You Kids and Your Rock n' Roll!

One night as I was sitting on the couch watching T.V. with my mom, a commercial came on featuring a soundtrack with "electronic" type music. "What is this garbage you guys listen to these days?", she said. As I reflected on her comment, I realized that this represented a well-established pattern. The preferred style of music of the current generation is always met with disgust or mockery from the older generation. The music of a generation represents the prevailing attitudes and characteristics of these people - attitudes which are often misunderstood by the older generation, just as the music often is. While the older generation may not enjoy or appreciate the music of their younger counterparts, it's important that these Generation X'ers, Baby Boomers, and beyond, realize that while they may not relate directly to the music itself, they can certainly relate to the feelings and attitudes they had when they were younger. I would argue that despite the radical changes in technology, taste in clothing, music, political environment, and other things, the nature of humanity - our intrinsic wants, needs, and desires - do not change from generation to generation. This idea of a common sense of what it means to be human knows no boundaries, generational or otherwise, and ties all of us together. 

The Silent Generation, born between 1925 and 1945, consisted mostly of people who were too young to partake in WWII, but many had parents or relatives involved in the war. One of the most popular styles of music during the time was swing music, featuring artists like Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman, Glenn Miller, and Count Bassie. Their music focused on the flow of the songs, and was happy and upbeat, which offered an escape from the uncertain times of WWII. 

The Baby Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, were all about personal freedoms. The Civil Rights Movement, the feminist movements of the 1970s, as well as sexual expression and experimentation with drugs were all defining aspects of this generation. Rock and Roll was the music of choice, much of which was highlighted at the Woodstock music festival during the summer of 1969. Jimi Hendrix, Santana, and the Beatles were among the most popular artists of the time. 

Members of Generation X were born between the late 1960s and late 1970s to early 1980s. This generation reflected an increase in diversity, through an increased acceptance of different races, classes, and sexual orientations. Although this generation were referred to as "slackers" at the time, studies have shown that they are now one of the happiest and most educated generations. This group was largely influenced by the rise in popularity of MTV, and enjoyed bands like Pearl Jam, U2, and other "grunge rock" groups. 

Although the official dates are disputed, Generation Y consists of people currently in their "tweens", to people in their late 20's. This generation has grown up in an increasingly globalized world, and because of such, they have become fluent with technology and communication. They emphasize individual expression and acceptance, much of which has come in the way of online video games, social networking sites such as Facebook, and social media sites like YouTube. Generation Y has had a wide range of musical types, from hip hop, to indie rock, and more recently, a shift to electronic dance music, as well as various spin offs such as "dubstep"which features aspects of electronic music with an emphasis on bass and unconventional rhythm. 

When examining the range of musical styles, from Duke Ellington’s swing music, to the electronic and dubstep genre of today’s DJ’s, the extreme difference of musical taste among different generations becomes glaringly apparent. However, as music can be thought of as a reflection of the era in which it is produced, we begin to see how we may not be so different from our parents’, or even or grandparents’ generation before us. Just as the swing music of the Silent Generation was an escape from the horrors of WWII, the electronic music of today gives Generation Y’ers an avenue for expression and escape from the harsh economic circumstances and uncertain futures that many of us face today. Parallels can also be drawn between The Baby Boomers and Generation Y. Many Generation Y’ers today attend events such as Electronic Dance Carnival, and Hard Haunted Mansion, which are electronic and dubstep music festivals that feature large, outdoor stage setups, and involve a widespread usage of drugs – many of the key characteristics of the “Woodstock style” of music culture that defined the Baby Boomer generation. Finally, we have Generation X, which gave rise to the MTV music culture – still a popular network and driving force in today’s youth culture.

So next time your mom harangue’s you for your musical tastes, just remind her that there was probably a time when her parent’s referred to the Beatle’s and other rock n’ roll as “garbage” – something that would be considered preposterous today. 

Legalize the Green to Keep America out of the Red

This past Friday, America's national debt hit $15 trillion. As our government continues to struggle to find ways of reducing this national debt, the issue begs the question: Why have we still not legalized marijuana in America? Although I personally do not use marijuana, I believe that it's legalization will not only help generate revenue for the government, but it would also allow adult citizens a freedom they should have had all along. 

Although the argument for the legalization of marijuana may not be a new one, it still remains as relevant as ever. With an ever-worsening financial situation, America needs to do everything it can to improve it's situation. Marijuana is a drug with a storied past, one full of governmental exaggeration and scare tactics.  What is the government so afraid of? 

As history has repeatedly shown us, banning a certain type of behavior tends to only drive it underground. While there is an obvious need to outlaw some things to maintain a safe and orderly society, marijuana is not one of them. 

As most people now know, weed is a fairly benign drug, one that can be used without fear for withdrawals or risk of an overdose. Furthermore, marijuana has a calming affect on most people - you never hear of criminals going on weed-fueled rampages, or fights among teenagers high at a party - unless alcohol is thrown into the mix. It's a generally accepted claim that individuals under the influence of alcohol are a much greater risk to the people and objects around them than people who are high on marijuana. Additionally, many of the concerns that marijuana use raises, such as the operation of vehicles or machinery under the influence, are issues already present with alcohol. Even the well known "munchie" phenomenon that many people experience while high on marijuana also seems to be evoked by alcohol as well, as I've witnessed many people flock to fast food joints after a hard night of drinking. 

