Cigarette Taxes - Where Does the Money Really Go Essay

Cigarette Taxes - Where Does the Money Really Go - Essay Example (Chaloupka, 45-57) Yet suggestion to more increase cigarette taxes are prepared each year typically to fund new or delayed government programs not linked to tobacco control. Raising cigarette taxes are responsible for the insincerity of "politically correct" tax outline of adult smokers. The projected weighted average state excise tax on cigarettes as of December 2004 was 76 cents per packet, and the federal government toll an additional 39 cents per packet. Federal, state and public excise taxes on cigarettes for the financial year ending June 2003 was calculated to be more than $19 billion. (Jonathan, 2005) This is not a reasonable way to tax cigarettes or the adults who smoke them. It's time to end the insincerity of tobacco excise taxes and broaden the tax burden more moderately. During the period 1998-2005, federal, state and local governments received approximately $218 BILLION in excise tax and (MSA)/state expenses. Since 2001, 41 states have raised tobacco taxes, and suggestion to increase the federal excise tax on cigarettes, at present 39 cents per packet, are regularly being considered by Congress. Cigarette tax increase suggestion is made repeatedly, generally to fund new or prolonged government programs unrelated to tobacco control. ... Despite these description, further increasing excise taxes on cigarettes totals to "politically acceptable" tax profiling of adult smokers. Generous funding for tobacco control and youth smoking deterrence is by now being presented by the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA). The MSA affords industry funding particularly allocated for youth anti-smoking education programs and a national health research foundation. But is the MSA money being used sensibly By the end of fiscal year 2005, only three states had congregate or go beyond minimum strategy, as suggested by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), for expenditure on tobacco control. According to 2005 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) facts, the 46 states that are gathering to the MSA spent less than five% of MSA taxes on tobacco control. Thirty-three of the 46 states depleted anywhere between zero and 10% of MSA duty on tobacco control. Slightly than the youth-smoking prevention and future Medicaid settlement for which it was proposed, MSA money is being spent on all from golf carts to bridges, roads and parks to state shortage decline, and, of course, on more administration.(Robert & Stephen, 78-84) Cigarette Excise Taxes and Funding Through Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) funds and levies from other related settlements, state governments have extraordinary funds on hand to them to reduce youth smoking. Future annual payments, stand upon inflation and cigarette sales, will persist in infinity. Although the MSA frequently state that "performance of tobacco-related public health measures," each state chooses how its MSA funds are spent. Tobacco companies do not have any

Early Reading Program Essay Example for Free

Early Reading Program Essay The article Experts Eschew Narrow Reading of Early-Literacy Study by Kathleen Kennedy Manzo discusses an important topic, focused on promoting programs for pre-schoolers that will enhance their reading skills by the time they reach their elementary years. â€Å"A long-promised review of early-reading research concludes that teaching the alphabet and letter sounds in preschool strengthens children’s chances of success in learning to read later on† (Manzo, 2009). This is an interesting article because it clearly demonstrates how these children will benefit the early literacy programs since these will help them read better and faster. The programs will help secure these children a good future because these will ensure them of a good education that can train them as early as their pre-school years. However, these early literacy programs present problems for children, as well as to educators. For the children, these programs might put too much pressure on them. Their freedom to learn things at their own pace will be taken away. At such an early age, children will be exposed to structured learning and might become used to this type of education, which is not a good thing since not all academic institutions offer the same type. For the educators, the challenge will be to design the programs in such a way that the children will not lose interest, at the same time will be beneficial to them. Education is a significant part of securing a good future. It will improve ones chances of obtaining jobs that can support him or her financially. It can also help a person realize what he or she wants to do in life and maximize his or her potentials to the fullest. Early literacy programs should be carefully planned such that minimal problems will be met along the way. This is important in order to not jeopardize the childrens academic lives and ultimately, their future. Reference Manzo, K. K. (2009, January 21). Experts Eschew Narrow Reading of Early-Literacy Study. Retrieved June 5, 2009, from http://www. edweek. org/ew/articles/2009/01/08/18read. h28. html

