Alethea Castro November 3,2017 Per. ½ The Crucible’s Powerful and Powerless “The Crucible” is a partially fictionalized play but is based on past events such as, the Salem witch trials. “The Crucible” is about a love affair gone wrong to which revenge was the driving force. “The Crucible”, is a fictionalized play, written by Arthur Miller. In the play, “The Crucible”, the powerful versus the powerless is a conflict revealed through the accused against the accusers who are driven by social status, wealth, and social support. In the first place, the accused against the accusers were driven by social status. Social status is a very important reason why the powerful versus the powerless is a conflict, for example if you have more friends you were most likely believed and if you have barely any friends you must not be innocent. One example, in Act 1, is when Betty is “sleeping”, Abigail is asked what her and Betty did in the woods, she replies saying, “Now look you. All of you. We danced. And Tituba conjured Ruth Putnam’s dead sisters. And that is all. And mark this. Let either of you breathe a word, or the edge of a word, about the other things and I will come to you in the black of some terrible night and I will bring a pointy reckoning that will shudder you.”(Page 7) This means that Abby knows they did drink blood, but she does not want to admit it so, she threatens to kill anyone who says anything about it. Tituba is another example of social status because when Tituba claims the devil calls her at night and when Mr.Parris demands Tituba to say who she saw with the Devil, and if she doesn’t respond, she will be hung, no one in the room defends her because of her low social status and her being a slave. This means that because of Tituba’s low social status, and her being a slave no one defended her of almost being hung. These are the reasons why social status lead to a conflict. Now the second general reason comes in, wealth. To add on, wealth was the second general reason the powerful versus the powerless is a conflict. Being wealthy made the poor go on the wealthier person’s side, but if you were poor no one believed you were innocent. The first example of how wealthiness caused a conflict between the powerful and the powerless was, Giles and Mr.Putnam, Giles owned a lot of land and when he was accused by Mr.Putnam, Giles did not confess so his son would stay with his land, instead of auctioning it, so Mr.Putnam, one of the richest people in that town, would not get to buy his land, even though he had many land, but yet still wanted more, when he was getting pressed instead of confessing “Great stones they lay upon his chest until he plead aye or nay. WIth a tender smile for the old man :They say he give them but two words. “More weight,” he says. And died. (Page 41) Giles actions means he disliked the Putnams so he took his actions as the right thing to do to stay with his land. The second way wealthiness caused a conflict was, John Proctor and Mr.Putnam’s relationship. In act 2, when Proctor is leaving and has a piece of wood, Mr. Putnam quickly claims “A moment, Mr. Proctor. What lumber is you’re draggin’, if I may ask you? Mr.Proctor replies, “My lumber. From out my forest by the riverside.”, Mr. Putnam quickly replies, “Why we are surely gone wild this year. What anarchy is this? This tract is in my bounds, it’s in my bounds, Mr. Proctor.” (Page 9). This means that because of Mr. Putnam’s wealthiness in land, he does not believe the lumber Mr. Proctor is carrying is his. Wealthiness is a popular cause for conflict in the Crucible. Social support is the next cause so let’s jump right into it. The final reason the powerful versus the powerless is a conflict is social support. Social support is an important way of a conflict because if you have more supporters you are believed and if you don’t then you are not believed. Abigail and John had a hidden affair and when Elizabeth found out she fired her, Abigail accuses her of being a witch because she claims that when she worked as a maid for the Proctor household she found that Elizabeth had a poppet, and that day she found the poppet with a needle on the stomach and Abigail's stomach started hurting. This means that because of Abigail going into detail and her girls backing her up no one believed Elizabeth. The last example is the court versus the people because whenever someone’s name was said at court then no one would support you because then they would probably also get hung. A person’s name is a very important issue to the court. This means that if your name was heard no one would defend you because then the court thought the defenders must be witches also. So nobody stood up for anybody’s name said at court. These are the examples for social support being a conflict. At last, the Crucible had many examples of how the powerful versus the powerless was a conflict. The Crucible had powerful versus the powerless by social status, wealth, and social support. This matters to us because we should know what happened in the past. This relates to us because we have conflicts in our daily lives. Is Google negatively affecting our intelligence? Google is a source that helps answer people’s questions in one click away, but it can actually be affecting our intelligence negatively. The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains, written by Nicholas Carr, The Independent Tech, by Genevieve Roberts, and A Study of Students’ Online Behavior, by Moran and Firth, are all informational articles. Many people are getting affected by Google in different ways, but over the less Google is something people normally use on a daily basis nowadays. Google is affecting our intelligence negatively by getting people distracted, not allowing people to make connections using their brain, and making people rely on Google. To illustrate, Google is causing people to get distracted. For example, it claims in Source A, “If we’re distracted we understand less, remember less, and learn less.” For instance, if a child was in class and their teacher allowed them to use a device to look something up on Google, when they were to go on Google they would see ads on one of their interests, then the child would get distracted and would not focus or remember what they were asked to do in the first place. This is a problem because Google then will become a distraction to the child, who will tell their friends, who will also be getting distracted, and when they are in class they will not be able to understand, and remember the topic they are having a lesson on. In Source A, it states, “That’s the problem with Google- and with the Internet in general. When we use our computers and our cell phones all the time, we’re always distracted.” This is not right because for example, it is is dangerous because if a person is walking down the street and is on their phone checking their social media, if they do not see the color of the streetlight, they will get in an accident, because they were not checking the lights because the Internet was being a distraction to them. Therefore, Google is becoming a bi distraction to people which is affecting them by causing them to understand less, and remember less. To add on, Google is affecting people’s intelligence by not allowing people to make connections. For example, in Source B, it states,”...human memory is not the same as the memory in a computer: it’s not through remembering that we make connections with what we know, what we feel, and this gives rise to personal knowledge.” A child is in danger of not making connections if they do not remember how they feel, and what they know if Google is affecting their human memory, which will affect them now until later on in their lives. The human memory is something in our bodies that no one would like to lose, but Google is affecting it, causing it to get damaged which is not letting people make connections with what they know using their brain to get that information. In Source A, it states, “if you’re really interested in developing your mind , you should turn off your computer and your cell phone- and start thinking. Really thinking.” This is good because our devices are causing people to not make connections, and really dig deep into their brains and think about something. If technology didn't exist people would not be using Google to look up anything they had a question about, they would actually think about the subject and really try to make connections with what they already know. Lastly, Google is affecting our intelligence negatively by making people rely on it. For example in Source C, it states, “when the information is saved externally, we usually don’t memorize it, but rather remember the place where we find it.” This is a huge problem because when a person does not know the definition of a word, they go to Google which is fine, but then it becomes a habit, and they depend Google as being a resource to find the answers. Also, in Source C, it states, “We are becoming symbiotic with our computer tools. We relate to them like they’re close friends in whom we can rely.” Kids will depend on Google for all the answers, but Google can not help them get the answers to every single question they have, and when it comes to hearing the person out Google can not help them solve all their problems, unlike a close friend will. In conclusion, Google is affecting negatively our intelligence by distracting, not letting people make connections, and making people rely on it. Rafael Garnica, Joseline Blanco, Alethea Castro, Omar Villa, Jose Calderilla Junk Food Essay One in every three kids in the United States is overweight or obese which is equal to twenty-five million children. Articles like MedicalDaily.com, a Norton Center Infographic, and an article titled “Battle Intensifies to Keep Junk Food Out of School Lunch Rooms” help support the claim that junk food should be banned. Childhood obesity has increased in the past few decades in the United States. States should ban junk food in schools because it causes obesity in children, it makes the United States spend a lot of money on obesity related healthcare cost, and it causes children to have addictions that will lead to health care issues later in life or at the child’s current age. To Specify, states should ban junk food in schools because it causes obesity in children. Obesity is where someone is overweight, it affects their health. In today's society, most americans are obese including both children and adults. IN the Norton Center Infographic provided by www.eatingdisorderpro.com, it demonstrates 25,000,000 children in the United States are overweight or obese [where] That’s equal to 1 of every 3 kids! Since 1970, childhood obesity rates have increased by 500% In other words, the amount of children is America with obese have definitely changed over time. With obesity, it causes a big impact in today's society with origin being junk food. Furthermore, in the same source, the infographic states “, Fast-food portion sizes Have increased but between by between 200-500% since 1995 92% of elementary school don’t have uear roun To illustrate, children that have junk food at school run a risk of getting obesity which the U.S government has to spend money for health care costs. For instance, it states in Source E: Battle Intensifies to keep junk food out of School Lunch Rooms, written by Roberta Alexander and Nina Lincoff, in the section Head lined, Show me the Money, “ They concluded that schools that are 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 is a problem because a school would rather get junk food for the kids, when they have financial problems, likewise, its like a person who has money would rather buy chips, than to save money for something they really need. In other words, it states, in Source C: Norton Center Infographic, in the headline, The Costs, “By 2018, the US will spend $344,000,000,000 on obesity- related healthcare costs, which is 300% more expensive for our health care system than kids of a healthy weight.” As you can see the government has to worry more about the children with obesity, when kids with a healthy weight could be sick, but doctors have to worry more about children with obesity being sick. Lastly, children’s addictions to junk food has turned into a tragedy and is now leading to their health care issues. In the article by MedicalDaily.com, “Junk Food May Be Prohibited In School Lunches This Fall; Pending Federal Law Sparks Obesity Debate” in the headline Kids addicted to junk food?, it states,”One bag of cheetos has 150 calories, according to Frito Lays nutritional label. That doesn’t sound too bad, but once you have three bags, that’s 450 calories and 750 milligrams of sodium.” What researchers are basically saying is that when you fall for junk food addiction, you’ll do anything to desire another bag which leads to health problems like diabetes, high sodium, etc. Another resource is in the “Norton Center Infographic” it says,”Today’s children will be the first generation since The Great Depression, projected to have a shorter lifespan than their parents.” This means that due to high risks for children to have risk factors; heart disease, it has caused shorter lifespans for children in our generation. Therefore, junk food should be restricted from schools to decrease health problem issues in children who are addicted to junk food. In conclusion, states should ban junk food in school because it causes obesity, makes the U.S. spend a lot of money on obesity related healthcare, and it causes children and adults to have addictions leading to health care issues. Given these points in today's society obesity has an impact on many Americans with issues both mentally and physically. The origin of obesity is junk food and no exercise. Furthermore, Americans have eaten more junk food overtime.
Alethea Castro Ms. Park ELA Per. ½ December 19, 2017 Freedom Essay The freedom of speech is how everyone is able to say their opinions or ideas without being afraid. We do have certain limits to our freedom of speech though, which the First Amendment does not protect us from. According to various sources by NBC NEWS, and CLICK 2 HOUSTON, a woman was arrested for having an anti- trump decal on her truck. Karen Fonseca, 46, was the driver of a truck featuring a sticker with an expletive, directed toward President Donald Trump, was arrested on an unrelated, outstanding charge. The right for a person to use “fighting words”, while expressing their freedom of speech should be restricted based on the First Amendment because, if a person uses profane fighting words, those words may not be protected speech, also obscenity language may be a speech that is not protected by the First Amendment, and true threats are not protected by the First Amendment. In the first place, profane fighting words should be restricted when a person is expressing their freedom of speech. A woman named Karen Fonseca was the driver of a truck, which had an anti- trump sticker that used profane fighting words. For example, Karen Fonseca said, “It’s just our freedom of speech and we’re exercising it.” For instance, if a child were at school, and their friend were to show them a picture of the president, the child has the freedom to say what he feels about the president, but if the child were to start using profane language it would cause a problem. In this case, Karen is the child using profane language against president Trump, but she should be restricted from having profane language on the sticker on her truck. In other words, profane fighting words should be restricted because, if someone is offended by it, and they tell that person about t, it could make things worse. “I am now quite aware that no such hope for a calm and reasonable discussion exists with her”, he said. “Fonseca, who said…..Nehl’s messed with the wrong person,” added a new decal on her truck “F*** Troy Nehls and f*** you for voting for him.” This is a problem because regarding the example about the child using profane words, if their friend were offended, the child would get mad at their friend and do something about it, in this case Karen posted a new sticker regarding Troy Nehls because she got mad at what Troy Nehls had said. To add on, obscenity should be restricted as a form of freedom of speech. The supreme court has identified different kinds of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment and which among obscenity is one. A form of obscenity in this case is when, “in the comments on the post, Nehls posted context about the disorderly conduct charge: (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly: (I) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace; (2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” This is a problem, because for instance if a child uses profane language in the public, it could disturb people that hear the child. Also, the child’s words may offend people, which is another way peace will be broken in the public. Lastly, true treats are not protected by the First Amendment so it should be restricted for everyone. The texas sheriff that posted the picture of Karen Fonseca’s sticker decal on her truck, made a threat against her. It states an article, “Fort Bend County Sheriff Troy E. Nehls said he was looking for a truck bearing a profanity-laced anti-Trump sticker — and that authorities in his Texas county were considering charging its owner with disorderly conduct. But his threat immediately raised alarm among free speech advocates — and caused the sheriff to walk back his statement and retreat from social media. This is a problem because he only stopped the treat because people thought they would not be able to have the right of speech but, the texas sheriff made a threat which is not a protected speech. In other words, “The objective of the post was to find the owner/driver of the truck and have a conversation with them in order to prevent a potential altercation between the truck driver and those offended by the message.” This is not something good because the sheriff turned a conversation into a threat that many people did not like hearing about. In conclusion, the right for a person to use “fighting words”, while expressing their freedom of speech should be restricted based on the First Amendment because, if a person uses profane fighting words, those words may not be protected speech, also obscenity language may be a speech that is not protected by the First Amendment, and true threats are not protected by the First Amendment.
Lately, NFL players are taking a knee during the national anthem as a sign of silent protest, but everyone seems to have an opinion on what to do during the national anthem. Many believe this is a form of silent protest. Colin Kaepernick’s actions are not disrespectful because he has a right to kneel during the anthem, he is showing he is against social injustice, and still shows respect by praying for the people affected, and the world. First of all, Colin Kaepernick has a right to kneel while the national anthem is being played. According to claims in Source A, “NFL commissioner Roger Goodell originally disagreed with those actions, but later said: “I truly respect our players wanting to speak out and change the community… We want them to use that voice, for example if a child at school sat down during the pledge of allegiance, they have to have a reason to why, even though they have a right to sit down. It states in Source A, “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 to make a statement. I think there’s a long history of sports figures doing so.” For example, regarding a child, if a child were to sit down during the pledge of allegiance they would tell their friends to sit down with them to have more and more children not saying the pledge of allegiance, even though they have a right to not state the pledge they have to have a reason. To illustrate, Kaepernick is kneeling during the national anthem because he is trying to express he is against social injustice. A claim in Source A is, “ I’m not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color… To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way” said Colin.” Over time people will see what Colin is trying to express respectfully that he does not want to show pride to a country who oppresses people of color, for example a child or person can not make someone do something they do not want to. In Source A, Denver Broncos linebacker, Brandon Marshall, who also knelt during the national anthem, said, “the message is I’m against social injustice… I’m not against the military or police or America at all.” To add on he does not want to show disrespect to the military or police, or America, he just wants social injustice to be over, like if someone was forced to do something is trying to show something like Brandon is trying, and many people are. Lastly, Colin Kaepernick’s actions are not disrespectful because he still wants to show respect by praying for the people affected and the world. It states in Source A, “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.” This is a good and bad situation because if there is more people that get affected, there might be more players that kneel and pray. In Source A, it states, “The issue is that it doesn’t provide equal opportunities to its citizens that no other country does. NFL players just want everyone to have the same equality as everyone does. In conclusion, NFL players kneeling during the national anthem is not disrespectful because they have a right of expression, against social injustice, and still show respect to the world and people affected by social injustice.