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. 

Are We Free to Believe?

Although hate speech is protected by the first amendment, is spite the only middle ground that can be found against adversaries and views which challenge others? 

Drew Brees sponsored an anti-bullying movement in 2010 called the "It Gets Better Project," and in his call to action he proclaims "Appreciate people for how they are different from you: That's what it takes to be a friend. Bullying has to stop, and it starts with you." This received high praise nationwide back then, yet our nation appears to have taken a shift within this past decade. 

In recent actions, Brees participated in a movement called "Bring Your Bible to School Day," which in return he received heavy backlash from those who disapprove of the belief in the Bible and children have been bullied for bringing the Bible to school. Fifth grader Giovanni Rubeo spent his recess reading the Bible, and faculty demanded that Giovanni was to rid of the book for it is a disturbance within the building, even going as far as to "threatening to call his father" to bring them home; are we now letting our first amendment right to believe and practice whatever religion we please get in the way of the education of our nations future possible leaders? How are we to develop a free thinking nation if it is instilled withing our school systems at such an early age to shun certain beliefs and actions and accept others. 

Another instance of this hate/bullying comes up against Dr. Eric Walsh. Dr. Walsh has a bachelors degree, M.D. and a doctorate in public health; he is accredited with founding the first dental practical office which treats patients with AIDS and HIV. Welsh also was appointed by former president Obama to the President's Commission on HIV and AIDS, he also was listed by several within the medical field to be elected as the US Surgical General. Dr. Walsh is immensely respected throughout the nation, and he also is a lay pastor who ministers locally in his region in California, and has been invited to several conferences nationally to preach. 

Dr. Walsh was faced with adversary when crowds chased him off the stage during his commencement speech at Pasadena Community College for his faith. This ridicule followed his career into Georgia, where he was hired as the state dental director; his employers received news of his preaching background and proceeded to fire him the very next day after requesting to review his sermons. 

Furthermore, this all comes full circle to bullying; why would we go through all this trouble to discriminate upon someone for being different than you, when we can be a friend who uplifts those who differ from one another. We were each created beautifully and placed strategically within this free country, so allow one another to freely practice and pursue our beliefs without persecution.

Our Commitment to Religious Liberty  

Antitrust Policies Against Large Corporations

Ever since the our Bill of Rights has been written, the first amendment has always faced trials and errors to perfect our nation's promise of liberty and the fight for equality and expression. Over the centuries new issues surface, from unprotected actions and determining what is protected speech; today we find ourselves in a new era where the government has to take strides to enforce the first amendment upon large scale corporations. 

Facebook is now under pressure as several states consisting of Florida, Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, Nebraska, Ohio, Tennessee and including Washing ton D.C. come together to launch an investigation based upon anti-trust. With the attorney general Letitia James leading the investigation, she claims that the focus is upon "Facebook's impact on advertising prices, data, and consumer products. 'We will use every investigative tool ... to determine whether Facebook's actions may have endangered consumer data, reduced the quality of consumers' choices, or increased the price of advertising.'" 

Several corporations such as Apple, Amazon and Twitter have undergone this type of investigation before; the issue that brings these corporations to the  jurors table is the fact that they attain personal information and sell the information to buyers. This a huge violation of our first amendment rights, the right to privacy is a staple that this nation was founded on and should aim to keep secure. In addition, in a monopolous act by aiming to shut down competition, these corporations only promote what they desire you to see. In the instance of the news, Google was placed under investigation for 'hiding' certain political stances from searches and only promoting what they as an organization desire you to filter through your mind. This is an act of propaganda and goes against the freedom of equal expression.

We need to stand against these corporations in the name of freedom and privacy, and under the first amendment which protects us. 

Supreme Court

The supreme court has a unique history which began with humble beginnings; with one decision the demanding authority would be set in place forever.

