Screen Time

       This blog is based on this article

       This article examines the amount of time that people spend looking at their phones, and no surprise, it is excessive. In her article Shock! Horror! Do you know how much time your phone, Adrienne Matei examines how much time, on average, she and others spend on their phones? With more and more of our daily lives being consolidated to one single device, this is certainly an important thing to explore. 

       According to "screen time,"  a new feature on the Apple iPhone, Matei learns that she spends an average of about two and a half hours per day on her phone. This may not seem like too terribly much until you realize that that equates to about thirty-five full days on the phone spent a year. Even more shocking, she learns that this number is well below average. Most of the people she interviewed for the article spend anywhere from three and a half to four and a half hours a day on their phones. Some even toped out at SIX hours a day. 

       According to the app developer, RescueTime, the average person spends around three hours and fifteen minutes a day on their phone, which translates to a little less than twenty-three three hours a week. That's right, almost a full twenty-four hour day a week is spend looking on the phone. This statistic becomes even more alarming when you realize that means around one thousand two hundred and seventy-four hours a year are spent on the phone, or around fifty-three full days. 

       As someone who is certainly guilty of spending too much time on the phone, these statistics are truly alarming. My first thoughts went to what else I could be doing with that time. How might I have improved myself in that time? What could I have lost by spending so much damn time on my phone? I have decided to monitor my screen time, and cut it down by at least 45 minutes a day. Furthermore, I have decided to dedicate that forty-five minutes to personal growth and meditation. I hope this exercise in development and discipline will result in me becoming a more aware, down to earth, and personable man. 

It's a Mad World

       This video serves as a fantastic narrative of how seemily everyone in modern society is completely overtaken by their phones and social media. The video is primarily in black and white, signifying how it feels like the color has left everyone's life due to a lack of personal connection and legitimate togetherness. Let's dive into some of the more powerful pieces of symbolism in the video. 

       The video opens up with a young boy looking very lost and scared in a massive moving crowd. Every single person in the crowd does not stop to comfort the boy who is clearly lost, they are too busy on their phones. We move on to see a conveyer belt-esk line of people looking into their phones walking straight into a manhole. This clearly symbolizes that people are failing to see the pitfalls of constantly being on their phones and walk straight into them. We then see police brutaly beating a man surrounded by a crowd of people, but instead of stepping in, everyone simply records the event. We see people at dinner on their phones, taking selfies in front of burning buildings, and the boy being able to get anyone's attention. Each one of these further cements the idea that everyone is completely locked into their phones and their online lives, and refuse to see the real world. 

      For me, the two most powerful pieces of symbolism is the image of people inside phones behind bars, and the shot of a woman who is clearly sad and living in poor conditions, but through the phone, she appears happy and in a nice place. I think that is is very true that people are, in a sense, imprisoned by their phones and devices. What was the most striking to me, however, is the concept of life only looking good for some through a lense. I think we see so much on social media of people who seemingly have it so great, and we idolize that. We want to be that and live that life. We fail to see, however, that it is a facade. People often never have it as good as it seems online, and most of the time, have it far worse. 

      I feel that this video is a very powerful and disturbingly accurate depiction of modern society. Everyone is so caught up in what is going on online that we fail to see what is right in front of us. The video leaves us with a shot of people on their phones walking off a cliff. This serves equal parts as a prediction and a warning, if we do not learn to see life as it is right in front of us, we are all doomed. 

Cassette Tapes

       Cassette tapes have been a staple in both personal and professional recordings. For more than two decades, the cassette tape was the primary form of music storage and listening, and became a pillar in the technological progression of audio recording and playback. 

       Before we had cassette tapes as we know them today, reel-to-tape recorders were invented in the year 1935. Like modern cassettes, these used magnetic tape to record audio onto large reels. Unlike the small tape reels we think of in cassettes, these were large and open. These reel-to-tape recorders were relatively effective, and groundbreaking for the time. However, there were a number of downsides to these recorders. Firstly, they were quite large and not at all portable. This meant that all recordings had to be done from a studio or a single location. The primary downside, though, was the fact that they were very expensive. This meant that they were only used by professionals, mostly in the government, military, recording, music, or entertainment industry. For these reasons, tape recorders would not become easily accessible to the public for about three more decades. 

       In 1962, the company Phillips introduced Compact Cassette Tape. This was a cassette we know them today and revolutionized the music recording and relistening industry. These tapes were compact, cheap, and portable. They replaced the vinyl record as the standard recording means for music in the 1970s and dominated the scene until the mid-1990s when they were surpassed by the compact disk or CD. 

       For more reading, check this out 

America has too many Allies?

