Tag Archives: Dewey

by | April 18, 2019 · 4:50 pm

The Crisis in Journalism

A critical problem plaguing society is the prevalence of misinformation in the press. If we as a society allow personal bias to twist the words of individuals, then we are doing a disservice to society as a whole. Some may see any limitations placed on the press to be regressive. However, these individuals fail to comprehend the conception of historic relativity. Nothing is more oppressive to liberty than ignoring pressing issues that tear down the social contract between an individual and those that represent them in society. Effective liberty is only possible with social cognizance from the shapers of public policy.

The ever-changing world of technology presents new challenges in 21st-century society. The recently proposed legislation in Georgia, which would establish a journalism ethics board, aims at tackling the issue of misinformation in the age of social media. Lawmakers are addressing a relevant and pressing matter that has worsened with the rise of social media. Fake news often relies on personal bias, false memories, and misattribution in order to influence how individuals interpret and remember information. I cite this particular fact to shed light on the psychological reasoning that may explain the uptick of fake news and cyber propaganda.

The crisis in liberalism is the rise of untrustworthy information and the rapid spread of said information on a global scale, which has a profound effect on featured individuals. The credibility of news is being tarnished by the appearance of information masquerading as trustworthy, hiding behind the legitimacy of major news organizations, while actually spreading misinformation. Those whose words yield great power have a societal responsibility and should be held accountable for the ideas that they introduce into society. Individuals interviewed for the news have the right to give context and debunk any misleading presentation of their character. These statements do not imply that all news organizations are knowingly spreading false information, but establishing a journalism ethics board would hold journalists accountable for how they choose to present information.

The problem of misinformation becomes the problem of society, extending to all areas of the globe as a result of the internet, in which the public’s opinions, knowledge, and ideas are shaped by news organizations. Journalists have a duty to the people to sustain them with knowledge that is accurate, fair, and thorough. “Such an organization demands much more of education than general schooling” and carries the duty of freeing individuals from their slavish instincts by presenting unbiased, fact-checked information with integrity (31). It demands more of journalism.

Comments Off on The Crisis in Journalism

Filed under Dewey

Tagged as ,

by | · 11:52 am

Assessing the Fake News Epidemic

Never before in history have our communities been so interlinked; the boons and benefits of social media, and the internet as a whole, cannot be understated, for through them information is proliferated in ways it never has before, and is available now to more people than ever. Such revolutionary developments have their pitfalls, however, and that which is popularly being referred to as fake news is blighting the network of information that these past decades have so carefully crafted. Falsity in reporting is hardly a new phenomenon. The problem arises from how easy it now is to inject it into the stream of information that flows into the public, and how simple it is to disguise it as credible fact when it is truly nothing but deception.

These frustrations require some solution, lest we suffer further descent of our public by this corruption of our most sacred and powerful unifying force: our now nearly limitless capacity to communicate. But what solution would suffice that could not be called an injustice? What remedy is there that exists that would not prompt a vicious outcry, a rally for the preservation of that vital, considered even inherent, part of our society: free speech? For in spite of the public fury stirred over falsities and calumnies spread through the world like fact, there has likewise been an equally insistent voice deriding the very thought of attempting to censor what others may have to say.

Yet there is another facet to this corruption – it is far more complicated than lies being spread as truth and being difficult to recognize. It is true, much of the public is inclined to believe news at face value, especially when encountering information that subscribes to the worldviews they have adopted. However, these same people also wield the label of fake news as a hammer, a weapon with which they seek to strike down that information that opposes their ideals or beliefs. Fake news is more than an inconvenience; quite the opposite, in fact. It serves as an incredibly convenient tool for one seeking to discredit that which does not conform to the palette.

This complexity, along with the determined preservation of free speech – a goal that will perpetually remain noble – makes the question about what to do about this phenomenon difficult to answer. Regulation is one simple remedy. However, allowing the government to regulate the news is a slope far too slippery to be navigable, and the public would never accept it, such is their mistrust now of their authority figures. It is this mistrust that would likewise ensure that what facts the government put forth and emphasized as truth would be viewed with even more skepticism. The more an organization seeks to convince the world of their veracity, the more doubt they accrue, and the more skeptics they create.

