SOCIAL MEDIA

June 27, 2018


DEFINITION:

Social media is typically defined today as: – “Web sites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking” – OxfordDictionaries.

Now that we have cleared that up, let’s take a look at the very beginning of social media.

Six Degrees, according to several sources, was the first modern-day attempt of providing access to communication relative to the “marvelous world” of social media. (I have chosen to put marvelous world in quotes because I’m not too sure it’s that marvelous. There is an obvious downside.)  Six Degrees was launched in 1997 and definitely was the first modern social network. It allowed users to create a profile and to become friends with other users. While the site is no longer functional, at one time it was actually quite popular and had approximately a million members at its peak.

Other sources indicate that social media has been around for the better part of forty (40) years with Usenet appearing in 1979.  Usenet is the first recorded network that enabled users to post news to newsgroups.  Although these Usenets and similar bulletin boards heralded the launch of the first, albeit very rudimentary, social networks, social media never really took off until almost thirty (30) years later, following the roll out of Facebook in 2006. Usenet was not identified as “social media” so the exact term was not used at that time.

If we take a very quick look at Internet and Social Media usage, we find the following:

As you can see from above, social media is incredibly popular and in use hourly if not minute-by-minute.  It’s big in our society today across the world and where allowed.

If we look at the fifteen most popular sites we see the following:

With out a doubt, the gorilla in the room is Facebook.

Facebook statistics

  • Facebook adds 500,000 new users a day – that’s six new profiles a second – and just under a quarter (775) of adults in the US visit their account at least once a month
  • The average (mean) number of Facebook friends is 155
  • There are 60 million active small business pages (up from 40 million in 2015), 5 million of which pay for advertising
  • There are thought to be 270 million fake Facebook profiles (there were only81 million in 2015)
  • Facebook accounts for 1% of social logins made by consumers to sign into the apps and websites of publishers and brands.

It’s important we look at all social media sites so If we look at daily usage for the most popular web sites, we see the following:

BENEFITS:

  • Ability to connect to other people all over the world. One of the most obvious pros of using social networks is the ability to instantly reach people from anywhere. Use Facebook to stay in touch with your old high school friends who’ve relocated all over the country, get on Google Hangouts with relatives who live halfway around the world, or meet brand new people on Twitter from cities or regions you’ve never even heard of before.
  • Easy and instant communication. Now that we’re connected wherever we go, we don’t have to rely on our landlines, answering machines or snail mail to contact somebody. We can simply open up our laptops or pick up our smartphones and immediately start communicating with anyone on platforms like Twitter or one of the many social messaging apps
  • Real-time news and information discovery. Gone are the days of waiting around for the six o’clock news to come on TV or for the delivery boy to bring the newspaper in the morning. If you want to know what’s going on in the world, all you need to do is jump on social media. An added bonus is that you can customize your news and information discovery experiences by choosing to follow exactly what you want.
  • Great opportunities for business owners. Business owners and other types of professional organizations can connect with current customers, sell their products and expand their reach using social media. There are actually lots of entrepreneurs and businesses out there that thrive almost entirely on social networks and wouldn’t even be able to operate without it.
  • General fun and enjoyment. You have to admit that social networking is just plain fun sometimes. A lot of people turn to it when they catch a break at work or just want to relax at home. Since people are naturally social creatures, it’s often quite satisfying to see comments and likes show up on our own posts, and it’s convenient to be able to see exactly what our friends are up to without having to ask them directly.

