Photo: Paul Forman
I’m not sure how many would contest your newfound wisdom of learning to appreciate life more with less, Mr. Graham Hill, Treehugger founder. As you pen in your New York Times self-congratulatory essay, it took you “fifteen years, a great love and a lot of travel to get rid of all of the inessential things” you had collected in your life. And now you live in a 420 square-foot studio with a bed that folds down from the wall. You’re content. But you’re also a tad obnoxious.
I don’t think you’re a role model for the 98% who struggle to pay bills, live paycheck to paycheck, and have never experienced a “windfall.” For some of us, our stuff is indeed what keeps us sane. Not that collecting stuff should be the goal. While you might be proud of increasing your level of happiness by getting rid of your stuff, I don’t see that as being the major problem for a shrinking middle class. While I do commend you for trying to shed light on the problem of American consumerism and our attachment to too much gadgetry, the ultimate bell weather of a “happy life” might also be reduced to the following essentials: access to affordable health insurance, a job that pays more than the minimum wage, the ability to afford all necessary living expenses, affording college and not graduate drowning in a sea of debt, etc…
A good deal of the “stuff” you describe is certainly not needed to live a happy life. But what about your 420 square foot-space? What specially priced furniture did you purchase in order to invite ten people over for dinner and dine in comfort, sans claustrophobia? With the money you saved getting rid of so much stuff, what prized possessions did you acquire to make your space so ideal? What normal people choose to live in such a limited confine anyway? I don’t disagree with the economization of space but what about less focus on stuff and simply more focus on outdoor activities such as hiking, biking, or visits to museums and art galleries, for example? Why not spend more time on getting by with less without needing to spend a fortune to get by on less?
I agree with you. Excess consumption is no salve for an unhappy existence. When stuff starts to own you than you know you are in trouble. But you’re also single, with no family of your own, and from what I can tell, no pet. For the 98%, in particular, those with families, you think it’s easy to get rid of stuff? What of us who have walls of CDs and books accumulated over many decades? I don’t consider it excessive. For me, it’s joy. I know the difference between necessity and luxury. And while I might have a few things that I have no real reason to own, there’s nothing I own I can’t live without. I still like owning these things.
Yes, enormous consumption has global, environmental and social consequences. The dreadful influence of corporations and even government tell us to consume more because if we don’t, our economy will collapse. It’s a message with little comfort for someone trying to disengage from all of the stuff they have collected and continue to collect in their life. “Living small” is easier if you have money to purchase those things on an as-needed basis. It’s more difficult if and when money is tight and you no longer can afford some those of the same things. Most of the stuff you describe, however, is junk. Junk made in some far off land (outside the United States) that is cheap to produce and is easily profitable. Thanks to globalization we have enough stuff flowing back and forth between East and West to last us for centuries. Yes, each one of us must make a decision on how much stuff we will allow into our lives but in the end, it’s going to take titanic changes in the way we live as a society, jettisoning the disposable minded culture we live in for one that thrives on doing more with less. We’re still at the starting gate.
Living a sustainable life is more important than wanting or having less. If my work and life revolved around the Internet, I can imagine all I would need or want would be my laptop and my phone. My life, like many others, has deeper roots and alas, it’s not going to be easy to simply get rid of my stuff.
Silver Linings Playbook received a ton of accolades. Jennifer Lawrence won an Oscar. And for a film centering on an individual coping with Bipolar Disorder, it is no laughing matter. I know because someone close to me suffers from Bipolar Disorder 2 and I’ve witnessed manic episodes that to some degree mirror the behavior put on display by actor Bradley Cooper. Director and screenwriter David O. Russell adapted Silver Linings Playbook from Matthew Quick’s original novel, which is narrated through the eyes of former history teacher, Pat Peoples. Pat returns to his hometown of Collingswood, New Jersey, after having spent time at a mental hospital. No diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder 2 is actually specified in Quick’s novel, however.
