Television and Media - Family Life With, and Without TV :: Comparison Compare Contrast Essays

Family Life With, and Without TV Just about everyone in the United States owns and watches television. Consequently, we've become accustomed to a fairly predictable and monotonous home life. Every working day, we come home, pick up the mail, switch on the TV. Every night, we cook dinner, clean up the kitchen, watch some TV. Every weekend, we do the shopping, finish the chores, and settle in to watch a movie. And why not? It's relaxing to hunker down on the sofa at the end of a tiring day and it doesn't take any energy to flip through the channels with the remote control in one hand and a bowl of buttered popcorn in the other. In my family, we grew up with the TV on. Every weekend, we watched Gunsmoke and Bonanza together as a family. Every year, we made special treats for the Wizard of Oz. I wouldn't have developed my love for cooking if I hadn't watched Graham Kerr as the Galloping Gourmet every day after school. I was hooked on Drawing With John Nagy and years later graduated from Kendall College of Art and Design. Television isn't all bad. It placates us and creates a comfortable background while we take care of business at home and when we're tired it lulls us to sleep. TV is a companion for the elderly and a convenient babysitter for the young. It makes burglars think we're home when we're not. It entertains us cheaply with live action sports, incomparable performing arts and singular events of the world all in living color. It educates us about everything from the cells in our body to the galaxies in the universe. Besides, what would life be like without TV? Could we stand the silence? How would we relax? What would we do with so much time on our hands? Let's take a look at how the average American family might react in a sudden shift to life without TV. Mr. and Mrs. Jones decide to unplug the TV and put it in the garage starting Monday night. They want the family to spend more quality time together. No one takes Mom and Dad seriously and the family jokes about it all weekend. There's a little tension in the air Monday night.

Comedy Newspaper Aricle about Smoking -- Spoof Joke Anti Smoking

A Smoking Spoof The Daily Smoker Funded by the Institute for Smoking and Hacking and by the makers of FLEM: "Stay happy while we get rid of the nasty." The Smoker's Perspective Nicotine: The Supreme Drug for Supreme Health Staff Writer: Jo "The Butthead" Khamel For many years, anti-smoking groups, such as the American Cancer Association, and government agencies, like the Food and Drug Administration, have confused and mislead the public by incorrectly concluding that smoking is bad and unhealthy. Nonsense! In fact, there are several articles that would support nicotine as a drug that promotes perfect health. For instance, and article by Doug Levy of the USA Today discusses nicotine's power of promoting alertness. Nicotine speeds up the communication between brain cells and stimulates areas of the brain tied to alertness and memory. Mr. Levy also writes about nicotine's relationship toward Parkinson's disease. Levy also writes that cigarette smoking can lower the risk of Parkinson's disease. Researchers claim that something in smoke lowers the levels of an enzyme known as MAO B. Smokers have about 40% less MAO B than nonsmokers or ex-smokers, according to Joanna Fowler of the Brookhaven National Lab in Upton, NY. Because reduced levels of MAO B result in greater amounts of dopamine, smokers may have a lower risk of Parkinson's, a nerve disease aggravated by dopamine shortages. In another article by the Associated Press in the USA Today, researchers suggested that cigarette smoking sharpens short-term learning and memory among young people. Researchers at the University of California, San Diego, tested young smokers and nonsmokers at a word game that required rapid memory and quick recall. The 12 electrodes attac... ...JR Renolds, Inc., and The Council for Smoking and Hacking Research. References Begley, S. "Memories Are Made of...." Newsweek. November 4, 2007. 68. Associated Press. "Research suggests smoking sharpens thinking." USA Today. November 19, 2007. Levy, D. "Nicotine's power on brain tied to smoker's alertness." USA Today, August 8, 2007. ......"Smoking, lower Parkinson's risk linked." USA Today. August 8, 2007. Disclaimer: The odd names (FLEM, Flip Moris, JR Renolds, Institute for Smoking and Hacking) are not real in any form. For certain purposes, those odd names are meant to be comical and should not be affiliated with actual tobacco institutions and companies. However, the cited references in the essay are reported facts found in newspapers and magazine articles. Jo "The Butthead" Khamel is not a real person. If it is, then the use was unintentional.

Descartes’ First Trademark Argument Essay

Descartes argues that our idea of God is innate, meaning it is something inside us from birth, something that has always been there and will always be there. He believed that everybody has an idea of God being a supremely perfect being, and comes to the conclusion in his argument, that God himself put this idea there, he even said that our idea of God is like â€Å"the mark of the craftsman stamped on his work† – us being the work, the mark being our knowledge of God himself. For Descartes, the fact that everybody has this innate idea of a supremely perfect God is in itself, proof of his existence; and the fact that this is an a priori argument, makes this argument appealing for all rationalists, as it relies on knowledge, and not sense experience – which Descartes never trusted. The foundation for Descartes argument is the causal adequacy principle, this is the idea that something (for example, A cannot exist unless it is produced or caused by something else that contains formally or eminently everything that is found in A. Formal reality refers to the basic properties that a thing possesses. However, this alone would cause problems for Descartes argument, because God obviously does not possess all of the properties, of all of the objects on earth, take for example a stone, its properties are hard, round, rough. God is not these things. The way Descartes gets round this is by saying that something say again, a stone, can be caused by something that contains the properties eminently. To contain something eminently, means for the cause to not necessarily have the same properties as the effect, but to have a greater property. So God may not possess the qualities of a stone (say hardness) however he possesses a quality greater then this. In other words, the causal adequacy effects means the cause of something can be no less then the effect. Descartes then takes this principle, and believes he can apply it to ideas, in particular the idea of God as a maximally/supremely perfect being, the cause of this idea, must therefore must contain formally or eminently maximum perfection, so therefore the cause of the idea of God must itself be maximally perfect. Descartes then uses deductive reasoning to decide where the idea came from, he first asked, could he be the source of the idea? However concludes that he can’t be, because he himself is not supremely perfect, and therefore he can’t be the cause of a supremely perfect being. He then considers if the idea of a supremely perfect being could have come through his senses, however he decides this isn’t possible, as he knows he has never seen (heard, smelt, tasted) a supremely perfect being. He then asks if he could have imagined a supremely perfect being, again he concludes he couldn’t have, because his idea of God is too clear and distinct to have come from his imagination. He therefore deducts that the cause of the idea of a supremely perfect being, is actually an existing supremely perfect being who ‘placed’ this idea in his mind; so therefore, God exists. There are however, a number of criticisms to this argument, firstly, many philosophers have raised doubts as to whether the causal adequacy principle is actually true to real life, as there are a number of examples in everyday situations where the cause at least appears to be less then the effect, for example, a match causing a roaring bonfire, or a whisper causing an avalanche. Further examples include chaos theory – the idea that a flutter of a butterfly’s wing can cause an earthquake. If indeed causal adequacy principle isn’t true, Descartes’ whole argument is flawed, as if the cause can be less great then the effect, then Descartes indeed could have created him himself. The second criticism is David Hume’s argument, that you cannot know a cause a priori, but only by experience. He says you cannot determine the cause of something, simply by using reasoning, for example, if a window is broken, you know it must have been something big enough to produce enough force to break it by our past experiences, not by using a priori reasoning. He concludes that you have to have to have observed the cause and the effect to truly know what happened, and therefore the cause must be in existence. The third criticism questions whether we can actually have an idea of a supremely perfect being, Thomas Aquinas doubts our imaginings of God, because he is too great, and that it is impossible for us to understand some of his qualities, particularly the idea of God being infinite, as it is beyond out understanding to understand what such qualities actually mean, and therefore we don’t have a genuine idea of God. The forth criticism of Descartes’ argument is that the idea of God is incoherent, there are attributes which appear to be just plain contradictory, for example God is both immanent and transcendent. There is also doubt raised over Gods supposed omnipotence, can he make a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it? It seems either way his omnipotence will be compromised. There is also the problem of evil, if God is all good, omniscient and omnipotent, then why does he allow suffering in the world? It would therefore seem that the idea of God is unclear, and if so it is likely the cause isn’t that great, and so would make sense that the cause could in fact have been Descartes himself. Another criticism is that the idea of God is not universal, as many other religions do not have an idea of one all powerful God, and therefore the idea of God cannot be innate, as if it was, it would be inside all of us. Also, it is put that the idea of omnipotence cannot be divine, as it can be traced back to having historical routes as tribes fought over who had the greatest God, they would start with ‘our God is powerful’ until one tribes got to ‘our God is maximally powerful’ – and therefore cannot be beaten by the other tribe. Descartes would argue that the fact other religions don’t acknowledge one maximally perfect God does not mean the innate idea is not in us, it just means they have chose to ignore it, or haven’t been made aware of it. He compares it to maths, in the way that we may not have used its truths and laws (i. e. that a triangles interior angles add up to 180) however they are still truths none the less. The last criticism is the empiricists account for the idea of God, that we have experienced attributes such as power, knowledge and goodness in people around them and simply extended them to the idea of God, therefore the cause is less great then the effect, and the idea is not innate. One thing it has in it’s favor, is that it is an a priori argument, and therefore uses reasoning, something rationalist would find very appealing, it means that if the premise can be accepted that it can give 100% certainty. Overall, I feel Descartes’ argument has too many valid criticisms for it to be considered as a successful argument, and its foundation- casual adequacy principle, is itself flawed, leaving the whole argument to fail.

Mob Mentality in the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn Essay

The critic Kenny Williams states that the Colonel Sherburn scene inThe Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark twain, â€Å"allow[s] a brief platform for Twain to express his own contempt for mobs in an era known for such activities and lawlessness. † This draws the attention to other scenes Twain uses to show his contempt for activities in society. In his novel Mark Twain uses characters and scenes to show his disdain for zealot faith, corrupt human nature, and blind adherence to law. In the beginning of the novel, Mark Twain shows his disdain for the blind faith of religion through Huck’s confusion. For example, when Huck states; â€Å"I says to myself, if a body can get anything they pray for, why don’t Deacon Winn get back the money he lost on pork? Why can’t the widow get back her silver snuffbox that was stole? Why can’t Miss Watson fat up? No, says I to myself, there ain’t nothing in it,† (14) he cannot comprehend how the answers to prayers can be selective. Twain uses Huck to show his own opposition towards the blind faith people put in prayer, when they rarely receive what it is they are praying for. Twain also shows his distaste for the gullibility of religious people. In chapter twenty, when the King and Huck visit a church, the King pretends that he is a pirate, who after hearing this sermon is now reformed, and will try to convince his fellow pirates to follow in his footsteps. The people of the church believe his story with no hesitation and even go as far as to take up a collection for his quest to reform the other pirates. â€Å"And then he busted in to tears, and so did everybody else. Then somebody sings out ‘Take up a collection for him, take up a collection! ’ †¦ So the King went all through the crowd with his hat, swabbing his eyes, and blessing the people and praising them and thanking them for being so good to the poor pirates away off there;†¦ and he was invited to stay a week; and everybody wanted him to live in their houses, and said they’d think it was an honor† (Twain 155-156). In this situation, Twain is satirizing the gullibility of religion and its haphazard impact on a mob. The people in this church are easily able to give money to pirates, who are known for being crooks and liars, inviting them to stay in their homes as an honor. Thus, Twain shows his disdain for religious beliefs by satirizing their blind faith and gullibility. Throughout the novel, Twain shows his contempt for corrupt human nature. Although these instances are often satirized and exaggerated, the message is still the same. For instance, when the King and the Duke first start to lie about being the dead Peter Wilks’ brothers to obtain his money, Huck says, â€Å"It was enough to make a body ashamed of the human race,† (191). In this instance Twain is utilizing Huck to show his aversion to the way people lie and cheat, and how a couple of people can make a bad name for all of us. Another example is when Jim sells the King and Duke out to the townspeople and they are carried on a pole, tarred and feathered. Although Huck, has tried to escape the King and Dukes several occasions and has witnessed the cruelties put on others and lies they tell, he does not think that they deserve similar treatment. In fact, he says, â€Å"Human beings can be awful cruel to one another,† (269). Through Huck, Twain is voicing his opposition to how people treat one another, whether they deserve it or not. Thus Twain is using his novel to voice his enmity for the cruelty in human nature. Twain also shows his aversion to the lack of free thought in humans. The highly satirical character, Tom, is the best example of people actions being the result of other peoples thoughts. Tom often comes up with crazy plans that that follow a uniform procedure because the books he has read say so. â€Å"Why blame it all, we’ve got to do it. Don’t I tell you it’s in the books? Do you want to go to doing different from what’s in the books, and get things all muddled up? †(12). Even though Tom has no idea what some rules of the books are, he does them anyway, because that is what he believes he is supposed to do; and if he does not go by the book he believes things will go wrong. Through Tom, Twain shows peoples adherence to rules, because they follow the doctrine with which they were taught. In Twain’s novel Huck steals chickens from people, because his father told him it was a good deed. Even though he knows it is wrong, Huck steals because â€Å"Pap always said, take a chicken when you get a chance, because if you don’t want him yourself you can easy find someone that does, and a good deed ain’t ever forgot,† (77). Thus Twain shows his objection of the lack of originality of thought in society in his book. Mark Twain disagreed with many things in the world, and he used The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to voice his frustration. Although often exaggerated and satirical, through the main and secondary characters, Twain pokes fun at the gullibility of people towards religion, cruelty, and followers. In conclusion, these instances show how the mindlessness of the mob mentality is a result of the credulousness of the religious, malice of humans, and the habitues of the world.

Nat. debt essays

Nat. debt essays The national debt is defined as the debt held by the government plus the debt held by the public. The national debt has been around for as long as our country has been. The increase of the national debt fluctuates over time, differently throughout each presidents term. Although President Bush did not cause the national debt he is strongly influencing the growth and continuance of it meaninglessly. Some will blame the increase on the current economic troubles of our nation. It is true that our nations economy is in a bad state right now but that would not cause the debt held by the public to increase any. In our current situation people are scarred to borrow or to spend money, so everyone is keeping what they earn and consuming less. If people are not spending or consuming then they are not borrowing or gaining any debt. That is one of the reasons why the interest rate is so low to try and encourage borrowing and spending, in an effort to stimulate the economy, but people are too scared to borrow or risk any of there own money. The terrorist attack on our nation has hurt the economy greatly. But that has little to do with the presidents spending policy. It is partially the reason for the tax breaks the president has planned, he is thinking putting money into our pockets will increase our spending which in turn with chain react us out of the recession we are in. According to Don Evans, one of the Presidents oldest pals and his head salesman on bushs new tax plan, the idea behind the new tax plan proposed in January of 2003 is a return to supply side economics which hasnt been used in the white house since the Reagan era. Reagan had the highest increase in the national debt out of any president, and now bush is returning to his plan for tax cuts. Possibly leading us into another era of huge gains in the national debt when there isnt a positive need for it, there are other ways to bring our count...

Critical Essay on Shakespeares sonnets

Critical Essay on Shakespeares sonnets Critical Essay on Shakespeares sonnets Many people read Shakespeares sonnets because they find them to be very relevant in their lives. They know Shakespeare’s sonnets for the manner in which they articulate ideas about love and relationships. Though many people try to identify the message and apply it in their lives, they find it very difficult to do so. The reason is that they find poetry hard to understand since they are not used to the poetic devices of written literature. In order to write a good critical essay on Shakespeare’s sonnets: Message of several poems: The writer can identify the situation that best fits the message identified from a number of poems. In this case, the writer can use several poems that have a similar message for analysis, and the writer needs to understand that different groups of people can use a single sonnet for different purposes. People interpret messages depending on the situations that they are facing at any one particular time. Identify the suitable sonnets: Choose the Shakespeare’s sonnets that suit the situation at hand. This is important in preparing a good critical essay on the same. Read widely: Consult on those things that you least understand. Ensure that you research sound sources at these times. Pay attention to how you express the understanding you have gained, and present it in an interesting way. Use suitable stylistic devices: This is necessary to set the tone of the essay. For instance, the use of imagery is very important in writing a critical essay. The reader should be able to visualize the situation that the writer is analyzing in the essay, and be able to make the right judgment. The writer should also help the reader to understand what the correct reaction should be to the situation explained in the essay. The writer should help in creating the correct image that will elicit the readers’ reactions. Integrate the use irony: In a critical essay on Shakespeare’s sonnets irony goes well with sarcasm, and the writer should include sarcastic statements that will help in understanding the sonnets even better. Show the reality of the poem: Since the Shakespeare’s sonnets represent the reality in our societies, people should be able to see this reality through the critical essay. Unlike in the case of the poems, the essay should explain everything in detail, and assist readers to think about similar situations that either happened in their lives, or that could possibly happen in their lives. Shakespeare’s sonnets are not as hard to understand as people may think. However, they are important in shaping the thoughts and actions of people in society. The writers can therefore need to carefully select the sonnets,explore them critically using in depth investigation, and present them in well-structured critical essay writing.

Supreme Court Expands the Power of Eminent Domain

Supreme Court Expands the Power of Eminent Domain First Published: July 5, 2005 In its 5-4 decision in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important, if very controversial, interpretation of the governments power of eminent domain, or the power of the government to take land from property owners. The power of eminent domain is granted to governmental bodies federal, state and local by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, under the simple phrase, ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. In simple terms, the government can take privately owned land, as long as the land will be used by the public and the owner is paid a fair price for the land, what the amendment calls, just compensation. Before Kelo v. City of New London, cities typically exercised their power of eminent domain to acquire property for facilities clearly intended for use by the public, like schools, freeways or bridges. While such eminent domain actions are often viewed as distasteful, they are generally accepted because of their overall benefit to the public. The case of Kelo v. City of New London, however, involved a new trend among cities to use eminent domain to acquire land for the redevelopment or revitalization of depressed areas. Basically, the use of eminent domain for economic, rather than public purposes. The city of New London, Connecticut developed a redevelopment plan city fathers hoped would create jobs and revive downtown areas by generating increased tax revenues. Property owner Kelo, even after an offer of just compensation, challenged the action, claiming that the citys plan for her land did not constitute public use under the Fifth Amendment. In its decision in favor of New London, the Supreme Court further established its tendency to interpret public use as the much broader term, public purpose. The Court further held that the use of eminent domain to promote economic development is constitutionally acceptable under the Fifth Amendment. Even after the Supreme Courts decision in Kelo, the vast majority of eminent domain actions will, as they historically have, involve land to be used for purely public uses. Typical Eminent Domain Process While the exact details of acquiring property by eminent domain vary from jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction, the process generally works like this: The property owner is notified by mail and will soon be visited by a government employee, often a right-of-way agent, who will further explain why the owners property is needed.The government will appoint an independent appraiser to evaluate the land and come up with fair price to pay the land owner for his or her land the just compensation.The property owner and the government may negotiate to come up with a final price to be paid the property owner. In some cases, a judge or a court-appointed arbitrator will be called in to oversee the negotiation.The owner is paid the agreed price and ownership of the property is transferred to the government.