Mask Law

As Boston won the Stanley Cup last year, some citizens in Vancouver were very disappointed, and started a huge riot in the streets. Cars were destroyed, buildings and mailboxes were destroyed, and stores were robbed. The police had to be called in and they had to use tear gas to stop some destruction. Only a few violators were arrested on that day and some more were caught after. Sadly, most of the violators had escaped, either they weren’t caught by hand by the police, not caught on surveillance, or had masks on to prevent being identified.  If none of them had masks on, a lot more violators would have been caught. Thankfully, there is a proposed law sending people with masks on during a riot to jail for five years or a fine of up to $5,000. It sounds like a great idea but is it good? Let’s look at some pros and cons of the new law.  

            If you were watching the Stanley Cup finals in Vancouver last year, and the mask law was in place, and you were cold, you would cover your face. How about if you didn’t want to be on the news standing beside a burning car? You would have to go through some trouble with the police explaining that you are innocent and that would also be wasting the police’s investigation time. Also, riots are illegal, so if you add a mask wearing penalty to it, you just get a larger penalty, that is, if you could find the offender(s). The mask law is unneeded.

Sources:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/05/should-it-be-a-crime-to-cover-your-face-during-a-riot-1.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2012/05/14/f-mask-riot-law.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/05/08/pol-riot-mask-ban-committee.html

Should it be a crime to cover your face in a group gathering?

(Bill C-309) which will make it illegal to wear a mask at any protest classified by officials as an "unlawful assembly", with a possible punishment of TEN YEARS in prison! Conservative MP Blake Richards says police have been asking for a law like this for some time, and that's why he introduced a bill to make the necessary changes to the criminal code last month. It will be debated in parliament today.

"When trouble starts, people intent on criminal activity depend on being able to 'mask up' to conceal their faces with bandanas, balaclavas or other means to avoid being identified and being held accountable for their actions," Richards said in a statement last month when the bill was tabled.

The debate sets up some questions, though. For example, the bill exempts people that have a "lawful excuse" for covering their face, but it does not define what a lawful excuse would be.

Also, it leaves open to interpretation what constitutes a riot. The criminal code defines a riot as "an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously."

Bill C-309 would create two classes of offence.
Those who incite a riot while wearing a mask face an indictable offence up to 10 years. Those who participate in such an unlawful assembly while wearing a mask could face up to six months in jail or fines up to $5,000.

By making this law it will solve and make problems for us. First of all we have to understand the wearing a mask is anything that covers ones face so that people can’t figure out who that person is. This causes questions to arise, what happens when some kind of religious woman who is Muslim or any kind of religion goes to riot? What if that woman covers her face for a purely religious reason? What happens then? Would that woman get arrested for being faithful to her religion? However for this there is also a solution The bill, as it is currently written, does not define what would be a lawful excuse to wear a face covering. Richards said that wearing cultural or religious dress that obscures the face, or bandages for legitimate medical purposes, might fall under the exemption, although the person could still be subject to prosecution for participating in a riot. This still makes it possible that the person could still go to jail for this reason.

There are pros to this law too. Now for the police it will be easier to find criminals such as people who are robbers, terrorists and ect. As there are pros and cons to his law how this law will affect us will have a significant difference to us.

SOURCES

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/16/montreal-bylaw-could-test-whether-mask-ban-during-protests-will-reduce-violence-or-encourage-it/

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/16/bill-c-309-canada-mask-law-montreal_n_1520213.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2012/05/14/f-mask-riot-law.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/11/23/mask-bill-309-riot.html

http://www.sodahead.com/living/should-it-be-a-crime-to-cover-your-face-during-a-riot/question-2288139/

I'm sorry for posting too late. I had some techincal issues. I'm sorry for the weird font I can't fix it.

Bullying. A Crime Or Not?

   So bullying. Something we all know, and most of us have experienced. It can cause pain, misfortune, and can lead to many suicidal attempts.  But should it be considered a crime? Well 2/3 of Canada’s population thinks so. 

   Someone in Quebec decided it was time to make a change. He is attempting to pass a bill in which teachers and principals will have the authority to expel kids who continue to bully other students.  Even if no physical contact is involved.  Some people who are against the idea state: “bullying doesn’t fall as a crime in Canada’s criminal code”.

  

   According to the “pink shirt day” website, one child in Canada is being bullied EVERY 7 SECONDS. How sad is that. To think that bullying is happening that often and our society can’t seem, or try, to do anything about it. 

   Responders to the bill to see bullying as a crime, has the support of about 78% of the Atlantic Provinces, while B.C. has given the least amount of support, only 55%. About 20% of Canadians believe that bullying should be seen as a crime ONLY if physical violence I s involved, and only 6% believe that bullying isn’t a crime at all.

