Can we trust the government to monitor surveillance?

Given the torrid and turbulent nature of the world today, government distrust is natural.  There is absolutely nothing strange about being skeptical of the decisions that our country’s higher-ups make on our behalf. Eventually, however, we must trust our democratic system and trust that the women and men that have been put in positions of power are acting for the betterment of society. The ongoing USA Freedom Act, a reform bill aimed to limit the domestic surveillance capabilities of the National Security Agency, may not be perfect, but that is no reason to reject it. Government surveillance is an understandably controversial topic. Drawing the line between protecting national security and breaching American privacy is not easy. When a bill comes along that can both regulate the monitoring processes while still ensuring nationwide protection, we cannot afford to ignore it.

Sponsored by United States Sen. Patrick Leahy, the USA Freedom Act is a major step forward. The bill would only allow telephone providers to store caller information, as opposed to government agencies. Said agencies would only have access to American phone records after receiving a court order, and whatever information they did collect would need to be disclosed on a non-daily basis.

More importantly, however, the bill would implement a series of preventative measures to ensure proper surveillance techniques between both the NSA and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. It would instate a panel of civil liberties advocates tasked with monitoring and overseeing surveillance-related tasks in the name of the American public.

The bill is not without its flaws, however. Several government-monitoring restrictions were too ambiguous for critics of the proposition, who see the bill as a very convenient way to pretend that reform has been made without actually making any changes. Many fear that the USA Freedom Act––like a sizable amount of the current surveillance regulations––will open itself up to abuse over time.

Although the proposal is not perfect, it presents a better option than vetoing the bill. As it stands now, Section 215 of the Patriot Act––the section responsible for the collection of phone records, credit card reports and business information––is set to expire in June of next year.

Because of its controversial and potentially intrusive nature, the likelihood of said section being renewed for several more years is minimal at best, leaving our country in a dangerous position with no method of phone surveillance unless another proposition would take its place.

As we sit here in October, the chances of Congress drafting, examining and approving a completely new bill by June are slim to none, thus leaving us with only two courses of action.

The USA Freedom Act certainly has its shortcomings, but it is important to weigh the options, consider the effects of not passing this measure and realize that in a sea of unsure government options, this is truly the best choice we have.

Constantly striving for perfection in an otherwise imperfect world can only lead to disappointment. We put our leaders in charge for a reason and we entrust them with our safety for a reason. Sooner or later, we are going to have to sit back and have faith that they can do their jobs and do them right.

Why no outrage for Hope Solo?

United States Women’s National Team soccer goalie Hope Solo is a woman and former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice is a man. These distinctions have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that one of them will most likely never play professional sports again, while the other is yet to even be disciplined for their recent assault charges. It is not overly complicated and there is no underlying gender-based double standard. There is only the simple fact that Ray Rice was seen directly striking his wife until she lost consciousness, while Solo was charged and has pleaded not guilty to two counts of misdemeanor domestic violence.

Rice landed in hot water in September after a controversial video involving himself and his fiancée was released. The video begins with pushing and shoving and ends with Rice dragging his unconscious fiancée out an elevator door.

The public response was clear and swift in saying that Rice must be punished. He was, with an indefinite ban by the National Football League. But little did he know that his actions would extend far beyond the game of football, past the world of sports and into the extremely delicate topic of gender bias.

Enter two-time Olympic gold medalist and soccer icon Solo, an A-list athlete known across the globe for her talent. In the days following Rice’s suspension, the public made it clear that it would no longer stand by and allow their larger-than-life athletes to be above the law. It was here that Solo’s previously overlooked assault charges from her sister and nephew dating back to June finally caught the media’s eye.

It is hugely important to acknowledge that Solo deserves to be punished if she is proven guilty. If the upcoming trial does not play out in her favor, then Solo has absolutely no business posing as a role model for fans across the world.

Anyone that faces criminal allegations is innocent until proven guilty. You would be hard-pressed to find anyone who challenges this key principle of the American legal system. This is the reason why Solo has kept her endorsements, has not been suspended by the National Women’s Soccer League and has not received the same level of media attention that Rice has received.

There is not a double standard or differentiation of treatment regarding Solo. In fact, had the NFL and not the NWSL handled her situation, the outcome would likely have been the same.