I saw Silver Linings Playbook and having few expectations came away feeling that minus the good acting performances by Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence, this is a story with just a dose of too much Hollywood contrivance and not enough truth behind the ugly realities of manic depressive behavior.
Don’t read on if you haven’t seen the film yet. I take issue with David O. Russell’s screenplay on several fronts. In the film, Pat Peoples is diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder 2. The trigger causing his fall from mental stability is finding his wife having an affair with a fellow instructor. What rang false in this cinematic adaptation is how it takes more than one incident for someone to receive such a diagnosis. Most people are in their teens or early 20s when symptoms of bipolar disorder first start, according to the National Institute of Mental Health. Symptoms include severe mood swings and rapid cycling between states can be cause for great concern. Bradley Cooper’s character is in his thirties and it deigns all credulity to think he’d have his first full-blown manic episode because he found his wife cheating with another man. This is David O. Russell taking creative license and while he’s free to do so it does not make Cooper’s character more credible or believable as a sufferer from this mental affliction. I’m sure Catherina Zeta Jones could chime in here given her recent admission to suffering from Bipolar Disorder 2.
The ending of Silver Linings Playbook makes me cringe even more. Living with Bipolar Disorder 2 is a lifelong challenge. There is no cure. Most individuals diagnosed will find themselves taking medication for the rest of their lives. Triggers causing manic episodes can happen at any time. Silver Linings Playbook’s “happy ending” mocks the realities of those unlucky enough to receive such a diagnosis and who struggle trying to maintain healthy relationships. In many respects, David O. Russell’s screenplay does an injustice to those who are mentally ill. I can, however, recommend a very fine film that came out back in the 1970′s that focused on life in a mental health care facility. It is called One Flew Over the Cukoo’s Nest and won Jack Nicholson an Oscar. If you’ve never seen it, do yourself a favor and do so. It’s a far cry from Playbook’s superficial take on mental illness.
Some of the reviews I read about Silver Linings Playbook described it as “savagely funny” or “a rom-com that succeeds in revitalizing that discredited genre.” I’m not sure it’s either. Take away the diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder 2 and this film wouldn’t resonate nearly as deeply. There are some funny moments in this film and I did laugh. But dysfunction is at the heart of just about every comedy storyline Hollywood churns out, both good and bad. While I laud the good acting performances by all who starred in Silver Linings Playbook, this is a case where the “entertainment media” and the general cinema loving audience has bestowed way too much praise on a film that actually lacks the gravitas to address what is surely one of the more debilitating illnesses in human history. For those wanting to learn more about how to cope being in a relationship with someone who is diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, visit the DBSA
Milano cookies
Please boycott Pepperidge Farm cookies.
I’ve created a Change.org petition asking consumers to boycott Pepperidge Farm cookies and you can sign it here by clicking on this link:
Pepperidge Farm cookies contain hydrogenated oil, one of the worst trans fats created by humankind for the express purpose of creating a longer shelf life for a food product. It has zero nutritional value, hardens arteries, and contributes to diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease.
Some thirty plus years ago, I was a cookie loving cookie monster. Yup, I consumed cookies the way a parched mouth craves water. Each day I’d come home from school and the first thing I’d do was head towards the kitchen, open up one of the cupboards, and pull out some chocolate Milano cookies. My mother, at the time, did not know better. She did not read the actual ingredients listed in those cookies but she knew that if it’s one thing her finicky son could not do without, it was Pepperidge Farm Milano cookies. I poured a tall glass of milk and dunked each Milano cookie, letting it sit in the milk for about ten to fifteen seconds. The combination of milk, chocolate and flour was heaven. I couldn’t get enough of it.
I believe I consumed, on average, 8 to 10 Milano chocolate cookies each day. I certainly could have consumed the entire bag of Milano cookies but did my best to save what I could for the following day. We went through so many Milano cookies that at one point my mother skipped buying Milano and instead purchased Chips Ahoy cookies. I didn’t mind Chips Ahoy. I dunked each cookie in milk and eagerly consumed it. But Milano cookies were special. I just liked how the cookie was designed and how it tasted. I knew next to nothing about nutrition (and could have cared less).
