Twitter is Evil

Twitter is destroying America. Bicoastal City recently discussed the pervasiveness of Twitter in modern society. The medium is transfigured to facilitate communication, friendship, news media, social antics, and celebrity apologies. The medium has failed to impress or captivate me. The largest feeling I hold regarding Twitter is one of disgust. It boggles my mind that 140 characters are passing as legitimate means of communication. I cannot fathom the acceptance of apologies, the collection of legitimate news information, and the fascination with “followers”. Is Twitter a cult? Or does it more closely parallel a simple medium for stalkers?

Other communication forms also frustrate me, but it has always been Twitter that sits most poorly. Twitter is ruining the ability of society to recognize socially adept individuals from socially ridiculous. Just in case you were curious society, “gr8”, “lol”, “lmao”, and any other letter saving abbreviations are not words. Replacing letters with numbers and emotions with emoticons do not qualify you for much of anything, but looking like an idiot. In what world except twitter can I search for “The New York Times” and have anything except my query listed in the top thirty search items?

A recent study from the University of Southern California found that technological overstimulation can lead to an inability to properly process emotional responses, especially to psychological pain. Twitter’s homepage feed adds a new Twitter message roughly every seven seconds. While all Twitters carry a different amount of followers and updates, the constant stream of information availability is unhealthy for an individual’s ability to process through emotions. This lack of processing may directly impact the morality of society.

Back in 2009, Gavin Newsom announced his candidacy for Governor of California over the site

“It’s official– running for Gov of CA. Wanted you to be the first to know. Need your help. Check out video: http://tr.im/iOCN and ReTweet.”

Please, Mr-I-want-to-be-Governor, ignore the fact that our public education system is failing and continue to encourage your followers to leave out pronouns, articles, English isn’t the national language here anyway, so I guess you really don’t need to follow the rules to be in charge.

Is it really necessary for members of Congress to tweet during Presidential addresses? Maybe I missed something, but I thought the president, regardless of party, should garner a smidge of respect from other elected representatives. Wouldn’t members of Congress have better served their country by listening to the speech instead of attempting to condense their witty thoughts to less than 140 characters?

As far as Bicoastal City’s defense of Kanye’s use of Twitter as a platform for apologizing to one Taylor Swift, I cannot get behind this either. I understand a public apology for a public offense. Kanye, however, offended Taylor Swift personally, and should have appropriately “manned up” and addressed her as though she is an actual individual, not a detached, computerized, form of human.

Kanye went on to thank the creators of Twitter, 

"Thank you Biz Stone and Evan Williams for creating a platform where we can communicate directly."

Really, Kanye? Really? This is the only place where people can communicate directly? Oh thank God someone finally thought of a way for people to get in touch! The postal service, Alexander Graham Bell, Samuel Morse, the internet, email, and the fact that you have assistants to call Taylor Swift for you are definitely not effective forms of communication. You’re right. Twitter is absolutely the only way you can communicate directly with Taylor Swift, not engage thousands of other people, and address her only.

Growing up in a grammar conscious family, it is not in my genetics to accept Twitter as the phenomenon society has adopted. I absolutely detest the abbreviation of words, especially the submission of numbers for letters. Sentences are supposed to have a noun and verb. Sentences are supposed to be able to communicate a message effectively. Recently, my mother has taken to sending me text messages that I swear are written by a twelve-year-old girl. There are moments when I literally cannot understand what she is attempting to say. The other day her message was as follows (no, I am not making this up),

“That will work. I am :( you are :s about this B-) message. ({}) :D ;)”

I know this is a personal vendetta against my midlife-crisis-having mother, but the larger point is that in no way should that “message” qualify as a form of communication. Twitter is encouraging the use of poor grammar, lax communication, while simultaneously blasting apart society to make way for electronic, public relations apologies. Twitter is stifling the ability of individuals to interact personally, carry face-to-face conversations, write in complete and proper sentences, and build social relationships and skills necessary for participating in our democratic society. Twitter is failing America.