   What I think most bullies don’t realize is that some victims can be literally “bullied to death”.  There have been so many (more then you’d think) suicides among teens because of bullying. We all know the kid’s don’t mean to cause the person to kill himself or herself, but how would you punish your child if their ways caused someone to commit suicide? That’s the big question.

     I personally really don’t have an official opinion whether I think it should be an official crime or not. There are most likely other methods we can use to decrease the amount of bullying without throwing kids in prison. So think about it.

  Sources:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/bullying-crime-225007123.html

http://www.theprovince.com/life/Bullying+should+crime+Canadians+poll/6229221/story.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/10/04/phoebe-prince-should-bullying-be-a-crime.html

Should the Government Ban Tanning Beds for Those 18 And Under?

        The government of BC has banned the use of tanning beds under the age of 18. It is said that using tanning beds increase the risk of melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer, by 75%.

      By doing so, the government is trying to decrease the amount of people that get skin cancer. They have done several researches to find that this is true. The researches show that this is mostly because of the high UV radiation that is exposed. It is to help prevent skin cancer.

        I agree with this law because skin cancer or any cancer for that matter, does not yet have a cure. So getting cancer would be very dangerous. Most cases result in death. By banning tanning beds, the government helps those who might not notice the risks of using tanning beds. This helps them and tells them the harm it causes.

           Cancer survivor Kathy Barnard says that she hates the numerous surgeries she went through to survive her cancer. She says that she would rather live with the skin that she was given than die because she had a desire for a more preferred skin. She says to be proud of the skin you own. Save it, protect it, don't try to change it.

         Steven Gilroy of the "Joint Canadian Tanning Association" said that it is usually people around the age of thirty that comes to do the tanning. Teens aren't a big part of our customers anyways. Steven thinks that this law was specially targeting the "Joint Canadian Tanning Association".

            But if teenagers are not a big part of their customers anyways, then why would they care so much about it? It must be because Steven is lying and they actually have quite a few teenage customers.

         Steven also states that the "Joint Canadian Tanning Association" might help by giving manned tanning instead of having unmanned tanning. This definitely will not help because unmanned tanning will not make it less harmful to tan, it will just make it easier for the tanners. This may even cause more people to tan because they might hear of the "excellent" services.

           Overall, I just agree with this law and want the government to ban the use of tanning beds under the age of 18. This will definitely decrease the amount of deaths in the near future.

Online Source:

Dan Burritt "BC Government Announces Tanning Bed Ban For Teens The Law Will Take Effect This Fall."  
March 20, 2012  14:36 P.M. <http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/342856--bc-government-announces-tanning-bed-ban-for-teens>

    

Bullying Should be a Crime?

All adults teach us how bad bullying is but why isn't it a crime yet? From just excluding someone in a group to severely injure someone, bullying can vary in many different ways. With all the educations in school and/or at home, bullying is still happening around us very commonly. Bullying can be in different forms, victims can get bullied in many ways. Verbal (calling names), physical (punching), social alienation (excluding victim from a group), cyber bullying (bullying on internet), disability (bullying to victims with disability), racist (mean words to victims’ race, culture…), sexual (mean words to a victim’s gender), homophobia (mean words to victim’s sexual orientation); these are just some examples of different types of bullying. Should bullying be consider a crime? Here are the disadvantages and advantages to what might happen if bullying is a crime, also my opinion of considering bullying a crime.   

  Everyone all has a different opinion and definition of bullying. A “teasing” action to someone may be thought of bullying to someone else. This isn’t likely to happen but what if some people pretend to be injured or bullied, to get a chance of charging someone? There could be many false accusations. But no one will know if it actually happened. People may be using this regulation for other wrong purposes and what would people think of this law? Useless? Unnecessary? Making bullying a crime may be difficult. Many people are saying teenagers commit suicide because of the bullying happened in school. But there are cases where teenagers commit suicide not because he/she got bullied. Since we won’t know really know if a person actually got bullied, experts are needed. Therapist and other educated doctors are essential to determine if the victims are affected, whether it is physically or mentally. Although there are some loss if bullying is a crime, there are much more benefits toward it.

Making bullying a crime can save one's life. These are some positives things if bullying is a crime. Bullies will finally pay for what they have done to their peers; they will get punish for what they did. The perpetrators will get an opportunity to learn more about how bad bullying is and how much it can hurt the victim. Some bullies bully for satisfaction; they don’t know how it feels to get hurt. This is inadequate. Another good thing is victims will not be as afraid to go to school as before. Many victims are missing or skipping school because they are suffering from bullies. Bullies who are one step to bullying someone, they will think first before doing it. If this law happens, victims of bullying will surely reduce.

