The movies talked about here in the title are “High Noon”, and “Shane”. I have to compare and contrast the attitude of the movies “High Noon” and “Shane” regarding guns. But first, a little bit of what each movie is about.

“High Noon” was a western classic film made in 1952. According to Google, “Former marshal Will Kane (Gary Cooper) is preparing to leave the small town of Hadleyville, New Mexico, with his new bride, Amy (Grace Kelly), when he learns that local criminal Frank Miller has been set free and is coming to seek revenge on the marshal who turned him in. When he starts recruiting deputies to fight Miller, Kane is discouraged to find that the people of Hadleyville turn cowardly when the time comes for a showdown, and he must face Miller and his cronies alone.”

“Shane” was another western classic film made in 1953. According to Google, “Enigmatic gunslinger Shane (Alan Ladd) rides into a small Wyoming town with hopes of quietly settling down as a farmhand. Taking a job on homesteader Joe Starrett’s (Van Heflin) farm, Shane is drawn into a battle between the townsfolk and ruthless cattle baron Rufus Ryker (Emile Meyer). Shane’s growing attraction to Starrett’s wife, Marian (Jean Arthur), and his fondness for their son Joey (Brandon de Wilde), who idolizes Shane, force Shane to realize that he must thwart Ryker’s plan.”

Each of these movies has a different attitude towards guns. Like many other western movies, both of these movies’ climax’s ends with a gunfight. In “High Noon”, Kane fights the gang alone, but Amy, Kane’s wife, decides to help her husband by shooting of of the henchmen and giving Kane a clear shot to Miller’s head, which kills him. Because the townspeople did not fight the gang out of their own fear, Kane leaves the town with Amy without another word. In “Shane”, a final confrontation is inevitable as Ryker invites Joe to negotiate with him. However, Ryker plans to double-cross Joe and kill him. A former henchman warns Joe and Shane that Ryker plans to kill them. After that, Joe and Shane fight over who should go to the meeting. Shane wins, and kills Ryker, plus three of his henchmen. However, he leaves the town, knowing he cannot stay after killing four men.

In these movies, both men, Shane and Kane, do not want to use violence, but they believe it is necessary to maintain, or even restore, the safety of the towns. Kane was a former marshal, so his job was to use occasional violence to defend himself and others. Whereas Shane, being a former gunfighter, he did not want to hurt anyone, but he could not let the gang bully the townspeople away from their land. Both movies present guns as a tool that, in the right hands, can be used to help people. However, in the wrong hands, it can be used to hurt people. We need to use guns as a tool to protect people, never to hurt them.

Tax-funded education includes public schools, because they get money from the government. The private schools, however, are not tax-funded. They do not get money from the government.

What does it mean to be bureaucratic? According to the Dictionary, it is “relating to the business of running an organization, or government.” According to Wikipedia, “Bureaucracy is a system of organization where decisions are made by a body of non-elected officials. Historically, a bureaucracy was a government administration managed by departments staffed with non-elected officials.” Non-elected officials are officials who were not voted into ‘office’. For example, if you became the boss of a company, you have not been elected to take that position, but now you are an official, which is someone in an organization or government who practices authority.

Is tax-funded education inherently bureaucratic? Being tax-funded basically means that it is state-funded. Have you ever heard of the quote “He who pays the piper calls the tune”? It is like that for tax-funded schools too. The state funds the schools, so the state decides what is taught in public schools. That means that the state basically controls the public school system. The government teaches in the school that the government has supreme authority and the public must do everything it says. Government education restraints freedom, even though we think we live in a free country. Reality is that the public should decide what to do with tax money, but because of the teachings they were taught in school, they are deprived of that liberty.

 Tax-funded education is inherently bureaucratic. And the fact that people think they are free, when indeed, freedom is lacked due to the government education people were taught when they were kids, is destroying the country. To a kid, education is everything. And if the government cannot give kids the education they need, but the education the government wants, kids will grow up thinking the government is everything. They will think that life without the government will be chaotic. There are people like that today. Government education is destroying kid’s lives. Thankfully, there are private schools that are not tax-funded, and homeschooling is always an option.

Is it easier for skilled authors to manipulate movie viewers or book readers?

 Let me tell you from my experience. When I am watching a movie, I am usually expecting things that I like. If there are movies with things or themes that I do not like, I usually will not watch it again. But, if there is a movie with a lot of themes and things that I do like (action, suspense, thriller, comedy, for example), I will watch it again. I am also usually very involved in the movie if I really like it. That is called being manipulated. You are involved in the movie. When I am involved in a movie, or I am being manipulated by the movie, I usually will not want it to stop, and I will want to watch it again. That is what the authors, or movie directors, want. They want the audience to love their movie, so they try to add things to the movie that they think that people will like. They want to manipulate you so that you will love there movie the best. If someone makes a movie that nobody likes, nobody will want to watch it again, and directors do not want that to happen.

It is relatively easy to manipulate movie viewers. The viewers can see what is happening very easily. There are almost no confusing parts by the end of most movies. The viewers like to see what is happening instead of imagining it, like in a book. Nowadays, people do not like to use their imagination unless they have to. Movies do not require a lot of imagination like when you are reading a book.
When you read a book, you need to use your imagination. Books use a lot of words to explain, lets say the setting. While in a movie, you can see the setting and you know what it looks like. Maybe the book does not explain something very well and you think “Wait, what happened?” It is not as easy for authors to manipulate book readers than it is to manipulate movie viewers.
Now, I like to read books probably more than movies, but not a lot of people are like that. I bet that most Americans prefer to watch a movie than those who prefer to read a book. It all comes down to manipulation. Manipulation determines how long people will be interested in a book or movie, or even if they will read or watch it again. But, manipulation is different is different for every person. Somebody might like an action thriller, another might like a comedy. So they might have different opinions about a movie or a book than the other person. However, another big reason that people like movies more than books is music. Music can sway a person’s emotions more than anything else in a movie. Books do not have that. Like when I read a book, I sometimes imagine music playing in my head for different parts. My final deduction is that it is definitely easier for skilled authors to manipulate movie viewers than book readers.

According to Investopedia, “The factors of production are land, labor, entrepreneurship, and capital. These inputs are needed for the creation of goods and services.” The factors of production are the building blocks of the economy. A common way of putting “what it is worth to customers” is called value. According to Harvard Business Review, “Value in business markets is the worth in monetary terms of the technical, economic, service, and social benefits a customer company receives in exchange for the price it pays for a market offering.” How can profits arise in a free market economy if every factor of production is paid its value to customers? If people pay for a factor of production in a free market economy (where the government is in control of nothing, it is all controlled by private business owners), and they pay the value of the product (the worth in monetary terms of the benefits from a service a customer receives in exchange for the price the customer pays for the service) for the product, how can profits arise? In a free market economy, the business owners get to set the prices. But, certain services have a certain value, and business owners get to determine to set the prices of their service(s) above or below the value of their service(s). However, if all the prices were set at the value of each service, how can your profits go up? They can’t. What if the valued price of your service was below the price it kept to keep your business alive? You would go out of business. Now, some people might stay in, and get all the business, but what about the losers? Now there are more unemployed people than there were before. This can destroy the economy.

The films I am talking about in the title are “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” and “Stagecoach”. Are there any characteristic features of Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” that rocketed him to permanent stardom? Are there any characteristic features of John Wayne in “Stagecoach” that rocketed him to permanent stardom? These two people were famous actors of Hollywood’s Golden Age. They were both gifted actors, but that is not the only reason why they became so famous stars. they each also had different characteristics which made them stand out on the screen.

Jimmy Stewart was born in a small town town in Pennsylvania. This town is also where he grew up. When he was older, he wanted to attend the United States Naval Academy. However, his father insisted him to attend Princeton University instead, which he did. It was there that he majored in architecture. It was while he was in Princeton, however, that he became involved in Princeton’s drama and music clubs. He eventually decided to pursue acting rather than architecture. After graduating from Princeton, Stewart joined the University Players. This was a summer stock company for college students. It was here that he met his lifelong friend and fellow actor, James Fonda. After that summer, the two of them moved to New York City to further pursue their careers. Stewart found a few small Broadway roles between 1932 and 1934, before Fonda found success in film and moved to Hollywood. Stewart eventually stared the leading role in romantic comedy “Next Time We Love”. HE then partnered up for the first time with director Frank Capra in “You Can’t Take It With You” in 1938. They also partnered for other classics, including “It’s a Wonderful Life”. Stewart excelled in the roles where he played honest men in times of trial and hardships because he was an honest, good-hearted man who lived a mostly clean lifestyle. Because of this, he could convey a bit of relatability to the audience, as his characters struggled with life, but eventually decide to do the right thing, which any person would do or want to do in a similar situation.