Another proposal, if implemented properly, could aid in alleviating the problem, if only marginally. There are, at the moment, independently-operated websites that check facts, confirm the authenticity of statements, and point out glaring errors in reporting. These services are quickly becoming more and more necessary for the preservation of the sanctity and increasingly crippled credibility of our information proliferation. However, they are utilized with far less frequency than they should. The devotion of resources, either privately or through the government, to maintain these websites and bring them to the forefront of our culture, would be one step of many to, rather than regulate speech and communication through the censorship that would create a furious public, establish what information is credible, and what information should be discarded or ignored.

Setting limitations on what can be read and viewed in society is a dangerous prospect, given the sanctity of the precepts that have long stood in opposition of just that. So in lieu of such limitations, encouragement to seek the truth and emphasis on identifying what is truly false is perhaps even vital to society. The public needs to quickly understand whether the object of its attention is a deception, or the truth. We have established the communication we require to make our society truly great. Now we must maintain it.

Comments Off on Assessing the Fake News Epidemic

Filed under Dewey

Tagged as ,

by | April 17, 2019 · 10:39 pm

Freedom of Inquiry Through Regulation of Fake News

There was a time when the foremost thinkers of our country declared that freedom of speech was to be an unalienable right that could not be mitigated or silenced no matter the circumstances. These men lived in a time when speech consisted of careful public deliberation between well educated people who took careful consideration to thoroughly understand all aspects of each nuanced issue and argued either in person, in a well rehearsed and/or careful speech, or through painstaking writing that was carefully crafted on parchment with pen and ink and sent on a slow and winding journey to hopefully be delivered to its intended recipient. However, we now stand at a time when words and ideas can be passed instantly from one person to the next, reaching previously unreachable audiences, influencing previously uninterested people, and not always allowing the proper time, location, or means to create meaningful solutions to the problems at hand. Industrialization has brought us a new reality and set of circumstances, and we must alter our mode of thinking to fit our new environment. The new age of social media we are living in has created a new environment with previously unforeseen circumstances, therefore, necessitating a reevaluation of the value that total, unmitigated free social inquiry provides when contrasted with its consequences.

Recently, the country has seen an onslaught of fake news on social media sites. It seems as though every Facebook friend’s mother is constantly sharing a news story so blatantly false, one cannot believe any person was ever incompetent enough to fall for its lies. The spread of these news stories proves that that fake news can be an effective means for changing people’s minds, influencing political trends, and creating social movements. People are easily swayed by the eye catching aesthetics of fake news media that play to the ignorance of the general citizenry and threaten our democracy.

There exists an enduring idea that if each individual is given the power to contribute his ideas and people deliberate about those ideas, the best ideas, the ideas that will serve the most people in the greatest way, will surface, and we will be better for it. Unfortunately, this is not true. No longer can individuals achieve omnicompetence as they maybe once could as there is not enough time in the day to full comprehend all of the multifaceted and quickly changing issues facing our world every day. For this reason, we must work together as a society to combine our knowledge and education in hopes of achieving a communal omnicompetence. We must carefully and deliberately choose the best ideas to consider and use the most educated minds to help us to determine the solution that most aptly fits within our society in its present state.

We are living in a new world of instant messaging, constant communication, and the high-speed transmission of news, yet we are continuing to live as if public discussion is conducted through oratory in a public square. As the times change, we must adapt our means of communication in order to best serve our democracy. In order to effectively plan for our greatest democracy, we cannot allow this spread of fake news to continue. The expulsion of fake news must be deliberately planned in order to stop its deleterious effects. While fake news arguably serves individual liberty, as it allows each person to do exactly as he wishes, it deprives people of the opportunity for development of individual capacity and free intellectual inquiry because it halts individuals on their quest for knowledge and journey towards self-improvement by being constantly bombarded with false information which he is forced to discern. Social media can be a place for free social inquiry, but it must be regulated to serve the public interest rather than the private interest.

