The Gap Year Phenomenon

In a recent post by The Iranian, she discusses the downside of high schoolers rushing into college, costing themselves tens of thousands of dollars on generic liberal arts degrees.

“… but it’s important to inform our kids about the implications and consequences of attending college. It shouldn’t be somewhere they go to hide away from fear of what the world has to offer and it certainly shouldn’t be somewhere that provides them with less real world experience and knowledge than other options.”

Especially among American middle and upper class families, all of high school, hell even middle school, is about getting accepted into college. Every decision and performance is framed as series of behavior leading up to and affecting future success. With college acceptance rates lower than ever, there is an insurmountable amount of pressure on young people. Many join band, Varsity soccer, student government, and take four AP classes, not necessarily because of a genuine passion, but because they believe it will affect college admissions. Needless to say, by the time students reach their senior year, they are burned out. Maybe they’ve been accepted to their dream school, maybe they’ve settled for something less, but now many think to themselves “now what?” After spending the last few years focused on the singular goal of getting into college, many lack the time for self-reflection to explore what they are really passionate about.

Having graduated high school in Europe, I was lucky to be surrounded by another paradigm – the question was not “what college are you going to?” but rather “are you planning on going straight to college or taking a gap year?” Probably one-third of my graduating class took gap years. My decision to do so was invaluable, not only in my ability to travel, gain fluency in French, and explore my interests, but I believe it made me a better college student. I came to college with a newfound independence, confidence, and energy for learning I never expected. As astutely put by Ethan Knight, the Executive Director of the American Gap Association:

"One of the things I see students frequently asking and coming up with is what success looks like to them. We’re handed definitions of success by our peers, by culture, by media, by school, by parents, and we’re not asked what it looks like for us. A gap year asks you to consider that question."

The gap-year phenomenon is still not as popular in the U.S. as it is in Europe, but it is gaining popularity. About 40,000 Americans participated in gap year programs in 2013, an increase of nearly 20% since 2006. Colleges are catching onto the potential benefits of gap years on their students too. Tufts University recently started a program that will provide full aid for certain accepted students interested in taking gap years. Princeton and University of North Carolina also grant gap year need-based aid, removing the financial barriers to make a gap year more feasible for cash-strapped students. While taking a gap year isn’t for everyone, the automatic high school-to-college pathway should be challenged, and it is a concept that I hope gains even more traction in the U.S.

Recognizing the Armenian Genocide: Where is 2008 Obama?

April 24^th marked the 100^th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. It also marked the 7^th year in a row that Obama has broken his promise to use the “g” word to describe the 1915 massacre. Obama stands alone among a number of other major leaders, including France, Germany, Russia, and Austria, who have recently stepped up to describe the atrocity as genocide. The disappointment among scholars, the Armenian-American community, and really anyone who cares about this issue has been overwhelming. In my opinion, President Obama has been a good leader. However, he is not the energized leader declaring “change” that we hoped and thought we were electing in 2008. His failure to recognize the genocide gives us another disappointing example of Obama’s inability to fulfill promises of “hope” and “yes we can” that the American public yearned for.

Turkey repeatedly denies that the “events of 1915” could be considered genocide, but scholars say otherwise. David Simon, professor of political science and co-director of the Genocide Studies Program at Yale, says, “There is a near consensus that the Armenian genocide was a genocide, or that genocide is the right word. The deportations and massacres amounted to a crime we now know is genocide. In 1915 there was no such word.”

There wouldn’t be a debate about this issue, if it weren’t for Turkey’s denial of the genocide and the strategic importance of Turkey to us. As a NATO ally, rising economic power, and important Middle East partner, Turkey is much more important to us than Armenia, a comparatively impoverished, small state.

As a Senator and presidential candidate Obama repeatedly referred to the atrocity as genocide, and in 2008 pledged that as president he would recognize the genocide. Academic and author Samantha Power has championed this cause, and even recorded a five-minute video insisting that the Armenian-American community give Obama their vote because he would keep his promise on this issue. He sure got the vote, but where is the follow-through? 

It is imperative that we recognize genocide, no matter how long ago it may have occurred, in order to ensure that history does not repeat itself. If we fail to do this and allow nations to overlook past atrocities, we leave room for actions to repeat again. Recognizing the past is just as important for the Armenian loss as it is for Turkey to come to terms with their history, something that is important for a democratic way of life.

