to admit how much persecution of American Blacks is perpetuated inside the Black community, not by "Whitey". But he's got a right to be wrong. Hell, he's a preacher - he stands up every week to insist people do things because an imaginary supernatural force says so - his whole gig is unprovable, so he's going to be wrong sometimes. But what does he demand we do about it? He demands that we are compassionate, that we take care of one another, that we're honest about how we hurt each other, and that we do better.
Not what we reject from klansmen, even if we disagree with him, or offended by him.
Meanwhile, George Bush has sent us to war in Iraq and against "Terror" by invoking his own crackpot Christian ideas of Israel's sacrificial role in the "Rapture". He claims "God" told him to invade Iraq. He's actually lying, stealing and killing people in Jesus' name. McCain has relentlessly sought the endorsement of some of the most sick "Christian" preachers in America. Like Jerry Falwell before Falwell just died, even though McCain had earlier rejected Falwell as a crazyman when Falwell was endorsing Bush against McCain. But after Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed "gays, feminists, abortionists, the ACLU" for making "God" send us the 9/11/2001 attacks, McCain eagerly pursued their endorsements and kneeled at their feet. McCain went after endorsements from "reverends" John Hagee and Rod Parsley, who preach crazy "Left Behind" hatred of anyone not fitting their definition of "Christian" - like Catholics, whose church he says is a "whore", a direct agent of the devil. Hoping for those other people to burn alive in the streets, endorsing the widespread massacre of "sinners" by gangs of "Christians" trying to score their way into heaven when the Rapture leaves them behind for not having been sufficiently hateful in the "near-End Times". These people want global murder, actual apocalypse, and will pressure a president who listens to them to hand out nukes to maniacs in the Mideast to "bring it on".
Even the popular Billy Graham, who's had the ear of every president since Nixon, is a racist and antisemit who used to laugh it up with Nixon (and surely the rest, but off-tape) about what to do about the "problem" with those non-WASPs.
Clinton isn't much better, worshiping for years with "The Fellowship" (or "The Family"), a gender-segregated prayer group that's mostly secret, but includes some of
--
make install -not war
Except the facts are that Republicans actually embrace rightwing bigot preachers, while all we have here on "the Left" is a preacher who occasionally gets angry at the facts of America's killing innocent people and institutionalized racism. Hell, Pat Robertson ran for president as a Republican, and got millions of Republican votes. That's a pretty definite association. And every Republican president or candidate for it has sought and received Robertson's and Falwell's enthusiastic endorsement - not just sat in their church once in a while.
There's no connection between Obama and Farrakhan, excpet they're both Black. I guess it's easy to make that mistake if you're a racist who says any one Black person's actions are shared by every Black person.
Not "all's fair in love and politics". I'd hate to see your lover if you really think that. And that kind of attitude is exactly why we have a faithy Republican regime that is stopped by nothing decent in pursuing power and the flood of money it can steal behind fake "Christian" posturing.
Just because Republicans have lowered American politics to divisive attacks irrelevant to facts, but playing on the worst impulses of Americans doesnt' mean we all have to accept it. Not when there's an alternative.
--
make install -not war
Only Old North Koreans need beowolf clusters of Natalie Portmans running Linux.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
The first article was a post from a single whiner, complaining about receiving TWO additional e-mails. A Google search for similar ("barack obama unsubscribe") returned that article as #4, and nothing else similar in the next four pages. You titled that link "Barack's Take on Honoring Unsubscribe Requests", as though your single whiner had gotten some kind of "we refuse to remove you from the list" message. Next, you posted a link to a Google search for "barack obama" on a newsgroup world renowned for kooks, nutters, foamers and name-callers.
Now, you come back with
1) a newsgroup discussion (from the afore-mentioned group) of people receiving OBVIOUS prank spam (To: SpamLovingWhore, SlutFace; From: Barack Obama).
2) a news story titled "Prankster Pollutes Obama's E-mail List" about how Obama's inferior sign-up process has been pwned, and
3) a news story entitled " E-Mail Spam Startles Some Anti-Spammers" which doesn't even mention Obama.
