backtop


Print 135 comment(s) - last by Motoman.. on May 12 at 1:24 PM


Obama criticized the iPad and other gadgets at a recent graduation speech  (Source: YouTube)

The U.S. currently ranks fourteenth in college graduation rates according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).  (Source: OECD)

Apparently, President Obama knows how to work an iPod nano
Steve Jobs might not be attending Christmas at The White House this year

Addressing 1,100 college graduates at Hampton University (VA) on Sunday, U.S. President Barack Obama warned that high school diplomas were no longer enough to compete in the global economy.  He stated that it was the responsibility of every American to offer young people access to higher education, particularly when other nations such as India, China, Japan, and the EU are paying for some or all of their college students' expenses.

A full video of the speech can be found here.

In the speech he offers some unexpected criticism of today's hottest gadgets, including the iPad.  He stated, "You're 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 -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy."

Many people have commented that it was curious of the President to attack the use of the products, which he admittedly knows little about.  The President is still far from tech illiterate, though -- he was a compulsive BlackBerry user and has been seen using various laptops.

After that somewhat unscripted moment, the rest of the ceremony was relatively predictable.  Obama praised the vision of the university's founders, who in 1861 set up the college as a place for escaped slaves from the South to gain an education.  He describes, "They recognized, as Frederick Douglass once put it, that 'education means emancipation.' They recognized that education is how America and its people might fulfill our promise."

Obama criticized society for accepting the disproportionate number of blacks and Hispanics failing to receive higher education compared to their white colleagues.  He comments, "All of us have a responsibility, as Americans, to change this, to offer every single child in this country an education that will make them competitive in our knowledge economy. That is our obligation as a nation."

President Obama is obviously right that American youth need to gain a college education.  And it's a fair point that when many other countries pay for college education, the U.S. risks falling behind if it fails to do so.  But attacking the iPad and iPod?  We're guessing Steve Jobs won't be inviting Obama on his golf trips anytime soon.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

He doesn't get this either
By knutjb on 5/10/2010 10:22:03 AM , Rating: 5
Not everyone is suited for college. Vocational programs in high schools have dwindled over the past 30 years. We need welders do they really need an education beyond vocational?

Those who failed out of college playing video games are the same ones who would have failed out with beer, pot, or some other distraction 30 years ago.

People cannot be prevented from failing in life that lesson is too valuable. To do so breeds mediocrity. Trophies for 18th place in k-12 athletics so they don't "feel bad" is where this started.

The recent banking crisis is the sum of such behavior. They took risks because they did not worry about failure. If the banks had fallen those responsible would have been held personally liable and would have lost their own fortunes along with those whose monies they lost.

Some people will always do better than others. We all have our own talents that are uniquely our own. If college is too much for you well... I don't think the President understands that, it's not in his ideology.




RE: He doesn't get this either
By Desslok on 5/10/2010 10:35:57 AM , Rating: 3
Ding ding ding ding we have a winner!


RE: He doesn't get this either
By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 5/10/2010 1:51:36 PM , Rating: 3
Thank you Tappy Tibbons. Can I be a winner too?


RE: He doesn't get this either
By EglsFly on 5/11/2010 1:39:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And with iPods and iPads, and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work

Yet there is a photo of him wearing an ipod, what a hypocrite!

This is all coming from a guy who can't give a speech without a teleprompter...

Watch him give a speech sometimes, his head goes left right left right, its like he is watching a tennis match. Very annoying.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By Adonlude on 5/10/2010 2:42:23 PM , Rating: 5
Obama's roots are as a community organizer. He teaches people who don't deserve it how to get hand outs and freebies from the governement, i.e. hard working American tax payers. Obama is an absolute socialist and he is spending more tax payer money than any president in history. He is doubling our national debt and he will continue to do so while always blaming it on Bush.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money." -Margret Thatcher


RE: He doesn't get this either
By pwndcake on 5/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: He doesn't get this either
By Phoque on 5/10/2010 7:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money." -Margret Thatcher

Norway is the most magnificent proof this is absolutely wrong.

It is not because countries like Greece have messed up big time that the problem is with socialism, the problem is with those politicians who just want to be re-elected and badly do their job.

Socialism is a political tool. Like any tool, if you wield it badly, the result will be ugly. I would agree though that it may be more difficult to wield than capitalism. Still, Norway has proven it is possible with competent people to make it work nicely.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By Fiendish on 5/11/2010 12:41:28 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't Norway's economy supported by billions from oil and gas?


RE: He doesn't get this either
By Phoque on 5/11/2010 7:10:58 AM , Rating: 1
wikipedia:
"Export revenues from oil and gas have risen to 45% of total exports and constitute more than 20% of the GDP.[88] Norway is the fifth largest oil exporter and third largest gas exporter in the world"

What about it?


RE: He doesn't get this either
By porkpie on 5/11/2010 9:06:59 AM , Rating: 5
"What about it?"

Are you intentionally being obtuse? When you're picking up gigantic bags of free money off the ocean floor each day, you can support most any system you want.

It's interesting to note that, despite those massive reserves, though, Norway's socialist system has made it one of the most expensive countries in the world by cost of living...and what happens to Norway's system when it runs out of that free money?


RE: He doesn't get this either
By Phoque on 5/11/2010 5:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
"Are you intentionally being obtuse?"

New word for me ( french canadian ), I had to look at "obtuse" on webster: "lacking intellect".

Hmm, no, I don't think so, I simply disagree with what he suggested. Actually, it might be you guys who are being obtuse. Here's my point of view.

An economic system can be established regardless of how much money a country has access to. Of course a socialist country with little money will have fewer, smaller infrastructures and/or services ( schools, hospitals with less equipment, older technologies for example ), or risk bankruptcy like Greece because they have been too stupid.

While Norway is a flamboyant example of a socialist country, Costa Rica is a great example that one doesn't need to be rich or have access to oil fields to be one.

Interesting comparison ( Wikipedia ) :
Costa Rica
GDP (PPP) 2009 estimate
- Per capita $10,579[2]

Norway
GDP (PPP) 2009 estimate
- Per capita $52,561[3]

US
GDP (PPP) 2009 estimate
- Per capita $46,381[4] (6th)

And, for what it's worth ( still more objective than your opinion or mine ), Costa Rica has the #1 Happy Planet Index of 2009, so they must not be doing that bad with their socialist and not so rich country.

Go ahead, tell me about your point of view.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By porkpie on 5/11/2010 9:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
"I had to look at "obtuse" on webster: "lacking intellect"."

A very poor definition. Don't trust everything you find on the Internet.

"Costa Rica has the #1 Happy Planet Index of 2009, so they must not be doing to bad"

Now I know you're being intentionally obtuse. That index primarily measures the "environmental impact" of the people of the nation.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Costa Ricans flee the country each year to make a living in the USA, and the nation's primary source of income is rich tourists...again, mostly from the capitalist USA.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By Phoque on 5/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: He doesn't get this either
By freezervv on 5/11/2010 9:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
Why, the retreating ice cap exposes more free money, of course!