DISADVANTAGES:

  • Information overwhelm. With so many people now on social media tweeting links and posting selfies and sharing YouTube videos, it sure can get pretty noisy. Becoming overwhelmed by too many Facebook friends to keep up with or too many Instagram photos to browse through isn’t all that uncommon. Over time, we tend to rack up a lot of friends and followers, and that can lead to lots of bloated news feeds with too much content we’re not all that interested in.
  • Privacy issues. With so much sharing going on, issues over privacy will always be a big concern. Whether it’s a question of social sites owning your content after it’s posted, becoming a target after sharing your geographical location online, or even getting in trouble at work after tweeting something inappropriate – sharing too much with the public can open up all sorts of problems that sometimes can’t ever be undone.
  • Social peer pressure and cyber bullying. For people struggling to fit in with their peers – especially teens and young adults – the pressure to do certain things or act a certain way can be even worse on social media than it is at school or any other offline setting. In some extreme cases, the overwhelming pressure to fit in with everyone posting on social media or becoming the target of a cyber-bullying attack can lead to serious stress, anxiety and even depression.
  • Online interaction substitution for offline interaction. Since people are now connected all the time and you can pull up a friend’s social profile with a click of your mouse or a tap of your smartphone, it’s a lot easier to use online interaction as a substitute for face-to-face interaction. Some people argue that social media actually promotes antisocial human behavior.
  • Distraction and procrastination. How often do you see someone look at their phone? People get distracted by all the social apps and news and messages they receive, leading to all sorts of problems like distracted driving or the lack of gaining someone’s full attention during a conversation. Browsing social media can also feed procrastination habits and become something people turn to in order to avoid certain tasks or responsibilities.
  • Sedentary lifestyle habits and sleep disruption. Lastly, since social networking is all done on some sort of computer or mobile device, it can sometimes promote too much sitting down in one spot for too long. Likewise, staring into the artificial light from a computer or phone screen at night can negatively affect your ability to get a proper night’s sleep. (Here’s how you can reduce that blue light, by the way.)

Social media is NOT going away any time soon.  Those who choose to use it will continue using it although there are definite privacy issues. The top five (5) issues discussed by users are as follows:

  • Account hacking and impersonation.
  • Stalking and harassment
  • Being compelled to turn over passwords
  • The very fine line between effective marketing and privacy intrusion
  • The privacy downside with location-based services

I think these issues are very important and certainly must be considered with using ANY social media platform.  Remember—someone is ALWAYS watching.

 

Advertisements

DISCRIMINATION

June 20, 2018


When I think of discrimination I automatically think of whites discriminating against blacks. I’m sure that’s because I’m from the southeastern part of the United States although there is ample evidence that discrimination occurs in all states of the United States.   There are other manners in which discrimination can occur.

From the New York Times we read the following:

“A group that is suing Harvard University is demanding that it publicly release admissions data on hundreds of thousands of applicants, saying the records show a pattern of discrimination against Asian-Americans going back decades.

The group was able to view the documents through its lawsuit, which was filed in 2014 and challenges Harvard’s admissions policies. The plaintiffs said in a letter to the court last week that the documents were so compelling that there was no need for a trial, and that they would ask the judge to rule summarily in their favor based on the documents alone.

The plaintiffs also say that the public — which provides more than half a billion dollars a year in federal funding to Harvard — has a right to see the evidence that the judge will consider in her decision.

Harvard counters that the documents are tantamount to trade secrets, and that even in the unlikely event that the judge agrees to decide the case without a trial, she is likely to use only a fraction of the evidence in her decision. Only that portion, the university says, should be released.”

There is no doubt that Harvard University makes considerable efforts to be “all-inclusive”.  They discriminate against whites and Asian-Americans in favor of African-Americans, Hispanics and the LGBT community.  That is a fact and a form of discrimination.

The EEOC tells us the following are methods of discrimination:

I recently read a horrible story about a young man in the country of India.  This guy had completed a course of study at the prestigious Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi with a Masters Degree in computer science.  He came to know a fellow classmate.  They fell in love.  He asked her father for her hand in marriage.  He said absolutely not.  “My daughter will not marry an untouchable, a Dalit.”  Now, Article 17 of the Indian Constitution abolishes untouchability and makes it punishable by law, and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 spells out the safeguards against caste discrimination and violence. His daughter honored her father and they did not get married.  The young man moved to the United States and now is a citizen working for an aerospace company in New England. He is happily married with three children—all citizens.

The term caste was first used by Portuguese travelers who came to India in the 16th century. Caste comes from the Spanish and Portuguese word “casta” which means “race”, “breed”, or “lineage”. Many Indians use the term “jati”. There are 3,000 castes and 25,000 sub-castes in India, each related to a specific occupation. A caste system is a class structure determined by birth. Loosely, it means that in some societies, if your parents are poor, you’re going to be poor, also. Same goes for being rich, if you’re parents were rich, you would be rich.   According to one long-held theory about the origins of South Asia’s caste system, Aryans from central Asia invaded South Asia and introduced the caste system as a means of controlling the local populations. The Aryans defined key roles in society, then assigned groups of people to them.

If a Hindu were asked to explain the nature of the caste system, he or she might tell the story of Brahma — the four-headed, four-handed deity worshipped as the creator of the universe. According to an ancient text known as the Rigveda, the division of Indian society was based on Brahma’s divine manifestation of four groups. Priests and teachers were cast from his mouth, rulers and warriors from his arms, merchants and traders from his thighs, and workers and peasants from his feet.  Others might present a biological explanation of India’s stratification system, based on the notion that all living things inherit a particular set of qualities. Some inherit wisdom and intelligence, some get pride and passion, and others are stuck with less fortunate traits. Proponents of this theory attribute all aspects of one’s lifestyle — social status, occupation, and even diet — to these inherent qualities and thus use them to explain the foundation of the caste system.

The caste structure may be seen by the digital below.

India’s caste system has four main classes (also called varnas) based originally on personality, profession, and birth. In descending order, the classes are as follows:

  • Brahmana (now more commonly spelled Brahmin): Consist of those engaged in scriptural education and teaching, essential for the continuation of knowledge.
  • Kshatriya: Take on all forms of public service, including administration, maintenance of law and order, and defense.
  • Vaishya: Engage in commercial activity as businessmen.
  • Shudra: Work as semi-skilled and unskilled laborers.

You will notice the “untouchables” and not even considered as a class of Indian society. Traditionally, the groups characterized as untouchable were those whose occupations and habits of life involved ritually polluting activities, of which the most important were (1) taking life for a living, a category that included, for example, fishermen, (2) killing or disposing of dead cattle or working with their hides for a living, (3) pursuing activities that brought the participant into contact with emissions of the human body, such as feces, urine, sweat, and spittle, a category that included such occupational groups as sweepers and washermen, and (4) eating the flesh of cattle or of domestic pigs and chickens, a category into which most of the indigenous tribes of India fell.

As mentioned earlier, Article 17 of the Indian Constitution was introduced to eliminate the caste system.  Do you really think that happened?  Of course not.  Indians of the Dalit classification, and there are thousands, still face rejection and discrimination on a daily basis.  Maybe we here in “los estados unidos” have it better than we think.

HONEST PINT

June 2, 2018


Chattanooga is very fortunate to have a great number of locally-owned truly wonderful restaurants.  One of the most unique is the HONEST PINT.   It is located at 35 Patten Pkwy in downtown Chattanooga.  You walk through the front door and you are in the heart of Dublin.

 

My family and I spent a week and one-half in Ireland several years ago and visited many pubs in Dublin and several other cities in the country.  The Honest Pint is definitely in line with the atmosphere we became accustomed to with most pubs in Ireland. Starting with the front door as given below, the interior design is absolutely striking.

Attention to detail is amazing and the woodwork was obviously produced and provided by craftsmen.

The first thing you see as you enter is the bar, shown below.

Then you notice the dining areas,

The picture above does not do the dining area justice.  You really need a wide-angle lens to capture the mahogany, oak and maple architectural designs of the woodwork and the overall layout.  The next two digital pictures will give you some idea as to the interior.

 

Well, you go there for the food and not so much the environment—we all know that.  On this one occasion, my wife had the pimento cheese sandwich and I had the shepherd’s pie. Both are shown below and again; the pictures do not really do justice to the appearance itself.  The food-delicious.  Over several visits I have had, bangers and mash, fish and chips, the Ruben, chicken tenders and their hamburger.  All were excellent.

