If there is anything I have learned in the past 15 years since coming to America in 2000, it is that America is beautiful. Today, I will be dipping my toes in the Atlantic Ocean as I spend Fourth of July with my parents in Jacksonville, FL this year. I can't help but think that exactly one year ago, my breath was being taken away, in much the same way, by the Pacific Ocean at #CampEmeraldBay, and for everything in between, I am endlessly grateful.
Looking out into the Atlantic Ocean (Atlantic Beach, Jacksonville, FL)
America is great because it is so vast. It's not only vast in landscapes, but also vast in ideas and in diversity of its People.
Each city that I have had the chance to visit in the past year has been so absolutely different, each so absolutely gorgeous, energizing and vibrant in their own ways. Yet, what is more noticeable is all the things that weave us together as Americans and the common story, aspirations, hope and Dream we all share, whether born here or not.
America is not perfect and we have made mistakes, many of them. In fact, the manner in which we became such a vast Nation is not one of our best moments. But, as Emily Mortimer (MacKenzie McHale) says in Aaron Sorkin's The Newsroom,"America is the only country on the planet, that since its birth, has said over and over and over that we can do better. It's part of our DNA."
People around the world look to America when they need a leader, a Nation that has a moral compass to stand up for the fundamental rights of all People and a Nation that recognizes the values it was created for. There's a lot to easily be cynical about, but it is the moments where America acts uniquely that we so often forget about how great our home is. From creating some of the brightest minds and promoting creativity to taking action on some of the world's hardest problems, America still remains both a force for good and a beacon of hope for much of the world. We are not in that position because we are perfect—we are in that position because we can so honestly, openly and vigorously have the tough conversations publicly, while still remaining one Nation.
A lot of people compare America with China nowadays. They talk about the Chinese government working so efficiently, a comparison that scares me. Efficiency is not what we want and was not what our Founding Fathers intended for. That's also not how democracy works, even if the world is moving faster now. For all the gridlock we have, we should also keep in mind that this Nation was built on the notion that there is no one right way and that all ideas should be put on the table, to be considered and discussed by the American People.
So, this Fourth of July, while you celebrate with friends, good food and amazing fireworks, also take a moment to reflect on all the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans and all the responsibilities so many of us, so often, shy away from. Reflect on how different we each are as Americans, but also everything that makes us One Nation. Reflect on all the mistakes we have made, how We the People can all work together to make this Nation better and all that we can be proud of and celebrate.
And so...
I pledge allegiance, to the Flag, of the United States of America, And to the Republic, for which it stands. One Nation, under God. Indivisible. With Liberty and Justice for all.
+PCMagstates it best: "Good music that people enjoy has to be worth something."
That's the precise problem with Spotify—it is probably the only music product on the market today that offers an on-demand music library, free-of-charge.
Many have compared Spotify to other streaming services, such as +Pandora. The problem is, by definition, Pandora and Internet radio, designed specifically for discovery, and subscription services, like +Beats Music and +Google Play Music All Access, are based on completely different models. Internet radio provides limited ability to play the exact track on-demand and subscription services are obviously paid services.
Spotify has created users who feel entitled to virtually owning and playing specific music at no charge. For example, I have seen comments, from Spotify users, asserting that Taylor Swift should have her music on Spotify because not everyone has the financial ability to purchase it or how costly it would be to pay for music. I'm not sure when we evolved into a society where content, and other peoples' works, that took valuable skills and insane amounts of time to create, were taken for granted. Or, as +The Telegraphputs it, "we now have an extremely entitled culture, where any kind of art is seen as a communal property." Certainly, not everyone can afford books, movies and even Android devices or iPhones, all various types of content and products that hard-working people create and turn into reality.
In an interview with Yahoo!, Taylor summed up how she felt when she tried releasing new music (Shake It Off) directly on Spotify:
I felt like I was saying to my fans, "If you create music someday, if you create a painting someday, someone can just walk into a museum, take it off the wall, rip off a corner off it, and it's theirs now and they don't have to pay for it." I didn't like the perception that it was putting forth (Taylor Swift).
Taylor Swift performing in Arizona during her RED World Tour.
I have always believed that the Internet should be free and open and that we should create better marketplaces and channels for content to be accessed and distributed at reasonable prices. This should be decided by the equilibrium of supply and demand. This is our best bet against piracy, not distributing content for free or keeping it in exclusive, far-to-reach corners of the web.
A lot of people, especially those that I have had a pleasure of discussing this issue with, believe Taylor is being greedy or selfish. I disagree. She is continually adding to the next generation of the music industry and trying to solve some of the biggest problems it has ever faced. She is standing up for superstars and indie-bands alike, because her position allows her to. It's why various smaller artists have tweeted her, praising her stance against Spotify, calling it "a streaming service that doesn't pay."
Payment in exchange for creative and valuable content is simply so that those same content creators creating all the things we enjoy can continue to innovate and bring us even more quality content. It's the same reason why big-name artists, including Adele, +Coldplay, +Beyoncé and others, have followed the approach of releasing Spotify versions months after their music actually comes out. Unfortunately, smaller artists don't have the ability because they first need their music just out there however and wherever it can be—it's time they should start making money too.
In fact, according to PCMag,
Swift wanted to keep her latest album on delayed-release, or at least only available to Spotify's premium subscribers, which Spotify didn't want; hence the impasse.
I am not saying that streaming services aren't the answer. But, I do not think Spotify and its flawed model, in particular, are the answers we are looking for, both as consumers and content creators—we will get lower quality of content and content creators cannot make a living. The music industry is ripe for innovation, but Spotify does not have the solution.
At the end of the day, Taylor Swift ignited an important conversation about how much we value content and everyone should be happy about that.
A couple months ago, I shared a Google+ and Twitter photo of an absolutely gorgeous and perfect DC day. Being able to take strolls on the National Mall, right in the middle of history, is just one of the advantages of being at +The George Washington University. Several weeks later, I learned (through the Center for Student Engagement Twitter) that the photo was chosen as their winner for February, something that came as a surprise to me.
This week, GW had a Excellence in Student Life ceremony, where the overall #OnlyAtGW photo contest winner was announced as well. People had some really cool moments showing how awesome it is here, including a group selfie with Wolf Blitzer among many others.
I didn't expect much, but here's what happened, as shown through +Google Glass.
When I first shared that photo, I honestly expected nothing more than me sharing a moment that mattered in my life -- a moment of freedom, of relaxation. I am still in awe at what it has become, especially because it all came from two apps from a device the size of my hand. On my Samsung Galaxy S4, I used the camera and Google+'s powerful +Snapseed app and the final product was available in minutes. Of that moment, right at that moment.
From Glass to Snapseed and everything in between, I'm taken aback by how technology has empowered everyone to be able to capture the moments that matter.
Don't blame human immaturity and lack of judgement on Facebook and social media.
Neknominate is a stupid game that I've heard about several times. One of my friends received a "nomination." +CNN's article (http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/18/world/europe/neknominate-drinking-game/index.html?hpt=hp_t1) does a good job explaining the game, but also spends half the time citing ridiculous people claiming the majority of the responsibility of the problems and deaths lies with Facebook and other web companies.
Let's be clear here: the sole entity responsible for this entire mess are people, the people that post the nominations, the people that don't resist peer pressure and the people that don't do anything when they see something as wrongful as this happening.
courtesy of CNN and Yahoo! News
One dad even had the courage to say, "I was cross with him [my son] but more cross with the social media involved and the way this game has just spread. The whole thing is madness and it needs some kind of sharp and swift action on the part of these social networks to stop it."
What's happening is sad. But let's be objective here. Facebook is not forcing anyone to drink large sums of alcohol from disgusting sources, just like guns aren't forcing people to shoot others. As a society, we need to stop faulting inanimate objects for problems we create ourselves.
Facebook, Google and other Internet companies act as merely a vehicle to expression and speech. They cannot, and should not, be responsible for the millions of pieces of content posted every second, just like no one is responsible of what comes out of your mouth every day. Just like in real-life, it lies in the hands of people to report content that violates rules or laws and to stand up to what is not morally right. It lies in the hands of people to use their own judgement and be mature when they choose to act a certain way.
To fault Facebook is a slippery slope towards letting corporations and governments decide what we can or cannot say and think. Let's make our own judgement calls. Let's own up to our faults.
Let's fight what's really to blame for all our human problems and stop hiding behind a scapegoat by shifting the blame on something other than human immaturity.
Yesterday, my friend +Alex Leiphart shared this story: http://goo.gl/Id4mrJ ("AMC movie theater calls FBI to arrest a Google Glass user"). AMC called the FBI, who then snatched Glass off the innocent man's face and interrogated him, all because they believed, without evidence nor proof, that a man was recording an entire movie, simply because he had Google Glass. The FBI even challenged him: "they wanted to know what does +Google ask of me in exchange for Glass, how much is Google paying me, who is my boss and why am I recording the movie." And that's just part of it.
Let's stop the hysteria we constantly create around new technologies.
Let's start a genuine conversation now. Comment with your thoughts below.
I certainly think it is fine for people to think Glass is not that great or all that it says it is -- some of my friends hold, or held, different beliefs and are some of my most valued opinions. In fact, that's awesome that people think differently -- the world only advances because all our thoughts are not uniform. The resulting debate is important and helps society advance. It's equally as important though that those that want to argue against it use legitimate, unexaggerated talking points after having tested what they are arguing against instead of spreading assumptions.
It seems people think Glass is almighty, believing that it knows what its users are thinking and controllable with just their minds. And those people are the ones that only assume Glass only helps users do bad -- to sneakily record movies, to cheat and more -- while never trying it for themselves. Instead, what really happens is that users have to say "Ok Glass" aloud or touch to operate it. Even the light on the screen is visible when on. In many cases, it is more noticeable than a smartphone.
However, this year, +Google Glass is expected to launch widely as well as with compatible prescription lenses. When this happens, I have no doubt a more vigorous debate will start in society about Glass.
With prescription lenses, Glass will be a required item for those who need it, just like the man in the story. But what about in the bathroom? Or when driving (just like I do with the clip-on sunglasses with Glass right now)? Users would not be able to just tilt Glass up on their heads like they currently do, as then they wouldn't be able to see.
Would society trust Glass users enough? Would users be expected to carry a second pair of regular prescription lenses? Would a large enough portion of society educate themselves enough to know that it is very visible when Glass is on and recording?
What do you think?
A prototype of Google Glass with prescription lenses, courtesy of a Googler (via Phandroid.com).
Right now, the "rest" position for phones is in the pocket, still attached to the body. That's equivalent to placing Glass on top of the head. Or even just off. In both positions, the devices are virtually unusable.
When taking tests where teachers don't require students to put phones in the backpack, do we expect Glass to be in its rest position on the head or will it be treated differently by requiring it to be placed in its case and away from the body? When watching movies, is that expectation the same? What about when driving -- can we use it as a GPS?
That's the job of Explorers -- to live life with Glass, to take the risk of encountering ignorant people but also more generally, to educate a (for the most part) fascinated public on this new and exciting technology that has a potential to change everything we do. But the bigger responsibility at hand, the job that we all carry, Explorers or not, is the one to prevent hysteria and to speak truth to stupid.
Yet, for every stubborn person, there's a hundred more open-minded learners that dare to try Glass before passing judgement. And the smiles and awe that I have personally seen is reward that out-compensates any negativity expressed by those that are so afraid of change.
And for each negative story we hear about Glass, we hear so many more of how it is fundamentally changing the very nature of our world, from providing firefighters with the tools they need more safely and quicker and doctors with the required materials without tying up their hands to the way it helps us to just get back to living life, by bringing us ordinary people all closer together while helping capture the moments that truly matter in our lives.
Today, I received this e-mail from my Macroeconomics Professor at +The George Washington University: "That means that Google glass and similar devices are NOT allowed during assignments..."
I am happy that my Professor is starting this type of conversation about +Google Glass nd new technologies so swiftly and transparently.
Certainly, as an Explorer, these situations where Glass is singled out, are expected, just like +Cecilia Abadie fighting her traffic ticket today (http://goo.gl/UN60mo) or those told to leave restaurants (http://goo.gl/neb8zf). I agree Glass should not be used during exams. Yet, it is utterly irresponsible for those in authority to single new devices like Glass, which functions just as smartphones and tablets do, in this manner. Certainly, this period of testing is where society is educating itself and distinguishing what is real and what is exaggerated by the media, both its features and limitations. For example, having Glass rest on top your head like sunglasses indoors will not enable a student to cheat and is not a qualification of cheating, just like having a phone in your pocket. However, this type of conversation is good to start.
While I don't know if this e-mail is directed to me currently, I do feel the need to share this information clearly and openly. Your feedback, both in agreement or disagreement, is encouraged.
We should embrace technology, especially with the potentials it offers education. More importantly, we should not create hysteria and spread misinformation. Finally, integrity, including in academics, is one of my core values and I believe a society well-educated in not only knowledge but also morals and values will not have these problems.
As C.S. Lewis once said, “Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”
From this point forward, I am reaffirming my commitment to act with integrity in an ethical and moral manner that takes into account my strict moral discipline, just like I did in 8th grade when I created study guides from public class notes and let information flow freely (allowing others to collaborate, build on top and download those guides at their own discretion) even after one teacher, with a complete opposite view than all the other parents, students and teachers, labeled it as a form of cheating.
You can learn more about my mission statement, vision and values here:
Over the past seven years, I have been a member of the +Boy Scouts of America (BSA), one of the largest and most well-known youth organizations in the nation, founded in 1910. In 2012, I became an Eagle Scout. Looking back, I have thoroughly enjoyed my time in the program, which has given me countless challenges, experiences and opportunities; these have all improved and shaped my life.
The Boy Scouts of America, along with other aspects of my background, has also caused me to become an advocate of the most basic of human rights. That is, every individual should be treated equally and is entitled to his or her own opinions (thoughts, morals, values) and the guarantee of the freedoms of assembly, expression, religion and speech, so far as the resulting actions do not impose physical danger or harm to others within society.
Therefore, not surprisingly, I feel strongly in regards to the controversial Boy Scout policy, a national ban on gay members and leaders.
Since BSA's establishment, it has aimed to "prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law." As a result of this mission, the BSA won a Supreme Court case in 2000 which upheld its national ban on gays. BSA simply stated that it excluded such members because "homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill."
However, to me, restricting membership access ultimately betrays the BSA's mission altogether, more so than "homosexual conduct," due to BSA's firm ideology of treating everyone equally, a conclusion I came to throughout my years as a Boy Scout.
Duty to my country and being morally straight.
As a Scout, one promises the following, as part of the Scout Oath:
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.
One phrase sticks out to me in particular: "To do my duty to God and my country." It is my belief that following the Pledge of Allegiance, also something each Scout must know, is the soundest way to fulfill the duties as a citizen for one's country. That very Pledge says:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
In the Scout Handbook, "with liberty and justice for all" is described as "with freedom and fairness for every person in the country - you and every other American." Clearly, doing one's duty to the country involves treating each individual equally and giving each person the same type of access regardless of their individual beliefs, morals and values.
Another phrase is important to me: "morally straight." Think what you may, but the official Scout Handbook states that this means "to be a person of strong character... you should respect and defend the rights of all people." Again, the Scout Handbook alone explicitly states the contrary of the intention of the BSA's anti-gay policy.
The Scout Law.
The Scout Law is "the foundation of Scouting, expressed in just twelve simple points."
A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.
Quite obviously, there are a couple traits that should immediately be emphasized when discussing the issue of providing equal membership for gay members and leaders. The following traits and summary definitions are per the Scout Handbook.
Friendly - A Scout "offers his friendship to people of all races and nations, and respects them even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own. Accept who you are, too, and celebrate the fact that you don't have to be just like everyone else. Real friends respect the ideas, interests, and talents that make you special.
The Scout Law, as per the Scout Handbook.
Clean - "There's another kind of dirt, though, that can't be scrubbed away. It is the kind that shows up in foul language and harmful thoughts and actions. Swearwords and dirty stories are often used as weapons to ridicule other people and hurt their feelings. The same is true of racial slurs and jokes that make fun of ethnic groups or people with physical or mental limitations. A Scout knows there is no kindness or honor in such tasteless behavior. He avoids it in his own words or deeds."
In these two traits of the Scout Law alone, the Scouting organization (in a perfect world) clearly believes that everyone, regardless of their background, beliefs, origin or race should be fully accepted and treated as an equal. The Scouting organization is violating various parts of the Scout Law by not respecting people of different beliefs and not allowing those people to "accept" themselves.
As a result of the violations of "friendly" and "clean" of the Scout Law, the BSA violates several other traits as well.
Obedience - Obedience must be guided by good judgment. If someone tells you to cheat, steal or do something else you know is wrong, you must say no. Trust your own beliefs and obey your conscience when you know you are right.
Brave - Saving lives is not the only test of bravery. You are brave every time you do what is right in spite of what others might say. You are brave when you speak the truth and when you admit a mistake and apologize for it. And you show true courage when you defend the rights of others.
Personal experience.
Whether it is in my own Troop or at a summer camp, I have had the fortunate opportunity to meet many people, from all walks of life with hundreds of different beliefs on everything. This diversity created a better environment and allowed me to foster and grow. It made me a better person who was more open-minded to the people of this world.
From my personal experience, the ban on gay members and leaders is a policy that is rarely enforced in the lower tiers of Scouting. Not only is it virtually unenforceable, but the majority of the population also realizes the stubbornness of the policy. The world is becoming a more open place, and the BSA should learn to adapt if it wants to survive.
The Boy Scouts of America is an organization that aims to educate youth on values, and making ethical and moral choices based on the values described above. What does this say about the BSA when the organization outlines various values but does not follow through?
It is understandable why the BSA would implement such policies. While it may seem as if it would reduce the amount of unwanted sexual conduct within the BSA, it does not accomplish that at all. On the contrary, it hinders the speed at which the BSA can fulfill their mission. More importantly, the American justice system is proudly known for its "innocent until proven guilty" mantra. Labeling all gay members and leaders automatically as sex offenders is hurtful and immoral.
A good analogy would be travel. Though many terrorist attacks have been associated with people of Middle Eastern descent, those same people do not automatically get banned from traveling, or even restrictions on where they can travel. It is only if they pose a credible threat that they get put on a no-fly list, or arrested at the airport.
Each individual is equal, despite the different beliefs we each have, which ultimately make the world a better place. It is my sincere hope, that in the near future, any boy or man who wants an opportunity to grow and learn in the Boy Scout program will be able to do so without unequal treatment.
What are your thoughts? No matter what your viewpoint, add your voice to the discussion, because it should be heard. Discussion is the best thing possible for progress.
"What the Girls Scouts and the Boy Scouts are trying to teach is important. They're trying to teach kids to be leaders. And the more that we teach people how to accept people for who they are, the more self-confident they'll be and the better leaders they'll become."