Poppers Falsifiability As A Criterion Of Demarcation

Poppers Falsifiability As A Criterion Of Demarcation The problem of demarcation has long preoccupied philosophers of science who wished to differentiate pseudo-science from science itself. Many solutions have been attempted, but it is still, in my opinion, Poppers falsfiability which addresses the demarcation problem most effectively. This paper will therefore argue for a revised use of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation. To argue this point, a clear explanation of Poppers falsfiability criterion will be attempted, as well as an examination of the criticisms falsifiability has received, specifically in relation to the Duhem-Quine problem and Kuhns problem of incommensurability. This paper will then conclude with a discussion of ad hoc modifications and ultimately demonstrate that falsifiability can convincingly demarcate science from pseudo-science. Early on in his book Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Popper notes that the Logical Positivists differentiated science from pseudo-science by its empirical method; in other words they believed that science relied on induction from experience while non-scientific disciplines did not. This, according to Popper, was untrue, since fields such as astrology, a pseudo-science, also used induction from observation to justify their claims, relying on things such as horoscopes, biographies, etcà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Unsatisfied, Popper notes that although some pseudo-scientific claims might be just as truthful as scientific ones, the problem of demarcation needed to be solved so that philosophers, scientists and the public alike could distinguish scientific theories from those which merely pretended to be scientific. Verifiability was seen as a solution to the problem of demarcation for philosophers such as Wittgenstein, but not for Popper, whoargued that pseudo-scientists relied very much on verifiability in order to convince their peers of the scientific status of their theories. This point is illustrated in Poppers anecdote in which Alfred Adler supports his theory of inferiority feelings by his thousand-fold experience. This personal experience convinced Popper that the very ability of pseudo-scientific theories, such as Marxism and Freudianism, to incessantly confirm their predictions, in other words with overwhelming verifiability, was in fact the strongest argument against them. Verifiability, therefore, could not be an adequate criterion of demarcation. Before further exploring Poppers explanation of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation, it is important to draw a distinction. While Popper uses the terms falsifiability and testability interchangeably, this paper will not. Falsifiability, in this paper, will be seen as the possibility of a concept being both theoretically and practically falsifiable, while testable will be restricted to things only falsifiable in practice. This distinction is important as it entails that, if falsifiability is to be used a criterion of demarcation, theories which can only be falsified in theory, such as Newtons second law, can in fact reach scientific status. Indeed, although there is no place in the universe in which no forces will be exerted on a body, Newtons second law remains falsifiable (not testable) and therefore can still be viewed as scientific. Testability would be too restricting as a criterion of demarcation. Popper explains that the value of falsifiability lies in its risk. If a theory is falsified, it is subsequently refuted by the scientific community. Pseudo-sciences, it is argued, attempt to avoid falsifiability either by providing unfalsifiable predictions or destroying their falsifiability through ad hoc modifications, a procedure he calls a conventionalist twist. The first case, that is providing unfalsifiable predictions, is exemplified in Poppers view of Astrology. Astrology makes predictions and prophecies in such a vague manner, that it is impossible to falsify their predictions. For example, predicting that today Libras will counter an emotional block in one of their long term goals is not falsifiable: practically any event can be interpreted as an emotional block in a long-term goal. By escaping falsifiability, astrology has in fact prevented itself from reaching scientific status. Poppers second remark on pseudo-sciences, that it is about those which escape falsifiability through ad hoc modifications, has been much more controversial, inspiring much criticism from other philosophers of science. However, before addressing the issue of ad hoc modification, this paper will address the criticisms of falsifiability known as the Duhem-Quine problem and Kuhns problem of incommensurability in order to prove a much needed revision of Poppers falsifiability. The Duhem-Quine problem is a strong criticism of Poppers falsifiability. It was first proposed in Pierre Duhems The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. The Duhem-Quine problem revolves around the idea of holism, which explains that any given system, such as a proposed scientific theory, relies heavily on its components ability to work together as a group. Duhem proposes that the theories of physics cannot be tested in isolation, as the testing theories of physics themselves require the use of auxiliary hypotheses, a stance known today as confirmation holism. This argument can effectively be extrapolated to all the sciences, thus entailing that the testing of scientific theories relies on the use of materials and methods which themselves rely on other theories. For example, when testing a theory that predicts the position of certain stars, one uses a telescope, a tool built on the assumption that our theories on electromagnetic radiation are both correct and accurate. The Duhem-Quin e problem thus proposes that the testing of isolated theories is impossible, a proposition which can be seen as an attack on the use of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation between scientific and pseudo-scientific theories. The act of falsifying can be understood as comparing a theorys predictions to the results of experimentation. If the theorys predictions are found to be different from the experimentation results, the theory is falsified. This is problematic for subscribers to confirmation holism who accept the fact that falsifying a theory can only establish that there is an error in either the theory or our background assumptions, and not where, or even what, the error is. Therefore, if it is assumed that the testing of any theory relies on many different background theories, all scientific theories could escape falsification by simply transferring the error to its background theories. Referring back to the telescope example, if a theory inaccurately predicted the position of Pluto, this theory could escape falsification simply by stating that the error lies not in its prediction but within the theory of electromagnetic radiation. This is problematic for Poppers use of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation as the falsification of an isolated scientific theory would be impossible. This, in turn, would mean that the testing of theories, scientific or pseudo-scientific, holds the inherent characteristic of escaping falsification, making falsification an impossible criterion of demarcation. To answer the Duhem-Quine problem, Poppers use of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation must be revised. It must be conceded that the process of testing a scientific theory in isolation is unfeasible, as our methods of testing themselves rely on background assumptions. Yet, it does not make falsifiability obsolete as a criterion of demarcation, just more exhaustive. Unlike as Popper had suggested, it is not sufficient for a theory to be falsifiable for it to be scientific. All isolated theories, scientific or pseudo-scientific, attempt to escape falsification by pegging the source of