Why we should all be mad that Congress banned members from video streaming.

Banning members from streaming video to social media poses a big challenge to transparency.

<br>

On Tuesday, Jan. 3, members of the 115th Congress were sworn into office.

It was kind of like a first day of school: There was a lot of light chat among members and their families and a somewhat relaxed atmosphere. That didn't stop Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) from getting a bit of business done, however.

As is first-day tradition, the House of Representatives voted on the set of rules that will guide them for the next two years.

Photo by Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images.

Tucked away in the House rules was a provision aimed at preventing lawmakers from streaming video from the floor to social media.

Violators would be charged a fine for streaming. At first glance, it seems to make sense in a sort of "no phones at the kitchen table" kind of way. After all, if C-SPAN cameras are rolling and streaming to the world, why would any individual member of the House need to start their own live broadcast?

The answer: Sometimes those C-SPAN cameras aren't rolling — and for a very troubling reason.

In June 2016, Democrats in the House took to the floor in an act of protest after Ryan decided against bringing a gun safety bill up for a full vote.

In the wake of the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Democrats made a push for gun safety reform. In the Senate, Chris Murphy (D-CT) led a 17-hour filibuster aimed at getting Republican leadership to agree to put two gun control amendments up for an up-or-down vote. (He succeeded in getting the vote, though both amendments were shot down days later.)

In the House, Democrats, led by civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis, staged a sit-in after Republicans made the decision not to bring similar gun control legislation up for a floor vote.

I'm on the House floor with @repjohnlewis & Dems staging a sit-in to demand action on commonsense gun legislation http://pic.twitter.com/byIivby5gG

— Rep. John Yarmuth (@RepJohnYarmuth) June 22, 2016

The real controversy began when Ryan ordered the C-SPAN video feed of the House floor turned off. The Democrats were free to protest, but would no longer have an audience.

It turns out that the cameras that show the action on the House floor aren't owned or controlled by C-SPAN, but rather, by Congress itself. Given that Ryan and his Republican colleagues finished up for the day and the cameras are only required to be "on when the House is in session" (as per the rules voted on by the 114th Congress), Ryan did have every right to cut the TV feed.

Senior House GOP aide explains why the cameras are not on in the House chamber for the Dem sit-in: http://pic.twitter.com/TIlZNFtyNI

— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) June 22, 2016

In response, some members of the protest began to broadcast the sit-in from their phones. It was an innovative approach to a complicated problem. Using Periscope and Facebook Live, the legislators provided insight to constituents. C-SPAN even picked up the feeds, sharing them on their TV and social channels.

The newly proposed rules, however, aim to prevent members of Congress from repeating such a broadcast, something Ryan may want to reconsider.

In 2008, the very same thing happened — except it was the Republicans holding a protest with Democratic leadership giving them the cold shoulder. On Aug. 1, 2008, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her Democratic colleagues voted to adjourn. The chamber's lights were turned off, the cameras were cut, and microphones were shut off, making some Republicans pretty upset.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi and other House Democrats speak before the 2016 sit-in. Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images.

For hours, members of the GOP held the floor in protest. They had hoped Pelosi would bring a bill related to off-shore drilling up for a vote. To their dissatisfaction, she didn't, and so the Republicans traded off impromptu speeches from the floor about the benefits of drilling, arguing that it would lower gas prices and having the type of discussion the House of Representatives was meant to have.

In 2008, the ability to broadcast live video from a cell phone wasn't as easy as pulling up an app, the way it was during last year's protest. Regardless, it was wrong of Democrats to use their majority to silence Republicans in 2008, just as it was wrong for Republicans to do so to Democrats in 2016.

If we want to have robust, transparent debate between parties, we need to make sure all voices are heard, regardless of which party sits in the majority.

It sets a dangerous precedent for members of Congress to be able to create a media blackout anytime one of their colleagues makes an argument they don't like. If Ryan wants to fine members of the House for streaming from the floor, he should allow C-SPAN to install their own independently-run cameras. Knowledge and transparency should not be subject to partisanship.

Being able to see what happens on the floor of the House and the Senate is one of the most wonderful things to come out of technological advancement. While not every word spoken will be beautiful or insightful — for example, there's the time Ted Cruz read "Green Eggs and Ham" on the Senate floor — it's all part of our history.

Constituents have a right to know when the people they put in office are going to great lengths to represent the values they voted for — and when their opponents are trying to block them from doing so. Being able to see when our representatives are arguing on our behalf, staying up all night to protest, and broadcasting from the floor shows citizens that their voices are being heard.

The rules, as they were just voted on, take that away from us, and it's a major blow to democracy and transparency.

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images.

<br>

This 'Rogue One' star inspired the sweetest family story about representation.

'I wanted my Mexican father, with his thick Mexican accent, to experience what it was like to see a hero in a blockbuster film, speak the way he does.'

<br>

San Diego native and comic-book lover Perls finally got the chance to take her father to see "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" the Monday after New Year's.

While going to the movies with your dad can be great for a lot of reasons, Perls was particularly excited to share "Rogue One" with her dad because he's Mexican, just like Diego Luna, one of the movie's lead actors.

Diego Luna as Capt. Cassian Andor. Photo via Lucasfilm.

Latino and Hispanic actors are the least represented in film and television (only 5.8% had speaking roles according to a survey of more than 11,000 speaking characters in movies and TV), so it's a big deal for Luna to be featured so prominently in a blockbuster film franchise like "Star Wars."

He even got to keep his strong, Mexican accent in the role of Cassian Andor, further representing his culture on screen.

And if you don't understand why the accent matters...

Perls wasn't sure if her dad was going to like "Rogue One," but when the movie was over, she knew Luna's presence in it had a significant effect on him.

She took to Tumblr to share the unforgettable experience, writing (emphasis mine):

"I took my father to see Rogue One today. I’ve wanted to take him for a while. I wanted my Mexican father, with his thick Mexican accent, to experience what it was like to see a hero in a blockbuster film, speak the way he does. And although I wasn’t sure if it was going to resonate with him, I took him anyway. When Diego Luna’s character came on screen and started speaking, my dad nudged me and said, 'he has a heavy accent.' I was like, 'Yup.' When the film was over and we were walking to the car, he turns to me and says, 'did you notice that he had an accent?' And I said, 'Yeah dad, just like yours.' Then my dad asked me if the film had made a lot of money. I told him it was the second highest grossing film of 2016 despite it only being out for 18 days in 2016 ... . He then asked me if people liked the film, I told him that it had a huge following online and great reviews. He then asked me why Diego Luna hadn’t changed his accent and I told him that Diego has openly talked about keeping his accent and how proud he is of it. And my dad was silent for a while and then he said, 'And he was a main character.' And I said, 'He was.' And my dad was so happy. As we drove home he started telling me about other Mexican actors that he thinks should be in movies in America. Representation matters."

Representation matters. Not just for the young, impressionable generations, but for the generations who saw very little of themselves reflected in media when they were growing up.

The post quickly went viral, eventually reaching Luna himself, who proudly shared it on Twitter.

I got emotional reading this! #RogueOneStarWars http://pic.twitter.com/kfNXxYxWWI

— diego luna (@diegoluna_) January 4, 2017

Luna received hundreds of responses, many from Hispanics and Latinos(as), thanking him for pushing representation forward in mainstream media.

Another Tumblr user was so inspired by Perls' story that he shared his own story about how seeing Riz Ahmed in "Rogue One" deeply moved him as an Indian man, writing:

"[Riz Ahmed being in "Rogue One"] honestly brought tears to my eyes seeing it. seeing this diversity, in a star wars movie, one of the biggest franchises in the world, and one of my favorite things in the world all through out growing up. representation MATTERS. when I was growing up, if there was an indian superhero, or a pakistani main character in star wars like there is now, maybe I would’ve loved who I was a little bit more. I needed someone like me to look up to as an 8 year old. ive never loved being indian/pakistani more than I do now. over the past couple years, everyday I love my heritage more and more and want to know and learn more about it and be more present in my culture."

Riz Ahmed as Bohdi Rook. Photo via Lucasfilm.

The "Rogue One" cast didn't just feature some token characters of color — the core team of heroes was almost entirely made up of people from minority groups.

As my colleague Carlos Foglia wrote on Upworthy:

"Jyn Erso, played by Felicity Jones, leads the whole movement, with a team consisting of Cassian Andor (played by Mexican actor Diego Luna), Chirrut Imwe, the blind warrior (played by Chinese legend Donnie Yen), Bodhi Rook (played by Riz Ahmed, who is of Pakistani and Indian descent), and Baze Malbus (played by Chinese actor Jiang Wen) after leaving a meeting with another main character, Saw Gerrera (played by African-American Forest Whitaker)."

