Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

[Crazed Rabbit]

Van Jones is gone. Good riddance to bad rubbish I say.

Indeed. The racist 9/11 'truther' is out and we're all the better for it.

It'll be interesting to see if the major media finally starts covering it.

CR

[Xiahou]

Indeed. The racist 9/11 'truther' is out and we're all the better for it.

It'll be interesting to see if the major media finally starts covering it.

CR

You'll love this. It's a Meet the Press clip, where they, using Van Jones as an example, bemoan how the Internet and bloggers are able to dig up everything about people's history(that they themselves miss). They go on to lament the free flow of information, calling it "an open sewer" and warning people against consuming news without a filter (ie: them). My expression during most of this:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You'll love this. It's a Meet the Press clip, where they, using Van Jones as an example, bemoan how the Internet and bloggers are able to dig up everything about people's history(that they themselves miss). They go on to lament the free flow of information, calling it "an open sewer" and warning people against consuming news without a filter (ie: them). My expression during most of this:

More like they were talking about van jones and segued into a different subject. They weren't bemoaning that van jones was caught out. They don't object to the internet necessarily either, just the way people take information they read their for granted. I think we can all agree with that.

Though I wouldn't place to much trust in what I heard on meet the press either

[Lemur]

More like they were talking about van jones and segued into a different subject.

Full clip.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Full clip.

A true bastion of objectivity that "Meet the Press" is.

[Lemur]

A true bastion of objectivity that "Meet the Press" is.

Yup, with screaming leftines such as Rudy Giuliani beating the drum for socialism.

Face it, the people making noise about Obama talking to schoolchildren are out of their minds. And many of the loudest are hypocrites.

There once was a political operative who loved to tell crowds he had a simple way of explaining to children the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

"Republicans get up and go to work," he would tell his son. "Democrats get up and go down to the mailbox to get their checks."

This man not only talked to his son about Republican values, he went into public-school classrooms and talked about them as well.

That man is Jim Greer — the same Jim Greer who, as chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, just threw a nationwide hissy fit, claiming that the classroom is no place for politics and Barack Obama's "indoctrination."

One Seminole County mother, Barbara Wells, remembers the day Greer spoke to her son's sixth-grade class. "My son said he made some sort of Hillary Clinton joke," she recalled.

But you know what? Wells didn't pitch a fit.

She didn't call up the local TV station to scream about Republican indoctrination.

Instead, she advised her son: "Whatever you are told in life, remember there are two sides to every story."

In fact, Wells didn't even think much about Greer's foray into her son's classroom until she saw him on TV complaining about Obama.

There's no longer any question: Greer is a hypocrite.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yup, with screaming leftines such as Rudy Giuliani beating the drum for socialism.

Face it, the people making noise about Obama talking to schoolchildren are out of their minds[/INDENT]

Fox news usually has a token liberal in their midst, but I wouldn't hear you argueing for their objectivity. Who were the other guests at the well-rounded table?

Many of the loudest are usually hippocrites. I believe that he is able to address school children. What people are concerned about is the level of audacity in his approach to things. He is taking liberties that other Presidents wouldn't take. More money to government, more power to government. The same guy wants to have an unfiltered one on one with impressionable minds and it can leave people a bit queesy. Sure he can, he is the President, but when consolidating federal authority seems to be his hallmark thus far, an approach on children understandably makes parents who disagree uneasy.

Hell, I havn't gotten over the idea of state funded teachers forcibly gaining parental rights over our children without our consent, but I must be a wingnut.

[Xiahou]

More like they were talking about van jones and segued into a different subject.

Nope. Lemur was nice enough to prove that theory wrong.

They don't object to the internet necessarily either, just the way people take information they read their for granted. I think we can all agree with that.

Yeah, the guy just calls it 'an open sewer'. We all know that open sewers have lots of positive qualities too... right? The insipid, self-serving nature of their discussion just wowed me. Using Van Jones(a case in point of them completely dropping the ball and the "open sewer" succeeding where they failed) as a jumping off point was the icing on the cake.

Though I wouldn't place to much trust in what I heard on meet the press either

That's the whole point.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Nope. Lemur was nice enough to prove that theory wrong.

What?

You talk about Van Jones as well, you know, the fact that in this, in this media age, what he said, by anybody's estimation, was objectionable, to sign a petition saying the government was behind 9/11. But it goes to something that's going on in this information age...

Before this they were talking about obama giving a speech at a school. An unrelated subject.

They were talking about obama giving a speech at a school and then mentioned van jones and transitioned into a new subject.

Yeah, the guy just calls it 'an open sewer'. We all know that open sewers have lots of positive qualities too... right? The insipid, self-serving nature of their discussion just wowed me. Using Van Jones(a case in point of them completely dropping the ball and the "open sewer" succeeding where they failed) as a jumping off point was the icing on the cake.

You can pull the open sewer comment out as often as you like, but do you disagree with what he was saying or just the word choice?

MR. FRIEDMAN: You know, David, I just want to say one thing to pick up on Tom's point, which is the Internet is an open sewer of untreated, unfiltered information, left, right, center, up, down, and requires that kind of filtering by anyone. And I always felt, you know, when modems first came out, when that was how we got connected to the Internet, that every modem sold in America should actually come with a warning from the surgeon general that would have said, "judgment not included," OK? That you have to upload the old-fashioned way. Church, synagogue, temple, mosque, teachers, schools, you know. And too often now people say, and we've all heard it, "But I read it on the Internet," as if that solves the bar bet, you know? And I'm afraid not.