Comments Off on Freedom of Inquiry Through Regulation of Fake News

Filed under Dewey

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | December 12, 2017 · 4:52 am

The Province of Whims Cannot Be An Emergency, Mr. Dewey!

If only people like Mr. Dewey would refrain from advocating for the province of whims through publications like his piece on the Opioid Crisis, perhaps the world would not be “collapsing to a lower and ever lower rung of hell.” In this piece, Dewey makes two futile and inherently irrational attempts. Firstly, he tries to define the opioid crisis as an emergency in need of government intervention. Secondly, he promotes a specific proposal as rational and reasonable.

In attempting to define the opioid epidemic as an emergency, Dewey praises President Trump for allegedly taking “a step in the right direction” by declaring the opioid epidemic a “90-day public health emergency.” There are three main qualifiers for emergencies, and this particular case does not satisfy any of them. Essentially, “an emergency is an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible.” Drug use is a choice, at least at some point in time. Particularly, it is a choice that is categorized as being a whim, since it is irrational and pursues short-lived pleasure in exchange for a threat on one’s health and life. Additionally, it is not necessarily an unexpected event. As Dewey even says in the final paragraph of his article, this type of behavior and abuse can be foreseen in individuals. Prescription drugs tend to lead patients down this path, meaning that it is not an entirely unexpected outcome for many of its victims. Finally, although it is life-threatening, the opioid epidemic is not necessarily short-lived, as Dewey again acknowledges when he asserts that a more “permanent” solution is necessary.

Since the opioid epidemic cannot be considered an emergency, then it also cannot be considered moral for individuals to sacrifice their hard-earned money or any other effort to help a stranger. Emergencies are the only situations in which it is ethically acceptable to sacrifice or risk sacrifice, and it is also required that the individual be readily willing and able to make the sacrifice with minimal damage to themselves. Unfortunately, the interventions and programs that Charlie Baker has proposed simply violate these fundamental, rational principles. These programs would not simply be free; in fact, they would cost the employees and taxpayers a great sum of money compared to how much it might be able to add. While it would be nice in some ways, it almost certainly isn’t the case that all taxpayers would agree with their money going to fund this cause, which would mean that taxpayers are being forced to sacrifice, which is inherently immoral.

Additionally, Dewey makes it appear as if there are a variety of other drugs on the market that can help manage the pain caused by illnesses and other health issues. While this may be true, it is apparent that these drugs are the best that we have, for now, since these are the ones being used by doctors and their patients. If we assume that they are rational human beings, then it is implied that both doctor and patient have agreed upon the drug’s usage, due to it being some combination of less expensive and more effective than the other drugs on the market. Thus, if restrictions were to be placed on this drug, then people that find more value in it than other drugs would not be able to get it. Once again, the wellness of the collective is prioritized above the wellness of the individuals.

So, even though it may cause harm to more than just an involved individual to some degree, the opioid crisis is not technically an emergency. Since it is not a situation in which strangers can help strangers and still maintain their ethical integrity, the opioid crisis should not be considered a public issue. It is certainly concerning that individuals in our society would choose to follow their whims rather than rationality, even when it becomes a threat to their own life; however, we must handle this concern by modeling good morals ourselves, not by stooping to their level of whims and altruism.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Dewey, Rand

Tagged as , , , ,

by | December 11, 2017 · 5:08 pm

Compulsory? More like complicit…

John Dewey’s intent in “Education Reform = Compulsory Community Service” is asinine to liberty. The assertion that there should be mandatory community work for any individual who is seeking a public or high education is impractical and makes several dangerous assertions. It rides on a collectivist ethics approach that usurps a free individual’s rights. Dewey goes on to make the argue that the impetus for this compulsory community service is so that it more closely models and reflects our democratic values. There were a lot of compulsory activities in the USSR. These activities were implemented in a similar light- for the aid and benefit of the community, but nobody had the audacity to pretend like it was advancing a democratic society.