Political alliances are real and important to global governance, but President Obama can endure the brief blowback from Turkey. We are a more important alliance for Turkey than they are for us. Though other countries have stepped up, the U.S. is needed to isolate Turkey on this issue. I hope that President Obama can remember the candidate he was in 2008, and in his final years in office really change the status quo.

Hillary Clinton's Hormones?

Ending years of speculation and coy denials of presidential ambitions, Hillary Clinton officially announced her 2016 Presidential bid on April 12^th.  Clinton had garnered a major support base long before her announcement. According to a CBS News Poll 81% of Democrats said they would consider voting for her. So far none of Clinton’s potential Democrat rivals, including Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, even come close to touching her.

With few challengers, and few strong Republican candidates on the horizon, and no shortage of what we know political campaigns really come down to (money), Clinton has a strong shot at the presidency. Even as a female. What is concerning is not her ability to be elected with respect to her gender, but rather the incessant rhetoric surrounding her gender.

I already feel eyes rolling – another feminist scolding the media for focusing on Clinton’s gender instead of her ideas and qualifications. Yes, this point has been belabored, but because it has to be belabored. Because the media still doesn’t get it.

As expected from the far right, many outlandish comments have been made surrounding Clinton’s ability to lead as a woman, including marketing CEO Cheryl Rios who told CNN, “With all the hormones we have there is no way we should be able to start a war.”

If it stopped with comments like this I’d be willing to brush off the right-wing crazies. But perhaps even more off-putting are articles like Time Magazine’s which argues that Clinton, as a postmenopausal woman, is at a perfect age and is “biologically primed” to lead.

The long phase of perimenopause is marked by seismic spikes and troughs of estrogen levels, which can last for more than a decade in many women. But afterward, there is a hormonal ebbing that creates a moment of great possibility. As a psychiatrist, I will tell you the most interesting thing about menopause is what happens after. A woman emerging from the transition of perimenopause blossoms. It is a time for redefining and refining what it is she wants to accomplish in her third act. And it happens to be excellent timing for the job Clinton is likely to seek. Biologically speaking, postmenopausal women are ideal candidates for leadership. They are primed to handle stress well, and there is, of course, no more stressful job than the presidency.

Are we really going to legitimize the discussion of Hillary Clinton’s hormones and menopausal status? Psychiatrist Dr. Julie Holland probably thinks she is doing a service by defending Clinton’s much-discussed gender and age through scientific jargon. Instead it implies that tying a woman’s competence to her hormones is a valid construct. An article would never be published concerning the testosterone levels of any male politician, despite that men experience a cycle of hormonal fluctuations as well. Forget about Clinton’s experience as a former first lady, senator, and secretary of state, her hormones are why you should vote for her.

Times are changing and white-male centric society is beginning to be challenged. In 2008 the nation was mostly energized by the idea of electing a black man to the presidency. While there was a segment of right-extremist bigots who fixated on Barack “Hussein” Obama, the majority of America saw right through radical Islamist conspiracy theories. For those consciously and subconsciously off-put by the color of his skin, he acted “white enough” for most.

But Hillary Clinton is a female – no way of easing into it. Outright prejudice won’t be the most dangerous in this election. What is more dangerous is the mainstream media validating our comfort in a male-dominated society through legitimizing discussions of irrelevant subjects such as gender biological differences.

If hormone talk is what we have to look forward to this election, our state of politics in the U.S. needs major repair. Let’s keep wisdom and gender separate, all I care about is Hillary Clinton’s wisdom and I challenge the mainstream media to do the same. But the sad truth is that if Clinton is elected to the presidency, we can probably look forward to years of hullabaloo over her outfits and how she is wearing her hair.

House of Putin

“You don’t understand Russia, Mr. President,” House of Cards’ fictional Russian President Viktor Petrov explains to U.S. President Francis Underwood, “If people don’t like the job you’re doing, they vote you out of office. If they don’t like the job I’m doing, they topple statues. Blood is spilled. Chaos takes over.” Viktor Petrov’s similarities to real-life President Vladimir Putin are uncanny. Aside from the identical initials, he is a former KGB agent with a flare for posing shirtless photos and jailing dissidents. House of Cards is fiction of course, but this lethally addictive Netflix-original series engrosses the viewer into Frank Underwood’s empire by drawing off of real-life contexts.

