"Help, I'm Being Censored!"

Over the past few weeks, I've seen a lot of news stories about important higher ups at various big businesses getting ousted from the company for comments they've made/things they've done.  Ranging from Mozilla's CEO being removed for support California's Prop 8 to, more recently, the Clippers owner Donald Sterling's comments over race.  I have no problem with them being removed for these things at all.  Actually, I support it.  What I'm writing about is right-wing America's recoil to these happenings.  I remember, while driving to or from Florida for spring break(sorry, I can't really remember which), conservative champion and my dad's knight in shining armor, Rush Limbaugh, treated these removals from office as a sort of radical left-wing fascist uprising.  His argument was that free speech had been attacked by the left because it did not fall in line with their ideology.  He went on to make comments about how, seeing as Obama at one point was not pro-marriage equality, and yet he wasn't attacked or ousted, that this is some sort of liberal conspiracy or movement to just eventually take over America and arrest those who disagree with our philosophy.
Have I ever mentioned that, given the opportunity, I would beat the living hell out of Rush Limbaugh? Like in a "no consequences" type of situation. Whatever.
What I think conservatives of Limbaugh's type seem to ignore or be blissfully ignorant of the simple fact that, in a publicly owned company, the right lies within the people to make choices regarding who runs the company.  If the people do not want Mozilla's CEO to support an agenda of anti-equality, then so be it
Let's not forget that the expressing of these opinions is in fact free speech, and that the choice of removal is made within a board of trustees, who do not have to listen to the public
But to hell with the truth, right?
Right

The Ethics of Social Media

In the world of politics, it is said that policy is always about 10-20 years behind the latest technological advances.  I'd like to expand this idea by saying that, for the professional working population, ethics and etiquette are always about 10-20 years behind the latest advances.  More and more now we see news stories about social media, to the likes of employers requesting Facebook passwords or social media background checks.  Ever more present is the use of online media in advertising campaigns, both for business and politics.  And with this rise, we see now more than ever the rise of disputes, feuds, and general mishaps over social media antics.  The Internet as we know it has given more people the power to project their voice than ever before in the history of humanity, and it is both astonishing and beautiful.  However, like with all technology, arises with it a class of people who stand upon the dividing line between the Old World and New, and with them comes the controversy.  People who are "in the know" do something which confuses or upsets someone who isn't, and as a result they lash out and attempt to return to a relative zone of comfort.  Now, on social media, I would go out on a limb and say that I am a sort of Troy personality.  This isn't meant as some kind of brag or boast, but rather just a statement of facts.  I am well known in and around the circles of Troy High School, both on and offline.  And I will admit that I do sometimes say and do things, both on and offline, that are crass, crude, childish, unprofessional, and downright disrespectful.  But in two recent incidences of this social media divide, I feel as if I have been both misinterpreted in my words and actions, and have as a result been unnecessarily ostracized for what I do and say.  In my quick explanation, I will not mention anyone specific, nor will I try to take the blame entirely off of me.  In the end, what I have said and done is my fault, and the consequences of those must be had.  However, I do feel that, to an extent, the reaction made to this was entirely unnecessary.
Over the past three years, I and some close acquaintances have been involved in a music project/social experiment of sorts.  We started a band with the sole intention of being the worst band in existence.  Poor recording fidelity, production, musicianship, writing, the whole nine yards.  Over the years, we wrote and recorded a good catalog of our joke music, intended for the ears of only our friends, and maybe the occasional innocent bystander on the Internet who stumbled into our realm.  It was a good time.  Recently, however, our musical well has run dry, and we have decided to end our little expedition into the realm of comically bad music.  To end it, we figured, "Hey, why not advertise ourselves/our end in a public space? That sounds like fun"
And it totally was.
In our advertising, both through us and our friends who are not directly affiliated with the project, we never once directly requested or implied that anyone should actually go to look us up online and give us a good ole' spin.  I think that's an important distinction, but maybe I'm just half-crazy. Oh well. A parent did decide, however, to look us up, and after listening to a few of our finer selections, became mildly upset.  They responded by writing several anonymous letters, including the director of the activity, the principle, and the local board of education, asking for our justice to be served.  Luckily for us, Tinker vs. Des Moines happened, and no action was pursued.  Those involved deemed it as not worth their time to pursue us for something that they did not consider to be wrong. Either that, or they understood the possible legal repercussions of taking action against us for something done outside of school grounds and time, in which we never did anything to purposely harm the integrity of our peers. I see this as a good allusion to modern life and social media, where perhaps a celebrity or politician might see something about them that, without the Internet, would go unnoticed, and react to it in a way that both unnecessary and improper.  The result of this can be a lot of publicity for both parties, and never is any of it very good.
This isn't my most recent spectacle of the horrors of social media in it's youth, but out of respect for time I will not explain it.  However, note that my stance on it is pretty identical to the one above, though more fitting for the circumstances at hand.
If you have any specific questions, feel free to talk to me about it openly come May 25th