Besides, if that doesn't work, they can always invade a Middle Eastern country.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By porkpie on 5/10/2010 11:25:49 AM , Rating: 3
"We need welders do they really need an education beyond vocational?"

If we're going to let them vote, they do.

An education is important for many reasons beyond simply earning a living.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By chunkymonster on 5/10/2010 12:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"We need welders do they really need an education beyond vocational?" If we're going to let them vote, they do. An education is important for many reasons beyond simply earning a living.
Having a college education has nothing to do with civic duty and being an informed voter. To tie a person's level of education to their ability to vote is elitist and discriminatory.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By Motoman on 5/10/2010 12:06:33 PM , Rating: 5
Not really. We have people graduating high school who can barely read, write, or do math...and thinking that evolution is "just a theory." Those aren't people well-suited to interact productively in society.

Our public school system is a near failure. One can only hope to fix those problems in college - at least community college.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By room200 on 5/10/2010 12:10:32 PM , Rating: 1
We have people graduating high school who can barely read, write, or do math...and thinking that evolution is "just a theory." Those aren't people well-suited to interact productively in society.

Many of those same people are then sent to fight in wars for this country, but we don't have a problem with THAT do we? Maybe we should require a college degree for the military? or military service before college?


RE: He doesn't get this either
By porkpie on 5/10/2010 1:16:17 PM , Rating: 5
"Many of those same people are then sent to fight in wars for this country"

Those that do are subsequently rewarded with the GI Bill, so they can then attend college for free if they choose. And in fact many of "those same people" have advanced degrees before they choose to service.

I don't recall anyone suggesting we should poorly educate soldiers because "they don't need it".


RE: He doesn't get this either
By room200 on 5/10/2010 1:45:20 PM , Rating: 1
You missed the point. Well if they're too illiterate to vote, then should they be too illiterate to risk their lives? After all, are they even bright enough to know what they're getting themselves into?


RE: He doesn't get this either
By Alexstarfire on 5/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: He doesn't get this either
By porkpie on 5/10/2010 1:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
"So "those same people" are stupid and have high degrees at the same time porkpie? That makes no sense. I think you need to take a look at what you're talking about before you make a reply."

I think you need to learn to read a post before you reply to it. I said no such thing.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By Alexstarfire on 5/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: He doesn't get this either
By Chernobyl68 on 5/10/2010 4:01:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Those that do are subsequently rewarded with the GI Bill, so they can then attend college for free if they choose


Servicemembers have to pay to recieve GI Bill benefits. In my day (early 90's), I had to pay $100 a month for my first year of service. Initially the payout was about a 9-1 ratio, but the payout changes based on Congress' authorizations. Not everyone who pays into the program uses it. Reservists also do not get the full benefits if they do not serve enough active duty time.
Its not a Reward and its not Free.
I did use my GI bill, and while it does OK for paying for a community-college education, it did not last through my upper level classes. I still had to take out several loans (about $24,000 total) to attend an in-state university - Which, thanks to useful employment as a Civil Engineer, I was able to pay off in 6 1/2 years instead of 10.
Understand that enlisted pay is nothing to sneeze at, and its a pretty big hit to the pocketbook when all you're making is maybe $700/month.

http://www.dfas.mil/militarypay/militarypaytables/...


RE: He doesn't get this either
By hiscross on 5/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: He doesn't get this either
By chunkymonster on 5/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: He doesn't get this either
By porkpie on 5/10/2010 1:12:16 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard. Einstein failed at his first attempt to attend the Institute of Technology Zurich. Thomas Edison was home schooled."
They were all highly educated individuals, however. One can indeed become well educated without college. That's not the debate.

The issue is whether, at the high school level, we should intentionally avoid teaching children math, science, and history on the grounds that they "don't need it", and would be better off being taught to plumb, weld, or pole-dance instead.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By Quadrillity on 5/10/2010 1:29:17 PM , Rating: 2
I only know about school districts on the east coast, but I can tell you that vocations are almost non existent. If they do exist, they are a joke at best. I'm sure what some of the people here have failed to express is the need for modular based learning at the public school level.

Having recently come from the public school system, I can tell you with absolute fact that the one and only goal of their curriculum is to "prepare you for college"; and they wonder why some kids act out in school and fail. If they were given a chance to explore other opportunities, they might find a calling while still in high school. Not everyone is going to be a cookie cutter doctor or lawyer. Public school systems FAIL horribly at addressing this issue in today's time.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By chunkymonster on 5/10/2010 1:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The issue is whether, at the high school level, we should intentionally avoid teaching children math, science, and history on the grounds that they "don't need it", and would be better off being taught to plumb, weld, or pole-dance instead.
Don't understand how K-12 became the issue or focus in this discussion. As re-read the post in this thread, the post quoted above is the only post that mentions what subjects are taught in K-12 and that questions their validity. Not sure what that has to do with a college education and/or a person's ability to vote.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By Quadrillity on 5/10/2010 1:44:48 PM , Rating: 2
It's easy to go off on tangents in internet forums; that's just the way it is (especially at DT).

Why is this a problem for you?


RE: He doesn't get this either
By chunkymonster on 5/10/2010 2:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
No problem, just looking to mitigate the tangents.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By Quadrillity on 5/10/2010 5:47:13 PM , Rating: 2
Oh ok, haha.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By The0ne on 5/10/2010 1:37:01 PM , Rating: 4
What you're saying has been happening for over 10 years now, at least. Schools around the country have been coming with classes that don't prepare students for higher education but for the anticipation and expectation that they will drop out and go to work. Hence you have classes like,

1. Career class
2. Multimedia class
3. Cooking
4. Shakespeare (not English btw)

You cannot imagine the ignorance of counselors that I've argue with in those years regarding my youngest brother. They gave him crap classes for his Junior and Senior years in high school and even put him in a Algebra class when he's already taken Calculus. I've volunteer at schools and libraries, mainly as a math and English tutor, and seen enough to make anyone sick. I've also joined up in local groups to provide in-home tutor as well. Sure enough there are plenty of people out there doing their best to help but it's not enough to compensate for the shtty schools we have here.

My argument to counselors was simple, "How can you expect my brother to survive in college with the classes you've put him in?" Needless to say all them fcks threw me out for not being able to answer the question. Threw a concern family member out of school? You've got to be fcking me in this day and age. I had to go through this in San Diego and Colorado due to the family moving. One time I actually had to bypass the Principle and Counselors and talked to the teacher directly telling her that my brother has already taken Calculus and that he should be in a higher math course. After review, she agreed and taught him calculus in the same class as she was teaching the rest of the students Algebra. Thank God.

