Lance Armstrong Doping Scandal: It’s Time to Legalize Drugs in Sports

There are two hidden truths that no one seems to talk about when sports doping cases like Lance Armstrong’s fall from grace come to light.

Firstly, whether we admit it or not, almost every professional athlete is enhancing in some way or another. Secondly, the methods of testing and detecting performance enhancers cannot keep up with the rate of innovation — and new hormones, blood booster, absorption techniques and supplements are always being introduced faster than we can develop tests to find them.

So why are we still pursuing this futile battle? Why don’t we design a truly level playing field by allowing, regulating, and monitoring the use of any and all scientific enhancements? Tennis star Roger Federer wants to go the other way, and force athletes to have "blood passports" that keep annual records of their blood to be tested years down the line. We are now hearing newaccusations hurled against Olympians from this kind of back-record scrutiny. Boxer Julio Caesar Chavez Jr is even getting penalized for smoking marijuana, which isn't even a performance enhancer — although it certainly seems to have helped Michael Phelps stay cool in the pool.

Wouldn't it just make more sense to allow steroids, human growth hormones, blood boosters, supplements, and anything else we can find? Many people couldn't get past the fact that Lance Armstrong’s sociopathic apology read about as sincere as Casey Anthony’s sad face. But the real controversy is in pretending these isolated accusations are not indicative of a common practice throughout almost all sports.

I get the ideals of purity and level playing fields, but there are disparities and advantages even within the legal realms of athleticism. What would you call a nutritionist, personal trainer, physical therapist, or high-end sports gear and gym facilities? Keeping the enhancement practice under wraps only endangers the athletes further by not allowing it to be monitored by medical professionals. The more we normalize and standardize all advantages, the more performance comes down to the will of the individual athlete.

Original illustration by Nina Azzarello

Punishing athletes has done little to deter them, and all the cyclists who inherited Lance Armstrong’s Tour de France titles have been implicated in doping scandals of their own. It’s naive to think that only the ones we catch are doing it. If we legalized all forms of enhancement, we’d not only have an instantly even playing field, but it would also be one of peak performance and athletic ability — which is the essence of sports. Faster pitches, runs, and penalty shots. Harder tackles. Higher jumps. Increased agility, recovery and endurance. It makes the sports more watchable, profitable and enjoyable.

Why waste time drawing these arbitrary lines, when there’s already inane dispute within sports organizations as to what even constitutes an enhancer? Athletes are banned from human growth hormones — which can help with injury recovery — but can freely use muscle-building creatine. How are we defining what is kosher and what isn't?

For those worried about potential health risks, let’s remember we’re talking about people who put on armor to crash into each other, run for hours at a time, or wear knives on their feet to slide across ice. Danger is part of the game. Safely distributing, monitoring, and controlling performance enhancers on a case by case basis would only reduce the potential harm of indulging in them — as each athlete's regiment could be tailored and optimized.  

The last remaining component is historical purity, and not wanting to let synthetically-enhanced athletes take a place alongside "pure" hall of fame record holders. But most of the greats hold claims from antiquated eras — and every generation improves rules, talent pools, equipment, and regulations. Could Babe Ruth really compete in today's Baseball? Would Muhammed Ali be able to beat Wladimir Klitschko?

 

This is not a debate over spitballs or corner-cutting cheats. Every athlete is already doing this to some degree. Let’s just get it out in the open and see where the human body can truly go.

Gun Control Debate: New Gun Laws Arrive – But Will They Do Anything?

Congress is moving towards its first gun lawvote since the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in December. In that time, over 2,500Americans have been killed with guns, including 45 children and 127 teenagers. So why has it taken this long? Does this bill have a chance of becoming law? Most importantly, will it actually change anything about our violent culture?

The Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11-7 to strengthen penalties against illegal firearms purchases, pushing for the first congressional legislation on the matter since Sandy Hook. Meanwhile, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is demanding more bans on military-style assault weapons — a cause she has championed for years. She traces mass shootings in America’s history to the Austin 1966 clock tower. But the killer in that incident actually used a sniper rifle — a weapon not among the kinds being discussed. Other states have started moving on their own legislation, like South Dakota’s law allowing guns in classrooms. Obama’s deft political maneuverings, as covered by Politico, showed that he chose to include a lot of key gun groups in this debate ... on the strict condition they would be silent and supportive when it came time to announce the legislation. So whether effective or not, we shouldn't hear too much noise from the opposition.

