201914864caic2021

[201914864caic2021]

What’s in a Name?: The Renaming of “Columbus Day”

Though supported by many, a recent decision to rename “Columbus Day,” to “Indigenous People’s Day,” in Philadelphia has sparked controversy. This day holds many different associations for various groups. For Indigenous Americans it is clear why a day named after ‘a man who only brought disease, genocide, and various assault to Native communities,’ is problematic, and offensive. Conversely for Italian-Americans this day historically ‘became a source of dignity, and self-worth,’ ‘at a time when Italians were vilified.’ Subsequently, with many Italian-Americans currently facing hardships, the decision to rename a day associated with their acceptance within American society has left many ‘up in arms.’

Many views, and solutions are being expressed. An effective resolution seems to be both an “Indigenous People’s Day,” and “Italian Heritage Day.” Regardless, Columbus, whilst someone to be studied is certainly not a figure to celebrated. Thus, renaming the day seems best, however (without understating the power of renaming) perhaps attention would be better focussed on year-round education regarding Natives, and Italian-Americans (not just their history of oppression, but also their cultures) so as to better understand, and aid these groups. Still, the existence of days honouring these cultures would be a good start, and if nothing else I would encourage everyone to dedicate some time towards learning about these cultures this October 11th. Stories are always a great place to start, and the Algonquin tale of the “Chenoo,” is one of my personal favourites, and I would also recommend “The Aeneid,” for a glimpse into early Italian culture. I hope with this mindset we can turn a day that for too long has represented conflict into a seed for greater understanding.

[201914864caic2021]

Dr. Suess is not banned, now that much is a lie, Go ahead and read on all about this false outcry

From the burning of ‘thousands of books,’ under the Qin Dynasty, to the burning of ‘all 200,000 volumes,’ of the Library of Alexandria in 640, to the destruction of 20,000 books on May 10th 1933, and a later banning of 5485 books under Nazi rule, attempts at censorship throughout history have been numerous, and destructive. The recent discontinuation of the publication of six Dr. Seuss books however, bears no real comparison to these events.

The decision to discontinue publication of these books was made last year by Dr. Seuss Enterprises who stated, ‘these books portray people in ways that are hurtful, and wrong.’ Many have subsequently expressed outrage at the decision, most of which has resulted from misinformation, and exaggeration. With networks like Fox News claiming that the books have been ‘banned,’ and comparisons even being made to ‘book burning,’ it is easy to see why things escalated.

Naturally, the preservation of information is crucial, and is the basis of the famous George Santayana quote (‘those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,’) but this is not a matter concerning the potential destruction of information, and these books are not being banned, or destroyed at all, and any comparisons to ‘book burning,’ are ridiculous.

In summary, it is evident why so many have perceived this as censorship, but ultimately this is a falsity perpetuated by misinformation, and exaggeration. Most ironically though is, that which so many have seen as threat to information, has actually brought attention back to these books, providing an opportunity for an important re-examination of both the commendable, and problematic information within these works in line with Santayana’s words.

[201914864caic2021]

The Toxic Treatment of Britney Spears: Framing Britney Spears

‘A sexy vamp in underwear,’ ‘bimbo,’ ‘money shot.’ These are just a few of the phrases used to describe, and attack Britney Spears by within the documentary Framing Britney Spears. The documentary by the New York Times paints an eye-opening, and ultimately tragic picture of the career, and life of the popstar. From her mistreatment by Justin Timberlake to her harassment at the hands of the paparazzi, the ordeals of Spears are put on full display. Perhaps the most striking part of the documentary, however, concerns the conservatorship that has controlled Spears for 13 years.

Under California’s laws a conservatorship is ‘where a judge appoints a reasonable person, or organization (the “conservator”) to care for another adult (the “conservatee”) who cannot care for [themselves] or manage [their] own finances).’ In 2008 Spears was placed under a conservatorship with her father Jamie Spears as the Conservator. However, as USA Today notes, conservatorships are usually reserved for ‘developmentally disabled individuals who have reached adulthood,’ or ‘elderly people… who may be vulnerable to financial abuse.’ Subsequently, many have asked why 39-year-old Britney Spears, who continued to be able to perform live is not allowed to manage her own assets, and personal life?  With Spears unable to break the hold of the conservatorship, this surely demonstrates the problems with California’s conservatorship laws, and certainly exhibits an abuse of power for financial gain. The ‘Free Britney,’ movement has risen out of concern not only for Spears, but all those that may be wrongly affected by conservatorship laws, now, or in the future. These laws need re-evaluation, and it seems the ‘Free Britney,’ movement is a step in the right direction.

