Sunday, April 29, 2007
Almost done...
Well, my project is coming to a close and I'm working on the final report. I'll appreciate anyone that wants to add some feedback before I hand the final product in two weeks from now. Wish me luck!
Monday, April 23, 2007
"A 17-Year Nightmare of Identity Theft Finally Results in Criminal Charges" (4/13/07 p. A10)
Identity theft is scary. Last year, I lost my Social Security card and spent three months worrying and watching my bank account very closely. Thankfully, someone was able to return it to me and nothing ever came of it. I can't imagine spending 17 years of my life struggling with the problem that something actually did come of it.
David B. Dahlstrom, a locksmith in Salt Lake City has unwillingly shared his identity with Yorck A. Rogge, a German immigrant in Los Angeles.
Rogge used Mr. Dahlstrom's name since 1990 and has committed a series of crimes under it. Rogge is now facing 81 counts of identity theft and fraud.
Some major ethics come in to play right away. It seriously took 17 years to catch Rogge? Mr. Dahlstrom has difficulty getting credit and at one point was detained by police officers serving an arrest warrant in his name. In 1985, Mr. Dahlstrom lost his wallet in Utah. The wallet contained his birth certificate, Social Security card and driver's license. His identity wasn't officially stolen until five years later when Mr. Rogge was arrested and convicted of driving under the influence. The time line gets even better. Mr. Dahlstrom didn't even officially know his identity had been stolen until 1997 when he was contacted be creditors for "fraudulent activity." In 1998, he received an insurance claim for an accident he was not involved in and another claim a few years after. A few red flags finally threw him on the right track.
The police in Utah told Mr. Dahlstrom that there was a warrant out for his arrest. He called Los Angeles city attorney's office pleading for help. Well, its about time.
At the end of the long haul, Mr. Rogge faces up to 31 years in prison and is an illegal immigrant. I can't image why it took so long for this identity crime to be brought to a screeching halt.
Article by: RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
David B. Dahlstrom, a locksmith in Salt Lake City has unwillingly shared his identity with Yorck A. Rogge, a German immigrant in Los Angeles.
Rogge used Mr. Dahlstrom's name since 1990 and has committed a series of crimes under it. Rogge is now facing 81 counts of identity theft and fraud.
Some major ethics come in to play right away. It seriously took 17 years to catch Rogge? Mr. Dahlstrom has difficulty getting credit and at one point was detained by police officers serving an arrest warrant in his name. In 1985, Mr. Dahlstrom lost his wallet in Utah. The wallet contained his birth certificate, Social Security card and driver's license. His identity wasn't officially stolen until five years later when Mr. Rogge was arrested and convicted of driving under the influence. The time line gets even better. Mr. Dahlstrom didn't even officially know his identity had been stolen until 1997 when he was contacted be creditors for "fraudulent activity." In 1998, he received an insurance claim for an accident he was not involved in and another claim a few years after. A few red flags finally threw him on the right track.
The police in Utah told Mr. Dahlstrom that there was a warrant out for his arrest. He called Los Angeles city attorney's office pleading for help. Well, its about time.
At the end of the long haul, Mr. Rogge faces up to 31 years in prison and is an illegal immigrant. I can't image why it took so long for this identity crime to be brought to a screeching halt.
Article by: RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
"Drinks With Youth Appeal Draw Growing Opposition" (4/13/07 p. A12)
Isn't it bad enough that cigarette companies are purposing targeting the youth market? Now there is a growing concern about alcohol companies doing the same thing by curbing under-age drinking. Obviously, no good can come from this one.
I'll admit it. I'm in college and I like to have fun. However, I'm only 20 years old and legally shouldn't be having that kind of fun quite yet. I'm not even a big fan of the taste of alcohol. I like to minimize the taste as much as possible. Drinks like Mike's Hard Lemonade and Smirinoff Ice. I've contributed to the whole point of the article, shame on me. According to The Times, health researchers say that one reason products like Bacardi Silver and Zimas are so popular is because the taste of alcohol is faint. These types of products are contributing to under-age drinking. They're the kind of drinks that get teens comfortable with alcohol. Very true.
Is it ethical for these companies to "target" under-age drinkers? Absolutely not. Can anyone prove that they're actually doing this? No. That is maybe part of the problem. Several youth groups in California are prompting the state to adopt stricter rules for drinks that contain distilled spirits but are sold and taxed as beer. Personally, I don't see that as a good plan to stop this problem.
The article stated that Maine has already reclassified the drinks, commonly known as alcopops and flavored malt beverages, as hard liquor. There are proposals to do the same in Arkansas, Illinois, and Nebraska. The California board is holding a series of public hearings, including one in May, that could lead to new restrictions by the end of the summer. This law would make these drinks more expensive (the tax would jump to $3.30 a gallon from 20 cents a gallon) and it would be more difficult to buy. One second thought, this doesn't sound like a bad idea.
Opponents of the effort in California, including small-business owners, the Flavored Malt Beverage Coalition and other industry groups, argue that the debate about drinks is surrounded by "significant misconceptions," in the words of Gary Galanis, a spokesman for Diageo, one of the world's largest alcohol manufacturers and the maker of Smirnoff. Along with many other flavored malt beverages are roughly as potent as beer, containing 5 percent to 7 percent alcohol per volume compared with 4 percent to 6 percent beer. The drinks come from brewing, not distilling, he said, and the alcohol in the beverages stems from added flavoring, not hard liquor. This statement sounds exaggerated, which is unethical for companies to do. They need to step up and accept the fact that their company is contributing to under-age drinking, which is something they need to take seriously. When people like Mr. Galanis are saying there is no reason to change their product, they need to open their eyes and realize that maybe there is.
Most high school students drink with a purpose: to get drunk. It's sad, but true. However, alcopops are not very effective unless you are a lightweight. There are those that likes hots of whiskey and vodka, which obviously makes people become drunk quickly. Most teens say they don't need to be trained to drink, yet, they don't always realize that, yes, they do.
Maybe the big problem is that alcohol is incredibly easy for minors to get their hands on. That seems more reasonable than the taste contributing to the problem. Who can rally judge? All the factors that under-age drinking is something that is almost impossible to prevent. Its going to happen, let's just hope that teens try to be somewhat ethical and make good judgements.
Article by: CAROLYN MARSHALL
I'll admit it. I'm in college and I like to have fun. However, I'm only 20 years old and legally shouldn't be having that kind of fun quite yet. I'm not even a big fan of the taste of alcohol. I like to minimize the taste as much as possible. Drinks like Mike's Hard Lemonade and Smirinoff Ice. I've contributed to the whole point of the article, shame on me. According to The Times, health researchers say that one reason products like Bacardi Silver and Zimas are so popular is because the taste of alcohol is faint. These types of products are contributing to under-age drinking. They're the kind of drinks that get teens comfortable with alcohol. Very true.
Is it ethical for these companies to "target" under-age drinkers? Absolutely not. Can anyone prove that they're actually doing this? No. That is maybe part of the problem. Several youth groups in California are prompting the state to adopt stricter rules for drinks that contain distilled spirits but are sold and taxed as beer. Personally, I don't see that as a good plan to stop this problem.
The article stated that Maine has already reclassified the drinks, commonly known as alcopops and flavored malt beverages, as hard liquor. There are proposals to do the same in Arkansas, Illinois, and Nebraska. The California board is holding a series of public hearings, including one in May, that could lead to new restrictions by the end of the summer. This law would make these drinks more expensive (the tax would jump to $3.30 a gallon from 20 cents a gallon) and it would be more difficult to buy. One second thought, this doesn't sound like a bad idea.
Opponents of the effort in California, including small-business owners, the Flavored Malt Beverage Coalition and other industry groups, argue that the debate about drinks is surrounded by "significant misconceptions," in the words of Gary Galanis, a spokesman for Diageo, one of the world's largest alcohol manufacturers and the maker of Smirnoff. Along with many other flavored malt beverages are roughly as potent as beer, containing 5 percent to 7 percent alcohol per volume compared with 4 percent to 6 percent beer. The drinks come from brewing, not distilling, he said, and the alcohol in the beverages stems from added flavoring, not hard liquor. This statement sounds exaggerated, which is unethical for companies to do. They need to step up and accept the fact that their company is contributing to under-age drinking, which is something they need to take seriously. When people like Mr. Galanis are saying there is no reason to change their product, they need to open their eyes and realize that maybe there is.
Most high school students drink with a purpose: to get drunk. It's sad, but true. However, alcopops are not very effective unless you are a lightweight. There are those that likes hots of whiskey and vodka, which obviously makes people become drunk quickly. Most teens say they don't need to be trained to drink, yet, they don't always realize that, yes, they do.
Maybe the big problem is that alcohol is incredibly easy for minors to get their hands on. That seems more reasonable than the taste contributing to the problem. Who can rally judge? All the factors that under-age drinking is something that is almost impossible to prevent. Its going to happen, let's just hope that teens try to be somewhat ethical and make good judgements.
Article by: CAROLYN MARSHALL
Sunday, April 22, 2007
"He's Not My Grandpa. He's My Dad." (4/12/07 p. E1)
The ethical issues that were raised in this article, "He's Not My Grandpa. He's My Dad" were not necessarly considered ethical or unethical. It depends on how the situration is viewd and whether or not it hits close to home for readers.
The article began by informing readers that actor Tony Randall was anxious to become a father, at the age of 77. He said he looked forward to only being 90, yes 90, when his unborn child was 15 and they could go out and play together. Unfortunately, Mr. Randall died at age 84 in 2004, leaving being Julia, who was 7 and Jefferson, who was only 6. Like other young children, Julia and Jefferson will grow up not knowing and maybe not even remembering their father. Is that ethical? That Mr. Randall wanted children so badly, even though the possibility of him not seeing them grow up was very great?
Men like Randall that have children in their mush later years of life have been dubbed start-over dads, or SODs for short. SODs have created their own little controversy. Some see these older fathers as having the advantage of being more laid back and easy going on their youngsters. Others, however, see SODs as inherently selfish. These people claim that it is not fair the child that they may and probably will grow up without a father. According to the article, people are outraged that SODs are intentionally depriving a child of a father. But what if all start-over dad wanted before he died was a child? Does fulfilling someone's dream of becoming a father even though he may be older make him a bad, selfish person?
According to The Times, this is such a new phenomenon that there is a dearth of studies about it. Men are living longer and having families they may have never been given the chance to have. I don't see this as unethical, but as a chance for a person to experience parenthood.
Another plus to SODhood is that most of these men aren't struggling financially. They have made their place in the working world and most are very well off. They can support their family fully and afford to give their children more of what other, younger fathers may not be able to.
On the flip side, however, there are growing indications that SODhood may entail risks for children. Studies have shown that older fathers are more likely to have children with autism, schizophrenia, dwarfism, and other serious problems. These are pretty serious risk. If these kinds of problems are repeatedly showing up, these SODs may want to look into adoption if becoming a father is something they desire. To possibly have to put a child through any of the listed risked doesn't seem worth it.
Emotional and physical problems are very common in families with SODs as well. One father, Moe Belin, 84, has a 17-year old daughter, Mollie. He suffered a heart attack and when he came to all he wanted was his daughter. When she was brought to him, he got sick on her. "It bothers me that i put this little girl through that," Belin said. Many other fathers are finding themselves at the mercy of serious health problems that they are unable to shield their young children from.
Tony Randall's widow, Heather, wonders if she did the right thing for her children by her decision. She explains she has strains of guilt after all. She tells her daughter she maybe shouldn't marry and older man. Mr. Randall will never get to see his children graduate, go off to college, or walk his daughter down the aisle. Most SODs won't have these kinds of chances either.
The ethics here don't point fingers at what is right or wrong, because in the end it is ultimately each person's choice. Many elderly males may see their time as limited and want to rush to become a father. They're in such a hurry that many of the real, need to be considered factors of SODhood are neglected until it is too late.
Article by: THOMAS VINCIGUERRA
The article began by informing readers that actor Tony Randall was anxious to become a father, at the age of 77. He said he looked forward to only being 90, yes 90, when his unborn child was 15 and they could go out and play together. Unfortunately, Mr. Randall died at age 84 in 2004, leaving being Julia, who was 7 and Jefferson, who was only 6. Like other young children, Julia and Jefferson will grow up not knowing and maybe not even remembering their father. Is that ethical? That Mr. Randall wanted children so badly, even though the possibility of him not seeing them grow up was very great?
Men like Randall that have children in their mush later years of life have been dubbed start-over dads, or SODs for short. SODs have created their own little controversy. Some see these older fathers as having the advantage of being more laid back and easy going on their youngsters. Others, however, see SODs as inherently selfish. These people claim that it is not fair the child that they may and probably will grow up without a father. According to the article, people are outraged that SODs are intentionally depriving a child of a father. But what if all start-over dad wanted before he died was a child? Does fulfilling someone's dream of becoming a father even though he may be older make him a bad, selfish person?
According to The Times, this is such a new phenomenon that there is a dearth of studies about it. Men are living longer and having families they may have never been given the chance to have. I don't see this as unethical, but as a chance for a person to experience parenthood.
Another plus to SODhood is that most of these men aren't struggling financially. They have made their place in the working world and most are very well off. They can support their family fully and afford to give their children more of what other, younger fathers may not be able to.
On the flip side, however, there are growing indications that SODhood may entail risks for children. Studies have shown that older fathers are more likely to have children with autism, schizophrenia, dwarfism, and other serious problems. These are pretty serious risk. If these kinds of problems are repeatedly showing up, these SODs may want to look into adoption if becoming a father is something they desire. To possibly have to put a child through any of the listed risked doesn't seem worth it.
Emotional and physical problems are very common in families with SODs as well. One father, Moe Belin, 84, has a 17-year old daughter, Mollie. He suffered a heart attack and when he came to all he wanted was his daughter. When she was brought to him, he got sick on her. "It bothers me that i put this little girl through that," Belin said. Many other fathers are finding themselves at the mercy of serious health problems that they are unable to shield their young children from.
Tony Randall's widow, Heather, wonders if she did the right thing for her children by her decision. She explains she has strains of guilt after all. She tells her daughter she maybe shouldn't marry and older man. Mr. Randall will never get to see his children graduate, go off to college, or walk his daughter down the aisle. Most SODs won't have these kinds of chances either.
The ethics here don't point fingers at what is right or wrong, because in the end it is ultimately each person's choice. Many elderly males may see their time as limited and want to rush to become a father. They're in such a hurry that many of the real, need to be considered factors of SODhood are neglected until it is too late.
Article by: THOMAS VINCIGUERRA
Thursday, April 19, 2007
"Duke Prosecuter Throws Out Case Against Players" (4/14/07 p. A1)
There are some very evident ethical issues arising in the case of three Duke students who were found innocent of all sexual assault, kidnapping and rape charges that were brought against them nearly a year ago.
The three boys, Reade W. Seligmann, David F. Evans, and Collin Finnerty, were on Duke's lacrosse team when a stripper claimed they sexually assaulted her at a party in March of 2006. The boys were released because there wasn't enough, or any for that matter, evidence against them. It is believed that this case was the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations. The main ethical issue behind this case was there was never any credible evidence that an attack even occurred. So, why then, were these boys behind bars enduring a year of complete hell?
The Durham district attorney, Michale B. Nifong, is facing a long road ahead of him. North Carolina state bar had begun taking an extraordinary step of formally accusing Mr. Nifong of numerous ethical violations, including withholding exculpatory evidence and misleading the judge who presided over the case, as stated in the article.
If this was known all along, I'm confused as to why a year later these men are just now getting classified as innocent? If there was sufficient evidence isn't it standard ethical rules that you're innocent until proven guilty, not just assumed guilty? Hmm...something here doesn't sound right to me, and I'm fairly new to this case. The article reaffirmed that there was lingering anger toward Mr. Nifong and many in the news media for what they described as a rush to believe the worst about them.
The Times also stated that the Duke lacrosse case has shown that our society has lost sight of the most fundamental principle of our legal system: the presumption of innocence. In a way, this case has possibly opened the door for this kind mishap to be prevented in the future. If these three men hadn't been found innocent they could have spent decades in jail for a crime they possibly didn't commit. They chime into this thinking by letting everyone know they are just as innocent now as they were a year ago.
Mr. Nifong has denied violating any ethics rules, although he has acknowledged mishandling some evidence and making intemperate and unjustified remarks about the Duke lacrosse team. Excuse me, but if he is admitting to that, isn't he basically admitting he was wrong all along? If the ethics charges against him are upheld, Mr. Nifong faces a range of possible penalties, including disbarment. Finally, some ethical procedures are being brought out of this whole ordeal.