One of Russia’s last remaining opposition leaders and most vocal activists against Russia’s involvement in Ukraine, Boris Nemtsov, was mysteriously assassinated on February 27^th. President Putin quickly launched an “official” investigation, which pinned the murder on a group of five Muslim Chechen rebels, a conveniently controversial minority in Russia. One of them, a certain Zaur Dadayev, even confessed under questioning. Perfect. But not so fast – this tale began to unravel in following weeks, when a journalist visiting Dadeyev in a detention center reported that he had been beaten, threatened with a bag over his head for two days, and forced to confess.

Vladimir Putin has created an undemocratic political system that makes his leadership virtually impossible to replace, and as Petrov expresses, the only way his autocracy might be overthrown would be through violent revolution. He therefore quashes dissent before it propagates. The importance of stability overrides democratic rights.  

With numerous incarcerations, exiles, and assassinations of his top opposition, Putin is not fooling anyone in the Nemtsov case. Tens of thousands marched in Moscow to honor Nemtsov, yet the crowd’s chants of “Russia without Putin” were suffocated by police helicopters and sirens.  Nemtsov’s murder will continue to be under speculation, and there will never be certainty as to who ordered the assassination. Yet it doesn’t really matter because the evidence speaks for itself: if you challenge Putin too loudly there are three options, jail, exile, or death. Mikhail Khodorkovsky is one of the most prominent examples of this, whose vast wealth and democratic inclinations posed a threat to Putin, and spent years in a brutal jail/labor camp hybrid. 

Many argue that Russia has particular historical conditions that have indicated a need for strong leadership. This is partially true, and Petrov appropriately alludes to the West’s misunderstanding of Russian political culture. Russia is enormously vast and ethnically diverse, and autocracy has been necessary for unity and has dominated Russian history. A strong leader was needed to pick up the pieces from the fall of the Soviet Union, and subsequent economic reform failures that left Russia in a miserable depression. Internationally, Putin has restored some of Soviet Russia’s former glory through his refusal to cower to Western demands.

Yet Russia’s history of autocracy should not destine Russia a one-man rule forever. Just because the Russian people have experienced few democratic rights historically does not mean that they are unsuited for democracy. Russia’s brutal history demonstrates a merry-go-round trend of violent uprisings in response to violent, unjust governments. Sustainable reform is the only way to ensure Russia’s centuries of bloodshed under the Tsar and the communist regimes are not repeated.

Putin’s construction of an autocratic state created the risk of revolution; since the Russian people have no voice in the ballot box, their dissatisfaction can only be heard through revolt. Of course, it is unlikely that the Russian people will “topple statues” in mutiny tomorrow. Support for Vladimir Putin – at least as reported in Russia – has been above 80% for the last year. But with Russia’s reported slip into recession, risk of increasing poverty, and isolation in Europe, may jeopardize the stability Putin promises. Eliminating dissidents one by one is only sustainable for so long.

For now, Boris Nemtsov remains another name on the list of eliminated challengers to the Kremlin’s authority. How many more there will be is up to the Russian people to decide.

Coercion: The Last Remaining Tool for the CCP

Reports emerged today of ten taxi drivers in Beijing drinking pesticide in protest of poor treatment by their taxi companies, but will the government listen? The men protested outside of a popular Beijing shopping center, drawing crowds as many keeled over and frothed at the mouth due to the pesticide. Videos of the protest quickly went viral on Chinese social media sites. The men aimed to kill themselves – thankfully all survived.

This is just one example in a series of labor protests that have recently surged across China. Strikes and labor protests doubled in 2014 to more than 1300 and have tripled in the last quarter, particularly by factory workers, teachers, and taxi drivers demanding better treatment. Rising tensions are likely a result of China’s slowing economy, as labor-intensive manufacturing is exported outside of China in search of cheaper labor. But the ruling Chinese Communist Party has failed to address these concerns, and instead have met protests with heavy-handedness. Even peaceful petitioners are often detained, many beaten, threatened, and sometimes even tossed into mental hospitals and silenced.

