Activists need to realize they're intentionally walking the fine line between being a scapegoat and a martyr. The better they navigate that, the more effective they'll be.
1. Don't give up. I hate to say it, but they guy was in the middle of negotiations, and could have probably worked out something significantly better than the 6-month deal he was offered (which really could have been far worse, in practical terms, though it never should have come to that, of course). He obviously had severe mental health problems, and killing himself was disproportionate to what he was facing.
2. I've had two friends do time for Federal, non-violent crimes, and it wasn't horrible for either of them. It mostly just kind of sucked. Not even close to a worst-case scenario. Family embarrassment and having a felony on their record was the worst of it for each of them. Aaron could have turned all that to his favor.
3. It's an unpopular thing to say around here, but before becoming an activist for a cause, it'd be worth talking to a lawyer. No doubt the prosecutor was overzealous (what else is new?) but Swartz's operation was both ham-fisted and a bit unhinged. He obviously was trying to get away with something, he just got caught. He really should have thought that through before doing it, during, and after.
4. And if you're actually guilty of something–however absurd that law is, it's law–fight like mad (which includes appeals) and then take the best plea bargain your attorney can get you, and make the most of it. A six-month term would have been the best thing that could have happened to his cause–afterwards he would have had immense credibility as an activist with both character and credibility.
This should all enter into your cost/benefit thinking. It's just good planning.
Unfortunately, it became a "mere" tragedy that I fear will wind up doing far less to solve the problems he wanted to than if he'd stuck it out.
Before Amazon jumped on the touchscreen bandwagon, I would have suggested a Kindle with a new subscription, whether something that's paid, or by rolling your own via Calibre.
Now, not so much. Maybe find an older Kindle keyboard (or 5th Gen) and have stuff delivered onto it. Doesn't quite give her the same sense of pulling content, but it might be less fraught than browsing on an iPad.
Another option, though, might be to find the feeds from the sources she likes, run them through a full-text feed generator, feed that into an email delivery service (e.g., blogtrottr) and have those added to something like Readability or Instapaper. Would work well on the iPad and there would be very little to mis-click.
> I think it would give leverage to the people trying to enact agriculture changes though.
It probably does, but agriculture changes in California tend to be in the interest of the agriculture industry, and those whose campaigns they fund.
As far as watering restrictions being useful for winning hearts and minds, I think in some cultures that would make a lot of sense (Japan comes to mind), but not in California. Environmentalism and conservationism are about as diametrically opposed in California as it gets: it's one of the prime consumer cultures on the planet, and consumerism is at odds with conservationism, unfortunately.
It gets people thinking they're conservationists. It doesn't necessarily make them conservationists. In fact, I'd argue it has tended to produce the opposite effect, because it creates a mental barometer based on the wrong indicators.
And any way to improve it may require increasing levels of government interference, but increasing levels of government interference ≠ improvement.
I know it sounds obvious when put that way, but too many people fall into the trap of thinking that because something must be done, anything must be done. And, that because something was done, it was a good thing. Which is seldom true, unfortunately.
I totally agree that people need to feel like they have skin in the game.
And I wish lawn-watering laws did that, but they don't seem to. I think the natural result with mankind–at least with Californians–seems to be that people then feel like they've done their part, and can go back to watching television. The state has a long history of such behavior across a variety of issues, and I don't think this one's any different, unfortunately.
It's a fine line, but Californians need to be having difficult conversations about the composition and nature of their economy, and the true long-term environmental impact of those choices, instead of feeling good about feeling bad.
Sending city employees out to fine people for watering their lawns, while legislators continue to enable a billion-dollar industry on land that can't support it for much longer, is what's happening.
The state's supposed to be at the forefront of environmental restraint, but can't ever seem to make do with what it has (whether it's water, money, or otherwise).
So what does it do?
Same thing it always does: Sweat the small stuff to win the PR game and fill the public coffers, sell bonds to fund boondoggles that won't attempt to solve any root causes, and seek reelection: something made considerably easier by the first two.
In practice? No so much. One could write volumes about how the wheels quickly come off the wagon in each area you listed, since they all happen inside of very specific, narrow, and rigid constructs, ones that seldom translate well.
The analogy that comes to mind would be claiming that having experience leading a team of first-year resident physicians prepares one to be good at motivating people from a broad variety of backgrounds to work hard and long hours.
Which isn't to say that all academics can't excel outside that environment, of course. Talented, gifted academics who would excel at almost anything in which they're engaged will also succeed outside of academia.
If all Californians stopped watering their lawns, the state's water situation would remain almost wholly unchanged. It's an incredibly minor contributing factor.
Most of the laws passed mandating reduced watering are done primarily to satisfy the electorate that "something is being done," so they don't notice or care that groundwater supplies are being rapidly depleted in the interest of making billions off nut sales: