Hoplophobia? Gun Laws

A recent New York Times article mentions a push to expand gun rights in some state legislation, including in Virginia where a bill was passed to allow the carrying of concealed weapons in bars and restaurants where alcohol is served.  Such a push seems odd in a state like Virginia not too many years after the Virginia Tech shootings.  The article seems to suggest that gun-rights supporters have been making significant progress in part due to a lot of silence on the issue by the Obama administration.  But gun-rights advocates don’t trust Obama, who mentioned during his election campaign that he would work to impose stricter gun-control laws.

“The watchword for gun owners is stay ready,” said Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association. “We have had some successes, but we know that the first chance Obama gets, he will pounce on us.”

The Brady Campaign, a group working for better gun control laws, has published a report grading Obama’s first year in office, giving him an overall ‘F’ for working to prevent gun violence.  The report contains a shocking statement that in only one year Obama has repealed more federal gun control laws than George W. Bush in all eight of his years in office.  Usually it’s the Republicans pushing for looser gun regulation, so this is a puzzling statement.  Now, of course, Obama has a mountain of issues to tackle, including the health care debate and Afghanistan, and gun-control seems to be one of those issues that has been debated over ever since the writing of the Constitution, but this can only somewhat excuse negligence over the issue, not negative progress.  Even if Obama hasn’t been able to focus on fulfilling his promises to enforce stricter laws, why has he then allowed a loosening of those laws at the same time?

Getting deeper into the issue, I keep asking myself why people even want to own guns so much.  Are some gun-lovers just so attached to a romanticized Wild West notion of the US that they stubbornly (pun intended) stick to their guns and fight for their 2^nd Amendment right?  Although I don't see this as an extremely pressing issue, I do find it interesting that it's still a matter of such contention in the US, albeit though national attention to it ebbs and flows. Why does the Republican Party hold so tightly to this?  Is it just niche-diplomacy as a way to get more votes?

In general, there are a couple of areas which both sides of the debate continue to bring up, namely gun use for self-defense, recreation/hunting, possession by armed forces’ reserves, as a way to resist tyranny, and cases of domestic violence.  As far as hunting goes, of course some states are more rural than others and hunting is more common in such places (like Palin’s beloved Alaska where Moose hunting seems to be a local pastime) - I see no need to take guns away from hunters (though PETA might disagree).  But when open carry gun-rights supporters flock to Starbucks with pistols strapped to their hips and intimidating (purposefully or not) less-zealous customers, I wonder just how far the 2^nd Amendment should apply.  “A right unexercised is a right lost!” as the Open Carry organization insists on their website.  However, wouldn’t keeping your licensed gun in your house, out of the reach of children be just as much an exercise of that right?  Rights are meant to protect people from intrusions on their freedom, not meant to create opportunities for people to use that liberty to interfere with other people’s lives.  I mean I don’t run around yelling at US soldiers that they aren’t allowed in my house, and just because I have a right to the freedom of speech doesn’t mean that I have to tell everyone what my political opinions are every time I see someone I don’t know – there’s just no reason to and I’m not worried that just because I’m not trying to say something controversial my freedom of speech will be taken away.  Why make a statement about it even if it is in the constitution?  Today there are few uses for guns outside of law enforcement, military, and criminal realms, so why carry a gun unless you belong to one of those categories?  It seems about as ridiculous as the huge pick-up trucks with giant testicles attached to the tow hitch but with far more dangerous consequences than offending all the old ladies on the road.

If hunting for sport or target practice are your thing, then there are plenty of alternatives for recreational use of less lethal guns such as BB guns, air soft, or paintball guns.  Throughout my childhood my dad used his BB gun to deal with the pigeons that pooped all over his office building, and I too owned a BB gun which I did target practice with in the back yard; it's fun – maybe just a guy thing. But the times when I actually shot and killed even just a bird, I felt guilty and regretted it immediately. Sure there can be recreational use, but I see no need for anything stronger than a BB gun unless you live in a rural area where you need protection from wild animals or if you live near a war-zone where a weapon means life or death; I see very little need for guns in 'civilized' America, especially in urban areas.

In doing a little research on reasons people should be allowed to carry guns, I came across an article by an outspoken gun-rights advocate named David Kopel.  In this article, Kopel presents a rather far-fetched argument to blame gun-control laws as one of the reasons why Hitler was able to kill so many people during the Holocaust.  Making such a large connection as this seems very ludicrous to me.  Though Kopel makes some good points that the Nazis did indeed disarm Jews, making it easier to carry out the genocide, but Kopel’s conclusion is a huge stretch in logic, that because racially biased gun-control laws were imposed upon the victims of the Holocaust, gun-control laws in the US should be questioned as well.  Surely other factors such as racism and a power-abusing regime are far more to blame for the Holocaust than whether the Jews had a hand gun in their closet.  If you don't trust your government enough and suspect that they want to disarm you so they can more easily kill you off, maybe you have bigger issues to worry about than whether you're allowed to carry guns. And even if there had been no gun-control laws carried out, wouldn't it have only turned into small-scale shoot-outs between the Jews and Nazis, assuming those Jews who were in possession of firearms resisted the Nazis when they came to take them?  I think there would only have been so much they could have done when faced with heavily armed and trained SS troops with strict orders.  I understand Kopel's reasoning that:

One never knows if one will need a fire extinguisher. Many people go their whole lives without needing to use a fire extinguisher, and most people never need firearms to resist genocide. But if you don't prepare to have a life-saving tool on hand during an unexpected emergency, then you and your family may not survive.

But as he admits, those are very rare emergencies, and if something as dire as a state-led genocide program comes knocking on your door, I hardly think having a few guns on hand will save you from death in the long run.  The solution to preventing war and genocide doesn't lie in increasing weapons possession, but in changing people’s mindsets and core beliefs about the morality of violence.  Just look at Japan for an example of a state where, although there are fairly strict gun-control laws in name, they are not enforced very strictly and the people are not fighting for stronger rights to bear arms – Japanese society is very pacifist and using firearms is not only legally unacceptable but socially unthinkable as well.  Japan also happens to have one of the lowest crime rates in the developed world.

Other than referencing the Holocaust, in Kopel’s article he also mentions Zimbabwe and the Mugabe regime as being potential African Hitlers. Having grown up in Zimbabwe myself, I was confident I'd understand the context of Kopel's argument much better, so I read another of his articles on Zimbabwe. Although Kopel does a good job of describing the situation as it was in Zimbabwe (the article is old - from 2001), again he fails to make a logical connection between the tragedy of genocide and the US campaign for gun-rights. The ending paragraphs to Kopel's article are:

…But are we Americans truly serious about ending the epidemic of genocide? Are we no longer willing to watch from the sidelines as another century rolls by, and witness thousands or millions more innocent victims killed by their own government? 

If we really mean "never again," then the solution is rather obvious: ensure that the potential victims of genocide are never disarmed.

I almost fell off my chair when I read this, I was so surprised at this guy’s complete lack of logical sense (IOW he was a moron!).  Is the solution really that obvious!? I fail to see how this argument follows that the best way to prevent genocide is to keep guns in more people's hands. In both of his articles mentioned above, what Kopel fails to account for are the real possibilities of widespread conflict should both sides be armed; increasing the amount of weapons only makes conflict more likely.  And firearms are not the only weapons used in genocide, though Kopel seems to think that genocide victims will be safe if they have firearms.  What if they’re attacked by artillery shells or burned in their houses?  What about the Rwandan genocide where most of the people were killed by hand with simple machetes?   Should there be machete-carrying rights as well?  Or should there be machete-control laws instead?

Now genocide, politicide, any type of government-sanctioned or widespread killing is appalling and I don't discount that whatsoever. But don't go and exploit the suffering of people in foreign countries as a way to garner sympathy for gun-rights campaigns in a peaceful land like the US. You have to account for far more than material realities and consider psychological and social factors as well.

This is a complicated issue at hand, and I’ve only scratched the surface, but I’ll end this post with a reiteration of the cliché that it’s not the guns that are evil, but the people who choose to use them in an evil manner that are.  The problem is the increased likelihood of someone being harmed when weapons are more prevalent, not to mention the increased fear of harm that accompanies the presence of such weapons.  As Martin Luther King said,

By our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim...we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes.

