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.