Over the course of the past 72 hours, over 1800 Wikipedians have joined together to discuss proposed actions that the community might wish to take against SOPA and PIPA. This is by far the largest level of participation in a community discussion ever seen on Wikipedia, which illustrates the level of concern that Wikipedians feel about this proposed legislation. The overwhelming majority of participants support community action to encourage greater public action in response to these two bills. Of the proposals considered by Wikipedians, those that would result in a “blackout” of the English Wikipedia, in concert with similar blackouts on other websites opposed to SOPA and PIPA, received the strongest support.

….

Therefore, on behalf of the English Wikipedia community, the Wikimedia Foundation is asked to allocate resources and assist the community in blacking out the project globally for 24 hours starting at 05:00 UTC on January 18, 2012, or at another time as determined by the Wikimedia Foundation. This should be carried out while respecting technical limitations of the underlying software, and should specifically prevent editing wherever possible. Provisions for emergency access to the site should be included in the blackout software. In order to assist our readers and the community at large to educate themselves about SOPA and PIPA, these articles and those closely related to them will remain accessible for reading purposes if possible. Wikipedians are urged to work with WMF staff to develop effective messaging for the “blackout screens” that directs readers to suitable online resources. Sister projects, such as the German and Italian Wikipedias and Wikimedia Commons, have indicated an intention to support the same principles with banners on those sites, and the support of other projects is welcome and appreciated.

Even though SOPA is unlikely to be enacted into law without Obama’s signature this doesn’t mean we’re not in the clearing yet. As long as the internet is open, as long as it is free and as long as there are corporations out there trying to line their pockets, efforts to put chains on the internet are not going to stop. Every attack won’t be as clear or as widely-reported as SOPA but they’re out there; in fact, just a month ago the Research Works Act was introduced in the house that would end the NIH’s “public access policy that says taxpayer-funded research must be freely accessible online. This means that members of the public, having paid once to have the research done, don’t have to pay for it again when they read it”. The consequences of this?

If passed, the Research Works Act (RWA) would prohibit the NIH’s public access policy and anything similar enacted by other federal agencies, locking publicly funded research behind paywalls. The result would be an ethical disaster: preventable deaths in developing countries, and an incalculable loss for science in the USA and worldwide. The only winners would be publishing corporations such as Elsevier (£724m profits on revenues of £2b in 2010 – an astounding 36% of revenue taken as profit).

Oh my. There’s work to be done.

Here is my immediate “to do” list for the next several months:

• I’m helping organize the Midwest Science of Origins Conference (March 30-April 1) at the University of Minnesota-Morris, which will include lectures discussing humanism, and the Origins of Life, the Universe and Everything (as long as “Everything” is defined as Homo Sapiens and Morality). The committed speakers we have so far include the award-winning Humanist PZ Myers; the evolutionary biologist Neil Shubin, author of Your Inner Fish; UMN primatologist Michael Wilson; and Interfaith Organizer Chris Stedman. This requires all of the work that goes into planning a conference.
• The Twin Cities Daily Planet has agreed to publish an article series on third party presidential candidates in the 2012 election cycle. Specifically I’ll be focusing on the role they play, how they organize and how they use social media – all of this within the context of a political era where many Americans believe a third party is needed. Now I need to network and schedule interviews with the candidates and party chairs from the following (in descending order of votes received in 2008 presidential election): Libertarian, Constitution, Green, Socialism and Liberation, Socialist,  Objectivist, Prohibition, and Reform.
• I’m writing my Honors Capstone Project Paper (so that I can graduate “With Honors”) on an evolutionary perspective of social contract theory. ~20 pages and presentation.
• I’m writing my Senior Seminar in Political Science (so I can earn my Political Science degree) on a topic I will not know until the semester starts. ~20 pages and presentation.
• I’m writing my Senior Seminar in History (so I can earn my History degree) on a topic that must be associated with “Nationalism” in some form or another. ~20 pages and presentation.
• I’m applying for the 2012 Truman Scholarship. The final application with three letters of recommendation are due February 7; if selected to advance, I’ll have a few more hoops to jump through before I stop to see how gray my hair has become.
• As the College Caucus Chair of the Minnesota Young DFL Party (MYDFL) I am in the process of scheduling speaking engagements with colleges around the state to get them excited for the upcoming election cycle.
• As the Vice-Chair of the University of Minnesota Student Senate I am trying to organize a grassroots online media campaign to pass a resolution saying that the chamber believes the proposed constitutional ban on same sex marriage is antithetical to everything the University of Minnesota stands for. This requires all of he work that goes into running a campaign.
• As one of Morris’ Student Legislative Coordinators through the Minnesota Student Legislative Coalition, I’ll be planning a rally at the state capitol in March (or was it April?) – the annual “Support the U Day”

So, yeah. Wish me luck!

But I’ll show you!

Spending my Christmas afternoon walking the country roads that like veins stretch out of my hometown of Montevideo, it was the first time in years that I was free to walk the same convoluted, out-of-the-way route I used to take to school. And as I walked the casts of the sun encouraged me to unzip my coat, take off my hat and turn my mind to what should have been buried under feet of snow months ago: fall. Letting the air feel my lungs, I could have sworn that I was walking to the high school where I would soon see all of my friends and we’d gossip and cuss and I’d continue the (now outgrown) Che Guevara phase. Then I thought of the annoying pep rallies in the auditorium we were forced to attend where we would be lectured about Good Decisions, Faith (!) and Abstinence (!), etc., all things that I casually shrugged off and dismissed as the capitalistic reproductive forces oppressing any hope for a burgeoning class consciousness (you’ve got to start early, folks).

Letting some of the presentations play out in memory, recalling some of the songs their “rock bands” would play to reinforce the point (because nothing seals the Don’t Do Meth deal like Evanescence’s “Wake Me Up Inside”), I asked myself, “If I was out there, what would I have told myself?”

And I had an answer …

Aged and hopefully distinguished, I would strip the mic from the stand and, standing to the podium’s side, lean an elbow across the top to demonstrate that I’m too cool for podiums. Flashing a smile, I’d begin by establishing my ethos of cool by distancing myself from the uncool faculty and administration by sympathizing with the natural urge to dismiss cliches: “Now, I know that you’re all used to hearing the same old cliches. I’m sure many of you are studying your phones, looking at the clock and thinking that I’ll be just like everyone else you’ve been dragged out to listen to. Well guess what: I’m not like them because I know that sometimes Parents Just Don’t Understand.”

Nailed it.

“… Now listen, I know you’ve heard it before, but I just want to let you know that even though things can seem tough, even though there will be those days where you just feel like giving up, let me tell you that you owe it to yourself to stand back up every time you are knocked down. Kids, you owe it to yourselves to make sure that when you walk out of these doors years from now with your diploma – and for some of you it’ll be this year – you owe it to yourselves to make sure that you aim for the moon.”

Kids fucking love astronomy.

“Yeah, I said it,” I’ll say before I say it again. “Aim for the moon, my friends, for even if you miss you won’t have to confront your shame as you will likely die alone in the dark, empty vacuum of space, your corpse being the first of the species to sail through the ether for all time until there’s a collision far outside of our solar system. Given, this is assuming that you’ve launched yourself at fast enough speeds to escape the gravitational pull of the solar system, but if you’re going those speeds you’ll probably be dead even if you hit the moon.”

Because I’ve taken communications classes, I’d let it sink it. You know, let the kids really think about it.

“If you’re lucky, of course, this won’t be your fate,” I’ll continue, “as there does exist the chance that by passing close enough the gravitational pull of the moon could slingshot you out of its orbit and back toward earth where you would burn up in the atmosphere.” And then like a rhetorical M. Night Shyamalan I would pull out a twist – “On the event that this happens though you will appear to be a shooting star to the eyes of the passerby and your legacy will be … wishes, which is pretty poetic if you think about it.”

Let the imagery sink it. Hopefully by this time Space Shuttle Columbia will be a distant memory. Even if it’s not all of the poetry-writin’-but-not-readin’ kids will still think it’s deep – you know, means something.

“So think about it, even though people wish for a menagerie of ridiculous nad absurd things your disintegrating carnal form (and let’s be honest: only form) will bring hope and inspiration to every Tom, Dick and Sally watching the night sky on the day you decided to strap that rocket between your legs. They will wish upon you. Dick will hope to get some, Sally will hope the pregnancy test is wrong and Tom will hope that he doesn’t have to be the third wheel forever.”

By subtly alluding to sexual intercourse I will get serious “cred” with the kids. With this “cred” I can then drive the message home (after I clarify something of course).

“But don’t be too poetic with this situation: their watching your death would only be a coincidence and would have no direct effect on their wishes. I mean, there may be the increased confidence bit that comes with feeling like there’s a supernatural force working with you but that is nothing similar to an actual supernatural force. The truth is that we’ve evolved certain biological predispositions that direct us toward those stupid things, but we just need to get over it.”

Where was I?

“So what I’m trying to say is that you need to look (realistically) on the bright side of things. Remember, there’s a reason why Denmark is often rated the #1 happiest country in the world – it’s because they have low standards.”

Kids fucking love Denmark.

“Now, as I close, I would like to encourage each of you to establish your own low standards. And when you leave this school with your diploma,” pause and smirk, “remember to aim for the moon.”

Receive huge applause, collect paycheck and then Tweet about how life-changing I am.

What most users don’t know is that the new features being introduced are all centered around increasing the value of Facebook to advertisers, to the point where Facebook representatives have been selling the idea that Timeline is actually about re-conceptualizing users around their consumer preferences, or as they put it, “brands are now an essential part of people’s identities.”

This should not come as much of as surprise, of course, since the 20-somethings have already thrown away the tag “Net Generation” and substituted it for the “iPod Generation.” Even so, that doesn’t make this soma pill any easier to swallow as the currents pull even the most skeptical of us with it. We’re cattle being driven further into the consumption factory and there’s not a whole lot we can even do about it since we’ll be the ones driving each other.

With Timeline, We’re the Endorsers!

When you’re watching television or those damn web ads, there’s the occasional moment when the celebrity steps into the screen, holding up the box of the latest must-have gizmo, encouraging the audience to purchase the must-have along with its must-needs and ought-to-compliments. For some this works (after all, Ronald Reagan wouldn’t steer me wrong, would he? Of course I’ll light up a Chesterfield). For others it does absolutely nothing – why should I trust people I don’t even know trying to force something I don’t even need down my throat? So we turn to those we do trust.

It should come as no secret that the best advertising comes from cooler talk with friends and family, those whom we identify with and respect and regard as a part of our immediate community. Through this one-on-one experience we’re able to chat, discuss the pros and cons of each product and come to a conclusion over which tends to be better (or at least narrow the list down). Before one knows it, the New Toy is friend-endorsed and family-approved and – how convenient! – you’ve established a temporary brand loyalty, which means that even though you will have a choice at the local Wal-Mart it’s a false one. As we should start saying, it’s “bros before Co-(rporation)s.”

But now, with the New and Improved Facebook you can skip the one-on-one conversations  and let the social network use your endorsement of a product to bring in serious advertising revenue. Now the next time you decide to “like” a page your mug and all of the social capital you have (with your friends at least) will be put toward being a spokesperson for it and its products.

As the post from Facebook yesterday morning explained, sponsored stories are different from ads in that a user’s name or profile might appear alongside the ad,  ”If you’ve liked that business’s page, the story about you liking the page (including your name or profile photo) may be paired with the ad your friends see.” While sponsored stories don’t include additional messaging from the sponsor, businesses pay Facebook to feature posts and activity that mention their brands. In both cases, these are only visible “to friends you’ve already shared this information with.”

But of course there is hope. Or at least there’s the chance that hell will be (briefly) raised until the national attention span becomes bored or people fail to realize how serious of a problem this really is and just say “whatever.”

How long users will tolerate this is unclear. There’s already a class-action suit pending in California against Facebook for integrating user’s pictures without their permission in advertising based on “Likes.” Many Spotify listeners and Washington Post readers are no doubt regretting listening to that one good song from that otherwise unpardonable band, or clicking on that salaciously titled article, which then appeared on the screens of everyone they know along with their smiling profile picture.

All of this is getting seriously out of hand. And to think that with almost two decades into the Internet Revolution there’s very little clear, established political theory contemplating what’s to be done and how we ought to go about doing it (or at least rises above the anarchist reproach that the internet must be destroyed altogether). Nor is there any public outcry when we’re being trampled. During the 1930s President Franklin D. Roosevelt called for an Economic Bill of Rights; what we need now is a Technological Bill of Rights. Seriously, what’s going on, people?

"A part of him is still with me" (not meant to be creepy at all).

You may or may not be aware of this fact, but when Albert Einstein died in 1955 an autopsy was performed on his body and – because of his reputation as a genius – his brain was removed to be studied. Approximately 20 years later it would be “rediscovered,” studied some more and then 20 more years later would be returned to Einstein’s granddaughter Evelyn, the “road trip” of which would be recorded in Michael Paterniti’s Driving Mr. Albert: A Trip Across America with Einstein’s Brain (2001). All in all one could say it makes a fun story and a semi-accomplishment for science (we’re learning about certain regions being larger and Glial cells)!

But then there’s this weird little historical footnote: they also took his eyes. And not in a “Maybe they were genius eyes???” kind of way either. It was done because they were Einstein’s fucking eyeballs.

As reporters soon discovered, Harvey did not have permission. Nor did he have a legal right to remove and keep the brain for himself. When the fact came to light a few days later, Harvey managed to solicit a reluctant and retroactive blessing from Einstein’s son, Hans Albert, with the now-familiar stipulation that any investigation would be conducted solely in the interest of science, and that any results would be published in reputable scientific journals. But Einstein’s dignity had already been compromised. He had left behind specific instructions regarding his remains: cremate them, and scatter the ashes secretly in order to discourage idolaters. Yet not only did Harvey take the brain, he also removed the physicist’s eyeballs and gave them to Henry Abrams, Einstein’s eye doctor. They remain to this day in a safe deposit box in New York City, and are frequently rumored to be poised for the auction block. [from NPR]

Every time the eyeballs are rumored to be on auction Abrams has to make it clear that they’re all rumors and that he has no intention to sell. Why? Because

“Albert Einstein was a very important part of my life – a lasting influence,” Abrams, 82, said during an interview on Thursday at his winter home west of Boynton Beach. “Having his eyes means the professor’s life has not ended. A part of him is still with me.“

How are you supposed to interpret that? “He’s not dead … because I have his eyes.” And if it isn’t already creepy imagining the two as besties, it becomes downright insane when you read the last article and Abrams makes it clear that, if anything, they were acquaintances at best.

*shudder*

“Women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10% of the incidence of mental health problems was shown to be attributable to abortion. The strongest subgroup estimates of increased risk occurred when abortion was compared with term pregnancy and when the outcomes pertained to substance use and suicidal behaviour.”

Those numbers are so extravagantly extreme that there ought to be alarm bells going off in your head right now, and the research had better be darned thorough and unimpeachably clean.

As it turns out, it isn’t.

Go read it.

According to a report issued by the UK’s National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health, as it turns out, the conservative talking point that abortions cause mental illness in women is wrong. It turns out that any problems these women have is more likely attributed to the realities of having an unwanted pregnancy.

The study is likely to be met by skepticism by those opposed to the practice and believe that terminating a pregnancy can trigger depression or other mental illnesses.
[Dr. Tim] Kendall said mental health problems seemed to be linked specifically to unwanted pregnancies rather than abortion.

About 11 to 12 percent of women in general suffer from mental health issues like anxiety or depression, but among women with unwanted pregnancies that figure rises to about one third, he said. For women who later had an abortion, there did not appear to be any further increase in their rate of mental health problems.

“We should be looking at what it is about the unwanted pregnancy stage that is so problematic,” he said. “We need to try to get those women help sooner so they’re not put at greater risk.”

While I can only speculate as to what the causes for stress are for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of it came down to the stigma we associate not only with sexual intercourse in general (a point recently highlighted with the Department of Health and Human Services’ rejecting access to the Plan B pill for teenagers) but with a women’s right to choose. It’s this last part that drives some activists to bomb clinics, kill doctors, outright lie about the science and ostracize and dehumanize women, and it doesn’t take a genius to see that these things have consequences.

In the same way that gay teens are more likely to contemplate suicide because of how they are treated by society, it makes perfect sense that women trapped in this position would be stressed. And if the purpose of a hate crime (and terrorism, technically) is to instill fear, doubt and self-loathing in a community because of their identity, then what we are looking at in the women’s movement are crimes that slip under the radar simply because the narrative lacks Person A directly beating Person B. And because of this we’re less likely to do anything about it. Hell, this treatment of women is something we see even within our own movements.

We’re quick to Occupy Wall Street, but what about Occupying Patriarchy? And when we do Occupy Wall Street why aren’t we standing up against the sexism within our own ranks? A friend of mine recently wrote about her “gendered” and “sexualized” experience at Occupy Minnesota, and it’s worth reading simply because it’s a perspective and reality the Occupy movement has overlooked.

I need to stop here otherwise I could go all day.

On Friday, abruptly and without much warning, MN GOP chairman and Louie Anderson-impersonator Tony Sutton resigned because, as it turns out, he was a terrible administrator:

Federal campaign reports released in early November show the party continues to spend money faster than it’s coming in.

The state Republican executive committee convened in late October to privately review party finances and weak fundraising numbers.

Some party officials were surprised by both the size of the debt and the ongoing spending.

