Legalize Transgender Part 2

I was so taken aback by the reception on my previous post that I thought it'd be a good idea to do another follow up post. One major component of transgender politics that I missed was the Employment Non Descrimination Act (ENDA). Basically, the act prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual or gender identity with businesses larger than 15 people. The Senate passed ENDA on November 17, 2013, which is a pretty big deal considering the fact that ENDA has been on the legislative table since the Stonewall Riots in 1974. It was also a pretty big deal since it received significant bipartisan support with a whopping 10 Republican Senators voting in jts favor. This historic act will be consummated with majority approval in the House of Representatives. Hopefully we won't see any right wing morons find a way to block its passage. This probably won't happen considering the direction that our country is going with LGBT politics- after all, the Supreme Court and state legislatures are standing on the right side of history.

I also forgot to reiterate my opinion in my last post and put some perspective on why I wrote it. Obviously, it should be clear based on the title "Legalize Transgender" that I fully support equal rights for transgender citizens. I firmly believe that no one should be discriminated against on grounds of race, age, gender, or sexual orientation- you name it. During my gap year I've immersed myself in the LGBT community and have realized that transgenderism is akin to the big elephant in the room- most LGBT groups deal with sexual orientation, not gender orientation. Surprisingly, some LGBT groups/areas even discriminate against or treat transgenderism differently. For example, the lesbian bar Phase One in Washington D.C. welcomes gay women but subtly looks down on transgenders. Moreover, the Human Rights Campaign barely fights for the transgender community, and when it does, it's at a glacial pace. Some anecdotal evidence shockingly demonstrates the HRC's unwillingness to embrace transgender rights at marriage equality rallies. As a result, the transgender community has had to consolidate its forces in independent groups such as the National Center for Transgender Equality. I visited their headquarters in Northwest DC and was surprised at how sparse and tiny their space was. Just a few blocks away, HRC headquarters was undergoing a glamorous renovation that will turn their office building into a post modern glorification of gay rights.

On the other hand, I don't want to sound too pessimistic. Many safe spaces exist in DC for the trans community. The DC LGBT Center hosts weekly trans discussion groups. Town Danceboutique is full of female to males and male to females. Being transgender at this awesome night club feels like a mainstream identity. The DC trans masculine group has game nights and monthly coffee/happy hour meet ups. Progress is being made.

I think the 21st century holds great promise for American minority groups facing inhumane and simply disgusting forms of discrimination. I think that American society is embracing homosexuality like never before, and I think in 20 years coming out of the closet won't even exist. However, coming out of the closet as a transgender will certainly be a thing. The fight to accept transgenderism will be the hallmark social revolution from 2020 onwards. And, like most social revolutions, the fight will ultimately witness tremendous success.

Legalize Transgender

Over the past few decades gay populations worldwide have witnessed increased support and civil protections. For example, just this past year, the Supreme Court Struck down DOMA and Californians overturned Proposition 8. This trend will most likely continue as more and more U.S. states legalize same sex marriage. Some countries, such as Russia and Nigeria, are standing on the wrong side of history via bans on gay propaganda and the criminalization of homosexual activity, but they are definitely the exception to the rule.

I only mention "gay populations" because another fight is taking place that isn't garnering as much attention. This kind of fight differs from sexual liberation, rather, it deals with liberation along a gender spectrum. LGBTQ stands for "Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Queer". Many argue that the "T" should be separated due to the fact that it has nothing to do with sexuality. The specific definition of transgender is "denoting or relating to a person whose self identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender." Transgenders face a constant uphill battle to be accepted by society and accepted in the workplace. Studies have shown that transgender people face disproportionate amounts of discrimination in all areas of life, especially in employment and healthcare. The economic well being of transgender people is being challenged today like never before.

Moreover, current federal government policies hinder transgender people from pursuing federal government jobs. A transgender person can be passed over for hire or can be fired solely based on the fact that he or she is transgender. It is also tremendously difficult for transgenders to update their employment records, identification badges, or get coverage for medically necessary health care. On other fronts, the number one medial issue facing transgenders is the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Transgender youth are disproportionately bullied and consequently have high rates of suicide. Young,  low-income transgender women of color are confronted with the highest levels of unconscionable hate crime.

So what can be done to fix this epidemic of hate? Government policies aren't a quick fix to societal discrimination, but they surely give the transgender population more opportunities to live healthier an d easier lives. Here are some bullet points I put together (courtesy of the National Center for Transgender Equality):

• Comprehensive Civil Rights.  Congress should pass a comprehensive civil rights bill that protects people from discrimination based on gender identity and expression as well as sexual orientation in regards to public accommodations, housing, credit, education, and federally-funded programs.
• Government-wide Job Protection. The President should issue an Executive Order to clarify that discrimination against federal civilian employees on the basis of gender identity or expression is prohibited, similar to Executive Order 11478, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
• Need for Census Data. The U.S Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census should include in its data collection standards information counting and including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. The Bureau should investigate how to study transgender people in various government surveys, including the 2020 decennial census.
• National AIDS Strategy.  The federal government should create and implement a comprehensive and coordinated national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes provisions that address the impact of HIV/AIDS on transgender populations.
• Aid for Homeless Youth. The Department of Housing and Urban Development should recognize unaccompanied homeless youth as a distinct special needs population, including LGBT homeless youth, and should create a long-term Youth Housing Strategy that is inclusive of the distinct circumstances of LGBT homeless youth.
• Safe Schools Improvement Act. Congress should pass the Safe Schools Improvement Act, which would amend the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act to include bullying and harassment prevention programs. These programs should include specific information about bullying and harassment that targets students because of their gender identity or expression.
• Federal Hate Crimes Prevention. Congress should pass the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (LLEHCPA).

Best Political Moments of 2013

As a political wonk I love dissecting issues such as Snowden's NSA fiasco or Ryan's budget plan, but  I rarely have time to step back and evaluate the big picture, unless I'm lauding the many achievements that female politicians have made in the past few months. This blog is dedicated to a macroscopic outlook on American politics in 2013. I've pulled information from a few blogs that evaluate 2013 politics in different ways: what's whacky, what went right for women, etc. So here you go:

10 of the Best Political Moments for Women in 2013 (paraphrased, courtesy of Lane Florsheim):

1. Hillary Clinton endorsed marriage equality, got a twitter account, and announced that she'll declare her presidential decision sometitme in 2014.

2. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) became the first openly LGBT person to take office in the US Senate

3. Rep. Krysten Sine,a (D-AR) took office as an openly bisexual congressperson 

4. New Hampshire elected a female governor- Maggie Hassan

5. The Supreme Court struck down DOMA and Prop 8 was rejected

6. Texas state Senator Wendy Davis (D) succeeded in epically filibustering an anti-abortion law. Athough her efforts were ultimately struck down by Governor Rick Perry, the event garnered national news coverage and plenty of attention nationwide.

7. The long standing ban on women in combat was lifted in January. #FemaleNavySeals2016

8. The Violence Against Women Act passed Congress.

9 President Obama appointed Susan Rice to be National Security Adviser and had Samantha Power (literal girl power....and Yale alumn!) replace Rie.

10. It refrained from paraphrasing this one: And, obviously, who could forget the awesome Golden Globes moment when Amy Poehler got onstage after Bill Clinton introducedLincoln and said, in complete awe, “Wow, what an exciting special guest. That was Hillary Clinton’s husband!”? 

NBC's 10 Oddest Political Momenys of 2013 (summed up in quotes):

1. ‘I knew that by putting something out as a tweet that I deleted that the press would see it, and if they could read something into what was an innocent tweet about how hot Cyndi Lauper was as a performer, that it would get the press’s attention, and it did in a monster way.’ – Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., April 12.

2. ‘I will eat them anywhere. I do so like green eggs and ham. Thank you, thank you, Sam I Am!’  - Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Sept. 24. (During a filibuster)

3. ‘Spread your legs — you're gonna be frisked!’ Vice President Joe Biden, Jan. 3.
(During a senatorial ceremony) 

4. ‘The president did not communicate with Jay-Z over this trip’ – White House press secretary Jay Carney, April 11. (After Jay-Z boasted "White House clearance to Cuba in one of his songs) 

5. The most shocking part of the story was learning that there is a vegan strip club in Portland.’ – Cory Booker spokesman Kevin Griffis, Sept. 25. (After Booker initiated Grated contact with a stripper in Portland) 

6. We started arguing about who won the Cold War, etc. And so we decided to settle it like men do when they’ve had too much to drink in the pub. And so we got down to these arm wrestling matches. And I ended up being paired up off with Putin.’ – Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.,  Sept. 12 ( this quote speaks for itself)