Independent unions are, of course, illegal in China. All labor organizations are state-run, registered and affiliated with the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), who reportedly often ultimately side with management. Meng Han, a hospital security guard jailed for nine-months for protesting in demand of higher wages, says, “China’s unions do not belong to the workers.” The fact that the word “union” is even commonplace in the Chinese vocabulary – let alone formalized in the state – shows that China has come a long way in recent years. However, if ACFTU continues to stifle the voices of the workers, the number and intensity of protests and strikes will only continue to grow, threatening the stability of China.

An authoritarian state hinges upon three tools to dominate society: “coercion,” in the form of violent and non-violent repression, surveillance, and large police forces; “remuneration,” by buying off key interest groups and keeping general welfare rising; and “thought-work” or symbol-manipulation to manufacture legitimacy and cultivate nationalism. As one of these tools begins to weaken, the state must increasingly make use of the other two remaining tools to compensate. Although the Chinese economy is still very strong, as its growth slows, many lose their jobs, and workers demand more, we see that the state’s tool of “remuneration” is beginning to suffer.  “Thought-work” is also less successful than it used to be, with widespread access to international media and social media outlets even despite national bans. Chinese youth are especially more enlightened than ever before.

This leaves “coercion” as the last remaining tool for use by China’s ruling Communist Party. It is no surprise then that both mass incidents of civil unrest, as well as government spending on internal security have soared over recent years. Mass incidents increased from 8700 in 1993 to 90,000 in 2010, and these numbers are according to “official” Chinese government data, indicating that the number is likely much higher. The government has not released official data on numbers for more recent years. China’s spending on domestic security – including police, militia, and other domestic security arms – has exceeded its defense spending for the last three years. In 2012, the government increased its domestic security by 11.5% and in 2013 by 8.7%. In 2014 the government withheld their domestic-security spending figure.

If the Chinese Communist Party hopes to ensure their long-term rule and economic prosperity, concerns of citizens must be addressed. Desperate attempts of suicide like the taxi drivers’ protest in Beijing represents an unsatisfied labor force that is boiling over. History has shown us time and time again that intimidation, coercion, and the suppression of domestic unrest are not sustainable ways to govern, and sooner or later will erupt. Will the Chinese government recognize the warning signs?

Playing Tug of War With Russia

The free world breathed a sigh of relief at the end of the Cold War: we slayed the dragon of communism and peace and democracy would reign. Yet to the dismay of many, Russia refused to surrender to American hegemony, and today, US.-Russia relations are at the lowest point they have been since the Cold War’s conclusion. The war in eastern Ukraine between the U.S./Western-backed Ukrainian government, and Russian-backed separatists has shown no signs of slowing down, and around 5000 people have been killed since the crisis began in February 2014. While the United States has already committed $118 million in assistance to Ukraine, recently many American politicians have suggested escalating the proxy war by arming the Ukrainian defense with lethal weapons and committing $1 billion in additional defense funding. Although all sides are to blame for how the crisis in Ukraine has played out, the European Union’s reckless ultimatum that the divided Ukraine choose between an association and trade deal with the EU, or an economic package offered by Russia, ignited the initial crisis and ousting of former Ukrainian President Yanukovych. This kind of Euro-Atlantic vs. Russia, “us-or-them” tug-of-war we have imposed in numerous instances is not only unfairly over-simplistic for culturally and historically complex nations, but it has irreversibly aggravated U.S.-Russia relations. If the U.S. continues to destroy Russian alliances and isolate Russia in Europe, it may lead to serious consequences in the long-term global power structure.

The same imposed “us or them” binary in Ukraine requiring them to choose alignment with the Euro-Atlantic or Russia was seen in Georgia in 2008, yet the analog was not enough to prevent the United States from making the same mistake twice. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the world saw the global power structure change from a bipolar to a unipolar world. Instead of treating the post-Cold War unipolar moment with careful diplomacy, the United States celebrated the victory of democracy and liberalism on top of the rubble remains in Russia. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), perceived by Russia to be a Western security alliance created against them, steadily expanded eastward all the way up to Russia’s borders. As former states of the Soviet Union containing territories with large Russian-ethnic constituencies, Ukraine and Georgia are critical to Russia. More than any other post-Soviet states, they are Russia’s red lines. Yet even knowing that Georgia was going too far, the U.S. still encouraged NATO expansion into Georgia in 2008. Signaling Western-alignment and a security threat to Russia’s borders, Russia reacted with force, invading and seizing Georgia’s South Ossetia and Abkhazia regions, drawing an analogous case to Russia’s seizure of Crimea. Even Sarah Palin predicted in 2008 that Russia would invade Ukraine, considering Russia’s invasion of Georgia that year. It should not be a surprise that Russia acted similarly in Ukraine in early 2014 as it did in Georgia in 2008. While there is no justification for Russia’s violation of nations’ territorial integrity, the United States is at fault for putting complex nations in destabilizing positions that require them to choose between the Euro-Atlantic and Russia.