This is definitely a step in the right direction for representation in movies and TV, and it's good for Hollywood's bottom line, too.

Donnie Yen as Chirrut Imwe. Photo via Lucasfilm.

Not only is diversity having a positive effect on audiences, it's increasing films' profit margins. According to a recent study by UCLA, films that have a 41-50% non-white cast do better in the global marketplace. As the second-highest grossing film of 2016, "Rogue One" proves diversity isn't bad stateside either.

Of course, representation goes beyond race. Slowly but surely, we're seeing progress made across the board.

Women of all sizes (not just 0 and 2), the LGBTQ community, and people with disabilities all need lead characters they can look up to on a screen. There's a whole spectrum of stories out there that aren't being told.

Melissa McCarthy. Photo by Mark Davis/Getty Images.

Actresses like Melissa McCarthy are snagging starring roles (and making bank). "Speechless," a primetime show, features a character with cerebral palsy played by an actor with cerebral palsy. More and more LGBTQ relationships are popping up on television, like Alex Danvers and Maggie Sawyer on the CW's "Supergirl" and Darryl Whitefeather's bisexual revelation on "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend."

It's important for everyone to see that the spectrum of representation is widening. We can only move forward by looking back and seeing how far we've come.

<br>

Lena Dunham is glad you can see her cellulite on Glamour magazine.

<br>

Lena Dunham will be the first to tell you she used to have a potbelly, rabbit teeth, and knock-knees as a kid.

She didn't mind — but she cared that others did. People thought she was "funny looking."

"I didn't hate what I looked like," she explained in a recent Instagram post. "I hated the culture that was telling me to hate it."

Photo by Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images for Endometriosis Foundation of America.

Dunham, creator and star of HBO's "Girls," has long been an outspoken — albeit controversial — champion for body positivity and women's rights. She's found herself in hot water on more than one occasion (and has plenty of non-fans to prove it), but still — it's difficult not to celebrate the underlying message of her Instagram post on Jan. 3, 2016.

In promoting the final season of her show, Dunham and the other "girls" were on the cover of Glamour magazine — without Photoshop.

"Thank you to [Glamour] for letting my cellulite do the damn thing on news stands everywhere today," Dunham wrote.

The magazine confirmed with Upworthy that none of the women on the cover were photoshopped.

Photo courtesy of Glamour magazine.

The February 2017 issue was also "100% produced by women" — an initiative to allow more women to be the visual and editorial creators behind the content women read and consume (makes sense, right?).

"Every story and every photo, from first page to last, was created by women," according to Glamour.

The magazine publishing world has a lot of work to do in making sure every woman — regardless of dress size, body shape, and skin color — feels like there's a place for her in it.

It was just last April when the same Glamour magazine bungled the concept of plus-size labeling, including actor Amy Schumer under the genre without her approval. The comedian said herself she wears between a size 6 and size 8, while plus-size clothing starts at size 12.

It was a move that, as editor-in-chief Cindi Leive later clarified, wasn't the intended implication, but the damage was already done.

Photo by Christopher Polk/Getty Images for The Critics' Choice Awards.

"I think there's nothing wrong with being plus size. Beautiful healthy women," Schumer wrote in her response. "[Glamour] put me in their plus size only issue without asking or letting me know and it doesn't feel right to me. Young girls seeing my body type thinking that is plus size? What are your thoughts? Mine are not cool glamour not glamourous."

Dunham's cover is a small victory within an industry that's slowly but surely evolving for the better.

"Today this body is on the cover of a magazine that millions of women will read, without photoshop, my thigh on full imperfect display," Dunham wrote in her post. "Whether you agree with my politics, like my show or connect to what I do, it doesn't matter — my body isn't fair game. No one's is, no matter their size, color, gender identity, and there's a place for us all in popular culture to be recognized as beautiful."

<br>

Lawmakers spotted a secret weapon in the fight against domestic abuse: hairstylists.

<br>

Joan Each Rowan has no idea how many people her salons have helped throughout the years.

The evidence, however, quietly speaks for itself.

You can see it in the disappearing "how to get help" brochures off the counter. You'll spot it on tab flyers that hang on a wall or bulletin board — the ones where you tear off a strip with a number to call.

"Those need to be replaced — and often," says Rowan, who owns the two Everything's Relative salons on Chicago's south side.

