Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts

Friday, June 10, 2011

Lupe Calls Obama a Terrorist


Before fully divulging myself in the topic, let me provide some disclosure. I've been a fan of Lupe Fiasco's work dating back to his mixtape days before he released his debut album, "Food and Liquor." He has earned a cult following by artfully manipulating the English language in a way that is aesthetically pleasing and intellectually engaging while communicating pertinent and relatable themes. In other words, I'm a biased fanboy who proudly stood in the front row at one of his concerts rapping all the words to his songs right back at him.

As a Muslim-American poet and a wordsmith, his lyrical midi-clorians are off the scale, and while he's driven towards good, his Machiavellian means may be considered sithly. Concerned less about logistics and political goals and leaning more towards lighting an inspirational fire deep in the hearts of his audience to push them towards personal enlightenment, Lu is a staunch advocate for peace and social engagement. Yet despite his potential power, he encourages self-actualization and avoids explicitly exerting control over his followers.




While in the past he has been much more subtle with his political overtones, Lu elects to go on the record with his single "Words I Never Said." Fed up with the status quo and determined to empower the voices of the silenced, the lyrics combine with stunning visuals in the music video to proclaim an anti-establishment, pro-peace position. Alluding to brainwashing by the popular media, a power-structure that intentionally stifles upward mobility, the American tendency to medicate the symptoms and not the problem, and the use of fear as a means of control, Lupe accurately diagnosis many of the issues that plague our world; he's lost hope in traditional means of change, and sees an uprising from the people as the only way to overcome the systemic corruption. While an underground rebellion against Big Brother may be a great narrative, something tells me that change in America will not follow the Egyptian model. Ultimately, Lupe delivers a call to arms without a clear strategy, objective, or even enemy, which ironically sounds a lot like American Imperialism and the wars he's protesting.

This rebel-with-a-cause-but-no-substantial-cure may indicate that Lu believes that a grassroots solution originating from the ground is the only viable alternative. Thus, his role is that of a motivator, an instigator, and a beacon to rally around. During his appearance on the Colbert Report, he emphasized holding authority accountable and engaging in active analysis of politicians even if you support them. This is an issue that many progressives have been struggling over: is it ok to criticize a Democratic President in hopes of pulling him further to the left, or will the lack of solidarity within the party create a dangerous political fallout that could jeopardizes Barack's re-election?

As a fellow black man from Chicago, the conventional wisdom says that Lupe should be a strong advocate for Obama, and that's partially true. Lu supports campaign-Obama who promised both progressive change and government transparency to allow for active criticism by watchdogs who keep the government honest. However, on the issue of utmost concern to Lupe Fiasco, Obama has failed to bring peace to the Middle East and has continued many of the Bush policies by extending the Patriot Act, failing to close Guantanamo, and keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hence, it is no surprise that a peaceful Muslim who constantly denounces violence and the actions by radicals acting in the name of Islam would speak out against the absence of foreign policy changes for the region.



"In my fight against terrorism, to me, the biggest terrorist is Obama in the United States of America. For me, I’m trying to fight the terrorism that’s actually causing the other forms of terrorism. The root cause of the terrorism is the stuff that you as a government allow to happen and the foreign policies that we have in place in different countries that inspire people to become terrorists."


Is Obama the cause of Terrorism? No, but is he the change he promised to be during his '08 campaign? No. He's a constitutional law professor playin' politics by the books and appeasing a multitude of players. Pragmatists rarely lead revolutions, especially not during their first term.

Is Barack patiently piecing together policies for incremental change because he believes that any radical plans would fracture the stability of the nation and create a backlash that would allow Republicans the political power to repeal his legislation? Is he setting the stage for his re-election? Is he doing what's best for the nation, or his family? We've all speculated, and we all have our own theories, but at a time when the political headlines read like the tabloid coverage of Jersey Shore, Lupe reminds us about the costs of war and where our priorities should be.

While I don't believe calling Obama a terrorist is productive or even a true statement, maybe the source will cause some to take a moment and truly consider some of foreign policy choices. If the same statement came from Limbaugh, the left would right it off as racist, or if it came from Karl Rove, liberals would call it political gamesmanship. However, Lupe, an activist whose words have a profound influence of the youth, is an insider's insider and his own power shouldn't be taken for granted, especially since the youth gave Barack his Presidency in 2008.

