You may believe that "freedom of speech and expression" is a right that is absolute and cannot be restricted because it is addressed in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, recognized in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and stated as law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Each of these guides by which modern societies function recognize that there also exist duties and responsibilities which subject that "freedom" to restrictions when necessary to respect the rights of others. This is the part of "freedom of speech and expression" that some groups do not understand. You may say they are misguided, but they are not. They are wrong.
Neo-nazis, racist skinheads, Patriot groups, white supremacists, black separatists, armed border militias, and dozens of other types of hate groups exist across our country, and are growing daily fueled by fear of a diminishing majority of whites, Christians, English-speakers, straights, and people with any characteristic the hate group doesn't like. These are the recognizable groups that most everyone acknowledges. But there are others that exhibit the same fear and anger, but are not part of the 1,018 groups recognized as "hate groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
What about your neighbor who will drive 2 miles to an ABC supermarket because the local ABC has too many people who use food stamps. Or who makes excuses every year to not go to John's Christmas party because they don't like his "partner" Bob. Or who will never vote for Abdul for Mayor, or shop in Dinesh's convenience store, or who sends the email with photo of the politician looking like Hitler. Well, those people at the supermarket are loud, and they bother me, and I don't like to be around gay people, and that guy wears a turban, and that store smells like some strange spice, and that photo was just a joke. Is this personal preference, misguided hate, or political correctness? Does this form of expression respect the rights of others? If not, then what is it?
Remember, as residents of the only habitable planet in our solar system, we have duties and responsibilities. Hate toward those unlike ourselves is not one of them. Treating others as we would wish to be treated ourselves--well, that should be.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Misguided hatred
It has been stated repeatedly in news accounts of the "misguided hatred" shown by the shootings of 6 Sikhs at their gurdwara in Wisconsin by a neo-nazi who was a former member of the U.S. Army. It is not "misguided hatred". There is nothing misguided about this gun violence. It is simply hate. And every time it happens, it is said to be an isolated incident. It is not isolated. It happens constantly in our country towards various ethnic groups that are considered to be "different" from most Americans.
The day after the Sikh shooting, an Islamic mosque was burned to the ground in Missouri, after the first arson attempt to do so failed on the Fourth of July. In May, the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, Tennessee was denied an occupancy permit and a Federal District Court had to overrule the denial, thus allowing the opening of the Center for the start of Ramadan. In August of last year, a former TSA employee (federal Transportation Security Administration) pleaded guilty to a hate crime for assaulting an elderly Somali man because he thought he was Muslim and yelled at him to go back to Africa. In February of last year an Arlington, Texas man pleaded guilty to the Church Arson Prevention Act by setting fire to a children's playground at a mosque. Three Columbia, Tennessee men pleaded guilty to spraypainting swastikas and "white power" on a mosque, and set an arson fire that burned it down. A man pleaded guilty to sending email and voice mail threats to the Director and staff members of the Arab American Institute in Washington DC. A Burbank, Illinois man pleaded guilty to blowing up a van of a Palestinian family when it was parked in front of their home. A man pleaded guilty to throwing a "Molotov Cocktail" at the Islamic Center of El Paso where children were playing, but luckily it did not ignite. In Sacramento, CA a man pleaded guilty to shooting and wounding a Sikh postal carrier. In Salt Lake City, a man pleaded guilty to pouring gasoline on a wall of a Pakistani-American restaurant in an attempt to burn it down. There have been hundreds of violations of discrimination in education, employment, housing, public facilities, public accommodations, and religious land use throughout the country.
All of these and more can be found on the website of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. None of these were misguided. They were "guided" directly against people who do not look like us, whose religion differs from ours, who are what??? Trying to practice their religion? Trying to carry on their home country's traditions? Trying to cook their traditional foods?
These were acts of hate, and they are all too common in our society. I suppose I should be happy that my Grandmother was not assaulted for baking Croatian nutrolls, or my grandfather was not shot at for playing bocce, or my aunt was not attacked for cooking pierogies at the SNPJ club.
It is hate that is destroying communication and understanding of our fellow citizens.
