Scholarly Paper

1. I am studying/trying to learn about social media networks.

2. I am studying/trying to learn about the types of people who used these social media networks, because I want to find out who uses these social media networks and why they use them. I want to know whether or not its ethical for teachers to use these networking sites with their students’. I want to know if social networking changes the way people communicate with one another.

3. I am doing this in order to find out if social media networks affect the social slandered in society.

Revision

OLD

Disaster struck in 2008 and 2007 the market crashed, homes were lost, there was a high unemployment, and all were in debt. The economy was failing at a fast rate and there was no hope at the end of the tunnel. Many people were shocked that the economy had fallen so hard. The failing economy was partly the governments fault. In 2000 the government lowered interest rates in order to "limit the economic damage". (“Credit Crisis - News - The New York Times” 2) These lower interest rates made the mortgage payments cheaper, so demand for houses grew, sending prices up. Current home owners took advantage of low interest rate to refinance their existing mortgage. As the industry grew the quality of the mortgages went down. (“Credit Crisis - News - The New York Times” 2) People with low income were encouraged by the Government and banks to by houses and take out large mortgages. Some of these people, not very surprisingly, could not pay off their mortgages. (“Bank Bailouts: Debatabase - Debate Topics and Debate Motions” 1)

REVISED

In 2008 the market crashed, homes were lost, the unemployment rate went up, and all were in debt. The economy was failing at a fast rate and there was no hope at the end of the tunnel. People lost their jobs and lost their homes. Many people were shocked that the economy had fallen so hard. For such a long time the economy had prospered. The state of the economy was partly caused by the governments.

In 2000 the government lowered interest rates in order to "limit the economic damage." (“Credit Crisis”, 2) These lower interest rates allowed the mortgage payments to be cheaper. Demand for houses grew, and the housing market experience record profits. Houses were being sold for more than what they what they were actually worth. Current home owners took advantage of low interest rate to refinance their existing mortgage. As the industry grew the quality of the mortgages went down (“Credit Crisis” 2). People with low income were encouraged to buy houses and take out large mortgages. The government felt as though everyone should have a house. Many took advantage of the low mortgage payments and bought houses they couldn’t afford. Many of these homeowners were unable to make their mortgage payments and defaulted on their loans (“Bank Bailouts” 1).

Not Working

This article,Where the Bailout Went Wrong, talks about the bank bailouts or as he refers to it the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and whether or not TARP was a success or failure. He explains that TARP’s main goal and the reason it was passed was to help home owners keep position of their homes. Instead of buying up the bad mortgages and reforming them to help out the home owner, TARP threw money at the banks without any kind of regulations. Apparently they thought the Banks were too big to fail.

The author believes that because TARP failed to meet its original goals that it was a failure. The program failed to help homeowners instead it gave the money to banks. These banks are now experience record profits and are bigger than ever. It was hoped that the banks would give out more loans but this did not happen because the treasure failed to give the banks guild lines or incentives to do this. So now homeowners didn’t get any help and the banks profited. TARP failed to remedy mortgage servicers’ instead favoring foreclosure over permanent modifications. They threw money at the problem instead of hold the mortgage servicers accountable for their disregard of program guidelines.

The author first explains in the opening what TARP is and why it was created. He then explains what TARP was supposed to accomplish. Then he tells us what TARP did instead of accomplishing the goals it was created to accomplish which is why he believes TARP was a failure. His first point was that TARP gave money to banks without any kinds of regulations instead of helping homeowners keep their houses. His second point was that TRAP failed to put in effect permanent reform modifications and his final point was that TRAP failed to put in an regulator reformations of the banks that threatened our financial system.

I do agree with this writer because TARP did not accomplish what it was created to. Instead of helping homeowners it bulked up corporate pockets. What they did instead was give money to the banks, in hopes of increased loans. They failed to give any kind of regulations or incentives so none of this was accomplished.

I liked that the author set up pathos. He explained who he was and what he did in regards to his expertise on TARP witch made his paper very believable. He organized it in a way that was easy to follow and did not jump around too much. I don’t think this author should change anything.

I would like to state that I special inspect for TARP but I can’t because I’m not. But when I write my own piece I would like to state who specifically said something or gave that idea to back up what I’m saying and give pathos. I believe that pathos for this essay is a big deal because there are so many varying opinions and if you’re not someone who might actually know something of what is going on no one is going to listen to what you have to say. He did talk about himself a little throughout the essay but I feel because I am not an expert it would be best if I use information gained from reliable sources like this guy instead of my opinion or observations like this author used.

Ishues and What I Think

The Bailout… Will it Work?

The bailouts of banks and GM were and still are very controversial issues. GM an automotive industry was going to have file for bankruptcy unless they got help from the government. The government felt that they didn’t want this business to go have to close its doors and take jobs away from Americans. So they basically gave a lone to GM so that they could try to get back on their feet. Banks had to be bailed out because they could give out loans to high risks. If the person defaulted on their loan then the bank wouldn’t be responsible, they could just pass the problem onto the next person. But the banks made to many bad loans and too many people lived beyond their means. The houses lost value and the economy feel. Lots of banks would have to close their doors like GM if they didn’t get some help. So the government gave them money. It’s still debated on whether or not the Bailouts will work or not. Many argue that it has, because unemployment is down. I think that even if the unemployment shows improvement the bailouts still won’t and haven’t worked, because they haven’t corrected the original problem. They just pushed money at the problem. In or market businesses failing are all part of the process. The fit survive.

Hate Speech on the Internet Should Be Regulated

Racism and hate has been a huge issue throughout the history of the world. Wars have been fought because of hatred for another race. There are still people and cultures like this today. Their ways have grown with the improvement of technology. They now have webpages and blogs dedicated to these beliefs. The internet has become a safe place for many of these people to go and spout their hatred. They can find likeminded individuals and spread their evil throughout the world. Many people do not agree with what they say and they believe that they don’t have the right to spread such hate. Many are calling for hate speech to be regulated over the internet. I believe that although what they say on the internet is distasteful and I wish that it wasn’t available on the internet I do not agree with hate speech being regulated. Law enforcement is having a hard enough time trying to regulate piracy; it’s unrealistic to expect them to stop hate speech. Not only is it unrealistic but it infringes on their free speech right.

Thou Shalt not say Jesus: do elementary school students have free-speech rights?

Some public school officials, in hope of not crossing the boundary between church and state, have prohibited elementary students from distributing things with religious messages. According to several parents and students, starting in 2001 school district officials began refusing to allow elementary school students to distribute material that has religious beliefs on them to their classmates. At a party, an elementary school principal, Lynn Swanson, confiscated a student's goody bags because it included a pencil with "Jesus Is the Reason for the Season." At another party, Swanson and other school officials took away a student's gift bags because they contained candy cane-shaped pens with an attached card explaining the religious origins of candy canes. Swanson also forbade students from writing "Merry Christmas" on cards sent to retirement homes. Though the schools where trying to not cross the boundary between church and state they crossed another one everyone far more protective of, freedom of speech.

Work Cited

Gupta, Praveen. "The Bailout...Will it Work?" Quality 48.4 (2009): 18-. ABI/INFORM Complete. Web. 27 Oct. 2011.

Eissens, Ronald. "Hate Speech on the Internet Should Be Regulated" Civil Liberties. Roman Espejo, Ed. Opposing Viewpoints Series. Greenhaven Press, 2009. Web. 27 Oct. 2011.

Derthick, Martha, and Joshua Dunn. "Thou Shalt not say Jesus: do elementary school students have free-speech rights?" Education Next 11.3 (2011): 9. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 27 Oct. 2011.