My cookie consumption would reach its apogee by the time I reached 8th grade. When I entered high school, I discovered I could enjoy the delicious food my mom prepared for the family and actually decrease my cookie consumption. But I never stopped loving Milano cookies. It was not until the late 1980’s when I began hearing about hydrogenated oil.
Hydrogenated oil is a trans fat, one of the worst kinds of fat you can consume. It elevates bad cholesterol (LDL) in your body and lowers your good cholesterol (HDL). Hydrogenated oil is the process of forcing hydrogen gas into oil at high pressure and temperature. Now why would you knowingly want to consume a product that has hydrogen gas in it? It’s akin to smoking cigarettes when you know that the smoke from cigarettes causes cancer. And with Milano cookies, it’s the hydrogenated oil that keeps the cookie “fresh” for long periods of time and enables you to eat it whenever you want.
It didn’t dawn on me that Milano cookies contained trans fat until the one day I closely read the ingredients of Milano cookies. And there it was: hydrogenated oil. Talk about shock and dismay.
I stopped eating Milano cookies. And to this day, I’ve never eaten another Milano cookie. I didn’t think much of it until recently when I had a hankering for store bought cookies. And I remembered how much I loved eating Milano cookies. I went to a supermarket and checked out a bag of Milano cookies. I reviewed the ingredients. And thirty + years later, Pepperidge Farm has made ZERO effort to remove hydrogenated oil from their cookie products.
It is the height of utter corporate irresponsibility to knowingly push food products that are dangerous to human health. Margaret Rudkin founded Pepperidge Farm in 1937 (according to Wikipedia). Her company was named for the Pepperidge tree, Nyssa sylvatica. Campbell Soup Company acquired her company in 1961.
Campbell's Soup
Campbell’s Soup Company? Did you know? So now we have Campbell’s Soup Company peddling unhealthy cookies to the American consumer. This angers me because when you analyze who purchases Pepperidge Farm cookies, it’s not nutritionists and organic food consumers. It’s people who don’t know better. It’s parents who care more about providing something sweet to their children rather than taking the time to educate themselves about the health implications of consuming hydrogenated oil and trans fat.
In sum, please take a stand on the issue of hydrogenated oil and sign my petition. Each time someone signs the petition, an email is generated and sent to Mr. Harvey Golub, Chairman of the Board at Campbell’s Soup. I’m sure Mr. Golub could care less about hydrogenated oil in Pepperidge Farm cookies. But if sales plunge for the product he might suddenly take an interest and actually make the effort to push Pepperidge Farm to eliminate hydrogenated oil and other trans fats from their cookies. When that miraculous day arrives, I will jump up and down and seriously consider consuming Pepperidge Farm cookies again, recalling the lost days of my innocent youth.
Please sign my petition: Boycott Pepperidge Farm
Official portrait of Hillary Rodham Clinton, former United States Secretary of State
Dear Hillary,
First, I want to thank you for your years of public service to the United States. You’ve worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people, advocating for the issues and causes closest to you and to them. These past four years, you’ve logged more miles as a Secretary of State than any other previous Secretary of State, working without fail to meet with leaders from just about every country on the planet. You’ve more than earned your wrinkles, white and grey hair, and you had to overcome a blood clot in your brain, no less. Now you can settle down, treasure your memories, and spend a little more quality time with Bill. Right? Well, not exactly.
Some of your fondest supporters have already created a hillaryclintonoffice website, giving any American the opportunity of sharing their thoughts with you about the future of the United States and what role you still might play in it. In that vein, I wanted to dip into my well of anger, resentment, pain, and anguish about the issues that I believe you can provide leadership on while we dither around for the next four years under the conservative leadership of President Barak Obama.
