Donald Trump and Authoritarian Aspirations

When one hears about a military parade, they usually think about countries such as North Korea, China, and the former United Soviet Socialist Republic. Countries that host military parades, as George Orwell has indicated, “Military display is only used in countries where the common people do not laugh at the army.” Authoritarian regimes such as the aforementioned use military parades to showcase the military might that will be used against dissenters to the regime. It is a tactic that authoritarian regimes utilize to possibly stifle opposition, and to show the world they are not to be trifled with.

The corollary to this is that countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and other perceivably free countries do not host military parades these states maintain their monopoly on violence through less coercive means because a military parade is seen as anathema to perceivably free countries. Recently, President Donald Trump told the Pentagon to organize a military parade. The last time there was a military parade in the United States in 1991, after the victory with Operation Desert Storm. Before that, during the Cold War, there were some military parades, especially during Eisenhower’s and Kennedy’s inaugurations. And there were parades after the Civil War, WWI, and WWII to celebrate our victories in those. The aforementioned presidents wanted military parades to send a signal to the USSR that they were just as powerful; in jest with the military parades of might the USSR hosted every May 1st on May Day. However, even Eisenhower and Kennedy recognized that often held military parades would put unwanted scrutiny on them, which is why they only hosted them very seldom. Since President Trump wishes to hold a military parade for seemingly no reason, the question: is the president hosting a military parade to show his opposition that he demonstrating the force that will be used against you, if you a member of opposition against me and my agenda? And is he attempting to create a cult of personality in the process? And the answer to this is possibly.

Journalists Nicole Chavez and Marissa Fessenden from CNN and the Smithsonian, have asserted that, “Trump’s desire to revive the tradition of a military parade has spurred concern among historians.” And that, “Military parades have only occurred after major victories such as the Civil War, WWI, and WWII.” As they have indicated, major military victories were the catalysts for military parades in the 19th and 20th centuries. To host one now would be very concerning and anachronistic in the United States.

It is no secret that we have not had a military victory since 1991. The War on Terrorism has been a failure so far by and large. Since his election in 2016, Donald Trump has promised to, “Make America Great Again.” He may wish to have a military parade for many, possibly suspicious reasons, reasons such as: He may wish to tell Kim Jong-Un through a military parade that my military is more powerful than yours, to demonstrate to his opposition that he has the ability to call on the military to stifle them and censure them, and finally to showcase to the world that he is “Making America Great Again” by using such an occasion to showcase his powerful military and its hardware. However, I am calling for a military parade because my administration is insecure and weak, and I need it to be perceived as powerful and secure, is the real reason he is calling for one. He is admitting weakness, and he needs a military parade to show his opposition that he has power through hardware and an obdurate group that will stifle them upon command.

The United States was established by the founding fathers: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, etc., as a country in which both supporters of an administration and opposition of an administration could articulate their thoughts without impunity, save for John Adam’s Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. It would not make sense to host a military parade in the United States for this reason. The ipso facto of a military parade is to showcase the state’s ability to act with impunity. President Donald Trump’s wish for a military parade should be alarming because he is signaling to us that he is willing to use military coercion on civilians to accomplish his goals. He is saying, “If you oppose me, this will be what you see.” In sum, Trump’s wish for a military parade demonstrates that he is willing to turn to martial coercion to achieve his goals.

When one hears about a military parade, they usually think about countries such as North Korea, China, and the former United Soviet Socialist Republic. Countries that host military parades, as George Orwell has indicated, “Military display is only used in countries where the common people do not laugh at the army.” Authoritarian regimes such as the aforementioned use military parades to showcase the military might that will be used against dissenters to the regime. It is a tactic that authoritarian regimes utilize to possibly stifle opposition, and to show the world they are not to be trifled with.