Everyone has an opinion. You just heard mine so I thought I would give you several others, as follows:

 

For my wife and I this has always been a very good choice resulting is an excellent experience.  I would invite you to look at other reviews and form your own opinion.


I don’t subscribe to the magazine Gentlemen’s’ Quarterly so I never actually read the publication but one news story really caught my attention.  GQ has published an article entitled “21 Books You Don’t Have to Read”.  To their credit, they do indicate what books would be preferable for each of the twenty-one removed from the “reading list”.  Let’s take a look:

  • Lonesome Dove by Larry McMurtry
  • The Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger
  • Goodbye to All That by Robert Graves
  • The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway
  • The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho
  • A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
  • Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy
  • John Adams by David McCullough
  • Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
  • The Ambassadors by Henry James
  • The Bible
  • Franny and Zooey by J. D. Salinger
  • The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien
  • Dracula by Bram Stoker
  • Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
  • Life by Keith Richards
  • Freedom by Jonathan Franzen
  • Gravity’s Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon
  • Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
  • Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift

I was really surprised to see the Bible on the list even though this is a “progressive” magazine.  Here is the logic behind removing it and basically indicating it is of no use to “modern man”.

The Holy Bible is rated very highly by all the people who supposedly live by it but who in actuality have not read it. Those who have read it know there are some good parts, but overall it is certainly not the finest thing that man has ever produced. It is repetitive, self-contradictory, sententious, foolish, and even at times ill-intentioned. If the thing you heard was good about the Bible was the nasty bits, then I propose Agota Kristof’s The Notebook, a marvelous tale of two brothers who have to get along when things get rough. The subtlety and cruelty of this story is like that famous sword stroke (from below the boat) that plunged upward through the bowels, the lungs, and the throat and into the brain of the rower. —Jesse Ball, ‘Census’

This is one man’s opinion but certainly not mine. Eric Metaxas and G. Shane Morris of Breakpoint.org state the following relative to the GQ article: “Seldom have I seen an example of the blind leading the blind as blatant as this article.  Condemned were such classics as “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”, and the “Lord of the Rings”.  The magazine’s editors describe these beloved titles variously as racist, sexist and just really, really boring. “

The average number of books each person reads on a yearly basis is twelve (12)…but that number is inflated by the most avid readers. The most frequently reported number was four (4) books per year. Of course, there’s plenty of variation among demographics. Certain groups read more, or less, than the country as a whole. Here’s what the data showed:

Educated, affluent women read the most.

Women tend to read more than men. About seventy-seven (77) percent of American women read at least one book in 2015, compared with sixty-seven (67) percent of American guys. Also, the average woman reads fourteen (14) books in a twelve-month span, while the average man read only nine.  Across both genders, readership also went up with education and income. About ninety (90) percent of college grads read at least one book a year, compared to thirty-four (34) percent of people who haven’t finished high school. Also, the more money they earned, the likelier they were to be readers. It’s hard to say whether education and income are causes of this trend, since people who go to college probably grow up reading more anyway, and income correlates with education. But the bottom line is that educated, high-earning women sit atop the reading pyramid in America.

Older people read less.

One notable aspect of the data is that people tend to read less as they age. Fully eighty (80) percent of 18–29-year-olds reported reading at least one book, compared to sixty-nine (69) percent of seniors sixty-five and older.

I was told years ago—ALWAYS READ THE GOOD BOOKS FIRST.  The classics and those authors that can really “pack a punch”.  There are several great books not on the list.  The twelve novels considered to be the greatest novels ever written are:

  • Anna Karenina
  • To Kill a Mockingbird
  • The Great Gatsby
  • One Hundred Years of Solitude
  • A Passage to India
  • Invisible Man
  • Don Quixote
  • Beloved
  • Dalloway
  • Things Fall Apart
  • Jane Eyre
  • The Color Purple 

I’m really happy GQ has given us permission to read the twelve books considered to be the best ever written.  Give me hope in the future 😊

As always, please give me your opinion.