John Wayne was born in 1907 in Iowa. However, was raised mainly in California. He was rejected from the United States Naval Academy. He also attended USC on a football scholarship, however, he lost the scholarship due to a bodysurfing accident. He was forced to find employment after that. Wayne found work acting for Fox Films in small parts. This lead to his first leading role in “The Big Trail” in 1930. This film was a huge flop, but it did raise Wayne’s profile, nevertheless. He appeared in several B movies, which mainly included westerns. He appeared in so many B movies that he eventually lost count himself! In 1939, Wayne’s career took a major turn when he was cast as the second billed star in “Stagecoach”, directed by John Ford. Wayne’s acting ability allowed him to play ultimately good men that many other men in the audience could connect with. Being able to connect with the audience while being a “giant” while he was onscreen was rare, and it allowed him to become an American legend.

You may have heard of the most common example of the division of labor, the pencil. If you have not, I will be explaining the division of labor on a different, but perhaps even more commonly used than the pencil, household tool, the book.

The division of labor is just as it sounds, everyone is divided into separate jobs according to the kind of labor in which each person specializes. And when people use their own skills to create things, they can make pretty simple things, but when they work together to build something, they can build incredible things, from a pencil to a skyscraper.

Do you think you can make your own book? Good luck! It is not as easy as it sounds. Lets make it simple. Can you make a piece of paper? I do not think so. To do that, you would need to cut down a tree. To cut down a tree, you would need to build your own tools to cut the tree down with. Then you would need to transport the tree somehow to a factory where the wood is made into paper. But, since you are supposed to do all of this yourself, you would need to build your own factory. You would need to get all the raw materials to build your own factory. But, you will get hungry, so you will need to eat. But where will you get food? You will have to find it yourself. You will also need a place to live. You need materials to make the materials to make the tools to just cut down a tree. You can not do it yourself. That is why the division of labor is a thing. So you do not have to anything yourself. Everything you see that was made by humans was made by the division of labor. It the division of labor did not exist, the world would be very different today.

Would You rather watch a movie alone in a theater or online if they cost the same? There are pros and cons to both. Let me explain:

First, watching a movie in a theater:

Pros: You get to watch a movie on a huge screen with surround sound. That is a big one. Plus, you get to enjoy the movie in comfortable seats. You get to enjoy the full force of the movie while enjoying yourself. And there are no annoying distractions to deal with. No phones, no children, no nothing. You also get to eat popcorn, which is a classic movie theater snack (or so I think).

Cons: The title of the essay says ‘alone in a theater’. I don’t know about you, but I prefer to watch a movie with other people I love. I like to share enjoyable moments with friends and family. Also, I will assume that ‘if they cost the same’ does not count for gas. You need gas for a car to drive to the theater, unless you live close to one so that you can walk. Also, you have to dress up for a movie theater, but some people like to dress up. And I do not mean dress up like a tuxedo or dress, just normal clothes. You wouldn’t go to a theater in PJ’s, would you?

Second, watching a movie online:

Pros: You can dress in whatever you want for it. You are not going anywhere. You’re just at home, enjoying yourself. You also get to chose what you eat and drink while you watch it. You can make noise, laugh, whatever you want. It’s your house. No one tells you what to do. And you do not have to go anywhere to see the movie. You get to stay home and watch it.

Cons: It is a small screen you have to watch it on, with no surround sound. And there can be many distractions. Children, calls, door bell, you have to pause the movie for all of these things, or at least I do. These things are annoying, but I think you know this already. And once again, the title says ‘alone… online’. You are, once again, alone. I like to enjoy a good movie with people I love, wherever that movie may be.

Assessment: Depending on all of these pros and cons (I do not think that I covered it all, you may have thought of things that I have not thought of), I think that I would like to see a movie in a theater rather than online. It mainly has to do with the giant screen and surround sound though. However, I would still like to watch a movie in a theater, but if there were people involved, and I had to chose between online with them or in a theater by myself, I would rather watch it with them online. But I would like to watch a movie in a theater with my friends. I would like to do that most.

What is the broken window fallacy? The broken window fallacy was supposed to explain the things seen and the things not seen. If someone breaks a window, the owner must use his money to replace the window. That is the thing seen. What about the thing not seen? If the window was never broken, what would the owner of the window would have used the money that was supposed to replace the broken window on? The owner of the broken window would have used that money on something else, but he had to use it on the broken window. That is the thing not seen. What the owner would have used his money on if the window was never broken. What if the owner of the window was going to buy a new suit? Before the window was broken, he had the window and the money. Now, he has only the window. Or, he will have to chose, either the window or the suit. This fallacy creates jobs (the window maker gets money for the new window) and destroys jobs (the suit-seller now can not sell a suit because the man now has to buy the window instead of the suit he wanted to buy), thus, harming the economy. And since we see the winners (the window maker) and not the losers (the suit-seller) we say the economy is better off.

According to Study.com, “Government intervention is when the government gets involved in the marketplace for the purpose of impacting the economy.

One such example of government intervention of the broken window fallacy is the money spent on war. The government takes money from people to spend on war things, like weapons, uniforms, etc. That is the thing seen. However, now that money can not be used for other things, like food, healthcare, clothing, and several other sectors of the economy. That is the thing not seen. Now, the winners in this system are the weapon manufacturers of the plane manufacturers, etc. The losers are the people who work in basically every other part of the economy, including the people the government takes money from to “fuel” their war.

What was The Birth of a Nation? According to Wikipedia, this movie was “…a 1915 American silent epic drama film directed by D. W. Griffith…” What was the goal for this movie? According to pbslearningmedia.org, “The film is considered the greatest blockbuster of the silent film era. Thomas Dixon, who wrote the book The Clansman, on which The Birth of a Nation was based, reveled in its success. “The real purpose of my film was to revolutionize Northern audiences that would transform every man into a Southern partisan for life.”

Why was this movie, “The Birth of a Nation”, the first blockbuster? First I need to answer this question: what is a blockbuster in terms of movies? According to Oxford Reference, “A film with an extremely high *production and *marketing budget that attains considerable commercial success. The term ‘blockbuster’ derives from the word used to describe large-scale bombs used in World War II.” And this movie was considered the greatest blockbuster of the silent film era. That means people really liked it. According to The Guardian, “Most of all, the audiences of 1915 were dazzled by feature-length movies that could legitimately be called blockbusters, notably the record-breaking, notorious The Birth of a Nation, DW Griffith’s racist romance of America’s Reconstruction era following the civil war.” People really like movies, especially The Birth of a Nation.

Why did people like The Birth of a Nation? This movie portrayed the Ku Klux Klan as the saviors of the South from the freedpeople, who were showed as being vicious and brutal beings. Apparently, Woodrow Wilson praised the movie. He made it the first movie to ever be showed at the White House. This movie was an incredible success. However, some people challenged the portrayal of African Americans and tried to have the movie banned and censored, but they were unsuccessful in their attempt. According to Facing History & Ourselves, “African American writer James Weldon Johnson wrote in 1915 that The Birth of a Nation did “incalculable harm” to Black Americans by creating a justification for prejudice, racism, and discrimination for decades to follow.”

Why was this movie so popular? According to Wikipedia, “Popular among white audiences nationwide upon its release, the film’s success was both a consequence of and a contributor to racial segregation throughout the U.S. In response to the film’s depictions of black people and Civil War history, African Americans across the U.S. organized and protested.” The author of the book The Clansman (the book the movie is based on), Thomas Dixon, wrote: “My object is to teach the North, the young North, what it has never known—the awful suffering of the white man during the dreadful Reconstruction period. I believe that Almighty God anointed the white men of the South by their suffering during that time . . . to demonstrate to the world that the white man must and shall be supreme.”

This movie was popular nationwide and has captivated the minds of white audiences, but angered the blacks. This movie was a great blockbuster, but that does not mean that is was a good movie.

Why wouldn’t someone voluntarily offer you a job at twice today’s minimum wage? Because, the minimum wage law must be modest. It can not be a huge wage. But why not? Why can’t there be a big wage? Start with this: if a worker feels underpaid, or if the minimum wage is above what the worker is worth, the worker will leave, and find a job that is probably not legal. But if you talk about increasing the minimum wage, the person who is leaving will be like, ‘you can not make people richer by increasing wages’. But why is this the case? People realize that if you increase someone’s wage, you will not have enough money to pay other workers, so you will have to fire people. You have to fire people to pay other workers more. And people realize this. If a huge minimum wage increase will not work, will not make people rich, ask yourself: Why not? Well, you can not pass a law to make people rich. It’s that simple. You can pass a law to make people a little better off, but you can not pass a law to make people rich. And people know they can make people better off, even if they know that they can not make them twice as better off by doubling their wage. Increasing wages will also mean an increase in prices, and businesses can not immediately pass on these increased costs to customers. And if businesses can raise the prices to pay for extra wages, why does the business not raise the prices whenever they want? And the people who quit or get fired because they are not getting the increased wage, must seek employment elsewhere. And competition lowers prices. Now the people who can’t find a job are really suffering. With lowered prices, businesses can not afford to pay new workers. Now, the state may put unemployed workers on relief, unemployment insurance. So now we have the state intervening. The state uses tax money to help unemployed people who were fired through no fault of their own, because they were not fired through any fault of their own. It is the government’s fault for increasing the minimum wage in the first place.