Photo via Everything's Relative Salon, used with permission.

For the past 20 years, Rowan has been pushing for her salon to be a place where people get help with more than just their hair. With assistance from advocates committed to ending domestic violence, she's been teaching her stylists what to do (and what not to do) if they suspect or know a client is being abused at home. She also places resources, like the brochures, in discreet areas of her businesses, such as the bathroom, for clients to take with them if they need help.

Now, the stylists at Everything's Relative Salons have become unlikely warriors in the fight against domestic abuse. Soon, every other stylist in Illinois will be too.

Illinois just became the first state to require that all licensed beauty professionals take an hour-long course on how to spot domestic abuse.

Starting on Jan. 1, 2017, new cosmetologists will have to take the course in order to obtain their license, as the Chicago Tribune reported. The training will also be folded into continuing education requirements stylists must complete every two years to renew their credentials.

Although Rowan wasn't the first or only salon professional to implement her own training without a law telling her to do so, Everything's Relative has been at the forefront of the issue for decades, having realized the important connection between the seriousness of domestic abuse and the simplicity of getting a haircut.

We at Everything's Relative would like to wish you and your family a Happy Holiday 🎁❄🎄☃🎅🏼🎁

Posted by Everything's Relative Oak Lawn on Saturday, December 24, 2016

Domestic abuse is an issue that no doubt affects many clients who walk through the doors at Everything's Relative — about 1 in 3 women and 1 in 7 men in the U.S. experience violence at the hands of a partner at some point in their lifetime, according to nonprofit Chicago Says No More. 

The thinking behind the new law — which was brought before legislators by Chicago Says No More — is both obvious and clever.

"[Clients] tell you a lot," says Rowan, who's worked in the industry for 42 years. "People talk to their hairdressers."

When clients talk, proponents of the law say, it only makes sense that cosmetologists should be prepared to listen and respond accordingly, if a red flag should arise.

The law — an amendment to the Barber, Cosmetology, Esthetics, Hair Braiding, and Nail Technology Act of 1985 — was put in motion by Illinois Rep. Fran Hurley and State Senator Bill Cunningham, who said his wife's experience as a stylist years ago inspired him to act.

“She told me stories about her clients providing details about terrible incidents,” he explained to the New York Times. “She offered a sympathetic ear. She was young at the time and did not know how to get them help.”

The law aims to leave no stylist feeling like Cunningham's wife had — helpless and with few resources to provide a client in need.

The training will help stylists feel empowered about speaking up — without crossing a line, according to Rowan.

First and foremost, stylists are not required to report incidents of violence and won't be held liable in any case involving a client — an important aspect of the law meant to protect beauty professionals.

The training will, however, teach them how to spot signs of abuse and suggest resources clients can access (such as nearby safe havens or numbers to call) while making sure to carry a judgement-free and caring demeanor.

A Paul Mitchell cosmetology school in McLean, Virginia. Photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images.

The course also outlines what stylists shouldn't do — like follow-up with their client on the suspected abuse the next time they visit the salon or try to counsel clients on their specific situations.

"We are not psychologists. We're not the cops," Rowan says. "But the sensitivity training will give the cosmetologists the confidence to be able to say, 'There's information in the bathroom over there if you need a hand,' or, 'You really don't need to put up with that.'"

"It's very, very important," Rowan says of the new law. "And I don't think it should stop with cosmetologists."

Similarly to how many workers are educated on sexual harassment or how to handle instances of discrimination in the workplace, it wouldn't be such a bad idea for other positions requiring a state license to get domestic abuse training too, she notes.

While Rowan can't guarantee everyone in the cosmetology industry will be on board with the new law — some have argued, for example, that the law puts unnecessary pressure on stylists to be crime-stoppers — she has no reason to think it won't be widely accepted: "I have not talked to a salon owner who has thought it was a bad idea."

"This is going to be great for everyone," Rowan says. "We live in a violent city. But violence begins at home."

<br>

Need help? Don't hesitate to call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 800-799-SAFE (7233).

Backed by Bernie Sanders, this governor's plan for free college could be a game-changer.

"Other countries have already done it. It's time this country catches up."

<br>

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo just announced a landmark plan to make college tuition-free for low- and middle-income families in New York.

The plan is called the Excelsior Scholarship, and it will take effect over the next three years, applying to any student attending a two- or four-year state or city university whose family earns less than $125,000 a year.

