January 15, 2010

Opinion

January 15, 2010

Page

High Tide Editor-in-Chief: Sonya Egan Managing Editors: Danielle Lew; Austin Pritzkat News Editors: Jackson Greer; Molly Simon Opinion Editors: Claire Simon Features Editors: Sophia Lykke, Jake Collins, Jonathan Martin; Dylan Futrell, Ashley Pournamdari; Julia Uriarte Sports Editors: Danielle Lew; Jessica Cascio Photo Editors: Daniel Fallon; Erika Gavitt Copy Editors: Joey Hoy; Brittney Madera; Christina Mehrenbod; Mark Rieth, Josh Hillsburg, Adam Ammentorp Cartoonist: Josh Hillsburg, Claire Simon Staff Writers: Vanessa Alarcon; Adam Ammentorp; Cody Anderson; Ramya Bhaskar; Gabe Bloise; Shannon Bowman; Claire Chiara; Kelsey Chung; Alexis Curtis-Olson; Michael Cross; Ciara Diaz; Kaelee Epstein; Daniel Garzon; Allie Goldberg; Ulises Gonzalez; Garrett Gutierrez; Josh Hillsburg; Meglyn Huber; Bethany Kawa; David Kawa; Steven King;Anthony Leong; Elisa Martinez; Cammille Mitchell; Asad Nazif; Alexandra O’Hagan; Joy Ohiomoba; Alison Peet-Lukes; Madeline Perrault; Alix Politanoff; Melissa Rosero; Allison Salazar; Derek Sarno; Katie Scheyer; Laura Shodall; Casey Smith; Shelby Stitch; Shayna Stuart; Emily Sutton; Emily Vavrek; Anneliese Wilson; Alyssa Wolf Adviser: Mitch Ziegler The High Tide dedicates itself to producing a high-quality publication that both informs and entertains the entire student body.

This newspaper is a wholly student managed, designed and written newspaper that focuses on school and community events.

The High Tide is published by the journalism class at Redondo Union High School, 631 Vincent Park, Redondo Beach, CA 90277.

Advertising is $7.50 per column inch, $6.00 if paid in advance. For information call (310)798-8665 ext. 2210.

Signed commentaries and editorial cartoons represent the opinions of the writer or cartoonist and in no way reflect the opinions of the High Tide staff.

3

around

Redondo

What are your thoughts on teachers using social networking sites to contact students?

“I find it to be unnecessary; there doesn’t have to be a close bond between students and teachers.”

–Charlene Vo, 9

Teachers should be able to use networking For the modern teacher virtually everything is a potential liability. Teachers are advised not to give rides, exchange calls or texts, or be alone in a classroom with a student to avoid possible charges of misconduct. With the advent of social networking sites like facebook, the problem of liability has escalated to a new, uncharted territory: cyberspace.

After reading “AP Euro student gets help through Facebook” in our Dec.18 issue, the administration asked AP Euro teacher Julie Ferron to take down her page, due to liability issues.

While there is potential for teachers and students alike to misuse sites like facebook, the truth is that online forums and social networking sites are the future of communication; and wherever communication goes, education will follow.

Teachers should be able to utilize social networking sites to communicate with their students online–but without crossing the line.

Editorial

Naturally, the administration had the students’ best interests in mind when they advised Ferron to shut down her facebook account, but their reactionary and rash approach to the situation is akin to that of an overbearing parent shutting down his daughter’s Myspace for fear of pedophiles.

Granted, since it is a relatively new issue, according to Assistant Principal John Newman, “there is no real policy on what can and cannot take place”–for now, the administration is strongly suggesting that teachers “don’t use it [facebook]” and urging them to use redondounion.org instead.

Yet, while the district and administration are doing their jobs in taking responsibility for student well-being, they have taken their role as the archetypal, overprotective parents a little too far, depriving students of the rich learning tool that facebook affords.

With social networking sites, teachers, students and even parents will have the opportunity to converse in real-time, creating greater efficiency for all parties involved.

Teachers can facilitate discussions of issues covered in class, answer any questions that

students may have, and even cover new material.

Simply using redondounion.org or email just isn’t the same as having a virtual conversation. With social networking sites, teachers can reach a larger audience and students can have broader mediums with which to learn.

Granted, with greater scopes of learning comes greater responsibility. The district is currently discussing possible policies in response to social networking sites’ place in school.

In order to remedy the looming problem of liability, the district should develop some type of contract, or “acceptable use policy,” for students and teachers to abide by when using social networking sites for educational purposes.

In this age of liability, it is important that both students and teachers know their limits when it comes to online conduct. Yet in this age of social networking, communication between people is becoming more important and even more efficient–it would simply be unwise for teachers and students not to take advantage of them.

“[It] is inappropriate because teachers and students are meant to keep contact limited to school hours.”

–Alina Vreeland, 12

“There should be a limit on what they can view on your profile. They shouldn’t be able to look at your pictures or other, more personal areas.”

–Tyler Ceja, 12

“I think [using Facebook] does cross the line, but email is ok for asking questions.”

–Katie Collins, 10

“I understand the importance and the familiarity of [it]. If there’s a group where I can respond to 175 students in 15 seconds, it would be impractical not to use it.”

–Matthew Mullen, teacher

Would a ban on trans fat improve health?

PRO

Due to California’s new regulations, restaurants and fast food chains are faced with strict limits on cooking with trans fat and other types of artery-clogging oils and shortenings. These new reductions will certainly help make an improvement towards the health of Americans and will help Alix Politanoff decrease the risk of getting a heart attack, stroke, or diabetes.

Many restaurants have already reduced or eliminated trans fats in their menus, which shows that people in America are making an effort to live healthier lives.

Yet, the whole purpose of the use of trans fats in the first place was to make the food in restaurants and fast food chains taste better.

Many Americans might be concerned that their food won’t taste as good because of the reduction of trans fats but many fast food places such as McDonalds have used healthier alternatives to trans fats.

McDonalds has found a trans-fat-free oil, which they now currently use on its french fries (McDonalds.com).

These new alternative formulas are healthier and are made from palm and canola blends (Bantransfats.com).

These trans-fat alternatives also taste exactly the same as trans fat; therefore, reducing trans fats and using an alternative formula is healthier and won’t change the taste of the food.

While some Americans won’t stop their current habits of eating junk food, at least the food that they will be eating at fast food restaurants will be healthier.

Obesity is a problem that is plaguing America; approximately 60 million people in the United States are obese according to the American Obesity Association.

Many critics argue that reducing trans fats won’t affect a person’s diet, but according to the FDA, Americans get about 2.6 percent of their total calories per day from trans fat.

Therefore reducing trans fats in fast food restaurants where many people and children tend to eat can help decrease obesity rates, especially in

children.

Limiting trans fats also helps decrease the risk of high blood pressure, heart diseases, and breast, colon, and prostrate cancer, since all these diseases comes directly from obesity (AOA).

The bottom line is trans fats are bad; the less American’s eat the healthier they will be. Trans fats cause many health complications such as elevating bad cholesterol and increasing the chances of blood clots.

Basically, if reducing trans fats is healthier and reduces the risk of heart attacks and other health complications, then hopefully this new law will eventually extend to completely banning trans fats in foods in restaurants and fast food chains.

Opponents state that Americans will still continue to eat badly no matter what, but either way reducing trans fats is a solid step to improvement in health.

This new law could be the gateway to new laws promoting healthier diets, and eventually could result in much healthier lives.

CON

Obesity is a growing problem in the country.

Waistlines are increasing, guts are drooping, people are dying. But the initiative taken by the California government through AB 97, a bill that lowers the amount of trans fat in restaurants, is the wrong way to combat this situation.

Asad Nazif Nutritionally, trans fat is a disaster, it lowers the amount of good cholesterol (HDL) and increases the amount of good cholesterol (LDL) making an individual prone to heart disease. However, the way that the government is trying to remove it is just a useless intervention. The government should stick to its laissez-faire handle on the people’s health.

What is the point in even creating this bill? If the people have not responded to their ever tightening pants, why would they respond to this bill? If any-

thing, the people will begin eating more because the government has deemed the food healthier.

Reducing the amount of trans fat in a Big Mac, or a double cheeseburger, or whatever vile, greasestained food it is people eat nowadays will not help create a healthier population.

Even with the removal of trans fat from the nation’s diet, the government will still have to deal with the obstacles of sodium, saturated fat, calories, and other gut-bolstering substances. When you get down to it, this bill barely does anything.

Some might argue that it is a nudge forward for the people, a start for them to help themselves. Unfortunately, this nudge forward causes the people to become dependant on the government’s regulations.

The nation will not regulate their own diet but rather rely on laws passed on.

So, in a best case scenario, the nation becomes healthier. Without trans fat, there is less of a problem with cholesterol and there is less coronary heart disease connected with the substance.

But, at this point in time, the people hit a wall.

After a certain point, trans fat has no more effect on people. Trans fat affects cholesterol, but if the cholesterol problems are solved, then the government needs to solve the problems of blood pressure associated with sodium, obesity with calories, and heart disease with saturated fat.

Now there are other dietary substances to regulate. Obviously, the people will not be regulating it themselves but rather will wait on the government to execute another bill.

The people have not learned to become healthier, rather, they believe that the food they eat is healthier, and subsequently rely on the government for their health-related needs. By the end of the day, this bill may have saved very few lives, but at the same time will have become desensitized to the dangerous foods they eat.

The government should care for its people, but this form of intervention is hindering rather than helping. Should not the government be focusing on something more important?

The people are just better off dealing with it themselves. If they consider the food to be healthier, they will probably eat the same amount or, perhaps, even more of it. Some may consider it an initiative for the obese in the state, but even they will not be affected because they eventually will hit a wall, in which trans fat will not be as dangerous as it originally was, and will subsequently need more government assistance for the other dietary substances.