[201914864caic2021]

A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Space Race: What You Need to Know About the Space Race in 2020

‘3…2...1…0. Ignition. Lift-off… Go NASA! Go Space X! Godspeed!’ These words uttered before the Crew Dragon spacecraft launch on May 30th, 2020 are all too familiar to us today, and the generations that have grown up in an era in which space travel is possible. The countdown, NASA, the behemoth that is the rocket, the agonising anticipation, and the eventual relieving launch are all at this point usual sights, and feelings associated with a standard space launch. Yet this event was different in so many ways to a typical launch and offered something new. The new, and revolutionary technology on display was undoubtably a part of this, with the rocket, and space suits looking like something straight out of a sci-fi movie, and the rocket’s reusable Falcon booster being landed with previously unseen precision. However, another noticeable element of the launch was the participants involved. Of course, as previously mentioned NASA were involved in the launch, but they were not alone in this endeavour. Sharing the honour with NASA on this occasion was Elon Musk, and his Space X company, with the launch marking the first time a private company has sent humans into space, and a spacecraft to the International Space Station (ISS). As such it can be argued Space X in 2020 is currently leading in a new ‘Space Race.’ This begs several questions. What is a Space Race? Who are the competitors is today’s Space Race? Who is winning? And should we even encourage such a competition?

The First Space Race (1955-1975)

The original ‘Space Race,’ has been defined by Space.com as a ‘series of competitive technology demonstrations between the United States, and the Soviet Union, aiming to show superiority in spaceflight… a tense global conflict that pitted the ideologies of capitalism, and communism against one another.’ This first Space Race started with announcements four days apart in 1955 from Leonid I Sedov of the Soviet Union, and James C Hagerty of the United States that the two nations intended to launch the first manmade satellites into orbit. The Soviets were first to succeed in this effort, launching their Sputnik I satellite in October 1957. Following this, on October 1st, 1958 NASA opened, but was able to achieve little compared to the Soviet space programme in its early years, with the Soviet Union taking more victories, and making history by putting both the first man (Yuri Gagarin), and first woman (Valentina Tereshkova) in space on April 12th, 1961, and June 16th, 1963 respectively. It was in between these two events in 1961 that President John F Kennedy (JFK) challenged NASA to send a man to the moon ‘before this decade is out,’ resulting in the establishment of the Apollo Programme. It is through this program that NASA was able to eventually turn the tide, and on July 20th, 1969, landed on the moon and the US ‘effectively won,’ the Space Race. This Space Race is largely regarded as coming to an end with the collaboration of the US, and Soviets on the Apollo-Soyuz mission in 1975, which saw a US Apollo craft, and Soviet Soyuz craft dock with one another, and the crew shake hands. Since then, the US, and Soviets have largely co-operated on space projects together. Particularly the ISS, described by NASA as ‘the most politically complex space exploration programme ever undertaken,’ has seen extensive US-Soviet co-operation, as well as widespread international collaboration, with 15 countries in addition to the ‘[principle]… space agencies of the United States, Russia, Europe, Japan, and Canada, being involved in the ISS. In addition to this, 18 countries in total have visited the ISS. Evidently, the Space Race no longer exists in its initial form, and the US, and Soviet Union (Now Russia) are no longer competitors, but rather allies. But who are the participants in the Space Race today?’

The New Space Race

China

China is arguably a candidate for this new Space Race. With a ‘trade war,’ declared by Donald Trump ongoing between the US, and China since 2018, and the two countries blaming each other for the COVID 19 pandemic, it is clear a great deal of economic, and political animosity exists between the two nations. This combined with China’s exclusion from the International Space Station in 2011, and an already ongoing battle for ‘technology primacy,’ in which (in Cold War fashion) Trump accused China of using its Huawei devices for spying has naturally set up China, and the US for a space industry conflict reminiscent of the original Space Race. China conducted the most launches of any nation in 2019 and is ‘the only country in the world to obtain all industrial categories listed in the United Nations industrial classification,’ leading the world in both steel, and aluminium production. Despite this ‘China has suffered setbacks on… its heavy-lift launch vehicle program,’ and as a result of exclusion from co-operation with other space agencies ‘lags behind in its human spaceflight, and space station programme.’ As a result, whilst China can be viewed as a contender in the Space Race in 2020, the country is certainly not amongst the most powerful within the space industry. However, it should be recognised that ‘China has all the technology available, and figured out,’ and with so many of the materials necessary for the construction of space equipment being domestically produced, China could be a major power within the space industry in the near future and may be able to turn things around similar to the US in the Space Race of the 20th Century.