So, we find the proposition, “adults cannot succeed in a democratic society that does not incorporate the value of community service and social support into an already compulsory education. We cannot only focus on molding our children’s minds we must teach them how to be compassionate as well as hard working. We must also teach our citizens that working hard only to benefit one’s own life is not what is best for our community and our posterity.” This sounds like it is spoken directly from the lips of Karl Marx. It’s this justification that makes this idea so dangerous. Here we can see that since the action is altruistic that it justifies the compulsory nature of it. It’s a speculation of what the “society” should do to help a community. Here is the dangerous precedent; the collectivist assumption that regards this issue as a problem or duty of society as a whole. The only way that the security or altruistic value is complete, is to require the expense of others and those contributing. In today’s fast-moving world, people lead busy lives. Many people must go to school and work as well. Many have families that they need to go home to and provide for. While you may be happy with compulsory cleaning of a park for the benefit of everyone, know that it came at the cost of a mother or father not getting to be with their children, at the expense of a person who is not able to provide for themselves because they cannot work and complete the compulsory service as well.

The precedent extends to an even more dangerous ideology. If there be a collectivist premise, whether altruistic or not, it creates the assumption that man belongs to society and not himself. This is the degradation of a free society to one quite literally of communism- sacrifice of one’s self for the greater good. This altruistic approach to humanitarian issues, while seemingly a good idea, leads to the decay of individual rights. This is especially true when it comes in the form of political mandates and legislation. That is a pure dictatorial ideology. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” said Marx. It’s the second portion that’s worrisome. He’s speaking to what he believes should be the sentiment of society. “…to each according to his need,” is the “humanitarian” part of his vision. The problem though, as mentioned, is the means of accomplishing it. Yes, a clean park is nice, but to whom? The working mother trying to obtain her college degree who is having to spend time picking up dog feces and candy wrappers because she is mandated to by the government? Tending a community garden could be another example. What will you say to the elderly woman finally obtaining her degree who is on medication that requires her to stay out of direct sun and arthritis that prevents her from stooping over? Will she receive special accommodations? Alternative assignments? How will we know that her altered work is equivalent to what the others are doing? It’s impractical.

This concept is frightening. Compulsory anything can’t be an advancement of a free and democratic society. Don’t be fooled by the guise of altruistic collective ethics. They are just as dangerous as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Any forced humanitarian work will be the demise of individual right and the first stepping stone towards Communism. Dewey misinterprets what’s best for a society, by advancing government intervention in individual decisions of what is considered ethical, or just.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Dewey, Rand

Tagged as , , , ,

by | · 4:44 pm

Public School… Prison… What’s The Difference?

I chuckle with wholehearted disgust at John Dewey’s assertion in “Private Education Disrupts Democratic Education System” (https://sites.dwrl.utexas.edu/liberrimus/2017/11/15/private-education-disrupts-democratic-education-system/) that the collectivist values imbued in public schooling’s curricula serve to “[allow] the majority of the population reach their individual freedom”.

Dewey boldly claims that the “encouragement” of parents placing their children in private schools “violates the student’s opportunity to be submerged in various perspectives, cultures, and religions.” I fail to see any violation here; if a student or parent decides that they would rather not engage in an opportunity to be exposed to X or Y, then that is entirely within their prerogative. Johnny here seems to forget that we have the right to pursue our interests, whatever they may be, and are not inherently entitled to them; education, jobs, healthcare, adequate pay, etc. are all commodities — you have the right to obtain these, of course! But you’ll have to earn them. If you yearn for something, you must work hard for it. (Similarly, if an option is as unsavory to you as is Dewey’s argument to me, you could just walk away from it – spend your time striving toward your interests.) The laziness that ensues when individuals feel as though they are entitled to everything is a heavy detriment to the well-being of the country. Rather, the fervor, ambition, and strength of character born of passionate efforts toward self-realization are reflective of both the vitality of the people and of the nation.

Beyond this, encouraging people to enroll their children into public schools is the true evil.

