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.

What Are We Missing?

I just read an article by P.J. Manney of the Journal of Evolution & Technology entitled "Empathy in the Time of Technology: How Storytelling is the Key to Empathy." As the title suggests, Manney makes the conjecture that storytelling is the key to developing empathy in humans. He cites that while some degree of empathy appears to be innate in all of us from birth, the human race experienced spikes in empathy which coincided with technological developments. The first example of this instance was the development of writing, which made it possible for us to understand the thoughts and actions of others from a time different to our own. The next came with the dawn of the printing press, where printed words and stories were made available to the masses for the first time. Each of these historic developments tended to coincide with a spike in empathy among humans. So it would make sense that today, with all of the different technologies that are made available to us, empathy rates should be at an all time high.

But they're not.

On the contrary, a Scientific American article by Jamil Zaki entitled "What, Me Care? Young are Less Empathetic" reveals that Empathy rates have decreased among humans over the past 30 years. So what is it about today's technology that separates it from the technology of the past? What is it about cell phones and computers that have us going in reverse?

The answer may lie with how much time we spend with each other. Zaki makes it known that "In the past 30 years Americans have become more likely to live alone and less likely to join groups." We are living in the "Me Generation" (or as Time Magazine puts it, the Me Me Me Generation) where technology allows us to be more self-centered and narcissistic then ever before. Yes, we are connected to others in everything we do, but the content of our interactions through "social" media outlets tends to be more about the advancement of self over the advancement of community. Everything has become individualized, from Facebook profiles to email accounts. 

Modern technology has given us a sense of self which has been unavailable to those who came before us. We have become egotistical, not so much by choice, but by what has been thrust upon us. Our lack of attention we pay to others in our self-centered society is what is taking our empathy levels to new lows. Today, we can understand ourselves just fine. But without proper community and proper empathy, what is understanding anymore?

Here's an Example

Application of example may be one of my favorite writing techniques. The way that example is able to relate outside material to the topic at hand is essential to weary eyes who can't read about the same topic for pages on end. Example is prominently used in the essays "On Compassion" by Barbara Ascher and "The Human Cost of a Literary Society" by Jonathan Kozol. While the two essays use different methods of example to develop their respective theses, the prominence of example is a common link in the two, which shapes them both into essays that are easier to relate to, understand, and enjoy.

Ascher's "On Compassion" devotes the majority of its space to the examples it creates in the beginning. A thesis isn't even revealed until the last couple of paragraphs, and the rest of the essay is just sheer example. I like this in an essay. Not only does it defy the conventional Five-Paragraph Essay which we all know and "love" by placing its thesis at the end, it does so in such a way that one is able to fully digest and understand the meaning in the examples by the time the thesis is presented. This makes a thesis much easier to grasp, especially for a thesis as implausible as the one in "On Compassion." Had this essay been written in the more conventional format, I would not have believed the thesis upon its initial presentation, and I'm not sure if I would have believed it after reading the examples, either. If I learned anything from this essay, it's that placement of examples is just as important as the examples themselves.

Kozol's application of example also strays from the conventional. His examples form a mammoth list, full of everything that makes illiteracy so difficult. The sheer size of his list is what makes his thesis so impressive. Each individual point is short and suffice, so as not to overwhelm the reader. When all of these examples are gathered together, the thesis becomes very difficult to refute. After all, how can one deny a thesis that is backed up by such an ample pool of data?

Example is the key to understanding a thesis. Without examples, a thesis is left to fend for itself.

The Other Type of Earthquakes

Today, I am going to a San Jose Earthquakes game, and I'm really excited. For those of you who don't know what the heck I'm talking about, never fear: you're in the majority. The truth is that, despite the fact that soccer is gaining popularity in the United States among children, despite the recent successes of the United States Men's National Team in the 2010 World Cup and 2013 Gold Cup, despite the fact that soccer is followed fervently, (and even worshiped religiously) in virtually all other parts of the globe, it seems as if the United States is the last frontier, still not diagnosed with "fútbol fever" which rages throughout the rest of the world.

But we don't have an antidote.

And the force which is paving the way for a new generation of sports in the U.S. is the United States' own domestic league: Major League Soccer, or MLS. A league which you may have heard of at one point, but you weren't entirely sure if it existed or not is still here. And unlike the ill-fated North American Soccer League which untimely collapsed due to structural disasters, the MLS is still here after 19 seasons of play. And it is on the rise. So before you embarrass yourself in 5-10 years because you still don't know about the L.A. Galaxy or how the offside rule works, let me give you a brief a history of the league.