Are gun rights really necessary or do they do more harm than preventing it, and how important is it that Obama follow through on his campaign promises regarding this issue?

UPDATE:

Here is a post from a fellow blogger who advocates for the right to bare arms.  My thoughts on his article can be found in its comments (Nanashi).

America's Over-Eager Humanitarians in Haiti

Here and here are two news articles about 10 American missionaries who were arrested last week for trying to take 33 Haitian children across the border to the Dominican Republic.  This situation is an interesting example of miscommunication between people from different cultures as well as some clashing between religious and political ideas.  These 10 Americans are being held in a Haitian jail while they are being charged by the Haitian government for child abduction and criminal conspiracy for trying to take these children out of the country without official documents.

Now, while these Americans keep claiming that they had good intentions, what amazes me is the fact that they even attempted to take children across the border without proper papers and without official custody of those children - how can they not think it's illegal?  One of the above articles says that the leader of the missionary group, Ms. Silsby said that:

...she acknowledged that she had no documentation to show that the children were orphans, or permission to remove them from the country, she said they had planned to return to the capital to complete the paperwork. She also said that in the midst of Haiti’s crisis, they thought they did not need the documents.

Why in the world did she think the law would not apply to her situation?  Just because there's a national emergency doesn't give them license to do as they please.  Now of course Ms. Silsby may have been genuine and would have done as she said she would and return to Haiti to complete the paperwork, but no amount of confidence in her own integrity gives her a right to exempt herself from Haiti's national laws on border-crossing.

Another crazy thing is that it was discovered that some of these children still had living parents, they weren't orphans at all!  The parents were told that their children would be educated and cared for for awhile, not put up for adoption.  The articles mention that even one of the children themselves was unaware of the intentions of these Americans; she just thought she was going on a short vacation then would return home.  Clearly, there was some kind of communication gap here, and that's the problem at hand: a lack of understanding on both sides.  I've even heard (see video below) that the organization that these missionaries were from wasn't even officially registered as a non-profit - the 'orphanage' they were planning on taking these children to wasn't even ready and equipped to receive these kids.



Now there's nothing wrong with someone wanting to help out, and I'm all for American humanitarianism, there should be more of it, but you have to be informed about the consequences of your proposed actions and have a thorough understanding of the laws and culture of the country that you're going to.  It becomes a problem when aspiring humanitarians get caught up in a fantasy of personal sacrifice when they *turn on the sarcasm* privileged to be so rich, leave their comfortable lives in their home country to go to the dark places of the world and help those poor unfortunate souls.  Then when someone slaps their benevolent hand, they jump in shock, not comprehending - after all, they were only trying to do a good thing *sarcasm off.*  Some of these humanitarians from rich Western countries never take the time and effort to research and understand the local culture of the people they are trying to reach out to; they think their intentions give them all the authority they need and that their first assumptions (read 'bias') are always correct.  These people are sadly mistaken.

Also important in this case is the idea of law in a time of national emergency or disaster.  Just because this group had money to give didn't entitle them to do what they wanted with these Haitian children; the earthquake did not invalidate the laws governing border crossing. Sure, there may be times when a law may be broken in an emergency, but trafficking children across national borders without legal papers is something completely different from breaking into a grocery store so you don't starve.  Now granted in such a big disaster as the quake in Haiti, things are going to be a mess, official documents may be lost, or these children may never have had them in the first place.  Yet these are things that should have been thought of before this group arrived in Haiti.  Did they pursue all the official outlets to get the children papers?  Did they know for sure that these children were orphans, or had official consent from the parents, and communicated with local orphanages that they were going to take care of the children?  These few news articles don't give all the details, and there could be many misunderstandings at hand in this situation.  Nevertheless, it brings up the important point that when you travel to a foreign country you need to have taken careful consideration of that country's laws and regulations; you can't assume all the same rules will apply as in your home country.

As one article quotes:  “If people want to help children of Haiti,” said Marie-Laurence Jocelin Lassègue, a government spokeswoman, “this is not the way to do it."

