BITAHR is a non-profit organization which ambitious goal is to eliminate commercial sexual exploitation. The event, Fighting Trafficking Through Film, organized in collaboration with The Suffolk University Law School, will be held at the Modern Theater at Suffolk University in Boston. The three days forum will showcase domestic and foreign films about sex trafficking. BITAHR has also invited speakers to the international event. More than 40 guests speakers will participate in the forum’s discussions to share their own experiences and perspectives, and to help define coherent strategies to fight human trafficking both domestically and globally. The speakers will include politicians, authors, survivors, and international activists against human trafficking. Among them will be Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, Kathryn Bolkovac, Representative Eugene O’ Flaherty, Rachel Lloyd (survivor and author), and  Siddharth Kara (UN adviser on human trafficking). BITAHR’s Executive Director, Rebecca Merrill, took the time to give News Junkie Post an exclusive interview.

Gilbert Mercier: What triggered originally your interest in fighting human trafficking?

Rebecca Merrill: I was driven by the impact that “The Day My God Died”, a film featuring Anuradha Koirala and Maiti Nepal, had on me both personally and professionally. After nearly a year of research, and the development of my own documentary during law school, I had the opportunity to sit with Anuradha and to discuss life’s passion and how it often drives one’s career. During that meeting, Anuradha admonished me to listen to my heart and to open my ears. Her voice was delicate but commanding as she asked me simply: “How can you not be passionate when you listen to the stories of these women and girls? How can you not do something about it?” Those words, the stories had a lasting impact on my academic studies and now professional life. Alas. I think it is a wonderful complement to pair the human voice and images with the research and theory.

GM: Sex trafficking is a multi-billion global business which is getting more and more controlled by large organized crime networks and no longer by small time local pimps. Do you think we need a global strategy to fight such sophisticated criminal organizations, and if so what would you recommend?

RM: Absolutely. Second only to drug trafficking, human trafficking is the largest criminal industry in the world, and it is the fastest growing. We need a holistic and multifaceted international strategy just to keep up with the growth of the industry, never mind to eradicate it. There are numbers of non-profits, agencies and individuals doing great work around the world. That said, we really need national governments and law enforcement agencies to work together against trafficking. We need governments to recognize that victims of human trafficking are victims in need of social services, not criminals subject to detention and deportation. There are circumstances where return to countries of origin is appropriate, but agencies have the responsibility to ensure return isn’t directly into the hands of the victim’s traffickers. All too often, victims are simply deported to the countries from which they were recruited, most often subjecting them to the same vulnerable circumstances and a mixture of societal shamming, family rejection and condemnation, and an inability to rejoin the workforce. Moreover, the circumstances giving rise to vulnerability are not typically eliminated but rather exponentially and detrimentally worse. If  governments worked together to provide victims with social services after exploitation abroad and at home, re-exploitation would not be such a threat. In addition, while we are seeing an increase in transnational crimes of exploitation, the “independent contractors”, if you will, still operate and regularly increase in number. This can be linked in large part to economics. Where there is a profit, particularly of the margin available through CSE ( Commercial Sex Exploitation), entrepreneurial criminals will find a way.

GM: Some countries, such as Germany, have legalized prostitution. Do you think it is a valid approach to end sex trafficking?

RM: No. I cannot recognize the legalization of prostitution as a valid way to end the sex trade. Legalization would not end modern-day slavery; it would simply empower pimps to continue manipulation and exploitation with less likelihood of identification because the line between “legal” and “illegal” would be so fuzzy. The rationale for legalizing prostitution is relatively easy to understand. Legislators, often pushed by well meaning advocates, may believe or accept that prostitution will happen regardless of legalization and, if legal, the laws will at least document the industry and license the “workers”, making it theoretically easier to provide healthcare and other services to prostituted women. There is also the feminist argument that a woman should be “empowered” to do what she wishes with her body, including selling sex. These arguments are flawed. Legalizing prostitution does not reduce the enormously harmful physical and psychological effects that being sexually exploited inherently caused. Women and girls who engage in prostitution do not choose to do so. The idea that prostitution is a choice does not take into account that in order to choose something, one needs to have several options to choose from. The majority of those in the sex trade- admittedly not 100 percent- in countries where prostitution is legal and illegal alike, are vulnerable to commercial sexual exploitation due to a complex set of circumstances often including economic desperation, unrest or instability in homes or even communities or countries, psychological manipulation and more, not because it is a viable choice.

GM: Traffickers make an extensive use of the Internet and even of social media site to lure, recruit and exploit victims. Should this type of activities be more closely monitored by law enforcement agencies with perhaps the help of anti-trafficking organizations, such as yours, acting as a network of whistle blowers?

RM: It is true. Traffickers may use social media sites to recruit underage girls into commercial sexual exploitation. Once recruited, sites like Backpage.com are used to advertise sex with the exploited individuals – children and adult alike. The illegal age of children is disguised using language like “youthful”, “fresh”, “barely legal”, “tight body”. The Internet provides anonymity for the exploiting pimps and endless “choice” and anonymous shopping and exploiting for johns who are purchasing sex. In some areas, ordering sex is easier and cheaper than ordering a pizza. Screen names and pseudonyms make it harder to identify and prosecute pimps. In addition the “handles” provide protection for johns from the negative stigma that buying sex should carry. In reality, companies that facilitate this type of exploitation like Backpage, for instance, are just as guilty as the pimps that exploit minors, because they too, are making hundreds of thousands of dollars off the sale of the bodies of very young girls. Not only should law enforcement agencies monitor this type of behavior, they should shut down websites. The problem is that regardless of our pointing out that commercial sexual exploitation is happening online, the criminal facilitation must be prosecuted and punished. In addition, advertisers must take some responsibility – if they voice their opinions by pulling ads and affecting the facilitators’ bottom line profitability.

GM: In a phone conversation we had sometime ago, you mentioned that we are living in a “hyper-sexual” world fueled by popular culture, online pornography etc, and that it could be one of the reasons why a substantial number of men seek commercial sex or indulge in “sex tourism”. Can you please elaborate on this?

RM: Of course. Over the past few decades we have seen a shift from the most risque magazines including one spread with a suggestively clad woman, to a society where pre-adolescent boys see literally hundreds of thousands of images of nudity before they even reach middle school. When sex education comes in the form of magazines, the Internet, song lyrics and popular culture instead of from teachers and parents, it can be a very confusing topic for young men and women alike. By hypersexualizing children at a disturbingly young ages, we have diminished the gap between buying the idea of sex in the form of a magazine subscription or a calendar to buying the act of sex in a massage parlor, in a hotel or car, or even in one’s own home. When we see so many sexual images of women in circumstances that suggest that they are happy naked, exposed, in sexually dominated manners, we are normalizing the notion that girls and women should be dominated, subordinated and subject to sexually violent and aggressive behavior. These progressive and persistent images make it harder to believe that exploited are victims. Moreover, products like “loungerie” or “lingerie for girls” for four to six year old girls feed into this idea of children as sex objects and “sexy” as ideal for children.

