The Snowden Effect and Tolerance
"I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions, and that the return of this information to the public marks my end.
"[1] These are the words of Edward Snowden-the person responsible for igniting the global consciousness shift on tolerance.
As a result of his action, major societal reforms on human rights, privacy issues, and civil liberties are being enacted on a global scale.
Global consciousness shifting refers to the idea that a shift in our collective consciousness has the potential to change every aspect of our collective reality.
Why this shift? And why now? Almost every society around the globe seems to be functioning under a state of alert as if something cataclysmic or unearthly is about to happen.
Governments are filled with dread because they face ambiguous threats and an uncertain future.
The state of human affairs has reached a tipping point.
One journalist wrote, "Something is happening.
It's undeniable, impossible to describe and whatever it is, it's manifesting into an intense and palpable energy, crossing all boundaries and all sectors and affecting everyone on every level.
[2] Could it be that humanity's collective conscious is being awakened to a reality meant to disturb our fragmented way of life? Could it be that human beings are becoming more attuned with their existence and desire to embrace change, and welcome the dawn of an era marked by openness, transparency, cooperation, harmony, and freedom from economic and social tyranny? Have we finally decided to take a holistic inward look at what we've been doing to each other and where we're headed? Perhaps humanity recognizes that the absurdity of intolerance does not serve our collective long-term interests.
So, who is Edward Snowden? And what makes his story so compelling? In 2013, Mr.
Snowden made headlines when it was revealed that he was the whistleblower who disclosed top-secret information about the National Security Agency (NSA) global mass electronic surveillance activities.
Mr.
Snowden was subsequently charged with two counts under the Espionage Act, and theft of government property.
[3] Mr.
Snowden believed his choice to expose the US government's unchecked dictatorial surveillance and spy programs that infringed on the civil liberties of its own citizens and citizens of other nations was necessary for the good of free republics.
He understood that an informed citizenry is the lifeblood of democracies.
The democratization of knowledge mattered to Mr.
Snowden, and he refused to sit by passively as a national security totalitarian state engaged in a constitutional coup d'état.
He chose to sacrifice his freedom on account of his worldview, which encouraged truth, transparency, equity, and tolerance.
Like many others, Mr.
Snowden believes that America's institutional obsession with surveillance is not making the world a better or safer place.
[4] In fact, those actions are doing the exact opposite.
It is unconscionable that a democracy like the United States should go to such extreme ends to enforce a draconian police state and sabotage the security and safety of citizens across the globe.
Mr.
Snowden reasoned that it was necessary to challenge a repressive state apparatus that sought to hijack self-determination and extinguish individual freedom.
Mr.
Snowden could have chosen to enjoy his comfortable lifestyle and ignore the plights of those whose rights, liberty, and security were subverted.
Mr.
Snowden chose not to accept the perpetuation of lies, deceit, inequality, and intolerance and the suppression of truth, even though he worked for an agency which many believe embodied those qualities.
According to Mr.
Snowden, the US government assumed it could reinterpret laws in a manner that was convenient with its cause.
The US government and its paramilitary henchmen clearly thought they could spy on citizens around the globe with wide latitude and complete impunity without repercussions.
Faced with the probability of a terrorist attack, the government sponsored spy agencies concluded if they looked long and hard enough they might be able to find the next crop of terror suspects.
Rather than conducting targeted surveillance for terror suspects, the US government embarked on an ambitious and full-scale digital invasion and assault on entire populations by way of mass surveillance.
Deep down in his spirit, Mr.
Snowden felt that the US government's indiscriminate surveillance program was not about keeping the public safe.
He firmly believed that the government's action of spying on the public is in essence a declaration of war on people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Mr.
Snowden witnessed firsthand how perilously close the US government has come to imposing the normalization of intolerance upon citizens worldwide.
Mr.
Snowden was also aware of the butterfly effect his actions would have on our collective consciousness.
Many people around the world have hailed Mr.
Snowden as a patriot, civil rights activist, libertarian, and champion of democracy.
But Mr.
Snowden is much more than that.
Could it be that Mr.
Snowden is simply a human being who is governed by the clarity of right and wrong? It could be argued that he is a person who believes the inherent dignity and freedoms that human beings enjoy are to be celebrated, protected, and defended.
