Boston Public

Here is my Prezi for the Boston Public assignment!

http://prezi.com/n_fjtu6oaqma/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy&rc=ex0share

Sugar is killing us - slowly

Sugar is killing us slowly – study

In the article “Sugar is killing us slowly – study” written by Fiona Macrae introduces the points that sugar is bad for your health and can cause various problems. Sugar is in almost all things, it’s uncountable. The sugar that is in fruits and such is known as the “good sugar”, which is healthy for you. The “bad sugar” is in candies, donuts, etc. include no health benefits whatsoever. Sugar is something we eat in almost all foods and drinks; it’s the main thing that brings the taste and we don’t really look if it’s good or bad. If you know a little about diet and such, you will come to know that sugar is now the fatty food and that’s what people try to stay away from who are on a diet, not fat.

The article says that sugar is like poison and should be dealt as seriously as cigarettes and alcohol. Scientists are also claiming that sugary foods and drinks are the cause of heart diseases, cancer, and liver problems. Furthermore, the report says that the “bad sugar” causes 35 million deaths around the world and it should be dealt with through the legislation. The scientists argue that sugary foods and drinks should be doubled their price, which will avoid their sales, dropping the percentage of illnesses. Recent studies have proven that obesity is a bigger problem than malnourishment, which is a very big issue today. The sugar consumption has tripled and it continues to grow, leading more and more cases of obesity.

The other side of this argument is when other scientists argue that sugar is only lethal or effective in a bad way is when it’s consumed in high amounts. They say that it’s fine to consume “bad sugar” from time to time; however it must be a balanced diet, which should include physical activity. Another person by the name of Barbara Gallani is on the other side of things. She says that it’s wrong for us to focus on sugar, while we should be focusing on fighting diseases and such.

Sugar can be good; however it’s bad in most cases. Sugar should be dealt with seriously and there should be more awareness around the world to showcase this issue, whether there are campaigns raising awareness or it’s being talked about in classrooms. The point of Barbara Gallani is somewhat weak. That’s because if sugar is causing so many problems and diseases, we should attempt to stop the creator of the problems, so that there are minimal cases. If we continue to keep treating the diseases without identifying the main cause, we’re going nowhere. Sugar is something very serious and the issue needs to be addressed. Sugar is fine to have once in a while, but it should be minimal to avoid further complications.

Is that crime a crime?

   People commit acts of crime all the time. A crime by definition is an act of negligence that's considered hurtful to the general public. But sometimes a crime is detrimental to the criminal rather than the public welfare. This is usually shown in crime involving vagrancy, alcohol, and drugs. The question for this topic would be whether or not someone should be charged for causing themselves harm, setting them further back. Or to provide treatment for them instead.

   We'll start with drug and alcohol users. Drug users to be treated differently depending on the type of drug they use. Marijuana for example is a socially acceptable drug by most and is usually taken more lightly by the law. However someone drunk in public, snorting rows of cocaine or injecting heroine into themselves are bound to meet some bigger consequences. People however disagree with the law laying down these big consequences on drug users saying that they're used for their addictions rather than recreational purposes and thus let them be treated rather than punished.

   Then there are pan handlers and beggars. They don't do anyone any true harm, and they certainly don't mean any harm. After all they're simply just asking for money in their time of need. It's still vagrancy though, and that's against the law. It's not an enforced law however, as you don't see any cops around streets with their batons chasing beggars. Surely these beggars are as innocent as we are, right? But then you'd have to account for what they aren't doing, and that is contributing to society. You can reasonably assume that the money you'd give them could go to a drug dealer or some other money sink which won't do any good for either party in the end.

   I believe that the best possible solution would be to punish and treat the these crime-doers. If we were to give the criminal treatment with no punishment, then they'd feel there'd be no consequence for them to repeat their actions again.If we were to give a criminal vice versa, then that'd only be another problem in a mountain of problems the criminal would already have. The only problem with this solution would be the cost, as now we'd have the three, jail, fine and treatment to give them rather than a fine/with a sentence to jail or treatment. But I believe this would prevent repitition of the crimes from an individual leading to much more progress than the current system we have.