The corollary to this is that countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and other perceivably free countries do not host military parades these states maintain their monopoly on violence through less coercive means because a military parade is seen as anathema to perceivably free countries. Recently, President Donald Trump told the Pentagon to organize a military parade. The last time there was a military parade in the United States in 1991, after the victory with Operation Desert Storm. Before that, during the Cold War, there were some military parades, especially during Eisenhower’s and Kennedy’s inaugurations. And there were parades after the Civil War, WWI, and WWII to celebrate our victories in those. The aforementioned presidents wanted military parades to send a signal to the USSR that they were just as powerful; in jest with the military parades of might the USSR hosted every May 1st on May Day. However, even Eisenhower and Kennedy recognized that often held military parades would put unwanted scrutiny on them, which is why they only hosted them very seldom. Since President Trump wishes to hold a military parade for seemingly no reason, the question: is the president hosting a military parade to show his opposition that he demonstrating the force that will be used against you, if you a member of opposition against me and my agenda? And is he attempting to create a cult of personality in the process? And the answer to this is possibly.

Journalists Nicole Chavez and Marissa Fessenden from CNN and the Smithsonian, have asserted that, “Trump’s desire to revive the tradition of a military parade has spurred concern among historians.” And that, “Military parades have only occurred after major victories such as the Civil War, WWI, and WWII.” As they have indicated, major military victories were the catalysts for military parades in the 19th and 20th centuries. To host one now would be very concerning and anachronistic in the United States.

It is no secret that we have not had a military victory since 1991. The War on Terrorism has been a failure so far by and large. Since his election in 2016, Donald Trump has promised to, “Make America Great Again.” He may wish to have a military parade for many, possibly suspicious reasons, reasons such as: He may wish to tell Kim Jong-Un through a military parade that my military is more powerful than yours, to demonstrate to his opposition that he has the ability to call on the military to stifle them and censure them, and finally to showcase to the world that he is “Making America Great Again” by using such an occasion to showcase his powerful military and its hardware. However, I am calling for a military parade because my administration is insecure and weak, and I need it to be perceived as powerful and secure, is the real reason he is calling for one. He is admitting weakness, and he needs a military parade to show his opposition that he has power through hardware and an obdurate group that will stifle them upon command.

The United States was established by the founding fathers: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, etc., as a country in which both supporters of an administration and opposition of an administration could articulate their thoughts without impunity, save for John Adam’s Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. It would not make sense to host a military parade in the United States for this reason. The ipso facto of a military parade is to showcase the state’s ability to act with impunity. President Donald Trump’s wish for a military parade should be alarming because he is signaling to us that he is willing to use military coercion on civilians to accomplish his goals. He is saying, “If you oppose me, this will be what you see.” In sum, Trump’s wish for a military parade demonstrates that he is willing to turn to martial coercion to achieve his goals.

The Next Generation Defines Itself in the #Neveragain Movement

The defining moment of Generation Z, or as Forbes Magazine has also called them, “The Homeland Generation,” is the Parkland School shooting. They have commenced their first political movement as a result of this event. The first thing they plan on commencing is a nation-wide gun control and mental health debate through the #Neveragain on Twitter. To end school shootings and mass shootings, this movement advocates peaceful protest to end the violence of school shootings and mass shootings. But, with any social movements, there are naysayers. Why are politicians against a generation protesting for the protection of their lives?

Conservative Politicians are against the #Neveragain movement because it threatens their political lives. It also threatens the life of the NRA. In an interview with Aylsin Camerota, Dana Loesch indicated that, “[The media] loves it. The media loves mass shootings because of ratings.” However, Camerota responded, “We do not love mass shootings. Do you think we enjoy reporting them?” Even amid the fact that mass shootings are broadcasted on a loop in a news cycle, no one enjoys reporting on many fatalities. It is jarring work. This attempt to discredit the media is one way the NRA and conservatives are attempting to filibuster major gun legislation. They are afraid that if they NRA is under attack, their political careers are under attack, and they will do anything to discredit the protests against gun violence because it attacks the ipso facto of what they believe in and do for a living.

