Can Facebook Be the Fall of the World

The topic that I will write aout is whether social networking sites our good for our society. Social networking sites have recently increased in this last decade. Some of the leading sites have been Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace. Some of the benefits of these sites have been that you are able too meet new people or reconnect with old ones, including friends or family. It also may bring people with the same interests healthy conversation. But some of the negatives of social networks have been cyber bullying, less face to face talking, online predators, and promoting lazy behaviors. I personally believe that although having an account on a socail networking site may be beneficial it also can be negative. I use my social networking sites for school purposes, or talking to people who do not have phones or other types of communication. But it can also be used to dicuss topics commonly occuring in a normal teenagers or adults life, in a healthy environment were you cannot be punished for having an opinion. Although statitiscs are correct about the number of risks that have been said about social networking sites such as cyber bullying or promoting lazy behaviors. There have been plenty of times were i have just felt like staying inside on the computer or watching tv, rather then going outside to actually interact with other kids. Do you feel that social networking sites can damage a child's future in any way? Also this relates to class because Mr.Griffis asked us to build an Twitter account to be used for school. Is this considered a bad thing?

This picture shows how an obese child would rather sit and network on a computer rather than back in the old days were there was more physical activity.




This video shows some of the negative affects of Facebook, a social networking site.



This video shows how people feel that Facebook can be a positive influence on society.

http://socialnetworking.procon.org/#Background
http://www.yahoo.com/?fr=fptb-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElZbbFxARMY&feature=related

Can Mr.Griffis keep His Job?

The topic being talked about today is should teacher's get tenure. Tenure's keep teachers from getting fired for personal, political, or non-work related reasons. Before this some people were fired based on being pregnant, partying, and other reasons that had nothing to do with their place of work. Although all of this sounds fine and dandy, some people look at having tenure as a way to do as minimum work as possible because they know they have less a chance of getting fired. Therefore teachers become lazy and do not try to improve their teaching ways to benefit children. Although a benefit of not having tenure allows for a teacher to get fired if they are not fufilling their duties. I personally am indifferent about tenure because, although teacher's jobs should be protected, if tenure promotes teacher's to become lazy and it begins to affect the population of the school, than that damages our chances of being able to compete with other children from other schools. This relates to class because we have been talking about whether Mr.Griffis should get fired our not for not teaching. But the answer is no because he is a great teacher. How do you feel about teachers having tenure as a scaprgoat, and getting away with the bare minimum of teaching?

This picture shows how a teacher uses tenure to explain that he doesn't have to do his job completely or correctly.

This picture illustrates a teacher doing a good job and teaching. I have a similar teacher too this named Mr.Griffis.



This video shows people answering a general question on whether teachers should be paid on performance are tenure.

http://www.yahoo.com/?fr=fptb-
http://www.procon.org/
http://www.youtube.com/