It is the exception, versus the rule, when I find anything coming out of the President's mouth is something I can agree with. However, what he said to Hampton University's commencement ceremonies last weekend was particularly chilling:
Information becomes a distraction, a diversion [that puts] pressure on our country and on our democracy...[You graduates are] coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter... And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations ...information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.This pretentious, convoluted progressive drivel is, of course, a pathetic exercise in fuzzy, mediocre, superficial thinking characteristic of this self-important President and his disingenuous media-manipulative administration. It hardly seems to require a serious response, but let me provide a few comments to the analytically-impaired.
First of all, Obama seems to confound information with various media platforms. I suppose you can download podcasts in iPod's and subscribe to electronic newspapers on iPad's, but all of that information is available from any personal computer. (I'm not aware of Xbox and PlayStation exclusive news content; I always thought there were game consoles which do not meaningfully contribute to the information overload Obama is specifically addressing.) It seems to suggest that Obama is suggesting that the number of platforms results in overload, holding web-based information constant.
Second, we have to ignore the typical legal trick of trying to dilute the message with irrelevant data. In fact, Obama admits (in the unabridged transcript), with the possible exception of his Blackberry, he is unfamiliar with many of the cited platforms. So what is exactly his purpose? To convince the graduates he is hip because he's heard of an iPad?
The real message, of course, there is "too much information" and much of that information is false. Gee, I wonder what's false? Is it the White House
Now why do you think that he is raising "too much" and "false" information, unless he has some sort of progressive "filter" (i.e., censorship) in mind to help the "overloaded" citizen? No, thanks, Mr. President: we'll muddle through the free exchange of ideas without your paternalistic worries that the rest of us just aren't intellectually capable of handling differences of opinions in a free society. We don't need you deciding just what is "empowering"; even the dullest knife in the drawer realizes that coincidentally you know just where we can find those "empowering answers".
Let me make myself clear, Mr. President. All elected officials face adverse, even false accusations from media and political opponents. It goes with the territory in a free society. The truth stands on its own merits. The only thing worse than the expression of alleged half-truths or lies in America is the patently transparent, misguided, even unethical attempts to intimidate free speech.
Demagoguery at its Worse: Obama and Palin Bashing Energy Companies
A couple of years ago I was working for a software publisher specializing in the higher education market. We had a product which would take daily changes in a university production database and apply them to a more user-friendly copy of the database. This "refresh" process normally took 1 to 2 hours, but a prominent Catholic university client in the Los Angeles area found the process was taking them 30 hours. The client had been unsuccessfully pursuing the technical problem with 5 months with the technical support group. Even though I had less than 6 months of experience with the product, I was sent to the client site. At the end of my first day on site, the IT manager was dissatisfied with the fact I had not yet resolved the problem and immediately escalated the issue with my company's management. In fact, I diagnosed and resolved the issue within another day or so; it was the result of a manual client error unintentionally backing out a file replacement in a key software patch. The point is, of course, the manager's pressure was not helpful; I was already in contact with key product developers and customer support
Any legitimate problem solver, like myself, instantly cringes when he sees or hears clueless politicians or managers trying to pressure the resolution of an intrinsically difficult problem. I sometimes use the classical example in economics of trying to cut the time of boiling an egg by adding chefs to the task. Let's look at the facts: the BP rig was not the first in deep water drilling; the various vendors have designed redundancy into the rig/platform.
I have no knowing financial interest in any of the vendors being discussed (BP, Halliburton, or Transocean). Clearly the circumstances were unanticipated, and each day, each hour that the problem persists costs BP money. There are various pros and cons to proposed solutions; for example, the "junkshot" option (trying to plug up the broken pipes) if it fails could result in even bigger daily spills.
Obama tries to make it an issue of corruption, with between Big Oil and the Interior Department. There's an implicit Bush bashing in his demagogic charge of a "cozy" relationship over the past decade. I have not reviewed said review procedures, but I seriously doubt even under compliance, the combination of human and technical issues leading to this disaster would have been anticipated. As for a battle royal among the 3 vendors over relative responsibility, Obama's comments are hardly useful. There are obvious reasons why each vendor would want to put his best face forward, especially under a Congressional inquiry. It comes with the territory. As a DBA I see fingerpointing all the time--software vendors, developers, network engineers, etc.
Leadership is NOT threatening lawsuits over the oil spill or keeping the boot on BP's throat. The fact is that the federal government had a plan 15 years ago on having fire booms to contain a Gulf spill, and in the meanwhile it failed to procure a single fire boom. Given the fact that a third of our domestic production is in the area, why did 3 administrations fail to act on the disaster plan?
It's not just Obama scapegoating BP senior management, but Sarah Palin striking a similar populist notion in bashing BP management, with her numerous references to Exxon Valdez.
It's time to have constructive leadership; if politicians think they have technical solutions which improve on what BP is doing, let them speak now or keep their mouths shut: fish or cut bait.
Political Cartoon
Steve Breen refers to this week's announcement by David Cameron of the Conservatives and Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats forming a coalition government in Great Britain.
Quote of the Day
It's never too late to be who you might have been.
George Eliot
Musical Interlude: Patriotic Songs
Naval Cadet Choir, "You're a Grand Old Flag/Yankee Doodle Dandy"
(takes me back to my junior high days back in South Carolina)
John Phlip Sousa, "Stars and Stripes Forever"
Lee Greenwood, "God Bless the USA"
Whitney Houston, "The Star-Spangled Banner"
