Mental illness and being aware

Robin Williams died today, and the cause is likely to be suicide. It's not confirmed, but because the cause of death was asphyxiation, it's likely.

I suppose I'm a little more torn up about it than I thought I would be. Williams played a substantial role in my childhood, and he voiced a character named Batty in one of my favorite movies of all time, Ferngully. 

I think the movie of his that stuck with me the most was probably What Dreams May Come. It's a film about mental illness and about dealing with grief and loss. I remember thinking it was an odd few, but it's popped into my head a lot throughout the years.

What I think is important to take from this is to use it as a reminder that mental illness happens to everyone, and that it's important to take care of the ones you love and never condemn someone for having one. Mental illness is surprisingly common. And it doesn't always manifest in obvious ways.

Historically, mental illness has been regarded as a taboo, as something that is discussed, but perhaps not often enough and not in the correct way. Harmful words that I have also been guilty of using, such as "crazy" and "insane" should not be used, and it's important to regard everyone's state of mind, even when your own isn't the best.

Anyways, I don't feel like going into detail much, let's just not turn this into another actor tragedy. Let's look upon this as a reminder that life is short, but every life is precious and incredibly important.

Please, everyone, appreciate your loved ones for everything in their soul, dark and light, and never lose hope.

Market Basket madness

Market Basket is owned by the Demoulas family. Two cousins are shareholders in the businesses Artie T. and Arthur S.

Artie T. is known to be the beloved champion of the worker. Artie S. wants to wrangle control from him, and did indeed successfully oust Artie T.

This made Market Basket employees angry because they like what Artie T. has done for them, providing fair wages, benefits and bonuses.

The warehouse workers and truck drivers are on strike, so no fresh produce or meats are making it to the store. The employees of Market Basket have even started a fund to help the warehouse workers weather the storm of the strike. You can donate here.

More information on this issue can be found at http://wearemarketbasket.com/

My thoughts go out to the striking employees. Good luck!

Oh, and like them on Facebook.

Why I back the Mayday PAC

Lawrence Lessig is a cool dude, and I've talked about him before. If you want to get a little background of what I've already discussed regarding Lessig and his movement against money in politics, check out my earlier posts Rootstriker and

Fourth anniversary of Citizens United.

Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School, and he is the director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University. He's got a BA in economics, a BS in management (both from the University of Pennsylvania), and he has an MA in philosophy from Cambridge, and a JD from Yale. Needless to say, I am jealous of his intellectual prowess. 

I met Lessig when he was doing a talk at my college in conjunction with a man named Jeffrey Clements, co-founder of Free Speech for People. He signed by book "To Faith- with hope & thanks." I appreciated the name pun. 

If you want a little background on their stance, check out Lessig's TED talk here.

Anyways, both men are against the results of Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee (2010), the results of which allow corporations and unions to create Super PACS (political action committees) that raise gross amounts of money to support specific candidates.

Recently, McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), a case closely related to Citizens United, struck down aggregate limits on independent donations to campaigns. 

So why is this a bad thing? If people want to donate their money to a candidate, they should be unable to, unhindered.

There's omitted variable bias in that statement. 

Yes, on a surface level, allowing people to spend what they want would be allowing free speech. Money talks. 

But a lot of money shouts, and it shouts down smaller amounts of money into oblivion.

What I mean by this is that oftentimes Super PAC's and large individual donations shut down the donations of everyday citizens because the larger donations allow for more advertising for candidates they support, and grassroots candidates who may not be as wealthy or connected have almost zero chance of being heard or elected.

Super PAC's specifically are dangerous because corporations will fund who they want to be elected for Congress, senators and representatives who will work for the corporations as opposed to for the people, and then these newly elected officials will pass or block legislation to help these corporations. 

Lessig calls this "dependence corruption" in his book Republic Lost (Twelve, 2011) on page 17 of this fantastic book outlining the corruption in Congress because of money in politics, and it entails that members of Congress need this funding from the "gift" economy in order to stay in power and ensure themselves a comfortable career consulting and lobbying for these large corporations in the future.

