things dat r gay stuff etc.

did u no dat gramer is not taut anymore? english teechrs cant teech it, leaving it 2 us social studies teechrs. not cuz dey dont want 2, cuz admin wont let it happen. we h8 it.

In terms of student caused annoyance, grammar is definitely high on the list. The causes of poor grammar are hotly debated, if supported at all. As a Social Studies teacher, very often my subject matter becomes applied English. I assign a lot of writing, and continuously am awed by what the students turn in. Text language often substitutes for real words. There is no organization, no thesis or topic sentences. Surprisingly, many students can engage in proper verbal communication, but are unable to put the same down on paper.

Students also tend to have trouble support positions with evidence and fact. The ability to very quickly check Wikipedia at any time allows students instant knowledge without any critical thought. I continuously battle with students over their grades.

"Why did I get a C?"
"Because it's not enough to say the Maya were destroyed by drought. How do you know that"
"I dunno, I read it on this website"
"Where is the evidence?"
Student points at screen.
"There is no evidence there, that is a secondary source"
"Mister, that's gay. This is hard"
"There is nothing homosexual about that website"
"Sorry mister."

Of course, if blogs existing decades ago I'm sure teachers would be saying the same thing. My issue is that our educational culture is not improving. There are now so many outside stimuli facilitating learned helplessness. At least now facebook has a spell check option, although my students don't use it. What we must do is change our curriculum to meet the challenges created by technology, and use that same technology to facilitate improved cultural and academic literacy.

For example, using facebook for learning. I had the students debate the necessity of dropping he atomic bombs on Japan. The two examples should contrast, showcasing my arguments above. One is the product of my teaching, and although slightly scatter brained, shows high levels of critical thinking. The other suffers from learned helplessness.

I believe that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a tactic to scare the Russians from entering the war between Japan and the US and it was unnecessary. I recall from reading the recent article by Zinn A People's war?, that we (the United States) saw the Soviet Union as a threat. One, because even after the destruction, their military and economy was regaining strength at an exponential rate. Another reason is because they were a communistic nation, which opposed our capitalistic beliefs and our imperialism to create a global economy that is dependent on the US. Also background knowledge from the reading, post-war, we were in a competition with the Soviet Union for world power. As this website states http://www.ncesa.org/html/hiroshima2.html "The United States government knew 3 things the Japanese government did not...One which was that the Russians were coming into the war". I think the US was paranoid if the Russians did enter the war and seize Japan, they could have control over the Pacific with our military bases and Southeast's Asia's natural resources. Although Hiroshima contained 2nd Army Headquaters that control the military of southern Japan, the US only CONSIDERED it a military necessity. While on the other hand, Nagasaki was a huge seaport in Southern Japan that supplied ships, military equipment and other military supplies through out Japan. In addition, Nagasaki's buildings were constructed of paper and other materials that caught fire quickly. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp06.asp But, in my opinion, the cities that were bombed didn't prove to be a huge military necessity; which supports the reason why it was unjust. which also means that the bombings were war crimes.

And #2.

I think that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasnt nessessary to end the war. yes japanese bombers did kill some of our civilians during the attack of Pearl Harbor, so the US eventually decided to do the same to at least avenge some o...f those civilians that weren't supposed to die but as well as our soldiers as well. Even though the people and the soldiers were like yea atomic bomb on your ass. Even so the bomb that hit first was necessary because of the many american citizens that were held captives and were tortured to death, but on the other hand i don't think that the second bomb wasn't necessary to end the war. I also think that with out the bomb, but if we just still bombed Nagasaki maybe they japanese would've surrendered much easier instead of us just giving them their just desserts with the atomic bomb.

As clear as day. The first comment is researched, reasoned, and organized. The second is from the hip. Unfortunately, all to often I receive #2. However, using facebook has helped many of the students understand reasoned debate, using facts, not impressions. Using tools to facilitate learning instead of allowing those tools to destroy it must be a continued focus of schools. If that happens, teachers will get fewer politicians like Scott Walker thinking "yea atomic bomb on your ass."