Freedom of speech has its costs...

What does it take for a person to really have freedom in their lives? We're a country that's always noting that we have so many advantages as citizens yet I've never really taken the time to think about what is done to give me these rights. After reading this chapter, many different thoughts have been brought to my atention that I never really would have thought about otherwise. The fact that we are granted the abilities to own multiple guns if we wanted to and can make a blog about nearly anything is really something that can't be done throughout the world.

Of course there are certain events that occur that enable us to have these freedoms, including the fact that we are governed by an elected leader. If we were really "free" and didn't have to answer to anybody, the country would be in complete chaos. Because we are required to answer to somebody, they are able to establish rules that make the liberties we're granted so great. Sometimes people complain that they're not able to always say what they want or do what they want; however they are actually unaware what goes on to grant them these rights. Although we have limitations to our freedoms, it is because of these restrictions that our country is free, and I am thankful more and more each day because of them.

So, am I in the sphere or not?

After last class, it was brought up that there was some confusion with the article. Although after we discussed the article I had a somewhat better understand of the subject, we were assigned to re-read the article and bring up questions that we had. I still have some confusion with the following issues:

1. My first major issue was just the way that Fraser worded everything. I would like to think that an author would WANT people to be able to understand everything that they're writing, yet with this everything is so much more wordy than necessary!!! Because the author wrote in such a way, I lost interest at multiple points, and it took me about four times as long to read the article because I just was not interested. I did survive though, clearly because I'm writing this now!

2. I'm somewhat confused with her statements about the first major point - being that people from different social classes are equal to talk. Sometimes I think that Fraser is saying that the discussion that Habermas wants to occur can happen, and other times I think that she says it cannot. Which side does she actually believe?

3. At first I didn't understand what exactly were considered private issues. Is it people's personal lives? Or is it things such as sexual abuse? I think that I've come to understand that "private" has to deal with private property in a market economy and people's literal sex lives. I'm not sure if this is exactly correct however.

4. In class on Monday, someone asked exactly what "democractic" meant. I always thought I had a general idea what it meant, and we even came up with some definitions - like being more democratic means being more for ALL the people, with the majority interests. However, I feel like in the context of having one public as more democratic is still somewhat confusing, and I hope maybe tomorrow we can go into more detail with this!

That's all for now - I hope that everybody else had more success with the re-reading :)
-Caitlyn

"Who's in your circle?"

Since we were younger, we have always been defined through the people we associate ourselves with. Usually these people listen to the same type of music as you, have similar religious beliefs, or maybe just all shop at the same three stores. Jurgen Habermas defines a public sphere as a thing where a public opinion can be formed, with media forms including newspapers, radio, and television. These forms of media still remain relevant for the new public spheres that have developed, but also have branched out to include things such as the Internet, blogging, podcasts, and so many more!

While people are within their group, they form opinions about other groups that are established and some type of leader shines through. The position of a leader within a group is present no matter what - from small groups, like a clique at school, to large groups, like political parties. People also gain confidence within their group and aren't as afraid to voice their opinions. A major problem with the public sphere is that sometimes groups don't always feel the same as the majority - which leads to issues with freedom of speech or conflicting interests between parties involved.

One of the most amazing forms of media to me is the Internet. The fact that mass amounts of information can be publicized to such an array of people is astonishing. It's also an amazing source because it doesn't just have one type of person following it. EVERYBODY uses the Internet - from mothers looking up a new recipe for dinner to grandparents receiving e-mails of pictures of their first grandchild. Sure, different sites cater to different followings of people, however the Internet as a whole is not targeted to one particular public sphere. And because of this, we are able to bypass ignorance and sometimes even bring together unexpected groups of beliefs, or merge public spheres to one large ball!

To vote, or to rationally vote, that is the question?

