Five Eyes Burgers and Fries

     As American citizens, most people have heard of the National Security Agency (NSA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and other fancy government acronyms. My question here is what do we actually know about these agencies outside of how your favorite true crime show depicts them?
One of the most famous cases regarding the NSA happened only in 6 years ago in 2013 when Edward Snowden, a CIA contractor leaked a multitude of highly classified documents the NSA had on American citizens that he found disturbing. Without this leak, the average American would not know that the government collected certain pieces of information about them at all, let alone that that information could legally be shared with other countries.

     How is this private information shared legally you ask? Great question!! It is through an intelligence alliance called Five Eyes, mainly between five countries- Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and of course the United States. This intelligence sharing began with the UKUSA agreement that was signed in 1946 and was later extended to include Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These nations collect data through global communication monitoring and signal intelligence (i.e., electronic intelligence and foreign instrumentation signals). In regular English, this means the government can monitor emails, fax, telephone, and internet communications of their citizens AND its all legal AND can be shared with other nations too.

     This intelligence sharing can be beneficial insomuch that there is a common understanding that one government will not target another's, citizens or persons. It has also created a uniquely open and close relationship between these countries where they can lean on each other or ask for advice when needed. These pros may be beneficial in some ways, but countries in the past did not property minimize identity information before sharing it with other countries, giving them full access to our private information that we may not even want our own government to have. Not only is private information shared among Five Eyes, but there are also 9 Eyes, 14 Eyes and 41 Eyes involving other countries in intelligence sharing.

Let's Talk about Sex (Education)

Should the first amendment also allow people not to receive basic sex education?

 Education is the root of gender inequality and if we continue to treat girls like they are lesser in the education system how can they learn to be any different in their own, and men's eyes. When we do talk about things related to sex, people always get uncomfortable and are meek to share their opinions or ask a question they may have because we live in a society where the idea of sex is everywhere but the conversation about sex is nowhere.  I came to realize that gender is a huge factor in politics but not in the way people think, it doesn’t change whether you voted trump or Hilary but instead if you have a focus on how your personal life is affected by your political life or are just thinking about your political life outside your home. If a piece of legislation were passed to instill a comprehensive sex education, it wouldn't be the same as a travel ban in the sense that it would affect a bunch of people all at once. Instead, it would slowly and steadily hinder the progression of harmful gender norms, STD and HIV rates, teenage pregnancy and sexual assault. The personal life is connected so deeply to gender, public policy and politics that if you look to the root many of the issues spoken about right now like gun rights, freedom of speech and separation between church and state you can see that these are all first brought up out of personal preservation and wants.

Everyone has sex, everyone is susceptible to getting an STD and it is up to our lawmakers and educators to decide that the overall well being and safety of humanity is paramount to preaching chastity.

You agreed to what now??

     Social Media. Everyone is on it, everyone cares about it, but how much good is it really doing for us as a global society? I would argue that social media makes lonely people feel sociable while making sociable people feel lonely. More than just the emotional connection we feel to social media weather is makes us happy or sad is the idea of social media making us safe or not. In a recent Pew Research Center study on Facebook and Americans, it was revealed that 74% of Americans do not understand how Facebook collects their personal interests and traits or how they use them- so let me explain.

     Do you remember that thing you just liked on facebook? The thing about the thing that you wanted to buy two weeks ago in Walmart that you forgot about until a Facebook ad so kindly reminded you? It may seem like a wild coincidence, but there are layers of things happening behind your screen that made that particular advertisement appear to you. Facebook is allowed to remember every page, picture, or video you have ever liked (other advertisements included) and uses this information to target people with ads they think they would want, or rather that they can make more money from. More than this they can also look at your location and demographics to give you advertisements for things close to you like a fun, creepy stalker ex-boyfriend that follows you around based on your snapchat location. No one wants this boyfriend right? So then why does he keep showing up everywhere you look?

     With 51% of American Facebook users saying they are uncomfortable with this compiling of information, Facebook could lose a lot of revenue if people decide to take action against allowing their personal information to be sold. The information is sold solely for the benefit of corporations trying to make more money off of the average American who does not have time to research the harms of personal data collection in the name of better advertisements. Creating a Facebook account is often done by children as young as 13, which means from the age of 13 through the rest of their lives Facebook and other social media can make money off of people without their knowledge.

