Blaming a group of voters for placing their votes for the nominee who represented their interests and values is about as undemocratic as you can get. Presidents of The United States are elected by a democratic process. Each nominee has earned the votes they receive. If you plan to blame Green voters for not abandoning their nominee to back the Democratic nominee, you might as well also blame the Republican voters for backing their nominee.
An important election is coming up in November, and you should vote for the nominee who matches your interests and values, vote your conscience, cast your vote for who you know will take the country in the direction it needs to go. We live in an information age where you can search for almost any information on any nominee, and sites like iSideWith make it almost fun to see how you relate to them. This November, place an educated vote for the nominee who represents you.
Since some might ask, I definitely won’t be voting for Trump this November, he is further from my interests and values than any nominee in my lifetime has ever been. I haven’t made up my mind about the other three though, I still have 104 days to learn as much as I can about each of them.
In addition, consider ways in which you can help the environment yourself, like switching out your lights for LED bulbs, walking or biking to closer destinations rather than driving, planting a tree or two, and even properly separating your recyclables from your trash.
The internet today is a battleground between the internet service providers who want to charge more for faster access to certain sites and the lawmakers who want to make sure everyone has equal access. I could spend several paragraphs describing to you how your internet service provider (who already charges you for fast internet access) wants to charge more for guaranteed fast access to certain sites, like YouTube and Wikipedia, or how lawmakers against Net Neutrality are being financially backed by the internet service providers themselves, but no explanation will even come close to this from John Oliver.
As of 2014, 42% of Americans claim to identify as something other than Democrat or Republican, yet the Untied States is still largely ruled by these two political parties since they still represent the vast majority of registered voters. Why do so many identify with political parties other than the big two, yet still remain registered with the big two? I don’t know, I’m not a political scientist, but common sense makes me want to see the 42% who identify as something else actually register as something else.
This Independence Day, take some time to consider if the ideals of your political party still match your own, and re-register if necessary. Stand with who you are supposed to, not who you were told to.
Don’t neglect the smaller political parties either. It is becoming clear that the United States needs a strong third party if any significant legislative progress is to be made these days. Without a third competing force, we’re left with two organizations who spend most days blocking each other’s progress since they are practically the antithesis of each other.
If you are either unsure or strongly unwavering in devotion to your current political party, take this quiz. You should know that I never advocate making decisions based solely on quizzes, but this one will give you a great start to your own research.
Accusations of online surveillance by government entities are rampant. By now, you have all seen or heard of at least one clandestine government program, like PRISM, designed to spy on citizens by circumventing what was once considered to be fundamental security.
The validity of these accusations and programs are in question, as would be expected. Is there really a threat? If so, is it really as bad as described? Are those spreading the accusations seeking only to undermine the stability of their governments? Are those defending their governments simply working for their governments or living in fear of them? I doubt we’ll ever know the truth, but why should we let that stop us from protecting ourselves regardless?
Today, over 12 thousand people joined together to reach over 12 million followers to Reset the Net by promoting security and privacy. Companies like WordPress.com are already promising better security by the end of the year, and you can protect yourself now by adopting the use of many security-focused apps and privacy-focused alternatives to popular web services, like using DuckDuckGo instead of Google. By making ourselves more secure users, we promote a more secure and private internet. Whether online surveillance by government entities truly exists or not, how could you say that a more secure and private internet is a bad thing?
Now, get out there and promote a more secure and private internet! Don’t underestimate the power of your voice online. Be the change you want to see in the world.
There seems to be a grave misunderstanding as to what is protected by the right to freedom of speech in the US amongst both right and left-wing media. That concerns me greatly, as these organizations profess to represent the pinnacle of political news coverage, and such mutilation of a major governing document by a source which claims to be the only right and true word on politics and government is unforgivable.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Too long, didn’t read? Here’s what you need to know, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” That’s it, nothing more.
If Congress makes a law to prosecute you for what you say, then you have grounds to complain that your right to free speech is being violated. Until then, if someone is just disagreeing with you, if you are being publicly ridiculed for your words, or even if you are being completely censored by a private group, you have no grounds to invoke such a right.
Freedom of Speech shields US citizens from laws created by the US Government to prosecute them for their words. It does not shield them from the judgement and disagreements of others.