Private Companies

 Arguably, the more interesting focus of the Space Race currently though is the competition between private space companies with the ‘three that are furthest down the road [being] Space X, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic.’ The three are currently focussed on a variety of issues concerning space travel and are bidding to ‘reduce the cost of access to space,’ the reusability of spacecrafts, and ‘making space accessible to people who are not trained astronauts,’ including pushing for tourism in space. This may initially raise questions about private space agencies versus public space agencies, however ‘the… “public versus private,” space race isn’t one that NASA feels overly competitive about… relying on private corporations rather than challenging them.’ Most recently this has been demonstrated by the Artemis Program with which NASA has promising they ‘will land the first woman, and next man on the Moon by 2024,’ resulting in private space companies ‘competing to provide their services of commercial lunar payloads.’

Space X

 Of these three companies Space X, founded in 2002 by Elon Musk, seems to be the strongest contender in the Space Race. As previously mentioned, Space X has already astounded the world, showing off the technological capabilities, and sheer power of its Falcon 9 rocket, as well as the prowess of its reusable launch system which was landed with previously unseen accuracy. Additionally, ‘Space X operates the largest commercial satellite constellation,’ with a total of 180 satellites in orbit. In relation to NASA contracts, Space X has also pulled ahead of course winning the contract to replace Russian rocket technology in 2019 which resulted in the Falcon 9’s flight to the ISS, as well as several other contracts, including a $50.3 million contract involving an X-Ray Polarimetry Explorer, and an $80.4 million contract for a Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem Spacecraft. Most importantly, Space X was awarded NASA contracts, alongside Blue Origin and Dynetics, totalling $1 billion towards the Artemis project. As a result, Musk’s future plans, such as sending the first humans to Mars on a Space X craft and creating a reliable Starlink satellite internet service don’t seem too far-fetched, so long as Space X keeps winning these contracts through technological development, and sheer dominance of the satellite industry. Subsequently, it seems Space X will be the leading company in the Space industry for decades to come.

Blue Origin

Competitor to Space X, and founded in 2000 by Jeff Bezos, Blue Origin has also made impressive strides within the space industry. Arguably, their most impressive achievement, the ‘Blue Moon,’ lunar lander is capable of carrying 3.6 metric tons. The company has also ‘developed a suborbital capsule system, acquired the technology of reusable rockets… made a two-stage orbital launch vehicle with ‘New Glenn,’ and has flown its New Shepard rocket 7 times. However, compared to Space X’s Falcon 9 rocket, it is apparent that Blue Origin still has a long way to go, with their New Shepard rocket reaching only a maximum velocity of Mach 3, compared to the Falcon 9 which is able to reach Mach 5.5 in it’s first stage alone, and then Mach 7.5. The New Shepard also is only able to produce 100,000 pounds of thrust, whereas the Falcon 9 can create 1.5 million pounds of thrust. Subsequently, the technological gap between the capabilities of the two companies’ spacecraft is vast, and currently Blue Origin does not seem to be able to generate the sheer power Space X has demonstrated. As a result, Blue Origin has missed out on a multitude of NASA contracts. However, as mentioned earlier, Blue Origin has been awarded contracts for the Artemis project, and the Blue Moon lunar lander appears to be a genuine candidate for the craft that will eventually land the new generation of astronauts on the moon. As well as this, Bezos has taken an interest in the space tourism industry, one that Musk appears to have little desire to pursue. Perhaps this could provide Blue Origin with the extra money they require to develop new technologies capable of bridging the gap, and rivalling Space X. For now, however, Blue Origin appears to be stuck with its only real potential challenge to Space X being its aforementioned lunar landing capabilities. Yet to win this Space Race, Blue Origin will eventually need to expand its abilities in Space travel, or ultimately admit defeat.