Children are not property of the state — the people responsible for them are their guardians. The government has no place in familial life, since its major and only purpose is to ensure our rights; it is our protective agent, not a separate entity who can extend its own judgements to decide what brand of cereal schools serve and what poisonous propaganda their teachers regurgitate onto our children’s fresh and feeble minds. Schooling, being a commodity, necessitates an intimate agreement made by the parent/student and the teacher deciding the worth of the service. When the government overreaches (whether it be a Federal or National government) and decides what kids ought to learn and what to what to wage their teachers, it nullifies, it destroys, the need for personal agreements because it becomes the one deciding the value! Were anyone entitled by the light of the heavens to any commodities, it would mean that the hard-working endeavors of the individuals providing the services would be given without their deserved cost… I thought you had moved past your adolescence, past slavery, America?

Dewey argues in further perpetuation of slavery, this time, of the mind:
“The state set education system, while separate from other parts of the country, is a broader reflection of the cultural and physical aspects of the given society that each individual who graduates from public schools must assimilate into.”

Individuals are not and should not be constricted by their roles in “society”, because they are people. People’s responsibility is to the self, for acting in accordance to the whims of an invisible collective is a compromise the weak must engage in with total internal dishonesty. Acting in dependence to others disintegrates the sense of self – was America not built on the voraciousness of the individual? If our brightest stars are dulled because of a pressure to conform to the masses, what hope is there for continued intellectual or economic success? The mere thought of forced, or, in Dewey’s terms, “encouraged”, assimilation rattles everything within me, from my sturdy Russian bones to whatever morsel of respect I have left for America, given its tragic Progressive streaks.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Rand

Tagged as ,

by | November 15, 2017 · 4:15 am

Another Mass Shootings Post

Last weekend, America was shocked by yet another mass shooting incident.  Nearly 50 people were shot, with 27 of those being fatalities.  Just minutes after the news broke, social media became a frenzy and the two very distinct sides of the gun debate reemerged.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regardless of which side of the second amendment a person stands on, everyone (I would hope) can agree on one thing: Devin Kelley should have never been able to purchase a gun.  Unlike the Las Vegas shooter, who had no criminal record and little mental health history other than a Valium prescription, Kelley had a longstanding and well documented criminal and mental health background.

Kelley’s colorful past included him serving time imprisoned for beating his wife and cracking his stepson’s scull, for which he received a ‘bad conduct’ discharge from the Air Force.  He had been institutionalized in a mental health facility, and at one point he briefly escaped.  He had an animal cruelty charge that kept him from obtaining a license to carry in Texas.  He was arrested in New Mexico after sneaking guns onto an Air Force base in an alleged attempt to carry out death threats.  And, to top it all off, he was the suspect in an unsolved rape case.

Nonetheless, Kelley was able to pass the background check required to buy guns on four separate occasions and in two different states.  In a time when we can share information across the world in just seconds, it is absurd that none of his history showed up.  The sheer amount of times he slipped through the cracks shows that this failure was no anomaly, but the result of a systematic issue.

Despite the fact that everyone wants these shootings to stop, the gun control issue has become so polarized that it seems there’s no way to mediate the topic.  There is no discussion when it comes to the gun debate, only insults thrown.  Both sides are so strongly dedicated to their stances that no one is willing to communicate with each other.  The politicians who have the power to make the change seem to be too worried about upsetting their constituencies to put forth bipartisan regulation.  Instead, the Democrats push for overly ambitious bills while Republicans push for the opposite.

The only way we will be able to move past this is if we communicate.  There are thousands of studies on this topic, and every citizen needs to work to try and understand the actual research, rather than just spewing their (uneducated) opinions.  The longer we remain stalemated in our prideful viewpoints, the more lives will be lost.  We must listen to each other and try to understand others’ reasons for their beliefs in order to compromise.  Then, and only then, we will be able to come to a gun control solution that works for everyone and actually passes into law.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Dewey

Tagged as , , ,

by | · 4:10 am

Dewey on Anti-Harassment Training

What seems like a random influx of sexual harassment accusations and depositions in the media, is actually a result of generations and generations of gender oppression. Throughout history, women have been deemed inferior to their male counterpart, often seen as less credible, or less intelligent. This mentality has not only threatened the safety of women, but has allowed men their free will in exchange for women’s.

