WATCHMEN. What Will it Imply?

HBO's new hit series WATCHMEN has entered the scene (and I will admit, I love the show) and it is nothing less than political. "If it weren't political, it wouldn't be WATCHMEN" states producer Damen Lindelof, and I could not agree more; yet in an era in American history where political views are highly susceptible and sensitive, how can viewers react?

The show is based upon the rise of a new terrorist group called the Seventh Cavalry, which is a modern time cult of the Klu Klux Klan. The basis of this group is to continue white supremacy and aim to accomplish their goals through the slaughtering of all policemen. Later through watching the show, it is revealed that the Chief Sheriff was a part of the Seventh Cavalry, including the senator and other high caliber members in the group, even hinting towards the president. 

This is a brilliant plot for a show and I am all for it, but also with the conflict of current media coverage and attempts and claims of certain biases in not only the political scene but in the public as well, will the use of the term 'white supremacy' be thrown around more frequently. 

My only notion is to make the true understanding of the term 'white supremacy' and that it should not be thrown around lightly or used to blame for victimization. Rather understand that it is the act and belief that one race is dominant and all others are seen as a threat and to be terminated. We should also act to use the law if there is ever a true threat of this supremacy, because we are all created beautifully in God's image, and no one is placed higher than another.

Are Our Political Leaders Safe From Cyber Threats?

Russian cyber-attacks have been the dominant issue facing our government since the major attacks since the 2016 elections. The anonymous Russian group responsible for the attacks upon the Clinton foundation have returned and currently conducting attacks upon two conservative thinktanks. 

According to Microsoft, The Hudson Institute and the International Republican Institute are the two major thinktanks under assault; both organizations are republican sided and linked to an anti-Trump belief system. According to accounts from The New Yorker, the goal the International Republican Institute aims to create opportunities to spread democracy worldwide, and the Hudson Institute’s political agenda focuses upon eradicating the existence of kleptocracy in the world. Due to their known corrupt history of leadership, Russia remains the largest concern to the Hudson Institute. 

Leaders at Microsoft proclaim that the goals of these attacks remain unclear, but both organizations are large enough to cause a threat to Russian leadership through spreading their belief system, and therefore Russian operatives may attempt to seek information regarding our government through covert hacking sequences. A proactive federal judge took a stand by appointing Microsoft a “special master,” authorizing the company to seize artificial websites once they are published to the web in attempt to halt assaults upon thinktanks and government sites.

The New Yorker inquires that “Microsoft has grown increasingly aggressive to counter these attacks.” In attempt to enhance defense software, Microsoft releases “Account Guard” for the availability of political candidates and including all local, state, and federal operations. Currently, the fear of the Russian hackers meddling with the near future 2020 election is an imminent threat to security. As read from NPR, Eric Rosenbach, who leads the cybersecurity division from the white house, proclaims that “campaigns are the most vulnerable aspect of US elections because they often don’t have the time or money to develop long-term cybersecurity plans.” Though difficult to enforce, Microsoft and the senate plan on developing a two-way authentication; the difficulty in this simple plan refines in people willing to use this technique.

In this cyber net chase, the president of the International Republican Institute states his concerns upon the ongoing issue. “It is clearly designed to sow confusion, conflict and fear among those who criticize Mr. Putin’s authoritarian regime.” The way current campaign organizations are running, the fear of infiltration hinders campaign progress and secrecy. When one fake site is caught, the fear of a more prestigious hack already in the roots of national security runs rampant in the leaders of our democracy. The existence of a breach in our government’s online data may prove to be a probable issue. What continues to be discovered can lead to a more severe and complex issue.

The threat of anonymous Russian hackers afflicting with our government and political organizations could lead to drastic outcomes for the United States and upon future campaigns. But motions are currently being made by authorized Microsoft security software, and our nation may stand united and free from forthcoming threats from online predators. A united nation is needed to stand up against the bullies of Russia, and all sources stand firm on the belief that action is needed to defend our privacy and to climb to the top where the United States stood once before, superior in freedom.

