The NSA's At It Again

This past week, an international uproar erupted when it was revealed that the US’s NSA program has been spying on at least 35 world leaders, many being America’s own allies. I, unlike a majority of people who have caught wind of this conflict, do not take issue with the NSA’s recent snooping. Many may see this as betrayal, but I’m of the opinion that the federal government’s primary responsibility is to take every necessary measure to protect the American people from foreign enemies. Whether the NSA’s spying is essential in America’s military strategy is a different argument for others to have—I merely contend that the NSA acted within its rights in this case.

I personally see the snooping as an extension of national security. The American military and intelligence may be involved in foreign affairs such as the anarchy in Iraq and Syria to help benefit society as a whole, but they are also immersed in these conflicts to stay “in the know” regarding intentional issues. In this case, the NSA took a sneakier approach in investigating other country’s internal happenings, but a similar principle was exercised.

I’m not, however, a huge fan of the NSA as a result of its snooping on a number of innocent American citizens. The program claimed it was within its right provided by the Patriot Act (which, again, is a separate argument), but its domestic intrusion was essentially dismissed by the American people in a matter of weeks. I personally find it unreasonable to be more concerned with the NSA’s spying on foreign leaders than on the American people, but perhaps that’s just me.

Trying Times in Russia

It appears that last week’s Moscow migrant conflict is composed of both cultural and religious disagreements—a combination that could prove to be catastrophic for the Russian capital. At the risk of being religiously insensitive, it appears that the Muslim’s acts of insubordination were initially mildly passive, involving no bombings or hostages. However, this conflict came to a head when an advocacy group blamed these new Moscowans for the murder of an ethnic Russia, and a full out civil war broke out.

I find this civil disagreement to be so interesting because, though it involves an occasionally boisterous religion, no real radical behavior has been realized to date. Sure, someone was killed—not that this should be treated flippantly—but no churches or public transportation mediums have been bombed, and no terrorist threats have been made. This leads me to believe that this struggle is cultural, not unlike what we experience here in America. Both Moscow and the United States are melting pots of ethnicities, and issues like this are experienced every day. Whether it takes form as a gang shooting between the MS-13 and the Bloods in Los Angeles or the Westborough Baptist Church protesting military funerals in Arlington, cultural clashes occur in our homeland—a self-proclaimed peaceful nation—on a daily basis.

After examining this divergence in Moscow, I can’t help but wonder when the U.S. will attempt to make the kinds of immigration reforms Russia is seeking to implement soon. Opponents of American immigration reform make the classic argument that America was discovered and founded by immigrants and that everyone has the right to reside here if they go through the due legal process of nationalization. This is indisputable but misses the point. The exponential influx of illegal immigrants in America has caused, or, at least, perpetuated, a variety of issues in today’s society. Nationwide crime rates and the national debt have skyrocketed and jobs have been occupied by those who evade taxes and contribute little to society. I am all for foreigners legally coming to America for the opportunity for a better life—without this ability, I would not even be a citizen here—but illegal immigration is America’s version of the Moscow conflict. Changes must be made to both societies and only those who are willing to sacrifice the time and effort to migrate should be allowed to do so, and those who have neglected to be nationalized should excommunicated until they legitimately municipalize.

Works Cited

Baczynska, Gabriela, and Igor Belyatski. "Over 1,600 Migrants Rounded up after

Ethnic Riots in Moscow." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 14 Oct. 2013. Web. 23

Oct. 2013

The Golden Age of Television

When considering the “Golden Age of Television,” shows considered today to be “oldies” initially came to my mind. Television shows such as M*A*S*H, I Love Lucy, and Happy Days—wholesome, family oriented, All-American, shows even—are classic, timeless programs that serve as fundamental building blocks for today’s television shows. However, upon reading the article, I came to realize that this is the reason that these programs are seen as “golden.” Like any pioneers in any industry, they are seen as timeless, but I find that archetypical TV shows are simply generational.

I took the liberty of calling my fourteen-year-old brother to ask him what he considered to be TV’s “Golden” programs. As I expected, he listed shows such as Boy Meets World, Even Stevens, and Lizzie McGuire. These are the shows that he grew up on in the early 2000’s, and, to him, were a key component of his childhood. Those programs, along with the likes of Full House, Spongebob Squarepants, and Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, are what are most reminiscent of my early years and, consequently, became a part of my developmental years and life as a whole.

People search for escapism when watching TV. Their “Golden Age” likely reflects which shows bring them life’s sweetest memories—for many, their childhoods or other times of simplicity and contentment. Though it is evident there are subliminal messages of racism, sexism, and political propaganda in television of all generations, people typically value TV shows for their surface components—their characters, plot lines, stories, and morals. After examining this subject extensively, I have concluded that the “Golden Age of Television” is, in fact, a number of ages, valued differently by each individual TV fanatics.

The 2013 Government Shutdown

The American government has been under much financial duress for the past decade. Between the Great Recession, irresponsible Federal spending, and a whole host of other deficiencies, the economy has struggled mightily, weighed down by the Federal government’s carelessness. One particular conflict, namely, the full implementation of the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare), came to a head on September 30^th, as the House Republicans shut down funding for the Federal government as a result of President Obama’s perceived lack of cooperation on the law and an attempt to slow down its inception.

As with any significant political issue, there has been a great deal of finger pointing and blame-shifting regarding who is responsible for this whole fiasco. Today’s Americans have some sort of political bias about them, so I think it might be a good idea to consult our friends Adam Smith and Karl Marx about this subject and who is truly to blame. Adam Smith, who was typically a proponent of small government, would disapprove of the Affordable Care Act in general, but in terms of the conflict that has arisen as a result of its inception, he would likely blame the poor planning done by the House Republicans to keep President Obama and his administration from implementing what is essentially socialized medicine. Marx, on the other hand, would blame the American people as a whole for its political polarization, claiming that we ought to live communally and provide for each other.

Though this inevitable government shutdown mess has caught national attention and is something to be reckoned with, I believe the origin of this issue lies a couple of years in the past. When the Supreme Court ruled the Obamacare constitutional is when this fiasco began. Though it is directly unconstitutional to tax a small minority to subsidize a large majority—which, by my evaluation of the program, is what it essentially does—the Supreme Court gave it its stamp of approval. It is foolish to leave such significant financial responsibilities in the hands of a small group of political elites—regardless of allegiances or political orientations—and this issue should have been prevented entirely by killing the Affordable Care Act at its roots.

The Kenyan Hostage Situation

It seems that everyday there is some kind of major act of senseless violence occurring somewhere in the world. Recently, a group of Islamic terrorists held patrons at a Kenyan mall hostage, killing at least 5 of them. It is apparent these men were driven by religious zeal, but is faith, itself, to blame for this atrocity and the plethora of evils like it?

Our friend Karl Marx would likely uphold this opinion. He often found that religion of any kind is unhealthy to man, in that it robs them of personal freedom and glory, and to society by causing unnecessary emotional conflicts. He is of the belief that society ought to work collaboratively for its ultimate good—however, are communalism and religion mutually exclusive? Furthermore, is society to blame for a single group’s wrongdoing, as Marx would perhaps suggest?

As a Christian, I typically disregard the idea that religion is the main cause of these irrational killings. Some find that religion, aside from it being false entirely, is also a cancer to society and should be eradicated entirely. I see the validity of this sentiment, however, I dispute this by pointing out that no religious texts instruct people to do things that are so detrimental to humanity. I’m no theologian, but I’ve never read any manuscripts beseeching anyone to fly planes into buildings or to shoot up movie theatres. Man is simply to blame for the evil in this world. Regardless of one’s motivation to do wrong—misplaced religious fervor, insanity, personal pleasure—people of all religious and ideological stripes commit heinous acts like the Muslim terrorists in the Kenyan hostage situation. Perhaps Marx is right, society’s shortcomings might be partially to blame for outbreaks like these, but I believe in personal responsibility and that these maniacs must be held accountable for their wrongs. Religion itself is not evil, but rather zealots’ misinterpretations that lead to the problems we face today, and, as we have seen for thousands of years, preventing man from doing as they please, on some level, is impossible.

Press, Associated. "3 Islamic Militants Dead, More Hostages Freed in Nairobi Mall

Terror Attack." Fox News. FOX News Network, 23 Sept. 2013. Web. 02 Oct. 2013.