A Long History of Affirmative Action – For Whites

A Long History of Affirmative Action – For Whites

The article linked above gives a brief history of affirmative action for whites. It explains how what we don’t readily acknowledge is that racial preferences have a long, institutional history in this country – a white history. Here are a few ways in which government programs and practices have channeled wealth and opportunities to white people at the expense of others. Then the article goes on to say that white Americans were also given a head start with the help of the U.S. Army. The 1830 Indian Removal Act, for example, forcibly relocated Cherokee, Creeks and other eastern Indians to west of the Mississippi River to make room for white settlers. Next on the time line is how The 1790 Naturalization Act permitted only “free white persons” to become naturalized citizens, thus opening the doors to European immigrants but not others. The article goes on to detail history of slavery and the Sherman act. Then the article talks the position that white people will always have advantages over minorities in every aspect of business, and how this is depicted in the wages of minorities including women today compared to white men.

I think this article is right point. The fact that white men have an advantage is seen in everyday situations. Take a simple example of a white man claiming a cashier shorted him on some change and she automatically apologizes and gives him the change. But if a black man did the same thing there would be some second guessing going on. This is similar to a minority applying for the same job a white man would and not getting the job even though they are more qualified. Business may not do this intentionally but some of those hiring managers have a preconceived notion about minorities and therefore will hire a white man. I think this notion will always be around no matter what. It is not conceivable to think that from now on every generation will have a better perception of races and genders. There will always be a few bad apples on the bunch that ruins it for everyone. But that is how it is and hard as it is to accept it we have to roll with the punches and take what we can get.

Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to customers?

Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to customers?

The article above describes how direct to consumer prescription drug advertisements are regulated by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They are supposed ensure that they are not false or misleading. Many research organizations and industry groups claim that the ads are educational and play a central role in providing a number of benefits to consumers. Others argue that these drug ads are nothing but sales pitches. They argue that drug companies are unconcerned with benefiting consumers or their health, and that the FDA does an inadequate job of making sure the ads are not false or misleading. One pro for the issue stands at “prescription drug advertisements inform consumers about potential medical conditions they may have and about drugs that could help treat those conditions. A consumer better informed about medical issues is more likely to contact his/her doctor to discuss the condition or related drugs. These ads therefore provide a helpful public health service.” On the other side a con for the issue stand at “direct to consumer prescription drug ads, like most advertisements, are intended to sell the product being advertised. Such ads use marketing tactics that manipulate, create false impressions, and otherwise mislead consumers instead of educating them about the drugs.”

My stance on the issue would have to be on the opposing side. I think that doctors should give their patients advice on what to take or what not to take tailored directly for each individual. Today advertisements can portray a desirable perception of a drug through using celebrity endorsements and many other advertising “tricks” leading people to take the drug simply on those bases and against their doctors advise. In this case if someone sees a commercial or ad for a drug and the graphics, music, people etc. catch their eye they get it in their head that they should take this drug to become more like the advertisement. I have even seen some commercials where one month they are advertising all the benefits of taking the drug and then the next month there is a law firm ad saying if “you have experienced such and such symptoms from taking this drug than call now you may be entitled…” today drugs, just like any other product has patens on them and as soon as that paten is about to expire leaving room for generic brands to take over, they start to advertise for people to take these drugs. They lead people to believe that they need them when in fact they do not. I don’t think drugs should be advertised to customers but only to doctors. Everyone has different reactions to medications and who better to know how a person will react than their doctor. What do you think? Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to customers or just to doctors?

Ethics of Smoking in Restaurants

Restaurants prepped for smoke-free

The article linked above talks about how North Carolina states are starting to receive kits to get ready for the no smoking law for bars and restaurants. This law is going to be enforced on January 2nd. State lawmakers say expensive evidence indicates secondhand smoke is dangerous to nonsmokers, and is a public health hazard. The new law says secondhand smoke has been proven to cause cancer, heart disease, and asthma attacks in both smokers and nonsmokers. The article then goes on to state that the county Health Department sent letters dated Oct. 32 to 265 restaurants, bars and lodging establishments informing them of the laws restrictions: any establishment the Health Department inspects for sanitation an any bar that is a state permit authorizing to sell alcohol cannot allow smoking inside. The article then goes on to quote some effected customers, owners, and managers of these establishments.
I think that it should be up to the restaurants whether or not smoking should be permitted inside. Yes, it is hazardous to the health of smokers and nonsmokers but it us up to the people affected by the smoke to choose whether or not to go to restaurants that permit smoking. It is no secret that smoking and second hand smoke causes cancer, heart disease, and asthma attacks so I think people should be given the choice to expose their selves or not. Each restaurant should post some kind of notification about whether or not they allow smoking inside. Then the customers, employees etc. can decide to participate in the establishments offerings. I think it is unethical on the government’s part to enforce any law taking away from people’s rights even if it is for the greater good. I am not a smoker and I am against people voluntarily slowly killing their selves but that is just me. People who choose to do this have the right to this choice and I think that by taking the rights away from restaurants is the same as thanking that right to choose for individuals. Customer perception should be left to the company if a company wants to let their consumers know that they permit smoking than that perception is their choice to put off not the governments.