That leaves the only meaningful question: will this have any actual effect on gun death rates in America?

Liberal views will be that this is a superficial bandage on a wound that still requires tougher medicine. Conservatives will say it’s an encroachment on a constitutional right, and that gun feature laws or vague "assault" labels will make most guns illegal. The pragmatic political perspective will claim that change comes in steps — some are disappointingly small, some are overambitious or too broad ... but it doesn't matter, just as long as we’re still moving forward!

But the real, ugly, and factual reality is that we can’t do anything about mass killings. Psychological testing wouldn't necessarily catch those who see no flaw in themselves. Weapons bans won’t affect someone determined to slaughter en masse. Even a full blown police state won’t stop sociopathic anomalies. But we’re not wrong to keep debating and trying ideas — because that’s how you ensure these incidents remain anomalies.

Studies do conclude that states with the most gun laws have fewest gun deaths. We've always addressed a rise in danger and violence with legislation — just look at anti-smoking laws or harsh penalties for DUI. But for a problem as prolific as our gun death rate, we should be trying far more avenues than one gun-specific legal sweep.

Most gun owners are sane and sensible people — they don’t deserve to have a hobby and constitutional right completely taken away from them. The NRA doesn't even represent the true interests of its members; it just lobbies for gun manufacturers and pushes whatever legislation will keep sales up. That’s why Wayne LaPierre supported universal background checks when they were never going to happen, but is now adamantly against them.

The truth is, Democrats only hurt their cause when they try to ban the guns that seem scary, because sales for those exact rifles skyrocket. The NRA even makes posters like this as part of that cycle:

 

By using bogus stats and scary stories the Democrats try to take on the role of championing helpless victims against violent lunatics. But instead of trying to pass legislation that will just infuriate conservatives and increase partisanship, why not follow through on the agenda linked to the Democratic platform?

Why not strengthen the inexplicably weakened A.T.F.? Choose an agency leader that will give the department teeth to take on the small groups dealing in illegal weapons. Why not focus on the true victims of gun violence? The highest numbers don't come from freak mass killing anomalies— they originate from violence in low income, economically and educationally neglected communities. The gun debate seems to only surge in the political arena when the victim draws unique attention from the public, or whenever Democrats can paint themselves as fighting the heartless opposition. But sensible drug policy reform would go a lot further in bettering the lives of the day-to-day victim. Police departments could be given better resources and mandates than simply arresting drug users. Education programs and smart social welfare reform could foster a stronger sense of community. Encouraging investment in afflicted metropolitan areas would incentivize businesses and police to keep the area safe.

If we are truly to claim that we want afflicted children to have better choices in life than  selling drugs and avoiding getting shot, we have to start removing the reasons most people shoot each other in the first place.

How Space Exploration Can Unite Humanity … Again

The Voyager spacecraft was launched in 1977 and is currently flying through the outermost layer of the Helioshpere — a region outside of our solar system where solar wind slows down due to pressure from interstellar gas.

Voyager still sends us regular information about its surroundings through the Deep Space Network (DSN) and carries aboard it a greeting for any extra-terrestrials who may bump into it. This little robotic hunk of metal, roaming the endless oceans of our galaxy, is a perfect symbol for humanity’s purest potential.

I wasn't alive to hear President Kennedy make the awe-inspiring speech that would launch man to the moon. By demanding that we take longer, more ambitious strides, Kennedy united us in innovation, and turned the deadly arms race into an altruistic space race. As a child of the 90s, my vision of the future was filled with jet-packs and moon bases — not iPhones and Internet pornography.

 

We have come a long way as a society, but we are also repeating a lot of our old mistakes. As our economy slowly climbs upwards, and our wars come to an overdue end, perhaps it is time we once again invest in dreams that truly move us forward. 

NASA has tragically lost a huge chunk of its budget, but the private sector is racing to fill the void. How will the corporate version of space exploration manifest? Will waste disposal companies start blasting our garbage off into the last frontier? Will travel agents book us on higher orbit holiday cruises to view our planet from the heavens? Billionaires have already invested in mining companies to gather precious resources from asteroids. Meanwhile, impatient millionaires are trying to organize their own missions to explore Mars.

