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.

Fourth Anniversary of Citizens United

Yesterday I tuned into a Grassroots Teach-in about Citizens United via moveon.org: http://front.moveon.org/grassroots-democracy/#.UuBIPUEo5Yx

The teach-in was held on the fourth anniversary of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

Some of the speakers included Representative Sarbanes from Maryland, Michael Brune of the Sierra Club, Larry Cohen of the CWA (Communications Workers of America), Liz Kennedy from demos.org, Heather McGhee of demos.org, and there was another speaker but I cannot find his name anywhere. The conference was done in the style of a Google + Hangout.

The point of the hangout was to discuss the problems that the Citizens United outcome has caused and to discuss methods to combat the decision and stabilize the foundation of American democracy.

The ideas were ones I have discussed in previous blog posts: dark money is allowing the rich to determine the path of American policy by electing who they wish by flooding their favorite candidates with money, corporations are allowed to fund elections without full disclosure of where the money is going, paid ads funded by the rich flood airways and influence the vote towards candidates who can afford to buy the airtime, etc.

Ideas as to how to fix the problems brought on by Citizens United were presented as well. Some suggestions were as follows:

Influence SEC to require full disclosure of corporate and non-profit funding of campaigns

Influence state governments to fund and support public financing for campaigns

Amend the constitution and limit aggregate total spending from individuals, corporations, and non-profits in campaigns

Refundable tax credits for lower-income political contributors who want to have a voice in elections but may not be able to afford to provide support to the candidate they want to see win

These are all pretty great and straightforward ideas. All they require is the dedication of citizens and activists to make them happen.

One current event I learned about that I would like to share is the current Supreme Court Case known as McCutcheon v FEC.

On September 28, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a lawsuit brought by plaintiffs Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee (RNC) challenging the Federal Election Campaign Act’s (the Act’s) biennial limit on individual contributions. The plaintiffs contended the limit was unconstitutionally low and was not supported by a sufficient governmental interest. http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/McCutcheon.shtml

Essentially, McCutcheon claims his freedom of speech is being limited because he can’t spend more than 120,000 dollars on a candidate. Meanwhile, lower bracket citizens crushed by a corrupt system of campaign funding can hardly afford to give 5 dollars to have their voice heard.

Enough said: I personally don’t want McCutcheon to win this case.

According to our friends who spoke during the teach-in, moveon.org is already planning flash demonstrations and protests in case the decision does not weigh in the progressive favor.

So, what do you think?