I support accountability and critical engagement through reasonable means, but it's hard to tell whether he's pulling a Colbert and playing a extreme character or being sincere. He may feel that the only way to captivate and engage this A.D.D. generation is through Orwellian imagery which feels more like Science Fiction than political activism. This might be a ploy to create a symbol and a movement that the youth can believe in and call their own, or it may just be the views of an artist proudly expressing his 1st amendment rights. Either way, while its engaging for some, others will view calling President Obama a terrorist as a repulsive abuse of rhetoric to garner additional media attention.

Just like Obama's intentions, all we can do at this time is speculate and ask questions, but at the very least, we're engaged and building the critical-thinking skills needed to navigate this elusive domain.

Even if I don't agree with everything he stands for, it doesn't mean we can't celebrate our shared interests and discuss our differences. Challenging the conventional wisdom is how we rise above. Let me close with something that speaks for itself: Lupe's Lasers Manifesto.

TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN & CHILD,

WE WANT AN END TO THE GLAMORIZATION OF NEGATIVITY IN THE MEDIA
WE WANT AN END TO STATUS SYMBOLS DICTATING OUR WORTH AS INDIVIDUALS
WE WANT A MEANINGFUL AND UNIVERSAL EDUCATION SYSTEM
WE WANT SUBSTANCE IN THE PLACE OF POPULARITY
WE WILL NOT COMPROMISE WHO WE ARE TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE CROWD
WE WANT THE INVISIBLE WALLS THAT SEPARATE BY WEALTH, RACE & CLASS TO BE TORN DOWN
WE WANT TO THINK OUR OWN THOUGHTS| WE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT
WE WANT CLARITY & TRUTH FROM OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS OR THEY SHOULD MOVE ASIDE
WE WANT LOVE NOT LIES| WE WANT AN END TO ALL WARS FOREIGN & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
WE WANT AN END TO THE PROCESSED CULTURE OF EXPLOITATION, OVER-CONSUMPTION & WASTE
WE WANT KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING & PEACE
WE WILL NOT LOSE BECAUSE WE ARE NOT LOSERS, WE ARE LASERS!
LASERS ARE THE OPPOSITE OF LOSERS
LASERS ARE SHINING BEAMS OF LIGHT THAT BURN THROUGH THE DARKNESS OF IGNORANCE
LASERS SHED LIGHT ON INJUSTICE AND INEQUALITY
LOSERS STAND BY AND LET THINGS HAPPEN
LASERS ACT AND SHAPE THEIR OWN DESTINIES
LASERS FIND MEANING AND DIRECTION IN THE MYSTERIES ALL AROUND THEM
LASERS STAND FOR LOVE AND COMPASSION
LASERS STAND FOR PEACE
LASERS STAND FOR PROGRESSION
LASERS ARE REVOLUTIONARY
LASERS ARE THE FUTURE

Love Always Shines Everytime Remember 2 Smile - LF


"It's so loud inside my head with words that I should have said. As I drown in my regrets, I can't take back the words I never said."

Thursday, April 8, 2010

21st Century News: Media Watchdogs or Corporate Bitches?

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Integrity in Journalism Suffering from Severe Depression!

Well, that depends whether you even consider the "Fair and Balanced" reporting at Fox News to be journalism. Although they are by and large the number one rated Cable News channel, it seems unfair to the institution of journalism to lump this Rupert Murdoch money-making machine in with legitimate news groups, but if they make the claim, shouldn't they be held responsible?

While the verdict is still out whether Fox's competitors are guilty of the same crime, it is undeniable that Fox News is the poster-child of sensationalized partisan punditry parading around as a credible source of news. As the GOP's soapbox for preachers of conservative talking points which reinforce corporate control of politics, Murdoch's minions are cashing in by substituting entertainment and indoctrination for a necessary component of any functional democracy - accessible, objective information that promotes civic participation and engagement.

The premise of their seemingly simple scheme is that people are more inclined to watch like-minded individuals speaking subjectively about relevant issues (aka Fox News) than a seemingly cold and heartless machine with a funky accent talking about some complex investigation about an unfamiliar and sometimes convoluted issue (aka BBC). To accomplish goal, Fox saturates its content with opinionated sensationalists that stir up interest by providing provocative programing.

