In Defense of Knowledge: The People

I find the use of democratic power by "We, the People" a sobering, yet amazing phenomenon to view.

For example, I happened to wander into Madison, WI during the protests against Governor Walker two years ago now and saw the fervor in everyone's eyes. There were college students who spent their nights sleeping on the floor of the capital building practicing their rights to protest peacefully against something they believed was wrong. I watched the news and read the articles about a movement to recall Governor Walker swept the state and then blew up in the media. Wisconsin became the epicenter of  nationwide look at the Republican party and urged for intense transparency into the emerging hyper-conservatives that have grown in popularity and number.

Split down party lines, the response to these events was ferocious. All over the state, it turned into campaign season all over again. Plenty of attack ads, myriad of bumper stickers, lawn signs, billboards, NGO involvement and so much more. Those who had voted for his opponent in the original governor race were out with double the stickers and double the signs, while most of his supporters went out and supported him by not adding to the mess. Personally, I think many of them realized something that many had not. Almost all of the people who voted for him to begin with wanted his policies to go through, so they would ultimately vote for him again. No amount of attack ads or pro-union signage would change their mind. Ultimately, those people were right; Governor Walker continues to be governor of Wisconsin despite a recall attempt and disagreement from 49.9% of his constituents.

Jump forward to December of 2012 when a sudden rash of media attention brought to light the growing "epidemic" of gun violence in the United States. Walking outside that same Wisconsin capital where thousands had gathered around chanting and protesting with signs and marches were about 500 men and women carrying "Don't Tread on me" flags and openly carrying hunting rifles and pistols. Nationwide men and women organized to protest and protect their 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms while the other half of the nation solemnly stood in a circle holding candles in a vigil for the victims of Sandy Hook and the multiple other locations of violence.

However, it is important to note that the candlelit vigils in remembrance of those lost are occurring on a daily basis. Gun crime claim (based upon CDC information from 2005-10: the most recent statistics) on average 33 Americans per day. Nationwide there are 33 candlelit vigils being held in honor of people killed by a gun every night. Every night hundreds of people are gathering in remembrance. Every year (when new senators, representatives, governors, mayors, council members, aldermen, presidents, etc. are elected) several thousand gun owners clamber shoulder to shoulder to fly their flag and hold their guns.

The end result is that no matter how many people do or do not die from this issue, not to mention the countless other life takers, people will continue to gather to either side of this issue. Notice: I said either side of the issue. That's what we are all lead to believe, that there are only two strict sides to this argument, 1. gun restraints that will ultimately take all guns from gun owners, and 2. continually less strict gun regulations that will kill every innocent American. It is important to, as I recently heard, "think sideways." A citizen must (for it is their prerogative to be an informed voter) understand that no issue in government, or life, is as simple as yes or no. A rational decision is not made solely by saying yes or no. The debate is not abortion or no abortion, or guns or no guns. We must understand that a government official is fighting just as hard to keep their job as you are; to that end, no law of extremes would ever be passed. As I like to think, the phrase "politically correct" comes from the politicians themselves.

If there is only one thing you leave this post with let it be this: think sideways and never constrain your thought to binaries: there are always more than two answers.

In Defense of Knowledge: The Press

I can think of no better way to depict the collapse of modern day news with the ever increasing use of sensational and popular focused journalism than to share a recent video I find fascinating. It's the famous John Stewart appearance on Crossfire in 2004 where he details that the show (and by trade most mainstream news media) is "hurting America". The joking quickly turns to an intense conversation on the media's role in the America public's mind. Any comment I could possibly make about the media's portrayal and continued radical sensationalism towards sensitive subjects (or any subject in general) can be explained and has already been said by Jon Stewart here. Continuing my fanning of Jon Stewart atop the politically charged news mountain, while being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly in May of 2011 about a (trivial) matter concerning artist Common appearing at the White House during National Police Week, Stewart opens up discussion about banning assault weapons as being the true means of celebrating and doing something to reduce gun crime and save the lives of police officers. The point here being that sensational news is willing to grasp onto minor nitpicky details to get headlines like "President Obama spends time with Cop Killer Sympathizer" instead of talking about the real issues: reducing gun crime and death numbers. Unfortunately the particular audience that O'Reilly is aiming towards, politically speaking his constituents, are looking for such sensational news, so no outcry results.

It is of course also necessary to not focus solely on the Newton, Connecticut victims, but give attention to those that have died before and after the terrible event. A crowdsource activity (found here)between Slate and twitter handle: @gundeaths has started to compile incomplete statistics on gun deaths that have occurred since the Newton tragedy. I mean to point out this article because of its futuristic appeal to the audiences of world. Twitter has started to take over social media, statistics of Twitter mentions surpassed Facebook mentions during the Superbowl the other night. It's incredible to think of the power behind a mere 140 characters, but once you do, you begin to reevaluate the reasons behind hour long news programs that aren't rapid fire run downs of the news, but repetitions of the same second-, third- or fourth-hand news regurgitated over and from all of the affiliates. Twitter is now the go-to site for digestion and dissemination of information across the world. Outcries of support were thrown onto the internet in the Middle East during the several protests that occurred throughout the past few years and it has slowly crept its way up behind Facebook, and now beyond. Larry King used to take questions on his show from Twitter. Modern day news shows have started to lean upon the social media revolution occurring everyday because they know that soon enough, they will be surpassed by the power of our own words. A national network of interconnected points of view is a powerful thing to share the stage with. Soon the finely suited newscasters will (and are as we speak) be replaced by plain clothed everyday Joes running around the world with a smart phone in hand. Newscasters and their slow moving vans are dependent upon traffic and weather, giant cameras are unwieldy and need time to set up. A man or woman walking down the street with Twitter, iMessage, or Facebook open on their iPhone will, within three seconds, have their camera open, snapping pictures or live tweeting some of the most major events, usually before news organizations know about it. This is the media revolution, this is the social media revolution, this is the evolution of news.

In Defense of Knowledge

Since the devastating events of the Sandyhook shooting several weeks ago the government, NGOs and the people themselves have started speaking out and clamoring for change. The prominent democratic view currently is a series of strict gun control laws that will presumedly inhibit more massacres like Virginia Tech, Aurora, Colorado, Sandy Hook Elementary, the mall shooting in Oregon, and the countless other massacres that occur on a daily basis. Nongovernmental Organizations like the NRA are doing what they do best, feeding spun information to the public (mostly their constituents), just as the democrats and republicans are battling in the House, Senate, and press. The press is, as always, spending an undue amount of time on these massacres, potentially instilling a sense of stardom associated with them (to be explained later). Finally, the people of this fair democracy are also sharing their opinions in a multitude of ways. Posts of pro- and anti-gun images and literature litter social media. Rallies are occurring throughout the states, men and women exercising their right to bare arms and free speech are marching on their state capital waving "Don't Tread on Me" flags. Then there is one of the newest developments: the government conspiracy video that has exploded on YouTube, reaching over ten million views.

Every time I see our democratic institution work on the political, private, and personal level, I am overjoyed. To see all of the actors of our government flexing their muscles and being proactive in what they can do and say is something rarely seen. Very few times does this nation ever experience a tragedy that is able to grip all spectrums of life, moving people who not normally are activists to participate in their government. Aside from my own beliefs, I am glad to see all cogs of political life in progress.

Unfortunately, a byproduct of all of this involvement in political institutions leads to the sullying of information networks with falsified information, conspiracy theory, and misdirections cause by these main political actors: the press, the government, NGOs and the people.