GM: A cynical view of commercial sex, and a stereotypical rationalization of it, would be to say that prostitution will never be eradicated because it is “the oldest profession in the world”. Do you think, one day, men and women will be able to free themselves from the sick correlation between sex and money?

RM: It is true that commercial sex has existed in various forms over centuries throughout most if not all countries. It is also true that women have historically been subjected to oppression, domination and silencing. I am not sure that as a society we will ever be able to eradicate the correlation between sex and money. It is my hope, however, that as this topic becomes a priority for the feminist movement and society at large- and as women everywhere continue to fight for equal opportunities- that one day women and girls will have sufficient opportunities that they will not be so vulnerable to coercion and forced to prostitution. Females need sufficient opportunity to utilize their skills and abilities in a productive way that positively contributes to society. It is also our organization’s goal to spread awareness- in collaboration with a global coalition- such that it minimizes demand by educating purchasers on the harmful, long-term repercussions their exploitative conduct has on children, families, and the community.

GM: In countries of origins for victims of traffickers, socio-economic factors play a huge role. Does your organization reach out to local organizations in human trafficking hubs such as Cambodia, Nepal, the Dominican Republic, Lithuania, Estonia, Nigeria and Ghana?

RM: We are cognizant of trafficking atrocities around the world and do our best to spread awareness about it in each and among all countries. We are mindful, however, that to utilize our resources effectively we cannot work in every country or every issue in the complex effort to combat trafficking. We focus most intensely on domestic trafficking, that which happens within the borders of the United States. We are also working in conjunction with a Congolese-US NGO, Promote Congo, on a program that will focus on aid for girls and boys being trafficked for labor or sexual exploitation in the artisanal mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

GM: Do you think, realistically, that human trafficking can be one day abolished and how?

RM: At present human trafficking is extremely profitable for exploiters. If we apply a standard cost benefit analysis, we can see that the economic benefits of human trafficking far outweigh the miniscule risk(cost) of being prosecuted and the repercussions that might follow. As long as human trafficking is extremely profitable, criminals will continue to take the calculated risks. To reduce the occurrence of sex trafficking we must continue to raise the cost associated with prosecution, so that the risk of being caught and punished is no longer worth the economic benefits of trafficking while simultaneously reducing the revenue. To achieve this, we must change the way society looks at trafficking. We must realize that the victims of this exploitation are just that-victims. Instead of thinking of labor trafficking as poor individuals deserving of unfair labor standards or girls that “wear too much make-up” or “parade around in provocative clothing” as criminal prostitutes, we must identify these exploited people as victims and publish the traffickers. Without this identification, victims will continue to be plagued with negative stigmas, fear and vulnerability-some of the factors that very likely led to the exploitation at the onset.

GM: It is your organization’s first film forum. Do you have other events in preparation?

RM: BITAHR 2012 Film Forum: “Fighting Trafficking Through Film” is the second annual forum. Our first forum in December 2010 engaged audiences in compelling discussions. We also host periodic benefit concerts called (human) Traffic Jams, where we use music to bring together a community of young adults to raise awareness for the cause and begin a conversation that we hope continues throughout circles of friends, students, colleagues, neighbors, families, and more. This ongoing dialogue shines a light in what is currently hidden in plain sight-the commercial sexual exploitation of people. We also screen individual films throughout the year followed with gripping panels of experts in the field, again to generate a critical conversation and a reverberating call to action to end human trafficking. This March, we will host a conference on International Women’s Day entitled “Ending Impunity for Sexual Violence”. In addition, we will host a three part film series on organ trafficking in collaboration with a local university.

Editor’s Note: Photographs one and two (from top down) by Gilbert Mercier, other photographs and illustrations courtesy of BITAHR.

 

Muckrakers are important. They are good for society. They open our eyes to the underbelly of our lives. They often take us places where the average person either refuses to go or has no inclination to explore. More often than not, muckrakers lack style and art. Style suffers because what they want us to know is often more important than how they present it. Their interest is to expose injustice or evil, usually by revealing everything about the iniquity they are uncovering.

Muckrakers are usually investigative journalists who are interested in reform. They are watchdogs fierce in their approach to what is right, what is wrong. Lincoln Steffens, Upton Sinclair, Jacob Riis and Ida Tarbell were seminal muckrakers, who, because of their tenacity and strong ethical principles, were able to effect change where none seemed possible before they became involved in a cause that moved them to action.

 ”Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory,” the documentary film by Joel Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky about three men accused of murder, Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley, known as the West Memphis Three, is a muckraker’s delight. It recently had its world premiere on HBO in January 2012.

The filmmakers have been following this story for HBO since 1996 when they produced “Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills,” followed by “Paradise Lost 2: Revelation in 2000.”  This is the third, and possibly the last of their documentaries on the subject, but the way this story keeps changing shape, and because the story still has life, you never know what will come next.

In 2011, after 18 years in prison, and the start of a new trial because of newly discovered DNA evidence, the state and the defense got together and created a plea deal for the accused men. They were allowed to plead guilty but to maintain their innocence. Once done, they were set free. But they have not been exonerated of the murders. Lawyers and support groups are working to properly clear their names of all guilt and a new trial is still possible.

 Though powerful in its heart, as art, the film has many problems. Terribly edited and poorly shot for the most part, it relies too much on local TV coverage of events surrounding the three then young men accused of killing three 8 year olds those many years ago. The film makes me think of an express train running out of control as it courses down what feels like an endless track. There is no voice-over narration and as such, the narrative comes from interviews and TV news reports. Though this technique is limiting, I can live with that.

 The filmmakers are so enamored with the idea that their cause is right, they seem unable to decide what information to leave in, what to leave out, and how to edit the interviews to allow the audience a better understanding of events. I doubt whether the filmmakers purposefully created a film where passion is the operating dynamic at the expense of quality and coherence. Because I cannot get inside the heads of the filmmakers, it is impossible for me to know if that was the case. But, I feel they rushed to put the film together. It is as if they felt they had to get it done before things change again, something they kept running into over the years. That is the reason why there have been three new versions of the story since 1996.

 I am sure than Berlinger and Sinofsky would say that my criticism is wrong. In making the film, or any film, there has to be a time when the audience can take a breath, when passion pauses and reason rises. It is as if the filmmakers are so anxious to convince us of the moral values of their cause, they forget that judicious editing would have helped the audience understand the information and process it better. In the film, sound bites are sound books. Mostly the local TV news spots move the narrative along with occasional headlines and the odd cutaway, but, in some cases, unless you know the story very well, you will not understand what the cutaway image means.

In most cases in a film, cutaways allow us to seamlessly move inside a sound edit. Here they fail either because the cutaway shot has nothing to do with the sound edit or it is so obtuse that only the editor who made the cut understands what he or she did. There is also a prurient strain to the film because most of the participants are what we would prejudicially call “rednecks,” not well-educated men and women, the poor of the poor. A strong film about underdogs gives people in the establishment an opportunity to appear sacred by exposing them to the profane, a place where they rarely go or spend much time.

 Nominated for an Oscar as one of five in the class of 2011, if heart and soul are all that matters, this film has a good chance of winning. Joel Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky are muckrakers. But in his film, they are not very good artisans. The passion that rules the story and the care for the victims is what makes people admire the film and makes the film worth seeing. As far as filmmaking goes, I think the producers, as experienced as they are, need a course in Filmmaking 101.

That devastating news will fuel Deborah’s undoing and ultimately prove her salvation. “Even Tough Girls Wear Tutus” chronicles her emotional downward spiral from angry adolescent to volatile drug addicted young criminal, and her triumphant recovery and reinvention as an advocate, speaker and writer.

During a chat last week, Deborah discussed the arduous, but cathartic writing process as well as her future hopes for her Non Profit, The UnPrison Project, that sends her all over the country speaking at women’s prisons and conferences.

Ironically, Deborah first fictionalized her story and shopped it as a novel. Remember this was some years back when all those phony memoirs fell off the shelves in the wake of the big James Frey fake memoir Oprah betrayal brouhaha. “Once they ( editors and agents) heard it was a true story, they kept saying it should be a memoir, but I didn’t want any part of that.”

So she put it away for a while. But our stories have a way of nagging at us, until they just spill out, no matter the anguish. ” It’s not like my story is ever far behind. I can relive the whole thing in a minute. But I wrote through a lot of wet pages,” she concedes. “I had to peel the real story out of the novel.”

And the real story is one of the most raw and riveting books I’ve read in recent memory. As a writer and a teacher and creativity coach who works with writers, I am blown away by Stein’s authentic voice; there’s nothing sentimental or apologetic about it. Here, give a listen to an excerpt from one of her presentations, and you’ll hear what I’m talking about.

It’s that unconditional love of her parents, as well as the education and opportunity to develop her creativity that save her. In case you were wondering, this is where the tutus in the title come in. As a young girl, Deborah is introduced to dance and loves it, but thinks a girl born in prison is unworthy of the elegant art. That’s one of the many heartbreaking revelations. Another is when, as an adult, she finally returns to tour Alderson and is ushered into the very cell where she spent her first year of life. Her visceral reaction stirs an emotional tsunami that took me by surprise in the middle of Starbucks ( that’s okay; it gave me a chance to share the book’s potency with a few fellow patrons). There’s also a beautiful reconciliation scene with her mother, so long in the coming, it will likely pull at your heart.

“Most of the women–whether they have any real education or not–are thirsty for change. They know they need it. They want to believe it’s possible,” Deborah says. “And I know having an education helped me change. It gave me a way to get out of my head, a new way to look at the world. I know it can do the same for so many others.”

And there are certainly many to help. The facts about women in prison are staggering. Women are the fastest growing population in U.S. prisons, with over 1 million serving time; that’s 1 % of the female population. 75% of these women are mothers, most with kids under 18. 2.3 million minor children, most under 10, have a parent behind bars. Between 4 and 7 % of women entering prison are pregnant. The majority of incarcerated women are sentenced for nonviolent drug offenses and over 85% are in drug and alcohol abuse programs.

I’m not passing out Get Out of Jail Free cards; so the hardliners who usually toss cyber tomatoes at me about now, can hold their fire. But there’s got to be a better way, folks. So many people languish in prison for excruciatingly long sentences, often for crimes largely against themselves. As a society we have to change this,. Somehow, some way. Even some red meat Republicans are starting to see the wisdom of sentencing and prison reform, even if that change of heart is propelled by the fiscal bottom line, it’s a start.

Speaking of starts, as part of the UnPrison Project, Deborah Jiang Stein would like to fund college scholarships for the daughters of prisoners at Alderson and eventually other prisons. “I want to give them and their children a way of reframing their world. the way I’ve reframed mine.”

Of course, you don’t have to have a prison story to be affected by this book. I think everyone can relate to the powerful grasp secrets can have on a person, the emotional lockdown they can slam on a vulnerable psyche. It’s the sharing of those secrets, whether to the world or just yourself, that is so liberating and transformative. That’s why writing can be therapeutic. And reading a book that gushes rage and regret in equal measure with reconciliation and hope can illuminate the strength and grace of the human spirit. “Even Tough Girls Wear Tutus” is one of those books.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

Social Media is going to be one of the central battlegrounds in the 2012 election cycle in the US. The corporate right understands this very well, and they have invested mass sums from their war chest to send in legions of mindless astroturfers to try to control content aggregation and spin. It is essential for genuine grassroots supporters of real change and reform to take an active role on this front to fight back. If you believe that all men and women are created equal, that every person deserves to start out on a level playing field in life to succeed or fail on their own merits, if you believe that science, reason, education, and truth are valuable in this world, and that freedom requires ordinary people to stand up and fight, then these guides are for you.

It is more important than ever for progressives to take an active role across the social media spectrum. The internet in general and all tech-savvy folks are far more likely to tilt left, and that has been used with great success since 2004 to spread center-left issues and debunk right wing lies. Starting in December 2008, right wing corporate front groups began invading social media en masse. Their methods have grown more sophisticated since then, like using automated software to handle hundreds of sock puppet accounts. There is a massive amount of astroturfing from the Tea Party, anti-science groups, “patriot” groups, the the military-industrial complex, federal security contractors, and anti-environmental groups. This is all meant to create the illusion of popular support for theocratic, corporate, or imperial forces that are actually not supported by a majority. Anti-authoritarian progressives like us need to redouble our efforts to counter this manipulation.

The Social Media Solar System
There are generally two tiers of social media: the larger websites with more traffic (Reddit, Digg, StumbleUpon, Twitter, Facebook, and Google+) and the smaller, more personal websites (Newsvine, Slashdot, Fark, Chime, MetaFilter, etc.). Within the realm of social media, there are also different types of sites:

Social News
Social Bookmarking
Social Networking
Misc.
Social Blogging

Social news sites like Reddit, Digg, Newsvine, Slashdot, Fark, Chime, and MetaFilter are places to post and discuss the latest headlines. They the primary focal point for activism. Social bookmarking sites like StumbleUpon, Delicious, Diigo, etc. are places where longer news has a role, but longer term topics do better. They are also not very social. Social networking sites like Twitter, Facebook, Google Plus, and Linkedin are the most social but not the best aggregators of good content. Miscellaneous sites like Disqus, YouTube, Quora, etc. combine various aspects in an original way. Social blogging sites like Tumblr, Blogger, Posterous, Care2, the Daily Kos, etc. provide a unique method to add your own input and focus your message.

The chart above reflects the overall user base of the main social media sites discussed in this series. The 2-dimensional values are based on various sources, run through a magic algorithm, adjusted by my whims, and not meant to be taken as literal figures. There is exponential growth in communication technologies in the world, including social media communities. Facebook projects 1 billion users this year (up from 6 million in 2006) and other sites are rapidly expanding as well. This means social media will play an increasing role in activism for the foreseeable future, and is an essential vehicle to get onboard.

The key to any social media activist is to invest a large amount of time initially to build a strong, loyal network on the big sites. The larger the following base you have, the greater impact your work will have. Eventually, anything you share will generate hundreds to tens of thousands of page views and hopefully shape and focus the larger debate. Consider everything you have done prior to this moment as prelude. This is your starting point.

Before You Begin
Start by creating a simple but catchy username. While you can certainly use your real name and in fact will get more respect if you do, most activists wish to protect their personal identity. While you may think that using your real birth name is fine since you have nothing to hide, remember that our opponents are not kind, rational, respectful people. They thrive on fear, anger, hate, and conflict, and if you are really bold in confronting their disinformation, propaganda, and lies, they will stalk, harass, and even threaten you. That is their nature.

Think of a username that demonstrates your core beliefs with a humorous twist like FreedomDonkey, Johnalicious, SirSpeaksAlot, ScienceMonkey, peacetronaut, etc. Something short, sweet, and easily recognizable. Google search your preferred username first to make sure there is not already someone using it. Avoid underscores and symbols at all costs, although a number that looks like a letter embedded in the text can work (for instance eth3real or 5ecularist). There is nothing more annoying than someone with a confusing username like 111111rogerdg7241, diepalatidescapesinMB, yNgREdIL, or Pl#bius_Harrring_9.

Then chose a visually appealing avatar. Search around a bit for it. It should be something memorable with a strong contrast that looks great when it is tiny, as most Social Media websites only allow for ~150×150 pixel avatars or less (sometimes as small as 20x20px). It should be something that stands out, a uniform expression of your identity that people will be able to recognize the instant they see it. After you sign up for your email address, put your avatar on Gravatar to save time from having to upload it on every site you register for.

To keep your activities more anonymous, you can use a proxy like Hide My *ss one. You can also install TOR (free) or pay a small monthly sum to have a professional service do it. Just be forewarned that this will slow down your activity and some snoopy sites like Facebook may force you to log back in and sometimes verify your identity by various means if they see different IP addresses being used.

It should be noted at this point that if you would like separate your activism from your personal accounts, rather than constantly logging out and back in, just use a different browser. You can set up all of your activist accounts on Firefox, then use Chrome for everything personal or vice versa (Safari, IE, and other browsers can also be used, but are more cumbersome). Some social sites strictly prohibit multiple accounts however (Digg, SU, FB, and G+) while others do not (Reddit and Twitter), so check with each site first so you do not violate any rules.

Next you should set up your primary activism email account through any free email service on the internet. Gmail is preferable for compatibility. Also consider opening identical email addresses at Yahoo! and other free email hosts. Then go sign up at Reddit, Digg, StumbleUpon, Twitter, Facebook, and Google+, using the exact same username and avatar. Fill in some personal details on your profile page. Link and list all of your accounts to each other so folks can know where you are active and can follow you everywhere.

The final thing to do before you get started is download and install the Shareaholic add-on/extension for your browser. This gives you a button in your url bar that makes it easy to share content on Reddit, Digg, SU, Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr and many more social media sites. Also essential is the SU toolbar or add-on which takes up a bit more real-estate on your browser, but will ultimately be well worth it.

General Strategies
Phase I.  The initial strategy at this point is to invest a lot of time into building up your profile on every network. Don’t submit much, but generally try to vote up at least 100 articles per day on social news/bookmarking sites like Digg and SU. Share 5-10 links per day on social networking sites like Twitter , Facebook, and G+. Don’t worry about following/followers or generating traction at this stage, you need to spend at least a month just clicking buttons on stories you like to build up your profile before there is potential to link up with other progressively oriented activists. Explore and become familiar with all of the functionality on every social media website you use.

Phase II. While future articles will describe how to proceed on each specific social media website in detail, in general after about a month, you can start to focus on making connections. At this point you should have noticed other like-minded individuals on each site. Begin to send a few friend requests with a personal message (if that option is available). For the next month or so while in Phase II, you don’t need to read/vote on as many articles across the social media spectrum as you did on Phase I, but still engage in this process. Stay active.

To help yourself get noticed, craft a good brief comment that you can copy and paste on every social media site for a particular article. For instance, you’ve found a good story on corporate tax dodgers on Think Progress. Write a reply on TP (most sites use Disqus, so link that to your Twitter and/or Facebook account), then you can copy/paste that same reply to Reddit, Digg, Facebook, G+, etc. Comments get you noticed, but don’t get lured into long debates yet. That is the biggest time suck on social media, and you still have work to do.

Phase III. While keeping your activism diversified across a wide range of social media sites is extremely important both for message impact and to hedge your bets, this is the stage where you should pick one or two sites to focus on more heavily. Rather than being a mid-level user across the board, be a rockstar on one or two social media sites and a mid-level user everywhere else. You can now start to engage in longer discussions on the comment streams, both to get a deeper understanding of various issues and to hone your messaging skills. Also bookmark important citations for future discussions. All of the hard work you put in during the first two phases should now start to pay off, but be mindful that this is a long path towards the horizon. There are no shortcuts to being a genuinely organic grassroots activist.

Avoid Pitfalls
There are different strategies to social media activism, but the methods outlined in these manuals are the quickest paths to become an influencer who can have a strong impact. This requires having a presence on multiple sites, connecting with a large network of friends who actually listen, broadcasting a clear message on a diverse set of issues, and building up a respected reputation.

Many progressive social media activists fall into a few common traps that prohibit them from becoming more influential. For instance the numerous content sharers that submit everything they find to every social media site. While aggregation is essential to retaining a responsive network, if you share everything under the sun, it drowns out the key messages and people will stop paying attention. Worse still, important news stories and analysis articles shared this way will usually get absolutely no traction what so ever. This is usually wasted effort, and in the case of Digg can actually be counter-productive as it prevents those who can actually get traction from doing so on that article.

Another trap is to get sucked too deep into debates. Understand that about 20% of the population does nothing other than spew talking points from the corporate right. They will deliberately waste your time, try to bait you into saying something foolish to try to get you banned, and never be convinced of anything reasonable or factually based no matter how clearly you explain things and how good your citations are. For all intents and purposes you can just block/ban these trolls and save your time, or just severely limit the amount of time you spend.

A third trap is to focus on only one social media site. While we all have time constraints, don’t put all of your eggs in one basket. Sites wax and wane, and you might find that the site where you have devoted all of your time and energy suddenly suddenly declines, goes bankrupt, or disappears (e.g. MySpace, Propeller, Orkut, Mixx). Work on a variety of sites and be adaptable.

Conclusion
This series of guides will not spell out the basic functionality of each social media site. There are plenty of instructions either on the website itself or on previously written tech articles to learn the basic steps. This series is intended to be used by progressive activists who seek the most effectiveness for the least amount of required effort.

It should be noted that internet activism is important, but it also cannot replace real-world activism. In order to have an impact on your community, state, and nation, you need to make connections in real life, go to meetings, support reform minded candidates, and participate outside your castle. That being said, for progressive Americans and liberal people around the world who wish to fight for expanded freedom, human rights, equal rights for women, LGBT folks, and people of every color and creed, campaign finance reform, science, a separation of church and state, education, worker’s rights, unions, peace, economic freedom, legalization, medical marijuana, health, social justice, justice, and real reforms for humanity, these guides should help you immensely.

There are some things in this world that are worth fighting for, and the internet is an important battleground. The Progressives Guide to Social Media series will give you the tools to get started.

Progressive Guides to Social Media articles:
1. Intro
2. Reddit
3. Digg
4. StumbleUpon
5. Twitter
6. Facebook
7. Google+
8. Other sites
9. Advanced Strategies

In their daily publication, Union City, the Metro Washington Council, AFL-CIO, issued a strong statement to their 20,000+ readership in support of Occupy DC, calling on the rank and file to join the protesters in fighting for the rights of the 99%.  The statement reads as follows:

Occupy DC to Resist Eviction at Twin Noontime Actions Today: Occupy DC protesters are urging area supporters to join them at noon today as they resist eviction threats by the National Park Service (NPS). “Occupy DC has been on the frontlines for working people,” said Metro Council President Jos Williams. “They’ve been fearless in standing up and marching in the streets for the 99%, now it’s our turn to stand with them.”

Day long actions are planned for both the McPherson Square and Freedom Plaza locations. Click here for a brief video invitation to today’s actions (also shown below).

The NPS last Friday began notifying Occupy DC that they plan to begin strict enforcement of the prohibition of camping in the squares; earlier in the week a GOP-led House committee had pushed the NPS to evict the 4-month-old protests, which are among the only ones left in the country.

Undaunted, some 200 Occupy DC activists and supporters organized a lively protest of “the 1% of the 1%” at the annual Alfalfa Club gathering Saturday night at which notables were forced to walk a gauntlet of chanting protesters after police blocked off several blocks around the club.

Protect Occupy DC – Jan 30/2012

For more information follow the Council on our website and twitter at @dclabor or check out @OccupyKSt and @occupy_DC on twitter. – screenshot from Occupy DC video about Monday’s action

‘We have a dream of a better world. Let us sleep so we have the energy to create it.‘

Participants of Occupy DC at McPherson Square, both sleeping members and non-sleeping members, will defend the public space we have used as our center for activism on this Monday, January 30^th. The National Park Service has given notice that they will be giving citations to – i.e. likely arresting – occupiers at noon for having camping material in an attempt to shut down our movement. Occupy DC will peacefully resist this politically motivated attempt to suppress the free speech of the disenfranchised 99%.

The 1%, led by Darrell Issa, the wealthiest member of Congress, has launched an attack upon the free speech of those of us who disagree with the direction in which our country is going but cannot afford to give unlimited contributions to Super PACs or have lobbyists write legislation for us. In occupying public spaces we act as an ongoing challenge to the K Street lobbyists and elected officials undermining our democracy through the corrosive influence of money in politics.

We give shelter and voice to those who have had none. Attempted foreclosure upon our home will not solve homelessness or improve our health and safety. Nor will it quiet us.

At a time in American history when corporations are deemed to be people and money is considered free speech, structures sustaining people who are working to improve our democracy should be equally protected by society. Occupy DC is a voice for the 99%, whose voices have been kept out of the back rooms and muzzled in our economic and political conversations.

It’s no accident that the 1% earned 60 percent of all new income in the last three decades. The system is rigged against us, the 99%, and it will take more than voting to fix. On Monday we will defend free speech and our vision of a just society from attempted repression by the 1% – by any peaceful means necessary.

Follow #defend99 and #J30 hashtags on Twitter for live updates and Livestream URLs.  Also follow on Facebook.

Even though the revolution in Egypt is still at an uncertain, fluid stage, they’ve already made an irreversible geopolitical impact in the Middle-East, and beyond. If 9/11/2001 marked the start of a dark chapter in world history, 2/11/2011 may have been the beginning of a new era of positive global systemic changes challenging a worldwide unsustainable course of development.

Its progeny, the Occupy movement in America, is only four months old.  Taking root in the labor uprising in Madison, Wisconsin, the movement has spread across the country.  Occupy camps have sprung up one after the other, and, one after the other, have been struck down by the authorities.  The 99 percent are struggling to gain a foothold, but, so far, they’ve achieved little more than providing new slogans to be exploited by political campaigns and establishment activists.

Ben Ali in Tunisia, and Mubarak in Egypt, were pawns in the global game of transnational predatory capitalism. The fact that they were both toppled means that this imperialist world order can be challenged. Despite their different specifics, both revolutions were fueled by what are the universal desires of  every human beings: social justice, economic justice, freedom of speech, and the right to define our destiny through a  fair democratic process.

In America, there is a danger that this has been forgotten.  Compromise and co-option by establishment ‘activists’, and political operatives, have clouded the fundamental issues that drove people to leave the lives they knew and Occupy the nations public spaces.  The untamed fire that brought them to the squares has been domesticated and articulated in a voice not their own.  Their simple call for equality, and emancipation from the rule of the 1 percent – the global financial elite – has been turned into a convoluted diatribe encompassing the goals of every special interest wishing to ride the coattails of their momentum.

Abuse of power is not unique to countries dominated by charismatic figures, ‘strong-men’ dictators, or military regimes.  Even Western Democracies suffer from the same social and economic inequalities (America’s wealth inequality is far greater than Egypt’s), repression of dissent (the U.S. Patriot Act, Espionage Act, SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA), challenges to freedom of speech (the campaign against Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and journalists covering Occupy), and the exploitation of the many for the profit of the few (austerity measures and loss of services to maintain the profits of global financiers).

The fundamental mechanisms that collect wealth in the hands of the few are universal to global capitalism.  Regardless of the outward appearance of any existing political system, the impact on the citizens of the planet, their livelihood, and their environment, is the same.

In North Africa and the Middle-East, the domino effect generated by the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt is already on its way.  Despite the new narrative coming from Washington, pushing its vassals states for superficial reforms to quell the uprising, it seems that the wave is too powerful to be stopped or even contained. Former Secretary of State Henri Kissinger once said that “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” This statement not only defines the psychology of men like Ben Ali, Mubarak, and Putin, it proves revealing of the global elite and their pursuit of empire.

Kissinger, who had his hands in US foreign policy for 40 years, was a so called ‘pragmatist.’  In other words, he was in favor of supporting autocrats as long as the interests of the empire were not challenged. Even until recently, a common school of thought in Washington was that “Arabs were not ready for democracy.” Not only are they ready, but Tunisians and Egyptians are giving us all a lesson in courage and  democracy in its ultimate form. The Arab world is defining its own history over issues that concern all of us, and the sheer emotion of it will ignore national borders.

The American Occupy movement is still struggling with unity between cities, and developing a clarity of the message it allowed to be diluted by others, to challenge the more important question of nationalism.  A society that has been long divided by prejudice, racism, and fear of ‘the other’ is having difficulty coordinating a unified voice that overcomes these historic barriers and joins the global chorus.

It is the Empire that has been established by global capitalism that is not ready for democracy in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain or America.  It’s the global capitalist empire that needs to maintain a strangle-hold on our global resources divided by region, just as it needs to maintain control of its industrial workforces and profitable consumer economies throughout the European Union and America.  Elements of democracy have been rationed at the minimum necessary to gain the cooperation of those under the control of the system.

When the greed of the elite supersedes the tolerance of the people, and the crumbs are spread too thin, the people rise up. This seems to be happening, but to what end?  What is the end game?

Superficial changes may be offered, such as what we saw when Ben Ali and Mubarak offered simple shuffling within their regimes, or the subsequent replacement of them as stewards of the status quo by their country’s generals.  In more sophisticated situations, like the pseudo-democracies of Europe and America, the citizens of a ‘democratic republic’ may be allowed to argue amongst themselves, and even vote, on how they will meet the financial demands of the global elite, or establish a sense of equality, among themselves.  Not a true equality mind you.  The elite are not factored into the equation.  Their status and profits remain fixed, as we have learned with the financial crash of 2007-2008.  Who will be taxed more and who will work longer, and harder, is the most that citizens are allowed to fight over.  And, if we’re loud enough, as the people in Egypt have learned, we may be offered a few more crumbs from the table.

Despite the enormous impact of what has been accomplished in Egypt, it is only the beginning.  A few wise individuals chose to remain in Tahrir square until a true, democratic, civilian government is established.  They faced pressure from the military, as well as from their fellow countrymen who were fooled by the removal of Mubarak.  The uprising has proven that the empire can be challenged, but real change will require prolonged commitment and great sacrifice. Only the appearance of change has been offered in the Middle-East, Europe, and America.  The strength of the movement must continue until the demands of the people are realized in full.

The motivation of this movement rises above petty nationalism.  The roots of the unrest go deeper than the specifics of a city, a district, a state, a region, a language, a religion or a culture.  The roots of this unrest can be found in the principles borne out of the age of enlightenment and continued in the current writings of Alain Badiou and Slavoj Zizek, among others.  The roots of this revolution are universal in principle and global in their impact.

The struggle throughout the Arab world is part and parcel with the anti-austerity struggle in Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, and America.  The global empire built on predatory capitalism has victimized the people of the world and relegated individuals to the status of serfs.  Regional exploitation has resulted in third world countries, banana republics, industrialized nations, and consumer societies… all neatly compartmentalized to service a global economy that increasingly benefits the few, the elite, the modern global nobility.

What we can learn from Egypt is that a single punch will not win this fight.  The empire has taken the this glancing blow and is shaking it off, smiling, firmly planted on its feet.  Loosing Mubarak doesn’t even qualify as a black eye.  Real change can only be accomplished with a full follow-through resulting in complete destabilization.  A protracted general strike and reclaiming of natural resources may be the only thing that can truly bring about a just, sustainable, world order.  And, a new world order will require a global effort.

A shared goal and alternative system must be established.  The force of the Egyptian people stopped the old guard in its tracks, but there was nothing prepared to replace it.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides a framework of principles to organize a global movement around.  These are neither regional concerns nor issues that can be dealt with by regional remedies.  The principles enshrined in the declaration must be applied to all humans regardless of geography or current status in the global hierarchical empire.  A new system of government must be explored and an alternative, sustainable, non-exploitive, economic system must be implemented to realize these principles and ideals.  In order to ensure our own rights and freedoms, we must stand for the rights and freedoms of all.

Egypt’s struggle has just begun.  It is more than symbolic.  It has demonstrated the real potential for change.  It is the same struggle as in Greece, Ireland, Yemen, China, America, and Saudi Arabia, and suffers from the same barriers… the greatest barrier being self imposed through the lack of unity, combination, and cooperation.  It is the struggle of the many against the few.  It is the struggle of the expendable class against the global elite.  It is the struggle of those who strive for true universal equality and emancipation.

Will we finally reach across borders to lift each other up rather than exploit?  Will we finally achieve shared prosperity rather than fight for table-scraps while the elite hoard our resources and profit from our labor?  Will we join in a global struggle for universal equality?  Will we build a global movement that can provide the follow-through to Egypt’s glorious first punch?  Will the many finally triumph over the few?

When Occupations face the fury of State; when tear-gas and tasers are the answer to your petitions; when your choices are to fold or to fight, what will be the reason that you remember for coming in the first place?  Will you think of reforms to the existing establishment, like the ones offered the Egyptians?  Will you think of a new candidate to perform their role in a system that has been sold to the highest bidder?  Will you wish for ways to make your enslavement to this system more palatable at the continued cost to your brothers and sisters around the world?  Or, will you remember emancipation?

Emancipation.  Emancipation from an unjust, unequal, and unsustainable system.  Emancipation and equality, unconditionally, for you, and for all. Is this the goal you’ll remember?  Will you seek to end the 1% or beg them for a few more crumbs by throwing temper tantrums in parks.

Don’t be distracted by the myriad of issues that have been placed, like land-mines, in your way.  You are not there to solve all of societies ills.  You are there to reclaim your planet, and a truly democratic system, so that we can all, together, work at solving societies ills without the interference of a self-serving financial elite controlling our politics and keeping us divided.

Remember why you’re there.  Remember the 99 percent. Focus on the 1 percent.  Remember emancipation.  Take no substitute.  Settle for nothing less.

While the 99% have occupied Wall Street, Wall Street has occupied the Democratic Party.

The Occupation movement is currently struggling with the same challenges of any grass-roots, populous movement. Well-meaning activists that have been pursuing these and associated goals (in the case of ‘Occupy’ this would be a myriad of labor, economic justice, and social justice non-profits and PACs) for years have jumped in and implemented valuable resource supply chains as well as policy and process facilitation methods. The problem is, it tends to turn the grass-roots movement into a vehicle for their preconceived agenda, or simply a prop to help support their platform, while employing methods that were unsuccessful prior to the occupation movements inception.

The Democrat party wants to have its cake and eat it too.  While protecting Wall Street banksters from any real accountability for their crimes, and allowing them to continue ravaging the national and global economy to maintain their vulgar personal salaries and bonuses, they’re doing everything they can to claim the anti-Wall Street movement of the 99% as their own.  Obama, his administration, and the Democrat Party as a whole, have done nothing to address the issues and concerns voiced by the Occupation Movement yet they ask for a great deal of support in return, and go to great lengths to portray the Occupation protests as a Progressive movement. This has done nothing but foster a deep resentment among many occupiers who are already tired of an unresponsive system that takes much and offers little in return.

Representatives from labor have made overtures with the Occupy Movement to both assist in developing the movement and ensure its sustainability while trying to infect their own rank and file with the energy and commitment to action that permeates the movement.  Operatives for the Democrat party and various Political Action Committees, on the other hand, often move throughout the movement keeping their political connections and agendas a secret while they seek to manipulate the movement into a left-wing, or progressive, ‘TEA party’ in order to exploit the political capital of a movement that enjoys overwhelming public support.

Recent exposure of a Democratic Party operative and employee of NGP VAN – the engine behind the Democratic Party’s campaign machine – infiltrating Occupy DC and attempting to establish connections throughout the Occupy Movement nationally (particularly in large city occupations like Chicago, Boston, and Oakland) only highlights the need for the Occupy Movement to proceed with extreme caution.

While Occupiers are upset that the SEIU has already endorsed Barack Obama for a second term as President before there has been any effort by his administration to address the issues and demands presented by the Occupation Movement, there is far more resentment towards the Democrat operatives that are trying to usurp the movement on behalf of an establishment Party that has become the political arm of Goldman Sachs,Wall Street, and the global financial elite.

Unions are forced to maintain their pensions through investment in Wall Street.  It’s unfortunate, but true.  While it would be wonderful to see them pull the workers money out, the ones that would be impacted the most would be the retirees, and those approaching retirement, that rely on those pensions that they paid into all their lives for their continued survival. This puts Labor in a difficult position, but not quite as difficult as living in a park during the winter.  The rank and file must become educated, agitated, mobilized, and radicalized enough to make these choices for themselves.  Their union leadership cannot do it for them.  The rank and file is the union.  They must become engaged.  They must occupy their unions and start leading the leadership.

Politicians, on the other hand, are in a position to enact reforms to election financing, special interest bribery, and lobbyist influence, as well as impose regulations on Wall Street, banks, and corporations, that would protect all of us, unions included, from the continuous bloodletting of the 99%.

Within the Occupation Movement there is currently an internal struggle to wrest control of the policy, process, and implementation from those with compromised agendas and establish a truly democratic system that would allow the movement to discover its own voice, articulate its own goals, and execute its own strategies and actions.  This is not to the exclusion of professional activists.  They are often brilliant and committed people with a wealth of experience and networks that will be key to the sustainability of the movement and the eventual fruition of our goals.

The experience, organizing skills, networks, and resources of the labor movement are of vital importance to the Occupation Movement.  In return, the commitment to radical action, and willingness to drop everything and engage in the struggle for the emancipation of the 99%, is required by a labor movement that has suffered a massive decline since Ronald Reagan’s assault on Air Traffic controllers in the 80′s seemed to not only break its back, but its spirit as well.

Wall Street and the banks, corporations and the media outlets they own, as well as all the other institutions of the 1%, want this movement dead, and they’re willing to go to any lengths necessary in order to make that happen.

The Democrats are trying to usurp the movement for short term gain in an election year and simultaneously manipulate it on behalf of their ‘Big Finance’ benefactors so that it can be domesticated as a post-election pet, neutered, and put on a leash. This would, whether purposefully intended or not, bring about the very death sought by Wall Street, the banksters, and the 1% they service. The Republicans did this to the TEA party.  The Occupation Movement is not going to allow the same to happen to them.

Currently, the labor movement seems to be looking to the Occupation Movement to see what they can use, and rightfully so.  Labor has been fighting these battles for a long time.  But, despite their expertise and resources, they are currently lacking the fire, the populous rage, and the overwhelming public support of the Occupation Movement.  We need to figure this relationship out.  The Occupation won’t be usurped, and, if the rank and file and labor movement want to truly support the struggle, that support will have to go beyond simply providing tarps, generators, and other much appreciated supports, and start supporting the Occupation Movement with the painful choices of cutting all ties with certain financial institutions, and political parties, and stop endorsing the politicians that the Movement is protesting against… then shake off its lethargy and apathy, allow itself to be infected with the energy of the Occupation Movement, and join us in the streets rather than simply asking us to march along on yet another union march trying to capitalize on our momentum.

Despite my harsh language for the Democrats, the progressive political activists connected with the Occupation Movement are as much potential friends as labor, there is just a lot more work for them to do in order to establish a positive relationship.  As individuals they are, for the most part, committed and admirable people.  They just happen to work for an institution, an establishment, that has been corrupted.  Their heads and hearts may be in the right place, but until the Party they work for cuts its ties with the enemies of the 99% they are part of the problem, not the solution.

Regardless of these challenges the Occupation Movement will continue to grow.  We had 165 tents, and over 200 full time occupiers in DC’s McPherson Square alone at last count.  While the weather is going to be a challenge as daunting as trying to maintain the integrity of the Occupation Movement, these are challenges we are determined to overcome.  On the coldest of nights when wet snow is falling, and blankets are scarce, and heaters are non-existent – or in the midst of vociferous debates over anything from personality clashes to the core values and mission statement of the Occupation Movement, no one ever says they are going to pack up their tent and go home.

We’re here and we’re going to stay.  While everyone from the Progressives to the Far-Right are trying to find a way to take a chunk for themselves, we are galvanizing as a community and a movement.  When our friends decide to join with us rather than secretly occupy the Occupation in order to use us, or exploit us, they too may enjoy the same promise of success.

Editor’s Note: photographs and illustration by Liam Fox.

Republished with updates. Original post, November 20, 2011

In case you did not know it, SOPA in everyday English is Stop Online Piracy Act. Its main supporters are in Hollywood, TV, big music, and other major entertainment. Its opponents are the largest Web companies and the legions of naïve people who believe the passage of such an act would impede their right to freedom on the Internet.

For the moment, SOPA is in the official wastebasket where Washington bills go to die when so much of the public rises up to shout it down. Now our esteemed lawmakers believe SOPA, though necessary, needs clarity and better direction. It is hard to argue with the failure of the original bill. It is not worth the effort to try to pass that bill and to have big entertainment, big Internet and everyone else against it for different reasons important to each.

Do not be deceived by the millions who signed online petitions to scrap SOPA. The so-called little guy, Mr. and Mrs. grassroots, is simply a pawn in the hands of the big Internet boys who control the WEB. Do not be deceived by the black banner atop Google in protest of the bill. Just because you signed an online petition, keep in mind that the battle is still between the bigs: Hollywood and TV versus the Internet giants. It is not so much that one is against the other as much as it is how does each side best get what it wants, absolute freedom on the Internet versus controlled use for big entertainment and how it presents online what it believes it owns.

I am against piracy of intellectual property, even if the property is weak or poorly conceived. You may ask, who is not. I am against the theft of who I am when cookies ingest everything about me when I spend time on the Web. Everyone else should also feel this way, but people do not. Thus, companies such as Amazon and others are hypocrites because all they are doing is protecting their own turf. I am against hypocrisy but who is not, you say. Many who are on both sides of the argument are hypocrites because they try to hide the reality of Web commerce under the guise of freedom.

I do not believe what anyone on either side of the debate says. Both sides are using the average person, however good or bad his or her creation is, to advance its concept of freedom and ownership. They are working hard to hide one’s history on the Web and how it affects sales of products and sales of ideas.

We should all be for creativity. Many people I know agree that creativity is a gift and one of life’s joys. The Internet is the greatest platform for creativity ever. It opens enormous possibilities for anyone to post what he or she believes is their contribution to humankind. I am not arrogant when I say that most of what is on YouTube, other file sharing sites and found in millions of blogs is not very good. It is usually drivel and laughable in that we laugh at the effort, not at its humor or sense of fun. Most of what is in cyberspace is not worth my time. Attack me if you want. Please. But realize first, that just as not everyone can be a professional athlete, not everyone is capable of creating something that has lasting value. Just because you can post anything you want on the Internet for which you usually receive no pay, the act of posting does not give the work value.

We live in a society where sharing is free, especially in the world of social media. On social network sites free is the operating value system. It is the new normal, what people expect because the Internet is there for all to use as they wish, they think. Only one’s time is at stake. It strikes me that for the current generation, sharing and ignoring personal ownership is often more important than personal achievement. Many pundits believe that owning the copyright to a personally created work is a sin. If they could, they would eliminate copyright. They want to limit its length based on the idea that everyone should benefit from a copyrighted work even if they do not compensate its owner. Everyone, that is except the person who created the work.

Creating anything – art of any kind, a widget, an app, you name it — is hard work. If I create something on my own using my own time and money, or, better yet, with someone else’s money why should I not profit from or share in the profits from my enterprise without fear that someone will steal what I created. I do not subscribe to the idea that better creation will result based on earlier work. Why do the users and distributors of everything on the Web believe they should have a free ride of the back of my creative endeavor? Using another person’s work is fraudulent.

I come from a culture, or a time not too distant from the one we are living in, that believes you should own all or most of what you make with your mind or your hands. That is not the norm today. A certain amount of pleasurable, yet evil anarchy exists on the Web. There is a shoot first and ask questions later attitude toward what people own. If someone sees something they like, they post it for all to see, to possibly enjoy it without regard to its copyright. Then, if there is a complaint, they apologize, they take down the video, the photo, the written work, and everyone seems satisfied except the person or group who created the entity in the first place. The damage done, the violator gets an insignificant punishment or none at all, and goes out for another latte. Such is life.

Let me be clear. I am against piracy of intellectual property, even if and when – most of the time, by the way – it has almost no value to most people. Whether it is well conceived or poorly done, I have to admit it has value to its creator. I am against the unbridled, underhanded use of my personal information and creativity without my permission by either big entertainment or big Internet.

The voice of the creative community must make itself heard. Despite being unorganized, the creative community cannot allow those who use the Internet for gain of any kind to dominate ownership. Whatever replaces SOPA must be worth the journey or else anyone who thinks the Internet is free, however anyone uses it, had better think again.

It’s been thirty years, but Meryl Streep may have to make room for that elusive third Oscar. With Tuesday’s announcement of the Academy Award nominations, the heralded actress’ brilliant portrayal of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in “The Iron Lady” (already a Golden Globe and Critics’ Choice winner) is the front runner for the coveted statuette. But with the most impressive roster of Best Actress nominees in recent years, her win is not a slam dunk. Streep’s stiffest rival will likely be her “Doubt” co-star Viola Davis who delivered a heartachingly beautiful performance in the far more popular film “The Help.” And Davis–who was nominated as Supporting Actress for her role in “Doubt” ( and received a Golden Globe shout-out from Streep) has yet to score Oscar gold, something the Academy likes to spread around. An unlikely groundswell of support could also garner Glenn Close her first Oscar for the poignant, but little seen “Albert Nobbs,” a film the actress has been trying to get made for over fifteen years.

Check out the Oscar site for a complete list of nominations. I’ll have more on surprises and snubs in all the categories, as well as predictions, later.

But for now, let’s delve into “The Iron Lady,” and the case for Streep. Phyllida Lloyd’s film is more a character study ( and a complex and compassionate one) than a history lesson. Lloyd aims for the personal over the political. And she’s received some flack for that, mostly from British critics and historians.

Some are perturbed by the release itself. Unlike many biopics, the subject is still alive. At 86, Baroness Thatcher, the woman once simultaneously reviled and revered, for her decades’ long steely leadership, has become a recluse, isolated by growing dementia. The current British Prime Minister David Cameron recently denounced the timing of the film, saying it was “insensitive” and could have waited “for another day.”

But for those of us interested in a powerful and elegant character portrait, there is little to disappoint. And the British film community is certainly forgiving; she just won the British Academy Award. And for good reason. Streep conquers the role of Thatcher, capturing her nuances with the actress’s uncanny, signature perfection. She doesn’t engage in a mere impersonation, but embodies Thatcher’s very essence. It’s not just the coiffed hair, the carriage and the characteristic tone of voice. It’s the the agility Streep demonstrates as she seamlessly dips in and out Thatcher’s razor-sharp persona to an ailing, aged woman recounting her hey day that is so astounding and mesmerizing.

The film opens with Thatcher as an octogenarian, her once “blotting paper memory,” evaporating in the wake of of a series of strokes. She’s seen cracking an egg for her husband, Denis who has died, but still appears, engaging in very lively discussions.

Streep’s Thatcher slips in and out of consequential scenes, hinting at her remarkable rise to glory, but not dwelling on it.Still, there is enough politics to put Thatcher’s life in context and give viewers unfamiliar with her impressive tenure ( 1979-1990; the longest in modern history) more than enough political substance to hold onto. The war over the Falkland Islands forms the crux of her rise to success, as Thatcher fiercely stands up to Parliament’s “Old Boy’s Club.” We also see her political kinship with President Reagan and witness her downfall as the bitter battle with the unions propels her anguished exit from No. 10 Downing Street.

At heart, though, Lloyd’s “The Iron Lady” strives to unveil the woman behind the steely iron facade.

As dementia begins to set in, we are given glimpses into Thatcher’s relationship with her husband, played by the wonderful Jim Broadbent ( who handled similar duty opposite Judi Dench in the lovely Iris Murdoch bio-pic “Iris“)and her children, Carol (Olivia Colman), who helps care for her, and Mark, who lives in South Africa and whom the audience never sees.

As she goes about packing up Denis’ belongings for charity, the elderly former Tory leader is swept back to the time when she was a young woman – the daughter of a grocer, and an ambitious Oxford grad with evolving political aspirations. We also get charming peaks at her courtship with young Denis Thatcher and their marriage during tumultuous times.

I know purists have quibbles with the timing, accuracy, even the style. But, Lloyd has turned out an artful and entertaining movie, one that offers great personal insight into a fascinating woman. And while I can’t guarantee Streep will take home her first Oscar since the “Sophie’s Choice” win in 1982, her fierce and nuanced performance is bound to get your vote.

The 84 annual Academy Awards will air live on ABC on Sunday, February 26.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.