PBS Newshour Annoyed Me

PBS NewsHour

Aug 28, 2012 (edited)  -  Public

Join us at 5 p.m. ET for a +Google+ Hangout w/ +Hari Sreenivasan, Mark Shields and David Brooks, where they'll discuss the sport of politics and the politics of sport.

( #gop2012   #election2012   #RNC   #Romney ) 

1

+5

18 comments

Jason ONAug 28, 2012Edit

So, is this a sports broadcast? I don't care one iota about sports.

Hari SreenivasanAug 28, 2012

+Jason ON its an online only segment we've been doing for a couple of years now- where we talk about the sport of politics and the politics of sport. Partly because it is a side of these two political analysts you have never seen before. 

Jason ONAug 28, 2012Edit

Okay, so this has nothing to do with sports? That was my initial question and all you seemed to do was restate what the original post stated. Which, as you should know, didn't really clear anything up for me since it's nearly the exact same statement. "Politics of sport?" What does that even mean? "The sport of politics" could mean a few things such as politics being like a sport or a game.

Sean PisanoAug 28, 2012

+1

How does one join a hangout? 

Hari SreenivasanAug 28, 2012

+1

Jason. Yes it has to do with politics and sports. If its painful ...please dont watch. Spend tour time trolling elsewhere

Hari SreenivasanAug 28, 2012

Your

Jason ONAug 28, 2012Edit

I'm not trolling at all, I'm looking for clarification since the original post and your reply was fairly vague. Neither one addressed my questions.

But, if you think that's "trolling" +Hari Sreenivasan, then you need to get away from any public facing position.

Hari SreenivasanAug 28, 2012

Aww

Hari SreenivasanAug 28, 2012

+Jason ON you're right- btwn the two of us - i'm the one who has no sense of humor. i sincerely apologize if we don't produce content that you don't like and make you suffer through vague descriptions which may influence how you choose to spend 10 minutes of your life. I'll take your career advice to heart. 

Palooza SlowpokeAug 28, 2012

Well:'....., Thank You

Palooza SlowpokeAug 28, 2012

That's sarcastic

Justin TappYesterday 2:54 AM

+Hari Sreenivasan
I live in Turkey now so I'm 7 hours ahead of you, but I totally wish I would have woken up for the hangout. I'm pretty bummed, hope you do another during the convention. 

Jason ON2:50 PMEdit

+Hari Sreenivasan, my comments have not been funny or humorous at all, so I'm wondering why you went to the sense of humor line. I was just curious if the Hangout was going to be about sports. That's all. I don't give a shit about sports and didn't want to waste my time, however I dopay attention to politics and might have enjoyed a Hangout to discuss them.

But, whatever. Instead of addressing my question you've done nothing but reiterate the original post, call me a troll and then try and be sarcastic with me.

In my professional opinion, you are an ass. /done

+PBS NewsHour, if you're going to have your "talent" representing you on an open online forum you need to provide some social media training. The way +Hari Sreenivasan has treated me has been very unprofessional since the moment he chimed in. His actions do not reflect well on PBS.

Hari Sreenivasan3:50 PM

+Jason ON i have handled comments on my site here, on facebook, and in email long enough to let my reputation stand for itself. You are of course entitled to call it professional or not. You're the one resorting to expletives, not me.
I answered your question in my very first respone- the politics of sport, but let's be quite frank- you didn't understand that- you said that i simply restated your question.  so i answereded it again- that yes it does have to do with sports, but you felt it necessary to express your displeasure not just with sports but with me for seemingly wasting your time.
- so yes i was being sarcastic- and yes i think saracasm falls under the umbrella of humor.

we just finished another episode of the doubleheader which will be posted soon. same two guys- mark shields and david brooks- political thinkers who disagree agreeably- and they also happen to know a bizarre amount about sports- something people don't get to see on the+PBS NewsHour  (oh gosh- did i just cc my bosses to make them aware of my atrocious behavior?)
we dealt with politics again, and again we dealt with sports. i reiterate, no, make that plead- that it will be an utter waste of your time.

Hari Sreenivasan3:52 PM

+Jason ON  also - are you using "talent" to show off that you must know industry jargon? or perhaps in a pejorative tone? Good to clear that right up?

Hari Sreenivasan3:58 PM

+Justin Tapp thanks for writing in. we'll be doing this at the DNC once as well- if you are interested in participating, it'd probably be close to midnight your time- but depending on the strength of your connection./ lighting or whatever the google folks look for, it'd be good to have you join us from Turkey. Lemme know and i'll try and get someone in touch with you. 

Jason ON4:26 PM (edited)Edit

+Hari Sreenivasan, first you're wrong. I didn't reiterate my question, you only restated your original post. I asked for clarification of what the sport of politics and the politics of sport, was. All you had to do was say this hangout would have been about sports or politics. Instead you responded with where we talk about the sport of politics and the politics of sport. What the hell does that even mean? Also, as I stated earlier, that's just restating what I asked for clarity on in the first place.