Now, the problem with corporations having so much weight in congress is that the act for profits, not for safety and equality. Just take a look at the current AgGag battle where journalists are trying to fight legislation making it ILLEGAL for journalists to take pictures of animal cruelty and pollution. Will Potter is leading a campaign against that; learn more here. Also, think about the recent GM starter fault cover-up or perhaps just start with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the bubble burst of 2008. National and transnational corporations can be reckless when it comes to the well-being of consumers.

So that's why I believe corporations should not be able to form PAC's and have such influence in our Congress and therefore legislation. 

Now, I wrote all of this to explain why I like the Mayday PAC. This is a crowd-funded PAC (over 50,000 donated), who's goal is "electing a Congress committed to fundamental reform by 2016." Lessig wants to elect a Congress who will pass legislation to clean up money in politics and reset aggregate limits on donations and eliminate corporate influence.

Following are the goals outlined by the website: https://mayday.us/the-plan/

Our plan for reform has four stages:

1. In 2014, we will pilot the idea of a superPAC intervening in elections to support candidates who favor reform. The objective of this pilot intervention will be to both (a) convince Congress of the salience of this issue to voters, and (b) determine how best to intervene to move voters on the basis of this issue.
2. Based on what we learn in 2014, in 2016 we will engage in as many races as we need to win a majority in Congress who have either cosponsored or committed to cosponsor fundamental reform legislation.
3. In 2017, we will then press to get Congress to pass, and the President to sign, legislation that fundamentally reforms the way elections are funded.
4. After a Congress has been elected under this new system, we will push for whatever constitutional reform is necessary to secure the gains from this reform.

“Fundamental reform in the way elections are funded”

And it is already fully funded for the first steps. They raised over $7 mil. 

So, readers, what do you think? I'm down for this. 

Pondering Activism

Clearly this post isn't going to a heavy hitter.

I was just sitting here, reading through my plethora of emails about petitions for causes, when I started wondering how exactly I ended up being an activist, and why everyone else doesn't want to be one too.

I think that everyone could find at least one cause they would relate to on a deep level, and I think there's a lot out there to find interesting and to enrich life.

Decidedly, I want to map out the pros and cons of activism.

Cons:

• It takes up time. You can't be an activist through osmosis. You have to research and communicate and clarify, and you have to exert your opinion and personality.
• It can be dangerous. If people don't like your opinion or it endangers their place in the power hierarchy, you can make some enemies. Check out Green is the New Red for details on that.
• People may find you extreme: because activism is sometimes painted as being an extreme thing. Hell, caring and being knowledgeable about an issue and frequently discussing it can get you branded as extreme, without even getting involved. It's a matter of perception.

Pros:

• It makes you feel good. Caring about something and doing something about that emotion is one of the most rewarding experiences ever.
• You're making the world a better place: how is the world going to get better if we don't take action to improve it?
• You're helping other persons (including other species) who may be suffering: not everyone is allotted the power to stand up for themselves. I am fortunate in that it's unlikely anyone will harm me for running my mouth. It's fortunate I can run my mouth at all.
• You make connections, both business and personal, which is great, because connections are great and are a basic for happiness.
• You feel like you're a part of something greater than yourself: you're quite literally not alone. There is a community of people who care.

So, today, I'm advocating for activism. Find something you care about and share it with the world, because how else can we really achieve freedom and happiness if we exist in a system where we have no power?

Warning: mental overload

I'm facing a problem as a writer and activist where there is so much to talk about that I'm not even sure what to focus on. In response, I'm going to write a "greatest hits" blog post on what I've been focusing on for the past month.

Veganism: The legalization of other species as persons has become a fascinating notion to me. A Nat Geo article was shared with my by my friend Blondie (mentioned in very past blog posts) about a woman who calls other species' persons and studies them, and through this I found the Non-human Rights Project which seeks to give animals rights to their bodies and lives.

