Obama: Baby-Killer in Disguise

After President Obama's speech at the University of Notre Dame, I was shocked at the amount of attention the event received. Obama stated he would not delve too deep into the issue of abortion; up until now, he's avoided strong confrontation on the subject. But amidst anti-abortion protesters at the 2009 University of Notre Dame commencement ceremony and the gruesome signs they held displaying pictures of aborted fetuses, Obama decided to ad lib, hoping to bring together two extremely polarized groups.

"Maybe we won't agree on abortion," the President addressed the crowd of graduates, faculty, and family members, “but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually."

"So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions. Let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. Let’s make adoption more available. Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term.”

While the church does take a clear stance against abortion, the university said President Obama is in line with many of the Catholic church's principles. The President is working hard to open dialogue with foreign nations, he's working on a timeline to bring troops home, and is also working to end nuclear proliferation. The university stated that despite his stance on abortion, he's also working to end unwanted pregnancies, which should be the larger goal no matter which side of the debate you're on.

The Roman Catholic university faced heat for the decision to give President Obama an honorary degree, a president whose pro-choice and pro-stem cell stance goes against Catholic teachings. Protesters began heckling the President when brought on stage, shouting things like "baby killer" and "abortion is murder." The crowd then responded by shouting the President's campaign slogan "Yes, we can," and the university's chant "We are N.D."

Though the university received criticism from many pro-life enthusiasts and religious pundits about the President's honorary degree, a CNN poll showed that 60 percent of Catholic voters believe the degree should not be rescinded. Over voters as a whole, 56 percent were against the school rescinding the President's invitation.

As a (somewhat) devout Catholic, I have to admit that the opposition facing President Obama over the abortion issue is absurd. Many of the Catholic teachings are out-of-date and out-of-sync with the technological advancements that have taken place in the last century. Enacting pro-life legislation that's in line with the Catholic church puts the lives of women and their unborn fetuses at risk, potentially raising the number of dangerous back-alley abortions. Although Obama is pro-choice, he believes abortion should be the last option for a woman. He also understands that there are exceptional cases that may call for abortion.

In any case, as Amy Poehler stated on Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update, "honorary degrees carry all the gravitas of a number one dad coffee mug." So what's the big deal? There should be greater dissent at the fact that Arizona State University didn't award President Obama with an honorary degree because he has "not done enough." Really?!?! I mean, come on!



At Notre Dame, Obama Calls for Civil Tone in Abortion Debate
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/us/politics/18obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=At%20Notre%20Dame,%20Obama%20Calls%20for%20Civil%20Tone%20in%20Abortion%20Debate&st=cse&scp=1

Obama Faces Notre Dame Speech Backlash
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/15/obama.notre.dame/

Polls show majority back Notre Dame's Obama invite
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/14/poll-shows-majority-back-notre-dames-obama-invite/

SNL's Really!?! with Seth and Amy
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/snls-really-no-honorary-degree-president-obama

Media Fail: Scare Tactics and Swine Flu

As much as I'd love to write a serious blog about politics, the Mayday marches and immigrant rights, or the military's torture tactics (sorry!), I have to take this week off to rant about media sensationalism and the current near-pandemic affecting us all. That's right, together now, say it with me: swine flu!

I first heard of this contagious, dangerous, terrifying outbreak from my mother. (Apparently she's a much better at this than I am...) She cautioned me of how quickly the disease was spreading and told me not to go out unless absolutely necessary. I laughed it off, but was soon swarmed by USC emails, news headlines, and video clips telling me just what my mother had told me hours earlier: Run for the hills! Swine flu is near!

Not to make light of the situation, it is a serious matter that has (allegedly, since nothing is proven yet) killed over 80 people and affected over 1,000, a relatively small number considering the 6 billion people that currently inhabit the world. It's not a pandemic, but fear of it's spread has caused the word 'pandemic' to spread like wild fire. What should be a pandemic? Maybe HIV/AIDS, currently afflicting 33 million people? Or maybe the regular flu, which kills thousands per year but receives less media coverage? Or maybe even diabetes, which kills one in every ten people in the UK, a number that may rise to one in every eight by the year 2010?