Since there's nothing more provocative than a hustla and his ho receiving advice from an Obama-affiliated community advocacy group about how to smuggle twelve-year-old Mexican girls over the border and into the sex-trade, this juicy smear dominated Fox's headlines last September. The brain-child behind this piece, James O'Keefe, reportedly posed as a pimp accompanied by a prostitute and wore a hidden camera to record his conversations with ACORN employees. Despite the fact that these clips have been proven to be distortions of the truth (Rachel Maddow's critique is a must-see), it fit perfectly with the Fox News agenda and received weeks of coverage. By connecting hot-bed topics of prostitution and illegal immigration with an NGO that endorsed Obama through the lens of a young up-and-comer with the conservasphere, Fox vilified Obama, convinced enough congressmen to cut tax-payer funds for ACORN, spawned a new conservative personality, stimulated rage against socialism, and showed numerous, prolonged shots of O'Keefe's accomplice's exposed lower back. What a Home Run for the ratings! Too bad the story was a deceptive and fraudulent fabrication.

And in case you're wondering what O'Keefe is up to now, he's currently a hero of the Tea Party movement and facing charges for allegedly attempting to wiretap Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu's phone system.

This sort of biased, entertainment news promotes group think by reinforcing commonly held beliefs and failing to create any sort of balanced discourse needed for stimulating active citizen participation. When you also factor in that their stories need not pass any criteria for integrity, the American people are being cheated out of an essential public service. This destroys public trust of the news industry as a whole, impeding the potential progress of genuine journalistic watch dogs who provide American's with checks against corruption and other important information.

So why does this happen?



For the GOP - representatives of Corporate America, Fox News is their base of operations and connection to their constituents. Since they represent conservative values, Fox News has an incredible amount of influence of elections. If they are able to get higher ratings, it might be inferred that the Republican Party is strengthened and more likely to get better election results.

More Republicans = Less Regulation + Lower Taxes = Bigger CEO Compensation packages. Its easy to see why Corporate America wants Fox News to be successful.

And obviously in the spirit of Capitalism, since Fox News is a part of the publicly traded News Corp., they must pursue the bottom line at all cost. Even if that entails jeopardizing the quality of the product, they will continue to sell it since the consumer is buying it and will continue to do so in the predictable future. News Corp. is not held responsible for the destructive consequences of its action in the same way that MTV is not accountable for the commercialization of music or the ramifications of popularizing reality TV. Since these externalities are costs that are silently passed on to someone else, they can largely get away with it.

Even if someone like Rachel Maddow routinely discredits the organization, Fox News has created such strong brand loyalties that some short-hair, tree-hugging, socialist, liberal lady spewing her filthy message of equality or justice won't really affect Fox's ratings.

The last group, but certainly not the least, to get a piece of the news-for-profit pie are the pundits themselves. Arguably Fox's best entertainer, Glenn Beck truly has a comprehensive grasp of Fox's formula for success. Despite little substance, Beck has earned the trust of his loyal followers through emotional pleas and a chalk board. This reverence returns serious dividends in the range of $32 million a year for Beck. Not a bad paycheck for a former top40 radio disk jockey, making Beck the Ryan Seacrest of politics.



All of this would be perfectly acceptable if being a news organization did not imply a certain level of integrity and accountability. I have no problem with Fox as a source of entertainment. If people tune into Beck for the same reasons I watch Stephen Colbert's nightly news satires, his antics wouldn't bother me, but by posing as a source for "fair and balanced" reporting, it must accept the increased expectations of integrity and ethics that come with being a news group. But when comedians on fake news channels have more journalistic integrity through their spoofs than the actual providers of news, America suffers. Just like in business, when ethics becomes an afterthought, corruption takes control and the American people are the victims.



P.S. I wonder if Murdoch would be willing to put Colbert on Fox News...

Saturday, April 3, 2010

Barack Obama on Offshore Drilling


"When I'm President, I INTEND to keep in place the moratorium... that prevents oil companies from drilling off the Florida coastline..."

To be fair, an intention isn't a promise. I intend to pick up some ice cream from the supermarket, but if something else more important comes up along the way, I might get that instead...

Granted I don't agree with the decision, but if this is the only way he is going to get an energy bill in place, and if we will inevitably start drilling when the republicans resume power, I can at least assume that the construction of oil wells under Barack will be higher regulated and prevent further damage to the environment.