Bullying should definitely be a crime. This way more people are educated. Bullying is just like any other crime, bullying hurts others. Making bullying a crime can certainly make a difference, thousands and thousands of people will feel safe, and the pain will stop. Having anti-bullying day is not enough to promote the stop of bullying, we need to make it bigger. We need to make it a crime.

Sources

http://www.violencepreventionworks.org/public/recognizing_bullying.page

http://www.abcornwall.org.uk/children/types-of-bullying

http://www.chicagoparent.com/magazines/web-only/april-2010/is-bullying-a-crime-should-it-be  

CE Blog Post 3

Should Bullying Be A Crime?

            Many students and people are being bullied in today's society. It is not always physical bullying, and now because of cyber space people can be bullied virtually. Now the question is "Should Bullying Be A Crime?" I'm going to talk bullying (long term effects and short term effects of the victim and bully), society's answer and about my opinion to the question.

            Bullying is very serious in our society today. Some of the short term effects for the victim are that he or she will have trouble sleeping, depression, and have anxiety to attend school. They have troubles sleeping because they have bad dreams also called nightmares. Depression is another thing and they will have it in extreme case, too. They will be scared to go to school because they are intimidated or threatened of the bully. Some short term effects for the bully themselves are hard time making friends, more likely to get involved in harmful activities, and usually more likely to have an alcohol and substance abuse. They will have a hard time making friends because they scare most of the students. They will more likely get in involved in harmful activities such as, stealing, vandalizing property, and getting into physical fight and injuring themselves. They are more likely to have an alcohol and substance abuse because they think they have no other way to solve their problem other than drinking. In fact drinking does not help solve your problem it just makes you forget why they are feeling that way or the problem.  

            Some of the long term affects for the victim are alcohol and substance abuse, self-destruction, and depression unless they are given immediate help the victim, they should have limited long term effects. They abuse alcohol and substances (drugs) because they want to forget the problem when in fact the problem is still there. They will be in a self-destruction mode because they will put themselves down and just totally feel down. The victim can be so depressed that they commit suicide. Some long term effects for the bully is that he or she will have a criminal record, be dependent on alcohol and feel guilt if the person they bullied committed suicide (my opinion). The bully will have a criminal record because their aggressive behaviors grow. They will be dependent on alcohol because they abused it when they were younger. My opinion was that the bully will feel guilt and that was because let's say that person was the bully's best friend before the bully was that bully.  

            I think bullying should be a crime because bullying is part of harassment and abuse. And harassment and abuse is a crime. What if someone commits suicide because of someone bullying him/her then isn't that the same thing as murder? Bullying someone until the point where the victim commits suicide is no better than murder. Actually it is the same thing as murder. So bullying should be a crime. Don't you agree with me?

Bibliography

"Consequences of Bullying."  Oracle  June 7th 2012
http://library.thinkquest.org/07aug/00117/bullyingconsequences.html

John W Sheridan  "Short and Long Term Effects of Bullying - The Victim & the Bully." 
June 7th 2012 
< http://ezinearticles.com/?Short-and-Long-Term-Effects-of-Bullying---The-Victim-and-the-Bully&id=4615335 >

Rita Berhel  "The Long-Term Effects of Bullying on the Victim, the Bully, and the Bystander."  June 7th 2012 http://theattachedfamily.com/membersonly/?p=171

"Family Violence Initiative" June 7th 2012
< http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fv-vf/pub/har/har.html>

June 06 Final Blog Post- BC has passed a law regulating tanning beds

BC has passed a law regulating tanning beds and it is to be put in to action in the fall. The law states that if you are under 18, you are banned to get bronzed in a tanning bed unless you go out of British Columbia. The only exception is if you have a doctor’s note which happens when they find that the ultraviolet rays could be used to treat some specific conditions like psoriasis. Do you think it is right for the government to come up with these rules without other people’s opinion?

Studies have found a 75 percent increase in the risk of a deadly skin disease called melanoma, due to those who have been exposed to UV radiation from indoor tanning. Also the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) estimates that there are about 3,000 hospital emergency room cases in a year due to indoor tanning beds and lamp exposure. If there are so many risks and consequences that you may get when you tan in indoor tanning beds, then why do thousands of people still do it? Firstly, tanning is very similar to smoking a cigarette. You eventually get addicted to it if you use it frequently. Intentional exposure to UV light may lead to an addiction and many people are not aware of this. Secondly, people believe that having a tan makes them look more attractive because they get the idea of “everyone else” doing it. For example, they tan because they want to be like their friends or favourite celebrities. For these reasons, Health Minister Mike de Jong is working on banning tanning beds to avoid future health problems even though he understands the tanning industry opposes the ban.

A cancer survivor, Kathy Barnard said that she was an obsessive tanner in her teens and endured numerous surgeries afterward. She believed people should be proud of their skin and to own it, protect it and save it. She ended the discussion by saying that she would rather be alive with the skin she was given than die in the skin she so desperately wanted to have. Do you agree with her?
            I believe many teens who tan regularly would object to what Kathy said but they do have to admit; tanning beds give them big consequences that would affect their life terribly. Furthermore, I believe setting a law would help save and prevent many young lives. Once the teens pass the age of 18, they would be able to choose to tan again but it is known that they would mature throughout the years and make the right decisions in the end.

Many other places who don't already have this law are starting to consider to create it.This includes Nova Scotia, France, Quebec etc. The Australian state of New South Wales also announced that they will ban tanning beds outright by 2014. Do you think this law is reasonable to the tanning industry and to all the minors who enjoy tanning?

Sources:

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/government+working+tanning+regulations/6182237/story.html

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/342856--bc-government-announces-tanning-bed-ban-for-teens

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/06/05/tanning-beds-minors.html

Proposed Mask Law

Proposed Mask Law.. Should it be a crime to cover your face in a group gathering?
First of all, lets take a look at the pros about the proposed mask law. If we do make it a official law, yes it'll be much easier for the polices to catch criminals such as in a riot, robbery, murders,...etc by searching them up with their face, and identity that comes from their lookings, styles. Also, it'll be easier for leaders to recognize people who join their group, club,...etc

Cons- There could be a lot of problem to this proposed law, since this means that the police will gain the power to fine (range $500~$3000) anyone they see with a mask on. First of all, it'll effect badly on the holiday "Halloween' since it is pretty much all about changing your identity into something else.
Also, this will effect the protestors to lose everytime they protest when the police deploy tear gas, which means a lot of people will not be so happy about negative things that happened but did not get solved.
it'll even effect sports like cycling, skating,...etc that requires masks to prevent cold air going into your mouth so you wont catch cold, or any kind of sickness, and it'll effect illness people who needs masks so the disease from speading, such as in school. Also, there is already a law about wearing a disguise to commit an offense.

This law only give rights to the police, and a few others because, as i know, it only gives a few positive points to the police, few leaders,... etc and a lot of people will only be effected badly. So from what I know, it is better without this law since it effects so muchs things giving only a few positive things. and when you look at the fact that there is already a law about wearing disguise to commit an offense. so all the government should do is making this law a little strict. It may be a little difficult to the police to find the criminal, but it should be better without this proposed law since it only effects them and a very few others.


Online source:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2012/05/14/f-mask-riot-law.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/16/bill-c-309-canada-mask-law-montreal_n_1520213.html

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/16/montreal-bylaw-could-test-whether-mask-ban-during-protests-will-reduce-violence-or-encourage-it/

Todays class video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIhFJWVnsNw

Canadian facing American Death Punishment

Capital punishment simply means an execution. Canadian Ronald Smith is now facing a capita l punishment for committing murders in the USA. Mr. Smith had been hitchhiking in Montana close to the Canadian border with his two friends. They were drunk and needed a lift and Blackfeet Indian cousins Thomas Running Rabbit and Harvey Mad Man, were kind enough to give them a ride. Smith forced them out of the car, shot (and killed) them, and stole the car. He was drunk and high on LSD (a drug) during the shooting so the events are not 100% accurate and it might have led him to kill them. In court, he was given the choice of a life sentence or a death penalty. He chose the death penalty since he "couldn't imagine spending the next twenty years in prison". After that, Smith rethought about it and wanted to live the rest of his life behind bars. Now, Smith is wanted to be executed by the families of Thomas and Harvey, and by some of the local government since it has been too long for the state and taxpayers to take care of him. Should he live? There have been many arguments whether he should live or not.

If a student gets in trouble in a different classroom, then usually their teacher decides the consequence. In some more serious situations, then both teachers decide the consequence. The USA should not have total control over punishment of a Canadian. In some parts of USA, capital punishment is allowed, but in Canada, there is no capitol punishment, so being jailed up forever (or until you die) is reasonable, but capital punishment does not work since Canada does not do it. Smith should be able to choose if he wants to be executed or not, and he chose not to. If they really did not want him there, they could send him to Canada to be locked up.

In the article, it is said that Smith had changed personally and that his family believe it too. Sometimes criminals pretend to “change” just to get a shorter time in prison. I believe that if a criminal has truly “changed” they would accept the full consequences and in this case, death. In another article, Smith said that he would accept death, but only worries about his family. Therefore, I believe he shouldn’t be executed. 

