Recently, American virologists have come forth with what, to many, seemed to be the most hopeful message anyone remotely affected by HIV could hear: A toddler has been the first-ever person to be declared “cured” of HIV. While the news of this medical feat inspired hope in any who happened to hear of it, a much bleaker picture of Western medicine still goes undiagnosed.

Today, humans are plagued by a variety of pathogens ranging from bacteria to parasites and viruses, some originating from our own bodies. In fact, recent trends indicate a steady rise in the amount of autoimmune disorders, cancers and mental disorders. These alarming statistics seem to be lost under the microscope of developing cures rather than addressing the cause. With psychiatrists and doctors prescribing a pill for this ailment and another for that, medicinal reaction and side effects can be compounded upon each other and eventually lead to very negative results.

The development of a pill-popping society in America is bound to destroy any hope of a true cure to the nation’s most pressing health issues. Individual body chemistry does not respond in an identical fashion within each person, especially in terms of psychiatric medicine. With side-effect lists stretching on for what seem like eons after the standard sleep medicine commercial, it’s no wonder that many Americans struggle with the same issues that the medicine is supposed to alleviate, even after taking the pill! The reported side effects of the anti-depression drug Zoloft include fever, sweating, confusion, fainting, hallucinations, tremors, vomiting, loss of coordination, headache, weakness, seizures, stoppage of breathing, dizziness, constipation, dry mouth and insomnia, just to name a few. And yet we willingly continue to dump dose after dose into our bloodstream, hoping that one day we can finally be considered “normal.”

Not only have we become complacent with medicine, but we have also allowed pharmaceutical companies to dictate what medical conditions deserve enough attention for drug research. Many pharmaceutical companies choose to ignore conditions that they consider cosmetic in favor of manufacturing medicine that will return more profit. Sadly, many autoimmune disorders and ailments that affect the elderly are not considered profitable enough to produce medicine for. Companies will target teen acne, which is a big market because many teenagers are already concerned about their appearance, and chemotherapy drugs, which often start at an expensive price. However, these medicines will be far too general to cover any real issue relative to the problem.

For example, hypothyroidism, a condition where the thyroid does not produce enough thyroid hormone, is typically treated with a daily pill of replacement steroids and hormones that varies in intensity. Patients must have blood drawn monthly to check hormone levels and then report back to their doctor to have their medicine levels adjusted. This random guessing game of medicinal intensity leads to unintended side effects such as extreme changes in weight, hot flashes and a general feeling of malaise. In many patients, the ups and downs of thyroid treatment prohibit them from enjoying the things that they normally would enjoy, and for what? The companies that market these medicines couldn’t care less about health as long as they sell product.

Furthermore, the reliance of Western medicine on antibiotics has created a perfect-storm scenario for antibiotic-resistant bacteria to rise again and re-infect entire populations. Already we have encountered antibiotic-resistant infections that should raise concern. Normally treatable sexually transmitted diseases are on the rise with new resistant strains. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus cases have risen because the bacterium has become resistant to typical antibiotics that would normally cure staph infections. The truth is that unchecked usage of antibiotics in the past has set us up for failure in the future.

While the HIV cure case was certainly a medical miracle, Western medicine has serious problems when it comes to addressing a majority of other issues. With a culture so obsessed with alleviating the symptom and not the cause, drugs that could very well be detrimental to our bodies have been produced in mass quantities, leading to the question: What pill should I take next? This self-inspired hypochondriac state of mind has only fueled the very thing that might be making us worse.

Vaughn Shirey is a freshman computer science major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

When I first heard of President Obama’s announcement to push for a complete freeze of Israeli settlements in 2009, I was working in East Jerusalem. Ziad, one of my editors, was ecstatic with the news, forcing every employee within the office to view the video clips of Obama’s declaration. Perhaps it was silly or naive of me to expect progress to occur. With the speech, sure enough, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promptly pushed further illegal construction projects within East Jerusalem and the West Bank, refusing to be persuaded by the U.S., the European Union and the international community as a whole. With little success to speak of, Obama quickly folded, and by the following year the idea of a settlement freeze seemed like a long-forgotten dream. What is not surprising of this story is the right-wing rejection of any progress on settlements as demonstrated by the Netanyahu administration’s actions and behaviors. What is surprising, however, is that Obama may have a second chance to push the settlement issue and thus the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a whole. And better yet, this second time around looks far more likely to succeed, an achievement that would surely place Obama’s name in the chronicles of great leaders before him.

To start, why should we care? To those familiar with the subject, I have probably spoken a cardinal sin, but I believe that for the vast majority of uninformed Americans, it is an important question that needs to be explained. We should care about illegal construction of settlements within the West Bank and East Jerusalem because it represents a violation of human rights and even amounts to genuine war crimes as reaffirmed last month by the U.N. Human Rights Council. Forcing families off their land and constructing on said land does not make the land yours, a simple explanation with which I assume most can agree. So why has this issue become controversial? After all, we are talking about basic human rights — basic human rights as described by the Geneva Convention, which were developed in the aftermath of World War II.

So why should any of us be optimistic about progress now? Certainly there are plenty of problems remaining to be pessimistic about with regard to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, yet on settlements, a consensus is emerging. After a surprise turnout in the Israeli elections, the left and center-left showed strong support, forcing the Israeli Right to rethink its policies after losing 11 seats in the Knesset. As The Economist noted this past week, “Tzipi Livni, a former foreign minister and opposition leader who puts peace with the Palestinians at the top of her agenda, agreed to join a coalition led by the prime minister, [Benjamin] Netanyahu. … Ms. Livni will be justice minister and chief negotiator with the Palestinians.” Furthermore, according to the prime minister, peace negotiations can only rekindle once settlement construction freezes, an extremely fair demand considering that the land they are negotiating about is actively being taken away and built on. Finally, there is Obama. With his upcoming trip to Israel, the first of his entire presidency, including stops in Ramallah and Amman, Jordan, it is clear he has a message for the region. Secretary of State John Kerry has clearly stated that he wishes to restart peace negotiations and has already called both Israeli and Palestinian leaders within the capacities of his new office. And with no re-election to worry about, there appears to be no better time for Obama to stand his ground once again. This could include, perhaps, putting more strings on the estimated $3 billion in military aid we provide the state each year (the stick) or exchanging increased assistance on matters ranging from Iranian nuclear ambitions to Syrian border security for concrete actions on the settlement freeze and peace negotiations (the carrot).

If Obama can at least get Israel to agree to a settlement freeze and thus get the two sides at the negotiation table once more, it will certainly represent a massive success in light of the black stain of his first term. But it cannot end there. A freeze to settlements is where we start, an obvious universal cause for the sake of moral decency and the rule of law, but it cannot and will not end until a full two-state solution has been produced (a proposition that both sides have agreed to numerous times, including Netanyahu). A freeze to settlements ensures that the situation on the ground does not become worse, yet in order for things to get better, it will require even greater courage and commitment. Second terms do not occur often, nor do second chances. Use it, freeze the settlements, and help to create a more peaceful and just Middle East.

Clifford Drake is a junior majoring in international economics and political science at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org

The 21st century has brought an exponentially rising technological development field. Consumerism has hit new highs when it comes to buying the latest phone, laptop and tablet models on the market. MP3 player sales have completely eclipsed those of CDs. Also, practically every profession nowadays requires the most updated computers and communication devices for the office or on the go. Naturally, corporations attempt to use this opportunity to promote their new products to technology markets. Of these companies, Apple Inc. has enjoyed enormous success in the past few years alone, up to the point that it is now common culture for everyone to own at least one Apple product for work or personal use. Although Apple may seem to continually satisfy its customers, the market is now dominated by Apple in the technological field, leaving no chance for competitors. Consequently, Apple has been able to take advantage of America’s free market by capitalizing on the consumer trends that have risen over every little update of an Apple product.

Apple products have become commonplace wherever you go, and it is all due to the widespread obsession with buying the most updated technology just for the sake of having it. Early on, Apple began with the original iPod and then gradually added more generations of iPods such as the Nano. Eventually the consumer culture accepted the presence of these iPods and found them useful for listening to music. As different iPod generations emerged, it became evident that the products were made with planned obsolescence in mind. Planned obsolescence is when a company designs its product in such a way that puts an “expiration date” on its functionality so that when that product begins to malfunction, the consumer will be inclined to buy the newer version in hopes of improved performance. This trick caused many reported software problems, especially in the Nano. But of course, that did not stop sales for the later generations. Apple realized this continued heightened interest in its products and decided to profit from the trend. Ever since that day, Apple has forced its controlling reign on the technology market.

