For my final external event, I watched a recording of Yasha Levine’s talk that he did at UR earlier this year on “The Internet as a Weapon.”

I found the talk really interesting. Levine focused on the history of the Internet and how it was originally created as form of spyware. The idea was that the US government could gain information on political organization through the Internet and then use that information to put an end to the organizations. Within the United States, the Internet was mostly accepted, aside from some against it in the 70s, because it is an American invention. URLs are in English, websites were created within the United States, and the United States was the main exporter of information via the Internet. I had never thought of this aspect of the Internet prior to watching this talk. Other countries did not experience the same ease of acclamation to the Internet and were much more weary of it. However, this information about the creation of the Internet is not represented when reporting on the history of the Internet.

This information raises concerns within two major topics that we have discussed: ethics and the representation of history.

If the Internet was created with the intent of being used as spyware, is anything that is now done on the Internet really ethical? On top of that, websites such as Facebook (and really most others) gain information about its uses that they then sell to create a profit. (This also ties into an issue the Levine notes about how the Internet was marked as a great equalizer of socioeconomic classes but it has actually created a whole other group of elites–Zuckerberg, Gate, Bezos, etc.). With the intent and the current actions of the Internet being unethical, is there any way to justify its use as ethical? Or is it just one of those things that is so ingrained into society that there is no real way to avoid it even though it is unethical? After watching the video, I’m leaning towards the latter, the ethics of the Internet cannot be justified but it is necessary within today’s society.

In history, we’ve established that it is important to share all sides of the stories. In the case fo the Internet, this would include knowledge of the original intent behind the creation of the Internet, not just the unity aspects that are mostly shown. However, with the original intent not being fully known, the full history of the Internet is not be accurately shown

Here’s a link to video, I really recommend watching it, I thought that it was really interesting.

Early tonight I was in a video call with some friends and two of my Catholic friends were raving about a Ted Talk they had just watched from Pope Francis. As they were describing it, I was remembered of the “Impossible” reading that I had just completed for class. Upon finishing the video call, I went and watched the Ted Talk.

The Ted Talk is titled “Why the only future worth building includes everyone” and it is essentially the Pope kicking off a Ted Talk convention called “The Future You” in 2017. His talk revolves around the importance of recognizing others and everything they do in order to build the future that people deserve. He talks mainly of the connections that are needed to build this future.

The first connection to leadership that I made in watching this Ted Talk was, like I said, to the “Impossible” reading. Specifically, I saw a relation between the talk and the section where Goska is referring to two jobs that she has worked within her lifetime. In one, she worked as a humanitarian and in the other, as a nurse caring for the old. She noted that when she tells people of these jobs, she is greeted to two very different reactions. With the first, the people that she is explaining the job to see her as virtuous. They see her work as worthwhile because of the larger impact that she was making. Meanwhile, when Goska describes the second job, people see her as a working-class individual. They do not see the impact that she was making on all the people that she cared for. In seeing the difference behind reactions to the two jobs, one can see that those that work the second jobs, or others that are deemed to be on the same caliber, are not recognized by people the way that they need to be to build the future that Pope Francis is talking about. However, Goska, like Pope Francis, argues that people and their contributions need to be recognized at every level because everyone is making an impact in what they do, even if the impact only affects one person.

Further, Pope Francis heavily discusses the need for connections between individuals. People need to be connected to build the future that he envisions. This strongly relates to a section on community that my Justice and Civil Society class did earlier this year. In the section, we discussed how social capital creates a strong sense of community. When people feel as though they are a part of a community, they are more supportive of social welfare actions that benefit members of their community. In make these connections that Pope Francis argues for that include everyone, people will feel connected across the world. The connection will help to create a society, a future that includes everyone.

Two of my favorite mantras are “be the change you want to see if the world” and “practice cautious optimism.” Each time I think of these mantras, in the context of what I want to do in my life, I am filled with the desire to do great things. I want to create change in voting rights or environmental activism that will positively impact many people. I want to work in the federal level of politics, helping to elect politicians that help America the way I believe it needs to be helped. I want to do big things but I forget the ways that these mantras can be applied on a smaller scale.

I think that I am worried that scaling down will not make the impact that I hope to make. However, the “Impossible” reading was really inspirational on this aspect, especially the Danusha Veronica Goska chapter. She made me remember that people can make an impact at every level of life because connecting and helping individuals directly can be so much more impactful than trying to make widespread change. While others may perceive you as more virtuous when you have a larger role in an organization, that is not the point in the mantras that pointed out earlier. Working with people directly can make the change that I want to see in the world.

Prior to leaving Richmond, I attended the state senate hearings for Reproductive Health Protection Act (RHPA). This bill sought to get rid of the 24-hour waiting period and 2 visit requirement that was required for a person to receive an abortion. It also combated TRAP laws which restricted abortion access through requirements on the buildings in which an abortion could be preformed. The requirements were for things such as the number of parking paces the building had or the width of the hallways.

The most interesting day for me to visit the senate hearings was the day that I got to hear and give a testimony for the bill. I was originally supposed to read the testimony of someone that could not make it to the hearing but wanted to express how the bill would help them. Since we ran out of time, I was only able to stand up and express my support for the bill, which district I vote in (my state senator was one of the co-authors on the bill), and which organization I was with (my fellowship was through the organization sponsoring the bill). However, being able to listen to everyone’s testimonies, from both side of the issue, was very interesting to me. Some people were appealing to pure emotion while others were trying to appeal to logic, citing how any of the previous restrictions were not necessary for preforming a safe abortion.

The main connection I saw to this class was in our discussion of ethics. While no one explicitly came forth saying “I am using this normative claim and from there appealing this approach to ethics,” it was still very much present in the arguments that were being made. You could trace back the arguments on both sides to very different normative claims, either a right to autonomy or a right to life coupled with the claim that a fetus constitutes as alive. These claims could see seen in the carefully worded testimonies that people were giving, where the words used are chosen to portray the values that are etched into someone’s support or opposition of the bill.

The bill ended up passing both the state senate and the House of Delegates. It was signed into law on April 10th, ahead of schedule, to ensure access to safe, legal abortions during the epidemic.

When looking at recent presidential elections, the 2008 election stands out to me. Obama and McCain were both considered outsiders in their own ways. Obama was young and generally new to politics and McCain was considered a maverick, not always following party lines when voting. I appreciate this ad, “Broken” in support of McCain because it calls out this outsider position of McCain, which I believe was one of his stronger personal attributes.

Additionally, the ad functions as a form of attack ad. Rather than attacking Obama, it is attacking corruption with government. Which, in turn, is attacking the current political system and politicians in general. I like this twist on a typical attack ad because it is finding a common enemy and using it as a way to promote characteristics about yourself while not attacking your opponent who shares many of those same characteristics.

Further, a lot the aspects that McCain points out as having corruption (the prior administration (Bush), big oil, Wall Street) tend to have direct or indirect ties to the Republican party. In pointing out the corruption in them, the American people can see how McCain would work on both sides of the aisle. He is not bound to the ideologies or interests of the Republican party despite being their nominee. I believe that emphasizing this works well in relating to the electorate because many Americans do not fit neatly into one political party over the other. As the political system gets more polarized in the United States, those individuals have less politicians that they can identify with. McCain gave them a politician to put their trust into. In doing so, the ad successfully playing into American ideals of freedom through putting America first before any political party.

I do not watch a lot of TV in which I would see commercials. I tend to exclusively watch Netflix or prerecorded shows that my family will then fast forward through the commercials of. Therefore, the ads I am exposed to are mainly embedded advertisements or advertisements on the Internet (which, for me, especially this year, tend to be political ads). In considering this, my favorite advertisement is not on specific commercial or ad, but rather a form of embedded ads.

I listen to a lot of podcasts. Of these, one of my favorites is “Pod Save America” by Crooked Media. This podcast is about current news, particularly within the American politics sector. In the beginning of the podcasts and again about halfway through an episode, they read copy from their sponsors. Whether their sponsors are Oatly, Honey, Squarespace, Cash App, or more, they always add personal commentary to the copy. Sometimes this commentary is joking about the copy itself, other times it is relaying stories about using the goods they are advertising. One of the running tropes is, when advertising for Cash App, they will recount different situations one of them had to Cash App another one. Each time, this small anecdote references a long running joke in the podcast or is jokingly picked apart by the other hosts. No matter what they do, they add humor to the copy which makes me want to continue to listen to the ads rather than skipping over them. Additionally, the way these ads are embedded into the podcast has made me want to look into these goods. I have personally downloaded Honey and tried Oatly because of these advertisements.

This is a link to the podcast they did after Super Tuesday. The timestamps for the advertisements are 0-1:15 and 22:50-25:00.

COVID-19 Warning

Of the two readings, there was one part of Harvey’s article that really stuck out to be given its relation I saw to current events. At one point Harvey is discussing the different ways of approaching leadership as a group. He discusses an us vs. them mentality that can be made by a group to unify it but also block out “outsiders” and he mentions a universalist perspective. This universalist perspective doesn’t create the same in-group/out-group divide. As I was reading this section of the article, I couldn’t help but think about the approaches different nations are taking in supporting other during this global pandemic.

From what I have seen in the media over the past few weeks, leadership within the United States has seemingly adapted as us vs. them mentality when dealing with coronavirus. This is not to say that the United States has made other nations that enemy during this rather, that the United States has not taken a universalist perspective as demonstrated by some nations. Shaped by the rhetoric that Trump has deployed, the United States has seemingly taken the situation as a race versus other nations (Trump tweeted earlier today “USA STRONG!” which while that is enthusiastic, patriotic, etc… it reads much more as something that would said at a sporting event). This is lead by the “America first” attitudes I have witnessed from people when discussing methods to overcome the virus and the seemingly race to find a cure/treatment. Meanwhile, other nations appear to have taken a more universalist perspective. This is showcased by China sending masks and doctors to other countries. While these changes could have occurred due to the varying number of cases between countries, I do think, especially after reading Harvey’s article, that part of these differences in responses is due to the ways that different countries are creating groups and then answering the learn questions after the creation of the group.

There is a lot of American history that is left out of history classes at a young age. It is not until you reacher an older, “more acceptaptable” age that you learn about these topics. For many people this time never comes because they leave school before it occurs or the schools they are at choose to never address it. Both of these readings address parts of history that are either not touched in schools or just kind of glazed over.

In the reading by Zinn, I appreciate the way that he described that history should be taught from different perspectives. Learning about Andrew Jackson from the perspective of the Cherokee or the signing of the Constitution from the perspective of slaves would help people to understand better the plights that groups they do not identify with underwent throughout history. It would help to avoid only representing the history of the wealthy, white, ruling class in America. Last week in my Justice and Civil Society class we began discussing patriotism and its relations to sentimentality with history. One interesting point that was brought up was the balance between despair and sentimentality when looking at history. The author that we were reading for that class argued that people should address history with a sense of historical imagination. Essentially this means that people should separate the wisdom of past from the people themselves (separate the teachings of the Founding Fathers from the Founding Fathers themselves) and build on the wisdom while not idealizing those that created the wisdom. I think that this sort of approach combined with the approach for teaching history from different perspectives that Zinn laid out would help to avoid the romanticization and white-washing of history that happens in the current education system.

Being from Virginia and interested in voting rights, I really enjoyed Hayter’s article. The disenfranchisement of Black Americans from the political process is not something that has been skipped in my education, but has been glossed over. In high school, teachers used the the election of a majority black council in Richmond as an example of how Virginia as a whole reacted to desegregation and the passage of the Voting Rights Act. All the while, the ignored the fact that the next county over was formed by splitting off from my county because they wanted to continue segregation that the easiest way to do that was to ensure only white people lived in the county. The choice to include the information that made Virginia look good rather that that that was harmful for minority groups further proves the point made above of topics being glossed over when history is taught. Also, it further helps to prove Zinn’s idea that history should be taught from different perspectives. In this case, voting rights and desegregation movements should be taught from the perspective of Black Americans.

When reading the Stanford Prison Experiment the thing that stuck out to me the most was a comment made about a riot at Attica Prison in New York. This riot, which occurred after the experiment was terminated, revolved around the prisoners wanting to be treated like human beings. They had had their humanity stripped from them. Despite having learned about the Stanford Prison Experiment previously and knowing people that have been incarcerated, each time I think of human rights being taken from prisoners, I think of the right to vote being stripped from them. I see the right to vote as a basic right for citizens of the United States. Therefore, in stripping that right from prisoners, the government is stripping them of their personhood. However, the desire to be treated as human beings goes deeper than that. The comment made about the Attica Prison riot made the dehumanization of the prisoners clearer for me. The experiment wasn’t just an experiment and prisons are not locations for rehabilitation. They are, as currently ran, locations that questions the extent to which humanity is guaranteed which, I believe, and think others would agree with me, is not an ethically sound cause.

When you tie in the Stanford Prison Experiment into the reading from Goethals and Allison, you get into the tricky tie between the prison system and stereotypes. As Goethals and Allison discussed, mystery leads to people trying to complete schemas for people in their heads. This leads to people like Warren Harding becoming president because he “looks the part.” However, it also leads to people being placed into schemas for criminals because they also “look the part.” This leads to people belonging to minority groups being incarcerated at higher rates. This becomes especially dangerous when considering how the prison system strips people of their humanity. People of these minority groups that happen to fill these schemas are having their humanity stripped from them no matter their actual level of guilt.

Coronavirus Warning

Something in the “The Logic of Failing” reading really resonated with me. With wanting to go into politics, I often see the ways to act on an issue as good intentions vs. bad (or misinformed) intentions. However, as stated by the article, it is so much more than that. You can have the best intentions and still end up messing up a situation more because you aren’t asking enough why questions and you don’t see the ramifications of all of your actions, such was the case with the various simulations that were referenced in the article. The reading made me think back to something I mentioned in the slack discussion on Monday. It is difficult to know for sure if you are acting the correct way or making the correct changes when enacting change. At the time, I claimed that you should just act on the things that you believe need to be changed and future generations may not be happy with the changes but you made the decision you needed to at the time. However, now I see that it is more complex than that. The decisions you make could end up having serious ramifications that are detrimental to future generations if you aren’t well informed. Thus, with being well informed you can see some of the future ramifications and avoid them and hopefully make better decisions than if you had just left the interpretation of the decisions completely up to future generations.

Particularly, this reading made me think about government oversight. In trying to solve an issue, especially a time sensitive issue, there is likely to be oversight. However, I wonder if some of this oversight is worthwhile when considering the necessity of the issue that leads to the inability to be completely informed despite the best of intentions. Specifically, I am thinking of the recent stimulus package for COVID-19. The stimulus package leaves out a chunk of people residing in America and paying taxes. This includes undocumented immigrants, people 18 and over and claimed as a dependent on someone else’s taxes in 2019, and the elderly and disabled claimed by someone else as a dependent. For example, a 23 year old that is living on their own, out of school, working a full time job is not included in the stimulus package because the prior year they were still in school and listed a dependent on their parent’s tax form. Nor does the parent get the additional $500 for claiming them because they are no longer a child. This creates an oversight that leaves out many Americans. Despite the good intentions of the stimulus package, there are negative ramifications that can include and expectation for people to be able to pay rent, instead of a rent freeze, despite that fact that not everyone is eligible to the stimulus check. However, is this oversight worth it? The American people needed some form of comfort quickly during this pandemic. The stimulus package gives them that. So, it is worth the negative ramifications to warrant brief comfort to those who do receive the stimulus check?