White House Obfuscates Email 915
markgo2k writes "Do you want to email the president? This John Markoff, New York Times story (reprinted here in the non-subscription Seattle PI) details how the White House no longer promises to read anything you send to president@whitehouse.gov. Instead, you must navigate a multi-page website AND confirm your submission via email. Oh, and they only want to talk about subjects that are of interest to them." The web-form system appears to be a bit overloaded at the moment.
I'd rather not have to deal with the DOJ... (Score:4, Insightful)
So when those emails come in, I guess they go in either one of two mailboxes. "With us" or "Against Us".
The "Against Us" email automatically get forwarded to Ashcroft.
Mike
Re:I'd rather not have to deal with the DOJ... (Score:5, Funny)
Gueass again where that's going.. (and you along with it).. ever been to Cuba? I heard it's got this lovely bay with lots of friendly people in orange suits. Gua
Re:Or worse (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed it is...as lots of conservative organizations discovered [google.com] during the Clinton-Gore regime.
Re:Or worse (Score:3, Insightful)
The Christic Institute (Score:5, Informative)
That's no joke. Just ask the Christic Institute. The Christic Institute is a government watchdog agency that has been a thorne in the side of Uncle Sam for a great many years.
I first hear about Christic during the Iran Contra "guns for drugs" scandle in the mid 1980s. They were the ones who actually brought the suit against the government.
An apt description of the Christic Institute (as appearing in this article [greenleft.org.au])"The institute has won several landmark civil lawsuits, including the "Greensboro massacre" case against members of the American Nazi Party and Ku Klux Klan who assassinated demonstrators in 1979, and the "Silkwood" case against the nuclear industry. The institute does not charge legal fees and depends entirely on contributions from churches, Jewish philanthropies, private foundations and individual supporters."
Another decent (and slightly more in-depth) history of the organization can be found here. [geocities.com] The sad truth is that the IRS is likely to revoke their not for profit status making them liabel for back taxes for all of the years they have been in operation. Many feel that this is in direct retaliation to the Avrigan vs. Hull lawsuit. The government is alredy quite fond of issuing hefty fines to the institute for what it deems to be "frivolous lawsuits" (I'll let you judge that one for yourselves) as a means of intimidating them into not persuing their just causes. But if this IRS thing the IRS has in mind at the prompting of ultra conservative members of the house, it could mean the final curtain call for a heroic agency that has done much to keep america free.
Re:I'd rather not have to deal with the DOJ... (Score:5, Interesting)
It would make perfect sense for the Republicans to send out emails for contributions to those on the "for" list.
Re:I'd rather not have to deal with the DOJ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'd rather not have to deal with the DOJ... (Score:5, Funny)
It would also be an enormous ethics violation, and thanks to those geeks among us who use a different email username for each site we submit data too it would be simple to prove what was happening.
The "liberal media" (if any) would have a field day with it.
Mailing lists (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I'd rather not have to deal with the DOJ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Bush administration doesn't talk much about policies in the Middle East except those related to Iraq or to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Try asking about Israel's nuclear weapons.
Or Saudi Arabia - definitely intimately involved with Al-Quaeda, unlike Iraq.
Re:Israel's nuclear weapons do not matter (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
Re:Israel's nuclear weapons do not matter (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Israel's nuclear weapons do not matter (Score:3, Insightful)
Reasons why Israel should have WMD:
1. Maybe it's because Israel is the only democracy in the middle east.
2. Or because Israel has had WMD for more than 20 years now and never even thought about initiating an assault (unlike the US, mind you). In fact Israel doesn't even declare officially that it has these weapons, unlike many arab nations that declare how much they can't wait to use them on the Infindels (that's you!). The fact that these weapons are quasi-secret just goes
Re:Israel's nuclear weapons do not matter (Score:3, Informative)
First off, I don't think I disagree with you on this issue as much as you think I do. I don't deny that Israel is easily the most democratic country in the Middle East or that they have long been aligned with US interests. I'm not really arguing that Israel is evil or has acted badly with regard to their foreign policy. I don't have a serious problem with the Israeli government other than the nuclear weapons issue, and I certainly don't have a problem with Jews. I just think that it's unnecessary and danger
Re:Don't judge moderns by ancient history (Score:3, Informative)
Ever think that the reason so many people in the Middle East dislike Israel might have something to do with the huge nuclear arsenal pointed at each and every one of their cities? Or the fact that the US has been selectively supporting Israel through direct aid and diplomacy for decades?