If in order to fix a pipe you have to turn the water off, I'm ok with turning the water off. But if your plan is just to turn the water off, you're just postponing the problem and not dealing with it.

I'm hoping that this was a necessary means to fix the problem and not just a necessary means to make some money.

Ultimately, I am not a mind reader, and only in the future will we see if Obama is a fool or a chess master. He tried to change the culture of Washington and gave up after it didn't work overnight. Now, we'll have to see how his strategies pan out.

Context, context, context...

Saturday, January 30, 2010

The Democractic Public Intellectual: Overcoming Failures of the Government and Media


In times of turmoil and hardship, people need role models that function as change agents to inspire hope. A history of corrupt decision making has led many Americans to be skeptical and cynical of the once honorable institutions of government service and journalism, so leadership must come elsewhere. Gone are the days when Walter Kronkite and John F. Kennedy gave our nation something to believe. They have been replaced by headlines profiling Tiger Woods’s newest mistress, the drug and/or alcohol abuse of Hollywood socialites, collateral damage and car bombings in the Middle East, natural disasters, or the literal and figurative infidelities of Washington. America needs heroes with clean records that connect on a human level with Americans through empathy, leaders who are willing to make the tough choices and give people what they need even if it’s not what they want, and scholars who relay their education and experience to their fellow citizens. America needs public intellectuals, one’s like Dr. Drew Pinsky, who are ready and able to serve the public’s interest, picking up where the mainstream media and politicians have utterly failed.

The survival of the human race has been dependent on our ability as individuals to come together and work within formal and informal organizations. The success of these social groups and networks rely upon each member’s willingness to trust one another in order to work towards a common good. This interdependence of humanity is ingrained into the psyche of the human mind from the time we are born as our mothers nurture and raise up their young. These social qualities remain and actually blossom throughout our lifetimes as our social networks expand to different spheres made up of extended family, friends, members of informal groups, co-workers, fellow citizens, and even a greater global network as the current information and communication revolution helps us form intercontinental connections. However, today’s western societies focus so much on promoting the interest of one’s self and immediate friends and family that the benefits of working towards the public interest have forgotten. Furthermore the greater good is often considered an impediment stifling personal development. The resulting nation of individuals only trusts that others will act according to their own, short-term interest. Without unity, though, are we really the United States?

Along with the political polarization of our nation, this has created a complicated conundrum for our society at large. A democracy founded under the principle of popular sovereignty mandates the participation of active and informed citizens in running the government. While much can be said about the divided nature of our government and media, there’s no doubt that the tabloid-esque story lines of Washington have raised the public’s interest in politics. While the public’s political activity is peaking on the national level with the highest voter turnout in forty years resulting in Barack Obama’s presidency, this still does not address the issue of an adequate way of providing reliable information to the public. As Americans’ trust in the government on the federal and state levels reaches new lows despite Obama’s uplifting message of hope, and a similar lack of trust toward is shown toward the media, the responsibility of enlightening the American people falls upon a third group: the public intellectuals.

As a service to the public good, these outstanding individuals are classically defined as trained academics and professionals who provide objective and critical analysis free of bias stemming from personal agendas. It is up to these men and women to restore balance to the country by juxtaposing subjective and sensationalizing pundits with objective critiques aimed at aiding the understanding of the American people. Public intellectuals like Dr. Drew Pinsky, known as the ”national face of addiction medicine,” hold the opportunity to restore order to the nation by providing credible information to advance the public interest.

Dr. Drew Pinsky exemplifies the characteristics necessary of today’s public intellectuals and amplifies his area of influence by consistently going above and beyond the call of duty on a daily basis. His credentials are impressive both in quantity and quality. Professionally, Dr. Pinsky graduated from USC’s Keck School of Medicine where he now teaches psychiatry. He is a board-certified physician, addiction medicine specialist, and also runs the chemical-dependency department at Las Encinas Hospital in Pasadena.