Virgin Galactic

The third major competitor in this private company space race, though arguably the weakest is Virgin Galactic founded by Richard Branson in 2004. Unlike Blue Origin, and Space X, Virgin Galactic’s primary focus is the space tourism industry. At first glance Virgin Galactic certainly ‘appears to be ahead of Elon Musk’s Space X, and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin in fulfilling the vision of space tourism,’ having already sold 600 tickets to those wishing to take a journey to space. However, for several reasons Virgin Galactic currently offers little competition against Space X, and Blue Origin. Despite ambitious ideas, many of Virgin Galactic’s plans to reduce fuel usage, and costs have failed to materialise. The company’s intention to launch their Launcher One rocket from the wing of a Boeing 747, in order to use less energy during take-off was one of these failed projects, with the rocket failing ‘to climb into orbit,’ and igniting over the Pacific Ocean. Furthermore, it is evident that Virgin Galactic does not possess rockets with as much power as those of Space X, and more importantly their rival in the space tourism industry, Blue Origin. Although Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo is capable of reaching an impressive height of 295,000 feet, Blue Origin’s New Shepard exceeds this at an impressive 330,00 feet. With this in mind, and Blue Origin set to match Virgin Galactic’s prices for space tourist flights it becomes clearer that Virgin Galactic’s control over the tourist sector of space travel could be short lived. In addition, Virgin Galactic’s lack of involvement in NASA space contracts, puts Virgin at a huge disadvantage, receiving no money, or assistance from NASA in order to develop their space technology. In contrast Blue Origin’s involvement in NASA’s programs (even if they are currently losing to Space X) has aided them in bringing their space technology to new heights and allowed them to compete simultaneously in the private contract Space Race, and the space tourist sector.

Should the Space Race be Encouraged?

Another important focal point of the Space Race are the positive, and negative aspects associated with it. Many would argue that the Space Race, being a competition between multiple groups promotes conflict, which can be especially dangerous in the case of international conflict escalation. As well as this, a rather strong argument can be made that the Space Race promotes the use of resources, and spending on extra-terrestrial projects that could be better spent on initiatives on Earth. This argument against pursuing the Space Race becomes especially strong in relation to Space tourism which merely serves entertainment purposes. Furthermore, a huge issue of the current Space Race is that the private companies involved become richer, making their billionaire owners wealthier, and more powerful, reaching levels some may call excessive, and even dangerous. However, the Space Race also arguably has positive implications. With competitors pushing each other to new heights technology seems to be developing faster than ever, and with these developments in space technology also often proving useful in other fields, perhaps this extra-terrestrial competition is just what our planet needs. So far medical advancements, such as artificial hearts, and laser eye surgery, industrial developments, including the mass production of carbon nanotubes, and even progress in environmental analysis through the use of satellites can all be attributed to space travel, and the rapid development of these technologies to the competitive nature of the space industry. Furthermore, these major developments in turn provide inspiration for young people to also pursue careers in the sciences, and push these technologies even further, as demonstrated by the number of ‘graduates holding bachelor’s in science, and engineering fields [peaking] in the late 1960’s.’ The expansion of these major private space corporations simultaneously provides jobs in these fields to these young aspiring scientists, and engineers, allowing again for people to pursue these careers. As well as this, the Space Race should not be viewed as an event completely built on conflict. The original Space Race, whilst causing great division between the participants, also eventually resulted in highly effective co-operation through the aforementioned Apollo-Soyuz mission, and ISS. This Space Race seems to be exhibiting similar signs of co-operation with the introduction of the Artemis Accords a series of ‘bilateral agreements with other space agencies that want to participate in the Artemis program.’ Therefore, whilst these companies are indeed competing for contracts it must be remembered that overall, they are working towards similar goals, and often in co-ordination with NASA, and each other.

Upon examination of the Space Race in 2020, it is evident many comparisons can be made to the original US-Soviet Space Race, however this more internal, US-centric Space Race appears to have reached new heights. It is also apparent that though the Space Race is currently dominated by Space X, closely followed by other US private companies that this could change. This Space Race is also a testament of what we can achieve when we really push each other, and though we must be weary for this contest not to get out of hand (becoming a full-blown conflict) it would seem a little friendly competition is a good thing.