US education is a joke now. I love my nephews and they have great common sense and are street smart (hacking and what not on their own) but they are dumb as fck when it comes to education type material. I totally blame the school system and the fckheads running them for their failure. If only they knew how to program I'm sure they would love to fiddle around more with gadgets and invent like I did. Without the education it's hard for most "smart" people to even begin to see beyond what they can.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By chunkymonster on 5/10/2010 2:00:33 PM , Rating: 2
There is no doubt that public education is a disaster and I agree with you.

For the very same reasons that public education has failed your little brother are the very same reasons I have questioned within the context of this thread a persons ability to vote with their education level.

Your brother should not be held back by the very system put in place to move him forward. This is where we as citizens of this Republic need to take control of our own education and not rely on the government to provide it.

Those provisions can come in many forms like actually getting out and voting for school budgets, vote out school board members who are also Union Leaders, vote out self serving career politicians, getting involved (like yourself) and volunteering in the community, to identify the problems and make the necessary changes for the better.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By neothe0ne on 5/10/2010 4:22:33 PM , Rating: 3
Your school district doesn't let you choose what classes to take?


RE: He doesn't get this either
By Akrovah on 5/10/2010 12:48:28 PM , Rating: 5
Sounds to me like what we really need to worry about fixing is the K-12 system.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By thurston on 5/10/2010 10:15:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not really. We have people graduating high school who can barely read, write, or do math...and thinking that evolution is "just a theory." Those aren't people well-suited to interact productively in society.


Maybe we should just gas them?


RE: He doesn't get this either
By redbone75 on 5/10/2010 12:34:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Having a college education has nothing to do with civic duty and being an informed voter. To tie a person's level of education to their ability to vote is elitist and discriminatory.

I disagree, but not completely. While one doesn't necessarily need a college degree to perform their civic duties effectively or to be an informed voter, the impact of a college degree - or just some collegiate level education - on both can be profound. It is neither elitist nor discriminatory to think so.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By chunkymonster on 5/10/2010 1:07:18 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that more education is better, but to make a blanket statement that education level is anyway associated with voting ability demonstrates the epitome of elitism and discrimination.

It an be argued that someone with a college education is making a more "aware" and "informed" decision that some one without a college education, but that argument in of itself is an elitist argument. When making that judgment and defending that argument we walk a fine line between saying one person's vote is more valid or means more than another persons vote.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By room200 on 5/10/10, Rating: 0
By chunkymonster on 5/10/2010 2:29:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So, what about the people who listen to Rush Limbaugh?

Glen Beck took ONE college course, failed it and left.

Same with Sean hannity, Larry King.... What should we do about them?
What should we do about them? Turning off the TV and/or radio is a good start. But then again, who said anything needs to be done to begin with?

What should we do about people who read the Weekly Standard or the New Yorker? What about the people who listen to Kurt Anderson? Watch John Stewart or Bill Moyers? What should we do with "those people"?


RE: He doesn't get this either
By Motoman on 5/12/2010 1:24:55 PM , Rating: 2
...you can't fix stupid. Not entirely.

...but the more educated the masses get, the less likely retards like Rush (or Michael Moore) are going to sway public opinion.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By porkpie on 5/10/2010 12:38:02 PM , Rating: 5
"To tie a person's level of education to their ability to vote is elitist and discriminatory."

Yes it is. It's also accurate . An uneducated person cannot make informed votes, period.

No one is suggesting college educations be made mandatory. But even worse is the belief that we should teach students only what "they need" to get a vocational job. By that logic, why even teach a would-be welder about science, math, and history? Why even teach them to read beyond they need to understand basic road signs?


RE: He doesn't get this either
By Akrovah on 5/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: He doesn't get this either
By porkpie on 5/10/2010 1:02:36 PM , Rating: 5
"This is In accurate.[sic]"

Oh, what irony.

"...and thus making an informed voting descision [sic]"

The process of becoming informed (acquiring information) is generally called getting an education. To understand a candidate's platform and contrast it against alternatives, one requires more information than simply reading the candidate's own promotional brochure. They need a basic understanding of science, economics, government, and the lessons of history.

Thank you for agreeing with me that an education is required to make informed votes.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By room200 on 5/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: He doesn't get this either
By porkpie on 5/10/2010 2:02:02 PM , Rating: 5
And you'd probably vote for the first politician who promised you 40 acres and a mule too, right?

I'll wait while you furiously google to see how well that policy turned out.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By chunkymonster on 5/10/2010 2:11:38 PM , Rating: 3
The "separate is equal" statement has been a cornerstone of the Social Democrat's platform for decades. The legacy of 1990's "political correctness" is just the most recent use and proof of the "separate is equal" debacle. Just look at how the Democrats use social demographics to target and exploit minorities as a voter base. In a recent speech Obama stated the need for minorities to support the Democrats in the upcoming fall election or fear that "everything they've worked for" will be lost. The only thing to be lost by minorities not voting or the Democrats is the Democrats exploitation of those minorities.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By hashish2020 on 5/10/2010 7:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
Switch out Democrat for Republican and minority with uneducated southern whites, and you also have a true statement

1) Obviously you are white
2) Obviously you think you are the great white hope for minorities
3) You seem to have a distaste for the politics that have been in this country since its inception, yet you go on the say something avowedly political and partisan


By chunkymonster on 5/11/2010 12:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Switch out Democrat for Republican and minority with uneducated southern whites, and you also have a true statement
1) Obviously you are white
2) Obviously you think you are the great white hope for minorities
3) You seem to have a distaste for the politics that have been in this country since its inception, yet you go on the say something avowedly political and partisan


1) Yes, I am Caucasian. So what?! Is my opinion any less valid? Is my world view "politically incorrect"? Do you believe all Caucasians to be the "white devil"?
2) I am nobody's "great white hope" and believe your statement to be presumptuous, bigoted, and grossly ignorant.
3) I do not have a distaste for politics that have been in America since it's inception. However, as an American and patriot, I have a distaste for any political party and politician that asserts their own agenda before their service to the American people and that subverts the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Given the current political climate, it is damned near impossible to NOT have a distaste for American politics.

Stating that the Democratic political strategy includes the exploitation of minorities is not a partisan statement, it is a statement of fact. Don't believe, visit www.democrats.org and listen to President Obama's own speeches.

In fairness and to your point, the Republicans court WASP's and the gun lobby as a voting block. So in the sense that each party targets certain demographics, the Democrats and Republicans are the same. However, unlike Republicans, it is the Democrats that perpetuate the perception that they are the "great white hope" and then enact legislation to perpetuate the victim state. Again, the Democrats continue to push "separate is equal" as a social issue but not to unite the American people under one cause but to continuously call out those differences to push forward their own agenda.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By Alexstarfire on 5/10/2010 2:03:37 PM , Rating: 1
I think the problem is people confusing education with formal education like school. A school isn't really going to help you become an informed voter, but the process of acquiring the information to become an informed voter would seem to qualify as education (in a vague sense of the word anyway).