Marco Rubio has received $9,900 from the NRA. But, there are politicians who have received more from the NRA such as John McCain (R, Arizona), Thom Tillis, (R, North Carolina), and Roy Blunt (R. Missouri), who have received a combined 16.71 million dollars from the NRA. These people are against gun control of any kind, or at least limited gun control because their political lives depend it. They need the money to get elected into office so they can buy advertisement space so people will vote for them. Men such as Marco Rubio stand by their support of the NRA because it donates to their livelihoods as Senators and politicians. It makes sense for them to discredit the Never Again movement because it threatens them.

Since the Parkland shooting, the protestors have obtained the upper hand, but their fight is nowhere near over. International corporations, such as Delta and United Airlines have dropped their endorsement of the NRA because they acknowledge that the money they send to the NRA will be used to protect the ability for mentally incompetent people to obtain firearms and stymie change. Conservatives acknowledge that this money is important, enough so that it will change the tune of men such as Marco Rubio and John McCain because they need it to continue being politicians for their respective states.

The conservatives fear that the movement that Generation Z has started with the #Neveragain movement is that their political lives will be ended as a result. They will do anything in their power to discredit it because their livelihoods depend on it. Now that the movement has started getting conservative politicians where it hurts, the purse, they will be successful, however, they need to get more corporations on board with their movement to create more change. Corporations are key to this movement, since they fund conservative politicians, and in order to change the tune of these politicians, corporations will have to withdraw funds to them. The movement has now done a fabulous job of broadcasting their movement. The next step now, is to utilize this popularity to convince corporations to black list funding to these politicians. Through the continued freezing of funds to these politicians, real change can be made. And if these politicians stand by their decision to stand by the NRA, they can be voted out at the ballot box, and naturally, the next step after this for the movement, is to attempt to create a lobby to advocate for gun control and to donate to the opponents of Rubio, McCain, and the like. This lobby should fund candidates who seek anti-gun legislation in order to make the change it desires to see.

The only way for the #Neveragain movement to achieve its vision is simple: it needs to create a lobby and endorse politicians who advocate for their view, as well as to convince corporations to donate to this lobby. The only way to do politics in the United States after all, is through the purse. And this movement should utilize the purse to pursue its goal. And this is the defining moment of Generation Z, to use the purse to pursue its safety and prosperity through broadcasting their grievances through peaceful protest.

Millenials are Killing Industries Apparently, Who Knew?

Articles titled such as, “Millennials Are Killing the Cable Industry” (Mark Hughes, 2015), “Millennials can’t buy houses because they are buying avocado toast and expensive coffees” (Jay Willis, Tim Gurner, 2017), and most importantly, in the words of the esteemed talk show host of Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough, “Young men in the 1940’s liberated Europe from the Nazism and the Pacific from the Japanese Empire. Today, too many stay at home and play video games.” (Joe Scarborough, 2017). He also claims, “Our smartphone culture impacts young men in the most profound way. It is often younger women that suffer the most.” (Joe Scarborough, 2017). The members of the Baby Boomer generation and members of Generation X such as Joe Scarborough et al. enjoy bashing Millennials and older members of Generation Z (The post-millennials, iGen, etc.) because we do not have high enough paying jobs because of the Great Recession or student loans, or because we majored in “Social Gender Studies” (Milo Yiannopoulos, Steven Crowder, 2017). The danger with bashing the Millennials and members of Generation Z is that it will increase the level of angst and divisiveness the country already possesses. The Millennials are old enough to have jobs, homes, and purchase goods and services that cater to their tastes. The members of Generation Z are one of the most entrepreneurial generations out there and from firms to sports teams are hiring them as marketing advisers to increase revenue for the team or firm. It is dangerous for the older generations to mock these generations because it is a reflection on the Baby Boomers and Generation X that they cannot acknowledge their mistakes. They are the ones that raised us after all.

