Refuse or Embrace, Technoligically Stumped

The question was posed, do you agree or disagree? I return, with what exactly? More clearly now, do you agree, that we should refuse technology and the direction it’s taken society over the last few decades, and the possible future roads to come, or do you disagree, that we should embrace were we are going. In reading both of the articles, and coming to my conclusions of what the authors were trying to say, and conclusions of my own, I feel that we should actually do both to some degree. Birkerts, to me, is saying that as we have grown, technology has grown, but at a negative rate with negative effects. I felt he made the basic claim that technology was similar to an addiction, and that addiction was a disease that we, the human population, have succumbed to. We have lost ourselves in the "new age" of living, no longer able to survive in what those before us called life. With Birkerts I agree, that we have been completely consumed by our technology, whether it be cell phones, computers, cars, etc., and that we do not do anything like our ancestors did it. We have become so dependent upon these devices of the new world that should we lose technology today as we know it, only a small portion of people would be able to survive on their own given the skills they've acquired from their predecessors. Although I believe we have been consumed by technology, i don't necessarily agree that it’s completely bad. With technology we have been able to improve our world significantly in almost every area from medicine, to transportation, to education. I must agree with Kelly to some degree, that technology is a positive thing, bringing us closer together, as one. This is, I feel a good result of the stage we are in with phones and networks, being able to get in touch with someone across the globe either instantaneously through electronics, or being able to see them by taking a short trip by plane or vehicle. Birkerts idea that we no longer have preservation of privacy to oneself true that most can be reached anywhere now, even in areas that should probably not be reached at, however, the ability to be a fingertip away is not completely negative. I believe interconnectedness is a good thing, bringing all together as a whole. I don't believe the technology and its direction are what is bad and should be rejected by society. Instead, we must consider the users and "abusers" of the technology the make the light of the technology appear negative. We, as a society, should break our dependence of technology, but in that shouldn't refute it completely, embracing the positive results which come because of advancements we have made to date.

Proposal Essay: Global

1) Mandatory two years with armed services if not going to college (2yr draft)
2) Getting out of Iraq!
3) Gun Control in the United States
4) Forced administering of swine flu shots
5) Health Care reform
6) Removing the DOMA act from the laws in the U.S.
7) Raising the social security tax to cover all that someone makes, and not just the first 105k.
8) Global Warming
9) More stringent laws on illegal immigration in the U.S.
10)Reduced tuition rates for students in Universities throughout the U.S.

After

Given the Texas Bill of Rights sections 3 and 3a, the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the religious beliefs in the state of Texas, I propose that the Texas government overrule the recently added section 32 to the Texas Bill of Rights, thereby no longer abridging Texan’s rights to marry through equality of rights under the law. Once we, the state of Texas and its residents, recognize the true right for its citizens to be wed regardless of their sexual orientation, we as a people can move forward of this discriminatory action taken toward those with same-sex partners. It has been a tough ride for those which have been discriminated against over the years, and slowly but surely the rights of those oppressed have prevailed and finally been considered equal, growing even stronger over the years. Taking example civil rights for persons of color, which was a continuous battle for 13 years resulting in the death of many people, some iconic and others unknown, but all of which could have been prevented had we put aside our differences and realized one main point, that for those of religious and non-religious beliefs, we are all created equal, and regardless of our sex, race, creed, color, or lively desires, we still are equal, no one person, man or woman, better than another. To prevent a long and wasteful time attempting to oppress now the rights of those which prefer to have same-sex partners would be as foolish as it was to prevent persons of color to have their freedoms and rights.

Before

By the Texas Bill of Rights section 3 and 3a, the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the stronghold of religious belief in the state of Texas. I propose that the Texas Government overrule recently added section 32 to the Texas Bill of Rights, which in turn allows those persons of homosexuality to wed. Once we accept that citizens o Texas are only unauthorized b legal means to be considered married is due to the strong conservative religious backdrop of Texas and that it violates the rights of those Texas who desire to wed their gay partner is rather than illegal, can we move forward from the discrimination that plagues this state towards same-sex couples. Looking back at civil rights and its movement, it was a lengthy journey of 13 years resulting in unneeded deaths. The goal was to get that which should have existed from the beginning, freedom and equality for persons of color. We do not need to see yet another movement because the United States or any community therein has once again denied due rights to individuals within. The rights of gay persons are discriminated against just as those rights of colored persons, but what we must realize is that we are all people and as people we are all equal with differences in our lifestyle choice and in such should not be punished for it.