Dr. Drew was first introduced to the public back in 1983 when he was asked to contribute to a new radio show called Loveline on Los Angeles’s contemporary rock station. Dr. Drew answered all sorts of questions from listeners calling in with an assortment of diverse questions ranging from issues with relationships, sexuality, drugs, and anything else that might be thought of as uncomfortable but necessary. With an easy tone and understanding to even the most taboo and vulgar of questions, Dr. Drew andLoveline became a safe haven for the youth of Los Angeles to get much needed advice from a reliable, nonjudgmental source. By 1995, the show was nationally syndicated and still airs from 10pm-midnight PST five days every week across the entire nation. With an audience primarily made up of adolescents, Dr. Drew has earned the trust of his listeners by providing an outlet for the most relevant questions pertaining to America’s youth with an honest exchange of medically sound answer. His empathy allowed for introverted youth to let down their walls and barriers and pose very person and pertinent questions, and everyone listening benefited.

Along with this civil service via the radio, Dr. Drew has also used television and cinema as mediums for his services. Along with a version of Loveline for MTV, he has also hosted Strictly Dr. Drew, Sex… With Mom and Dad, Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew, Sex Rehab with Dr. Drew, and Sober House. With the exception of Strictly Dr. Drew, which airs Thursdays at 10pm on the Discovery Channel, some of his critics have attempted to discredit Dr. Drew for broadcasting his shows on MTV and VH1, channels whose reality shows reinforce the vary narcissistic tendencies that he warns against in his most recent book The Mirror Effect: How Celebrity Narcissism is Seducing America.

In a rebuttal to his doubters, Drew showed the leadership necessary to make the hard decisions and replied that “the people that need what we have are watching VH1… Not the people watching educational TV, the NPR crowd. You gotta give ’em what they want so you can give ’em what they need.” His basic strategy encourages everyone to poke their head in the door to find out what all the excitements about, then serve them the chicken noodle soup they need. For years on Loveline, Drew’s sidekick, the colorful every man Adam Carola, juxtaposed the doctor with a raw and often outrageous comedian with a unique perspective, providing a truly unique entertainment experience that proved both captivating and incredibly informative. Drew, like everyone public intellectual should, takes advantage of this exposure to deliver the necessary treatment to the patients that need it the most. Providing analysis on the hypocrisy of conservative politicians for Keith Olbermann’s Countdown is simply redundant and does nothing to facilitate the public discourse, but providing a little conviction for the people who need it most is how we redirect a lost nation and make progress as individuals and as a united country.

In order to do ensure his message reaches as many as possible, he’s made numerous public appearances on many of America’s most well-known talk shows. In 2009 alone, he was on Entertainment Tonight, Larry King Live, Jimmy Kimmel Live, The Tonight Show with Conan O’brien, NBC’s Today Show, Howard Stern,Glenn Beck, and The View. If he does not seem like a busy enough man as is, he is an actor (often playing himself), medical magazine editor, has participated in many college talking tours, and also has authored five books including the aforementioned New York Times’ BestsellerThe Mirror Effect.

Oh, and did I mention he tries to run five miles a day, is a classically trained opera singer and has sixteen year old triplets? And I thought I was busy. This work ethic and his ability to balance these multiple responsibilities, while maintaining his passion for service, makes it even easier for outsiders to relate and connect with Dr. Drew.

While Dr. Drew has been able to establish a genuine rapport with his audiences, the same cannot be said about most politicians in America. In his first State of the Union address, even President Obama addressed the “deepening cynicism Americans feel toward their government and called for mending what he characterized as a ‘deficit of trust.’” People see our government as a distant entity hundreds or thousands of miles away that cannot possibly relate to their day-to-day experiences. These elected public servants are not perceived as representatives of their constituents or their needs, but are merely pawns following the protocol to remain in political culture. President Obama pleads for politicians and journalists (usually Fox News contributors) to abandon a status quo that emphasizes a fiscal bottom line and incorporate the interest of America into one’s goals and objectives.

With many politicians more interested in preserving their own careers, Americans have a hard time believing that they truly strive towards achieving the common good. When one considers the widespread corruption of government through lobbyists, citizens worry that politicians are being bought by corporations whose agendas may not coincide with those of the people. This fear has only been amplified by the recent Supreme Court decision to give corporations the same rights as a person, potentially opening the floodgates of corporate financing through campaign contributions.

Just like in this case where the long-term ramifications of this decision are unclear, much of the government is complex and confusing for the common man, fostering a fear of the unknown. Even with Obama increasing the transparency more than previous administrations, there is still a level of distrust since certain agencies (see “Secret Service”) are, by nature, necessarily cryptic. Additionally, our system of checks and balances, confusing jargon such as filibusters and reconciliation, numerous agencies and levels of the bureaucracy, create a slow and inefficient political process that the average American does not always understand.