Next came the releases of the advanced Mac laptop and desktop computers. The terrific features of the Mac, such as user-friendliness, fast processing and immunity to PC viruses, were heavily advertised. Although I cannot deny the validity of most of these features, setting the 13-inch MacBook Pro at a price of $1,300 was a pure business profiting strategy. The high cost certainly did not reflect the actual value of the laptop. A larger screen or a more advanced Microsoft Office-equivalent software would have brought up the value a bit, but at such a price, purchasing this laptop is a loss.
Then, the release of the iPhone started a long line of products that were built upon this initial innovation. The iPhone included many drastic improvements early on in its look and firmware, but as of late, the same is not true. The iPhone’s fifth generation was simply an elongated and tougher version of the iPhone 4, and yet it caused a frenzy among Apple consumers who reached the point at which they would purchase any new Apple product in order to keep up with the technological trends, no matter the actual worth of the updated version.

A similar pattern exists in the iPad series, which was being updated simultaneously with the iPhone. The iPad is essentially an enlarged version of Apple’s iPod Touch, but the usability of the iPad for reading and using apps on a big screen proved to be worth the update. However, every subsequent version featured sleeker designs and increased user-friendliness until finally, not much was left to change in the iPad. That was when the overly clever people at Apple let out word of the iPad Mini. The iPad Mini was literally a smaller version of the iPad yet a slightly larger version of the iPod Touch. In other words, it was the biggest scam Apple could have presented to its customers. Unfortunately, the sad fact of it all was that sales skyrocketed from this release, considering the Apple obsession was on the verge of reaching a zenith for company revenue.

If this snippet of insight on Apple’s takeover of the technology market doesn’t make you hesitate before purchasing the next big, flashy Apple product, then look into it yourself, and you will only find more of the same information I’ve provided. Sure, Apple products have their pros, but the tactics of the corporation as well as the stronghold held by Apple on the technology market are certainly crucial factors in Apple’s excessive takeover of modern consumer culture. If consumers can grasp this adverse trend, Apple will lose its firm grip on the technology sector.

Krunal Patel is a freshman electrical engineering major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

To clarify my previous article: Drexel is in the pocket of big polluters. In this case, we’re in the pocket of the American Natural Gas Alliance. It was recently announced that 11 undergraduate business students competed and won first place in the American Natural Gas Alliance Collegiate Energy Challenge, in which they were presented with the task of acting as consultants to develop and implement a campaign to promote natural gas to the Drexel community. As natural gas is on the rise, it’s important for everyone to be aware of the environmental and personal health damage caused by the current methods of natural gas extraction and production.

The most commonly used natural gas extraction method is called hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, and is a fairly new technology associated with words like “safe” and “responsible.” It is neither. Hydrofracking is a horizontal drilling process that fractures shale rock using a mixture of sand, large amounts of water, and various chemicals (some of which are not disclosed to the public) to let natural gas permeate to the surface through cement-lined wells.

While natural gas is a cleaner-burning fuel than coal or oil, the process of extraction is extremely dirty. Those cement barriers that are supposed to keep the natural gas away from our soil and water have been found to break down over time, causing leaks in the pipes. The highly toxic wastewater created by hydrofracking is disposed of in a ditch, to be trucked off later to waste facilities. The collected natural gas is stored in an evaporator until it can be distributed for consumption. These evaporators emit volatile organic compounds (known carcinogens and smog precursors) 24/7.
The 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Policy Act, more commonly known as the “Halliburton Loophole,” exempted natural-gas drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act, an act passed by Congress in 1974 to ensure clean drinking water free of man-made and natural contaminants. Despite repeated violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act, the industry does not take the responsibility and effort to clean up its mess and instead takes legal shortcuts that adversely affect our health and environment.

It’s not the business of universities to convince its students of the “importance of natural gas.” To the contrary, the idea that promoting natural gas is promoting a cleaner environment is dead wrong. As the Divestment Convergence at Swarthmore College rapidly approaches, it is our responsibility as students to encourage and work with our administration to divest from dirty energy, including natural gas, and instead invest in cleaner alternatives like Pennsylvania’s Keystone Solar Project in Lancaster and the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm in New Jersey.

