New Media; what's so new?

Being that this may, in fact, be my last blog post here I figure I would address the issue this site was meant to tackle to begin with:
New Media.

What difference does it make? What difference does any of this make?
I was particularly inspired by a post by A Mohit entitled "One God" in which he writes about a man named Tom Hodges, I don't know who he is, whom he describes as the "Average American". He writes in first person, from Hodges' pint of view,

I am just an average American in an average American city trying to raise my kids and teach them what I think is good. I ask all to give love without expecting anything in return, since love is the greatest equalizer.

To me giving is better than receiving. When someone who has never received anything in life gets something unexpected, an unbound joy engulfs him, and that transforms him into a far superior person. The person then feels the urge to spread that happiness to others.

It seems to me that these words are timeless. They could have been written many years ago, in private letters delivered by snail-mail, in a private journal years before that, they could be passages taken from an e-mail, they could be the words of a poem. The way in which these words seem both recent and very old to me leads me to believe that "New Media" may not be very new at all. The connotation of the name "New Media" leads me to think that the ideas, this new kind of sharing between individuals is novel but it's not. People have been making these connections forever. People long for human connection, they always have.

I now find that New Media does not mean that man has found a new, all encompassing need to connect with his fellow man in a way in which he never has before, this desire has always been there. It seems to me that New Media only eases this desire, but eases it in way that has never been seen before.

For all the brutality which we inflict on one another, exemplified quite clearly by the entries on this site, we have a need to warn, to tell, to spread the word to each other even from opposite sides of the world. It is awe-inspiring how technology has facilitated a desire, and a need so old, it seems to span the length of our existence. We speak words that may last forever with the simple click of a mouse.


=)

"I would not ask our Marines to live with someone who is homosexual..."

According to a post on Wonk Room, after changes made by the Secretary of Defense to America's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy, General James Conway had quite a bit to say. His general attitude is that he knows too many people in the armed forces who would not want to share a living area with someone who is gay and "would not ask our Marines to live with someone who is homosexual, if we could possibly avoid it." The General insists that homosexuals out in the open in the military "means we have to build BEQs [Bachelor/Base Enlisted Quarters] that have single rooms."

From the opposing view point Igor Volsky issues a compelling argument,
Marines are forced to do and live in a whole host of disagreeable conditions and it’s unclear why Conway wants to preserve Marine choice “in this case,” particularly since 'men and women of all races, religions, and values train together, sleep in extremely close quarters, and eat in the same mess halls without detriment to unit cohesion or military effectiveness.' Living with a gay servicemember, however, is apparently so insidious that Conway must carve out a special exemption for those Marines who 'wouldn’t want to do that.'

We send our young, and brave, and free, and willing to some of the most inhospitable places on the planet and give them little to no choice in the matter then what do we tell them? Deal with it. Deal with the sweltering heat, fierce cold, inescapable humidity, or harsh rain, but not a the openly gay, that is too great of an ordeal. If it were me, I would say chafing in the desert would be above my lesbian roommate on my list of problems.

Volsky also brings into question what "gay only" rooms would mean as far as living in general. He writes, "Should his [Conway's] request be granted, the United States will become the only nation (of the 25 that have dropped the ban) that segregates its servicemembers on the basis of sexual orientation" Segregation in the service? Didn't that end more than 50 years ago? Today, it just seems un-American.

There also seems to be little thought put into how the more clever enlisted would react to this kind of change in rooming. If it were me, and it's definitely not, I wouldn't mind my own room even though I'm not gay. Who is to say we heterosexuals wouldn't hide our own sexuality for a room without a roommate?

"I heard what you said."

Nigger-Faggot.

I swear when I heard the anchor lady on CNN say, "Nigger-Faggot" I wasn't appalled, I wasn't afraid, I wasn't even angry at first. I laughed. I laughed long and I laughed hard, I laughed with a tiny tear in my eye.

Come on! It is a hilarious insult!

Granted, it is an example of everything wrong with American society today. And understandably so, I can see how many bloggers, including Ravi Somaiya of Gawker, were infuriated by the insults hurled at Representatives James Clyburn and John Lewis. In Somaiya's post he discusses the aftermath of the Tea Party Protester's flagrant name-calling.

These particular representatives were targeted for being black and gay (duh). And don't get me wrong, I hate neither black people nor homosexuals. In order to fully explain my initial giggle-fest I have to take you back, dearest blog-reader, about a year or so to when I was first introduced to a certain video by a precious and very twisted friend of mine, Travis.



Keep in mind while watching the clip, originally created by Derrik Comedy, that Travis has a very offensive sense of humor. He was the guy who first introduced me to the bile inducing "2 girls, 1 cup", then challenged himself to find something even more disturbing to show his friends... and succeeded.

So to be sure, when I first heard what was said to these Representatives, I didn't laugh because I'm evil, I laughed because to me, it was freggin' hysterical.

Soemthing I find freggin' hysterical? This. A post on Instapundit that targets the 2 politicos, essentially adding insult to insulted injury calling the shockwaves over the slurs just a reaction to "bogus racism."
...So what would constitute real racism?
Aren't the words "Nigger" and "Faggot" inherently hateful?
I mean, yes, they are only words but pretty crappy words none the less.

The allegation by right-wing blogger Glenn Reynolds that the Reps owe the Protesters an apology is stupid. Stupid as hell. What kind of apology would they even offer? Sorry, I'm gay? Sorry, I'm totally black and you're mega-racist?

As much as I respect a person's right to say whatever the hell they want, I also treasure my American given right to call them idiots.

Separate but equal... and with more money.

Even though I am currently a student in the what is technically the public school (university) system, I went to private school my whole life before college. So I had to do some research on Charter schools because I had no idea what they were.

I mean I had heard the word used a lot in the media and when talking about education reform. I knew they tended to be smaller, which sounds nice what with Florida's well documented over-crowding problems. I honestly just assumed they were like little magnet schools popping up all over the country.

Well, they're not.

"Charter" essentially means a school that is publicly-funded and privately-run.

OK. I came across this article on the Huffington Post. It discusses how California charter schools violate children's civil rights by over-catering to white students, and failing the latino, asian, and black community.

Ummm... YEAH. I couldn't understand, was this some kind of joke?
You're GIVING away money to start small clustered schools; someone, some group, some people are going to take advantage of this and basically ruin it for everyone else. It's the American way!

Something that bothers me about this article is the lack of real evidence. There are no quotes from actual students, parents, techers, janitors, anyone? Gary Orfield threw in a couple statistics but overall it was just what he had to say on the matter.

The whole charter school system seems a little like that style of writing. It's not monitored very well. We don't actually know what goes on in these schools.

According to the article, "Charter schools stratify students by race, class and possibly language, and are more racially isolated than traditional public schools in virtually every state and large metropolitan area in the country". Again... YEAH. You're giving people license to teach in whatever way they want. They're going to focus on the kids they see as having a chance, and because the small group of people running the school don't generally have to have the best record in education, those kids will probably be upper-class-english-speakers, and because we live in America most of those kids will be white.

What happened to focusing on public schools? Why not spend more money and effort on a system that says 'education for everyone'?

Jihad Jane / Fatima LaRose

She has a name like something out of a trashy novel, but apparently it's all true.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/09/pennsylvania.terror.indictment/index.html?hpt=T1

For those who love everything about Muslim extremism but still hate Muslims.

Oh. My. God.

And for that matter, Oh your god, Oh his god, Oh their god...
I feel a little guilty because my first response to reading about Repent Amarillo was to bust out in a fit of uncontrollable and very shameful giggles.
But real talk, you go over to their website and tell me whether you can take them seriously.

Let me explain, I first read about them while reading a post at ThinkProgress.org where they are being called the "Texas Taliban". On this Little Green Footballs post Repent Amarillo is likened to Hezbollah. Their aim is to help the city of Amarillo, TX repent and find forgiveness for their increasingly sinful ways.

I'm going to begin by simply talking about their website.
For some reason there is a fine flow of crystals falling from the top of the screen; much like a light drizzle of crack-cocaine.

On the home page there is a beautifully written notice titled "Notice", it explains: This site is not designed for non-christians, It is designed as a recruitment tool to call certain Christians to spiritual warfare, If you are not a Christian and you want to know more about becoming a Christian consider the following Links as resources. While some of them support our efforts, and some may not, it is not about us and it is not about them. It is about Jesus Christ.

The mentioned links include: Repent America, Hal Lindsey, and Bound 4 Life.

The website also includes a Warfare Map. I don't even know what to say. It lists locations in town that should be targeted and includes Gentlemen's Clubs, the town Islamic Center, and the St Andrews Episcopal Church (Since this church does not hold that Homosexuals will burn in hell they have been corrupted in the eyes of the lord and need to repent).

No, seriously, I have no idea what to say. Is this hateful? Is it just ignorant? How is this possibly legal? Maybe just a quick 'WHAT THE FUCK?' will suffice?

Yes I think that will do, What the fuck is going on in America? Aren't we supposed to the Melting Pot? How the hell did so much crazy get into the pot?!

The Commute to Work Just Got a Little Cheerier, Atlanta!

In case you live outside the greater Atlanta, GA area you may not have seen some of the new billboards sprouting up around the city:





I came across this post about them, titled "On Personhood: The Dehumanization of Black Women & Children", on Feministing.com. The hoopla over the billboards brings up 3 of my favorite controversial topics: race, abortion, and feminism.