It's amazing to me that anyone can dismiss Israel's WMD as inconsequential or justified. The US is tacitly approving of Israel's development of those weapons, and yet we invade and topple the government of an Arab nation th
We've come a long way baby (Score:5, Insightful)
Once, the President of the United States recieved visitors who just walked up to the White House. Once, the President used to walk out to Pennsylvania Avenue and hail a passing buggy for a ride.
My, how times change...
Re:We've come a long way baby (Score:5, Informative)
Re:We've come a long way baby (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We've come a long way baby (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We've come a long way baby (Score:3, Funny)
Re:We've come a long way baby (Score:5, Informative)
Looks like someone slept through history class. The first attempt on a President was Jackson in 1835. Lincoln was killed in 1865 by Booth, an actor. The next President to be shot was Garfield in 1881 by Charles J. Guiteau, a disappoined unemployed guy. The next assassination happened in 1901 when McKinley was shot by Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist. Between 1901 and when Kennedy was shot in 1963 by Lee Oswald, there were two attempts on Presidents. One happened in 1912 against former President Theodore Roosevelt on a campaign stop. The second happened against Franklin Roosevelt in 1933. The shots missed Roosevelt but killed Anton Cermak, the Mayor of Chicago. After Kennedy's death, there were three attempts on a Presidents life. The first two happened in September 1975 against Gerald Ford while in California. The third happened against Reagan in 1981.
BTW, I am an history geek!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: we've come a long way baby (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly ive always felt that unless the cause for war is good enough for the commander in chief to pick up a gun and lead the troops off to battle in the name of truth and honor and whatever else he might be fighting for, then its not a good enough reason to send a single lowly infantryman.
But maybe I hold warmongers to too high of a standard? Ya know, thinking the onus should be on them to justify their actions, inisting they be truthfull in their assertions and even to back them up. You know, silly things like that.
I don't think leading the troops is too much to ask. Afterall, How can you give an order that would cause people to die if your not willing and ready to be counted among the dead?
Guess you could say I just think hes a yellow bellied coward more than anything. War is easy. Diplomacy I guess is pretty hard.
-Steve
Re: we've come a long way baby (Score:5, Interesting)
The big problem is that the president currently declares when the war ended. Maybe we could have the excecution when the president leaves office, whether the war's ended yet or not. Keep the two term rule, of course.
Re: we've come a long way baby (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: we've come a long way baby (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I think you do hold them to too high standards. It would be fantastic if we would always have perfect information and always can back up everything. But we live in a world of uncertainty. Leaders have to make decisions anyway. Hard decisions, like going to war or not going to war. In the case of Iraq, ma
Re:He didn't go AWOL (Score:4, Informative)
Re:We've come a long way baby (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, 35 states have "shall-issue" concealed-carry laws. There's also open carry...here in Nevada, while a permit is "required" (not sure that the requirement is constitutional, but at least it's issued upon passing written and shooting tests) for concealed carry, anybody of age can open-carry without restriction. I doubt that this is
Re:We've come a long way baby (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see why not...the muskets that people were shooting in the late 18th century were state-of-the-art weaponry at t
Re:We've come a long way baby (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We've come a long way baby (Score:5, Insightful)
Snopes has a long article [snopes.com] on this very subject.
Re:We've come a long way baby (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Eisenhower directed the near gutting and restoration of the building, installing bullet-proof glass and other modern security features. Before WW I/II, the US was a fairly isolated country with a small federal government. If you had a gripe with the goverment, it was probably at the state level.