Attached to this issue is the recurring and oft-overlooked problem of insensitive and incomprehensive humanitarian aid from the first world to the third, which I will talk about in a future post.

The Necessity of Conversation. Part II. Religion in Politics

Another of Stephen Mack's blog posts deals with another aspect of public intellectualism, this one dealing more with those with religious leanings.  In his post, Mack discusses that timeless debate about whether religion and politics should mingle with each other or not.  In reference to some disagreements between Christian conservatives and liberals, Mack quotes Peter Beinart: 

What these (and most other) liberals are saying is that the Christian Right sees politics through the prism of theology, and there's something dangerous in that. And they're right. It’s fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them—as much as possible—in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all. Otherwise you can’t persuade other people, and they can’t persuade you. In a diverse democracy, there must be a common political language, and that language can’t be theological.

Stephen Mack makes a good counter-point to Beinart's statement, saying that: 

It’s not only absurd but unfair, some argue, to ask religious intellectuals to disarm their political speech of its fundamental moral rationale.

While I understand what Beinart is saying about having a common language, I also think it is just as important to learn to speak the language of religious people in order to better understand them rather than simply invalidating their claim because things aren't being communicated. Now granted I don't know a lot about Beinart, so I don't know what his deal is, and I'm only going off of his quote here, but I wonder if it's really language that Beinart is concerned about here, or maybe his frustration is not so much with the terms used, but with the beliefs advocated?  I don't think so much that Christian conservatives and liberals speak different languages, but just that they have different beliefs and because those beliefs lead to different policy goals, there are bound to be clashes.  A more constructive approach would be for both sides to learn each other's language, to sit down and actually try to understand why the other side believes what they believe, and then if there are disagreements, to simply hold it as a difference of political opinion rather than demonizing religion altogether or making accusations about a political philosophy without morals; once demonizing occurs, there is a breakdown in communication and very little progress can be made from then on.

This is one of the big frustrations I have with partisan politics - it's always the Right accusing the Left, and the other way around.  Surely better progress would be made if politicians stopped treating everything like a sports match, each party on opposing teams, fighting for votes like points.  We're all supposed to be on the same side, working for the common good of the country rather than special interest groups, right?  Don't get me wrong, I think the American democratic system is very rich for having two equally strong parties with differing views.  This is essential to our whole system of checks and balances, each party toning the other down so as to arrive at an overall middle way that's acceptable to a larger group of people.  That's one of America's great strengths, is its diversity.  The problem is when diversity becomes self-limiting and politicians get more hung up on their differences than in utilizing each other's strengths.

We don't necessarily need a common language in politics, as vaguely as that word 'language' is used; much more beneficial would be to learn the language of the other so as to better understand and relate to them.  Political philosophy and religious theology, while they should not be synonymous definers of what laws we make, should neither be isolated as exclusive to each other.  As Mack points out in his post, so much of US history and politics WAS grounded in theology.  So to completely remove that element would be to severely restrict the wealth of ideas found in the US political system.

Both religious and non-religious people speak a language much closer to each other then they think, and translating religious beliefs into political jargon is not as difficult as one might think, and indeed has already been done throughout US history.  Mack points out that:

American politics “uses” religion in the sense that it draws something vital out of it, redefining it in the process as something secular, essentially social—and not at all dependent on the belief systems of particular faiths. In short, liberal democracy takes from religion what it cannot supply on its own: a deep sense of belonging.

Kwame Appiah, whom I introduced in my previous post has some very relevant things to say on this issue as well.  Big Think's website has several video interviews of Appiah discussing his philosophy on various issues.  In one video titled "What's Your Question" Appiah demonstrates his open-minded, disinterested approach to philosophical questions when he asks himself:

If I'm so sure I'm right, how come she's so sure she's right too?  If it's obvious to me what the answer is, if the answer's obvious, why isn't it obvious to the other person?  And I think just that sort of turn-taking, standing in the other man's moccasins, walking in the other man's moccasins kind of thing, saying, well, I'm so sure I'm right about this, and yet here are these other people who don't think what I think.  How is that?  Are they just fools or irrational?  Is there some part of reality that's hidden from them?  Or could it be that I ought to reflect more carefully on what I think and listen a bit more to what they have to say?