If Women Were More Like Men: Why Females Earn Less

If Women Were More Like Men: Why Females Earn Less

the article lined above talks about how one of the oldest debates in contemporary social science is why women earn less than men. Conservatives tend to argue that because women anticipate taking time off to raise children, they have fewer incentives to work hard in school, and they choose careers where on-the-job training and long hours are less important. Liberals tend to focus on sex discrimination as the explanation. Obviously some mixture of those factors is at work, but academics have long been frustrated when they try to estimate which force is greater: women’s choices or men’s discrimination.A new study looks at this problem in a wonderfully inventive way. In previous studies, academics have looked at variables like years of education and the effects of outside forces such as nondiscrimination policies. But gender was always the constant. What if it didn’t have to be? What if you could construct an experiment in which a random sample of adults unexpectedly changes sexes before work one day? Kristen Schilt, a sociologist at the University of Chicago and Matthew Wiswall, an economist at New York University, couldn’t quite pull off that study. But they have come up with the first systematic analysis of the experiences of transgender people in the labor force. And what they found suggests that raw discrimination remains potent in U.S. companies. Schilt and Wiswall found that women who become men (known as FTMs) do significantly better than men who become women (MTFs). MTFs in the study earned, on average, 32% less after they transitioned from male to female, even after the authors controlled for factors like education levels. FTMs earned an average of 1.5% more. The study was just published in the Berkeley Electronic Press’ peer-reviewed

I think that this ongoing debate is ridiculous. The fact that women will have children and still do the same quality of work as men shows women are more diverse than men and can probably handle more than a man. Because women can multitask, and juggle different aspects of life they are more liable to succeed than a single man. Another debate on women moving up the corporate latter is that they are too emotional. well I look at it like this if a women can raise children, keep up with the house hold, (cook, clean, etc), and manage their “emotions” and perform at the same level if not better than a man than this shows that women are more suited to handle bigger challenges in the work field.

Legalize Prostitution

Legalize Prostitution

In the article linked above details are given as to why legalization of prostitution can help our economy. First it introduces prostitution by providing details about the history of prostitution and how it is the oldest profession in the world. Then it goes on to talk about how in many communities throughout the U.S., the police investigate and arrest persons involved in prostitution. A careful examination of this practice shows that it reduces the quality of life in society. The article explains how legalization of prostitution improves neighborhoods and promotes safety. By forcing prostitution out of places where it would more naturally be found, such as in brothels or near motels, the police drive that activity into the streets of neighborhoods where it otherwise would not exist. As a result, residents of the neighborhoods are exposed to the activity against their will. Then the article goes on to say legalization reduces crime. If prostitution were legal, these victims would be less reluctant to report to police any criminal acts that occurred while they were involved in it. This would significantly improve the probability of catching the criminals and preventing them from victimizing others. In many cases, it could deter them from committing the crimes in the first place. Also legalization promotes liberty and privacy. Laws against prostitution violate Americans’ fundamental rights of individual liberty and personal privacy. Thomas Jefferson and other founders of the U.S. envisioned a society where people can live without interference from government, provided they don’t harm others. Then the article goes on to detail how legalization of prostitution benefits sex workers and their clients. Dr. John Money, a leading sexologist and a professor at Johns Hopkins University, similarly notes that sex workers, with proper training, can assist clients in overcoming “erotic phobia” and various other sexual dysfunctions. He says that for the clients, “the relationship with a paid professional may be the equivalent of therapy.”Can anyone, other than the ignorant or cruel, argue that sex workers should not be permitted to help such persons? The last point the article makes is that it would put law-enforcements resources to better use. Numerous legal commentators point out that using law enforcement resource against prostitution reduces substantially the resources available to fight serious crimes committed against persons or property. This nation desperately needs more efforts applied to solving those crimes, because arrests are being made in connection with only about 20% of them.

In my opinion I totally agree with this article and all of its points. The descriptions of each point are right along the same line of thought I have toward legalization of prostitution. I believe by legalizing prostitution the economy would change substantially. The workers would get taxed and that would be even more money for the government. As for government controls against it I think it is a violation of American’s rights. People make their own choices and our country was founded on freedoms. As for how children would perceive prostitution as something that is just normal. I think that every parent should raise their children with the greatest morals and respect for themselves and if you raise your children right then they would not want to pursue a career in prostitution. Just like being an exotic dancer today is legal but looked down upon. No parent would want their child to grow up and do that or pest control or flip burgers for the rest of their life. Again this article raises some very valid points about the benefits of legalization of prostitution. And who is to say that the precessions like a stockbroker or lawyer are all that moral. They have to lie and deceive people every day. Who says that type of immortality is better or worse than a person choosing to be a prostitute because they like that type of life style?

Gay-Marriage Activists Look Ahead After Big Defeat in Maine

Gay-Marriage Activists Look Ahead After Big Defeat in Maine

In the article linked above same sex marriage is in question once again,particularly in Main. Maine’s vote, much like all of the states before it, including California’s vote on Prop 8 12 months ago, will do little to slow the fight over gay marriage. Not in Maine, where Tuesday’s vote is only the equivalent of a veto and can be easily reversed by lawmakers when they next meet, and not in the rest of America, where the issue continues to roil courthouses and statehouses alike. “Ultimately this is going to have to have a national resolution,” says same-sex marriage activist Mary Bonauto, one of the nation’s top lawyers involved in the campaign to legalize gay marriage. “It’s about aligning promises found in the Constitution with America’s laws.” A leader in Maine’s campaign to uphold gay marriage, Bonauto is best known for arguing the same-sex case that led the Massachusetts Supreme Court to strike down prohibitions against gay marriage in a hugely influential 2003 decision that paved the way for that state to become the first to permit gay marriage in 2004.

That decision has been cited in numerous cases that have followed, as the number of states whose courts have demanded equal marriage rights for gays has grown. But those same cases have also helped fuel opponents, who argue gay marriage is being foisted upon America by out-of-touch judges. In order to counter that argument, Bonauto and other gay-marriage activists in Maine who began organizing to press for gay marriage in Maine decided to avoid taking the issue to court. Instead, they set about electing lawmakers friendly to their cause two years ago, and this year successfully convinced the legislature to become the nation’s first to establish gay marriage by statute, rather than decree. “Frankly, we had heard the criticisms about going the court route, and so we said, ‘Fine, we’ll go to the legislature,’” says Bonauto. “And it has been an incredible campaign.”

I think that same sex marriage should be legal. America separated state and religion for a reason, so when gay people want to get married they can without the constraints of religion. Personally I think it is a type of discrimination against their religion and the last time I checked we had freedom of religion right? Gays and lesbians believe that God has no problem with it but Christians believe otherwise just as Christianity is different from Hinduism, or Judaism their beliefs are different. So who are government officials and society in general to judge them because of that difference? As citizens of the United States of America rights are not limited to just straight people. Same sex couples should be able to have the same tax advantages as a typical married couple. Today same sex couples are discriminated against somewhat like African Americans were discriminated against (not to the same extremes though). They are beaten up, and killed because they feel differently than the majority of society. In the business world gays and lesbians have to mask their beliefs to get that job or promotion. Is it wrong to ask someone to mask their religious beliefs for the same reason? what people do behind doors is no one’s business so put aside your religious beliefs, and all discriminatory factors and then think about them as people not outcast of society then tell me what you think should Gay marriage be legal in the U.S?

Scientist who worked for gov’t accused of spying

Scientist who worked for gov’t accused of spying

The article linked above details how Stewart David Nozett was charged with attempting to communicate, deliver and transmit classified information, the Justice Department said. The complaint does not allege that the government of Israel or anyone acting on its behalf violated U.S. law. Then it goes on to talk about how Nozette was arrested by FBI agents. He is expected to make his initial appearance in federal court in Washington on Tuesday. Law enforcement officials said Nozette did not immediately have a lawyer. Nozette worked in varying jobs for the Energy Department, NASA and — in 1989 and 1990 — the National Space Council in the president’s office. He developed the Clementine bi-static radar experiment that purportedly discovered water on the south pole of the moon. He worked at the Energy Department’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where he designed highly advanced technology, from approximately 1990 to 1999. Along with a long list of government involvement Nozette performed some of this research and development at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in Arlington, Va., and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Then the article goes on to detail the account that Nozette had with the undercover FBI agent and on Oct. 1. Nozette was videotaped leaving a manila envelope in the post office box. FBI agents retrieved it and found a second set of answers. The responses contained information classified as both top secret and secret, on U.S. satellites, early warning systems, and means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack, communications intelligence information, and major elements of defense strategy. Nozette also allegedly said that he would be willing to answer questions about this information in exchange for money. The agent explained that the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, would arrange for a communication system so Nozette could pass on information in a post office box.