Bergdahl: This media frenzy has sickened me, as all media frenzies do. Summarily, this soldier was a POW of the Taliban in Afghanistan for five years after he left his post, and what started as a joyous celebration of getting one of our own back (albeit by trading him for 5 top Taliban officials from Guantanamo[which was supposed to be closed by now because the treatment within Guantanamo is inhumane and against basic "American" principles of justice and fair trial{see Patriot Act}]) has turned into doubts about whether is life was WORTH (I repeat, WORTH) trading these men for. You don't want to get me started on placing value on life. The discussion will get ugly.

Net neutrality: My last post was on this. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) chairman Tom Wheeler, formerly of Comcast (can you say conflict of interest?) is considering allowing service providers such as Comcast and Verizon to fast track some websites loading speeds (like companies that pay them money to ensure they'll load for consumers, while they can slow down the loading speeds of other sites (like free web and communications activist sites such as my personal go-to, Free Press)

Reset the Net: Click this. Click this now. It's so freaking cool. It provides tips and software to prevent government and even private snooping. It's really neat. And important. And it's sponsored by a bunch of cool groups and blogs (all of these, actually): 

There's more stuff, but this post is gonna be too long if I keep rambling. So just think about it. About all of it. 

THE INTERNET IS DEAD

Original Artwork by the Bean (not the greatest artist at ALL)

Alright, it's not dead yet. But it's going to be. Firstly, credit goes to my friend T.X. Watson for introducing me to this problem.

Secondly, I'm here to talk to you today about a warm topic that needs to get red hot real fast called network neutrality, or net neutrality.

This is about the internet, a place that we all know and love. We use it for news, we use it for entertainment, and we use it for activism (or at least that's what I use it for), and it has tons of other uses that I'm sure I can't even fathom.

I want you to stop and think about how much time you spend on the internet a day and how much it has been integrated into your life. You dig it, right? It's convenient, it's reasonably fast, and it helps you get stuff done.

Now, imagine one day you go on the internet and turn on Facebook. Everything seems normal. You do a quick Google search for an actor whose name you can't remember. Results show up fine. But then you click a link to an independent site with more info on the actor, a small celeb blog that you check out from time to time.

The screen is white, you can see your tabs at the top. Facebook still works when you click on it. Google is running just fine. But this independent domain won't load. What's up?

Corporate tea-bagging is what's up. If net neutrality becomes no longer a thing, as decided by the FCC, major internet/cable providers can decide what sites load quickly and what sites don't, the internet will become mainstreamed.

All the streaming sites you use, Hulu or Netflix, will increase in price because they'll have to pay money in order to ensure fast loading of their services. Small watchdogs sites who report on these media giants (free-press, etc.) may hardly load at all. 

The end of net neutrality is another nail in the coffin for freedom and democracy in the United States. We'll quite literally only see what corporate America wants us to see, and that, my friends, is a huge freaking problem. 

Get active: sign this petition. And this one. Oh and this one. Aaand this one.

Also, for net neutrality 101, check out this link to FreePress

I dare say I predicted this: Colbert is in trouble with #cancelcolbert

Just a little blip here flashing back to one of my older posts. Many disagreed with my article "A Commentary on Humor Complacency: Critiquing Colbert". But now Colbert and his show are in trouble for disrespecting the Asian community. 

Ironically, the bit that made me upset and write the first post was about the smog problem in China.

The tweet, reportedly made by whoever was running @ColbertReport, a Comedy Central twitter account, was a quote from a bit in his show for which Colbert himself, @ColbertAtHome, still needs to be held accountable. 

The tweet was a parody of the inappropriate and frankly ridiculous name of a foundation started by the Washington Redskins called the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation. The name of the foundation is ridiculous because the Washington Redskins have yet to change their name which is an ethnic slur for Native Americans, and also the slur is included in the foundation's name. 