7. We’re glad Poland Spring was close at hand for Sen. Rubio last night at his moment of need for refreshment.’– Poland Spring statement, Feb. 13. (Rubio had a poorly timed lunge for bottles water during his State of the Union response) 

8. I know that this has been some of the conventional wisdom that’s been floating around Washington that somehow, even though most people agree that I’m being reasonable, that most people agree I’m presenting a fair deal, the fact that they don’t take it means that I should somehow, you know, do a Jedi mind meld with these folks and convince them to do what’s right.’ – President Barack Obama, March 1. (Obama got his sci fi facts wrong) 

9. ‘It's hard to take you seriously’ – NYC mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner, to a British reporter, Aug. 8. (Back at you, Wiener)

10. For every one who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds — and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.” Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, July 18. (Bizarre to say the least)

11. There could be Kool-Aid in the red cups, but there’s probably beer in the red cups.”  Maryland Democratic Attorney General Doug Gansler, Oct. 24. (After being photographed at a high school legged with his son) 

ABC's Political Highs and Lows in Social Media:

1. Hillary Clinton's twitter biography

2. George W Bush's new Instagram

3. The White House tries to make fetch happen

4. Senator Cory Booker tweeting about Beyonce 

5. Colbert convinced Bill Clinton to hop on the Twitter bandwagon

6. Selfless across the board: Hillary and Chelsea, Michelle and Barrack, John McCain and daughter

7. A White House National Security official was fired for creating an anonymous twitter account that took jabs at politicians

8. The RNC created the hash tag #RacismEndedWhen

Hillary Mania

In a recent interview with Barbara Walters, Hillary Clinton declared that she'll publicly announce her run for President or lack thereof in 2014 (she was also named Walters' most fascinating person of the year). Exciting news for Hillary fanatics like myself. So when will she specifically announce her decision in 2014? Where will she announce it? Who will be her campaign manager? What will her slogan be? Which states will she attack? Who else will compete? These are all questions that beg attention (notice how I'm already assuming she'll say yes).

Looking back on 2008, it becomes clear that many mistakes were made that significantly shifted her chances of making it into the Oval Office. So how can she make a better run for it this time? Here are some ideas (follow up explanations to come):

1. Pick the right team.

2. Don't be too confident. 

3. Make Iowa your best friend. 

4. Technology, technology, technology.

5. Don't underestimate the caucus states.

Putin has a Heart?

According to recent developments (shoutout to journalist Steven Lee Myers in the linked NYTimes article) that surfaced today, Vladimir Putin may have a heart. The 61-year old Russian President issued a decree Friday morning that pardoned Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, the former chief executive of Yukos Oil who has been imprisoned for a total of 10 years. The antagonistic relationship between Putin and Khodorkovsky may be the most infamous story in Russia's recent history. Here are some facts:

• Khodorkovsky is a notable Russian businessman and philanthropist who secured a net worth of 15 billion dollars in dubious ways (he was once Russia's richest man). 
• Khodorvkosky was known as an "oligarch"- a term applied to men who seized unrivaled amounts of money and power after the fall of the communist regime
• Khodorkovsky opened up a cafe during Gorbachev's rule, which soon turned into a trading company and then a bank
• In 1995 Khodorkovsky acquired the oil company Yukos, and expanded the company to unimaginable heights using some transactions that were widely seen as corrupt
• Khodorkovsky's political ambitions soon clashed with Putin's. Yukos sponsored youth programs that advocated student government and quasi-democratic ideals. Khodorkovsky was always critical of Putin's "managed democracy", in which authoritarian power checked individual liberties and an open, transparent political process
• In 2003 Khodorkovsky was arrested on dubious charges of fraud and tax evasion. 
• In 2005 he was sentenced to a medium security prison for 9 years. As Khodorkovsky made his transition to imprisonment several third/independent parties as well as Western governments showed support for the former oligarch. 
• As his second trial closed in 2010, Khodorkovsky famously declared his final words:

I am ashamed for my country.

Your honour, I think we all perfectly understand the significance of our trial extends far beyond the fates of Platon [Lebedev] and myself. And even beyond the fates of all those who have innocently suffered in the course of the reprisals against YUKOS that have taken place on such a huge scale, those I found myself unable to protect, but about whom I have not forgotten. I remember every day.

Let's ask ourselves, what does the entrepreneur, the top class organizer of production, or simply an educated, creative individual, think today looking at our trial and knowing that the result is absolutely predictable?

The obvious conclusion a thinking person would come to is chilling in its simplicity: the bureaucratic and law enforcement machine can do whatever it wants. There is no right of private property. No person who conflicts with the "system" has any rights whatsoever.

Even when enshrined in law, rights are not protected by the courts. Because the courts are either also afraid, or are part of the "system". Does it come as a surprise that thinking people do not strive to realize themselves here in Russia?

He continued:

I am far from being an ideal person, but I am a person with ideals. For me, as for anybody, it is hard to live in prison, and I do not want to die here.

But if I have to, I will have no hesitation. What I believe in is worth dying for. I think I have shown this.

Now here are some possible explanations for why Putin is going to release Khodorkovsky in the near future:

1. As Russia gears up for the 2014 Sochi Olympics, Putin wants to ease Russia's repression of human rights and show that the country gives its citizens ample civil liberties.

2. At his 4-hour press conference this morning, Putin showed surprising buoyancy and confidence in his words. In previous press conferences he grudgingly answered questions from news agencies with great hesitance. In this specific conference, however, he shined and confidently talked back to the press. This might be another move in Putin's campaign to show off Russia's strength towards the West. In other words, by releasing Khodorvsky, he's sending a message that no third parties or famous foes can bring his administration down. 

3. Behind-the-scene deals. In my opinion this explanation for Khodorkovsky's release is highly unlikely, but perhaps Putin cut a deal with Khodorkovsky or the West for release. Perhaps the deal involved money, stakes in his oil firm, or could it be related to Edward Snowden? Anything's possible! 

NSA Part 3

In my two previous posts on the NSA I reiterated the notion that an independent review commission was desperately needed to check the power associated with the agency's overbearing practices such as phone and email metadata collection. Then I stumbled across an article in the New York Times that mentioned how a panel had already been set up. Here are the facts:

• The panel has 5 members, each picked by the President: 
• Richard Clarke : former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism 
• Michael Morell : former deputy director of the CIA
• Geoffrey Stone : University of Chicago Law Professor
• Cass Sunstein : Harvard Law School scholar
• Peter Swire : expert in privacy law at the Georgia Institute of Technology
• The President called for the creation of this panel on August 27, 2013
• The panel issued a report, titled "Liberty and Security in a Changing World", with 46 key recommendations
• Despite the broad scope of the panel's expertise in intelligence, communications, and counterterrorism, the report reflected a solid consensus among its members (a good sign)
• The most significant recommendation was to keep data in the hands of telecommunications companies or a private consortium, with necessary court orders required to access the information
• This recommendation defers from the status quo because the NSA currently has full access to all data from communication companies 

In my opinion, here are some PROs and CONs of the panel and their report:

PROs:

• the panel is obviously experienced and diversified, with some sitting in academia and others being long time members of the national security apparatus
• the report calls for an objective third party (a private consortium) to check government power
• the panel strongly advises separating private sector data from public sector usage- a very balanced approach
• separation of private sector data from public usage can set a strong precedent for future cases/situations 

CONs:

• Are a meager 5 panelists adequate enough to complete this job? 
• We're not sure if any personal bias on Obama's behalf was involved in the process- after all, two of the professors come from the University of Chicago and Harvard- two schools that Obama attended 
• I'm not sure if the 5 panelists have more liberal standings, which would significantly affect their view between privacy and national security
• There is still no check on the judicial part of the process, in other words, a search warrant authorizing the NSA to see private data still relies on the judgment of one person

Questions:

• What process did Obama use to pick these panelists?
• Would the process have been more impartial if Congress had picked the panelists? 
• How much impact will this report have? How will it sway all three government branches? 
• If Obama does agree that a separation between private data and public usage of such data is needed, how will he go about implementing this idea? Will it be via executive order or congressional lawmaking? 
• Who will be in the "private consortium"?
• Could the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court use three judges instead of one to authorize search warrants? (majority rules- only 2/3 would need to concur) 

X Chromosomes in 2016

The 2016 presidential election is approaching faster than we care to acknowledge and it's about time for an alpha female to sit in the Oval Office. America has had a long affair with Hillary Clinton. Her loyal followers are pining to see Bill as First Man. I'll admit to hopping onto this bandwagon. But what about some other ladies that are rocking the political scene? Is it too naive to ask for multiple X chromosomes on the 2016 ticket? Here's a quick preview at some possible female presidential candidates, barring no major political gaffes in the next three years. This is wishful thinking- but thinking nonetheless. Here are four women - two conservative and two liberal, who have enough political capital to at least be thought of for 2016.

1. Michelle Bachmann

Age: 57

Party: Republican

Current Title: Congresswoman for Minnesota's 6th district

Experience: Minnesota State Senator, candidate in the 2012 presidential election, attorney for the IRS

Key Issues and Stances: pro creationism, long time friend of Israel, pro increased drilling of oil and natural gas, pro life, anti same sex marriage, anti-DREAM act (strict on immigration), pro phasing out Social Security and Medicare,

Interesting Fact: Bachmann has been dubbed the "Queen of the Tea Party"

2. Nancy Pelosi

Age: 73

Party: Democrat

Current Title: House Minority Leader

Experience: DSCC Finance Chair, Speaker of the House

Key Issues and Stances: pro choice, anti offshore oil drilling, pro Affordable Care Act, pro same sex marriage, supports marijuana law reform, opposes water boarding, pro No Child Left Behind

Interesting Fact: Pelosi is one of the richest members of Congress with an estimated net worth of 58 million dollars.

3. Nikki Haley

Age: 41

Party: Republican

Current Title: Governor of South Carolina

Experience: FCR Corporation, Exotica International, Chamber of Commerce, South Carolina House of Representatives

Key Issues and Stances: pro lower taxes and anti legislation (fiscally conservative), strict on immigration, pro life

Interesting Fact: Haley was born and raised as a Sikh.

4. Elizabeth Warren

Age: 64

Party: Democrat

Current Title: US Senator to Massachusetts

Experience: law professor, TARP oversight committee, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Key Stances and Issues: fiscally liberal, pro clean, renewable energy, pro Affordable Care Act, pro same sex marriage

Interesting Fact: Warren has published 8 books.

NSA Part 2

By total awesome coincidence the same day I published my first piece on the NSA happened to be the same day that the NSA's bulk collection of phone metadata was deemed (for the first time in history) "most likely unconstitutional." Judge Richard Leon of the Federal District Court of the District of Columbia wrote a scathing 68 page case on why collecting millions of phone records goes against the vision of our Founding Fathers. Based on articles that I've already read, and not based on reading the entire case, here are some key points that I think standout:

• Judge Leon attacked the issue with a strong textual argument, meaning he relied on text in the constitution to make a strong case for American privacy. The bulk of his textual argument stems from the 4th amendment, which declares "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 
• In my last post I mentioned how the government currently has a special court for handling the authorization of search warrant and similar requests. This court is specifically called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)
• In 15 previous cases the FISC has ruled this kind of metadata collection constitutional largely based off of legal precedent set by Smith v. Maryland (1979), in which the court ruled that there are no Fourth amendment protections for phone metadata (in this context metadata is the collection of phone records without delving into their actual contents). 
• The NYTimes summed it up pretty well: "The 1979 case, which involved collecting information about a criminal defendant’s calls, helped establish the principle that people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for information they have exposed to a third party, like the phone company, which knows about their calls."
• Judge Leon attacked Smith v. Maryland by pointing out tremendous technological differences between 1979 and the present day. Leon also cited the scope of the NSAs current program, which reaches far beyond any limits set in 1979. 
• Lastly, the judge defended his stance by citing "a landmark privacy case decided by the Supreme Court in 2012 that held it was unconstitutional for the police to use a GPS tracking device to monitor a suspect’s public movements without a warrant."(NYTimes)

Those are some importat facts. Here is my opinion:

• On Smith v. Maryland: the judge in this case ruled that Fourth amendment rights did not apply here because the phone companies that citizens subscribe to have records of information anyway. This issue is very important and lies in a gray area: if you subscribe to Verizon, you're legally giving your information to a company that can connect with the government. Should people who don't want their information in a public cloud not subscribe to companies that will record their calls and conversations? It's almost impossible in the 21st century to not have ties with some major communications company. We all need email, text messages, and (some) need social media to get through the day. Is the government crossing boundaries if they ask Verizon for phone records? Is it legally permissible for Verizon to give the government these records? This is where a legal cybersecurity/21st-century technological framework comes in- we absolutely need to have a body of law that deals with these novel and complex issues. 
• What I said above does not take a particular yes or no stances, but I will definitely affirm that the technological scope of the NSA's current activities significantly differs from what was in place 34 years ago during Smith v. Maryland. It is just not okay for the Obama administration to defend NSA snooping using a legal precedent set in 1979. They need legal precedents that do not originate from the Ice Age. 
• I am desperately hanging on to the notion that we need an independent commission to review warrant authorizations in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Relying on the supposed "impartiality" of one judge does not make sense. The government cannot ask itself whether it needs a search warrant and then thereby approve or disprove of one. This process is intrinsically flawed. 
• When taking into account all of this information, here is my final stance: it is okay for the NSA to use phone and email metadata to defend our country. One prime example of metadata efficacy occurred with Somalian pirates: by using phone records, and not actual phone conversation content, the NSA was able to trace pirate phone calls to prevent another pirate attack. It is also okay for the NSA to thoroughly look through phone conversations and emails, but only of  a select few. Furthermore, an independent commission should work in tandem with FISC to evaluate search warrant authorizations. The authorization of a search warrant should not rely on the opinion of one judge. Lastly, Congress needs to produce a draft of a body of law dealing with cybersecurity. The international community is already working on doing this, but one that is only specific to America is much needed. 

NSA Transformation: From "No Such Agency" to "No Secrets Agency"

This morning I perused news sites for interesting information and came across a 60 minute special on the NSA. This segment was groundbreaking considering how secretive the NSA has been with news organizations in the past. I discussed the segment on an easy 30 minute run with a good friend of mine who is planning to major in computer science from a prestigious university. He mentioned how intelligence agencies had visited his school to recruit top-tier hackers and engineers, which led me to think about several things.

 First and foremost, the 21st century is witnessing a shift from collective technological power to individual technological power. What I mean by this is one contractor (cue Edward Snowden), working on a small island in Hawaii, can completely dismantle and wreak havoc on a national security apparatus that employs over 30,000 people and spends billions of dollars on an annual basis. On a similar note, a few hackers in China can cause an electrical power outage in small rural town in Iowa. These are the pitfalls of wielding individual technological power. There are just as many positives, however. Think Mark Zuckerberg, who founded the world's most influential social networking site from a dormroom in Harvard, or individual TEDx sensations who spur intellectual conversations across the globe.

Secondly, while the 21st century is host to this revolutionary movement of individualization, the 20th century saw power being yielded in the form of rich bureaucracies, fascist regimes (employing groupthink, propaganda, the list goes on...), and national security apparatuses that could not be threatened by small antagonistic pockets of people. That's not to say that these collective systems no longer exist, in fact, some are growing bigger: our federal government keeps spending money like it's growing on trees. However, these big organizations are losing power as more and more individuals are gaining power via advanced technology.

Thirdly, the words "advanced technology" bring me back to the NSA: so what exactly, in a nutshell, happened with Snowden? Basically, a technologically savvy college dropout with classified clearance copied approximately 31,000 documents that apparently pose an enormous threat to our nation's security. I will not elaborate on these matters; they're too time consuming and complex to break apart. Al Jazeera composed a brilliant timeline of Snowden's activities that's worth a careful read.

In response to all this chaos, the NSA finally decided to open its doors to a resentful world that views the agency as nothing other than Big Brother. So what are some key takeaways from these interviews? And what are some follow up questions that deserve to be asked? Here's my input:

• General Keith Alexander, the Director of NSA, affirmed that the agency only intercepts phone calls from 50-60 American citizens. Questions: Will this list grow in the future? How does the agency decide which people to thoroughly spy on? When did this program start? 
• The NSA collects millions of email address books globally, which is analogous to its collection of phone contacts. How many emails does it actually read though? How do they decide which email accounts to thoroughly check? 
• In order to explore private communication accounts in depth, the NSA needs a special court order to authorize a search warrant. These court proceedings are not open to the American public or, for that matter, any independent review commission. This process is intrinsically flawed because the government is not being checked by more objective outside sources. Can an independent commission be created to counterbalance the government's overriding power? The citizens on the commission can come from creditable human rights organizations that evaluate privacy concerns. 
• A legal cybersecurity framework is not in place in the U.S. When will it be?