Maybe this is a bit of a digression, but I'm stuck on this New York Times Op-Ed. We are spending $5,000 per second on the Iraq war. According to the article, which discusses economist Joseph Stiglitz's new book:
"Professor Stiglitz calculates in a new book, written with Linda Bilmes of Harvard University, that the total costs, including the long-term bills we’re incurring, amount to about $25 billion a month. That’s $330 a month for a family of four.
A Congressional study by the Joint Economic Committee found that the sums spent on the Iraq war each day could enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start or give Pell Grants to 153,000 students to attend college. Or if we’re sure we want to invest in security, then a day’s Iraq spending would finance another 11,000 border patrol agents or 9,000 police officers."
My question is this: why isn't anyone listening to this? Why aren't young people up in arms about the future of this country? Why is the audience for this kind of message limited to Limousine Liberal NYT readers?
There has to be a way to harness the power of online social networks to engage a younger audience. I know a lot of politicians are trying - but it doesn't seem to be working. I don't have an answer - but I think politicians, writers, academics and activists need to better take advantage of "weak social ties" in a real and genuine way. Online social networks could - if used properly - become an agent of social and political change.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
May I submit this food for thought:
That younger generation is why there are TMZ and Extra commercials on CNN. It's gross, but when there is all this craziness in the world, compounded in a million different mediums, audiences can't help but filter out some messages.
Post a Comment