Discussing Politics with Parents

One of the worst things an informed or knowledgeable person can do with their free time is to argue with someone who isn't knowledgeable.  Right below that would be trying to teach someone who is misinformed and is obstinate on a subject.  But luckily for us, the likelihood of both of these terrible traits taking place in the same person is rare, if not impossible, right? Sadly, it is not.  In the process of learning about the American political system, I have come to clash with my parents.  I've known my parents were both conservatives for a long while, and have, up until this year, thought that their beliefs were well founded. But upon learning my political identity and sharing it with them, I've learned that, at best, my parents are greatly misinformed on the subject.  I don't mean this as a sort of attack on their beliefs being in opposition of mine, but rather I mean to highlight the fact that my parents, who are themselves average American citizens, are simply misinformed in basic factual information.  After discovering this, I've asked many mature, voting adults their opinions on politics, as well as simple questions as to what they know.  What I've found is that most of the adults around me, those who have been preaching the gospel of whatever they believe to me at family meetings for nearly two decades, have absolutely no clue what they are talking about. Coming to this conclusion, I then set out to try and figure out the root of the problem.  There were many options to tackle, including American education, modern media, and the breakdown of compromise at the legal level of politics.  With a good portion of my rough polling group being conservative, I've found the thing held most in common between them is that they all watch FOX News.  So, over the past few months, I have put myself through the living hell that is actively paying attention to FOX's major political talk shows.  From what I've gathered from them, I'm led to believe that this epidemic in our voter base is founded in biased and outright fraudulent reporting. I've also learned that I'm not alone in my thoughts.  Websites such as Politifact and FactCheck have set out to take statements made by politicians, analysts, and the likes, and rate the accuracy of their statements on different scales.  But is this a solution? Hardly.  I can't honestly say I have one in mind, but I suppose the first step to fixing the problem is simply acknowledging there is one.  Now only if I could convince my mother...

Between Two Blog Posts: Keeping the Presidency "fresh as heck" for kids

Today, President Barack Obama appeared on the internet humor talk show Between Two Ferns, starring Zach Galifianakis.  Critics have both praised and criticized Obama and his attempt to reach out to the youth of America to promote the Affordable Care Act.  But what I'm curious about is the presidency and it's constant battle for relevancy.  How are politics going to keep up with the exponentially expanding technological future of the general public?  Will candidates continue to experiment with new social medias and social tools online, or will they get scared and recess back into their comfort zones?  Recently, we have seen Barack Obama win two elections, with help from resources such as a personal YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and countless others.  During his current term, Obama has even used Google Plus hangouts to talk to unique individuals around the country.  Who is to say that, come 2016, our presidential candidates are vying for our attention using newer forms of social media. What if you could Snapchat the president?  It is of my belief that any future political figure looking to gain headway needs to look no further than the web.  I say that, at some point, we can even do away with traditional media outlets. Why go on Fox News or CNN on TV when you can livestream an interview from the comforts of your own office, and truly let your constituents talk to you and ask questions?  There's no reason for newspapers, magazines, or any other older media format either.

Now, do I think that this is going to happen anytime soon on as large of a scale that I am predicting it? No, not at all.  But I don't believe that politics can advance until it's key players do.  And for that, we need the World Wide Web

Mutiny on the Wide Web: The Bigger Picture Behind Music Piracy

Music piracy is taking millions of dollars in profits from major record labels annually, and I wouldn't have it any other way.  The death of the modern record industry means the death of an antiquated machine, whose monopoly on music has raised prices and lowered expectations.  Like many other media giants of its kind, the three major label groups, UMG, Sony, and Warner are beasts that cannot keep up with the pace of technology.  As a result, they take actions that are very reactionary and drastic in order to level the playing ground against the ever tech-savvy public.  Their influence expands to Congress, who does the same in order to favor them.  Things such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the more recent SOPA and PIPA are examples of this reactionary state.  The backlash to these bills, as well as the rising popularity of piracy, indicates, to me at least, that America is ready for change. More and more we see artists adopting a model of pay-what-you-want, with no minimum, and it seems to be working very well.  Just ask artists such as Jeff Rosenstock, of Bomb The Music Industry! and The Arrogant Sons of Bitches fame, or Radiohead, the indie rock giants from the UK.  And what people against piracy seem to ignore is two simple facts, that 1) the money saved on price-inflated music is spent in other facets of the economy and 2) that stats show that, despite the availability of free music being so easy, music sales are in fact going up.  I myself, an avid pirate and piracy advocate, have found myself buying more music than I ever would have before.  So let's bring an end to the dangerous monopoly that is major labels, and usher in the new user-friendly era of the internet and piracy.