I like Appiah's objectivity and his desire for unbiased truth.  His approach to philosophy seems to consist of honest debate with himself about things, playing around with his own ideas and allowing other ideas from outside of his mind to flourish as well, allowing him to find truth from all of it as a whole.

In another video interview, Appiah is asked, "Does religion inform your worldview?"  In response, he talks about how his parents raised him, but he quickly clarifies that:

Where an idea comes from doesn't settle the question whether it's right or not.

Appiah states that he sees no problem in religion informing philosophy - he cares more about whether it's correct or not rather than where it came from.  Later in the video he addresses the reality of accepting differing viewpoints from your own:

People have to live with the views that they have, I think that they should sustain them, subject them to some kind of analysis, reflection, perhaps even criticism.  But still, even if you do that, you're going to end up with a view that is going to be different from the views of lots of other people, and you're going to have to live in a world where that's true - where lots of people have different views about these religious questions and you're not likely in the course of your lifetime to be able to persuade any single person around to the same view as you have.  And nor are you going to be able to come to consensus with them at some view in between your view and theirs.  And so we have to learn to live in a world in which because we're in a poor epistemological situation, because we're not well-placed to find out the truth, we have to accept that other people will have views that are different from ours on some very important questions, and that there's not much we can do to come to an agreement about that.  I think there is something we can do to try and understand other people's points of view and to learn from that.  I think even the most thoughtful and convinced atheist has things to learn from talking to people from religious traditions whether or not she recognizes it, and vice versa.  People of religious traditions I think have things to learn from each other and from non-religious people if they're willing to engage in the conversation.  But if the conversation is guided by the thought that three weeks from now we'll come to an agreement, then that's a mistake and you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

So the question that I'm asking is: Are Christian conservatives and liberals having the conversations necessary to understand each other and learn each other's languages?

The Necessity of Conversation. Part I.

As I sit here and think about my first entry for this blog, I realize that I'm always very self-conscious about my writing and about what other people will think about it - whether they'll agree or not, whether they'll really understand.  I thus often put off writing because I rationalize that it would take too much time to lay out what I have to say, and in the end it may never accurately communicate what I desired to say.  However when I actually do convince myself to write, I tend to be very verbose, trying to cover every angle and explaining myself in as detailed of a manner as possible.  After I've finished writing, I then get annoyed with myself that I took so long just to say something which I understand in my head in a second.  So why should I bother to write at all?  Why communicate ideas?

Well if no one shared their ideas, where would the world be now - how could progress ever have been made if all the philosophers and great thinkers of the past kept their thoughts to themselves?  I'm sure the world would be a much poorer place for that.  Without Pythagoras where would modern Mathematics be?  Even Plato was greatly influenced by Pythagoras, and without Plato's ideas where would Western Civilization be today?  And although, as we found out later, Aristotle wasn't entirely correct with his ideas about there only being Five Elements, many of his other ideas have informed and had some influence upon almost every area of science and philosophy (at least in the Western world) in existence today.  For a broader example, in the East, just think about how the teachings of Shakyamuni (AKA Buddha) influenced India, then China, Japan, and really all of East and Southeast Asia for that matter.

So surely there's no harm in putting forward one's ideas, whether they be right or wrong in the end, the fact is that people are influenced by other people.  Indeed it is vital in a healthy society to have continuous discussion and exchange of ideas.  Modern academia is all about this ongoing debate, one scholar building upon another's work or criticizing it and putting forward an idea that he claims to be more accurate.  Ideas are important.  And if ideas are important, so are the people who put those ideas forward.  Among these groups of idea-makers are artists, philosophers, politicians, scholars, musicians, etc, everyone producing a stream of ideas in their own particular area of expertise.  It is these types of people that shape society and decide which form it will take, for it is ideas that are the true currency of power.  Out of this group of idea-generators is a smaller group called 'public intellectuals' who, being experts in their own particular field, take it upon themselves to share their knowledge with those people who are not as knowledgeable about that field; they explain things in 'layman's terms,' breaking out of their academic enclaves and translating what would otherwise be confusing jargon so that society as a whole can learn and appreciate their ideas too.  Public Intellectuals fulfill special roles in influencing society, acting much like the prophets or sages of long ago, being able to interpret the world around us and provide insight and guidance in the way we should go.

