NSA Articles

A source told me that I had to post three articles on the NSA Scandal on my blog before tomorrow. Here they are:

This first article is by Stephanie Condon of CBS News, offering insight into the legality of the NSA Surveillance: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lawmakers-question-legal-basis-for-nsa-surveillance/

The second is from Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker, and was released when the scandal was still relatively new. It focuses on the villianous status of whistleblower Edward Snowden: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/06/edward-snowden-nsa-leaker-is-no-hero.html

The third and final article I have for you today is Martha Moore's of USA Today, focusing on President Obama's relations with the NSA breach of German Chancellor Merkel's privacy. Check it out: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/27/rogers-house-intelligence-chief-nsa-europe/3282161/

EDIT: I'm learning now that I am to respond to one of my articles. I feel like my breath would best be spent responding to the New Yorker article, entitled "Edward Snowden is No Hero," by Jeffrey Toobin. Honestly, I feel that this article is poorly written, as it offers much content which Snowden used to support his actions, while only providing weak counters and a rushed conclusion. But where the article lacks in content, it raises multiple unanswered questions I feel obligated to respond to.

As I understand it, the Supreme Court has yet to investigate the actions taken by the NSA. Because of this, we must assume that everything that the NSA has done is considered legal, in the same way that criminal defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty. That assumption makes Snowden a criminal. 

I typically don't think of criminals as heroes. If they're a criminal, then they're a criminal. Call me blind to the greater truth, but I like to be as simple-minded as possible in complicated matters. If, we come to the time where the United States government evolves to the point where Snowden doesn't have a price on his head anymore (reminiscent of Mandela '94) then I'm willing to change my opinions.

But it's never going to get to that point. A discussion with my classmates and national surveys reveal the same thing. Most people don't care if they're being "watched." Personally, the only thing that I find wrong with the scandal is that the NSA was investigating domestic problems, a job which is strictly reserved for the FBI. But as far as the actual snooping goes, I really couldn't care less. In a world where the actions of one can make a bigger impact than ever before, I believe the prominence of a guarding eye is "necessary," if only for the protection of its citizens. Of course, we don't want a 1984 on our hands. But I don't think we can handle another 9/11 either.

Spygate

Cheating has always been about finding an advantage. From the classroom, to the home, to the workplace, cheating is a plague which has immersed itself into our culture from every angle. Call it human nature, or primal temptation, but the truth is that cheating is still frowned upon, today more than ever, which is why whenever a huge cheating scandal surfaces, it commands the media's attention. No scandal has been more prevalent in recent history than the Bill Belichick "Spygate" incident, which arose in 2007 but still haunts the New England Patriots coach to this day.

As captured in a stream of articles on boston.com, the Belichick scandal received heavy media attention, especially because of the Patriots' incredible successes both on and off the field during this time. In short, Belichick was found guilty of spying on opposing teams' practices and recording their signals such that he can out-predict the opposing playbook on game day and dominate the opposition. Belichick was caught, and was fined $500,000 by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, the largest fine handed to a single individual in the history of the league. 

This scandal, like all major scandals, bled its way into many major areas in American culture in the following months, even those which typically express no genuine interest in the gridiron. I personally remember the incident today not for the actual media attention it received, but for the episode of South Park in which Eric Cartman acts as a mentor for school children, explaining that they will only be able to get ahead if they learn how to cheat properly, like Bill Belichick. 

Even though the show is only satire, writers Trey Parker and Matt Stone do bring up a valid point. Despite the scrutiny, Bill Belichick is much better off having cheated. He is currently the head coach of one of the most successful teams in the history of the league. Despite the massive fine which he had to pay, Belichick is still making massive "moolah" every year, topping the league in salary with $7.5 million per year. He is still praised as one of the greatest NFL coaches of his generation, marked for his ability to take a historically pitiful team and lead them to 5 Super Bowls in 11 seasons. But was it all a hoax? Recent reports, while quite preemptive, claim that Belichick is cheating again, and that he never actually stopped his unorthodox "advantage strengthening" methods. Is the phrase "once a cheater, always a cheater" appropriate in this respect? Even more importantly, when surrounded by the fame and money which comes with being a successful head coach, does Belichick really lose sleep about his questionable integrity?