THE GIRL IN THE WOODS

May 15, 2018


A teenage schoolgirl is found on a nature hike being taken by a group of grammar school children.   They found a severed human foot wearing pink nail polish.  Gruesome but invaluable clues that lead forensic pathologist Birdy Waterman down a much darker trail to a dangerous psychopath whose powers of persuasion seem to have no end.  Only by teaming up with sheriff’s detective Kendall Stark can Birdy hope to even the odds in a deadly game of hide and seek. It’s a fateful decision the killer wants them to make and the only manner by which Birdy and Kendall can find their way to the murderer who is ready and willing to kill again.

Details on the book are as follows:

  • Series:A Waterman & Stark Thriller (Book 3)
  • Mass Market Paperback:416 pages
  • Publisher:Pinnacle (October 28, 2014)
  • Language:English
  • ISBN-10:0786029943
  • ISBN-13:978-0786029945
  • Average Customer Review from Amazon:0 out of 5 stars 

I always like to know something about the author so here is a very brief biography of Mr. Olsen.

BIOGRAPHY OF GREGG OLSEN:

New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestselling author, Olsen has written nine nonfiction books, nine novels, a novella, and contributed a short story to a collection edited by Lee Child.

The award-winning author has been a guest on dozens of national and local television shows, including educational programs for the History Channel, Learning Channel, and Discovery Channel. He has also appeared on Dateline NBC, William Shatner’s Aftermath, Deadly Women on Investigation Discovery, Good Morning America, The Early Show, The Today Show, FOX News, CNN, Anderson Cooper 360, MSNBC, Entertainment Tonight, CBS 48 Hours, Oxygen’s Snapped, Court TV’s Crier Live, Inside Edition, Extra, Access Hollywood, and A&E’s Biography.

In addition to television and radio appearances, he has been featured in RedbookUSA TodayPeopleSalon magazine, Seattle TimesLos Angeles Times and the New York Post.

The Deep Dark was named Idaho Book of the Year by the ILA and Starvation Heights was honored by Washington’s Secretary of State for the book’s contribution to Washington state history and culture. His Young Adult novel, Envy, was the official selection of Washington for the National Book Festival.

Olsen, a Seattle native, lives in Olalla, Washington with his wife, twin daughters, three chickens, Milo (an obedience school dropout cocker spaniel) and Suri (a mini dachshund so spoiled she wears a sweater).

This book is the first in the Waterman and Stark Thriller series linking two ladies into a crime-solving team.  Dr. Birdy Waterman is a forensic pathologist and Kendall Stark is the Chief of Police for a very small town in the Pacific Northwest–Washington State to be exact.  The book is definitely worth buying and reading although I have several wishes I feel would be very helpful.  These are as follows:

  • I would love to see Mr. Olsen give more, maybe much more, background information on the characters. I feel he missed a great opportunity to explore their characteristics and how they came to their respective professions.  He does not do them justice but simply “plops” them down to solve the crime mentioned. Since “GIRL IN THE WOODS” is the first in the series, it would have been very helpful and would have set the stage for succeeding books.
  • Olsen is a good writer but not really a “word-smith” or at least for this novel. His writing is very straightforward with few flairs and embellishments.  There are no “trick”—memorable phrases in this book.  That’s OK with me but I feel his capabilities are there but not demonstrated in this book.
  • The ending is brief with no real explanations. It just ends.  I would like to see more descriptive information that he has given.

REVIEWS:

We are all different so I would like to give you several independent reviews of others who have read “Girl in the Woods”.

CONCLUSIONS:

As you can see, the reviews are mixed but all-in-all it is a book worth reading.  I feel you are either going to love this book or put it down after several chapters and go on to another author.  Just my thoughts.

