News Burst: June 29, 2017 (Patreon)

I just finished rendering tomorrow’s (or today’s, I should say) video. I hope you like it when it goes live at 9a PT (as always).

There’s not an incredible amount going on in the news right now that I find all that interesting, so I thought today’s News Burst would instead focus on two rather random stories, along with some clarity on an ongoing saga here in the States.

Let’s start with the latter first, shall we?

New US Visa Rules For Six Muslim-Majority Countries: https://www.apnews.com/9c3d06565daf40cc86f0f80f5ad0effb/US-sets-new-visa-rules-for-6-mainly-Muslim-nations,-refugees

My Take: In case you missed it, the Supreme Court has actually overturned (at least temporarily) lower court and circuit court rulings on the Constitutionality and legality of the so-called Trump “travel ban,” one that was instituted via executive order shortly after Trump took office, and one that a variety of courts (as well as much of the population) took umbrage with. To be clear: This doesn’t mean the ban will stay in effect forever. That wasn’t even the Trump administration’s intention, nonetheless the court’s. It simply means that, until they hear arguments this fall, certain provisions of the executive order can be enacted.

As such, the Trump administration went forward with some new rules to follow for those seeking visas from the countries identified in the ban: Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran, and Yemen. The rules are somewhat straight-forward, and, based on what I heard on a news report last night, should be somewhat easy for almost anyone to circumvent. Regardless, the rules simply revolve around having a relationship with a person already in the US legally, so long as that person is a parent, a significant other, a child, or a son or daughter of the person seeking entry. As the report (and the government) make clear, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, and more aren’t eligible.

Not surprisingly, folks are keeping a close eye on how the visa authorizations move forward with an extra amount of vigilance. One wrong step, and I assume the ACLU (and like-minded organizations) will be all over this one. I’m super interested to see what SCOTUS says about all of this in the fall, but this last piece of irony isn’t lost on me: The ban, as set out in the executive order, was only designed to last a handful of months. Now, because of court interference, it’s likely to last way longer than it was ever intended to. C'est la vie.

Happy Birthday, iPhone: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-iphone-anniversary-idUSKBN19J2Y3

My Take: This is a pretty amazing stat, but this week, the revolutionary Apple iPhone turns 10 years old. Launched in late June of 2007, the iPhone wasn’t an immediate hit, which a lot of people have since forgotten, what with the device’s meteoric rise and ubiquitous status in so many of our lives since then. Love them or hate them, one thing is for certain: Apple is an astounding company that has changed the world multiple times in major ways. Apple I changed how we look at and see computers, away from something at labs and universities and into the home. iPod changed how we listen to music and how we interface with digital goods. iPhone changed how we communicate and interact.

Now, I jumped on the iPhone train rather late. I didn’t own one until 2011, around four years after the first iPhone launched. My first iPhone was a 4S, which I leaped over to from Palm Pre, which I stubbornly held onto for a little too long (although I absolutely adored that phone, and truly think it got short shrift… I also went to NU and am good friends with one of the engineers that worked on it, so I guess I’m a little biased). But once I acquired an iPhone, there was no turning back for me. It’s a wonderful device, and I couldn’t imagine using any other phone ever again.

iPhone turning 10 is a momentous occasion, because few inventions -- especially in the modern era -- changed everything the way iPhone did. And, as I mentioned above, it’s so exceptionally and outrageously rare for a company to change the world once, nonetheless multiple times. I know there are a lot of Android fans out there, though. Don’t worry. You’ll come around. (And since so many of you are always looking for book recommendations, Walter Isaacson's biography on Steve Jobs is an absolute must-read.)

The Redskins Keep Their Trademark: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/06/28/washington-redskins-trademarks-240066

My Take: This is a curious story. For some time here in the United States, companies and individuals alike weren’t allowed to trademark offensive or provocative words or images. But then the Supreme Court stepped in, and now it seems that’s no longer the case. The SCOTUS case -- known officially as Matal vs. Tam -- was brought by a band called The Slants. The Slants are an all-Asian act that were originally declined a trademark for their band name due to it being “disparaging” to, in this case, Asian people.

This ruling is significant for another contentious brand in America, however: The Washington Redskins. The Redskins, who hail from our nation’s capital, were declined their trademark some years ago, and in 2014, an appeals board associated with American trademarking declined a new attempt to make the trademark official. Why? Well, because the Redskins, depending on how you interpret the name, could be an overtly racist reference to American Indians, though many people -- including a vast majority of American Indians -- disagree. (As for me? I used to agree that it was offensive, but after seeing that poll of American Indians, I’ve changed my mind. If they don’t find it offensive, why should I?)

This is good news for the Redskins franchise, who has for years resisted changing its name, and I suspect will continue to resist well into the future. But it’s even better news apart from a mere moral victory: Because the Redskins couldn’t secure a trademark on the name, people could sell merchandise emblazoned with that word with complete impunity, which undoubtedly injured the organization’s merch-selling capabilities (though as far as I know, the logo could be and was trademarked). Still, this represents an interesting -- albeit minor -- turn of events I never anticipated occurring.