This, you call "Legitimate information". I said it before, I'll say it again, you're just a troll.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Wow, flip-flopping in your first sentence. So, did he go too far? Or was it appropriate as you allude to later on?
I really don't care about the issue, but you're trying to have it both ways right early on.
Depends on how much YouTube wants to practice censorship. Rev Wright videos are becoming increasingly hard to find over there ...
Now I had seen Digg get flooded with Obama spam, which was fair enough because that site had politics. But now it's being rammed down my throat here too with a trickle of stories.
Screw it. I don't think he's the second coming and disagree with his solutions. But can't we keep at least this site apolitical, more or less?
This story is just a stupid, thin veil of promoting yet another candidate -- the actual issue of social networking is bullshit and has already played out in this election.
OK, someone has to lose his geek card here. Misspelling the name of one of the /." list.
Netscape cofounders is pretty high on the "how to look like an idiot on
His name's Andreessen, Marc Andreessen.
> Do we even need to look at the things the religious right has said that John McCain embraces?
Ok, get out yer flamebait mods... I'm full of Karma anyway and itchin to burn off a bit.
No. Just no. You assholes got that talking point out within minutes of the Wright scandal breaking and it is just bullshit. If you can't see the difference you are just too retarded to be allowed to walk around loose so I won't even go there and just assume you are a political hack who knows he is lying his ass off and doesn't care because 'the ends justify the means.' No it doesn't. Only bad things come from that kind of thinking.
There is a world of difference between allowing someone slightly dodgy to endorse you and you endorsing them. Mr. McCain was NOT my preferred candidate (conservative leaning non-idiotarian libertarian who can't forgive McCain-Feingold) but lets keep some honesty in the political debate shall we? Hagee is a bit of a twit from what I can find but it isn't THAT bad. McCain simply negotiated and obtained an endorsement from the guy. It would be no more fair to assume McCain agrees with Hagee on that basis than to assume Obama agrees with with Kos's more insane notions because dailykos is supporting Obama with Obamas knowledge and lack of repudiation.
Now on the other hand, if you attend a church for two decades, are baptized into Christianity in that Church, are married in that church and have your two daughters baptized there, donate non-trivial sums of tithes to a church, etc. it is reasonable for people to assume that the person doing these things endorses the views of that particular church.... otherwise they would have picked a different church. Ok, can everyone see the difference now? See why this problem isn't going to go away with one (admittedly pretty darned good) speech?
Imagine John McCain being discovered to be a regular viewer of and contributer to Pat Robertson. Still think a person't choice of religious instructor doesn't matter? That it wouldn't affect his political views? And Robertson, while a genuine asshole, hasn't even approached the levels of insanity and hate the Rev. Wright managed to attain. To make the comparison valid you would have to have McCain slumming at Stormfront as well.
But it gets worse. Just warming a pew was bad enough, Obama claims Wright to be a mentor. But even that isn't the bad part. Obama's whole reason to exist is to bring "Change, Hope and Unity." He has no documented political accomplishments to point to. He promises to transcend race and be a uniter but he had a perfect, made to order, opportunity to lead a depraved, bigoted minister and a congregation deep into conspiracy madness and self destructive beliefs to healing and back to the teachings of Jesus. Leadership iz Fail. And we are expected to believe (i.e. take on faith with less evidence than there is behind any religion) that if we but elevate this cipher to President of the United States and Defender of Western Civilivation that only then will his unbound skills be revealed.
Democrat delenda est
I'm looking forward to finally having a smart president again.
I'm not. We had one. The man had a degree in physics, and his Presidency was a disaster; I regretted voting for the asshat. I never thought I'd ever see a worse President, but the current MBA Oil man Traitor In Chief* proved me wrong.
-mcgrew
* gasoline was less than 1/3 the cost it is now when the two oil barons took residence at the White House. I firmly believe that the Iraq war was to destabilise the region to drive up the price of oil so that oil men Bush and Cheney could get richer at the expense of their country and countrymen.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Aide: "Excuse me Mr President, we've just detected a nuclear missile launch originating from a former soviet republic what should we do?"
President v2.0: "Mr President has detected a potential vulnerability in it's software. Downloading and installing the newest update could protect you from this threat. Would you like to download now?"