Nicole Koedyker is the president of the Drexel chapter of the Sierra Club. She can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

I, like many other freshmen, have been bombarded with housing-related emails for the past few weeks. Each email expressed that my housing deposit and options were due soon and that I should deal with this quickly. Had I not avoided this task for so long, I suppose I would not have received so many emails.

I was procrastinating for a reason, though: I think the two-year residency program is stupid. I’m not just ranting; I am demanding this policy be repealed. Requiring students to live in Drexel housing for their first year is one thing, but applying a similar policy for the second year is ridiculous. Not only does this policy financially burden students, but it also contributes to overcrowding in housing, lack of independence, unnecessary construction and gentrification.

I don’t know if President Fry realizes that West Philly isn’t his personal game of “The Sims” — judging by his actions, I gather he does not. While construction that is needed and beneficial to our education is a step forward, bulldozing to accommodate unnecessary and arbitrary wishes is a triple step backward. Chestnut Street has already been torn apart to provide more student housing, and the Frederic O. Hess laboratories are purportedly next in Fry’s “Bob the Builder” escapades.

Drexel housing is beyond capacity, and rather than attempting to remedy this, Fry simply seems to be placing a bandage over a situation equivalent to a large stab wound. Even though lounges have been converted to rooms and double-occupancy spaces have been transformed into triple-occupancy rooms, Fry still appears to think it is wise to require sophomores to live in campus housing. Rather than being able to open up some or all of housing traditionally restricted to upperclassmen, the two-year residency program will require more sophomores to populate these areas and thus contribute to housing overflow.

One of the greatest appeals of attending college is independence and freedom, specifically the kind that comes with living on one’s own. Residence halls provide this freedom partially but not in its entirety. With residence halls, there are still individuals occasionally monitoring students, and independence is limited. Requiring sophomores to live in Drexel housing, Drexel-affiliated housing or Drexel-approved housing doesn’t exactly allow for the independence of choosing a first property. Shouldering the responsibilities that come with leasing a property is an integral part of maturing into adulthood, and students are usually better off experiencing it earlier rather than later.

For Drexel students, selecting an off-campus place to live prior to this year generally occurred during freshman year, at times with parental guidance, allowing for a safe crash course in real estate. This option, while not totally eliminated by the residency program, is virtually eradicated. In order to live in an off-campus apartment, students must either apply for an exemption from the program (which is only rarely granted) or apply for the property to be approved by Drexel. The latter choice presents difficulties for students, as it does not guarantee approval, meaning that students will not know whether to sign on for the lease until Drexel makes a decision, by which time the property may already be off the market. Essentially, the residency program delays the learning and growth experienced when choosing an independent house.

Anyone near Drexel’s campus is immediately aware of the extensive construction taking place, including a new business center and a new Drexel-affiliated housing location. Although the construction of the new business building is somewhat understandable, the new housing location is a product of campus overflow that will be exacerbated by the two-year residency program. Additionally, the Hess labs are likely to be demolished in favor of Drexel housing. The labs, though not enormously important to every student, are a huge part of some students’ academic lives, as a previous Triangle article noted. Senior projects, engineering research and a host of other miscellaneous activities are conducted here, making it a building of vital significance to its users.

DeDe Stockton, a high school senior who currently takes a class at Drexel and is considering attending Drexel full time in the fall, commented, “It really makes me wonder about Drexel’s ethics and intelligence and what they might do next if they’re already uprooting and have uprooted not just their own community but the communities around them, too. … Also, even though I could commute, you have to be in a 10-mile radius to do that. … We’re from 20 minutes away — if [Interstate 76] wasn’t always backed up — a 30-minute local train ride, or 20 miles away. I can get here nearly 30 minutes to an hour quicker than I could to West Chester University, yet [West Chester] would let me commute, but not Drexel. I really like Drexel, but it’s as if they just try to inconvenience you.”