RE: He doesn't get this either
By sgw2n5 on 5/10/2010 1:06:21 PM , Rating: 5
Uneducated people have great difficulty in knowing when and how they are being duped (see religion, fascism, communism, etc.)


By chunkymonster on 5/10/2010 1:21:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"To tie a person's level of education to their ability to vote is elitist and discriminatory."

Yes it is. It's also accurate . An uneducated person cannot make informed votes, period.
Now this is becoming a debate of semantics, and in your context and definition of what an "education" is, it is obvious that an "uneducated" person can not make an informed decision. This statement in neither insightful or productive to this discussion.

Do not confuse a person's ability to learn as an "education" with the context of "education" within this thread, which is meant to be a college level education. And, in which case, I again state, to tie a person's level of education to their ability to vote is elitist and discriminatory.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By geddarkstorm on 5/10/2010 2:18:38 PM , Rating: 2
No, it isn't that accurate. Why? Because you forget one important fact: what is an "informed" vote is determined by one's ideology, goals, interpretations, circumstances, and so forth. Are all educated people of like mind and all in agreement about how things should be run? Heck no. The most educated fight over topics and choices just as much as the least, even if their tactics may differ.

Division is irregardless of education, so there will -always- be differing opinions about what the "informed vote" is. Thus, you're going off on a red herring. Because no matter how educated you and I are, on some matters we will always disagree.

Then it gets worst. How can someone highly educated in biology like me, make informed votes about civic planning? And how can civic planners make informed votes about health care and science funding allocation? One cannot know everything.

On top of this, a cursory, college level, education into any subject is a FAR CRY from actually working in that field when it comes to useful knowledge (to think otherwise is arrogantly delusional). And certainly not give you the information needed to make informed decisions about -current states of the field- or allow you to keep up with changes and advances in any field. In fact, it might -misinform you- by giving you just enough knowledge to be dangerous in your ideas and not enough to be useful or realize you don't actually know; especially when it comes to particulars. I doubt you can read through biological published science papers and fully decode the jargon unless you've been a biologist. No one who hasn't worked in a lab really can understand what's going on in a paper. Likewise, without doing welding myself, I'll never fully understand what's required or goes into it, no matter how much "theory" and "knowledge" I have on the subject! So I can never make truly informed decisions about choices for welding work. Colleges, high schools, they all only give theoretical knowledge; and the real world is very different, even in science (heck, half the stuff in text books are practically lies due to how simplified they are, like meiosis which doesn't occur how text books illustrate it, at all, except in female drosophilas. The reasons for it are all the same, but the methods are wildly different in reality from a book. But, the books aren't simplified because people might not understand, but solely for the sake of brevity! There's too much out there.).

In short, this is a foolish discussion because none of the variables here can ever affect the outcome of differing opinions and interpretations.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By porkpie on 5/10/2010 2:27:47 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
How can someone highly educated in biology like me, make informed votes about civic planning? And how can civic planners make informed votes about health care and science
This explains why colleges have "core" requirements, so that every graduate has a basic knowledge in a variety of fields. If you went to a respectable university, you learned at least a little about several other subjects in addition to your biology classes, did you not?

Educated people make better choices, plain and simple. That doesn't mean that Person A, without an advanced education, cannot make better decisions that Person B, with one. But it does mean that Person A, with an education will tend to make better choices than he would without.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By Belegost on 5/10/2010 4:11:22 PM , Rating: 2
No one said that educated people all think alike, in fact quite the opposite. What was said is that education is a critical component to making well-informed, rational decisions.

"How can someone highly educated in biology like me, make informed votes about civic planning?" I haven't the slightest idea ... it's not as though you could read about it, using the fundamental abilities and knowledge you have to learn about it. You really don't think that a good education makes for a person far more prepared to understand concepts outside their field? A person highly-educated in biology must have a good foundation in things like: critical reading to distinguish factual declarations from opinion or deception, statistical treatment of data, the basic ideas used to form conclusions from experimental data, etc. When you read about statistics on population demographics you are far more capable of understanding than someone who has never learned anything about statistics.

"I doubt you can read through biological published science papers and fully decode the jargon unless you've been a biologist."
Jargon is something you learn, every field has it's own notation. However, that is just a layer on top of fundamental concepts in communicating ideas, concepts that are invariant across fields. A well-educated person is far more capable of determining what they don't understand, find sources of information on the subject, and inform themselves well enough to then understand. The process of learning teaches how to learn.

To deny the effect of education on the ability to make informed decisions is willful blindness. People can cry elitism, or discrimination all they want, it doesn't make it less true.


By theArchMichael on 5/10/2010 4:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In short, this is a foolish discussion because none of the variables here can ever affect the outcome of differing opinions and interpretations.


This discussion is valid. In your extensive career as a highly educated biologist, have you never been exposed to new groundbreaking findings which may have caused you to adjust your opinion or perspective? Are you suggesting that facts and novel ideas may not change/shape a person's opinion?

I am sure if you were requesting more funds for some new confocal microscope with 8 lasers or something you would greatly appreciate working with an administrator or committee who had some baseline of understanding for what it is you really need it for and the importance of your work. In addition, I am sure this administrator would appreciate that same understanding from their higher ups. And in turn those same higher ups from the general public, or investors or whatever.

I am just of the belief that receiving a well rounded education is a public benefit, which PROVIDES PUBLIC BENEFITS that may not be absolutely quantifiable, but are certainly present.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By bigdawg1988 on 5/11/2010 9:46:45 PM , Rating: 2
Education doesn't matter. Being a citizen ENTITLES you to the RIGHT to vote, whether you can read or write.
Maybe an uneducation person is "voting out of their butt," but they do have that right.
You seem to imply that an uneducated person somehow votes inferior. If they can somehow find gainful employment then more power to them. But nobody knows everything about all of the issues, so we all vote with some level of ignorance. Most of the early American citizens were illiterate. And there are plenty of intelligent people on the far left and right who espouse causes that most people would think insane.
I think I know where you're coming from, but you sound a bit elitist. Be careful young man....


RE: He doesn't get this either
By troysavary on 5/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: He doesn't get this either
By porkpie on 5/10/2010 1:28:08 PM , Rating: 5
"What you mean is "We can't let people vote until they are brainwashed by far-left professors"

So now I'm a far left Obamite?

You're new here, aren't you?


RE: He doesn't get this either
By itzmec on 5/10/2010 6:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
higher education doesn't do a bit of good for the voter, if the politician they're voting for isnt honest, which is often the case.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By thurston on 5/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: He doesn't get this either
By porkpie on 5/10/2010 10:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Bravo! ... You have now convinced me that only college graduates should be allowed to vote."