This is what I was saying about being careful of satire. Satire does not mean you can say whatever you want. Colbert could have pointed out the ridiculousness of the Washington Redskin's new foundation without making the comment that got him in trouble:

I am willing to show #Asian community I care by introducing the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever.

Do I think Colbert meant to harm anyone? No. But that does not excuse him and Comedy Central from taking responsibility for his actions.

Journalism is not a crime: why I like Snowden even more now.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/edward-snowdens-ted-talk-cyborgs/

So a TED talk hosted in Vancouver featuring Edward Snowden talking through a robot from an undisclosed location and interviewed by Chris Anderson, the curator of TED, succeeded in distracting me from my homework.

I was excited by the opportunity to see him speak, and I recommend everyone watch the 35 minute talk linked here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/edward_snowden_here_s_how_we_take_back_the_internet#t-1904978

In a nutshell, Snowden was talking about the programs the NSA has been using to monitor American citizens and why they are unconstitutional. He spoke about the problems with the concept of secret surveillance initiatives being reviewed by a secret court that has no one monitoring it because it is secret. I make no pretenses of being unbiased here.

Snowden also spoke about one of my favorite topics (favorite because it’s a serious problem and I care about it deeply), the criminalization of journalism and death of the free press.

“Journalism is not a crime, communication is not a crime, and we should not be monitored in our everyday activities,” Snowden said towards the end of the talk.

Truly, the public should be able to monitor the actions of the government without fear of being charged with treason or without the government hiding their actions to make them nearly impossible to monitor.

I’ve heard a lot of arguments that Snowden is being celebratized (not a word, I made it up), and that he has secret initiatives to do what he is doing besides helping the American people. I have high doubts for this allegation.

Snowden’s statement when asked how he was coping with fear in his precarious situation clarified to me what his aims are.

“The fact that [the government is] willing to completely ignore due process, the fact that they’re willing to declare guilt without ever seeing a trial; these are things we need to work against as a society and say, hey, this is not appropriate. We shouldn’t be threatening dissidents. We shouldn’t be criticizing journalism. What whatever part I can play to see that end, I’m happy to do despite the risks,” said Snowden.

I like him, and I think we really need to pay attention to this issue until it is resolved in a way that eradicates the unconstitutionality of the NSA, secures freedom of speech and privacy through electronic communication, and obliterates the FISA court for the sham it is.

How to be a good ally

I'm the secretary of my college's GSA, and I will be taking on a project that will require some public feedback to do correctly.

I'm going to do a presentation on how to be a good ally.

Although many people have good intentions when showing support to the LGBT+ community, many allies still end up saying offensive things or being backhanded or callous in the way they support others.

I'd like some feedback on what I should include in this presentation. Comments on the post would be appreciated!

Defending Millennials

Firstly, blogger is being weird and messing up my formatting. I'm working on this.

Secondly, I got a little defensive in response to someone's commentary that the millennial generation is lazy and not interested in reform and politics. Below is my rant:

Being of the millennial generation that is so frequently criticized, I can promise you there is a large body of people my age (I just turned 18) who are interested in politics, voting and the future. 

There was frequently passionate and heated debate at my school about political and ethical issues, so I think it is unfair to state that my generation is any worse than other generations when it comes to political participation. I have a political blog, I keep up with current events, I participated in a tele-town hall phone call lead by Leader Nancy Pelosi and other liberal women in politics, I've been to an anti-war demonstration, and I care greatly for the future. 

That being said, I have two theories as to why political participation in the United States could be declining. One of my theories is humor complacency: I feel as though political satire, a commodity great in small doses, increases cynicism, and I feel people can get sucked into laughing at others' points of view and simply criticizing without taking action themselves. I've written an entire post on my blog about this called, "Critiquing Colbert."

