Talking to my roommate tonight about all things political I had a very basic realization. Information is power. He thought me ill-informed for gathering my information from Rush, Drudge, and FoxNews. I believe him to be lazy and under-informed based on the requirements he places on the information he gathers.
Ex.1) He found it strange that I do not support a national heathcare program when I don't have health insurance. The fallacy in his argument that lead to his conslusion was assuming that since I don't have healthcare that I expect someone else to pay for it.
The information he used in his assumptions was flawed in a very basic way.
Ex.2) He thought I was lazy for not knowing or caring where the library at ASU is located. I told him that thanks to the internet I could have any book he could find at the library in front of him including 10 articles critiquing it in less than a minute.
In true "my daddy can beat up your daddy" debating style the Clinton v. Bush argument was used.
Ex.3) I found it cliche when he suggested that President Bush was the worst president ever and "Slick-Willy" one of the best. My argument however threw him for a loop. Instead of arguing that "W" is in the top 5 of presidents during major historical times I said that he could be doing better if he would be the conservative that the country elected.
The thesis I came to was a very basic one. It's the information that is important and not the source. Is it not true that 2 bloggers brought down Dan Rather whom at one point was viewed as an impecable source? The new media that has erupted is important not because of who they are, where they went to school, or who they voted for. It's important because of it's basic function. To hold the powerful accountable with information. While democracts think the source of their information is important they will continue to lose elections. The majority will continue to vote with the information. Pure and simple.