Since I said no such thing, my next task will be to teach you how to read.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By thurston on 5/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: He doesn't get this either
By jvillaro on 5/10/2010 12:23:52 PM , Rating: 2
US gives collage education to people just because they are good in sports, will all of them use that education? No, some will go to jail because they are into dogfights... I think that education would have been better used on somebody else.

It's true, not everybody has/must go to collage, but I think the issue here is that any goverment should try to give all of their citizens the oportunity to get some kind of collage education if they would like to pursue it. You could says that some will just go and spend tax payers money and drop out, but I bet there are many that really want/should go and can't.

The other thing I think Obama is trying to say is that we have all these gadgets where we get lots (and sometimes to much) information. Buts not good quality information. It becomes a distraction. And thats todays society and the media's fault. How is it posible that Michael Jacksons death, Brittneys Spears latest fart, Lohans breakdown are the tops stories all the time? The hills, Jersey shore, etc. Every girl now a days wants to be ho and every kid wants to be a gansta...


RE: He doesn't get this either
By straycat74 on 5/10/2010 12:39:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How is it posible that Michael Jacksons death, Brittneys Spears latest fart, Lohans breakdown are the tops stories all the time? The hills, Jersey shore, etc. Every girl now a days wants to be ho and every kid wants to be a gansta...

It's called freedom, and a great reason why we have a republic instead of a direct democracy.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By sgw2n5 on 5/10/2010 1:09:54 PM , Rating: 1
I didn't hear Fartbama say that he wanted to outright ban these things, did you?

Don't worry, you will still be able to watch FOX news and listen to podcasts of Limbaugh all you want.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By Hiawa23 on 5/10/2010 1:25:24 PM , Rating: 3
I really don't see what the president sad as an attack. We have to make getting an education a priotrity again, especially for the the poorer communities, cause it's with a great education, more often than not will give a child what he/she needs to lift themselves out of poverty. The likely chance of becoming a professional in sports is very low. I don't think everyone is right for college but you better have more than a highschool education, or go on to get some vocational skills, or you will all but guaranteed to live in poverty or close to it. It always baffles when so many of our young people decide to drop out of school, then are mad at the world cause of how their lives have turned. In my home, growing up a college education was a must, which is why I got my degree in business management. I am thankful to my parents for giving that mindset & I am doing that with my daughter, but this country must fix the schools system, & it really doesn't help that we are darn near broke. I alwayswondered, we will borrow billions to fund wars we shouldn't startbut the education system continue to be poor & underfunded. Iknow many Americans love thumping their chest telling all other countries how superior we, but in my mind that won't be the case until we fix many ills that are destroying our country & put a priority back on education. I agree with President Obama. He is a prime example of what you can accomplished & is an example to many of us.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By straycat74 on 5/10/2010 1:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He is a prime example of what you can accomplished & is an example to many of us.

Elaborate please.
Do you mean what can be accomplished if you are raised by a white grandmother in Hawaii, who was a vp of a bank, went to one of the top prep schools in his state, or maybe attending Harvard? I just get lost in all the feel good talk.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By Hiawa23 on 5/10/2010 2:39:23 PM , Rating: 3
Elaborate please.
Do you mean what can be accomplished if you are raised by a white grandmother in Hawaii, who was a vp of a bank, went to one of the top prep schools in his state, or maybe attending Harvard? I just get lost in all the feel good talk.


Are you kidding me? The fact that he was raised by a white grandmother didn't even enter my thought. My point was simple, he is an example as he was primarily raised by a single mother , & he is an example to me because if he can become president of the United States of which I thought would never happen, biracial, or any % of black, African, Kenyan descent, the fact that given all that was stacked up against him & what he made out of himself is what many should strive for, is all I am saying instead of always blaming the man for holding us down. I think the greater point should be work hard in life do the right things, get an education or some form of training, any mostly anything is possible. That's the simple point I was making, Instead of having role models just cause of what they do on the baseball diamond, or courts or football field, rap star, or some other, where there is very little chance of becoming, President Obama is a role model for me for what he as done with his life. You can disagree with his policy, but what this man accomplished was very important to many of us.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2010 4:09:56 PM , Rating: 2
Seems to me the only people who are impressed, are those like you who thought that for some reason it would "never happen".

Look around. We are practically the CAPITOL of coexistence, tolerance, and racial equality. And don't let any idiot tell you any different!!


RE: He doesn't get this either
By hashish2020 on 5/10/2010 7:16:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I agree we are the CAPITAL of all those things, especially when we have the second lowest social mobility in the world after Britain.

All of what you say was true from about 1965-1980 (probably when you grew up)

Try being young in this world, and you might think a bit differently


RE: He doesn't get this either
By porkpie on 5/10/2010 7:29:18 PM , Rating: 2
" especially when we have the second lowest social mobility in the world after Britain."

Ah, that must explain why the majority of the world's self-made millionaires are in the US. right? It also explains how a penniless border migrant like Hector Ruiz can become CEO of AMD, or the poor mulatto son raised by a single mother can become president of the United States.

I don't think you understand what the concept of social mobility even is.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2010 7:55:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Try being young in this world, and you might think a bit differently


I'm 33. I don't know if that's "young", but I don't think it's old either.

And I was young. And I was quite a mushy headed Liberal, just like you. Everything was wrong with the country and the world, and I knew everything, 17 going on 70.

"Social Mobility"... huh, that's a good one. The problem with the social mobility premise, is that the middle class in this country enjoy a quality of life unheard of in most of the world. So it's impossible to quantify those that are perfectly happy where they are, from those that are being "held down".

quote:
Try being young in this world


Wanna trade? I could think of a lot better ways to spend my youth than arguing on Daily Tech. Enjoy it.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By mckinney on 5/10/2010 12:48:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
to offer every single child in this country an education that will make them competitive in our knowledge economy


Your correct. Education is offered but is not taken and capitalized on. You can even give them a sports scholarship, but in many higher education locations, they still dont have a high level of graduation. According to tidesports:

quote:
69 percent of the total graduated at least 50 percent of their basketball student-athletes


That less than Brian Fantanas line from Anchorman of "They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time."

It sounds like Obama wants to make college an entitlement.
He is such a blow hole.


RE: He doesn't get this either
By room200 on 5/10/2010 1:59:43 PM , Rating: 1
But yet, you ignore the colleges who admitted them because they needed to use those guys for their ballhandling skills


RE: He doesn't get this either
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: He doesn't get this either
By Samus on 5/10/2010 6:10:55 PM , Rating: 2
well said knut, but its not surprising obama takes has the perspective he does. he's a well educated man and believes everyone should be as such.

education has never been for me, and luckily back when i was in high school we still had programs like drafting and woodshop etc


RE: He doesn't get this either
By callmeroy on 5/11/2010 10:51:50 AM , Rating: 2
Excellent Post...I agree 100% !

