Texting and Cell Phone Essays -- young poeple, homework, communication

The question of young people and cell phone use and texting causing young people to be less able to concentrate and focus has always been a difficult one to answer. Technology gives teenagers so much but includes many drawbacks. Cell phone use and texting has it’s advantages such as teachers embracing tech,uses for educational purposes, and easy to use;however,some drawbacks are as socializing,time away from homework,and bad communication skills. The first advantage would be teachers embracing tech in the classroom.Teachers embrace tech as a teaching tool in a way the students will understand.According to Eric board when students took an assignment of translating passages of Othello into other dialects,some students used the texting dialect,†resulting in some very interesting dialogue between lago and othello.The kind of technology teachers are embracing on are high tech calculators,Ipads,smartboards,and a variety of sites.Today’s high tech calculators don’t just calculate certain equations but also graph equations,how to find the greatest common factor,and even get a larger view or smaller view of the graph.The use of ipads in the classroom is useful for both the teacher and the student. For the students the ipad can give them some hints on the problem their solving and maybe even keep a record of their grades that certain student has so they can easily check up on them at any time. While for the teachers they can easily set up tests and quizzes and even grade assignments quickly and effecently.Although some teachers still use regular boards,most teachers use smart boards to teach. These boards are like ordinary boards except these are controlled by remote control pen.By just clicking on the board questions can be written... ...d to spell the word â€Å"love†and spelled it â€Å"l-u-v† the person who asked is shocked that he knows how to spell a word in text form rather than the way it’s supposed to be spelled correctly. Causes are a major concerns especially when it comes to cell phone use and texting although they can go both ways for good things or bad things.In the future,maybe there will be safety regulations for cellphones and texting so young people can concentrate more on their future but for know the Younger Generation has it’s own say in the tech world then the Older Generations. Works Cited Alice G. Walton,Science Proves that Cellphones are Annoying and Distracting,3/13/13,1-6.print. Russell A.Sabella,Cell Phones,texting,and Cell Phone distractions,4/29/2010,Education.com,1/10/14. Greg Graham,Cell phones in classroom?No! Students need to pay attention,9/21/10,pbs.com,1/9/14

Capitalismâ€a Propaganda Story Essay

Michael Moore is the Leni Riefenstahl of our time. Or, perhaps he would be better characterized as a Bizzaro World Leni Riefenstahl, because while she propped up with propaganda the political powers of her time, Moore uses the same techniques to bring down the powers of our time, be it GM (Roger and Me), the gun lobby (Bowling for Columbine), the government (Fahrenheit 911), the health care industry (Sicko), or free enterprise (Capitalism: A Love Story). In this latest installment in his continuing series of what’s wrong with America, Michael Moore takes aim at his biggest target to date, and the result is a disaster. The documentary is not nearly as funny as his previous films, the music selections seem contrived and flat, and the edits and transitions are clumsy, wooden, and not nearly as effective as what we’ve come to expect from the premiere documentarian (Ken Burns notwithstanding) of our time. And, most importantly, the film’s central thesis is so bad that it’s not even wrong. First, let me confess that even though I have disagreed with most of Michael Moore’s politics and economics throughout his career, I have thoroughly enjoyed his films as skilled and effective works of art and propaganda, never failing to laugh — or be emotionally distraught — at all the places audiences are cued to do so. My willing suspension of disbelief that enables me to take so much pleasure from works of fiction, does not always serve me well when pulled into the narrative arc of a documentary. Thus it is that with his past films I have exited the theater infuriated at the same things Moore is †¦ until I rolled up my sleeves and did some fact checking of my own, at which point Moore’s theses unravel (with the possible exception of Bowling for Columbine, his finest work in my opinion). But with Capitalism: A Love Story, Moore’s propagandistic props are so transparent and contrived that I never was able to suspend disbelief. What was especially infuriating about Capitalism: A Love Story was the treatment of the people at the bottom end of the economic spectrum. The film is anchored on two eviction stories contrived to pull at the heart strings. One