Category Archives: Dewey

If we look at what is currently going on in our country, we shouldn’t be surprised with the responses to the pandemic. A bourgeois democracy, which according to Wikipedia means the same as “liberal democracy”, which is “a … form of government in which representative democracy … elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers … rule of law … market economy with private property … equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms …” In a bourgeois democracy any solution to end this pandemic will cause damages that are a threat to our economy. Trying to end this pandemic shouldn’t be allowed to destroy our economy.

The banning of is one of those problems that are affecting our economy. President Trump’s administration policies that banned travel from other countries, also harms our economy. Also, immigrants who are being sent back to their country and not allowed to cross the border adds to this problem during these times. These situations stop these individuals from achieving freedom and individuality that the bourgeois democracy promises.

However, the closing of schools is one of the major problems to the economy. I believe that a remedy to this country is, education. Education is important for public engagement to help determine policies that benefits the public. For example, to be involved in the decision-making of polices that impose or lift mask mandate, lockdowns and social distancing than the individual and to have some knowledge to participate in policies that serves their interests. With facts and evidence, citizens are able to hold government officials accountable for the results.

How the pandemic is being handled, has affect this economy. The economy is what makes this country run but without the freedom and individuality that bourgeois democracy promise, our economy is suffering. This means the public is suffering. The only ones who aren’t are those individuals who hold financial power. This is why closing schools down is impacting one’s ability to get a proper education that can prepare young ones to make decisions in the future that impact the public. The publics best position in this is to protect their own interest, based on democratic decisions.

.

In recent times, it has come to my attention that technological media outlets have gained more popularity as a source for news, especially social media. 

In the past, we have depended on sources such as newspapers, books, and radios to retrieve our news; but the issue with these media is they limited face-to-face communities in their easy and timely accessibility of incoming news. Thus, we have turned to technological sources like news-based sites, applications, and television channels as a means to quickly and easily obtain information.

Now more than ever, we depend on technology for news on day-to-day political, cultural, and societal issues in our country and around the world as we must isolate ourselves from face-to-face communication within our communities. This creates a constant yet intricate interaction between technological media and the public as news is widely spread, but also exposed to non-political media that participate in the disbursement of news that can modify its accuracy; the primary media being social media. Social media’s purpose is for users to create and share content, including ideas, thoughts, and opinions to network and make connections, enhancing freedom of speech. Therefore, although on one hand, social media is capable of providing true, authentic news as reliable news outlets such as The New York Times have platforms on these sites and applications, on the other hand, freedom of speech is a gateway to irrationality. Ideas, thoughts, and opinions are often created and shared impulsively and recklessly, thus ideas, thoughts, and opinions on the news are no exception. Reckless and impulsive speech creates a grand space for error, that being, the quick disbursement and receptiveness of false news before verification and validation from primary sources. 

I am certainly troubled with how the individual receives information from social media because it shapes their opinion, thus shaping the public’s opinion, thus shaping the actions of the state through false news. Newspapers, and films, and research articles, and books in addition to social media all provide the public with conflicting pieces of information, preventing them from fully comprehending and articulating their needs for desired action on current issues. 

However, it is important to clarify freedom of speech within social media does not immediately equate to false news; rather, it is the lack of education of consequence that causes selfishness of the individual that does. Efforts to eliminate fake news on social media sites consider regulating freedom of speech, such as by suspending accounts, an approach that borderline violates the public’s right to free speech. Therefore, instead of a holistic approach, a more meticulous strategy to eliminate fake news is education, especially in the child. Through education, in school, and in the family, the individual learns to be a human; to recognize their public responsibilities rather than focus on their private ambitions that can affect the public, for it is selfish to believe private actions only impact the parties involved. Education will not only better the public’s understanding that their actions have consequences, but also the effectiveness and liberty of those consequences. The comprehension of the capabilities of these consequences, then, limits selfishness. 