error on the background assumptions of testing. Moreover, it is not adequate to propose that all background assumptions upon which the testing of a theory is based must also be falsifiable in order for that theory to be scientific, as this would be too restricting. Every theory is built upon an infinite number of assumptions, a problem analogous to underdeterminism, and inevitably all theories wou ld be pseudo-scientific. For example, the testing of Newtons laws of motions is based on the unfalsifiable assumption that the human observation of motion is accurate. It is for this reason that I believe scientific theories must not be viewed as isolated propositions, but rather as part of a scientific system which requires the provision of at least one falsifiable method of testing. This is a criterion which the pseudo-science of astrology, for example, fails to meet, as astrology provides no falsifiable method of testing its predictions, while Newtons laws provide falsifiable equations (ex: F=ma) as a method of testing its predictions. It is thus concluded that only scientific systems are falsifiable. Another criticism of Poppers falsifiability has been the argument that falsification does not produce an accurate picture of science, that falsificationist methodologies incorrectly depict science as a sort of pyramid of knowledge, where scientific knowledge is accumulated over time (brick by brick) to provide an ever-progressing image of how the universe works (the pyramid itself). This view of science, heavily endorsed by Karl Popper, is the subject of criticism in Thomas Kuhns book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, where the l[?] problem of incommensurability is introduced. Thomas Kuhn argues that science, as a historical discipline, is in reality not an accumulation of knowledge, but rather a collection of normal science and scientific revolutions. In order to fully appreciate Kuhns argument, it must first be understood what Kuhn meant by paradigm. For Kuhn, a paradigm stands for the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques and so on shared by the members of a given community (Kuhn 175) in this case, the scientific community. Kuhn defines normal science as the period where scientists methodologies and goals are unified within a paradigm; Aristotelian physics would, for example, be a period of normal science where scientists agreed on sciences goal and methodology. Establishing this, Kuhn then proceeds to label science-as-accumulation as a myth. It is argued that different periods of normal science are incommensurable: they cannot understand each other methodologies, goals, taxonomy, etc. and as such, science cannot be seen as progressive di scipline, seeing that its history is simply a collection of different methods, goals and values which have irrationally changed over time. [Scientists] neither test nor seek to confirm the guiding theories of their paradigm (Bjà ¸rhusda) but simply adhere to the rules of science within their paradigm. If this view is accepted, it must be concluded that falsification could not demarcate science from other disciplines, such as the pseudo-sciences, as science is seen not as a discipline requiring falsifiability, but rather a discipline which solely adheres to ever-changing regulations, goals and methodologies. This problem of incommensurability across different paradigms poses a serious problem to Poppers use of falsifiability as criterion of demarcation, although it might not be seen at first. If it is accepted that the goals, regulations and methods of science are ever-changing, falsifiability cannot be viewed as a fixed requirement of science, much less a criterion of demarcation. After all, how could falsifiability provide us with an accurate picture of science if scientific theories do not hold permanently the unchanging desire to be falsifiable? Once again, a revision of Poppers use of falsificationism as a criterion of demarcation is needed. Although I do recognize that the history of science is, to a certain degree, a collection of incommensurable paradigms, I do not believe that the history of science is a correct representation of science as a discipline. I would argue that science is in reality a normative concept, and more of a goal than a historical accumulation of theories. Many philosophers of science, such as Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn and even Imre Lakatos all mistakenly believed that the history of science and science itself are identical concepts, although in my opinion, the history of science is most accurately described by Imre Lakatos. Imre Lakatos argued that, much like Kuhn, scientists did not produce single, isolated theories throughout time, but rather worked within research programs (a concept very similar to Kuhns paradigms). In an attempt to reconcile Poppers falsificationist approach to science with Kuhns incommensurability, Lakatos argued that the history of science was actually the process of falsifying research programmes. In this view, the problem of incommensurability is rendered insignificant, as research programmes (which are substantially equivalent to paradigms) are not required to be commensurable, as each is falsified along the way. This provides a vision of the history of science as an accumulation of falsifiable knowledge. Nev ertheless, ad hoc modifications were observed by Lakatos as being a part of the history of science, and inadvertently attributed to science itself. Although Lakatos history of science approach is eloquent, it is incorrect in assuming that since ad hoc modifications are present in the history of science then ad hoc modifications must be a part of science itself. Ad hoc modifications are undoubtedly a part of the history of science, but they are not part of science as a discipline as they do not conform to sciences normative goals. To illustrate this point, Einsteins formulation of the cosmological constant may be used as an example. In order to justify his Theory of General Relativity, Einstein required a static universe one that [would] stand(s) still and (à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦) not collapse under the force of gravity in a big crunch (Texas AM University). In order to support this claim, Einstein proposed an ad hoc modification, his cosmological constant, a move he later recalled as his greatest blunder. It is here that the distinction between the history of science and science as a discipline can be seen. In truth, over the course o f history, scientists like Albert Einstein have practiced science in many different ways. They have used ad hoc modification to support their theories, a mistake which has been practiced by scientists and pseudo-scientists alike. But science as a discipline is separate from its history, as it is a normative goal which has employed the use of scientific systems, that is, of falsifiable theories and testing methods, in order to gain valuable inductive knowledge about the universe around us, something that pseudo-sciences have not. To conclude, Poppers falsifiability, although convincing, requires [considerable] revision in order to be used as a criterion of demarcation. Indeed, it should be understood that science is a normative discipline where falsifiability is required and where planned modifications take precedence over ad hoc modifications, unlike pseudo-science which satisfies itself in confirming predictions. It should also be understood that this paper does not provide a complete description of science, as many questions remain. Perhaps the most glaring, which was not discussed in this paper due to length constraints, is the problem of how to falsify statements such as all metals conduct electricity, a problem posed by Carl Hempel. Finally, although falsifiability is a requirement of science, it is simply one criterion in a whole set of criteria which distinguish the discipline of science from pseudo-science in a normative attempt to create knowledge through falsifiable scientific systems.