Driving Ukraine to choose between alignment with the West or Russia reveals the U.S.’s ignorance to the historical, demographic, and cultural realities in Ukraine, and overlooking this has resulted in the U.S.’s mistreatment of the crisis. The first mistake the U.S. has made is oversimplifying Ukrainians as one people, all united in their support of change. The Euromaidan protests and ousting of President Yanukovych in early 2014 was led by Ukrainians coming largely from the western region of the country that seek a Ukraine culturally and politically distinct from Russia. Yet there is a visible division between these western Ukrainians, and Ukrainians in eastern regions who maintain spiritual, cultural, economic, and linguistic connections to Russia. Another mistake the U.S. has made is misunderstanding the identity and objectives of Ukrainians in the east. Especially at the beginning of the crisis, there was only a minority of “pro-Russian separatists.” In fact, the vast majority of Ukrainians in the east and south regions of the country have simply sought recognition of their Russian heritage as part of their identity. The final mistake of U.S. policy toward the crisis in Ukraine was propping up the political aspirations of one half of the nation, while alienating the other half. In fact, three-quarters of the population in Ukraine’s eastern cities viewed the ousting of Yanukovych as illegal. The U.S. was perceived as aiding the western Ukraine Euromaidan movement, with political officials even being recorded during critical negotiation stages discussing who they sought to replace the ousted President.

If this us-or-them ultimatum continues in other countries with split Euro-Atlantic accession aspirations and Russian historical and cultural affinities, such as countries in the Balkans, more conflict will erupt and isolate Russia in Europe. When asked if worsening EU-Russia relations could lead to tensions in the Balkans, Prime Minister of Albania Edi Rama said that the situation in Ukraine should be like a wakeup call for Europe, and that they should be “far more strategic and tactical” in their approach than they were in Ukraine. Christian Danielsson, the European Commission Director General for Enlargement, responded that he does not see a contradiction for Balkan countries to have economic relations with both the EU and Russia. However, if they want to be apart of the EU they have to adopt the EU’s foreign policy stance. For countries with long-standing alliances with Russia, Danielsson reaffirms the problem that the EU and the U.S. continuously pose to divided countries. Countries with long-standing alliances with Russia are asked to forgo their traditional bilateral relations, and surrender to the EU foreign policy positions that may oppose Russia, even including imposing sanctions.

Serbia is an example of a country that has been prevented from pursuing a balancing act between the Euro-Atlantic and Russia. The economic benefits of EU accession are immensely appealing for the nation’s development, but Serbia has a historical and cultural affinity to Russia as a fellow Slavic, Orthodox nation, and they enjoy close political and economic ties. On Ukraine, for example, Serbia has attempted to remain neutral and abstained on a UN vote to reaffirm Ukraine’s territorial integrity. However, head of the EU delegation to Serbia Michael Davenport expressed dissatisfaction with Serbia’s neutrality saying, “We want countries such as Serbia to back our stance on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine. We also want all our partners to support our efforts aimed at reaching a peaceful solution to this problem." The EU message is clear: if you are not with us, you are against us. Another source of friction is the South Stream Pipeline deal, which would export Russian gas through many countries in Eastern Europe including Serbia. The European Commission’s opposition to the project may jeopardize its completion, which would provide a number of jobs and economic benefits to Serbia. Russia, who would economically benefit from the deal as well, is furious. Attempts to remain neutral by Serbia and similar nations with divided loyalties often frustrate and fail to please both parties. Since EU accession is Serbia’s top priority due to economic and development benefits, they will likely concede to EU demands if they are forced. However, forcing nations like Serbia to forgo ties with Russia is harmful to the United States’ relationship with Russia, and will ultimately impact European stability.