When Sutton took control of the state GOP in 2009, the party had more than $1 million in the bank. By January 2011, it owed creditors $750,000, and it remains more than $500,000 in debt.

Under pressure, Sutton — who was unanimously re-elected less than a year ago — allowed party activists to take a more active role in seeking spending cuts. They also clipped Sutton’s authority.

As for actual numbers, it’s closer to $581,000.

On top of the $581,000 debt, Republicans owe about $500,000 in a special recount fund, started up to fight Emmer’s 9,000-vote loss to DFLer Mark Dayton

And apparently Sutton’s inability to understand how budgeting works goes all the way back to 2006 when he was the treasurer of the party and failed to disclose nearly $100,000 in debt. I mean, this is the party of fiscal responsibility we are meant to revere and elect with the hope that they tighten budgets and guide whatever organization they are leading into prosperity. So why aren’t they doing as they’re demanding?

Oh, right, they’re hypocrites.

While it is acknowledged that the boy on the right is Adolf Hitler there is debate over whether or not the boy on the left is actually Ludwig Wittgenstein.

For an Historiography class I’m in we’re reading Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust and The David Irving Trial (2001) by Richard J. Evans that in addition to tearing apart Holocaust deniers like David Irving also makes the case that historical institutions, methodologies and not being a liar actually matter. In an era where arguments of “subjectivity” and “relativism” and “bias” are thrown around to discredit anyone and everyone, it’s the kind of book that reminds the reader of a simple 21st century truth: historical/artistic/political/philosophical/whatever nihilism is counterproductive and only leaves people like myself sarcastically screaming, “I can’t definitively prove that you exist. So please go away.” The existentialists and post-structuralists may be right, but at the end of the day we need to learn from the compatibilists (who focus more on reconciling determinism with free will) that sometimes we need to function as though something were true.

So one obscure thing that I learned from Lying About Hitler is that, apparently, the most influential 20th-century philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, who is known for went to school with a young Adolf Hitler. Yeah, there’s even a photograph of it (but its authenticity is debated). The reason why it’s mentioned in the book is because some historians believe that Hitler’s hatred for the Jews may have stemmed from his youthful jealousy of Wittgenstein (many historians are skeptical of this interpretation). Regardless, I can sympathize with this theory because, I mean, think about it …

On the small playground of the local realschule in Linz, Austria, a young Wittgenstein approaches a young Hitler. Though precocious and self-conscious, the young Wittgenstein snaps at the “vicious and aggressive” young Hitler and pushes him to the ground while saying, “Now let me be clear with you …!”

Yes, this entire post was a setup for one of the the lamest, most esoteric jokes you will ever roll your eyes over.

But in the end, if the theories of Foucault, Locke or Hume and the prose of Hemingway, Fitzgerald or Kerouac can’t be put to immediate use by a for-profit, they’re useless, right? Well, if you’re the governor of Florida, then yes. Last month Gov. Rick Scott came out and suggested that the state should invest more heavily in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) as compared to those fields – like the Humanities – that will only lead poor, misguided and skill-less youth into a life of unemployment. Never mind the graduate’s ability to tell think critically about ethics (gasp!), morality (double gasp!),  and what it means to exist in the modern world (the Republicans in the room should have passed out by now).

Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s comments last month cut to the heart of the quandary: whether emphasizing [STEM] gives students the best career prospects and a high-tech payback to society, and whether humanities fields are viewed as more of an indulgence than a necessity amid tight budget times.

Oh yes, the Humanities are an indulgence. It’s like an unhealthy serving of cake we would all do better without. It’s enjoying a film after dinner instead of beginning the night shift. It’s an externality we would perhaps all be better off without …

Advocates say STEM fields also provide tangible returns for states, universities and businesses through patent royalties, new products and the prestige of achieving scientific breakthroughs – paybacks far less evident among, say, new intellectual insights by scholars of Geoffrey Chaucer’s literature, devotees of Frederic Chopin’s nocturnes or adherents of Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialist views.

Again, if it can’t be turned into $$, it has no value – even if it’s ideas that have no diminishing marginal returns, which is one of the greatest stumbling blocks for the economically-minded. (Another stumbling block is having an uneducated work force).

The thing that I don’t understand is that the conservatives pushing agendas like this don’t really want science: they want the dumbed down version of it. They want biology without evolution, physics without a Big Bang, ecology without its implications, climatology without climate change, etc. Well guess what? They can’t have it because it doesn’t work that way.

And I know this because I’m a liberal arts student