Obama to hold Texting Summit: Really! You can't make this stuff up.

Yes, distracted driving is bad, but it isn't only texting,

I doubt very much the summit will be based *solely* on texting, but as is pointed out in comment #3, the impetus is clearly on a report which shows a startling increase in fatal accidents due to, yes, texting. It's the straw that broke the camel's back, if you will.

So, yes, I think I have perspective. I think Obama has perspective. I think NMR08, has long since lost any reasonable perspective. I think this is an issue, and I think getting industry people, and members of congress (you know, those guys who are elected at the state level) and the *transportation secretary* (whose very job is based on dealing with matters such as this one) together to address a problem that is evolving quickly, as technology evolves, is an incredibly pertinent effort.

But, given that I've been here for as long as NMR08, and that I've seen the sort of bilge he can use as a building block for a monumental whine about Obama, I doubt he's thought this through as deeply as you're willing to give him credit for.

I doubt very much the summit will be based *solely* on texting, but as is pointed out in comment #3, the impetus is clearly on a report which shows a startling increase in fatal accidents due to, yes, texting.

But Brian, the President can clearly only focus on one problem at a time. With the economy suffering, it's our duty to demand that he focus every iota of his attention and energy at it, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If we catch him wasting time by, say, trying to address another problem (or eating, sleeping, etc) it's our patriotic duty to write pretentious articles calling him out on it. Thank God we have NMR here.

, the impetus is clearly on a report which shows a startling increase in fatal accidents due to, yes, texting.

Ah yes, the "if it even saves just one life" excuse.

Well Brian, we have how many laws on the books these days for the "prevention of driving while impared"? How is that working out? There are stories of people who are on their 10th or even 13th DUI arrest? They don't even have a valid license and yet, they are driving, and yes, driving drunk.

Put laws up that don't allow you to text, and yes, you may get some people to stop, but my guess is that the majority won't, even after a ticket or two. How easy will these laws be to enforce, you (unless someone is extremely stupid) can't easily see someone texting while driving.

In other words, we will be spending time and money to put laws in place (seemingly at the federal level where they shouldn't be) to catch maybe .5 to 1% of the offenders. Seems to me to be a collosal waste of time.

Is it an issue? Yes. Should it be addressed? Maybe, but if so, at a state level.

Except, you act as though you know what this meeting will be about. (Or, if you're NMR08, you just assume it's about something stupid, because it's affiliated with Obama, who you've sworn to hate ever since he began his campaign.) It may not be so much about deterring use through new federal laws, but about discussing technologies in automobiles that could increase safety.

I guess most importantly, do you advocate dismantling the United States Department of Transportation, and if not, what exactly is it that you'd like for them to be doing?

So far as I've seen, the President isn't isn't "holding" anything anyway, nor do i see an indication that he'll even be in attendance.

Headline is a bit misleading.

Well, seeing I did my research, I do know what the meeting is about:

The Obama administration will convene a summit of experts to figure out what to do about the problem of texting while driving

It is a meeting at the Federal level to try to figure out how to get the state level government to implement the ban, you know not unlike the federal blackmail of states to raise the drinking age to 21 under penalty of the withholding of federal highway funds.

I don't hate Obama, I don't even know him. I do dislike a number of his policies, but for the man specifically, I don't care one way or another. The president's administration is holding the summit, and as we all know (by the rhetoric spewed by the anti-bush crowd) whatever the administration does is a direct reflection on the president.

As to the Department of Transportation, they are there to coordinate interstate transportation (not just roads, but rivers, rail and air as well), as a direct support of the commerce of the nation.

If you are intimating by the "Headline is a bit misleading" that President Obama knows nothing of this summit, or it didn't pass his desk for an ok, then you are sadly mistaken, or the President is as inept as some people say.

"The bottom line is, we need to put an end to unsafe cell phone use, typing on BlackBerrys and other activities that require drivers to take their eyes off the road and their focus away from driving," LaHood said.

Emphasis mine. It comes from your link.

With that said, your own view of what the meeting is about is undermined by your own article, which discusses education initiatives, as well.

If you are intimating by the "Headline is a bit misleading" that President Obama knows nothing of this summit

No, I'm intimating that the headline is misleading, as NMR08 is suggestin that Obama is taking time out of his otherwise busy schedule to focus on something that he shouldn't be focusing on when, in fact, his Transportation Secretary is taking time out of *his* schedule, to focus on something that is directly related to his job description, and that the whole point of having a cabinet is to allow individuals to direct their focus in the areas of their own expertise.

It doesn't help your case that the link you provided is headlined "Lahood Calls..."

So yes, I think the headlines (and the criticisms that are based on the headlines) are misguided, to say the least.

It doesn't help your case that the link you provided is headlined "Lahood Calls..."

Carefully re-read my posts and please tell me what "my case" is, because I don't see how the headline provided ("LaHood Calls ...) hurts my case in any way.

NMR08 is suggestin that Obama is taking time out of his otherwise busy schedule to focus on something that he shouldn't be focusing on ...

The headline may suggest that, but the article clearly states otherwise ...