This “us-or-them” binary we have constructed is justified in the media by the overwhelming consensus that vilify Putin and Russia as the ultimate enemy and menace of Europe. According to the mainstream media, countries like Ukraine and Serbia uniformly desire Western-alignment, while Russia is a force bullying them to remain in Russia’s backward sphere of influence. The United States and Europe are framed as the benign champions of freedom and democracy. Stephen Cohen sheds light on this issue in The Nation, explaining that the mainstream media’s adherence to traditional journalistic standards, featuring balance through opposing views, somehow gets thrown out the door when it comes to Russia. Indeed, the Kremlin has a number of repugnant policies and problems that deserve criticism, but the failure to historically examine the origins of these policies and problems fails to tell the whole story. Even the most left and centrist news sources like MSNBC, The New York Times, and the Washington Post engage in the Putin and Russia-bashing – Howard Dean even going on Real Time With Bill Maher declaring that “Vladimir Putin is a thug.” The Sochi Olympic Games were mocked in the New York Times for the “Soviet style dystopia” complexes they were held in, and news sources repeatedly sensualized the threat of terrorism on the games. The American media maintains a certain degree of moderate coverage toward other “enemy” nations of the U.S., perhaps even less deserving, but Putin’s Russia is the ultimate villain.

As a result of media and government rhetoric on Russia, perceived relations between the United States and Russia are at an all-time-low. In a 2015 Gallup poll, it was revealed that Americans see Russia as America’s greatest enemy in the world, over North Korea, China, and Iran. 18% of those polled named Russia as the U.S.’s top enemy, a figure twice as bad as in 2014, and six times as bad as in 2011. Russian opinion mirrors this perceived animosity. The number of Russians who see America as its top enemy has risen from 25 percent in 2008 to 73 percent in 2014.

Aggravating relations and alienating Russia in Europe will push Russia toward other alliances, the most threatening of which is their budding strategic partnership with China. Both countries are dissatisfied with the current world order, and both feel as though they have been unfairly treated by the U.S. and the West. China and Russia have already signed a thirty-year, $400 billion energy deal, and have a $100 billion trade goal set for 2015. The extent of their political partnership remains unclear, but as arguably the two most powerful states in the world after the United States, they could benefit tremendously from an alliance. And the nature of such an alliance would be definitively anti-U.S., anti-West. Yet at the same time, China and Russia have historically been competitors rather than partners and have little draw to one another other than their “axis of convenience,” against the United States.  The future developments of a Sino-Russian alliance are contingent upon the actions of the U.S.  In a Huffington Post article, Artyom Lukin argues that it is not so far-fetched to imagine that a strong Sino-Russian alliance has potential to bring about another world war. World war is a specific type of military conflict, “one which features a clash of two mighty coalitions led by great powers and possessing roughly comparable strategic resources." The Euro-Atlantic coalition has been around for decades, and the Sino-Russian coalition is the only imaginable alliance with the strength to challenge the status quo. If the United States continues in its policy of containment by arming Ukraine, imposing sanctions, expanding NATO, and isolating Russia, Russia will be tempted to form an alliance with China solely based on their mutual contempt for the U.S.

The United States must find a way to reset relations with Russia. We must discontinue policies that are guided by neo-conservative, Cold War-era competition. We must discontinue NATO expansion in nations on Russia’s borders and respect their national security. We must stop sabotaging Russia’s alliances by forcing culturally, politically, and historically complex nations into “them-or-us” ultimatums between the U.S. and Russia. Although competition between the United States and Russia will inevitably remain, the art of diplomacy requires finding a balance of power, and a creative foreign policy that strategically engages Russia is not too late to implement.

Find My iPhone Vigilante Justice

After a Wednesday night out at the USC-classic 901 Bar and Grill, I unfortunately ended the carefree night by forgetting my iPhone in the back of my Uber ride home. Without the drivers phone number, my first instinct was to call my phone and turn on “Find My iPhone” – a popular GPS service from Apple that can locate your iPhone as long as it is switched on. Well, it was just my luck that my phone went “offline” somewhere in West Hollywood. Uber headquarters got back to me that night with the driver’s phone number, and no surprise when Salah failed to answer any of my calls. This guy was stealing my phone.

After pathetically finishing my McChicken through tears I made it to bed for a short night’s sleep. My anxiety did not fail to wake me up the next morning at 8am, and first thing I did was call Salah again. He shockingly answered, but told me that he did not find any iPhone in his car. When I told him that according to Find My iPhone my phone was switched off somewhere in West Hollywood, he said he had taken two passengers after me in West Hollywood. “Typical Hollywood guys,” he described to me, “maybe early 30s, British accents, they must have swiped it.” I asked Salah if could send me any further information about them – their name, number, address, whatever I could use to track them down. He had to go to work, but he was happy to send me anything he had. He actually seemed pretty nice.

