After researching, analyzing and writing our case study, I realized pretty much every decision in life has a tipping point. It's the one that pushes you over the edge to either the "yes" or "no" side. It's that moment when you can't make up your mind that causes you to take a side. Whatever that action, thought, etc was, is the tipping point. And we see and use it every day.
Just a few final comments on Jerry Jones...
What a greedy S.O.B. I have lost ALL respect for him and for the PR staff of the Cowboys. Some of the information we gathered from the Cowboys was horribly written, made no sense, and was ludacris. But, when all else fails, just do like Jerry does:
"I have to buy tickets like everyone else. All I had to do was give up one evening out a week."
What a jerk.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
Corporate Apologies
Wow. What a hiatus. Busy, busy, busy.
Corporate apology. I, personally, believe it is somewhat of a joke. Very rarely does any corporation come straight out and say, "We @#$%ed up, and we're sorry. Here is what we are doing to fix it and make sure that it never happens again." And if they DO come out and say that, it seems to always come with stipulations.
So what is the big deal about owning up to your mistakes? Everyone makes them, right? Do they think the public won't understand that they made a mistake? Or is all about the stakeholders and what benefits THEM the most, as opposed to the community? Does the company value a communitarianism or utilitarianism approach more?
Too many questions. Just own up and accept your wrongdoings. I respect those people who immediately admit to their mistakes and accept guilt a helluva lot more than those who try to deny it.
For example, the steroids issue in baseball. A select handful of players came out and admitted their mistake of using performance-enhancing drugs. Then you have all-stars and potential hall-of-famers (Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, and the list continues...) who repeatedly deny their use despite factual evidence proving their guilt. Why? Why risk it? Jason Giambi came clean as soon as the issue was uncovered and the situation is now behind him and forgotten.
I don't understand why corporations don't just come out and admit to making a mistake. They must be governed by men. Gotta love that male ego.
Corporate apology. I, personally, believe it is somewhat of a joke. Very rarely does any corporation come straight out and say, "We @#$%ed up, and we're sorry. Here is what we are doing to fix it and make sure that it never happens again." And if they DO come out and say that, it seems to always come with stipulations.
So what is the big deal about owning up to your mistakes? Everyone makes them, right? Do they think the public won't understand that they made a mistake? Or is all about the stakeholders and what benefits THEM the most, as opposed to the community? Does the company value a communitarianism or utilitarianism approach more?
Too many questions. Just own up and accept your wrongdoings. I respect those people who immediately admit to their mistakes and accept guilt a helluva lot more than those who try to deny it.
For example, the steroids issue in baseball. A select handful of players came out and admitted their mistake of using performance-enhancing drugs. Then you have all-stars and potential hall-of-famers (Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, and the list continues...) who repeatedly deny their use despite factual evidence proving their guilt. Why? Why risk it? Jason Giambi came clean as soon as the issue was uncovered and the situation is now behind him and forgotten.
I don't understand why corporations don't just come out and admit to making a mistake. They must be governed by men. Gotta love that male ego.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Stars' March showers bringing April playoff flowers?
This is just something I wrote for my current 4460 assignment for Wells' class. I know this won't count as an actual post for THIS class, just wanted to get it up online somewhere. I'd love some feedback anyone!!! Thanks!
-----------------------
In mid-February, the Dallas Stars were in the midst of a franchise record-tying seven game winning streak. The competition underneath the then first-place Stars in the Pacific Division was playing mediocre hockey and the Stars’ grasp on the division title grew tighter and tighter. The Stars were getting players back from injury and seemed to be well on their way to a top seed during the upcoming Stanley Cup playoffs.
Then something changed. Something unexplained happened.
The month of March brought a multitude of questions for the team. Beginning the month by losing eight of nine games erased the work of the magnificent win streak in the month prior. The Stars were losing, not by much, but they were losing. Losses equal zero points in the standings. The rest of the Western Conference was catching up.