A report by the Cato Institute found that decriminalization of drug use in Portugal has been a huge success, and that drug use rates did not increase under this change in legislation. While decriminalization is not the same thing as legalization, this case study on Portugal offers further support for the fact that America's hardline stance and "War on Drugs"campaign has largely been a waste of money and time - at least in regards to minor marijuana usage and possession charges. Efforts to detain, prosecute, and jail offenders has been a huge time and money sink for an already financially ailing America. The fact that we have the most people behind bars of any country - many for nonviolent drug crimes, is further proof that our current policies are not working. 

With the legalization, regulation, and taxation of weed, we can utilize another tool on our belt in fighting to reduce our national debt, as well restore what should be a personal choice to our citizens. 

For more information regarding the war on drugs and marijuana legalization, the Cato Institute offers a large amount of material and commentary on the subject. 

Cato Institute: Marijuana Legalization in California

Cato Institute: I Smoke Pot, and I Like It 

Cato Institute: The Politics and Science of Medical Marijuana 

The [Nanny] States of America

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

After seeing this quote, I was shocked at how applicable it is to today's society. Although Jefferson lived hundreds of years ago, we now realize how far ahead of his time he was. Simply put, Jefferson was a philosopher-king - the very type of leader that Plato considered to be most adept at leading people. Put metaphorically, Plato described a philosopher-king as a captain of a ship: "A true pilot must of necessity pay attention to the seasons, the heavens, the stars, the winds, and everything proper to the craft if he is really to rule a ship." To Plato, a philosopher-king looked at the "big picture" of things, always re-examining issues from varying perspectives - and always putting the people first. When I look at the people who are in leadership positions in this country today, I see the opposite of what Plato describes. I see a government that exemplifies exactly what Jefferson warned us about.

We have all heard the age-old adage that says you learn best by doing; anything else in inferior. When I reflect on all the lessons that I have learned throughout my lifetime, I realize that the vast majority of them came from the act of actually doing something. Additionally, the best ones have come from trying and failing. To put it plainly, we learn from our mistakes.

In the context of present day American society, the opportunity for citizens to learn by doing has largely been stomped out - due in large part to the rise of what many refer to as "big government."In my opinion, good government should allow people the chance to make their own choices, and then learn from them. Today, there is a growing trend in which regulations, bans, and restrictions rule every aspect of our lives. Obviously, the element of law needs to exist to a certain degree in order to keep society from falling into chaos. However, the American government of today goes above and beyond this. Today, it exists at a level where people aren't even allowed the chance to fail. Rules and regulations constrain behavior to such a degree that citizens are often banned from doing something before they are even given the chance attempt it, and thus, learn from it.

When I was a kid, my friends and I started up a neighborhood business to make some spending money. We emulated the old "lemonade stand" style of businesses, in which people driving by could stop and buy some homemade refreshments and snacks. The first day we didn't do bad, we made a good amount of money, but probably not enough to justify standing outside in the sun all day. With this in mind, I came up with a plan: in addition to selling snacks and drinks, I got the idea to set up a car wash. So as people would stop for a drink or a snack on the way home from work, I would explain that we could wash their car while they sat and ate. After implementing this, our business exploded and we made hundreds of dollars the first day. The food and drinks are what got customers "foot in the door" so to speak. Once we already had them, we would be in a better position to offer them a higher priced service - the car wash, which is where we made our real money. While the first attempt could be seen as a failure, I learned from it and adapted my business model, and found that by offering both snacks and a car wash simultaneously, I could make much more money than by running either aspect of the business alone.

Now, fast forward a decade to 2011. Four-year-old Abigail Krstinger, tried to run a lemonade stand in Iowa, in which she was selling cups for 25 cents each. Before long, the police arrived and shut her down for not having the proper permits to run a business. This isn't an isolated incident either. In Maryland, a group of young children set up a similar neighborhood stand selling beverages, with the plan to donate half of the money made to a non-profit organization that fights pediatric cancer. In this case, police not only shut down the stand, but they fined the parents $400. After reading about this ridiculous war on the childhood tradition of selling lemonade, it made me appreciate the fact that I was able to experience what it was like to run a business of sorts. Additionally, it made me sad that these children were denied a great life lesson, one that I have remembered dearly to this day.

While these stories don't exactly make for front page news, they are an important reflection of the prevailing cultural zeitgeist of our time. Government today exists in such a way that people are often times denied the freedom to take a little risk, in exchange for the hopes of gaining some sort of favorable outcome - be it monetary gain, or more importantly, a fulfilling learning experience. While there are certainly scenarios in which these business permit laws serve their purpose, the cases of these neighborhood lemonade stands are not among them. Law and order today operates in the form of what can essentially be considered a bureaucratic machine; rules are automatically and thoughtlessly enforced uniformly, without regard for special circumstances. While the laws themselves are enacted by various levels of government, the stories of these lemonade stands shed light on the way in which these laws are actually implemented in real life, by real public administrators - in this case, the police. As stated above, while these two occurrences are only a "drop in the pond" so to speak, they are a representation of the greater overarching attitudes of the government today. Furthermore, they serve as testament to the fact that this existing "nanny philosophy" that has been adopted by our government is an outright failure to the American people. We need to wake up and smell the coffee, or in this case, the lemonade, and vote in people who will lead this nation of individuals, not hold them back.

How Not to Lose Friends

At 4:37 in the afternoon, Mike told me that he’s going to take a nap, Sara said she’s watching TV, and John explained how he’s been in the bathroom “for like, ever.”

Now why did I just share these enthralling tales with you? Because they shared them with me. Now, you must be thinking that I have the most boring friends on the planet.

But wait! These people are not my friends, and they did not talk to me.  They thoughtfully provided these fascinating little windows into their lives to not only me, but to their 700 “friends”, via the Facebook news feed.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m all for keeping up with what my friends are doing. But John, I barely even know you, and something tells me that even the people who do, probably don’t care how long you’ve been on the loo either. With the ability to instantly broadcast every detail of our lives over Facebook, it’s important to realize when not to click that ‘share’ button.

Facebook can be a very convenient and efficient way to keep in touch with family and friends – there’s no denying that. However, every social media user can also attest to the fact that, in addition to all the people you love to hear from, there’s also a handful of “friends” that make you roll your eyes every time you see one of their posts pop up on the news feed.

Of all the Facebook offenders, perhaps none are more well known than the person who has to post every single detail of their day online:

Awesome! Kelsea, thank you for sharing that with us, we are all better off for knowing that you practice basic hygiene just like everybody else in the country. But wait; was the water too hot, too cold, or just right? Did you condition or just shampoo this time? Please tell us more!

Next up, we have the “Shameless Self-Promoter and Spammer”. This person posts things like, “Wow, I studied less than John and still managed to beat him by 15%!” Or even, “Got the promotion as expected! What am I going to do with all this extra money?” While people have the right to brag about their achievements when appropriate, this is the person who is constantly filling up your news feed with posts about how awesome he is. This Facebook user may even take it one step further by consistently spamming his friends with invites and links. “Vote for me in the Battle of the Bands survey!” “Check out this link to my photography site.” “Please ‘like’ this page and support my friend’s sister’s former roommate’s new clothing line!” We understand what you are trying to do here, but if you could wait more than 5 seconds between each spam message that’d be great.

Additionally, there’s always someone who managed to successfully graduate from school, yet still can’t seem to use basic grammar and spelling on Facebook:

Daniel, I think you mean “that” instead of “day”, and “passing” instead of “passion.” I bet Whitney would agree with me that you should at least know how to spell “passing” in order to receive a likewise grade in English class.

Another type of post we have all grown to hate is the “Overly-Generalized Sweeping Statement” status update: 

There’s always one person who loves to make posts that are so ridiculously broad and oversimplified that they become downright annoying. Zoey’s post is a perfect example of this. Sometimes it might take a response like the one above to make this person re-examine her own behavior before broadly criticizing an entire gender of people. Touche, Toby.

Finally, we have the “I-don’t-know-the-difference-between-funny-and-inappropriate” poster:

While there are certain things you might not want to post to Facebook, this guy takes it to a whole new level. For obvious reasons, broadcasting the fact that you committed a crime to your 800-plus “friends” online is probably not a good idea. This is the same guy who uploaded pictures to your wall of you projectile-vomiting at last weeks party, even when he knows that Facebook is the main way you keep in contact with your family back home.

Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites have developed into a fantastic way to easily stay connected with all the people in our lives. However, just because we can share everything with everybody, it doesn’t mean that we should. Let the posts discussed above serve as a stern reminder to us all: As social media users, it’s everyone’s duty to think before we click.

The Audacity of Stupidity

Driving drunk? Check. Skirting court-ordered duties? Check. Stealing retail merchandise when you have enough money to buy the entire store? Check.

Despite what her recent absence from the limelight might suggest, it appears that Lindsay Lohan is hell-bent on reminding everyone that she has all the necessary makings of a Hollywood celebrity after all. However, with all the negative publicity she has received, maybe there is something society can learn from her after all: What not to do.

Coming off the heels of an early release from a July 2010 stint in jail – in which she was allegedly in the infirmary every day for “medical treatment”, Lohan continued her insulting display of audacity earlier this week when she was turned away from her community service appointment at the LA County morgue for showing up almost an hour late. The only thing she could do to make her blatant disregard for the law more apparent would be to run for Senatorial office (Charles Rangel, anyone?)

At the ripe old age of 25, “LiLo” has already built quite the resume of breaking the law, and then arrogantly attempting to escape the consequences of her actions. Prior to her mandated work assignment at the morgue, Judge Sautner stated that Lohan had intentionally skipped hundreds of hours of community service at a downtown women’s shelter.

Lohan’s actions are not only an insult to the average law abiding citizen, they are an insult to all those who are struggling to make ends meet in this economic downturn. Lindsay, how do you make tens of millions of dollars, and then only a few years later, wind up in a situation where you need to steal store merchandise? Although, we really shouldn’t be too judgmental here: with all the news of financial bailouts being handed out like candy, maybe Lohan just expected one too?