In 2010, Cincinnati Bengals running back Cedric Benson faced assault charges after getting into an altercation at a bar. Benson, like Solo, pled not guilty and was not only allowed to continue playing throughout the ordeal, but was eventually exonerated without ever having been suspended.

As much as it has been suggested that Solo’s treatment is in some way related to the fact that she is a woman, this is simply not the case. Solo is still playing soccer because, as of now, she has not done anything wrong. Some may not agree with it and some may even say it is unfair, but at the end of the day, it is hard to argue against human rights.

Controversial Air Force oath incenses atheist enlistees

“So help me God.” These are the four words standing in the way of an anonymous 10-year Air Force veteran and his hope for reenlistment. He is not asking for special privileges but for the most basic of human rights: the freedom of religion.

For a branch of the United States military that is constantly credited for “spreading democracy” and eliminating oppressive regimes, the decision to exclude an otherwise stellar Air Force official due to his personal religious beliefs demonstrates a massive lapse in judgment.

Before enlisting or reenlisting in the Air Force, one must sign an oath of loyalty; swearing his or her allegiance to our country, president and the Constitution.

Prior to last fall, this oath was never a problem since those signing it had the ability to omit the final sentence of the pledge: “So help me God.” Removal of the omission option leaves atheists like this 10-year veteran in a very difficult situation that they do not deserve to be in.

The anonymous veteran did what most people would do. He followed his religious beliefs and crossed out the final sentence under the assumption that a country that preaches equality and tolerance would respect his decision.

Sadly, this was not the case, and a man with an otherwise unblemished track record now finds his character being assailed by the United States Air Force over a choice he should have had every right to make.

It is an understatement to say that U.S. Air Force’s requirement for enlistees to swear to God is archaic. For a country that prides itself on “liberty and justice,” the fact that this stipulation has been allowed to exist represents a major failure for the First Amendment as well as a major failure for our society.

Not only does the oath commit a clear violation of the First Amendment but it is also self-contradicting. On the one hand, it asks those signing it to “solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution.” On the other hand, it violates the Constitution just a few sentences later.

“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” states Article 6 of the Constitution––one that the Air Force apparently does not think important enough to “support and defend.”

This problem is certainly not a new one. Religion has always found its way into matters that should be free of theological debate. But for a group of people who believe themselves to have overcome their dark history of prejudice and narrow-mindedness, these examples of obvious discriminations simply cannot stand.

At a time when our country faces a very real threat overseas, a still-battered economy and a failing education system, it is important that we stay vigilant. Basic constitutional violations such as these cannot fall through the cracks simply because we have too much going on to notice them. The last thing that we should do is alienate respectable members of our society for beliefs that have little bearing on their quality as human beings.

2016 approaches, and Democrats should look to Clinton for hope

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave her supporters another piece of meat to sink their teeth into last week, following her claim that she is still indeed considering a run for the White House. According to CNN Politics, when asked whether or not Clinton would be running for president come 2016, she responded with, “I am thinking about it;” keeping the “Hillary 2016” fire burning bright. While this answer may not be exactly what her supporters had been hoping for, every day seems to bring us closer and closer to seeing another Clinton-filled campaign trail.

Clinton stated back in December that she would make her final decision by the end of this year, but the rest of the country didn’t seem willing to wait that long. “Ready for Hillary,” a super PAC formed in 2013 with the aims of gathering money for a potential campaign, has already raised $5.7 million dollars even without an actual candidate to support.

Various Washington notables including Sen. Chuck Schumer, Sen. Claire McCaskill and former army general and CIA director David Petraeus have already shown support for Clinton. For a woman that hasn’t even announced her candidacy yet, Clinton certainly has been the talk of the town, and the reasons for this are actually not too surprising.

With all due respect to Clinton’s policies on issues like healthcare and homeland security, what has really propelled her to the top of practically every major poll is familiarity.

Americans have followed Hillary since her husband was president; they’ve watched her grow from a highly-experienced First Lady to a political force all her own as senator and then watched her climb to her highest peak as secretary of state.

At a time where no major frontrunners on either side have emerged, the well-known Clinton certainly comes off as an appealing option to the American people.

It’s hard to forget Clinton’s 2008 campaign, a tooth-and-nail battle for the Democratic nomination that ultimately saw her lose to Sen. Barack Obama. Rather than fall back into the shadows and maintain a position of general irrelevance from that point on, Clinton rose to the occasion and spent the following four years working admirably as the secretary of state, proving that she was an exemplary public servant worthy of leading the country at the highest possible level.

It also doesn’t hurt that Clinton’s image has changed substantially since she was branded as cold and uncompromising during her 2008 campaign. There’s footage of her cheerfully dancing at a gala in South Africa, there’s her constant quick wit that not even shoe-throwers can unsettle, there’s countless photos of her being embraced by public leaders around the world – she left the position of secretary of state with a fantastic 69 percent approval rating. This all speaks volumes to the progress that Clinton has made in recent years.

With all of this in mind, it’s no surprise that the public has taken to the idea of a Clinton 2016 campaign so strongly. We may have a long way to go until Election Day, but from where we stand now, things are definitely looking good for Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Limiting access to birth control a major health risk to women

We may sit over 40 years removed from the days of Roe v. Wade, but here in the United States, resistance to medical abortions still remains painfully strong. In several Southern states, the sentiment even appears to be growing. A study conducted by Bloomberg BusinessWeek this winter found that at least 73 clinics have been shut down since 2011, with another seven shutting their doors since the start of the calendar year alone. To put that in perspective, that rate of roughly 19 abortion centers being closed per year is more than double what it was as early back as 2008.

The fact that these new statistics sit parallel to the 200 new abortion restrictions that have been put in place since 2011 – more than had been enacted in the entire previous decade – is no mere coincidence.

New state laws requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at all local hospitals within 30 miles of their office, laws calling for increased procedure costs, demanding wider hallways or new surgical sinks – many of which have been spearheaded by none other than Texas Gov. Rick Perry – keep pro-choice advocates awake at night.

We find ourselves at a point where six different states across the country – Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, Mississippi and Missouri – are down to one abortion clinic, forcing women seeking an abortion procedure to travel great distances in order to get the procedure. In Texas, where the abortion restrictions are at their most severe, many women now find themselves forced to drive for hundreds of miles in order to reach a clinic.

Texas, a state that does not require a sex education curriculum in its public schools, has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country and has consistently challenged the Affordable Care Act’s requirement for employer-provided contraception.

Because states cannot outright ban abortions, they have resorted to limiting access to centers that can provide abortion services. Although state lawmakers may wholeheartedly believe that they are helping the common good with these regulations, in reality all they are doing is forcing women to either resort to more dangerous means in order to have their abortions performed or have a child that they do not feel they prepared to have.

The effects are already noticeable. This past December, 38-year-old Pennsylvania mother Jennifer Whalen was brought up with several major felony charges and many other misdemeanor counts. Her crime was purchasing the drugs misoprostol and mifepristone, drugs that are used safely outside the United States, but here are only allowed to be administered by a supervising medical practitioner, in order to help her newly impregnated 16-year-old daughter. Because Whalen did not have health insurance, she was forced to take matters into her own hands and purchase the drugs without the necessary prescription.

The topic isn’t pretty, and in a perfect world there would be no need for any abortions to take place, but that’s not the world we live in. By restricting and making abortion procedures vastly more difficult to have done, lawmakers are putting millions of women at risk.

#CancelColbert controversy blown way out of proportion

Satirist Stephen Colbert may be in danger of having his show, “The Colbert Report,” cancelled. The #CancelColbert movement came out of the woodwork on Twitter on March 27 following an off-color joke on the show. Thousands of Internet users have thrown in their support for the cause, placing the celebrated comedian in the center of controversy. But in wake of this social media outcry, it is important to remember that Colbert is just that: a comedian. According to the Internet Movie Database, “Satirist news caster Stephen Colbert provides humorous commentary on the big issues going on in the United States and the rest of the world.” This description for “The Colbert Report” is important to remember when evaluating the recent controversy. One of Stephen Colbert’s primary goals with his show – which has been on the air since 2005 – has been to illuminate societal problems through sardonic and sometimes crass humor.

The joke in question was part of a bit during which he mocked Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder’s decision to set up a Native American support foundation that provides clothing to various North American tribes rather than change the team’s overtly racist name. Colbert then jokingly introduced an aid foundation of his own: the “Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever.”

It took the fans in the live-audience all of two seconds to meet Colbert with laughter, clearly displaying their understanding that this was just another piece of the satire that viewers of “The Colbert Report” have grown accustomed to for close to 10 years. The story should have ended right here, but the general public proved not to be as quick to laugh as Colbert’s devotees.

@ColbertReport, a Twitter account run by Comedy Central without input from Colbert himself, sent out a tweet referring to the show’s joke, but without the context of the larger bit it was a part of. The errant tweet provoked a strongly negative response.

Asian-American activist Suey Park came up with the #CancelColbert hashtag, tweeting, “#CancelColbert because white liberals are just as complicit in making Asian Americans into punch lines and we are not amused.”

Park’s sentiments – which included demanding an apology from Colbert – spread like wildfire and were soon echoed by thousands of Twitter users. Colbert himself chimed in via his own personal Twitter account. Comedy Central quickly removed the tweet and was quick to point out that neither Colbert nor his writing staff has ties to the account.

Had CNN or MSNBC referred to Asians as “Orientals or whatever,” then certainly there would be cause for outrage, but that is not the case. Though the news desk format of Colbert’s show isn’t akin to your standard comedy, the statements made on “The Colbert Report” carry as much weight and severity as those spoken on programs like “South Park” and “Tosh.0,” programs that are allowed to push the envelope given their comedic medium.

Stephen Colbert the man and Stephen Colbert the character are separate entities. The central concept of “The Colbert Report” is the host’s skewering of ultra-conservative cable news personalities by portraying a comically exaggerated version of one. Granted, this format does not give Colbert license to say just anything, but in this specific case it is hard to find impropriety in the comedian’s joke when given proper context.

Following rough start, de Blasio poised for a rebound

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio simply can’t catch a break. Between accusations of power abuse and his ill-recieved decision to keep New York City schools open amidst brutal snowstorms, to say that the newly elected mayor has had a rough first two months would be an understatement. Despite these recent controversies and the fact that de Blasio may have lost some brownie points in the eyes of the masses, criticisms of his character and ability to effectively manage are premature. They amount to nothing more than people looking for something they will never find in public figures: perfection.

For the first four weeks of de Blasio’s tenure, he did a modest job of keeping the peace. He appealed to animal activists by proposing a ban on horse-drawn carriages and catered to the populace by appointing a well-liked police commissioner. Prior to last week, de Blasio had been the picture of likeability. But it was only a matter of time before de Blasio made a decision that didn’t sit well with the city of New York and his popularity started to wane.

It began with his choice to keep city schools open on the morning of a major snowstorm. It continued when de Blasio implied that New York City pre-K programs were more deserving of increased funding than in other schools across the state, an idea that incensed Gov. Andrew Cuomo. De Blasio’s string of questionable decisions reached its tipping point when it was revealed that de Blasio was on the phone with the deputy chief of police prior to his political ally Bishop Orlando Findlayter’s release from jail.

But before we start branding de Blasio as a failure, it is important to remember that de Blasio is still new in his regime. To expect him to have mastered the art of grand-scale leadership overnight and not take any missteps would be nothing short of ridiculous. Surely, there must be some sort of learning curve granted to a person like de Blasio, whose every move has never been scrutinized as closely as it has been since his induction.

With that in mind, I am by no means suggesting that de Blasio should not be held accountable for his actions. He was elected to be an apt and effective leader for one of the most important cities of the world, and if he cannot handle that responsibility, it will affect millions of people’s lives. But, that being said, branding de Blasio as an unremitted failure after just one particularly rough week is undoubtedly irrational.

De Blasio may have stumbled following his quick sprint out of the gate, but that was absolutely to be expected. His actions of late may not exactly be popular ones, but one has to assume that he has only the best interests of the city at heart and hope that his decision-making skills will improve in time. De Blasio is only human: He is entitled to make mistakes, and like each and every one of us, he is not perfect.

More steps in the right direction for same-sex marriage

It may be long overdue, but this week proved yet again what has been apparent for a great deal of time now: Change is on the horizon for same-sex couples. A landmark decision came on Saturday Feb. 8 as United States Attorney General Eric Holder announced his plans to recognize same-sex marriages at the federal level, even in states where same-sex marriages are illegal. Doing so would afford same-sex couples liberties such as the right to jointly declare bankruptcy and the right to visit a spouse in prison. These freedoms undoubtedly represent our country’s continued shift toward a more honorable and just nation – a shift in the right direction.

Within the past year, seven states have legalized gay marriage, the number of openly gay federal judges and ambassadors has more than doubled and we have seen a great number of public figures come out of the closet. There is truly no denying the tremendous steps forward the U.S. has taken in recent months. So why, you ask, is this simple decision so important?

In extending the rights of same-sex marriages, Holder sends a message to gay couples that, in the eyes of the federal government, there exists no difference between same-sex relationships and those of heterosexual couples.

As mentioned, by recognizing same-sex marriages at the federal level, a same-sex couple can file for joint bankruptcy. Previously, the U.S. government could successfully challenge a federal joint bankruptcy claim filed by a same-sex couple in states where same-sex marriage is not legal. Now, federal bankruptcy claims can be filed by married same-sex couples anywhere in the U.S. without the concern of it being challenged.

Further, married same-sex couples can now decline to give incriminating testimony against one another in civil and criminal court. Also, the new protections grant same-sex couples visitation rights while one is in prison. Being forced to testify against one’s spouse or being disallowed from visiting one’s spouse in prison must surely serve as a slap in the face to anyone who is told that they have full equality in our current society.

This, in essence, is what makes Holder’s decision such an important one to anyone in favor of liberty and justice for all. It reaffirms the idea that there are still improvements to be made – that the fight doesn’t simply end with the legalization of same-sex marriage. In Holder, a person in a position of power and importance, advocating for the LGBTQ-plus community, he sends the message that the higher-ups in Washington, D.C. can actually care and understand that there is still plenty of work to be done.

Holder’s choice to act may have been an important one, but it by no means should be cause for us to throw our hands up and call it a day. There are still American citizens – not only of different sexual orientations but also races and ethnicities – who are constantly subjected to unfair treatment for unfair reasons. But, for today at least, there is progress.u

Hunter Moore’s arrest illuminates troubling ‘revenge porn’ trend

Hunter Moore has quickly become an enemy of the public following the launch of his controversial, now defunct “revenge porn” website isanyoneup.com. The site’s focus was nude photographs users submitted of their ex-significant others. Moore also included a brief informational sidebar next to the pictures and videos, which could list the home address, Facebook profile or any other potentially incriminating information that he received regarding the unknowing stars of his website. But despite Moore’s obvious lack of concern for how his website affected others, he doesn’t seem to be anything more than a disgruntled, bitter man attempting to take out his anger on the world.

What the website lacked in integrity, it made up for in absolutely nothing, parading around its icy motto, “Pure Evil.” And the website was just that.

Despite receiving countless emails per day describing the personal horror stories that have come as a result of his website, including firings, embarrassment and beyond, Moore still clings to the idea that he is merely a facilitator for the viewing of said pictures; he is not responsible for their creation.

California resident Kayla Laws, one of the website’s victims, said, “I was damaged by it; I just wanted to stay in my room. It just all hit me like a ton of bricks.”

The revenge porn industry has suffered a major blow after Moore was arrested outside his California home in January and charged with various counts of conspiracy and identity theft. Moore’s supporters – and there are many – have not taken this news lightly.

Viewing him as more messiah than miscreant, Moore’s followers have been vocal about their admiration for Moore over the years, taking his blatant disregard for any type of human decency as a representation of an anarchist way of life. Moore’s general devil-may-care attitude for the lives he has ruined over the past four years has garnered quite the following from the sadistic population of the world, leading said population to adorn him with the rather menacing nickname “The Father.”

So which is it? Is Moore a catalyst for positive social change, or is he simply another person trying to earn a fat check? If I had to guess, I would say have to say neither. Moore is simply another frustrated citizen of our world attempting to rise out of the ashes of anonymity and make a name for himself, regardless of what said name is.

Despite the general nonchalant attitude Moore displays with regard to his work, I would like to believe that somewhere inside him exists some semblance of remorse or regret for the embarrassment that he has caused over these past few years.

Is this idea merely wishful thinking? Probably, but it’s fairly evident that Moore’s philosophy is built around contempt for women. The name revenge porn implies that anyone who partakes is attempting to settle some score.

Motives aside, Moore is facing federal charges and his website-running days are all but over. One can only hope that this case prompts lawmakers to make it easier to prosecute other creeps like Moore, protecting the scores of women vulnerable to online exploitation.