As more and more victims of sexual harassment step forward to admit their experiences in hopes of helping others, it’s no surprise an uprise of allegations regarding members of the House and Senate has ensued. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan announced the House is adopting a policy change that mandates all members and staff of Capitol Hill partake in anti-discrimination and anti-harassment training. Though this policy is directed towards both men and women, as anyone is at risk for experiencing unwanted sexual remarks/advances, its creation still shows that women’s voices are becoming more powerful.

This policy that lawmakers are setting into place is the least the government could do in terms of preventing sexual harassment in the workplace, but it is something John Dewey would solemnly agree with. Dewey, a notable philosopher and respected educator, strongly advocated for democracy and believed school is where social reform takes place. Ryan’s efforts to address the issue align with Dewey’s ideology, in that learning is a social and interactive process that, in turn, could be used to improve social interactions.

As someone who believed the government exists to serve the community, one could conclude that in order to begin combating sexual harassment, Dewey would have first determined if the issue at hand affected the community as a whole, i.e determining whether or not something is a private or public matter. With an issue like sexual harassment, the victim in the situation is having their rights infringed upon, stripped of their free will as they’re forced to succumb to unwanted inappropriate advances. But how does that affect the public? As Dewey stated in The Public and Its Problems, under a chapter titled The Eclipse of the Public, “American democratic polity was developed out of genuine community life, that is, association in local and small centres where industry was mainly agricultural and where production was carried on mainly with hand tools” (101). And as society progressed, community life became increasingly complicated, forcing people to begin making decisions based on the collective whole they were a part of, and not solely based on themselves as individuals in said community.

Sexual harassment is a public matter because it affects individuals; individuals who have the potential to do great by the world can be temporarily, if not permanently, affected by a negative experience, and ultimately their dreams and aspirations could be placed on hold or tossed out entirely due to someone else’s selfish desires. When these victims give up their dreams, it negatively impacts the community, as their ideas could’ve been revolutionary for society but will remain undiscovered, unable to surface above the harsh memory, depriving everyone else a chance at a better tomorrow.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Dewey

Tagged as

by | November 2, 2016 · 2:02 am

Media Bias in the 2016 Presidential Election

The endless quarrel between Secretary Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election has ignited discussion in almost every form. Whether it be in person, on Facebook, or in the classroom, everyone seems to be talking about the heated election. With early voting already in session and election day right around the corner, I would like to draw attention to how the news has discussed both candidates and how they have handled media coverage throughout the campaign period. Although every television station and news distributor is eager and required to cover each candidate, if we analyze articles and clips from particular news websites we can easily see the patterns and themes within their tone and amount of coverage. Furthermore, through such analysis, we can easily see that modern-day news stations are highly political and biased in their coverage. It is of upmost importance that voters be informed and educated during this important time of year, but also develop opinions and beliefs on their own and without the influence of the news they read and watch daily. With this in mind, we can see how such coverage could influence and sway a voter in a certain direction. By highlighting the wrongdoings of the journalism industry, voters can make well-informed decisions and formulate opinions about who is better qualified to be President of the United States.

Taking into consideration the number of news stations in America, for my analysis I will focus on only a few. By taking note of the existing trends in American media, it’s easily recognizable that certain news stations have deeper political roots than others. The evidence is reflected in the average audience political affiliations. Specifically, according to a Business Insider survey, on average “Fox’s audience leans conservative, while CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC have audiences that lean left.” Among the newspapers, the New York Times and the Huffington Post identifies more with liberal audiences and USA Today tends to grab the attention of left wing readers. While some news distributors pride themselves on neutral and balanced news coverage, many of the most popular news stations and papers lean on one side or the other. With regards to the current election, we must consider the type and amount of coverage each candidate has received and from what source. For example, throughout his presidential campaign, Donald Trump has claimed the mainstream media is corrupt and is poisoning the minds of American voters. Even more, he has suggested that the biased media are “Hillary Clinton’s lapdogs in the presidential election.” Perhaps Trump is alluding to the 200 plus newspapers that have already endorsed Hillary Clinton. In sum, both candidates seem to be receiving the same amount of media coverage, but Trump has had more negative coverage in comparison to Clinton. This presidential election may have the most lopsided media coverage the US has ever seen. To many, his claims may seem outrageous, but Trump brings to light a serious issue for voters that is applicable even outside of the election season. With the media influencing their audiences, voters are unable to formulate opinions about policy on their own.