Considering that the median household income in New York state was $60,850 in 2015, this could radically change the game for many families trying to send their kids to college.

Then the economy changed. When the economy changed from a manufacturing economy to a high-tech economy, a HS degree wasn't enough. http://pic.twitter.com/O5lX1CzD5C

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) January 3, 2017

"College is a mandatory step if you really want to be a success ... and this society should say we're going to pay for college because you need college to be successful," Cuomo said in his Jan. 3 announcement alongside Sen. Bernie Sanders, who made debt-free college a big part of his presidential campaign. "Other countries have already done it. It's time this country catches up."

Sanders is far from just a silent backer of the project. He took the stage to give a short speech expressing his support for Cuomo's plan, later tweeting, "If New York makes public colleges and universities tuition-free, mark my words, state after state will follow."

.@SenSanders: If we’re going to do a justice to low-income families, we must have the best educated workforce in the world. http://pic.twitter.com/41GmT0RFDy

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) January 3, 2017

Cuomo's plan could be America's first big step toward what many schools across Europe already offer: free or nearly free college tuition for all residents.

Image via iStock.

Public colleges in Germany, Norway, Iceland, and Finland all offer free college tuition for students, no matter their household income. They even offer the same deal to international students, which is why some American students are opting to go abroad for their degrees.

Some details of the Excelsior Scholarship have yet to be fully ironed out, but it's not an impossible goal to set.

For example, it's still unclear where the money to pay for it will come from. Free doesn't mean free for everyone. The reason colleges in other countries are able to offer free tuition is because their citizens pay higher taxes. Countries like Germany also have lower enrollment percentages than the U.S. as a whole.

New York has the third-largest economy in the United States (on par with all of Canada), with over 1.3 million students attending public colleges. So the program could end up costing much more than the current proposal of $163 million.

Private universities have begun offering similar programs to low- and middle-income students, proving that a program like the one Cuomo is proposing for New York can work on a small scale.

Stanford University. Photo by Harshlight/Flickr.

In 2015, Stanford University announced tuition would be free for students from households earning $125,000 and under. In fact, all the Ivy League schools (along with other privately owned schools) offer tuition wavers for households earning $75,000 or less. Just as a state would draw from taxes, these schools draw from student tuition funds and other funding sources to make economic diversity on campus a reality.

Higher education should not only be available to the financially savvy or those lucky enough to be born into wealthy families. No one should have to go into severe debt to get the degree they need to get a job, contribute to the economy, and succeed. Cuomo's plan for one of the wealthiest states in the country has the potential to set a precedent to finally open those doors to any American who wants to walk through them.

You can show your support and learn more about the Excelsior Scholarship program here.

<br>

5 quotes from presidential farewell speeches show the power of a strong good-bye.

Ahead of President Obama's final speech, a look back at some important lessons.

<br>

On Sunday, Jan. 10, President Barack Obama will travel to Chicago to deliver his farewell address to the nation.

The farewell address is a tradition dating all the way back to George Washington himself. The address has historically provided outgoing presidents with an opportunity to publicly reflect on their successes and failures, as well as to share a bit of unique wisdom with both their successor and with the general public as a whole.

"Since 2009, we've faced our fair share of challenges, and come through them stronger," wrote President Obama on the White House website. "That's because we have never let go of a belief that has guided us ever since our founding — our conviction that, together, we can change this country for the better."

.@POTUS will travel home to Chicago next week to give his final #FarewellAddress. Get the details here: https://t.co/jX3X85Xl1u http://pic.twitter.com/XnY4xb6IO0

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 2, 2017

One of the most interesting aspects of the farewell address is how, as a concept, it's such a contradiction in terms of the president's power and influence.

Usually delivered just days before a successor is set to take office, the farewell address comes at what is arguably the low point in any president's administration in terms of actual policy influence — and yet, these addresses have typically been imbued with such candidness that they become powerful in a whole new way.

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images.

1. George W. Bush shared a message of compassion and understanding for immigrants.

"In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger," Bush warned.

While much of President Bush's speech focused heavily on the importance of national defense and vigilance about preventing future terrorist attacks, at one point during the address, he focused on the very concept of what it means to be American:

Photo by Rod Aydelotte/Waco Tribune Herald, Pool.