Re:I'd rather not have to deal with the DOJ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Contributors to the campaign, friends and relatives have other means of reaching these people, the public points of access are just garbage chutes for straw-polling and allowing the Secret Service to gather and track death-threats and such.
This is not ALWAYS true, but from talking to people who have worked on The Hill, I'm certain that it is the case far, far more often than not.
One time, I sent mail about Echelon to my Senetor. I was frankly stunned and awed to the point of voting for him in the next election because I got back a letter than addressed what I had said, and outlined what he had done as a result, and what the results of his actions were.
It wasn't a lot, just one page and not a lot of action as a result, but the fact that this Senetor cared about the concerns of a constituent got MY vote! I urge you to discuss the things that matter to you with your representitive government, and when they work on your behalf (not just send you a form "Yes, this is a pressing issue which all Americans should vote for me over") you should reward them by voting for them.
Re:I'd rather not have to deal with the DOJ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that U.S. senators and representatives are so far removed from the public that responses are, by default, not expected is a very strong argument, in my opinion, why most issues should be handled by state and local governments and not the federal one.
Local officials are much more accessible by their constituants (constituant to politician ratio is an order of magnatude less), and local officials are more accountable in thier communities. For example, the local state representative is very likely a local businessperson who is a member of the local chamber of commerce and lives in a known neighborhood on one end of town. He may even be active in a local church or civic group and may even know local people by name (imagine that!). Simply, the "pro" and "con" piles are just much smaller for local representation and are more likely to be given attention.
Compare the local people to national people like Hillary Clinton or Dick Cheny, for example, and there is no comparison. Besides the Letterman show or the Weekly World News, do the constituants of New York really understand or have the resources to care about what Ms. Clinton does for their state?
I just think that human society scales poorly (suburban spawl, for example), and that smaller groups are more likely to make real progress towards a genuinely happy community than very large ones. Smaller groups are also more accountable, and, if a person can't cope, moving to another group is not a big problem. If a person can't cope with a federal government, or the approaching global government, then what?
And, to be clear, "small" doesn't mean, necessarily, on the scale of nomadic tribes, but more like regular towns of several tens of thousands of people each. It seems that once an area gets into the hundreds of thousands of people, people start clashing in their everyday lives--traffic, for example--and don't find effective ways to deal with that scale.
Re:I'd rather not have to deal with the DOJ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were really serious about getting a message through to the "president" I would check "supporting comment," then say something nice about him (if you can think of anything) and then offer some "supportive criticism." This method actually works for me on a regular basis. (Although I haven't tried it in the scenario) It saves me lots of stress and the other person is more likely to listen.
However, if you just want to send flaming messages, that's a different story.
The problem with this technique is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent up! (Score:3, Insightful)
Politicians are, like virtually anyone else, interested in advancing their own agendas and the agendas of their allies. They see their constituents in three groups...
Politicians will play enough to the first group to keep their "base" support strong. They'll completely ignore the se
Re: it all gets there anyway (Score:4, Funny)
Why bother with the web-form at all?
In a couple years (if they all get their wishes) any email you send will end up in their hands anyway, so there'll be no real need to send mail directly to them.
Re:I'd rather not have to deal with the DOJ... (Score:3, Flamebait)
Slight correction: the quote you allude to is: "you are either with us or with the terrorists". [216.239.53.104]
Let's be clear. If you're not with Bush, you are a terrorist. There is no third way. His words, not mine.
Re:I'd rather not have to deal with the DOJ... (Score:3, Informative)
No- that is pretty much straight from his speech [whitehouse.gov]:
Whitehouse web sites past... (Score:3, Informative)
Well having worked on the original Whitehouse email system I seem to recall discussing this at length.
Some people did want to simply register approval or disapproval of some issue, which is completely OK. But in many cases people wanted to do something different, like bring to attention some problem that they did not feel was being addressed. Very often the emails would be questions about policy, in p
Re:I'd rather not have to deal with the DOJ... (Score:5, Funny)
Overloaded (Score:2, Funny)
which movie? (Score:5, Funny)
This website must be "Cabin Boy."
Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Informative)
The campaign Web site www.georgewbush.com on Tuesday posted collection plate statistics that reveal the names of more than 105,000 individuals who have given $1 or more to the re-election campaign. The list includes information on 85,591 individuals who have given less than $200, as well as larger donation contributors.
Don't hold your breath waiting for any candidate from the "party of the people" to make a similar disclosure. One of the closely guarded secrets that is an embarassment to the Democratic party is that the size of the average donation to their party is larger than the average size contributed to the Republican party. In fact, the mean size of political donations to the RNC during the past election cycle was about $50. The Democrats (always taking the moral high ground) claim that the mean size of contributions is unimportant and will not publish it for that reason and because it somehow would invade the privacy of their contributing base in aggregate.
The Democrats also have the whole problem of Chinese-Americans and foreign companies funneling millions from the Chinese government into Bill Clinton's re-election campaign in 1996 (during the same time period Chinese received favored trade status and managed to pilfer nuclear used-to-be-secrets).
In sum, your statement could easily be:
You want to talk to any elected official? It's easy -- just raise $100,000 for his/her re-election campaign and you'll get 10 minutes of face time! No problem.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to know whether or not a politician is beholden to large contributors it doesn't matter how many people donated small amounts of money, but what percentage of the total money raised came from the political interest groups in question. What we need to know, from both parties, is the distribution of "income from supporters", the same way that the distribution of income is measured. What percent of the money was raised from the smallest 20 percent of contributions? What percent came from the top 1 percent?
And most definitely, all contributions need to considered, not just donations from individuals.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you ever stop to think that nowdays, perhaps president@whitehouse.gov has a spam problem many orders of magnitude greater than your e-mail does?
Its easy to find conspiricy theories in all of this, but just imagine how much staff time was probably being allocated to filtering spam out of this mailbox.
Re:Hmm (the whitehouse spams!) (Score:3, Funny)
Well I get spam all the time from the whitehouse (www.whitehouse.com). If they are sending me spam, I think it is great they are getting it in return. And strangely enough, Bush is one horny individual. I guess this is why he is a "passionate conservative".
But in all seriousness, I wonder how many people accidently send things to the president (www.whitehouse.gov) that are intended to go to the aptly placed porn server (www.whitehouse.com). Or for that matter, how many emails for GW are actually being
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Or have we forgotten the lesson we learned from being a colony of Britain?
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder how many times they have gotten the Nigerian Official's e-mail?
I suspect that the offer's for generic Viagra, HGH, Weight Loss, International Drivers Licence, etc. should also be falling on deaf ears.
I have enough trouble with my own e-mail, and I do not have one of the world's most well known e-mail addresses.
Granted the worst of the offenders have probably excluded all "@*.gov" addresses from their mailing lists, b
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Informative)
Amendment X.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In other words, if the Constitution doesn't explicitly give a certain power or right to the Federal government, it is reserved for the states.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Funny)
All of these states rights movements have of course had their basis soundly in the tenth amendment. However, in general I think it's safe to say there has not been a time in american history when states rights have been advocated in a generalized way in an organized manner-- every time a states rights advocacy group pops up, it tends to have some kind of specific agenda, for example (as in the 1860s and 1960s) protecting a racist system. Today states rights advocacy groups, if you look, seem mostly to be doing so just as a tool with which to advocate either lesser restrictions on gun possession and use (if they're on the right) or lesser restrictions on pot possession and use (if they're on the left). Of course, a lot of these people seem to be much less enthusiastic about states rights' if "states rights" seems to mean that a federal anti-abortion law would be unconstitutional (if they're on the right) or that a state that doesn't allow same-sex mairrages would be allowed to view as invalid a same-sex mairrage initiated in a state that does allow them (if they're on the left)..