While all of this banter regarding the actions of one young actress may seem like simple bullying, it’s really just a convenient exemplification of what’s wrong with the political and financial institutions of today. Some of the broader phrases tossed around are, an absence of accountability, fiscal irresponsibility, and a general lack of prudence in regards to providing for the future.

While much of this may be beyond the perceptive scope of children and teens, the life and actions of Lindsay Lohan certainly are not. As the saying goes, “a child’s brain is like a sponge.” Do we really want our younger generation absorbing what Lindsay has to offer?

So what exactly can be done? Society must stop empowering her, as well as other public figures that set poor examples. In the case of Lindsay Lohan, there appears to be a step in the right direction, as Hollywood’s infatuation with her seems to have dwindled as of late. However, the media’s obsession with incessantly covering celebrity scandals offers us some assurance that the “plights” (and I use that word loosely) of Ms. Lohan, along with those of many other celebrities, will continue to be rammed down our throats indefinitely.

So with this in mind, we must change the way that we perceive these people. Lohan can be thought of as some sort of anti-role model, a case study in how not to act. Although human society in general has historically put a lot of emphasis on the importance of good role models, there seems to be a lack of understanding in regards to how visible examples of what not to do can be just as beneficial. Remember how Flick gets his tongue stuck on a frozen pole after being “triple dog dared” by Schwartz in the movie A Christmas Story? Had my mom warned me against pulling such a stunt, I probably would have gone out and tried it the next day. However, simply the sight of this scene alone made a younger version of myself solemnly swear never to follow suit.

Orange County Register Op-Eds

"Drunken Driving Bill Goes Too Far"

- Op-ed is opposed to Assembly Bill 2784, which would force California judges to punish "both drivers charged with driving just a sip over the limit with the same sentence given hard-core offenders: vehicle-ignition interlocks."

"Government Intrusion Into Broadband Hasn't Worked"

- Op-ed is opposed to a government stimulus plan that will help underserved / unserved areas in America develop broadband internet. 

Google World

In the years before the internet, people were usually forced to consult separate, unrelated sources in their quest for information: Newspapers, television stations, academic books and essays for a research paper, etc. Today, with the advent of the Internet, the search engine has seemingly replaced the need to utilize other avenues of information.

In 2007, a group of Austrian researchers stated that many people tend to think of Google as a “reality interface.”

The report found that journalism today is increasingly a direct result of a “googlisation of reality.” It stated that 94.8% of Austrian journalists begin research for stories on Google, and 60% used it “continuously.” The researchers state that this data is applicable to most countries world-wide, with some exceptions, such as South Korea.

This raises some concerns about how much influence large search engines, namely Google, have on the distribution of information throughout the world. “Google has become the main interface for our whole reality…with the Google interface, the user gets the impression that the search results imply a kind of totality. In fact, one only sees a small part of what one could see if one also integrates other research tools.”

The Austrian study raises some important concerns in regards to our reliance on search engines. In order to get a more balanced perspective, it’s critical that people try to utilize other sources and methods of research, and to understand that Google should not be considered the “be-all, end-all” information authority.

A New World Order

After the attacks on the World Trade Center towers, the Patriot Act was implemented with the obvious goal of protecting the country from future threats – most notably through the implementation of increased governmental cyber security and surveillance powers. With the passing of this legislation, many became much more aware of how their rights are affected by the common need for national security. While this exemplifies the age-old private versus public interest debate, it is not as simple as black and white. A multitude of critics have rallied against the push for increased governmental cyber security – many of whom propose some form of the question, “are the rights of our citizens worth sacrificing in order to gain more security?” It appears to me that this is the wrong question to ask. There is no strict dichotomy between personal liberties and national security. Both can exist simultaneously in differing capacities; it’s a matter of knowing when to shift the balance in either direction. I believe that the issue society should really be examining is where this “point of compromise” needs to lie. It’s no secret that in the era when the Constitution was drafted, America existed in a much different world. With the advent of computers and modern technology, information is now transferred instantaneously. Many people still view their rights in the context of how they existed over 200 years ago. It’s crucial that society understand how the relationship between personal rights and national security has changed in the face of an increasingly technologically advanced and globalized society. Furthermore, it is up to the general public to utilize this technology to take an active role in supporting the policies they feel are righteous, and to fight back when they deem that dissent is necessary.

The Patriot Act greatly broadened and strengthened many of the surveillance powers available to the American government, most notably their “cyber-surveillance” powers – the ability of law enforcement to conduct surveillance through the use of modern technology. Although some of the powers discussed or referred to have been altered or nullified since their inception, they are still relevant for analysis because they were legal at some point in the very recent past.

One of the more controversial powers expanded under the Patriot Act is the ability of law enforcement to ask a judge for permission to secretly conduct a search on an individual’s personal property, and to delay indefinitely, notification to him or her that a search was even carried out (MacDonald.) Also known as “sneak and peek” warrants, these can be used by law enforcement investigating any type of federal crime, including misdemeanors. Before the policy changes, this type of warrant could only be used for a short time span and under very specific conditions, such as when a person’s life was in direct and immediate danger (Stambaugh). Now, delayed notice warrants can be used in any situation in which there is a risk of interference with an investigation (Stambaugh). Many critics make the argument that the nature of sneak and peek warrants are the very exemplification of what the Constitution defines as an “unreasonable search”, especially since they can be used in cases of lowly misdemeanor violations.