The pinnacle of the dismal month was a lackluster home loss against arguably the worst team in the NHL, the Los Angeles Kings. With three minutes remaining in the game, the Stars led 2-1 before surrendering three goals in under two minutes, sealing their fate in a 4-2 loss. The team then had a rare four days off before starting its last road trip of the season--a four-game trip against division rivals San Jose, Anaheim, Los Angeles and Phoenix.
At the time of their home loss to Los Angeles, the Stars were tied for the most games played in the NHL this season. The four-day rest time off seemed to settle some nerves, but the results stayed the same in a 3-2 overtime loss in San Jose. However, with San Jose being one of the hottest teams in the league over the previous month, winning 14 of 16 games, the Stars should’ve felt compelled by earning a desperately needed point.
The second game of the road trip brought forth the same Los Angeles Kings that shocked the Stars in Dallas a week earlier. This time, the Stars were out for redemption. After allowing an early first-period goal, the Stars went on to score the next seven goals of the game, holding the Kings to only 14 shots for the entire game. The Stars had 16 shots during the second period alone, where they scored four times en route to a 7-2 shellacking of the Kings.
Was the tide finally turning? Were the flood gates closing on the Stars’ worst month of the season?
With the hope of a Pacific Division title washed away by the March woes, the Stars toughest test came during the third game of the road trip. The defending Stanley Cup champion Anaheim Ducks were also playing their best hockey coming into the game against the Stars. With, finally, a glimmer of hope that the dark days of March were over, the Stars earned a point by forcing overtime and secured a playoff spot for the 12th time in 14 seasons in Dallas. The contest went to a shootout where the Ducks earned the win by winning the shootout, 2-1.
The disheartening month of March saw the Stars earn only six of a possible 22 points, a 2-7-2 record, while the Stars main divisional competition, the Sharks and Ducks, earned 26 and 16 points respectively, erasing hopes of another division crown.
But the feeling among the team is different now. Much different than it was at the beginning of March. The Stars earned points against the best-playing teams in the league. Hope has returned.
The emergence of April brings the opportunity of a new beginning. The Stars seem to be rebounding and re-emerging as the team that won a franchise record-tying seven consecutive games. But will it be enough to send them on a deep playoff run?
The Stars’ March showers are hopefully the spark that springs April flowers for the playoffs.
-----------------------
In mid-February, the Dallas Stars were in the midst of a franchise record-tying seven game winning streak. The competition underneath the then first-place Stars in the Pacific Division was playing mediocre hockey and the Stars’ grasp on the division title grew tighter and tighter. The Stars were getting players back from injury and seemed to be well on their way to a top seed during the upcoming Stanley Cup playoffs.
Then something changed. Something unexplained happened.
The month of March brought a multitude of questions for the team. Beginning the month by losing eight of nine games erased the work of the magnificent win streak in the month prior. The Stars were losing, not by much, but they were losing. Losses equal zero points in the standings. The rest of the Western Conference was catching up.
The pinnacle of the dismal month was a lackluster home loss against arguably the worst team in the NHL, the Los Angeles Kings. With three minutes remaining in the game, the Stars led 2-1 before surrendering three goals in under two minutes, sealing their fate in a 4-2 loss. The team then had a rare four days off before starting its last road trip of the season--a four-game trip against division rivals San Jose, Anaheim, Los Angeles and Phoenix.
At the time of their home loss to Los Angeles, the Stars were tied for the most games played in the NHL this season. The four-day rest time off seemed to settle some nerves, but the results stayed the same in a 3-2 overtime loss in San Jose. However, with San Jose being one of the hottest teams in the league over the previous month, winning 14 of 16 games, the Stars should’ve felt compelled by earning a desperately needed point.
The second game of the road trip brought forth the same Los Angeles Kings that shocked the Stars in Dallas a week earlier. This time, the Stars were out for redemption. After allowing an early first-period goal, the Stars went on to score the next seven goals of the game, holding the Kings to only 14 shots for the entire game. The Stars had 16 shots during the second period alone, where they scored four times en route to a 7-2 shellacking of the Kings.
Was the tide finally turning? Were the flood gates closing on the Stars’ worst month of the season?
With the hope of a Pacific Division title washed away by the March woes, the Stars toughest test came during the third game of the road trip. The defending Stanley Cup champion Anaheim Ducks were also playing their best hockey coming into the game against the Stars. With, finally, a glimmer of hope that the dark days of March were over, the Stars earned a point by forcing overtime and secured a playoff spot for the 12th time in 14 seasons in Dallas. The contest went to a shootout where the Ducks earned the win by winning the shootout, 2-1.
The disheartening month of March saw the Stars earn only six of a possible 22 points, a 2-7-2 record, while the Stars main divisional competition, the Sharks and Ducks, earned 26 and 16 points respectively, erasing hopes of another division crown.
But the feeling among the team is different now. Much different than it was at the beginning of March. The Stars earned points against the best-playing teams in the league. Hope has returned.
The emergence of April brings the opportunity of a new beginning. The Stars seem to be rebounding and re-emerging as the team that won a franchise record-tying seven consecutive games. But will it be enough to send them on a deep playoff run?
The Stars’ March showers are hopefully the spark that springs April flowers for the playoffs.
Week Number ??!????!?!?!!!?
Wow. I will admit, I forgot to blog. For a few weeks now. So much going on in school right now! Well, I guess I will start with the new book that we are reading: The Tipping Point.
I read the Introduction and Chapter One to discuss in class. I was intrigued by the examples and associations that were presented in the book. A lot of examples of STD's but that seems to be a very important issue today in the U.S. It is a scary thing, so using those as examples is extremely relevant in my opinion.
What I also enjoyed reading about in the first two parts of the book, was to learn about how such a small percentage can cause such a dramatic change, but also the fact that no matter how you determine why a situation "tipped", the justification is never a dramatic one.
I also enjoyed reading about the example of the "Bystander Effect." The book mentioned the story in which a woman was being attacked in the New York City area for more than 30 minutes by her assailant. She tried fending him off outside her apartment as 38 of her neighbors were witnesses. Although so many people saw what happened, not one person called the police. The attacked woman died. The Bystander Effect says the problem is not that 38 people witnessed the attack, but rather the problem is that BECAUSE 38 people saw the attack. The author mentions that if only ONE person had witnessed the attack instead of 38, the woman might have lived.
Pretty interesting stuff. I am excited about the what the remainder of the book will be like.
I read the Introduction and Chapter One to discuss in class. I was intrigued by the examples and associations that were presented in the book. A lot of examples of STD's but that seems to be a very important issue today in the U.S. It is a scary thing, so using those as examples is extremely relevant in my opinion.
What I also enjoyed reading about in the first two parts of the book, was to learn about how such a small percentage can cause such a dramatic change, but also the fact that no matter how you determine why a situation "tipped", the justification is never a dramatic one.
I also enjoyed reading about the example of the "Bystander Effect." The book mentioned the story in which a woman was being attacked in the New York City area for more than 30 minutes by her assailant. She tried fending him off outside her apartment as 38 of her neighbors were witnesses. Although so many people saw what happened, not one person called the police. The attacked woman died. The Bystander Effect says the problem is not that 38 people witnessed the attack, but rather the problem is that BECAUSE 38 people saw the attack. The author mentions that if only ONE person had witnessed the attack instead of 38, the woman might have lived.
Pretty interesting stuff. I am excited about the what the remainder of the book will be like.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Week #9: "Healthy" Water & New Yankees
What a great ethics question for this blog. If you haven't heard, a report came out within the last 48 hours stating that multiple pharmaceuticals have been found in tap water that served over 41 million Americans.
I knew that trace amounts of certain chemicals were placed in tap water for health benefits (ie= fluorine, for teeth) but the pharmaceuticals reportedly found in tap water could have lethal effects if concentrated in higher amounts.
But here lies the real question: the report stated that the names of the present pharmaceuticals would not be released due to security concerns. But shouldn't we know what governmentally-operated facilities are providing to millions of Americans? The report would not even release the names of the 24 metropolitan areas across the nation that were involved in the five-month survey.
So should the investigative body who performed the research release the vital information to the American public? Or should they keep it a secret and insist that we continue "trusting" the facilities to provide us with safe drinking water?
Taken from the story:
"Officials in Arlington, Texas, said pharmaceuticals had been detected in source water but wouldn’t say which ones or in what amounts, citing security concerns. Julie Hunt, director of water utilities, said to provide the public with information regarding 'which, if any, pharmaceuticals or emerging compounds make it through the treatment process can assist someone who wishes to cause harm through the water supply.'”
So, what is the right choice to do?
On a lighter note, I thought this was an interesting story not related to Ethics and Law in PR whatsoever. CLICK HERE.
I knew that trace amounts of certain chemicals were placed in tap water for health benefits (ie= fluorine, for teeth) but the pharmaceuticals reportedly found in tap water could have lethal effects if concentrated in higher amounts.
But here lies the real question: the report stated that the names of the present pharmaceuticals would not be released due to security concerns. But shouldn't we know what governmentally-operated facilities are providing to millions of Americans? The report would not even release the names of the 24 metropolitan areas across the nation that were involved in the five-month survey.
So should the investigative body who performed the research release the vital information to the American public? Or should they keep it a secret and insist that we continue "trusting" the facilities to provide us with safe drinking water?
Taken from the story:
"Officials in Arlington, Texas, said pharmaceuticals had been detected in source water but wouldn’t say which ones or in what amounts, citing security concerns. Julie Hunt, director of water utilities, said to provide the public with information regarding 'which, if any, pharmaceuticals or emerging compounds make it through the treatment process can assist someone who wishes to cause harm through the water supply.'”
So, what is the right choice to do?
On a lighter note, I thought this was an interesting story not related to Ethics and Law in PR whatsoever. CLICK HERE.
Week #8: Resolutions and Quicksand
I shoulda seen this coming. Every semester, the months increasingly speed up towards final exams. It never fails, the semester starts out good, and then the "quicksand effect" kicks in.
You start out doing great. Everything is wonderful. The beginning of every semester is like New Year's Eve with your resolution always being the same: stay on top of the school work; don't fall behind. And like most real NYE resolutions, you start off doing great. But then you fall behind on an assignment in one class. And then another. And before you know it, you're struggling and kicking your feet so hard to try and get back to where you need to be, but you keep falling further behind; like quicksand.
And here I stand. Or, rather, try to stand out of the sand. I fell behind on blogging for this class. My assignments for "Dr. Death" are being started by yours truly later and later in the week. It's Monday night, and I have barely scratched the surface of the PSA assignment due in 15 hours and 26 minutes and counting.
However, with the amazing teacher we have, I can be a little late, as long as I make up for it in another blog. Therefore, the sole purpose this week is a lesson to you all:
It's better late than never. But don't fall into the quicksand.
You start out doing great. Everything is wonderful. The beginning of every semester is like New Year's Eve with your resolution always being the same: stay on top of the school work; don't fall behind. And like most real NYE resolutions, you start off doing great. But then you fall behind on an assignment in one class. And then another. And before you know it, you're struggling and kicking your feet so hard to try and get back to where you need to be, but you keep falling further behind; like quicksand.
And here I stand. Or, rather, try to stand out of the sand. I fell behind on blogging for this class. My assignments for "Dr. Death" are being started by yours truly later and later in the week. It's Monday night, and I have barely scratched the surface of the PSA assignment due in 15 hours and 26 minutes and counting.
However, with the amazing teacher we have, I can be a little late, as long as I make up for it in another blog. Therefore, the sole purpose this week is a lesson to you all:
It's better late than never. But don't fall into the quicksand.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Week #7: Market Street
I'm am at a bit of a loss as far as what to post this week. I enjoyed the visit by Michelle Owens. It sounded like she was very passionate about what she did in her job and that she really enjoyed it.
She also projected a very good, positive image of Market Street. It sounds like a wonderful company to work for. I really hope that my job once I graduate gives me such joy! It is going to be very curious to see how Market Street will compete with bigger stores such as Wal-Mart, Whole Foods, etc. It sounds like they have have a great marketing stretegy in place as well as a good operations plan.
Sorry so short this week, but I'm kind of at a loss for some reason.
She also projected a very good, positive image of Market Street. It sounds like a wonderful company to work for. I really hope that my job once I graduate gives me such joy! It is going to be very curious to see how Market Street will compete with bigger stores such as Wal-Mart, Whole Foods, etc. It sounds like they have have a great marketing stretegy in place as well as a good operations plan.
Sorry so short this week, but I'm kind of at a loss for some reason.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Week #6: Political Advertising
What is up with advertising these days? It seems ridiculously ludacris that political campaign ads can say anything they want...but if I want to go on television and voice my displeasure with someone, I could be hit with more legal issues than Roger Clemens.
I watch my fair share of television, and I must say that I have not seen as much "mudlsinging" ads as I remember in the past. Perhaps it's because it is not down to the wire yet and candidates are only vying for delegates at this point. I really dont know much about the political realm and how it works, but the mudslinging has seemed to be at a minimum thus far.
Regarding the "Daisy" political ad we watched in class on Wednesday, is that considered the mudslinging form of advertising in 1964? Is showing a little girl picking pedals off a daisy in a field when a nuclear bomb explodes nearby too much? Did the ad help or hurt LBJ? Were more votes gained or lost because of it? To view the ad, CLICK HERE.
I watch my fair share of television, and I must say that I have not seen as much "mudlsinging" ads as I remember in the past. Perhaps it's because it is not down to the wire yet and candidates are only vying for delegates at this point. I really dont know much about the political realm and how it works, but the mudslinging has seemed to be at a minimum thus far.
Regarding the "Daisy" political ad we watched in class on Wednesday, is that considered the mudslinging form of advertising in 1964? Is showing a little girl picking pedals off a daisy in a field when a nuclear bomb explodes nearby too much? Did the ad help or hurt LBJ? Were more votes gained or lost because of it? To view the ad, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Week #5: Continued...
I went to Dr. Lambiase's blog and went a few classmates blogs. After briefly reading Katya's, I felt compelled to post again. I couldn't agree more with her blog.
School shootings are becoming too frequent. After the first major case at Columbine High in Littleton, CO stricter measures should have been taken.
Example. 9-11 was the worst attack on U.S. soil in history. Afterwards, you couldn't even take a shampoo bottle onboard an aircraft. Many more steps were taken to ensure safety and many are still in effect today.
After the recent shootings at Virginia Tech and now Northern Illionis, what will the goevernment do to help protect college students? And don't forget the shootings at other public places in recent past: malls, postal offices, office buildings.
Are guns too readily available in the United States? Or do more strict security measures need to be taken at locations where large gatherings of people is a frequent occurrence? Should metal detectors be mandatory at every mall, school, government building, office building, etc? Or is that going too far?
What can and should be done to reclaim the peace of mind that we are safe when we leave our homes?
School shootings are becoming too frequent. After the first major case at Columbine High in Littleton, CO stricter measures should have been taken.
Example. 9-11 was the worst attack on U.S. soil in history. Afterwards, you couldn't even take a shampoo bottle onboard an aircraft. Many more steps were taken to ensure safety and many are still in effect today.
After the recent shootings at Virginia Tech and now Northern Illionis, what will the goevernment do to help protect college students? And don't forget the shootings at other public places in recent past: malls, postal offices, office buildings.
Are guns too readily available in the United States? Or do more strict security measures need to be taken at locations where large gatherings of people is a frequent occurrence? Should metal detectors be mandatory at every mall, school, government building, office building, etc? Or is that going too far?
What can and should be done to reclaim the peace of mind that we are safe when we leave our homes?
Friday, February 15, 2008
Week #5: Whew! Almost Missed It!
Hmm... I often wonder where the time goes. As I sit here about to leave the confines of my apartment and venture into the blustery cold, I almost missed posting a blog this week! Where does the time go?!?
As we wrapped up 'Cosmopolitanism' (and not a moment too soon, I might add) I am wondering how someone arrives at the philosophical and sociological mindframe that Appiah presented himself as in his text. I just can't do it. Although I understand (most of) what he is saying, I cannot fathom putting myself into that state of mind to write such deep and opinionative statements.
But give Appiah credit. Some of what he said is not easy to say. It took a lot of guts and pride to hang himself and his views out there on the line like he did. I have to admit, I did not enjoy reading 'Cosmopolitanism,' but I think it's healthy for us (humans) to experience someone's point of view on how the world should "operate" every once in a while. It keeps us in check. Even though I did not enjoy reading the text, I think more about others now. And more about utilitarianism vs. cosmopolitanism. Which idea is best? IS there a best?
I DO hope Gower's text is a little more enjoyable for me, but I hope the excitement of reading philosophical claims remains. I guess we'll find out! And now I guess we'll discover just how cold and miserable it really is outside.
As we wrapped up 'Cosmopolitanism' (and not a moment too soon, I might add) I am wondering how someone arrives at the philosophical and sociological mindframe that Appiah presented himself as in his text. I just can't do it. Although I understand (most of) what he is saying, I cannot fathom putting myself into that state of mind to write such deep and opinionative statements.
But give Appiah credit. Some of what he said is not easy to say. It took a lot of guts and pride to hang himself and his views out there on the line like he did. I have to admit, I did not enjoy reading 'Cosmopolitanism,' but I think it's healthy for us (humans) to experience someone's point of view on how the world should "operate" every once in a while. It keeps us in check. Even though I did not enjoy reading the text, I think more about others now. And more about utilitarianism vs. cosmopolitanism. Which idea is best? IS there a best?
I DO hope Gower's text is a little more enjoyable for me, but I hope the excitement of reading philosophical claims remains. I guess we'll find out! And now I guess we'll discover just how cold and miserable it really is outside.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Week #4: Case Studies Revisited
In light of our class on Wednesday and the Dallas Cowboys case study we covered, I feel compelled to continue that discussion here.
As I said in class, I think the Cowboys organization approached this is the completely wrong way. By not saying anything (and not only that, they were refusing to comment on the issue) and not offering the public any information, in my opinion, that only created more doubt and controversy and brought more media attention to the situation than had they offered even just a tiny tid-bit of information regarding the incident.
When it comes to public figures and entities, the public wants information. The media do not tell the public what to think, but they do tell them what to think about. The public also wants simplicity.
I make reference here to one of the most famous felony jury cases in history, the O.J. Simpson case. The amount of evidence in that case was overwhelmingly in favor of the prosecution, however, their misguided and unplanned delieverance of the evidence to the jury caused the jury to misinterpret the importance of that evidence; the jury saw a detailed, in-depth presentation on too many factors to connect together. The prosecution needed a simple, thought-out process to present and the case may have been decided in a different manner. During a trial, a jury's sole purpose is to determine if the evidence presented proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendent is guilty. If there is any uncertainty, it is the jury's obligation to not indict him or her. In the O.J. Simpson case, the prosecution did not present their overwhelming evidence to the jury in a manner that would prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Same situation applies within the Dallas Cowboys incident, except in the reverse order. If the Cowboys (who are the best-known American football team in the world) would have offered a tiny amount of information in a simple and controlled manner, the situation would have been over then and there. Press coverage would have lasted one day. Instead, information was still coming out years later.
An example I brought up in class was the Dallas Stars organization earlier this season. Due to the fact that this is published and open for the world to see, I will not reiterate what I said about the Stars news release. However, to read the official news release from the Stars organization, CLICK HERE.
As I said in class, I think the Cowboys organization approached this is the completely wrong way. By not saying anything (and not only that, they were refusing to comment on the issue) and not offering the public any information, in my opinion, that only created more doubt and controversy and brought more media attention to the situation than had they offered even just a tiny tid-bit of information regarding the incident.
When it comes to public figures and entities, the public wants information. The media do not tell the public what to think, but they do tell them what to think about. The public also wants simplicity.
I make reference here to one of the most famous felony jury cases in history, the O.J. Simpson case. The amount of evidence in that case was overwhelmingly in favor of the prosecution, however, their misguided and unplanned delieverance of the evidence to the jury caused the jury to misinterpret the importance of that evidence; the jury saw a detailed, in-depth presentation on too many factors to connect together. The prosecution needed a simple, thought-out process to present and the case may have been decided in a different manner. During a trial, a jury's sole purpose is to determine if the evidence presented proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendent is guilty. If there is any uncertainty, it is the jury's obligation to not indict him or her. In the O.J. Simpson case, the prosecution did not present their overwhelming evidence to the jury in a manner that would prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Same situation applies within the Dallas Cowboys incident, except in the reverse order. If the Cowboys (who are the best-known American football team in the world) would have offered a tiny amount of information in a simple and controlled manner, the situation would have been over then and there. Press coverage would have lasted one day. Instead, information was still coming out years later.
An example I brought up in class was the Dallas Stars organization earlier this season. Due to the fact that this is published and open for the world to see, I will not reiterate what I said about the Stars news release. However, to read the official news release from the Stars organization, CLICK HERE.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Week #3: Ethics and Case Studies
After being in class and hearing about what case studies really are, I am very excited to begin one. To examine and understand why things happen they way they do is very interesting.
The Exxon oil spill in the Prince William Sound is extraordinary. I had no idea that to this day, promised recovery efforts have still not been implemented. Wildlife has not returned to the area. Many business collapsed and were promised assistance, only to never receive it. And now Exxon Mobil is making record amounts of profit each year because the gasoline industry is holding all consumers at ransom. How is it that the largest oil company in the world (Exxon Mobil) is recording billions of dollars of profits each year?
On Jan. 30, 2006, MSNBC.com reported that Exxon Mobil had achieved total profits in 2005 of $36.13 billion. Driving prices up on consumers to line their own pockets.
All this after what happened in Prince William Sound? And to this day, legal battles are still ensuing.
I am with Dr. Lambaise on this one. I won't buy gas there anymore. The oil and gas industry seems to be more despicable than the Enron scandal.
All the excuses and justifications of "the price of crude oil has gone up," and "oil producers are cutting production which, in turn, drives up prices" are ridiculous and insane.
I need to learn to rollerblade and ride my bike everywhere...
The Exxon oil spill in the Prince William Sound is extraordinary. I had no idea that to this day, promised recovery efforts have still not been implemented. Wildlife has not returned to the area. Many business collapsed and were promised assistance, only to never receive it. And now Exxon Mobil is making record amounts of profit each year because the gasoline industry is holding all consumers at ransom. How is it that the largest oil company in the world (Exxon Mobil) is recording billions of dollars of profits each year?
On Jan. 30, 2006, MSNBC.com reported that Exxon Mobil had achieved total profits in 2005 of $36.13 billion. Driving prices up on consumers to line their own pockets.
All this after what happened in Prince William Sound? And to this day, legal battles are still ensuing.
I am with Dr. Lambaise on this one. I won't buy gas there anymore. The oil and gas industry seems to be more despicable than the Enron scandal.
All the excuses and justifications of "the price of crude oil has gone up," and "oil producers are cutting production which, in turn, drives up prices" are ridiculous and insane.
I need to learn to rollerblade and ride my bike everywhere...
Friday, January 25, 2008
Week #2: Cosmopoli-what-ism?!?
Well, as I embark on my second post for the semester, I find myself a little dumbfounded at the ascendancy this book has over my suddenly shaken reading skills.
I am reading chapter 3 this weekend but I have to admit, it may be a little difficult without the knowledge of chapters 1 and 2. My eyes have seen every word in those two chapters, however my brain decided to not remain on the comprehension side of that equation. I find myself frequenting Webster's compilation some with words such as: loquacious, interlocutor, and voracious.
I did, however, find a few parts of the first few pages of this anarchic mess insightful.
Page 8 was the first that really caught my attention and I'm sure gave me that "wow, he just discovered something amazing" look. Here is what I read:
"...its image of the shattered mirror--each shard of which reflects one part of a complex truth from its own particular angle--seems to express exactly the conclusion of Burton's long exposure to the philosophies and the customs of many people and places: you will find parts of the truth (along with much error) everywhere and the whole truth nowhere. The deepest mistake, he supposed, is to think that your little shard of mirror can reflect the whole."
What a statement. What a theory to ponder. Everyone is going to see things differently. No one will ever discover a full truth. Everyone believes something different. The truth is not just one thing. It is a compilation of beliefs from every side of the earth and every culture. Assuming that your tiny part of the shattered mirror is THE one truth is nothing more than a wasted thought.
I am reading chapter 3 this weekend but I have to admit, it may be a little difficult without the knowledge of chapters 1 and 2. My eyes have seen every word in those two chapters, however my brain decided to not remain on the comprehension side of that equation. I find myself frequenting Webster's compilation some with words such as: loquacious, interlocutor, and voracious.
I did, however, find a few parts of the first few pages of this anarchic mess insightful.
Page 8 was the first that really caught my attention and I'm sure gave me that "wow, he just discovered something amazing" look. Here is what I read:
"...its image of the shattered mirror--each shard of which reflects one part of a complex truth from its own particular angle--seems to express exactly the conclusion of Burton's long exposure to the philosophies and the customs of many people and places: you will find parts of the truth (along with much error) everywhere and the whole truth nowhere. The deepest mistake, he supposed, is to think that your little shard of mirror can reflect the whole."
What a statement. What a theory to ponder. Everyone is going to see things differently. No one will ever discover a full truth. Everyone believes something different. The truth is not just one thing. It is a compilation of beliefs from every side of the earth and every culture. Assuming that your tiny part of the shattered mirror is THE one truth is nothing more than a wasted thought.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Week #1
After reading the article posted on Dr. Lambiase's blog regarding the current Roger Clemens scandal, I feel as if he is trying to rectify the situation in the wrong way. The media have so much power in our nation (especially with high-profile celebrities) that overexposure in the media is often misconstrued by the public as desperate measures for forgiveness without accepting guilt.
As far as how I believe my own personal beliefs will affect my decisions, I believe that my own morals and faith will protect me and guide me through any difficult ethical decisions. I stand by my morals and the way I was "brought up" by my parents and elders. I believe any person who trusts and believes in themselves as a human being can not go wrong in any decision, as long as the decision is based on and supported by that person's morals and norms.
As far as how I believe my own personal beliefs will affect my decisions, I believe that my own morals and faith will protect me and guide me through any difficult ethical decisions. I stand by my morals and the way I was "brought up" by my parents and elders. I believe any person who trusts and believes in themselves as a human being can not go wrong in any decision, as long as the decision is based on and supported by that person's morals and norms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