       This blog post is in relation to this article 

       In his article The U.S. has too many 'Allies', Daniel Larison argues that the U.S.  has developed to many "allies." (He put this word in quotations every time, as if they aren't really allies, or that someone is being fake) Larison asserts that the U.S.  has positioned itself in diplomatic relations with too many countries, with no mind taken for United Stated interests, truly taking a "yeah but what's in it for me?" mentality. 
       
       He goes on to say that whenever the United Stated accumulates all these alliances and relationships with other countries, the country is drawn into exponentially more conflicts that the country will inevitably eventually "walk away from." He makes this assertion because the United States has no vital interests. 

      Larison wraps up his argument by suggesting that the United States of America should reduce its number of partners and commitments. He believes that in doing so, the United States will reduce the number of conflicts the country will end up in with perceived zero-sum-gain outcomes. He thinks the country should give out less assistance to other countries, and in effect, lessen the need for more "allies" or partners in the global community. 

      I am by no means a warmongering person and do not support the use of force in countries where we have no business being. There is no need for good American young men to give their life in a foreign country for no reason. However, I am a great supporter of the global community and diplomatic relations. I believe that partnership and diplomacy in the global community does so much for American interests. It allows us to trade more freely with other countries, reduce the risk of aggressive acts from other countries, and finally, allow the spread of freedom and democracy through peaceful means. 
      
      We have seen in the past that an isolationist approach simply does not work for the United States of America. We saw it in both the world wars and subsequent conflicts after. This idea of "well if we have nothing to gain or have no vested interest, we shouldn't even involve ourselves in an alliance" is absurd and, from my point of view, truly un-American. This country is the leader of the free world, and we should work to partner and align ourselves with any country who feels that they want to experience the benefits of freedom and liberty. 

Google Under Fire

      

      Internet giant, Google, came under fire recently for potentially violating antitrust laws. Prosecutors in 48 states and also Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico are supporting investigations into whether or not Google has monopolized the internet in terms of advertising. Antitrust laws protect consumers and common people against malicious business practices, which includes controlling an entire industry. 

      In relation to Google,  concerns have arisen that Google controls basically all advertising on the internet, and also what consumers see. So because Google controls not only online advertising but also dominant search engines, then people are exponentially more likely to see results that have paid more to Google for advertising, not necessarily the most relevant results. 

     There are options being explored to penalize Google for its monopolistic practices. The primary options are fines (mere drops in Google's oceans of capital), or mandating that Google move their search engine to a spin-off company, thus dividing Google's power and opening the door for more competition. 

     Some, however, feel that Google's practices, which they may potentially be predatorial, are much more helpful to society in the long run. Arguing that Google offers the public so many free services that the upsides far outweigh the down. Personally, I would say that I have certainly noticed the consistent presence of the online giant, but use Google products quite literally multiple times a day. I am generally not bothered by their practices but will be keeping my eye out for more, perhaps more sinister, practices in the future. 

United Sates Supreme Court

       

       The United States Supreme Court was originated in the year 1789, with the ratification of the judiciary act. The Supreme Court is the only court in the country that was established with the passing of the Constitution of the United States. According to SupremeCourt.Gov, "The Supreme Court is deeply tied to its traditions: Of the federal government’s three branches, the Court bears the closest resemblance to its original form." 

       The Supreme Court began to flex its muscles in its early years under Chief Justice John Marshall. In one of the court's earliest and most important cases, Marbury V. Madison, the court answered one of the pinnacle questions facing the young country. This 1803 case tackled the question of "who gets to decide what the law is?" The court ruled that, quote, "It is explicitly the providence and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." This was a highly important case because it gave the Supreme Court the ability to strike a law down on the basis of it being unconstitutional, which led to the court's primary purpose; to interpret the constitution. 

       Two other important cases in the history of the supreme court are Dred Scott V. Sandford (1857) and Brown V. Board of Education (1954). In Dred Scott, the court ruled that Congress could not prohibit slavery in free states and territories, and furthermore ruled that slaves, free or not, had no right to sue in federal court. The Brown V. Board case ruled that segregated schools on the basis of race does, in fact, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and is thus unconstitutional. The case also overturned a previous case, Plessy V. Ferguson, which upheld segregation. 

       The process of getting a case to the Supreme Court is not easy. It begins with a case, which is essentially a written quarry asking the Supreme Court to act. The court gets thousands of cases a year, and thus cannot possibly take each one to trial. Because of this, only cases of paramount importance are heard. The proceedings of the trial are public, but the Justices of the Supreme Court come to their decisions in private. 

       For more information on the Supreme Court and important cases, check the links below:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/Programs/constitution_day/landmark-cases/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWRoXYRsaeo&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca8qSuWxcG8&feature=youtu.be
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/historyandtraditions.aspx