            The previous discussion on sneak and peek warrants serves as a sort of a “micro view” or case study to represent the way most people currently view the larger theme of governmental cyber-surveillance powers. In other words, most of the people currently analyzing these powers do so by relating them to the United States Constitution – a document created over two hundred years ago. While this view is important and certainly has its merits, it’s equally valuable to examine these surveillance powers from a new perspective: the way in which technology complicates and changes the issue. This is something that the founding fathers of America couldn’t have accounted for in their drafting of the Constitution – which is why it’s critical to understand the limitations of examining the surveillance powers only in terms of their constitutionality.

Modern technology and computers have brought about the era of instantaneous information transfer. From the ability of computer hackers to send out viruses that can take over control of thousands of other machines, to the power of spy satellites that can read the print off of an open phonebook from over one hundred miles in the sky – technology such as these have “changed the game” so to speak. It’s essential that society understand that our rights and liberties exist in this modern context. While it is impossible to know exactly how every personal freedom must be adapted to fit every situation, it’s helpful to look at some specific scenarios.

Take for example, two provisions granted / enhanced upon under Patriot Act legislation: national security letters (NSLs), and the expanded scope of information that can be obtained with subpoenas. A national security letter is used to obtain certain information from a person or entity – without requiring that the subject be a suspect in any criminal investigation. Additionally, the usage of an NSL does not require the demonstration of probable cause, nor is it subject to judicial oversight (Dept. of Justice, sec 505). As for the change to subpoenas, they can now be used to retrieve the following information from Internet and phone service providers: the person or entity’s name, address, billing records, phone number, IP address, and payment methods, such as credit card or bank account numbers (Dept. of Justice, sec 210). Additionally, these service providers can voluntarily give this information to law enforcement if they have reason to believe that there is a risk of bodily injury or death. Now, if an examination were to be conducted on NSLs and the adjusted subpoena powers using the “common” or “old” perspective, through an analysis of their constitutionality, many flaws would arise. For NSLs, it’s understandable to see how the lack of suspect status, probable cause, and judicial oversight could form the foundation for a strong argument that this power is in violation of America’s founding principles. Similarly, it’s not unreasonable to recognize how the new subpoena guidelines could be a target for criticism.

However, when analyzed in relation to the way in which technology plays a role in the issue, a case could be made for both the usage of NSLs and broadened subpoena powers. Take for example, a computer hacker who is using malware to gain access to sensitive information in a CIA database. He is a first time offender and isn’t currently a suspect in any criminal investigation. By the time the authorities work their way through all the bureaucratic red tape of seeking approval for a warrant, getting a probable cause hearing, and possibly even getting judicial restrictions placed on it, all trace of the hacker could be lost. However, the usage of a national security letter expedites the process and gives law enforcement the immediate discretionary power necessary to conduct surveillance on him. Furthermore, the broadened subpoena powers could be utilized to access information from the Internet service provider that is crucial to apprehending him, such as his IP address and personal information. As demonstrated above, a critical analysis of the NSL and subpoena power from both of the different “perspectives” yield two different results.

This highlights the need for society to examine government cyber security and surveillance powers from both angles, and then determine where on the continuum between constitutional rights and national security a “point of compromise” can be found, depending on the situation. It will not always be practical or appropriate for the judicial system to carry out this critical analysis in every situation, which is why it is so important for the general public to play a role in acting as “watch dog” of the executive branch in every case possible.

 Also essential to the debate on cyber security and surveillance powers is how they will fit into the future of a technologically globalized society. Jo Bavisi, president and co-founder of the International Council of E-Commerce Consultants (EC-Council) claims that “as our national and global economies become ever more intertwined with the Internet”, America’s biggest national security threat will be attacks from cyberspace (Bavisi). In August 2011 alone, there was an attack on San Francisco’s Bay Area Transit system, a hacker who released the personal information of hundreds of thousands of users from the Seiko Epson Corporation database, and an attack on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange that suspended the trading of several major companies for over two days (Hoffman.) These cyber attacks made on San Francisco’s transportation infrastructure and on Hong Kong’s financial institutions demonstrate the importance of implementing Bavisi’s recommendations, such as the creation of an Office of Cyberspace Policy, and the need to give our president emergency powers to protect the nation’s systems in case of a major security breach. However, he also emphasizes the need for limitations to keep these executive powers in check, such as, Congressional notification, time constraints, and the assurance that the president will not have a “kill switch” to shut off American Internet services.

A related issue is that of “political hacktivists” – a term coined for people who use hacking as a means to a political end. In recent months, there was an attack on the Syrian Ministry of Defense website that posted a video of Syrian protesters being killed by the military, and a claim that the regime should be tried for treason (Hoffman.) Additionally, there was a breach in the database of American defense contractor Vanguard Defense Industries, in which a hacker released a multitude of confidential counter-terrorism documents (Hoffman.) Just as people have protested the actions of their governments for thousands of years, the same is being done now, but under the veil of Internet anonymity. This raises serious concerns in regard to governmental surveillance powers and their role in national security. In decades past, it would take a large, organized uprising to be able to put up any sort of real opposition to a major government. Now, a teenage kid with an affinity for computer hacking anywhere in the world could potentially shut down major electronic systems in America. Again, the tug-of-war between personal rights and national security presents itself, but in a modernized way. While Bavisi’s suggestions appear to be an effective way to mitigate the detrimental effects of these actions, it’s important to keep in mind that political hacktivism does have it’s place in modern society as a sort of governmental “watch dog”, such as in the scenario where hackers exposed the murder of Syrian protesters. Some of Bavisi’s limitations, such as the recommendation that no one – not even the president – be given the ability to “shut down” the Internet, are absolutely critical. They work double duty as both a check on the executive branch, and also as a way to offer some assurance that the helpful, or “good” kind of political hacktivism still has a chance to reach the ears of those who will listen.

In the world of cyber security, the term “black-hat” hacker is used to refer to someone who hacks for an illegal or “bad” purpose, usually for some sort of personal gain. “White-hat” hacker is a person who uses their skill set for “good”, which often means hacking with the intent of revealing the current exploits, loopholes, or areas of vulnerability of a system in order to warn the owners or users of that system (Jackson.) Shawn McCarthy, leading cyber security expert and founder of the U.S. Government IT Infrastructure Program, has been a major proponent of “using hackers to catch hackers” (McCarthy.) “Cyber Challenge” events have been held in America and China for several years, in which white-hat hackers use their hacking skills to discover the latest weaknesses and exploits, as well as make recommendations on how to fix them (McCarthy.) This is probably one of the most promising methods of increasing security in cyberspace. Utilizing people with existing hacking expertise to combat the black-hats who create the malware is intrinsically effective – it’s essentially “fighting fire with fire.” Using hackers to catch hackers also decentralizes the power and responsibility. Rather than having a single agency attempt to do this, thousands of individuals take on bits and pieces of the task, all the while giving hackers who might otherwise have become black-hats an incentive to stay on the “good side.” Additionally, this decentralizing of power reduces the need for checks and balances that a single government bureau might require.

As an exercise in caution, many in the industry look towards China as an example of what can happen if governmental cyber security and surveillance go too far. Several years ago, China launched the “Golden Shield Project”, with one of the main purposes being the strict surveillance of Internet usage, as well as censorship of any Internet content that is deemed to be in opposition of the regime’s ideals, including pornography, certain news sources, and many religious sites (OpenNet Initiative.) While this is an obvious and blatant suppression of human rights, it serves as an essential case study in government security. However, one of the more interesting observations is the way in which the people of China have fought back. Many have discovered loopholes in the system, including the use of proxy servers outside the country to access blocked sites. Additionally, many programs have been created that allow users to bypass China’s firewall, such as Ultrasurf, which was created by Silicon Valley’s Ultrareach Internet Corporation (Ultrasurf.us.) The implications of China’s attempt to monitor and censor Internet activity in the country are far-reaching. This issue demonstrates that when a government’s policies err too far on the side of national security, a kind of “market correction” will occur – meaning that the general public will restore the balance between personal rights and security. In other words, the more resourceful and independent thinkers of a population will find a way to get the rights they deserve through the circumvention of over-zealous policies.

The arrival of modern technology has changed the way personal liberties and national security interact with each other. In order for progress to happen, people must realize how their rights have evolved in response to this technological advancement. The Internet has forced us to think not only in terms of American society, but also in the context of an increasingly globalized community. It is the duty of the people to play the role of governmental “watch dog”, and to employ the use of technology to advocate for policies that work, and to fight back when they deem that dissent is necessary. 

Bibliography

Bavisi, Jay. “Biggest National Security Threat: Cyber Attack.” Fox Business.

            (2010).

Dept. of Justice. “Text of the Patriot Act.” Department of Justice Website. United

            States Federal Government.

Hoffman, Stefanie. “10 Biggest Cyber Attacks in August.” CRN Technology

            News. (2011).

MacDonald, Heather. “The Patriot Act is No Slippery Slope.” City Journal. (2005)

McCarthy, Shawn P. “10 Big Issues for Cybersecurity Czar Schmidt.” IDC

            Government Insights. (2009).

Jackson, Kelly. “A Call to Disarm Black Hat Hackers in China.” Dark Reading:

            Security. (2011).

OpenNet Initiative. “China Including Hong Kong.” OpenNet Initiative. (2009).

Stambaugh, J.J. “Sneak and Peek Warrants Debated.” Knox News. (2007)

Ultrareach Internet Corporation. “Ultrasurf: Privacy, Security, Freedom.”

            Ultrareach Internet Corporation. (2011)

Internet English

We all know that language is constantly changing; always a reflection of the attitudes and culture of the  people people using it. In my opinion, technology has had more of an impact on the English language than just about any other factor. First, text messaging began to gain prevalence as the major form of communication among younger people. This popularized a more short-hand usage of English, with many people beginning to move away from many of the grammatical nuances of the past. And now, social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter are building off that movement and changing the way people think about language in an even bigger way.

In the past, cultural shifts and movements spurred a slow but steady change in the way people used English. However, because of their instantaneous nature, social media sites seem to have a way of morphing the English language at an exponentially faster rate.

While we may not yet know exactly what kind of changes these will be, it is apparent that social media sites have utilized language primarily as a tool for real-time communication with others in an efficient, short-hand manner.

The main effect I've witnessed is the creation of an endless number of what I like to think of as "English sub-languages" - with each one tailor-made by the group of people using it. Even in my own group of friends, we have created new words, new meanings for existing words, and new phrases - all through the usage of Facebook. Additionally, changes like this are occurring very quickly and consistently. After looking at some of my old Facebook posts and messages, I've realized that the way in which my friends and I speak to each other has evolved dramatically, even over the short period of only a few years.

Social media sites have been in existence for a only a short period of time, yet they have been changing the way in which people use language. It will be interesting to see what kinds of implications these sub-languages will bring about for the future of the English language.

Nobody Cares!

With over 700 million users on Facebook, people are sharing more than ever. We have all seen how sharing with social media can be a good thing; finding out that your little cousin hit a home run in his first game, getting updates about your uncle's vacation through Europe, or simply keeping in touch with that friend from high school who moved away for college. Facebook allows users to  broadcast information to their entire friends lists at the click of a button. However, with this massive power to share comes the responsibility of knowing what to share.

With Facebook's "news feed" feature, and some of the more recently implemented changes such as the real-time update ticker, everyone knows what's going on with everybody else - instantly. It's easy to see how this can lead to information overload, especially when you get status updates like this scrolling through your news feed:

Fantastic! How was the shower? Was the water too hot, too cold, or just right? Did you condition or just shampoo this time? Kelsea, PLEASE tell us more!

We've seen it all before: "Sarah is laying down", "Mark is eating a sandwich", "John is tired." When I see status updates like this, I usually think to myself, "Who @#%*ing cares!? Quit clogging my news feed so I can pay attention to things I actually care about."

Another type of post I've grown to hate is the obligatory "Overly-Generalized Sweeping Statement" status update:

 There's always one person who loves to post updates that are so ridiculously broad and generalizing that they become down right annoying. The above post is a perfect example of this. Sometimes statements like these remind us to re-examine our own behavior before we broadly criticize an entire group of people. Touche, Toby.

Finally, there's the "Bragging-About-Committing-Illegal-Activities" post: 

While there's many things people post on Facebook that are an inconvenience or are annoying to others, some can have much more serious consequences. For obvious reasons, broadcasting the fact that you just stole property to your 792 friends on Facebook is probably not a good idea. 

Let these Facebook posts be a lesson to us all. Before you share something on Facebook, or any social media website, make sure your post will not have any negative consequences for you, legal or otherwise. Secondly, ask yourself if people will even care about your status update. No one needs to know that you just used the toilet. If your post passes this test, then share away! As social media users, its everyone's duty to think before we click. 

Counterterrorism or religious profiling?

I recently read an article on Wired about a new training technique the FBI is now using that informs agents on how religion relates to a person's propensity for violent terrorist activity.

The FBI is teaching its counterterrorism agents that “main stream” [sic] American Muslims are likely to    be terrorist sympathizers; that the Prophet Mohammed was a “cult leader”; and that the Islamic practice of giving charity is no more than a “funding mechanism for combat.” - Wired

In one seminar the FBI presented a graph demonstrating how Christianity, Judaism, and Islam relate to an individual's inclination towards violence. 

As you can clearly see in the chart above, as time goes on, the followers of Judaism and Christianity have become less-violent. The opposite is shown for followers of Islam, with a line showing that they are just as violent as they were 1400 years ago.

The implications of this type of "training technique" are obvious. Stating that devout, mainstream Muslims are more violent than their Jewish and Christian counterparts is controversial enough, yet attempting to quantify that claim through the use of a graph takes it even further.

It seems that the FBI is treading on very shaky legal ground with this new campaign, whether or not it it will be challenged in court is yet to be seen.

Legality aside, is this a legitimate training technique used by the FBI or is it morally reprehensible religious stereotyping?

The Singularity

            As technology has developed and expanded over the years, humans have gained an incredible amount of power and control over their world. While each successive generation has grown increasingly more obsessive in their pursuit of technological advancement, an urgent concern at the very heart of the matter has gone largely ignored: how will such advanced technology change what it means to be human? According to Ray Kurzweil, the line between human and machine will continue to blur, until the dichotomy between the two no longer exists in any meaningful way. As we experience this exponential growth in scientific knowledge, it’s absolutely paramount that society remains cognizant of the gargantuan implications that this accelerated progress brings with it. In order to fully understand the future of humanity, society looks to Ray Kurzweil, a leader who fulfills his duty as a public intellectual through active research and his grassroots movement to inform the masses.

            A renowned engineer, author, and futurist, Kurzweil stands at the forefront of this scientific frontier. Among his inventions are the first text-to-speech synthesizer, the first commercially available large-vocabulary speech recognition software, and the CCD flatbed scanner. Kurzweil has written six books on the future of technology and is the recipient of many honors from within the scientific community, including the MIT-Lemelson Prize and the National Medal of Technology.