We simply are going soft as nation...and its hurting us.

People need to fail...kids need to learn that in fact "Yes Johnny you lost. You don't win a prize. Sometimes that happens."


Wait
By michal1980 on 5/10/2010 9:16:07 AM , Rating: 1
Didn't he buy ad space on the 360?

And how is it bad, if he claims he never used it?




RE: Wait
By AssBall on 5/10/2010 9:30:57 AM , Rating: 5
I don't understand how you'd translate Obama's comments as "an attack" anyway. It was just a statement of observation concerning how the devices have changed the way we consume information. Hardly an attack, unless you Mick the comment way out of proportion.


RE: Wait
By Fenixgoon on 5/10/2010 11:04:05 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
unless you Mick the comment way out of proportion.


LOL i love how you turned that into a verb.

i vote for +6!


RE: Wait
By satveeraj on 5/10/2010 12:20:24 PM , Rating: 5
+ 7 !!!!!!

Trust the media more to tell us the "real" story......wait thats why Mick is upset, coz it was about how the media was washing the younger minds.


RE: Wait
By nafhan on 5/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wait
By xler8r on 5/10/2010 9:57:40 AM , Rating: 3
Sounds like they weren't ready for college if they failed out due to lack of discipline....


RE: Wait
By TheDoc9 on 5/10/2010 10:44:21 AM , Rating: 3
Or they weren't on Adderall like 3-quarters of the college population.


RE: Wait
By Maiyr on 5/10/2010 12:06:11 PM , Rating: 3
Wow ! I can barely comprehend how someone with the ability to put a sentence together could mutter such garbage. "I knew of several people who failed out of college due to video games". Really ?! They failed because of video games ?! I'd be willing to bet that a closer look would reveal that they failed because they didn't care enough about college to pass. No other reason period. Your statement is typical of those that blame their problems on anything other than themselves. A lack of personal responsibility is evident here. As if the video games forced them to play. They failed because THEY failed. There is NO other reason. That's like blaming drug addiction on drugs, etc....

Maiyr


RE: Wait
By nafhan on 5/10/2010 2:36:06 PM , Rating: 4
If this wasn't an online forum, I'd surprised that someone who can put a sentence together would insult another person based on a statement taken out of context. If you continue reading my comment past the first sentence, you will notice that I mention the need to generically concentrate on studies and ignore distractions .
If I said "John died due to drugs," you would probably understand that the mere existence of drugs didn't kill anyone. To me, at least, it seems fairly obvious that "John" died due to extenuating circumstances related to drug usage which were not elaborated upon within a single sentence. Likewise with the video game thing, I definitely knew people who failed out of college directly due to playing video games too much. That doesn't make it the video games fault. It just so happens that's what they were doing instead of concentrating on their studies. Touchy subject, I guess...


RE: Wait
By FITCamaro on 5/10/2010 12:40:06 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think he likes people having access to tools that give them information which show how badly he is lying.


RE: Wait
By sgw2n5 on 5/10/2010 1:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
Which is why he advocates banning all information technology devices?

Good think this wasn't just a silly motivational speech at a college. That silly Fartbama, you can read him like a book (until he bans those too?)

Booga booga!


College isn't for everyone
By Schrag4 on 5/10/2010 9:36:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
President Obama is obviously right that American youth need to gain a college education. And it's a fair point that when many other countries pay for college education, the U.S. risks falling behind if it fails to do so.


Some people just aren't cut out for college. Most likely everyone here knows friends or even family members that don't have any interest in higher education. College is a significant investment in one's future, and if somebody doesn't think it will gain anything from going, why spend the tens of thousands of dollars?

Let me put it another way. Most of us know somebody (probably more than one person) that went to college and now they don't even have a job that's related to their major. So going to school not only prevented them from getting a job and becoming productive sooner, it also put them tens of thousands of dollars in debt. That's a bad thing. Now imagine that the govt. pays for college. Do you think 18 yr olds with no interest in higher education will start working or put it off until they flunk out of college? Someone else is paying for it, right?

No, college should be risky, financially, for those going. It's the next logical step after high-school, but it should still be considered very carefully. Just my opinion though. I'm sure I'll get flamed...




RE: College isn't for everyone
By Talon75 on 5/10/2010 10:23:01 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you. College isn't for everyone. I think we should emphasize trade schools a little more here in this country than we do. It would also help to weed out some of the people who are in college that shouldn't be. I cannot even count the number of times that I have run into people in my classes that I often wonder how in the hell they even got into school.

They need to get rid of no child left behind too. He talks about how we're falling behind the rest of the world in education, well perhaps we shouldn't be holding kids back. Not everyone is created equal when it comes to intelligence. It's just the way it is, but I suppose that's another issue altogether.


RE: College isn't for everyone
By OUits on 5/10/2010 12:37:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let me put it another way. Most of us know somebody (probably more than one person) that went to college and now they don't even have a job that's related to their major. So going to school not only prevented them from getting a job and becoming productive sooner, it also put them tens of thousands of dollars in debt. That's a bad thing.


To say that somebody shouldn't have gone to college if they aren't in the field they originally studied is ignorant.

You're totally disregarding everything you learn in college while not in class. Also, many people wouldn't have an opportunity in a different field without a degree. Usually places just have a general bachelor's degree requirement for employment.

Social skills, time/stress management, self-motivation, verbal/written communication skills, money management, professional networks, philosophical/spiritual growth. Hell, you even learn how to cook your own food in college.

College is an important step for personal growth. I agree that it's not for everybody because of ability, but just because somebody majored in math and now has a career in public policy doesn't mean they wasted their time/money or the government's money.


RE: College isn't for everyone
By mindless1 on 5/11/2010 6:42:53 AM , Rating: 2
That's all a load of BS. Learning social skills, time/stress management, and all the other things you listed are neither prevented or retarded by simply doing something else with your time. These things are CHOICES.

If you feel you can't personally grow without continuing to be in an institutional setting then I say to you "hello sheep".

I am not discounting the importance of later education, but if this is what you "think" you got out of it, WOW is that backwards. All these factors you attribute to an education only begin to blossom once you are out of school. All you are describing is a very basic level of starting to learn to do things for yourself instead of mom /dad doing things for you, a level in no way brought about by attending an institution of higher learning with the exception of classes targeting such areas of life.

... and yes, if someone throws away the schooling they have wasted a certain % of their time, their money or government money. They should accept this and go back to school to get the training required for their new career.


RE: College isn't for everyone
By Danger D on 5/10/2010 12:59:52 PM , Rating: 2
But they wouldn't have that job unrelated to their major if they didn't have a college degree.