My other theory is a more widely shared one: apathetic complacency. People often don't trust the government, and therefore they feel that even if they were to vote and participate, their voice would not be heard. However, if you don't participate because you have a defeatist and apathetic attitude, your voice will definitely not be heard.

Take it or leave it, these are my views and observation thus far.

End rant. I don't think it's just the younger generation who is apathetic. I think we can all be apathetic sometimes. It's easy to become discouraged. That being said, awareness of apathy is the first step towards crushing it.

Gay Rights

I wrote and posted an essay for my online Intro to Government and Politics class. I was asked to chose an important issue and argue for it. How do you think I did?

          I have been an LGBTQAA+ rights advocate since I was in the 7^th grade. Discrimination against individuals who do not identify as cisgender or straight has always baffled and angered me, and it is an issue I hold very dear. I am a straight, cisgender ally of the Pride movement, and I am the former Vice-President, current Secretary of the GSA here at Northern Essex. The idea that traditional marriage, the union between a man and a woman, is the only “right” and “legal” way to be married makes me sick to my stomach. The three main arguments I have heard to only allow “traditional” marriage to be legal are: the biblical argument, the “what do I tell my children” argument, and the “traditional culture” argument.

            First, I will begin to deconstruct the biblical argument. A phrase I heard a lot in my home state of Virginia is “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” Problem number one: not everyone identifies as Christian and follows the Bible. There is no established official religion of the United States, no matter what the majority is. Restricting someone’s right to marry on the principal that it is against Christian tradition is completely unconstitutional. That is a form of religious discrimination. Thankfully, not every one of the Christian faith believes that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and they agree that the bible is not to be interpreted literally and should be applied to the 21^st century with the evolution of human culture and socialization in mind.

            The second argument I’ve heard a lot is the, “what do I tell my children” argument. Some parents wonder, “How can I explain this to my kids,” or, “what if my child ends up being gay?” Although I reject the idea that a child is a complete tabula rasa, I believe a balance of genetics and environment determines the personality of an individual, children are influenced by impressions and ideas, and they formulate their view of the world based on what they witness. So, if you raise your children to believe that marriage can and should only be between a man and a woman, they are likely to believe that, in many cases. In some cases, peers in middle and high school express opposing views and that can change the opinion of the child to be unlike that of the parents. Unfortunately, in many cases, that does not happen. Conversely, if a child is taught at a young age that marriage is a union between two people who love each other and want to share fiscal responsibilities regardless of race, gender, and sexuality, that child will learn and life will continue on. There will be one more tolerant, informed individual in society. And there’s nothing wrong with that. If your child is gay, they will be happier in the tolerant, accepting society that we should be working towards.

            The final argument I would like to tackle in this argument is the “traditional culture” argument. This is kind of a combination of the two arguments above. The typical statement of this argument is “traditional marriage is between a man and a woman. This should not be changed because it is a societal norm and children should be raised by a man and a woman so they are not deprived of anything in their childhood.” Firstly, no. Secondly, no. Traditional marriage is a construct of language, as all things are. It’s a product of perception, opinion, and close-mindedness. A lot of things that were once regarded as “traditional” are seen as wrong now. Women being homebodies and raising the kids, not being allowed to have careers, property, or vote was “traditional.” Sending one’s child off to work as soon as they were able-bodied (able to move and lift things) was “traditional.” Tradition is a matter of culture, yes, but it is also a matter of perception. As we are the “melting pot,” we should not compartmentalize and restrict. Secondly, children are not deprived because they are raised by a “non-traditional” family. If anything, they have an expanded viewpoint of the world and learn tolerance and acceptance. “Traditional” families can be, and are often, dysfunctional as well. The “traditional” argument is another irrational claim created by intolerant parties to oppress others.