Incidentally, somehow, while I hear people on tv and in the newspaper all the time talking about how the 10th amendment means that rights the federal government doesn't explictly have control over should be in control of the states, I never seem to hear any press time being given to people claiming that the 10th amendment means that rights that the government doesn't explicitly have control over should belong to the people. Funny, that.
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
You think that this or the previous administration read all the email that it got? At best they had a bank of secretaries reading and responding to it. That's arguably the same as not reading it.
When a government doesn't have time to listen to the people it's supposed to govern, you know that it's grown too large.
While I agree that a government should listen to its people, that is largely done at the ballot b
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, do you think everything was read under Bush I or Clinton? The cost would be staggering, and now they're basically being honest. Sure it's depressing, but if you didn't know that was the case before now, you're just being naiive at best.
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Silly silly person. What do you think this is? A government by the people, for the people?
Waste of the President's time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Waste of the President's time. (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, so I assume you disregard as "unsolicited" any email that comes from your bosses, too...
Re:Waste of the President's time. (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, we couldn't have that. A president with a 6 feet male apparatus would have been somewhat embarassing.
Since many people use... (Score:5, Insightful)
Head over to the real whitehouse alternative [whitehouse.com], much more fun.
Because... (Score:5, Insightful)
a) Mailing
b) Phoneing (being on hold for hours then talking to a nobody)
c) It gives you a warm happy feeling.
So why shouldn't they filter out their most popular form of communication given that most of it is crap anyway?
That, and my second point:
You shouldn't be emailing your most important concerns to the president - do your congressman, your senator, and your local government, they can probably help you more specifically.
convenient (Score:5, Insightful)
Snail Mail... (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering G.W. runs a press conference once every six months, before an invasion, or after he beats up on some third world country, you expect better treatment?
Security through obfuscation, just like the ports.
Bah.
"they only want to talk about..." (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I can remember phoning the White House during the Clinton Administration. Before getting to an actual person I was presented with a survey of some sort. I can't remember what it was about, but I do remember thinking that I preferred NONE of the possible choices for each survey question.
My point is that it appears every administration does this. It's not simply the current one.
Deluges of mail (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, it's now harder to complain to them about it, as well.
re: deluges of mail (Score:5, Funny)
+1 campaign donor
-1 civil liberties kook
+1 convenient ally
-1 democrat
-1 libertarian
+1 republican
+1 useful tool
ed
Things like this dilute the issues... (Score:3, Insightful)
Rights are things like free speech, bearing arms, and freedom from false imprisonment.
Having to use a web form instead of an e-mail address is NOT a violation of your rights.
This is a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Now with the new system they can have some DBA write script to pump out statistics on what kind of feedback/problems/etc most people are writing about. They can actually get a real number and say "we got 10,000 emails this week and 67% of them disagreed with such and such policy." Plus, they can weed out the junk mail. Can you imagine how much spam he must've gotten. Do you think the Pres was using SpamAssassin?
Cire
Apparently they've gotten over 1000 e-mails.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is a good thing (Score:4, Funny)
I cant think of ANYBODY who uses president@whitehouse.gov for filling out those required forms for adobe, random Foo downloads, etc...
in fact I have NEVER given a good email addres to any of those companies looking for me to fill out to gain access.
Just like I never use to give Radio Shack the 1600 Pennsylvania Addrerss in Washington DC every time I bought something.
It's irrelevant anyway... (Score:5, Insightful)
Chances are, he won't be reading what you send anyway. Frankly, I suspect the concept of "mail your representative/elected official" is largely a thing of the past. Lobbyist's and big politcal money have largely ended any sort of grassroots effect.
White House Obfuscates Email? (Score:3, Insightful)
A good idea, IMHO. Filters out the drunk, drugged, and pure loony.
Use snail mail (Score:4, Insightful)
In Canada at least, sending a letter via regular post to any Member of Parliament [parl.gc.ca], including the Prime Minister [pm.gc.ca], is free. Your letter is also far more likely to be read.