App-ocalypse

Recently, we took our calendars and turned the last page to December, which to many symbolizes the holiday season, festivities and general cheer.

But as I turned my Healthy Cat calendar away from November and into December, I was predominantly reminded of the fact that my days to submit college apps are dwindling fast. 

For me, as it does with many kids, the collegiate application is associated with heavy eyelids and infinitesimally small attention spans. I am currently sitting at a halfway point of sorts, 5 apps down, 5 apps to go, but I am not looking forward to these next five at all. 

Not because it means more essays to write. Not because the Common App is a technological monstrosity.

Because the recommendation process is a nightmare. Let me tell you why.

Here I am on November 30, finalizing my Stanford Application before I click the "Submit" button which has been staring me in the face for the past 2 weeks. The regular app is due on New Year's Day, but if you wish to include an arts supplement, (like myself,) you need to be done a month early. 

After countless hours of Thanksgiving break spent slaving away trying to get essays to fit the word-count, I am finally ready to submit. But there's one problem. Not all of my recommenders have submitted their teacher evaluations.

I have spent the entire break constantly checking into the Common App webpage, just observing my teachers' progress and hoping that I won't have to remind them directly. As the days creep closer to the 30th, I witness the number of teachers left dwindle to 2, and then to 1. 

But as my mouse hovers over the submit button, there is still a big, cardinal red "1" preventing me from taking further action. And now I am left with a dilemma.

How do you press a charitable act? One one hand, I am dealing with a teacher who deserves the utmost respect and patience. Besides, the evaluation is entirely charitable, done out of the goodness of one's heart! On the other, my potential future is hanging in the balance, and the water cannot be left murky any longer. I have sent reminders throughout the entire week. I have been met with only positive responses. But I still lack a green check on all portions of the application.

I spend the next couple hours in a deadlock, completely unsure of how to proceed. All it would take is a simple call to ensure that everything is all right, but how do you make this call (to somebody who you need to think WELL of you) and not seem annoying? I'm pretty sure that if my mom hadn't been present, I never would have picked up the phone. But fate ran another course as my fingers proceeded through the dial tones.

Ring Ring. Ring Ring. 

"Hello?" 

"Hi, is this Mr. _______?"

"Yes, I'm working on it as we speak."

"Thanks. Bye."

Click.

Definitely the most awkward conversation in my life.

In hindsight, it's easy to wish I hadn't bothered, and just trusted the trustworthy. But to be passive is to be overlooked. I'm glad I called, as gut-wrenching as the conversation may have been. My application would have looked the same, either way. But my actions have served as a beacon of light, into the cauldron of darkness that is the college app.

I'm Suspicious About Suspicion

Mistrust is part of what makes us human. In comparison to the rest of the animal kingdom, we are an incredibly selfish species, which explains a lot about us. It explains how there is such a disparity between the upper and lower classes, not to mention the disparity between the "developed" and "undeveloped" countries. Our selfish nature is the basis for why there is so much mistrust in the world.

But this is not an entirely bad thing. "Mistrust" is just a harsher form of the word "caution."

One could say that mistrust is perhaps even beneficial in many different spheres. Just look at areas today where a lack of trust is most prevalent:

• Family Relationships between children and parents
• Food Preparation
• National security, especially at airports and events
• The N.S.A.

All of these areas are absolutely dominated by a lack of trust. But imagine if we injected more trust into any of these areas. We would have another generation gap similar to that of the 1950's, food that is sickening more people every day, and a much higher prevalence of terrorism, both domestic and international. 

So who is the ultimate benefactor of a lack of mistrust? Us. The measures we adopt that are considered untrustworthy are for our own protection, present and future. Mistrust is nothing more than an evolutionary trait we adapted over millennia for our own self-preservation. Yes, we can point our fingers at who is affected by today's lack of trust. But should that caution ever be removed, we would quickly run out of fingers to point. 

