On Thursday, Obama conducted the first ever online town hall in an effort to make good on his promises of government openness.
I have to say that I was impressed when I first heard about the idea. Since this past campaign season, politicians have been wisely using the Internet more and more to reach out to the younger generation. I see these efforts, including the online town hall, as an ingenious way to reach a generation that supposedly is apathetic to politics. (I say supposedly because I don't subscribe to that belief.)
Since initially hearing about the idea, though, I have heard some disturbing aspects. Nicole Ferraro of the Editor's blog on Internet Evolution says that only five of the over 100,000 questions submitted online was used in the town hall meeting even though the meeting was about one hour and twenty minutes.
Plus, people were allowed to vote on the questions, so that the most popular questions would get answered in the meeting. According to Ferraro, one question asked got six votes online. Another only got three. In total, there were over 3 million votes cast for questions. (Insert distinct sarcasm here.) So yes, the question that only got three votes must have been one of the most popular.
Obviously, there were some downsides to the meeting. The online questions did not dominate the meeting, as I was led to believe, and the questions really weren't chosen by the people (instead they must have been chosen by Obama staffers who picked convenient questions for the pres).
Plus, the pres decided to take a jab at my generation's intelligence and concerns. By questioning why three questions about legalizing marijuana were the most popular, he made it sound like everyone was part of the internet audience was a pot head.
As quoted by Ferraro, Obama said, "I don't know what this says about the online audience, but I don't want people to think. ... This was fairly popular question, and the answer is 'no.' I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy."
Sorry, Mr. President, not everyone in the online audience was high that night, much like some people who are in the Special Olympics are good at bowling.
So basically, as I have said, there were some faults to the meeting, but I have to say the idea was fairly forward. Politicans should continually try to use the Internet to reach the newer generation, even if we all are supposedly pot smokers.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Love the song, question the morals
F-R-E-E that spells free. Free credit report dot com baby.
I LOVE the freecreditreport.com commercials. The songs are so catchy and witty; I could sing them all day. (Check out a collection of the ads on YouTube.)
After reading a Huffington Post article on the ads, I'm starting to question the morals of the ads, though. The article says that you can get the services of freecreditreport.com for free for seven days. After that, you pay $14.95. Hmmm .... that seems to be 14 dollars and 95 cents more expense than free.
There are some disclaimers with the ad, and consumers probably shouldn't expect someone to monitor their credit for them for free. But then maybe the Web site should not have 'free' as the first word of its domain name. If you call something free, people are going to expect it to have no costs associated with it!
Then again, the Web site name is partly correct. Everyone is entitled to a free annual credit report, but what the domain name doesn't tell you is that you will be charged for other services the site offers. By the way, consumers can find the real FREE credit report at annualcreditreport.com.
So basically, I will continue to sing the freecreditreport.com songs, but if I ever want to see my credit score, I will visit the government's site. I like things that are really free.
I LOVE the freecreditreport.com commercials. The songs are so catchy and witty; I could sing them all day. (Check out a collection of the ads on YouTube.)
After reading a Huffington Post article on the ads, I'm starting to question the morals of the ads, though. The article says that you can get the services of freecreditreport.com for free for seven days. After that, you pay $14.95. Hmmm .... that seems to be 14 dollars and 95 cents more expense than free.
There are some disclaimers with the ad, and consumers probably shouldn't expect someone to monitor their credit for them for free. But then maybe the Web site should not have 'free' as the first word of its domain name. If you call something free, people are going to expect it to have no costs associated with it!
Then again, the Web site name is partly correct. Everyone is entitled to a free annual credit report, but what the domain name doesn't tell you is that you will be charged for other services the site offers. By the way, consumers can find the real FREE credit report at annualcreditreport.com.
So basically, I will continue to sing the freecreditreport.com songs, but if I ever want to see my credit score, I will visit the government's site. I like things that are really free.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Was Jen and John's romance killed by Twitter?
Oh, my obsession with blogging about Twitter. I promised myself I'd stop writing about the social media unit that I haven't quite figured out yet, but this story line is too good to not write about.
According to the Pink is the New Blog, Jennifer Aniston might have dumped John Mayer because he was Twittering too much. He didn't return her phone calls, e-mails, etc., and claimed to be too busy with work. Then, she looked at his Twitter page, which had frequent updates. He would post a new tidbit every couple of hours or even minutes.
If this is true, all I have to say is REALLY? Someone would actually pick Twitter, a non-animate and non-personal site, over Jennifer Aniston, a beautiful and successful woman. Someone needs to check Mayer's head. This could be enough to qualify him for the loony bin.
In Mayer's defense, this probably isn't entirely true. I hear the man does like to Twitter, but I'm guessing the Twitter obsession was just one problem amongst many between the two celebs.
Still, after hearing this report, I'll make sure to contain my tweets. I don't want people to think I'd rather be in a relationship with a Web site.
