White Money vs. White Privilege: Philanthropy and Civil Rights From Selma to Ferguson – Inside Philanthropy: Fundraising Intelligence

The successes of the civil rights movement are rightly remembered as a major achievement of grassroots organizing—with crucial assists by Lyndon B. Johnson and a muscular White House.

But there’s another part of that history that you won’t see on the big screen: How philanthropists supported the civil rights push at key moments. As well—fast forwarding to today—for all the media attention on racial justice in the wake of police killings in Ferguson, MO, and New York City, there’s been little mention of how foundation money has helped frame the response to those events and articulate a policy agenda going forward.

via White Money vs. White Privilege: Philanthropy and Civil Rights From Selma to Ferguson – Inside Philanthropy: Fundraising Intelligence – Inside Philanthropy.

Wow and holy cow. It looks like there are some issues at the Treasury Office here in Rhode Island.

On Politics

The office of State Treasurer Gina Raimondo has released the following response to claims by Providence City Councilor David Salvatore that he was fired, in violation of his free speech rights:

David Salvatore’s allegation is absolutely untrue.

Treasurer Raimondo continues to encourage all stakeholders – including Councilman Salvatore – to engage in the process of overhauling Rhode Island’s ailing municipal pension systems. The engagement of all Rhode Island leaders, stakeholders and citizens was vital to the successful passage of the Rhode Island Retirement Security Act of 2011.

Treasury remains focused on delivering results for the people of Rhode Island. During the past 14 months, Treasury has undergone a comprehensive assessment to achieve better Treasury-wide performance. Treasury has been making a number of organizational and structural changes with its at-will employee positions in order to streamline work, create efficiencies and align the office to better achieve Treasury goals. As one example, Treasury…

View original post 742 more words

Internet Censorship and SOPA

by Elaine Hirsch

What is the future of SOPA?

In October of 2011, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, along with its Senate counterpart, Protect Internet Providers Act (PIPA). Ostensibly designed to strengthen legal responses against the illegal distribution of copyrighted material, these bills caused a firestorm in the internet community. Opposition to the bill focused on two points: the dramatic expansion of power that would allow the US government to take action against internet service providers for material posted by individuals using those providers, and the expansion of government power that would allow the US to take action against “online service providers, Internet search engines, payment network providers, and Internet advertising services” in other countries accused of engaging in illegal activities.

Supporters of the bills touted them as the next step in strengthening legal protections for copyright holders (for example film studios and software manufacturers) against the pirating of their material. Some criminology experts and opponents said that the bills are overgeneralized, and allowed draconian measures such as blocking an entire domain for the actions of one individual using that domain. In noting that the phrase “enables or facilitates” in the bill is so broad in scope that even email falls under the category of enablement, Techdirt analyst Mike Masnick makes an effective point: the entire internet—an interconnected network—by definition enables piracy.

Are SOPA and PIPA needed?
On January 19, 2011, as sites such as Wikipedia initiated a blackout in protest of the bills, the U.S. Department of Justice was engaged in shutting down Megaupload, one of the world’s largest file-sharing services of copyrighted material. Two years earlier, in November 2009, the Pirate Bay, another site famous for file-sharing of copyrighted material, was the subject of blocking by a number of countries in Europe and Asia, and the owners taken to court. These famous cases strongly suggest that existing measures are fully adequate in providing authorities all the power needed to take action against sites engaged in illegal activity.

While the bill has been withdrawn for revision, it is by no means dead. A number of companies such as YouTube and Google support alternative legislation such as Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN), legislation designed to protect “Fair Use” policies while targeting more specifically those individuals engaged in illegal activities, without the sweeping new powers contained in SOPA. It is possible that free speech advocates and those interested in providing the government additional powers to shut down illegal sites may come to a consensus and come up with more effective legislation. One thing is clear, the two sides are far from finding that consensus at present.

Elaine Hirsch, Kmareka’s West Coast correspondent, blogs as a labor of love.

Kmareka Supporting Blackout Tomorrow to Protest SOPA and PIPA

To support Blackout Wednesday and in congruence with WordPress.com, Kmareka will be unavailable tomorrow for regular viewing. The settings will be turned to private so that it can’t be viewed. We will return on Thursday. To learn more about SOPA and PIPA and the threats they pose to internet communication and free speech, please see this article.

Banned Books Week

Thanks to friend Nomi for a reminder that once again, it’s Banned Books Week!

There’s a cool map of censorship actions, with blue balloons marking the locations. I thought Rhode Island was a beacon of freedom, and, with the exception of some school officials who got cranky in Cumberland, we are.

Here’s the top ten banned books for 2010–

2010: 1) And Tango Makes Three, by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson; 2) The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, by Sherman Alexie; 3) Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley; 4) Crank, by Ellen Hopkins; 5) The Hunger Games, by Suzanne Collins; 6) Lush, by Natasha Friend; 7) What My Mother Doesn’t Know, by Sonya Sones; 8) Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich; 9) Revolutionary Voices, edited by Amy Sonnie; 10) Twilight, by Stephenie Meyer

Are any of your favorites on this list? I vote for ‘Nickel and Dimed’ as most dangerous, because it frankly exposes what goes on at work. Talk about too much knowledge to lay on high-school, or even college kids. Better a nice, diverting vampire fantasy like Twilight.

Some of my favorite books these days are graphic novels. Art Speigelman has just published a book on the making of ‘Maus’, his classic story of his parent’s survival and escape from Nazi Germany. That’s next on my list. I also plan to buy Pope Benedict’s book, ‘My Life in Hitler Youth’ as soon as he writes it.

Just Wanted to Keep You Abreast

Who doesn’t love boobies? They’re adorable! So exotic and graceful. They’re especially enchanting during courtship, the way they seem to puff themselves up. You just want to give them a squeeze.

Kids love boobies, too. In fact, some have taken to wearing bracelets to declare that very sentiment. Unfortunately, some school administrators have quickly put the kibosh on such accessorizing. This happened in South Dakota earlier this week, which seems rather strange given how far inland the state is. Do they even have boobies in that part of the country? Isn’t it too cold for them? Regardless, it seems silly to stifle the free expression of students simply because a Principal or two has got a thing against boobies. Maybe these fellows would feel differently if they could just see one up close, perhaps even hold one. Nah, it’ll never happen.

UPDATE: I’ve been busted. It appears I was misinformed. I had heard of the aforementioned booby ban in passing and did not adequately investigate the story. The boobies in question were not the blue-footed seabirds known for hunting fish by diving into the sea and pursuing their prey underwater. They were…umm…you know…the other kind. Now, I feel like a boob.

Anyway, here’s the original news article from the Associated Press:

Rubber bracelets aimed at raising awareness about breast cancer and emblazoned with “I love boobies” are raising eyebrows among school officials in South Dakota.

This week, Baltic High School joined several schools nationwide to ban the popular bracelets with a message some say is in poor taste.

“I do think there are more proper ways to bring this plight to the attention of people, and I don’t think this is a proper way,” Principal Jim Aisenbrey told the Argus Leader.

Officials at O’Gorman High School in Sioux Falls have also told students not to wear the bracelets in school.

“Our concern is that the issue the wristbands are meant to address is a serious one, but the language used on the bracelets trivializes the issue,” said Principal Kyle Groos.

The bracelets that sell for about $4 in stores were created by the nonprofit Keep A Breast Foundation of Carlsbad, Calif. Proceeds go to the foundation’s programs.

Schools from Florida to California have banned the bracelets following objections from some students and parents.

Baltic resident Ann Aberson said cancer has affected several of her relatives, and she doesn’t have a problem with her two teenage daughters wearing the bracelets. “I guess I never thought of them as offensive,” she said. [full story]

For more information about the Keep A Breast Foundation, visit their website.

Is Privacy, Like, So Twentieth Century?

It has been many years since I read George Orwell’s classic dystopian novel, 1984. My curiosity about perusing the book anew is offset by my uneasiness about its prescience. I fear that the world occupied by Winston Smith, the novel’s protagonist, will eerily resemble America in 2010. Not entirely, but increasingly so. Big Brother is out there, observing, gathering data, infiltrating our lives in ways both overt and covert. The technology that we so eagerly embrace today, often with nary a second thought, may later bite us in the hindquarters. Sure, there are great benefits to cell phones, computers, wifi, the Internet, GPS, and the like. The whole world is immediately accessible. No longer do we have to await a call at home, seek information at the library, fumble with a map for directions, hunt for merchandise at local stores, wonder where our friends and family members are at any given moment. We have been freed from such burdens! But at what cost?

I worry that today’s liberators may become tomorrow’s oppressors. I worry that the technology we possess today may come to possess us tomorrow. I worry that the interests of big government and big corporations (often one and the same) will subvert and subsume our interests. I worry that we are not spiders on the worldwide web but prey. I worry that, as a people, we are growing ever more blithe about privacy and civil liberties—and ever less vigilant and perceptive. I worry about the future.

Do I appear paranoid? A little paranoia in this day and age may be healthy (assuming it’s reality-based). Was Julie Matlin paranoid when, after visiting a retail website and admiring a pair of shoes, she found that advertisements for “the shoes started to follow her everywhere she went online”? Was Louise paranoid when she encountered a stranger at a bar who “knew a lot about her personal interests” and then “pulled out his phone and showed her a photo…of [her] that he found online”? Was Juan Pineda-Moreno paranoid when, after being arrested on marijuana charges, he discovered that DEA agents “snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and…attached a GPS tracking device to [his] vehicle’s underside” and the “U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit…decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant”? Was Blake Robbins, a Philadelphia-area high school student, paranoid when he discovered that school personnel “activated the remote tracking system” on his laptop computer and “photographed him 400 times in a 15-day period last fall, sometimes as he slept in his bedroom or was half-dressed”?

Another twentieth century author, Joseph Heller, once wrote, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.” Do you know who’s watching you?