Well, they're trying to mess up the internet again.
The FCC plans to change the rules that keep the internet neutral, to let your internet provider or ISP:
1) Charge you more for faster service. (Meaning poorer or thriftier people get crummier service.
ADDENDUM: Oops! they do this already, when your service slows after you reach your phone's data cap. I miss-typed. But what may now happen is a sort of airline-ification of your internet service... Want streaming? Extra. Want access to the cloud? Extra? Want knees or oxygen with that? You get the idea. Oh, did you want You Tube with your internet?)
What's for sure is that ISPs will:
2) Charge businesses, websites, and streaming services etc. more to reach you. (Meaning poorer, newer, start-up, and niche guys can't compete with richer, more established, mainstream ones. That favorite viral video not on Netflix? That weird genre comic? That unpopular opinion? Sloooooow to loooooad.)
3) "Fast" and "slow" lanes (AKA decent versus crummy service) add up to de facto censorship.
Not political censorship necessarily, but, for instance, you might have a bad connection when ordering pizza from Dominos... and a strangely good connection to Pizza Hut. So you'll start ordering more Pizza Hut. If your internet provider just happens to get kickbacks from them...? Pure coincidence!
That's the obviously profitable commercial censorship, that profit motives will determine what you can or cannot see online. But with all these dark money PACs around it's only a matter of time (think seconds) before some ISP is paid to speed up one political party's ads or trash talk. Heck, if a Koch Brother or a Soros own a big percent of an internet corp. they might even tilt that scale for free. Your news and then your political and social views will be warped by what Big Internet Brother wants you to see.
Scary.
The internet is the conduit through which most of our lives now travel - do we want a filter to collect more money for our ISPs clogging it up?
Polluting it?
So.
Call your representatives in Congress. Explain this stupidity to them! Because your protest is the only thing possibly stopping this. You got less than two days.
A short post. It's been a while since I've blogged, mostly due to a glut of deadlines and turkey and, well, of pumpkin pie too.
But today's news requires note:
Someone I know has been fired for sexual harassment.
At this post-Weinstein moment in America some men are now being held to account for long-time bad behavior. This particular man is - or was - in the DFW theater world. I've worked with him. Never saw anything untoward... but then I'm not his target audience, being old enough to be his mother. But lots of stories are bubbling up. Many young actresses were mistreated. The accusations seem undeniable.
Why?!
Why do some men use power to harass women or other men or even children in this way? Are any women creating comparable messes of power and sex? Why hurt others in such a way? Why risk career and reputation?
But then, until now, it just hasn't been much of a risk has it?
For me the most sickening chicken coming home to roost is that, though I never saw or heard a hint of this behavior from this man, I could instantly - instantly! - see it as true.
Part of me just sighed...
Sure. It fits.
Because the guy had a preening self-regard that just radiated. I didn't guess at that ego acting out in this way (in hindsight, duh), but I never trusted him to have my back professionally. Or to act from abstract fairness or such... He just didn't seem the type.
But this type? Well, I would have expected him to be smarter is all. He is very clever and talented. Plus big ego. That I noticed. If he also had virtue or nobility of character or kindness I never noticed...
And isn't that a sad and dishonorable thing.
New Year's Resolution: to live in such a way that, if evil things are ever reported of me, no one says, "Sure. It fits."
And can that resolution start today please? In a year when... (picking just the latest outrage), a major political party backs an accused child molester, maybe we all need to start behaving ourselves better. Agreed?
ADDENDUM: Is this post fair? What about presumption of innocence? The question troubles me. I haven't met the witnesses or heard the evidence but one theater has and fired him because of it. Several others have fired him from directing jobs. Or suspended him from membership until this is investigated. Am I just piling on? Yes, I suppose I am. I believe the women. The reported facts just sound so likely. And, knowing the man a little, I just can't put my own experience up in defense. So... I hope I'm not being unjust.
ADDENDUM #2: Having read further into this matter, I am now sure I have been fair... indeed too kind.
The accusations, while probably not criminal, are vile and involve very young women - college and perhaps even high school students - who were either under his authority as a director or a mentor or to some degree under his power as one who could recommend or hire actors. Some he contacted out of the blue using confidential information from head shots! (Betraying both the women and his employer, DTC... And what about them, huh? What did they know?) Read more HERE at TheaterJones if you need details.
So how was I too kind? By calling him "Him" not by name:
Lee Trull
Tell you what, disowning a theater company member for disgraceful conduct kinda puts a damper on the holiday party.