The Obama administration is expected to announce they will host a "Texting summit" to deal with the "serious issue" of driving while distracted.

The Transportation Secretary is bringing together senior transportation officials, Members of Congress, members of Law Enforcement and academics who "study" this issue to come up with solutions.

Just two of the lines from the article, which never states that the President will attend, or even implies it. Do you argue the same when this tactic is used by the major news outlets, to "hook" the reader, or watcher (in the case of television)? If not, then stop being intellectually dishonest because you don't like what the article has to say. If not, then your bias is showing, at it isn't a pretty side of you.

Just two of the lines from the article, which never states that the President will attend, or even implies it.

Really?

Perhaps as you read this you are unemployed or worried if you will have a job next week.. Perhaps you are sitting about wondering when the Sheriff will show up to serve you your foreclosure papers on your house that is worth far less than what you owe on it. Perhaps you have a son or daughter in Afghanistan. Perhaps you are wondering just how your Healthcare would be affected if the Obama boondoggle of Health care is passed.. Maybe you are sitting around wondering just how we PAY for all this?

Those are REAL ISSUES. Those are issues worthy of a presidents time and energy. We should be far less concerned about people driving while distracted and be more concerned about Obama who is being President while distracted.

Emphasis mine. I think it pretty clearly outlines how NMR is being misleading by implying that the President himself is cutting time out of his schedule for this. I have to wonder why you're even bothering to defend him on it.

What Steve said.

Oh wait, found some more...

We have a President who has NO CLUE what is important to the American Public right now

Maybe we should take Obama's Blackberry away from him as clearly he is distracted from even attempting to do the job of President.

Yes, distracted driving is bad, but it isn't only texting,

I doubt very much the summit will be based *solely* on texting

Remember back to the beginning of this thread where the above lines are written?

The same could be said of this line that you reference :

We should be far less concerned about people driving while distracted and be more concerned about Obama who is being President while distracted.

I'm doubt very much that line referencing the presidents distractions are *solely* about this summit.

Oh wait, found some more...

We have a President who has NO CLUE what is important to the American Public right now

Maybe we should take Obama's Blackberry away from him as clearly he is distracted from even attempting to do the job of President.

Where do either of those statements imply that the president will attend the meeting?

I think it pretty clearly outlines how NMR is being misleading by implying that the President himself is cutting time out of his schedule for this

Just because you infer something doesn't mean that it was implied.

I'm doubt very much that line referencing the presidents distractions are *solely* about this summit.

You're reaching. The line is in an article about the texting summit, following the lead mentioning the texting summit, and is the sentence directly before talking further about the texting summit. It's implied.

Where do either of those statements imply that the president will attend the meeting?

Both of them imply personal involvement.

Really, I understand the hesitance to admit you're wrong and retreat peacefully to lick your wounds, but you're taking a rocket car to the Land of Ludicrous here. The implications are very clear, and blinking vacantly and asking "what implications?" makes you look either intellectually dishonest or outright stupid.

Both of them imply personal involvement.

Personal involvement in what?

The first one, is taken out of context against the paragraph it resides in.

The the only thing the second implies is that he is texting on his blackberry instead of doing his job.

Talk about reaching.

You are however, very good at this whole inferring thing.

Personal involvement in what?

The subject of the article. I really hope you're feigning ignorance here; it would make me feel much better about humanity.

The first example, taken in context, is all about the massive issues facing us today and how Obama should be more concerned with them than texting. This is an article about a texting summit. It is critical of the texting summit. The premise of the critique is that the President has more important things on his plate. We all seem to agree that he has more important things on his plate.

The problem is, the President isn't personally involved, so it destroys the entire premise of the article. You can keep claiming it makes some kind of sense if you want to, pretending that certain sentences are just randomly placed in the article and the author didn't mean for it to logically follow at all. I'd say an article full of non-sequiturs would simply make him a bad writer, if that's the position you're going to maintain. So which is it? Dishonest writer, or @!$%#ty writer? This is what you're working so hard to defend. Reflect on that a bit.

Also...

Just because you infer something doesn't mean that it was implied.

By definition, inference means to conclude something based on logic and evidence. So by saying I'm inferring, you're saying there is sufficient evidence from NMR, and that it is logical to conclude that he is drawing a false connection. So yes. Actually, that's pretty much exactly what it means.

Something else just occurred to me about all this. If the author was never trying to imply Obama's personal involvement, the light-hearted attempt at levity and humor in the headline and throughout the article makes absolutely no damn sense. Think about it. If this article isn't implying that Obama is personally involved, here's what the headline is saying:

The Secretary of Transportation wants to do his job: Really! You can't make this stuff up.

Ba-da-bum! Whoo, man, my side aches from laughing so hard. Here's another paraphrased gem, from the concluding paragraph:

With all of the hardships with the economy and healthcare, Obama wants the person in charge of transportation-related legislation to have a meeting about transportation-related legislation. REALLY?

Oooh hoo hoo! He really got that transportation secretary there! Doing his... you know, job!

So if you continue to feign ignorance and use the "he's just a @!$%#ty writer" defense, we'll have to add "@!$%#ty joke-teller" as well.