It might be that Mr.
Snowden believes world citizens should be able to exercise their fundamental and inalienable right to privacy and individual sovereignty.
And that governments and those in power should be held accountable for their actions, especially when those actions violate basic human rights.
Some have suggested that Mr.
Snowden should have filed a complaint under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), or at least shared his concerns through the proper chain of command.
Mr.
Snowden claims to have explored those options and others but chose the safest option available to him to inform the public of the US government's unconstitutional illegal activity.
[5] When someone chooses to publicly disseminate information that exposes governmental corruption and dishonesty, an intolerant government swoops in and identifies that person as a threat to national security, and seeks to execute the most severe punishment, even if the punishment violates the most basic human rights.
[6] Precedence had already been set throughout history in the whistleblowing cases involving Anthony Russo, Daniel Ellsberg, Russell Tice, J.
Kirk Wiebe, William Binney, Ed Loomis, Thomas Drake, Diane Roark, John Kiriakou, Sibel Edmonds, and others.
Mr.
Snowden might have concluded that "those in power, whatever their politics, want only to perpetuate it"[7] and would protect their interests by any means necessary to include lack of due process, character assassination, threats, intimidation, harassment, torture, and imprisonment.
Many well-meaning people are convinced that the US government's blanket surveillance programs are designed to protect individual freedom.
Mr.
Snowden argues that this is exactly what the government wants people to believe.
In reality, the very act of collecting metadata not only violates one's constitutional and human rights but also undermines the foundation of democracies.
Consider the following rationale.
How would you feel if you suspected that your neighbor was looking through your daughter's bathroom and bedroom windows? What if he were spying on your wife as well? You'd be enraged, wouldn't you? Maybe the better question is what would you do if you found out that your neighbor was spying on your daughter and wife during their most private moments? Let's say you caught your neighbor in the act of spying on your wife and daughter.
What reasons could your neighbor give to excuse his actions and prevent you from administering serious bodily harm? What if your neighbor's excuse was "I was only peeking through your daughter's bedroom window and spying on your wife because I wanted to protect them from bad people"? Would you buy that story? Hardly! The same principle could be applied to the discussion about America's big brother activities.
Collecting the metadata of citizens around the globe is in essence criminalizing everyone without due process, not protecting them.
There simply isn't any justification for mass surveillance programs.
According to US laws, there must be reasonable cause and a presumption of guilt to search and seize an individual's personal information and property.
A major unintended consequence of a democracy spying on its own citizens is a rapid deterioration of its polity and ability to govern effectively.
The inherent stability of democracies resides in governments governing tolerably.
Intolerance in any form on the part of any government ultimately leads to lawlessness and chaos.
The question we should ask ourselves is not whether Mr.
Snowden violated the laws of his country, because he did, but whether his actions were justified.
Where the answer is no, he should be held accountable.
Where the answer is yes, we have the right to question the legitimacy and legality of the US government's wide-reaching surveillance programs.
If spying on citizens around the world becomes the normal today, then what other forms of intolerance will become the normal tomorrow? Former US President Jimmy Carter said, "I think that the secrecy that has been surrounding this invasion of privacy has been excessive, so I think that the bringing of it to the public notice has probably been, in the long term, beneficial.
I think the people deserve to know what their [governments] are doing.
[8] In a debate on state surveillance,[9] Alan Dershowitz, a prominent US scholar, lawyer, jurist, and author posited the following counterposition.
Surveillance properly conducted and properly limited can really and genuinely protect our liberties.
No state has ever survived without some surveillance.
And no state deserves to survive if it has too much surveillance, particularly of its own citizens.
A balance must be struck, but that balance cannot eliminate the power of the government to obtain information necessary for the defense of our freedoms.
A proper balance requires a proper process for deciding when surveillance is justified [and] when the need for preventive intelligence is greater in any particular case than the need for privacy.
And in striking that balance, it's important to distinguish among different types and degrees of surveillance.
We need far more demanding processes and controls over the use of surveillance both by government and private agencies.
A heavy burden must be placed on those who would intrude on our privacy, but that burden must be realistically designed to strike a proper balance between two equally legitimate but competing values: the need for our government to know what our enemies are planning; and the need to protect our privacy from those who place too high a value on security and too low a value on privacy.