trumpchyron1

To those who speculate the reality of media bias, Huffington Post writer, Jeffrey Ann Goudie, admits that journalists are individuals with their own political affiliations and beliefs. In response to his claims, she suggests that “before bashing the media, Trump needs to know what I learned in J-School, that the media do have a bias – for fact-gathering and for trying to tell the truth.” Regardless of the intentions behind the news coverage, the influence the media has on it’s audience is manipulative and persuasive. From my own work of The Public and its Problems: Search for the Great Community, I would like to emphasize that “the adulteration of knowledge is due not to its use, but to vested bias and prejudice, to one-sidedness of outlook, to vanity, to conceit of possession and authority, to contempt or disregard of human concern in its use.” We must continue to expose the influence of the media and encourage voters to educate themselves, formulate opinions, and choose the candidate they believe will guide our nation in the right direction.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Dewey

Tagged as

by | October 26, 2016 · 1:00 am

A Community of Distracted Driving

Communication between individuals will support the shared interest towards the ambition of a great community. Singular individuals are now experiencing the eclipse of their public due to a lack of interrelated concentration that will unify an otherwise barren and empty society. Take for instance, the defilement of public safety aroused by persons who engage in texting while driving. I fully approve of the bill anticipating approval in Washington D.C. to enact this stern reprimand of those who utilize a hand-held device when operating a motor car. Populaces that corrupt the law by texting and driving are soon to face a significantly more severe punishment if caught in the act.

Society has generally developed into a state of passive ignorance for the effects of their actions and the impact that is inherited upon other. While people are subject to social influences that determine they can think of, plan or choose, their tentative courses of actions invariably will unescapably bear an impression upon those around them. With this injurious social trend of texting and driving, some of these impressions are more inedible than others. Consequences such as financial devastation, caustic injury, and definite mortality are the most prospective of effects that can possibly transpire against innocents.

distracted-driving-2

While a terrifying and potential reality, texting and driving is a simple matter but yet proves to be quite devastating. However, in order to progress towards the great community, we must take action by believing in our citizens. Citizens are intelligent or can learn to be intelligent; citizens can engage in public affairs and intelligently elect representatives. As they have made, the D.C. council will vote upon this bill that will ensure an incentive based off unembellished penance. While I fully in support of this bill, the encouragement of understanding the dangerous action shall be promoted to the most widespread degree. In relative communication of society towards a shared greater goal, we deem our elected rulers as responsible with the power of the positive conversion.

An inordinate fault upon the pursuit of a community that is safe from texting and driving is the community’s breakdown in association. As I expressed in “The Search for the Great Community” section of The Public and its Problems, calling a matter a public opinion that is not rooted within fact does not rightly make it so. An action and its justification lead astray a false pretense and influence of what is beneficial to society. Many individuals do not view texting and driving as a force to be reckoned when it comes to the welfare of their lives and the wellbeing of those around them.

Vertical interaction amongst all passes of society, from the abdicants of the law to the upholders of the law to the regulators of the law, can effectively sway public opinion towards a form of knowledge rather than a form of opinion. Public cynicism and apathy provide a challenging obstacle for progress, yet the aforementioned belief in the citizens and spread of public fact dismiss any notion or skeptic thought. Men feel they are caught in the sweep of forces too vast to understand or master. Yet political and social interests provide an escape of ignorance for the public. Admittingly, there is too much pageantry in the public, however communication about the dangers of texting and driving form organizations that renovate ideas and ideals.

An effective engine of improvement is a step towards the great community, but for this vision to ever be possible; an enlightenment of knowledge and democracy has to been enacted. This bill in Washington D.C. provides an alternative from the eclipse of the public. An approval, a public knowledge, and a belief in the citizens, elections, and association have to be generated. Texting and driving pose a appalling threat, yet the bill that spreads awareness and provides incentive spawns a community built fact rather than public opinion. A new age of human relationships has shaped into being a deterrent of individual existence and a step towards the great community.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Dewey

Tagged as