Evolutionary Developmental Biology Essay -- Biology

Evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) was instituted in the early 1980s as a distinctive field of study to characterise the new synthesis of evolution hypothesis (MÃ ¼ller, 2007). Evo-devo is regarded as a new rule in evolutionary biology and a complement to neo-Darwinian theories. It has formed from the combination of molecular developmental biology and evolutionary molecular genetics; their integration has helped greatly to understand both of these fields. Evo-devo as a discipline has been exploring the role of the process of individual development and the changes in evolutionary phenotype, meaning the developmental procedure by which single-celled zygotes grow to be multicellular organisms. Alterations in the developmental program frequently cause differences in adult morphology. When these alterations are helpful, they grow to be fixed in a population and can result in the evolution of new phyla. Evo-devo seeks to figure out how new groups happen by understanding how the method of development has evolved in different lineages. In other word, evo-devo explains the interaction between phenotype and genotype (Hall, 2007). Explanation of morphological novelty of evolutionary origins is one of the middle challenges in current evolutionary biology, and is intertwined with energetic discussion regarding how to connect developmental biology to standard perspectives from the theory of evolution (Laubichler, 2010). A large amount of theoretical and experiential effort is being devoted to novelties that have challenged biologists for more than one hundred years, for instance, the basis of fins in fish, the fin-to-limb change and the evolution of feathers. The biology of development promises to formulate a main contribution to these... ...is. Moreover, the relationship between neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory and evo-devo is highly contested (Hoekstra and Coyne, 2007; Minelli, 2010). However, the understanding of evo-devo methods and how the characteristics of the morphologies of different species diverged eventually is still comparatively limited. Craig (2010) stated that this field has obviously contributed to the understanding of genes and, subsequently, the understanding morphological characteristics of evolution in intricate organisms. There has been significant confirmation of evo-devo’s claim that regulatory modifications play an essential role in the evolution of shape. Evo-devo is the process of becoming a conceptual hub for an even larger integration of research areas in organismal biology, including genetics, ecology, paleontology, behavior, cognition, and other fields (Gerd B. MÃ ¼ller)

