What’s Happened to Cultural Discourse?

I read the article entitled “What's Happened to Cultural Discourse?”. This very question has run through my mind more and more lately it seems, maybe not so much in the same words or context, but the same general idea. The commentators, Dick Cavett and David Brooks, go on to talk about current shows and news covered by the media. Despite the fact that people seem eager to hear about other topics, we rarely see other cultures making our headlines. This not only applies to newspapers, but blogs and magazines as well. Mr. Brooks says it ever so eloquently when he states:

“You can turn on the TV at any moment and find 5 shows debating the Tea Party movement, but almost none debating changing parental norms, changing definitions of masculinity, etc. It’s hard to recall the last time a novel generated a national discussion, or even a history book.”

They go on to question the motives of writers in the present day. I can not tell if they are suppressed or simply blind to what is happening around them...

Then the conversation turns to social trust. Looking at Italy as an example, do people tend to place their trust in family rather than government? It is my opinion that one has to earn another's trust. Each president we elect must prove to that his main priority is to ensure peace and wellness.

Is it odd that a majority of young people these days get their news from comics like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, instead of relying on the mainstream media? I think not. As someone who has viewed both news networks and the comedic performances, there does not seem to be too much difference, although one is quite funnier than the other. Either way, you are getting the same filtered information. Ultimately, they are still under the undeniable control of 4 executives who run all the major media outlets. In the article Dick Cavett cited a quote, “The people get what the people want”. Nowadays, however, it seems to be more in tune with “The people get what they get”. I am starting to think this mindset has led to a generation of apathy and unawareness.

Both authors are notable writers/political commentators for the New York Times. David Brooks has been featured on NPR as well as “The Newshour With Jim Lehrer”. Dick Cavett is a former host of the Dick Cavett Show on ABC from 1968-1975. He has also written two books, and made appearances on Broadway, television, and in the movies. Their audience seems to be well-educated, moderate-liberal minded folks who are interested in things happening in the world around them.

Toxic Waters: Rulings Restrict Clean Water Act, Foiling E.P.A.

I feel like I keep hearing the same sad story over and over again. Big business buying political power and ultimately using it to go against legislation enforced to protect citizens. The article is entitiled Toxic Waters, and is “about the worsening pollution in American waters and regulators' response.” This time it is the American Farm Bureau, National Association of Homebuilders, and American Land Rights Association that are opposing new laws created by the Environmental Protection Agency. They have lobbied the issue to the point where it has not even been able to make it the the floor of the House. Interests groups like the Waters Advocacy Coalition like to “emphasize the scary possibilities”, making voters wary of any new passing legislation. The authors goes on to mention that if a political commentator, like Glenn Beck, can tell the millions of Americans watching his show that the new water regulations will send “government storm troopers” their way, you better believe it will sway an opinion or two on the matter. And this is how during the last four years over 1500 major investigations regarding pollution have been “shelved or discontinued”. A even more shocking revelation: “About 117 million Americans get their drinking water from sources fed by waters that are vulnerable to exclusion from the Clean Water Act, according to E.P.A. Reports.” 

One of the authors, Janet Roberts, has written many previous articles for the Times including reports on past environmental regulation, the banking industry, and such issues as new laws for the food and drug administration. The other author, Charles Duhigg, is an award winning writer and is credibly noted for his findings on profits in the elderly industry. I strongly agree with both authors. Legislation restricting the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency is only hurting ourselves, and saving the big corporations the time, effort, and energy needed to clean up their messes. The safety and well-being of not only ourselves, but our environment, is necessary for our society's success.

“How Christian Were the Founders?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?pagewanted=1

The N.Y. Times article, entitled “How Christian Were the Founders?” explores the highly controversial new direction being proposed for Texas education. It goes on to explain how our nation has been governed by a “moral majority”. This group of neoconservatives refutes the separation of church and state. Even when confronted with factual evidence from numerous scientists, the conservative right tend to rely on word play and claims America's “divinity” as a nation. “Many of the points that have been incorporated into the guidelines or that have been advanced by board members and their expert advisers slant toward portraying America as having a “divinely preordained mission.” Of the 15 people sitting on Texas' Board of Education, seven, nearly half, are conservative Christians who are using their positions to advance their opinions. My feeling is that Jefferson stated the clause between separation of church and state because he did not want any one single religion being the basis of our government. It seems now the influence is pressuring the textbook developers to write accordingly to their agenda, not how history realistically played out. If the proposed curriculum actually passes it will be a very sad day for education in Texas.

To start things off...

My name is Stephanie and I am a 20 year old student. Up to this point in life my political ideology was based on what my parents or teachers told me. After moving away from the very small town I was raised in and taking some college courses, I started to realize that things are not as simple as they seem; they are definitely not what is always represented on the mainstream media. I am learning a lot, and ready to find out more about government's roles/intentions, their limits, our powers, and others thoughts on the subjects.

BUT: If I had to pick a side (it's easier to divide and conquer... keep that in mind) I'm going to go with the Democrats. I love people and progress over profits (or the lesser of two evils) :) However, my entire family and 95% of my coworkers are right-wing Republicans. My brother is on his second or third tour in the Middle East, and his wife, 3 kids, mother, and myself, among many others, all miss him greatly. I want this oil war to be over and a solution be brought about for a sustainable future. 

I am happy to see a Democrat in office, however, most of his actions are leaning towards the middle-right, not very progressive at all if you ask me. My main belief is that money controls everything. And money is the root of all evil. I'm growing extremely concerned with the unending war and Bushs' war crimes and the torture issue and Guantanamo, the Patriot Act and hiring private mercenaries.... the basic assault on our civil liberties.

I am taking this class to gain knowledge (and hopefully acceptance into some university again someday). I am also taking an Environmental Science course this semester, and I'm looking forward to finding out more about the devastation and destruction we've brought about our Earth. 

I took the PEW quiz and scored a whopping 69%, 10 out of twelve questions. Better than 69% of the general public. I scored slightly better on the Civics Quiz- 25 correct out of 33... 75.76%!