THE RIGHT SNUFF

May 7, 2018


This past weekend my wife traveled to ‘Hot-Lanta (Atlanta) to attend a baby shower.  Other family members went also but I decided, for several reasons, not to attend.  After a long day of working around the house, (I really did.) I decided to get dinner at a local Italian restaurant called Provino’s.  Absolutely great Italian food.   While seated, I noticed a young couple entering and sitting in an adjoining booth at my two o’clock position.  No doubt about this one, they were on a date and apparently their first date.  He was really nervous and immediately knocked over a full glass of water.  The young lady called a waiter and she quickly removed all of the silverware, glasses, plates, etc. and moped up.  After the commotion, things settled down a bit but he then realized he had a chew of tobacco he had to “lose” before going much further.  Well he did the right thing, he excused himself and I assume took the short trip to the men’s room to dislodge the plug.  Not a great start but at least she did not walk out on him and call UBER.  I started thinking about smokeless tobacco and the health effects related to usage and decided to take a look at what we know.

I was actually startled to learn the following facts from the CDC relative to usage:

  • Adults aged eighteen (18) years and older: more than three (3) in every 100 (3.4%)
  • Men: nearly seven (7) in every 100 (6.7%)
  • Women: fewer than one (1) in every 100 (0.3%)
  • Non-Hispanic African Americans: more than one (1) in every 100 (1.2%)
  • Non-Hispanic American Indians/Alaska Natives: more than seven (7) in every 100 (7.1%)
  • Non-Hispanic Asians: fewer than one (1) in every 100 (0.6%)
  • Hispanics: fewer than one (1) in every 100 (0.9%)
  • Non-Hispanic Whites: nearly five (5) in every 100 (4.6%)

The following chart will show the usage.

Smokeless tobacco is definitely a health hazard—a considerable health hazard: *Leukoplakia, oral lesions that appear as white patches on the cheeks, gums or tongue, are commonly found present in smokeless tobacco users. Leukoplakia can be a pre-cancerous lesion which may ultimately produce oral cancer. About seventy-five (75%) percent of daily users of smokeless tobacco will get leukoplakia. (American Cancer Society) Dec 14, 2016.   Researchers estimated that in 2010 alone, smokeless tobacco caused more than 62,000 deaths due to cancers of the mouth, pharynx and esophagus, and more than 200,000 deaths from heart disease. Sep 2, 2015.   You may think that dipping is less hazardous than chewing tobacco but it definitely is NOT.  Overall, people who dip or chew get about the same amount of nicotine as regular smokers. They also get at least thirty (30) chemicals that are known to cause cancer. The most harmful cancer-causing substances in smokeless tobacco are tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs). Nov 13, 2015.    With this being the case, just how long does it take some users to develop health issues when using smokeless tobacco?  Some athletes have developed mouth cancer after only six (6) or seven (7) years of using spit tobacco. It’s hard to cure because it spreads fast. If not caught right away, major surgery is often needed to take out parts of your mouth, jaw, and tongue.

WARNING:

I’m going to show you several pictures that indicate the results of using smokeless tobacco (dipping and chewing).  These are not for the squeamish so if you need to leave this blog, now is the time to do it.

READY TO QUIT NOW?

DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

April 28, 2018


I am gong to deviate from my usual STEM post and do a little politics, the subject being “Domestic Tranquility”.  The need to achieve domestic tranquility goes back a long time.  Remember this?

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of the Unites States of America.”

These words are the preamble to our Constitution.  Basically, if I read this correctly, a more perfect union just might depend upon justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare.   Most people will agree, we really are not there with no real signs of getting there too quickly relative to tranquility, domestic or otherwise.   Domestic tranquility generally means peace at home. It is meant with reference to family as well as states. Domestic Tranquility with regard to constitution is referred to peace among the states. Constitution gives power to federal government squash rebellion and to smooth tensions between states

Recent polls have confirmed that Americans are feeling bitterly split. A Gallup poll conducted just after the 2016 presidential election found seventy-seven (77) percent of Americans see the country as “greatly divided when it comes to the most important values,” up from sixty-six (66) percent in 2012. A Washington Post-University of Maryland poll, conducted nine months into Trump’s presidency, found that seven in ten (10) Americans think the nation’s political divisions are as bad as during the Vietnam War.  Kwame Anthony Appiah, a professor of philosophy at Princeton University, said this kind of division has been rare in the U.S. While the country has faced many periods of intense disagreement and strife, he said, what’s unusual is the current tendency of some Americans to argue that others don’t belong in the country at all. This approach to politics has appeared only occasionally in U.S. history. For example, in the Jacksonian period, Andrew Jackson’s supporters sharply defined Americans as English-speaking Christians of European origin, while in the McCarthy years, people with particular political views or lifestyles could be declared un-American and denied basic constitutional protections.