The MLS was founded in 1994 as part of a promise with FIFA, the world's international government for all things soccer, that the United States would create a domestic league. When the league first kicked off in 1996, ten teams battled for a title, wearing absolutely hideous uniforms and playing in "stadiums" which are usually reserved for collegiate football or minor league baseball. The league enjoyed good attendance in its first couple years, but as the first crop of players began to retire, and the glamour of a "new league" started to fade, the MLS, as all new major sports leagues, had to contract. Two teams from Florida, the Tampa Bay Mutiny and the Miami Fusion, were dismissed in 2002 due to administration conflicts. This contraction was the symbol of the "dark ages" of MLS, a time period from about 2000-2005. In this time, the league's best players were either retiring due to old age or leaving for Europe while they still had youth. The attendance levels were setting record lows, and the league decided to play the system much more carefully, so as to avoid the disparities between teams which led to the NASL's demise. 

Economists predicted that the league would be extinct by 2007. They were wrong. Instead of the year encrusted on the league's tombstone, 2007 became the first year of "MLS 2.0." And this was because of one factor: Beckham. David Beckham. With his signature, the league began to evolve into its current healthy status. Wherever Beckham played, the game sold out, which brought more money into the league. This money was used to keep players grounded from foreign interest with healthier contracts. Teams began to erect state-of-the-art soccer-specific stadiums to host their games, a bid contrast to the poor quality facilities of yesteryear.The quality of the game improved, to such a degree that the league began to attract interest from other fans outside of the U.S.

Perhaps the biggest example of MLS' recent growth is Sporting Kansas City's move from a minor league ballpark (left) to their own soccer-specific stadium (right). 

I'm not saying that the league is there yet, but it is getting better every year. As of 2012, the MLS' average attendance is higher than that of both the NBA and the NHL. The MLS ranks 7th in the world in average attendance, more than both the French and Dutch leagues. And with the emergence of new sports television networks such as NBC Sports Network and FOX Sports 1, MLS television contracts have gotten larger and more lucrative. So we're on our way.

I only became a fan of MLS in 2011, when my father and I went to an Earthquakes game in 2011. The Quakes may have lost 2-1, but I instantly became hooked. I could not stop following soccer. Supporting the Earthquakes in their record-breaking 2012 season was one of the greatest experiences in my life thus far, and I can't wait for the memories which have yet to be had. 

Because Major League Soccer is simply something special. 

What's In a Story

I enjoy a good story. I love the character development, the contrast in tone and setting, the self immersion, and the ending which seems to resolve my conflicts on top of the protagonist's. A good story is an experience.

The stories I'm talking about are not required to be bound by a cover, and people who defend that books are all you need in life are really missing out. When thinking "big picture," books are really not that old: the Gutenberg press which revolutionized printing is still in its infancy when compared to oral traditions and live performances which are as old as time immemorial. But as people have populated the planet in the last couple centuries or so, advances in technology have led to newspapers, radio, film, television, and Internet. As long as there are people living on this rock that we call earth, the list will keep expanding. While this is a heavily diversified list, all of these forms media are tied together by a common link: they can all be used to tell stories. No matter how people experience their media, even if an apocalypse should come and take all of these modern options away, the story shall live on.

So what is it about the story that makes it such an integral part of what makes us us?  Humans are a very progressive species, we take a particular interest in what can be, on top of what already is. That drive is present in all of us, which is why we all enjoy stories. Stories serve as a great equalizer- common social barriers such as race, gender, and wealth are virtually struck down; all are able to experience the power a story can bring. So many of the big religions today preach teachings through interpretations of various stories. Stories dictate so many parts of our daily life. Fiction or nonfiction, realistic or fantasy, on a screen or on a page, stories cover all bounds. Enjoy a new story today: with so many options, there's bound to be a good one for you.

In Memoriam: The Essay

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the essay as "an analytic or interpretative literary composition usually dealing with its subject from a limited or personal point of view." In short, the modern literary essay is a writing sample, structured mainly by the writer's thoughts and ideals. Unfortunately, the essay is on its deathbed, being painfully lowered into a burial plot of academic obsolescence.

Now, the essay's sentiments haven't fallen out of favor. Christy Wampole of the New York Times emphasizes in her article "The Essayification of Everything" that the essay, among other types of literature, is quite beloved due to its personal nature and brief structure. However, the essay is currently in a state of transformation. The modern essay is evolving into a stale, careful analysis, void of character and ambition. And its replacement? Well, you're looking at it right now: the blog post.