This isn't news, it's "DUH" (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with "representing the people" and such, but going through George Bush is just a bit too unfair. He has to look over 300 million people
Remember... (Score:3, Insightful)
What with the general assaults on personal freedoms, Abraham Lincoln and the other Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. Democracy isn't dead, but it isn't exactly at its zenith right now, least of all in the USA.
Can anyone think of a time when the freedoms of the average American were more at threat from their own government?
Like I've said before, the ideal of America is beautiful, it's just the reality that's becoming fubar.
Re:Remember... (Score:5, Informative)
A few links:
Link #1 [chrononhotonthologos.com]
Link #2 [brainyquote.com]
Link #3 [brainyquote.com]
Scary quote #4 [brainyquote.com]
Scary quote #5 [brainyquote.com]
Quote #6 [brainyquote.com]
And from our own government:
Link #7 [cia.gov]
We are not a democracy. Get it through your head. Democracy is a terrible for mof government where 51% of the people take rights away from the other 49%.
Just like a bunch of other corporations (Score:5, Interesting)
Any Paypal customer with a problem typically has an impossible time calling and talking to a real live person, and personal attention to electronic mail is virtually non-existent. According to Vince Sollitto (PayPal spokesman), Paypal intentionally makes the phone number very difficult to find in order to save costs. This is fine, except their Email "customer service" also leaves a lot to be desired. Many times you will get a canned response that doesn't address your initial Email message, if you get a reply at all. It doesn't do any good to complain anyway. When asked about customer complaints, Sollitto said the company reads them, but takes them with a grain of salt...
Just reminded me of the White House. Congress hardly responds to what the people want (file sharing, etc) why should the President be any different?
Barriers to entry (Score:5, Informative)
On a side note, for what it's worth, the daily press briefings contain more 'hard' news than I see in the average evening news broadcast. (On a politically snider note, it's also much easier to understand how bad off things are when you can actually read the daily obfuscations with your own eyes, and in most cases, watch them in streaming video sans interepretation by talking heads.)
Also, say what you will about Clinton, but he was the first president to really make an effort at utilizing the internet to diseminate information regarding the executive branch, though granted he was the first president of the 'internet era.' There are several cool innovations he made and several excellent articles over at Slate regarding the White House web (Article #1 [msn.com] and Article #2 [msn.com]) historically.
"Supporting comment" / "differing opinion" (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe that button isn't such a bad idea.
Re:"Supporting comment" / "differing opinion" (Score:3, Insightful)
If promised to sign a law making it illegal to piss in your soup, most mail concerning the policy would STILL be against it. The people most likely to mail are those who oppose something, and want the esteemed mail receiver to do look at their argumentation. Of course, a president won't make a statement unless he's already made his mind up to the point that any and all argumentation is worth
No excuse (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no excuse for a confusing system like this reaching the public, as the White House has someone "in-house", so to speak, who is a great benchmark for the lowest common denominator in those three areas. From the description, I believe there is no chance this procedure would have passed the "Dubya" test.
why do you believe that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Contacting the President should be a process simple enough that anyone in the USA, even those with limited technical, communication, and cognitive abilities could perform.
There's no excuse for a confusing system like this reaching the public, as the White House has someone "in-house", so to speak, who is a great benchmark for the lowest common denominator in those three areas. From the description, I believe there is no chance this procedure would have passed the "Dubya" test.
Why do you believe that? Do you really believe that Saturday Night Live parodies are reality?
I never thought much of Clinton's wisdom, morality, choices, etc. but I never deluded myself into thinking he lacked cognitive ability. Nobody gets to positions like that without it.
Better fact check it (Score:4, Funny)
Elected officials reading e-mail - joke punchline (Score:4, Interesting)
I would suspect that current pols don't give a $*()@*#)( about their e-mail or messages anyway. Local officials are too powerless for most people to communicate with. State and National pols are too busy talking to lobbyists and paying attention to the polls and statistics to worry about what Joe Schmoe is ranting about today.
If you really don't like it... (Score:4, Informative)
"The Web Team does not answer or forward e-mail, but all messages pertaining to the technical operation and usability of the White House web site are read."