           Obviously, I have some strong viewpoints regarding this issues. Feel free to ask me questions or send me doubts, and I will answer them in a polite and constructive way. I’m passionate, but I am not an irrational being. A final point I’d like to make, just because it’s not often I have the ability to share my views with others and have them read, is that sexuality and gender are not the same thing. Sexuality is who you are attracted to and want to mate with. Gender is what traits you identify with based on societies terminology of “masculine” and “feminine.” Gender and sexuality are not synonymous. I hope this essay is found to be constructive and accurate. Feel free to address any views or concerns to me, and I will respond promptly. If I got anything wrong, let me know, and I will fairly consider the opinion or information.

My passion is in danger

So I learn something new everyday.

I didn't realize how rare it was for local newspapers to have a single owner that is not a corporation and does not own ALL THE OTHER NEWSPAPERS IN THE AREA.

I don't have a lot of information on this yet but I think this will be my next project.

I want to learn all about who owns what and how this affects independent journalism. 

I've always had this pipe dream about owning my own newspaper, but that may actually be beneficial to this cause one day if I can start a successful newspaper that is owned by just me and not by a large corporation or wealthy individual who owns multiple news sources.

Stay tuned for more freak-outs about why journalism is not being endangered by technology but by corporate ownership.

Summarizing the women's movement of 2014

So I realize that my choice to copy and paste my notes from last night's tele-town hall was a bit lazy, but rest assured, I plan to summarize the main points of what was discussed. I still recommend you skim through my notes for a more comprehensive view of what went down.

Essentially, women want to enact a Fair Pay Act that doesn't just give employees the right to challenge a discriminatory paycheck, but ensures that no one is discriminated against because of race or sex ever again.

Women also want to enact a National Paid Leave Act that would give employees paid time off to take care of their sick children and parents without having to forfeit vital paychecks.

Another item on the agenda, an item on most liberal, progressive agendas, is to increase the minimum wage. Two out of three minimum wage employees are women. 

Finally, paid maternity and paternity leave is on the agenda so that raising a family does not inhibit your ability and right to have a career.

I agree with all of these ideas, and I hope to keep track of their progress and see them enacted in the near future.

Bean' feminist. 

Women's Economic Agenda

I just tuned into a call moderated by Cynthia Nixon and headed by Leader Polosi. 16,000 people tuned in for one hour to discuss and listen to the outline for the Women's Economic Agenda. My notes are transcribed below:

Democratic Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi: scripted

Talked about Seneca Falls, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, 5^th anniversary

“When women succeed, America succeeds”

Fair Payment Act, Fair Minimum Wage Act

Lilly Ledbetter: scripted

Poster child for unequal pay and work

Lost in the Supreme Court, but got the bill that allows individuals to challenge discriminatory paychecks

Paycheck fairness act

Rep. Rosa DeLauro: not scripted? Spent a lot of time patting the other two on the back

Godmother of women’s economics section

Pay: women make 77 C on dollar on average compared to men, worse if you’re colored

Paycheck secrecy promotes discrimination

Work-family balance: family and medical leave should be paid (twelve percent have access through their employers, forty percent for severe illnesses)

Raise minimum wage (2 out of 3 minimum wage workers are women)

 Anne-Marie Duchene:

Victim of paycheck discrimination

Works at a progressive public university

Pelosi question:

Brad Avakian (state labor commissioner in Oregon):

Working to make pay equal: what can state officials to do to help move policies forward to get rid of race and gender paycheck inequality?

“Public sentiment is everything”

Pass legislation in your own communities and legislature

Make sure they know how or where the people in Oregon are about the issue, be a strong leader for the cause.