     This is not to discount the benefits of social media or to encourage people to deactivate their accounts, but rather to assure that people have a full understanding of what they are signing up for with every new profile they create. There is only one you in real life, but hundreds of you are living online through every profile you create. Assuring those profiles accurately describe you, while not revealing too much personal information is a hard line to tow, but not an impossible one.

Marketplace of Ideas

     After thoroughly discussing the eight values of free expression with Lyndsey we have come to the conclusion that the marketplace of ideas is one of the most important values due to its reach into multiple different theories, and hot topics in politics today. When John Milton first coined the term "marketplace of ideas" the notion of it being used in accordance with determining the constitutionality of cases regarding the first amendment for years to come was unlikely- that being said it has become one of the most essential phrases thrown around during first amendment debates.


     The marketplace of ideas allows the free flow of opinions, ideas, and speech expression to create a more innovative and collaborative society that can work towards political and economic change for the betterment of all individuals in the nation. With this marketplace of ideas, the theory of promoting tolerance is also amplified because without this platform to freely share what you are thinking citizens feel they are not being heard and positive change isn't happening. Opening up a line of conversation between constituents, their peers, and their elected government representatives allow for a more collaborative creative process regarding laws and help deter an uprising or potential overthrow of the government.

     The marketplace of ideas also goes hand in hand with protecting dissent. As we spoke about in class the United States is not a democracy, but rather a representative republic and the marketplace of ideas also makes room to hear the views of all those who could vote. This includes minority groups that are often cast to the margins of society in other nations, and often still our own. Although significant change cannot always come just from these minority groups, allowing their ideas to be freely broadcasted gives them an opportunity to partner with those with more political clout than them to push change forward.

     As the intersectional identities of Americas are starting to be embraced rather than criticized, the marketplace of ideas is becoming more and more critical. With the internet taking over our everyday lives it is easy for people to find stories to go against opinions they used to take as fact, and potentially open them up to become more accepting of other groups of society. Stories of people like Frederick Douglas, Katherine Switzer, or Maya Angelou would be forgotten over history if they weren't able to share them with the world- and subsequently change the world around them forever.

Supreme

     The supreme court is the most powerful court our nation has, and the most powerful court in the world given it is held with the responsibility of interpreting and ruling on the entire constitution of the United States. Receiving more than 7000 cases yearly it is clear that the supreme court is always busy sifting through various potential groundbreaking cases like Roe vs. Wade or Marbury vs. Madison. Although some of these cases become more famous than others in an American historical context, all of them are important in creating a nation that is representative of the people and their values. The founding fathers created the supreme court to assure that our principal document could be altered to fit the zeitgeist of the time but I doubt they anticipated it would ever work so far as to give women individual political identities or legalize same-sex marriage.

     The power of the supreme court can also be seen in its ability to annul a law Congress passes if they deem it unconstitutional or any law made by a state government. Not only do they regulate state and national government, but they also regulate the powers of the president and can deem that the president's acts do not follow the law of the constitution.  Having power over virtually all areas of government gives the supreme court the most power in the nation. When an opening on the supreme court is made available the president nominates a candidate that must then be confirmed by the Senate.

     In the 230 years the Supreme Court has been around, and 114 total justices that have served on the court, only four justices have been women. Starting with the amazing Sandra Day O'Connor, the first ever female justice who was only appointed in 1981! Justice O'Connor ruled on a multitude of important cases including Planned Parenthood v. Casey that ultimately upheld  Roe v. Wade a landmark case that allowed women legal abortions. She also worked towards equality between men and women specifically in her work to allow men into a women's only nursing school. Early in her career in 1988, she was already receiving treatment for breast cancer. After beating breast cancer and retiring in 2006 O'Connor moved to Arizona where she still lives today.

     The second female supreme court justice to ever be selected is Ruth Bader Ginsberg who still serves on the court today. Appointed in 1993 specifically for her role as a social activist and political skills to deal with more conservative members of the court, Ginsberg argued six landmark cases on gender equality before the U.S. Supreme Court among other historic rulings. She advocated for the legality of same-sex marriage in all 50 states, eventually passing a national law to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

     Looking into the women of the supreme court is essential to understanding how our government has changed and will continue to change in the future. 
 