It does not make sense to bash the two up and coming generations because the Baby Boomers and Generation X raised us in their own image. The Baby Boomers were as divided by issues during the Vietnam Era as they are now. They were divided over the Vietnam War and the Cold War, as well as Civil Rights and LGBTQIA+ rights, as was the Greatest Generation. They were also divided over recreational drugs and socio-economic conditions, which gave LBJ the confidence needed for his entitlement programs in the “Great Society”, as well as lead us to our first lost war in Vietnam. The United States has become more diverse in recent decades. It has also become more politically polarized in recent years. While the Baby Boomers were going to Vietnam or San Francisco and/or Woodstock, they became more ensconced in their beliefs. This led to ever increasing divisiveness during the 1970’s to today, with Ronald Regan and Donald Trump as results of this polarization.

Those who did not go to Vietnam, and those who survived it, went to school and studied the works of Von Moses, Adam Smith, and John Maynard Keynes. They became entrepreneurs who worked their way to the top of big box chains and killed Mom and Pop shops. They also created Apple and Microsoft, as Jobs and Gates are part of this generation. They told us we could be anything we wanted to be when they were raising us and our older Millennial siblings. They taught us to expect that there would always be relatively decent paying jobs, decent retirements, and a semi-idealistic view of America as a shining beacon. They were the ones who gave out the participation trophies, told us to go into debt for a college degree that would get us a decent job and home, and they are the ones who told us we could be anything. They gave us the carte blache to get any degree we wanted, including gender studies, underwater basket weaving, etc.

But, why does the generation, or generations that raised us Millennials and Post-Millennials balk at socially and racially diverse ideals? Maybe it has to do with how they were raised and what changes they perceive are threating, which is why they balk and bash us at every chance they get, even though they are just as much of a snowflake generation as we are perceived to be. In light of these sentiments, it is time to bury the hatchet among generations and work together for a better future. It is time for the Baby Boomers to stop blaming millennials for wanting participation trophies they gave us. After all, they are entitled to health care and retirement, unlike the generations X, Y, and Z. So, to conclude this, Baby Boomers should work with us and not bash us younger people at every chance they get, after all, they created this, and should acknowledge it.

Articles titled such as, “Millennials Are Killing the Cable Industry” (Mark Hughes, 2015), “Millennials can’t buy houses because they are buying avocado toast and expensive coffees” (Jay Willis, Tim Gurner, 2017), and most importantly, in the words of the esteemed talk show host of Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough, “Young men in the 1940’s liberated Europe from the Nazism and the Pacific from the Japanese Empire. Today, too many stay at home and play video games.” (Joe Scarborough, 2017). He also claims, “Our smartphone culture impacts young men in the most profound way. It is often younger women that suffer the most.” (Joe Scarborough, 2017). The members of the Baby Boomer generation and members of Generation X such as Joe Scarborough et al. enjoy bashing Millennials and older members of Generation Z (The post-millennials, iGen, etc.) because we do not have high enough paying jobs because of the Great Recession or student loans, or because we majored in “Social Gender Studies” (Milo Yiannopoulos, Steven Crowder, 2017). The danger with bashing the Millennials and members of Generation Z is that it will increase the level of angst and divisiveness the country already possesses. The Millennials are old enough to have jobs, homes, and purchase goods and services that cater to their tastes. The members of Generation Z are one of the most entrepreneurial generations out there and from firms to sports teams are hiring them as marketing advisers to increase revenue for the team or firm. It is dangerous for the older generations to mock these generations because it is a reflection on the Baby Boomers and Generation X that they cannot acknowledge their mistakes. They are the ones that raised us after all.

It does not make sense to bash the two up and coming generations because the Baby Boomers and Generation X raised us in their own image. The Baby Boomers were as divided by issues during the Vietnam Era as they are now. They were divided over the Vietnam War and the Cold War, as well as Civil Rights and LGBTQIA+ rights, as was the Greatest Generation. They were also divided over recreational drugs and socio-economic conditions, which gave LBJ the confidence needed for his entitlement programs in the “Great Society”, as well as lead us to our first lost war in Vietnam. The United States has become more diverse in recent decades. It has also become more politically polarized in recent years. While the Baby Boomers were going to Vietnam or San Francisco and/or Woodstock, they became more ensconced in their beliefs. This led to ever increasing divisiveness during the 1970’s to today, with Ronald Regan and Donald Trump as results of this polarization.

Those who did not go to Vietnam, and those who survived it, went to school and studied the works of Von Moses, Adam Smith, and John Maynard Keynes. They became entrepreneurs who worked their way to the top of big box chains and killed Mom and Pop shops. They also created Apple and Microsoft, as Jobs and Gates are part of this generation. They told us we could be anything we wanted to be when they were raising us and our older Millennial siblings. They taught us to expect that there would always be relatively decent paying jobs, decent retirements, and a semi-idealistic view of America as a shining beacon. They were the ones who gave out the participation trophies, told us to go into debt for a college degree that would get us a decent job and home, and they are the ones who told us we could be anything. They gave us the carte blache to get any degree we wanted, including gender studies, underwater basket weaving, etc.

But, why does the generation, or generations that raised us Millennials and Post-Millennials balk at socially and racially diverse ideals? Maybe it has to do with how they were raised and what changes they perceive are threating, which is why they balk and bash us at every chance they get, even though they are just as much of a snowflake generation as we are perceived to be. In light of these sentiments, it is time to bury the hatchet among generations and work together for a better future. It is time for the Baby Boomers to stop blaming millennials for wanting participation trophies they gave us. After all, they are entitled to health care and retirement, unlike the generations X, Y, and Z. So, to conclude this, Baby Boomers should work with us and not bash us younger people at every chance they get, after all, they created this, and should acknowledge it.

Donald Trump and Authoritarian Aspirations

When one hears about a military parade, they usually think about countries such as North Korea, China, and the former United Soviet Socialist Republic. Countries that host military parades, as George Orwell has indicated, “Military display is only used in countries where the common people do not laugh at the army.” Authoritarian regimes such as the aforementioned use military parades to showcase the military might that will be used against dissenters to the regime. It is a tactic that authoritarian regimes utilize to possibly stifle opposition, and to show the world they are not to be trifled with.

The corollary to this is that countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and other perceivably free countries do not host military parades these states maintain their monopoly on violence through less coercive means because a military parade is seen as anathema to perceivably free countries. Recently, President Donald Trump told the Pentagon to organize a military parade. The last time there was a military parade in the United States in 1991, after the victory with Operation Desert Storm. Before that, during the Cold War, there were some military parades, especially during Eisenhower’s and Kennedy’s inaugurations. And there were parades after the Civil War, WWI, and WWII to celebrate our victories in those. The aforementioned presidents wanted military parades to send a signal to the USSR that they were just as powerful; in jest with the military parades of might the USSR hosted every May 1st on May Day. However, even Eisenhower and Kennedy recognized that often held military parades would put unwanted scrutiny on them, which is why they only hosted them very seldom. Since President Trump wishes to hold a military parade for seemingly no reason, the question: is the president hosting a military parade to show his opposition that he demonstrating the force that will be used against you, if you a member of opposition against me and my agenda? And is he attempting to create a cult of personality in the process? And the answer to this is possibly.

Journalists Nicole Chavez and Marissa Fessenden from CNN and the Smithsonian, have asserted that, “Trump’s desire to revive the tradition of a military parade has spurred concern among historians.” And that, “Military parades have only occurred after major victories such as the Civil War, WWI, and WWII.” As they have indicated, major military victories were the catalysts for military parades in the 19th and 20th centuries. To host one now would be very concerning and anachronistic in the United States.