If there is one thing the media is good at, it's scaring people. Today on the CNN homepage, there were a total of seven headlines pertaining to the deadly "swine flu" virus, days after the number of infected people has begun to dwindle. Many of my friends began to feel light-headed and reported flu-like symptoms after seeings news reports depicting people all over the world wearing face masks. Common use of the words "epidemic," "pandemic," and "fear" are indeed scaring people more than necessary, and while it is the media's duty to report and warn the public of potential harm, it is also their job to not over-sensationalize serious and otherwise un-sensational news.

One of the headlines on CNN.com was a story about men and women who survived the flu pandemic of 1918. Roy Braswell, currently 100 years old, responded saying "I know it's bad, 'cause I had it."

Was interviewing someone who has been alive 100 years and who I'm sure has bigger concerns than the short-lived swine flu pandemic really necessary? Most people haven't in fact had it, but the media has made sure that even we, the ignorant majority, know how bad it is.

This also started a global cultural battle as people in Israel began calling the swine flu "Mexico flu," since their religion prohibits the consumption of pork and pork products. Called the swine flu because of similarities to a previous flu outbreak caused by pigs, this outbreak has not been found in any pigs in Mexico or anywhere else. However, finger pointing continues to plague countries everywhere, and conspiracies of bio-terrorism have even begun to be the subject of many news articles.

While I understand the possible severity of this outbreak, I continue to believe the media is on a desperate mission for ratings. There are more pressing illnesses than the swine flu, illnesses that deserve more media attention and publicity. The swine flu indeed affected less than 10% of those in contact with already infected patients, including family and friends. It's spread was hyped. It is not a pandemic. It is not a bio-weapon. If you are reading this, chances are you are not infected with the swine flu. But because I feel the urge to end this blog dramatically, I will quote Margaret Duchez, a 94-year-old survivor of the 1918 flu pandemic in her interview with CNN.

"My life is in the hands of God. Why should I be afraid?"



1918 flu survivors share memories as research continues
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/04/flu.antibodies/index.html

World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/en/index.html

Swine flu and the dramatization of disease
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6615/

Diabetes UK
http://www.diabetes.org.uk/

Guns: The Not-So-Shocking Truth

Check out this Myspace user's profile: "GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE DANGEROUS MINORITIES DO." With a glittery picture of the American flag and a glittery 18-wheeler shining on his web page, this 22-year-old who combines thirty-eight sentences into one long rambling curse, represents the heart of gun-toting America. Proudly quoting Charlton Heston, he loves to play video games, drive his blazer, and let out his anger with a "semi auto assault." This sweet man wants to meet a nice woman with "good goals," or "any stupid ass muther fucker that thinks he better than everyone so [he] can punch him in the mouth." He also thinks "reading sucks ass."
...And he liked Snakes on a Plane.

Though many gun enthusiasts are adamant about the protection of the second amendment, many are also ignorant about the ideas they promulgate.

Now, with the election of Barack Obama, many gun enthusiasts are once again fretting about their right to bear arms. They have compared President Obama to President Clinton who, while in office, enacted the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994, placing a 10 year ban on the production of all semiautomatic firearms considered assault weapons. This had the NRA up in arms. They believed their rights were being infringed upon, that by enacting gun control laws, a domino effect would take place, and soon the second amendment would be totally ignored.

This controversy caught my attention after reading an article entitled "Boy finds forgotten gun, accidentally shoots self in head." The article needs little explaining.

Accidental discharges are the topics of numerous articles everyday, including children who find guns and accidentally discharge, men who imitate shootings and then accidentally discharge, and even criminals who carry guns without the intention of using them, and then do.

Members of the NRA often dispute facts about guns and call them myths, but common knowledge should dictate that the greater the number of guns made available to the average citizen, the greater the number of shootings and deaths.

In the ten years following Clinton's ban, gun crimes involving assault weapons declined 17-72% across major cities. Though the number varies in range, it remains a dramatic decline nonetheless. The statistics are similar involving smaller hand-held firearms.

According to a study by the UC Davis School of Medicine, young adults (ages 21-25) with no previous criminal record who purchased small, inexpensive hand guns were 90% more likely to be charged with an offense involving violence or a weapon in the three years following their purchase than those who didn't.

These gun control laws do not take away second amendment rights, but grant those who may be affected by the lack of these laws the right to life.

Obama also respects the right to bear arms, but favors "common sense" gun laws and supports the ban on semiautomatic weapons, the same type of ban that helped drop the number of crimes committed with the use of assault weapons during the Clinton administration.

Conservatives often label gun control laws as leftist, liberal propaganda. I respond to this by quoting Dan Hoffman, a blogger for The Buffalo News, who compares gun control laws to Jim Crow laws, and states "Gun control is a policy Neville Chamberlain, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin all believed in."

If this is the case, leftist propaganda, here I come.










Boy finds forgotten gun, accidentally shoots self in head
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/21/forgotten.gun/index.html

National Rifle Association
http://www.nra.org/home.aspx

Obama's gun stance spurs run on ammo
http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/yd/local/ci_12190627

Dan Hoffman
http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/everybodyscolumn/story/646188.html

Study by UC Davis School of Medicine
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/news/medicalnews/guns.html

Assessment of Assault Weapons Ban
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_exec2004.pdf

Debunking Common Social Myths

There's a lot to talk about out in the world, but I thought I'd take this week to debunk some common myths that we all surely face, in one form or another. So bare with me as we travel through some of my favorite myths and uncover the truth that they work so hard to obscure.

Barack Obama is God.

Barack Obama is, in fact, NOT God. It took much investigating and fact-checking and further investigating and confirming, but this is what the facts turned up: Barack Obama is from Hawaii. His mom is from Kansas, his dad from Kenya. He served three terms in the Illinois Senate, and is now the 44th President of the United States.

After President Bush left office, America suffered from post traumatic stress disorder. A failing economy, war, and Bushisms preyed on our mindset and kept us from sleeping at night. Then President Obama, his winning smile and eloquent speech, his promises for a brighter future and his message of change won us over. He lit up every stage he spoke on and after a few speeches, the American people began to see light shining from a mysterious place somewhere behind him. Unfortunately, these were just stage lights. Obama is not God, a messiah, or any atheistic representation of the perfect living, human life on earth.

This is not to say that Obama is not the change we have in fact been waiting for. He's what this country needed in a time of severe national turmoil and will hopefully do what he can to save us (save us, not give birth to us again in Christ's name, that is). Given the first few months of his presidency, it is clear Obama is doing everything he can to correct the ills of the past administration.

But there is also a lot of pressure put on him. He's dealing with numerous issues, almost too many to count. The war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation, stem cell research, immigrant rights, education, health care, pirates, (yes, pirates), and not to mention the economy, there is a lot on his plate. We must not expect things to sail by smoothly. Fixing these problems will take a long time, and though Obama is handling the pressure impressively, we should understand that he is only human. Never has a presidency experienced so much scrutiny, and so I say lighten up! He's working hard to solve our problems, but this water will not be turned into wine quite so easily.

Mexicans make wonderful gardeners.

This is not a myth as much as a stereotype. Sure, generally, we may make good gardeners, but we also make good engineers, good teachers, good architects, good managers, good accountants, good doctors, and good lawyers, just to name a few. Martha Stewart is not Mexican, and she's a wonderful gardener. Joe Lamp'l is not Mexican, and he is a good gardener as well. I challenge you to name a prominent mainstream gardener who is Mexican. No? This is because there aren't any.

Society rarely lets minorities rise to fame (or power, or success) because it is a threat to the "mainstream." We don't want them taking our jobs after all, right? And Martha Stewart isn't willing to work in my backyard, is she? At least not for what I'm willing to pay... And so it is this thought process that limits us to menial jobs: gardener, janitor, construction worker.

There are so many more of us out there, actual successful Latinos that are never heard of. It takes a lot of work to get out of the inner city and still, many people I know have only had contact with the cleaning ladies that clean the halls of my dorm. Associations are then made between these Mexican women (as well as the Mexican gardeners who keep the lawns looking so nice) and the entire Mexican-American population.

The problem obviously goes deeper than this however. Housing segregation and discrimination keeps us in "bad" neighborhoods. These neighborhoods have poor public educational systems, which keep us from getting a good education. Because the people in these neighborhoods don't get the proper education, they never advance. Because these people never advance, the communities continue to receive little funding. This little funding keeps our educational system in terrible condition, keeping this never-ending cycle going.

So although we may make good gardeners, the picture, I'm afraid, is a little larger than that.

Being thin is hot.

In my personal opinion, that's just a total myth.

But looking at our history, being skinny (or "thin," which seems to carry a completely different connotation) has always been a bad thing.

Before the turn of the 19th century, bigger women were seen as healthy and fertile, which was a more than desirable trait. It was in fact necessary to keep the population alive and to combat the sicknesses that were prevalent during the time. Soon, however, women began wearing corsets, and becoming frail and sickly. The reason behind this? Political. The new skinny ideal became the norm in order to support and justify slavery in the 1800's. Skinny women were easier to control.

Why this turned into the "it" thing is beyond me. Models gracing the covers of fashion magazines and ruling the runways today are not only thin, but often anorexic.

In different cultures, such as the African-American or Latino cultures, being skinny is not ideal. Thick bodies are a sign of strength, confidence, and beauty. I am not suggesting obesity is the way to go. A size 8 model, far from obese mind you, is considered plus-size, and in the beauty industry this is not a good thing.

It is time to dispel this myth and learn that skinny is out.

Flip-flops can be worn anytime, even in the winter./Uggs can be worn anytime, even in the summer.

Well, now I'm just being picky...

"Don't call him gay, or you might turn him."

A phrase often heralded by my family, it assumes that homosexuality can be turned on and off by the mere mention of the word "gay." Call someone gay long enough and they just might become gay.

Not too long ago, this was a hot button issue with the discovery of the "gay gene." The "gay gene," however, doesn't exist. A researcher testified in court that he was "99.5% certain that homosexuality [was] genetic," which was widely misunderstood as homosexuality itself being 99.5% genetic. The media went wild, declaring homosexuality genetic, and thus created the "gay gene." None of this was backed up by any scientific research.

And so, this led to the idea that homosexuality could be prevented; just as one can map out the odds of a child having a genetic disease, one could map out the probability of their son or daughter being gay.

I don't mean to argue the causes of homosexuality, if indeed there even are any. What I know for certain is that there is no gay switch. Someone cannot choose their sexual preference. They cannot turn it on and off like a light in a dark room. One cannot help being gay as much as one cannot help being straight. Loving and cruel parents alike cannot prevent it. Gay parents often raise straight children, and vice versa.

Whatever causes (or does not cause) homosexuality, calling someone gay certainly makes no difference.


These widely accepted myths are anything but true. Common sense is often the only thing needed to tell a myth apart from the truth, although I know that is sometimes hard to come by. Hopefully this short list has enlightened all of your minds. Spread the word.



Obama vows to fight Piracy
Seriously.

A history of Gardening

The Psychology of the Ideal Body Image

Ideal Weight Varies Across Cultures

The Gay Gene?

The War on Terror: Out With the Old, In With the New

It's no secret that the people love President Obama. He's younger and more in touch with the everyday American.
That, and he doesn't strike fear in all of our hearts.

Not like Bush did.

"Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," and "We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge," or how about, "We have every reason to assume the worst." Scare tactics? No, just daily Bush speak, ways to gather support for the war and turn against all the world's "evildoers."

In the face of the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression, it's understandable that we place war on the back burner of America's stove of social dilemmas. However, we mustn't forget that there is still a war going on. President Obama hasn't forgotten, and this once "War on Terror" has now become a mission to help those in war-torn areas restore their power and become independent once again.

Not to discredit Obama's strength in dealing with the tough war we now face. He only used the term "war on terror" once, and that was during his campaign for the presidency, but he remains undeterred in his vision for peace in the middle east.

He vowed to make Afghanistan the central front in the fight against terrorism. The uncompromising Taliban core must be met with force, he stated, and "they must be defeated."

So far in his presidency, however, Obama has maintained a positive outlook, more so than President Bush ever did. His tone remains hopeful, and aside from defeating all terrorists, Obama hopes to start the reconciliation process and isolate terror oppression until it is no more.

He believes the first step is making sure that Americans understand that Pakistan needs our help against al Qaeda. "Al Qaeda and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within," he stated. To beat them, we must focus on capturing them, but not neglect the fact that the rest of the Pakistani people are in need of acknowledgment.

Obama pointed out, "Our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don't invest in their future," something the Bush administration did little in ensuring. In the newest piece of legislation, President Obama provided for foreign aid programs and funding for a strong inspector general that will put an end to wasteful reconstruction. The legislation will also provide "$1.5 billion in indirect support to the Pakistani people every year for the next five years-resources that will build schools, roads, and hospitals and strengthen Pakistan's democracy."

Sure, this investment will yield great results for the Pakistani people in the future, but $1.5 billion? Sounds like a bit much, especially during our economic downturn. Then again...

Before leaving office, President Bush passed a war spending bill. His $162 billion war spending bill didn't go to building schools or hospitals, but guaranteed ongoing fighting in Pakistan and Iraq, and funded troop support for years after his leaving office.

Thanks Bush.

Though a hefty sum, Obama's legislation actually saves us money. It also calls for training an "Afghan army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000, so that the U.S. can turn over security responsibility to the Afghans," and save us money on troop training at home.

To get Pakistan through economic crisis, Obama stated that the U.S. must work with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, among others, to get the ball rolling.

But fixing these nations' problems won't be that easy. The president has also sought a pact with the Afghan government to crackdown on corrupt behavior and oppression in order to truly help the Afghan people.

So yes, the people love Obama. He has begun dealing not only with the economic crisis, the collapse of the auto industry, the ban on scientific and medical advancement, but has also taken major strides in dealing with the war that has been virtually undealt with for the past 7 1/2 years.

With so many issues and problems to deal with, I'm glad President Obama has been using all of his front burners.



Obama: Anti-terror plans focus on Pakistan, Afghanistan
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/27/us.afghanistan.troops/index.html

Press Conference Video
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/27/us.afghanistan.troops/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

Bush signs $162B war spending bill for Iraq, Afghanistan
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/06/30/us-warfunding.html

Medical Mysteries: Why No Universal Health Coverage?

Although I have high hopes for the Obama administration and the action they're taking on improving the health care system, I must admit I do miss Hillary Clinton's unwaivering commitment to achieving universal health care in America.

I recently came across www.bluecrosssucks.com, a website dedicated to the outing of Blue Cross of California and the numerous patient horror stories they keep so well hidden under their belts. It's difficult to believe that stories such as the ones posted on the website are actually true, but they occur daily all across the country due to the lack of adequate health coverage for every American.

One story featured a sixteen-year-old who had to be airlifted to a trauma center after a motorcycle crash. Though insured, he was not covered because he went to "an out of network hospital."

Another man went to a hospital room after feeling horrible abdominal pain, nausea, constipation, and after noticing dark blood present in his stools after a visit to the bathroom. Doctors decided to perform an endoscopy, but after checking the patient's HMO, decided instead to send him home. Turns out the patient's HMO would not cover an endoscopy because his blood pressure and hemoglobin were fine. Phew! Close one there, HMO! This patient was in need of medical attention, but was just too much of a financial liability.

The government directly covers 27.8% of the population, still leaving 46 million Americans uninsured. Many private insurance corporations deny coverage for those who may need expensive care such as those with chronic diseases like diabetes, lupus, or arthritis. On the other hand, health care premiums are driving employers into the ground since the cost of health care is so heavy, causing hesitation on their part to provide workers with health insurance.

So where is one to turn if they want to be covered in case of an emergency? Sure, private insurance companies may turn down diabetics and lupus patients, and the occasional arthritic elderly person, but what becomes of everyone else? Surely they must be covered?

A young couple, Jennifer and Greg of Pasadena, are perfectly healthy and both have private health insurance. Their infant daughter, however, was denied coverage by Blue Shield of California because she had a "minor hip joint misalignment," which the doctor said was "nothing serious and probably temporary."

Another man using a private health insurance provider would not be treated for a fractured bone after he, a single male seemingly incapable of immaculate conception, neglected to pay the co-payment for the birth of his miracle child and the increased coverage rates for his new edition. The company that covered him invented a child, and because he did not pay for his imaginary bundle of joy, he would not be treated.

A woman in California would not be covered by a private insurance company because she had undergone infertility treatments, which the company considered a 'preexisting condition.'

These stories are ridiculous, but serve as proof of the need for insurer's to turn a profit over the need of sick individuals to receive treatment. So what can we do?

Chief executive of Blue Shield of California Bruce Bodaken said that universal coverage was the answer.

The United States is the only industrialized country without a universal health care plan. Scotland, France, England, China, India, Israel, and Australia among others, all provide their citizens with universal coverage so that everyone is treated, regardless of socioeconomic class or of any preexisting conditions that they may have.

And yet many continue to claim that universal coverage is a utopian ideal that would not work in America.

It remains a hot button issue since conservatives do not want the burden of paying for the health care of others and want the freedom to choose to opt out of the national health care system. OK, but let's look at another country for a second...

France, which rates number 1 in health care spends about 9.8% of their GDP on health care. America, which rates 37th in health care, now spends about 13.7% of their GDP on health care.

Does it still make sense to not want to spend money on the health care of others? Costs are manageable when everyone is covered because the young and healthy balance those that are older and sicker. Private individualized health care creates greater hidden costs that most tax payers are unaware of since they end up paying for the millions of uninsured Americans that still require health care.

President Bush stated that all Americans have access to health care, all they have to do is show up at an emergency room. While it is true that emergency rooms cannot deny any patient care, most would-be patients hesitate to show up because of the bill that they will receive after being treated. And the point of health care is not to show up when you're already sick and dying, but to prevent that from ever actually happening.

So what's wrong with universal coverage? Nothing. It is neither utopian nor impossible to achieve. The transition from our current health care system to that of a universal one may be difficult, but the sooner it happens, the more lives will eventually be saved.

My current coverage ends in about two more years and I'm quite accident-prone, so let's get universal coverage started already. I'd hate to be denied health care because I refuse to pay for my imaginary child's coverage. Who happened to be born with a unicorn-like horn. And a misaligned hip socket.





An Eroding Model For Health Insurance
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure21-2008oct21,0,6869686.story?page=1

Moore's 'Sicko' Lands Blows on US Health Care
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11285514

Blue Cross Sucks
http://bluecrosssucks.com/consumer.htm

Health Care Horror Stories
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/opinion/11krugman.html

Technology: A Robotic Angel Sent From the Heavenly Skies, or Robotic Demon Spawn Sent From the Fiery Pits of Hell?

There is nothing more demeaning than having a conversation with someone who replaces entire words with single letters.

"o i c." "brb." "lol. ttyl."

What? What just happened?!?!

This is internet lingo, and it has replaced proper grammar all across the country and across generational lines, another victim of the technological boom of recent years. But whats it matter anyways? Technology is the greatest thing that has happened and has truly made our civilization prosper. Clearly, it is difficult to say that we'd be where we are without technology's help. While I know technology is not demon spawn sent from the pits of hell, I wonder, how much technology is too much? Is there such a thing? Will we ever reach a point in life where we are able to say of technology, 'Enough is enough'?

There have been revolutionary advances in technology in nearly every field imaginable, from science and health, to entertainment and music. Diseases have been cured and men have been sent to the moon. The show "Friends" has shown me the evil that can stem from making a pros and cons list, (ha! technological pop culture cameo! yes!) but let's give it a try:

Health - Stem cell research is offering new hope for people with diabetes, cancer, leukemia, and a number of other debilitating diseases. I most certainly have benefited from the advances in the medical field, but so have the majority of other people since the invention of vaccinations, anesthesia, drugs, and transplants. Hospitals are equipped with top-notch machines capable of looking through our bodies and finding whats wrong with us. Even wheelchairs and artificial limbs have made the lives of suffering people much better. In terms of the greatest benefits technology has afforded us, medical science has definitely proved a major pro.

Entertainment - Facebook, and Ipods, and Wii's, oh my! This is a touchy topic, since many pros in the entertainment industry can be doubly viewed as cons, but I'll stick with what I know. Ipods have had a major impact on the music industry as well as on the average person's life. It seems impossible to walk anywhere lately without bumping into someone not wearing earphones connected to an Ipod. Flatscreen HD tv's with humongous screens are now up in most people's homes (and who can deny a night watching Lost on the big screen?) and even video Ipods make it possible to carry television screens everywhere you go. Cell phones now have the capacity to make calls, take video and pictures, and surf the net, with the exclusion of the IPhone, which can actually do every single thing imaginable. This is a pro since it has greatly enhanced our connectivity and things like videophones, have caught crimes being committed on video, among other positives.

News - As a journalist, I have to pay proper respects to the ability technology has provided us in communicating the news. In the past, this was done orally, through speech and song, and after the invention of the printing press, in small dailies and pamphlets. Now, the news is communicated globally in a matter of seconds. Television, both network and cable news stations, has breaking news segments where news is broadcasted live, or summed up early in the morning and late at night. Internet sites seem to have a constant feed of news, updating stories after a few hours, or within seconds of new developments. The speed and accuracy with which news is shared now is amazing, and no doubt a pro.

To be clear, there are extremists on both sides of the issue. There are the Henry David Thoreau's that say "Technology is evil! Let's all live at Walden Pond!" and the humans/robots that say "Technology has never been the root cause of any ill or harm. This message will now self-destruct." I am on neither side of the argument, but caught somewhere in the middle, where I hope most people are caught. Though technology has enabled some incredible feats, it has not always been rainbows and daisies.

War, Death, and Destruction - The deaths caused by the "Little Boy" in Hiroshima and the "Fat Man" in Nagasaki totaled nearly 180,000. The prevalence of fire arms in our society has driven homicide and crime rates, as well as gang activity, through the roof. Nuclear proliferation remains a threat. Tanks, grenades, rifles, and other war machines kill daily. People are often caught up in other things and don't realize that through technology, we are are mastering the art of murder and destruction.

Dumb and Dumber - The rise in the use of technology is taking away young people's ability to write a coherent sentence. When instant messaging my friends, I'm shocked at their horrible grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Technology is making everything faster, but somethings are worth a few extra seconds of time, such as writing out the word "you" as opposed to "u." This is translating over to academic papers, as well. Emails to professors should not include acronyms in replace of every other word, but I have seen it done. I've corrected papers full of grammatical mistakes, but not understandable typos as much as blatant misuse of internet lingo in place of a more scholarly approach. As a writer, I must say, what an unfortunate con.

Interpersonal Communication - No longer exists. Sure, once in a while a face-to-face interview is done, but people now rely on the internet to do their communicating for them. It has been a while since I have mailed a hand-written letter through the standard mail, but I know people who have never done that much. What a shock! Instead, there are short phone conversations, text messages, instant messages, emails, voicemails, and evites. People screen their calls, delete emails after reading them, and spend less than a minute sending a text message in order to talk to one another. The feeling of knowing someone took time out of their day to write a personal letter, thank you note, or invitation on paper with a pen or pencil in their own writing is nearly extinct. The feelings conveyed through this form of communication do not exist online, and smileys are a joke. Con.

Aside from these cons, there is a newly developed impatience in younger generations that certainly didn't exist decades ago. We want everything a.s.a.p., and sacrifice more than we know to get them done. On the other hand, there are also more positives, like the benefit of technology in increasing our lifespans and unearthing parts of our past (such as fossils and artifacts from past civilizations). Others argue that the use of technology is, in a way, cheating human evolution, since we are not allowing the human race to naturally evolve. Again, there is the argument that the development of technology is our form of evolution, and that we are evolving more than ever before, in part through the discoveries and enhanced skills acquired in using technology. Then there's the argument presented by many about invasion of privacy through the advancement of technology, the regression of the human state if technological advancements were to end, and the hypocrisy of being for the advancement of one type of technology and not another.

There are many arguments out there, and not enough time to post them all, but I hope this has ignited a sense of the issue confronting us. I think technology has definitely gotten out of hand; however, I'm scared of the repercussions our society would face if technological advancements were to vanish. So robot angel or robot demon spawn? Not quite one and not quite the other. But when the nation's Blackberries grow human emotions, all while maintaining their technological capacities, I sure hope I haven't jinxed us all.



The Top 50 Inventions of the Past 50 Years

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/upgrade/2078467.html?page=1

What technological advances can you expect to see in 2025?

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/01/14/tech.2025.idg/