Oliver, Noah and Minhaj walk into a bar..

     Political comedians. Are they funny? Yes. Are they a good source of information around the world? Also yes. Are they the only source you should use to gain an intellectual opinion about worldly news? Absolutely not.

     People like John Oliver, Trevor Noah, and Hasan Minhaj are easily the most digestible way for me to intake political news along with the 4.6 million people that tune in to every episode of John Oliver. If you don't know who John Oliver is, he is a political comedian who hosts a show called "Last Week Tonight" on HBO. With topics ranging from Authoritarianism to family separation or even to psychics John Oliver's 'Last Week Tonight' is a good source for a little bit of information about everything while also poking fun at stereotypes and making other jokes throughout the show.

     Trevor Noah is the host of "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central previously hosted by Jon Stewart. Given that The Daily Show is on Comedy Central you would anticipate this show would be funnier than John Olivers Last Week Tonight, but the segments leave much more room for fluff than actual information. With that being said there is still information to be learned from Trevor Noah and many more follow-ups on previous segments if there is a topic you want consistent updates on.

     If you are too busy to be bothered to look for either of these shows on HBO, Comedy Central orYoutube I would highly recommend Hasan Minhaj's Patriot Act on Netflix. Coming from an Indian Muslim family Minhaj brings a new perspective to political comedy. Hasan has the ability to speak about affirmative action programs, Amazon, and even censorship in China while still putting a fun twist on his segments.

     All in all political comedians, in general, make political news far more interesting and although they shouldn't be used as the most valid source of information they sure are entertaining.

SHHHH....That's Private!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

     The First Amendment is one of the greatest things to happen to Americans. It allows us freedom in our writing or spoken word, as well as the freedom to assemble in groups, criticize the government and practice any religion we would like-or no religion at all. Having all of these freedoms come at no cost to us, except that they're not really as "free" as we want, but maybe sometimes that's a good thing? The First Amendment was put in place to assure that the government could not interfere with the aforementioned freedoms of individuals which is impressive, but also allows people to say hateful, slanderous things to other people face to face or online. It is only through private institutions that people can be punished for these actions. So what happens if private institutions choose to do nothing in these situations?

     There was recently an incident that allegedly happened at my school, High Point University, where a black student was targeted by white members of a fraternity on campus for "coming in and dancing with all the white women" along with many racist slurs.

     Now let's break this down because there are a number of things that come in to play here, not just racism but also classism and sexism.

     These men that allegedly sent the texts, let us call them PWM (privileged white men), have the upper hand in this situation regardless of the outcome because: 1. They're white, which systematically comes with an abundance of privilege. I don't have time to list all of these privileges here, but Peggy McIntosh does a great job naming them in her writing entitled Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.

     And 2. High Point University in itself runs off of the donations of others, creating an issue of classism. If you are a VIF (Very Important Family; no I'm not kidding, they're real) here at HPU, you already get an abundance of things other students don't because you pay full tuition or your parents have donated to the school. These things are more than just a free t-shirt and meal card for the cafe. They are allowed to register for classes before anyone else, showing that if you have more money you can claim your education, while the masses have to wait and receive an education. VIF's get the first choice in housing on campus (to assure that the children are happy in their living situation so the parents will continue to donate more money). 

     Oh and if on campus security catches them doing something the officers are told to do nothing at all, while the same things being done by "average" students could result in a multitude of repercussions.

     So, sending these racist text messages was probably assumed to be something that could be fixed and hidden under the warm fur coat of ~Daddy's Money~, and because this is a private institution, they're probably right.

     The administration can make sure that these boys are not penalized in any way, and can create new "initiative programs" to create a more inclusive campus that no one ever attends because they don't see what needs to be changed due to the lack of gravity put on situations like this in private universities. Our school holds its Communication program higher than most programs but also isn't accredited due to "not being allowed to a have freely run school newspaper" that allows students to write about these matters, or any other issues they feel are essential. This private institution, High Point University, can protect the freedom of speech of these PWM's and VIF's while limiting the freedom of speech of every other student on campus.

     If I was to want to publish this blog post to the school newspaper would they allow me to or would it speak too ill of the school? When will private institutions like this one take control over situations of discrimination and assure the safety and inclusivity of all people? Why is this even still a question today?