According to many parents, faculty members, and adults in general, they believe that all junk food should be banned from schools. Looking at an article about a book called, “Reading, Writing, and Raisinets: Are School Finances Contributing to Children's Obesity?” by Patricia Anderson and Kristin Butcher, it states, that schools under financial pressure tend to rely on the income from the selling of junk food. Therefore, junk food should be allowed because banning it won’t make the students healthier-it would simply just limit their options, the money from the sales help with funds or extra curricular activities, and the school can just increase the physical activity occurring in P.E. Given these points, one of the main reasons school food should be allowed is because whether or not they ban junk food it does not help the students become healthier. In many schools they believe that if they ban junk food, their students are going to be healthy. In an article it states, “Some children may adjust and embrace the healthier options while others may choose to stop eating school lunch or simply find other ways to sneak in their favorite junk food,” (MedicalDaily.com). The quote is stating that many kids will be neglant with the healthier idea, or participate in it. Kids can always find junk food outside of school. Banning junk food will only make kids think a different or harder way on to where else to find the things they desire. In source A, it also claims,”An across the board junk food does not teach young people how to make healthier choices.” The quote restates that if the schools were to teach kids on how being unhealthy can impact their life. It wouldn’t really matter to the kids, as much as the adults think it would. Many kids, have a huge way of thinking because they explore and see new things everyday, which is why it can give them other ideas to find snacks. Banning junk food only takes off one option from the many options which would not make a child healthier in any shape or form. Additionally, we know that junk food may cause harm to our health, but schools don't see the actual improvements they must require in their health plans or physical activities. Instead of banning snacks or known as “junk food,” they should add more physical activity. In an article written by John Dively it notes, “ improving what we teach about nutrition and requiring more physical activity are better ways to approach obesity than imposing statewide junk-food bans.” This citation proves that instead of taking away student’s choice of food, physical education should be brought into the schools system. If physical education is added, it may benefit in many different ways. Source A also implied, “ We believe that childhood obesity is a very serious issue..” This evidence demonstrates how students may also suffer from a health issue or medical problem, but the physical activities that could possibly come into consideration may help those that don’t have much physical activity in their daily lives. Either way, having a stationary place with snacks can always be the children’s option to either purchase or not, with them also having in mind if it benefits or it doesn’t. However, the states not banning junk food from schools can be a good thing because of it being able to raise money for extracurricular activities, etc. Also, we all know that junk food isn’t healthy but it’s our choice in whether we want it or not. As stated in Source E,”they concluded that schools under financial pressure are more likely to make junk food available to their students, to have “pouring rights” contracts and to allow food and beverage advertising to students”. This meaning that the schools being “under financial pressure” they don’t need to ban junk food from the schools since it will help them with the financing problems they have. Also, Source E demonstrating,”lucrative contracts with soft drinks or canding manufactures have often paid for activities that financially strapped districts could not afford”. So, this also proving that not banning junk food in the schools can help with any money problems the school has. Moreover, if they were not to ban junk food from school, the money raised from that may be used for any field trips or school resources for the students. With this in mind, the ban of junk food in schools should not be considered. Students can always buy junk food elsewhere and it wouldn’t cause them health benefits, the money from the chips, candy, etc. would help if they need it financially, and P.E can have them exercise more often rather than banning junk food completely. Therefore, even though there is no real gray area in this situation of banning junk food or not, it should not be banned.
The incredibly popular search engine known as Google is said to be making people less intelligent, but it really isn’t. Google is relied on for various subjects, from the weather to recipes, to the mathematical equations used for finding the distance between our planets in the solar system. For instance, in Source A it states, “the opportunities outweigh the distractions,” meaning that although Google and the Internet have a reputation of being a distraction, the opportunities that it gives us are far more important. Therefore, Google is not causing us to be inferior. As a matter of fact, it helps us increase our intelligence by guiding us in finding information that we can’t find anywhere else and it can allow us to explore things that we have never seen, thought, or heard. Google is a good source for discovering data or information that you can not find or access anywhere else in your vicinity or wherever you live. According to Source A, it states, “Suppose I’m interested in the guidance computers on Apollo spacecraft in the 1960s. My local library has no books on that specific topic.” So, since this person’s local library does not carry any books on the topic he needs, he can search up on Google, “guidance computers on Apollo spacecraft 1960s.” Hundreds of thousands of websites that are all about the Apollo spacecraft will show up for him to use. Without the help of Google, you would not have to be struggling to find the topic or subject that you need, you simply just type in the search box, click “search,” and hundreds of articles, newspapers, books, or blogs pop up instantly. Also noted in Source C, it claims, “without Internet access, if we wanted to know about something, we had limited source options to research it, like the available books in the nearby library.” In other words, like Source A, if there is not access to books about the certain issue or matter you are looking for at your library, you can just Google it and have countless amounts of resources right at your fingertips. In conclusion, this search engine is probably the best way you can find information that isn’t at your local library or anywhere else with books or newspapers. Equally important, Google allows us to explore things that we have never seen or heard of before in our lives. In Source A, it suggests, “Internet users are more likely to be exposed to a diversity of ideas.” This concludes that by looking at the Internet, such as articles or images, these new ideas that you never would have thought of, could be discovered and remembered. You can learn other people’s perspectives on a topic or if they personally experienced whatever it is in an article that they wrote. Following that, it states, “In politics, for example, they are likely to see ideas from left and right, and see how news is reported in other countries.” What this implies is that we, from the United States, can look into other governments and societies in other places, such as Brazil, and maybe get ideas from them to help us on how we run our government. That way we aren’t only exposed to all that we know, we can learn tons more to improve ourselves as a country. Therefore, Google is a great opportunity to virtually look into other countries to get ideas or to just explore new places and see the way they express things or celebrate events without having to leave the state. Given these points, Google allows us to learn a plethora of information from different matters such as how many licks it takes to the center of a tootsie pop or what Albert Einstein’s great grandmother’s name was. We are able to have easy access through the Internet if we can not find what we need in books or newspapers and we can research new ideas that we would never imagine from different states, countries, cities, or continents. To sum up, this search engine is the fastest resource that can be used with simply just clicks of buttons.
Freedom of Religion
Freedom of religion is a very touchy and paradoxical topic to deal with because even though someone can be exercising their religious freedom, they can be violating another freedom, such as freedom of expression or freedom from discrimination. An example of this is when a Christian baker refused service to a gay couple because according to his beliefs, he is not supposed to have anything to do with same-sex relationships. Looking back at an article titled, “Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple,” it discusses both sides to this predicament, whether the baker has the right to practice his religious freedom of that he illegally discriminated against the couple because they were gay. Viewing this situation from my perspective, I believe that the same-sex couple has a right to buy a cake from this bakery because the bakery is owned by the government-it is not a privately owned business and they have the right to practice their freedom of expression as much as he does. Masterpiece Cakeshop is not a privately owned bakery, it is open to the public which means that they do not have the right to refuse service. In this particular article, “Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple,” it states, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status, or sexual orientation.” Thus, the owner of the shop, Jack Phillips, does not have the right to refuse service. If it were a privately owned business, it would be a different story because then he could say or do whatever he wanted and decline service to anyone for any reason. This article also notes, “While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers.” Although the bakery is owned by Jack Phillips, a Christian, it is not a private or Christian based business. Therefore, no religion gives you the right to break the law and discriminate against someone; and no religion says that is is okay or you need to. Altogether, since Masterpiece Cakeshop os not a private business nor a Christian based business, Jack Phillips illegally discriminated against the couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig. Although Jack Phillips has as much of a right to his freedom of expression as Craig and Mullins, his way of expression broke the law. Noting the article, “Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission,” it concludes that Jack Phillips violated their freedom of expression by stating, “on August 13, 2015, the Colorado Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the Commissions order, finding that the bakery discriminated because of sexual orientation in violation of state law. The court also confirmed application that Colorado’s Anti Discrimination Act did not infringe the bakery’s freedom of speech or free exercise of religion.” Given these points, because Masterpiece Cakeshop is a public business-one that is open to anyone regardless of race, sex, marital status, or sexual orientation and also because they have the same amount of freedom of expression as Jack Phillips does.
"The Crucible" Essay
During the year of 1692 in Salem, Massachusetts the whole fiasco about the witch trial hysteria was occurring. This event in history led Arthur Miller, a famous playwright, to write the play, “The Crucible.” All of the characters in this play each have very different internal and external conflicts that contribute to their relationships between one another and their development over time; these conflicts originate from jealousy, scapegoating, and lies. Jealousy was a very significant reason for the reason behind these internal and external conflicts. In this very controversial play, envy was depicted in many situations and between different people. For example, on page 19 Elizabwth and John are having aa conversation about Abigail. It states, “spoke or silent, a promise is surely made. And she may dote on it now-I am sure she does-and thinks to kill me, then to take my place.” This means that Elizabeth knows that Abigail wants to take her place because of the “relationship” that John Proctor promptly ended with Abigail. Obviously, Abigail was very hurt from this because she is young and had a relationship with an older man. Consequently, she knew that he “left her” because he felt extremely guilty towards his wife and ended things between them, thus, caused Abigail to want revenge on Elizabeth. Another piece of evidence is when he receives a warrant for a house search that he knew, for a fact, was hinted by Abigail. It states, “Is the accusers always holy now? Were they born this morning as clean as God’s fingers?... now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom and common vengeance writes the law! This warrants vengeance!” By this, John Proctor knows that since he broke Abigail’s heart, she “initiated” a search warrant for his house. “Vengeance” was Proctor’s way of saying that it was Abigail’s revenge on not only him, but Elizabeth as well. Therefore, jealousy was a very large component as to why there were so many internal conflicts and mostly external conflicts between characters. People would blame others to save their own name and reputation or they wouldn’t say anything at all because they knew that they would be accused for witchcraft as well as the already accused; this would be called scapegoating. As stated on page 33, the author illustrates this point when he states, “Abigail: It is a wind, it is a wind! Mary Warren: Abby, don’t do that! Danforth: Mary Warren, do you witch her? I say to you, do you send your spirit out? ” What this means is that now that Abigail has been brought to court, along with the other girls that were saw dancing in the woods, she is acting like there was a “spirit” that was sent upon her to make her act the way that she was. To add on, in act one page 14, when Betty is finally woken up and Abigail admits that she and the others were dancing in the woods, the two begin shouting out a bunch of random names of people, who are perfectly innocent, and saying that they have associated with the Devil. It states, “Betty: I saw Martha Bellows with the Devil! Abigail: I saw Goody Sibber with the Devil! Putnam: The marshal, I’ll call the marshal! Betty: I saw Alice Barrow with the Devi!” And and so on and so forth. So when they owned up to what they did, they were naming these poor and innocent people so that what they did didn’t seem as important and the other people would be punished. Altogether, scapegoating was a large chunk of the reason for the disputes between one another and themselves. The next and final reason for internal and external conflicts is because of how many lies were kept and the secrecy that was amongst the majority of the town. In act three, page 31, Danforth and Cheever are interrogating Abigail about different things; now keep in mind that earlier in this play, Mary Warren gives Elizabeth a poppet as a gift. The text states, “Danforth: A poppet were discovered in Mr, Proctor’s house, stabbed by a needle. Mary Warren claims that you sat beside her in the court when she made it, and that you saw her make it and witnessed how she herself stuck her needle in it for safekeeping… Abigail: It is a lie sir. Danforth: While you worked for Mr. Proctor, did you see poppets in that house? Abigail: Goody Proctor always kept poppets Proctor: Your Honor, my wife never kept no poppets. Mary Warren confesses it was her poppet.” As I said in the beginning, Mary Warren gave Elizabeth a poppet as a gift, but this particular poppet was sent by Abigail- she gave it to Mary to “plant” it in the Proctor household. Then, Abigail was apparently stabbed, by the push of Elizabeth’s spirit, in the stomach with a needle that was also coincidently found in the stomach of the poppet that Elizabeth now had. Lastly, on page 17, John and Elizabeth are eating supper and having a conversation when suddenly things start going south- John has admitted that he was alone with Abigail once more. It says, “Proctor: I am only wondering how I may prove what she told me, Elizabeth. If the girl’s a saint now, I think it is not easy to prove she’s fraud, and the town gone so silly. She told it to me in a room alone- have no proof for it. Elizabeth: You were alone with her? Proctor: For a moment alone, aye. Elizabeth: Why, then, it is not as you told me.” This illustrates that John not only lied to Elizabeth, but he kept it from her as well. He was alone with Abigail, the girl that he “cheated” with, again even when he knew that Elizabeth had been hurt. In conclusion, lies and secrecy were very significant as to why there were, in this case, many external conflicts throughout the play. Given these points, “The Crucible” by Arthur Miller, portrayed internal and external conflicts, overtime, through jealousy, scapegoating, and lies. A vast majority of these conflicts originated from the envy of other characters, the act of blaming others for something they were innocent of or blaming others to make them not feel as guilty, and lastly, the many lies that were told and the secrets that were kept from each other.
"Kneeling During the National Anthem" - Writing Assessment
Controversies throughout the United States have arisen due to the protest that, 49er’s quarterback, Colin Kaepernick started. According to Document B (First Amendment), it states, “The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly…” So, because Colin Kaepernick has a guaranteed freedom of expression and he was acting out against social and racial injustices which many people can relate to, it was not disrespectful for him to kneel during the National Anthem. The First Amendment of the US Constitution clearly states that every single person has their right to express what they believe in. As shown in Document A, it states, “A letter signed by 35 US veterans stated that [“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.”]” In other words, the mean and women that have been in the military, army, etc. fight for us to be able to have freedom of speech and expression. And for us to exercise those freedoms, shows our gratitude toward them. Also noted in Document A, it argues , “Not standing for the national anthem is a legal form of peaceful protest, which is a First Amendment right. President Obama said Kaepernick was [“exercising his constitutional right it make a statement. I think there’s a long history of sports doing so.”]” Therefore, even Barack Obama understands what they knelt for and he was acknowledging that they were practicing their First Amendment right. The way that they protested was a non violent way to stand up for what they believe in. In conclusion, Colin Kaepernick was exercising his rights to expression and should not be looked down upon for it. Racial and social injustices have become a very big problem in the world, but it’s just one of those things that nobody really talks about or brings up. This is exactly why Colin Kaepernick, and many of his team mates and athletes in general, did what they did and knelt during the Star Spangled Banner. According to the very first paragraph in Document A titled, “Refusing to Stand for the National Anthem,” it states, “San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick first refused to stand during the [“Star Spangled Banner”] on August 26, 2016 to protest racial injustice and police brutality in the United States.” This meaning that becuase of the discrimination, stereotyping, and how the police are treating people of color, Colin Kaepernick believed that he shouldn’t stand for a country that ignored it. Again, in Document A, where it talks about how twelve Cleveland Browne players all knelt in a circle to pray. It states, “There’s a lot of racial and social injustices in the world that are going on right now. 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 up for what we believed in, and we demonstrated that.