Shelby Ramirez (Denver, CO):

Mother, grandmother, caregiver, student at University of Denver, Hotel Security Officer

Struggles to go paycheck to paycheck

Family and Medical leave act allowed her to take time off, but it was unpaid, she could either pay rent or care for her family

Four months to get partly caught up with bills

 For Rep. DeLauro:

Question from Chicago Ill.: Caring for aging parents and elderly family members:

Answer: FMLA is unpaid, people cannot afford to take that amount of time off (8 out of 10)

National Paid Leave Program needs to be enacted and is on the agenda

Employee and Employer funded, 1.50 per week to cover benefit and administrative cost, does not get in the way of SS and would apply to all companies

LONG OVERDUE

Asks to contact legislator to share concerns

Congresswoman Donna Edwards:

Helped lead effort to pass Violence Against Women Act

Concerned about childcare, and therefore is concerned about equal pay and paid leave

Was told by a citizen that said citizen pays more for daycare for infant than for tuition

Women’s Economic Agenda: working mothers have trouble with safe, reliable and effective childcare

HR 3740 Childcare Act: make critical changes to tax credits, accounts for inflation, help families afford childcare and give greater financial security

Maureen-Evans Arthur:

First generation college student

Applying to grad school

Paid more for childcare than tuition

30,000 in student loans to pay for childcare

Son was neglected in daycare

Anne Sherwood question for Rep. Edwards:

Please support early childhood development programs

I didn’t really understand what she was saying. It was very convoluted and seemingly irrelevant, call began to drop

Rep. Edwards’s response:

Quality, affordability and accessibility in a nurturing environment for children is important

For Pelosi:

Emily Spangler from Ill.: (15 years old) HOLY CRAP

Besides signing petitions or online petitions: what do you expect from the younger generation?

HEY THAT’S ME

Pelosi response:

Pell grants are getting cut, so Pelosi called some of our generation to her office to get their opinions

Youth wants a good education (well… duh)

Strong social security and Medicare for their parents

Don’t agonize, organize

Organize civic minded friends for Equal Pay

Elder Care is also important

Doesn’t really seem to be answering Emily’s question...

Also sign up for Affordable Care Act

Communicate with Congressperson about Women’s Economic Agenda

Take responsibility for your future by communicating your view, organizing your friends and getting involved

Victoria (I missed other details… Labor Coalition for women?):
Want paid maternity leave (understandably)

How to we lead the world in providing paid maternity leave

Rep. DeLauro:

Repeats everything previously discussed in other notes. Nothing more to say.

Diana Arguello for Rep. Edwards:

Statement: 60 cents for Hispanic women per 1 dollar for a white male

Response: Go into communities and inform women about the issue and that they can challenge unequal pay

Have conversations everywhere

It is time for change

Pelosi ending comments:

Over 16,000 people participated, thanks everyone

Really important call, know you have power to be heard

Couldn’t really understand what she was saying because of poor connection

From Dictatorship to Democracy

My latest reading venture is the title of this post, From Dictatorship to Democracy by Gene Sharp.

The book was recommended to me by my friend Anna, and it is the ultimate handbook for nonviolent protest.

The book summarizes the mechanics of a dictatorship: how it comes to power, how it functions, how it gains power and how it continues to thrive. It then breaks down the basic steps to overturn and dictatorship and take the power back.

Gene Sharp, author of this book, founded the Albert Einstein Institution for the study and use of nonviolent tactics in combat. He was a researcher in the Center of International Affairs at Harvard, and he was imprisoned for nine months because he refused to serve in the Korean War (being a pacifist).

According to these biographical summaries I am skimming, he has inspired multiple revolutions around the world. He is presently 85 years old.

This book is only 138 pages, but it is packed with information in a very readable fashion and is arranged so your mind takes the journey from repression to freedom.

The main message I got from reading this book is, “take action.”

As my readers know, I’ve been developing this theory of massive conformity, a plague that I believe has set in among U.S. citizens. 

Pessimism and hopelessness supported by a general contentedness with material gain and flashy entertainment leads to a pack of zombies who hurt themselves and one another by moaning and groaning but not doing anything to tackle the problems of society.

Yes, I know this does not apply to everyone, but I do think we need some more social justice workers out there than we have now. We’re getting pretty messed up in the states.

This book also lists 198 ways to protest non-violently and I love them all. The list covers everything from economic, to social, and also artistic protest.

Read this book. It’s great.

Top ten Vegan recipes from the web

1.     For my friend Taylor. To be honest, I haven't made anyof these. I eat a lot of the same foods over and over again, unless I go out to eat. But I wanted to give you a wide range of ideas. Voila!

1.      http://www.theppk.com/2012/06/summer-seitan-saute-with-cilantro-lime/

2.      http://www.meettheshannons.net/2011/02/betty-crocker-project-vegan-new-england.html

3.      http://www.meettheshannons.net/2011/10/fettuccine-with-cannellini-beans.html

4.      http://www.eatingwell.com/recipes/zesty_wheat_berry_black_bean_chili.html

5.      http://www.eatingwell.com/recipes/roasted_pear_arugula_salad_with_pomegranate_chipotle_vinaigrette.html

6.      http://www.babble.com/best-recipes/vegan-red-lentil-soup/

7.      http://www.glowkitchen.com/2012/11/vegan-black-bean-tacos/

8.      http://www.myrecipes.com/recipe/janes-vegetarian-chili-10000001011281/

9.      http://ohsheglows.com/2013/08/27/sun-dried-tomato-mushroom-and-spinach-tofu-quiche/

10.  http://ohsheglows.com/2013/04/08/black-bean-and-potato-nacho-plate/

Rootstriker

http://obeygiant.com/images/2012/03/c403c6ca38.jpg

I am almost at a loss as to how to begin this blog entry. I’ve been reading this book and studying this topic for a while now. I think I’m ready to publicly tackle it. It pushes my informational limits.

Ever since I was little, it’s been made clear to me that Congress is 

corrupt. I never knew why, I just knew that everyone in my life was unsatisfied with its performance. As an eighteen year old Political Science and Journalism Major, I now strive to find out why.

A public intellectual and activist by the name of Lawrence Lessig came to speak at my college a little while back, accompanied by another man who I know significantly less about by the name of Jeffrey D. Clements.

The topic they tackled: Money in Politics.

I bought both of their books after their presentation, and had them signed because I was sure the opportunity would not present itself again. The books I purchased were Republic, Lost by Lawrence Lessig and Corporations Are Not People by Jeffrey D. Clements.

I have not yet read the latter book, but I have quite literally just finished Lessig’s book.

It’s a very good read, comprehensive on the topic of the corruption of Congress through its means of campaign fundraising, and certainly required a great amount of mental exertion.

I’m going to attempt to outline the main points of the book the best I can, but I still recommend you read it, or at least check out Lessig’s TED Talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

Basically, the main cause of corruption in Congress are lobbyists and Super PAC’s, raising insane amounts of money for candidates with corporate interests in mind and creating a sort of “gift” economy and culture on the Hill which motivates Senators and Representatives to act in the interests of the wealthy as opposed to the interests of the greater body of “ordinary” citizens.

Congress members would act in the interests of these Lobbyists and their companies in order to secure for themselves a high paying job as a lobbyist or board member after their term ended.

Yikes. So, how does Lessig propose this issue be combatted?

1.      Write and pass a bill to limit individual contributions to campaigns

2.      Have non-politicians run in Congressional races for the sole purpose of promoting “clean-money” campaigning and force other politicians who otherwise would not run “clean-money” to either admit their against it or join in and support that kind of campaigning

3.      Elect a President whose sole purpose is to “(1) hold the government hostage until Congress enacts a program to remove the fundamental corruption that is our government, and (2) once that program is enacted, she will resign.” (Lessig, 285).

4.      Call and Article V Convention made up of representatives not holding a seat in Congress to pursue Constitutional reform.

5.      A combination of all four aforementioned.

This is a very limited outline I am presenting to you. I recommend you do some research on your own. Definitely at least watch the TED Talk. You will not be disappointed.  

Also, check out http://www.rootstrikers.org/#!/

I’m a Rootstriker now. You should be too.