Twice that morning, Find My iPhone notified me that my phone had been quickly switched on and off in two locations: the first near UCLA campus, the second at an address in Culver City.  Plugging the Culver City address into Google Maps, I saw that it was residential.  Meanwhile I had been talking to Salah all day. He sent me screenshots of the maps of his Uber rides after me, which gave me a residential address in West Hollywood. Salah said this was where the British men lived. So I had two addresses to investigate: one in Culver City (where the iPhone was last switched on) and one in West Hollywood (where these supposed “typical Hollywood guys” lived). That’s when I decided to go on the manhunt.

Frantically explaining my story to my best friends on iMessage on my Macbook and iPad, I wanted to see if anyone could drive me to check out these addresses. Some warned against the safety of showing up at random peoples' doorsteps. Obviously it seemed like a wild-goose chase and an overall dumb idea. More than likely the addresses weren’t going to lead me anywhere, and even if they did I could easily be putting myself in danger. Finally I found a friend on the same potentially naive wavelength as me: “Let’s go on an adventure and hunt these Hollywood club douches down,” she texted me.

We went to Culver City first, reluctantly got out of the car and knocked on some doors, armed with an iPad in hand with Find My iPhone evidence of an address that lead us to their door. Obviously no one had any idea what we were talking about. Defeated we got back into the car, but took notice of a car pulling up to a driveway nearby. For some reason, we both instinctively felt like we should wait a few minutes in the turned-off car. Then we spotted a man approaching us. “Jordan?!” the wide-eyed man was shocked to see us there. It was Salah – my Uber driver from the night before. So much for these British “Hollywood-type guys” I was looking for.

Find my iPhone had lead us to his home. I warned him of how suspicious this looked. After immediately denying it, he knew it was game over. “Don’t make a scene, my wife is right over there. I have your phone, I’ll go get it,” he conceded. Shaken up, my friend urged me to get back in the car. I rolled down my window, he gave me my phone in one piece, and we drove off.

Some real modern day Sherlock Holmes shit.

Technology has caused the nature of petty crime to change tremendously. People are not as easily able to hide behind anonymity, and frankly opportunists, like Salah, who don’t know what they are doing, are idiots. I would be surprised if anyone born before 1965 completely understands all the technology steps identified – from Find my iPhone, to screenshots of his Uber maps, to iMessaging on my Macbook and iPad. Yet to anyone born after 1985 this is all extremely basic. This technology at my disposal is exactly why I was tempted to take this mission into my own hands.

Despite my personal success, the New York Times cites similar examples to mine, and warns of this Find my iPhone vigilante justice:

"With smartphone theft rampant, apps like Find My iPhone offer a new option for those desperate to recover their devices, allowing victims like Ms. Maguire to act when the police will not. But the emergence of this kind of do-it-yourself justice -- an unintended result of the proliferation of GPS tracking apps -- has stirred worries among law enforcement officials that people are putting themselves in danger, taking disproportionate risks for the sake of an easily replaced item."

Although law enforcement deplores citizens taking these unnecessary risks, LAPD’s ambivalent response to my problem deterred me from pursuing their help as a first-step. Earlier in the day I had called LAPD and despite my evidence, the woman who answered wondered if I had just lost my phone at the bar. She said they receive many reports of missing iPhones, but I could come in and file a report if I wanted. I suspected LAPD would do absolutely nothing. To be fair, with countless more serious crimes to investigate in the area, I wouldn’t blame them. I mean, it was my fault for leaving my phone in the backseat to begin with. But to me, personally, this was a $700 item at stake and it was time-sensitive.

I’ve had a number of people tell me how lucky I was – both for actually succeeding at getting my iPhone back, and also at not putting myself in a more dangerous situation. But would I do this again? Absolutely. Perhaps foolish, but without a more efficient method for law enforcement to pursue iPhone theft, it may be the only solution. Technology is miles smarter than our average criminals, so perhaps advancing technology and efficiency capabilities among law enforcement can help put them one step ahead and save risks taken by average citizens, like myself.