RE: College isn't for everyone
By Omega215D on 5/10/2010 7:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
I know of people who went to college and majored a field that wasn't really sought after in the real world. I also know people who went to college and majored in a field that had become quite over saturated because it was the "in" thing like getting an MBA. It's up to the enrollee to decide what is best and sometimes they decide on the "wrong" thing.

There's also the problem with students thinking that they will get a better education in fancier, far more expensive private prestigious universities and taking out student loans to pay for it. You can get a good education from a public college and it's best to apply for financial aid before applying for student loans but too many people believe they are one in the same.

I'm somewhat busy with my major in Forensic Science. The beauty of this major is that we are required to learn all relevant subjects useful in almost any field. Basic to advanced mathematics, statistics, all disciplines of sciences, history (quite useful), philosophy, sociology, writing/ speech then the last courses are the specialties like Toxicology, Ballistics, Criminalistics, Micro Bio, and DNA analysis (not sure of that one as I'm not that far yet). The only problem is many people drop out because they couldn't take the difficulty (many who left explained they wanted an easier major) or just didn't feel the need to learn math beyond Algebra.


Another sensationalist headline by Daily Tech
By KingofL337 on 5/10/2010 9:42:40 AM , Rating: 2
DT is getting as bad as Fox News! (who is probably running this story as a huge headline as we speak)

I think most of us here agree what the president said is accurate and good advice to anyone not just college graduates. With so much information at our fingertips, it's easy to caught up the little things and not stay focused on the bigger picture.




RE: Another sensationalist headline by Daily Tech
By liquidaim on 5/10/2010 10:03:13 AM , Rating: 2
Obama simply made an observation. How is that an attack? He's simply asking the future of our country to pay attention to the things that are calling for their attention.


By Jaybus on 5/10/2010 11:18:13 AM , Rating: 3
An observation by someone who admittedly knows nothing about the devices and has never used them is of little value to anyone. So, yes, it can hardly be categorized as an attack. It was a rant, at best.


By chunkymonster on 5/10/2010 12:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obama simply made an observation. How is that an attack?
When the President speaks, the World listens. There is a fine line between stating personal opinion and expressing opinion on policy and legislation.


By Kurz on 5/10/2010 10:13:28 AM , Rating: 3
Dont discriminate... All news outlets do this.


Spin
By rickon66 on 5/10/2010 10:41:00 AM , Rating: 1
King George III could have given a speech much like Obama's in the spring of 1776. "The printing press is very distracting and is a danger to our government and society. Writings such as Thomas Paine's Common Sense may put pressure on you, although I can't read."

Obama is against information dissemination that does not have his spin on it, he is afraid of opposition to his socialist agenda.




RE: Spin
By superflex on 5/10/2010 11:12:09 AM , Rating: 2
Bingo
How about acting like an US President (and not some third world dictator) worrying about dissenting views from Fox News, Drudge, Breitbart, WND, etc.
Me thinks thou does protest too much.


RE: Spin
By BiuTech on 5/10/2010 11:44:28 AM , Rating: 2
Finally someone hit the nail on the head. Looks like the majority of people are really 'distracted' by the real meaning of his statement. Obama claims "information is a distraction"...What!? He means only information that he does not agree with. He looks to shut down any opposing views. And wasn't he just saying that the opposing side should read the NYT, and Huffington Post to 'inform' themselves as good citizens. Proof is in the pudding. Just look what they are trying to do with the FCC.


RE: Spin
By Quadrillity on 5/10/2010 12:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
Despite the downratings, you are 100% correct. He discredits everything that does not bow to his demands. Fox news (and the like) has been his target ever since he started running for office.


RE: Spin
By room200 on 5/10/2010 12:14:47 PM , Rating: 1
I agree. He should stop spending every day attacking Fox, and promoting rallies with people calling Fox names, and people accusing Fox of hating America, and.....wait a minute. What was I saying?


This pretty much sums up...
By MrBlastman on 5/10/2010 9:28:07 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation


Obama. He's like a robot, a parrot and a dirty pirate all combined.




By JasonMick (blog) on 5/10/2010 9:33:29 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Obama. He's like a robot, a parrot and a dirty pirate all combined.


No that's Maddox... ;)


Obama is a Social Democrat!
By chunkymonster on 5/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obama is a Social Democrat!
By room200 on 5/10/2010 12:21:55 PM , Rating: 1
Yet its the conservative republicans who are always trying to tell eveyone what they should not read, watch on television, seeing at the movies, who to worship, and everything else that should be left up to individuals.


RE: Obama is a Social Democrat!
By porkpie on 5/10/2010 12:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
"Yet its the conservative republicans who are always trying to tell eveyone what they should not read, watch on television..."

I don't recall the Republicans pushing the thinly-veiled censorship plantform of the Fairness Doctrine. It's the Democrats who keep reintroducing that tripe:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/1993/10/E...


RE: Obama is a Social Democrat!
By chunkymonster on 5/10/2010 1:42:28 PM , Rating: 2
During the 1980's I believe that it was Tipper Gore (wife of Al Gore, almost First Lady, and life time Democrat) testifying before the Senate to pass legislation (to save the children) to put warning labels on music albums because of "explicit" lyrics while at the same time it was Republicans defending the artist's and record label's right to free speech.


RE: Obama is a Social Democrat!
By room200 on 5/10/2010 2:06:19 PM , Rating: 1
That was 20 years ago. The republican party of today is not the same as then. Ever since the republican party became the party of "christianity", they've decided they know what's best, morally, for everyone else. I'll give you that Tipper Gore one though. The labels on records isn't so bad (thoguh I thought it was a form of censorship). It does allow parents one way of controlling what their underage children listen too. Not that it necessarily works.


Read between the lines
By Mahazy on 5/10/2010 9:35:15 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
...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."
"

I found these senteces the only thing interesting in this article. Any person can stretch the truth or word something in a creative way to try and persuade others to agree with them. But that's the founding of our country - freedom to say what we want. Others have to decide whether they agree or research dissenting opinions to make up their own mind.

Him saying that greater access to information is a bad thing, versus him trying to convince us to agree with his world view explains what his world view is.

- Mahazy




RE: Read between the lines
By chunkymonster on 5/10/2010 11:56:00 AM , Rating: 3
Obama took an Oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Freedom of speech is a founding principle of this country. However, free speech doe not negates Obama's responsibility as President. There is a significant difference between the President sharing his opinion and world view and passing legislation that is contrary to the Oath he took.


RE: Read between the lines
By room200 on 5/10/2010 12:11:51 PM , Rating: 1
Huh???


Gadgets or Media?
By hukares on 5/10/2010 12:14:55 PM , Rating: 3
I take this as him critisizing the barrage of media rather than the devices themselves.




Can I watch the speech in
By unplug on 5/10/2010 9:16:12 AM , Rating: 2
playstation home yet?