First off, we need a presidential aspirant who will champion the liberal cause. What is a liberal? It is a belief that the purpose and role of government in a democratic society is to improve the quality of life for the people it serves. Government is more crucial now to the lives of millions of Americans than ever before. Without government, the vast majority of Americans would suffer needlessly, struggling to pay bills, affording to keep a roof over their heads and keeping food on their plates. The Republican Party is contemptuous of government and could care less about those who have less, or earn less. Their fixation on cutting spending and balancing the budget is nothing but a ruse to “starve the beast” and dismantle as much of government as possible, in particular, destroying Social Security and Medicare.
In the next four years, you have the opportunity to closely watch President Obama’s shortcomings and pick up on the issues we know he will fail to deliver on. I want to outline for you now, a few select issues you must champion in order to save the United States from itself.
1) The establishment of a single-payer healthcare system and an end to private insurance is the only way to reduce the costs of healthcare and provide for universal accesss to healthcare. We know that private health insurance is the chief culprit in driving up healthcare costs for the entire nation. We know that Medicare’s overhead is lower than private insurance and must be expanded to cover the entire U.S. citizenry. Please visit Single Payer Now and learn more why so many Americans are volunteering their time and energy to fight for this cause. Healthcare is a fundamental human right and not a privilege.
2) ADVOCATE for a publicly financed election system. American democracy is in grave peril ever since the Citizens United decision handed down by our philosophically deranged supreme court. Corporations CANNOT be treated as human beings. Champion Lawrence Lessig’s American Anti-Corruption Act, which would transform how elections are financed, how lobbyists influence politics, and how political contributions are disclosed. As long as billions keep pouring into the coffers of public servants, we cannot have a government that serves the public interest. In effect, the United States is a democracy in name only. It is a plutocracy, serving the 2% and doing what it can to weaken the 98%.
3) End the “war on drugs.” Please use some common sense, just for once. Please review just how ineffective the long-standing American policy is on drug use in general and why the DEA acts as a major stumbling block in trying to get any progressive legislation passed. The marijuana laws passed in Washington and Colorado are only a harbinger of what’s more to come. States will continue to take action when Congress fails to provide it. For once, let’s have Uncle Sam be the progressive leader for change and not the states. Marijuana should be legal and regulated throughout the United States. If you need to brush up on your stats and figures about drug use, please visit: www.drugpolicy.org
4) Fight to reduce the divide between the haves and the have-nots. I suspect you are familiar with the fact that we, as a society, are currently living through a second Gilded age. Yes, we do have a class war in the United States. And we know who’s winning! The vast gap between rich and poor is currently at its zenith with over half of the general population needing some form of federal aid. Please update yourself on the state of rich and poor America by reading Reuters series on the Unequal State of America.
What can you do about it?
RAISE the federal minimum wage substantially
Champion the Buffett rule, which would require individuals earning $1 million or more per year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.
Close more tax loopholes for the 2%
We no longer tax the rich a significantly greater share of their income than we tax the middle class. That’s called progressive taxation.
Openly Reject the “winner-take all” mentality consuming American culture
5) Champion the fight for comprehensive legislation to reduce carbon pollution and global warming! 2012 was the warmest year on record, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Fight the oil and coal industries! Demand caps on carbon polluters! Please jettison the oxymoronic idea of “clean coal” and stand up to the oil and gas industries.
6) Eliminate huge subsidies that go to major Ag farmers who only contribute to the malnourishment of the entire U.S. population! In particular, the soy, wheat, and corn industries are doing terrible damage to the American diet. Enough already! Enough with corn syrup, enough with corn-fed beef, enough with antibiotics in meat! Champion subsidies for organic farm growers! Farmers who don’t use pesticides in the growing of food must be supported by federal subsidies.
There you have it. A short list of action items the next president of the United States must advocate for and guide the Congress in passing the required legislation to get this nation out of its floundering. I hope you do contemplate long and hard during these next four years, Hillary. While President Obama denied you the presidency back in 2008, you still were able to act on behalf of the public good as our Secretary of State. Now is your opportunity to slowly recharge your batteries. Don’t let our country continue down its centrist path.
Fight for the liberal cause. Fight for human decency. Fight for American democracy. And above all, fight for a government of the people, by the people and for the people!