"What did a vote express? Not a strong conviction that the party offered public policies; parties tended to be more devoted to distributing offices than to advocating policies. Party was related more to comradeship than to policy: it was more an attachment than a choice, something like a contemporary loyalty to a high school or college and its teams. Voting was not a matter of assent but a statement of affiliation. Drink, dollars, and drama brought people to the polls, and more than that, social connection, rarely anything more elevated." (Click Here for Democracy, Michael Schudson) It's funny to think that not until the beginning of the 20th century did our country have leaders chosen by an educated and rational voter. When voting first began, citizens would just merely approach the sheriff of the town and state their vote, with the two candidates on each side of them. As the years continued, things began to somewhat change, where the election day became a social gathering. "They viewed elections as affairs in which local citizens would vote for esteemed leaders of sound character and good family, deferring to a candidate's social pedigree more than siding with his policy preferences."

As the years pass on, the issue of bringing citizens to the voting booths still becomes an issue. Do people vote just because they're of age, or do they truly feel strongly about an issue? Is the candidate really the ideal person for the job, or do they just seem like a "cool guy"? Because of the media, sometimes our candidates are only viewed on the surface and young adults don't take the actual time to analyze just who they're voting to put in office. Schudson's article also brings up how the Internet has brought the world to our fingers, especially when it comes to politics. "The Internet does not erase existing structures of politics. If it gives to ordinary citizens new tools for gathering information and expressing views, think of how much more it offers to political professionals who spend forty to eighty hours a week on politics, not four to eight minutes."

We can see that over the past decade, more and more young adults are coming to the voting booths. We'd like to think that it has been because of encouragement at school, or through celebrity endorsements like with "Rock the Vote!" (http://www.rockthevote.com/), a site that uses music, popular culture and new technologies to engage and incite young people to register and vote in every election, however we can never be sure. We can only hope that the process of educating our future voters continues more and more, as we've seen in the growth of knowledge in our voters over the past centuries.

United Stubborn States of America

"There are over 42 million American adults, 20 percent of whom hold high school diplomas, who cannot read, as well as the 50 million who read at a fourth- or fifth-grade level. Nearly a third of the nation’s population is illiterate or barely literate. And their numbers are growing by an estimated 2 million a year. But even those who are supposedly literate retreat in huge numbers into this image-based existence. A third of high school graduates, along with 42 percent of college graduates, never read a book after they finish school. Eighty percent of the families in the United States last year did not buy a book." (America the Illiterate, Chris Hedges) After reading this article, it baffles me to think that the people in our country won't take the time to try and educate themselves; however, I do understand that sometimes they are embarrassed to speak up about their inabilities. I remember when I was in the second grade, my friend Brian would always get the lowest grades on our spelling tests and would never want to read out loud. One day, my teacher pulled me aside and asked if I would mind helping Brian during our reading time. Each day I worked with him on practicing his pronunciation and reading, reading books like Danny the Dinosaur. It's not that Brian wasn't intelligent, it's just that he never was really taught how to read. The problem with the schooling in U.S. is that some students are not given as many opportunities or the chances to develop their reading skills. I feel that if people took the time to make sure that all students were on the same level, the statistics that are seen above would not be such an issue.

This past fall semester I studied in Florence, Italy, where I studied marketing and Italian. I was really nervous about the language barrier since I had no prior experience with Italian and didn't want to feel out of place; however, I learned very quickly that I in fact would feel out of place, but not because I didn't speak Italian. In every country I went, from Greece to Germany, everybody had some knowledge of English. Whether they were seven or seventy, nearly everybody I came across was able to communicate with me in some form. I was amazed - how is it possible that they can understand multiple languages while people in America, whose native tongue is English, have trouble with just one?

"For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act -- not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do." (Barack Obama, inaugural speech) Although they don't have the same exact message in the article by Hedges and Obama's speech, I feel that the same general outcome is wanted. Hedges' article really makes people think about the fact that not everybody is at the same level of education, and I feel that a goal of Obama's speech is to show that he wants there to be a change for the school systems as well.