Stem Cells

Scientists say, stem cells can be used to replace and or repair damaged cells in the body. What they do is they can make a perfect copy of the cell, and make the cell bigger and better than what it already is. Most of the research has been conducted on a certain type of stem cells known as embryonic. The researchers take a 4 to 5 day old fertilized egg and then use that for the cell. This is the most common procedure in order to cure people with visual diseases. Stem cells have become a medical break through in modern society and they also have the potential to cure visual diseases.

The researches of embryonic stem cells can open doors that couldn’t have been open before (NY times). For example in 2010, two women had embryonic stem cell surgery performed on them. One was in her 70’s and she had suffered from the dry form of macular degeneration, a leading cause of severe vision loss of the elderly (Pollack). The other one was a 51 year old who had suffered from macular dystrophy, which tends to occur in younger people (Pollack). The 71 year old was finally able to go to the store all by herself. The 51 year old was able to sew a button on a shirt. Here is perfect example of the breakthroughs of the stem cells, and how they can help restore people’s vision.

Because of these breakthroughs, everything really started gong right for the researchers. Former president George Bush signed a bill to allow tax payer money to go directly to research the already taken embryos. Almost a year ago president Barrack Obama overturned a judge’s ruling on stem cell research, and allowed the studies to continue (sirs). The congress continued to be inundated with calls from the people suffering and stems being the only way to save them (NY Times). The Republican controlled congress at the time tried to pass a bill to continue research, however in the first veto of his presidency, George W. Bush vetoed the bill. Later that next year the congress came up with a much smaller bill, George W. Bush allowed that to pass.

With the continuation of the research of stem cells, a person could have such a better life knowing that if some sort of problem appears in their eyes, stem cells can help save their vision. Also it could be a better future for everyone.

                                                                                             

                                                        

                                                          

                                               Works Cited

NY Times.” Stem Cells.” NY Times.

                  2 May. 2011. Web source                        

Pollack, Andrew. “Embryonic Stem Cell Research Shoes Progress” NY Times.

                  24 Jan. 2012. Web source

Johnson, Carolyn. “Judge Dismisses Challenge to Stem Cell Funding.” SIRS.

               28 Jul. 2011.Web source.

Stop Sopa

This blog post features 3 articles about the bill SOPA. All the information in the articles is based on before the bill was declined. And for everyone who doesn’t know what SOPA is well it’s called the Stop Online Piracy Act. The idea of the bill was to stop online piracy because all the actors and musicians songs where being downloaded for free so they weren’t able to make even more money then what they are already making, however in the process what the bill would have done it would have shut down the internet as a whole to try and stop online piracy, so that means all your precious social networking, I.M. sites, and YouTube would have been taken down in the process of this bill. 

In his article “Why we need a law on online piracy,” Lamar Smith persuades the American people that we need to stop online piracy. Smith’s viewpoint is that we need to pass a bill called SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) to help control online piracy. Smith uses persuasion to get his view point purpose and main idea out on the article. Smith’s evidence is that we are “Costing the U.S. economy $100 billion and thousands of jobs every year,” and all of that comes from the online piracy. Smith’s connotation is he use big scary words to try and make people feel scared if this online piracy is too continue. The author uses logos and lists statistics about how much damage the online piracy is doing. I would trust this article because it was written on CNN which is a well trusted news source and also the article not only looks professional but it reads like someone who really knew what they were talking about wrote this which is why I would trust this.(http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/20/opinion/smith-sopa-support/index.html)

             In his article “We Don’t Need SOPA/PIPA,” Limer informs the American gov. why we don’t need SOPA/PIPA. Limer’s view point is that we don’t need SOPA/PIPA because we already have a broken piracy act call DMCA, I know this is his viewpoint because it’s the main point of his article and he does not include and evidence why we do need SOPA/PIPA. Limer’s evidence is that we already have a bill called DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and we should just fix that instead of making a whole new act that could really harm or even destroy the internet as a hole. Limer’s connotation is using words that make the creators of SOPA/PIPA look stupid for creating the acts such as words like infringers and insanely. Limer does not use conflicting evidence in his article because that wouldn’t show his bias in the article. Limer uses pathos in his article because he describes how awful it would be if we did pass SOPA/PIPA. I would trust the accuracy in this article because it looks professional it doesn’t have any grammar errors and it seems to be a trusted website.

(http://www.geekosystem.com/dmca-is-already-broken/)

       In his article “Mega Upload case proves we don’t need SOPA or PIPA,” Matthew Ingram persuades readers that we don’t need SOPA or PIPA because the FBI already shut down the site Mega Upload. Ingram’s viewpoint is we do not need the bill SOPA because the FBI was able to shut down and arrest the owners of the site Mega Upload which was the worlds #1 downloading site and if they were able to do that then why would we need SOPA. This article does not state any conflicting evidence because then Ingram’s bias would not be able to show through in this article. Ingram’s connotation in the article is negative and he uses things like Red Flags and takes. Ingram uses logos to show statics to show how SOPA is affecting the internet and the people using the internet. I am kind of iffy on this article because he really doesn’t say where he got his information from and its an unknown site, he does state good information but he seems to be saying the same things over and over again.

(http://gigaom.com/2012/01/20/megaupload-case-proves-we-dont-need-sopa-or-pipa/)