Sunday, April 29, 2007
Almost done...
Well, my project is coming to a close and I'm working on the final report. I'll appreciate anyone that wants to add some feedback before I hand the final product in two weeks from now. Wish me luck!
Monday, April 23, 2007
"A 17-Year Nightmare of Identity Theft Finally Results in Criminal Charges" (4/13/07 p. A10)
Identity theft is scary. Last year, I lost my Social Security card and spent three months worrying and watching my bank account very closely. Thankfully, someone was able to return it to me and nothing ever came of it. I can't imagine spending 17 years of my life struggling with the problem that something actually did come of it.
David B. Dahlstrom, a locksmith in Salt Lake City has unwillingly shared his identity with Yorck A. Rogge, a German immigrant in Los Angeles.
Rogge used Mr. Dahlstrom's name since 1990 and has committed a series of crimes under it. Rogge is now facing 81 counts of identity theft and fraud.
Some major ethics come in to play right away. It seriously took 17 years to catch Rogge? Mr. Dahlstrom has difficulty getting credit and at one point was detained by police officers serving an arrest warrant in his name. In 1985, Mr. Dahlstrom lost his wallet in Utah. The wallet contained his birth certificate, Social Security card and driver's license. His identity wasn't officially stolen until five years later when Mr. Rogge was arrested and convicted of driving under the influence. The time line gets even better. Mr. Dahlstrom didn't even officially know his identity had been stolen until 1997 when he was contacted be creditors for "fraudulent activity." In 1998, he received an insurance claim for an accident he was not involved in and another claim a few years after. A few red flags finally threw him on the right track.
The police in Utah told Mr. Dahlstrom that there was a warrant out for his arrest. He called Los Angeles city attorney's office pleading for help. Well, its about time.
At the end of the long haul, Mr. Rogge faces up to 31 years in prison and is an illegal immigrant. I can't image why it took so long for this identity crime to be brought to a screeching halt.
Article by: RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
David B. Dahlstrom, a locksmith in Salt Lake City has unwillingly shared his identity with Yorck A. Rogge, a German immigrant in Los Angeles.
Rogge used Mr. Dahlstrom's name since 1990 and has committed a series of crimes under it. Rogge is now facing 81 counts of identity theft and fraud.
Some major ethics come in to play right away. It seriously took 17 years to catch Rogge? Mr. Dahlstrom has difficulty getting credit and at one point was detained by police officers serving an arrest warrant in his name. In 1985, Mr. Dahlstrom lost his wallet in Utah. The wallet contained his birth certificate, Social Security card and driver's license. His identity wasn't officially stolen until five years later when Mr. Rogge was arrested and convicted of driving under the influence. The time line gets even better. Mr. Dahlstrom didn't even officially know his identity had been stolen until 1997 when he was contacted be creditors for "fraudulent activity." In 1998, he received an insurance claim for an accident he was not involved in and another claim a few years after. A few red flags finally threw him on the right track.
The police in Utah told Mr. Dahlstrom that there was a warrant out for his arrest. He called Los Angeles city attorney's office pleading for help. Well, its about time.
At the end of the long haul, Mr. Rogge faces up to 31 years in prison and is an illegal immigrant. I can't image why it took so long for this identity crime to be brought to a screeching halt.
Article by: RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
"Drinks With Youth Appeal Draw Growing Opposition" (4/13/07 p. A12)
Isn't it bad enough that cigarette companies are purposing targeting the youth market? Now there is a growing concern about alcohol companies doing the same thing by curbing under-age drinking. Obviously, no good can come from this one.
I'll admit it. I'm in college and I like to have fun. However, I'm only 20 years old and legally shouldn't be having that kind of fun quite yet. I'm not even a big fan of the taste of alcohol. I like to minimize the taste as much as possible. Drinks like Mike's Hard Lemonade and Smirinoff Ice. I've contributed to the whole point of the article, shame on me. According to The Times, health researchers say that one reason products like Bacardi Silver and Zimas are so popular is because the taste of alcohol is faint. These types of products are contributing to under-age drinking. They're the kind of drinks that get teens comfortable with alcohol. Very true.
Is it ethical for these companies to "target" under-age drinkers? Absolutely not. Can anyone prove that they're actually doing this? No. That is maybe part of the problem. Several youth groups in California are prompting the state to adopt stricter rules for drinks that contain distilled spirits but are sold and taxed as beer. Personally, I don't see that as a good plan to stop this problem.
The article stated that Maine has already reclassified the drinks, commonly known as alcopops and flavored malt beverages, as hard liquor. There are proposals to do the same in Arkansas, Illinois, and Nebraska. The California board is holding a series of public hearings, including one in May, that could lead to new restrictions by the end of the summer. This law would make these drinks more expensive (the tax would jump to $3.30 a gallon from 20 cents a gallon) and it would be more difficult to buy. One second thought, this doesn't sound like a bad idea.
Opponents of the effort in California, including small-business owners, the Flavored Malt Beverage Coalition and other industry groups, argue that the debate about drinks is surrounded by "significant misconceptions," in the words of Gary Galanis, a spokesman for Diageo, one of the world's largest alcohol manufacturers and the maker of Smirnoff. Along with many other flavored malt beverages are roughly as potent as beer, containing 5 percent to 7 percent alcohol per volume compared with 4 percent to 6 percent beer. The drinks come from brewing, not distilling, he said, and the alcohol in the beverages stems from added flavoring, not hard liquor. This statement sounds exaggerated, which is unethical for companies to do. They need to step up and accept the fact that their company is contributing to under-age drinking, which is something they need to take seriously. When people like Mr. Galanis are saying there is no reason to change their product, they need to open their eyes and realize that maybe there is.
Most high school students drink with a purpose: to get drunk. It's sad, but true. However, alcopops are not very effective unless you are a lightweight. There are those that likes hots of whiskey and vodka, which obviously makes people become drunk quickly. Most teens say they don't need to be trained to drink, yet, they don't always realize that, yes, they do.
Maybe the big problem is that alcohol is incredibly easy for minors to get their hands on. That seems more reasonable than the taste contributing to the problem. Who can rally judge? All the factors that under-age drinking is something that is almost impossible to prevent. Its going to happen, let's just hope that teens try to be somewhat ethical and make good judgements.
Article by: CAROLYN MARSHALL
I'll admit it. I'm in college and I like to have fun. However, I'm only 20 years old and legally shouldn't be having that kind of fun quite yet. I'm not even a big fan of the taste of alcohol. I like to minimize the taste as much as possible. Drinks like Mike's Hard Lemonade and Smirinoff Ice. I've contributed to the whole point of the article, shame on me. According to The Times, health researchers say that one reason products like Bacardi Silver and Zimas are so popular is because the taste of alcohol is faint. These types of products are contributing to under-age drinking. They're the kind of drinks that get teens comfortable with alcohol. Very true.
Is it ethical for these companies to "target" under-age drinkers? Absolutely not. Can anyone prove that they're actually doing this? No. That is maybe part of the problem. Several youth groups in California are prompting the state to adopt stricter rules for drinks that contain distilled spirits but are sold and taxed as beer. Personally, I don't see that as a good plan to stop this problem.
The article stated that Maine has already reclassified the drinks, commonly known as alcopops and flavored malt beverages, as hard liquor. There are proposals to do the same in Arkansas, Illinois, and Nebraska. The California board is holding a series of public hearings, including one in May, that could lead to new restrictions by the end of the summer. This law would make these drinks more expensive (the tax would jump to $3.30 a gallon from 20 cents a gallon) and it would be more difficult to buy. One second thought, this doesn't sound like a bad idea.
Opponents of the effort in California, including small-business owners, the Flavored Malt Beverage Coalition and other industry groups, argue that the debate about drinks is surrounded by "significant misconceptions," in the words of Gary Galanis, a spokesman for Diageo, one of the world's largest alcohol manufacturers and the maker of Smirnoff. Along with many other flavored malt beverages are roughly as potent as beer, containing 5 percent to 7 percent alcohol per volume compared with 4 percent to 6 percent beer. The drinks come from brewing, not distilling, he said, and the alcohol in the beverages stems from added flavoring, not hard liquor. This statement sounds exaggerated, which is unethical for companies to do. They need to step up and accept the fact that their company is contributing to under-age drinking, which is something they need to take seriously. When people like Mr. Galanis are saying there is no reason to change their product, they need to open their eyes and realize that maybe there is.
Most high school students drink with a purpose: to get drunk. It's sad, but true. However, alcopops are not very effective unless you are a lightweight. There are those that likes hots of whiskey and vodka, which obviously makes people become drunk quickly. Most teens say they don't need to be trained to drink, yet, they don't always realize that, yes, they do.
Maybe the big problem is that alcohol is incredibly easy for minors to get their hands on. That seems more reasonable than the taste contributing to the problem. Who can rally judge? All the factors that under-age drinking is something that is almost impossible to prevent. Its going to happen, let's just hope that teens try to be somewhat ethical and make good judgements.
Article by: CAROLYN MARSHALL
Sunday, April 22, 2007
"He's Not My Grandpa. He's My Dad." (4/12/07 p. E1)
The ethical issues that were raised in this article, "He's Not My Grandpa. He's My Dad" were not necessarly considered ethical or unethical. It depends on how the situration is viewd and whether or not it hits close to home for readers.
The article began by informing readers that actor Tony Randall was anxious to become a father, at the age of 77. He said he looked forward to only being 90, yes 90, when his unborn child was 15 and they could go out and play together. Unfortunately, Mr. Randall died at age 84 in 2004, leaving being Julia, who was 7 and Jefferson, who was only 6. Like other young children, Julia and Jefferson will grow up not knowing and maybe not even remembering their father. Is that ethical? That Mr. Randall wanted children so badly, even though the possibility of him not seeing them grow up was very great?
Men like Randall that have children in their mush later years of life have been dubbed start-over dads, or SODs for short. SODs have created their own little controversy. Some see these older fathers as having the advantage of being more laid back and easy going on their youngsters. Others, however, see SODs as inherently selfish. These people claim that it is not fair the child that they may and probably will grow up without a father. According to the article, people are outraged that SODs are intentionally depriving a child of a father. But what if all start-over dad wanted before he died was a child? Does fulfilling someone's dream of becoming a father even though he may be older make him a bad, selfish person?
According to The Times, this is such a new phenomenon that there is a dearth of studies about it. Men are living longer and having families they may have never been given the chance to have. I don't see this as unethical, but as a chance for a person to experience parenthood.
Another plus to SODhood is that most of these men aren't struggling financially. They have made their place in the working world and most are very well off. They can support their family fully and afford to give their children more of what other, younger fathers may not be able to.
On the flip side, however, there are growing indications that SODhood may entail risks for children. Studies have shown that older fathers are more likely to have children with autism, schizophrenia, dwarfism, and other serious problems. These are pretty serious risk. If these kinds of problems are repeatedly showing up, these SODs may want to look into adoption if becoming a father is something they desire. To possibly have to put a child through any of the listed risked doesn't seem worth it.
Emotional and physical problems are very common in families with SODs as well. One father, Moe Belin, 84, has a 17-year old daughter, Mollie. He suffered a heart attack and when he came to all he wanted was his daughter. When she was brought to him, he got sick on her. "It bothers me that i put this little girl through that," Belin said. Many other fathers are finding themselves at the mercy of serious health problems that they are unable to shield their young children from.
Tony Randall's widow, Heather, wonders if she did the right thing for her children by her decision. She explains she has strains of guilt after all. She tells her daughter she maybe shouldn't marry and older man. Mr. Randall will never get to see his children graduate, go off to college, or walk his daughter down the aisle. Most SODs won't have these kinds of chances either.
The ethics here don't point fingers at what is right or wrong, because in the end it is ultimately each person's choice. Many elderly males may see their time as limited and want to rush to become a father. They're in such a hurry that many of the real, need to be considered factors of SODhood are neglected until it is too late.
Article by: THOMAS VINCIGUERRA
The article began by informing readers that actor Tony Randall was anxious to become a father, at the age of 77. He said he looked forward to only being 90, yes 90, when his unborn child was 15 and they could go out and play together. Unfortunately, Mr. Randall died at age 84 in 2004, leaving being Julia, who was 7 and Jefferson, who was only 6. Like other young children, Julia and Jefferson will grow up not knowing and maybe not even remembering their father. Is that ethical? That Mr. Randall wanted children so badly, even though the possibility of him not seeing them grow up was very great?
Men like Randall that have children in their mush later years of life have been dubbed start-over dads, or SODs for short. SODs have created their own little controversy. Some see these older fathers as having the advantage of being more laid back and easy going on their youngsters. Others, however, see SODs as inherently selfish. These people claim that it is not fair the child that they may and probably will grow up without a father. According to the article, people are outraged that SODs are intentionally depriving a child of a father. But what if all start-over dad wanted before he died was a child? Does fulfilling someone's dream of becoming a father even though he may be older make him a bad, selfish person?
According to The Times, this is such a new phenomenon that there is a dearth of studies about it. Men are living longer and having families they may have never been given the chance to have. I don't see this as unethical, but as a chance for a person to experience parenthood.
Another plus to SODhood is that most of these men aren't struggling financially. They have made their place in the working world and most are very well off. They can support their family fully and afford to give their children more of what other, younger fathers may not be able to.
On the flip side, however, there are growing indications that SODhood may entail risks for children. Studies have shown that older fathers are more likely to have children with autism, schizophrenia, dwarfism, and other serious problems. These are pretty serious risk. If these kinds of problems are repeatedly showing up, these SODs may want to look into adoption if becoming a father is something they desire. To possibly have to put a child through any of the listed risked doesn't seem worth it.
Emotional and physical problems are very common in families with SODs as well. One father, Moe Belin, 84, has a 17-year old daughter, Mollie. He suffered a heart attack and when he came to all he wanted was his daughter. When she was brought to him, he got sick on her. "It bothers me that i put this little girl through that," Belin said. Many other fathers are finding themselves at the mercy of serious health problems that they are unable to shield their young children from.
Tony Randall's widow, Heather, wonders if she did the right thing for her children by her decision. She explains she has strains of guilt after all. She tells her daughter she maybe shouldn't marry and older man. Mr. Randall will never get to see his children graduate, go off to college, or walk his daughter down the aisle. Most SODs won't have these kinds of chances either.
The ethics here don't point fingers at what is right or wrong, because in the end it is ultimately each person's choice. Many elderly males may see their time as limited and want to rush to become a father. They're in such a hurry that many of the real, need to be considered factors of SODhood are neglected until it is too late.
Article by: THOMAS VINCIGUERRA
Thursday, April 19, 2007
"Duke Prosecuter Throws Out Case Against Players" (4/14/07 p. A1)
There are some very evident ethical issues arising in the case of three Duke students who were found innocent of all sexual assault, kidnapping and rape charges that were brought against them nearly a year ago.
The three boys, Reade W. Seligmann, David F. Evans, and Collin Finnerty, were on Duke's lacrosse team when a stripper claimed they sexually assaulted her at a party in March of 2006. The boys were released because there wasn't enough, or any for that matter, evidence against them. It is believed that this case was the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations. The main ethical issue behind this case was there was never any credible evidence that an attack even occurred. So, why then, were these boys behind bars enduring a year of complete hell?
The Durham district attorney, Michale B. Nifong, is facing a long road ahead of him. North Carolina state bar had begun taking an extraordinary step of formally accusing Mr. Nifong of numerous ethical violations, including withholding exculpatory evidence and misleading the judge who presided over the case, as stated in the article.
If this was known all along, I'm confused as to why a year later these men are just now getting classified as innocent? If there was sufficient evidence isn't it standard ethical rules that you're innocent until proven guilty, not just assumed guilty? Hmm...something here doesn't sound right to me, and I'm fairly new to this case. The article reaffirmed that there was lingering anger toward Mr. Nifong and many in the news media for what they described as a rush to believe the worst about them.
The Times also stated that the Duke lacrosse case has shown that our society has lost sight of the most fundamental principle of our legal system: the presumption of innocence. In a way, this case has possibly opened the door for this kind mishap to be prevented in the future. If these three men hadn't been found innocent they could have spent decades in jail for a crime they possibly didn't commit. They chime into this thinking by letting everyone know they are just as innocent now as they were a year ago.
Mr. Nifong has denied violating any ethics rules, although he has acknowledged mishandling some evidence and making intemperate and unjustified remarks about the Duke lacrosse team. Excuse me, but if he is admitting to that, isn't he basically admitting he was wrong all along? If the ethics charges against him are upheld, Mr. Nifong faces a range of possible penalties, including disbarment. Finally, some ethical procedures are being brought out of this whole ordeal.
Despite a year of complete hell, all three men have carried themselves with dignity even though they were being treated very unfairly. There were errors from day one and nothing in this case seemed to be handled like I would expect our legal system to handle things. Whether its ethics or legal issues, innocent people are finding themselves in a web of trouble they don't deserve to be in. Hopefully in the future, this problem is sorted out and criminal cases are treated appropriately.
Article by: By DUFF WILSON AND DAVID BARSTOW; DUFF WILSON REPORTED FROM RALEIGH, N.C., AND DAVID BARSTOW FROM NEW YORK. BRENDA GOODMAN CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FROM ATLANTA, AND MOSI SECRET FROM DURHAM, N.C.
The three boys, Reade W. Seligmann, David F. Evans, and Collin Finnerty, were on Duke's lacrosse team when a stripper claimed they sexually assaulted her at a party in March of 2006. The boys were released because there wasn't enough, or any for that matter, evidence against them. It is believed that this case was the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations. The main ethical issue behind this case was there was never any credible evidence that an attack even occurred. So, why then, were these boys behind bars enduring a year of complete hell?
The Durham district attorney, Michale B. Nifong, is facing a long road ahead of him. North Carolina state bar had begun taking an extraordinary step of formally accusing Mr. Nifong of numerous ethical violations, including withholding exculpatory evidence and misleading the judge who presided over the case, as stated in the article.
If this was known all along, I'm confused as to why a year later these men are just now getting classified as innocent? If there was sufficient evidence isn't it standard ethical rules that you're innocent until proven guilty, not just assumed guilty? Hmm...something here doesn't sound right to me, and I'm fairly new to this case. The article reaffirmed that there was lingering anger toward Mr. Nifong and many in the news media for what they described as a rush to believe the worst about them.
The Times also stated that the Duke lacrosse case has shown that our society has lost sight of the most fundamental principle of our legal system: the presumption of innocence. In a way, this case has possibly opened the door for this kind mishap to be prevented in the future. If these three men hadn't been found innocent they could have spent decades in jail for a crime they possibly didn't commit. They chime into this thinking by letting everyone know they are just as innocent now as they were a year ago.
Mr. Nifong has denied violating any ethics rules, although he has acknowledged mishandling some evidence and making intemperate and unjustified remarks about the Duke lacrosse team. Excuse me, but if he is admitting to that, isn't he basically admitting he was wrong all along? If the ethics charges against him are upheld, Mr. Nifong faces a range of possible penalties, including disbarment. Finally, some ethical procedures are being brought out of this whole ordeal.
Despite a year of complete hell, all three men have carried themselves with dignity even though they were being treated very unfairly. There were errors from day one and nothing in this case seemed to be handled like I would expect our legal system to handle things. Whether its ethics or legal issues, innocent people are finding themselves in a web of trouble they don't deserve to be in. Hopefully in the future, this problem is sorted out and criminal cases are treated appropriately.
Article by: By DUFF WILSON AND DAVID BARSTOW; DUFF WILSON REPORTED FROM RALEIGH, N.C., AND DAVID BARSTOW FROM NEW YORK. BRENDA GOODMAN CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FROM ATLANTA, AND MOSI SECRET FROM DURHAM, N.C.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
"DNA Results Announced in Smith Case" (4/11/07 p. A19)
I'm sick of hearing about Anna Nicole Smith. The New York Times published a small article about the DNA results revealing that Larry Birkhead is the father of Anna Nicole's daughter, Dannielynn.
The ethics, in my opinion, behind this article were the fact that giving it publicity is the attention Birkhead wants. He emerged from the court room yelling "I told you so!" That's mature. Howard K. Stern, Anna Nicole's former lawyer was listed on the birth certificate has been fighting for custody of the child since Anna's death on February 8.
Dannielynn has been living at Stern's residence since Anna's death. Stern was reported saying that he isn't going to fight Birkhead for custody, he is going to make sure Birkhead actually gets full custody. This is another issue of ethics. Obviously Stern has been a good father-figure to the baby and maybe he should take a stand against someone that is screaming "I told you so!" on national television.
The other ethical issues that arose in this small, yet, information packed selection were that Dannilynn will inherit millions of dollars from her mother, who on another ethical note, was a slut if nobody was certain who the father was. This is especially true since the real father wasn't even on the birth certificate.
Here I go contributing to Birkhead's 15 minutes of fame.
Article by: CARYN JAMES
The ethics, in my opinion, behind this article were the fact that giving it publicity is the attention Birkhead wants. He emerged from the court room yelling "I told you so!" That's mature. Howard K. Stern, Anna Nicole's former lawyer was listed on the birth certificate has been fighting for custody of the child since Anna's death on February 8.
Dannielynn has been living at Stern's residence since Anna's death. Stern was reported saying that he isn't going to fight Birkhead for custody, he is going to make sure Birkhead actually gets full custody. This is another issue of ethics. Obviously Stern has been a good father-figure to the baby and maybe he should take a stand against someone that is screaming "I told you so!" on national television.
The other ethical issues that arose in this small, yet, information packed selection were that Dannilynn will inherit millions of dollars from her mother, who on another ethical note, was a slut if nobody was certain who the father was. This is especially true since the real father wasn't even on the birth certificate.
Here I go contributing to Birkhead's 15 minutes of fame.
Article by: CARYN JAMES
"A Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs" (4/9/07 p. A1)
Blogs made the front page of the New York Times and I almost missed it. I found it though and good news, it involves ethical issues. Added bonus!
The article is what the title says. Blogs don't have many guidelines and that is looking to be changed. Blogs can be an unpleasant place. There are millions of blogs people aren't going to agree with and because of this, they may leave inappropriate comments that can be harmful on many different levels.
According to The Times, Tim O'Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is involved with the creation of Web 2.0 began working with Jimmy Wales, crater of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of what to many would be common sense- though already controversial - guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.
I am in total favor of this. Unwanted, inappropriate comments and blogs are something that I don't see as necessary. I believe that it would be extremely ethical to have some sort of blogging guidelines.
In addition to my way of thinking, the article went on to state that chief among the recommendations for bloggers is that they consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship. Some would say that this tactic would interfere with free speech, however, civility backs up what free speech really is.
Mr. O'Reilly posts his recommendations on his company blog, which is very well written and full of useful information and excellent points. It is definitely a blog worth visiting and looking around. Mr. Wales' proposed guidelines can be found on his blog, another very interesting blog that stems out in many different directions. The proposed code of conduct these two highly experienced bloggers have put forth are very practical and appropriate. The information and ideas they express are highly ethical and something every blogger should take the time to read and consider. Their whole proposed system would, of course, be voluntary and the community would be expected to police itself. To me, this (right now) seems close to impossible, however, I truly believe with enough effort and publicity this could and hopefully will begin to take place. The publicity has already begun and has many supporters including David Weinberger, a well-known blogger. Weinberger's blog is another worth taking time to look at and explore.
Of course, meeting a common ground for such a code of conduct will be a rather difficult task. It is really impossible to get even a decent sized portion of the millions of bloggers to come to a common consensus.
However, people are getting harshly harassed over their blogs and it is more than ethical that someone is at least attempting to put an end to this. Kathy Sierra, a high tech book author reported getting death threats over a dispute over whether it was acceptable to delete the impolite comments left by visitor to someone's personal Web site. She considered giving up blogging all together. This has gone too far. Death threats? Someone should be able to delete whatever comments they wish. I know that myself, for example has an online profile both on facebook and myspace. I have gotten several unwanted comments that I have deleted because they either upset me or they were something I didn't want others to see. In my mind, facebook and myspace are both personal, like a blog, and if I don't want something on there, I am free to delete it without getting grief (or death threats) for doing so.
Deleting comments aren't the only thing people are harassed for. If someone disagrees with the blogger's beliefs they are also tormented through emails and other means of contact. Some people, a majority of which are female bloggers, also have stalkers that create blogs about them and torment them that way. Cyberbullying (which sounds ridiculous, by the way) needs to end and I'm so glad that people are standing up to help solve this problem.
Bottom line: blogging can be a great hobby (or career?) if handled and maintained appropriately. Bloggers are responsible for what is on their blog, whether it be comments and personal opinions. I know that if someone posts something profane on my blog, they can expect I'm not going to tolerate that and will delete it. It is my right to get rid of it as much as it is yours to post it.
**Other blogs mentioned in the article that someone that is interested in this topic, or anyone for that matter should check out:
BlogHer
Richard Silverstein's Blog (He was one of those mentioned that was harassed because of his views. Someone actually created a blog with Silverstein's picture in pornographic context.)
Article by: BRAD STONE
The article is what the title says. Blogs don't have many guidelines and that is looking to be changed. Blogs can be an unpleasant place. There are millions of blogs people aren't going to agree with and because of this, they may leave inappropriate comments that can be harmful on many different levels.
According to The Times, Tim O'Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is involved with the creation of Web 2.0 began working with Jimmy Wales, crater of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of what to many would be common sense- though already controversial - guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.
I am in total favor of this. Unwanted, inappropriate comments and blogs are something that I don't see as necessary. I believe that it would be extremely ethical to have some sort of blogging guidelines.
In addition to my way of thinking, the article went on to state that chief among the recommendations for bloggers is that they consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship. Some would say that this tactic would interfere with free speech, however, civility backs up what free speech really is.
Mr. O'Reilly posts his recommendations on his company blog, which is very well written and full of useful information and excellent points. It is definitely a blog worth visiting and looking around. Mr. Wales' proposed guidelines can be found on his blog, another very interesting blog that stems out in many different directions. The proposed code of conduct these two highly experienced bloggers have put forth are very practical and appropriate. The information and ideas they express are highly ethical and something every blogger should take the time to read and consider. Their whole proposed system would, of course, be voluntary and the community would be expected to police itself. To me, this (right now) seems close to impossible, however, I truly believe with enough effort and publicity this could and hopefully will begin to take place. The publicity has already begun and has many supporters including David Weinberger, a well-known blogger. Weinberger's blog is another worth taking time to look at and explore.
Of course, meeting a common ground for such a code of conduct will be a rather difficult task. It is really impossible to get even a decent sized portion of the millions of bloggers to come to a common consensus.
However, people are getting harshly harassed over their blogs and it is more than ethical that someone is at least attempting to put an end to this. Kathy Sierra
Deleting comments aren't the only thing people are harassed for. If someone disagrees with the blogger's beliefs they are also tormented through emails and other means of contact. Some people, a majority of which are female bloggers, also have stalkers that create blogs about them and torment them that way. Cyberbullying (which sounds ridiculous, by the way) needs to end and I'm so glad that people are standing up to help solve this problem.
Bottom line: blogging can be a great hobby (or career?) if handled and maintained appropriately. Bloggers are responsible for what is on their blog, whether it be comments and personal opinions. I know that if someone posts something profane on my blog, they can expect I'm not going to tolerate that and will delete it. It is my right to get rid of it as much as it is yours to post it.
**Other blogs mentioned in the article that someone that is interested in this topic, or anyone for that matter should check out:
BlogHer
Richard Silverstein's Blog (He was one of those mentioned that was harassed because of his views. Someone actually created a blog with Silverstein's picture in pornographic context.)
Article by: BRAD STONE
"To Close Gaps, Schools Focus on Black Boys" (4/9/07 p. A1)
The title alone depicts some possible ethical issues, which is exactly what this article did. However, I'm not sure where I stand personally on this issue. I don't really like the feeling of not having an opinion about an issue where I don't lean at least a little one way or another.
The article discussed how a school in Ossining, New York is separating black male students apart from other students because their academic performance is lower and fewer and fewer are going to college.
The black boys are sent to what are referred to as special mentoring programs that pair these boys up with black teacher for extra guidance outside the classroom, extra homework help and cultural activities during the school day. One mentor states that all the black boys used to end up in the principals office prior to this program, therefore, action needed to be taken. Is that really an accurate assumption? Key word in that statement was "all."
After beginning the article, I was outraged that this was happening. I believe that it is incredibly unfair to separate black males from everyone else. What must these poor boys really think? We are stepping backward into the past when black and white children were required to attend different schools. I cringe at the thought of that happening again in this day and age.
The article went on to say that Ossining school officials claimed they were not singling out black boys, but after a district analysis of high school students' grade-point average revealed that black boys were performing far worse than any other group, they decided to act. In contrast, these officials said, the performance of black girls compared favorable with other students and did not warrant the same concern. To me, this is still racist. They are of course singling out black boys by sticking them in a separate part of the schools. They may be doing it to help these students, however, it is still a form of racism that these school officials need to take into higher account.
The ethics here dealing racism and whether some people may see this issue the way I do. For this reason, I don't know which way I totally lean on the ethical scale. Of course, I hate the thought of singling out these students, but at the same time, if this school district believes this kind of program will honestly help academic wise, while they still promote the idea that they are aware some people, like myself, may see it one way, they look at it a different way. The program is actually even praised by some of the nation's leading minority scholars. Yet, there are those that still claim it is a form of racial profiling in the school system. Which, I agree, it is.
Ossining isn't the only school system taking this kind of a approach. Schools in New Jersey, Ohio, etc. have similar programs. The article also stated a reminder that more black men were behind bars than in college. Still, it is an unfair stereotype and I know several successful black men that most likely didn't need the help of special programs in school.
A mother of a black boy stated that she believed the extra support was needed because the numbers are stacked against them. She was quoted saying, "I don't want my sone to be in jail when he becomes a teenager, I want thim to have the same chances as a white child." Um, hello, if you're a good mother your son shouldn't end up in jail.
The article portrayed numbers showing these programs are working, which maybe they are and maybe I need to look at that. However, one still must worry that a stereotype is as damaging as the one you're trying to prevent. I'm happy that these programs are helping, however, I still see it as unethical to separate these boys completely.
Article by: By WINNIE HU; GRIFF PALMER
The article discussed how a school in Ossining, New York is separating black male students apart from other students because their academic performance is lower and fewer and fewer are going to college.
The black boys are sent to what are referred to as special mentoring programs that pair these boys up with black teacher for extra guidance outside the classroom, extra homework help and cultural activities during the school day. One mentor states that all the black boys used to end up in the principals office prior to this program, therefore, action needed to be taken. Is that really an accurate assumption? Key word in that statement was "all."
After beginning the article, I was outraged that this was happening. I believe that it is incredibly unfair to separate black males from everyone else. What must these poor boys really think? We are stepping backward into the past when black and white children were required to attend different schools. I cringe at the thought of that happening again in this day and age.
The article went on to say that Ossining school officials claimed they were not singling out black boys, but after a district analysis of high school students' grade-point average revealed that black boys were performing far worse than any other group, they decided to act. In contrast, these officials said, the performance of black girls compared favorable with other students and did not warrant the same concern. To me, this is still racist. They are of course singling out black boys by sticking them in a separate part of the schools. They may be doing it to help these students, however, it is still a form of racism that these school officials need to take into higher account.
The ethics here dealing racism and whether some people may see this issue the way I do. For this reason, I don't know which way I totally lean on the ethical scale. Of course, I hate the thought of singling out these students, but at the same time, if this school district believes this kind of program will honestly help academic wise, while they still promote the idea that they are aware some people, like myself, may see it one way, they look at it a different way. The program is actually even praised by some of the nation's leading minority scholars. Yet, there are those that still claim it is a form of racial profiling in the school system. Which, I agree, it is.
Ossining isn't the only school system taking this kind of a approach. Schools in New Jersey, Ohio, etc. have similar programs. The article also stated a reminder that more black men were behind bars than in college. Still, it is an unfair stereotype and I know several successful black men that most likely didn't need the help of special programs in school.
A mother of a black boy stated that she believed the extra support was needed because the numbers are stacked against them. She was quoted saying, "I don't want my sone to be in jail when he becomes a teenager, I want thim to have the same chances as a white child." Um, hello, if you're a good mother your son shouldn't end up in jail.