Aide: "Crap! i guess i should i certainly wouldn't want a problem now"
Operating System: "Operating system has detected another program attempting to install software. installing software from unknown sources could be dangerous, do you want to continue?
Aide: "Yes"
Operating System: "Only System Administrators are allowed to install software on operating system! Please log out and log back in as a System Administrator
Aide: "Ahhhhhh ok now what was that system admin password? oh yeah
Operating System: Username: Rush Limbaugh Password: IloveOxy
Mr President 2.0 Do you wish to install these updates?
Aide: "Yes"
Operating System: A program is attempting to install software on your system. Deny or allow?
Aide: "Allow"
Long Pause
Operating System: Update has been successful, you must now log off your computer and re-start for the update to take effect
Long Pause
Mr President 3.0 Thank you for choosing Mr President 3.0! Before you continue we would like you to take a moment to register your product.
Aide: "Skip this step"
Mr President 3.0 Would you like to see a demo of all the new features of Mr Presid
KaBooooooooooooooooom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Two "white" mans hands shaking . . . come-on, get a clue. Find something neutral or don't show anything at all, you white-male-centric-racist.
"Ralph Motherfucking Douchbag Nader and all the idiot hippies that thought he was a good choice
The Dems need solidarity like..."
Err, sorry. You've just demonstrated your two-party mindset again. They're not "Dems". They don't feel the Democrats represent them. There are more than two possible outlooks on the multi-issue field that is politics.
Do you understand this?
In the UK I vote liberal democrat. Why? Because their policies seem to be well considered and have a lot in common with my outlook. if they weren't there, would I vote for Labour or conservative, the very rough anaologs of the US Rep/Dem? No. I wouldn't vote for either of them because one is a high nanny-state insanity party and the other is a bunch of right wing arsebags.
The LDs most likely won't win any election soon. Doesn't bother me. I'm not giving my electoral mandate to anyone I don't agree with.
Is one of the two main parties slightly less out of tune with me than the other? Probably. So what?
-
If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain
If Clinton vs. McCain, 19% of Obama supporters will vote Republican.This is what their divisive campaigning has wrought.
The Republicans used to have a Commandment that served them very well in general elections: "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill Of A Fellow Republican". Perhaps it's time for the Democratic Party to adopt a corresponding Commandment.
I'm an Obama supporter, and was myself considering that I might vote for McCain if Clinton were nominated. What changed my mind was reading McCain's take on the housing crisis in the paper today, in which the best he could come up with was to have some accountants and bankers to have some kind of conference. He specifically said he wouldn't bail out anyone who made unwise investments.
So if Clinton is the nominee, I'll be voting for Nader.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
I would hope that the word LIKE is the important one here. It's true that representatives, be they Congressmen, Senators, MPs or whatever, have taken to blogging or MySpace or Facebook as way of 'increasing communication', but the truth that all it does is add another layer of mediated, mostly one way communication about what the honourable member would like you to know about what you are paying them to do. It's only partially how an electronically enabled government should work.
In the UK it's taken a voluntary group, MySociety, to pick up voting and speaking data from Parliament and turn it into a site that provides statistics on how our MPs perform. They are currently lobbying to get this data presented in a globally usable way. It seems to me that this is the absolute minimum data that we should get in return for our trust and the money we spend to maintain democracy. Recent concerns about how MPs use their expenses system have also caused Parliament to respond with some openness, but in the end they are our public servants and *none* of this should be secret. OK, it might not be the most rivetting read in the world, and I can understand the poster who said that they don't want to know how government works, just that it does, but I think it's the least that we are owed. Concentrate on general accountability instead of just getting 'the message' across.
I just read through the discussions here and find they reflect the general nature of discourse I've been observing in the United States regarding the candidates for the next leader of your country.
America is screwed.
It won't matter who is elected by whatever means, all the candidates have run campaigns of such breathtaking shallowness there is no way you have any idea exactly what policies any one of them will implement. You have been reduced to voting based upon sound bites, who they associate with, what their pastor said, what religion they are/are not, what tall tales they tell about their visits to war regions, etc. All points completely irrelevant to the actual actions that they will take during their governing of the country called the United States of America.