[201914864caic2021]

On the First Day of Christmas the White House Brought to me a Long History of Controversy

 In a year that has seen considerable turbulence with the Coronavirus pandemic, and the US Presidential election, the ‘season to be jolly,’ is now upon us. Yet it would seem even Christmas is enough to breed controversy when the Trumps are involved.

 In keeping with tradition, First Lady, Melania Trump has again taken on the task of decorating the White House, opting for the theme ‘America the Beautiful,’ a ‘strikingly normal,’ look compared to previous years. Also, in keeping with tradition, Ms. Trump has caused Christmas controversy.

In the past there has been a great deal of criticism surrounding Christmas at the White House. The Nixon’s came under fire for topping their tree with the ‘atomic peace,’ symbol, as did the Clinton’s for displaying an ornament mocking opponent Newt Gingrich. Even Michelle Obama somewhat controversially used her ‘Reflect/Rejoice/Renew,’ theme to present Obama’s presidency as ushering in a new era.

This year, Melania’s equally politically charged decorations reference her ‘Be Best,’ initiative (adorning the Blue Room tree), as well as a Space Force logo on a trinket found in the East Room. Nonetheless, the biggest source of controversy appears to be a leaked audiotape in which Melania asks, ‘who gives a fuck about Christmas stuff.’ This release, following Trump’s declaration ‘Christmas… will be cancelled,’ if Biden takes office, has naturally resulted in many criticising the Trumps, pointing out the irony of the situation.

Despite criticisms however, Melania has arguably brought a somewhat classier feel to her decorations this year, celebrating transportation in the East Room, wildlife in the Green Room, and displaying children’s drawings relating to Women’s Suffrage. Regardless, I wish you all a Merry Christmas.

[201914864caic2021]

Barrack is Back, and He’s Here to Stay

 Since the end of his term, Barrack Obama has been hard at work on his memoir ‘A Promised Land,’ which was recently released on November 17th. The first of two volumes intended for release, it conjures to mind two main questions: Why has Obama chosen to write a memoir? And why now?

 Obama has described his memoir as ‘an honest accounting of… my time in office… my take on what I got right, and the mistakes I made, and the… forces that my team, and I had to confront, and that as a nation we are grappling with still.’

 Subsequently, a perceived aim of Obama’s memoir, like previous Presidential memoirs, is self-reflection (whether that be criticism, or justification of his actions, and policies), seemingly aiming to provide both an outlet for the ex-president, as well as insight into his actions as President, something that made the first real Presidential memoir by James Buchanan so successful. Somewhat uniquely however, Obama also appears to want to tell of his ‘personal journey,’, and the ‘human side,’ of the Presidency, something largely ignored since Calvin Coolidge’s memoir (1929).

  Arguably though, the memoir most importantly seems to be intended as guide for the future. As stated by Historian Craig Fehrman ‘we want to know what they [the Presidents] believe… we want to use that information as voters.’ This arguably explains why Obama chose now to release the book. With increasing polarization within America, ever more divisive social issues, and a shift in power following the 2020 election Obama knows  the future rests in the balance, and still aims to steer that future in what he believes in the right direction.

[201914864caic2021]

Progressive Pastoral Appointment- Say Hello to Wilton Gregory

History is to be made on November 28th when self-proclaimed ‘birdwatcher,’ and ‘terrible golfer,’ Wilton Daniel Gregory is set to become the first Black American Cardinal following Pope Francis’ announcement on October 25th. Gregory, born in 1947, and ordained in 1973 has worked his way through the ranks of the Catholic Church, becoming Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago in 1983, then Bishop of Belleville a decade later, then Archbishop Atlanta, before being appointed his current position, Archbishop of Washington.

A leading figure in investigating the child abuse crisis in the Catholic Church in 2018, Gregory studied under the liberal Cardinal Joseph Bernadin. Subsequently, Gregory has pushed for the inclusion of LGBT, and transgender people within the church stating, ‘the Church must welcome all… no matter what their sexual orientation, or life situation.’ As such Gregory has become a symbol of hope, and compassion within the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, Gregory has been notably active in the political world, criticising Donald Trump, and advocating against the Safe Carry Protections Act, declaring ‘the last thing we need is more firearms in public places.’ Gregory has also challenged systemic racism, arguing that we need to ask the same questions about racism as we do about COVID 19. ‘How is [it] passed on? Is it learned at home? Is it passed through our structures? How can we render it ineffective?’