Finally, since there is distrust for the government, citizens become more hesitant to participate in a system they do not understand. This undermines Jeffersonian theory which argues that participation is precisely the means by which people should learn about the government. This anti-government sentiment perpetuates the problem as citizens become reluctant to partake in governing their own land, turning our democracy into more of an aristocracy comprised of members who understand how to manipulate the system for their own good.

And speaking of individuals and groups focused more on achieving their personal agendas, our attention is now turned away from the government and towards the American institution of “journalism” whose calling is to connect individuals with the events of the outside world and to act as watchdogs and protect the people from government abuse.

First, it is essential to understand that our 24 hour news organizations are for profit businesses that honor their stock payers and CEOs more than their journalistic code of integrity. This means their ultimate objective is to make money and not to serve Americans the information they need to be productive citizens.

Due to the expansion of the Internet, additional competition of news sources has been created and companies have been forced to turn to cost-saving measures to survive. Because of all these threats that was did not exist when the people got their news from the paper in the mornings and the network news hours at nights, general news groups been forced into specialization to create a unique product to entice an audience. For example, Fox News has chosen to present a conservative perspective, MSNBC covers the liberal basis, and CNN has attempted to take the route of BBC and fulfill the objective void in between the other two networks.

Unfortunately for CNN, they have suffered due to attempts at providing objective, critical analysis while engaging in the other prevalent trend in today’s media, sensationalism. News groups have been providing the public with what they want, resulting in multiple groups covering the same ‘important’ stories. This means that in order to steal the audience from the other competitors, they try and make the stories as entertaining as possible, and obviously, entertainment does not necessarily translate into a productive information exchange. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love his music and everything he’s contributed but personally and threw his many philanthropies, but how many months of Michael Jackson coverage following his death did we really need? I hope this question to be rhetorical requiring no further discussion along this line of thinking.

The third major consequence of competition in journalism is the downsizing staffs, especially during the 24 hour news cycle, sparking the decline of investigative journalism. It is a lot cheaper for corporations to stick in front of a camera entertaining, opinionated talking heads surrounding by pretty flat-screen, high-definition panels and let them rant for an hour than to send a crew of reporters, translators, cameramen, producers, etc. to a foreign country to get a story. From this, we get the Keith Olbermann’s and the Glenn Beck’s of the industry that provide us with a high entertainment value and an equally high degree of bias. This has left the public to do one of the two things, reject the subjective reporting and search for other means of informing themselves or embrace these puppeteering pundits parading around like politicians superimposing their opinions upon their cult-like follower. Ergo, those that choose the former will be hesitant to trust any media source, while the latter will follow every whim of their leaders and distrust all dissenting opinions without a single critical thought. Either way, it is a failure in the establishment of journalism to fulfill its essential purpose.

This is where Dr. Drew and other public intellectuals have the responsibility to overcome these obstacles and provide the public with the sort of analysis they need to become better citizens of this global community. They must present clear, jargon-free reporting based on credible evidence to ensure all laymen can absorb the necessary information needed for civic engagement. Additionally, a willingness to present their body of knowledge on any show, regardless of its place on the political spectrum, will ensure that their useful information reaches those who need to hear it the most. In order to retain credibility while discussing and debating with these pundits, a public intellectual must refrain from muddling quality analysis maintaining a professional position in the face of partisan pandemonium.

After failures by the government and the media to contribute to the personal development of American citizens, it is up to the public intellectuals, whatever their background may be, to stimulate the American people who are equally important as the intellectuals themselves in running a democracy by the people and for the people. According to Dr. Stephen Mack in his essay questioning the supposed decline of the public intellectual, as they create and enrich the public discourse, they fulfill their function of criticism, an obligation shared by every citizen regardless of their training or background. So, while the last great generation of the classically defined public intellectuals may have been those born during the roaring twenties, a new generation spawning from unorthodox sources has the potential to rise up and return America to a true democracy. As Americans discuss these issues, they reforge the social ties and connection with their community that were destroyed by years of lies and isolation. This also reinstates the importance of trust and encourages politicians and journalists to embrace a culture that values integrity. By stimulating this networking, we can unite a polarized nation of red states and blue states into one United States of America.