Send an email to the White House.......

You prefer pontificating?

snood, All good points. Our "public servants" have provided themselves with the best in retirement and medical benefits. How outlandish! c.i.

Craven, I understand what you're saying, but I think you're looking at it more from a technical view.

One of the unspoken parts of this is that a wall has been erected around Bush, and ordinary citizens have been exluded from any participation. All the talk about security doesn't make up for the inability of visitors to see the WH Christmas tree, or the feeling that they can communicate with the WH and at least in that way get the feeling that they're being acknowledged as people.

This goes along with the Bush press conferences. There are many who feel that his insistence about a dress code has been important, and that the limiting of questions to just a chosen few, and the prepared questions allowed are all the right and proper things. But somehow, all this, in the end, does not make Bush seem any more than one of the fearful dictators ofa small country.

The clear objective of these new email regulations is to discourage them. So what we have is an increasingly distant president (for all the talk, he's not yet even been to Baghdad), who is not available to the citizenry. Maybe he doesn't exist? Maybe he's really the wooden puppet of all his masters? At this point, who can say.

But, when it comes to something like email to the president, that's somehow goes into another category. It's not like sending a complaint to A2K.

Thanks, mamaj. I coulda said it, but I ain't got the goddam patience tonight.

I dunno. I think there can be two parallel things, without one causing the other.

I agree about Bush stage-managing his press conferences. There was that big televised press conference about the war where he refused to call on a well-known female reporter with years of experience, always called on, left-leaning... I didn't know about that until later but still wanted to throw my shoe at the TV screen for how transparent it all was.

However, I do think that the logistics are daunting, and that Craven's point about his email not being read the "old way" is valid. Will this actually result in less emails being read than in the previous system, or will it merely cut down on spam?

15,000 a day is a lot. I think they have a right to do manage the process however they can.

That doesn't mean Bush DOESN'T want to restrict access. Just that it's separate from the technical/ logistical aspects.

True - two separate issues. I think everyone (I hope) is now willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of both.

Craven -- I think that's ducking the issue. The WH could put out an honest word that they can't handle all the email rather than play footsie about it. Either they listen or they don't. They don't. Don't we know that about them? Are we kidding ourselves even more than they're trying to kid us?

Snood - us old mothers either develop patience or homicidal tendencies. Sometimes both.

OOOoooohhh.... a patient mother with homicidal tendencies... DANGEROUS!!!


Tart - we could all sidestep the plop easily, if everyone stipulates that there are two issues, not necessarily connected - the efficacy and wisdom of using technology to help insure security, and the shrinking accessibility of all public servants (specifically the prez).

I never was a homicidal mother but think it's a noble profession (homicide, I mean).

Well, I was never a homicidal mother either (altough I did have a junior marksman's medal - learned in the hills of West Virginia).

I do have other talents, you know.

No doubt.

Good idea: We're all too familiar with the spam all of us are bombarded with daily; we'd like to have them 'outlawed' or some software developed to get rid of all of it - as our choice. The other issue; accessability to Our Public Servants. I have easy access to Senator Feinstein. Not only easy access, but she always responds to my email. As for this president, well, we all know what to expect don't we? c.i.

Mainly because I do not see this as political in nature.



I agree, I have this same qualm. It's something most American presidents do, this one through certain dealings gives this perception even more.

The presidents often use the bully pulpit to communicate, rather than a give and take. Everything is so well orchestrated that the tough questions are asked of the president with greater rarity than elsewhere.

But I do not feel that this is, in any way related to the white house's email.

As I stated before I HAVE written the White hose before these changes. My emails were not opened (you can tell this by inserting a remotely located spacer image and tracking access to it).

What I think you fail to note was that in the past the presidential email address was more of a spitoon than a public phone. And if everyone wants to talk they must get in line.

I think the technical measures used to address the logistics behind such an operation are not indicative of the inaccessibility of the World leader to any spammer, prankster and activist who demands his time.

I think it's fair to say that the overwhelming majority of emails sent to the president can simply not be read by hima nd that these measures ensure that if any get through it's because of the procedure employed to separate the wheat from the chaff.



I'd not go so far as to compare him with a dictator but yes, I do agree that much of American politics is scripted for the small screen and allows for as few surprises as possible.

Bush furthers this perception.

I simply disagree that the email system has anything to do with it.



Quite right. This way people who email the president will be the more motivated sort and might put together a thoughtful email. it will lessen the use of the email address for pranks, spam and "Bush, you are an ass" emails.

I am of the opinion that it can help shape the submissions by better directing them. They can be sorted by subject etc etc.



Hey, he saw it from a plane. Said it's purple just like on the map.



