spcaLA and Safer at Home order

SAFE!

Last night, California leadership came together to issue the new Safer at Home order in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The order seeks to help our community flatten the curve, and reduce the spread of the virus.

For many of us - me included - my first thought was of the pets. Will pets in the shelter be okay? Can staff come to care for them? And more personally, can I still walk my dogs?

The pets will be okay. spcaLA staff will continue to provide care for those in the shelter. And, you can continue to care for your own pets. Veterinary offices can continue offering services, pet supply retailers can continue to provide pet food and supplies.

In fact, caring for your pets is one of the very best things you can do. If you have a dog - or two - go for a walk. Just, maintain social distance from your neighbors and their dogs, in keeping with the Safer at Home order.

Cat person? Your indoor cat has been practicing isolation for some time - snuggle with your kitty and a good book by a sunny window. Take a nice long stretch. No pets at home? Take a gander at our live cat feed on Explore.org.

Tortoise person? Hibernate!!! 

Looking for ways to enrich your life, and those of your pets and kids? Follow spcaLA on social media, like Tik Tok, Facebook, and Instagram. We'll do our best to keep you informed, educated, and entertained.

If you are able to help, please consider making an online donation to help spcaLA continue to serve. Looking for other ways to help? Please use AmazonSmile when ordering supplies, vote for spcaLA on your TargetCircle app (until 3/31), and make spcaLA your charity of choice on your Ralphs account (NPO Number 82162).

I know these are uncertain, and frankly scary times. Together, we will come through this. 

Please, take care of yourselves, and each other.

The Rage Against The Majority

courtesy google images

I was positively transfixed watching the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives stage a
sit-in and then actually teared up when they burst into "We Shall Overcome". Why? I am no stranger to activism and civil disobedience. What made this different is that the protestors and the "protestees" are on the same team i.e. not us versus them but rather them versus them - a body rising up against itself. Also, the method of protest was old school despite the aid of Periscope and Facebook. What is going on?

It is what happens when a majority pushes a minority too far, leaving no dignified method of recourse, and becoming, in effect, the ultimate bully.

Our constitution, drafted in response to a revolution against a British king, imposes and defends minority rights, freedom of religions, and the right to equal protection under the law. In essence, a system designed to protect the vulnerable, and ensure fairness without having to wait for the majority to voluntary relinquish some of their power. (After all, why would they?) It is an anti-bullying document designed to protect the minority against abuse by the reigning clique by allowing a civil road to redress and justice. It, and the system of laws derived from this are crafted to act as an equalizer between the oppressed and the bully so there is no need to devolve into blind rage and violence.

In this case, both sides, the Democrats and the Republicans, are the ones responsible for making sure laws are enacted commensurate with the constitution and that in doing so they behave with the recognition that their status changes from majority to the minority frequently enough. Currently, the Democrats are at a disadvantage as the minority party in both the Senate and the House. They have been unable to introduce bills, call for votes or even confirm presidential nominees. In the House, there is not even the possibility of a filibuster - the relief valve for the minority party. In adult discourse, these advantages are played fairly and graciously so that when positions reverse and the advantage changes, they still can get along and accomplish their work.

In this instance, the minority party acted and appeared to feel that this majority, like a bully, kept pressing the advantage and ceding nothing, until there was no recourse but to rise up.

The second interesting thing that happened here is the form of the protest was old school. In a world where we click, tweet, like, snap, and electronically sign petitions to express ourselves and effectuate change, our lawmakers resorted to civil disobedience. The House Democrats occupied the room, obstructed the business of the House, and broke rules by using social media to ensure that they were seen and heard. This behavior does not come without risk and requires a higher temperature and commitment than sitting safely in a lounge chair and retweeting something using a pseudonym.

In October of 2010, Malcolm Gladwell published an article for The New Yorker entitled “Why The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted”. Comparing the civil rights movement in the 1960s, and other social  revolutions. Gladwell describes the scene where 4 black college students sat down at a “whites only” lunch counter in Greensboro North Carolina and stayed in their seats when they were refused service. More protesters gathered on their behalf, sit-ins began and eventually 70,000 students were actively involved in the protest. He argues that this type of   “high risk strong-tie” commitment is not created through social media platforms which are built upon “weak-tie connections” and don't involve sacrifice.

It is therefore interesting that a veteran of said civil rights movement, John Lewis, the choreographer of the House sit-in, and his colleagues, felt strongly enough to replicate this type of "high risk strong-tie" action against this majority's oppression with its attendant risks. Normally they would issue press releases, send letters and tweet. It was truly amazing to watch.

