Same sex Marriage

Same Sex

The article is about the bill for same sex marriage being shot down in the NY senator debate.

This article makes me very happy because it denied gays and lesbians the right to be joined together in wedlock. I dont mean to get religious but seeing that most of our moral beliefs are based off what we believe religiously i feel i can relate this one to religion.

Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman. so if that is the definition of marriage then how can we allow man and man and woman and woman to be joined together in wedlock? It is not possible. One of the reason why the bill wasnt passed was because of the definition of marriage.

what are your thoughts on same sex marriage? mine is NO!

Tiger woods and his crash

<http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/11/29/tiger.woods/index.html>

This is in Tiger’s rights not to comment about what happened because this violates one of the amendments.  This is something that the press are going to have to respect because Woods should keep his family problems out of the press because this is not fair on their family because they are only in the limelight because it involves Tiger Woods .  This is a story that everyone will want to know what happened because he is a role model but if the public know what happened then i think he will loose a lot of respect because when you marry someone you marry them for sickness and in health until death do us part.  This means that you are linked to that person and that know one else shoulf be involved at all.

On the other hand, Tiger Woods should not have cheated on his wife because this is morally wrong.  He has two children with his wife and should be committed to golf and his family.  Woods is completely wrong and has been completely against the moral views.  I feel that if he can not be ethical to his wife then the story should get out to the public so they see what an idiot he has been because too many people look up to what he has done and he does not even deserve this respect.

Do you think he deserves the press to leave them alone?

Ethics and steroids

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/steriods-ethics.html

The use of sport and steroids should not mix together.  Steroids help the athletes to get bigger muscles which will make them faster and stronger.  This is a form of cheating and is illegal if the athletes get caught there will be serious consequences.  This is something that is wrong and athlete’s will take out this drug because they feel that it wil help them win and when an athlete trains as hard as they do they will do anything to be the best.  They will try to do whatever they can.  This is not ethical and this is cheating.  The athlete should really not take part in this drug because this is nt fair and creates a competitive advantage so that when they win it is not their real body doing this so they can not really say that they came first because they were on drugs where the other athletes were doing this in the right way.

On the other hand if someone can take steroids and not get caught then why not.  The athlete is not hurting anyone else because all athletes could take drugs and not get caught.  If there was no way that anyone will get caught then this act would happen all the time because the athletes would want to do it to get stronger and win more medals because this will get them recognition and more money.  The decision is if they can live with themselves knowing that they cheated to win the medal in the first place!

Would you be able to take steroids knowing that you are cheating?

Another Titan Takes a Tumble

This article talks about the investagation of Maurice Greenberg who was the founder and former CEO of AIG one of the largest global insurance firms. Probes by the SEC and N.Y. attorney general Elliot Sitzer into the companies accunting practices enticed the firm to ask Greenberg to step down.

The aurthor makes the point that investors desire more transparancy and disclosure when it comes to accounting procedures. In this article it is not clear weather the SEC and  N.Y attorney general were using Greenberg to make a point to other firms that shady accounting procedures will no longer be tolerated. What the author does not discuss is the need to take away subjectivity in the accounting rules. I believe every firm should have to establish an accounting procedure based on the rules established by law and adhere to their established procedure, which would make it less likely that they could hide losses.  I believe more government intervention in terms of rules for accounting procedures are needed this rules should not be subjective in nature but straight formard. So their will not be a big mystery if it was illegal to do that; or should have they disclosed this.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1039740,00.html

New CEO an outsider?

GM board looks to the outside for replacement CEO

An ethical question that I have always wondered is how is it morally right to make someone a CEO that has no previous dealings with the company? I can understand if the circumstances of large executive fraud that they look elsewhere but otherwise it does seem sufficient. People poor their lives into the company rising from their entry position to upper management and when they believe that it is their turn they are mistaken. The outsiders do not know the organizational culture of the company, the people who work for it personally, or how day-to-day operations work. They have shown no previous dedication to the firm and are all of a sudden at the highest most powerful position in the entire company. Any comments on this topic?

Obama White House changes policies to block future gate-crashers

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/12/obama-white-house-changes-policies-to-block-future-gate-crashers/1

There has been new events happen as a result of the White House “party crashing” i blogged about yesterday. The White House will now have staff at all chekcpoints for all future events. The White House deputy chief of staff released a statement saying that the secret service is ultimately responsible for White House security however the White House staff did not do everything they could to help the officers the night of the “crashing”.

Does anyone else think that it is a little odd that the Secret Service couldnt not prevent two people from crashing a White House party. Arent they suppose to be the “best of the best”. The entire purpose of the Secret Service is to make sure the President of the United States is safe at all times.  I do not feel that the White House staff should have to take extra precausions to make up for the short comings of the Secret Service.

Am i the only one who thinks that it is crazy that the Secret Service needs help? Why doesnt the White House just employ more Secret Service agents. They are the ones that are suppose to be specially trained.

Please let me know your opinions on the matter.

Justices debate rights of beachfront land owners

Today the supreme court met to discuss the issue of private beachfront property owners rights to the beach. The discussion was over the matter if owners of private waterfront property were unfairly deprived title to land that touches the ocean.

Florida officials said that when they deposited tons of new sand on eroding shorelines, the replenished land became government property. Which actually became a strip of public beach between the owners property and the ocean. The property owners have argued that they pay more for waterfront property so that they have their own private land.

I think that it is absolutely bogus for the government to think that they can take these people land that they paid for becuase they dumped a little bit of sand on the beach and called it their own.  I dont understand how that in anyway seems like a justafiable argument. I think it is just the government weasling their way into some free land. This is a complete abuse of power.

Let me know what you think on the matter.

Buffalo-Area Businesses Pay the Price for Bills’ Trip

The Buffalo Bills of the NFL have agreed to play 8 home games over the next 5 seasons in Toronto, Canada. Now at first glance you would not think of this as a big deal. Its only eight games over 5 years. However, local business in Buffalo make up to 70% of there monthly sales on Buffalo Bills game days. By taking these 8 games away from Buffalo they are greatly hurting the local business owners.

The Bills decision to play these games in Toronto was only logical. Rogers Communications, which is the largest wireless company in Canada and owner of the Rogers Centre paid the bills $78 million to play these games in city of Toronto. That price is twice what the teams operating income was last year. The Buffalo Bills play in a very small television market, actually its close to the smallest in the league. So they have to do something to ensure income so that they can stay in Buffalo.

I know that this is hurting the city of Buffalo, which is already hurting from the recession. The city has already had to dill  with the closing of still mills and car plants. But i do believe that it is necessary for the Bills to do if they want to remain in Buffalo. If they do not do this they might not be able to continue operation.

What is your opinion on the matter? Do the Bills need to keep it in Buffalo to help local business or do they need to play these games in order to keep themselves afloat?

Tiger Woods’ ‘transgressions’ having no effect on his endorsements

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/12/02/2009-12-02_nike_gillette_and_others_stand_by_.html

Tiger Woods has recently been caught up in a crazy love triangle that has many people questioning the golf superstar’s credibility. His sponsors however are not asking the same questions. Out of Tigers $117 million he made last year only $7.7 of it came from actually playing golf. It seems that Tigers sponsors need him more than he needs them though. Tiger is the lead spokesperson for the majority of his endorsements. He is the sole reason that Nike is the leading golf apparral producer, and he also can be seen in just about every airport in America for his ads for Accenture.

So what does this say about corporate America? I believe that it says that there is no room for morality in business. This is a man who has allegedly cheated on his wife with three different woman and companies such as Nike, Gatorade, and Gillette have expressed there full support for Tiger and his “family”. I dont think that Tigers family has any kind of support in the matter. These businesses are just looking out for their wallets rather than their image. I just do not think that releasing public announcements that they are in full support of Tiger gives off the best message for these companies.

Please let me know your opinion on the matter. Im very interested to hear others opinions.

Google Deals With Racism

Google is among the top search engines being used on the internet.  It has even been recently added to the dictionary as a verb, just “google” it.  With such get success comes many problems.  Google plays a role as a neutral tool for searching the web.  Many different images pop up when searched, some good and some bad.  There is a very complex method, which uses over 200 different factor, used to analyze which article or image is pulled up when searched.  A term “google bombing” is a n orchestrated effort by search engine users to force a specific result. 

More money more problems…Goole controls over 2/3 the market of search engines on the internet.  One problem they face today is racism.  A racist photo of Michelle Obama appeared among the top searches for “Michelle Obama”.  Because Google plays a neutral role they must keep the photo one the web but have taken step to prevent this kind of discrimination.  They have revised their algorithm to provide more relevant search results.  In recent years a new service has been developed for online companies to help manage their result on the web.  They attempt to exploit the good and hide the bad.  It is about to be 2010 and discrimination and racism is still an everyday problem faced in society(SAD).  Even though google can not physically remove any negative ads they do a great job of filtering the bad and promoting the good. 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/12/02/google.search.obama/index.html