While I applaud the private sectors diversity of ideas, competitive innovation and fast paced productivity, I still think there is a role for government to play in guiding our designs for a better future. When NASA launched voyager, it included a beautiful album of pictures which tried to give an overview of our species’ history, scientific discoveries, languages and spirit. It also included a beautiful message from former President Jimmy Carter:

"This Voyager spacecraft was constructed by the United States of America. We are a community of 240 million human beings among the more than 4 billion who inhabit the planet Earth. We human beings are still divided into nation states, but these states are rapidly becoming a single global civilization.

We cast this message into the cosmos. It is likely to survive a billion years into our future, when our civilization is profoundly altered and the surface of the Earth may be vastly changed. Of the 200 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy, some — perhaps many — may have inhabited planets and space-faring civilizations. If one such civilization intercepts Voyager and can understand these recorded contents, here is our message:

This is a present from a small distant world, a token of our sounds, our science, our images, our music, our thoughts, and our feelings. We are attempting to survive our time so we may live into yours. We hope someday, having solved the problems we face, to join a community of galactic civilizations. This record represents our hope and our determination, and our good will in a vast and awesome universe."

What nationalistic ideal, economic model or religious doctrine can surpass that beauty? Anyone who has looked out of his or her airplane window has enjoyed an elevated perspective of the anthill of humanity. The heightened overview of our streets, buildings, farms, and civilizations offers a glimpse of the cosmic viewpoint that could unite us.

Earth is a biological spaceship, spinning around a massive nuclear explosion. Our atmosphere is a paper-thin layer of blue harmony, which protects us from the harsh darkness of space. The biggest change in perspective that we garnered from going to the moon, was looking back at our precious world from a distance — and seeing that pale blue dot all alone, on which all of our lives play out. What better time than now, to discover our cosmic roots, and drive our education, technology and industry towards the stars that bore us?

The first space race redefined American culture into one of discovery and scientific innovation. Hundreds of technologies spun-off from the movement, and fed our home-grown economy. Most importantly, it is the best way to nourish our fundamental desire to explore.

Patent Trolls: Legal Warfare is Killing Intellectual Innovation

In the last few years, large financial institutions have been accumulating vast numbers of patents for the sole purpose ofsuing other companies, rather than create any new products themselves.

By owning an ocean of generalized patents, these companies can force smaller competitors, start-ups, or inventors to pay out expensive settlements, rather than face the daunting process of a lengthy trial.

These hijackers of innovation have become an alarming trend, the most publicized example of which was the Apple vs. Samsung$1,000,000,000 verdict, in which Samsung was forced to pay fines for allegedly infringing on Apple patents.

But trolls may soon be feeling the first blow against their predatory habits, with a recently introduced bill that aims to force them to pay defendant’s legal fees should their lawsuits fail in court. Furthermore, plaintiffs would be exempt if they invented the patent themselves, or could demonstrate that they had made substantial investments trying to bring the product to market.

This bill will hopefully signal the end of people buying cheap patents simply to attack companies with vaguely similar technologies. In 2011 alone, businesses were estimated to have paid out approximately $29 billion in expensive settlements.

The purchase and pursuit of ideas should always feed innovation, eventually bringing products to the marketplace and consumer. Inventors should no doubt profit from their creations, but not by stifling everyone else. Striking a fair balance in this regard can be a difficult task, but we’ve clearly seen a shift in favor of restrictive practices lately.

An interesting figurehead in this ongoing debate is Nathan Myhrvold – Microsoft’s ex Chief Technology Officer. Myhrvold is a fascinating genius of the highest order, and has an academic track record that would rival most Bond villains. He attended university at the tender age of 14, studying mathematics, geophysics and astrophysics – quickly followed with a master’s degree in mathematical economics and a PhD in theoretical and mathematical physics at Princeton. He also held a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Cambridge, where he worked under asomewhat notable Physicist named Stephen Hawking.

Myrhvold's main company, Intellectual Ventures, pursues a lot of inventions that aim to "solve difficult problems in science and technology." Among those manifestations, are a number of philanthropic endeavors – including TerraPower which aims to produce a "travelling-wave nuclear reactor" utilizing non-weaponizable uranium and functioning for 50-100 years without refueling. Another venture is a mosquito killing "photonic fence" which could greatly aid in the battle against Malaria.