According to the Pink is the New Blog, Jennifer Aniston might have dumped John Mayer because he was Twittering too much. He didn't return her phone calls, e-mails, etc., and claimed to be too busy with work. Then, she looked at his Twitter page, which had frequent updates. He would post a new tidbit every couple of hours or even minutes.
If this is true, all I have to say is REALLY? Someone would actually pick Twitter, a non-animate and non-personal site, over Jennifer Aniston, a beautiful and successful woman. Someone needs to check Mayer's head. This could be enough to qualify him for the loony bin.
In Mayer's defense, this probably isn't entirely true. I hear the man does like to Twitter, but I'm guessing the Twitter obsession was just one problem amongst many between the two celebs.
Still, after hearing this report, I'll make sure to contain my tweets. I don't want people to think I'd rather be in a relationship with a Web site.
Photoshop Amy
Apparently, people are all in a tizzy over the revelation that Complex Magazine photoshopped a photo of Kim Kardashian, according to Pop Crunch.
This makes me giggle a little bit because people are acting like this doesn't happen all the time. It wouldn't surprise me if many magazine feature photos of celebs are photoshopped in some way. Even Katie Couric got the photoshop treatment when she took a promo photo for the Evening News.
I'm in no way saying that this is right. I think it is wrong on many levels because for one, it makes girls and women think that those celebs actually look that perfect. In reality, they all have imperfections like us.
So in some ways, I was happy that it came out that Kardashian's photo got photoshopped. Maybe it takes moments like these to show women that those celebs aren't actually perfect after all.
On the other hand, moments like these are also great opportunities to have fun. I decided in response to the photoshop/Complex Magazine revelation, I would photoshop a picture of myself. Now that's a good way to waste an hour or two! Enjoy.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Electric cars for everyone?
I love my car. See, aren't we cute together?
Still, despite my car's and my compatibility, we will always have one problem: gas. (Her gas, not mine.) Experts tell me at some point, there will no longer be gas available for me to fill up my car. Okay, this might not every happen in my lifetime, but that's no excuse to not be forward thinking. Plus, if nothing else, I can definitely attest to the pain I felt this summer as I was filling up each week.
That's why I think electric cars are so cool. They appear to be much better for the environment, and they use a readily available resource for power.
David Pogue seems pretty excited about electric cars, too. This past week in the New York Times, he wrote about Better Place, which he calls "a radical, overarching plan to replace the world's gas cars with electric ones--really, really quickly." (You can also watch a video of David's interview with Better Place's chief executive Shai Agassi.)
According to Pogue's interview, Better Place has set up an electric car system unlike any other before it. Agassi says in the interview that his car model differs in two distinct ways. First, the battery is removable, so you can change out the battery before/during long trips instead of waiting for the car to charge forever. Secondly, the electric car system is supposedly cheaper than a gasoline car. Cheaper? Where do I sign up?
Another interesting component of Agassi's system is that people don't buy the batteries, but they purchase the car and miles, just like you buy minutes from a cell phone provider. Now that's crazy!
Despite the apparent wackiness of the plan, it seems to be catching on. Six countries, including Denmark, Israel, Canada and Australia, and two states, Hawaii and California, have all started building infrastructure for the cars. So who knows, maybe we all will be driving electric cars in five years.
Still, despite my car's and my compatibility, we will always have one problem: gas. (Her gas, not mine.) Experts tell me at some point, there will no longer be gas available for me to fill up my car. Okay, this might not every happen in my lifetime, but that's no excuse to not be forward thinking. Plus, if nothing else, I can definitely attest to the pain I felt this summer as I was filling up each week.
That's why I think electric cars are so cool. They appear to be much better for the environment, and they use a readily available resource for power.
David Pogue seems pretty excited about electric cars, too. This past week in the New York Times, he wrote about Better Place, which he calls "a radical, overarching plan to replace the world's gas cars with electric ones--really, really quickly." (You can also watch a video of David's interview with Better Place's chief executive Shai Agassi.)
According to Pogue's interview, Better Place has set up an electric car system unlike any other before it. Agassi says in the interview that his car model differs in two distinct ways. First, the battery is removable, so you can change out the battery before/during long trips instead of waiting for the car to charge forever. Secondly, the electric car system is supposedly cheaper than a gasoline car. Cheaper? Where do I sign up?
Another interesting component of Agassi's system is that people don't buy the batteries, but they purchase the car and miles, just like you buy minutes from a cell phone provider. Now that's crazy!
Despite the apparent wackiness of the plan, it seems to be catching on. Six countries, including Denmark, Israel, Canada and Australia, and two states, Hawaii and California, have all started building infrastructure for the cars. So who knows, maybe we all will be driving electric cars in five years.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Jacks coverage
With the women making their big tournament debut today, obviously basketball is on my mind. In honor of the Jacks' great accomplishment, I decided to check out the media's, namely ESPN, coverage of the Jacks.