Despite a year of complete hell, all three men have carried themselves with dignity even though they were being treated very unfairly. There were errors from day one and nothing in this case seemed to be handled like I would expect our legal system to handle things. Whether its ethics or legal issues, innocent people are finding themselves in a web of trouble they don't deserve to be in. Hopefully in the future, this problem is sorted out and criminal cases are treated appropriately.
Article by: By DUFF WILSON AND DAVID BARSTOW; DUFF WILSON REPORTED FROM RALEIGH, N.C., AND DAVID BARSTOW FROM NEW YORK. BRENDA GOODMAN CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FROM ATLANTA, AND MOSI SECRET FROM DURHAM, N.C.
The three boys, Reade W. Seligmann, David F. Evans, and Collin Finnerty, were on Duke's lacrosse team when a stripper claimed they sexually assaulted her at a party in March of 2006. The boys were released because there wasn't enough, or any for that matter, evidence against them. It is believed that this case was the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations. The main ethical issue behind this case was there was never any credible evidence that an attack even occurred. So, why then, were these boys behind bars enduring a year of complete hell?
The Durham district attorney, Michale B. Nifong, is facing a long road ahead of him. North Carolina state bar had begun taking an extraordinary step of formally accusing Mr. Nifong of numerous ethical violations, including withholding exculpatory evidence and misleading the judge who presided over the case, as stated in the article.
If this was known all along, I'm confused as to why a year later these men are just now getting classified as innocent? If there was sufficient evidence isn't it standard ethical rules that you're innocent until proven guilty, not just assumed guilty? Hmm...something here doesn't sound right to me, and I'm fairly new to this case. The article reaffirmed that there was lingering anger toward Mr. Nifong and many in the news media for what they described as a rush to believe the worst about them.
The Times also stated that the Duke lacrosse case has shown that our society has lost sight of the most fundamental principle of our legal system: the presumption of innocence. In a way, this case has possibly opened the door for this kind mishap to be prevented in the future. If these three men hadn't been found innocent they could have spent decades in jail for a crime they possibly didn't commit. They chime into this thinking by letting everyone know they are just as innocent now as they were a year ago.
Mr. Nifong has denied violating any ethics rules, although he has acknowledged mishandling some evidence and making intemperate and unjustified remarks about the Duke lacrosse team. Excuse me, but if he is admitting to that, isn't he basically admitting he was wrong all along? If the ethics charges against him are upheld, Mr. Nifong faces a range of possible penalties, including disbarment. Finally, some ethical procedures are being brought out of this whole ordeal.
Despite a year of complete hell, all three men have carried themselves with dignity even though they were being treated very unfairly. There were errors from day one and nothing in this case seemed to be handled like I would expect our legal system to handle things. Whether its ethics or legal issues, innocent people are finding themselves in a web of trouble they don't deserve to be in. Hopefully in the future, this problem is sorted out and criminal cases are treated appropriately.
Article by: By DUFF WILSON AND DAVID BARSTOW; DUFF WILSON REPORTED FROM RALEIGH, N.C., AND DAVID BARSTOW FROM NEW YORK. BRENDA GOODMAN CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FROM ATLANTA, AND MOSI SECRET FROM DURHAM, N.C.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
"DNA Results Announced in Smith Case" (4/11/07 p. A19)
I'm sick of hearing about Anna Nicole Smith. The New York Times published a small article about the DNA results revealing that Larry Birkhead is the father of Anna Nicole's daughter, Dannielynn.
The ethics, in my opinion, behind this article were the fact that giving it publicity is the attention Birkhead wants. He emerged from the court room yelling "I told you so!" That's mature. Howard K. Stern, Anna Nicole's former lawyer was listed on the birth certificate has been fighting for custody of the child since Anna's death on February 8.
Dannielynn has been living at Stern's residence since Anna's death. Stern was reported saying that he isn't going to fight Birkhead for custody, he is going to make sure Birkhead actually gets full custody. This is another issue of ethics. Obviously Stern has been a good father-figure to the baby and maybe he should take a stand against someone that is screaming "I told you so!" on national television.
The other ethical issues that arose in this small, yet, information packed selection were that Dannilynn will inherit millions of dollars from her mother, who on another ethical note, was a slut if nobody was certain who the father was. This is especially true since the real father wasn't even on the birth certificate.
Here I go contributing to Birkhead's 15 minutes of fame.
Article by: CARYN JAMES
The ethics, in my opinion, behind this article were the fact that giving it publicity is the attention Birkhead wants. He emerged from the court room yelling "I told you so!" That's mature. Howard K. Stern, Anna Nicole's former lawyer was listed on the birth certificate has been fighting for custody of the child since Anna's death on February 8.
Dannielynn has been living at Stern's residence since Anna's death. Stern was reported saying that he isn't going to fight Birkhead for custody, he is going to make sure Birkhead actually gets full custody. This is another issue of ethics. Obviously Stern has been a good father-figure to the baby and maybe he should take a stand against someone that is screaming "I told you so!" on national television.
The other ethical issues that arose in this small, yet, information packed selection were that Dannilynn will inherit millions of dollars from her mother, who on another ethical note, was a slut if nobody was certain who the father was. This is especially true since the real father wasn't even on the birth certificate.
Here I go contributing to Birkhead's 15 minutes of fame.
Article by: CARYN JAMES
"A Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs" (4/9/07 p. A1)
Blogs made the front page of the New York Times and I almost missed it. I found it though and good news, it involves ethical issues. Added bonus!
The article is what the title says. Blogs don't have many guidelines and that is looking to be changed. Blogs can be an unpleasant place. There are millions of blogs people aren't going to agree with and because of this, they may leave inappropriate comments that can be harmful on many different levels.
According to The Times, Tim O'Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is involved with the creation of Web 2.0 began working with Jimmy Wales, crater of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of what to many would be common sense- though already controversial - guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.
I am in total favor of this. Unwanted, inappropriate comments and blogs are something that I don't see as necessary. I believe that it would be extremely ethical to have some sort of blogging guidelines.
In addition to my way of thinking, the article went on to state that chief among the recommendations for bloggers is that they consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship. Some would say that this tactic would interfere with free speech, however, civility backs up what free speech really is.
Mr. O'Reilly posts his recommendations on his company blog, which is very well written and full of useful information and excellent points. It is definitely a blog worth visiting and looking around. Mr. Wales' proposed guidelines can be found on his blog, another very interesting blog that stems out in many different directions. The proposed code of conduct these two highly experienced bloggers have put forth are very practical and appropriate. The information and ideas they express are highly ethical and something every blogger should take the time to read and consider. Their whole proposed system would, of course, be voluntary and the community would be expected to police itself. To me, this (right now) seems close to impossible, however, I truly believe with enough effort and publicity this could and hopefully will begin to take place. The publicity has already begun and has many supporters including David Weinberger, a well-known blogger. Weinberger's blog is another worth taking time to look at and explore.
Of course, meeting a common ground for such a code of conduct will be a rather difficult task. It is really impossible to get even a decent sized portion of the millions of bloggers to come to a common consensus.
However, people are getting harshly harassed over their blogs and it is more than ethical that someone is at least attempting to put an end to this. Kathy Sierra, a high tech book author reported getting death threats over a dispute over whether it was acceptable to delete the impolite comments left by visitor to someone's personal Web site. She considered giving up blogging all together. This has gone too far. Death threats? Someone should be able to delete whatever comments they wish. I know that myself, for example has an online profile both on facebook and myspace. I have gotten several unwanted comments that I have deleted because they either upset me or they were something I didn't want others to see. In my mind, facebook and myspace are both personal, like a blog, and if I don't want something on there, I am free to delete it without getting grief (or death threats) for doing so.
Deleting comments aren't the only thing people are harassed for. If someone disagrees with the blogger's beliefs they are also tormented through emails and other means of contact. Some people, a majority of which are female bloggers, also have stalkers that create blogs about them and torment them that way. Cyberbullying (which sounds ridiculous, by the way) needs to end and I'm so glad that people are standing up to help solve this problem.
Bottom line: blogging can be a great hobby (or career?) if handled and maintained appropriately. Bloggers are responsible for what is on their blog, whether it be comments and personal opinions. I know that if someone posts something profane on my blog, they can expect I'm not going to tolerate that and will delete it. It is my right to get rid of it as much as it is yours to post it.
**Other blogs mentioned in the article that someone that is interested in this topic, or anyone for that matter should check out:
BlogHer
Richard Silverstein's Blog (He was one of those mentioned that was harassed because of his views. Someone actually created a blog with Silverstein's picture in pornographic context.)
Article by: BRAD STONE
The article is what the title says. Blogs don't have many guidelines and that is looking to be changed. Blogs can be an unpleasant place. There are millions of blogs people aren't going to agree with and because of this, they may leave inappropriate comments that can be harmful on many different levels.
According to The Times, Tim O'Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is involved with the creation of Web 2.0 began working with Jimmy Wales, crater of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of what to many would be common sense- though already controversial - guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.
I am in total favor of this. Unwanted, inappropriate comments and blogs are something that I don't see as necessary. I believe that it would be extremely ethical to have some sort of blogging guidelines.
In addition to my way of thinking, the article went on to state that chief among the recommendations for bloggers is that they consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship. Some would say that this tactic would interfere with free speech, however, civility backs up what free speech really is.
Mr. O'Reilly posts his recommendations on his company blog, which is very well written and full of useful information and excellent points. It is definitely a blog worth visiting and looking around. Mr. Wales' proposed guidelines can be found on his blog, another very interesting blog that stems out in many different directions. The proposed code of conduct these two highly experienced bloggers have put forth are very practical and appropriate. The information and ideas they express are highly ethical and something every blogger should take the time to read and consider. Their whole proposed system would, of course, be voluntary and the community would be expected to police itself. To me, this (right now) seems close to impossible, however, I truly believe with enough effort and publicity this could and hopefully will begin to take place. The publicity has already begun and has many supporters including David Weinberger, a well-known blogger. Weinberger's blog is another worth taking time to look at and explore.
Of course, meeting a common ground for such a code of conduct will be a rather difficult task. It is really impossible to get even a decent sized portion of the millions of bloggers to come to a common consensus.
However, people are getting harshly harassed over their blogs and it is more than ethical that someone is at least attempting to put an end to this. Kathy Sierra
Deleting comments aren't the only thing people are harassed for. If someone disagrees with the blogger's beliefs they are also tormented through emails and other means of contact. Some people, a majority of which are female bloggers, also have stalkers that create blogs about them and torment them that way. Cyberbullying (which sounds ridiculous, by the way) needs to end and I'm so glad that people are standing up to help solve this problem.
Bottom line: blogging can be a great hobby (or career?) if handled and maintained appropriately. Bloggers are responsible for what is on their blog, whether it be comments and personal opinions. I know that if someone posts something profane on my blog, they can expect I'm not going to tolerate that and will delete it. It is my right to get rid of it as much as it is yours to post it.
**Other blogs mentioned in the article that someone that is interested in this topic, or anyone for that matter should check out:
BlogHer
Richard Silverstein's Blog (He was one of those mentioned that was harassed because of his views. Someone actually created a blog with Silverstein's picture in pornographic context.)
Article by: BRAD STONE
"To Close Gaps, Schools Focus on Black Boys" (4/9/07 p. A1)
The title alone depicts some possible ethical issues, which is exactly what this article did. However, I'm not sure where I stand personally on this issue. I don't really like the feeling of not having an opinion about an issue where I don't lean at least a little one way or another.
The article discussed how a school in Ossining, New York is separating black male students apart from other students because their academic performance is lower and fewer and fewer are going to college.
The black boys are sent to what are referred to as special mentoring programs that pair these boys up with black teacher for extra guidance outside the classroom, extra homework help and cultural activities during the school day. One mentor states that all the black boys used to end up in the principals office prior to this program, therefore, action needed to be taken. Is that really an accurate assumption? Key word in that statement was "all."
After beginning the article, I was outraged that this was happening. I believe that it is incredibly unfair to separate black males from everyone else. What must these poor boys really think? We are stepping backward into the past when black and white children were required to attend different schools. I cringe at the thought of that happening again in this day and age.
The article went on to say that Ossining school officials claimed they were not singling out black boys, but after a district analysis of high school students' grade-point average revealed that black boys were performing far worse than any other group, they decided to act. In contrast, these officials said, the performance of black girls compared favorable with other students and did not warrant the same concern. To me, this is still racist. They are of course singling out black boys by sticking them in a separate part of the schools. They may be doing it to help these students, however, it is still a form of racism that these school officials need to take into higher account.
The ethics here dealing racism and whether some people may see this issue the way I do. For this reason, I don't know which way I totally lean on the ethical scale. Of course, I hate the thought of singling out these students, but at the same time, if this school district believes this kind of program will honestly help academic wise, while they still promote the idea that they are aware some people, like myself, may see it one way, they look at it a different way. The program is actually even praised by some of the nation's leading minority scholars. Yet, there are those that still claim it is a form of racial profiling in the school system. Which, I agree, it is.
Ossining isn't the only school system taking this kind of a approach. Schools in New Jersey, Ohio, etc. have similar programs. The article also stated a reminder that more black men were behind bars than in college. Still, it is an unfair stereotype and I know several successful black men that most likely didn't need the help of special programs in school.
A mother of a black boy stated that she believed the extra support was needed because the numbers are stacked against them. She was quoted saying, "I don't want my sone to be in jail when he becomes a teenager, I want thim to have the same chances as a white child." Um, hello, if you're a good mother your son shouldn't end up in jail.
The article portrayed numbers showing these programs are working, which maybe they are and maybe I need to look at that. However, one still must worry that a stereotype is as damaging as the one you're trying to prevent. I'm happy that these programs are helping, however, I still see it as unethical to separate these boys completely.
Article by: By WINNIE HU; GRIFF PALMER
The article discussed how a school in Ossining, New York is separating black male students apart from other students because their academic performance is lower and fewer and fewer are going to college.
The black boys are sent to what are referred to as special mentoring programs that pair these boys up with black teacher for extra guidance outside the classroom, extra homework help and cultural activities during the school day. One mentor states that all the black boys used to end up in the principals office prior to this program, therefore, action needed to be taken. Is that really an accurate assumption? Key word in that statement was "all."
After beginning the article, I was outraged that this was happening. I believe that it is incredibly unfair to separate black males from everyone else. What must these poor boys really think? We are stepping backward into the past when black and white children were required to attend different schools. I cringe at the thought of that happening again in this day and age.
The article went on to say that Ossining school officials claimed they were not singling out black boys, but after a district analysis of high school students' grade-point average revealed that black boys were performing far worse than any other group, they decided to act. In contrast, these officials said, the performance of black girls compared favorable with other students and did not warrant the same concern. To me, this is still racist. They are of course singling out black boys by sticking them in a separate part of the schools. They may be doing it to help these students, however, it is still a form of racism that these school officials need to take into higher account.
The ethics here dealing racism and whether some people may see this issue the way I do. For this reason, I don't know which way I totally lean on the ethical scale. Of course, I hate the thought of singling out these students, but at the same time, if this school district believes this kind of program will honestly help academic wise, while they still promote the idea that they are aware some people, like myself, may see it one way, they look at it a different way. The program is actually even praised by some of the nation's leading minority scholars. Yet, there are those that still claim it is a form of racial profiling in the school system. Which, I agree, it is.
Ossining isn't the only school system taking this kind of a approach. Schools in New Jersey, Ohio, etc. have similar programs. The article also stated a reminder that more black men were behind bars than in college. Still, it is an unfair stereotype and I know several successful black men that most likely didn't need the help of special programs in school.
A mother of a black boy stated that she believed the extra support was needed because the numbers are stacked against them. She was quoted saying, "I don't want my sone to be in jail when he becomes a teenager, I want thim to have the same chances as a white child." Um, hello, if you're a good mother your son shouldn't end up in jail.
The article portrayed numbers showing these programs are working, which maybe they are and maybe I need to look at that. However, one still must worry that a stereotype is as damaging as the one you're trying to prevent. I'm happy that these programs are helping, however, I still see it as unethical to separate these boys completely.
Article by: By WINNIE HU; GRIFF PALMER
Monday, April 16, 2007
"Giuliani Reaffirms That He would Not Seek Abortion Changes" (3/6/07 p. A15)
Rudolph W. Giuliani, a possible Republican presidential candidate stated that if he were to be elected president, he would not seek to make abortion illegal.
I think ethical issues are involved in such an issue because his views are stated so early in the campaign. On the flip side of that idea, it is good that he is being honest to American voters are letting them know where he stands on this controversial issue. Many conservatives would consider themselves pro life and look at abortion as something that shouldn't be legal in the United States. Most Republicans vote according to the candidate's view on this issue.
The article included that Giuliani is aware of the damage his position might do to him among some of these conservative voters. He claimed that if people vote against him just because of his beliefs on abortion, then let them.
"I think abortion is wrong, but ultimately I think it is a woman's right, and a woman's choice. The government should not interfere with it by imposing criminal penalties on people," Giuliani said. Amen to that statement.
Mr. Giuliani's position may put him in odds with the other leading Republican presidential candidates, Mitt Romney and Senator John McCain or Arizona. Mr. Romney has in the past supported abortion rights. Now, he promises voters that as president he would seek to overturn the Roe decision. Looks like we've got a flip flop on our hands. Mr. McCain has taken a similar position.
As someone that has conservative views, I personally respect Mr. Giuliani for stating his position so early in the race. Candidates are people too and they have views just like everyone else. I respect him for putting his beliefs out there and hope that it won't hurt him too much because I believe the former mayor of New York City would make an excellent president.
Article by: MARC SANTORA
I think ethical issues are involved in such an issue because his views are stated so early in the campaign. On the flip side of that idea, it is good that he is being honest to American voters are letting them know where he stands on this controversial issue. Many conservatives would consider themselves pro life and look at abortion as something that shouldn't be legal in the United States. Most Republicans vote according to the candidate's view on this issue.
The article included that Giuliani is aware of the damage his position might do to him among some of these conservative voters. He claimed that if people vote against him just because of his beliefs on abortion, then let them.
"I think abortion is wrong, but ultimately I think it is a woman's right, and a woman's choice. The government should not interfere with it by imposing criminal penalties on people," Giuliani said. Amen to that statement.
Mr. Giuliani's position may put him in odds with the other leading Republican presidential candidates, Mitt Romney and Senator John McCain or Arizona. Mr. Romney has in the past supported abortion rights. Now, he promises voters that as president he would seek to overturn the Roe decision. Looks like we've got a flip flop on our hands. Mr. McCain has taken a similar position.
As someone that has conservative views, I personally respect Mr. Giuliani for stating his position so early in the race. Candidates are people too and they have views just like everyone else. I respect him for putting his beliefs out there and hope that it won't hurt him too much because I believe the former mayor of New York City would make an excellent president.
Article by: MARC SANTORA
"Wildlife Smugglers Test Their Skills, Even at the Airport" (4/6/07 p. A13)
It's almost unreal, even humorous that someone actually stuffed a pygmy monkey down their pants in an effort to sneak the animal through the airport. How ridiculous and stupid that person must have felt after he was caught?
Maybe if this would have been the one and only time that this happened, however, the smuggling of rare animals and species through airports is becoming a growing problem. Smugglers are bringing everything from rare butterflies, elephant tusks and sea turtle eggs through airports.
As reported by The Times, wildlife smuggling is the nation's second-largest black market, just behind narcotics. The ethics behind this article isn't just the fact of how wrong wildlife smuggling is, but also that it is unknown to officials how many animals have actually made it through airports and out into the world.
After 9/11 airport security increased, which, of course, everyone knows. However, airport security officials are looking for weaponry and harmful substances, not monkeys down passenger's pants.
In 2002, a Palm Springs man was arrested on charges related to the smuggling of two Asian leopard cats into the airport in a backpack. The individual he was traveling with was also arrested when large birds or paradise came flying out of his luggage; also in the luggage were other birds and 50 rare orchid bulbs. How stupid can people get?
Airport officials are saying that displays like the those that I've discussed are a rather hilarious visual. I think they need to put aside the laughter and look more closely at how serious this problem could become. These animals, insects, etc. are enduring an 18 hour trip shoved in socks and pants without going undetected by flight attendants or airport security they got past in the first place. Of course, it is argued that flight attendants are staring at passenger's crotches in search of illegal imports, however, what if next time there is a bomb shoved in the passenger's pants?
This problem is recognized, now it needs to be diminished. It is impossible to think that everything can be taken care of and will vanish completely, however, security needs to be stepped up again, just this time in the monkey in the pants department.
Article by: JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Maybe if this would have been the one and only time that this happened, however, the smuggling of rare animals and species through airports is becoming a growing problem. Smugglers are bringing everything from rare butterflies, elephant tusks and sea turtle eggs through airports.
As reported by The Times, wildlife smuggling is the nation's second-largest black market, just behind narcotics. The ethics behind this article isn't just the fact of how wrong wildlife smuggling is, but also that it is unknown to officials how many animals have actually made it through airports and out into the world.
After 9/11 airport security increased, which, of course, everyone knows. However, airport security officials are looking for weaponry and harmful substances, not monkeys down passenger's pants.
In 2002, a Palm Springs man was arrested on charges related to the smuggling of two Asian leopard cats into the airport in a backpack. The individual he was traveling with was also arrested when large birds or paradise came flying out of his luggage; also in the luggage were other birds and 50 rare orchid bulbs. How stupid can people get?
Airport officials are saying that displays like the those that I've discussed are a rather hilarious visual. I think they need to put aside the laughter and look more closely at how serious this problem could become. These animals, insects, etc. are enduring an 18 hour trip shoved in socks and pants without going undetected by flight attendants or airport security they got past in the first place. Of course, it is argued that flight attendants are staring at passenger's crotches in search of illegal imports, however, what if next time there is a bomb shoved in the passenger's pants?
This problem is recognized, now it needs to be diminished. It is impossible to think that everything can be taken care of and will vanish completely, however, security needs to be stepped up again, just this time in the monkey in the pants department.
Article by: JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Virginia Tech
On a side note from ethical articles, I just want to say that the students of Virginia Tech & their families are in my prayers. Let's hope something like this doesn't happen anywhere else and that the people involved with this get through this difficult time.
"Bare-Knuckle Enforcement for Wal-Mart's Rules" (3/29/07 p. A1)
Wal-Mart has gone over the top again. Wal-Mart store employees seem to find themselves in the spotlight rather often, and not for the good. It's no secret that the store is under a lawsuit for discriminating against women, but now, they're making the headlines for - what I consider to be - spying on employees.
According to this article, an investigator hired by employees flew to Guatemala in April of 2002. He flew across the country to prove that a Wal-Mart manager was sleeping with a lower-level employee. It is against company policy for two Wal-Mart employees to be involved in any kind of sexual or romantic relationship with one another. The investigator heard moans and sighs coming from the hotel room, which he had his ear pressed against. The company later fired the manager.
I understand that fraternization between two company employees isn't tolerated within the company, however, hiring a professional to press his ear against a hotel in a foreign country is going a little too far. There are other ways the company can distinguish this problem without invading their private lives outside of work. It is highly unethical, in my opinion, for someone to press his ear against a hotel room and have an employee fired based on "moans and sighs."
The article went on to discuss that the investigators serve as rapid response team that aggressively polices the nation's largest private employer, enforcing Wal-Mart's rules to be strictly (above normally) enforced. Wal-Mart isn't even the only company that engages in such investigative practices. This tactic is commonly used throughout corporate America. This is something that I was unaware of, and just coming aware of it is something I cannot believe is going on.
There was one specific case discussed in the article about two Wal-Mart executives that were fired after they were thought to be romantically involved. The Wal-Mart investigation of the case subpoenaed the male executive's wife and compelled her to turn over dozens of embarrassing email messages that her husband sent to his female co-worker from a private account. This has gone too far. Wal-Mart has every reason to fire employees breaking company code, however, the extremes that they are going to are unethical and unreasonable.
I also believe that these investigators, who are top F.B.I agents with unbelievable experience behind them, could be putting their investigative skills to work other than following Wal-Mart employees around the country. These agents are booking hotel rooms right across the hall from rooms that are believed to be the scene of this over the wall fraternization. This is unbelievable! What employees do on their own time should be their business. As long as they aren't displaying any evidence of romantic relationships while on the clock within company walls, they should be left alone.
Article by: MICHAEL BARBARO
According to this article, an investigator hired by employees flew to Guatemala in April of 2002. He flew across the country to prove that a Wal-Mart manager was sleeping with a lower-level employee. It is against company policy for two Wal-Mart employees to be involved in any kind of sexual or romantic relationship with one another. The investigator heard moans and sighs coming from the hotel room, which he had his ear pressed against. The company later fired the manager.
I understand that fraternization between two company employees isn't tolerated within the company, however, hiring a professional to press his ear against a hotel in a foreign country is going a little too far. There are other ways the company can distinguish this problem without invading their private lives outside of work. It is highly unethical, in my opinion, for someone to press his ear against a hotel room and have an employee fired based on "moans and sighs."
The article went on to discuss that the investigators serve as rapid response team that aggressively polices the nation's largest private employer, enforcing Wal-Mart's rules to be strictly (above normally) enforced. Wal-Mart isn't even the only company that engages in such investigative practices. This tactic is commonly used throughout corporate America. This is something that I was unaware of, and just coming aware of it is something I cannot believe is going on.
There was one specific case discussed in the article about two Wal-Mart executives that were fired after they were thought to be romantically involved. The Wal-Mart investigation of the case subpoenaed the male executive's wife and compelled her to turn over dozens of embarrassing email messages that her husband sent to his female co-worker from a private account. This has gone too far. Wal-Mart has every reason to fire employees breaking company code, however, the extremes that they are going to are unethical and unreasonable.
I also believe that these investigators, who are top F.B.I agents with unbelievable experience behind them, could be putting their investigative skills to work other than following Wal-Mart employees around the country. These agents are booking hotel rooms right across the hall from rooms that are believed to be the scene of this over the wall fraternization. This is unbelievable! What employees do on their own time should be their business. As long as they aren't displaying any evidence of romantic relationships while on the clock within company walls, they should be left alone.
Article by: MICHAEL BARBARO
Saturday, April 7, 2007
"..Having a Great Detox" (3/29/07 p. E1)
I couldn't get this picture to paste, so click on this link, and after looking at the picture you might think beautiful home, hotel, or Bed and Breakfast. I bet you didn't consider it to be a rehab facility, which is exactly what it is. It is called Passages, which is located in Malibu, California. Passions, like some of the more lush rehab centers appears to be a luxury spa or resort, not a traditional bare-bones detox centers.
The article, "Having a Great Detox" focused on how rehab centers for the rich and famous are looked at as somewhere to go to treat a drug or alcohol addiction, but seem to be the equivalent as shedding a few unwanted pounds. The article pointed out that less than a decade ago, a stint in rehab was assumed to be a bod and soul wrenching experience. A trip to even an elite facility like the Betty Ford Center in Rancho Mirage, California was sufficiently shaming to keep under wraps. Today a sojourn at a boutique establishment like Promises in Malibu, California, where until last week Britney Spears was tucked away, is openly discussed and in some quarters glamorized as a hip, if costly, refuge for the gilded set.
I was actually really pleased to find this article. I had always wondered why rehab seemed to be so glamorized now days. I'm a sucker for celebrity gossip (although I know its ridiculous) and came across an article about a new star in rehab more often than not. These rehab centers pamper their "patients" with full-out spas, enormous swimming pools, and ocean view, private rooms. Sounds like quite the vacation package. The Times even noted Richard DeGrandpre, the author of "The Cult of Pharmacology" saying, "rehab is a prurient, even envious fascination with celebrity culture, one, in which rehab has become fashionable, almost to the point, ironically, of giving a person status." So true.
Of course, these posh rehab centers are by no means cheap for the everyday "normal" citizens. One-month programs can range anywhere from $25,000 to $80,000, a little more than a high class vacation. These centers give out the essence of a luxurious holiday getaway to the rich and famous. US Weekly even published a feature laid out like a glossy travel brochure, portraying treatment as something akin to a visit to a five-star hotel.
William Cope Moyers, the vice president for external affairs at Hazelden in Center City, MN stated that addiction does not discriminate. It is a disease that doesn't care whether you are glamours or glory. These centers maybe shouldn't either. The Hard Rock resort in Las Vegas offers a series of "rehab nights" of poolside drinking and carousing, and is among a number of businesses promoting the concept of rehab as an alternately laid back and stimulating retreat for the middle class.
I find it unethical that these centers are turning rehab into something that if someone isn't going to rehab, maybe they aren't so interesting. Rehab shouldn't be a profile raiser or something to be proud of. Drug and alcohol addiction is something that cannot be taken lightly, which is exactly what these centers are making it become.
Of course, I am not implying that rehab centers should be something equivalent to a shack alongside the road. They deserve to be on the nicer side, however, they can't be inviting and something guests want to come back to. Rehab isn't supposed to be a "come back and see us again" kind of place. Places like Passions or Promises even have names that imply something someone wants to return to. I believe in the face of ethics, these centers need a face lift (or a face down) and be restored as something necessary for those who are addicted to harmful drugs or alcohol, and they don't want that shared with the world.
Article by: RUTH LA FERLA
The article, "Having a Great Detox" focused on how rehab centers for the rich and famous are looked at as somewhere to go to treat a drug or alcohol addiction, but seem to be the equivalent as shedding a few unwanted pounds. The article pointed out that less than a decade ago, a stint in rehab was assumed to be a bod and soul wrenching experience. A trip to even an elite facility like the Betty Ford Center in Rancho Mirage, California was sufficiently shaming to keep under wraps. Today a sojourn at a boutique establishment like Promises in Malibu, California, where until last week Britney Spears was tucked away, is openly discussed and in some quarters glamorized as a hip, if costly, refuge for the gilded set.
I was actually really pleased to find this article. I had always wondered why rehab seemed to be so glamorized now days. I'm a sucker for celebrity gossip (although I know its ridiculous) and came across an article about a new star in rehab more often than not. These rehab centers pamper their "patients" with full-out spas, enormous swimming pools, and ocean view, private rooms. Sounds like quite the vacation package. The Times even noted Richard DeGrandpre, the author of "The Cult of Pharmacology" saying, "rehab is a prurient, even envious fascination with celebrity culture, one, in which rehab has become fashionable, almost to the point, ironically, of giving a person status." So true.
Of course, these posh rehab centers are by no means cheap for the everyday "normal" citizens. One-month programs can range anywhere from $25,000 to $80,000, a little more than a high class vacation. These centers give out the essence of a luxurious holiday getaway to the rich and famous. US Weekly even published a feature laid out like a glossy travel brochure, portraying treatment as something akin to a visit to a five-star hotel.
William Cope Moyers, the vice president for external affairs at Hazelden in Center City, MN stated that addiction does not discriminate. It is a disease that doesn't care whether you are glamours or glory. These centers maybe shouldn't either. The Hard Rock resort in Las Vegas offers a series of "rehab nights" of poolside drinking and carousing, and is among a number of businesses promoting the concept of rehab as an alternately laid back and stimulating retreat for the middle class.
I find it unethical that these centers are turning rehab into something that if someone isn't going to rehab, maybe they aren't so interesting. Rehab shouldn't be a profile raiser or something to be proud of. Drug and alcohol addiction is something that cannot be taken lightly, which is exactly what these centers are making it become.
Of course, I am not implying that rehab centers should be something equivalent to a shack alongside the road. They deserve to be on the nicer side, however, they can't be inviting and something guests want to come back to. Rehab isn't supposed to be a "come back and see us again" kind of place. Places like Passions or Promises even have names that imply something someone wants to return to. I believe in the face of ethics, these centers need a face lift (or a face down) and be restored as something necessary for those who are addicted to harmful drugs or alcohol, and they don't want that shared with the world.
Article by: RUTH LA FERLA
"Child Wants Cellphone; Reception is Mixed" (3/29/07 p. E1)
It's official: our society has spun out of control.
What is it this time? Kids are getting cellphones at the age of 6, 7 or 8!! Are you kidding me?
I stumbled across this article in the weekly Thursday styles of the New York Times. Sometimes the "E Section" has some pretty interesting stuff, but I've never really found an ethical issue. It just so happens I found two in this particular issue.
The article is about how kids are starting to get cellphones as young as the age of 6. Before I go in to the article, take a minute to think how old you were (assuming most of the adult community has cellphones) when you got your first mobile phone. I was 16. My parents said I was old enough to have one now that I would be driving. However, I was responsible for paying the bill and keeping track of my minutes, making sure I didn't go over.
Anyway, the article started out flabbergasting me. Hannah Stacks, a third grader, started bugging her parents for a cellphone at age 6. First of all, who was she going to call? She never stopped bugging her parents until she finally got a mobile phone at the age of 8, as a reward for not being mean to her little sister for 30 days. OK, wait a minute, when I was 8 and my little sister was 6, A) I don't think I could go 30 days without picking on her, even if there was a reward involved, and B) IF I would have accomplished such a task, I would probably have been given $3 and a half hour later bedtime for a Friday night. Whoopie. I can't even fathom being given a cellphone when I was that young!
According to The Times, cellphones are quickly emerging as the must-have techno-toy among elementary-school society. One of the most popular kinds of phones is called the Firefly. The Firefly features only five keys, including ones with icons for speed-dialing a parent, and allows users to call a maximum of 22 numbers. Great (cough, cough.)
Some 6.6 million of the 20 million American children in the age range of 8 to 12 had cellphones by the end of 2006, according to an analysis by the Yankee Group, a technology consulting firm in Boston, which thinks there will be 10.5 million preteen cellphone users by 2010. Is this really even ethical, or necessary for that matter? Who are these kids going to call, other than their parents? I remember how exciting it was to have the house phone ring and it be one of my friends for me. What was wrong with that? Nothing! The Yankee Group estimates the number of 8-year-olds with cellphones more than doubled to 506,000 over the past four years, while the number of 9-year-olds jumped to 1.25 million from 501,000. These numbers are astonishing to me. I remember when I was 8 or 9 I was excited if my Barbie dolls got a fake phone. I can also remember that maybe one or two of my friends was even allowed their own phone (hooked up to their house's main line) in their room. It was just unheard of.
The article pointed out that children want cellphones for obvious reasons: to look cool and be mature. In my mind, it is unethical for parents to give in to that. There are other reasons kids at the age of 8 or 9 can look cool. Bring money for hot lunch instead of in a lunch box is what I did to get the "cool, mature look."
The flip side to my argument is also stated in the article. Some say that the phones are an electronic security blanket (parents can monitor incoming and outgoing calls) in a world of two-career households, and split custody arrangements, Amber alerts, and terror levels. Excuse me, but all of this was happening when I was this age, we always arranged where I'd be after school and who I'd be with before starting the day. And as for Amber alerts, kids can get abducted whether they have a cellphone or not.
The Times also noted schools are seeing a change in cellphone use. Teachers are sending more and more students to the Principal's office for finding them using a cellphone instead of paying attention in class. One parent even noted in the article that her son would call her during lunch and math class. Isn't that something that should concern the parent?
The only thing I find appealing about the phones is that they feature a global-positioning satellite device so that parents can locate the phone, and presumably the child, from another phone or a Web site. Ok, I'll give in. This aspect of the cellphone is a good idea, but these kids are still too young.
My whole reasoning is that this articles falls under an ethical issue is that kids need to stay kids as long as possible. Kids have their whole lives to be grown up and mature. The preteen years need to be valued more than collapsing in to giving kids cellphones.
**Other brands of cellphones made for kids:
Article by: LISA W. FODERARO
What is it this time? Kids are getting cellphones at the age of 6, 7 or 8!! Are you kidding me?
I stumbled across this article in the weekly Thursday styles of the New York Times. Sometimes the "E Section" has some pretty interesting stuff, but I've never really found an ethical issue. It just so happens I found two in this particular issue.
The article is about how kids are starting to get cellphones as young as the age of 6. Before I go in to the article, take a minute to think how old you were (assuming most of the adult community has cellphones) when you got your first mobile phone. I was 16. My parents said I was old enough to have one now that I would be driving. However, I was responsible for paying the bill and keeping track of my minutes, making sure I didn't go over.
Anyway, the article started out flabbergasting me. Hannah Stacks, a third grader, started bugging her parents for a cellphone at age 6. First of all, who was she going to call? She never stopped bugging her parents until she finally got a mobile phone at the age of 8, as a reward for not being mean to her little sister for 30 days. OK, wait a minute, when I was 8 and my little sister was 6, A) I don't think I could go 30 days without picking on her, even if there was a reward involved, and B) IF I would have accomplished such a task, I would probably have been given $3 and a half hour later bedtime for a Friday night. Whoopie. I can't even fathom being given a cellphone when I was that young!
According to The Times, cellphones are quickly emerging as the must-have techno-toy among elementary-school society. One of the most popular kinds of phones is called the Firefly. The Firefly features only five keys, including ones with icons for speed-dialing a parent, and allows users to call a maximum of 22 numbers. Great (cough, cough.)
Some 6.6 million of the 20 million American children in the age range of 8 to 12 had cellphones by the end of 2006, according to an analysis by the Yankee Group, a technology consulting firm in Boston, which thinks there will be 10.5 million preteen cellphone users by 2010. Is this really even ethical, or necessary for that matter? Who are these kids going to call, other than their parents? I remember how exciting it was to have the house phone ring and it be one of my friends for me. What was wrong with that? Nothing! The Yankee Group estimates the number of 8-year-olds with cellphones more than doubled to 506,000 over the past four years, while the number of 9-year-olds jumped to 1.25 million from 501,000. These numbers are astonishing to me. I remember when I was 8 or 9 I was excited if my Barbie dolls got a fake phone. I can also remember that maybe one or two of my friends was even allowed their own phone (hooked up to their house's main line) in their room. It was just unheard of.
The article pointed out that children want cellphones for obvious reasons: to look cool and be mature. In my mind, it is unethical for parents to give in to that. There are other reasons kids at the age of 8 or 9 can look cool. Bring money for hot lunch instead of in a lunch box is what I did to get the "cool, mature look."
The flip side to my argument is also stated in the article. Some say that the phones are an electronic security blanket (parents can monitor incoming and outgoing calls) in a world of two-career households, and split custody arrangements, Amber alerts, and terror levels. Excuse me, but all of this was happening when I was this age, we always arranged where I'd be after school and who I'd be with before starting the day. And as for Amber alerts, kids can get abducted whether they have a cellphone or not.
The Times also noted schools are seeing a change in cellphone use. Teachers are sending more and more students to the Principal's office for finding them using a cellphone instead of paying attention in class. One parent even noted in the article that her son would call her during lunch and math class. Isn't that something that should concern the parent?
The only thing I find appealing about the phones is that they feature a global-positioning satellite device so that parents can locate the phone, and presumably the child, from another phone or a Web site. Ok, I'll give in. This aspect of the cellphone is a good idea, but these kids are still too young.
My whole reasoning is that this articles falls under an ethical issue is that kids need to stay kids as long as possible. Kids have their whole lives to be grown up and mature. The preteen years need to be valued more than collapsing in to giving kids cellphones.
**Other brands of cellphones made for kids:
Article by: LISA W. FODERARO
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
"Tajik President Outlaws Slavic Endings on Names" (3/28/07 p. A10)
I find it so interesting, sometimes ridiculous how rulers of other countries can come up with laws that would be laughed at in the United States. The following article is something that isn't necessarily unethical to the countries that are adopting these laws, however, from my perspective in the United States, I think how unethical it would be if these laws were adapted here.
The president of Tajikistan announced recently that his country would be removing traces of Soviet influence. As a result he dropped the Slavic "ov" from the end of his surname and that, henceforth, the same must be done for all babies born to Tajik parents. This just seems so unreal to me. 'Ski' is a popular ending to last names in the United States (of course, they descended from another country) imagine George Bush announcing that all last names ending in 'ski' must drop it from their name?
According to The Times, most Tajiks added a Slavic ending to their surname when the country came under Soviet rule early in the last century.
The president, Emomali Rakhmon (formerly Rakhmonov) didn't stop there. He also banned certain school holidays and traditions associated with the Soviet period, including a holiday known as ABC Book Day, when toddlers gather around a circle to read aloud. This of course, seems very unethical to deprive youngsters of such a holiday they most likely look forward to and benefit greatly from when it comes to their budding education.
Rakhmon also ordered that all university students to leave cell phones and cars at home, saying they distracted from academic study. As an American university student, I know that such a law like that on our soil wouldn't even begin to be taken seriously.
The article touched on a Tajik citizen's point of view. Shamsiyna Ofaridyeza said she was more supportive of the ban on students driving cars and using cell phones. "Students are not studying," she said. "They are too busy sitting on their chars showing off. But you know, we are a democratic people, and everyone should be able to name his baby what he wants."
All I know is, I'm proud to be an American where my last name is what it is and I can talk on my cell phone all I want. This article just made me realize how different our ethics and cultures really are.
Article by: Ilan Greenberg
The president of Tajikistan announced recently that his country would be removing traces of Soviet influence. As a result he dropped the Slavic "ov" from the end of his surname and that, henceforth, the same must be done for all babies born to Tajik parents. This just seems so unreal to me. 'Ski' is a popular ending to last names in the United States (of course, they descended from another country) imagine George Bush announcing that all last names ending in 'ski' must drop it from their name?
According to The Times, most Tajiks added a Slavic ending to their surname when the country came under Soviet rule early in the last century.
The president, Emomali Rakhmon (formerly Rakhmonov) didn't stop there. He also banned certain school holidays and traditions associated with the Soviet period, including a holiday known as ABC Book Day, when toddlers gather around a circle to read aloud. This of course, seems very unethical to deprive youngsters of such a holiday they most likely look forward to and benefit greatly from when it comes to their budding education.
Rakhmon also ordered that all university students to leave cell phones and cars at home, saying they distracted from academic study. As an American university student, I know that such a law like that on our soil wouldn't even begin to be taken seriously.
The article touched on a Tajik citizen's point of view. Shamsiyna Ofaridyeza said she was more supportive of the ban on students driving cars and using cell phones. "Students are not studying," she said. "They are too busy sitting on their chars showing off. But you know, we are a democratic people, and everyone should be able to name his baby what he wants."
All I know is, I'm proud to be an American where my last name is what it is and I can talk on my cell phone all I want. This article just made me realize how different our ethics and cultures really are.
Article by: Ilan Greenberg
"Back From the Dead, Teenager Casts Light on Shadowy Game" (3/28/07 p. A1)
The only reason I know what the "pass out game" is, is because I tragically lost a friend to this ridiculous behavior. I haven't heard of it again, until just reading about it on the front page of the New York Times. Reading about it brought back the memories of losing Dan, and I realized I sometimes forget how he died. Why isn't this more publicly discussed? Apparently The Times feels the same way.
Levi Draher is the "main character" of this article. He was playing the pass out game by himself when he passed out faster than he could react and suffered a heart attack. His mother was the one to find her son suspended from a rope off the frame of his bunk bead. Levi, clinically dead, had starved his brain of air for more than three minutes.
Now, Levi, a medical miracle, is speaking out to his peers about his experience and educating people on the subject that remains hush hush in many schools and families. Levi explains that kids are playing this game because it gives them a temporary high and they assume they won't get caught.
According to The Times, asphyxiation games have been around for several years, but hasn't been widely publicized. Teens are seeing seeing the game on the Internet on sites such as http://www.youtube.com/. The game is seriously threatening especially when kids like Levi, or my friend, Dan, are playing it by themselves.
Stephen Wallace, a psychologist and chief executive of Students Against Destructive Decisions claims that as a society we shouldn't be timid in addressing like we have been in the past. This is where the main ethics come into play with this article. Why are people, especially schools avoiding this dangerous issue? Some claim because not only does the game give you a feeling of a "high" sensation, it can also be related to sexual anxiety. The game can be associated with auto erotic practices of masturbation or intercourse and increases orgasms. Either way, this isn't something to be left alone. If teens were more educated about the harmful and possibly fatal risks associated with the game, they may not be doing it as much or at all.
This notion of course, can bring up the argument of drug use. By now, most teens are aware that drugs are harmful and can kill you, however, they use them anyway. Why would this game be anything different? Maybe if the facts were out there, it wouldn't be done as much.
What is suspected is that the game has been around for years and caused more deaths than are realized. Many deaths that may have been in relation to the game may have been ruled as suicides and didn't call for any further investigation. Because of this, medical examiners and other health officials don't know much about the process at all. They have the knowledge that risks include brain damage, medication and physical disfigurement. However, there is still murkiness as to how the brain and body react to such practices.
Mrs. Draher says she had never heard of the game before what happened to Levi. She is now part of a national group called Games Adolescents Shouldn't Play.
People need to pay attention to this growing problem. Schools need to educate students about it. If people are afraid that educating students will put ideas in their heads, they need to realize the amount of teens it would be saving is a far greater number. We're educated about everything else, this needs to be added to the list so more people don't suffer the loss of a friend or loved one like I did.
**I searched on youtube to find some video of the game and sure enough, there were several:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkm_cvQCkY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OTvBISxYh0I
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EVGs_ZAItzw
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tng47LsNWR4
The comments following these videos are something to take note of. Some of them acknowledge the harmful effects of the game, others think it is funny to watch someone pass out. How is that funny? At least those that encourage the people passing out in the video to stop have some common sense.
Article by: KIRK JOHNSON
Levi Draher is the "main character" of this article. He was playing the pass out game by himself when he passed out faster than he could react and suffered a heart attack. His mother was the one to find her son suspended from a rope off the frame of his bunk bead. Levi, clinically dead, had starved his brain of air for more than three minutes.
Now, Levi, a medical miracle, is speaking out to his peers about his experience and educating people on the subject that remains hush hush in many schools and families. Levi explains that kids are playing this game because it gives them a temporary high and they assume they won't get caught.
According to The Times, asphyxiation games have been around for several years, but hasn't been widely publicized. Teens are seeing seeing the game on the Internet on sites such as http://www.youtube.com/. The game is seriously threatening especially when kids like Levi, or my friend, Dan, are playing it by themselves.
Stephen Wallace, a psychologist and chief executive of Students Against Destructive Decisions claims that as a society we shouldn't be timid in addressing like we have been in the past. This is where the main ethics come into play with this article. Why are people, especially schools avoiding this dangerous issue? Some claim because not only does the game give you a feeling of a "high" sensation, it can also be related to sexual anxiety. The game can be associated with auto erotic practices of masturbation or intercourse and increases orgasms. Either way, this isn't something to be left alone. If teens were more educated about the harmful and possibly fatal risks associated with the game, they may not be doing it as much or at all.
This notion of course, can bring up the argument of drug use. By now, most teens are aware that drugs are harmful and can kill you, however, they use them anyway. Why would this game be anything different? Maybe if the facts were out there, it wouldn't be done as much.
What is suspected is that the game has been around for years and caused more deaths than are realized. Many deaths that may have been in relation to the game may have been ruled as suicides and didn't call for any further investigation. Because of this, medical examiners and other health officials don't know much about the process at all. They have the knowledge that risks include brain damage, medication and physical disfigurement. However, there is still murkiness as to how the brain and body react to such practices.
Mrs. Draher says she had never heard of the game before what happened to Levi. She is now part of a national group called Games Adolescents Shouldn't Play.
People need to pay attention to this growing problem. Schools need to educate students about it. If people are afraid that educating students will put ideas in their heads, they need to realize the amount of teens it would be saving is a far greater number. We're educated about everything else, this needs to be added to the list so more people don't suffer the loss of a friend or loved one like I did.
**I searched on youtube to find some video of the game and sure enough, there were several:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkm_cvQCkY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OTvBISxYh0I
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EVGs_ZAItzw
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tng47LsNWR4
The comments following these videos are something to take note of. Some of them acknowledge the harmful effects of the game, others think it is funny to watch someone pass out. How is that funny? At least those that encourage the people passing out in the video to stop have some common sense.
Article by: KIRK JOHNSON
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
"Polygamy, Practiced in Secrecy, Follows Africans to New York City" (3/23/07 p. A1)
In America, a man having more than one wife is unethical. Not telling one wife you have another wife is also...unethical.
Odine D. came home one night after work to find a strange woman sitting in her living room. Her husband introduced her as his other wife. Odine's husband's reply was simply that Islamic precepts allow him to have up to four wives and get used to it.
Having multiple wives is known as polygamy, and is outlawed in America. According to The Times, it has long been associated with Mormon splinter groups out West, not immigrants in New York.
Following the March 7 Bronx fire, husband double takes have followed. No one knows how prevalent polygamy is in New York. Under immigration law, polygamy is grounds for exclusion from the United States. If it is practiced at all, it must be done in secrecy.
There are many places throughout the world that polygamy is widespread. In some countries, as 43 percent of women are involved in a polygamous marriage. As difficult this is for some of these women, they accept it because it is part of one's religion.
There is a reason this is forbidden in the United States and why immigrants may be removed from the country if they practice it. It is highly unethical and will not be accepted into American society. African culture may look at it as a way of life and a "normal" practice, however, the reasonable and even unhealthy ethics behind it are enough to make the cultures that do allow it wonder.
The article spoke of women who were involved with such practices and how they felt about it. Most didn't have anything positive to say. As stated in the article: "The woman is in effect the slave of the man," said a Guinean businesswoman. "If you protest, your husband will hit you, and if you call the police, he's going to divorce you, and the whole community will scorn you."
Domestic violence, apparently associated with this practice is also unethical and flat out wrong. How can this be happening? Such articles need to give our country the initiative to step up on enforcing the laws against polygamy.
The health factors behind such a practice are also a tie into the ethics in this issue. For a man to have multiple wives assists in the spreading of sexually transmitted diseases. Especially if this is a popular way of life in Africa. I think the mystery as to why AIDS is on such a rise in Africa is solved. Bringing such practices to American soil, secretive or not, still plants the possiblity for AIDS to be even more of a problem in our country than it already is. Polygamy must end.
The article has several specific examples of women discussing their polygamy situation. One wife had 11 children and in the next room there was another wife with three children. Doesn't that make for a memorable Christmas card?
Many wives are vulnerable to be deported because, under American law, a man can only enter the country with one spouse. Obviously, the system has a glitch in it if these women are still finding their way into the country. I see this whole concept as one big mess that needs to be paid more attention to. Prior to reading this article, I was unaware of the problem, I imagine most Americans are. Ethically, we need to be more educated on it to help end the problem for the sake of everyone involved, directly or not.
Article by: NINA BERNSTEIN
Odine D. came home one night after work to find a strange woman sitting in her living room. Her husband introduced her as his other wife. Odine's husband's reply was simply that Islamic precepts allow him to have up to four wives and get used to it.
Having multiple wives is known as polygamy, and is outlawed in America. According to The Times, it has long been associated with Mormon splinter groups out West, not immigrants in New York.
Following the March 7 Bronx fire, husband double takes have followed. No one knows how prevalent polygamy is in New York. Under immigration law, polygamy is grounds for exclusion from the United States. If it is practiced at all, it must be done in secrecy.
There are many places throughout the world that polygamy is widespread. In some countries, as 43 percent of women are involved in a polygamous marriage. As difficult this is for some of these women, they accept it because it is part of one's religion.
There is a reason this is forbidden in the United States and why immigrants may be removed from the country if they practice it. It is highly unethical and will not be accepted into American society. African culture may look at it as a way of life and a "normal" practice, however, the reasonable and even unhealthy ethics behind it are enough to make the cultures that do allow it wonder.
The article spoke of women who were involved with such practices and how they felt about it. Most didn't have anything positive to say. As stated in the article: "The woman is in effect the slave of the man," said a Guinean businesswoman. "If you protest, your husband will hit you, and if you call the police, he's going to divorce you, and the whole community will scorn you."
Domestic violence, apparently associated with this practice is also unethical and flat out wrong. How can this be happening? Such articles need to give our country the initiative to step up on enforcing the laws against polygamy.
The health factors behind such a practice are also a tie into the ethics in this issue. For a man to have multiple wives assists in the spreading of sexually transmitted diseases. Especially if this is a popular way of life in Africa. I think the mystery as to why AIDS is on such a rise in Africa is solved. Bringing such practices to American soil, secretive or not, still plants the possiblity for AIDS to be even more of a problem in our country than it already is. Polygamy must end.
The article has several specific examples of women discussing their polygamy situation. One wife had 11 children and in the next room there was another wife with three children. Doesn't that make for a memorable Christmas card?
Many wives are vulnerable to be deported because, under American law, a man can only enter the country with one spouse. Obviously, the system has a glitch in it if these women are still finding their way into the country. I see this whole concept as one big mess that needs to be paid more attention to. Prior to reading this article, I was unaware of the problem, I imagine most Americans are. Ethically, we need to be more educated on it to help end the problem for the sake of everyone involved, directly or not.
Article by: NINA BERNSTEIN
Sunday, March 25, 2007
"Make New Friends Online, and You Won't Start College Friendless" (3/21/07 p. A19)
Our world today is so much different than it was even five years ago. It seems odd to me that with the growth of the internet and sites on the internet that people are actually losing their jobs and diginity over what is published about them.
The two main sites that come in to mind are www.facebook.com or www.myspace.com. Being a college student, I recognize facebook as the more popular of the two.
I have heard a lot of negative remarks about facebook and what it is doing to people. Or maybe, what they are doing to themselves. Posting pictures of underage drinking and other questionable behaviors posted on their homepage. However, I stumbled across a positive article relating to facebook that had some good ethical points about the college student dominated site.
"Make New Friends Online, and You Won't Start College Friendless." The title itself is comforting to students that are worried about their first year of college and having no friends the first couple of days.
As reported by The Times reporter, the students discussed in the article are meeting on facebook through groups signifying their college and that they will be new freshmen. Because of these groups, several students are designating meeting places to become familiar with other students from around the country and around the world.
Of course, not everyone is enthusiastic about meeting future classmates online. With all the precautions we are encouraged to take about meeting strangers over the internet, facebook has somewhat of a security blanket over it, ensuring students it is reasonably safe.
So, I guess ethics could be interpreted different ways in this article. It is a plus that students are entering their first year of college with friends, however, the way they are meeting these friends could be risky and dangerous. All in all, ethics play a big part in facebook and the issues it brings up. They can be good or bad, depending on what point of view you're coming from.
Article by: KATE STONE LOMBARDI
The two main sites that come in to mind are www.facebook.com or www.myspace.com. Being a college student, I recognize facebook as the more popular of the two.
I have heard a lot of negative remarks about facebook and what it is doing to people. Or maybe, what they are doing to themselves. Posting pictures of underage drinking and other questionable behaviors posted on their homepage. However, I stumbled across a positive article relating to facebook that had some good ethical points about the college student dominated site.
"Make New Friends Online, and You Won't Start College Friendless." The title itself is comforting to students that are worried about their first year of college and having no friends the first couple of days.
As reported by The Times reporter, the students discussed in the article are meeting on facebook through groups signifying their college and that they will be new freshmen. Because of these groups, several students are designating meeting places to become familiar with other students from around the country and around the world.
Of course, not everyone is enthusiastic about meeting future classmates online. With all the precautions we are encouraged to take about meeting strangers over the internet, facebook has somewhat of a security blanket over it, ensuring students it is reasonably safe.
So, I guess ethics could be interpreted different ways in this article. It is a plus that students are entering their first year of college with friends, however, the way they are meeting these friends could be risky and dangerous. All in all, ethics play a big part in facebook and the issues it brings up. They can be good or bad, depending on what point of view you're coming from.
Article by: KATE STONE LOMBARDI
"Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils" (3/21/07 p. A10)
I am not familiar with full-face veils worn by some women, simply because I don't see any or much of that in the United States. To me, if that is what they want to wear, thats their choice. I see it as the same as my own choosing what brand of jeans I want to wear.
An article entitled, "Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils," has two very clear arumentative sides to the issue. According to The Times, British authorities proposed new rules to allow schools to forbid Muslim students to wear full -face veils in class. I'm not overly familiar with the Muslim culuture, however, I am assuming that these veils are what some of these people wear. At this point in the issue, it is clearly unethical for schools to single out these minorities (which Britain doesn't have a very good relationship with in the first place) over other students. School officials should not be able to prevent students from wearing something that is part of their culture. It just isn't fair or right.
The full-face veil is known as a niqab. Prime Minister Tony Blair described the niqab as a "mark of separation" that made "other people from outside the community feel uncomfortable." I see it as the other way around. Because these Muslim students are wearing the veil and are treated differently, I see it as the ones that are feeling uncomfortable.
Ethics can be two sided with certain kinds of arguments present. The other side to this issue would be that teachers need to be able to distinguish who the students are. Schools need to be able to identify individual students in order to maintain good order and identify any intruders.
Maybe it is ethical that schools can prevent students from wearing a niqab for safety reasons. Our world is encountering a terroristic time and any chance to prevent terrorism needs to be taken seriously.
Proceeding the argument against wearing the veils, Jim Knight, the school's minister said that "While they should make every effort to accomodate social, religious or medical requirements of individual pupils, the needs of safety security and effective learning in the school must always take precedence."
I see that a basic dress code needs to put into effect. This would ensure that everyone wore the same thing and nobody would be left out. This of course, leads to taking away a piece of individuality, however, under these such circumstances making everyone look the same would seem like the most ethical measure of action.
Article by: ALAN COWELL
An article entitled, "Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils," has two very clear arumentative sides to the issue. According to The Times, British authorities proposed new rules to allow schools to forbid Muslim students to wear full -face veils in class. I'm not overly familiar with the Muslim culuture, however, I am assuming that these veils are what some of these people wear. At this point in the issue, it is clearly unethical for schools to single out these minorities (which Britain doesn't have a very good relationship with in the first place) over other students. School officials should not be able to prevent students from wearing something that is part of their culture. It just isn't fair or right.
The full-face veil is known as a niqab. Prime Minister Tony Blair described the niqab as a "mark of separation" that made "other people from outside the community feel uncomfortable." I see it as the other way around. Because these Muslim students are wearing the veil and are treated differently, I see it as the ones that are feeling uncomfortable.
Ethics can be two sided with certain kinds of arguments present. The other side to this issue would be that teachers need to be able to distinguish who the students are. Schools need to be able to identify individual students in order to maintain good order and identify any intruders.
Maybe it is ethical that schools can prevent students from wearing a niqab for safety reasons. Our world is encountering a terroristic time and any chance to prevent terrorism needs to be taken seriously.
Proceeding the argument against wearing the veils, Jim Knight, the school's minister said that "While they should make every effort to accomodate social, religious or medical requirements of individual pupils, the needs of safety security and effective learning in the school must always take precedence."
I see that a basic dress code needs to put into effect. This would ensure that everyone wore the same thing and nobody would be left out. This of course, leads to taking away a piece of individuality, however, under these such circumstances making everyone look the same would seem like the most ethical measure of action.
Article by: ALAN COWELL
Saturday, March 24, 2007
"No Paradise for Ciminals Deported to Jamaica" (3/21/07 p. A9)
When ethics are analyzed, they're divided into a category of green and red light ethics. Obviously, from their title alone it can be determined that green light ethics are the "go ahead" ethics and red light ethics are the "cautionary" ethics.
Green light ethics highlight "affirmative responsiblity." These types of ethics tell the truth, inform the public, reveal social ills, preserve human dignity, etc. These ethics also print things they ought to and take chances.
Red light ethics have "negative constraints." The don't lie, or offend the public, don't gross out the public, don't invade privacy etc. They emphasize being careful on what to print and to place limits.
I am willing to think that both kinds of ethics can be found in one single article. I arrived at this conclusion after reading "No Paradise for Criminals Deported to Jamaica."
The article took place in a run down resort in Jamaica where criminals arrested on the streets of Canada, Britain and the United States are given housing. Most have served lengthy prison sentences before being deported to the island. Most, who are originally from Jamaica claim they hate being back.
According to the article, the resort is home to a bank robber and people convicted of drug offenses. This is where I see red light ethics coming into play. Listing the kinds of people that live in this resort need to be mentioned lightly. Jamaica is a prime vactation spot for many Americans and other people around the world. Knowing its an island full of criminals isn't exactly brochure material. (Then again, knowing they are out of our country does make it a little more settling, so maybe they could be turned around to green light ethics.)
The United States, Canada and Britain have deported 33,268 Jamaicans over the past 15 years. When these deportees arive, politicians and police officers automatically blame them for spiraling crime, causing others to turn their backs on the ex-convicts. These ethics do need to be printed in such an article, therefore, they would classify as green light ethics. They tell the truth and aren't afraid to put the information out there.
It is stated that deportees often find their way back to the countries that deported them, and live even harsher lives of crime. This fact is nice to know. I see this as part of the red light ethical points to the article. The public is said to not be grossed out during an ethical issue. I classify scaring the public with such a fact as something equivelant to grossing them out as well. There doesn't seem to be a happy medium when it comes to this point of fact.
The green light ethics jolt right back into play when The Times reports that the deportees are dislocated from the rest of Jamaica. They have little or no connection to Jamaica and see themselves as outcasts. Still, it is unfair that Jamaicans have to live with these failures of society. The United States will not give in to pleas to keep the convicts there. That is an very appropriate ethical decision. We didn't produce these criminals, we don't want them.
What I found very interesting was towards the end of the article. Evelyn Mason gives housing for those that have no place to go, she keeps the run down resort as a place for the ex convicts to reside. You may wonder what provokes such behavior of Mason. Turns out she is a three-time deportee. She was thrown out of Britain and the United States for drug use. She is now Jamaica's leading deportee advocate. Her actions are a mixture of red and green light ethics. Although, as far as the article goes it prints what it ought to, especially the facts about Ms. Mason.
The ending quote is from Ms. Mason and it sums up ethical issues completely. "Now I'm the deportee who is on the radio and in the public eye. I'm not ashamed. I don't care that Jamaicans look down on me. I've changed, and they can to."
Article by: MARC LACEY
Green light ethics highlight "affirmative responsiblity." These types of ethics tell the truth, inform the public, reveal social ills, preserve human dignity, etc. These ethics also print things they ought to and take chances.
Red light ethics have "negative constraints." The don't lie, or offend the public, don't gross out the public, don't invade privacy etc. They emphasize being careful on what to print and to place limits.
I am willing to think that both kinds of ethics can be found in one single article. I arrived at this conclusion after reading "No Paradise for Criminals Deported to Jamaica."
The article took place in a run down resort in Jamaica where criminals arrested on the streets of Canada, Britain and the United States are given housing. Most have served lengthy prison sentences before being deported to the island. Most, who are originally from Jamaica claim they hate being back.
According to the article, the resort is home to a bank robber and people convicted of drug offenses. This is where I see red light ethics coming into play. Listing the kinds of people that live in this resort need to be mentioned lightly. Jamaica is a prime vactation spot for many Americans and other people around the world. Knowing its an island full of criminals isn't exactly brochure material. (Then again, knowing they are out of our country does make it a little more settling, so maybe they could be turned around to green light ethics.)
The United States, Canada and Britain have deported 33,268 Jamaicans over the past 15 years. When these deportees arive, politicians and police officers automatically blame them for spiraling crime, causing others to turn their backs on the ex-convicts. These ethics do need to be printed in such an article, therefore, they would classify as green light ethics. They tell the truth and aren't afraid to put the information out there.
It is stated that deportees often find their way back to the countries that deported them, and live even harsher lives of crime. This fact is nice to know. I see this as part of the red light ethical points to the article. The public is said to not be grossed out during an ethical issue. I classify scaring the public with such a fact as something equivelant to grossing them out as well. There doesn't seem to be a happy medium when it comes to this point of fact.
The green light ethics jolt right back into play when The Times reports that the deportees are dislocated from the rest of Jamaica. They have little or no connection to Jamaica and see themselves as outcasts. Still, it is unfair that Jamaicans have to live with these failures of society. The United States will not give in to pleas to keep the convicts there. That is an very appropriate ethical decision. We didn't produce these criminals, we don't want them.
What I found very interesting was towards the end of the article. Evelyn Mason gives housing for those that have no place to go, she keeps the run down resort as a place for the ex convicts to reside. You may wonder what provokes such behavior of Mason. Turns out she is a three-time deportee. She was thrown out of Britain and the United States for drug use. She is now Jamaica's leading deportee advocate. Her actions are a mixture of red and green light ethics. Although, as far as the article goes it prints what it ought to, especially the facts about Ms. Mason.
The ending quote is from Ms. Mason and it sums up ethical issues completely. "Now I'm the deportee who is on the radio and in the public eye. I'm not ashamed. I don't care that Jamaicans look down on me. I've changed, and they can to."
Article by: MARC LACEY
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
"Astronaut Fired After Charge of Attempted Kidnapping" (3/8/07 p. A17)
Maybe it’s considered something not so funny, but every time I read an article about Lisa Nowak, I find myself with a smirk on my face over how ridiculous this woman is.
Lisa Nowak was the astronaut that strapped on and a diaper to travel 900 miles to kidnap a woman interfering with Nowak and her lover. The whole picture of a diaper and a pissed off astronaut just makes me laugh.
The article in the New York Times on March 8 informed readers that Nowak was fired from NASA. Well, obviously, the woman apparently needs help. However, reading into the article I was shocked to find that Nowak will be returning to the military. Is it reasonable or ethical that one of the defenders for our country is the same woman that wears a diaper so she doesn't have to make a stop on her quest to kidnap and hurt? I don't think so.
When searched by police, Nowak's vehicle contained a BB gun, a new steel mallet, a knife and rubber tubing. Yet, the military is willing to take this deranged woman back despite everything that has just happened. People with felonies for less crimes cannot get a job as a secretary, let alone an alleged kidnapper getting into the military.
Ms. Nowak will be assigned to the staff at the Chief of Navel Air Training in Corpus Christi, Texas. As if our country isn't in enough trouble enough, we now have another lunatic working for us.
Article contributed by associated press
Lisa Nowak was the astronaut that strapped on and a diaper to travel 900 miles to kidnap a woman interfering with Nowak and her lover. The whole picture of a diaper and a pissed off astronaut just makes me laugh.
The article in the New York Times on March 8 informed readers that Nowak was fired from NASA. Well, obviously, the woman apparently needs help. However, reading into the article I was shocked to find that Nowak will be returning to the military. Is it reasonable or ethical that one of the defenders for our country is the same woman that wears a diaper so she doesn't have to make a stop on her quest to kidnap and hurt? I don't think so.
When searched by police, Nowak's vehicle contained a BB gun, a new steel mallet, a knife and rubber tubing. Yet, the military is willing to take this deranged woman back despite everything that has just happened. People with felonies for less crimes cannot get a job as a secretary, let alone an alleged kidnapper getting into the military.
Ms. Nowak will be assigned to the staff at the Chief of Navel Air Training in Corpus Christi, Texas. As if our country isn't in enough trouble enough, we now have another lunatic working for us.
Article contributed by associated press
"Brief Awakening From a Coma" (3/9/07 p. A10)
After reading the Youth Ministry article you'll find in the post following this one, I came across a very small article I would probably have skipped over, but found a lot of ethics in it.
The article was about Christa Lilly, a 49-year old who suffered a cardiac arrest in November of 2000. Since the incident, Ms. Lilly has been in a coma-like state. However, in March 2007, she awoke for three days to talk with family and friends and eat her favorite foods.
The ethics behind this issue bring the name Terry Schiavo to mind. Mrs. Schiavo was the woman in a vegetative state for several years before her husband finally won the case to have her taken off life support.
The Times even includes a statement from Lilly's Doctor, Randall Bjork. "We may have to rethink these people that have been called vegetables in nursing homes who may have some awareness of their horrible circumstances. It does go against the grain of what we thought."
The question of whether it was ethical to remove Schiavo and other cases from life support cannot be re-thought, however, with a case such as Ms. Lilly's coming into view, more thoughts can go into such decision making processes.
During her state of being lucid, Ms. Lilly was able to eat all her favorite foods before going back to her [what is now referred to as] minimally conscious state.
Dr. Bjork said he would like to try to stimulate Ms. Lilly back to awakeful state through various methods, however, her mother refuses. There are, of course, ethics present here. Is it ethical for doctors to want to make a miracle something medical at Ms. Lilly's expense? She shouldn't be paraded around as a guinea pig because she beat out the odds they didn't think possible. Or should she? Because Ms. Lilly is obviously a prime candidate for tests on regaining consciousness, should that be some kind of sign that she could be a medical breakthrough for all other patients that may develop her condition?
Article by: MINDY SINK
The article was about Christa Lilly, a 49-year old who suffered a cardiac arrest in November of 2000. Since the incident, Ms. Lilly has been in a coma-like state. However, in March 2007, she awoke for three days to talk with family and friends and eat her favorite foods.
The ethics behind this issue bring the name Terry Schiavo to mind. Mrs. Schiavo was the woman in a vegetative state for several years before her husband finally won the case to have her taken off life support.
The Times even includes a statement from Lilly's Doctor, Randall Bjork. "We may have to rethink these people that have been called vegetables in nursing homes who may have some awareness of their horrible circumstances. It does go against the grain of what we thought."
The question of whether it was ethical to remove Schiavo and other cases from life support cannot be re-thought, however, with a case such as Ms. Lilly's coming into view, more thoughts can go into such decision making processes.
During her state of being lucid, Ms. Lilly was able to eat all her favorite foods before going back to her [what is now referred to as] minimally conscious state.
Dr. Bjork said he would like to try to stimulate Ms. Lilly back to awakeful state through various methods, however, her mother refuses. There are, of course, ethics present here. Is it ethical for doctors to want to make a miracle something medical at Ms. Lilly's expense? She shouldn't be paraded around as a guinea pig because she beat out the odds they didn't think possible. Or should she? Because Ms. Lilly is obviously a prime candidate for tests on regaining consciousness, should that be some kind of sign that she could be a medical breakthrough for all other patients that may develop her condition?
Article by: MINDY SINK
"A Youth Ministry Some Call Antigay Tests Tolerance" (3/9/07 p. A10)
More often than not, an article relating to a minority group brings a question of ethics in some shape or form. So was the case for the piece entitled, "A Youth Ministry Some Call Antigay Tests Tolerance."
The article was centered on a two-day event called BattleCry. BattleCry is a Christian ministry from Texas that condemns homosexuality. The event takes place in San Francisco, which is often called "the gayest city in America."
The event attracts thousands of people of all ages, colors, and backgrounds. Through concerts and inspirational speakers, these teens will be speaking out their views about sex on television, obscene music, and violent video games. They believe that corporate America is twisting the minds of American teenagers while everyone watches it happen.
As reported in The Times, several prominent San Francisco political leaders say this group is the ones actually doing the damage. Tom Ammiano, a gay member of the city's Board of Supervisors says BattleCry is being fed and spoon feeding hate. The group has also been called reckless and irresponsible.
Aaron Peskin, the board's president stated, "We need to increase understanding of our human differences, not teach our kids to be suspicious and hateful towards people unlike them."
Mr. Peskin's statement reveals and ethical dilemma. Is it ethical that if he is so opposed to people speaking out that are different than him, isn't he doing the same speaking out against this group? We are a nation of Freedom of Speech; Mr. Peskin seems to have forgotten that.
BattleCry officials do have the rebuttal. They complain that San Francisco has made their lives difficult by imposing noise restrictions on a planned Saturday morning celebration. City officials said the restrictions came after numerous complaints about last year's event. I would be willing to bet there are no noise limits on the festivities of something like a Gay Parade in town.
One of BattleCry's attendees claims she doesn't see anything antigay about the event, however, she also believes gay people are misguided. Is she the one that is misguided by this event to come to that kind of thinking?
Joe D'Alessandro, the president of the San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau claims, "I am gay myself, and I find their beliefs very offensive. But they have a right to come to our city." If more people could think like Mr. D'Alessandro, the world would be a much better, much more reasonable place.
Article by: JESSE MCKINLEY
The article was centered on a two-day event called BattleCry. BattleCry is a Christian ministry from Texas that condemns homosexuality. The event takes place in San Francisco, which is often called "the gayest city in America."
The event attracts thousands of people of all ages, colors, and backgrounds. Through concerts and inspirational speakers, these teens will be speaking out their views about sex on television, obscene music, and violent video games. They believe that corporate America is twisting the minds of American teenagers while everyone watches it happen.
As reported in The Times, several prominent San Francisco political leaders say this group is the ones actually doing the damage. Tom Ammiano, a gay member of the city's Board of Supervisors says BattleCry is being fed and spoon feeding hate. The group has also been called reckless and irresponsible.
Aaron Peskin, the board's president stated, "We need to increase understanding of our human differences, not teach our kids to be suspicious and hateful towards people unlike them."
Mr. Peskin's statement reveals and ethical dilemma. Is it ethical that if he is so opposed to people speaking out that are different than him, isn't he doing the same speaking out against this group? We are a nation of Freedom of Speech; Mr. Peskin seems to have forgotten that.
BattleCry officials do have the rebuttal. They complain that San Francisco has made their lives difficult by imposing noise restrictions on a planned Saturday morning celebration. City officials said the restrictions came after numerous complaints about last year's event. I would be willing to bet there are no noise limits on the festivities of something like a Gay Parade in town.
One of BattleCry's attendees claims she doesn't see anything antigay about the event, however, she also believes gay people are misguided. Is she the one that is misguided by this event to come to that kind of thinking?
Joe D'Alessandro, the president of the San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau claims, "I am gay myself, and I find their beliefs very offensive. But they have a right to come to our city." If more people could think like Mr. D'Alessandro, the world would be a much better, much more reasonable place.
Article by: JESSE MCKINLEY
"Visit by Bush Fires UP Latins' Debate Over Socialism" (3/9/07 p. A9)
There are so many different kinds of articles printed daily on President Bush. Of course, that doesn't come as a shock to anyone reading this right now; please don't think it shocks me either.
I came across one that I decided to read because of the photograph associated with it. The photo is of a man who looks like he is being forced down by a police officer. The caption reads: "Policemen in San Paulo, Brazil subduing demonstrator yesterday during a march to protest President Bush's tour, which started last night." After seeing the photo, I had to read the article.
President Bush paid a visit to Latin America in early March, to kick off his five nation "We Care" tour aimed at dispelling perceptions that he has neglected his southern neighbors, according to The Times.
His first stop, San Paulo, Brazil, wasn't too thrilled to see Mr. Bush coming. Graffiti on the streets called him a murderer, Adolf Bush, and told him to quit playing games with the environment. Protests also broke out throughout the city.
According to The Times, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela will be leading a protest against Mr. Bush upon his arrival. Chavez included commenting that he has no plans on sabotaging Bush's visit. This raises a question of ethics. Should the President continue to visit these countries where even the leaders are organizing protests against him? Is promoting his care on concern for Latin America worth his safety? In a case such as this, what is the right or wrong answer? Either way, the President doesn't necessarily win.
With such hatred in the air, the President's outlook was anything but negative. "I go to a lot of places and there are street rallies. And my attitude is, “I love freedom and the right for people to express themselves." A comment like that ought to raise blood pressures of protestors.
The article continued with Mr. Bush's promise of hundreds of millions of dollars to help families and put up a Navy hospital ship. Is it ethical that Mr. Bush is promising this much money? Yes. The unethical and sad part of the fact is that the same amount of money is spending every five days on the war in Iraq.
The main ethics behind this article, to me, were the fact that our President is entering these countries that dislike him so much and trying to promote peace, even though his efforts appear to not be doing any good. It is quite possible that the ethics are the other way around. Maybe Mr. Bush should put his safety aside (like he is) and reach out to other countries by making a personal appearance. Maybe he should be paying more visits to Iraq.
Article by: JIM RUTENBERG and LARRY ROHTER
I came across one that I decided to read because of the photograph associated with it. The photo is of a man who looks like he is being forced down by a police officer. The caption reads: "Policemen in San Paulo, Brazil subduing demonstrator yesterday during a march to protest President Bush's tour, which started last night." After seeing the photo, I had to read the article.
President Bush paid a visit to Latin America in early March, to kick off his five nation "We Care" tour aimed at dispelling perceptions that he has neglected his southern neighbors, according to The Times.
His first stop, San Paulo, Brazil, wasn't too thrilled to see Mr. Bush coming. Graffiti on the streets called him a murderer, Adolf Bush, and told him to quit playing games with the environment. Protests also broke out throughout the city.
According to The Times, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela will be leading a protest against Mr. Bush upon his arrival. Chavez included commenting that he has no plans on sabotaging Bush's visit. This raises a question of ethics. Should the President continue to visit these countries where even the leaders are organizing protests against him? Is promoting his care on concern for Latin America worth his safety? In a case such as this, what is the right or wrong answer? Either way, the President doesn't necessarily win.
With such hatred in the air, the President's outlook was anything but negative. "I go to a lot of places and there are street rallies. And my attitude is, “I love freedom and the right for people to express themselves." A comment like that ought to raise blood pressures of protestors.
The article continued with Mr. Bush's promise of hundreds of millions of dollars to help families and put up a Navy hospital ship. Is it ethical that Mr. Bush is promising this much money? Yes. The unethical and sad part of the fact is that the same amount of money is spending every five days on the war in Iraq.
The main ethics behind this article, to me, were the fact that our President is entering these countries that dislike him so much and trying to promote peace, even though his efforts appear to not be doing any good. It is quite possible that the ethics are the other way around. Maybe Mr. Bush should put his safety aside (like he is) and reach out to other countries by making a personal appearance. Maybe he should be paying more visits to Iraq.
Article by: JIM RUTENBERG and LARRY ROHTER
3/7/07 Libby Trial
I'm taking a little bit different approach with this post. Maybe I can get some of my questions answered.
The March 7 publication of the New York Times had a front page article announcing that Ex-Dick Cheney aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby was found guilty of lying in a C.I.A. leak case. There are many articles about the case that filtered March 7th's issue as well as several others.
For those of you reading that aren't familiar with the case, I'll do my best to explain, even though I feel just as uneducated about it. Valerie Plame/Wilson was a CIA operative that had her cover leaked to the press. An article was published about it, people were fired, the whole story is a zoo. When questioned about whether he knew of the leak, Libby said he was having a memory block and didn't remember. Now, he is found guilty of lying to the Grand Jury and faces several years in prison.
The ethics are everywhere once the facts are all diagramed into place. Vice President Cheney was reported to have also known about the leak, however, was excused from the trial. Robert Novak, who wrote of the leak also doesn't fit into the puzzle. Is it ethical that so many key points may have been ignored?
For this post, if you could please comment and set me straight. The whole case interests me, however, I'm sketchy on my facts. Am I on the right track that not everything adds up here?
The March 7 publication of the New York Times had a front page article announcing that Ex-Dick Cheney aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby was found guilty of lying in a C.I.A. leak case. There are many articles about the case that filtered March 7th's issue as well as several others.
For those of you reading that aren't familiar with the case, I'll do my best to explain, even though I feel just as uneducated about it. Valerie Plame/Wilson was a CIA operative that had her cover leaked to the press. An article was published about it, people were fired, the whole story is a zoo. When questioned about whether he knew of the leak, Libby said he was having a memory block and didn't remember. Now, he is found guilty of lying to the Grand Jury and faces several years in prison.
The ethics are everywhere once the facts are all diagramed into place. Vice President Cheney was reported to have also known about the leak, however, was excused from the trial. Robert Novak, who wrote of the leak also doesn't fit into the puzzle. Is it ethical that so many key points may have been ignored?
For this post, if you could please comment and set me straight. The whole case interests me, however, I'm sketchy on my facts. Am I on the right track that not everything adds up here?
"Manufacturing Misdemeanors" (3/6/07 p. A22)
The "A" Section of the New York Times should be renamed the "Ethics Section." There is almost always at least one article that makes you wonder the thinking involved behind the issue.
I stumbled across a small insert article on the editoral page (which usually can come through with an ethics article,) called "Manufacturing Misdemeanors." Again, its titles like this that swoop in and automatically snap readers to attention. Well, that was the case for me, at least.
The article was one of those is this right or wrong questions. The infamous New York City Police Department has been out nabbing criminals. Actually, these "criminals" are your ordinary citizens that may be facing a misdemeanor because they were pegged by authorities.
This seems like a long shot, right? There is no way your average Joe is getting a misdemeanor for no reason. The NYPD is plainging unattended bags of illegal drugs in subway stations. If someone takes them, authorities aren't far behind, waiting to pounce.
Of course, this isn't ethical at all. What happens to the kind civilian that is simply picking up the bag to throw it away? The Times also points out that there are those looking to return the items to their owners. Most of the people getting charged would never committ a crime.
According to The Times, the sting is known as Operation Lucky Bag. Just by hearing the title provokes uneasiness of the questionable practice. Last year 220 people were arrested in the sting. It makes me wonder how many of them were actually planning on keeping the bags for themselves. I find it hard to believe that all 220 of those arrested actually used drugs. Its amazing they all happened to be in the same subway station.
The Times stated that civil libertarians argued the program was an entrapment and a poor use of resources. We're in the wake of terrorism, I don't think the NYPD wants the people of New York City to turn their backs to them in disgust.
The program needs to cease, thats all there is to it. Good Samaritans deserve to be left alone, not pounced on the minute they fall into a trap set up for them by Police Officers. There are those that need to be kept an eye on, but since the majority of the population does more good than harm, I don't see this program anywhere near necessary or ethical.
Further readings:
http://www.gothamist.com/2006/02/27/sub_crime.php
http://talk.hope.net/viewtopic.php?pid=1668
http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=29180
http://manuelisidro.vox.com/library/post/sting-operation-lucky-bag---shame-on-nypd.html
http://pdberger.com/totally-new-york/
Editorial Article
I stumbled across a small insert article on the editoral page (which usually can come through with an ethics article,) called "Manufacturing Misdemeanors." Again, its titles like this that swoop in and automatically snap readers to attention. Well, that was the case for me, at least.
The article was one of those is this right or wrong questions. The infamous New York City Police Department has been out nabbing criminals. Actually, these "criminals" are your ordinary citizens that may be facing a misdemeanor because they were pegged by authorities.
This seems like a long shot, right? There is no way your average Joe is getting a misdemeanor for no reason. The NYPD is plainging unattended bags of illegal drugs in subway stations. If someone takes them, authorities aren't far behind, waiting to pounce.
Of course, this isn't ethical at all. What happens to the kind civilian that is simply picking up the bag to throw it away? The Times also points out that there are those looking to return the items to their owners. Most of the people getting charged would never committ a crime.
According to The Times, the sting is known as Operation Lucky Bag. Just by hearing the title provokes uneasiness of the questionable practice. Last year 220 people were arrested in the sting. It makes me wonder how many of them were actually planning on keeping the bags for themselves. I find it hard to believe that all 220 of those arrested actually used drugs. Its amazing they all happened to be in the same subway station.
The Times stated that civil libertarians argued the program was an entrapment and a poor use of resources. We're in the wake of terrorism, I don't think the NYPD wants the people of New York City to turn their backs to them in disgust.
The program needs to cease, thats all there is to it. Good Samaritans deserve to be left alone, not pounced on the minute they fall into a trap set up for them by Police Officers. There are those that need to be kept an eye on, but since the majority of the population does more good than harm, I don't see this program anywhere near necessary or ethical.
Further readings:
http://www.gothamist.com/2006/02/27/sub_crime.php
http://talk.hope.net/viewtopic.php?pid=1668
http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=29180
http://manuelisidro.vox.com/library/post/sting-operation-lucky-bag---shame-on-nypd.html
http://pdberger.com/totally-new-york/
Editorial Article
Behind the times...
I missed a whole week of the New York Times due to Spring Break. I am working on getting caught up with current issues, please bare with me. Thank you for reading!
Thursday, March 15, 2007
"Blog the Debt Away" (3/5/07 p. A22)
I’ve found throughout all of the articles in the New York Times that I’ve been reading that ethical question can be found in almost every article in some shape or form.
Because this blog is for a blogging class, I jumped into reading an article entitled, “Blog the Debt Away.” I was determined to raise an ethical question of some sort in a article about the infamous blog.
Call me old fashion, but isn’t it some kind of secret, or private information when a person is in debt? Apparently, not anymore.
As John Leland reported recently in The Times, people have started their own debt blogs to share the most intimate details of their faltering finances, hoping there online confessions will help them develop some self-restraint. Wait a minute, how is the ethical, or safe for that matter?
We are bombarded with cases of identity theft and fraud in today’s society. If there are blogs explaining the debt people are in and who knows what other kings of financial information, aren’t they putting themselves at risk for some kind of trouble? You’d think so.
According to the article, consumers are asking others to help them develop self-control because so many companies are not showing any restraint. Congress has made it more difficult for an individual to file bankruptcy and people are finding themselves in a world of trouble and debt.
Is a blog the best way to develope awarness for such a problem? Maybe, maybe not. The era we are in suggests a blog could be a very good way to organize thoughts, why not finances? People have discovered a way to connect with each other and help others out. I think that although this may not be a "preferred" method at managing debt, its quickly growing to become an effective one.
Debt Blogs:
http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2006/01/money_blogs_deb.html
http://blogrankings.com/blog/6695.html
http://blogrankings.com/blog/10056.html
http://blogrankings.com/blog/17877.html
http://outofdebt.savingadvice.com/
http://www.blogcatalog.com/blogs/forever-twenty.html
http://opportunitiesaplenty.com/Debt_Blog/
http://redcouch.typepad.com/weblog/2007/02/in_debt_blog_ab.html
http://anyakamenetz.blogspot.com/2007/02/debt-blogs.html
http://web-signs.blogspot.com/2007/02/debt-blogs.html
http://cardtart.blogspot.com/2007/02/debt-blogs.html
EDITORIAL ARTICLE
Because this blog is for a blogging class, I jumped into reading an article entitled, “Blog the Debt Away.” I was determined to raise an ethical question of some sort in a article about the infamous blog.
Call me old fashion, but isn’t it some kind of secret, or private information when a person is in debt? Apparently, not anymore.
As John Leland reported recently in The Times, people have started their own debt blogs to share the most intimate details of their faltering finances, hoping there online confessions will help them develop some self-restraint. Wait a minute, how is the ethical, or safe for that matter?
We are bombarded with cases of identity theft and fraud in today’s society. If there are blogs explaining the debt people are in and who knows what other kings of financial information, aren’t they putting themselves at risk for some kind of trouble? You’d think so.
According to the article, consumers are asking others to help them develop self-control because so many companies are not showing any restraint. Congress has made it more difficult for an individual to file bankruptcy and people are finding themselves in a world of trouble and debt.
Is a blog the best way to develope awarness for such a problem? Maybe, maybe not. The era we are in suggests a blog could be a very good way to organize thoughts, why not finances? People have discovered a way to connect with each other and help others out. I think that although this may not be a "preferred" method at managing debt, its quickly growing to become an effective one.
Debt Blogs:
http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2006/01/money_blogs_deb.html
http://blogrankings.com/blog/6695.html
http://blogrankings.com/blog/10056.html
http://blogrankings.com/blog/17877.html
http://outofdebt.savingadvice.com/
http://www.blogcatalog.com/blogs/forever-twenty.html
http://opportunitiesaplenty.com/Debt_Blog/
http://redcouch.typepad.com/weblog/2007/02/in_debt_blog_ab.html
http://anyakamenetz.blogspot.com/2007/02/debt-blogs.html
http://web-signs.blogspot.com/2007/02/debt-blogs.html
http://cardtart.blogspot.com/2007/02/debt-blogs.html
EDITORIAL ARTICLE
"A Record of Failure at Center for Sex Offenders" (3/5/07 p. A1)
If you’re like me, I always wonder what prison is like for pedophiles and rapists. Are they tortured for their hideous crimes? How do they sleep at night? Do they sleep at night? Well, in Florida’s reality, these convicted criminals are living the high life, bikini posters an all.
According to the article that front paged the New York Times, “A Record of Failure at Center for Sex Offenders,” is enough to catch anyone’s eye. Failure and sex offenders in the same sentence aren’t a good mixture.
The ethics in this article pop up all over the place. For one, employees ignoring poor and inexcusable behavior are nothing short of unethical. To top that off, the employee turnover rate is very high at the center mostly because female staff members were having sex with the offenders. That known fact alone is ground enough that something drastic needs to be done.
When it comes to what is ethical and what isn’t in regards to this particular issue, it needs to be taken into consideration that whomever these sex offenders actually hurt is still damaged from the incidents. They suffer and don’t get off as easy as the criminals do. If treatment for these kinds of people were taken more seriously, they’d find themselves time behind bars, where they belong.
It is also unethical that the prisoners are the ones that were reported to having been the ones that run the facility. Doug Sweeny, a mental health counselor stated that these facilities were “A cesspool of despair and depression and drug abuse – of people being lost.” Drug abuse? In prison? Must be nice to get away with such things, even in prison.
The Times reported that the Liberty Health Care Corporation was founded in 1986 as a provider of mental health, developmental disability and primary care services. In its earliest days, it had no experience treating sex offenders and its officials said there was never a particular moment when company officials said to one another, “Let’s go into the sex offender business.” This is obviously noticed by the fact of their lack of security and persistence in enforcing necessary rules.
The ethical issues at state follow a nice string of embarrassing failures, which include an escape, a death caused by a fight over a bag of chips. And a sit-in. On top of that, only one of the hundreds of men here progress far enough in therapy to earn a recommendation from company clinicians the he be release. Again, how are these facilities still in operation? The blame is put on Florida as insufficiently financing its commitment program, according to Liberty. There is an ethical dilemma. Blaming poor operations on the state. Hmmm?
The incident that most caught my eye that raised worrisome questions and the first hints of conflicted over the center was the escape. According to The Times, too few Liberty staff members were in the yard when the escape occurred, a report by state officials found. The Center’s director had ordered the razor wire removed from a security fence because he said the wire was damaging volleyballs from a nearby court the residents used. Because the wire was inexistence, the prisoner easily got away. Escapes from prison are rare, and when they do occur, consequences are terrible. I bet they were nearly as terrible behind Liberty’s walls.
Other questions of ethics that surfaced throughout the article were questions of whether this place was a prison or a mental health care center. Or, is it facilities were people are clients? The center is so deranged that these questions remain quite murky.
It is a scary thought to think that if you encounter an individuals convicted of a sex related crime that came out of this Liberty Florida center, chance are they would like nothing more than to go back to the place that did nothing but make them a more dangerous person. And where they can freely play volleyball.
Article by: ABBY GOODNOUGH and MONICA DAVEY
According to the article that front paged the New York Times, “A Record of Failure at Center for Sex Offenders,” is enough to catch anyone’s eye. Failure and sex offenders in the same sentence aren’t a good mixture.
The ethics in this article pop up all over the place. For one, employees ignoring poor and inexcusable behavior are nothing short of unethical. To top that off, the employee turnover rate is very high at the center mostly because female staff members were having sex with the offenders. That known fact alone is ground enough that something drastic needs to be done.
When it comes to what is ethical and what isn’t in regards to this particular issue, it needs to be taken into consideration that whomever these sex offenders actually hurt is still damaged from the incidents. They suffer and don’t get off as easy as the criminals do. If treatment for these kinds of people were taken more seriously, they’d find themselves time behind bars, where they belong.
It is also unethical that the prisoners are the ones that were reported to having been the ones that run the facility. Doug Sweeny, a mental health counselor stated that these facilities were “A cesspool of despair and depression and drug abuse – of people being lost.” Drug abuse? In prison? Must be nice to get away with such things, even in prison.
The Times reported that the Liberty Health Care Corporation was founded in 1986 as a provider of mental health, developmental disability and primary care services. In its earliest days, it had no experience treating sex offenders and its officials said there was never a particular moment when company officials said to one another, “Let’s go into the sex offender business.” This is obviously noticed by the fact of their lack of security and persistence in enforcing necessary rules.
The ethical issues at state follow a nice string of embarrassing failures, which include an escape, a death caused by a fight over a bag of chips. And a sit-in. On top of that, only one of the hundreds of men here progress far enough in therapy to earn a recommendation from company clinicians the he be release. Again, how are these facilities still in operation? The blame is put on Florida as insufficiently financing its commitment program, according to Liberty. There is an ethical dilemma. Blaming poor operations on the state. Hmmm?
The incident that most caught my eye that raised worrisome questions and the first hints of conflicted over the center was the escape. According to The Times, too few Liberty staff members were in the yard when the escape occurred, a report by state officials found. The Center’s director had ordered the razor wire removed from a security fence because he said the wire was damaging volleyballs from a nearby court the residents used. Because the wire was inexistence, the prisoner easily got away. Escapes from prison are rare, and when they do occur, consequences are terrible. I bet they were nearly as terrible behind Liberty’s walls.
Other questions of ethics that surfaced throughout the article were questions of whether this place was a prison or a mental health care center. Or, is it facilities were people are clients? The center is so deranged that these questions remain quite murky.
It is a scary thought to think that if you encounter an individuals convicted of a sex related crime that came out of this Liberty Florida center, chance are they would like nothing more than to go back to the place that did nothing but make them a more dangerous person. And where they can freely play volleyball.
Article by: ABBY GOODNOUGH and MONICA DAVEY
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
"6-Month Study to Review 'Stop and Frisks' by New York Police" (3/1/07 p. A18)
I was searching through the Times and came across an article titled, "6-Month Study to Review 'Stop and Frisks' by New York Police." The word frisks was what caught my eye.
When I was 15, my birthday to be exact, I went with my family to pick up my uncle in the O'Hare Airport in Chicago, Illinois. It was Christmas day and there was hardly anyone in the airport. Because this was pre 9-11, we were allowed to meet him as soon as he stepped off the plane. Anyway, on our way to meet him I set the metal detectors off several times. I had emptied out my pockets and there was still nothing on my that would have prevented me from going through. As my family watched me get frisked up and down, airport officials finally realized I had metal shanks in the boots I was wearing. Relieved to be done with the ordeal, I was forever scared of being frisked again. Seeing this article, I thought, "I can relate to whatever this discusses." Well, not quite.
Maybe I'm behind the times, but I didn't know that police could stop random people on the streets of New York City and frisk them! At least I had a reason to be frisked in my story, I can't imagine just walking along and then BAM! Some police officer is telling me to spread 'um. No way!
That is exactly what happened to 508,540 people in the five boroughs of New York City last year. Because of this a private nonprofit organization called the RAND Corportation will conduct a 6-month study to review the way police stop people and if minority groups are treated worse than others.
The issue of stopping people on the streets is known as 'stop and frisks' and has caused tension between police officers and residents. RAND will analyze all of the stops that occured last year and will also ride along with police officers on duty. RAND will then interview these officers asking them what provoked the stops they made.
Which side is more on the right side of an ethics spectrum? Is it unethical for police to stop random people and search them for illegal weaponry or substances? Maybe not. However, what happens when police stopped the right individual and eliminate a possible crime? Does stopping necessary people make the whole ordeal ethical? I don't know that, that question has a right or wrong answer.
What about the RAND Corportation's ethics? Should these private officials be allowed to ride along on police duty and take note and see identities of people that are stopped? Should these people be a part of this study regardless if they are aware they are apart of it or not? Again, what is the right answer?
RAND will have insight to forms known as UF-250s, which are the forms officers fill out after all stops. The form includes circumstances that led to the stop, whether force was used, and whether the stop included a frisk, and also the race and ethnicity of the person stopped.
According to the Times, officials have said that the steep increase is partly due to greater adheerence to departmental rules for filling out the stop and frisk formsa dn more aggressive crime fighting activities in high-crime neighborhoods.
The study that is costing the New York City Police Foundation $120,000 stated that 55.2 percent of those stopped were black and 68.5 percent of reported crims involved suspects described as black.
Maybe RAND has the upper hand when it comes to ethics. It appears that these frisks are conflicting with a constitutional question of unreasonable searches. If police are disfavoring the black community, maybe this should be stopped. Perhaps a study would display green light ethics and help improve overall lifestyles of those walking the streets of NYC.
Article by: AL BAKER
When I was 15, my birthday to be exact, I went with my family to pick up my uncle in the O'Hare Airport in Chicago, Illinois. It was Christmas day and there was hardly anyone in the airport. Because this was pre 9-11, we were allowed to meet him as soon as he stepped off the plane. Anyway, on our way to meet him I set the metal detectors off several times. I had emptied out my pockets and there was still nothing on my that would have prevented me from going through. As my family watched me get frisked up and down, airport officials finally realized I had metal shanks in the boots I was wearing. Relieved to be done with the ordeal, I was forever scared of being frisked again. Seeing this article, I thought, "I can relate to whatever this discusses." Well, not quite.
Maybe I'm behind the times, but I didn't know that police could stop random people on the streets of New York City and frisk them! At least I had a reason to be frisked in my story, I can't imagine just walking along and then BAM! Some police officer is telling me to spread 'um. No way!
That is exactly what happened to 508,540 people in the five boroughs of New York City last year. Because of this a private nonprofit organization called the RAND Corportation will conduct a 6-month study to review the way police stop people and if minority groups are treated worse than others.
The issue of stopping people on the streets is known as 'stop and frisks' and has caused tension between police officers and residents. RAND will analyze all of the stops that occured last year and will also ride along with police officers on duty. RAND will then interview these officers asking them what provoked the stops they made.
Which side is more on the right side of an ethics spectrum? Is it unethical for police to stop random people and search them for illegal weaponry or substances? Maybe not. However, what happens when police stopped the right individual and eliminate a possible crime? Does stopping necessary people make the whole ordeal ethical? I don't know that, that question has a right or wrong answer.
What about the RAND Corportation's ethics? Should these private officials be allowed to ride along on police duty and take note and see identities of people that are stopped? Should these people be a part of this study regardless if they are aware they are apart of it or not? Again, what is the right answer?
RAND will have insight to forms known as UF-250s, which are the forms officers fill out after all stops. The form includes circumstances that led to the stop, whether force was used, and whether the stop included a frisk, and also the race and ethnicity of the person stopped.
According to the Times, officials have said that the steep increase is partly due to greater adheerence to departmental rules for filling out the stop and frisk formsa dn more aggressive crime fighting activities in high-crime neighborhoods.
The study that is costing the New York City Police Foundation $120,000 stated that 55.2 percent of those stopped were black and 68.5 percent of reported crims involved suspects described as black.
Maybe RAND has the upper hand when it comes to ethics. It appears that these frisks are conflicting with a constitutional question of unreasonable searches. If police are disfavoring the black community, maybe this should be stopped. Perhaps a study would display green light ethics and help improve overall lifestyles of those walking the streets of NYC.
Article by: AL BAKER
"Transsexual Official Faces Firing in Florida" (3/1/07 p. A14)
What could a city manager, a transsexual and ethics all have in common? Steven B. Stanton.
Mr. Stanton has been the city manager of Largo, Florida for the past 14 years. Obviously, in that amount of time, he has proven himself to be a success for the city and a trustworthy individual. However, after his plans to have a sex change surgery surfaced publically, he is now facing removal from the position.
Is that anywhere near ethical? Mr. Stanton cared enough about who he was and what makes him truly happy to come forth with this life altering decision. He is not changing the person he is on the inside, so why would that take away from his knowledge and experience of the city manager?
The Times writes that the Largo City Commission placed Stanton on leave after a 5 to 2 vote to start the firing process. This isn't ethical, sensible, or professional. It is 5 people deciding the fate of an individual simply because they choose not to agree with the decisions he has made about his own body.
Many Largo residents agree that Stanton should be fired, a notion first introduced by Commissioner Mary G. Black.
According to the Times and The Associated Press, Ms. Black stated, "I do not feel he has the integrity, nor the trust, nor the respect, nor the confidence to continue as the city manager." In my opinion, this statement is everything but true. Why does a person's integrity, trust, respect and confidence get taken away because they choose to do something with their life that betters them? It doesn't. If anything, Mr. Stanton is not comfortable in his current body, therefore, has the confidence to make a change that will improve his lifestyle. The ethics behind this issue just don't add up.
There are some people that agree with Mr. Stanton and my viewpoints. The Mayor of Largo, Pat Gerard (a woman) stated, "He is a great city manager and would have continued to be a great city manager, and we didn't give him that opportunity." Well said. It would be interesting to see how many men are for removing him as opposed to how many are in favor. I'm guessing that scale isn't very equal.
Mr. Stanton has the right to request a public hearing, which I hope he takes advantage of. He shouldn't be fired from a position he has held so long simply based on who he is and what he wishes to do with his life. People have different viewpoints, its part of today's society. However, when it comes to people's careers and green light ethics, Mr. Stanton may loose the respect of people against him, but not his career.
Article by: TERRY AGNAYO
Mr. Stanton has been the city manager of Largo, Florida for the past 14 years. Obviously, in that amount of time, he has proven himself to be a success for the city and a trustworthy individual. However, after his plans to have a sex change surgery surfaced publically, he is now facing removal from the position.
Is that anywhere near ethical? Mr. Stanton cared enough about who he was and what makes him truly happy to come forth with this life altering decision. He is not changing the person he is on the inside, so why would that take away from his knowledge and experience of the city manager?
The Times writes that the Largo City Commission placed Stanton on leave after a 5 to 2 vote to start the firing process. This isn't ethical, sensible, or professional. It is 5 people deciding the fate of an individual simply because they choose not to agree with the decisions he has made about his own body.
Many Largo residents agree that Stanton should be fired, a notion first introduced by Commissioner Mary G. Black.
According to the Times and The Associated Press, Ms. Black stated, "I do not feel he has the integrity, nor the trust, nor the respect, nor the confidence to continue as the city manager." In my opinion, this statement is everything but true. Why does a person's integrity, trust, respect and confidence get taken away because they choose to do something with their life that betters them? It doesn't. If anything, Mr. Stanton is not comfortable in his current body, therefore, has the confidence to make a change that will improve his lifestyle. The ethics behind this issue just don't add up.
There are some people that agree with Mr. Stanton and my viewpoints. The Mayor of Largo, Pat Gerard (a woman) stated, "He is a great city manager and would have continued to be a great city manager, and we didn't give him that opportunity." Well said. It would be interesting to see how many men are for removing him as opposed to how many are in favor. I'm guessing that scale isn't very equal.
Mr. Stanton has the right to request a public hearing, which I hope he takes advantage of. He shouldn't be fired from a position he has held so long simply based on who he is and what he wishes to do with his life. People have different viewpoints, its part of today's society. However, when it comes to people's careers and green light ethics, Mr. Stanton may loose the respect of people against him, but not his career.
Article by: TERRY AGNAYO
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
"In Secret 1996 Tape, Doomed Woman Pleads With Her Killer" (2/28/07 p. C15)
Ethics run wild in the legal system. Everyone knows that. Is this right? Is this wrong? How do you distinguish the two? These question arise everyday when it comes to court cases.
In the New York Times' article, "In Secret 1996 Tape, Doomed Woman Pleads with Her Killer." Before even reading the article, I could feel several possible questions already popping into my head.
The article was about Kathleen Stanfield Weinstein, a 45-year old special education teacher from the Jersey Shore that was kidnapped and murdered in 1996. The suspected murderer was 27-year old Michael T. LaSane. The issue behind the article was the release of an astonishing 46 minute tape of a conversation between Weinstein and her killer. Why is this tape being played 11 years after Weinstein's death and 10 years after LaShane pleaded guilty to her murder, but retracted in last year? The reason was that Weinstein's family never allowed the tape to be heard publicly, the article stated. The tape was ordered to be played in court on the terms that it was it was not released for the press. Is it ethical to keep such a vital piece of evidence out of the trial for so long, when apparently Ms. Weinstein recorded the conversation to help authorities put her killer behind bars, where he belonged?
The contents of the tape were saddening. Weinstein pleads with her kidnapper (cough, LaShane) telling him to find a better life, that she can help him get a job, and that she has a 6-year old son that she needs to go home to. Weinstein is was also quick to get specific information from her killer. As the Times states, she got him to disclose information about his childhood in Alaska, his parents' time in the military, and his injured hand. Apparently, her pleading didn't cut through her killer's tough skull. Weinstein's body was found bound with duct tape and covered with a blanket.
The information on the tape led investigators to uncover LaShane's birth certificate from Fairbanks, Alaska, records indicating his parents served in the Army, and a photograph taken shortly after his arrest showing a brace on Mr. LaShane's right wrist. Now, why wouldn't Weinstein's family want that tape released to disclose this pertinent information right away?
LaShane's lawyer argues that it is not his client on the tape. As any ethical or working mind for that matter, would agree, voices can sound very similar and a tape with his voice on it wouldn't be specific enough grounds to play on. However, thanks to Weinstein's quick thinking the information LaShane disclosed almost proves that he was in fact who Weinstein was begging for, for her life.
In my mind, with the ethical issues surrounding this case, the family should not have had a say in if the tape were played or not. It should have been viewed as a vital piece of evidence in the case and used without say. If everyone had the chance to record their final moments like Weinstein did, more guilty criminals would be put to justice.
The Times closed the article with Weinstein's final words: "I always thought that I was so lucky, too. I guess it wasn't a lucky day. All I know is I'm going to trust in God because that's the only thing I have right now."
Article by: RICHARD G. JONES
In the New York Times' article, "In Secret 1996 Tape, Doomed Woman Pleads with Her Killer." Before even reading the article, I could feel several possible questions already popping into my head.
The article was about Kathleen Stanfield Weinstein, a 45-year old special education teacher from the Jersey Shore that was kidnapped and murdered in 1996. The suspected murderer was 27-year old Michael T. LaSane. The issue behind the article was the release of an astonishing 46 minute tape of a conversation between Weinstein and her killer. Why is this tape being played 11 years after Weinstein's death and 10 years after LaShane pleaded guilty to her murder, but retracted in last year? The reason was that Weinstein's family never allowed the tape to be heard publicly, the article stated. The tape was ordered to be played in court on the terms that it was it was not released for the press. Is it ethical to keep such a vital piece of evidence out of the trial for so long, when apparently Ms. Weinstein recorded the conversation to help authorities put her killer behind bars, where he belonged?
The contents of the tape were saddening. Weinstein pleads with her kidnapper (cough, LaShane) telling him to find a better life, that she can help him get a job, and that she has a 6-year old son that she needs to go home to. Weinstein is was also quick to get specific information from her killer. As the Times states, she got him to disclose information about his childhood in Alaska, his parents' time in the military, and his injured hand. Apparently, her pleading didn't cut through her killer's tough skull. Weinstein's body was found bound with duct tape and covered with a blanket.
The information on the tape led investigators to uncover LaShane's birth certificate from Fairbanks, Alaska, records indicating his parents served in the Army, and a photograph taken shortly after his arrest showing a brace on Mr. LaShane's right wrist. Now, why wouldn't Weinstein's family want that tape released to disclose this pertinent information right away?
LaShane's lawyer argues that it is not his client on the tape. As any ethical or working mind for that matter, would agree, voices can sound very similar and a tape with his voice on it wouldn't be specific enough grounds to play on. However, thanks to Weinstein's quick thinking the information LaShane disclosed almost proves that he was in fact who Weinstein was begging for, for her life.
In my mind, with the ethical issues surrounding this case, the family should not have had a say in if the tape were played or not. It should have been viewed as a vital piece of evidence in the case and used without say. If everyone had the chance to record their final moments like Weinstein did, more guilty criminals would be put to justice.
The Times closed the article with Weinstein's final words: "I always thought that I was so lucky, too. I guess it wasn't a lucky day. All I know is I'm going to trust in God because that's the only thing I have right now."
Article by: RICHARD G. JONES
"With 'Idol' The Family Text-Votes Together" (2/28/07 p. B1)
American Idol. If you haven't seen it, you've probably heard about it. It’s the show that keeps coming back, season after season, producing some pretty amazing vocalists. The New York Times referred to the show as something that just goes.
The show does exactly what it promises to. It takes the votes America places by telephone or text messaging through Cingular (although there was a glitch in the system in 2005) and a winner is chosen based on the popular vote. The show attracts more than 33 million viewers of all different ages, race, gender, etc. What about this show could bring up a question of ethics?
A dedicated viewer knows that almost every year the show has aired some sort of scandal has surfaced. In 2005, the show displayed some incorrect phone numbers which forced Fox to rebroadcast performances for a new vote. Broadcasting & Cable magazine ran a headline that read: "American Idol Outrage: Your Vote Doesn't Count." Of course, this sent viewers into frenzy and leading some distrust towards the show. This raises a very good question. Does our vote really count? Who's to say that there is a reliable voting system behind the television screen? Some wonder after the 2006 season sent Idol favorite Chris Daughtry home.
Wondering rather the voting system is accurate leads some question about why the show even has judges if it is America's decision. And why have the judges that the show does? As the Times stated, some fans watch the show just to see British judge Simon Cowell prissy jerky-boy routine. Why is their a British judge on an American Idol show? The questions regarding Mr. Cowell's presence on the judges panel are endless.
Another scandal that questions the show's ethics came about two years ago with contestant Corey Clark. Mr. Clark claimed that Idol judge, Paula Abdul had courted him. He also claimed that Ms. Abdul had done him personal favors. The controversy was so big that it spent time on shows such as 20/20. The Times stated that Ms. Abdul had no specifics sticking to her and Fox maintained that she hadn't done anything wrong. However, in the current season of Idol, Ms. Abdul has had some pretty questionable behavior. As the article stated, "She now regularly wears the pliant smile, smeared makeup and bedroom eyes of a woman who is about to pass out." This statement stems from recent questioning of Abdul's sobriety during the show. It probably isn't a good thing for such a popular show to have a judge that appears to be intoxicated on more than one occasion.
Randy Jackson, the third Idol judge hasn't broken out into the lime light just yet. However, as the Times noted in the article, he has taken on the role of as a caretaking older brother by occasionally placing his arm around Ms. Abdul to console her. His comments this season are a little bit harsh and he has been making Cowell look like a "softy" lately. Hmm...we'll see what is in the works for Mr. Jackson in this season and later seasons to come.
Another recent scandal or what could be viewed as a scandal, that has reached the public early in the 2007 season revolves around contestant Antonella Barba, who has some pretty risky pictures floating around the internet. Are these sexy photographs what are keeping Barba in the competition? Let’s face it; she doesn't have the best voice compared to the talented Melinda Doolittle or Lakisha Jones. But she does have the face. Is it ethical that a good looking contestant may have the upper hand to those that sound two times better than they do? Is there even an answer to a question like that? Who can really prove looks tower over talent?
All in all, ethics or not, American Idol brings families and friends together two or three nights a week to watch as these young stars try to break their way into the spot light while getting a little lip from Simon. The contestants become a family. The judges are a family. The viewers are a family. The show is family.
**If you're a fan of the show, an excellent Idol Review Blog:
http://www.chaskaherald.com/node/1137
Article by: VIRGINIA HEFFERNAN
The show does exactly what it promises to. It takes the votes America places by telephone or text messaging through Cingular (although there was a glitch in the system in 2005) and a winner is chosen based on the popular vote. The show attracts more than 33 million viewers of all different ages, race, gender, etc. What about this show could bring up a question of ethics?
A dedicated viewer knows that almost every year the show has aired some sort of scandal has surfaced. In 2005, the show displayed some incorrect phone numbers which forced Fox to rebroadcast performances for a new vote. Broadcasting & Cable magazine ran a headline that read: "American Idol Outrage: Your Vote Doesn't Count." Of course, this sent viewers into frenzy and leading some distrust towards the show. This raises a very good question. Does our vote really count? Who's to say that there is a reliable voting system behind the television screen? Some wonder after the 2006 season sent Idol favorite Chris Daughtry home.
Wondering rather the voting system is accurate leads some question about why the show even has judges if it is America's decision. And why have the judges that the show does? As the Times stated, some fans watch the show just to see British judge Simon Cowell prissy jerky-boy routine. Why is their a British judge on an American Idol show? The questions regarding Mr. Cowell's presence on the judges panel are endless.
Another scandal that questions the show's ethics came about two years ago with contestant Corey Clark. Mr. Clark claimed that Idol judge, Paula Abdul had courted him. He also claimed that Ms. Abdul had done him personal favors. The controversy was so big that it spent time on shows such as 20/20. The Times stated that Ms. Abdul had no specifics sticking to her and Fox maintained that she hadn't done anything wrong. However, in the current season of Idol, Ms. Abdul has had some pretty questionable behavior. As the article stated, "She now regularly wears the pliant smile, smeared makeup and bedroom eyes of a woman who is about to pass out." This statement stems from recent questioning of Abdul's sobriety during the show. It probably isn't a good thing for such a popular show to have a judge that appears to be intoxicated on more than one occasion.
Randy Jackson, the third Idol judge hasn't broken out into the lime light just yet. However, as the Times noted in the article, he has taken on the role of as a caretaking older brother by occasionally placing his arm around Ms. Abdul to console her. His comments this season are a little bit harsh and he has been making Cowell look like a "softy" lately. Hmm...we'll see what is in the works for Mr. Jackson in this season and later seasons to come.
Another recent scandal or what could be viewed as a scandal, that has reached the public early in the 2007 season revolves around contestant Antonella Barba, who has some pretty risky pictures floating around the internet. Are these sexy photographs what are keeping Barba in the competition? Let’s face it; she doesn't have the best voice compared to the talented Melinda Doolittle or Lakisha Jones. But she does have the face. Is it ethical that a good looking contestant may have the upper hand to those that sound two times better than they do? Is there even an answer to a question like that? Who can really prove looks tower over talent?
All in all, ethics or not, American Idol brings families and friends together two or three nights a week to watch as these young stars try to break their way into the spot light while getting a little lip from Simon. The contestants become a family. The judges are a family. The viewers are a family. The show is family.
**If you're a fan of the show, an excellent Idol Review Blog:
http://www.chaskaherald.com/node/1137
Article by: VIRGINIA HEFFERNAN
Sunday, March 4, 2007
"Profiteering Colleges" (2/23/07 p. A 22)
Talk about an issue that'll make your head spin. Profiteering Colleges explained how absurd some colleges have become.
Let me ask you: Is it ethical for colleges to target students who are poorly prepared for college who most likely wouldn't get accepted to a traditional college or university and have no hope of ever graduating? Maybe. Ok, is it ethical that these colleges are doing this simply to get money from these students, who will finally realize they've backed up more debt than they can handle and drop out? Absolutely not!
As a college student, I realize that web of debt is very easy to get stuck in. Am I being targeted? I think in a way, everyone that enters college in today's world is targeted for their money in some way. However, with the help of extra funds, whether they be accumulated or donated, scholarships to major colleges and universities are awarded to those in deserving need and those who are expected to graduate and give their school a good name.
This article points out issues that many of us are not aware of. There is hope. Legislative acts are being taken to eliminate this problem and help students stay in school. As in far as the ethics stretch out, students and the government need to be reassured they're getting what they paid for.
EDITORIAL ARTICLE
Let me ask you: Is it ethical for colleges to target students who are poorly prepared for college who most likely wouldn't get accepted to a traditional college or university and have no hope of ever graduating? Maybe. Ok, is it ethical that these colleges are doing this simply to get money from these students, who will finally realize they've backed up more debt than they can handle and drop out? Absolutely not!
As a college student, I realize that web of debt is very easy to get stuck in. Am I being targeted? I think in a way, everyone that enters college in today's world is targeted for their money in some way. However, with the help of extra funds, whether they be accumulated or donated, scholarships to major colleges and universities are awarded to those in deserving need and those who are expected to graduate and give their school a good name.
This article points out issues that many of us are not aware of. There is hope. Legislative acts are being taken to eliminate this problem and help students stay in school. As in far as the ethics stretch out, students and the government need to be reassured they're getting what they paid for.
EDITORIAL ARTICLE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)