"Well you know my views on the issues, basically cuz you know my dad..."

That was me at thirteen, too. The first time I changed my stance about a major political issue was when I was a freshman in college and I had the chance to see Sister Helen Prejean speak. I had seen the movie, but that did not prepare me for the emotional wrenchings hearing about her experiences caused. And what she said made sense to me, and I realized that the death penalty was inconsistent with everything else I believed.

If that was wrong, what else had I blindly taken as truth? And how many other people were like me, taking the things I was told at face value without examining my own thoughts and reasons and the influences of the speaker? Too many, I'm afraid. I was listening to Talk of the Nation discussing the sixteen ballot initiatives in California. The question was asked (paraphrased), "How do voters become informed about all these issues." The answer? "They look to organizations that represent their issues, like the Sierra Club, and see what they recommend."

This does make sense. But how do you know what these organization's ulterior motives are? That's why so many people trust Jon Stewart. You know what his motives are. Listen to his interview on Fresh Aire. It contains a clip of his interview with a party head and he was asking some pretty tough questions, questions you don't hear news anchors ask. The debates illustrate this - there is no real discussion on the issues anymore. You have people on each side repeating the same things over and over again. They somehow hope to convince people to vote for them by repetition.

I guess I'm not sure how people are supposed to filter through all the talking points and ulterior motives and power grabs to find the truth. How do we become informed voters if politicians talk down to us?