America's Heroes: My Experience With Police Brutality

Houston, we have a problem.
Well, not just Houston. More like America.
*ahem*
America, we have a problem.
As is with any position of higher responsibility and power, corruption is bound to happen. And it is becoming increasingly prevalent in our local police departments at what seems to be an exponential rate.  While this apparent explosion in these events may be contributed to the rise of the Internet, social media, and 24 hour news cycles, what it doesn't change is that it is an epidemic that is plaguing everyday citizens, such as you and I.  With the rise in reports of what seem to be attacks on good, everyday citizens by our own police force, it is getting harder and harder to believe that there is such a thing as a, "good cop." Which is a shame, because I do know some police officers who do an outstanding job at keeping their communities and countries safe from crime. Horror stories coming out of places like New York City, where the "stop and frisk" laws lead to hundreds of unnecessary arrests a year, primarily of people of color.  One story of such injustice comes from Miami, Florida, where a convenience store owner has been stopped and frisked by his local police 258 times, while working in his own store. Another scene growing more common is the shooting deaths of animals by police. One recent story recalls a man, who upon walking his dog, passed the scene of a police response to a robbery.  The man was playing loud music from his car, as well as recording the police intervention in the robbery with his cell phone. The police went to apprehend the man, so he put his dog in his car so as to not cause trouble. The dog grew excited, and exited the car from an open window, and was then shot four times, left to bleed to death on the sidewalk.  This leads me into my own personal account of unnecessary force in the hands of a police officer.
Throughout my fourth and fifth grade years, my new neighbors, whose daughter had just graduated, took quite a few vacations with their newfound freedom from full-time parenting.  While they were gone, they asked me to walk their dog, a young male St. Bernard named Bailey, feed it, and make sure it didn't destroy their house.  One thing that must be understood is that St. Bernards, especially younger ones, are very playful animals, who love to play around with children.  It is also necessary to mention that, at the time, the dog and I were of almost identical dimensions(standing on it's hind legs, the dog was just over five feet tall, and weighed about 130-140 pounds, as did I). One day, while taking care of Bailey, I decided to take him on a walk to my neighborhood park. There were many children outside with their parents with it being such a lovely day. Upon walking into the park, I ran into a neighbor and his two kids. This neighbor was, and to my knowledge still is, a Troy police officer. As I walked into the park, Bailey got excited by seeing his kids and started to pull at the leash. I was unable to keep control of Bailey, and he escaped to go play with the kids.  However, the kids did not know that Bailey's intentions were playful, and started to get a bit scared. This is when the officer, off-duty, started screaming, swearing, threatening, and attacking the dog. He screamed, in a park full of children, obscenities that make modern-day me cringe, and kicked the dog in the throat, shouting, "I'm going to shoot this f***ing dog in the head."  I eventually got control of Bailey, and I was then told to, "Get the hell out of the park." I did so, blinded by tears. I later learned that an old man, at the park with his grandkids, confronted the officer after I left, telling him what he did was unnecessary and crude, and that he should have thought of the kids at the park when choosing his words and actions.  The officer responded with a threat to start a physical altercation with this older man, directly in front of his grandkids.  Because of this incident, I have had an irrational fear of all arms of the law ever since.  I get very anxious and nervous around any police officer, on or off duty, whether I am doing anything remotely illegal or not.  Cases like the ones mentioned before and my own are only the tip of an iceberg which is looming over the American legal system. I can only hope we can steer the ship out of i

UPDATE

The White House has responded to it's We The People petition to secure Net Neutrality in America. Here is that response: "Reaffirming the White House’s Commitment to Net Neutrality

By Gene Sperling, Director of the National Economic Council and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and Todd Park, the United States Chief Technology Officer and Assistant to the President.

Thank you to everyone who has signed on to this petition in support of a free and open Internet. Since his days as a United States Senator, President Obama has embraced the principle of net neutrality. As the President recently noted, his campaign for the White House was empowered by an open Internet; it allowed millions of supporters to interact with the President and each other in unprecedented fashion. That experience helped give rise to the creation of this very platform -- the We The People website -- where Americans can express their opinions on any topic and receive a response from the White House. Rights of free speech, and the free flow of information, are central to our society and economy -- and the principle of net neutrality gives every American an equal and meaningful opportunity to participate in both. Indeed, an open Internet is an engine for freedom around the world.

Preserving an open Internet is vital not to just to the free flow of information, but also to promoting innovation and economic productivity. Because of its openness, the Internet has allowed entrepreneurs -- with just a small amount of seed money or a modest grant -- to take their innovative ideas from the garage or the dorm room to every corner of the Earth, building companies, creating jobs, improving vital services, and fostering even more innovation along the way.

Absent net neutrality, the Internet could turn into a high-priced private toll road that would be inaccessible to the next generation of visionaries. The resulting decline in the development of advanced online apps and services would dampen demand for broadband and ultimately discourage investment in broadband infrastructure. An open Internet removes barriers to investment worldwide.

A wide spectrum of stakeholders and policymakers recognize the importance of these principles. In the wake of last month's court decision, it was encouraging to hear major broadband providers assert their commitment to an open Internet.

It was also encouraging to see Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler, whom the President appointed to that post last year, reaffirm his commitment to a free and open Internet and pledge to use the authority granted by Congress to maintain a free and open Internet. The White House strongly supports the FCC and Chairman Wheeler in this effort.

The petition asked that the President direct the FCC to reclassify Internet service providers as "common carriers" which, if upheld, would give the FCC a distinct set of regulatory tools to promote net neutrality. The FCC is an independent agency. Chairman Wheeler has publicly pledged to use the full authority granted by Congress to maintain a robust, free and open Internet -- a principle that this White House vigorously supports.

Todd Park is the United States Chief Technology Officer. Gene Sperling is Director of the National Economic Council and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy."