My Response to "World Wide Weakness" by Nina

In the blog post "World Wide Weakness", the author Nina talks about technology and how it can be possibly viewed as dumbing down our minds.  She specifically talks about how the internet " removes the need for difficult memorization and complex thinking because it contains unlimited sources of information".  This is an interesting argument that she makes and there is evidence to support her assertions.
 It is indeed a fact that the Internet gives access to a wealth of information that many of use on a daily basis. Research projects are much easier to do today than they have ever been because of that access.  But I believe her assertion are more complicated than what has been revealed.
She mentions in her first sentence that the human brain needs constant stimulation to keep functioning at a healthy level.  When she had to look up the answers of parts of a crossword puzzle she felt she was cheating and cheapening the experience.  But even if you're able to find the answers online, isn't there still stimulation going on once you have the realization of the answer fitting the clue?
Also, the Internet can't be used as a crutch in school.  You won't be able to use Google to search for the answers to the history exam right in front of you.   Yes, you may be able to use Google to study for the test but it will be up to you to ingrain the information into your mind.  Nina isn't necessarily wrong in her thought that the Internet can be a huge crutch in the development of our mind, its just a more complicated argument with more avenues of thought.

They Scared

They Scared

            Before 9/11 there was no Homeland Security.  The idea of a terrorist attack had never occurred in the minds of many Americans, but after that day America was awakened.  The threat of another terrorist attack provoked the country to make some major safety adjustments.  The invention of the terrorist threat level and establishment of Homeland Security are but a few of the defensive strategies America adopted.  What can be gained from these observations is the idea that America enacted ways to counteract the threat of terrorism. 

If terrorism was not a threat to America then no action would’ve been taken against it.  There are parallels that can be seen between the example I’ve used for terrorism and new media’s effect on activism.  The opposition of activism has taken notice of the effect that new media has activism.  The “opposition” is the targets of activism efforts, like the state government, large corporations, police etc.  During the Egypt uprising earlier this year media like Facebook and Twitter helped organize a protest of over ten-thousand people.  And just like America did with terrorism, the Egypt government had to address this threat to their power.  In response, the Egyptian government shut down the internet in its country.  That clearly shows that the Egyptian government felt threatened by the capabilities of new media and also shows that new media is a benefit to activism.     

In both of the above examples we can see a similar relationship that they share.  They both face a situation that arises and both have a specific response to deal with it.  The fact that in both situations there was a response to a threat shows that the threat had to be taken seriously.  The American government responded to the terrorists with Homeland Security among other tactics.  And the Egyptian government responded to the influence of new media by shutting down the internet in their entire country.  We respond to flies in a similar way.  We don’t bring out the fly traps and swatters until the flies are buzzing in our face.  But while we respond to the flies out of annoyance, both governments responded to each respective threat because of fear.  The fear of another terrorist attack in America and the fear of losing power in Egypt were driving forces in the respective cases.  I am left to wonder what other kinds feelings are catalysts to responses.  Are fear and annoyance the only emotions that are strong enough to bring forth an immediate and strong reaction in a certain situation?