            Kurzweil is arguably the world’s leading authority on the future of science and technology, and it’s affects on the future of human existence. However, what really makes him stand out from others in the field is not only his level of expertise on the subject – but more importantly, what he does with that expertise. Unlike the majority of the lab-coated experts surreptitiously conducting research behind closed doors, Kurzweil is an outspoken visionary, always making his work available through books, television, the Internet, and other various forms of media.

            In “The Decline of the Public Intellectual”, Stephen Mack’s discourse on America’s perceived anti-intellectualism draws parallels to the breed of public intellectual that best describes Ray Kurzweil, “…what is sometimes identified as anti-intellectualism is in fact intellectual – that is, a well articulated family of ideas and arguments that privilege the practical, active side of life (e.g., work) over the passive and purely reflective operations of the mind in a vacuum.” This quote essentially embodies the way in which Kurzweil fulfills his duty as a public intellectual. Rather than bestowing high-brow intellectual snobbery on the masses below the ivory tower, Kurzweil opts for maintaining a more direct and free-flowing discussion of his work with the public. He stands as evidence that intellectualism in America is thriving, although it may stand in opposition the “passive and purely reflective” type mentioned above.

            A perfect example of this is Kurzweil’s website, Kurzweilai.net, in which he hosts a question and answer section which he frequently responds to. One post of his was in response to a question about the Turing test, a test that essentially measures how close a computer is to matching human intelligence. Kurzweil states that if a machine were to pass a “truly valid Turing test…you are unable to tell the difference between this entity and a human, without being told. I believe that people – including you, will then accept these entities as human." He goes on to say that there will most likely be a machine that will be able to pass this test around 2029. If this occurs, the implications for human existence as we know it will be huge. Kurzweil explains that at this milestone, the difference between man and machine will really begin to blur. 

            Kurzweil is well known for his contribution to the discussion of the technological singularity, or the point at which the intelligence of computers will surpass that of humans. He has predicted that this will occur sometime in the mid-2040s. There are many ways in which this could occur; artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, or boosting the brain through biological means. At this point, man and machine start to merge. This begs the question that, if humans begin to augment their intellectual capabilities through technology, then how do we classify an entity as human or machine? Or would there be a new category for enhanced individuals? The answers to these questions are important ones, because they will determine major issues, such as who gets certain types of rights and protections in society. Answers to these questions may not yet exist, but they will certainly be relevant in the future.  

With technology available to greatly enhance one’s intelligence, will the gap between the wealthy and the poor continue to grow, or will it level the playing field? The argument could be made that the wealthy elite would have greater resources – financial and otherwise, to augment their intellectual faculties to a greater degree than those who are less privileged, thus perpetuating the status quo (and possibly to an even larger extent). Kurzweil claims the opposite: “These are deeply democratizing technologies. These exponentially growing information technologies will provide access to clean water, to very inexpensive clean energy, and abundant healthy food through new nanotechnology-based capabilities. They also lead to greater wealth throughout the world. These trends are already well underway." Although there is no way of knowing if this will prove to be true, it’s important to note that Kurzweil seems to be analyzing this issue with a narrow scope. While information technology like the Internet may have a wealth-spreading effect, it’s extremely difficult to understand how effects like this would scale up to a world in which intelligence would exist at a level that is billions of times more powerful than is currently possible. 

Kurzweil believes that technology will make biological humans obsolete, but not the human consciousness. He continues to say that initially we will only use it to augment our intelligence, but eventually, it will allow us to immortalize ourselves by essentially transferring the human consciousness onto a non-biological entity. In the question and answer section of his website, Kurzweil explains to a reader how he sees the human role after the Singularity: “We are capable of transcendence, and in doing so we create new knowledge... In that regard we are continuing the process that evolution began. These machines will do the same thing…In that regard we are creating machines in our own image. You continue to talk about these machines as if they were a race apart. But they are already an integral part of our human-machine civilization."

Kurzweil makes an important observation: he realizes that in such a short amount of time, computers have woven themselves very deeply into our everyday lives. This makes it easier to understand his line of reasoning for predicting such an explosion in technological advancement. Society will only become more and more reliant on technology, so in a sense, one can at least appreciate the logic that Kurzweil uses to predict that humans and technology will merge together at some point in the future.

Whether Kurzweil’s ambitious predictions prove to be correct or not, his research and constant dialogue with the public on the issues that concern him make him stand out as a visionary public intellectual in the field of science and technology. Furthermore, the validity of his claims are somewhat irrelevant in the sense that, at the very least, he has urged the public to critically think about their reliance on technology, and the future role of technology in human society.

            While it’s intrinsically difficult for humans to comprehend such a future, it is apparent that many moral and philosophical issues will need to be balanced among a variety of competing interests if society hopes to achieve a harmonious Singularity. Besides attempting to determine the validity of Kurzweil’s statements, other important issues are at stake. If his predictions prove to be true, would that be a world in which we would even want to live? Is society willing to redefine the way they think about human existence in order to live longer? Furthermore, how much of ‘the human condition’ will we retain if biology combines with technology? Now, more than ever, people need to seriously contemplate if we are heading in the right direction, or whether humanity may be getting “too smart for it’s own good.”