But Intellectual Ventures is also one of the biggest purchasers of intellectual property, and has been trying to create a capital market for inventions by buying thousands upon thousands of patents from a wide variety of industries. With the power of owning new ideas, comes the ability to charge rates on innovation and decide which players can survive in any given field. This has, perhaps justifiably, drawn Myrhvold a lot of criticism.

Intellectual Venture, and other I.P. hoarders of its magnitude, often utilize Wall Street bankers to help assess the value of the patents. The only problem with this filtration process, however, is that bankers are motivated by profit – not research and development, innovation or the public good. If you want to cash out of I.P., who better to partner with than financial experts that always advocate the route of highest profit?

It becomes hard to know if vast quantities of patents would be better off not being owned by one corporation or incredibly accomplished genius – rather than spread across a variety of smaller industries in an open and free market. Without access to data, it’s impossible to know what might have happened had these patents not been swallowed up.

Myrhvold himself is frustrated with the trolling accusations, and for all intents and purposes his aims might very well be to support innovation and technological development. But whether satisfying his personal passions, or seeking to profit off of boundless enterprises, it seems perfectly reasonable to keep a concerned eye on anyone who wants to stick their fingers in this many pies.

The 2008 economic collapse brought to light the way in which capital is managed in vast pools, and all the evidence needed to see that this isn’t necessarily a good thing. A corporation of ideas, which doesn’t concentrate on one market or innovate one product – but rather places many tentacles in several pools, can’t simply be dismissed as broad investment practices. The potential hazards, delays and restrictions across a massive array of industries are simply too great.

Deadly Mexican Drug Cartels Offer $47,000 For Info On Anonymous Facebook Watchdogs

Warning, some pictures in this article may be graphic.

A Facebook page run by anonymous activists has drawn the anger of drug cartels in the border state of Tamaulipas by tracking car-jackings, kidnappings, and murders in the region. The cartel has responded by printed flyers, which offer a $47,000 reward for any information on the activists or their family members. 

Though chilling and distressing in the danger it presents, this kind of activism should be the goal of future journalists. The news industry has undergone a painful transformation in recent years – moving away from old print publications, conglomerating television outlets under corporate ownerships, and struggling to monetize the fast-paced world of online 24/7 news cycles. The practice of journalism has been under scrutiny, as everyone with a smart-phone can be a picture-taking-and-Tweeting source of information – the first pictures out of Tahir Square during the Egyptian uprising came from an iPhone!

Social media offers an opportunity for those brave enough to face political corruption and criminal enterprises to anonymously connect to millions of viewers. The facebook group "Valor por Tamaulipas," which translates to "Courage for Tamaulipas," has garnered a massive following by posting updated records on shootings, kidnappings, road blocks, and any other dangers the cartel activities pose. They live in an area with ineffective politicians, corrupt police forces, vicious military-trained cartel members, and a terrified citizenry. With the recent bounty placed on their head, the nameless heroes behind the site know it’s only a matter of time before they get caught.

"For us, this has become a race against the clock that we know we will not win. Something would have to happen, a miracle, for organized crime not to have the power it has, and there is neither the national nor the international will to end this cancer," the activists told DPA in an interview done by Facebook.

The cartel flyers that were spread all over the region offered: "Good money to shut the gob of f--king busybodies like these jerks who think they’re heroes."

This isn’t the first time that frustrated citizens and journalists have taken to the Internet to bring the region’s crimes to light. In the perpetual bloodbath which terrorizes the cartel territories, scores of journalists, police, and activists have been viciously murdered and dumped in the streets as a warning to others.

 

At least four Internet activists in the Tamaulipas region alone have already been killed, including journalist Maria Elizabeth Macias, who was decapitated in 2011. 99% of the reports which are supplied to the Facebook group come from private citizens, with a few of the non-corrupt police officers contributing to the remaining 1%.

Despite a minority of policeman tired of their department’s corrupt stigma, it is unlikely that anyone contributing to the site would seek police protection. Exposing their identities and trusting authorities who are notoriously in the pockets of powerful gangs would amount to a violent death sentence.

Mexico’s new President, Enrique Pena Nieto, seems to be gaining little support from the vigilante group - who say his plan of action to tackle the cartels amounts to little more than "sweeping it under the rug." The activists have not been contacted by government authorities, and fear that their ability to share information will soon be restricted – gagging their online fight against organized crime.

This kind of citizen activism has not yet reached American soil, where online petitions seem the clickable solution of choice. Although we hardly face the kind of violent repercussions they do south of the border, America is ironically the number one consumer of the Mexican drug trade. Other countries have also taken to utilizing cameras, phones and the internet to enact "street justice." The recent meteor crash in Russia was captured on various dashboard cameras - a practice common in the country where police abuse and corruption on the road need to be documented by civilians.

Next time you’re texting, Instagramming or Words-With-Friendsing, remember that the machine in your hand can also be a powerful tool to share information.

To follow the Valor group on Twitter, visit: https://twitter.com/ValorTamaulipas

Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange Running for Office

Julian Assange has found a new way to grab the world’s attention by announcing his intention to run for an Australian parliamentary position.

After his website, WikiLeaks became notorious for leaking thousands of classified U.S. documents, the elusive hacker evaded the long arm of American justice by bouncing around a series of European judiciaries. He’s currently stationed inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, avoiding stepping outside for fear of being arrested and sent back to Sweden to face highly dubious "rape" charges — where he will no doubt be extradited to America.

Is his recent interest in politics a way to secure diplomatic protections? Remind the world about his current plight? Or is he genuinely interested in "representing the people"? The likelihood of him winning an election seems problematic at best, considering he can’t leave England to campaign, debate or give speeches. Moreover, the current Australian PM Julia Gillard has explicitly stated that she thinks WikiLeaks was illegal and unethical in its actions, so support for Assange in the country might not be strong enough to see him to office. On the other hand, Gillard’s administration is facing turmoil in the upcoming elections, so perhaps Assange picked the perfect time to pounce onto the political scene, and leverage his massive online support base.

One has to wonder, what would a politician who preaches absolute transparency look like in office? How far could he carry that message of openness to the masses once he’s actually in a position of influence? It’s easy to take a hard line position from the outside looking in, but ideology and purity are always harder to maintain once the complex burdens of leadership are faced. Will Robin Hood be a just King?

Not every government document is part of a nefarious conspiracy. Some facts do have to be kept hidden from public view for security and stability. We don’t want our leaders to be secretive tyrants, nor do we want them to be naïve idealists. An experienced and pragmatic balance must be struck, but Assange’s platform offers a powerful shift in one direction.

Assange’s leaks endangered U.S. troops, increased anti-American hostilities and led to the deaths of Afghan tribal leaders who were supporting U.S. forces. On the other side of the coin, they also brought to light the civilian-endangering tactics used by the American military, and revealed thecontempt U.S. diplomats had for other nations. The world still seems to be debating the merit of his actions. Were the crimes he uncovered truly an affront to international law, or the unfortunate reality of collateral damage in warfare? Perhaps if we have an unabashed view of what actually happens in war, we’ll fight more passionately for long-lasting peace!

All things considered, Assange would make for an interesting contribution to the Australian political landscape— especially in light of the fact that trillions of dollars worth of oil was recently discovered in the outback. The country could soon become a bigger oil exporter than Saudi Arabia, and that kind of wealth often comes with massive transformative effects. Who better to protect the country from greed, corruption, and violations of the public trust, than the internet’s great "white knight"?

The Deadliest Drugs Are Prescribed By Your Doctor

Recently released federal data paints a bleak picture of the drug culture reality in America. Although we are inundated with stories of the war on drugs, crime and dangerous substances like "bath salts" — the vast majority of drug-associated deaths are linked to overdoses of pharmaceutical pills.

There is an informational divide in this country, where millions of people have blind faith in the medical and pharmaceutical industry — only ascribing danger to substances categorized as illegal. Lobbying groups for the alcohol, private prison and pharmaceutical industries have a vested interest in painting that picture and keeping their portion of market share profits. States that look to legalize marijuana, for instance, frequently project dramatic reductions in crime rates and pharmaceutical overdoses. 

For the most part, doctors only look out for our well-being, and we put a lot of trust in their decisions. But they have countless patients to see, and drug company representatives financially entice them to push their pills with in-house research and bonus packages. Considering the limited face-to-face time they can devote to each of their patients, there’s little difference between them and a dealer pushing his quick fix. Feeling anxious? Here’s some Xanax. Your kid can’t concentrate? Here’s some Adderal. Your leg just moved? Yeah, that’s definitely "Restless Leg Disorder." Struggling to sleep? Here’s a horse tranquilizer/heroine hybrid we’re call "Lumana."

How many of the pharmaceutical consumers in this country actually need the substances they use? How many serious sufferers of pain get crowded out by legally sanctioned addicts? How much of the consumption is a by-product of commercials pushing products we might never have considered using?

At the end of the day, we are in charge of our own well being. We can’t expect people selling a product to have our interests at heart. Whether it’s a doctor, dealer, bartender or junk food manufacturer — they’re in the business of making sure their product is effective, habit forming and profitable.  

We need to focus on the culture of abuse. Why are people anxious? What can we do to improve our sleeping, eating, working and social habits? Illegal drugs derive most of their danger from being prohibited — making them unknown substances, from unknown sources, with unknown effects. It’s time we had an equal playing field, where any and all substances are regulated, researched and understood. We need to reduce our ludicrous incarceration rates by making the war on drugs a rehabilitation and health issue, rather than taking millions of non-violent users and throwing them in pits with murderers and rapists.

2016: A Revolution Brewing in the Republican Party

Now that they are waking up with a hangover from their Tea Party binge, the GOP is rife with murmurs about its future. Which power groups will rise to prominence and steer the party in a new direction? It’s a scene reminiscent of Gangs of New York — various neighborhood tribes conglomerated into powerful collectives, who have to be tightly controlled for the big fight ahead. Red Elephants vs. Blue Donkeys competing for political territory.

So are the Republicans simply going to rebrand candidates, or totally rethink their ideological identity? If they want to move away from the unpopular mistakes of their past, drastic new steps may have to be taken.

In the last six general elections, Democratic presidents have been nominated four times — usually by over 100 electoral votes. The reform of the Democratic Party in the 90s under Clinton has strengthened their voter base and numbers; their biggest weakness now lies in having too many competing ideologies under the same party umbrella. This is why it’s so convenient to paint Republicans as an extremist villain — visible in Obama’s message of "Hope" following years of failed Bush neoconservatism.

In that regard, Republicans have done themselves no favors by allowing their leadership to drag their feet on ideological evolution. Looking at the social transformations we’ve endured over the last few decades, it’s clear to see which party has more successfully capitalized on shifting public opinion.

In the 60s, the Democratic Party flourished under Kennedy by promising liberal ideology, uniting people around a message of equality and progress. Violent conflicts, civil unrest, and racial tensions depicted in the media, however, highlighted a bleaker world ... and that world was one that was not changing as quickly as legal reforms would suggest. The neoconservatives emerged as a result of weariness against false hope and disappointment, as well as a general lack of faith in liberalism’s effectiveness. When Nixon resigned in scandal and America lost the Vietnam war, there was a sharp decline in perceived American power. Neocons didn’t want to willingly diminish American standing, and needed to frame an "Us vs. Them" world where American might was heroic and visionary again. Two prominent conservatives in Gerald Ford’s administration rose to power accordingly: Chief of Staff Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

In a 1976 speech, Rumsfeld painted the spectre of Russia’s threat, perhaps the first version of the now familiar "WMDs" speech. When Reagan made his famous "Russia is an evil empire" speech, the Russians responded by taking a stronger defensive stance and becoming the monster they were being painted out to be. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy, and set in motion the highest peak of cold war tensions since the Cuban missile crisis - feeding an arms race to the top of insanity mountain.

Those political tactics are still present in today’s Republican party. At first, the American people accepted extreme Muslims as representative of the entire religion. After 9/11, we swallowed the "they hate our freedom" mantra, because just like Cold War Russia, there was an actual threat to be considered. Certain Muslim groups do believe America to be a cultural wasteland. They see American citizens as consumer zombies being force-fed a fantasy of freedom and leading materialistic lives. Our manicured suburban squares of green grass and entertaining television looks like a pretty prison to them. Our atheistic, scientific and capitalist society offers an affront to their traditional religious values. We free Americans question everything and value nothing, indulging only in pleasure and profit. The same way some Americans learned to dismiss Muslims as backwards religious fanatics, portions of Islam saw Americans as sheep flocked under a nationalistic myth: that the U.S.A. is singularly destined to fight evil in the world - like some kind of heroic cowboy. 9/11 was designed in its nature to be a display of power and a rallying cry to all Muslims who shared disdain against America.

But since the Arab Spring, we’ve learned that the reality on the ground is far more complex. Our supposed enemy has as much scorn for extremism as we do, and our foreign policy approach greatly influences the world around them. We can’t claim to be fighting for freedom and democracy while supporting violent regimes and telling lies about the dangers we face. The revolutionary youth throughout the Middle East could be a long-term ally to us, if we don’t continue to alienate them by seeking convenient economic partnerships with their oppressors.

This is where the real shift in Republican ideology needs to occur. Visionaries are needed, rather than those who can simply repackage the old formula. Why feed into the competition betweenKarl Rove militarism and corporate-financed Tea Party 'conservatism'? The splintering-off of libertarian, pragmatic, and economic groups demonstrate an identity crisis emerging in the Republican gang. The rising popularity of leaders like Jon Hunstman, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Susana Martinez shows electoral support for reform exists within the GOP.

The Republicans could be the "nuclear power" party, pushing for actual long-term energy independence and meeting the problems of climate change with entrepreneurial solutions – leaping ahead of the impending fracking bubble. The Republicans could connect with the middle class by ending corporate welfare and breaking up big banks. Rather than build campaigns with a small list of billionaire supporters, the GOP could target a wider collective of industries – looking to support social mobility for Americans willing to learn new skills. Instead of simply taking the opposite approach to Democrats when it comes to immigration and education, Republicans could display their pragmatism and intelligence by offering unique and original solutions. They could move away from religious conservatism and show real support for family values in all its forms, same-sex or otherwise.

Being the anti-liberal party is not enough. Pushing America towards new neocon conflicts will only make the world resent our foreign policy further. The Republicans have never had a better opportunity to re-emerge under a new banner – and they only have three years to figure it out. Rubio was already seen falling into the trap of cycling old agendas: "government bad, capitalism good."

But voters will need more than sound bites and ideology ... they want action. And Republicans they need to move quickly, because Democrats aren’t waiting around. Their strategists have hopes for Senatorial dominance. Elizabeth Warren is already getting her knuckles bloody beating on bankers. The clock is ticking ...

The Great Chinese Hack: Is America Vulnerable to Cyber Warfare?

On Tuesday, the New York Times revealed that a series of high-level computer hacks against American companies have been traced to a Chinese military unit in Shanghai. 

China was quick to deny the allegations, though I suppose very few people expected them to get on TV and release an admission of guilt — perhaps laden with LOLs and cat memes. The security firm Mandiant will be releasing the full 60-page report, which highlights the Chinese military's Unit 61398 and its long history of embedding itself on American networks to absorb data, passwords, and user information.  

 

Former Defense Secretary Leon Pannetta has often warned that America could soon be facing a massive cyber "Pearl Harbor" attack, which could cripple our country as a precursor to invasion. Many think this is an alarmist view that will help push cybersecurity legislation, but let’s look at what parts of our infrastructure could theoretically be affected by sophisticated attacks.

Our electric grids, gas lines, telecommunication towers, internet providers, financial systems, and news sources are all vulnerable to cyber attacks. Shutting these technologies down would be equivalent to vaulting most major cities back 100 years. Nuclear power plants, subway systems, train tracks, and air traffic control are also susceptible, and could cause mass death if manipulated into a loss of user control. Without food coming in, or efficient ways out, most cities could easily become desperate battlegrounds for survival. This would make for an ideal invasion platform, and China certainly has the troop numbers though luckily nowhere near a large enough navy to cross the Pacific.

Despite America’s relative isolation from the world, periodic attacks have managed to cross the oceans and land on our shores. In 1814, the British invaded and burned down the White House. In 1941, the Japanese air force executed a devastating attack on Pearl Harbor, crippling our Navy’s Pacific mobility. On September 11, terrorists hijacked several commercial flights and destroyed the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon building in D.C. But we’re past the days of troops parachuting onto our shores, fighter jet battles filling the sky, or tanks rolling through our streets. The missiles that fly across international borders are virtual.

 

As worrying as this new age of warfare may seem, we are still a long way from a cyber World War III. The simple truth is that China has far more vested interest in stealing information from us than crippling our society. By stealing our research and development, intellectual property, and corporate data, China can accelerate their homegrown industries. We built this monster with our huge outsourcing wave several years ago, and American companies have been teaching the Chinese all about our technologies for years so that they could manufacture it cheaply for us. Their knowledge has simply grown to the point where they are willing to exploit our vulnerabilities to learn more and continue their growth. There is a massive market for knock-off American goods in China, including hilarious fake Apple stores where even the employees believe they are working for Apple.

It’s been a week since President Obama issued his executive order instructing private owners of critical infrastructure to share data on cyber attacks with government officials. This is a generalized "beefing up" of online security because the alternative of going to war over these attacks is wholly unrealistic. America and China have a symbiotic relationship they manufacture cheap commodities purchased by American companies, absorbing some of our wealth; they in turn purchase government bonds absorbing American debt; and years later, when those bonds mature, they will again have a source of revenue from the American dollar. It’s a long-term marriage, and like any husband and wife there will always be some arguing, cheating, and perhaps a fleeting fantasy of smothering the other with a pillow – but we’re in it together for the long run. 

The most important thing to note is that America is not the soft target it often paints itself out to be, and certainly not on the government level. The successful STUXNET attacks against Iran’s nuclear program, charges against whistleblowers like Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, as well as prosecution of freedom of information champions like Aaron Swartz all serve to highlight America’s active involvement in hacking culture. Every nation has been trying to entice, recruit, jail, or enlist any known talent in the hacking world since the great crackdowns and round-ups of the 1990s. The hacker group "Anonymous" is probably the best example of those few computer-savvy individuals who wish to work outside of the nationally defined borders.

 

The future of warfare will definitely take place online to some degree. Even drones could theoretically be hacked and turned around to attack their own country. But as much as we’d like to head to our Red Dawn bunkers and shout "Wolverines!", that future is not happening any time soon.

Marijuana Legalization: CNN tests High Driving Skills

CNN may have just posted their best piece of investigative journalism in years. In the followingvideo, three drivers of varying ages got incredibly high on marijuana and test-drove cars around a course. A driving-ed instructor accompanied them to avert any chance of an accident, and police watched from the sidelines to spot any visible 'signs' of inebriation in their movements.

The volunteers – a young daily smoker, adult weekend smoker and elder infrequent smoker – proceeded to test escalating levels of stupor against the new baseline 'legal limits' in Colorado and Washington state. They had to reach excesses of 5 times the legal limit before their ability to drive became impaired. In most cases, the danger they presented was driving too slowly or with frequent hesitations.

Although hardly scientific, this test does offer some insight into a specter which has haunted us for years: marijuana legalization. Last November, the country watched tame and good-naturedcelebrations sweep Colorado and Washington after their pro-marijuana ballot passed. The sudden and complete lack of tension between public smokers and police was wonderful to see; it was like two opposing armies finally laying arms to rest. It was as if a part of America had leapt into a progressive future, giving the rest of us a glimpse into what might be. Could anyone deny that this was a microcosm of the future most have been waiting for?

Despite resounding state level calls to end to the war on drugs, the DEA and federal government still loom overhead with murky legal gray zones. When asked by Barbara Walters what his current stance on the issue was, Obama said he would not make it a priority to go after recreational users in states that have passed legalization initiatives. This evasive, political response is to be expected: we aren’t permitting drugs, but we won’t fight the states on the issue.

Perhaps it would be too much to ask for the president to fully legalize marijuana and end an obscene prohibition that imprisons millions of Americans. But if the political PR can be ignored, it is undoubtedly the right thing to do. For now, maybe the best tactic is to keep harassing citizens federally, so they demand protection from their states and take the issue off Obama’s plate.

So back to our drivers, and the issue many mothers are now concerned about: children having a new intoxicant to afflict their driving skills. How did the 'impaired' volunteers actually do? Well at a certain point, the substance had an undeniable effect on their ability to navigate a vehicle sensibly. But they all maintained surprising control, even at incredibly excessive levels of marijuana consumption. Moreover, unlike drunk drivers, they were very much aware of their state and agreed they were not on top of their game. Without over-indulging, it seems people’s critical thinking can be trusted more with a few hits than a couple of drinks.

When it comes to marijuana in America, there's still a long road ahead to change laws, perceptions and behavior. But it's progress worth making, as long as it gets us away from misinformed stereotypes like this.