During the case of Marbury v. Madison, Marshall ruled in favor of Madison, yet kept a grip upon the federalist view by deeming that no action shall be made outside the ruling of the constitution. "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This quote secured the authority of the supreme court in our national government. 

Our court has faced several tribulations over the past 200 years, including the issues of slavery, including Dred Scott which would be forever changed by the Civil War. The enactment of the fourteenth amendment brought a new era of liberties for the American people - this act of viewing all peoples as equal influences the civil rights movements then and present day. 

During interviews with present day justices, they confess that the court has seen much growth over the centuries; they have the access of the wisdom and failures of previous justices whereas the former did not - by trial and error the road to liberty has exponentially increased and will continue to influence our nations future. 

Why is Our Nation so Divided?

As stated by Senator John McCain, "We weaken our greatness when we confuse our patriotism with tribal rivalries and hatred and violence in all the corners of the globe. We weaken it when we hide behind walls, rather than tear them down, when we doubt the power of our ideals, rather than trust them to be the great force for change they have always been."

Over the past decade, we have become a polarized nation - groups that lean from the extreme left and to the extreme right who cannot formulate the desire to find a middle ground. What influences these rival passions? 

Social media has become the largest platform of free expression for not just political leaders, but individuals who have strong passions they desire to share as well. The advantage of having social media is a crucial necessity for those who consider themselves influencers. Unfortunately, the essence of these platforms, such as instagram and twitter, have been tainted by the art of propaganda and the creation of "fake news." Far left and far right programs, such as CNN and FOX, are effective in reaching their audiences by riveting every story line to create a stimulus that every viewpoint that is not in alignment with theirs are considerably threats to our nation and seen as enemies. 

Furthermore, parties in leadership make minimal efforts for cooperation with other political parties. Considerably, majority of those elected in high offices are those who have strong and passionate aims that conflict upon with other parties, creating unnecessary arguments out of petty desires. The fact that our nation also lacks the education of current political positions and pursuits hinder them from recognizing the truth at stake; whereas we all choose to select tidbits of information, which can be twisted, on social media and taking these claims as fact.

Our nation lacks the discipline to conduct further research of what acts of government are being instilled into the institution of our United States; with the intentional twisting of information upon mainstream media sources and the lack of understanding the underlying depth of each issue, we create an institution of shattered plains which refers to solutions of anger and violence. 

Anti-Fascist or Socialist Supremacists

Although proclaiming to be enacting their right of freedom of speech, this group of masked crusaders are associated with the behaviors which would classify them as a domestic terrorist organization, upholding no other belief and goal except anarchy. Since the election of President Trump, the far left agenda of the group, ANTIFA,  has grown and aim to overrule all individuals who hold a conservative view, especially if they support Donald Trump. 

The behaviors portrayed by this group include assault and battery against innocent crowds, leaving several in their midst severely injured or in critical conditions. On August 12, 2017 during the white supremacy rally, ANTIFA retaliates in an act of counter protesting; violence breaks when ANTIFA members assault the crowd, igniting the exact fuel that supremacists are looking for: chaos.

Although I do not condone the beliefs, values, or ideals of these white supremacists, I argue that retaliating with violence is the worst strategy towards making a better country; this applies to both radical sides of each party.

Considerably, I concede that white supremacists conduct the most violence across the United States individually by those who take firearms against other people and committing several mass shootings, which is an immediate threat demanding attention. But I am writing this as a concern for the organization of domestic terrorism: ANTIFA conducting organized attacks and impulsive collusions against individuals (who are not white supremacists) that support President Trump or any conservative views. They are striking fear into those who do not believe in their agendas resulting in people too unsettled to freely speak or participate in their pride of being an American, who should be free to choose not only what party, but what beliefs they may freely practice. 

Furthermore, the idea that these "anti-fascists" believers assemble in the name of peace against hate, the opposite prevails when the only position behind the curtain is a supremacist group who uphold the socialist agenda, implementing their values and condemning polar views. The first amendment is lost in translation. 

ANTIFA Violence