Classic IT and bad PR, but it's a real attempt (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would you do this? Because given the overwhelming number of e-mails that come in, you can't process it and get it into a database with any "meta"-info attached. This way you let your users organize it for you, would be how the IT people sold the change. Then you really do have a better sense of the layout of all the mail you're getting, and you really do know more about what people think.
Not to say that this isn't incompetence on the part of the Bush folks. Anyone with a clue about PR would know the multi-page form that starts with stuff like "Do you Agree or Disagree with our beloved Kim Jong Il?" or "Are you a donor?" would be a mistake. Even if the Web guys told them they needed to use a revised front end to sort stuff, they should've realized how that form would read. In particular, they really needed to maintain the perception that every note got read -- to blow that off in any way just looks awful. The IT people had the same blindspot for that one -- ever decide to call an 800-line instead of using a tech support form you weren't sure would ever get responded to?
So this speaks to the blinders of both IT people and the Bush regime, sure -- but it probably was an honest try to address the volume of mail that comes in. I worked at the Ford Presidential Library for a while, and they've still got boxes and boxes, and shelves and shelves, of letters people sent abot pardoning Nixon -- categorized as pro and con, and that's about it.
(What they need is the text grinders to do the sorting automagically -- but wait, wouldn't that cost serious tax dollars?)
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
You want to communicate with the President? Vote.
Bush's War on Criticism (Score:3, Funny)
Send regular mail anyway... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have never had any luck with email complaints, and only marginal success with phone complaints.
Just last night in fact, I heard back from AT&T wireless because I sent the CEO a letter about how his company was attempting to defraud me on my bill. Fixed, no problem. And a free month to boot. I had previously called 5 times and had been told that is was "impossible" to fix.
So use email for normal communications, but when you need something done, write a letter and fork over 37 cents for a stamp. The results are well worth the cost. I imagine that a letter to the president has a much higher chance of actually being read by someone than an email does, especially now.
T
Whitehouse slashdotted (Score:3, Funny)
Bordering on genius (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead, you must navigate a multi-page website AND confirm your submission via email.
Kind of like subscribing to slashdot.
Seriously, you're making it sound like it's a bad thing. How much spam do you think president@whitehouse.gov gets? This isn't obfuscation, it's replacing a system with zero accountability with one with a bit more accountability. Considering it's the government doing this it borders on genius compared to solution I'd expect.
The real reason for the changes... (Score:3, Funny)
It seems he'd been spending quite a bit of time reading all his email and had been receiving a large number of packages delivered in plain brown wrapping.
Turns out that the Prez now has a 32-foot-long penis, breasts the size of Dolly Parton's, has lost 399lbs of weight without exercising or dieting and is now awaiting the delivery of TWENTY FIVE MILLION US DOLLARS in unclaimed bullion from a secret fund in Nigeria.
Not only that, but he's also talking about quitting the presidency because he's been told that you can make more money stuffing envelopes just a few hours a day from home.
Re:Innovative use of the tag (Score:5, Informative)
- Put up a nicer message. This page is typically only going to be seen for a few seconds, if at all, but when the destination is down, would you want your visitors to be looking at that?
- A link would have been nice, to accomodate those who have turned off javascript. Yeah, I know this doesn't apply to many, but it's not difficult to do. In addition, instead of making users refresh (thereby burdening this server), users can just keep clicking the link if the destination page doesn't load.
- PERSdata??? What the hell is up with that? First, use all lowercase. Second, don't give your directories scary names like that. It scares the children.
- I think we're beyond the 8.3 filename conventions now. mv intro.htm index.html
If this is my first impression of a site, you can be sure I won't be trusting it to deal with my personal information.Re:So What? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would tend to agree with you; however, this...
We're not any more important than anyone else.
Everyone in a democracy is supposed to get equal time and treatment. The republic of the USA tries to face the (IMHO, old) reality of actually exerci
Re:WRONG, Asshat! (Score:3, Insightful)