Fireside Chats? Try Facebook Chats on #Occupy

Some people don't like to use Facebook to stir the sticky pot of politics. They feel political discourse tends to be too nuanced to be held over the web and the anonymity can create antagonistic yelling matches instead of rational discussions. One of my friends posted this:

I normally don't think that it is appropriate to post political things on Facebook, but this message is for Occupy Wall Street-- If you had been actually engaged and involved in the political process before two months ago, maybe the government would have voted the way you wanted and you wouldn't have sit in intersections to get your point across. The American public's complacency, not Wall Street or Congress, is the problem.

And why isn't Facebook the place for politics when we're talking about a lack of civic engagement? I hope it doesn't have anything to do with straw men arguments against hippies and hypocrites ;)

Here were some of the responses she received:

i have no idea what this whole thing means.

I dont get how their answer to closing the gap between the wealthy and poor is to be unemployed and sleep on the street. And what I really don't understand is how they've managed to attract anyone else in the country with any form of an agenda. If they had actually asked their grandparents how to properly hold form a protest, they'd realize that their methods are relatively useless. Damn hippies.

In Dallas they are just smoking pot, raping underage teens, drinking and littering!

‎

"occupy ucla" is a disgrace. there are literally signs up saying that the "super rich" and banks should pay for their rent and tuition.

And that's when my own personal rant began.

The Feds need more oversight, congress needs to be more than just a place to make a pay check, white collar crimes needs to be prosecuted seriously, and crony capitalism is a revolving door which corrupts our system of checks and balances. What does #Occupy mean? It means civic engagement and democracy at a horizontal and not a vertical hierarchy. It meeans empowering the people to have a voice and to stand up for their rights. It means asking the tough questions, it means building relationships, and it is a serious attempt to end the complacency of the people.

Is it an efficient, well-oiled political machine that has a comprehensive platform and mission? No, it seems like #occupy is more of a forum for debate than a platform for  immediate social change. While I don't deny that this sort of thing can create an echo chamber, its giving people the opportunity to try and start a truly grass roots movement that gets into the weeds of policy and cultural issues which plague our country.

And while I haven't been to Dallas, I know a lot of people would be disheartened by allegations that a civic movement was nothing more than a stir-fry of rape and other vices, kind of like how tea party sympathizers were tired of being called racists bigots who wanted "government hands off medicare."

Sure the differences between the two movements are important (and I wouldn't want to make any false equivalencies, but they are certainly comparable), but so often we let the margins be an excuse to polarize us instead of acknowledging the common ground that unites us. Americans are tired of a crappy economy, and would love to get back to work, but there are things outside of their control which have forced a lot of people to be unemployed or underemployed. Whether they blame an incompetent government or corporate greed (or the links between the two), the members of the Tea Party and those who call themselves the 99% believe that the American Dream is in jeopardy, and want to make sure that if they are willing to work hard, that they will be able to support a family and have an opportunity at earning a good wage.

I realized that on Facebook, most people probably stopped reading out of laziness, disinterest, or any number of reasons, but I wanted to thank those who stuck it out. While I doubt this will change many minds, I hope it will open up some minds to the problems our country faces.

While I was at a recent rally against the Keystone XL Pipeline, I was amazing that the median age of the 5000+ attendees was probably 35 (no way to know for sure with so many people, but it was definitely not just a group of kids). One person I linked arms with was a Vietnam Vet who was astounded by the level of organization and engagement at the event. He said in the '60s when they tried to have this sort of rally, that yeah, they were too stoned to handle the logistics, but that there was something different about this, something real, and something that is more than just a passing fad. And while this wasn't technically an #Occupy event, there was certainly overlap with the attendees, and it wasn't a wild, selfish mob, but a group of people looking to make a difference, looking to share ideas, and looking for the means of making this country that they love a safer and better place both now and for the future.

I think Barack's Keynote Speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention really crystalizes the sentiments of what this is all about.

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America - there's the United States of America.
The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.
We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?
I'm not talking about blind optimism here - the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't think about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs. The hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores. The hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta. The hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds. The hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too.
Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope! In the end, that is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation. A belief in things not seen. A belief that there are better days ahead.
I believe that we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity. I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair. I believe that we have a righteous wind at our backs and that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices, and meet the challenges that face us.
America! Tonight, if you feel the same energy that I do, if you feel the same urgency that I do, if you feel the same passion I do, if you feel the same hopefulness that I do - if we do what we must do, then I have no doubts that all across the country, from Florida to Oregon, from Washington to Maine, the people will rise up...

If you haven't watched the whole thing, I strongly encourage you to check out the moment that Barack Obama became a serious player in National Politics. This timeless speech rings truer today than ever before, and its moments like this which earned Barack the support he needed to win in 2008. Its no surprise that he couldn't live up to the lofty expectations, and there has been plenty of disappointment surrounding broken campaign promises, corporate pandering, and sacrificed principles to alienate the entire political spectrum. However, I do believe that Obama has faced nearly insurmountable challenges and is desperately trying to play Washington's games in good faith to achieve the most optimal outcomes for the most people. Barack not only stood for hope, but was a symbol of hope, and is now a testament to the immense challenge of overseeing the free world.

Alas, we are the 100% who make up the United States of America, and this implies a duty and a responsibility to stick to both the convictions of our forefathers and principles of the present. We have a right to freedom and the expression of our liberties and values, and we have an obligation to work together as Americans to make this social experiment work. It requires independent accountability, a tolerance of ideas but an intolerance for injustice, and a willingness to work together to create a better nation now and a more sustainable country for tomorrow.

A Petition to Protect Pell Grants

Mr. President,

Investing in education is not "wasteful government spending" but is a necessary government responsibility. What better way to promote jobs than to invest in human capital and improve the quality of our workforce, a necessary step to keep up with the developing economies of China, India, Brazil, Russia, etc. And this is just not an economic argument, but also a social justice plea, ensuring that all Americans, not just the rich, can afford to go to college without building up nearly insurmountable mountains of debt. Education is not the issue to capitulate on, and for the sake of not only our economic future but also our democracy, please protect Pell Grants.

Sincerely,

The Public's Interest

If education is important to you, consider signing the petition at change.org, and write your own personal letter to our President and your representatives.

Thank you for your time.

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."

The Grand Obstructionists Party: Good for Theatre, Bad for America

As a self-proclaimed maverick and moderate conservative, John McCain won the Republican presidential nomination because of his supposed appeal to moderate voters. Even though this strategy was jeopardized the moment his running mate opened her mouth and winked at America for the first time, McCain’s platform included stances that were controversial among the conservative base, including a health care plan that resembles the one signed into law this week.

It would be assumed that someone with moderate values would be engaged in bipartisanship, but when Mr. McCain realized that his central stance jeopardizes his Senate Seat, he knew he had to return to the status quo. "There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year… They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it." This Maverick learned his lesson from the best of the best – never leave your wing man.

One might ask if McCain should retain his rank of Maverick if he’s pandering to party needs, but the Republicans, bolstered by the Tea Partiers, have become a party of mavericks. Merriam-Webster defines the term as ”an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party.” Since the GOP (Grand Obstructionist Party) leads an “independent” mob of individuals against the “Evil Empire,” McCain’s title holds clout.

And I can’t think of a better way for McCain to promote this position than joining forces with the infamous rogue revolutionary herself, Sarah Palin. Despite the fact that McCain is running against one of her beloved Tea Partiers J.D. Hayworth, she believes the party needs "statesmen and heroes like John McCain."

One has to wonder if this is an indication that Ms. Palin has completed her institutionalization into the world of politics. When one considers the controversial campaign fallout between McCain and Palin publicized in her best-selling book "Going Rogue" combined with Hayworth's credentials as an ideal Tea Party representative, it seems suspicious to say the least that Palin pledged her power and influence to McCain. I wonder who scratched Sarah's back and made her an offer she couldn't refuse.

Regardless of the outcome, this is just another painful example of the polarization of this nation. When John McCain, a brilliant man but poor politician, is forced to sell out because his values are too moderate, there definitely is a problem.

But with McCain and his fellow Republican Senators pledging to oppose anything and everything coming from the left, what are the Democrats to do? Senator Frank Lautenberg wants to make a spectacle of it best enjoyed with heavily buttered popcorn and a cola. The Senator is pushing for anti-filibuster legislation dubbed the Mr. Smith Filibuster Bill, named after the Oscar winning 1939 classic "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" which portrays a politician killing time on the senate floor by reading allowed the phonebook or vintage literature like "Moby Dick."

Essentially, the bill allows for obstruction through a filibuster only when someone actively is on the floor debating an issue. This ensures that thought provoking discussion is actually taking place by creating transparency and allowing the American people to hear the side of the minority. If the minority wishes to use the filibuster to kill a bill altogether, then they will need to engage in various time wasting techniques in front of the American people, allowing the public to judge whether the arguments are in good faith or simply an obstructive tactic used to inhibit the legislative process. This legislation will create incredible political theatre and hold the minority's feet to the fire.




If John McCain doesn't want to cooperate for the sake salvaging of his political career, lets at least ensure that either some productive discourse occurs or reveal the obstructionist sham for the mockery of our system that it is.

Legalize It: How Marijuana Can Save California

In order to clarify any sort of potential biases that could affect the following post, let me first go ahead say that I do not and will not smoke marijuana either recreationally or for medical reasons, regardless of its legal status. Between my asthma and personal preference to retain sound judgment and a clear conscious whenever possible, it’s not something for me. However I am not one to impose my opinion on others. After all, I’m no expert in pharmacology nor should I tell anyone how they must spend their free time until it infringes upon the rights of others.