It is no secret that we have not had a military victory since 1991. The War on Terrorism has been a failure so far by and large. Since his election in 2016, Donald Trump has promised to, “Make America Great Again.” He may wish to have a military parade for many, possibly suspicious reasons, reasons such as: He may wish to tell Kim Jong-Un through a military parade that my military is more powerful than yours, to demonstrate to his opposition that he has the ability to call on the military to stifle them and censure them, and finally to showcase to the world that he is “Making America Great Again” by using such an occasion to showcase his powerful military and its hardware. However, I am calling for a military parade because my administration is insecure and weak, and I need it to be perceived as powerful and secure, is the real reason he is calling for one. He is admitting weakness, and he needs a military parade to show his opposition that he has power through hardware and an obdurate group that will stifle them upon command.

The United States was established by the founding fathers: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, etc., as a country in which both supporters of an administration and opposition of an administration could articulate their thoughts without impunity, save for John Adam’s Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. It would not make sense to host a military parade in the United States for this reason. The ipso facto of a military parade is to showcase the state’s ability to act with impunity. President Donald Trump’s wish for a military parade should be alarming because he is signaling to us that he is willing to use military coercion on civilians to accomplish his goals. He is saying, “If you oppose me, this will be what you see.” In sum, Trump’s wish for a military parade demonstrates that he is willing to turn to martial coercion to achieve his goals.

When one hears about a military parade, they usually think about countries such as North Korea, China, and the former United Soviet Socialist Republic. Countries that host military parades, as George Orwell has indicated, “Military display is only used in countries where the common people do not laugh at the army.” Authoritarian regimes such as the aforementioned use military parades to showcase the military might that will be used against dissenters to the regime. It is a tactic that authoritarian regimes utilize to possibly stifle opposition, and to show the world they are not to be trifled with.

The corollary to this is that countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and other perceivably free countries do not host military parades these states maintain their monopoly on violence through less coercive means because a military parade is seen as anathema to perceivably free countries. Recently, President Donald Trump told the Pentagon to organize a military parade. The last time there was a military parade in the United States in 1991, after the victory with Operation Desert Storm. Before that, during the Cold War, there were some military parades, especially during Eisenhower’s and Kennedy’s inaugurations. And there were parades after the Civil War, WWI, and WWII to celebrate our victories in those. The aforementioned presidents wanted military parades to send a signal to the USSR that they were just as powerful; in jest with the military parades of might the USSR hosted every May 1st on May Day. However, even Eisenhower and Kennedy recognized that often held military parades would put unwanted scrutiny on them, which is why they only hosted them very seldom. Since President Trump wishes to hold a military parade for seemingly no reason, the question: is the president hosting a military parade to show his opposition that he demonstrating the force that will be used against you, if you a member of opposition against me and my agenda? And is he attempting to create a cult of personality in the process? And the answer to this is possibly.

Journalists Nicole Chavez and Marissa Fessenden from CNN and the Smithsonian, have asserted that, “Trump’s desire to revive the tradition of a military parade has spurred concern among historians.” And that, “Military parades have only occurred after major victories such as the Civil War, WWI, and WWII.” As they have indicated, major military victories were the catalysts for military parades in the 19th and 20th centuries. To host one now would be very concerning and anachronistic in the United States.

It is no secret that we have not had a military victory since 1991. The War on Terrorism has been a failure so far by and large. Since his election in 2016, Donald Trump has promised to, “Make America Great Again.” He may wish to have a military parade for many, possibly suspicious reasons, reasons such as: He may wish to tell Kim Jong-Un through a military parade that my military is more powerful than yours, to demonstrate to his opposition that he has the ability to call on the military to stifle them and censure them, and finally to showcase to the world that he is “Making America Great Again” by using such an occasion to showcase his powerful military and its hardware. However, I am calling for a military parade because my administration is insecure and weak, and I need it to be perceived as powerful and secure, is the real reason he is calling for one. He is admitting weakness, and he needs a military parade to show his opposition that he has power through hardware and an obdurate group that will stifle them upon command.

The United States was established by the founding fathers: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, etc., as a country in which both supporters of an administration and opposition of an administration could articulate their thoughts without impunity, save for John Adam’s Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. It would not make sense to host a military parade in the United States for this reason. The ipso facto of a military parade is to showcase the state’s ability to act with impunity. President Donald Trump’s wish for a military parade should be alarming because he is signaling to us that he is willing to use military coercion on civilians to accomplish his goals. He is saying, “If you oppose me, this will be what you see.” In sum, Trump’s wish for a military parade demonstrates that he is willing to turn to martial coercion to achieve his goals.

The Dangers of Desocialization and Smart Tech

Our smartphones are ubiquitous. We use them first thing in the morning when we open our eyes, we use them to catch up on the news, and we use them to check our bank balances. We cannot imagine life without our smartphones, and this is dangerous to how we conduct our affairs in life.

We use our smartphones to do the most modicum things for us; we use them to do everything except drive for us, and even then we use them for directions and to catch up on emails at stoplights. On average, we spend eleven hours a day on our screens (Associated Press, 2016). Our screens dictate the information we use to make our decisions upon, what we watch based on algorithms, who we are friends with on Facebook, and who we follow on Instagram. Our dependency on these devices for these can become addicting. And our dependency on our smartphones is sapping our ability to interact civilly with one another and our ability to keep correspondence private between us and our peers. Because of this, we are becoming more anxious and more depressed because we are losing our ability to interact with one another civilly. Another danger to smart technology, is that it will easily replace most jobs in the labor market. For example, most car manufacturing is done by robots, it has been for a while now. There used to be 618,500 workers in manufacturing in Detroit in 1968. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1968). Now, there are 12,490 remaining in manufacturing, due to the Great Recession and automation. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017). With the increase of smart technology and smartphones, we are not only learning how to act more virulently within in 160 characters or online, but outsourcing livelihoods and creating demagogues who can wreak havoc down the road.

The dangers of smartphones and smart technology is our dependency on them. They are desensitizing us from real problems, such as hunger, penury, and the erosion of privacy under increasing state surveillance in both constitutional and authoritarian countries. Because of our smartphones and our increased screen time, we are developing a dangerous sense of ennui to these problems; because all we do is stare into our lit devices and read about these issues in lieu of solving them. Then we comment savagely afterwards; if we have even read the article and have not skipped ahead to get our news from the comment section. Instead of seeing these issues on the news and discussing them with each other in person civilly amongst each other, we pugnaciously attack those who disagree with us in the comment section. In her book, Demagoguery and Democracy, Patricia Roberts-Miller asserts, “Demagoguery says we don’t have to debate policies, since what we should do is empower good people (or a good person) to do what every good person recognizes to be the correct course of action.” (Roberts-Miller, 2017). She also asserts that as things become more polarized, as they have been in the United States over the last couple of decades, the social environment becomes more hostile. (Roberts-Miller, 2017).

As people become more hostile, they spread their messages of hate on the internet and in the comment section, or in the 280 characters one’s allotted on Twitter; and those with smart devices see those, and give a collective shrug as we see them online and anonymously agree. Because we utilize our smart phones to do everything for us, except for cleaning our rear-ends, we become desensitized to what is going on around us. And once we become desensitized to what is going on around us as a result of smart tech, we become less social, less caring, filled with ennui, and allow ourselves to become pugnacious people who only care about why they do not have enough likes on Facebook or re-tweets on Twitter. As a result to this desensitizing, we are okay with losing our privacy because we share everything on our smart phones and okay with algorithms that follow our confirmation biases, making us more polarized. This in effect, will lead to future generations, such as Generation Z, becoming complacent with figures such as Donald Trump running the World and leaving them only scraps. We have to get off our smart phones, interact with each other, and use pen and paper again to maintain and keep our freedoms of speech and privacy, as diaries and notebooks cannot be hacked online.