Computers and Classrooms

 The question that comes to mind in today's technology engulfed society is whether or not computers are a benefit to classrooms or a huge detriment to the students. The capabilities of a computer is endless and it's knowledge is just as deep. So why keep them away from students if that's the case? Shouldn't computers, and the internet be accessible in a classroom?

   While it is true that computers can be a great benefit for classrooms and their students, studies show that people with laptops not only get lower marks, the people around the people with their laptops grades also decrease. This shouldn't normally be the case though, because they're able to take notes in such a rapid pace. Your average words per minute on a student handwriting would likely be 31 WPM as opposed to the whopping 50-80 WPM for people typing. The underlying problem with computers in classrooms is the distractions that come alongside it. A computer can carry a large arsenal of programs. Though some of them are useful for a classroom, others are for outside of school activities such as games, music and the giant which is the internet.The computer doesn't just stop at distracting the user, however. The click-clackity of a mechanical keyboard can be a huge annoyance to the students around the user, making verbal lessons harder to focus on for these students as well.

   Laptops can still be useful in a school environment though. They grant the ability to connect a student and teacher greater interactions. They've also shown to increase the rate of student participation and motivation. But this doesn't even out with the cons the laptop can bring.

   I believe that constant laptop use is a poor habit in a classroom and should not be promoted for education purposes. It still is possible to balance out the use of computers in a classroom for different sorts of activities. The use of a laptop is shown to take quicker notes than someone handwriting when a teacher is doing a lecture. However the student does not absorb the information as well as the student is when handwriting. By knowing this we can determine in which situation a computer is appropriate in classroom. For doing activities, a laptop can do wonders for a teacher and student. For note-taking and lectures, you can grab a pencil and paper and keep writing for now.

High-Tech Classrooms

Living in the information age, it is difficult to go amongst day-to-day activity without encountering a technologic dependency in one form or another. Electronics have been so complexly woven into our lives that it’s often hard to imagine living without them. This notion is not solely applicable to the tech-savvy adults of our world. The use of technology in classrooms is becoming increasingly more common with the belief that the benefits of high-tech learning are plentiful. But is this really the case? Is it possible that too much computer access for students may interfere with their education?

Many researches hypothesize that this may be so. Studies have found students that have lesser access to computers have higher marks in math, science, and reading than students who do. Manitoba high school teacher Michael Zwaagstra says “[students’] time would be better spent getting a solid grasp of the basics” rather than learning to use computers and software. Technology in the classroom is not only often distracting to students, but is also highly expensive. Manitoba alone spends more than $26 million each year on information technology in its schools.

Surely, this is not all put into impractical use. Technology has revolutionized the way students are taught. Information has never been easier to access and display in a stimulating and effective manner. Computers are a practical teaching-aid that can help students’ learning be more audio-visual and interesting. In a time where perpetual use of technology will be ever-present in young people’s lives, it would be of great benefit to get children familiar with the basic skills they’ll be using consistently.

I have no strong feelings towards either side of this argument. On one hand, I know that access to computers, iPads, and other devices of the like has helped me to be more productive, and the surplus of new information has expanded my world view tremendously. On the other hand, I’m grateful I spent many of my younger years as a student (kindergarten to Grade 4) with minimal use of technology. At such a young age, development of basic skills is critical and computers can be a major distraction from that. All in all, I believe it’s of upmost importance to find a balance between the two.

When is crime not a crime? Google Drive (JJ)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9g35VXIEjfATlFoSFN2RkVZc2c/view?usp=sharing

When is a Crime not a Crime? (Patrick)

When is a Crime Not a Crime?

                Is it just to believe that committing an act which only harms yourself a crime? Or does harming one’s self have outside repercussions? Can we make the assumption in today’s society that acts that only harm the offender are criminal offences, or can these acts not be justified if they don’t directly harm a third party? If analyzed carefully, one might see that crimes without victims have two sides to which they can be seen from a moral point of view.

                When looking at a crime, it should be safe to assume that there shall always be a victim. But when the one who committed the crime is the only victim, is it still a crime? For example, if someone were a heavy user of illegal substances such as methamphetamine, the only person to be harmed would be the user. They themselves chose to abuse the substance, and they are physically harming only their body. Why punish someone who is hurting only themselves? Self-harm through victimless crimes should be seen as punishment enough.

                Contradictory to that, there is always another side to the same token. Using the methamphetamine abuser example, we can see that this might not be a victimless act. Methamphetamine is known to cause anger and rage, which in turn could physically harm a third party. On top of that, the same substance can cause death, which can mentally harm the user’s family and friends. The fact that crimes without a victim are crimes is because there is a chance that there might just be a victim.

                Acts that which only harm the offender can be seen in two ways; either criminal or frowned upon. I believe that victimless crimes are still crimes for one simple reason. Victimless crimes should never be seen as victimless. The offender will always hurt their family, friends, or another party either mentally or physically no matter what crime the offender imposed upon themselves. For this reason, I believe no crime is without victim and all crime should be punished to prevent other parties falling victim to the offender. A victimless crime can always be called such, but that doesn’t mean outside victims have not been created.    

Are Classroom Computers Hindering Education? (Patrick)

Are Classroom Computers Hindering Education?

                Technology is rapidly spreading and growing, and is quickly becoming a go-to source for knowledge and education, but are we really learning as much as we think we are? High-school teacher Michael Zwaagstra argues that young children in earlier grades learning how to use computers are wasting the chance to learn about more vital subjects such as math and English. However, computers are now the future, and it could be seen as vital that children learn to navigate one. Either way, computers may change a child’s education for better or worse.

                Some people might state that time is money, and the same could be said for education. Time is indeed education, and computer education cuts in to that precious time for younger grades. Zwaagstra questioned the logic behind teaching computer software to younger grades, as said hardware will eventually become outdated. Teachers only have so much time to educate with, and other, more beneficial skills could be leaned rather than computer education. On top of the time dilemma, computers can hinder skills such as spelling and writing, as computers will check your spelling for you, preventing you from honing literary skills. Not only that, but computers cost money, and that money could have went to hiring more teachers, which would have decreased class sizes and been more beneficial for both teachers and students alike. Overall, computers cut into both time and a child’s early education.

                However, computers can open up a new world of education for students. Learning how to use a computer and the software which corresponds with it can be a beneficial skill for a child’s life. Also, a computer with access to the internet can give a child a wealth of resources to work and learn with, helping the child grow. Learning how to use a computer could also help make a teacher’s job easier, as children could hand in their assignments online, allowing teachers to view all of their student’s homework in one place and take it anywhere with them. Computers can also provide career opportunities, and if kids find an interest early on in computers through school, they may find their own career path early on. To conclude, computers make time in the classroom easier and may provide a future for many students.

                Contradictory to this, in my opinion, I believe that Zwaagstra is correct in arguing that students are losing vital education time by learning about computers. I believe students in early grades should not be learning about technology that they will eventually learn later in their life. This technology will continue to grow, and students will learn what they need to when the time is right. Funds meant for schooling should be going to more beneficial things, rather than having children learn about software soon to become obsolete. Computers may open the door for some, but in the end, the educational time wasted on them hurts all.

When is a crime not a crime (Matthias)

                Murder, theft, assault, these are words that come to mind when the word “Crime” is mentioned, where one person gains from another’s detriment. But what if there was no gain? What if the person committing the crime was committing it against themselves? Should that person be punished? The most common among these self-inflicted crimes are drug use, suicide, vagrancy and drunkenness. In most cases they are only putting themselves at risk and thus the dilemma of whether the person at risk should be charged or not.

               

In 1972 a new bill repealed the law that a person could be charged with attempted suicide. Taking a step back, that person not only affects themselves but also their family and friends. Their death would heavily affect everyone around them as the sheer shock would have immense impact. This would justify it being made a law to punish attempted suicide. Vagrancy is another crime that could be punishable. Vagrancy means that you have to be wandering abroad or trespassing, have no means of financial support and failing to justify your presence in the place you are found in. Vagrancy is seemingly the only crime without a victim. However the vagrants can be viewed as a detriment to society as they do not contribute at all. With drug addicts one person says “Drug addicts are weaklings and fools” suggesting that people should not have to spend tax money trying to rehabilitate or treat them. This person has a very valid point in this matter as the rehab facilities are sponsored by tax payer’s money. Drunkenness can also be taken in the same way. In addition drunks could be detrimental as they would often harm others in a drunken fit of rage where they could not control their actions.

               

Although these problems can obviously be viewed as punishable crimes, they can also be viewed as not. Suicide may be viewed as a crime performed only against the person who attempts it. It is NOT harming anyone else, which can be viewed as the reason the government repealed the law instead of keeping it. As for Vagrancy, it can be viewed as simply an occupation for those without. They are not directly affecting anyone in anyway. Although they are not contributing to society it is society’s job to care for those in need. Drunks and Drug addicts should be able to receive a second chance and go to rehabilitation in order to rejoin society “clean” if there was a way to bring a loved one or friend back from a life of alcoholism or drugs then you would be inclined to believe that it is right to provide a solution for these crimes and deem them unpunishable as the victim does not really affect anyone.

               

Although there is no clear answer on what should be done about these crimes, there is still public opinion. Whether any of these are actually considered crimes differs slightly. In my opinion vagrancy cannot be stopped as there is an abundance of homeless everyday begging which doesn’t really harm anyone so I believe that is fine. Drug addicts and drunks I feel should have a limit on how many times they offend before they are forced to rehabilitate or to be punished. For suicide I believe that they need not be punished but instead be immensely rehabilitated with professional help to ensure it never happens again. In short the opinions of whether these are crimes or not will differ from person to person and cannot be set in stone.

Sugar is slowly killing us (Matthias)

Sugar is in everything. Most people will admit that too much sugar is bad for them. However little do they realize that sugar is far more damaging than a simple tooth ache as we were taught as children. Too much sugar has been compared by scientists to the damage of drinking too much alcohol which is shocking. Scientists have discovered that it is a leading cause to obesity which is now a bigger problem than malnourishment across the world.

               

Sugar is what makes things sweet and most people enjoy that taste. However most people are also cautious of how much they can eat. Scientists have discovered that it not only causes cavities but also changes metabolism, raises blood pressure, throws hormones off balance and harms the liver. These are all severely detrimental attributes of sugar. Experts are now talking about limiting soft drinks and other sugary products in order to save people’s lives. They are thinking about doubling the prices of soft drinks and limiting what is permitted to be sold in schools. They want to rid people of easy to obtain, loaded with sugar products. They make a point by saying it’s easier to restrict the availability of these products than to tell kids to exercise and have a proper diet.

               

While it does seem like sugar is posing a huge threat, others argue that sugar is only lethal when taken in unrealistic amounts. They argue that while sugar does cause problems they are only one factor of these problems and these problems can have other causes as well and we should not be focusing solely on sugar itself. Also they mention the fact that scaring the public with portraying sugar so badly will not help in the correction of people’s diets. While it is key to try and force people away from unhealthy eating habits, it is not in their best interest to focus solely on sugar and depict it as such.

               

I feel that while sugar is a big problem I myself have never really enjoyed candy or anything of a particularly sweet nature. I prefer savory and salty things as opposed to sweets so I’ve never really experienced such a problem. However I do believe that obesity is a huge problem usually connected to sugar and soft drinks. I do believe that schools should limit what they sell and try to be healthier. Doubling prices and making it harder to obtain these products will result in public outcry and will most likely backfire as many people will probably not like this new change, even I would not appreciate having to pay more for a plain soft drink. Having more advertisements and programs dedicated to healthy eating will most likely help the problem in a less drastic manner. In short I believe the experts are on the right track however they are taking far too drastic of a leap to reduce the threat of sugar, there are far more problems to worry about but we should not neglect it either. If a happy medium could be achieved without riots or outcry while still creating change in diets that would be the most preferred.

Should Online Privacy for Educators Exist? (JJ)

Should Online Privacy for Educators Exist?

Social media has been the biggest hit in our society in the past decade. Throughout the years social media has - improved for communication and ease of access. Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are some of the most popular apps that many people use today. Some choose to use them for education purposes while others just use them as entertainment or to communicate with friends or family members. The majority of online profiles are created by teenagers, and adults tend to rarely use any social media in comparison with the younger generations. Most of the time elderly people  are not unfamiliar with handling electronics, but on the other hand adults rarely use social media due to work policies. A good example would be teachers, who are expected to have a professional attitude towards their students and co-workers at all times. In this case, some teachers tend to not create any profiles at all due to their standard of professionalism. Some teachers do own accounts, but they are either very private or rarely used. Even though teachers are expected to be good role models to their students in and out of school, it does not mean that their social life on the internet should be restricted. Though it is their profession, they still have the right to use social media for personal use.

It is uncommon for government related professions, such as police officers and teachers, to own  social media accounts. It can be argued that the limitations for these workers can be good for teenagers who look up to them. Because of the expectation of maturity, many students wouldn’t truly know the personal life of their teachers. For example, teachers may act as a professionals only within school, but outside of school they can be inappropriate and cuss when they are with their friends and families. Unaware that their students might be checking their profiles online, they might post something unrelated to education, inappropriate, and mature.. A scenario like this is why it can be beneficial for everyone if educators privately use social media or not own one at all.

    

Even so, teachers are still humans, which would mean that they should have the right to express themselves in person or through social media. Teachers with a Facebook account who use it for personal use should have the right to do what they want and post what they feel like saying. It can be risky, but if it is managed well and is appropriate to the public eye, then I don’t see any more reasons  why teachers have to be so private about themselves online. 

Although there are some cons to letting teachers express themselves through social media as a person outside of school, I still believe that they should not be required to shut down themselves just for the reason that they do not use it for educational purposes. As long as their online account is appropriate for others to see, then I support educators having the ability to use social media for their personal use without having to be private from their students and coworkers.

When Is Crime Not A Crime? (JJ)

When Is Crime Not A Crime?

               

  Crime happens all the time, but there are enforced laws that we as a society must follow to at least present such things from occurring. Most of the time there is a victim and a suspect involved within a crime. But people who possess drugs, drink often, attempt suicide and vagrancy are debated as to whether they are the criminals or victims. In terms of definition, crime is described as actions that are not accepted or are harmful to the society, and break  the law. Many believe that victimizing oneself and not  society as a whole should be legal. However, there are others who think otherwise due to religious beliefs and the possibility of others becoming indirect victims.

            

There are people who argue that since we control our own body and mind, we are responsible for the things that we do. They believe that governments should not implement laws that restrict what people can and cannot do with their own bodies. There are certain activities in which, other than the participants, nobody else is harmed , yet these acts are  are still considered unlawful. For instance, vagrants, drug users, and suicide attempters are considered criminals and immoral. The participants of these activities only harm themselves., leading many to believe that as long as society is not threatened, then those acts should be legal to some extent, so long as they do not interfere with a person’s moral judgment.

           

Although there are situations in which an illegal activity does not put society in danger, there are still some cases in which others who are involved become threatened and harmed. There are several examples in which alcoholism, possession of marijuana or vagrancy may be accepted as illegal, such as an alcoholic father who mistreats his wife or even his children, then there is no doubt that cases of alcoholism should be illegal. Another example would be the parasitic ways of vagrants due to their dependency on others for food, shelter, and transportation. Therefore, many consider them as a barren to society. Although suicide is now legal or no longer an act of crime in Canada, there are many religions, such as Christianity and Judaism ,that are still against it. Society may have changed their view of suicide as something that is accepted, but the religious beliefs of others still view them as immoral and something that should be considered illegal. Even though many still disagree with legalizing suicide , our society has grown to see that it can be beneficial for those who have sickness, are un-treatable, and  have nothing left to do but feel pain until they die.

There are certain crimes that I believe should be considered as legal because others are not harmed except the partakers. However, there is still a high chance that others who are not directly involved in situations like those may become victims of different ways. Hence, I fully support the law because it helps prevent dangerous activities from occurring as well others from suffering the effects of them. 

Hello!

Thanks for inviting me to your blog.  Just a reminder - it helps to have a "follow" gadget (in layout administrators can add this feature) and don't forget to change your Blogger profile to first name and last initial only - you are still minors and we want to protect privacy.