Ultimately, it’s not hard to see why Gregory’s appointment has been celebrated by both those within, and outside of the Catholic Church, with not only his appointment in itself being a progressive move, but also his Cardinalate almost certainly promising to see a new, arguably greater era within the Catholic Church.

[201914864caic2021]

How Eddie Van Halen Made the ‘Jump’ to a New Era of Music (1955-2020)

‘His playing was pure Wizardry.’- Angus Young, lead guitarist of ACDC.

‘A great loss for the World of Music.’- Scorpions.

‘We considered him an inspiration, an idol.’- Metallica.

These statements all of course refer to the recent passing of legendary musician Eddie Van Halen on October 6th. Van Halen (often regarded as one of the greatest guitarists of all time) formed the band ‘Van Halen,’ in 1972 with Alex Van Halen, David Lee Roth, and Mark Stone, and quickly demonstrated to the world both his talent, and innovation.

Selling 80 million albums world-wide, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees Van Halen demonstrated mass popularity, appealing to hard rock, and heavy metal fans in songs such as ‘Ain’t Talkin About Love,’ and pop fans alike with ‘Jump.’ Eddie Van Halen was key to this appeal. His revolutionary technique on the guitar astonished crowds, especially his signature tapping as seen in ‘Eruption,’ using the guitar in a way many had never seen.

However, Van Halen not only changed the way guitar was played, but also the guitar itself. Creating his ‘Frankenstrat,’ briefly displayed in the Met, Van Halen (like Hendrix) changed the game. Claiming ‘the guitar I wanted to play didn’t exist,’ he installed a ‘humbucker,’ from a Gibson onto a Fender Stratocaster, giving the guitar a unique sound at the time (a setup common in most Stratocasters today). Subsequently, many aspiring guitarists can ‘chase the tone,’ Van Halen once dreamed of.

Consequently, I do not think it’s an overstatement to say that despite his passing Eddie Van Halen lives on and will continue to live on as long as music beckons.

RIP Eddie Van Halen.

[201914864caic2021]

To Wear, or Not to Wear... Trump Please Answer the Question

 COVID 19 is an almost unavoidable topic today and as such debates surrounding safety, and specifically masks, have been at the forefront of media coverage. No other figure, however, seems to have sparked the same level of controversy regarding the pandemic as US President, Donald Trump.

 Trump’s actions throughout the pandemic have caused widespread outrage, and I would argue rightly so. Trump’s refusal to wear a mask, stating ‘I don’t see it for myself,’ (Only donning one in public for the first time in July) is perplexing, and goes against Director of the CDC, Robert Redfield’s declaration that ‘face masks are the most important… public health tool we have.’

 Despite the appearance that Trump has ‘softened his tone on masks,’ as stated in this New York Times article , and stating he is ‘a believer in masks,’ many agree that Trump’s message is still unclear, and that ‘Trump has delivered mixed… guidance.’ Trump’s comments during the Presidential debate on September 30th caused further confusion, with Trump declaring, ‘I think masks are ok,’ whilst simultaneously, stating ‘I don’t wear masks like him.’ Following his return to the White House after recovering from COVID Trump was seen to have ‘peeled off his mask.’ One can only ask why he would risk this when even traditionally conservative news has connected Trump’s not wearing a mask with his COVID infection, as in the title of this article.

 Subsequently, Trump’s actions can be seen not only as dangerous to those around him, but his mixed, and even negative opinions regarding masks set a dangerous precedent for the American people to follow, and ultimately could result in many more deaths.

[201914864caic2021]

Tik Tok Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/style/what-is-tik-tok.html

 I think it’s safe to say Tik Tok has taken the world by storm, and as a result it is no surprise there has been a flood of articles regarding the social media giant. The New York Times’ article ‘How Tik Tok is Rewriting the World,’ particularly stands out amongst these. This article by John Hermann provides not only a useful explanation of Tik Tok’s creation, and an insight to its inner workings, but is also an inviting piece for everyone from ‘“millennial,” to “boomer.”’ Furthermore, Hermann effectively shows the appeal of Tik Tok compared to its competition, describing the platform almost as the successor to the likes of Instagram, and Twitter. In conclusion, Hermann’s blend of useful, easy to understand explanations, his insights into social media, and his inclusive language makes for an engaging, and helpful article, amongst some of the best articles about Tik Tok on the internet.