The Great Lie at Troy

Everybody knows the story of the Trojan Horse. If you didn't read about it in Homer's Iliad, chances are you heard about it anyway from a different Homer: Homer Simpson, who reenacted the timeless tale of the Trojan War in The Simpsons' season thirteen episode "Tales From the Public Domain."

While we have found the remnants of the ancient city of Troy, and there probably was a war there at some point, chances are that the Trojan Horse story was just a myth. That's a real shame, too, because it is one of the best records of deceit humankind has ever produced. 

If we have learned anything from the lies made at Troy, it is that words (especially lies) are more powerful than swords. The Trojans, with superior infrastructure and weaponry, met their demise because they were thoroughly outsmarted by the Greeks. 

And then you realize, lies are just methods of outsmarting your colleague. In order to make a successful lie, one must first consider the intellect of the intended recipient and come up with a false statement which they believe as true. One can only be able to do this if they are able to predict their recipient's response. 

Lying has been around for millenia. It is a part of what makes us human. Lying helps bend the rules, making otherwise unbeatable battles winnable. It is, in its own way, a weapon of mass destruction. 

The Generalization

It's the great generalization...

Now, I'm not talking about how women are considered to be worse at math, that's an inconsiderate topic to rant about for another day. No, the reason I post this picture is that there are two major faults on display.

The first is the obvious: that women are more often generalized through specific example than men are. There are arguments out there that women cannot apply mathematics, organize businesses, or compete in sporting events as well as men can. Sure, statisticians can flash some graphs, but the truth is that factual or not these claims are not fair. Yes, males tend to score higher than females on standardized math tests such as the SAT Mathematics. And it may be that there are more male executives than female in the corporate world. And it cannot be disputed that chances are, if you're watching sports on television, it's going to be men, men, men.

But those figures, while accurate, cannot be used as justification for the generalization of over half of the world's population.

The piece of this image which is perhaps the most shocking is something that initially is perceived as too obvious to mention: the person who says that "girls suck at math" is male. Had the picture featured two girls, it only would have been "you suck at math." But the point I'm trying to stress is that if it the roles were swapped, and it was the girl correcting the boy, it STILL would have been "you suck at math."

I guess what I'm trying to say is that for whatever reason, one which probably stems from the patriarchy which has governed gender culture since time immemorial, the female population has been generalized under all-encompassing umbrellas much more often than the male. These generalizations are not fair. In all three cases which I displayed, there are huge exceptions. There are women who kick butt at calculus. There are women who dominate the workplace. And there are women who scrape up competition in a stadium. 

Umbrellas that society places on women are unfair and unnecesarry. It's not even a rainy day.

Hell

Hell.

We all may not believe in an afterlife, but we all have a hell. The place we envision as the epicenter of all things terrible. The compilation of all tortures, all horrors, which the damned are forced to experience for the sins they committed in their life.

But my interpretation of Hell is quite the opposite.

It's nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

To me, there is no devil, no inferno, no brimstone. Moreover, there is nothing to see, nothing to hear, nothing to taste, smell or feel. There is no anything. Absolutely nothing.

For those who grew up as children at the turn of the century, I liken my version of Hell to the Spongebob Squarepants episode "SB-129" in which Squidward breaks a time machine and falls into some kind of purgatory. There was nothing to be seen, nothing to experience, nothing to stimulate the senses. While Squidward was attempting to find a place where he could be alone, he came to realize that absolute solitude was something he feared the most.

But while Squidward was able to escape, the subjects of my Hell are damned to "live" in this place for all eternity.

It is well documented that sensory deprivation is one of the harshest forms of torture. Controversial experiments in the 1950's revealed that with nothing to stimulate any of the senses, a perfectly normal person can fall into insanity in just a number of days.  

The subjects of my version of Hell are forced to live in this complete isolation, devolving into absolute madness, for forever. There is nothing worse than that.