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
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
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
"From Anna to Britney to Zawahri" (2/22/07 p. A 23)
Media today is crazy. New issues jump out of the tabloids daily that send readers to newsstands to find out more.
Recently, we've been swamped with overwhelming stories of Anna Nicole Smith's recent death and that Britney Spears shaved her head. What is the world coming to?
Media ethics are like a rollercoaster ride. Sometimes they are fun and exciting, sometimes they are quick and boring, and other times they seem to go on doing loops forever.
The article entitled "From Anna to Britney to Zawahri" is one of the "loopy" titles. The ethics behind the article are unbelievable to some.
Is it ethical that our media sources are focusing large amounts of time and print space to Anna Nicole's death or Britney's mental break down and bald head instead of educating people of the fact that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, are steadily building up operation hubs in Pakistan?
The way I see it is a split society. Some people are tired and annoyed of hearing about an ex playboy or a crazed pop star. They want the facts on the efforts of post 9/11. It’s hard to find this information without seeping through all of the celebrity gossip flooding the world. Others, however, want to see who gets custody of Anna Nicole's body and if Britney is back in rehab. Some people LIKE reading that kind of material.
Then, what is ethical in the case of this particular article? As the Times stated: Are we losing our grip in the disturbing world of infotainment? Is that necessarily a bad thing?
In the long run, it is unethical for people to be more concerned about issues like Anna Nicole, when in reality, there are calamitous events unfolding and we may some day (sooner than later) be bombarded with these events. We need to pay attention and prepare for what could happen rather than what has happened in Hollywood.
EDITORIAL ARTICLE
Recently, we've been swamped with overwhelming stories of Anna Nicole Smith's recent death and that Britney Spears shaved her head. What is the world coming to?
Media ethics are like a rollercoaster ride. Sometimes they are fun and exciting, sometimes they are quick and boring, and other times they seem to go on doing loops forever.
The article entitled "From Anna to Britney to Zawahri" is one of the "loopy" titles. The ethics behind the article are unbelievable to some.
Is it ethical that our media sources are focusing large amounts of time and print space to Anna Nicole's death or Britney's mental break down and bald head instead of educating people of the fact that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, are steadily building up operation hubs in Pakistan?
The way I see it is a split society. Some people are tired and annoyed of hearing about an ex playboy or a crazed pop star. They want the facts on the efforts of post 9/11. It’s hard to find this information without seeping through all of the celebrity gossip flooding the world. Others, however, want to see who gets custody of Anna Nicole's body and if Britney is back in rehab. Some people LIKE reading that kind of material.
Then, what is ethical in the case of this particular article? As the Times stated: Are we losing our grip in the disturbing world of infotainment? Is that necessarily a bad thing?
In the long run, it is unethical for people to be more concerned about issues like Anna Nicole, when in reality, there are calamitous events unfolding and we may some day (sooner than later) be bombarded with these events. We need to pay attention and prepare for what could happen rather than what has happened in Hollywood.
EDITORIAL ARTICLE
Saturday, March 3, 2007
"Abuses Dog Paths of Young Magazine 'Crews' "(2/21/07 p. A1)
Some articles just make your mouth drop to the floor as you're reading them. That is exactly what happened as I read "Abuses Dog Paths of Young Magazine 'Crews.'" The article was about teenagers, most right out of high school, who sell magazine subscriptions door to door for major companies such as Rolling Stone, Reader's Digest, Redbook etc. Seems like a pretty normal job, right? Wrong.
Jonathan Pope left his home two days after graduating from high school to become a part of a traveling magazine crew. Pope had plans to see the country, party and meet new people. Little did he know that he'd be working 10 to 14 hours a day, six days a week, sleeping three to a room in cheap motel rooms, and some only had $10 for food, while their earnings were supposedly kept on the books.
Like many other teenagers, Pope had seen several friends severely beaten by managers, were regularly smoking meth, and had prostitutes sleeping down the hall from them.
It gets even better.
Pope stated that he finally persuaded his manager to let him leave. He was dropped off, without a ticket, $17 in his pocket and was more than 1,000 miles from home.