After typing in South Dakota State, here is what I found:
The search includes several photos of the players getting ready for their game against TCU today, commentary on the game and even a video prediction of how far the Jacks will go in the tournament. They say the Jacks could knock off Baylor to reach the Sweet 16. I'll take that.
Charlie Creme expressed the same sentiments in his Raleigh Bracket breakdown. He said, "Seventh-seeded South Dakota State over No. 2 Baylor in the second round. The Jackrabbits are balanced, but still have a go-to player in Jennifer Warkenthien. They play good defense and were tested outside the Summitt early in the season. It will be a tall order beating the Big 12 tournament champs, but the Lady Bears did show some vulnerability in Oklahoma City."
Overall, I think the Jacks have received good press from ESPN, mostly because we're seen as a Cinderella team. But there still have been some slip-ups. They have called us San Diego State on more than one occasion. That's annoying, but I think we Jackrabbits need to understand that we are still an emerging team, and so there will be media slip-ups from time to time. After the Jacks make some noise in the tourney, though, I hope to see the slip-ups happen less and less. It's only a matter of time before the newness of being on ESPN wears off and Jack fans start sending angry letters to the major network.
After typing in South Dakota State, here is what I found:
The search includes several photos of the players getting ready for their game against TCU today, commentary on the game and even a video prediction of how far the Jacks will go in the tournament. They say the Jacks could knock off Baylor to reach the Sweet 16. I'll take that.
Charlie Creme expressed the same sentiments in his Raleigh Bracket breakdown. He said, "Seventh-seeded South Dakota State over No. 2 Baylor in the second round. The Jackrabbits are balanced, but still have a go-to player in Jennifer Warkenthien. They play good defense and were tested outside the Summitt early in the season. It will be a tall order beating the Big 12 tournament champs, but the Lady Bears did show some vulnerability in Oklahoma City."
Overall, I think the Jacks have received good press from ESPN, mostly because we're seen as a Cinderella team. But there still have been some slip-ups. They have called us San Diego State on more than one occasion. That's annoying, but I think we Jackrabbits need to understand that we are still an emerging team, and so there will be media slip-ups from time to time. After the Jacks make some noise in the tourney, though, I hope to see the slip-ups happen less and less. It's only a matter of time before the newness of being on ESPN wears off and Jack fans start sending angry letters to the major network.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Oscar Ex-plosion
A couple weeks ago, I announced my dirty little secret: I enjoy watching how the Jennifer Aniston v. Angelina Jolie saga plays out. I admitted that I often read the stories that pop up on Msn.com about the pair and their supposed fight, and I admitted that I might be a little crazy for liking to monitor their "feud."
I think I've only tapped the iceberg of crazy. Instead, the real crazies are the celebrity shows who turned an awards show into the "Oscar Showdown" between John and Jen and Brangelina.
Anyone who doubts that last statement, I dare you to watch "Oscar Ex-plosion" by Sarah Haskins. In her video, she shows clips of many popular celeb shows (and even some serious news channels) rehashing the night's drama. But what drama was there?
Apart from the unfortunate cut from Jen presenting to Angie laughing (which I must admit, I was peeved about), there really was no tension between the two couples. Instead, the celeb shows tried to create some signs of Oscar fighting out of mid-air. They created timelines showing how the movements of both Jen and John and Brad and Angelina were orchestrated so that they wouldn't see each other. And then, they pointed out that Jen was only three feet from her ex when she went onstage to present. Gasp! I bet they even had to breath the same air!
If you think I'm exaggerating on the celeb shows' ridiculousity, then I highly suggest you watch Haskin's video. You will probably be as amazed as I was that the non-confrontation between the two couples was played up to being the jilted lover showdown of the year. And I thought that I needed help!
I think I've only tapped the iceberg of crazy. Instead, the real crazies are the celebrity shows who turned an awards show into the "Oscar Showdown" between John and Jen and Brangelina.
Anyone who doubts that last statement, I dare you to watch "Oscar Ex-plosion" by Sarah Haskins. In her video, she shows clips of many popular celeb shows (and even some serious news channels) rehashing the night's drama. But what drama was there?
Apart from the unfortunate cut from Jen presenting to Angie laughing (which I must admit, I was peeved about), there really was no tension between the two couples. Instead, the celeb shows tried to create some signs of Oscar fighting out of mid-air. They created timelines showing how the movements of both Jen and John and Brad and Angelina were orchestrated so that they wouldn't see each other. And then, they pointed out that Jen was only three feet from her ex when she went onstage to present. Gasp! I bet they even had to breath the same air!
If you think I'm exaggerating on the celeb shows' ridiculousity, then I highly suggest you watch Haskin's video. You will probably be as amazed as I was that the non-confrontation between the two couples was played up to being the jilted lover showdown of the year. And I thought that I needed help!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
