upworthy

Politics

Democracy

Trevor Noah shared the one question U.S. journalists should be asking themselves every day

"Ask yourself that question every day, because you have one of the most important roles in the world."

@birbigs/Twitter

Trevor Noah has gotten high praise for his closing remarks at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

Back in 2022, for the first time in six years, the annual White House Correspondents' Dinner (WHCD) was held with the president of the United States in attendance on April 30 in Washington, D.C. The WHCD has been a tradition in Washington for more than a century and for the past several decades it has taken the form of a comedic roast of both the government and the press. 2022's dinner was hosted by comedian and former host of "The Daily Show" Trevor Noah, who's known for his smart, witty commentary on social and political issues.

The "let's invite a comedian to publicly and viciously make fun of us for a couple of hours" idea may be a bit odd, but these events have proven quite popular over the years, with many viral moments (including President Obama's infamous GIF-worthy mic drop) coming from them. The dinner opened with Noah joking about it being a superspreader event, earning some uncomfortable laughter, then the individual roasts commenced. Noah didn't hold back slamming people across the political and media spectrum—all in good fun, of course—including President Biden himself.

But it was Noah's closing remarks that earned the most attention. In his signature style, Noah managed to bring a serious and thoughtful element to a night of ribbing and laughter when he admonished the press to recognize both their freedom and their responsibility.

“If you ever begin to doubt your responsibilities, if you ever begin to doubt how meaningful it is, look no further than what’s happening in Ukraine," Noah said. "Look at what’s happening there. Journalists are risking and even losing their lives to show the world what is happening. You realize how amazing that is?

“In America, you have the right to seek the truth and speak the truth, even if it makes people in power uncomfortable. Even if it makes your viewers or readers uncomfortable. You understand how amazing that is?" he reiterated.

Noah pointed out that he had just stood there and made fun of the president of the United States and he was going to be fine. Then he contrasted that with the reality Russian journalists are living under Putin.

“Ask yourself this question," he said to the members of the media. "If Russian journalists who are losing their livelihoods … and their freedom for daring to report on what their own government is doing—If they had the freedom to write any words, to show any stories, or to ask any questions—if they had, basically, what you have—would they be using it in the same way that you do?

"Ask yourself that question every day," he said, "because you have one of the most important roles in the world."

Watch:

People had high praise for Noah's entire evening of hosting, but especially for his closing remarks. Russia's war on Ukraine has put a spotlight on many things we tend to take for granted, including the freedom of the press.

Journalists do play a vital role in society and it's one they must take seriously. To be fair, most journalists do feel the weight of their responsibility, but the corporatization of news media and a 24/7 news cycle has created a competitive landscape in which coverage is sometimes determined by what will drive traffic or viewers rather than on what's truly newsworthy or important. The demonization of news outlets by some has also created a hostile media environment, and news organizations have to resist the urge to kowtow to the loudest voices or inadvertently amplify the wrong things. Journalists often have to fight for the truth on multiple fronts, sometimes inside their own newsrooms.

Thank you, Trevor Noah, for reminding reporters that the fight is worth it and for using this opportunity to remind the press of its primary purpose with such a simple yet profound question.

This article originally appeared two years ago.

From Your Site Articles
Politics

Carl Sagan's answer when Ted Turner asked if he's a socialist is a roadmap for rebuilding America

Carl Sagan really had all the answers, didn't he?

via David Grinspoon / YouTube

In 1989, CNN founder Ted Turner asked iconic astrophysicist and science communicator Carl Sagan about his political leanings.

Surely, someone with such a deep understanding of the universe and a passion for humanism would have important insights into how we organize ourselves politically.

"Are you a socialist?" Turner asked Sagan. "I'm not sure what a socialist is," he replied.

While it seems unlikely Sagan was unfamiliar the concepts of socialist political theory, he was smart to sidestep the loaded term.

Socialism is such a broad concept that, in the modern era, it could be applied to numerous countries of varied economic development from Cuba to Canada. Conservatives tend to see it as a malignant political idea and point to Venezuela as a failed socialist state.

While many liberals point to Democratic Socialist countries in Europe such as Denmark and Germany where people have a standard of living that is comparable and, in some ways superior, to the United States.

Back in the '80s "socialist" was used by the U.S.S.R. to describe its totalitarian communist regime, so Sagan was smart to distance himself with any association with the bloc.