In a previous Triangle article, I discussed the negative impacts of gentrification in West Philly and Drexel’s role in this — a role exacerbated by the two-year residency program. Rather than allow sophomore students to choose their own places off campus without Drexel’s involvement, Drexel seems to be working to make this virtually a non-option. This may not seem that significant for surrounding communities, but allow me to explain. When Drexel lists a property as approved on the housing website, students who wish to live off campus but do not feel like going through the approval process will generally select one of these, thus eliminating them from the overall housing market. As students eventually select most of these properties, more approved properties will need to be added. If sophomores were able to choose where they live, there would be no unofficial “students only” property list restricting other buyers.

As local resident Marcus Thurell commented, “See, I love the students, don’t get me wrong. … But Drexel, they can’t seem to get it that there are actually people who are living here, who been living here and who want to keep living here — maybe have no choice but to keep living here. This is my home. You can make it yours, too, but I want to be able to stay, too, you know? The construction gets to me too. … [If Drexel pushes further into West Philly,] where am I gonna go? … We’re basically being told, ‘Get out or eventually you’ll be forced to leave,’ what with the costs rising ‘cause of all these people fixing up houses. …We’re being forced farther and farther by these schools, these people, this whole University City construct.”
The residency program does provide the option of Drexel-approved housing, in which the student may select either an already approved housing location or elect to have a house approved by submitting necessary paperwork, thereby allowing the student to live off campus. While this is certainly a helpful provision in the policy, there should be no need for such a choice, as the program itself is a disaster. As the requirements stand, this alternative allows at least some hope for students wishing to live off campus.

So, to President Fry and others responsible for this policy: We are big girls and boys; we can choose our own houses, thank you. Isn’t it enough that the tuition is through the roof and you nickel and dime us for every little thing? Now you’re forcing us to choose your housing even though it’s breaking our banks? We are college students, after all, and even those who are supported by their parents will tell you that their parents aren’t exactly thrilled about the costs of being a Drexel student. Ultimately, no one can really afford to pay more tuition because of construction. Trying to offset that by requiring us to live in Drexel housing is not solving the problem either; it is creating more problems. Drexel truly needs to examine the best solutions for students, not just for the appearance of the University or the interests of its leaders.

Erin DiPiano is a freshman communications major at Drexel University. She can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org

The Hydra is described as a terrible beast from Greek mythology, capable of ending the life of any man or woman with the power of its breath. If one of its many heads became detached from the rest of the creature’s body, more would grow in its place. It took the bravery and wit of Hercules himself to finally subdue this creature, but what relevancy does it have today? Recently, teachers, students and parents at Sullivan County High School in Indiana rallied together to create an alternative prom to the school’s original event. Those concerned cited concerns over the fact that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth would be able to attend Sullivan’s original prom with their dates. Although not calling for a ban against LGBT students from the high school prom, the Sullivan County ordeal brought to light a recent backlash trend from more traditional groups against people that they deem “offensive.”

Of particular concern to me were comments made by one special-education teacher, Diana Medley. Medley stated that she did not think LGBT students had a purpose in life, adding that she would openly talk to students about their sexuality but that she made it known that she did not agree with their “choice.” This type of conduct from a public schoolteacher, let alone one whom students turn to for guidance, is purely unacceptable. Medley should reconsider her position on the issue as well as her future as an educator after making such virulent comments, knowing full well that she would be placed in the public eye. She should also pay attention to notable contributions that members of the LGBT community have made to the world. Alan Turing, the father of computer science, contributed to the modern computer and study of artificial intelligence, while Anderson Cooper has been engaged in many human rights and humanitarian projects across the globe. Medley, your accusations of “worthlessness” hold no ground. While it is perfectly acceptable for Medley to hold her own opinion, she made the wrong decision to discriminate against students openly by allowing her personal opinions to override the well-being of the students that she encounters each day.

Medley was not the only person to make negative comments toward the LGBT community. However, her comments seemed to be the most hateful, especially coming from a woman in her position. Being raised in a Christian household, I found comments from students at Sullivan County High School to be appalling. How could you hate something that does not, even in a fractional amount, assault your well-being? Students at Sullivan County preached love for the “homosexuals” (as if this was some all-encompassing term for all LGBT youth) yet then went on to express a desire for the segregation of a public event in favor of their own sensibilities. All of this controversy rings eerily of the interracial relationships and racial segregation saga that dominated most of the 20th century. Prom planners then went on to assume that students who attend the alternative “righteous” prom would finally accept the truth that homosexuality and other sexual orientations are choices rooted in sin.

There is a bright side to this ordeal. Some residents of the Sullivan County School District expressed concern over secularizing the high school prom. The principal of Sullivan County High School made public comments reaffirming the position that all students, regardless of sexuality, would be able to attend the prom and that the district itself has made great strides to put distance between the school and the anti-LGBT dissenters. These steps, although small, are monumental. A series of small drops in the lake are enough to break the dam. It is slowly getting better for students in public schools, but there are measures we should take to ensure that tolerance proliferates throughout education:

1. Rewrite sex education curricula to include discussion about LGBT individuals along with heterosexual relationships. Encourage dialogue between students, and reinforce the notion that being different is OK.

2. Break down gender barriers that delimitate certain activities as inherently masculine or feminine.

3. Ensure that children are taught that companionship and compassion do not have to occur between a male and a female but can come in many arrangements and numbers.

When the story of Sullivan County broke, I was honestly shocked at what I had initially considered a major step backward from acceptance in this country. Now I see it as more of a chance for tolerance to bloom. What might seem like negative publicity can always be used to make a counterstatement. Like the mythological Hydra, the faces of hatred have once again reared their heads against the forces of love, tolerance and understanding. The question is: Who will play Hercules this time?

Vaughn Shirey is a freshman computer science major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

I like pictures. They are like moments captured in time, memories that I can relate to, things that I can laugh about with friends. In fact I love pictures so much that you might see me posing for a couple “selfies” around campus. America seems infatuated with pictures as well. Popular applications such as Snapchat and Instagram highlight what seems to be an obsession with communication through the visual world. Being able to send friends an almost live update of where you are, what you are doing and what you are eating has permeated throughout our lifestyle. Yes, I really like pictures—except when they’re taken without my permission. In an age where the Internet dominates most of our lives, we want to make sure that our personal image is as positive as possible, and we have the freedom to do so. However, the privacy of the individual has recently come under assault in the name of public safety.

Domestic drones are not the answer to America’s security problems, and President Obama’s new memo on domestic drone policy astounded me. In a country where the personal and private lives of others are often exploited by the media and punctured by hate groups, this invasive maneuver by the U.S. government should come as a slap to the face of any American citizen. Whether one is personally for or against drones, it cannot be denied that they invade the privacy of the people captured by cameras thousands of feet in the air. Not already convinced? Here are some reasons why you should be:

1. With drone technology costing well over a million dollars, taxpayers cannot afford to send more drones into the air. Estimates put the expansion of drone surveillance at around $12,500,000 per aircraft.
2. Drones take pictures and sometimes video. Yes, this means pictures of you walking down the street, sitting in the park and flirting with that gentleman who is way out of your league (Seriously folks, do you really want that?).

While the protection of American citizens is an important issue in a modern world, what price are we willing to pay for such security? Are we willing to compromise privacy for the sake of others? Certainly not everyone is a pure altruist ready to accept the idea that, “Yes, I should completely remove myself from any emotional attachment to privacy because the needs of the many far outweigh my own personal thoughts and actions.” To me, President Obama’s action seems like a direct step toward an authoritarian government, one where a paranoid government seizes any opportunity to collect information from its people while directly violating their rights.

As voters — and as people — I think we should be more concerned about the use of domestic drones. We are compromising our own lives to supply massive databases of information with pictures and videos that may or may not be of any significance to national security. We are setting ourselves up for a dystopia, a true Orwellian scenario. How long will it be before we start to see the true agenda? We won’t. We never will. With cameras positioned everywhere on city streets and in the sky, we hardly notice them in our lives. They have become so inconspicuous that we barely mind. This is perhaps more frightening than domestic drones themselves — the complacency of society to adapt to the new “norm” even though it may eventually be detrimental to them.

As a member of society who is deeply concerned about the privacy and well-being of others, domestic drones are not what this country needs. While drones are excellent at serving a purpose in surveillance, they overstep the boundary of what is acceptable in America. An authoritarian police-state is not worth the privacy of many for the possible safety of a few. As a society so focused on individual freedom, creativity and expression, I thought maybe we could do better.

Vaughn Shirey is a freshman computer science major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.