Sources: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/the-canadian-on-death-row-should-live/article2421955/

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ronald+Smith+Canadian+consular+official+speak+hearing+death+Canadian/6553907/story.html

http://www.timescolonist.com/life/Canadian+death+simply+waits+learn+fate/6612310/story.html

Are Sports Drinks Good For Teens?

     Gatorade, Powerade, etc, are all what today's society considers sports, or energy drinks. But are they really healthy, or the best for the average teen to drink on a regular basis? I decided to research this topic since my brother happens to love them, but i have heard many terrifying stories on how they affect people. There are always pros and cons to everything, and of course they do have their uses. Lets take a look.

   First of all the taste. Gatorade specifically has about 30 different flavours so athletes will have something that tastes better then plain water. Gatorade also hydrates an provides the restoration of electrolytes. Electrolytes help with your muscle contractions. They also include vitamins and they also replenish your body's fluids. When you sweat or after you're finished exercising they can provide the nutrients and vitamins you lost through sweating. Some sports drinks even have sugar free options, so its not as bad as having a can of coke. 

   Besides all the positives of sports drinks, there are many cons. When you over use or abuse the point of sports drinks it can result in harm to your body. First of all there is not much water , and water is ESSENTIAL for every athlete's body. Secondly the levels of dyes and sugars in sports drinks are quite high, causing dental damage. The dental damage from gatorade takes effect faster then coke. The sugar can also cause extra weight gain. One sport drink per day, everyday would cause at lead a 13lb weight gain per year. Some sports drinks have caffeine in them, but the levels can be even higher than a cup of coffee or a can of coke! Most companies claim that these drinks improve your over all experience, yet scientists don't even have hard evidence that this is even true.

   Personally i don't think sports drinks are the best beverages to drink, but there obviously some very helpful positives. But next time you have the choice between water and a sport drink, go for the water. It may not taste as good, but you are doing your body a HUGE favour.

 Sources:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/75345-pros-cons-gatorade/

http://www.lifescript.com/diet-fitness/articles/s/sports_drinks_exploring_the_pros_and_cons.aspx

http://michiganstatenews.wordpress.com/2009/01/30/pros-and-cons-of-sports-drinks-water-may-be-just-as-beneficial-when-sweating/

Ronald Smith, Will He Live?

Murdering people is a big crime. Should Ronald die for it? Thirty years ago he murdered two cousins. Because of this he had spent 30 years in Montana State Prison. Is Ronald truly sorry for his crime? He apologized to the family. From what he said we can truly find out if he should live.

First of all he apologized for his wrong doings. This is the first step, understanding the sorrow and pain you caused because of this act. He knows it's too late to fix anything but he wants another shot at life to live better. He wants to be a better person but can he? How do we know whether or not he can change for all we know he could murder someone again.

Now we also have to see the other side.Thomas Running Rabbit IV had seen his family suffer because of Ronald Smith's act. He was very sad and angry saying that he would not forgive Ronald. It makes sense that he would want Ronald dead. That would make them even. Or will it? Having the loss of someone you can never change the fact that a person died. No matter how much you want them alive or how much you want the murderer dead it does not change the fact that the victim will not live. Killing someone because of your sufferings doesn't make your life easier. It is like saying that because someone stole and broke your scooter you also stole a bicycle and destroyed it. The past is the past and we can do nothing to change it. Thomas should consider about if Ronald Smith does die does that make his life easier?

Did Ronald Smith really change his family members think so. His sister Rita Duncan says that Ronald had really changed in his time in prison. Ronald Smith had counseled his sisters and his other relatives giving them advice that was holding the family together. Rita Duncan say he is the one who is the pillar holding the family up. Ronald spilled tears reciting his letter about his mother and how important she was to him. Ronald seemed to fully regret his crime seeing how much devastation he had caused not only to the victim's family but also to his own family. Smith's own daughter says that her father indeed had changed since the crime but his worried and scared. 

A lot of people had suffered because of Ronald Smith. His family as well as the victim's family has suffered enough. Allowing Ronald Smith will have consequences. Has he truly changed?  Will Ronald Smith be freed or will he face the death penalty? 

Sources
 http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ronald+Smith+Canadian+consular+official+speak+hearing+death+Canadian/6553907/story.html

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120502/smith-to-seek-clemency-in-montana-120502/

Are Social Networking Sites More Beneficial or Harmful in Our Society?

Facebook, Twitter….and all the different kinds of social networking sites, they are increasing in our society. Social networking sites are services where people create their profile within the bounded system it is where communications happen with others. Websites like these helps grouping and connecting individuals with the same interest but from different places. You may think social networking sites are useful but have you ever wondered what the impact on us is? Here are the two sides of the story.