Ted Turner asks Carl Sagan if he is a socialist.www.youtube.com

So Sagan provided his own definition.

"But I believe the government has a responsibility to care for the people," he said.

"I'm talking about making people self-reliant, people able to take care of themselves," he continued. "There are countries which are perfectly able to do that. The United States is an extremely rich country, it's perfectly able to do that. It chooses not to. It chooses to have homeless people."

He also noted that in 1989 we were 19th in infant mortality. "We are 19th in the world in infant mortality. Eighteen other countries save the lives of babies better than we. How come?" Sagan asked, rhetorically.

Sadly, things have only gotten worse over the past 31 years. The U.S. is currently ranked 47 infant mortality.

"They just spend more money on them," said Sagan. "They care about their babies more than we care about ours. I think it's a disgrace."

Sagan also believed that the U.S.'s priorities are completely mixed up. We have a hard time helping our most vulnerable citizens, but we still have enough money to pay for high-priced weapons systems.

"Just look at what something like 'Star Wars,'" Sagan said, pointing to a costly '80s defense program. "We've already spent $20 million on it. And if these guys are permitted to go ahead, they will spend a trillion."

31 years later, things haven't improved, we're near an all-time high in military spending at a time when the world has never been more peaceful.


"Think of what that money could be used for: to educate, to help, to bring people up to a sense of self-confidence," Sagan added.

"To improve not just the happiness of people in America, but their economic standing, to improve the competitiveness of the US compared to other countries. We are using our money for the wrong stuff."


This article originally appeared on 10.5.20

From Your Site Articles
best of humanity
Democracy

Ret. Major General explains the difference between an AR-15 and the military's weapons of war

Major General Paul Eaton was the commander in charge of training Iraqi troops during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He knows his weapons.

Public Domain, @PaulDEaton/Twitter

Retired Major General Paul Eaton shared his thoughts on whether the AR-15 is a "weapon of war."

A common criticism gun rights activists levy toward gun legislation advocates is that many people who push for stricter gun laws don’t know a lot about guns themselves. That’s not wholly accurate—there are plenty of gun enthusiasts who support reasonable gun laws—but it’s true that many people who are horrified by our nation’s gun culture are not well-versed on the specifications of our nation’s 393 million guns.

Not every American is an active part of American “gun culture." Some of us have never shot a firearm, for fun or otherwise. Some of us really are ignorant about guns themselves.

That can’t be said for anyone in the military, however. And it definitely can’t be said for a former Major General of the U.S. Army.


That’s why an explanation of the difference between an AR-15 and military-style firearms from retired Major General Paul Eaton has gone viral. Major General Eaton was the commander in charge of training Iraqi soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom, so he definitely knows what he’s talking about when it comes to weaponry.

He wrote:

“As the former Commanding General of the Infantry Center at Fort Benning and Chief of Infantry, I know a bit about weapons. Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war. A thread:

Those opposed to assault weapon bans continue to play games with AR-15 semantics, pretending there’s some meaningful differences between it and the M4 carbine that the military carries. There really aren’t.

The military began a transition from the M16 to the M4, an improved M16, some years ago. The AR-15 is essentially the civilian version of the M16. The M4 is really close to the M16, and the AR-15.

So what’s the difference between the military’s M4 and the original AR-15? Barrel length and the ability to shoot three round bursts. M4s can shoot in three round bursts. AR-15s can only shoot a single shot.

But even now, you can buy AR-15s in variable barrel lengths with Weaver or Picatinny rails for better sights and aiming assists like lasers. Like the military, but w/o the bayonet.

But our troops usually use single shot, not burst fire. You’re able to fire a much more accurate (deadly) shot, that way. Note: you can buy our Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight on Amazon. So troops usually select the same fire option available on AR-15.

That is why the AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy. Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it. They know it’s true. Now you do too."

Eaton is not the only former military leader who has spoken out in support of gun legislation. In 2019, a group of 13 influential retired military leaders wrote a letter to Congress, pushing it to pass the Bipartisan Background Check Act.

"Each of us has, at some point in our lives, made the choice to risk our lives for our fellow citizens and place ourselves in harm’s way," they wrote. "We were trained, we were coached, and we were prepared for the dangers that we chose to face. This is not the case for most Americans, yet they continue to face danger on the sidewalk, in their homes, at school, and at work. It is in the same spirit that led us to serve in the armed forces that we ask you, our elected leaders, to help protect the American people from gun violence here at home. We urge you to support this legislation."