With a variety of users on social media, it is simple to excuse one image, one video, one statement does no harm as it will likely only misfire on the individual who shared them — so they believe. But private thought regulates public ideas as misinformation and disinformation influences the opinions and beliefs of the public eye. By educating the individual to rationally create and share content, there is a form of regulation created in which the individual and the public hold themselves accountable for fake news and prevent its spread. Hence, the answer to eliminating fake news from social media sites does not lie between complete regulation of freedom of speech or the complete removal of formal limitations, but within self-regulation.

I’ve said before that not all laws are beneficial all the time. In other words, what is a good law for the present moment might simply not fit in another. We are in an unprecedented time, thus this theory is exceedingly relevant. We have commonly disputed the issue of church and state and religious freedoms. As covid cases increase, this dispute leads to the concern of worship services as a source of the spread of the virus. The concern is that those who choose to attend worship services are putting those who choose not to at a greater risk. People’s actions are creating negative consequences for those who choose to stay at home for their safety and others’, hence creating a demand for change.

Due to present circumstances, there should be a law that prohibits people from attending a worship service during this time. This has not been done yet, but Arkansas has recently released new guidelines regarding the virus and wearing a mask when attending church. These guidelines should become enforced rules, so there might be no imposition of negative consequences for those who did not commit these actions. The government should be transforming these guidelines into mandated statute.

The state should enforce the majority interest of those who are governed. In other words, if the majority of people in a state do not agree with a statute, it should not be enforced. Most of the time. However, in consideration of a circumstance such as a pandemic, we must consider the threat people’s actions impose on others. When hundreds of people attend church, they can unknowingly expose other people who then return back to neighbors, friends, and relatives, who opted out of church to stay safe but are now threatened with sickness or death due to someone else’s actions. Thus the threat of bearing the consequence for someone else’s decisions should hold a higher importance.

An additional point to consider is the relativity of these regulations. In another circumstance it would not deem appropriate to tell the governed when and when not to worship. Freedom of religion is a liberty that should be upheld. Hence, we must consider the circumstances. Statutes relevant to church must remain within the concern of safety of others during this pandemic. As we hope for the virus to subside, we must acknowledge the demands we must currently make for church attendees cannot be the same outside of this pandemic.

The exponential growth of industry has birthed a contentious debate concerning the longevity of using fossil fuels as our primary energy source. Their fleeting abundance has given rise to our country’s economic prosperity but at the cost of the stability of the environment, and has the potential to fundamentally alter life on Earth. The economic prosperity that has been reaped will be erased as sea levels rise, geographic areas become inhabitable, and resources scarce.

Fruitless discussions are held primarily within political institutions that have no genuine interest in addressing the inevitable existential crisis that will soon confront the future electorate. Time and time again experts are called to testify to the severity of the crisis that will face our future society but their words fall upon deaf ears. Politicians chastise the facts of settled science, to which experts have all agreed upon, because of the monetary benefits of aligning themselves with businesses within the fossil fuel industry. Politicians that believe the wants of their electorate today outweigh the needs of their electorate tomorrow, and who fail to represent the democratic ideals of representation by placing the immediate financial concerns of business ahead of the health of the environment, and thus the electorate.

There is a disturbing abundance of apathy coursing through the public conscious. The apathetic can be separated into two groups by their rationalization of the looming crisis. Either they blindly and willingly accept any rebuttal ‘evidence’ that is spouted by a politician or worse, they do not care about the struggles that society will face when they are no longer apart of it. Time and effort is wasted attempting to convince voters of the direness of the effects of our current actions. Why do we lie to ourselves and believe that every citizen will suddenly become an altruist rather than continue their current ways of life? Further, it is naive to believe a business would willingly increase their costs for a future communal benefit. However, do we not owe it to our society to protect it in the future as we would to-day? Why do we steer our ship into the iceberg despite the numerous warnings?

The magnitude of this future crisis has been marked by the current state of political communication. Politicians have a responsibility to represent the best interests of their electorate, whether present or future, but represent neither when they spout falsehoods to misinform. Ultimately, their blatant failure will come to fruition long after they have exited society.