Just Another Day at the Office :: English Literature Essays

Just Another Day at the Office Personal computer (pc) repair technicians and doctors have a lot in common. Patients arrive at the doctor’s door bearing all manner of complaints or problems. I am sure doctors have seen and heard about every type of ignorant stunt a person can think of or do. My name is Skeeter Jones, and I have been a pc repair technician for approximately fifteen years. Like a doctor, I thought I had seen and heard of every crazy stunt imaginable until I received a call from Headaches, Incorporated about a computer crash. When I arrived at the job site, Lola and Chase, the office and terminal managers, greeted me. â€Å"Boy! Are we ever glad to see you,† they both cried in unison, â€Å"We have completely screwed up the computer.† â€Å"Well, show me the computer that is down while you tell me what happened,† I replied. â€Å"Linda, Lola’s co-worker, told us upgrading our computer system from Windows 95 to 98 would be easy for us to do ourselves. All we had to do was purchase the Windows 98 upgrade compact disc (CD),† Chase said. â€Å"Except, we could not find the CD.† Lola chimed in, â€Å"We picked out this CD instead. The salesman at Office Depot said, ’It would work just as well to upgrade our system.’† I looked down at the box she was holding in her hands. The words â€Å"Windows 2000 Upgrade† stared back at me in big, white letters. I just stood there for a minute shaking my head, and I silently groaned to myself. â€Å"Oh God! How could anybody be that stupid,† I thought. With an audible sigh, I said aloud, â€Å"Let me run a few diagnostic tests. I will be able to tell you how much damage has occurred in a couple of minutes.† I started with the basic stuff like making sure the computer would boot up. Then, I progressed layer by layer to the heart of the system. The tests took me nearly three hours to complete. As I dug deeper and deeper into the computer, I was utterly amazed at how much damage they had wreaked in such a short amount of time and with only an upgrade software kit. â€Å"Well guys, it looks as if you have managed to confuse the hell out of this computer,† I told them, â€Å"You have two different types of file systems on it now.

The Collapse of the American Dream

The Collapse of the American Dream â€Å"The American Dream has run out of gas,† said JG Ballard, a prominent English novelist. The American Dream was once a reality, a time when the citizens of America were the simple migrants who had immigrated because they sought a place where they could dictate their own fate. It was further developed in the 1770’s, and was referenced to by a great document through the words â€Å"all men are created equal† and that they are â€Å"endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights† including â€Å"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. These words are the basis of the Dream, which is now defined by Webster’s dictionary as the ideals of freedom, equality, and opportunity traditionally held to be available to every American. For generations, achieving the dream was the goal of all Americans. However, this period of happiness did not last long; for times change, and the people along with them. Today, th e American dream has evolved into an unachievable illusion, caused by a capitalistic economy, human nature and the government. To start off, the American dream is unattainable because of the capitalist economy. For example, in the Grapes of Wrath, the Joads are unable to get jobs because of the income disparity in the economy. When traveling the California, a garish one-eyed man appears. He tells the Joads how the flyers that advertise job are actually fraud. To fill 800 positions they print out several thousand flyers. Employers use unemployment to their advantage and drive wages down further making it impossible for many to achieve the American Dream. The Capitalistic economy strives to maximize profits, regardless of human consequences. The Joads end up losing their so called American dream and their family endures much suffering which causes them to break apart Similarly, In the Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald presents the American Dream as a corrupt shadow of what it once was. The valley of ashes, one of the settings of the novel, is a capitalist wasteland that represents the degradation of the Dream. Fitzgerald compares the valley of ashes with the Eggs, the other setting, on many occasions. All descriptions of the valley of ashes are grim. The poor live in the ashes compared to the wealthy who live in clean and extravagant communities. This shows the disparity caused by capitalism; only the rich can enjoy their lives, while the poor must work long hours of manual labor in order to survive. The dream is nonexistent to anyone who is not born with a silver spoon. The time where one could work hard and rise from rags to riches is gone. Likewise, in the recent Muppets movie, the characters are hindered on their way to the American dream by the capitalist oil baron Tex Richman. He tries to raze Muppet studios and drill for the oil beneath it. This once again shows that capitalism does not care for human rights; it’s only goal is money and power. But naturally, since the Muppets is a children’s movie, Tex becomes a better person by the end of the movie. Sadly, it is not so in reality. People are not afraid to go out and kill each other’s dreams for personal gain. Next, The American Dream is unreachable because of the government. For instance, in To Kill a Mockingbird, Tom Robinson is denied the American dream because of the biased system. Long before the trial occurs, Harper Lee makes the reader recognize how prejudiced Maycomb county is. Atticus acknowledges this fact when he tells his brother John that the jury couldn’t possibly taken Tom Robinson’s word over the Ewell’s. And later, even though Atticus points out plenty of holes and discrepancies with Mayella’s story, the jury refuses to believe the word of a black man. For Tom, the worst part of the deal is being imprisoned after the court hearing. This, Atticus says, is what led him to try to escape; â€Å"he was tired of white man’s justice. † The American Dream is nonexistent to all colored folks because they were denied their basic liberties by the system that was supposed to protect them. Likewise, in the novel Anthem the people of future world are denied their American Dream by the government. Equality, the protagonist of the novel, is a very intelligent person who desires only to be a scholar. Instead, the government delegates him the task of street-sweeping. Later, when he discovers the light, the government, instead of praising his accomplishment, shuns him and banishes him from society. Thus, his Dream to unify mankind and teach them about the wonders of the unmentionable times is killed. Lastly, The Night Thoreau spent in Jail presents Henry David Thoreau, an able man, fighting for his dream, though the government forestalls him at every turn. The Mexican war is going on in during the novel. Thoreau, the protagonist, does not believe that it is a just war and refuses to pay tax. He is so determined to prove his point, that he even goes and lives in the woods, creating a sanctuary he calls his Walden. Still, the government throws him in jail, and he continues to refuse to pay, boycotting the war. Finally, he is kicked out of jail and finds that he made no impact. The war was as Abraham Lincoln said was â€Å"of the sheerest deception,† as the people had no choice in the matter. So, Henry David’s dream was unfinished, and he died a heart-broken death at the age of 45. Finally, the American Dream is unachievable because of human greed. Although this great nation was founded on the noblest of principles, the founding fathers forgot one crucial detail; people always want more than they have. According to Daniel Gilbert, a highly esteemed professor and writer of the Futile Pursuit of Happiness, says that people have a tendency to miswant, or mistakenly believing that wanting something will bring one happiness. This leads them to think that money, is the most important thing, and soon, they stop at nothing to achieve more and more money, often throwing others under the bus. The novel, Death and the American Dream, by Daniel Cano, is about a Mexican revolutionary who wants to start over in America. He is actually an American citizen, but his only identification is his American passport. His friend, desperate for money, steals his passport and makes him look like an illegal immigrant to get a reward. It is a story of betrayal, politics and life; a shockingly real portrayal of life today. Similarly, they say that life is a race. What they don’t say is that if one falls, he is unlikely to ever get up again. In conclusion, the American Dream is now just an unattainable dream, instead of a reality because of the capitalistic economy, the government and human nature. When this nation was first created, American believed that wealth, prosperity and happiness could be created through handwork and perseverance. But now, with society on the verge of collapse, America needs to stop dreaming and wake up. Works Cited Cano, Daniel. Death and the American Dream. Tempe, Ariz: Bilingual, 2009. Print Gertner, Jon. â€Å"The Futile Pursuit of Happiness – New York Times. † The New York Times – Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. New York Times, Sept. -Oct. 2003. Web. 14 Dec. 2011. Fitzgerald, Francis Scott. The Great Gatsby. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1986. Print. Lawrence, Jerome, and Robert Edwin Lee. The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail. New York: Hill & Wang, 1970. Print. Lee, Harper. To Kill a Mockingbird. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1973. Rand, Ayn. Anthem. New York: Plume, 1999. Print. Steinbeck, John, and Robert J. DeMott. The Grapes of Wrath. New York: Penguin, 2006. Print.