To legalize, or not to legalize, that is the question. As the subject of archives of music, plenty of apparel, a plethora of blogs and diggs, and so much more, this topic is nothing new to the public discourse, but rarely do politicians make it a serious issue in fear of alienating a large demographic of voters who are morally opposed to the use of the plant. Ever since the flower children of the sixties, every subsequent generation has become increasingly more open minded to use of marijuana, especially in Los Angeles where there are more medical marijuana dispensaries than Starbucks coffee shops. While it is impossible to predict the number of Californians that smoke pot (check out this compliation of street names for marijuana) legally or illegally, there is a significant enough consumer base to justify the Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act (AB 2254) proposed by Assembly Tom Ammiano of San Francisco. With the state budget deficit stacking higher and higher despite huge cuts to social programs, California’s politicians will have to seriously consider whether taxing and legalizing marijuana, the state’s largest cash crop at approximately $14 billion, is in the best interest of the state.

There’s a laundry list of explanations as to why California could benfit from decriminalizing marijuana. In a state where balancing the budget is nearly impossible thanks in part to the infamous Prop. 13, the retired judge James Gray suggests that on top of the new source of tax revenue, the state would save close to a billion dollars since the state would no longer have to arrest, prosecute, and imprison non-violent offenders. Currently, marijuana makes up 47% of all drug related arrests, 88% of which are for possession.

The state would also be able to track the distribution of marijuana, helping the DEA and police crack down on underage consumption of marijuana since it would follow alcohol’s precedent and remain illegal to purchase or possess for those under the age of 21. Since it is commonly agreed that marijuana is most harmful when it is consumed while the mind is still developing, this will focus the efforts of law enforcement in the right place. Additionally, some of the tax revenue would go towards marijuana education and rehabilitation programs, again mimicking successful trends to curb abuse and encourage safe and responsible use of marijuana through healthier means like edibles and vaporizers.

Decriminalization would also destigmatize the safe medical use of marijuana and encourage more research on the medicinal use of pot. After a 20 year period where almost no research was done on the subject, the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research was created in 2000 and has shown promising health benefits in treating a number diseases and ailments with marijuana. However, the state funding for the Center is almost depleted, and researchers are hoping its success will encourage the Federal Government to provide the grants needs to keep the successful program afloat. As more information is learned and the public becomes more accepting of the many medical uses of pot, doctors from all walks of life will feel more comfortable prescribing the drug to the patients, allowing a greater number of Californians to reap the medical benefits of marijuana.

Legalization is accordant with California’s claim to being a political pioneer of civil liberties. Marijuana laws are just another way that citizens see the government as overstepping their jurisdiction and unnecessarily treading upon personal freedoms. In a time when the public trust toward the government is already dwindling toward historic lows, every step to restore the state’s images must be taken in order to retain democracy. By appeasing the wants and needs of the people through the legalization of marijuana, Sacramento would work towards repairing its shattered image by lowering public contempt toward government.

However, despite all these things, there are moral arguments keeping AB 2254 from passing. Because of intense propaganda campaigns that have demonized the plant, rational arguments for the safe use of marijuana have been disregarded because of the moral stigma of the drug. Compared to many both legal and illicit drugs, the side effects for marijuana are relatively harmless. Users also do not have the dangerous withdrawal symptoms from physiological dependency commonly found in other street drugs.



With both alcohol and tobacco known to be far more dangerous than marijuana, doesn’t it seem logical that the safer drug be legal? Since history shows that the consequences of prohibiting the use of alcohol or tobacco far outweigh the benefits, decriminalizing marijuana would prevent a hypocritical situation where Americans could recreationally get drunk or smoke a cigarette, but not engage in the healthier behavior of smoking marijuana.

Some argue that since marijuana is a ‘gateway’ drug, that more people will be vulnerable to eliciting more dangerous drugs, but both scientifically and socially that argument falls short. Dr. Andrew Moral studied the issue, and his research showed that people who are predisposed to using drugs tend to use marijuana because it is more readily available. This shows that marijuana, contrary to the gateway argument, do not cause people to try hard drugs, but instead connects them with drug dealers. If marijuana was legally sold, pot smokers would be purchasing their product from reputable sources, and no longer need to enter into the world of illicit drugs.

All in all, it seems clear that politicians from California need to seriously consider its current drug policies and whether they are in the best interests of their constituents or even the government itself. The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act balances the budget, encourages the use of medicinal marijuana, furthers research on the effects of marijuana in both recreation and medical scenarios, promotes safer use, and expands civil liberties. Before writing it off as some hippie movement, rationally consider how the legalization of marijuana would benefit the common good.

For more information, check out the fascinating history of marijuana policy in America.

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.