Marketplace of Ideas

The freedom of America is held in the beauty of our rights to free expression. The marketplace of ideas was a construct philosophically developed by John Milton in 1644, and was reinvented by John Stuart Mill in his book On Liberty in 1859. The marketplace of ideas was a belief that anyone can present creations, beliefs, and constructs that is challenged by one another as individuals or as groups, and not monitored or censored by government or other authority. The philosophy and practice of this idea has managed well in the past, yet I challenge that this system in modern day America in some aspects can be deemed invalid.

The one major point I would like to assess is the freedom and expression of belief. Belief is a fragile topic in current America; we all have the freedom to pursue our passions, dreams, desires and beliefs, yet with the media so easily accessible we find ourselves conforming to what the media and the government want us to believe, think and feel. Political agendas thrive through the media. With the access to the whole country at their fingertips, every major political scheme, which can be from either party, will use incidences, unfortunate situations and tragedies to filter through the media in a manor that promotes their schemes. I will only focus on one subject in the belief category, and this is the right to bare arms. After hearing this disturbing message delivered from a Charlottesville, VA radio station (which the state is heavily pushing for anti gun laws), it leaves a shocking image in you mind. In the background, you can hear the faint laughter of babies and the joy they are having, the message suddenly cuts in to a woman proposing that you should "make the right choices, especially with all the children you love. In a world full of conflict and war, and mass killing and hate crimes ... choose peace this holiday." The message takes this sudden twist, for it appears peaceful and fun, but what the government of Virginia is (brilliantly) doing is wiring your mind and children's minds to recognize the threat that guns have to the safety of America; this places the blame of tragedy on the machine and not the man. So by choosing to have the belief to carry and own guns, we are viewed as criminals and life-takers who have no compassion or sympathy for the well-being of others. This can be no farther from the truth.

I believe that we have a damaged system for belief, for we are no longer welcomed by choosing our own ideologies. Those who stand against the grain of what propaganda is being promoted are a threat to society. The only solution that we can find as a nation is for individuals to somehow manage to stop being conformed by the monitored media and choose to live a life separate from such influences - yet, that will never happen.

Privacy, Online and Off

How safe are we from government influence outside of social media? I mean nothing can happen to us once we put our phones down, right? "Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there" states Catherine Crump.

We now live in an era where the reality of Fahrenheit 451 is more present than we know. The government has a deeper influence upon us than just the computer, the government has equipped our own local law enforcement agencies with location and monitoring technologies which create data files and records about all of our whereabouts and habits, which allows authorities to objectify us as programs and not human beings. Our data is not private anymore. Police are equipped with effective license plate readers which actively read and record every vehicle which passes by. When a man cane up to his local police agency and requested to see his plate records, even though he is a man who has no criminal record, the department obliged and shared where he has been tracked. They revealed photos every time he passed by and even who he were with in the vehicle; even a photo revealing himself and his daughters exiting the car in the "safety" of their own home driveway.

This technology is allowing the government to keep tabs on everyone, even if they are not a threat. There was a record that showed that police were driving past mosques and recording data on those who were attending and taking detail on these individuals.

Is this the protection we believe in? While there is the possibility for our government to truly catch those who are guilty and should be convicted of crimes, should we be willing to place our own lives and personal prints out in the eye of the government in the sake of security? Where is our right to privacy which our fourth amendment right alludes to ensure our own personal protection and to be viewed as an individual, not as a police file in a government database.

Information Found On Myself

While attempting to search information about myself as if I were an employer searching information upon a potential employee, I honestly did not learn as much as I was expecting to find about myself (which is a good thing). My name is David G. Kleinschuster, and my father is David W. Kleinschuster, so whenever I attempt to search my name on the internet, mostly my father's information comes up. He himself does not use social media in a broad expanse, he just got a FaceBook this summer, so the only information which truly appears when I search my (our) name is "Albemarle Psychological Innovations," his own psychological firm. I even went to smartbackgroundchecks.com and did not find any information upon myself, only my family members.

Again, not being able to find yourself on the internet is not a bad thing. I may have found one or two photos of myself in google search but majority of what I found were people I knew. Truly the only social media applications I actively use are Instagram and VSCO. Both are apps meant for posting photos, yet Instagram is meant for a more follower basis VSCO rather focuses on creativity of a photo and unique editing styles. I prefer to use VSCO because the app is not designed to focus upon the status of having followers, but rather just expressing yourself through images you take.

Either way, the images I post are of places I have been, family and friends, or of myself; I leave a positive footprint of myself within any application that I use, for I never know what future employers may want to learn about myself.

Furthermore, the image you set for yourself online is not only to make a footprint for potential business, but the information you input onto the web allows the government and these private businesses to sell your personal information to potential buyers; this makes you vulnerable to spyware \by agreeing to contracts that these corporations such as Google to access your personal information. So play it safe, and take care of your digital footprint.

Roger's Diffusion of Innovation and Social Constructs

Within the bounds of theory, E.M. Rogers developed an idea called the "Diffusion of Innovation" which states that with the development of any technologies, there will always be seasons of of growth and then disbursement of fascination of an advancement in technology; then a new competitor arises and the cycle starts over again.

The bell chart can be split into four main categories, not including investors. These groups consist of early adapters, who are people usually wealthy enough and more dominantly known to receive the device (lets say the brand new advancement in video technology such as the upcoming PlayStation 5) before it is accessible or rather too expensive for the general public. Exponential growth is found in the Early Majority, also known as Early Adapters, who are the group of people supporting the new released product and buying the new PlayStation 5 within the first releases of the device; they had the PlayStation 5 "before it was cool." The Late Majority or Late Adopters are the people groups who wait a while to adjust towards the new advancements of this product; majority of this group are hesitant to the advancement changes and seek approval of the new device from the Early Majority; "is the product worth my money?" And finally there are the Laggards, who are the most difficult group to accept change. They are content with their ways of life and the only way they will buy into  a product is by statistically tested value or by the peer pressure from the other majority groups

I will concede that that most of the accepting majorities are younger generations, whereas older generations are more hesitant to change. Ultimately, Rogers' theory of technological acceptance stands true to this day; there will always be those who indulge in new advancements, and those who struggle to move on with the times.
Photo Link

The Spirit Behind Joker

In this article released by VOX, the revisits the terrible shooting during the release film of The Dark Night in a movie theater, where the dark nature of the Joker was intuitive to blame.

Before the release of Joaquin Phoenix's Joker movie, protesters continued to push for the Warner Bros. to promote stricter gun laws in hand with the release of this movie; directer Todd Phillips answers back to the crowds stating that the Joker himself is a fictional, comic character in which the movies themselves do not concede to such violence upon others choices and actions. The release of Joker should not be placed in guilt for what the actions of others already have this hatred in their hearts.

"I think there are two chief reasons. One of them is completely unjustified, and one of them is partially justified by things that have happened before. I think the chief reason, and the unjustified reason, that people are focusing on the Joker movie is The Dark Knight Rises and the 2012 mass shooting in Aurora. There’s actually a major misconception: The shooter was not dressing up as the Joker [during the attack on the movie theater]. He was in no way trying to carry out something from the movie. I have never seen any evidence that he was a particular fan of Heath Ledger’s Joker or of that [film] in general. This was misinformation that was put out by a police officer who was interviewed by a couple of newspapers" -Robert Evans.

I concede to this point and support this statement by Evans, yet I conclude that no matter what movie is released from Hollywood, there is always a desired message being portrayed throughout the film towards its intended audience. After watching this film, I was horrified by how brilliant this movie was. Flawless in nature, Phoenix truly portrayed the role of a mentally ill man going through such distress and oppression to an outstanding degree. Phoenix starved himself for this role, damages his body by actually running into traffic and getting a taxi in the film, and claimed in interview that he actually began to go mad while preparing for the role. 

The sense of loss and hopelessness in an individual who has faced all the down in life is an eye opener for most people; one argument to be made is that we should make the effort to recognize those who are oppressed and show them hope. Unfortunately, from a psychological standpoint, there are many people who are undiagnosed and go under radar who experience this portrayal in the film in their own reality. They see and associate the Joker's actions as necessity for their own sanity, there are no political agendas involved. So although I concede that Joker itself holds no responsibility for one's actions, it does not change the fact that the spirit behind the film incites this violence within those who possibly could be afflicted, and it also does not change the fact that several theaters across the nation are considering removing the film from their air times and some even armed by police for the possibility and threat of such cruel actions.