Too Reliant on Technology?

By: Jenna D.

When I realized it was my turn to post something on our class blog, I struggled at first to come up with a topic to write about. I didn’t want to write about politics, but I didn’t have many other high-quality ideas. For help I decided to turn to my friend, Google. That’s when it hit me. Humans today are becoming too dependent on technology and the Internet.

            While there are some points that argue against this idea, it is obvious that children and teenagers today are growing up in a technology-dependent era. Just thinking on a personal level, it’s difficult to remember the last time I went a whole day without using my phone, iPod, computer or television.

 The link to this video below gives a small insight of just how much technology has changed and increased in the past few years.  

“Research from the American Heart Association shows teens spend an average of 20 hours a week in front of a computer or TV” (Chicago Tribune News). With Wi-Fi connections and easy Internet access, accesses to these resources are only becoming easier. Although the increase in Internet usage may not be a huge deal, it does show that the values of teenagers these days are rapidly changing. Yes, a Facebook status or a Twitter update may be important, but nothing can replace the personal connections and opportunities made with family and friends that are lost due to all the time spent online.  

            Increases in technology use effect children and teens not only mentally, but physically as well.According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, childhood obesity has more than tripled in the past thirty years (CDC). Children come home after school and race towards the television to continue a video game, or catch up on the latest trending T.V show instead of heading outside to play with friends. These poor habits only increase the already troubling obesity rate-which the government has recently realized as well.  

            Is government interaction really a solution to these many problems, though?  Recently, the soda ban in New York was passed, restricting local fast-food restaurants from selling large sodas. An article in Time Magazine states, that ‘”…sugared drinks make up 43% of the added sugar in the average American diet. Further a 20-oz. serving of Coke contains 240 calories, compared with 200 calories in a 16-oz. size; for people who drink a soda a day, that adds up to an extra 14,600 calories a year”. Government controlled diets may be taking the obesity problem to a whole new level though. How much should we really allow the government to control our day-to-day lives?  This new soda ban may help people more than they realize though. While some people complain, government interaction may be exactly what is needed in this day and age. Thanks to the government, we have safety laws and guidelines keeping us safe, like the speed limits. The soda ban may just be another attempt in helping keep America’s public safe and healthy. Maybe the government will eventually pass technology-use laws as well?

            Continuing on…

While there are technology problems, it’s not completely fair to claim that it is degrading the quality of our lives. The Internet allows us to keep in touch with friends and even make new ones. Technology in business allows companies to complete tasks at a faster pace, and technology in schools allows the possibility for new educational opportunities. With views like this, it’s hard to see what could possibly be so bad about technology. Our school has even provided us with laptops, making Internet access easier than ever. With many homework assignments on- line, and even books scanned into the school website, many days it’s hard to avoid going on the computer. Schools these days are taking advantage of the resources available.

            There are many advantages to the use of technology but there are many negatives at the same time. Are humans too dependent on technology? There are ways to complete many of the tasks we use technology for now, but in the instances when technology is necessary, it’s hard to argue that we are too dependent on something that doesn’t have an alternative.   

 Sources:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-02-05/news/0902060228_1_teens-internet-distractions

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html

Legalization of Marijuana

By: Monica H.

The legalization of marijuana is highly debated topic in America. According to whitehouse.gov, marijuana is a highly addictive and unsafe drug. They believe this because they claim that the drug changes how the brain works. But when you look into the “science” behind this statement you see that all the examples that are provided are for methamphetamines.

The website also mentions some “long term consequences” of marijuana use. One of these consequences includes addiction.  The statistics behind marijuana addiction stem from rehabilitation clinics around the country. When polled, these clinics showed that out of all the substances that their juvenile members were in rehab for, marijuana was the most often seen in addiction consoling. This would show that marijuana was highly addictive, if these facts were telling you the whole story.

When a person under the age of 17 is charged with possession of marijuana they are given two options. Those options are juvenile detention center, or rehabilitation. The choice is obvious. There is also the use of medical marijuana. If we are taught that marijuana is bad, and will make you lazy and stupid, why is medical marijuana good? According to the FDA only smoking marijuana is “ineffective and harmful”. But if it is orally administered it has medical value. Obviously smoking anything is terrible for your health. Your body cannot handle the many detrimental effects of smoke. But marijuana smoke is actually less harmful to you than cigarette smoke. It is in a more natural form that doesn’t have all the harmful chemicals that cigarettes do.

Research shows that cigarettes can directly cause cancer, such as throat, lunch, and mouth cancer. How many cases of cancer are directly related to marijuana use? Zero. The only side effects that are directly connected to marijuana use is increased happiness and hunger. So why is it illegal?

Works Cited:

"Marijuana." whitehouse.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. <www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/marijuana>.

Audience. " Drugs and the Brain | National Institute on Drug Abuse ." Home | National Institute on Drug Abuse . N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. <http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/science-addiction/drugs-brain>.

A WASTE OF MONEY OR THE PERFECT AMOUNT?

By: Alicia Bohne

The 2012 Presidential Election Financial Campaigning

           

Every four years two candidates—this year incumbent President Obama v.s. newcomer Mitt Romney— battle through debates, harsh critics, media, pressures of getting enough voters, and of course winning the election. Although these tremendous duties that are being placed on the candidates shoulders seem severe, people tend to look past the help that the candidates are receiving—specifically from ad companies. These financial supports for ads may seem like they are taking the load off the candidate’s shoulders, but essentially they are far more rooted in tribulations than most truly see.

There is no doubt that a candidate must promote the assets that they will be able to bring forth to the democracy that we live within, but the financial debt that they we as America are already in, seems far more important, than spending and receiving tons of money for ad support. Not only is this a problem financially, but the support from the PAC (political action committees) tend to stir a controversy over whether or not this so called support is a form of bribery. The article did not fail to mention where the downfalls of such support may lead to the overall financial ad situation.

Although the problem may seem to merely lie within the financial situation of ads, it also lies within in the controversial topic of honesty v.s. lies. Ads tend to promote the greatest out of each side, Republican bashing the Democrats and vise versa, but what is easily seen as a two sided feud, comes with far more lies than honesty.  If the ads are able to promote the Republicans with as much juicy and positive ideas as they can, then they will go far and beyond to make that happen. If the ads can demonstrate the strengths and holiness of the Democrats than they won’t stop until completely satisfied. A great example comes on the television ad about Tammy Baldwin because it repeatedly has her saying, “Your damn right” and continues on talking about the extreme spending that her plan holds. This in itself comes along with ad controversy.

To much money, ours and donors are being spent on campaign managing. As our guest speaker told us that when she first started to vote they only had $100 dollars to spend in the local levels. Today spending is so high and in essence is being spent more on attacking each side, rather than honestly promoting themselves.

In the article and graph in The Washington Post, they compare the amount of money spent by each candidate on NEGATIVE ads. The chart shows:

Money spent on ads supporting:

Barack Obama

Spent $317 million

85% spent on negative ads

Mitt Romney

Spent $348 million

91% spent on negative ads

Clearly by the looks of the data above, the Republicans and the Democrats are spending a fair share of money on ads. The Republicans in themselves are spending $348 million dollars and 91% of that money is spent on ads just attacking Barak Obama. The same goes for President Barack Obama in terms of financial spending on ads attacking Mitt Romney. Just by the looks of the charts above, it is easy to see that for the candidates, the debt that the United States is already in is not enough. They are foolishly spending money on campaigning and in totality they are just increasing the amount of debt. We could use this money to help pay back the debt we owe and to put the money in the hands of foundations that need it most. Of course there is not stopping financial campaigning because the candidates have to promote themselves, but to spend up to a couple million dollars, just proves the insanity of the situation.

Controversial topics are brought up concerning the media, the newspaper, and television ad that have been accumulating over the past couple months for the 2012 Presidential Election. The two candidates, former President Barak Obama and newcomer Mitt Romney, have essential bashed each other throughout the past months, not focusing on the advantages that they will bring to America. In this situation, the candidates have to focus on the problem at hand while making sure throughout the campaign they are moral. 

If the candidate’s ads sustain honesty, then there should no doubt they will become the next President of the United States of America.

Bibliography

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/track-presidential-campaign-ads-2012/

Obama and Romney Dispute Over Foreign Policy

By: Allie B. 

At the last presidential debate on Monday, both candidates were clearly on edge. Then the topic of foreign policy came up, and things proceeded to get even tenser. Both Romney and Obama went back and forth basically bashing each other’s polices and ideas to try to make themselves look better than the other. Mitt Romney started off accusing Obama of not protecting the military from budget cuts, and letting al Qaeda to become more prominent in over twelve countries. Of course, then the president responded by saying that “I know you haven’t been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong.”  In response, Romney said “Attacking me is not an agenda.” 

The attacks continued when Romney said that a reason for increased military spending is that we don’t have as ships as we have in the past, and Obama retorted "Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets.” He was implying that over the years our needs have changed and he told Romney that now, “We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.” Both men continued to be brutal to each other for the rest of the night, constantly making accusations and putting each other’s policies down.

However, even with all of these tense disputes, they actually have some of the same ideas, but they show them differently. Both Obama and Romney feel that we need to try to push the Muslim world toward moderation, and come up with a new strategy of how to fend off extremism. Even though they have the same ideas, they both find a way to argue about it. Romney accused Obama of taking an “apology” tour through the Middle East to show regret for past U.S actions. Of course Obama responded by saying “probably the biggest whopper that’s been told during the course of this campaign.”

 

On the topic of Syria, both the president and Romney stated said that they had a lot of differences between their policies. Then they both told about their policies, and they were actually very similar. Both want to help our allies such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and to try to get weapons to the right places.

Another major shared idea is there stance on Israel. Obama stated that he has and will always stand with Israel. In response Romney stated, "I want to underscore the same point the president made, which is that if I'm president of the United States, when I'm president of the United States, we will stand with Israel.” When the topic of drone warfare came up, Romney stated that "I support that entirely and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology.” It’s interesting how with all of the arguments and accusations some of the main ideas are still basically the same.  Sometimes the only difference between the candidates is how they would personally carry out the plan, not what foreign policy needs to be made or what the overall goal is.

Works Cited

• Greitens, Eric. "Obama, Romney tangle on al Qaeda, foreign policy in final presidential debate - Washington Times." Washington Times - Politics, Breaking News, US and World News. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2012. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/22/obama-romney-tangle-al-qaeda-final-presidential-de/?page=3>.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/views/os-ed-dana-milbank-102312-20121023,0,1414011.column

• "Presidential debate foreign policy similar: Few differences on foreign policy - OrlandoSentinel.com." Orlando news, information, weather, hurricane coverage, sports, entertainment, restaurants, real estate, jobs, business, classifieds - OrlandoSentinel.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2012. <http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/views/os-ed-dana-milbank-102312-20121023,0,1414011.column>.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/22/obama-romney-tangle-al-qaeda-final-presidential-de/?page=3

• "TRANSCRIPT: Presidential debate on foreign policy at Lynn University | Fox News." Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2012. <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/22/transcript-presidential-debate-on-foreign-policy-at-lynn-university/>.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/22/transcript-presidential-debate-on-foreign-policy-at-lynn-university/