Police leaders have also voiced strong support for gun legislation, which makes sense considering how much harder and more dangerous our free-for-all gun culture makes their jobs. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, the largest professional association of police leaders in the world, has a position paper that outlines the gun safety laws it supports, including firearm offender registration, waiting periods, closing the gun show loophole, banning semiautomatic assault weapons, armor-piercing ammunition, bulletproof body armor and more. The IACP states that these are “common sense policies that would assist in reducing gun violence, while upholding the second amendment.”

Yep, the largest police leader association supports banning semiautomatic assault weapons like the AR-15. Here’s what it has to say about that:

“First passed in 1994, the assault weapons ban required domestic gun manufacturers to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds except for military or police use. While the ban was in place, it was remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons. In the period of the ban, (1994-2004) the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes fell by a dramatic 66 percent.”

If those who oppose gun legislation don’t want to listen to people who don’t know enough about guns to speak authoritatively on them, that's fine. Perhaps they should listen to these military and police leaders who not only know guns inside and out, but who also have the firsthand experience on both sides of the barrel to speak authoritatively on what can help minimize America’s gun violence.


This article originally appeared on 06.04.22

From Your Site Articles
Democracy

A big reason why political polarization is spiraling out of control and how we can fix it

A new study shows us how to be more humane.

via Gage Skidmore/Flickr and Prachatai/Flickr

Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump.

Polls show that Democrats and Republicans believe they have less in common now than they did 17 years ago. In 2007, around half of Democrats (46%) and Republicans (43%) thought those on the opposite side of the aisle shared their values and goals. However, a 2024 poll found that only 31% of Democrats and 26% of Republicans believe they share the same values and goals as those in the other political party.

The widening political divide makes addressing many of America's pressing issues harder. It has also created a political climate in which the parties favor extremists, and people in the political center feel they have no one to represent them.

A new study from the British Journal of Social Psychology has identified one of the major reasons people are becoming increasingly divided over politics. The good news is that it points to a solution.

Why are Americans so politically divided?

According to the study, one of the most significant and disturbing aspects of the political divide is the belief that the other side is less-than-human. This happens when someone’s relationship with their party evolves from simple identification to political narcissism. Political narcissists are emotionally involved with their party and have an “unrealistic belief about the unparalleled greatness” of who they are.

These people can't admit to their party's faults and believe that everything the other side does is wrong.

People often become political narcissists when they feel dehumanized by the other side. This leads them to believe the other side is less-than-human, too.

“Our findings suggest that dehumanization is not exclusive to any one political ideology,” one of the study’s authors, Marta Marchlewska, an associate professor and head of the Political Cognition Lab at the Polish Academy of Sciences, told PsyPost. “Both liberals and conservatives may dehumanize their opponents when they identify with their political group in a narcissistic way. Collective narcissism stems from self-related psychological issues, such as anxious attachment styles and low personal control, as well as group-related concerns like perceived in-group disadvantage.”

The interesting takeaway from the study is that when one group or political leader lashes out at the other in a dehumanizing way, they are pushing for the other side to see them as less than human, too. So, in a way, dehumanizing the other side robs you of your humanity as well.

voting, 2024 election, polarization People in a voting booth.via Canva/Photos

The good news is that the study found that those who have little contact with people from the other side are more likely to become political narcissists. That means that the more we interact with people we disagree with, the more humanity we will begin to see in one another. The study also notes that many times, when people adopt extreme views, it can be more of a symptom of their insecurities than their feelings about the other party.

“It’s crucial to recognize the role of psychological factors in shaping political attitudes and behaviors,” Marchlewska told PsyPost. “By acknowledging our biases and understanding the motivations behind our political identities, we can foster healthier dialogues. I encourage readers to reflect on their identification with political groups and how it might influence their perceptions of others. This awareness could lead to more empathetic interactions, even amidst differing viewpoints.”

To prevent this partisan animosity from escalating, people must step out of their bubbles and engage with those on the other side of the aisle. You don’t have to talk about your thoughts on abortion, immigration, or how much the rich should pay in taxes. But socializing with people with whom you disagree exposes you to each other’s common humanity, which can help bridge the gap on the current divide. Once America's major political parties devolve to the point where their supporters become blind to the opposition's humanity, they open the door to committing the worst atrocities.

From Your Site Articles
2024 election
Trending Stories