Firstly, let's talk about the use of the term "Endangered Species". Femme writes, "This billboard dehumanizes both black women and children, by asserting that black children are an "endangered species," which animalizes them". I can't help but think, are black children being compared to the rhino?

Don't get me wrong, I can understand why pro-lifers would use a controversial image to try and incite support. Fashion labels and politicians do the same the thing all the time. But it seems a little much to insinuate that all black children will disappear thanks to rampant abortions. It seems that TooManyAborted.com, whose slogan is "No hype. Just truth.", is inferring that women just LOVE getting abortions. Not that getting an abortion is a difficult choice to make for a woman, a decision that takes time and a lot of thought. More specifically, the movement seems to hold that black women, on whom "57.4 percent of abortions in Georgia" are performed, cannot get enough of abortions.

Not to mention the way in which this movement insinuates that abortions by white women are perfectly fine while abortions for black women should be stopped. How does this double standard help anyone, especially the black community? And how is this a representation of a true pro-life group? Isn't a life a life regardless of race?

It's all a little over the top for me.

Loretta Ross is quoted in Femme's post as maintaining that, "Controlling our fertility was part of our uplift out of poverty strategy, and it still works". I happen to agree. Women having children for whom they cannot or will not care for is not going to improve anyone's life. And let's be real here, Planned Parenthood was not formed in order to wipeout the black race. People request to have these services in their communities. If there was no demand for them, they wouldn't be there.

Mums the Word on Moms of the Congo.

February 26th, 27th, and 28th I will be involved in a production of the Vagina Monologues at my university. Our spotlight focus is to raise awareness for the women of the DRC (The Democratic Republic of the Congo).




The women in the DRC suffer systematic rapes on a massive scale.
Amnesty International writes:
"Rape, sometimes by groups as large as twenty men, has become a hallmark of the conflict, with armed factions often using it as part of a calculated strategy to destabilize opposition groups, undermine fundamental community values, humiliate the victims and witnesses, and secure control through fear and intimidation. It is not unusual for mothers and daughters to be raped in front of their families and villages, or to be forced to have sex with their sons and brothers. Rapes of girls as young as six and women over 70 have been reported. Young girls are also regularly abducted and held captive for years to be used as sexual slaves by combatants and their leaders."

Naturally, I wanted to draw a little extra light upon the subject by posting an entry about it here, it seemed fitting and is something I am very passionate about.

Which is why I find myself, time after time, overwhelmingly frustrated with the lack of coverage the subjugation of women receives both in the mainstream media and in the World Wide Web 2.0.

If you're looking for women looking pretty, on the runway or the red carpet, giving housekeeping tips, and even doing things with farm animals that are illegal in half the western world, no problem! A few clicks and choice words into the google machine and you've got what you were looking for.
If you're looking for real, solid information on the systematic rapes, genital mutilation, or stigmatization of rape victims in the third world it becomes far more difficult to find anything which is both reliable and recent (the article linked to on the stigma of rape is from 2004).

I find it overwhelmingly tiresome that if women are not looking clean and pretty, or calling each other names, or stealing each other's men they can find very little voice across the internet.
This kind of treatment is, in my opinion, a subjugation all its own. It's like telling women to be pretty, petty or in porn, otherwise they're not going to receive much attention.

Given there are many sites that are dedicate to women's rights, but many are sub-sites for bigger webpages, for example the section of change.org that is dedicated exclusively to women but other sites are few and far between, barely any are both dedicated exclusively to activism for these kind of atrocities against women and many, like Whole World Women are sadly outdated.

Let me put it to you this way;
If there was some sort of armed conflict in a remote part of the world which resulted in men, on a massive scale (we're talking hundreds of thousands) being brutalized and subsequently having their penises cut off. Then after suffering that kind of brutality these men, these victims, were often put to death because "they aren't really good for much else", the US (and most western countries) would be there with tanks, and soldiers and penis replacement surgery.

What little is being done for the women of the Congo and countries the world over is heartbreaking, it is insult added to injury that those us who do not suffer as they do, don't have the time or interest to shed a little light on the subject.

"My dick is sort of like a white supremacist."

By now everyone has heard of, commented on, and posted a blog about John Mayer and his interview with Playboy. In addition to Mayer making himself look like a freaking lunatic, the interview got me thinking.

Just how "racist" are we when it comes to dating?


I began with the dating sites.
There is a bevy of racially guided websites:
Sites like Black Planet,Black Singles and Black Scene offer African Americans the opportunity to meet exclusively other African Americans.

JDate matches up Jewish singles (On a side note: Lorraine and Marv are the cutest couple I've ever seen).

Muslima offers the slogan "International Muslim Matrimonials".

My favorite was Afromance. It couples only black women with only white men. It all seems very exclusive and weirdly niche, but it has an AWESOME name.

Even eHarmony offers members the chance at Christian dating, Black dating, Jewish dating, Hispanic dating and even Senior dating. Each tangent site is complete with a promising picture of it's own demographic.

Something that I found increasingly intriguing was when looking for "White Dating Sites" I could either only find links to White Pride sites or discussions like this one on whether or not all white dating sites would be inherently racist?

This is something that I have yet to understand. It's okay for everyone else on the planet to romantically, genetically, emotionally, and physically segregate themselves based on the race they feel most comfortable with but when white people do it, its racist? As someone who cannot stand double standards, this kind of irked me.

Actually while reading a post on Salon.com titled Dirty Secrets About Dating and Race I found that a study done by George Yancey shows that Americans are more open to interracial dating than they have ever been.

So what is the deal?
Why not get out there and mingle?
Get outside your comfort zone and have a romantic adventure?

OR has Web 2.0 made it too easy for people to stay hiding within their own races and outside the realm of possibility?

It seems to me, in the end, that John Mayer just vocalized what a lot of people think. He doesn't seem to have any problem people outside his own race but he's certainly not going to mix genetic material with them.

The Right to Rule (or not)

I recently came across The Huffington Post article titled: No, We Can’t: The Impossibility of a Black British Head of State. I immediately thought to myself 'Obama! Obama!' (in unabashed American hubris), but this article wasn't about the British PM. It is, interestingly enough, about the British figure-head, the Monarch.

The article pretty much states that because the British Monarch is chosen on the basis of bloodlines, it makes “the current method of appointing the head of state racist by default.”

Now, I’m not claiming to know much more about the royal family or how monarchy works for our friends across the pond other than that William is the hotter prince (and he is). So, when I read this next bit I was a little confused.

“Equally appalling, this exclusion of non-white Britons excites no public outrage, not even from liberals, the left and African British ant-racist campaign groups. They just accept it as ‘the British way’ of doing things. Only the Green Party is calling for a democratically elected head of state.”

Doesn’t an elected head of state, whether powerful or powerless, make a country, essentially, a democracy? I’m all for equal rights but this article, by Peter Tatchell, seems to warp a few important details.

Tatchell touches lightly upon the idea of what would happen if a Black person (for that matter an Asian, Middle-Eastern, Hispanic, Muslim or Jewish person) were to marry into the royal family and produce an heir. The article even goes as far as predicting when the death of the prince would be and thus bring about the rule of the next possible bi-racial king or queen.

My question regarding this entire argument is why Tatchell is not questioning the British Prime Minister's race? In addiciton to this oversight, there is no mention in the entire article that the House of Lords, to this day, is not an elected congressional body. By the way, both the House of Lords and the PM hold more power than the British Limited Monarch.

What Tatchell is selling is not an idea of equal rights for the British races but one of democracy. He goes on to write about Ireland's democratic presidency and How Britain's could work similarly. It's obvious that this writer doesn't really care about the civil rights of non-whites, he's just manipulating the idea of injustice to push his own political agenda.

In my opinion, this is an example of the worst kind of commentary on civil rights when it comes to the internet/new media. It comes from a noted, reliable source, is written by someone who should know what he's writing about and yet it still offers very little in terms of real reference-able information. It robs the reader of what he/she wants most from the internet (not porn); something they can quote in coffee shops to sound smart.

To put it briefly; It's rubbish.

Hello and Welcome.

(None of the images posted belong to me, nor do I take any credit for being or taking any of them)


When people think about civil rights they tend to immediately think the American Civil Rights Movement and of figures like Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X (Which, don't get me wrong, is awesome). What the internet, or more specifically Web 2.0 has done is open the world up to new ways of sharing information. When it comes to civil liberties and human rights this means an opening up to injustices the world over right at your fingertips.

Not only is there a new, massive, audience for those looking to learn about civil rights movements the world over but the internet has also given millions access to the other side of the movement. The KKK has it's own (strikingly friendly) website on which you can read blogs, buy t-shirts and even learn about White Pride Homeschooling for the little ones. You can even follow the Klan on Twitter (ah, the marvels of modernity).

At the same time, the website for the Black Panther Party, www.blackpanther.org is outright scary. The main index page is just an ominous panther across a yellow backdrop with rotating black and white pictures on either side of it.

It's amazing what a little color and internet know-how can do for the image of a movement.

Interestingly enough, while looking for information on China's stance on Human Rights there seemed to be little more than Wikipedia and newspaper articles as well as the occasional random checklist to inform upon (but you can google on your own).

Which brings me to my original point: There is little to be said that hasn't already been said on the internet. The Topic of Civil Rights is no exception, and my aim will be to find some of the really interesting tid-bits on it and post on them.