So who are the public intellectuals of today?  In 2008 Prospect Magazine and Foreign Policy Magazine conducted a poll of their readers to find out who they thought were the top 100 public intellectuals of the time.  Among the results are such familiar names as Noam Chomsky, Al Gore, Fareed Zakaria, Jürgen Habermas, and Jeffrey Sachs, as well as possibly less-known names like Wole Soyinka or J.M. Coetzee.  One of these public intellectuals that struck me in particular is Kwame Anthony Appiah, a London-born, Ghana-raised, Laurance S. Rockefeller University Professor of Philosophy at Princeton University.  His specialties lie in political and moral theory, race and identity theory, philosophy of language, and cosmopolitanism.  I was primarily intrigued to find out what he had to say about cosmopolitanism and identity theory because those are issues very important to me as someone with a lot of multicultural experience (which I'll write about in a future post).  Appiah himself comes from a multicultural background, his father being a Ghanaian politician and his mother being a daughter of a British family of politicians, giving Appiah a very interesting mixture of experiences growing up.  These experiences, it seems, have influenced Appiah's academic endeavors, as his approach to philosophy is a very multicultural one that seeks to be as inclusive as possible of the many ethnic and racial groups in the world.  Indeed, although Appiah has strong African roots, he doesn't play the typical Afrocentrism card, though neither does he advocate a Eurocentric view in favor of his British side, but seeks to find a truly objective conglomeration of many different views.  When discussing his book Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, Appiah says that "if people with vastly different religious, sexual, and political attachments are to live together without violence they must master the art of conversation."  I agree completely with this statement, and believe conversation and communication between diverse people groups to be absolutely essential in the increasingly cosmopolitan world we find ourselves in today.  Which brings us back to the importance of public intellectuals like Mr. Appiah who can act as spokesmen who can promote understanding between diverse people groups, politicians and constituents, Democrats and Republicans, Africans and Europeans, Muslims and Christians, Blacks and Whites, Easterners and Westerners, laymen and high-brow academics, and anywhere else where there is a brink in communication that often leads to misunderstanding, distrust, and even violence.  I intend to investigate further what Appiah has to say about cosmopolitanism.  You can find more information about him at his site.

Further exploring this idea of a public intellectual, Stephen Mack in one of his blog posts discusses a possible decline in public intellectualism due to a supposedly rising anti-intellectualism.  He seems to disagree with this idea, and I do as well, pointing to people such as Appiah as well as the other 99 public intellectuals (and many others of course) who still play an important role in society.

So what would contribute towards anti-intellectualism?  Perhaps some paranoid people think that intellectual elites are conspiring against everyone else and are passing out candy-covered poison apples to unsuspecting fools.  To be sure, one must be careful about high-strung academics who seem to be too self-conscious of the idea that they are the leading expert in their field - an idea that can at times lead them to believe that they can lead their field of study off in any direction they please, being sure that inferiors will accept what they say in acknowledgment of their ignorance; there is such a thing as intellectual arrogance and self-deception even amongst the intellectually brilliant.  Yet I think such a cynical mindset is a rather lonely burden to bear if you are to be distrustful of everyone who offers their opinion to you; in the end it's really up to you whether you take the advice of public intellectuals or not, but aren't we the richer for at least hearing people out?  I mean, surely we're not all so arrogant as to think we're experts in every area of life.  We all need specialists who know more than us in order to help inform our decisions.  Of course there's something thrilling about the idea of rebelling against those snobby intellectuals who shove their propaganda down our throats - you gotta stick it to the Man and resist that brainwashing, right!?  Except that for those of us who believe that a good education does have at least a tiny bit of inherent benefit in it, and have accordingly obtained such an education, more and more we realize that things are not quite as simple as those adolescent punk rockers would have us believe; many of those silly things our senile parents told us growing up actually ended up being fairly accurate in the end, didn't they?  Now of course this is a caricaturization, but really, I think so called 'anti-intellectualists' are either simply unable to grasp the arguments put forward by public intellectuals or they simply disagree and find it easier to call names and cast blame than to really try to understand another's viewpoint.  These 'anti-intellectualists' by refuting intellectualism are in fact creating their own brand of intellectualism anyway, right?

So while I don't think there is any so-called declining interest in public intellectuals, I do think the boundaries of the game have been shifted somewhat in recent times as new media forms and technological advancement have provided new opportunities for people to voice their ideas.  This very blog is a clear example of one humble college student who is able to get his ideas self-published and thrown out into the world to see what may come of them - all made possible by new media technology.  With blogging and the Internet today, any ordinary fool can become a public intellectual to a certain extent.  What matters though is whether they get any attention paid to their ideas.  This is one possible reason why some people may stop paying attention to intellectuals altogether - because there are too many out there and to find those worth paying attention to has become too cumbersome.  Perhaps people have become numb to the excess invasion of information into our lives what with advertisements, movies, music and television all telling us what we should think, buy, do, even be, and we end up tuning out.  In addition, the common individual is generally better educated than in the past, so people don't need to rely upon intellectuals nearly as much as they used to, being quite capable of making well-informed decisions for themselves.  Yet none of these reasons diminishes the importance of having public intellectuals in society.  There will always be some area of expertise, some complicated matter where people will need an expert's opinion to help them out; we're not yet so individually advanced that we have no need of some kind of guidance (or did we forget how often we check the weather forecast or get a check-up with our doctor?).  To be sure, we need public intellectuals around for more than simply technical skills.  During political elections, we need experts from all world views debating and asking the big questions for everyone, speaking for the masses so-to-speak, in a public forum in order that everyone might know more about each candidate and the implications of policy proposals.  In this way the attaching adjective of 'public' to 'intellectual' is very important, for if these discussions are had in the open, then there is communication to vast amounts of people, albeit many times only one-way (from experts to the population at large), but it goes much further in spreading information than only having, say a political debate between two political science majors who bring up very good arguments but no one outside of those two get to hear it.  Public discourse is key to societal growth and solidarity.

Again, with technology today, there is much better access to the vast library of the writings of public intellectuals, present and past, and people can access them at will, studying them and informing themselves.  While some of the ideas of the old philosophers have grown old and are not applicable today, there are many that are still very useful.  But for the changes that confront our modern age, we continually need new input, new ideas to help us make sense of what is unique to this age, what we in the 21st century confront that no one else in history had to deal with.  Here there is a need for public intellectuals to put forward new theories, new policy options.  Then for those of us who don't have the time in our busy lives to sit back and contemplate fully the implications of a new law being passed, we need the advice of those who do have the time to investigate more thoroughly.  For example, I know very little about the health care system in the US (that's just not my area of study), and with all this debate about health care reform, I see the following possible options for me to take: 

1.  Form an opinion with the little information I have and follow that, though it's likely to be biased and uninformed - probably not a good idea.

2.  Brush the situation to the side and let other people deal with it - but then again if I get screwed by this reform in the future, I have no one to blame but myself.

3.  Find out what more-knowledgeable people are saying about it and discerning from several points of view which one seems to be the most accurate, then go with that.

Of these three (there may be other choices too!) I think the third is the wisest course of action.  Though to a certain extent trust has to be involved, which takes us back to a reason why some may shun relying on public intellectuals - they just don't trust anyone but themselves.

Even if I'm pretty sure that I have the qualifications and knowledge necessary to make a wise decision about something,sometimes it just helps to get an intellectual pat on the back, a confidence-booster, to let you know that you're not alone in your viewpoint.  And some people are simply a little more eloquent and can breakdown and explain a point of view which we already held, though we did not have the words to defend it.  In this situation, listening to public intellectuals may not shed new light on a situation, but it can certainly arm us with the tools to effectively analyze and debate about that situation.

I have tried to cover many different scenarios of people's situations and views of public intellectuals, though of course I'm sure there are many more.  But I think we can all agree that everyone has a certain responsibility to do what they can to inform themselves about important debates and problems that face our society today, contributing towards finding the best possible solutions, and even if we disagree, at least understanding the other side's view point more accurately.  To do this, we must communicate!