 Information spread rapidly. By these social networking sites, we receive news from around the world almost as fast as when the local people receive it. Just by going on the internet we know about the huge earthquake or a tragic accident that happened on the other side of the world. Thanks to these sites world connections are made. Not just connections around the world, connections are also made between people. On these sites people communicate with friends, family, strangers that share the same interest or even complete strangers that you happen to meet. It is also a great way to find friends using social networking sites. Old friends that don’t have any contact information are reunited because they found each other on sites like these.

A lot of people focus on the positive side of social networking sites and often forget how it can back stab you. Are connections really made? It may seem that people communicate more often to each other. But that is just an illusion. The chance of meeting person to person, face to face, is reduced. If teenagers continue to communicate using sites like these and not in person, teenagers might have problems communicating orally with others because they are so use to doing it online. Using these sites, you can talk to almost everyone, but you will never know who is sitting behind the computer, unless you actually informed and checked with the person. In order to create account for social networking sites, personal information are asked. If these information are public, some people might use it for other harmful use. This may affect your private space. Also putting pictures can result in misuse; the most common one is the morphing of photographs. Teachers and adults are all trying to promote the stop of bullying. But these social networking sites just make everything worse. Cyber bullying is happening on these websites, people use the internet to bully people. By spamming, calling names, putting pictures, these are all examples of cyber bullying.

   I do not think social networking sites are good for our society, but I don’t think it is bad either. If you use it properly without harming yourself or others, social networking sites could be very useful. There are always safe ways to do things, so if you keep all your personal information and avoid doing risky things, I don’t see how sites like these are harmful.

Useful Sites

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Impact-of-Social-Networking-Sites-to-People&id=4477078

http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2011/06/social-networking-impact-youth/

http://www.merinews.com/article/impact-of-social-networking-sites-on-social-life/157018.shtml

Canadian on Death row - should he live?

Canadian on Death row - should he live? Ronald Smith, a Canadian had committed two murders nearly 30 years ago. He was drunk and high when he decided to steal a car and thought about what it would be like to kill someone. The two people that he had killed were cousins. Since then, he has been in the fight for his life. However, he has now come to term of the death sentence hanging over his head and is willing to move on now.

To this day, many people agree that he is a changed man. Ronald Smith’s daughter, Carmen Blackburn spoke on her father’s behalf, saying that he was a good man along with other witnesses. This shows that Ronald Smith regrets what he did and is trying to make a change. He should be given a second chance. There are also lots of people who agree that Ronald Smith should be put on death sentence. This includes many relatives of the two victims. Saying that he never had the joy of knowing his father, Thomas Running Rabbit IV said that he will pursue the death penalty with as much effort as Smith has expended to avoid it.

Throughout the Western world, capital punishment is recognized as being wrong. It is known that fighting a murder by putting a human being to death does not show the sanctity of life. Lots of people agree with this and it includes me. If Ronald was to put to death, this would make the relatives of two victims very happy but what good does it do for them? Ronald has learned his lesson and is sure that he won’t do it again. Putting Ronald to death would let his relatives suffer as much as his victim’s family. For this reason, Ronald should not be put to death.

The board has 30 days to decide whether to execute Ronald or not. Panel member Mike McKee said it will likely issue a decision during the week of May 21.  They will forward a non-binding recommendation to Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who will ultimately decide if Smith will be executed by lethal injection. Be sure to check it out!

Sources:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ronald+Smith+Canadian+consular+official+speak+hearing+death+Canadian/6553907/story.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/death-row-canadian-to-plead-for-mercy-at-montana-hearing/article2419931/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/the-canadian-on-death-row-should-live/article2421955/

CE post 2

The way to advertise sports drinks are clever. They would pay a well-known athlete to say that their company is the best or to be like me have Gatorade. This week I will try to answer a question. The question is "Are sports drinks good for teens?". I am aiming to answer this question with an opinion of mine. I am going to list some positives and negatives.

            Some positives to sports drinks are that teenagers who are less active in sports and other activities are less likely to quench their thirst with sports drinks or noncarbonated flavored drinks. Studies show that "cconsuming sports drinks and other non-carbonated sugary beverages (such as fruit punch) was also linked to eating more fruits and vegetables, especially among girls". Researchers suggests that sports drinks are "HEATHY" alternative to soda. In my opinion to quench your thirst with sports drink (Gatorade) is better than quenching your thirst with soda (coke). I still prefer the good water

            Some negatives to sports drinks are that if you overuse or over drink sports drinks it can cause more harm than do good. All the sugar in the drinks can dissolve your teeth. Dr. Mercola states that sports drinks are 30 times more harmful and erosive to the teeth than water. Sports drinks have costs from $1.50 to $2.50 at grocery stores. So if you consume 2-3 a day, you could be spending over $50.00. You could be spending money and harming yourself. I am not saying that you should not have any, I am saying that you should try to limit yourself.

