Does technology really make our lives better?

While it is no question that technology has progressed an incredible amount over the last century, i think that whether or not that technology has had a positive or negative effect on the "human experience" is more debatable. Myself and all of us in the class were all born into the age of computers, never having to have dealt with the inconvenience of typewriters, or dependent on large reference books for information. While many may look at this and say that the lives of my generation are better and easier because of the technology, i disagree. I think that the use of the new technologies presented leads us to be dependent on them, useless without them, and lead us to more stressful, more isolated lives.
With the availability of the internet as a resource, with its vast databases of information, the information that you want does take less time to find. However, i think that as technology increases the rate at which we get information, the curriculum that we are taught adapts itself to encompass that resource to the fullest. By this i mean that because we can access information more easily, we are expected to know more of it in a shorter period of time. The overall effect is that the computers and the internet speed up our lives as a whole, making them more chaotic, not easier.
Advances like cell phones and ipods also have a detrimental effect on our lives. While i love my ipod, i can't help but notice when i see a group of friends sitting around each other, all listening to their music individually, texting other people on their cell phones. Human interaction is replaced by technology, little screens and small letters.
In general, i think that the way technology has progressed has damaged the way that we interact with each other. Isolation is promoted rather than communication, but while i'm not going to throw my various gadgets and gizmos away, i do recognize their effect on me. It is interesting to look at how our society progresses alongside our technology. I would rather have a society based more on human interaction than high speed information and individually based entertainment.

The Future of Guantanamo Bay

With the election done, and Barack Obama the victor, plans for the next presidency have begun. Seeing as many of us have recently written papers pondering the morality of the prison known as "Gitmo", it is interesting to see how our next president plans to deal with it. While he has been urged by the American Civil Liberties Union to do away with the prison the first day he gets into office, Obama seems to have a more reasonable approach. Instead of just getting rid of it, he has said that his adminitration and himself will close it "as quickly as we can do prudently." While ideally he would like to get rid of it immediately, the reality is that you can't simply close a facility housing 255 known terrorists. Obama has expressed the possibility of trying some of the inmates in federal courts, not the military courts that president Bush had used to try several leading terrorists. A fear of corruption and political interferance with these courts has led to this idea.
Regardless of the means of its closure, it is clear that Obama and his administration plan on closing it, believing its use unneccesary and unconstitutional. While it is often hard to see the good that "Gitmo" has brought the United States, it is easy to notice the stain that it has left on the way that we are seen as a nation. While the Constitution pledges a fair and speedy trial to all, and the banning of "cruel and unusual punishments", Guantanamo bay openly disregards it and claims that as a base in Cuba, it is not under the rule of the Constitution. As in many of the papers that we have written in our class, Obama and his administration have decided that the workings of Guantanamo Bay are immoral and an abuse of power.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/10/obama.transition.guantanamo/index.html

Early Voting: Troubles and Accomplisments

Seeing as we were talking about the good and bad sides to early voting last week, i thought i would look up how the early voting was going in this election. When i did, i was really surprised to find out that even in early voting lines, people have had waits of over 6 hours.
I would not have expected such a turnout to early voting, but i think that this just shows us how necessary it is for the election. Just think about what would happen if all these people waited until the day of the election to vote, while there have been voting problems in the past, this greatly increased interest suggests that the availability of voting time and locations needs to be increased. I'm sure that in having such long lines, many people are either disinclined to vote, or simply can't do it because they have other things to do. Because of this i think that they should either have the polls open for a longer period of time during the day, or just have more polls to go to. Something about the system needs to be changed because it is not capable of supporting this turnout. I know that the rules of the election give the candidates a deadline of election day to prove their point, but think that the availability of early voting is more of a positive effect rather than negative. While few people are likely to change their minds over the course of the last couple weeks, the early voting gives many a chance to vote when otherwise they could not have.
Regardless of the problems with lines and waiting, the turnout for the voting is encouraging. It really appears that people now are far more interested in the outcome of the election and are willing to go out of their way to have their vote counted. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/02/early.voting/index.html