Mama, I agree with you very often. Every now and then you lose me with outlandish bits. I think you are joking here but it's hard to tell because of some of the outlandish stuff that is not posted in jest.



Certainly not, I read all my emails when they are submitted to me through the proper chanels (i.e. using the contact form etc), no president ever read all his email and therein lies a big difference.

Once the president's email went public it became useless as a means of communication. I know that forms and such help make the volume of email managable.

What you fail to illustrate is whether this change does anything other than alter perception. You fail to illustrate how the changes will result in fewer emails being read.

I posit that the same amount will be read. They couldn't read them all anyway, now at least they are employing common sense in the way they process them. Kinda like how the post office likes for you to put the letters into those little slots and such and how the frown on the method of delivery which I prefer (which is to toss it into their parking lot to be swept up afterwards).

sozobe,

I agree completely on certain aspects of distance, and use of the bully pulpit to deliver rhetoric without opening one's back side. I dislike it, when asked about his resposibility for the statements in the SOTU speech he deflects with rhetoric about his decision to go to war.

But, of course, were I a politician I'd use these tactics. It's smart and those who dislike it are the people who disagree with you (and they didn't like you anyway).

tartarin,

No need to kid one's self. The president does not read email sent to him except under the rarest of circumstances. Without stating that it is an attempt to reduce the feckless emails, spam and such the accusations that this is politically motivated are evident above.

So if they came out and said it was an intentional effort to reduce email volume it'd not be honesty so much as political stupidity.

I can't read all the email I get, I get over 300 a day (today I got over 3,000 because of stupidiy on my part and I spent a good deal of my time trying to make sure this does not repeat itself). I know that the more I say I can't reply to emails and PMs the more I'm disliked for it.

All i can do is try to prioritize what I read and hope people don't hold it against me.

I can imagine why Bush doesn't want to provide sunshine for the hay. I'd not be too enthused about it wither.


-------------

Another big reason why the change is sane: viruses

Do you know how many viruses are sent to the president's address every day?

The new system is great at preventing SPAM, viruses and other junk mail, that typically constitute the buke of the email.

If out of 15,000 40% is junk (a conservative estimate) such a system greatly increases the responsiveness to messages that are not among such junk mailings.

Craven -- We doubtless come from different generations!! I still have residual dislikes for anything which isn't true, like "whiter, brighter" and "45% more, same price," and "president of all the people," and "we encourage your input..." James Q Wilson,s the conservative professor (?) and writer, speaks of small crimes going unpunished and destroying communities. I spent yesterday with a very thoughtful old friend I hadn't seen in years. We agreed that the self-destruction of America lies in its acceptance of more and more little lies, a greater and greater willingness to say, Aw well, we all know that's not true, but it's not really important. That's where my irritation with the encouraged but largely unread emails comes from. I just can't help but notice the crap and point at it.

Craven - I do want to thank you for your thoughtful, and yes, courteous, response. So often here, when responses are given to someone (particularly in quotes), they are and are intended to be mean and nasty, covered up with a spurious cleverness. I do like you reference to the fact that much of (the present) American politics is scripted for the small screen. Very apt.

Still, where we don't meet is in what I see as yet another indication of the Bush administration's removal of itself from its public. No question about the amounts, viruses, etc of the email. It is the frustration of knowing that there is no attention paid to the ordinary citizens that this represents. For me, it's part of the larger picture of refusing to meet with certain world leaders, of not reading all parts of an intelligence report (particularly those concerns that were printed in bold face), of not appeaing presidential - of making my country look less than it is. So, the difficulties added to getting an email to the president are a symbol. Listen, I know that autographed copy of JFK wasn't signed by him, but I got an answer, which made me feel somebody up there cared who I was.

You have not once illustrated that this is in any way a removal from the public. You have never illustrated that this is not a way to actually increase the amount of emails read and responded to. And furthermore you show no inclination to do so. Since I'm not as fond of meaningless repetition I'll wait until you employ factual basis in your argument before coming back to this topic.

I applaud the White House communications department for seeking solutions to the overwhelming number of emails. It might not be the best solution, but it is a start and an improvement. Perhaps there will be some empathy for the rest of us when it comes time to create and enforce the anti-spam regulations.

Seems like these days, if you really want to gum up the works at the White House and get your message read, writing it out in long-hand and mailing via snail mail would be so unique it would stand out from the crowd much like using a non-white color of paper does for a resume.

Meaningless and non-responsive impersonal form letters irk me a hell of a lot more then not receiving acknowledgement of my existence. All it means is some computer program copied my name into a form field and pressed "send."

Ooooh, Buterfly, that was a "ouch!" c.i.