            So in conclusion sport drinks are not good. It is okay to have some every now and then, just every day and night. Along with the fact that it does not do much good for your body but also that it is more expensive. So the answer to the question "Are sports drinks good for teens?" the answer is no. If your ever thirsty then drink water.

Source/Bibliography

Sarah Klein  "Are sports drinks part of a healthy teen lifestyle?"  CNNHealth   September 27, 2010  May 16, 2012                             
< http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/27/health.sports.drinks.teens/index.html>

Chad Haggy  "Sports Drinks: Exploring The Pros And Cons"  May 16, 2012
<http://www.lifescript.com/dietfitness/articles/s/sports_drinks_exploring_the_pros_and_cons.aspx>

”Dietary and Activity Correlates of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption Among Adolescents"  May 16, 2012

< http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/09/27/peds.2010-1229.abstract#cited-by>

Ronald Smith - Canadian on US Death Row

Ronald Smith - Canadian on US death row. Should he live?

   Here is a man who is Canadian, but committed a crime in the United States. After he committed this crime, he asked to be sentenced to capital punishment. He changed his mind shortly after. This led to 3 decades of time in jail while the State of Montana tries to figure it out. Ronald pleads that he regrets the things he's done, and that he would take it back if he could. He claims that he is a changed man.

     I believe that Ronald Smith should live. I believe that Ronald Smith is truly a changed man and he truly regrets killing the two people. This topic directly relates to the question:" Should capital punishment be allowed?". I believe that killing is definitely an unforgivable crime and should not be ignored unpunished, but when the government kills the criminal because the criminal has killed someone, is that not using violence and absolute power to overwhelm the criminal? Capital punishment is no less than killing someone. The government might make it sound better by saying it's the capital punishment, but the truth is that the government kills people when they carry out the capital punishment.

    I understand the pain the families must feel towards losing their family members. I also understand the hatred that they must feel towards Ronald. But can't they put down the rage and pain that blinds them and consider the pain that they will cause if Ronald died. Ronald has a family just like them. He has a daughter that is at home pleading everyday for her father to be spared. Ronald's family would suffer as much as the victim's families. It just causes one more family to be in pain.

     Hopefully the government will spare Ronald's life and have one less family in pain.

Online Sources:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/death-row-canadian-to-plead-for-mercy-at-montana-hearing/article2419931/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/the-canadian-on-death-row-should-live/article2421955/

Canadian on U.S death row. Should he live?

Ronald Smith, the Canadian on U.S death row. Should he live?

Ronald Smith is the only canadian who is facing execution in the U.S and who has committed two murder in Montana, 1982, and been asked for death penalty, and 30 years later which is now - when capital punishment is gone from nearly all other western democracies - the state of Montana should grant clemency to Mr.Smith.

Mr.Smith has committed two monstrous murders and has destroyed the victims, victims' family and also his daughter who has to live her entire life under the shadow of the death penalty, begged for her father's life to be spared. This caused the Montana's justice system - that invited them to put their pain and emotion at the service of a state with the power to kill, or in opposition to that power - to degrade. (The Canadian on death row should live)

Should Mr.Smith live? My answer is yes. Mr.Smith has committed a murder but now it has been 30 years since he has been in the death row. He and his daughter have gone through as much pain as the victims' family. Yes, the Victims' family had to live with the pain - injuries of their heart by their father, husband's death, and the envy for others who have a father/husband, but Mr.Smith has been in the prison for 30 years - which would have destroyed his body and his emotions - regretting that he has killed. Also his daughter, who had to live under the shadow of death penalty would have given her a lot of pain by the people who looks at her and says "look! she's the daughter of a murderer", and from her beloved father who is in the prison, feeling repentance for him.
The family of the victoms should forgive Mr.Smith. There are a lot of people out in the world who does not have a father/husband not by divorce but also by murders. They also have to win and recover from their pains since they cannot live in that pain for their entire life. That would endanger their children, or even parents. They have to see that Mr.Smith is regretting and begging for one more chance for him to live better. They have to see that Mr.Smith and his family has gone through as much pain as them.
So my opinion is Yes, Mr.Smith should live. He deserves another chance to live and reimburse to the family, and provide kindness to them as they recover from their pains.