2. Bill Clinton urged future generations to embrace equality "in our hearts and in our laws."

"As we become ever more diverse, we must work harder to unite around our common values and our common humanity," implored Clinton in his speech.

During his administration, President Clinton's record on equality was somewhat mixed. As the president who signed both the Defense of Marriage Act (which preemptively blocked same-sex marriages) and the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy (which prohibited gays, lesbians, and bisexuals from serving openly in the armed forces) into law, his farewell address hinted at a bit of regret when it came to social equity:

Photo by AFP/AFP/Getty Images.

3. Ronald Reagan used his address to remind the country why city walls must have doors that are open to everyone.

"I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it," Reagan said in his speech. "In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity."

"And if there had to be city walls," he said, "the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still."

Reagan's address mostly centered on his successes in office, focusing on economic gains and the U.S.'s role in ending the Cold War, but also included a word of advice for when the going gets tough or problems seem overwhelming

Photo by J. David Ake/AFP/Getty Images.

4. Jimmy Carter played up the importance of defending the human rights of all people in the success of America.

"Those who hunger for freedom, who thirst for human dignity, and who suffer for the sake of justice, they are the patriots of this cause," said Carter during his address.

His anti-isolationist message touched on the U.S.'s role in ensuring that people around the world are treated with dignity, respect, and basic human rights. Carter urged Americans to be a force for good in the world, extending far beyond geographic borders.

Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images.

5. George Washington warned us of the dangers of partisanship, a message that remains incredibly relevant.

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations," wrote Washington. "Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally."

Despite having been delivered more than 220 years ago, Washington's address is perhaps the most prescient for 2017 and beyond. Political parties can serve as coalitions for individuals with similar goals. As President Washington warned, however, they can also lead to despotism. Now, in 2017, as the country's 45th president is about to be inaugurated, it seems our attachment to these political parties has done just that: empowered a despot.

Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images.

Party allegiances today have even chipped away at the very concept of facts. Should a Democrat say the sky is blue, expect that a Republican will be there to dispute the assertion, and vice versa. It often feels as though the parties are no longer working toward common interests and solutions, but rather, a very dangerous game of one-upmanship, the most obvious example being the rush for Congress and the PEOTUS to repeal President Obama's landmark health care bill, which could boot up to 30 million people off their health insurance.

President Washington warned us. It's not too late to listen to what he — and our other past presidents — had to say.

<br>

This Parkinson's group gave the mannequin challenge real power by breaking its rules.

<br>

You remember the mannequin challenge, right?

It was the viral video meme that occupied our time in 2016 between mourning celebrity deaths and googling "Brexit." The premise of the challenge was to stage a scene in which participants held perfectly still while a camera moved around or through them and music (usually the song "Black Beatles") played in the background, creating a mannequin-like visual effect.

Like this. GIF via Maple Ridge Secondary School/YouTube.

Much like the "Harlem Shake" and the ice bucket challenge, the videos became increasingly elaborate and high profile, with everyone from Hillary Clinton to the Dallas Cowboys jumping in on the action.

Of course, holding still for brief periods of time comes more easily to some people than to others.

Which is exactly the point of a new, and very clever, entry to the mannequin challenge.

It comes from Parkinson's NSW, an Australia-based support network for people who have Parkinson's disease. They used the mannequin challenge concept to shine a powerful light on the disease's symptoms and the everyday struggles people with it face.

GIFs via Parkinson's NSW/YouTube.

Parkinson's disease is a nervous system disorder that affects movement and can create tremors in the body. They're small at first but over time can become debilitating — making common, daily tasks nearly impossible to complete.

Since the very premise of the mannequin challenge involves standing perfectly still, something many people with Parkinson's cannot do, the message of the video is clear. "Until there's a cure, life is our challenge," reads the title card at the end of the video.

There is currently no cure for Parkinson's, but scientists believe that finding one is possible through further research.

According to the Parkinson's Disease Foundation, there are currently 1 million Americans living with Parkinson's and approximately 60,000 new cases are diagnosed each year. Research is dependent on funding, and funding is dependent on support and awareness, so using a viral trend is a brilliant idea that might make a real difference.

The ice bucket challenge, silly though it may have seemed at the time, actually did help fund a real breakthrough in finding a cure for ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or Lou Gehrig's disease). Viral trends can be weird and seemingly meaningless, but every once in a while, they can also really make a difference.

Watch the full Parkinson's NSW mannequin challenge video here:

<br>