And yes, I did resort to expletives first, because apparently you don't understand anything else. But let's not also forget that you called me a troll earlier in this conversation, before I said anything derrogatory towards you. Or, let me put it another way: you called me names before I used an expletive.

And again, you fail to grasp the whole scope of this conversation. You haven't wasted my time. Not yet, anyway. I wanted to know if the Hangout would be a waste of my time. I'm glad to note that since I skipped it, I did not waste my time.

But instead, you've taken to playing the victim in each and every response to me. Let me tell you right now, you're not important enough to be a victim. Sorry, but apparently someone had to tell you the truth.

As for "talent." The quotation marks are there to denote sarcasm. As in, I don't think you have any "talent" and you're that in name only.

Read More

True Story

 

Read More

So, There Was a Google+ Update

Something with more "Stream control." In other words, Google gave us the ability to control how much and what content (based on Circle) we want to see in our Stream. This included the ability to see everything from a given Circle, see nearly nothing from a given Circle and to adjust between these two extremes.

They gave us the ability to Mute individuals, too. However, unlike the Mute of old, this new one doesn't remove their posts from your stream, it merely prohibits the individual from force-notifying you. Let me explain: if you have a person who normally sends you a notification of their posts (and some people abuse this, while others are welcome) this new Mute allows you to restrict those proactive notifications.

Cool, huh?

I had a  little trouble with the new features at first. I went to a particular Circle, slid the slider over this way and that and finally set it back on the "middle" setting where it began. However, I kept getting notifications every. single. time. someone. posted. to. that. circle.

It was annoying and exhausting. That particular Circle has over 1400 people in it!

I refreshed the page and even logged out and back in hoping the setting would take. Nothing. I kept getting notifications. Gah!

I went back to that Circle and noticed the final move, back to the middle, hadn't been accepted and the slider was stuck on "send me every single post this Circle makes." I moved it over (again) and viola, it worked like a charm!

Anywho, that was my experience. For a deeper understanding of exactly what happened with the Google+ update, go to this LINK at Viante! They took a lot longer to make a really good blog post about the newer features, with screenshots and everything. They're all cool like that.

Read More

Inconsequential Post DO NOT READ

I was going to blog today. I'm trying to be more regular about it, really I am. However, for the life of me I can't think of anything to write about.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about tech-economics to determine if the Apple v. Samsung case is a win or loss for Samsung, for innovation and/or for Android. I suppose I could write about Google's new Stream controls that annoyed me at first, but only because I was using them wrong. Or, more accurately a setting I made didn't stick and G+ annoyed me with the flood of incoming notifications.

I could post about the lunch I had with a friend at a restaurant he's thinking about buying or my trip to the library or any of a dozen other inconsequential things. But, I just don't have it in me today.

Perhaps, tomorrow.

I did HACK THIS PHOTO earlier. It took me a couple of minutes using Picasa. Nothing special, but I did get the mood I was going for, so that's a win.

From Hack This Photo

Read More

The King James Bible, a Review

Let me copy and past the text, because this is hilarious and, well, true! So after thoroughly perusing the pages of this novel (twice), I thought I'd share a few thoughts on it. The story starts off reasonably straight-forward, though the author of the first few books seems to be a bit vague and doesn't offer much background or detail about the world in which the story takes place before introducing the main protagonist, Adam. The early main plot line spends a great deal of time describing genealogical information of what I assume are the members of an important family (families?) involved with the story and descended from this Adam character. It seemed a bit overdone, though I guess Tolkien also spent a great deal of time on the seemingly mundane in his books and they're pretty popular. Speaking of which, there are a number of times that magic is invoked to turn rods to snakes or move large bodies of water around. There are also talking serpents and donkeys, so if you're into fantasy fiction this book might interest you. It's not long before the timeline starts shifting around, though, and it's easy to lose track. It also looks as though there were multiple authors involved in the book's creation. If so, that would go a long way in explaining why the story lines often repeat information the reader has already learned or outright contradicts previous details presented by earlier writers. Why the editor didn't clean up the disparate plot lines and ensure the narrative was consistent is beyond me. Whatever the reason, the editing is atrocious. I don't understand why the authors weren't credited. Some of the books reference names, but I suspect these names are not the real authors. Maybe the quality of the book was such that they wanted to avoid credit? I did enjoy the numerous battle sequences, though I thought the author(s) could have done a much better job of detailing the action as well as making the motivations for the violence less one-dimensional. It seemed to me the only reason for the seemingly senseless violence was because the primary god in this book said so. I was also confused as to why the author decided to destroy the world near the beginning of the book. It seemed out-of-place and anti-climactic, not to mention a bit far-fetched even for a fiction book. The deity, Yahweh, could have used a lot more character development during the first half of the book as well. Through most of the first half of the novel, the god is ordering the wholesale slaughter of thousands of people for seemingly trivial reasons and doesn't really do much to explain his motivations. I'm also confused as to why this god gets angry when other characters do what they do. He's supposed to be omnipotent and should know exactly what they're going to do. Why, then, would he get angry when they do it? The authors do make a concerted though not altogether consistent attempt to reinvent the god's personality in the second half of the book, but this almost complete reversal of personality traits makes the character seem forced and even more inconsistent that he was in the first half. I enjoyed the use of personal letters as a vehicle for the narrative. That's a great way for the author(s) to share more information about a character's thoughts and it flows better than narrating in the third-person. Again, though, the editing is pretty horrible and many ideas that come from various characters and are supposed to be in sync aren't. Maybe there just wasn't enough money in the budget to edit properly? The second half of the book is decidedly more peaceful than the first. The story line picks up at the birth of the new protagonist, Jesus. Then for some inexplicable reason, the author(s) decide to skip upwards of 30 years of his life and jump right into his academic career. Maybe his growth and development doesn't do much for the story, but missing out on the details of his mid-life seems to degrade from the character's development. To top it off, this character is supposed to be Yahweh from the first half of the book, but then later on he is visited by Yahweh in the form of a dove. There's also some kind of ghost or phantom character that's also supposed to be him. Needless to say, the author(s) go off into left field with who this character is and sorting it out is a nightmare. Jesus then spends several years spreading a good amount of wisdom in the form of stories and public examples. Despite his questionable origins, the character turns out to be very compassionate and caring about the poor and the sick. I think he's one of the best characters in the novel and I like a lot of the ideas the author(s) present through him. If you're a political Conservative, though, I suspect you won't like this character. He advocates the sharing of wealth with the poor and consorts easily with prostitutes and disease-ridden people in order to help them. He also doesn't have much use for money (the horror!). He's able to cast magic spells to heal and resurrect people, which is not normal for people of this world. That lends him an air of mystery but also makes him an enemy of the power pushers in the area. Eventually he's betrayed by one of his confidantes and is summarily executed. After that, other authors add in additional information or details that might have been missed, though these details are not caught by the editor and are sometimes contradictory. The end of the book is odd in that the author adds in a large dose of prophecy and visions that are so vague and general it's like reading the astrology section of the local newspaper. The main protagonist is dead so why bother with so much extra information at the end?? Final Thoughts: I thought the book had a lot of interesting ideas and stories, but the inconsistency of the characters and the atrocious editing pretty much ruined it for me. The plot lines were so haphazard and the points made were so contradictory at times that I just couldn't bring myself to give this book a rating any higher than one star. I'll give it credit for imagination, but even books of fiction need to have some basis in reality. This book definitely fails in that regard.

Or, as copied and pasted: Too much fire and brimstone and not enough T&A! They definitely need to get Michael Bay if they plan on making the movie. Read more reviews of the King James Bible on Amazon: Here

Read More

Made the Call

For about a week, my dog Rufus and my roommate's dog, Charlie, had been running out into a nearby field and rolling around in something putrid. I didn't know what it was at first. Then one day I decided to walk across the field instead of around it and Charlie ran immediately over to whatever it was and began rolling.

I walked over and found the mostly decayed body of a cat.

I didn't think anything of it since cats die all the time, especially in an area where coyotes have been known to traverse and fox have been known to hunt. It happens. And then a few days later I saw the sign posted on a lamp post a couple of blocks away.

I didn't know exactly what to do at this point, whether to call and be the bearer of bad news or leave it be and let the person(s) live in blissful ignorance. However, since I don't like not knowing things, myself, I decided to call.

I called the first number on the flyer and left a message for Amber telling her I found a dead cat, but I wasn't entirely sure it was hers, so not to worry yet. She asked me about the body I found and I told her about where it was and let her know there had been coyote warning signs posted in the area for a week or more. That's when she admitted her other cat had been killed by a coyote. She also admitted that she put food outside for the cat every day but nothing seems to have been eating it for about two weeks.

Wait minute! She had two cats, neither chipped or collared, who were allowed to roam the neighborhood? What did she think was going to happen to them?

I made arrangements with Amber to meet with her after she got off work and show her where the dead cat was so she could identify it as hers, or not. We did and according to her, it was her cat.

I hate giving people bad news, especially when it was preventable with some simple responsibility.

Read More

What If...?

Should the Aldrin and Armstrong, of Apollo 11, not been able to return to Earth, for whatever reason, the government was ready with a nice public relations piece to console American citizens and the world.

http://www.archives.gov/press/press-kits/american-originals-photos/moon-disaster-1.jpg http://www.archives.gov/press/press-kits/american-originals-photos/moon-disaster-2.jpg It might be heart-wrenching to discover the government didn't have complete faith in NASA's mission to the Moon, but this is what governments do, they prepare for every contingency. This one just happens to be in case of disaster.

Read More