Online Resources-
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/the-canadian-on-death-row-should-live/article2421955/

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ronald+Smith+Canadian+consular+official+speak+hearing+death+Canadian/6553907/story.html

CE Topic Blogging (Bill 36 - Year Round Schooling)

Should Schools Change To Year Round Schooling?

Is this the calendar that we want to work with? The year round calendar has its advantages and disadvantages. The definition of year round schooling is not to increase overall school time, but to spread the school time more evenly along the entire year. We still get the same amount of break time and school time.

Pros:

- Year round(balanced) calendar gives the students less time to forget the things that were previously learned(through long summer break). It is obvious that remembering things from one month ago is easier than recalling things after the long summer break.

- Having the break balanced throughout the year means that each semester or term will be shorter. Doing this gives more breaks throughout the entire year.(Ex. Eating food is good, but it is said that eating more small meals rather than big meals is healthier.)

- Balanced calendar is also better if students want to frequently go on vacations. They do not have to wait for a long term or semester to end to go on vacation.

Cons:

- Balanced calendar gives you a shorter amount of time in each break. Say you were wanting to go see your family in Australia, the airplane ticket would not be cheap. But if you only get one month of break, you would have to come back in a much shorter time. Wouldn't staying there for two months and buying two tickets be better than going there one month and paying the same price?

- Balanced calendar might disrupt certain educational programs that were established long ago. A math program might require five months to complete, but you only have 3 months in a term! How am I going to finish this program! It is probably not that easy to create a completely new program just based on the new calendar.

- The balanced calendar gives less time on a specific course. This means that the course will have to change(probably give less things to do) to fit the new schedule. Or they will have to make the students change their working habits and students will have to work more in a less amount of time.

My Opinion:

To me, the balanced calendar seems a better idea than the calendar we have now. This balanced calendar offers far more possibilities of learning than the standard calendar. I also support the balanced calendar because I don't really need the time in the summer break. There are very few times when I actually use the two months for something constructive. Most of the time, I just end up at home wondering what I can do to fill this time.

Online Sources:

"Year Round Schooling" - Melissa Kelly

<<http://712educators.about.com/cs/reformtime/a/yearrounded.htm>>

"Pros and Cons of Year Round School"

<<http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com/lounge/pros-and-cons-of-year-round-school-3964.html>>

If There Are Questions Or Comments, Feel Free To Post Them!

Reminders

Good job for posting everyone (except Mark). David and Justin were a bit late.
Remember to comment on at least two posts before Friday 10pm

New grading system at U of T

Today, I will be talking about te new grading system at university of Toronto.
I will be talking about the pros and cons about the new grading system and the current grading system.

"The University of Toronto Law wants to make students focus less on marks and more on “intellectual engagement.” (U of T law school adopts new grading system). the current grading system that many other schools have is the letter grade which is leveled  A, B, C+, C, C-, F.  The the new grading system is the system that does not include letter grades because the U of T law school does not want students to stress on what letter grades they are getting.

The pros about the new grading system is that it may effect the students to not stress out and focus more on the writings, and works they are doing.
"The grouped grading system could be seen as a method of eliminating these worries, saving students from added stress." (No more letter grades at the University of Toronto's law school).
The cons of the new grading system is that it may 'not' help reduce the stress that are troubleing the students. the new grading system can be considered almost the same as the other one, just that the name of the 'letter grades' changed in to high honour, honour, pass, fail...etc.

I, certainly do not think the new grading system will help reduce the stress of students. For many students letter grades are shown as their level of achievment which helps them to study more to get that A+. Also according to the medicine professor Mel Borins
“Students are stressed out mainly around issues of money … whether they’re going to find a job if they do pass all their courses, there’s the stress of family life and their love life, and … the huge workload that sometimes they have to deal with.” (No more letter grades at the University of Toronto's law school) many students does not stress about their grades, they stress out aroud issues of money, their family life, ad love life, and the huge workload.
The Superhero idea, I do not think it will work out very well. First of all it is very childish, and what if the person adores spiderman than superman? Also I would be more stressed if I've got an 'Aquaman' (F) because I would know I've failed and the 'Aquaman' will just annoy me to death.
(A students idea from U of T law school adopts new grading system)

The problem why students may get stress from the 'letter grade' or any sort of grades is because many students compare themselves to others and think they have done terribly, or the parents of theirs will get mad at them for gettng a bad grades. So what I think the school should focus on is teaching them not to compare themselves to others because one is very different from another and has differnt talent, and at least asking the parents not to stress about the mark and flare up to their children.



Online sources:

"U of T law school adopts new grading system"
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2012/04/23/u-of-t-law-school-adopts-new-grading-system/

"No more letter grades at the University of Toronto's law school"
http://cupwire.ca/articles/52673