In googling to find the transcript I went through the sean hannity forums and and angry ranting blogger

That's the whole point.

Pick a tv news show at random and pick a blog at random and which will be better? The tv news by leaps and bounds. Cherry picking one example of a failure by the msm says very little, however annoying you find their tone. And they don't "lament the free flow of information" and suggest that "all the news should be filtered through them", which you said originally. If I were to cherry pick an example of a failure of internet reporting

[Xiahou]

What?

You said:"More like they were talking about van jones and segued into a different subject". They were not talking about Van Jones prior to that. Thus, it was not correct. I don't see how you can still think that much of your statement was correct.

They brought up Jones for the sole purpose of talking about how unreliable a source of information the Internet is. That would make as much sense as me using a psychic who exactly predicted what would happen to me today as a jumping off point for how unreliable they are. The example they used was one of their failure and not of the blogosphere. It's nonsensical to use that to start a cautionary lecture about how you shouldn't trust anything on the Internet.

They continue to make themselves look like fools by talking about the chilling effect this has- I believe it was Friedman who said that it shows young people today not to write or say anything, because it will be used against them if they're ever appointed ambassador. He's blindly missing the point- it's not that you can't write anything, it's that you can't write anything patently offensive and idiotic and expect not to hear about it if you become a public figure. I don't see where finding out that an appointee thought the government, that he is being appointed to serve, perpetrated a massive scale terrorist attack on its own people is a bad thing. How is it bad if we find out if people are fringe kooks before they're appointed to office? It's not! Yet, the way they frame the discussion, they leave you thinking it is bad and lamentable.

They were talking about obama giving a speech at a school and then mentioned van jones and transitioned into a new subject.

Uh-huh. They used Jones as an example to set up their next topic.

You can pull the open sewer comment out as often as you like, but do you disagree with what he was saying or just the word choice?

Yes, I disagree with much of what he says. I agree insofar as you shouldn't take any information as gospel without some kind of verification. But that's nothing unique to the Internet. Really, just referring to the "Internet" and judging it as whole makes shows how clueless they really are. Saying "I saw it on the Internet" is not worse than saying "I saw it on TV". There are lots of things on television that also aren't true. Also, for what it's worth, I don't know anyone who says "I read it on the Internet" or "I saw it on TV" with a straight face when trying to win a point.

In googling to find the transcript I went through the sean hannity forums and and angry ranting blogger

Congratulations. I hope you found a filter for the transcript though, you can't believe what you read on the open sewer.

Pick a tv news show at random and pick a blog at random and which will be better? The tv news by leaps and bounds. Cherry picking one example of a failure by the msm says very little, however annoying you find their tone. And they don't "lament the free flow of information" and suggest that "all the news should be filtered through them", which you said originally. If I were to cherry pick an example of a failure of internet reporting

Even that is a poor comparison. The blogosphere isn't readily comparable to TV stations- the "channels" and subjects are near infinite. If you picked a well-reputed blog and compared it with Beck or Olbermann, I think it would hold up quite well. Yet, if I compared a alien abduction blog with CSPAN, it wouldn't look very favorable.

They never said directly that all information should be filtered through them(and neither did I), they just implied the hell out of it through their tearing down of a competing form of media without ever making even a passing mention or acknowledgement of their own repeated failings.

When I first read the allegations that Jones was a truther, there was an accompanying link to the website of the organization and the statement he signed onto. Compare that to the validation that Meet the Press gave when they covered it....... oh wait, they didn't.

In short, their entire discussion was vacuous and self-serving.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You said:"More like they were talking about van jones and segued into a different subject". They were not talking about Van Jones prior to that. Thus, it was not correct. I don't see how you can still think that much of your statement was correct.

They brought up Jones for the sole purpose of talking about how unreliable a source of information the Internet is. That would make as much sense as me using a psychic who exactly predicted what would happen to me today as a jumping off point for how unreliable they are. The example they used was one of their failure and not of the blogosphere. It's nonsensical to use that to start a cautionary lecture about how you shouldn't trust anything on the Internet.

I wasn't at it being said the were talking about a different subject before the clip you posted. If they had been it would make your argument stronger--so I was surprised that you took it as disproving my "theory" that they used van jones as a segue, especially when you said yourself that he was a jumping off point.

Congratulations. I hope you found a filter for the transcript though, you can't believe what you read on the open sewer.

Yup I used my judgement, exactly as they suggested we do. They didn't say "you need to watch the news" they said "you need to have judgement--and it needs to be taught in schools and churches". They a clearly saying that each person should have an internal filter, and that they shouldn't rely on the internet blindly. I'm glad to see them make that point at all.

Basically you are objecting to them not reporting on van jones very well, and then not specifically saying that people should use their own judgment when it comes to meet the press.

I would object to the first and give them a pass on the 2nd, I don't expect people to criticize themselves. Would be hypocritical.

It doesn't have anything to do with van jones

Even that is a poor comparison. The blogosphere isn't readily comparable to TV stations- the "channels" and subjects are near infinite. If you picked a well-reputed blog and compared it with Beck or Olbermann, I think it would hold up quite well. Yet, if I compared a alien abduction blog with CSPAN, it wouldn't look very favorable.

You used your judgement to determine that the alien abduction blog was bogus and that the well-reputed blogs were worthwhile. That is what they think people should do, and what I recall you telling me to do back when I was copy and pasting articles from michael moore's website