Technology

Overall, our futuristic use of technology has helped our society make great strides.  Our medical advancements alone have allowed people to live much longer lives on average than in the past thousands of years.  These technological discoveries have all come about within the last couple hundred years, yet the improvements have been very drastic.  Computers have made everyone's lives much easier.  For example, the research involved in the project for our class would be much more tedious if we didn't have access to web databases and we had to type them on typewriters without a delete button and spell check.  This is just one example among many.  There have been countless new and improved processes as well as products that have made all our lives more convenient.  I couldn't even begin to talk about them all.  Just imagine life without microwaves, lawn mowers, and X Box 360's.  Technology has helped our standards of living and entertainment.

As much as technology has helped us, the down sides are undeniable.  Our population has become increasingly obese due to the influx of driving our cars to the nearest fast food restaurant and eating our cheeseburgers in front of our 52 inch flat screens.  We have become lazy.  New and improved machines have caused industrial workers to be laid off.  It can also be argued that computers have made people a lot less personal than in the past.  I feel that right now I am living fine without a hovering car, so is it really necessary??  Right now we may be content but in the future certain technologies may seem like no-brainers.  As long as we are able to assess the ramifications and needs for technologies in the future and don't overkill, it will continue to be helpful.  Progress is generally good.

Ok bye.

Learning from the past

I can't pretend I am as knowledgeable about current world events as I should be.  So my opinions may not be based on enough information.  But I will attempt to give my two cents on the U.S. attacks on Libya.

Since I've only been on this planet for 20 years and I'm hesitant to believe everything I've read in my history books during high school, I will have to parallel the United States' involvement with the Libyan affairs to our Invasion of Iraq in the mid-2000's.  Regardless of the administration or party represented, questionable decisions are questionable decisions.  The United States apparently intervened not because we were threatened but for the well-being of the Libyan community.  Sounds eerily similar to our reasoning behind "liberating" Iraq.  The problem is, there seems to have been much more harm done with the war in Iraq than good.

As the war in Iraq was supposed to be quick and to the point, we still have many troops out there fighting years later.  Civilians and soldiers alike have been killed over the course of 8 long years for an unclear reason.  All this for what America has deemed to be the appropriate form of government.  Like Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein had his share of issues with the U.S. government through out his term.  Both nations also coincidentally happen to be rich with oil.  Now I know that oil prices are important and none of us want to pay $5.00 for a gallon of gas but is there not a better way of going about your agenda that doesn't involve risking the lives of human beings?  If the U.S. is so concerned with other nation's problems, how come we have sat back and watched plenty of other genocides and "injustices" though out the world?  Because we have nothing to gain?  We need to view things from a more humanitarian perspective in the future and use force as a last resort.  As cliche as it may be, it is probably in everyone's best interest for us to mind our own business.

"Those that ignore the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them."

If we do not take our past failures seriously as lessons, we will never be able to move on and improve as a nation and as humans.  We can't be stubborn.

Maybe I'm completely off base though and not well-informed.  Or maybe I'm right.  Not sure.

Ok bye.

Economics & Environment

I feel that a lot of where we are at now economically can be attributed to increased awareness of environmental issues in recent times.  Many companies and government agencies have used "Going Green" as marketing campaigns as well as policy.  This directly affects the ways companies operate business decisions as well as the way consumers spend their money.  On the other side of the coin, many companies show complete disregard for the environment in order to cut costs and see the highest bottom line.  Economies may benefit in the short run by these decisions as GDP increases for that year but in the long term consequences are dire when we have run out of resources and end up being very inefficient.

Issues such as global warming, pollution, land destruction, among other detriment to the environment have all occurred because of economic pressures and for the "convenience" of people.  Billions of tax dollars are being spent on wars fought over natural resources such as oil.  Natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina destroy local economies, putting many residents out of work as well as owners out of business.  This disrupts all types of flow within small economies, which later affects bigger economies.

We exist within our environment, which means everything is affected by it.  Environment can place economic constraints on nations and it can allow nations to flourish when they take advantage of it.  The influence is definitely larger than it may seem on the surface.

Ok bye.

What Is Race? by Victor M. Fernandez

Fernandez does a superb job using various types of appeals in his essay about race.  His main claim is that people often fail to realize that the term "race" has no real use outside of classifying some predominant physical features in groups of people.  The author uses ethos, appealing to character by validating himself as a nurse, who people generally perceive to be as good and wishing to help people.  He talks about his experiences in the emergency room where he encounters the term "race" regularly.