Beyond a reasonable doubt, the essay has been "overstandardized." Every student learns about how to write comprehensive ideas through the 5-paragraph essay, the ultimate symbol of structure in the literary universe. To make matters more linear, the modern student develops his/her essay style through a shallow feedback system - the grade. This system is effective in preaching good writing etiquette, but at the same time it sucks life out of the student, who is inclined to write not what he/she wants to say but what the administrator wants to see. This system creates writing that is proper, grammatically correct, and boring.

The modern politically-correct adaptation of language isn't helping the essay's cause either. Interpretations of simple words can go a long way, to the point where a publishing career can be thrown into jeopardy by a single, misguided phrase. This high-stress environment steers essayists away from taking larger risks, and in turn makes essays more careful and ultimately less human. Basic censorship is necessary for the protection of civil liberties, but the censorship monster which accompanies today's writers serves as a direct impediment to the creative essence which a good essay relies on.

Wampole states that the essay "[deviates] away from certitude" and "is notoriously noncommittal." These characteristics, reflections of human thoughts themselves, used to be exclusively reserved for the essay, distinctions of its experimental nature. But now, as the essay becomes more of a test and less of a personalized expression, it is being eclipsed by a medium which does the essay's job better than the essay itself.

Enter the blog post. This community-centered approach to writing has become so popular so quickly that it threatens to challenge even the most established forms of writing, including the essay and the academic paper. Matt Richtel of the New York Times addresses the charm of blogs over more traditional writing methods in "Blogs vs. Term Papers." Richtel finds that "students feel much more impassioned by the new literacy," thanks to its personalized nature and user immersion.

The blog owes its success to the value it places on the self. From the writer's perspective, the blog is an opportunity for one to develop a distinct style, outside of the methods set by others. Free experimentation is encouraged, and one can find their voice without the threat of grades or ridicule. The interaction between author and reader through comment sections and linked responses is revolutionary, as it takes thesis development beyond the confines of a single work, a trait unmatched by essays.

The blog post does not kill the essay in the same way that the video killed the radio star. It simply advances the essay's ideals into the 21st Century. For the betterment of modern literature, please abandon the essay in favor of the blog post. After all, it is only the essay of tomorrow.

Ready or Not...

Well, here we go. The inevitable first post in a new blog. The post that lacks direction, lacks a real purpose, and hopefully doesn't scare you off so badly that it becomes the last post as well. Let's cross our fingers.

I'm not the best at introductions, so I apologize in advance. My name is Jeremy, and I am a rising senior at Napa High. I've obviously never blogged before, so I grasp this as an opportunity to develop my writing style into the 21st Century. At school, I enjoy courses with numbers and dates. Before this year I had been relatively modest about my course selection, but this year I'm not holding anything back: all four of academic courses are adorned with the "AP" prefix. 

While academics may consume my brain, choir consumes my time. I have been a member of the Choir Program at Napa High for all four years, having served as a mentor and section leader from day one. This year, I am a Second Tenor in Napa High's Concert and Chamber Choirs, I sing Baritone in our Barbershop Quartet and Bass in our A Capella group, Vocal Music Workshop. Chances are that if you attend a choir performance in the valley sometime before next June, I will be there. Just look for the guy with the pitch-pipe!

No high school resume is complete without a sport of some variety, so I joined our Varsity Tennis Team my sophomore year. I originally joined so that I wouldn't have to plague my transcript with a second P.E. class, but I have really come to enjoy the sport since then. None of us on the team take the sport too seriously, which is just the break that I needed from the sports-crazed society of today. 

I tend not to worry too much about the future, but I would like to attend a four-year university, not for the job opportunities which a degree can bring, not for the "awesome parties" which accompany the college lifestyle, but primarily because I enjoy learning. I always have. Since my youth I have been a sponge, soaking in any information which comes my way. This love has brought me to the California State Geography Bee in 2010, and I hope that it will unlock more doors for me down the line.

As far as long-term goals go, I would be delighted to work for some kind of government, be it federal, state, or local. I would also like to be a National Park Ranger at some point in my life, I am already a Junior Ranger at 25 different parks, so I might as well confirm my love for our Earth by getting the real badge. 

But all of this is big picture. Right now, my only real concern is posting this before Mrs. G. yells at us again. So I'll wrap this up for now, and if there's anything you want to know about me that has gone unanswered, never fear. We've got a whole year ahead.