It is possible to strike such a balance, and that is where our efforts should be directed.
Clearly, "[Mr.
Snowden's] actions have in effect led to the reintroduction of trust and transparency as a leading principle in global security policies.
[10] His actions suggest that we should not consent to political or religious authority when that authority is not living up to its social contract with societal members.
No citizen should be forced into obeisance to an intolerable government or organization.
We should reject every appeal by any institution to thoughtlessly follow policies and practices that threaten civil liberties.
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald has often articulated that it is each person's duty to defy the climate of fear wherever fear exists.
The Snowden Effect is to do just that-to defy the climate of fear and intolerance, and to stand up for truth and transparency.
Our educational system, beginning at the grade school level, should teach the values of progressive thinking, humanitarian reform, intercultural competence, and social justice in a pluralistic society.
Our religious institutions have an obligation to teach their parishioners that a godly or spiritual life is evident by nurturing the common bonds of humanity.
A heart infused with tolerance toward all humankind actuates the Snowden Effect.
Regardless of pedigree, socioeconomic status, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, language, religion, or national origin, each person can make a decision to harness the transcendent power of love and compassion to preserve harmony and liberty.
All you have to do is imagine a world you'd want your children to live in and enjoy.
Imagine a world where the light of your being continually connects with the light of another person's heart.
Imagine a place where you can give birth to your most cherished ambitions without reproach, criticism, or censure.
Imagine a life that is lived to its fullest capacity where everyone supports and celebrates your development through the lifespan.
Imagine an existence where total and unconditional acceptance of differences and similarities is a way of life.
As human beings, we have the ability to create a world where diversity and inclusion for those who are not the majority become the norm.
The creation of this world begins in our minds.
The Snowden Effect is not some obscure fantasy that lies outside our reality.
It is something in which we can choose to participate.
Until we make a decision to live each moment with a sense of collected purpose and belonging, we threaten our collective security.
Until we come together in conversation and discuss where we have been, and where we would like to be in the future, we are putting our freedoms in jeopardy.
Until we make a decision to embrace our prerogatives as a free species, we risk remaining chained to an undefined and unfulfilled existence.
Until we choose to abandon arrogance, self-satisfaction, and self-righteousness, we will continually live as convicts of distrust and dissonance.
Each of us has a date with destiny.
All of us have function, a part, a task, a duty, a plan and a purpose to fulfill, and a collective mission to accomplish in life.
Our mission, should be choose to accept it, is to reverse the course we have taken regarding the way we treat each other.
We can do so much better.
If we will only embrace that conviction with all our being, then today will not resemble past mornings of shattered hopes and expectations.
Whatever may have been our past experiences, and no matter how discouraging our present circumstances, we no longer have to wake up fearful of facing the challenges of an uncertain tomorrow.
We no longer have to accept a life bordered by chaos, unhappiness, or injustice of any kind.
We no longer have to linger at the crossroads of broken promises and abandoned dreams.
Our lives do not have to be defined by an unbroken succession of disappointments.
We can choose not to diminish each other's potential or minimize each other's capacity for success or set artificial benchmarks for other people's story.
We have a history from which to learn.
Our past blunders are meant to illuminate our future steps.
If there is one constant about history it is that it not only chronicles our failures but also registers our successes.
I have an abiding hope that as we look into the far reaches of our souls and gaze into the cosmos, our dreams for a better world can become a reality.
We do not have to allow the negative circumstances of our experiences to shape our human identity.
No one has written our destinies for us, and it is up to us to push beyond the level of our personal comfort and wear the mantle of understanding and unity.
Today can become the genesis of a life defined by new meaning, purpose, happiness, and the celebration of plurality.
We can choose to expect that something extraordinary will take place in our individual and collective experiences.
We can even embrace the idea that the universe has a stake in seeing that we live lives of collective harmony.
We can choose to accept that the providential wheels of purpose will turn in our favor.
Let us live to be the caretakers of each other's destiny because that is what we are by nature.
The strength of our existence should not be defined by what the popular media portrays us to be.
We are not powerless victims subjected to an unchangeable reality.
We are not prisoners to our shameful history of shortcomings.
Each of us has a call to answer.
The call to be bearers of light and justice begins where we are.
Let us light, carry, and pass on the torch of self-determination and social inclusiveness.
Let us remind ourselves that the best gift we can give to each other is the gift of an open mind.
We can no longer afford to stand as idle spectators while a person's civil rights are being violated.
To do nothing in the face of glaring injustices is to condone intolerance.
The violation of one person's civil rights is the violation of every person's civil rights.
The Snowden Effect involves celebrating our collective strengths.
It involves tackling the problem of intolerance comprehensively.
The Snowden Effect means I am responsible to you as you are responsible to me.
It is not enough however to simply describe, or explain the Snowden Effect.
In order to tackle the problem of intolerance we need to identify and understand the problem of the human predicament.
And once we understand the problem our primary task is not to change it; rather, our first task is to change our perspective and behavior.
The advancement of the human species is not a simple, uncontrollable, and random process over which we have little to no control.
There is no inevitability to our future.
As human beings we are and always have been in control of our fate.
We can make noble choices that benefit all humanity.
References: 1.
Gellman, B.
(2013, June 9).
Code name Verax: Snowden in exchanges with Post reporter, made clear he knew risks.
The Washington Post.
2.
Davidson, S.
(2012, December 20).
It's happening: The global shift in consciousness is underway and right on (Mayan) time.
The Huffington Post.
3.
Edward Snowden.
(2014).
In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
4.
Goodman, A.
(2013, October 29).
Glenn Greenwald: US spying on allies shows institutional obsession with surveillance.
Truthout.
5.
Gander, K.
(2014, April 08).
Edward Snowden: Whistleblower 'did complain to NSA' before leaking classified US government documents.
The Independent.
6.
Greenwald, G.
(2013, June 07).
On whistleblowers and government threats of investigation.
The Guardian.
7.
Ducat, C.
R.
(2013).
Constitutional Interpretation, Volume II: Rights of the Individual, Tenth Edition.
Boston: Wadsworth, p.
985.
8.
Reilly, M.
(2014, March 23).
Jimmy Carter is pretty sure the NSA is spying on his email.
The Huffington Post.
9.
Munk Debates.
(2014).
State Surveillance.
10.
Legge, J.
(2014, January 29).
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is nominated for Nobel Peace Prize.
The Independent.
"[1] These are the words of Edward Snowden-the person responsible for igniting the global consciousness shift on tolerance.
As a result of his action, major societal reforms on human rights, privacy issues, and civil liberties are being enacted on a global scale.
Global consciousness shifting refers to the idea that a shift in our collective consciousness has the potential to change every aspect of our collective reality.
Why this shift? And why now? Almost every society around the globe seems to be functioning under a state of alert as if something cataclysmic or unearthly is about to happen.
Governments are filled with dread because they face ambiguous threats and an uncertain future.
The state of human affairs has reached a tipping point.
One journalist wrote, "Something is happening.
It's undeniable, impossible to describe and whatever it is, it's manifesting into an intense and palpable energy, crossing all boundaries and all sectors and affecting everyone on every level.
[2] Could it be that humanity's collective conscious is being awakened to a reality meant to disturb our fragmented way of life? Could it be that human beings are becoming more attuned with their existence and desire to embrace change, and welcome the dawn of an era marked by openness, transparency, cooperation, harmony, and freedom from economic and social tyranny? Have we finally decided to take a holistic inward look at what we've been doing to each other and where we're headed? Perhaps humanity recognizes that the absurdity of intolerance does not serve our collective long-term interests.
So, who is Edward Snowden? And what makes his story so compelling? In 2013, Mr.
Snowden made headlines when it was revealed that he was the whistleblower who disclosed top-secret information about the National Security Agency (NSA) global mass electronic surveillance activities.
Mr.
Snowden was subsequently charged with two counts under the Espionage Act, and theft of government property.
[3] Mr.
Snowden believed his choice to expose the US government's unchecked dictatorial surveillance and spy programs that infringed on the civil liberties of its own citizens and citizens of other nations was necessary for the good of free republics.
He understood that an informed citizenry is the lifeblood of democracies.
The democratization of knowledge mattered to Mr.
Snowden, and he refused to sit by passively as a national security totalitarian state engaged in a constitutional coup d'état.
He chose to sacrifice his freedom on account of his worldview, which encouraged truth, transparency, equity, and tolerance.
Like many others, Mr.
Snowden believes that America's institutional obsession with surveillance is not making the world a better or safer place.
[4] In fact, those actions are doing the exact opposite.
It is unconscionable that a democracy like the United States should go to such extreme ends to enforce a draconian police state and sabotage the security and safety of citizens across the globe.
Mr.
Snowden reasoned that it was necessary to challenge a repressive state apparatus that sought to hijack self-determination and extinguish individual freedom.
Mr.
Snowden could have chosen to enjoy his comfortable lifestyle and ignore the plights of those whose rights, liberty, and security were subverted.
Mr.
Snowden chose not to accept the perpetuation of lies, deceit, inequality, and intolerance and the suppression of truth, even though he worked for an agency which many believe embodied those qualities.
According to Mr.
Snowden, the US government assumed it could reinterpret laws in a manner that was convenient with its cause.
The US government and its paramilitary henchmen clearly thought they could spy on citizens around the globe with wide latitude and complete impunity without repercussions.
Faced with the probability of a terrorist attack, the government sponsored spy agencies concluded if they looked long and hard enough they might be able to find the next crop of terror suspects.
Rather than conducting targeted surveillance for terror suspects, the US government embarked on an ambitious and full-scale digital invasion and assault on entire populations by way of mass surveillance.
Deep down in his spirit, Mr.
Snowden felt that the US government's indiscriminate surveillance program was not about keeping the public safe.
He firmly believed that the government's action of spying on the public is in essence a declaration of war on people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Mr.
Snowden witnessed firsthand how perilously close the US government has come to imposing the normalization of intolerance upon citizens worldwide.
Mr.
Snowden was also aware of the butterfly effect his actions would have on our collective consciousness.
Many people around the world have hailed Mr.
Snowden as a patriot, civil rights activist, libertarian, and champion of democracy.
But Mr.
Snowden is much more than that.
Could it be that Mr.
Snowden is simply a human being who is governed by the clarity of right and wrong? It could be argued that he is a person who believes the inherent dignity and freedoms that human beings enjoy are to be celebrated, protected, and defended.
It might be that Mr.
Snowden believes world citizens should be able to exercise their fundamental and inalienable right to privacy and individual sovereignty.
And that governments and those in power should be held accountable for their actions, especially when those actions violate basic human rights.
Some have suggested that Mr.
Snowden should have filed a complaint under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), or at least shared his concerns through the proper chain of command.
Mr.
Snowden claims to have explored those options and others but chose the safest option available to him to inform the public of the US government's unconstitutional illegal activity.
[5] When someone chooses to publicly disseminate information that exposes governmental corruption and dishonesty, an intolerant government swoops in and identifies that person as a threat to national security, and seeks to execute the most severe punishment, even if the punishment violates the most basic human rights.
[6] Precedence had already been set throughout history in the whistleblowing cases involving Anthony Russo, Daniel Ellsberg, Russell Tice, J.
Kirk Wiebe, William Binney, Ed Loomis, Thomas Drake, Diane Roark, John Kiriakou, Sibel Edmonds, and others.
Mr.
Snowden might have concluded that "those in power, whatever their politics, want only to perpetuate it"[7] and would protect their interests by any means necessary to include lack of due process, character assassination, threats, intimidation, harassment, torture, and imprisonment.
Many well-meaning people are convinced that the US government's blanket surveillance programs are designed to protect individual freedom.
Mr.
Snowden argues that this is exactly what the government wants people to believe.
In reality, the very act of collecting metadata not only violates one's constitutional and human rights but also undermines the foundation of democracies.
Consider the following rationale.
How would you feel if you suspected that your neighbor was looking through your daughter's bathroom and bedroom windows? What if he were spying on your wife as well? You'd be enraged, wouldn't you? Maybe the better question is what would you do if you found out that your neighbor was spying on your daughter and wife during their most private moments? Let's say you caught your neighbor in the act of spying on your wife and daughter.
What reasons could your neighbor give to excuse his actions and prevent you from administering serious bodily harm? What if your neighbor's excuse was "I was only peeking through your daughter's bedroom window and spying on your wife because I wanted to protect them from bad people"? Would you buy that story? Hardly! The same principle could be applied to the discussion about America's big brother activities.
Collecting the metadata of citizens around the globe is in essence criminalizing everyone without due process, not protecting them.
There simply isn't any justification for mass surveillance programs.
According to US laws, there must be reasonable cause and a presumption of guilt to search and seize an individual's personal information and property.
A major unintended consequence of a democracy spying on its own citizens is a rapid deterioration of its polity and ability to govern effectively.
The inherent stability of democracies resides in governments governing tolerably.
Intolerance in any form on the part of any government ultimately leads to lawlessness and chaos.
The question we should ask ourselves is not whether Mr.
Snowden violated the laws of his country, because he did, but whether his actions were justified.
Where the answer is no, he should be held accountable.
Where the answer is yes, we have the right to question the legitimacy and legality of the US government's wide-reaching surveillance programs.
If spying on citizens around the world becomes the normal today, then what other forms of intolerance will become the normal tomorrow? Former US President Jimmy Carter said, "I think that the secrecy that has been surrounding this invasion of privacy has been excessive, so I think that the bringing of it to the public notice has probably been, in the long term, beneficial.
I think the people deserve to know what their [governments] are doing.
[8] In a debate on state surveillance,[9] Alan Dershowitz, a prominent US scholar, lawyer, jurist, and author posited the following counterposition.
Surveillance properly conducted and properly limited can really and genuinely protect our liberties.
No state has ever survived without some surveillance.
And no state deserves to survive if it has too much surveillance, particularly of its own citizens.
A balance must be struck, but that balance cannot eliminate the power of the government to obtain information necessary for the defense of our freedoms.
A proper balance requires a proper process for deciding when surveillance is justified [and] when the need for preventive intelligence is greater in any particular case than the need for privacy.
And in striking that balance, it's important to distinguish among different types and degrees of surveillance.
We need far more demanding processes and controls over the use of surveillance both by government and private agencies.
A heavy burden must be placed on those who would intrude on our privacy, but that burden must be realistically designed to strike a proper balance between two equally legitimate but competing values: the need for our government to know what our enemies are planning; and the need to protect our privacy from those who place too high a value on security and too low a value on privacy.
It is possible to strike such a balance, and that is where our efforts should be directed.
Clearly, "[Mr.
Snowden's] actions have in effect led to the reintroduction of trust and transparency as a leading principle in global security policies.
[10] His actions suggest that we should not consent to political or religious authority when that authority is not living up to its social contract with societal members.
No citizen should be forced into obeisance to an intolerable government or organization.
We should reject every appeal by any institution to thoughtlessly follow policies and practices that threaten civil liberties.
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald has often articulated that it is each person's duty to defy the climate of fear wherever fear exists.
The Snowden Effect is to do just that-to defy the climate of fear and intolerance, and to stand up for truth and transparency.
Our educational system, beginning at the grade school level, should teach the values of progressive thinking, humanitarian reform, intercultural competence, and social justice in a pluralistic society.
Our religious institutions have an obligation to teach their parishioners that a godly or spiritual life is evident by nurturing the common bonds of humanity.
A heart infused with tolerance toward all humankind actuates the Snowden Effect.
Regardless of pedigree, socioeconomic status, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, language, religion, or national origin, each person can make a decision to harness the transcendent power of love and compassion to preserve harmony and liberty.
All you have to do is imagine a world you'd want your children to live in and enjoy.
Imagine a world where the light of your being continually connects with the light of another person's heart.
Imagine a place where you can give birth to your most cherished ambitions without reproach, criticism, or censure.
Imagine a life that is lived to its fullest capacity where everyone supports and celebrates your development through the lifespan.
Imagine an existence where total and unconditional acceptance of differences and similarities is a way of life.
As human beings, we have the ability to create a world where diversity and inclusion for those who are not the majority become the norm.
The creation of this world begins in our minds.
The Snowden Effect is not some obscure fantasy that lies outside our reality.
It is something in which we can choose to participate.
Until we make a decision to live each moment with a sense of collected purpose and belonging, we threaten our collective security.
Until we come together in conversation and discuss where we have been, and where we would like to be in the future, we are putting our freedoms in jeopardy.
Until we make a decision to embrace our prerogatives as a free species, we risk remaining chained to an undefined and unfulfilled existence.
Until we choose to abandon arrogance, self-satisfaction, and self-righteousness, we will continually live as convicts of distrust and dissonance.
Each of us has a date with destiny.
All of us have function, a part, a task, a duty, a plan and a purpose to fulfill, and a collective mission to accomplish in life.
Our mission, should be choose to accept it, is to reverse the course we have taken regarding the way we treat each other.
We can do so much better.
If we will only embrace that conviction with all our being, then today will not resemble past mornings of shattered hopes and expectations.
Whatever may have been our past experiences, and no matter how discouraging our present circumstances, we no longer have to wake up fearful of facing the challenges of an uncertain tomorrow.
We no longer have to accept a life bordered by chaos, unhappiness, or injustice of any kind.
We no longer have to linger at the crossroads of broken promises and abandoned dreams.
Our lives do not have to be defined by an unbroken succession of disappointments.
We can choose not to diminish each other's potential or minimize each other's capacity for success or set artificial benchmarks for other people's story.
We have a history from which to learn.
Our past blunders are meant to illuminate our future steps.
If there is one constant about history it is that it not only chronicles our failures but also registers our successes.
I have an abiding hope that as we look into the far reaches of our souls and gaze into the cosmos, our dreams for a better world can become a reality.
We do not have to allow the negative circumstances of our experiences to shape our human identity.
No one has written our destinies for us, and it is up to us to push beyond the level of our personal comfort and wear the mantle of understanding and unity.
Today can become the genesis of a life defined by new meaning, purpose, happiness, and the celebration of plurality.
We can choose to expect that something extraordinary will take place in our individual and collective experiences.
We can even embrace the idea that the universe has a stake in seeing that we live lives of collective harmony.
We can choose to accept that the providential wheels of purpose will turn in our favor.
Let us live to be the caretakers of each other's destiny because that is what we are by nature.
The strength of our existence should not be defined by what the popular media portrays us to be.
We are not powerless victims subjected to an unchangeable reality.
We are not prisoners to our shameful history of shortcomings.
Each of us has a call to answer.
The call to be bearers of light and justice begins where we are.
Let us light, carry, and pass on the torch of self-determination and social inclusiveness.
Let us remind ourselves that the best gift we can give to each other is the gift of an open mind.
We can no longer afford to stand as idle spectators while a person's civil rights are being violated.
To do nothing in the face of glaring injustices is to condone intolerance.
The violation of one person's civil rights is the violation of every person's civil rights.
The Snowden Effect involves celebrating our collective strengths.
It involves tackling the problem of intolerance comprehensively.
The Snowden Effect means I am responsible to you as you are responsible to me.
It is not enough however to simply describe, or explain the Snowden Effect.
In order to tackle the problem of intolerance we need to identify and understand the problem of the human predicament.
And once we understand the problem our primary task is not to change it; rather, our first task is to change our perspective and behavior.
The advancement of the human species is not a simple, uncontrollable, and random process over which we have little to no control.
There is no inevitability to our future.
As human beings we are and always have been in control of our fate.
We can make noble choices that benefit all humanity.
References: 1.
Gellman, B.
(2013, June 9).
Code name Verax: Snowden in exchanges with Post reporter, made clear he knew risks.
The Washington Post.
2.
Davidson, S.
(2012, December 20).
It's happening: The global shift in consciousness is underway and right on (Mayan) time.
The Huffington Post.
3.
Edward Snowden.
(2014).
In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
4.
Goodman, A.
(2013, October 29).
Glenn Greenwald: US spying on allies shows institutional obsession with surveillance.
Truthout.
5.
Gander, K.
(2014, April 08).
Edward Snowden: Whistleblower 'did complain to NSA' before leaking classified US government documents.
The Independent.
6.
Greenwald, G.
(2013, June 07).
On whistleblowers and government threats of investigation.
The Guardian.
7.
Ducat, C.
R.
(2013).
Constitutional Interpretation, Volume II: Rights of the Individual, Tenth Edition.
Boston: Wadsworth, p.
985.
8.
Reilly, M.
(2014, March 23).
Jimmy Carter is pretty sure the NSA is spying on his email.
The Huffington Post.
9.
Munk Debates.
(2014).
State Surveillance.
10.
Legge, J.
(2014, January 29).
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is nominated for Nobel Peace Prize.
The Independent.
Source...