The article portrayed numbers showing these programs are working, which maybe they are and maybe I need to look at that. However, one still must worry that a stereotype is as damaging as the one you're trying to prevent. I'm happy that these programs are helping, however, I still see it as unethical to separate these boys completely.
Article by: By WINNIE HU; GRIFF PALMER
Monday, April 16, 2007
"Giuliani Reaffirms That He would Not Seek Abortion Changes" (3/6/07 p. A15)
Rudolph W. Giuliani, a possible Republican presidential candidate stated that if he were to be elected president, he would not seek to make abortion illegal.
I think ethical issues are involved in such an issue because his views are stated so early in the campaign. On the flip side of that idea, it is good that he is being honest to American voters are letting them know where he stands on this controversial issue. Many conservatives would consider themselves pro life and look at abortion as something that shouldn't be legal in the United States. Most Republicans vote according to the candidate's view on this issue.
The article included that Giuliani is aware of the damage his position might do to him among some of these conservative voters. He claimed that if people vote against him just because of his beliefs on abortion, then let them.
"I think abortion is wrong, but ultimately I think it is a woman's right, and a woman's choice. The government should not interfere with it by imposing criminal penalties on people," Giuliani said. Amen to that statement.
Mr. Giuliani's position may put him in odds with the other leading Republican presidential candidates, Mitt Romney and Senator John McCain or Arizona. Mr. Romney has in the past supported abortion rights. Now, he promises voters that as president he would seek to overturn the Roe decision. Looks like we've got a flip flop on our hands. Mr. McCain has taken a similar position.
As someone that has conservative views, I personally respect Mr. Giuliani for stating his position so early in the race. Candidates are people too and they have views just like everyone else. I respect him for putting his beliefs out there and hope that it won't hurt him too much because I believe the former mayor of New York City would make an excellent president.
Article by: MARC SANTORA
I think ethical issues are involved in such an issue because his views are stated so early in the campaign. On the flip side of that idea, it is good that he is being honest to American voters are letting them know where he stands on this controversial issue. Many conservatives would consider themselves pro life and look at abortion as something that shouldn't be legal in the United States. Most Republicans vote according to the candidate's view on this issue.
The article included that Giuliani is aware of the damage his position might do to him among some of these conservative voters. He claimed that if people vote against him just because of his beliefs on abortion, then let them.
"I think abortion is wrong, but ultimately I think it is a woman's right, and a woman's choice. The government should not interfere with it by imposing criminal penalties on people," Giuliani said. Amen to that statement.
Mr. Giuliani's position may put him in odds with the other leading Republican presidential candidates, Mitt Romney and Senator John McCain or Arizona. Mr. Romney has in the past supported abortion rights. Now, he promises voters that as president he would seek to overturn the Roe decision. Looks like we've got a flip flop on our hands. Mr. McCain has taken a similar position.
As someone that has conservative views, I personally respect Mr. Giuliani for stating his position so early in the race. Candidates are people too and they have views just like everyone else. I respect him for putting his beliefs out there and hope that it won't hurt him too much because I believe the former mayor of New York City would make an excellent president.
Article by: MARC SANTORA
"Wildlife Smugglers Test Their Skills, Even at the Airport" (4/6/07 p. A13)
It's almost unreal, even humorous that someone actually stuffed a pygmy monkey down their pants in an effort to sneak the animal through the airport. How ridiculous and stupid that person must have felt after he was caught?
Maybe if this would have been the one and only time that this happened, however, the smuggling of rare animals and species through airports is becoming a growing problem. Smugglers are bringing everything from rare butterflies, elephant tusks and sea turtle eggs through airports.
As reported by The Times, wildlife smuggling is the nation's second-largest black market, just behind narcotics. The ethics behind this article isn't just the fact of how wrong wildlife smuggling is, but also that it is unknown to officials how many animals have actually made it through airports and out into the world.
After 9/11 airport security increased, which, of course, everyone knows. However, airport security officials are looking for weaponry and harmful substances, not monkeys down passenger's pants.
In 2002, a Palm Springs man was arrested on charges related to the smuggling of two Asian leopard cats into the airport in a backpack. The individual he was traveling with was also arrested when large birds or paradise came flying out of his luggage; also in the luggage were other birds and 50 rare orchid bulbs. How stupid can people get?
Airport officials are saying that displays like the those that I've discussed are a rather hilarious visual. I think they need to put aside the laughter and look more closely at how serious this problem could become. These animals, insects, etc. are enduring an 18 hour trip shoved in socks and pants without going undetected by flight attendants or airport security they got past in the first place. Of course, it is argued that flight attendants are staring at passenger's crotches in search of illegal imports, however, what if next time there is a bomb shoved in the passenger's pants?
This problem is recognized, now it needs to be diminished. It is impossible to think that everything can be taken care of and will vanish completely, however, security needs to be stepped up again, just this time in the monkey in the pants department.
Article by: JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Maybe if this would have been the one and only time that this happened, however, the smuggling of rare animals and species through airports is becoming a growing problem. Smugglers are bringing everything from rare butterflies, elephant tusks and sea turtle eggs through airports.
As reported by The Times, wildlife smuggling is the nation's second-largest black market, just behind narcotics. The ethics behind this article isn't just the fact of how wrong wildlife smuggling is, but also that it is unknown to officials how many animals have actually made it through airports and out into the world.
After 9/11 airport security increased, which, of course, everyone knows. However, airport security officials are looking for weaponry and harmful substances, not monkeys down passenger's pants.
In 2002, a Palm Springs man was arrested on charges related to the smuggling of two Asian leopard cats into the airport in a backpack. The individual he was traveling with was also arrested when large birds or paradise came flying out of his luggage; also in the luggage were other birds and 50 rare orchid bulbs. How stupid can people get?
Airport officials are saying that displays like the those that I've discussed are a rather hilarious visual. I think they need to put aside the laughter and look more closely at how serious this problem could become. These animals, insects, etc. are enduring an 18 hour trip shoved in socks and pants without going undetected by flight attendants or airport security they got past in the first place. Of course, it is argued that flight attendants are staring at passenger's crotches in search of illegal imports, however, what if next time there is a bomb shoved in the passenger's pants?
This problem is recognized, now it needs to be diminished. It is impossible to think that everything can be taken care of and will vanish completely, however, security needs to be stepped up again, just this time in the monkey in the pants department.
Article by: JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Virginia Tech
On a side note from ethical articles, I just want to say that the students of Virginia Tech & their families are in my prayers. Let's hope something like this doesn't happen anywhere else and that the people involved with this get through this difficult time.
"Bare-Knuckle Enforcement for Wal-Mart's Rules" (3/29/07 p. A1)
Wal-Mart has gone over the top again. Wal-Mart store employees seem to find themselves in the spotlight rather often, and not for the good. It's no secret that the store is under a lawsuit for discriminating against women, but now, they're making the headlines for - what I consider to be - spying on employees.
According to this article, an investigator hired by employees flew to Guatemala in April of 2002. He flew across the country to prove that a Wal-Mart manager was sleeping with a lower-level employee. It is against company policy for two Wal-Mart employees to be involved in any kind of sexual or romantic relationship with one another. The investigator heard moans and sighs coming from the hotel room, which he had his ear pressed against. The company later fired the manager.
I understand that fraternization between two company employees isn't tolerated within the company, however, hiring a professional to press his ear against a hotel in a foreign country is going a little too far. There are other ways the company can distinguish this problem without invading their private lives outside of work. It is highly unethical, in my opinion, for someone to press his ear against a hotel room and have an employee fired based on "moans and sighs."
The article went on to discuss that the investigators serve as rapid response team that aggressively polices the nation's largest private employer, enforcing Wal-Mart's rules to be strictly (above normally) enforced. Wal-Mart isn't even the only company that engages in such investigative practices. This tactic is commonly used throughout corporate America. This is something that I was unaware of, and just coming aware of it is something I cannot believe is going on.
There was one specific case discussed in the article about two Wal-Mart executives that were fired after they were thought to be romantically involved. The Wal-Mart investigation of the case subpoenaed the male executive's wife and compelled her to turn over dozens of embarrassing email messages that her husband sent to his female co-worker from a private account. This has gone too far. Wal-Mart has every reason to fire employees breaking company code, however, the extremes that they are going to are unethical and unreasonable.
I also believe that these investigators, who are top F.B.I agents with unbelievable experience behind them, could be putting their investigative skills to work other than following Wal-Mart employees around the country. These agents are booking hotel rooms right across the hall from rooms that are believed to be the scene of this over the wall fraternization. This is unbelievable! What employees do on their own time should be their business. As long as they aren't displaying any evidence of romantic relationships while on the clock within company walls, they should be left alone.
Article by: MICHAEL BARBARO
According to this article, an investigator hired by employees flew to Guatemala in April of 2002. He flew across the country to prove that a Wal-Mart manager was sleeping with a lower-level employee. It is against company policy for two Wal-Mart employees to be involved in any kind of sexual or romantic relationship with one another. The investigator heard moans and sighs coming from the hotel room, which he had his ear pressed against. The company later fired the manager.
I understand that fraternization between two company employees isn't tolerated within the company, however, hiring a professional to press his ear against a hotel in a foreign country is going a little too far. There are other ways the company can distinguish this problem without invading their private lives outside of work. It is highly unethical, in my opinion, for someone to press his ear against a hotel room and have an employee fired based on "moans and sighs."
The article went on to discuss that the investigators serve as rapid response team that aggressively polices the nation's largest private employer, enforcing Wal-Mart's rules to be strictly (above normally) enforced. Wal-Mart isn't even the only company that engages in such investigative practices. This tactic is commonly used throughout corporate America. This is something that I was unaware of, and just coming aware of it is something I cannot believe is going on.
There was one specific case discussed in the article about two Wal-Mart executives that were fired after they were thought to be romantically involved. The Wal-Mart investigation of the case subpoenaed the male executive's wife and compelled her to turn over dozens of embarrassing email messages that her husband sent to his female co-worker from a private account. This has gone too far. Wal-Mart has every reason to fire employees breaking company code, however, the extremes that they are going to are unethical and unreasonable.
I also believe that these investigators, who are top F.B.I agents with unbelievable experience behind them, could be putting their investigative skills to work other than following Wal-Mart employees around the country. These agents are booking hotel rooms right across the hall from rooms that are believed to be the scene of this over the wall fraternization. This is unbelievable! What employees do on their own time should be their business. As long as they aren't displaying any evidence of romantic relationships while on the clock within company walls, they should be left alone.
Article by: MICHAEL BARBARO
Saturday, April 7, 2007
"..Having a Great Detox" (3/29/07 p. E1)
I couldn't get this picture to paste, so click on this link, and after looking at the picture you might think beautiful home, hotel, or Bed and Breakfast. I bet you didn't consider it to be a rehab facility, which is exactly what it is. It is called Passages, which is located in Malibu, California. Passions, like some of the more lush rehab centers appears to be a luxury spa or resort, not a traditional bare-bones detox centers.
The article, "Having a Great Detox" focused on how rehab centers for the rich and famous are looked at as somewhere to go to treat a drug or alcohol addiction, but seem to be the equivalent as shedding a few unwanted pounds. The article pointed out that less than a decade ago, a stint in rehab was assumed to be a bod and soul wrenching experience. A trip to even an elite facility like the Betty Ford Center in Rancho Mirage, California was sufficiently shaming to keep under wraps. Today a sojourn at a boutique establishment like Promises in Malibu, California, where until last week Britney Spears was tucked away, is openly discussed and in some quarters glamorized as a hip, if costly, refuge for the gilded set.
I was actually really pleased to find this article. I had always wondered why rehab seemed to be so glamorized now days. I'm a sucker for celebrity gossip (although I know its ridiculous) and came across an article about a new star in rehab more often than not. These rehab centers pamper their "patients" with full-out spas, enormous swimming pools, and ocean view, private rooms. Sounds like quite the vacation package. The Times even noted Richard DeGrandpre, the author of "The Cult of Pharmacology" saying, "rehab is a prurient, even envious fascination with celebrity culture, one, in which rehab has become fashionable, almost to the point, ironically, of giving a person status." So true.
Of course, these posh rehab centers are by no means cheap for the everyday "normal" citizens. One-month programs can range anywhere from $25,000 to $80,000, a little more than a high class vacation. These centers give out the essence of a luxurious holiday getaway to the rich and famous. US Weekly even published a feature laid out like a glossy travel brochure, portraying treatment as something akin to a visit to a five-star hotel.
William Cope Moyers, the vice president for external affairs at Hazelden in Center City, MN stated that addiction does not discriminate. It is a disease that doesn't care whether you are glamours or glory. These centers maybe shouldn't either. The Hard Rock resort in Las Vegas offers a series of "rehab nights" of poolside drinking and carousing, and is among a number of businesses promoting the concept of rehab as an alternately laid back and stimulating retreat for the middle class.
I find it unethical that these centers are turning rehab into something that if someone isn't going to rehab, maybe they aren't so interesting. Rehab shouldn't be a profile raiser or something to be proud of. Drug and alcohol addiction is something that cannot be taken lightly, which is exactly what these centers are making it become.
Of course, I am not implying that rehab centers should be something equivalent to a shack alongside the road. They deserve to be on the nicer side, however, they can't be inviting and something guests want to come back to. Rehab isn't supposed to be a "come back and see us again" kind of place. Places like Passions or Promises even have names that imply something someone wants to return to. I believe in the face of ethics, these centers need a face lift (or a face down) and be restored as something necessary for those who are addicted to harmful drugs or alcohol, and they don't want that shared with the world.
Article by: RUTH LA FERLA
The article, "Having a Great Detox" focused on how rehab centers for the rich and famous are looked at as somewhere to go to treat a drug or alcohol addiction, but seem to be the equivalent as shedding a few unwanted pounds. The article pointed out that less than a decade ago, a stint in rehab was assumed to be a bod and soul wrenching experience. A trip to even an elite facility like the Betty Ford Center in Rancho Mirage, California was sufficiently shaming to keep under wraps. Today a sojourn at a boutique establishment like Promises in Malibu, California, where until last week Britney Spears was tucked away, is openly discussed and in some quarters glamorized as a hip, if costly, refuge for the gilded set.
I was actually really pleased to find this article. I had always wondered why rehab seemed to be so glamorized now days. I'm a sucker for celebrity gossip (although I know its ridiculous) and came across an article about a new star in rehab more often than not. These rehab centers pamper their "patients" with full-out spas, enormous swimming pools, and ocean view, private rooms. Sounds like quite the vacation package. The Times even noted Richard DeGrandpre, the author of "The Cult of Pharmacology" saying, "rehab is a prurient, even envious fascination with celebrity culture, one, in which rehab has become fashionable, almost to the point, ironically, of giving a person status." So true.
Of course, these posh rehab centers are by no means cheap for the everyday "normal" citizens. One-month programs can range anywhere from $25,000 to $80,000, a little more than a high class vacation. These centers give out the essence of a luxurious holiday getaway to the rich and famous. US Weekly even published a feature laid out like a glossy travel brochure, portraying treatment as something akin to a visit to a five-star hotel.
William Cope Moyers, the vice president for external affairs at Hazelden in Center City, MN stated that addiction does not discriminate. It is a disease that doesn't care whether you are glamours or glory. These centers maybe shouldn't either. The Hard Rock resort in Las Vegas offers a series of "rehab nights" of poolside drinking and carousing, and is among a number of businesses promoting the concept of rehab as an alternately laid back and stimulating retreat for the middle class.
I find it unethical that these centers are turning rehab into something that if someone isn't going to rehab, maybe they aren't so interesting. Rehab shouldn't be a profile raiser or something to be proud of. Drug and alcohol addiction is something that cannot be taken lightly, which is exactly what these centers are making it become.
Of course, I am not implying that rehab centers should be something equivalent to a shack alongside the road. They deserve to be on the nicer side, however, they can't be inviting and something guests want to come back to. Rehab isn't supposed to be a "come back and see us again" kind of place. Places like Passions or Promises even have names that imply something someone wants to return to. I believe in the face of ethics, these centers need a face lift (or a face down) and be restored as something necessary for those who are addicted to harmful drugs or alcohol, and they don't want that shared with the world.
Article by: RUTH LA FERLA
"Child Wants Cellphone; Reception is Mixed" (3/29/07 p. E1)
It's official: our society has spun out of control.
What is it this time? Kids are getting cellphones at the age of 6, 7 or 8!! Are you kidding me?
I stumbled across this article in the weekly Thursday styles of the New York Times. Sometimes the "E Section" has some pretty interesting stuff, but I've never really found an ethical issue. It just so happens I found two in this particular issue.
The article is about how kids are starting to get cellphones as young as the age of 6. Before I go in to the article, take a minute to think how old you were (assuming most of the adult community has cellphones) when you got your first mobile phone. I was 16. My parents said I was old enough to have one now that I would be driving. However, I was responsible for paying the bill and keeping track of my minutes, making sure I didn't go over.
Anyway, the article started out flabbergasting me. Hannah Stacks, a third grader, started bugging her parents for a cellphone at age 6. First of all, who was she going to call? She never stopped bugging her parents until she finally got a mobile phone at the age of 8, as a reward for not being mean to her little sister for 30 days. OK, wait a minute, when I was 8 and my little sister was 6, A) I don't think I could go 30 days without picking on her, even if there was a reward involved, and B) IF I would have accomplished such a task, I would probably have been given $3 and a half hour later bedtime for a Friday night. Whoopie. I can't even fathom being given a cellphone when I was that young!
According to The Times, cellphones are quickly emerging as the must-have techno-toy among elementary-school society. One of the most popular kinds of phones is called the Firefly. The Firefly features only five keys, including ones with icons for speed-dialing a parent, and allows users to call a maximum of 22 numbers. Great (cough, cough.)
Some 6.6 million of the 20 million American children in the age range of 8 to 12 had cellphones by the end of 2006, according to an analysis by the Yankee Group, a technology consulting firm in Boston, which thinks there will be 10.5 million preteen cellphone users by 2010. Is this really even ethical, or necessary for that matter? Who are these kids going to call, other than their parents? I remember how exciting it was to have the house phone ring and it be one of my friends for me. What was wrong with that? Nothing! The Yankee Group estimates the number of 8-year-olds with cellphones more than doubled to 506,000 over the past four years, while the number of 9-year-olds jumped to 1.25 million from 501,000. These numbers are astonishing to me. I remember when I was 8 or 9 I was excited if my Barbie dolls got a fake phone. I can also remember that maybe one or two of my friends was even allowed their own phone (hooked up to their house's main line) in their room. It was just unheard of.
The article pointed out that children want cellphones for obvious reasons: to look cool and be mature. In my mind, it is unethical for parents to give in to that. There are other reasons kids at the age of 8 or 9 can look cool. Bring money for hot lunch instead of in a lunch box is what I did to get the "cool, mature look."
The flip side to my argument is also stated in the article. Some say that the phones are an electronic security blanket (parents can monitor incoming and outgoing calls) in a world of two-career households, and split custody arrangements, Amber alerts, and terror levels. Excuse me, but all of this was happening when I was this age, we always arranged where I'd be after school and who I'd be with before starting the day. And as for Amber alerts, kids can get abducted whether they have a cellphone or not.
The Times also noted schools are seeing a change in cellphone use. Teachers are sending more and more students to the Principal's office for finding them using a cellphone instead of paying attention in class. One parent even noted in the article that her son would call her during lunch and math class. Isn't that something that should concern the parent?
The only thing I find appealing about the phones is that they feature a global-positioning satellite device so that parents can locate the phone, and presumably the child, from another phone or a Web site. Ok, I'll give in. This aspect of the cellphone is a good idea, but these kids are still too young.
My whole reasoning is that this articles falls under an ethical issue is that kids need to stay kids as long as possible. Kids have their whole lives to be grown up and mature. The preteen years need to be valued more than collapsing in to giving kids cellphones.
**Other brands of cellphones made for kids:
Article by: LISA W. FODERARO
What is it this time? Kids are getting cellphones at the age of 6, 7 or 8!! Are you kidding me?
I stumbled across this article in the weekly Thursday styles of the New York Times. Sometimes the "E Section" has some pretty interesting stuff, but I've never really found an ethical issue. It just so happens I found two in this particular issue.
The article is about how kids are starting to get cellphones as young as the age of 6. Before I go in to the article, take a minute to think how old you were (assuming most of the adult community has cellphones) when you got your first mobile phone. I was 16. My parents said I was old enough to have one now that I would be driving. However, I was responsible for paying the bill and keeping track of my minutes, making sure I didn't go over.
Anyway, the article started out flabbergasting me. Hannah Stacks, a third grader, started bugging her parents for a cellphone at age 6. First of all, who was she going to call? She never stopped bugging her parents until she finally got a mobile phone at the age of 8, as a reward for not being mean to her little sister for 30 days. OK, wait a minute, when I was 8 and my little sister was 6, A) I don't think I could go 30 days without picking on her, even if there was a reward involved, and B) IF I would have accomplished such a task, I would probably have been given $3 and a half hour later bedtime for a Friday night. Whoopie. I can't even fathom being given a cellphone when I was that young!
According to The Times, cellphones are quickly emerging as the must-have techno-toy among elementary-school society. One of the most popular kinds of phones is called the Firefly. The Firefly features only five keys, including ones with icons for speed-dialing a parent, and allows users to call a maximum of 22 numbers. Great (cough, cough.)
Some 6.6 million of the 20 million American children in the age range of 8 to 12 had cellphones by the end of 2006, according to an analysis by the Yankee Group, a technology consulting firm in Boston, which thinks there will be 10.5 million preteen cellphone users by 2010. Is this really even ethical, or necessary for that matter? Who are these kids going to call, other than their parents? I remember how exciting it was to have the house phone ring and it be one of my friends for me. What was wrong with that? Nothing! The Yankee Group estimates the number of 8-year-olds with cellphones more than doubled to 506,000 over the past four years, while the number of 9-year-olds jumped to 1.25 million from 501,000. These numbers are astonishing to me. I remember when I was 8 or 9 I was excited if my Barbie dolls got a fake phone. I can also remember that maybe one or two of my friends was even allowed their own phone (hooked up to their house's main line) in their room. It was just unheard of.
The article pointed out that children want cellphones for obvious reasons: to look cool and be mature. In my mind, it is unethical for parents to give in to that. There are other reasons kids at the age of 8 or 9 can look cool. Bring money for hot lunch instead of in a lunch box is what I did to get the "cool, mature look."
The flip side to my argument is also stated in the article. Some say that the phones are an electronic security blanket (parents can monitor incoming and outgoing calls) in a world of two-career households, and split custody arrangements, Amber alerts, and terror levels. Excuse me, but all of this was happening when I was this age, we always arranged where I'd be after school and who I'd be with before starting the day. And as for Amber alerts, kids can get abducted whether they have a cellphone or not.
The Times also noted schools are seeing a change in cellphone use. Teachers are sending more and more students to the Principal's office for finding them using a cellphone instead of paying attention in class. One parent even noted in the article that her son would call her during lunch and math class. Isn't that something that should concern the parent?
The only thing I find appealing about the phones is that they feature a global-positioning satellite device so that parents can locate the phone, and presumably the child, from another phone or a Web site. Ok, I'll give in. This aspect of the cellphone is a good idea, but these kids are still too young.
My whole reasoning is that this articles falls under an ethical issue is that kids need to stay kids as long as possible. Kids have their whole lives to be grown up and mature. The preteen years need to be valued more than collapsing in to giving kids cellphones.
**Other brands of cellphones made for kids:
Article by: LISA W. FODERARO
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
"Tajik President Outlaws Slavic Endings on Names" (3/28/07 p. A10)
I find it so interesting, sometimes ridiculous how rulers of other countries can come up with laws that would be laughed at in the United States. The following article is something that isn't necessarily unethical to the countries that are adopting these laws, however, from my perspective in the United States, I think how unethical it would be if these laws were adapted here.
The president of Tajikistan announced recently that his country would be removing traces of Soviet influence. As a result he dropped the Slavic "ov" from the end of his surname and that, henceforth, the same must be done for all babies born to Tajik parents. This just seems so unreal to me. 'Ski' is a popular ending to last names in the United States (of course, they descended from another country) imagine George Bush announcing that all last names ending in 'ski' must drop it from their name?
According to The Times, most Tajiks added a Slavic ending to their surname when the country came under Soviet rule early in the last century.
The president, Emomali Rakhmon (formerly Rakhmonov) didn't stop there. He also banned certain school holidays and traditions associated with the Soviet period, including a holiday known as ABC Book Day, when toddlers gather around a circle to read aloud. This of course, seems very unethical to deprive youngsters of such a holiday they most likely look forward to and benefit greatly from when it comes to their budding education.
Rakhmon also ordered that all university students to leave cell phones and cars at home, saying they distracted from academic study. As an American university student, I know that such a law like that on our soil wouldn't even begin to be taken seriously.
The article touched on a Tajik citizen's point of view. Shamsiyna Ofaridyeza said she was more supportive of the ban on students driving cars and using cell phones. "Students are not studying," she said. "They are too busy sitting on their chars showing off. But you know, we are a democratic people, and everyone should be able to name his baby what he wants."
All I know is, I'm proud to be an American where my last name is what it is and I can talk on my cell phone all I want. This article just made me realize how different our ethics and cultures really are.
Article by: Ilan Greenberg
The president of Tajikistan announced recently that his country would be removing traces of Soviet influence. As a result he dropped the Slavic "ov" from the end of his surname and that, henceforth, the same must be done for all babies born to Tajik parents. This just seems so unreal to me. 'Ski' is a popular ending to last names in the United States (of course, they descended from another country) imagine George Bush announcing that all last names ending in 'ski' must drop it from their name?
According to The Times, most Tajiks added a Slavic ending to their surname when the country came under Soviet rule early in the last century.
The president, Emomali Rakhmon (formerly Rakhmonov) didn't stop there. He also banned certain school holidays and traditions associated with the Soviet period, including a holiday known as ABC Book Day, when toddlers gather around a circle to read aloud. This of course, seems very unethical to deprive youngsters of such a holiday they most likely look forward to and benefit greatly from when it comes to their budding education.
Rakhmon also ordered that all university students to leave cell phones and cars at home, saying they distracted from academic study. As an American university student, I know that such a law like that on our soil wouldn't even begin to be taken seriously.
The article touched on a Tajik citizen's point of view. Shamsiyna Ofaridyeza said she was more supportive of the ban on students driving cars and using cell phones. "Students are not studying," she said. "They are too busy sitting on their chars showing off. But you know, we are a democratic people, and everyone should be able to name his baby what he wants."
All I know is, I'm proud to be an American where my last name is what it is and I can talk on my cell phone all I want. This article just made me realize how different our ethics and cultures really are.
Article by: Ilan Greenberg
"Back From the Dead, Teenager Casts Light on Shadowy Game" (3/28/07 p. A1)
The only reason I know what the "pass out game" is, is because I tragically lost a friend to this ridiculous behavior. I haven't heard of it again, until just reading about it on the front page of the New York Times. Reading about it brought back the memories of losing Dan, and I realized I sometimes forget how he died. Why isn't this more publicly discussed? Apparently The Times feels the same way.
Levi Draher is the "main character" of this article. He was playing the pass out game by himself when he passed out faster than he could react and suffered a heart attack. His mother was the one to find her son suspended from a rope off the frame of his bunk bead. Levi, clinically dead, had starved his brain of air for more than three minutes.
Now, Levi, a medical miracle, is speaking out to his peers about his experience and educating people on the subject that remains hush hush in many schools and families. Levi explains that kids are playing this game because it gives them a temporary high and they assume they won't get caught.
According to The Times, asphyxiation games have been around for several years, but hasn't been widely publicized. Teens are seeing seeing the game on the Internet on sites such as http://www.youtube.com/. The game is seriously threatening especially when kids like Levi, or my friend, Dan, are playing it by themselves.
Stephen Wallace, a psychologist and chief executive of Students Against Destructive Decisions claims that as a society we shouldn't be timid in addressing like we have been in the past. This is where the main ethics come into play with this article. Why are people, especially schools avoiding this dangerous issue? Some claim because not only does the game give you a feeling of a "high" sensation, it can also be related to sexual anxiety. The game can be associated with auto erotic practices of masturbation or intercourse and increases orgasms. Either way, this isn't something to be left alone. If teens were more educated about the harmful and possibly fatal risks associated with the game, they may not be doing it as much or at all.
This notion of course, can bring up the argument of drug use. By now, most teens are aware that drugs are harmful and can kill you, however, they use them anyway. Why would this game be anything different? Maybe if the facts were out there, it wouldn't be done as much.
What is suspected is that the game has been around for years and caused more deaths than are realized. Many deaths that may have been in relation to the game may have been ruled as suicides and didn't call for any further investigation. Because of this, medical examiners and other health officials don't know much about the process at all. They have the knowledge that risks include brain damage, medication and physical disfigurement. However, there is still murkiness as to how the brain and body react to such practices.
Mrs. Draher says she had never heard of the game before what happened to Levi. She is now part of a national group called Games Adolescents Shouldn't Play.
People need to pay attention to this growing problem. Schools need to educate students about it. If people are afraid that educating students will put ideas in their heads, they need to realize the amount of teens it would be saving is a far greater number. We're educated about everything else, this needs to be added to the list so more people don't suffer the loss of a friend or loved one like I did.
**I searched on youtube to find some video of the game and sure enough, there were several:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkm_cvQCkY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OTvBISxYh0I
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EVGs_ZAItzw
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tng47LsNWR4
The comments following these videos are something to take note of. Some of them acknowledge the harmful effects of the game, others think it is funny to watch someone pass out. How is that funny? At least those that encourage the people passing out in the video to stop have some common sense.
Article by: KIRK JOHNSON
Levi Draher is the "main character" of this article. He was playing the pass out game by himself when he passed out faster than he could react and suffered a heart attack. His mother was the one to find her son suspended from a rope off the frame of his bunk bead. Levi, clinically dead, had starved his brain of air for more than three minutes.
Now, Levi, a medical miracle, is speaking out to his peers about his experience and educating people on the subject that remains hush hush in many schools and families. Levi explains that kids are playing this game because it gives them a temporary high and they assume they won't get caught.
According to The Times, asphyxiation games have been around for several years, but hasn't been widely publicized. Teens are seeing seeing the game on the Internet on sites such as http://www.youtube.com/. The game is seriously threatening especially when kids like Levi, or my friend, Dan, are playing it by themselves.
Stephen Wallace, a psychologist and chief executive of Students Against Destructive Decisions claims that as a society we shouldn't be timid in addressing like we have been in the past. This is where the main ethics come into play with this article. Why are people, especially schools avoiding this dangerous issue? Some claim because not only does the game give you a feeling of a "high" sensation, it can also be related to sexual anxiety. The game can be associated with auto erotic practices of masturbation or intercourse and increases orgasms. Either way, this isn't something to be left alone. If teens were more educated about the harmful and possibly fatal risks associated with the game, they may not be doing it as much or at all.
This notion of course, can bring up the argument of drug use. By now, most teens are aware that drugs are harmful and can kill you, however, they use them anyway. Why would this game be anything different? Maybe if the facts were out there, it wouldn't be done as much.
What is suspected is that the game has been around for years and caused more deaths than are realized. Many deaths that may have been in relation to the game may have been ruled as suicides and didn't call for any further investigation. Because of this, medical examiners and other health officials don't know much about the process at all. They have the knowledge that risks include brain damage, medication and physical disfigurement. However, there is still murkiness as to how the brain and body react to such practices.
Mrs. Draher says she had never heard of the game before what happened to Levi. She is now part of a national group called Games Adolescents Shouldn't Play.
People need to pay attention to this growing problem. Schools need to educate students about it. If people are afraid that educating students will put ideas in their heads, they need to realize the amount of teens it would be saving is a far greater number. We're educated about everything else, this needs to be added to the list so more people don't suffer the loss of a friend or loved one like I did.
**I searched on youtube to find some video of the game and sure enough, there were several:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkm_cvQCkY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OTvBISxYh0I
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EVGs_ZAItzw
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tng47LsNWR4
The comments following these videos are something to take note of. Some of them acknowledge the harmful effects of the game, others think it is funny to watch someone pass out. How is that funny? At least those that encourage the people passing out in the video to stop have some common sense.
Article by: KIRK JOHNSON
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)