LA Period 3/4
Google Essay Final
Google was made to help us learn and succeed in life, not to rot our brains. Yes, there is some ineffectual information on the internet, but the positive sides of Google subdue the negative sides. Numerous professors and sources dispute about whether or not Google is affecting our intelligence. Google is not negatively affecting our intelligence. Alternatively Google helps you find information faster, solve real world problems, and helps you recall memories from the past.
To begin with, Google is positively affecting our intelligence by helping us find information faster. Without Google, you would have to search constantly for books based on the needed information. According to Peter Norvig in Source A, “I could hunt through those or turn to Google, which returns 45,000 pages.” As said, if you are wasting 2 hours trying to find information on a topic, you can just let Google do the work for you. Google can refer you to thousands of pages in an instant. For example, I myself have been in a situation where I have spent a couple of hours looking for a single book. I searched up the book using Google and boom! There it was! “With the Internet, everything is just a click away.”(Source C) Anything and everything is possible with the Internet. You can search up the information that you need faster than you can ever imagine. Instead of consuming days to acquire information or answers, you can spend 5 seconds acquiring the same information with a swift method, Google! Google is not sabotaging our intelligence, but is positively affecting it with the ability to acquire information.
Just as Google opens up a door of possibilities, it can also help us solve real world problems. Solving problems is not effortless. We humans can start to enhance our intelligence by learning from our problems. Perhaps Google offered you a fantastic solution to one of your problems. If that same problem ever arose again, you will know exactly what to do and what it will take to overcome that problem. According to Source B, “She gives the example of a new mother trying to work out whether their baby not sleeping is bad-and when to start worrying.” Google can help save lives if the problem arose to that point. Without Google, another life may have been lost. Anthropologist Dr. Genevieve Bell also thinks that Google is establishing a positive effect on us. As Bell states, “These are all questions that technology may be able to address quicker that calling your own parents.” Depending on the problem, the internet may provide better solutions to problems than your parents. Google does not negatively affect our intelligence because it helps us solve real world problems.
Thus, Google also helps us recall and remember memories. This strengthens our intelligence because it allows us to actually think for a second. We are constantly trying to remember our memories, which causes us to think. Sometimes we may end up forgetting knowledge, but Google is the solution. According to Source B, “We remember less through knowing information itself than by knowing where the information can be found.” Yes, we may not know the information that we forget, but if we remember the sources, we gain access to all of the lost and forgotten information. This is a good phenomenon because if we only know one piece of information, we don’t know the rest of the information considering that we forgot the source. Some people in the world may find really great pieces of information but they want more. They cannot have any more of this wonderful information that they newly discovered since the source is then again forgotten. “Our brains rely on the internet for memory in much the same way they rely on the memory of a friend, family member or co worker.” (Professor Betsy Sparrow). Our brain realizes that the information used for memory on Google is trustworthy just as the information given to you by a friend or family member. Technology has made us smarter by allowing us to preserve memories from the past.
In Conclusion, Google may have some good and bad consequences. Google can have us acquire information faster but it can also have us access false information. If people think that Google is negatively affecting their intelligence, they are putting their life in danger. Multiple perspectives can be relatable to this prompt because different people have various views about Google affecting our intelligence. The internet affects your intelligence in a positive way by helping you solve information faster, solve real world problems, and helps you recall memories from the past.
Junk Food Essay Final
Obesity rates are rising and junk food is the culprit! School cafeterias in the U.S. continue to sell junk food to students. Schools need to take action so children grow up healthy and strong. If schools don’t ban junk food, 43% of the U.S. will be obese by 2018. In the articles: MedicalDaily.com, Norton Center Infographic, and Source A; by Richard J. Codey, all give examples why school cafeterias should or should not ban School cafeterias should ban junk food because of the complications of obesity, junk food addiction, and costly expenses.
To begin with, school cafeterias should ban junk food because of the complications of obesity. Obesity leads to diabetes, which is what ⅓ of kids will get after the year 2000. If school cafeterias consider to allow junk food. Richard J. Codey, the Governor of New Jersey, states, “Nearly 300,000 people die each year from complications associated with being obese or overweight.” A portion of the 300,000 people also become obese through junk food in school cafeterias. If schools were to ban junk food in cafeterias, the death count and number of obese children would lessen. According to Norton Center Infographic, “70% of obese children have at least one risk factor for heart disease and 39% have at least two or more risk factors.” Children who are overweight from junk food at school have a 70% chance to develop problems with their heart. Yes, kids get to develop the joy of eating those puffy cheese snacks, but in the long run, it won’t be fun knowing that they didn't have a longer lifespan than your son or daughter. Schools should ban junk food in cafeterias because of obesity.
To add on, school cafeterias should ban junk food because of junk food addiction. Since the year of 1970, children obesity rates have increased by 500%. According to MedicalDaily.com, the author states states, “He told Mental Floss that some foods are purposely made with ingredients so that you crave more food or you just add enough sugar or salt until your mouth explodes with flavor.” This leads to junk food addiction because you will always be craving more junk food. The craving of more junk food will then lead to obesity and that’s bad. Sugary snacks can become a drug; according to MedicalDaily.com, the author tells us, “As far as sugary snacks, new research shows sugar may be just as addicting as crack.” If it is addicting as crack, children will want to eat sugary snacks all day long. If children are eating sugary snacks all day long, it can lead to diabetes so in order to prevent that schools should ban junk food. Junk food addiction is bad so schools should ban junk food not only because of junk food addiction, but also because of costs. People think that schools should not ban junk food because all it does is just removes a food option. The truth is that schools do this so kids can make the healthy choices and not become obese.
Furthermore, schools should ban junk food because of costly expenses. About 25 million kids are overweight obese in the US. According to Norton Center Infographic it informs, “By 2018, the US will spend $344,000,000,000 on obesity-related healthcare costs.” If civilians made better food choices, we wouldn’t be spending our money on obesity-related healthcare costs. We could’ve been spending our hard earned money on resources like food and water. Money we spend on obesity-related costs may also increase our countries debt. In the Norton Center Infographic, the author states, “Children treated for obesity are 300% more expensive for our healthcare system than kids of a healthy weight.” If this continues, we will end up in a big hole that we cannot get out of, high debt. The U.S. will spend so much money on the obese kids. Keeping that in mind, by 2018, 43% of the U.S. population will be obese and we will not have the money to treat them. By banning junk food, these costly expenses can be avoided.
Given these points, banning junk food from school cafeterias will make children healthier, and reduce preventable expenses. Complications of obesity, junk food addiction, and costly expenses can all be prevented if schools ban junk food. Obesity has increased by 500% since 1970, so by banning junk food, schools will greatly decrease the amount of children obese, and encourage healthy lifestyle choices. The fewer children suffer from obesity, the fewer we will spend on healthcare. We will be able to focus on treating other diseases and saving more lives. If children are not exposed to junk food at school, the less likely they will be eating junk food. This can have positive effects on children as it will influence them to become healthy.
LA Period 7,8
Freedoms Essay Final
The founder of Good News Club, J. Irvin Overholtzer, created the organization in 1920. 81 years later, Good News Club started to go to court with Milford Central School. This took place in the United States District Court in New York. Good News Club should have the authority and Power to meet after school because of the Equal Access Act, Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom of Petition.
Thus, the Equal Access Act of 1984 allows schools to cater equal access to extracurricular clubs. According to Intrinsic Dignity, “Under the act, any federally funded secondary school that allows a non curriculum related student group on school premises during non instructional time creates a limited open forum for student groups.” Dignity is analyzing how funded secondary schools are allowed to have non curriculum related school groups on their campus, including religious groups. One thing that Justice Thomas wrote that Milford was unaware of was, “When Milford denied the Good News Club access to the school's limited public forum on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it discriminated against the Club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. What Milford didn't recognize was “Such schools cannot discriminate against other non curriculum related school groups, on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings.” (Intrinsic Dignity). Milford doesn’t have the right to discriminate against the Good News Club, a religious group. Good News Club is allowed to assemble on Milford Central School Campus.
The Essentials of Human Rights also agrees with religious clubs meeting after school. They portray Freedoms of Assembly as “the right as coming together with other individuals to collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.” This allows Good News Club and other religious clubs to express their religious beliefs through after school meetings. According to score.rims.k12, “The right to peacefully assemble means that someone can gather together with others without fear from the government that they are a mob.” This applies to Good News Club since they are peacefully assembling. They have the right to assemble without government interference. Good News Club is allowed to assemble whenever and wherever they want because they are protected by Freedom of Assembly.
Freedom of Petition, which was created in 1789, can also be used to allow religious groups to meet after school. The First Amendment guarantees the right to petition by saying, “the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Good News Club and other religious groups have the authority to apply for a permit. With the permit they can be able to meet on school facilities. The First Amendment also states, “the right to represent requests to the government without punishment or reprisal.” If the first petition doesn’t work, religious groups can fill out another petition to override the headmaster, or principal of the school. Freedom of Petition allows religious groups to sign a waver saying that they can meet after school on school premises.
Religious Groups, including Good News Club, should be allowed to meet after school. The right for a person to have religious clubs assemble after school should be granted based on the First Amendment because of the Equal Access Act, Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom of Petition. This is unanswered questions for Freedom of Petition because we don’t know if different schools allowed religious groups to be on their campus. At the same time, this doesn’t really matter because we have The Equal Access Act and Freedom of Assembly to back us up. If this was allowed, Religious Groups may want to take advantage of the campus by committing wrongdoings.
LA Period 3,4
DWA: Freedom of Speech Essay
On September 1, 2016, Colin Kaepernick kneeled during the national anthem. Numerous sources, such as Source A, B, and C have been discussing whether or not it is disrespectful for NFL players to take a kneel during the national anthem as a sign of silent protest. It is not disrespectful for NFL players to take a knee during the national anthem as a sign of silent protest because they are protected by freedom of religion, speech, and petition.
To begin with, it is not disrespectful for NFL players to take a knee during the national anthem as a sign of silent protest because they are under the protection of freedom of religion. Yes, freedom of religion does not protect harmful crimes, but it does protect the football player Colin Kaepernick from kneeling in the national anthem. According to Source A, “In respecting such American principals as freedom of religion and freedom of expression, we recognize the right of an individual to choose and participate, or not, in our celebration of the national anthem.” Freedom of religion grants these promises. You are allowed to practice your own religion and standing against the national anthem is perfectly fine. The ability to express your beliefs is a guaranteed right in freedom of religion, which is exactly what 12 Cleveland Brown players did. As Document A states, “We just decided to take a knee and pray for the people who have been affected and just pray for the world in general… We were not trying to disrespect the flag or be a distraction to the team, but as men we thought we had the right to stand that.” The 12 Cleveland Brown players did not disrespect the national anthem. Instead, they expressed their own religious beliefs by kneeling during the national anthem. Freedom of Religion allows NFL players to take a knee during the national anthem as a sign of silent protest without it being disrespectful.
Thus, it is not disrespectful for NFL players to take a knee during the national anthem as a sign of silent protest since freedom of speech protects them. According to Source A, “Far from disrespecting our troops, there is no finer form of appreciation for our sacrifice than for Americans to enthusiastically exercise their freedom of speech.” All football players who kneeled during the national anthem are protected by the freedom of speech
Language Arts 3-4
6 November 2017
The Crucible Essay
Names can influence positive or negative views. People can change their perspectives of others when a name is mentioned during court in the city of Salem, 1692. In the play, “The Crucible,” Arthur Miller explores the concept of a name by suggesting its vulnerability, showing the characters that sacrifice their name to reveal a truth, and converging these two ideas to what characters would sacrifice to preserve a name.
In “The Crucible,” one way that the playwright, Arthur Miller, explores the concept of a name is by suggesting its vulnerability. Elizabeth Proctor's name is at risk because Abigail has intentions to do harm to her. An example is when Reverend Hale informs the Proctors, “No-no, I come of my own, without the court’s authority. Hear me. He wet his lips. I know not if you are aware, but your wife’s name is- mentioned in the court.” (Miller 20). Once he says this, Ezekiel Cheever immediately comes in and arrests Elizabeth Proctor. This evidence shows that the mere mention of a name in court would most likely contribute to an immediate arrest. Suggesting the vulnerability of a name, this means that a name simply said once in court could easily get that mentioned person arrested. John Proctor confesses, “I have confessed myself! Is there no good patience but it be public? God does not need my name upon the church! God sees my name; God knows how black my sins are! It is enough!” (Miller 43). Judges Danforth and Hawthorne wanted the village to see the list of names because they are important. It shows that these people are now a horrible label and that anyone can be a witch, or that anyone can be easily accused. This indicates that names can act defenseless against people in certain times when support is needed most. However, this is when names can also reveal the truth.
Another way that Arthur Miller explores the concept of a name is by revealing the truth that a name can reveal. Names can help people find the truth about a certain event, place, time, subject, or even about the person themselves. Various characters in “The Crucible” use their name to reveal the truth only about themselves or others. An instance of this is when Reverend Hale states, “No-no, I come of my own, without the court’s authority. Hear me. He wet his lips. I know not if you are aware, but your wife’s name is- mentioned in the court”(Miller 20). Hale wants to claim that the warrants and arrests he made are false. This does not make him a true Reverend even when his name, with the title of a Reverend, says otherwise. This is because he is even admitting it himself that the warrants and arrests he made are not true. Another character willing to reveal the truth is Mary Warren. Judge Hathorne tells Mary Warren, “And yet, when people accused of witchery confronted you in court, you would faint, saying their spirits came out of their bodies and choked you...” (Miller 85). Mary Warren then replies“That were pretense, sir.” (Miller 85). Mary is willing to sign her name on a paper, or the deposition, to die for the truth, revealing that the trials and everything else was a mischief, and that her and the girls were pretending. Therefore, names can be used to reveal truths about others in tough situations, even if those characters are willing to sacrifice something in order to find the information that they were looking for.
Characters in “The Crucible” would sacrifice others’ lives or their own to preserve a name. They are willing to give up everything to preserve their name and honor. For example, Danforth remarks, “Now hear me, and beguile yourselves no more. I will not receive a single plea or pardon of postponement. Them that confess will hang.” (Miller 39). Danforth would sacrifice the lives of many in order to protect his name and prove the allegations, or his false accusations, were not made for nothing. He also wants his name to stay pure, clean, and preserved, as he promised the village they would witness these deaths. John Proctor is also willing to sacrifice something for others-in fact, even more. As the playwright, Arthur Miller explains, “His breast heaving, his eyes staring, Proctor tears the paper and crumples it, and he is weeping in fury, but erect.”(Miller 43) John Proctor is willing to sacrifice his life in order to preserve a pure and clean title for his name and for the future Proctors. Preserving a name for others is a hard decision that characters in “The Crucible” had to make.
A name shows significance in “The Crucible” because various characters encounter life or death situations, only because their name or another’s was mentioned. Names matter to us because society might think of us differently because of our actions. It is what we are remembered by. We all have names in this world, and we are also willing to protect it just like the characters in “The Crucible.” We care about how others see us and our name. The vulnerability, truth, and sacrifices made to protect a name is explored through the insight of the playwright, Arthur Miller.
Miller, Arthur. “The Crucible.” Penguin Books, 1995.