ObamaCare – What Has it Done For You Lately (and What Will it do Next)?
By Shannon | January 14, 2013
Obamacare, or the Patient Protection and the Affordable Care Act, is frequently debated and often poorly represented. It is important to understand the core facets of the act to appreciate its impact on American healthcare, as well as look at how it has been rolled out since 2010 and where it will go in the next year. First, let’s take a look at what some of the vernacular that is frequently tossed around actually means in practical terms.
Definitions
Individual Mandate
For opponents of the bill, this is the insurance “tax.” Simply put, anyone who does not have insurance under the law, once it takes full effect in 2016, will be required to pay a penalty at a maximum of 2.5% of their income or $695 as an individual or $2085 as a family. This serves two primary purposes, reducing ER costs and buffering the overall cost of ObamaCare itself. ER visits are costly both to the medical providers and to those who pay for medical services, yet individuals without insurance still occasionally require care and often do not receive it until it becomes drastic and requires emergency service. This puts undo strain on the system that can be relieved by requiring that most individuals have access to inexpensive and quality preventative care. There are exceptions to the penalty if insurance would cost more than 8% of their income or who claim religious exemptions.
Insurance Exchanges
These simply make it easier to shop around, allowing you to easily compare and contrast various insurance policies to make a better decision which allows natural market forces to bear on the cost of insurance.
Pre-existing Conditions
Previously, having a pre-existing condition prior to obtaining insurance may have resulted in you being deemed ineligible or having coverage offered at an insane rate. Premiums are based on age and geography, not on medical history.
What Exists Now
Currently, a number of changes have already been implemented. As of January 2010, small businesses have been eligible for tax credits worth up to 35% of the employer’s investment in employee insurance, states receive matching federal funds to expand Medicaid coverage, four million seniors found relief from the “donut hole”in 2010 alone, and people with pre-existing conditions have been covered.
The next phase in September 2010 saw young adults up to 26 covered their parents insurance, free preventative health care in all new plans, a prohibition on insurance companies using shady tactics to revoke coverage from suddenly sick individuals, a process to allow consumers to appeal claims decisions, the elimination of lifetime limits, better regulation of annual insurance limits, a prohibition on the denial of insurance coverage for children with pre-existing conditions, and guidelines to protect against unreasonable rate hikes. All that happened the first year after ObamaCare was signed into law.
In 2011 we saw grants being distributed to consumer assistance services designed to help individuals navigate the health insurance system. In addition, $15 billion went to a Prevention and Public Health Fund to help educate the American populace on ways they can prevent health problems.
A program was implemented to help increase payments to qualified medical professionals to draw them to typically underserved rural communities. Seniors are also receiving free preventative services as of January 2011, along with a new law that requires that insurance companies reinvest 80-85% of their premiums back into health care services and quality improvement. Medicare and Medicare Advantage were restructured to eliminate premium discrepancies and create a more cost-efficient system. As of October of 2011, a new board designed to encourage innovative cost-cutting solutions began work.
Most of the rollout in 2012 has focused on quality care through basic initiatives like encouraging integrated health systems which links doctors and other medical providers to improve access to knowledge and improve their ability to provide great care. One of the best moves of 2012 was the electronic health records (EHR) program which offers medical providers monetary incentive to establish an HER system.
These EHR systems can greatly reduce paper consumption, saving clinics both money and helping the environment, while vastly improving their ability to track patient medical history, communicate with their patients and other members of a person’s care team, and get near-instant access to lab results and provide vital checks to potential hazards in therapy interactions.
What’s Next in 2013
2013 is not as expansive as 2010 or 2011, but continues with the trend of 2012 in that it expands some basic services but doesn’t create any major waves. We will see an expansion of covered preventative care with boosted funding to Medicaid programs in starting in January, as well as increased payment to primary care doctors which will help ensure more doctors are able to take on Medicaid and Medicare patients. Another new law will allow hospitals and other care providers to “bundle” care events which can ensure more efficient payment systems. In October, states will receive additional funding for the next two years to cover children who are not eligible for Medicaid.