You might say their "mis-speakings" indicate they are not trustworthy. But who cares? You cannot inherently trust any government figure as there are too many vested interests vying for their attention. Interests with a lot more money and influence than you have. As far as I can see the best thing Americans can do is try to pin down the candidates on a common range of issues you know they will have to deal with during their term and hold them to that. Shorten this ridiculous one-year election process, hold just a few real debates and don't give anyone the opportunity to turn the process into a mud slinging contest.
McCain may now end up being president because he's coming across as a single stable party candidate against a couple of petty, bickering rivals who have nothing better to do than point out each others failings.
I had a bit of hope before that the end of the Bush era would bring in a new renaissance for the US. I have absolutely no hope of that happening now.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
I wonder how much of Carter's "disaster" presidency was a result of the US losing Vietnam, finding out about Watergate (and watching Ford pardon Nixon), the OPEC/oilcorp oil shocks, continuing CIA coups in Africa and South America, and Reagan/Bush's campaign manager running the SEC? While refusing to paper over his problems by just spending the US into debt, or misleading us into some "patriotic" war?
Carter had problems. But his intellect wasn't one of them. In fact the unprecedented problems he faced came from an evil genius in Nixon defaulting to a partisan dummy in Ford, while facing other evil geniuses setting up the country for the Reagan/Bush campaign. Carter failed to protect the country from that, so he's got his share of blame. But, if anything, his problem was that he wasn't smart enough to rip out the Republicans playing "chicken" with the country while he could.
He was, however, smart enough to pull off the only peace treaty between Israel and a neighbor in probably several thousand years, which has even survived the latest stresses. Which include not just the war, but also the new Israeli government's idiotic violence driving Palestinians into Egypt across the treaty border. We need a guy with that kind of smarts again.
--
make install -not war
Troll? Seriously? No you dumbass mod, troll would be saying that Republicans are baby-eating, anti-semitic, gay-dragging, fuzzy animal-clubbing, hate-powered engines of evil swarming across the world like locusts leaving nothing but death and devastation in their wake. I have not yet begun to troll.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Ranjit+Mathoda+obama
Oh yes.
That would certainly add a new dimension to the presidency.
"..., by the people and for the people..."
What happened to "of the people"?
I have no mod points, someone MOD UP parent post!
I'm really sadden to see tech geeks fall victim to sound bites and being manipulated by the media. If you have a problem with Wright's sermon, listen to the whole thing then make your decisions based on that. But I for one would do my own research especially if it's being pushed on by partisan media like Fox News.
Calling Obama a racist based on his pastor is silly. I'm sure there are plenty of people you associate with that may say or do things that shouldn't be a reflection on you. It's the worst kind of lazy thinking.
Parent is right, we are screwed. It's no wonder we get the kind of candidates we have. Critical thinking has gone out the window. I'm sad for our country.
sri
He's giving you new material to work with as well, this time mocking Italians:
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
> I don't think he's the second coming and disagree with his solutions. But can't we keep at least this site apolitical, more or less?
You must be new here... or weren't reading much in '04. Slashdot will look pretty much like dailykos in another couple of months when we hit prime election season.
Democrat delenda est
Tell him to read Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". There's a digital candidacy for you.
Governments themselves are by definition ", by the People and for the People".
Tell me if it feels like it... or somehow else.
Exactly. The blowing up of this by the media, and the subsequent word-of-mouth, is fucking bullshit. I watched the entire sermon in which those things were said, and taken in context, it was a good message and, while maybe not family-friendly in language and content, was an appropriate underlying lesson to hear at a church. If I remember correctly, the right to speak out against (or even act against) unjust acts of the government was one of the founding principles of this country - this is all Rev. Wright was doing. I'm white, I'm American, and I have no problem with what he said - seriously, just go watch the whole sermon, it's on YouTube.
Just because an older black man who grew up having to sit at the back of the bus still has the mindset that America is racist against blacks (and yes, it still is, but obviously not like back then), and speaks his mind about it, he's racist against whites now? And because he condemns the acts of the Israeli government against Palestine he's an anti-semite? People need to do their research and stop listening to Rush Limbaugh (he actually has the audacity to call Wright a "racist, poison-spewing hate-monger" when he has to have seen the whole sermon.)
What the hell is wrong with people? They don't want a president who's willing to listen to the views of someone who thinks there's some problems with racism in America? They don't want a president who's willing to listen to the views of someone who's not totally happy with everything in America, and says something about it? Remember, he repudiated Wright's more abrasive comments, but in a show of good character, didn't abandon the man. And I believe one of the founding fathers said something to the effect of, "the greatest patriots of this country are those who are willing to question it." (I don't remember exact words or who it was, that's a paraphrase.)
WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
Due to impermenance of digital records? They have to be copied each decade and upgraded to new formats.
This is additional to certain offices in the current presidency who avoid email because they have things to hide.
And now polls of America's reaction to Obama's speech explaining his relationship to Wright and to racism show Obama ahead of Clinton, and the temporary drops from endless repetition of Wright's clips have been reversed by his explanation.
Maybe America really is reasonable enough to deserve a smart president for a change.
--
make install -not war
Well as far as attending the church goes, it is reported that Bill Clinton has seen Pastor Wright. Also Oprah Winfrey has attended the church over the years on and off. Does this mean that Bill Clinton and Oprah hate white people too? If everyone believed everything their pastors said then we would all be in a very different world.
Seeing a man one or twice is not the same as having them as your spiritual mentor for 20 years. The Clinton's will almost certainly have had contact with him, as he's a bigwig in the black community (a big portion of their constituency prior to Barak), that doesn't make them privy to his racist outbursts the way someone who has known him and been mentored by him for 20+ years almost certainly is. Equating the two is as disingenuous as dismissing Wright's overt racism with a "Your not black, you wouldn't understand" in one breath, followed by an apologist "Black preachers have been saying appallingly racist things for decades, so you really can't consider it racist" (anyone beside me see the illogic of that?), as Obama's supporters have done.
As for Oprah, she chucked more than a decade of support for Hilary Clinton out the window to support a freshman senator who is on tape himself saying he wouldn't run in 2008 because he wasn't qualified for the job. Obama is nowhere near as strong on women's issues as Hilary, he's no stronger on core Democratic issues than Hilary (with the possible exception of the Iraq war, at a time when Hilary, along with the rest of us, was deceived into believing Saddam was on the brink of having nuclear weapons), and certainly as a one term senator has less of a track record on all these issues. Since gender issues can be ruled out as a reason for Oprah to dump Hilary for Barak, and core Democratic issues can be ruled out, as well as his track record versus hers, it suggests her change of heart has more to do with ethnicity than anything else...which bears a disturbing parallel to Pastor Wright's rhetoric.
I voted for Obama for senate, but I'm very disturbed at how he's run his campaign, and the willingness of the Democrats to shunt aside a woman with decades of experience and qualifications in favour of a first-term senator who speaks well but will be even more of a newbie in office than Baby Bush was.
The whole situation is ugly. We have 3 choices: a competent, experienced woman, an inexperienced man who says the right things but whose competence is open to question, and a conservative who is likely to continue many of Bush's worst policies even if his rhetoric is softer and slightly more intelligent. And all three have run campaigns that have strayed well outside of the bounds of acceptability IMHO.
That said, the one candidate who might have gotten America out of the morass is unlikely to win the nomination, which leaves us with the question: will Obama through inexperience do less or more damage than McCain's right wing politics? Throw in Obama's apparent long-term acceptance of racist rhetoric and it really makes you wonder what the country is in for under an Obama presidency. I don't know the answer, but I suspect, like others, I will be voting Green or Libertarian this next election as I find both likely winners to be more or less equally lousy. Unless by some miracle Hilary does take the nomination, and I really don't see that happening, irrespective of how desperately the country needs her quality of leadership.
All in all, it's times like these that make me damn glad I emigrated.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Except that Wright grew up being called nigger. The Klansman is uncomfortable with black people, and he maintains they are monkeys, lynches them, or whatever. White people are a majority, and black people are subject to violence and discrimination every day from people who are visually indistinguishable from 70% of the population.
Also, Wright doesn't hate white people. You've seen, like everyone else has, 45 seconds total out of 20 years preaching. He makes a case against the rich white guys that create(d) the policies that disenfranchise the black people. He says God doesn't bless america for killing innocent people, he damns america for killing people (quote, "It's in the Bible").
So yeah, he's got anger that stems from living in a segregated society. Oh, and Chicago has some of the worst problems with police racism in the country, for what it's worth.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
The premise of the KKK is that white people are genetically superior. (Rebuttal.)
The premise of black anger is:
1. Slavery in general
2. Slaves were bred like animals.
3. Slaves were raped, and that was totally cool.
4. Slaves were murdered for trying to educate themselves
5. The whole Jim Crow thing
6. Black voter disenfranchisement up through the black civil rights movement (what 1964, was it?)
7. Black voter disenfranchisement in 2000 (this is undeniable. Look it up)
8. Racist police force that until the last 50 years or so could kill black men or rape a black woman with zero fear of repercussions.
Shall I continue? It's not even remotely comparable.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
http://blog.pmarca.com/2008/03/an-hour-and-a-h.html
An interesting read, rather than just the snippet in the article.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/
Is this not a completely 100% positive message? What's negative about this message? Tell me.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Hippies don't vote, really.
This time, I'm sort of pissed at Mr. Nader for running, but Al Gore should have been able to beat Bush. Seriously. Even with the election fraud. And he could have chosen not to fold like a lawn chair. But he didn't
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Or are you just talking about the 45 second clips on constant rotation in the media?
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/
Read away, and tell me what's wrong with what he said.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
So in the near future, fingers are going to be leading the hands, or something?
(Hey, let me prove that I'm more clever than the original writer: how about it should have said "CyberPresidency"? or "ePresidency"? or "iPresidency"? or as the kool illit3rate kids might like, "iPrez"? Yeah! I'm clever!)
myselfmusic
I wouldn't be surprised if an Obama White House released occasional YouTube Addresses, much in the spirit of FDR's famous Radio Chats.
That's why when people talk about what the "Founders" intended, they're talking about the Constitution: because the Articles of Confederacy have been over for centuries, and the legal and moral basis for the United States of America lies in its Constitution now.
You are an idiot, and your arguments are founded on a premise so idiotic that you should be ashamed of yourself. Stop cursing like a schoolboy and start spending some time reading about the history you should have learned in those schools.
My initial thought (however cynical it may come across?) is: Is this really just another plea of "Hey general public, I'm Obama and unlike the other candidates, I'm hip and in-touch with the current generation! Vote for me!" ?
If you're wondering whether Obama's enthusiasm for the Internet and technology goes beyond "hip and in touch", you might consult Lawrence Lessig's endorsement of him. And after reading Obama's tech paper, I can't say I think any other candidate's compares even in showing awareness of issues.
That said, the fact that I see the net strongly leveraged elsewhere -- including Paul's rather impressive campaign -- makes me *less* jaded about the increasing use of social networking. Nor do I think it's really surprising or affected: to some extent, all politics is (among other things) organizing. Real-world social networks were a huge part of politics before social networks came to the web, it's a completely natural fit now that's here. So to one degree or another, *everybody* is using it. I think part of the reason Paul stands out in his use is his unfortunate and somewhat unfair uphill battle in traditional media -- he really didn't have anywhere else to go.
Now, I'd agree it sometimes seems Obama is using this tool more heavily and talking more about his use of tools than anyone else in the field other than Paul. But I think to the extent that's true, it's largely because up until the last 4 years of his political career, organizing has been a big part of what he does -- his start, for goodness sake, was as a community organizer. It really does appear he has a philosophy that includes bottom-up organization as a component of well-balanced politics. And what the social networking tools do that's new to politics is increase the reach and efficiency of that kind of organizing. They only marginally bolster the traditional political networks, but they're a huge boost at the grassroots level, especially the more you know about grassroots organizing.
I also would agree that not all candidates are created equal on the tech-friendly front, however. In particular, McCain has some issues with not fighting the internet, and while Clinton might have some good progressive impulses regarding it, I don't trust her not to throw it under a bus if some other "expediency" arises.
So while I'm sometimes a bit disappointed we didn't get a race like Obama vs Paul -- one that I think would have essentially signaled a real end to business as usual and a significant shift to digital politics -- I still think Obama stands out as an evolutionary step in the right direction, if not the Paul revolution.
One other thing about a part of the premise of the post ("Hey general public, I'm Obama and unlike the other candidates, I'm hip and in-touch with the current generation! Vote for me!"). This isn't necessarily directed at the poster I'm responding to, but I'm noticing a high degree of frequency in attacks on Obama that are essentially "Sure he SEEMS great, but SEEMING isn't the same things as BEING great and we just don't know what's REALLY behind HIM!" To some extent, I don't blame people for thinking this way. We've been let down pretty severely by quite a bit of our political leadership recently. And it's hard to really know whether what you know about a candidate is image or fact.
But I also think the time for this kind of talk about Obama is past. He's been in the spotlight for a while, there's plenty of material available about him and written by him to get genuinely familiar with the substance of his history and positions. I don't have a problem with people arguing about what they don't like about Obama's stated policies, or a vote he made in the past. But at this point, anybody bringing up this kind of "we don't KNOW" or "he's all STYLE and TALK" rehtoric isn't bringing up an insightful point, they're showing their own need to do homework. Or, in some cases, acting with ulterior motives.
Tweet, tweet.
I can't see a single point in what you've listed above that seems essentially connected to conservatism. I was thinking that conservatism meant things like:
* preserve traditional social values
* look for other solutions besides government action where feasible
* make sure government action runs efficiently where necessary
* keep peace and provide for national defense through military strength
* encourage individual responsibility above social responsibility
* value individual property rights
But according to the list above, it's apparently:
* endorse torture
* abandon the idea the government needs to behave in a fiscally responsibly manner
* never cooperate with political opposition
* oppose environmental conservation
* avoid government involvement in regulation of ethically sensitive research
* agree with Bush 43
I don't think the problem here is that where somebody stands on the political spectrum affects their view of how conservative McCain is. I think that the problem is that there's some pretty darn arbitrary definitions of what conservatism means these days.
Tweet, tweet.
1.First think of something negative (but valid -and not incendiary or provocative- like lack of experience for Obama and openness for Hillary) about the two candidates.
2.Register on their websites so that you can post your comments.
Obama
Hillary
3.Post your comments in answer to any of their blog postings.
4.Check the blog to see if your postings appear or not. Give some time.
Having gone through all these, I have to say-a better candidate should not(and does not) censor anything which is a valid criticism.
Computers can reverse entropy.
The Day of Jerusalem's Fall (on 9/11)
Confusing God and Government (with the "God Damn America" quote)
Listen to them start to end, then come back and tell me it's hateful.
Which is why I always think it's funny when I see gay guys that go to traditional church. I'm not trying to oppress anyone, and you're assigning a lot of your own trauma to me.
You know.. I agree with this. A friend of my best friend's wife is gay. I'm simultaneously jealous of this guy and thankful that he is gay, because, he really, is just a guy that really is genetically superior to me. He walks into a room and women start taking their clothes off. He's just that good looking and you wouldn't even know that he was gay if you talked to him. But.... he went through this weird phase where he decided he needed to be a priest.... and I was just like, dude... that's just stupid. It's one thing to be uneasy with your own sexuality. That's not even a gay or ungay thing. But its entirely another to go, due whatever misgivings you have about yourself, go and join an organization that doesn't like you.
Do you think he'd ever tell you?
Yeah he would, because I would tell him before hand that if he did go gay I would still love him and his sexuality is his decision and not mine.
And I know that Foley and Haggard and probably Craig were (and are) in the closet, and nobody could tell.
See, that's the thing. I look at a lot of these right wing baptist preacher types, with the immaculate hair, perfect dress, manicured fingernails and buffed hands, and all I can see is - gay - gay - gay. I honestly would not be surprised if Jerry Falwell got his peanuts packed a few times in his life.
This is my sig.