Is Obama Technology's first Presidential Candidate?

I was watching a great movie called Recount on HBO last week. The movie stars Kevin Spacey, Dennis Leary and others and is about the Bush-Gore paper "hanging chad" fiasco in Florida during the 2000 election. Really entertaining TV in a day when if it were not for animated movies, we would have little to watch. Reality shows for me are for people without a reality. But I digress.

It got me to thinking, "what if technological advances in voting" had been around in 2000 like they are now in elections? Who would have won? Would Al "Green" Gore have been our President? Possible. Can't "hang a chad" online until 3-D virtual reality comes around. One thing I wouldn't want to see is Catherine Harris in virtual reality, but I digress.


Fast forward to today, Obama (funny how he has elevated to "one name" status with Prince and Madonna) gets the great majority of his fundraising war chest (it is 3X Hilary Clinton) through use of the Internet and the concept of "social communities meet giving". One of the early founders of Facebook has helped design this "technology driven community and donation model".

Hence, since more money brings more votes in most cases, can you make the case that technology, the non-use in year 2000 and the extended use in 2008, is influencing our Presidential election? Could Obama become America's first "technology president"?

Wonder what the future holds for us in the electoral process? Come hear these discussions at the So Cal Digital Tech Forum on June 9 - 10 However, at this pace of technology advancement, I will be voting for an Avatar for President by 2020.

Thoughts?

Stem Cells: The Holy Grail, The Jury's Still Out, or Somewhere in between?

Stem Cell money and grants are starting to work their way into California universities and communities, as it has in many other states and countries (congrats to UCI being awarded $27.2M for the new stem cell building) most of the initial expenditures, of course, are on critical facilities, training and faculty. This is how core, fundamental developmental research is ignited.


Normally the public would not look for a direct, economic benefit from such research (translational is another story), but would the public feel short changed if stem cell research does not have a direct impact and create the "next greatest drug or medical advance"?


I think they might. Are Stem Cells being 'set up for the fall' years from now? Will stem cell methods and processes further develop? Of course they will; but quickly enough? Or does it really matter as fundamental research is paramount?

How come kids get a trophy for everything these days?

I was enjoying a nice Saturday afternoon with my 6 year old working on the computer (after his baseball game and after he helped his little sister as he will be "well rounded" if it is the last thing I (or he) does; but I digress).

Forget the fact that he can search web sites, has his favorite pulldown menu and knows how to naviagte the control menu, I noticed his sports trophies...all SEVEN of them! We had to buy a side table to hold them as the top of his dresser became too crowded. He is 6!

What is it with trophies for just "showing up"? Is this good enough? It is certainly a positive step to "get started" but is this a good example for teenagers and young adults that as long as they show up they will be rewarded and all will be fine? Is this REALLY in the best interest for them down the line? What the heck happended to struggling, competing, winning, losing, celebrating, crying and challenging yourselves to be better? Is that not "in vogue" anymore?

Well it should be. Efforts like OCTANe Next, MIND Institute and other innovative groups focus on results and help PREPARE our youth in an "outcome driven way"; that is future careers and the hope that a high value job will enable them to have a good and productive life.

After all ... business is not an intramural sport.

Thoughts?