family filmed the eviction process themselves and sent the footage to Moore in hopes he’d use it (many are called, few are chosen), and the other was filmed by Moore’s crew. The message of both is delivered with a sledge hammer: Greedy Evil Soul-Sucking Bankers (think Lionel Barrymore’s villainous Mr. Potter in It’s a Wonderful Life) are tossing out onto the streets of America poor innocent families who are victims of circumstances not of their making. Why? First, because this is what Greedy Evil Soul-Sucking Bankers do for fun on weekends. Two, because the economic crisis caused solely by said bankers has made it impossible for families to make the payments on those subprime loans they were tricked into taking by those same bankers, who themselves were suckered into a Ponzi-like scheme cooked up by Alan Greenspan and his Wall Street/Federal Reserve buddies to take back the homes fully owned by (first) the elderly and (then) the poor. In the fine print that the bankers carefully slipped past the elderly and the poor for these second mortgages and subprime loans, the contracts said that the rates on variable rate loans could go up, and that the house was collateral for the loan such that if the loan payments are not made the home is subject to foreclosure and repossession by the bank (which is what the bankers are hoping happens). In Michael Moore’s worldview, a goodly portion of the American people are ignorant, uneducated, clueless pinheads too stupid to realize the fundamental principle of a loan: you have to have collateral to secure the loan! No collateral, no loan. You say to the banker â€Å"I would like to take out a loan.† The banker says to you â€Å"what do you have for collateral?† What happened in the housing boom was that bankers relaxed their standards for what they would require for collateral (and income, assets, etc.) because (1) the government told them to do so and promised to cover their losses if it didn’t work out, and (2) they wanted to make more money; and borrowers wanted in on the cash cow that everyone was milking, from individual house flippers looking for a quick buck, to ordinary families wanting extra cash for remodeling, tuition, or whatever, to mortgage giants wanting corporate expansion. And all were driven by the same motive: greed! Yes, greed. Those evicted families knew perfectly well what they were doing when they freely chose to climb onto the housing bubble and take it for a ride. I have a much higher view of the American public than does Michael Moore. I don’t think the American people are so stupid or uneducated that they didn’t know what they were doing. This wasn’t rocket science. It was even on television, the ne plus ultra of pop culture! I well remember watching A & E’s television series Flip This House, and reading all those magazine articles and get-rich-quick books on how to make a fortune in the real estate market, and thinking â€Å"wow, everyone’s getting rich except me; how can I get in on the action?† What I felt is, I’m sure, what lots of people felt. I looked into securing a second mortgage on my home in order to build a second home on an undeveloped portion of my hillside property, and then selling it to turn a tidy profit. Everyone was doing it. What could go wrong? Well, for starters I thought, what if it takes longer to build the home than I projected? We all know how slow construction projects can be. Could I make the payments on the second mortgage for an additional six months to a year? And what if I couldn’t sell that second home? Could I make the payments on the new loan indefinitely? What if my income decreased instead of increased, like it was at the time (and, subsequently, did †¦ dramatically!). And what would happen if I couldn’t make the payments? The answer was obvious, and it wasn’t in the fine print: I could lose my primary home. Forget that! Making a profit on a second home would be nice, but losing my first home would hurt well more than twice as much as making a profit on the second home would feel good. That’s a basic principle of risk aversion: losses hurt twice as much as gains feel good. Now, I’m not really a risk-averse guy (I gave up a secure career as a college professor for an insecure career as a writer and publisher), but even I could see the inherent risks involved when the home you live in could be taken away. My hillside remains sagebrush and wild grass. What about the people on the other end of the economic spectrum — the bankers and Wall Street moguls? Why aren’t they being evicted. Now, given that I’m a libertarian, you might expect me to come to the defense of Corporate America. Not so. Here I am in complete agreement with Michael Moore that, as I’ve been saying since the day it was first pronounced, â€Å"too big to fail† is the great myth of our time. None of these giant corporations — GM, AIG, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, et al. — should have been bailed out. In fact, they should have been allowed to fail, their stocks go into the toilet, their employees tossed out on to the gilded streets of lower Manhattan, and their CEOs dispersed to work as greeting clerks at Walmart. They gambled and lost on all those securities, bundled securities, derivatives, credit default swaps, and other â€Å"financial tools† that I’ll bet not one in a hundred Wall Street experts actually understands. If you really believe in free enterprise, you must accept the freedom to lose everything on such gambles. These CEOs and their corporate lackeys are nothing more than welfare queens who adhere to the motto â€Å"in profits we’re capitalists, in losses we’re socialists.† Sorry guys, you can’t have it both ways without corrupting your morals, which you have, along with the politicians you’ve bribed, cajoled and otherwise coerced to your bidding. The solution? I have some suggestions of my own, but Michael Moore’s solution is beyond bizarre: replace capitalism with democracy. Uh? Replace an economic system with a political system? Even the à ¼ber liberal Bill Maher was baffled by that one when he hosted Moore on his HBO show. How does a democracy produce automobiles and computers and search engines? It doesn’t. It can’t. Capitalism: A Love Story, ends with a remarkable film clip that Moore discovered of President Franklin Roosevelt reading from his never proposed second Bill of Rights (he died shortly after and the document died with him). Included in the list are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education. That’s nice. To this list I would add a computer in every home with wireless Internet access. I’m sure we could all think of many more things â€Å"under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all — regardless of station, race, or creed,† in Roosevelt’s words. But there is one question left unstated: Who is going to pay for it? If there is no capitalism, from where will the wealth be generated to pay for all these wonderful things? How much does a â€Å"decent† home costs these days, anyway? Do you see the inherent contradiction? Of course you do. So does Michael Moore, who elsewhere in the film longs for the good old days when the â€Å"rich† were taxed 90% of their earnings. So did Willie Sutton, who answered a similar question after being nabbed by the FBI during the Great Depression and asked by a reporter why he robs banks: â€Å"Because that’s where the money is.†

Marxist Theories And The Marxist Theory - 1243 Words

Before examining the article and its link to the Marxist Theory, it is important to give a brief description of the main tenets and principles of Marxism. Specifically, the Marxist paradigm assumes that economic competition is the principle cause of conflict. Unlike other paradigms, Marxism’s method of societal analysis focuses on economic and material aspects. Focusing on class relations and societal conflicts, the theory was first proposed by Karl Marx. Upon witnessing the industrial revolution and the creation of an urban working class, Marx observed and experienced a growing gap between the rich and the poor. In his Das Kapital and Communist Manifesto, Marx predicted the growing impoverishment of the emergent working class and a ultimate major class struggle in the systemic economic change. This emerging socioeconomic class will clash heavily with the upper-class, or bourgeoisie – a class of factory owners exploiting the workers by maintaining the gap between the pr ice paid to workers (a subsistent wage) and the price obtained in the marketplace for the produced good. In such state of Capitalism, centralized means of production and wealth is gathered in the hands of a few (mostly factories owners) who merely seek to protect and expand their wealth. Ultimately, the inequality in the distribution of wealth, according to Marx, will lead to a revolution whereby overthrowing the bourgeoisie, as well as the capitalist system in its entirety. Undoubtedly, James Cameron’sShow MoreRelatedMarxist theory2065 Words   |  9 Pagesï » ¿Marxist theory This theory was basically ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Both of them were born from Germany. Marx was a student of the most prominent German Idealist Philosopher. Engels was editing a radical journal that written by Karl Marx at the year 1844. Due to this both of them meet and become close friends. Engels start to share his opinion toward capitalism to Marx. After that, they decided to work together and become partnership because Marx was good in dealing with difficultRead MoreThe Marxist Theory Of Marxist Criticism757 Words   |  4 PagesThe Marxist theory research What is the marxist criticism? Marxists believe that all of human history has been divided by socioeconomic classes. They believe that the progression of history so far has been pushed forward by these class struggles. From these struggles they say that capitalism was born, but eventually the struggles will reach a breaking point where the lower and middle classes turn on the wealthy, leading to the implementation of socialism. Looks at any struggles between differentRead More Criticism of Capitalism in The Great Gatsby by Fitzgerald Essay1520 Words   |  7 Pagesplaced on the inherent value of an object rather than its market value.   In a late collection of notes, Fitzgerald himself proclaims that he is essentially Marxist. [i]  Ã‚   Marxism is a specific branch of Socialist theory.   Fitzgerald makes Gatsby a novel that is not inherently Marxist or even Socialist, but one that is imbued with Marxist theory.   He does this by denouncing nonhumanitarianism, reification, and market value.   Fitzgerald implies that the Capitalist system does not work because atRead MoreMarx View on Capitalism2101 Words   |  9 Pagesalienation, the labor theory of value, the surplus value, and the accumulation of capital. Are these views relevant in the 20th century and during the contemporary globalization? If so, how? How are these views related with Thorstein Veblens ideas? Please give specific refere nce to the relevant readings. Theory of Alienation--his analysis of how people are bound to become estranged from themselves and each other under the conditions of capitalist industrial production (Hooker). This Theory of AlienationRead MoreThe Gift Of The Magi1022 Words   |  5 PagesIn discussing Marxist literary criticism Peter Barry states, â€Å"So instead of seeing authors as primarily autonomous ‘inspired’ individuals whose ‘genius’ and creative imagination enables them to bring forth original and time-less works of art, the Marxist sees them as constantly formed by their social contexts in ways which they themselves would usually not admit† (Barry 152). His claim is certainly evident through a careful analysis of O’Henry’s short story. The Gift of the Magi appears to be a bittersweetRead MoreSocial Analysis Of Marxist And Marxist Theory1660 Words   |  7 Pages Social Analysis in Marxist Tradition I chose to concentrate on question three for this paper because I found the idea of class analysis and how it affected the Marxist tradition to be a fascinating subject matter. While researching the kinds of social analysis that were used in the formation of Marxist theory I found that Karl Marx and his predecessors concentrated less on the role sociology plays in society and concentrated more on issues of class struggle and how it affects theRead MoreThe s Call For Individual s Responsibility Of Privacy Essay1806 Words   |  8 Pagesmaximization. Also, per Marxist political economy, our Facebook exploits our user-data and labour for profit maximization. In Christian Fuchs’s 2012 article, The Political Economy of Privacy on Facebook, he applies German philosopher Karl Marx’s (1867) political economy theories of labour exploitation, theories of Alvin Toffler (and his 1980 theory of the prosumer – which is the disappearing line between producer and consumer), and Dallas Smythe (and his 1981/2006 theories stating that audiences provideRead MoreMarxist Theory And Psychoanalytic Theories1992 Words   |  8 PagesMarxist and Psychoanalytic Literary Theories in Action Marxist/Materialist Theory and Psychoanalytic Theory are important theories in understanding individuals and societies. They allow readers to understand how societies and individuals function and their motives. Marxist/Materialist Theory mostly focuses on societies and different classes and the relationships between the two. Psychoanalytic Theory focuses on the characters wants, needs, actions, and process of thought that sometimes correlateRead MoreThe Marxist Theory Of Law1348 Words   |  6 PagesThe Marxist hypothesis of law includes a materialistic perspective of social life in which law and the state (the superstructure) are subordinate to the predominant methods of creation all through human history.  In capitalism where the law values private property, the state turns into the official body of the bourgeoisie which utilises the law to sustain their private interests. As Marx believes the social relations of production under this superstructure are exploitative and innate ly unstableRead MoreTheories Of Marxist Theory And Conflict Theory1066 Words   |  5 PagesMany theories have interrelated theories and derive from one another. Marxist theory has connection with labeling theory and conflict theory. Marxist theory and conflict theory explains law and criminal justice but does not oversee multi-groups conflict of society (Akers 2017). Marxist theory is a sociological model which is based on conflict of classes (Akers 2017). Marx viewed the industrial society or capitalist society from a macro point of view. Marxism is also a conflict theory, believing that