Mastering the Compulsion to Vote

The day I turned eighteen, the first thing I did was register to vote. I had never been so excited to be a part of society. I remember the days when I was young, and my primary school held "student voting", complete with ballots and booths. It was one of the most disappointing moments of my life when I realized my vote didn't actually count to elect President Bill Clinton. I've never fathomed the individuals in our society who dismiss this right for whatever reason they propose.

I firmly believe Americans should be required to vote, at the very least in federal elections. Yes, the country was founded on varying freedoms including, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". However, even Alexis de Tocqueville acknowledges his misgivings in "Democracy in America", arguing the pursuit of equality will eventually triumph the act of liberty, allowing liberty of the ancients (participation in political society and exercising power together) to be substituted for the liberty of the moderns. De Tocqueville anticipates the continuation of pursuing the American Dream will allow for professional politicians to dominate the system as representatives of the people. However, less power will be in the hands of the people. Without power in the hands of the people, what does the democratic republic of the United States of America stand for?

William Galston, Brookings Institute Scholar, agrees that voting should be mandatory. Galston argues the most participative citizens are citizens with very distinct views on politics, leading to the polarization that can be easily identified in the system today. Between liberals, conservatives, Sarah Palin, President Obama, and the Tea Party, the overt dichotomy in American politics is damaging the system, creating political and social gridlocks disallowing progress to be made. Galston advances the notion that creating compulsory voting will invite the voice of less conflicted individuals and create holes in the gridiron locked gates of political ideology plaguing the country.

When Australia instituted mandatory voting in 1924 for federal elections, enforcing the measure with varying amounts of fines. Voting increased from below 60% to 95% among registered voters. In America, 56.8% of the voting age population turned out in the 2008 election, the highest turnout in this country since 1968. There are 98,614,000 people who did not vote, though able to, in the last election. The midterms this fall do not look promising.

With mandatory voting, it is possible that individuals will end up voting primarily upon party lines, a dumbing down of the system will occur to reach less politically savvy voters, and apathetic voters may stumble through the system, selecting candidates at random.

But what if politicians didn't have to focus on convincing people to come to the polls, but convincing people to vote for them? What if requiring people to vote encouraged further participation, active voter education, and an even greater love for this country? I vote we add this mandatory civil requirement to the list our government already presents to citizens: receiving an education up to a certain age, sitting on juries, paying taxes, and, occasionally, fighting for the country in times of war. What's one more day of mandatory citizenry? Students spend a minimum of 180 days a year in school, taxes are paid every year without fail, the draft (while not often) requires commitments of years and sometimes death. In the grand scheme of American life, calling for citizens to show up one day every two years to vote for laws and individuals that will directly impact their lives is not un-American. It is, as I see it, distinctly American.

Perhaps mandatory voting would decrease polarization in America's conversations with the entrance of additional perspectives and less aggressive personalities. Maybe citizens would begin to see voting as their responsibility to the society in which they live, instead of as a right they can sidestep in lieu of other, more fiscally appealing rights to life and happiness.

Though arguments will abound regarding the fundamental right to freedom which compulsory voting contradicts as well as the dumbing down of the system through required inclusion of uninformed voters, I do not understand individuals who are not excited to be involved in politics. The rights in this country were allotted to us to allow citizens to participate in democracy, living their lives under the laws and individuals they have chosen. Without laws and individuals in control chosen by Americans, the system fails to uphold its necessary call for freedom and democracy. Without compulsory voting, the Constitutional United States of America is failing its citizens.

The Education of the Public Intellectual

The Public Intellectual is a vague term that leaves open vast room for interpretation and argument. Can Laura Schlessinger be considered a public intellectual? For that matter, is Rachel Maddow a political pundit or public personage of merit? The argument can easily be made for either individual, but the fundamental quality of a public intellectual discussion regarding either individual should be, is this the best public forums can offer? As Stephen Mack discusses in his blog, "The 'Decline of Public Intellectuals", Richard Posner's ranking and evaluation of public intellectuals stir the debate of who qualifies for the intellectual world and who does not make the cut. Conspicuously absent from his list are a range of highly regarded intellectuals, further emphasizing the ability of an argument to made for a vast collection of individuals. Therefore, no decline should be observed in the amount of public intellectuals, though it is entirely possible (and plausible) that the quality of the public intellectual has become blurred as a by-product.

Brian Crosby, an intellectual who has recently entered into public discourse, is set to combat this, whether it stands as his primary intention or is a secondary consequence. Crosby ventures into reconstruction discussions without hesitation, widely promoting himself and his views. His work envelops the fundamental necessity for what is conducive in creating a public intellectual: education.

Brian Crosby is a figure with whom every individual in America, who has ever entered into, plans to enter into, or will one day place his or her children into public education should be familiar. Crosby is a National Board Certified Teacher, with twenty years of high school teaching under his belt. He has penned two books (Smart Kids, Bad Schools: 38 Ways to Save America's Future and The $100,000 Teacher: A Teacher's Solution to America's Declining Public School System) focusing on the education system in America, with specific proposals to improve the rather broken system. In 2005, Crosby launched the American Education Association, to support reforms within education, centering on educator improvement and training. He is also saving the public intellectual.

Mack is correct in stating "Any argument for the public intellectual that, like Donatich’s, rests the assumption that common citizens are forever childlike and must be led by a class of experts is politically corrosive and historically dangerous." Citizens are, generally, youthful in their naivety and take to popular opinion leaders to lead their own path of thought. To increase public discussion on how to combat the 'childlike' state of citizens, Crosby works to engage and stimulate children before they can become childlike adults. His work to improve basic public education in America should be seen as a blessing to public intellectuals and followers alike. Without a foundational proper education, the world may be left uninhabited from significant public discourse. Effective and sweeping education policy changes, as Crosby advocates, are fundamental not only the existence of America as a primary world leader but essential to the continuation of the 'class' of public intellectuals. Though combating the decline of the quality of public intellectual is not his priority, he is effectively stimulating a discussion to protect the acclaimed title.

Mack goes on to reference Jean Bethke Elshtain, who argues that the significance of a public intellectual is to perform criticisms. Mack seems to agree with this, amending this argument to encompass "every citizen of a democracy". While there is much validity in the aptness of a public intellectual to engage in criticism of the principle and policy of ruling establishments, it is not their sole responsibility. While it is imperative for the public to undertake their social responsibilities and "prod, poke, and pester the powerful institutions that shape their lives", the expectations of public intellectuals should not cease there. Public intellectuals should venture into solution propositions, education of the public, creation of resolutions and options for the future instead of a complaint, criticism, and condemnation tirade on their chosen fields of adept capability.

It is not whether the public intellectual's criticisms are worth hearing and repeating, but whether the public intellectual is constructing more than disparaging disapprovals. Crosby's experience enables his first hand criticism, but he couples distinct judgments with actual solutions, as outlined in both his books.

           Today’s educational system is yesterday’s educational system.  Imagine if medical care today employed remedies of a century ago. “Oh, that finger hurts?  Let’s cut it off then.”  We treat people differently today, thank goodness, so why shouldn’t we educate them differently as well?

            Yet no one seems to have the foresight or fortitude to create a new vision for public schools, from the buildings that house students to the subjects taught to them to the food that is fed to them. 

            After nearly 20 years of teaching high school English and journalism, teaching over 3,000 students, mentoring dozens of new teachers, teaching university credential courses, and becoming a National Board Certified Teacher, I see what works, what’s wrong and so I have a plan."

His plan encompasses many aspects, which are varying, thoughtful, and honest. Crosby contributes to the world in which he is an intellectual further through his creation of the American Education Association. He continues to advocate for comprehensive changes within the system and has established himself as a ranking figure in America's education discourse.

Furthermore, Crosby has paved a course for the return of the public intellectual, primarily with his commitment to evaluating complex and unpopular policy issues, concurrently drafting superior alternatives. Additionally, with educational changes Crosby proposes, students who receive higher quality education stand increasingly equipped to effectively engage in society. Crosby serves as a useful figure to combat the declining public intellectual, but more importantly serves as a figure championing the development of an effective public education system in America. 