The day after the Sikh shooting, an Islamic mosque was burned to the ground in Missouri, after the first arson attempt to do so failed on the Fourth of July. In May, the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, Tennessee was denied an occupancy permit and a Federal District Court had to overrule the denial, thus allowing the opening of the Center for the start of Ramadan. In August of last year, a former TSA employee (federal Transportation Security Administration) pleaded guilty to a hate crime for assaulting an elderly Somali man because he thought he was Muslim and yelled at him to go back to Africa. In February of last year an Arlington, Texas man pleaded guilty to the Church Arson Prevention Act by setting fire to a children's playground at a mosque. Three Columbia, Tennessee men pleaded guilty to spraypainting swastikas and "white power" on a mosque, and set an arson fire that burned it down. A man pleaded guilty to sending email and voice mail threats to the Director and staff members of the Arab American Institute in Washington DC. A Burbank, Illinois man pleaded guilty to blowing up a van of a Palestinian family when it was parked in front of their home. A man pleaded guilty to throwing a "Molotov Cocktail" at the Islamic Center of El Paso where children were playing, but luckily it did not ignite. In Sacramento, CA a man pleaded guilty to shooting and wounding a Sikh postal carrier. In Salt Lake City, a man pleaded guilty to pouring gasoline on a wall of a Pakistani-American restaurant in an attempt to burn it down. There have been hundreds of violations of discrimination in education, employment, housing, public facilities, public accommodations, and religious land use throughout the country.
All of these and more can be found on the website of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. None of these were misguided. They were "guided" directly against people who do not look like us, whose religion differs from ours, who are what??? Trying to practice their religion? Trying to carry on their home country's traditions? Trying to cook their traditional foods?
These were acts of hate, and they are all too common in our society. I suppose I should be happy that my Grandmother was not assaulted for baking Croatian nutrolls, or my grandfather was not shot at for playing bocce, or my aunt was not attacked for cooking pierogies at the SNPJ club.
It is hate that is destroying communication and understanding of our fellow citizens.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
More divided
Yes, we are becoming more divided in this country, and this wasn't how it was supposed to be. We were supposed to come together and make our society better than it was. At a minimum, better than it has become. Instead, we have given in to the irrational fear that our lifestyle is threatened by various changes in our country and in the world, and by the irrational non-belief in changes that actually do threaten our lifestyle.
Look at the concept of American superiority. We constantly hear from politicians that America is the "best country in the world." A politician could never get elected to national office who did not utter that phrase at every political rally. Is it true, or is it comparable to Mother, Baseball, and Apple Pie?
As a former expat, I have heard the same said from Australian, British, New Zealand, and Canadian politicians about their respective countries, and the same is probably said by politicians in many countries. Do the people in those countries and their leaders believe it? Of course, and just as sincerely as Americans do. But you don't hear it constantly in other countries as you do in America. Ask any other expat you may know, and they will probably tell you the same story.
When it comes to military superiority, there is no doubt that the USA leads the world. Of the over $1.7 trillion of the world's total military expenditures, 41% is by the USA. Approximately the same spent by the next 14 countries--combined. Does that alone make America the best country in the world? No, it just buys us the best military. We are continually fed the line that if we cut any military spending, we are putting our country at risk. From what? Oh, various and sundry irrational threats. It used to be the USSR, so we had to build thousands of nuclear weapons and be able to use them at a moment's notice so we could wipe out the civilized world if we detected the thread of attack on us. It was called Mutually Assured Destruction, or appropriately enough, MAD. Because it was. Or the risk was from China, or Vietnam (now both strong trading partners), or North Korea or Iran.
Iran's nuclear threat is very interesting. How did they obtain it? In 1957, the U.S. and Iran signed a nuclear cooperation agreement. In 1967 the U.S. supplied Iran with fissile isotopes of uranium and plutonium for their reactors. In the 1970, plans were completed to build up to 20 nuclear reactors with U.S support and backing. In 1975, MIT signed a contract to train Iranian nuclear engineers. So we helped create our own threat, rational or not. Somewhat ironic.
Let's get back to American superiority, and the irrational fear that we are losing it. Most of these fears concern cultural issues: non-white illegal immigrants, African-American political power, gay rights, abortion rights, religious tolerance or intolerance, class warfare, environmental issues, etc. Fear of those who differ from us, or who have beliefs that differ from ours. The fear that "real Americans" (read: white, Christian) will no longer be the majority and will lose power. The fear that those who presently have advantages (read: the old boy network), may lose those advantages. The fear that one's hatred of niggers, spics, fags, rag-heads, tree-huggers, and bat-shit gun nuts may become illegal. All irrational fears. Although that last part sounds somewhat desirable.
Our leaders say we have the best health system in the world, yet every study shows we do not. Our leaders say we have the best basic educational system in the world, yet every study of elementary and secondary education systems show that we do not. Did we ever have the best of these systems? Probably, but we do not now, and for some strange irrational reason, we do not fear this loss. Neither do we fear our impact on the environment and the harm it causes our country and the world.
Fear is being used to further divide our country. It was not supposed to be this way. America, where are you now? We were once travelling down the right road. I wonder how we got lost.
Look at the concept of American superiority. We constantly hear from politicians that America is the "best country in the world." A politician could never get elected to national office who did not utter that phrase at every political rally. Is it true, or is it comparable to Mother, Baseball, and Apple Pie?
As a former expat, I have heard the same said from Australian, British, New Zealand, and Canadian politicians about their respective countries, and the same is probably said by politicians in many countries. Do the people in those countries and their leaders believe it? Of course, and just as sincerely as Americans do. But you don't hear it constantly in other countries as you do in America. Ask any other expat you may know, and they will probably tell you the same story.
When it comes to military superiority, there is no doubt that the USA leads the world. Of the over $1.7 trillion of the world's total military expenditures, 41% is by the USA. Approximately the same spent by the next 14 countries--combined. Does that alone make America the best country in the world? No, it just buys us the best military. We are continually fed the line that if we cut any military spending, we are putting our country at risk. From what? Oh, various and sundry irrational threats. It used to be the USSR, so we had to build thousands of nuclear weapons and be able to use them at a moment's notice so we could wipe out the civilized world if we detected the thread of attack on us. It was called Mutually Assured Destruction, or appropriately enough, MAD. Because it was. Or the risk was from China, or Vietnam (now both strong trading partners), or North Korea or Iran.
Iran's nuclear threat is very interesting. How did they obtain it? In 1957, the U.S. and Iran signed a nuclear cooperation agreement. In 1967 the U.S. supplied Iran with fissile isotopes of uranium and plutonium for their reactors. In the 1970, plans were completed to build up to 20 nuclear reactors with U.S support and backing. In 1975, MIT signed a contract to train Iranian nuclear engineers. So we helped create our own threat, rational or not. Somewhat ironic.
Let's get back to American superiority, and the irrational fear that we are losing it. Most of these fears concern cultural issues: non-white illegal immigrants, African-American political power, gay rights, abortion rights, religious tolerance or intolerance, class warfare, environmental issues, etc. Fear of those who differ from us, or who have beliefs that differ from ours. The fear that "real Americans" (read: white, Christian) will no longer be the majority and will lose power. The fear that those who presently have advantages (read: the old boy network), may lose those advantages. The fear that one's hatred of niggers, spics, fags, rag-heads, tree-huggers, and bat-shit gun nuts may become illegal. All irrational fears. Although that last part sounds somewhat desirable.
Our leaders say we have the best health system in the world, yet every study shows we do not. Our leaders say we have the best basic educational system in the world, yet every study of elementary and secondary education systems show that we do not. Did we ever have the best of these systems? Probably, but we do not now, and for some strange irrational reason, we do not fear this loss. Neither do we fear our impact on the environment and the harm it causes our country and the world.
Fear is being used to further divide our country. It was not supposed to be this way. America, where are you now? We were once travelling down the right road. I wonder how we got lost.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Divided
Let's temporarily return to the gun violence issue. Nearly everyone wants to reduce the amount of gun violence in our society. I would say everyone, but there are people who are members of the Flat Earth Society; who think the earth is only 4000 years old; and who believe that JFK and Elvis are living in a senior citizen community in rural Mississippi, which actually was a movie called Bubba Ho-Tep with Ossie Davis as JFK and Bruce Campbell as Elvis. I highly recommend it. Yes, I know Ossie Davis was black and JFK was not, but that's one of the interesting concepts in the movie.
The point is that even nearly all NRA members do not want to see mass shootings of innocent people. A survey of gun owners has shown that a majority of them are not opposed to some form of firearms restrictions, while it seems that the leaders of the NRA do oppose any restrictions. So what is to be made of this conflicting information in which the members of an organization disagree with their leaders? Perhaps it is not that unusual. People elect leaders with whom they rarely completely agree.
It seems that as a society, as a country of people with a variety of political, religious, and other beliefs, we cannot agree that we have common points of agreement. Why not? Is it the ideological division existing in our society that we cannot acknowledge our common ground? Have we always had this problem? I don't think so, but...
Today, we have a new method of spreading misinformation--the Internet. Instead of looking through windows and seeing the world that we live in with all its faults and failures, we can look into our mirror and immediately see others who have the same beliefs we have, and it reinforces our own preconceptions. We don't have to even look at the window, let alone through it. We don't want to. If we do, we may see changes we dislike--and fear. Demographic changes that we feel threaten our "way of life." Our superior at the factory who is Latino. The police officer who is a woman. The President who's father was not white.
Obviously what I am talking about here is an American tradition--bigotry. Ku Klux Klan, Asian exclusion laws, the Irish need-not-apply, John Jay. What? John Jay, one of the "Founding Fathers" of the USA, the 1st Chief Justice, President of the Continental Congress, one of the writers of the Federalist Papers, Governor of New York who tried to abolish slavery was a bigot??? Well, yes, he was. He tried to include a provision in the New York State constitution barring Catholics from owning property and having the right to vote. Why? Because of their false, wicked, and dangerous beliefs. The same reason the members of the John Birch Society opposed JFK. The same John Birch Society founded by, among others, Fred Koch, the father of the present infamous Koch Brothers who are spending their fortune opposing President Obama.
But I have really digressed. Almost everyone wants to reduce gun violence, but since we refuse to speak to one another, hide in our favorite Internet sites, solely watch our favorite slanted cable channels, we don't even know that we agree to reduce the number of our relatives, friends, and neighbors who are going to be killed by guns. We don't even know.
The point is that even nearly all NRA members do not want to see mass shootings of innocent people. A survey of gun owners has shown that a majority of them are not opposed to some form of firearms restrictions, while it seems that the leaders of the NRA do oppose any restrictions. So what is to be made of this conflicting information in which the members of an organization disagree with their leaders? Perhaps it is not that unusual. People elect leaders with whom they rarely completely agree.
It seems that as a society, as a country of people with a variety of political, religious, and other beliefs, we cannot agree that we have common points of agreement. Why not? Is it the ideological division existing in our society that we cannot acknowledge our common ground? Have we always had this problem? I don't think so, but...
Today, we have a new method of spreading misinformation--the Internet. Instead of looking through windows and seeing the world that we live in with all its faults and failures, we can look into our mirror and immediately see others who have the same beliefs we have, and it reinforces our own preconceptions. We don't have to even look at the window, let alone through it. We don't want to. If we do, we may see changes we dislike--and fear. Demographic changes that we feel threaten our "way of life." Our superior at the factory who is Latino. The police officer who is a woman. The President who's father was not white.
Obviously what I am talking about here is an American tradition--bigotry. Ku Klux Klan, Asian exclusion laws, the Irish need-not-apply, John Jay. What? John Jay, one of the "Founding Fathers" of the USA, the 1st Chief Justice, President of the Continental Congress, one of the writers of the Federalist Papers, Governor of New York who tried to abolish slavery was a bigot??? Well, yes, he was. He tried to include a provision in the New York State constitution barring Catholics from owning property and having the right to vote. Why? Because of their false, wicked, and dangerous beliefs. The same reason the members of the John Birch Society opposed JFK. The same John Birch Society founded by, among others, Fred Koch, the father of the present infamous Koch Brothers who are spending their fortune opposing President Obama.
But I have really digressed. Almost everyone wants to reduce gun violence, but since we refuse to speak to one another, hide in our favorite Internet sites, solely watch our favorite slanted cable channels, we don't even know that we agree to reduce the number of our relatives, friends, and neighbors who are going to be killed by guns. We don't even know.
Friday, July 27, 2012
More listening
There is one concern that could detrimentally affect the ability to listen even if you are trying very hard to do so. I was confronted with this concern recently, and don't worry, it was not about gun violence.
An acquaintance told me that 30% of the inmates in the Federal detention system are illegal aliens and it is costing us billions of tax dollars yearly. I asked him to repeat the comment so I was certain I understood his words, and so he did. I had heard correctly, so I repeated back to him his comment but prefaced it with "Are you saying that ..." Yes, he replied, absolutely, and isn't that just terrible. This was news to me, so I carefully changed the subject to a non-controversial one. Later I researched the substance of his comment and found that the US Dept of Justice reports that 14% (not 30%) of Federal inmates are illegal aliens and most of those are guilty of immigration-related non-violent violations. It is important to note that there are not a large percentage of inmates in Federal prisons that have committed violent crimes. Most violent crimes are prosecuted in state courts, and in state prisons illegal aliens make up less than 5% of the inmates.
What had happened? In an honest attempt to communicate, I had listened and understood what I had been told. The problem was that my attempt to listen had been subjected to manipulation. The acquaintance had wanted me to understand a false statement, and accept it as the truth. Did he care about the cost of housing illegal aliens in Federal prisons? Of course not. His intent was to show that illegal aliens were a severe threat to the safety of Americans by implying that there exists a viscous crime wave rampant in the country and that illegal aliens are the scourge we should all fear. They have unleashed an Hispanic epidemic of murder, robbery, and even rape. And, of course, if you support his candidate for office, this terror will end.
What is the truth? Studies have repeatedly shown that of all ethnic groups, undocumented young men from Central America have the lowest rate of violent crime incarceration. Second and third generation Mexican-Americans, for example, have the same rate of violence as whites.
Is it not difficult to understand why illegal aliens have low crime rates. What have they done with their lives? They have left their families and made the arduous sacrifice of leaving their birthplace in an attempt to find a better life in a strange land. Their motivation was not to find a new land to commit crimes, but to find work and to become what immigrants to these shores have always wanted. They wanted to be Americans.
So even if you try very hard to listen, do so with your eyes wide open. As President Reagan said: Trust, but Verify.
An acquaintance told me that 30% of the inmates in the Federal detention system are illegal aliens and it is costing us billions of tax dollars yearly. I asked him to repeat the comment so I was certain I understood his words, and so he did. I had heard correctly, so I repeated back to him his comment but prefaced it with "Are you saying that ..." Yes, he replied, absolutely, and isn't that just terrible. This was news to me, so I carefully changed the subject to a non-controversial one. Later I researched the substance of his comment and found that the US Dept of Justice reports that 14% (not 30%) of Federal inmates are illegal aliens and most of those are guilty of immigration-related non-violent violations. It is important to note that there are not a large percentage of inmates in Federal prisons that have committed violent crimes. Most violent crimes are prosecuted in state courts, and in state prisons illegal aliens make up less than 5% of the inmates.
What had happened? In an honest attempt to communicate, I had listened and understood what I had been told. The problem was that my attempt to listen had been subjected to manipulation. The acquaintance had wanted me to understand a false statement, and accept it as the truth. Did he care about the cost of housing illegal aliens in Federal prisons? Of course not. His intent was to show that illegal aliens were a severe threat to the safety of Americans by implying that there exists a viscous crime wave rampant in the country and that illegal aliens are the scourge we should all fear. They have unleashed an Hispanic epidemic of murder, robbery, and even rape. And, of course, if you support his candidate for office, this terror will end.
What is the truth? Studies have repeatedly shown that of all ethnic groups, undocumented young men from Central America have the lowest rate of violent crime incarceration. Second and third generation Mexican-Americans, for example, have the same rate of violence as whites.
Is it not difficult to understand why illegal aliens have low crime rates. What have they done with their lives? They have left their families and made the arduous sacrifice of leaving their birthplace in an attempt to find a better life in a strange land. Their motivation was not to find a new land to commit crimes, but to find work and to become what immigrants to these shores have always wanted. They wanted to be Americans.
So even if you try very hard to listen, do so with your eyes wide open. As President Reagan said: Trust, but Verify.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Listening
There is a scene from Tarantino's Pulp Fiction which the director deleted from the original that I feel made a very important statement about communication, even though it is unimportant to the film itself, and is probably the reason Tarantino deleted it. It takes place in Mia's place when she first meets Vincent prior to going to have dinner at Jack Rabbit Slim's. Mia appears with a video camera and asks trivia type questions of Vincent in order to determine the type of person he is. Did he prefer The Brady Bunch or The Partridge Family? Is he a Beatles man or an Elvis man? And finally Mia's most interesting question: When you are having a conversation with people, do you listen, or wait to speak? And Vincent answers: I have to admit that I wait to speak, but I'm trying very hard to listen.
And isn't that the problem we seem to be having with the gun violence issue in America? Everyone is speaking, but no one is listening. No one is even trying very hard to listen. If it could be agreed that a reasonable discussion be held, and all agree to listen--truly listen--to the others' points, perhaps we could accomplish something that would reduce the level of gun violence. No matter how minor the accomplishment would be, it would be an improvement over the existing situation.
What seems to be missing is the desire to listen. I won't say that one group or the other is solely to blame (although I have my personal opinion), because that will not be beneficial. It will only drive us further apart. And I do believe that we are so very far apart today (and we may always have been) that no amount of effort applied may be able to reverse it. But we must try, for the sake of our children, our grandchildren, and our country.
Years ago I worked for an engineering company whose head of the Personnel Department (before they became the Human Resources Department--I have never seen an Inhuman Resources Department) had many good in-house programs to improve interdepartmental communications. One was an Active Listening seminar. I think that is what we need as a society today--a mandatory Active Listening seminar before we are permitted to vote in elections. Like passing a driving test before getting a license. We have to learn to hear what others say, to demonstrate a sincere understanding of what they are saying. Nothing should be assumed, else it be misinterpreted. Suspend judgment of others until you listen. Try very hard to listen.
And isn't that the problem we seem to be having with the gun violence issue in America? Everyone is speaking, but no one is listening. No one is even trying very hard to listen. If it could be agreed that a reasonable discussion be held, and all agree to listen--truly listen--to the others' points, perhaps we could accomplish something that would reduce the level of gun violence. No matter how minor the accomplishment would be, it would be an improvement over the existing situation.
What seems to be missing is the desire to listen. I won't say that one group or the other is solely to blame (although I have my personal opinion), because that will not be beneficial. It will only drive us further apart. And I do believe that we are so very far apart today (and we may always have been) that no amount of effort applied may be able to reverse it. But we must try, for the sake of our children, our grandchildren, and our country.
Years ago I worked for an engineering company whose head of the Personnel Department (before they became the Human Resources Department--I have never seen an Inhuman Resources Department) had many good in-house programs to improve interdepartmental communications. One was an Active Listening seminar. I think that is what we need as a society today--a mandatory Active Listening seminar before we are permitted to vote in elections. Like passing a driving test before getting a license. We have to learn to hear what others say, to demonstrate a sincere understanding of what they are saying. Nothing should be assumed, else it be misinterpreted. Suspend judgment of others until you listen. Try very hard to listen.
Monday, July 23, 2012
More Roadblocks?
Can we communicate with other people in our society? Why not, we always have been able to, haven't we? Well, no. I don't believe so. People have always argued politics, religion, and whether to bunt with a man on first and less than two outs. Before the Internet and Facebook we argued in pamphlets, newspapers, books, and over a beer at the AMS Club. And we rarely if ever came to a universally agreed-to solution to a problem. Oftentimes these arguments resulted in wars. Refer here to the early 1860s. Not my idea of a good ending to a beer, especially if it was my shout..
How has technological advancements in modern communication systems affected the ability to have reasonable discussions? When we communicate with others, do we reach better solutions to our differences?
Again, consider the recent mass shootings at Aurora, Colorado. American society has an obvious problem of extreme gun violence. I think that most Americans would acknowledge it as fact. Every other country in the world (at least every one I have lived in, visited, known anyone who has lived in or visited, or could identify on a world map) knows that America has a problem with gun violence. The statistics verify it. But can we reasonably discuss the problem? I'm not suggesting any form of gun control or that we should be like Australia or Switzerland--just discuss how to reduce gun violence. Seems like we should want to. When the issue comes up on the Internet, or the 24/7 cable TV networks, or anyone's smartphone, what happens? Bumper-sticker philosophies. Bigoted cartoons. Or one-sided discussions with people in the same mirror.
What has technology given us? Has it assisted our ability to have reasonable discussions and helped improve American society? I don't think so. It seems that we are left with discussions with others who support our preconceived beliefs. Do we even want to have discussions with those who are unlike us? I think we should, but technology has hampered any attempt to do so. Can we change this?
How has technological advancements in modern communication systems affected the ability to have reasonable discussions? When we communicate with others, do we reach better solutions to our differences?
Again, consider the recent mass shootings at Aurora, Colorado. American society has an obvious problem of extreme gun violence. I think that most Americans would acknowledge it as fact. Every other country in the world (at least every one I have lived in, visited, known anyone who has lived in or visited, or could identify on a world map) knows that America has a problem with gun violence. The statistics verify it. But can we reasonably discuss the problem? I'm not suggesting any form of gun control or that we should be like Australia or Switzerland--just discuss how to reduce gun violence. Seems like we should want to. When the issue comes up on the Internet, or the 24/7 cable TV networks, or anyone's smartphone, what happens? Bumper-sticker philosophies. Bigoted cartoons. Or one-sided discussions with people in the same mirror.
What has technology given us? Has it assisted our ability to have reasonable discussions and helped improve American society? I don't think so. It seems that we are left with discussions with others who support our preconceived beliefs. Do we even want to have discussions with those who are unlike us? I think we should, but technology has hampered any attempt to do so. Can we change this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)