For me, this article really shows how even the most developed countries are corrupt. In other countries you can pay your way through just about any sticky situation. People who have money in these countries even pay their way through school without ever studying. That is why most medical and legal officials get paid next to nothing unless a patient has money to pay them for superior services. This article shows that America is not immune to these types of extremes. Maybe it’s not as bad as other developing countries, but the fact that there was one person that could have caused a lot of trouble for the U.S working in such extensive fields of the government shows how susceptible we are for corruption. This guy got caught but think about how many others who don’t get caught and are out there right now trading information with countries. If this could happen in our government with all the checks and balances in place what is in store for us when we enter the business world?

Negative Effects Celebrities Have on Children

Negative Effects Celebrities Have on Children

The article linked above is about the negative effect celebrities have on young children. The main problem is that the young child will model their own decisions after the person. Just because someone is famous doesn’t mean they should be a role model. The young child will think if they don’t look/act like the said celebrity, then they are worthless. If the celebrity is infamous (known for drinking partying sleeping around) then the children will grow to think that behavior is ok and ‘cool.’ Also, a lot of the time the child will come away disappointed when they admire a celebrity. They put the celebrity on a pedestal and as soon as they realize the celebrity is a regular person, they are heartbroken. For example, a person may love an action movie star, but soon they realize he is a regular person, he doesn’t look or act anything like his characters. This will dampen the child’s spirits.

To me this article rings true. As a child I always thought celebrities to be God like. I use to mimic the behavior and actions I saw on television. Also, I am a nanny for a seven year old and her brother, and she loves Hannah Montana (Mile Cyrus). On the show Hanna Montana has a bit of a diva attitude. The little girl I watch gets a big attitude with everyone around her after she watches the show. She talks about having boyfriends, and drama at school all because she is repeating what she saw on her favorite show from her favorite actress. I think that today being famous is very over rated by children. But what should we do about all the children who act like people they look up to? I think that parents should filter heavily what they are seeing on the television. Television executives don’t care about the effects on children they care about ratings and making money therefore it is up to parents and guardians to make sure children are watching the right things. Is this the only way though what do you think

Should Consumers Trust Big Pharma?

Should Consumers Trust Big Pharma?

In the article linked above pharmacy motives are in question. The article talks about how pharmaceuticals are responsible for saving and improving a huge number of lives. Setting aside the industry’s track record, the main reason people tend not to think Big Pharma (pharmaceutical companies) to be trustworthy is the fact that it consist of profit oriented organizations. The general assumption is that money corrupts. Money isn’t the only thing that corrupts judgment, but Big Pharma is far from the only industry where big money is a stake. But still there’s a real worry here.

I think that this article expresses some real worries. On the other hand I think that in America the regulations those pharmaceutical companies have to go through kind of takes the edge off. People in the U.S don’t really have really concerns about the medications consumed. In developing countries where government is driven by money, people should start to be concerned. Pharmaceutical companies should go through highly regulatory processes to ensure that medications are doing what they promise. Also to ensure they are not just driven by profits.

Mackenzie Phillips says she had sex with her dad

Mackenzie Phillips says she had sex with her dad

Former child star Mackenzie Phillips said she had a decade long sexual relationship with her father, pop superstar John Phillips who also taught her how to roll joints and inject her with cocaine. Phillips wrote in her book “I woke up that night from a blackout to find myself having sex with my own father.” John Phillips, who died in 2001, was the leader of the 1960s group the Mamas and the Papas. Mackenzie Phillips told Opera Winfrey that her siblings “definitely had a problem with this.” When she tried to confront her father about the abuse in the early stages he said “Raped you? You mean when we made love” later she got pregnant and did not know who the father was. She had an abortion which her father paid for and never let him come near her again.

Okay first of all who would let it get to the point of getting pregnant? This guy was sick to even look at his daughter in a sexual way. Mackenzie Phillips came out with her book and did interviews to raise awareness of how common it actually is for incest to occur. She recognized that her father had a problem not only psychologically, but with drugs abuse too. She ended up forgiving him when he was on his death bed. Well, she is a bigger person than many! Most wouldn’t even be able to look at their abuser without wanting to kill them, but I guess this girl endured this for so long and the life style she was living was not that psychologically fit so maybe she still hasn’t gotten over it. I think that women everywhere are scared to speak up when dramatic things like this happen to them. Phillips is doing a good thing by letting people know that you should speak up. I think this situation is so morally, and ethically wrong I’m sure I can speak for many by saying that.