Summary
ObamaCare is already having a profound and important impact on the health of Americans every day. The next year will see a continued strengthening of the act but not create any major changes.
Nick Anderson is a writer for How2become; a leading career and recruitment specialist. For the last 8 years How2become.com has helped applicants prepare for and pass recruitment processes and assessment centres in order to secure their ideal job. You can also find How2become on Google Plus
Image Credit: MosaMuse
Check out the statistics learnstuff.com found out. What are your thoughts?
Santorum - just one definition
Was it just me? Or did any of you react with heavy disgust and disdain when you came across Republican presidential contender, Rick Santorum’s statement that “I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.” This was Santorum’s response to a speech he read that John F. Kennedy gave back on September 12, 1960 at the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, where he made clear that the real issues of the day were not religious. Instead, Kennedy made clear that the issues that mattered in 1960 had to do with “old people who can no longer afford to pay their doctor bills, families who were forced to give up their farms, and an America with too many slums and too few schools.”
And now, here we are in 2012 and we have a candidate like Santorum, who brazenly panders to the religious right, openly castigates what should be an obvious truth in any democracy, and preys upon the obvious ignorance that afflicts so much of the American electorate. The separation of church and state is as pivotal to a functioning democracy as clean water is to the health of all animal and human life. Democratic government must operate free from the influence of any organized religion. But today’s republican party has devolved into a political institution that has integrated organized religion into its platform to such a degree that it no longer seems capable of championing the democratic values that are at the core of this country.
I still wonder in amazement at how the “Grand ‘Ol Party” seems to reflect more the times of 1912 over those of 2012. Not one of the current crop of republican candidates comes across as moderate in any sense of the word. You either have someone like Romney, who embodies the venture capitalist ethic of “build or destroy in order to maximize profit” or you have Newt Gingrich, the party’s favorite “masterdebator” who’s making the case that if Obama wins a 2nd term, he would pose a serious threat to the country’s national security. And last but not least, Ron Paul, the only consistent libertarian of the bunch who champions a return to pre-world war one isolationism and a government that no longer has departments of education or environmental protection (to name but a few).
Then you have Santorum, who recently called Obama a “snob” because he wants every American to get the opportunity of attending college, if they so choose. A college degree may not be the solution for every American but to insult a president who’s merely trying to advocate the benefits of higher learning is sheer nonsense and serves only to inflame the discord between the halves and the have-nots.
The Republican Party’s agenda does not fit the realities of living in the 21st century. It has quickly proven itself to be irrelevant. And the fact that it features voices that are contemptuous of the role government plays, putting organized religion first, should embarrass those of us who still cling to the founding father’s experiment in democratic governance itself. All of American society is inextricably bound with both the realities and idealized concepts of government. But one thing remains true. You make an enemy out of government and you make an enemy out of people. We must repair our relationship with government and those who wish to remain hostile to it, add nothing to the national conversation on how to achieve proximate solutions to insoluble problems.
The surest way to losing our democracy is by ignoring the appalling level of corruption that now grips it. After listening to a talk given by Laurence Lessig, Director of the Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard University, I found myself too livid to even begin writing this post but finally came to terms with the reality of our disappearing democracy.
You see corporations are allowed to donate unlimited cash to the campaigns of legislators, who in turn tend to vote in favor of the interests of those corporations. Lessig cited the non-profit, MapLight, which can graph the evidence that a representative voting in favor of a particular corporate-friendly law will receive up to 13 times the funding than someone who opposes the law. Lessig cited as example the issues tackled by Congress 2011. In a year when the country was still waging two wars and still dealing with the effects of a near catastrophic economic recession, Congress spent most of its time on the bank swipe fee. Remember this? It was a relatively minor issue having to do with who was going to make more money, the banks or the merchants. But why did it dominate the attention span of Congress? Because corporations on both sides were promising sufficient campaign funds which in turn drove the attention span of legislators. Lessig made it clear, citing studies that the return on investment of lobbying is 1000% and is the surest expense a corporation can take to maintain its power and influence over citizen representative democracy.
Not to depress all of you who are reading this now but is there a plan to stop this corporate corruption of congress? Yes, and according to Lessig, it begins with the establishing of publicly funded campaigns. Lessig’s approach would be to give voters a $50 campaign voucher. The taxpayer pays for the voucher and it’s up to the politician to gain your voucher for funding of his/her campaign. Lessig says the amount of money that could be raised through the voucher system could easily surpass the amount currently raised by private means today. This would in turn force politicians to focus on a citizen-driven agenda as opposed to a corporate-driven agenda. Lessig also stressed that a new constitutional amendment would need to be passed, limiting additional private contributions to small dollar amounts (say $50 or $100) and preventing corporations from dominating the congressional agenda. Lessig also cited the need for a constitutional convention, which could only happen if two-thirds of the states—34 out of 50 state legislatures—passed an application calling for a Convention.
I interviewed Lessig back in 2008 on the problems and shortcomings of current copyright laws and he was correct in how we must stop criminalizing the human inclination to share and focus on the new hybrid economy which encourages such sharing, like Wikipedia, for example. Lessig is now championing the need to save our democracy from corporate theft and we, the citizenry, are only to blame for it if we lose it entirely.
Remember what Gordon Gekko said in the movie Wall Street? “You’re not naïve enough to believe you live in a democracy?”
After hearing Lessig speak, I’m reminded of Gekko’s prescient words and wonder if the great American experiment in democracy is coming to an end. Do you have reason to be optimistic about the fate of American democracy?
As you down your end of the year champagne and dream about all of the greatness that will come your way in 2012, you might want to remind yourself of just how addicted you are to the Internet and how tempting it will always be to try and download someone’s product without their permission. Congressman Lamar Smith introduced SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) earlier this year and the fiery outcry against the legislation by the Internet community has brought this legislation to center stage as we close out 2011. On the surface, who would object to preventing theft of intellectual property, right? If you didn’t create it, and it doesn’t belong to you, then in principal, it’s not yours, right? That’s why Hollywood and movie moguls have come out in full force in support of the legislation, saying rogue websites that are located offshore are stealing intellectual property worth billions of dollars and it’s hurting their business.
But the devil is always in the details! And opponents of SOPA rightfully argue that it’s what’s NOT specified in the bill that is cause for major alarm. In particular, SOPA does not protect legitimate sites that might get caught up by those ISPs and advertising networks, who in trying to enforce SOPA, might end up preventing you from accessing a legitimate website. What’s legitimate? How about YouTube or Facebook, for example? How often are you posting content that’s not technically yours to either of these sites? In order to be combat theft, you need to join the thieves! What do I mean?
Take my YouTube interview with Internet piracy guru and author, Matt Mason. Matt Mason, currently executive director of Marketing over at BitTorrent, wrote about how to solve online piracy with his best-seller, The Pirate’s Dilemma. Matt says online pirates actually add value to the product that’s been stolen. For example, the emergence of digital music or MP3s in the late 90’s nearly decimated the professional music industry and music labels galore were quick to try and shut down this new form of audio. But instead of fighting it, apple marketing genius, Steve Jobs, realized he could capitalize on it and iTunes was born as a means of competing with the pirates! And today, MP3s are as ubiquitous as analogue cassette tape was (so many years ago). Embracing piracy, according to Matt, can help companies further develop their product and find ways of profiting from it. Hulu, according to Matt, is the best most recent example of this type of effective competition against the pirates.
Joining the pirates can take the form of collective licensing agreements, revising outdated copyright laws, which criminalize the act of sharing content online, and if anything, simplifying copyright law from the overly complicated mess it is today that makes it nearly impossible to determine who actually owns what (Google ran into this problem as it tried to build its online library).
What do you think? Should we join the pirates?
The Descendants proves George Clooney can act and express sincere emotion without a trace of contrivance.