One element in today’s world that divides us even more is social media.

SOCIAL MEDIA:

Social media may be society’s gateway to a global connection that we have never seen before, but if we look closely, social media has played a significant role in dividing us more than it connects us.  Take any issue or topic developing domestically or internationally. Whatever this issue is, social media platforms, such as Facebook Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, etc. play a prominent role in adding fuel to the fire. With the ability to express ourselves without face to face interaction, this opens the door for a much different form of debating. We are all a part of the term “keyboard warrior.” At one point, we have all fallen into this category. It feels as if this is the direction our country is moving in. Nothing is being resolved because we don’t look for resolutions anymore. We just look for the next opportunity to slander the opposite belief. I feel as if this won’t change but it will just get more and more relevant as we extend further and further into our newly found self-extension that has become our social media profiles.  This is demonstrated each night with late-night comics working towards greater ratings.  They use as their platform the political issues of the day.

Our social skills are falling while our social media skills are rising. This idea that our Facebook rants will change the world is far from true. The truth is if you want change, get off your high horse and go out and do something about it. Your Facebook essay on why something is wrong isn’t going to do anything but make you look like a fool. Stop sitting around and waiting for the change you seek and go out and become the change you so desperately want to see invoked in our world. We must take a hold of this issue before it consumes our youngest generation. These kids will one day be our executives. If they grow up in a solely social media-dominated world, it will have devastating effects on generations to come.

Let’s take a look at what course of action might help achieve domestic tranquility.

  • ELIMINATE POLITICAL PARTIES: When George Washington became President of the United States in 1789, there were no political parties. Political parties first emerged during Washington’s first term in office with the Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Party in 1791 and in the following year, the formation of the Anti-Federalist Party or Democratic-Republicans under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson. The two political parties formulated their views of how government ought to operate in the new republic. At the end of Washington’s first term, as he was preparing to retire and go back to Mt. Vernon to just be a farmer again, the leaders of the opposing parties both wanted him to reconsider with Hamilton and Jefferson pleading with Washington to stay on for a second term. Washington was against political parties and felt they would detract from governing.
  • EXTEND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TERM TO FOUR (4) YEARS. John Larson (D-Conn.) is pushing to extend the terms of House members to four years to free them from the pressures of constant fundraising. In an interview with The Hill, Larson said extending the terms and staggering them so that half of the House is up for reelection every two years would let members prioritize learning the ropes in Congress over campaign cash. “I think the two-year cycle and all the demands that places on individuals tends to lend itself to one chasing their tail in terms of raising the money required to get reelected,” Larson said. Larson said new members arrive in Washington for freshman orientation only to be told to start dialing for dollars again.
    “The first orders that the Republican Conference and Democratic Caucus give is, ‘Get on the phone and start raising money again. You’ve got an election coming up.’ And I think that we ought to reverse that priority,” Larson said.
  • MAKE THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF OUR GOVERNMENT ABIDE BY THE RULES THEY PASS: Republican Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, introduced a Constitutional Amendment in the recent past that would prohibit members of Congress from passing laws “applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.”

Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.

Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.

Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.’

I hate to say it, but the law doesn’t have a chance at passing. If it did, Congress would understand the destress many Americans feel toward laws that restrict activity and commerce.

  • REGULATE SOCIAL MEDIA: Basically, no hate speech.  (This would never pass due to too much backlash from the “talking heads” on television and the politicians themselves.)

I certainly welcome your comments and I’m sure there are many many more action items that could contribute to tranquility.

%d bloggers like this: