Speciesism and (unrelated) newspapers

I have two things on my mind today: speciesism and newspapers.

For those who don't know, speciesism is a term used by people who think the lives of humans and non-humans have equal value: a cat or pig or mouse has the same value as a human. Generally, speciesism refers to the believe that humans are the dominant species.

I believe speciesism is a problem, but it is very difficult to convince others that it is. You have to believe in your core that all life has equal value. Although, clearly, I care more about beings which possess a nervous system allowing them to feel, more so than I do a flower or a tree.

The main reason I'm vegan is because I've seen enough evidence of non-human suffering and presence of non-human emotions and personalities that I believe they should have rights to their own bodies.

An argument presented to me is that non-humans cannot make the same decisions as humans, and they cannot express their desires to us, so the rights they have don't really have to be on the same level.

Although I see where this idea comes from; non-humans have different methods of communications and their emotions are not expressed plainly on their face, discomfort is clear when repeated artificial insemination and lifelong containment are forced upon hundreds of thousands of female cows, or when family units that happen in nature are torn apart by factory farming. Or when animals are killed.

Non-sequitur: although "print" paper is dying, I've decided that online journalism will ultimately be better because of it's variety and because it will help the environment by cutting down on paper production. The trick will be separating fact from fiction, which remains a problem in print journalism anyway.

Just needed to clear my head. 

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

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.

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.

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.