Mountains out of Molehills
By wrekd on 5/10/2010 9:27:38 AM , Rating: 2
How dare he use such a horrible word? Distractions? Next he’ll be calling Fox News Infotainment.




Truth Meter?
By seamonkey79 on 5/10/2010 9:29:41 AM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see where his speeches stand on that... especially considering 24/7 news coverage is not exactly something new graduates are 'coming into an age'

13 years ago when I graduated high school, that was part of our commencement address.




Your arguments->
By xler8r on 5/10/2010 10:05:03 AM , Rating: 2
"arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter"
Wow, coming from Papa Obama, who's got some arguments of his own that don't rank too high on the truth meter.... Oh yeah, that's right, he just says what other tell him to. (Who was I kidding :p ). I guess anti-tech is flavor of the day.




Usual double-standard?
By BPB on 5/10/2010 10:29:21 AM , Rating: 2
When I read about this my first thought was, back in '92 Bush I got pillored for not being familiar with scanners in supermarkets. He was infact familiar with scanners, but not he brand new ones that had just been demonstrated to him at a convention for the equipment. Yet he was considered out of touch with the common folk because he didn't know about cutting edge technology for shopping in supermarkets, despite the fact that he had spent the last 11+ years as VP and President. So it'll be interesting to see if PBO gets a pass on this. Can't see the NY Times coming down hard on him for this, which is what they did to Bush I.




Supports Nintendo?
By Jaybus on 5/10/2010 11:31:15 AM , Rating: 2
So can the omission of the Wii be taken as the President's de facto support of the Nintendo?




By jdietz on 5/10/2010 12:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
Is it % of workforce that is college educated?
Is it % of students who earn BA or BS degree <= 4 years after they start college?
Something else entirely?




Whoa whoa...
By TimberJon on 5/10/2010 12:30:04 PM , Rating: 2
Let me say a few things. I'm a rational anarchist. I'm also a core gamer. Obama being on the throne doesn't upset me. All presidents (pawns) have their pro's and cons. Obama seems to have far less of both than others IMO so he seems a cool cat. But don't cross the line and talk down at the excessive amount of available and easy to reach entertainment and news. Despite the constitution and all that there are always ways for the Gov to indirectly or politically control the growth or decline of these things. The intensity of our saturation can be suppressed given time and work behind the scenes.

And Mr. Blackberry addict. Please don't call yourself -the supposed head of our failing nation- an idiot by implying that you do not know how to work an Xbox. A child can play an Xbox. Others would find other implications in this logic.

If you don't like all our distractions, and want us to focus more on education and progress then make it happen.




By straycat74 on 5/10/2010 12:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
it will be worth as much as a high school diploma. How a bout we get our public schools working harder to educate, pushing students to strive for more, instead of worrying about making everyone feel good? We need to face reality, some kids are better at some things than others. How can we spend the first 12 years of education teaching them all virtually the same way?

What would happen if government backed student loans and grants weren't so easy to get? If there were less 'free money' out there, do you think universities will charge more, or have to lower prices to make it affordable for students to attend?




Truth Meter
By Ammohunt on 5/10/2010 2:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
I like how Obama and his administration is now the truth meter for the internet and topics discussed therein! the nanny state takes form!




By AEvangel on 5/10/2010 2:35:45 PM , Rating: 2
The real problem with College education and one you will never hear coming out of the mouth of a Statist like Obama is the cost of a College Education and the duplicity of the Federal Govt. policies in the increase of it.

The cost of College tuition has jumped dramatically over the last 30 years mainly due to Student loans and the Federal Govt. continued subsidizing of it. Their is no reason for College's to be competitive with their tuition since they know students can get Govt subsidized loans to pay for it and graduate with tons of debt that you will take 10-20 years to pay off.

What we really need to do in this country is to stop subsidizing College's and let a more free market approach take effect lower the cost to go to College. This would allow more people to afford College, were as now the only way you can afford it is to not choose what career really is your passion or motivates you but rather which one pays the most so you can afford the $100ks of thousand dollars worth of student loan debt you will have after you graduate.




Off on a tangent
By Rhaido on 5/10/2010 6:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
How many times over the last year have we heard Democrats refer to the USA form of government as a democracy? Obama at this commencement and Kagan at her nomination today. Is this intentional dishonesty? Or are these intellectual giants merely stupid? In the late 1700s, democracy was a four letter word equivalent to mob rule. Hence the etymology of demagogue. Obama and Kagan never read Federalist 1, 6, 9?

So far are the suggestions of Montesquieu from standing in opposition to a general Union of the States, that he explicitly treats of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC as the expedient for extending the sphere of popular government, and reconciling the advantages of monarchy with those of republicanism.

"It is very probable,'' (says he [1] ) "that mankind would have been obliged at length to live constantly under the government of a single person, had they not contrived a kind of constitution that has all the internal advantages of a republican, together with the external force of a monarchical government. I mean a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC.

"This form of government is a convention by which several smaller STATES agree to become members of a larger ONE, which they intend to form. It is a kind of assemblage of societies that constitute a new one, capable of increasing, by means of new associations, till they arrive to such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of the united body.

"A republic of this kind, able to withstand an external force, may support itself without any internal corruptions. The form of this society prevents all manner of inconveniences.

...

The definition of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC seems simply to be "an assemblage of societies,'' or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy. The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_09.html




ipad
By frozentundra123456 on 5/10/2010 9:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
I find it sort of ironic that someone who owes his office to the media should criticize the ipad and ipod. X-box, maybe. But I agree with those who say that success is determined by the person and his environment(family, religion, friends, etc) not the technology available.

I have a college degree and also an MBA, but funding for my job will be running out shortly and I am having an extremely difficult time finding a job. I do believe that there should be more short term programs that teach life skills and job skills and not so much unneeded information. Believe me, right now I would prefer a 2 year degree in computers or medical equipment repair to the education that I have. And I must say that I have never used probably 80 percent of what I learned in high school and college.




Hypocrisy much
By deeznuts on 5/10/2010 11:21:23 PM , Rating: 2
Coming from the guy whos campaign bought ads inside video games, and also made an ad making fun of McCain because he doesn't email (not knowing that McCain cannot email because of his disability so his wife does it for him).

Translation - Don't believe what the internetz iz saying about me




Typical Jason Mick
By aharris on 5/10/2010 1:10:26 PM , Rating: 1
Oversensationalized headline fail.




Why does Mick
By bill4 on 5/10/2010 6:06:17 PM , Rating: 1
Always single out the Xbox 360? Obama mentioned Playstation too.

Mick is such a sensationalist idiot. He thinks oh, Xbox 360 and iPad is hot and controversial, it'll get more hits if I put those in the title. Fine I guess, but when you're used to Mick being such a sensationalist idiot all the time, it gets annoying.




Obamanation
By mmntech on 5/10/10, Rating: 0
"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki