Category: Article

Gender Differences Between the Effects of Stress Levels on Procrastination

 

Give the Gender Differences Between the Effects of Stress Levels on Procrastination.
ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

Place an order today and get 13% Discount (Code GAC13)

Amazon.com

1. Briefly trace the development and growth of Amazon.com from 1995 to the present through the application of corporate strategies – what types of strategies have these been?

2. There have been many criticisms of the business practices that Amazon.com has pursued over the years. Describe TWO of these practices and outline the outcomes.

3. Perform an environmental analysis for the involvement of Amazon.com in the book and publishing industry – what are the main opportunities & threats?

4. Describe the organisational culture or leadership style within Amazn.com Inc.

ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

Place an order today and get 13% Discount (Code GAC13)

 

regional trading arrangement
Economists often study and evaluate economic policies by country or region. As an economist, evaluate different regional trading arrangements. Select one regional trading arrangement and describe three economic effects of the arrangement. Please provide references to support your efforts
ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

Place an order today and get 13% Discount (code GAC13)

 

Reading and Writing with an Attitude
Project description
All of us have some sort of preconceived notion of reading and writing: We hate it, love it, feel self conscious, inadequate — whatever. Some times we have such attitudes because our background, the environment in which we live, or the teachers and family in our lives that have influenced us in their own notions and feelings toward reading and writing. Whatever this attitude may be, it has either helped or hindered in your own work.
1.Describe the preconceived notion or attitude.
2.Explain as best you can how you acquired it.
3.Try to explain what effects this attitude has had on your scholastic career.

ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

Place an order today and get 13% Discount (Code GAC13)

 

U.S. Criminal Justice System

What do you feel is the biggest ethical concern facing the U.S. Criminal Justice System today and include these questions in your response:

1. Why did you select this issue?
2. History of this issue within the Criminal Justice System
3. Strategies and recommendations by you to to address this issue.

ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

Place an order today and get 13% Discount (Code GAC13)

 

how does freedom of religion affect societies
how does freedom of religion affect societies

ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

Place an order today and get 13% Discount (Code GAC13)

CONSUMER CULTURE: GLOBALISATION, MATERIALISM & RESISTANCE
Discuss the extent to which the globalisation of consumer culture engenders a cosmopolitan culture, where individuals show ‘openness toward a divergent cultural experiences’ (Hannerz 1990: 239). You should discuss your essay using theories of cultural globalisation introduced to you in the lecture and illustrate your arguments with supporting examples.

Key Theories and Suggestions:

• John Tomlinson (2003): Globalisation and Culture
• George Ritzer (2006): The McDonalisation of Society
• Adorno and Horkheimer (1944/2000): The Culture Industry
• Arjun Appadurai (1988): Indigenization
• Hannerz (1990): Cosmopolitanism
• Daniel Miller (1995): Worlds apart: Modernity through the prism of the local
address the question asked and not try to re-define, ‘twist it round’, or state it in more general terms -to allow you to write about something else. In order to remind yourself of this, always put the question addressed at the beginning of your work. ‘Not answering the question’ will result in a significant loss of marks.

• You must demonstrate ability to synthesize key theories and concepts and develop key themes and/or arguments.

• Your essay must be supported by illustrative examples and/or case studies. You are allowed to use supporting media and/or materials (such as images, sound and other medium).

• Being asked to discuss something is not the same as being asked to list statements. A discussion will consider alternative points of view and your own thinking and evaluation should be apparent in the discussion of the topic.

• Your essay must be properly referenced:
o only sources referred to specifically in the text of your answer should be included in the bibliography;
o all sources (including those for any numeric examples used) should be acknowledged;
o there should be no references in your answer to sources which are not in your bibliography BUT if you have not consulted the reference directly yourself you should indicate in the text of your answer the secondary source from which is comes. It is this secondary source that should be in your bibliography.

• Listing a reference in the bibliography does not make it acceptable to copy sections of the book into your answer unless it is explicitly stated as a quotation. You must summarise the points in your own words. Plagiarism is regarded as a most serious instance of academic misconduct and is dealt with accordingly.
• It is expected that you will consult academic and professional journals as well as textbooks. Many textbooks cover much the same information so consulting many different textbooks only results to duplicating this information. Textbooks tend not to have very up to date content and journal sources are vital for this.
• Before you write your essay, work out on paper a detailed outline of your argument.
• In the essay introduction, you should set out your main themes and intentions: describe the issue you are addressing, the illustrative case or contexts you are going to discuss (if any), identify its main components, and indicate what you are going to do in the body of your essay.
• Break down your arguments into main parts – use this as a basis of your essay that will then be divided up into several sections (you may want to have a section title for each section).
• Build up your argument point-by-point, section-by-section, so that you develop a picture that slowly develops in the reader’s mind.
• Always try to put yourself in the position of a critical reader, ask yourself how s/he would react to your essay, how s/he would understand it and be persuaded by it.
• Do not simply describe the ideas and literature you’re dealing with, provide a critical evaluation.
• Summarise your arguments in conclusion. What is the main significance of what you have been saying?
ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

Place an order today and get 13% Discount (Code GAC13)

 

reflection about Journalistic genres

Write a reflection essay about journalistic genres.
Cane toads of the air thrive on stupidity
I’m always amazed by how readily we let our buttons be pushed. It’s almost as though we want them to manipulate us. As though we like it. “Them”, here, obviously includes politicians, advertisers and spin merchants, but the worst offenders, partly because they’re the least explicit, are “shock jocks”.
They are the cane toads of contemporary culture: ugly, ubiquitous, toxic to most other life forms and adept at using their peculiar behaviour to force change in ours.
It’s not so much that they’re rude, lowbrow or just plain wrong, although these, too, are often the case. The most destructive effect of the shock-jockariat is the poisoning of the logic-well itself; followed by the incremental death of the argument tree that is root and branch of intelligent civilisation.
Take Alan Jones. Though it pains me to say it, he is forcing me to change my mind. Not on climate change, or cycling, or the right to public protest, all of which he opposes, but on censorship.

Foucault argued that unreason died with the enlightenment. But the shock-jock phenomenon proves repeatedly that if you make an argument sufficiently idiotic, the sheer scale of stupidity makes it hard to defeat. It was highlighted for me this week by a letter that argued, as Jones does, that anything so small as 0.04 per cent – the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere – couldn’t possibly matter. “Please let me know,” concluded my correspondent, “how anyone could believe that CO2 is responsible for climate change?”

It’s like arguing that a virus is too small to give you AIDS. Or that a lethal dose of heroin, at about 0.0007 per cent of your body weight, couldn’t possibly kill.
Never mind that applying the same logic to asylum seekers would make you wonder what all the fuss was about (our total asylum applications – 8150 last year, including dependants – being a mere 0.04 per cent of the population.)
These climate-change rants deliberately ignore everything about eco-balance, homeostasis, the greenhouse effect and tipping points we’ve all been taught since primary school and instead raucously promote a red herring.
Yet it’s neither stupidity nor ignorance on Jones’s part. Quite likely he’s read Robert Thouless’s list of dishonest tricks in argument, including caricature, anecdote and non sequitur. Or even Schopenhauer’s list. Bombast, hyperbole, personal insult; certainly he employs most of them.
No, Jones’s position is more cynical. It’s a deliberate appeal to (our) stupidity by (his) intelligence. And it’s not just Jones, or just Sydney, or just climate change.
What’s truly alarming is how accepted it has become that these popular voices deliberately flout the rules of argument. And that, in doing this, they so manipulate the vote that politicians move to appease.
The Adelaide author Ruth Starke has written of her encounter with a South Australian shock jock, Ray Fewings. At issue was a book – Nicki Gemmel’s Cleave. Written for adults, it contained sexuality and was selected by a 12-year-old from the school library. Mother appalled. Controversy ensued.
“Porn!” screamed the jocks. When Starke suggested the mother might have discussed the book with her daughter, Fewings cut her short for “attacking the mother” and accused her of wanting “open slather” so that “12-year-olds could read filth”.
Fewings then twisted this into “What gives Ruth Starke the right to dictate to parents what they should discuss with their children?” and “You heard from a writer who wants open slather to write whatever she wants”. Caricature, insult, emotive language; all core shock-jock stock.
Jones’s infamous carbon tax interview with Julia Gillard in February was scarily similar. First he repeatedly reprimanded the Prime Minister for being 10 minutes late. “I’ve got my job and you’ve got your job . . . 7.10 is 7.10 isn’t it? . . . We’re all busy.” This was followed by dozens of cuttings-in and talkings-over, plus an outright accusation of lying: “There are people now saying your name is not Julia but Ju-liar, and . . . we’ve got a liar running the country.”
Ditto with Clover Moore last May. As the lord mayor arrived Jones was already in a lather, voice raised, epithets at the ready, describing Sydney’s new cycleway as “the virtual destruction” of the city. “Thirty-four thousand votes,” he told her, “you virtually speak for nobody . . . Clover, you haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about . . . For godsake, Clover Moore, can’t you read?”
If all else fails, Schopenhauer recommends clouding the issue through bluff, confusion and induced anger. But beneath the barrage of emotion and insult, the technique here is to make scapegoats of cyclists as the cause of all that angers motorists (when in truth, every bike is a car taken off the road).
Why do politicians tolerate it? Why do we? My theory is this. Most shock jocks, and their audiences, are pretty long in the tooth. Perhaps there’s just a certain kind of person who, as the hormones start to recede, needs this pseudo-emotion to feel alive.
Yet it’s dangerous. We’re used to arguments about civilisation but seldom do we notice just how deeply argument itself underpins civilised life. In the classical tradition, this – rhetoric – was taught in schools. As a basic thinking skill, it came to govern public discussion and debate.
We could do the same. The rules of logic are not difficult. As taught to philosophy sophomores, they cover deductive and inductive reasoning, true and false syllogisms, building arguments with consistency, validity and soundness and – crucially – how to spot a fallacy. Pretty basic.
Without them, however, parliamentary democracy would be impossible. We’d never have risen from the yah-boo of the playground or the might-is-right jungle of silverback tribalism.
You don’t have to look far to see what happens without logic’s civilising structures; it’s the cultural equivalent of those Indonesian abattoirs. Yet this is where shock jocks are coming from and where, if they had their way, they would take us, forcing me to wonder whether censorship mightn’t be reasonable after all.
But there is hope.
Last week, after my cane toads column, several Queenslanders wrote in to say they hadn’t actually seen serious toad numbers for some time. Something, they inferred, is killing them off.
Maybe it’s the same with shock-jockery. We can only hope it happens before it irreparably harms our civilisation, as well as our climate.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/cane-toads-of-the-air-thrive-on-stupidity-20110608-1fsuj.html#ixzz2TSayERX9

ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

 

Place an order today and get`13%Discount (Cpde GA

49
“The Stickup Kids”
In the book, The Stickup Kids, why does Randol Contreras call Pablo and Gus “Fallen Stars”?
What factors in their lives have led them to become “Fallen Stars”?
How does the author use Durkheim’s concept of “anomie” to make his case?

Do not review the book. The essay provides an opportunity for students to demonstrate their writing skills, as well as the application of sociological concepts.

Provide examples from the book, including quotes. Long quotes should be single-spaced and indented (see page 130 of The Stickup Kids). Be sure to refer to specific pages of the book in your essay.
ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

Place an order today and get 13% Discount (Code GAC13)

 

reflection about Journalistic genres

Write a reflection essay about journalistic genres.
Cane toads of the air thrive on stupidity
I’m always amazed by how readily we let our buttons be pushed. It’s almost as though we want them to manipulate us. As though we like it. “Them”, here, obviously includes politicians, advertisers and spin merchants, but the worst offenders, partly because they’re the least explicit, are “shock jocks”.
They are the cane toads of contemporary culture: ugly, ubiquitous, toxic to most other life forms and adept at using their peculiar behaviour to force change in ours.
It’s not so much that they’re rude, lowbrow or just plain wrong, although these, too, are often the case. The most destructive effect of the shock-jockariat is the poisoning of the logic-well itself; followed by the incremental death of the argument tree that is root and branch of intelligent civilisation.
Take Alan Jones. Though it pains me to say it, he is forcing me to change my mind. Not on climate change, or cycling, or the right to public protest, all of which he opposes, but on censorship.

Foucault argued that unreason died with the enlightenment. But the shock-jock phenomenon proves repeatedly that if you make an argument sufficiently idiotic, the sheer scale of stupidity makes it hard to defeat. It was highlighted for me this week by a letter that argued, as Jones does, that anything so small as 0.04 per cent – the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere – couldn’t possibly matter. “Please let me know,” concluded my correspondent, “how anyone could believe that CO2 is responsible for climate change?”

It’s like arguing that a virus is too small to give you AIDS. Or that a lethal dose of heroin, at about 0.0007 per cent of your body weight, couldn’t possibly kill.
Never mind that applying the same logic to asylum seekers would make you wonder what all the fuss was about (our total asylum applications – 8150 last year, including dependants – being a mere 0.04 per cent of the population.)
These climate-change rants deliberately ignore everything about eco-balance, homeostasis, the greenhouse effect and tipping points we’ve all been taught since primary school and instead raucously promote a red herring.
Yet it’s neither stupidity nor ignorance on Jones’s part. Quite likely he’s read Robert Thouless’s list of dishonest tricks in argument, including caricature, anecdote and non sequitur. Or even Schopenhauer’s list. Bombast, hyperbole, personal insult; certainly he employs most of them.
No, Jones’s position is more cynical. It’s a deliberate appeal to (our) stupidity by (his) intelligence. And it’s not just Jones, or just Sydney, or just climate change.
What’s truly alarming is how accepted it has become that these popular voices deliberately flout the rules of argument. And that, in doing this, they so manipulate the vote that politicians move to appease.
The Adelaide author Ruth Starke has written of her encounter with a South Australian shock jock, Ray Fewings. At issue was a book – Nicki Gemmel’s Cleave. Written for adults, it contained sexuality and was selected by a 12-year-old from the school library. Mother appalled. Controversy ensued.
“Porn!” screamed the jocks. When Starke suggested the mother might have discussed the book with her daughter, Fewings cut her short for “attacking the mother” and accused her of wanting “open slather” so that “12-year-olds could read filth”.
Fewings then twisted this into “What gives Ruth Starke the right to dictate to parents what they should discuss with their children?” and “You heard from a writer who wants open slather to write whatever she wants”. Caricature, insult, emotive language; all core shock-jock stock.
Jones’s infamous carbon tax interview with Julia Gillard in February was scarily similar. First he repeatedly reprimanded the Prime Minister for being 10 minutes late. “I’ve got my job and you’ve got your job . . . 7.10 is 7.10 isn’t it? . . . We’re all busy.” This was followed by dozens of cuttings-in and talkings-over, plus an outright accusation of lying: “There are people now saying your name is not Julia but Ju-liar, and . . . we’ve got a liar running the country.”
Ditto with Clover Moore last May. As the lord mayor arrived Jones was already in a lather, voice raised, epithets at the ready, describing Sydney’s new cycleway as “the virtual destruction” of the city. “Thirty-four thousand votes,” he told her, “you virtually speak for nobody . . . Clover, you haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about . . . For godsake, Clover Moore, can’t you read?”
If all else fails, Schopenhauer recommends clouding the issue through bluff, confusion and induced anger. But beneath the barrage of emotion and insult, the technique here is to make scapegoats of cyclists as the cause of all that angers motorists (when in truth, every bike is a car taken off the road).
Why do politicians tolerate it? Why do we? My theory is this. Most shock jocks, and their audiences, are pretty long in the tooth. Perhaps there’s just a certain kind of person who, as the hormones start to recede, needs this pseudo-emotion to feel alive.
Yet it’s dangerous. We’re used to arguments about civilisation but seldom do we notice just how deeply argument itself underpins civilised life. In the classical tradition, this – rhetoric – was taught in schools. As a basic thinking skill, it came to govern public discussion and debate.
We could do the same. The rules of logic are not difficult. As taught to philosophy sophomores, they cover deductive and inductive reasoning, true and false syllogisms, building arguments with consistency, validity and soundness and – crucially – how to spot a fallacy. Pretty basic.
Without them, however, parliamentary democracy would be impossible. We’d never have risen from the yah-boo of the playground or the might-is-right jungle of silverback tribalism.
You don’t have to look far to see what happens without logic’s civilising structures; it’s the cultural equivalent of those Indonesian abattoirs. Yet this is where shock jocks are coming from and where, if they had their way, they would take us, forcing me to wonder whether censorship mightn’t be reasonable after all.
But there is hope.
Last week, after my cane toads column, several Queenslanders wrote in to say they hadn’t actually seen serious toad numbers for some time. Something, they inferred, is killing them off.
Maybe it’s the same with shock-jockery. We can only hope it happens before it irreparably harms our civilisation, as well as our climate.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/cane-toads-of-the-air-thrive-on-stupidity-20110608-1fsuj.html#ixzz2TSayERX9

ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

Place an order today and get 13% Discount 9Code GAC13)