On Things Bigger Than Myself

I am blessed, darling readers.  Now, I don't tend to use the word "blessed" a lot, but I am blessed.  I am blessed to live in a country where our elections are relatively free and fair and where I do not need to fear that I might be raped, killed, or abducted on the way to the polls.

I am blessed to live in a place where I do not have to fear for my life, where I have not ever known someone who has been forced into slavery or war.  I am blessed to live in a place where I can enjoy more comforts that the modern world has to offer than I will ever realistically need.

Today, however, I was reminded that there are a lot of people who aren't so lucky.  As a member of Model UN, I was excited that an organization that I am happily a part of hosted Falling Whistles, an NGO about the conflict in the Congo.  And while their presentation was not as clear and informed as I would have liked, the event jump-started a conversation within our organization, and one I hope might spread to the rest of our campus, about a conflict that is responsible for the deaths of over 5 million people.

I speak from a position of privilege.  The coltan used in the capacitors of my laptop and phone is likely conflict-mined, though not necessarily from the Congo (though conflict-mining and smuggling of coltan, tin, tungsten, and copper in the Congo has contributed heavily to the body count in the ongoing conflict).  I speak as someone who has never truly feared for her life or grown up in a conflict zone.  But I speak as someone who does have a legitimate interest in the situation in the Congo.

Today, also, marks a historic day in the DRC, as it was their third election. Ever. In their history.  As of this evening, violence has been reported at and around polling locations, and at least two deaths have been reported.  But the day is still historic.  And while I would like to say the world is watching, I fear that they probably aren't.  Most people I know are watching Monday Night Football instead.  But it truly is historic.  Free and fair elections are signs of progress, potential, and hope for peace.

While we've been arguing about just how much the top 1% should be taxed, whether we should be funding Defense Department projects from the Soviet era, or whether government health care is socialism, children have been drawn into war, women have been raped, and thousands have died.  And people wonder why I think sometimes we need a little more perspective.

Consciously yours,
Rachel Leigh

Also, if you're interested in finding out more:
Falling Whistles: http://www.fallingwhistles.com
Friends of the Congo (another major non-profit focusing on the Congo): http://www.friendsofthecongo.org/
Enough Project (an NGO focusing on Sudan and the Congo, with particular reports on conflict mining): http://www.enoughproject.org/

On Censoring the Internet and Why it is Fail

Darling readers, if you have an internet and regularly use it, this post matters to you. If you do not have an internet, nor use it often, how exactly are you reading this post?

I like YouTube. I use it for a lot of my news, to waste time, and because, honestly, I find a lot of the content more interesting than cable television. So I, like a lot of the YouTube community (both viewers and content creators) got a bit riled up about S.978 (or SOPA), which would change the bounds of Fair Use and could potentially get a lot of my favorite YouTubers in trouble for having copyrighted material in their videos, by criminalizing even the smallest use of a copyrighted work (if even 2 viewers within a 180-day period view it). MY YouTube uploads (of which there are three) would violate that standard. For once, I was sympathetic to Justin Bieber. ...Let's not let that happen again.

But recently, the internet community as a whole has gotten really worked up about another act before Congress, PROTECT-IP. These bills present a very serious threat to the internet as we know it. Both bills aim to reduce the prevalence of online piracy. Protect IP aims at disabling domain names, particularly those registered overseas or with overseas proxy servers, that contain pirated material. Let it be known, this is not simply for sites like SideReel that exist for the purposes of hosting pirated copyrighted material for public consumption. If a user on a forum or a commenter on a blog includes an upload or link to a pirated work, the site could be shut down, without question and with no option to appeal. A search engine which contains a link to one of these sites? Capable of being disabled. Not by the demand of the U.S. Government, but by the corporation that holds the copyright.

First of all, while I obviously don't know anyone who has ever pirated music, movies, television shows, or any other copyrighted material...

*insert deadpan face here*

...the fact that the sites can be punished and disabled for the actions of their users is reason enough to be concerned about this bill. But the fact that control of what is and is not censored is at the control of a company? Horrifies me. Particularly because a website can be disabled without question and without possibility of appeal. What's to stop a company from flagging a site simply because they don't like the content? Who's to stop them?

There are petitions opposing both acts of legislation. I urge you to sign them.
Oppose PROTECT-IP: http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/protectip_docs
Free Bieber (the original Anti-S.978 Petition): http://freebieber.org/

One final thought. Vlogbrother, Nerdfighter, author, and generally awesome person John Green made a comment about one of SOPA's real flaws. At the end of the embedded video (behind all the discussion of audiobooks and his adorable son), he comments that SOPA will do little to actually reduce online piracy because it's ALREADY illegal. Instead, it will punish people who have done little to nothing wrong, as opposed to wholesale, large-scale piracy.



Politically, Nerdfightastically, and (Still) Freely Yours,
Rachel Leigh

On Schadenfreude, Falling For Your Best Friend, and Terrible Television

This post is decidedly not intellectual in the slightest. Please do not try to decipher an intellectual or pseudo-intellectual message from within it. I appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

So, my darling readers, as I'm sure you've come to understand, I have an addiction to bad television. And good television. Okay, just television in general. And my roommate does not help with this matter.

Recently added to our repertoire are such delights as Blue Mountain State, which I have to confess is actually ridiculously funny; Ridiculousness, which really just makes me want to lock Rob Dyrdek in a cupboard somewhere until he agrees to stop trying to be Daniel Tosh; and, thankfully, new episodes of South Park which, while mildly offensive and occasionally depressing, give me faith in the world's ability to laugh at itself. But what I really want to talk about is a new show on MTV called "Friend Zone."

The concept is slightly adorable, I confess. A guest on the show comes on and admits that they have feelings for their best friend and would like to take it to the next level (move out of the metaphorical Friend Zone). The episode progresses with the friend helping them to plan a date for "someone special" and then right before the date is supposed to begin, the guest reveals their feelings to their friend, in hopes that the friend will agree to go on the date that was really intended for him/her.

This concept is cute...supposing the friend says yes or returns the feelings. But let's take a moment to look at this a different way -- what if they say no? I have two major complaints here. The first is that it seems incredibly sadistic to watch someone get their heartbroken on national television. This show would be entertaining if the endings were always happy, but to delight in watching some poor kid who put their heart on the line get turned down (and probably ruin a good friendship forever), is a kind of schadenfreude that leads me to worry about the human race. Not that a lot of things don't do that. See Rob Dyrdek's "Ridiculousness" for examples of other things that test my faith in humanity.

My other problem here is that anyone who legitimately cares about your feelings, I would think, wouldn't turn you down on national television. If someone is really your friend and they ask you on a date on a reality show, your thought process should probably be "I may not like him/her like that, but the only thing worse than getting turned down would be getting turned down in front of millions of viewers." And then you suck it up and go on the date...then break the news to them after. Because someone who would knowingly humiliate a good friend on television probably needs a lesson or two in what being a friend entails. Like, y'know, a bit of self-sacrifice and some compassion for the people you supposedly care about.

Just my input. Anyone with some quality/terrible TV suggestions, I would love to hear them!

Lovingly yours,
Rachel Leigh