It's a tale as old as time. A story of abuse of power in one form or another. People will only stand for so much, even against their own "families". The choice is to either lay there and take it, or fight back.

Here, they sat up and sang.

Kony Social Media Activism - Good or Bad for Change

As advocates and activists for the welfare of animals, and users of social media to help achieve those ends, I felt compelled to study the issues attendant to the Kony video campaign. Can we learn anything that will help our animals? What is the best role for social media in our work?  We have responded to specific need requests such as pet food, calls to action involving legislative policies, event publicity and funding pleas. Clearly, social media activism is effective in communicating quickly with a lot of people and in asking for a specific thing such as spreading news, sending an email and providing cash for a project. But can this type of activism bring about sustained change such as ending famine, stopping war crimes or attitude adjustments that last and change our way of life. Is it becoming the easy "go to" tool in the box? Is there a danger that we will get lazy in our activism and let the "mice" do all the work? As a huge believer that there is never too much knowledge I was also startled by the reaction that giving people this information in the first place is not wise as it creates false expectations and dumbs down complex issues. Frankly, that scares me. I am already worried that so much information is filtered through the whims of celebrities. The cynical reality is that if a famous person speaks-more attention will be drawn to the message and the audience will obey. That is why charities seek such spokespeople. I worry about what critical news we are not hearing about simply because Justin Bieber doesn't find it of interest as he did in the Kony situation. I prefer to see everything and decide for myself what to worry about. I also believe there is a valid use of the medium for activists, but that it is not a short cut to the hard work required to ultimately attain our goals. So I wrote the piece below and would be most interested in your thoughts.

courtesy Google images

The use of social media as an activist tool poses interesting questions. The Joseph Kony video is a great case study. The film, celebrity involvement, a charity, Facebook, Twitter, and the ability to click and see the story of a Ugandan war lord and his treatment of children on 100 million smart phones sparked an international conversation. Debates over Ugandan politics, the motives and legitimacy of the charity (Invisible Children) who created the video, the frustration of journalists who reported the story 2 years ago to an apathetic audience, and whether the actual facts were vetted properly – lit up the airwaves and internet.

The discussions are useful. They serve as a natural fact checking process to determine whether there is a real problem that needs addressing, whether this was a fundraising manipulation by a charity, or both. Of course, more people will watch the video than read assorted articles by experts in that area, but, the information is out there to evaluate. Arguing whether this method of messaging is over simplified, sensational, biased, and bad for children is likewise useful as allows us to examine how we receive, process and restate information to each other and to our politicians. The celebrity factor is also at play here.  Journalists couldn’t get the story heard years ago yet with the nudge of a couple of celebrity re-tweets it went viral. In other words, if the subject is interesting to Justin Bieber or Rihanna, we are more likely to hear about it.

The ultimate question seems to be whether or not this type of activism is successful in effectuating positive change and therefore should be replicated. Success is defined in the eyes of the beholder. The goal of boosting awareness and raising funds is not the same as actually arresting a war criminal and changing a political system. We know the use of social media can succeed in achieving the former, but we are not so sure about the latter. Additionally, one wonders how many times it could work successfully before the responding clickers lose interest or become desensitized to endless horrors and cause campaigns.. 

In October of 2010, Malcolm Gladwell published an article for The New Yorker entitled “Why The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted”. Comparing the civil rights movement in the 1960s, and other social revolutions, Gladwell asks the same question. He describes the scene where 4 black college students sat down at a “whites only” lunch counter in Greensboro North Carolina and refused to leave their seats. The restaurant would not serve them. More protesters gathered on their behalf, sit-ins began and eventually 70,000 students were actively involved in the protest. He argues that this type of   “high risk strong-tie” commitment is not created through social media platforms which are built upon “weak-tie connections”. Gladwell goes on to say: “ Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice. We are a long way from the lunch counters of Greensboro.”

It seems social media activism is still evolving. Knowledge is critical. We need to know of a problem to solve it. Now 100 million people know something. Critical thinking about the information allows the vetting, analysis and evaluation of the issue to occur. Then old school hard work must follow to ultimately accomplish change. Documentation, constituency building, organizing and developing strategic plans to implement reforms must also occur.

Knowing is better than not knowing, but clicking is not enough action.



Article first published as Are Social Media Campaigns Like Kony Successful in Effecting Change on Technorati.