He is also effective using logos, with solid scientific evidence that concludes there are no real biological differences between the so-called "races" as well as the censuses of other nations like Canada and Jamaica.

Furthermore, those features considered significant for the survival of the species, such as the genetic capacity for intellectual development, have not been found, nor known to occur, more frequently in one population than in any other.

He then ties the scientific facts to the pathos or emotional portion of the argument alluding to feelings of superiority and inferiority pushed on "races".  Fernandez concedes that there are cultural differences between groups but these might be better classified as ethnicities.  All in all, the arguer does an excellent job calling awareness to the potentially harmful and oppressive consequences that come along with thinking in terms of race.

Ok bye.

Arizona gov. vetoes presidential 'birther' bill

The article I found was from the Seattle Post Intelligencer website.

PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday vetoed a bill that would have required President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship before their names could appear on the state's ballot.

The bill would have made Arizona the first state to pass such a requirement. Opponents had warned the bill would give another black eye to Arizona after last year's controversy over the state's illegal immigration enforcement law.

Brewer said in her veto letter that she was troubled that the bill empowered Arizona's secretary of state to judge the qualifications of all candidates when they file to run for office.

"I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions," said Brewer, who was secretary of state until she became governor in 2009.

"In addition, I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on Earth to submit their 'early baptismal circumcision certificates' among other records to the Arizona secretary of state," she said. "This is a bridge too far."

The certificates were among the documents a candidate could have submitted under the bill in place of a birth certificate.

So-called "birthers" claim there's no proof Obama was born in the United States, and he is therefore ineligible to be president. But Hawaii officials have certified Obama was born in that state.

The U.S. Constitution requires that presidential candidates be "natural-born" U.S. citizens, be at least 35 years old, and be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. Opponents questioned whether Arizona's bill would have added additional requirements.

The measure would have required that political parties and presidential candidates hand in affidavits stating a candidate's citizenship and age. It also would have required the candidate's birth certificate and a sworn statement saying where the candidate has lived for 14 years.

If candidates didn't have a copy of their birth certificates, they could meet the requirement by providing baptismal or circumcision certificates, hospital birth records and other documents.

If it couldn't be determined whether candidates who provided documents in place of their birth certificates were eligible to appear on the ballot, the secretary of state would have been able to set up a committee to help determine whether the requirements were met. The names of candidates could be kept off the ballot if the secretary of state didn't believe the candidates met the citizenship requirement.

The bill didn't explicitly provide an appeals process for a candidate whose name was kept off the ballot.

The bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Carl Seel of Phoenix, said he was disappointed by the veto. It would have been reasonable to have the secretary of state — the state's top election officer — decide whether a candidate had adequately documented his or her qualifications, he said.

Because the bill would have required candidates for all offices to submit documentation of their qualifications, he said, "it would have been excellent reform."

Seel had said previously the measure wasn't intended as a swipe against the president and would have helped maintain the integrity of elections.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Arizona-gov-vetoes-presidential-birther-bill-1342512.php#ixzz1K8grZUKC

 In real life I agree with the governor for vetoing the bill.  But I will argue against the veto for the sake of the assignment.


It is extremely important that the highest position in our government is filled by someone qualified in every aspect.  Our great nation has put rules into place that have allowed us to flourish and become the most powerful country in the world within only a few hundred years.  In order to protect us from any type of threats we must implement strict policies that ensure the potential candidate was born in the United States.  This is not singling one person out.  It is solely verifying that everyone is playing by the rules.  The law says that you must be 35 years old to be the president.  Let's say we become lenient with verification of age since we don't hold the birth documents to a high standard.  Do you feel that a 26 year old would be mature enough to handle the job?  Probably not.  There are reasons that rules are in place.  It is in the best interest of all Americans.

Not only should this bill be passed in Arizona but it should also be enabled in all states.  With more secretaries of states having to verify information, it allows little margin for error, which boosts authenticity.  Any discrepancies found will alert other states of potential concerns.  The only issue with this bill is lack of appeals process.  In order to maintain fairness for all parties an appeal opportunity should be added to the bill.  With that adjustment to the bill, there is no reason it should not be put in place.  The man or woman who leads our beautiful nation must have thorough background checks done that support the candidates' qualifications.  This is completely necessary.

Ok bye.

A Man's Feminism by Raja Jonhson-Howe (pp 610-611)

The writer brings forth a different perspective on the feminist movement from a male's point of view.  While he applauds and supports the accomplishments and progress made by the movement that has positioned women on a playing field far more equal than in the past, he argues the gender expectations on males remain unfair.  He feels the feminist movement needs to address the inequalities, which place specific roles on males from a young age that discourage feminine traits such as "cooperation, empathy, and desire for strong emotional connection".

The feminist movement has made great strides for rights but the effort needs to expand in scope to address expectations that can't be mandated....... ......We need to nurture all that makes us human, the feminine and masculine

 I understand the writer's view but not completely.  I think the author makes the assumption that all readers are familiar with the details of the feminist movement while someone such as myself is only knowledgeable about legal rights gained by women as well as independence as individuals.  It's pretty factual that women didn't have the right to vote and were rarely employed up until recent history.  It seems the writer's argument is solely based on social roles as opposed to actual inequalities.  There are no laws that say a man can't be empathetic nor that it is a solid feminine trait.  I feel the author does a poor job of distinguishing what is socially acceptable from a real plight like humans being denied the right to vote.

I agree that a range of qualities should be encouraged for males so we can "experience a broader range of human possibility".  I'm just not sure how these qualities exactly coincide with feminism and the feminist movement.  Outside of social construction, males have testosterone and females have estrogen.  Everyone is entitled to individuality but at the same time there are certain characteristics that should be emphasized that draws the line between man and woman in terms of identity.  I just don't think Johnson-Howe even slightly addressed my counter argument.  Although the passage lacks evidence and statistics the writer does make great use of appeals to emotion and value.  Overall, I am interested to hear more perspectives on the subject.

Ok bye.

Whose World Is This???

I have no idea what my world view is..... Alright, maybe I do.  In my limited time on this planet I've spent the majority of it on this corner of the nation and the entirety of it fortunate enough to be a United States citizen.  Having never left the nation, my views can really only be based on my personal experiences and what I've been shown and read through media outlets.  I guess my world view can partially be attributed to my parents and upbringing as well as the community I grew up in although my outlook on a lot of things are completely different.  I was narrow minded, dumb, and a "zombie" maybe until about the ripe age of 16.  Up until that point, the only thing that mattered to be was how much money I could make in a dice game and how many points Kobe Bryant scored.  Don't get me wrong, those things are still important to me but I have come a long way and recognize there is so much more out there and the world doesn't revolve around me.

Sometimes I just sit back and am amazed at the wide array of circumstances one can be born into on this vast planet populated by billions of people.  What us Americans consider poverty may be considered luxury on other parts of the planet.  We may work hard but we also take a lot for granted when it can all be taken away at any given minute.  I feel that a lot of our views are socially constructed such as the idea that we are supposed to work a 9-5, buy a house, have a family, etc.. We value paper currency.  We often don't pay attention to our use of natural resources and feel a sense of entitlement, not understanding that what Earth provides us is limited.  We start wars and kill people to further ourselves and exercise positions of power.  It's the way of the world.  Not to view everything as negative but in order to improve you have to be critical.  There are many beautiful aspects of the world as well, natural landscape to begin with.

I don't know the purpose of our existence or what we're here for but I do believe we need to continue to work together as a whole to live in harmony around the globe.  We need to try to understand each other and embrace diversity instead of trying to force beliefs on others, telling them how to live.  We need to take care of our resources rather than exploit them.  Help our local and international community out when in need.

As cliche as it may be, movies like Scarface (I understand it's fictional) have shown me that everyone has their own path in life.  I'm an avid Texas Hold 'Em poker player so I understand that it's not the hand you are dealt but how you play the cards.  I control my destiny.  The World Is Mine.  I seek knowledge, truth, and wisdom in this world while just living life.  I'm sure as my brain grows more my view of the world will change along with the many experiences and people I encounter.  In my humble opinion, Michael Jackson's music embodies what a perfect world would be.  All love and caring.  Fortunately, we all have our own prerogative  and make our own decisions daily, which leads to a world full of people with diverse values and personalities.  Sorry, this is long.

Ok bye.