Under Celebrity we Stand

I recently invested my time into reading the book "Game Change" by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin. Though I am only about halfway through the non-fiction book about the 2008 election, something has occurred to me. 

In the 2008 Presidential election, some 88% of young white voters and 85% of black voters paid attention to the political race, and ended with the highest voter turnout (56.8%) seen in the United States since 1968. This year, with the midterm elections approaching, voter turnout is poised to be significantly lower. Only 19% of voters aged 18 - 29, 25% of black voters, and 42% of white voters have paid "some" or “significant” attention to the 2010 elections. This is not unusual in a non-presidential election year, but poses the question, where did all those voters go?

The 2008 election, the draw of American voters of all ages, ethnicities, and religions, was a popularity contest. It stirred in American memories the days of high school bickering for prom queen and fawning over the basketball star, who also happened to be the smartest person on campus. The 2008 election was a fight to see who gathered the most "friends". 

It was not a campaign of wonderful and innovative policy ideas, a debate of intelligence and fundamental knowledge. The campaign was, instead, a constant measuring of how far a candidate had penetrated the American public. It was a contest to see which candidate gained more popularity than their counterpoints, a competition to evaluate who had most effectively manipulated the entertainment system and twenty-four hour news cycle of America. Honestly, what kind of campaign promise is "hope" or "change"? Voters can fill hope up with anything they desire, and change cannot be evaluated until after the election is over. 

But still, people turned out in unprecedented numbers to throw their support behind Obama. Near the beginning of his career, campaigning for State Senate in Illinois, Hillary Clinton dubbed him a "superstar". And a superstar he became. 

The 2008 election threw in everything a good reality show needs: 

- A debonair candidate who could seemingly charm everyone he met. Would there ever be a chink in Superman's armor?

- A true political family, with decades of time and money spent in this public spotlight. The projected victor. How would their relationship and their relationship with constituents pan out in the election?

- A relatively unknown Alaskan politician, with a certain hometown captivation of America. What next scandal or statement would puncture her perfect family facade?

- A respectable war hero, life politician making his last bid for the most powerful seat in the nation. Simply, would he make it out alive?

The candidates, with their cast of characters called a campaign staff and family, entertained the country, coaxing citizens to political participation, convinced that participating would bring them closer to being in the heat of this new reality show captivating the nation. A mixture of Big Brother and American Idol style coverage, it is no wonder the turnout was unprecedentedly high in 2008. 

Today, this 2010 midterm election does not have the same level of dramatic tension. There is no coverage of a national voting game that individuals desire to become enthralled with. The most exciting event thus far this political season was Lisa Murkowski's loss to Tea Party Republican candidate Joe Miller. The Tea Party was established in the events following the 2008 election. This party relies largely on its outspoken participants, elaborate protests, and identification with average Americans. Remind anyone of the reality show called the 2008 Presidential Election? 

The only election in which Oprah Winfrey openly supported a candidate has been regarded as a benchmark in political activism. Why? Because Oprah Winfrey is one of the mostly widely known individuals in the United States and a bona fide celebrity. Lending celebrity to causes, brands, movements, candidates, advertising, or nearly anything else draws support because Americans desire to be entertained. 

The pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness has become the pursuit of entertainment and ignorance. Do individuals really need televisions in their bathrooms? Do Americans need celebrity stalkers heralded as renowned celebrity bloggers? The concerned American community needs to evaluate itself and remove the undue emphasis on entertainment, instead promoting activism in society; a right not nearly enjoyed enough in this country. America's pursuit of happiness has become a license for ignorance. The 2008 election was not won just on merit, but on the ability of candidates to entertain and charm their constituents. The champion of the very long and elaborate reality television show has become president. Let's hear it for America. 

Perhaps the authors of “Game Change” were on to something. The political game certainly changed in the campaign for the presidency. The political game following has continued to change, with louder protests and polarizing issues, opinions, and individuals. If the game has indeed changed, as Halperin and Heilemann suggest, why then are so few individuals engaged in this midterm election, which could certainly reverse the dynamic of Congress, alter the power of both the Republican and Democrat parties, and temper the power of the Superstar President? A game change, I think not.