The ethics in this article are screaming. The story made front page of the New York Times. Obviously it is an uncovered matter; readers are lead to believe something must be done about something this awful. However, despite these heavily publicized fatal and violent crimes, the industry remains almost completely unregulated. This fact is shocking.
It is highly unethical for these managers to treat these young sales crews as they do. The government needs to take a step in and prevent this from happening. Almost all of the stories are similar when dealing with such cases, yet, more and more of these sales representatives are finding themselves in unhealthy shoes.
The ethical question of why there is no regulation surprisingly has an answer. The companies that sell these subscriptions are small and frequently change their names. The crews leave a specific state before the police get tracking on them.
In the society we live in today, it is highly unethical that these sales crews are working these long hours and some (the ones that do survive) only see about 20 percent of what they should actually have made.
Ethics needs to play a bigger role in this issue. The law enforcement needs to find more ways to put an end to this tragedy. The general public could possibly take on the role of alerting authorities if a magazine sales rep does show up at their front door. Hopefully, this problem will soon be resolved and something as simple as selling magazines doesn't need to turn into something as brutal as beatings and death.
*Related Articles/Readings:
http://www.travelingsalescrews.info/magazine%20sales%20crew%20abuse.html
http://www.parentwatch.org/insideedition.htm
http://theslot.blogspot.com/2007/02/wait-whos-abusing-dog-paths.html
http://video.on.nytimes.com/ifr_main.jsp?nsid=b55602544:1118416aa07:-3de1&fr_story=cc441f37425c1403e086b3f96ab5c21bf296dc36&st=1174745490894&mp=WMP&cpf=true&fvn=9&fr=032407_100957_55602544x1118416aa07xw3de0&rdm=470377.4516545299(Video about Crew Members)
Article by: IAN URBINA
Jonathan Pope left his home two days after graduating from high school to become a part of a traveling magazine crew. Pope had plans to see the country, party and meet new people. Little did he know that he'd be working 10 to 14 hours a day, six days a week, sleeping three to a room in cheap motel rooms, and some only had $10 for food, while their earnings were supposedly kept on the books.
Like many other teenagers, Pope had seen several friends severely beaten by managers, were regularly smoking meth, and had prostitutes sleeping down the hall from them.
It gets even better.
Pope stated that he finally persuaded his manager to let him leave. He was dropped off, without a ticket, $17 in his pocket and was more than 1,000 miles from home.
The ethics in this article are screaming. The story made front page of the New York Times. Obviously it is an uncovered matter; readers are lead to believe something must be done about something this awful. However, despite these heavily publicized fatal and violent crimes, the industry remains almost completely unregulated. This fact is shocking.
It is highly unethical for these managers to treat these young sales crews as they do. The government needs to take a step in and prevent this from happening. Almost all of the stories are similar when dealing with such cases, yet, more and more of these sales representatives are finding themselves in unhealthy shoes.
The ethical question of why there is no regulation surprisingly has an answer. The companies that sell these subscriptions are small and frequently change their names. The crews leave a specific state before the police get tracking on them.
In the society we live in today, it is highly unethical that these sales crews are working these long hours and some (the ones that do survive) only see about 20 percent of what they should actually have made.
Ethics needs to play a bigger role in this issue. The law enforcement needs to find more ways to put an end to this tragedy. The general public could possibly take on the role of alerting authorities if a magazine sales rep does show up at their front door. Hopefully, this problem will soon be resolved and something as simple as selling magazines doesn't need to turn into something as brutal as beatings and death.
*Related Articles/Readings:
http://www.travelingsalescrews.info/magazine%20sales%20crew%20abuse.html
http://www.parentwatch.org/insideedition.htm
http://theslot.blogspot.com/2007/02/wait-whos-abusing-dog-paths.html
http://video.on.nytimes.com/ifr_main.jsp?nsid=b55602544:1118416aa07:-3de1&fr_story=cc441f37425c1403e086b3f96ab5c21bf296dc36&st=1174745490894&mp=WMP&cpf=true&fvn=9&fr=032407_100957_55602544x1118416aa07xw3de0&rdm=470377.4516545299(Video about Crew Members)
Article by: IAN URBINA
JetBlue Ad (2/21/07 p. A9)
A full page ad from JetBlue airways was published in the February 21 edition of the New York Times. The ad was an apology to JetBlue customers who were caught in the web of winter ice storm delays that occurred earlier in February. Several flights were cancelled or delayed, leaving hundreds of people stranded in airports or on the airplane. The ad stated how sorry JetBlue was for the anxiety, frustration and inconvenience that their customers experienced.
JetBlue was founded on the promise of bringing humanity back to air travel and making any flying experience more enjoyable. A set back like this caused the company extreme hardships and cuts to the company.
A full page ad in the New York Times is by no means cheap. JetBlue looked for one of the best ways to express their message of apology. They mention in their ad they have published a JetBlue Airways Customer Bill of Rights. They state that this Bill of Rights stands as the company's commitment to their customers or how future interruptions will be handled.
So, you're all asking what are the ethics behind this ad? Is it ethical that the company spends hundreds of dollars to promote apologies following their mistakes? The CEO of JetBlue, David Neeleman, has a personal message for customers that the ads states can be found at jetblue.com/promise. Neeleman also appeared on shows such as Today to promote his promise that customers won't have such a negative experience with his company in the future. Is it right that the CEO makes all of these statements? Should the company have sent their PR manager, who wrote these apologies be the one making these appearances instead?
Most would probably agree that hearing words of gratitude from the CEO means the most. He is accepting his position of mistake and plans on improving.
The most ethical thing for the company to do might be to move forward with what customers they will have. However, it is difficult to regain trust and this ad, the Bill of Rights, and awarding airline tickets and money for the number of hours customers waited, may help them prove to customers that they can be trusted once again and everyone, including major airline companies make mistakes.
*Readings Relating to the JetBlue Mishap:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/localnews/ci_5394009
http://www.beingpeterkim.com/2007/02/my_jetblue_fias.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/15/national/main2480665.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/business/17air.html?ex=1329368400&en=3be3789cffa0910a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://abcnews.go.com/ad/moneyscopeintroad.html?
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Travel/story?id=2905812&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312&Business=true&Business=true
http://blog.fastcompany.com/experts/jdesjardins/2007/02/three_reasons_why_i_will_still.html
http://dr-mabuses-kaleido-scope.blogspot.com/search/label/Jet%20Blue%20Apology%20Video
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/03/07/jet-blue-bad-airline-good-stock/
JetBlue was founded on the promise of bringing humanity back to air travel and making any flying experience more enjoyable. A set back like this caused the company extreme hardships and cuts to the company.
A full page ad in the New York Times is by no means cheap. JetBlue looked for one of the best ways to express their message of apology. They mention in their ad they have published a JetBlue Airways Customer Bill of Rights. They state that this Bill of Rights stands as the company's commitment to their customers or how future interruptions will be handled.
So, you're all asking what are the ethics behind this ad? Is it ethical that the company spends hundreds of dollars to promote apologies following their mistakes? The CEO of JetBlue, David Neeleman, has a personal message for customers that the ads states can be found at jetblue.com/promise. Neeleman also appeared on shows such as Today to promote his promise that customers won't have such a negative experience with his company in the future. Is it right that the CEO makes all of these statements? Should the company have sent their PR manager, who wrote these apologies be the one making these appearances instead?
Most would probably agree that hearing words of gratitude from the CEO means the most. He is accepting his position of mistake and plans on improving.
The most ethical thing for the company to do might be to move forward with what customers they will have. However, it is difficult to regain trust and this ad, the Bill of Rights, and awarding airline tickets and money for the number of hours customers waited, may help them prove to customers that they can be trusted once again and everyone, including major airline companies make mistakes.
*Readings Relating to the JetBlue Mishap:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/localnews/ci_5394009
http://www.beingpeterkim.com/2007/02/my_jetblue_fias.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/15/national/main2480665.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/business/17air.html?ex=1329368400&en=3be3789cffa0910a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://abcnews.go.com/ad/moneyscopeintroad.html?
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Travel/story?id=2905812&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312&Business=true&Business=true
http://blog.fastcompany.com/experts/jdesjardins/2007/02/three_reasons_why_i_will_still.html
http://dr-mabuses-kaleido-scope.blogspot.com/search/label/Jet%20Blue%20Apology%20Video
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/03/07/jet-blue-bad-airline-good-stock/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)