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!

Restoring Trust in US Leaders

Trust Them?

The article is about the financial crisis that America was in and how the stock market is on the way to recovery.  Bill George, the author of the article, believes that the country needs long-term serving leaders who serve the customers and the society.

The article says that about 65% of  Americans believe that we have a leadership crisis.  The lack of true leadership caused the financial crisis to get out of hand a bring the economy to its knees. This results, according to the article, causes about 67% of America to believe that unless we revise and get a new leadership approach then we will not move out of this crisis.

“This crisis won’t be over until a new generation of leaders emerges that understands that long-term institutional stewardship and maintaining public trust are the two imperatives of 21st century leadership.”

How are we as young college students planning to be better leaders? Can we even be better leaders than the previous generation?

Leadership

Leadership A Joke

            Olson makes the argument that leaders, CEOs especially, can learn a lot about leadership from stand-up comedians. The article is based on the findings of a management coach by the name of Roger Edward Jones. Olson wrote about how Jones used his experience in stand-up comedy to bring a new approach to leadership. The comparison between comedy and a  leader, is that the comedian finds new and improved ways to convey their message to the audience. One of the most common ways comedians do this is through storytelling.  Storytelling, Jones believes, is a good way to communicate your ideas to your team in the corporate structure, but he feels that the art of storytelling is not being used to the best of its ability.

Leadership a joke?

There are some good points in the article about how to change up your leadership style and being a leader doesnt always entale being strict and boring.

Thought?

 

Google

Google to buy AdMob

Google had we all know is one of the most used searched engimes on the net. They have come into competition lately with Bing.com offer high quality search results and a number of internet users are making the shift to Bing.

Personally I feel that google has about 60-70% of the market and Bing.com is steadily eating away some of google’s market share. Instead of trying to better its search results and fight the competition Bing is now offering them; they choose to go out and propose to buy AdMob for $750 million.

If you never heard of AdMob before this is their homepage “AdMob“

They are a very promising newly innovated company that is currently taking advantage of ”mobile Advertising.” As far as I know AdMob is one of the first to see the need in this market and exploit it but now google is coming in to muscle them out and take over the market.

Should google be allowed to go in and muscle AdMob out of the market? Is this not a monopoly? Doesn’t this stifle innovations, creativity and more importantly Capitalism?

Patents

Patents. Are they really justified?           

I’ve long been against patents because I feel that they restrict the forward progress of other innovations. An example of this is in the drug industry.  Company A develops a new drug that significantly helps society in some way. Company A has the right to be allowed to patent that drug and make a substantial profit from that drug. Company B comes in and sees new ways that can be used to develop drug future and make the drug more efficient or even cheaper but they can’t until Company a patent term is up. The people suffer here because Company A is charging top dollar for this drug when it is clearly not a finished product and could potentially be cheaper if was sold by Company B.

The article above shows the result of a study between patent on products and the effects and also no patents on a product and its effect. What the studied found out was that patents; even though they are a reward for innovation. Eventually it restricts innovation and can be less profitable.

This is so due to the fact that the person who patents a product spends most of their time and money protecting that product from infringement and while if they had left the product unpatented then it would spark more innovation in the community generating more overall profit.

Maybe I’m thinking in a utilitarian way and wanting the greater good for the greatest amount of people. But in this case it really does seem more beneficial to let products go unpatented seeing that it increases profit and innovation.

I’m not saying that I’m against creators of a product being rewarded for their efforts. I’m just saying patents shouldn’t last that long because it is not beneficial in the long run.

Living Below Means

Living below means

The article addresses the fact that we as a people lived above our means for long that we don’t know how to cope with the fact that we must now try to live before our means to get ourselves out of this slump.

Bill Bonner, the authors, talks about how the last hit in the recession will be a soft one. This, he feels, is due to the fact that we are experiencing a slow world growth and this will take ease the effect of the commodity prices, and keep inflation low.

We all despise inflation because it makes it seem like the more you earn the less you have.

My thought now due to this article is; Are we as a people capable of living below our means? We have always been accustomed to getting what we want. If we need a car, go get a loan. If we need a house go get a loan. Easy access to cash and capital made American susceptible to a expecting a high standard of living; which realistically they can’t afford. 

Personally I was never brought up to get what I can’t work to achieve physically. I never had to luxury of having cash without physical cash, and by this I mean to say credit and credit cards. My family in Jamaica work for every penny, and I do the same.

So are we capable? Can we get ourselves out this slump by living below our means?

America’s Christian Greed

Greed

Ran across this video on America’s Greed and thought it would be interesting to get others reaction to this video.

 

The lady feels that we as a nation wants to fix the economy but also believes the we are scared to fix the problem. America as a country is driven by self-interest for all which in turn will promote and benefit others due to trade etc. The video does not take a dig at capitalisim vs socialism but just expresses the views of the lady (representing herself).

The economy, like i said before, is self-interested and the character in the video believes that we shoul move to more of a collective method state of mind than to stay in this individualistic mind frame we are currently in.

Profit motive, private property, competition and companies are key features of a capitalistic structure and these seem to be the downfall of th economy. How are we suppose to stay capitalistic in nature when the things that make us who we are; are the same things that makes us not want to be who we are? Are we as a nation promoting socialism? We may not like the word socialism but thats the way we currently are in some aspects of our economy.
<a href=”Greed”>

Dealing with Corporate downsizing

Corporate downsizing

           Corporate downsizing as we discussed in class sometimes must be done. It is justifiable to downsizing a corporation if and only if it will be better for the corporation in the long term and is not just a short term solution to increase profits and reduce expenses (employee wages/salaries).

          The article, posted in the link above, identifies some ways that corporate downsizing can be made easier and less stressful for both employees and customers. Whenever a corporation begins to downsize the first thoughts that enter the employees minds,as stated in the article, are:  “why is the happening? Am I next? Is the company in trouble? Is there anyway i can influence the decision so I can keep my job?” To address this the article believes that the corporations should send out newsletter that answer these questions and reduce some of the stress that the employees go through in downsizing or mergers.

        The effect the newsletter will have on managers and the rest of the executive body is that it reduces awkward encounters in the hall ways and parking lots. The information will be all out there in the newsletter so the executive body can prepare mentally for questions concerning those issues and potential questions arising from those issue. The result of the newsletter is that it reduces stress, anxiety and potential loss of productive work due to worry.

            I believe that a newsletter during downsizing periods and mergers is a very good proactive decision. Not only does it relaxes the employes but also the executive body and in so doing the workplace remains productive in a potentially unstable time.

Loyalty

Respect for former team

The  talks about an event that happened on the football pitch about a week or two ago. A former player for Arsenal FC, Manu Adebayor, made a much publicized move from Arsenal FC to Manchester City FC over the summer; and on this day he came up against his former team and teammates.

Adebayor was considered a nobody in football before moving to Arsenal FC 3 years ago and Arsene Wenger, manager of Arsenal FC, turned Adebayor into a world class player.

During the game Adebayor was tackled by former teammate and strike partner Robin Van Persie. Van Persie went to ground and caused Adebayor to lose the ball; After losing the ball Adebayor seemed to have stomp on Robin Van Persie’s face with his cleats. Another Incident in the match was Adebayor scored and he then ran the entire length of the football pitch to go celebrate infront of his former fan base, a clear act of “rubbing it in their face,” this caused outraged among supporters and officials alike all over. The tradition in football is that if you play against a former team, especially a team who transformed you into a better player, you dont celebrate scoring against them.

Arsene Wenger, Manager of Arsenal FC, said that Adebayor owed the club and that what he did was wrong. Former teammates has spoken out against what he did but Adebayor still claims he hasnt done anything wrong. He received a 3 match ban for his stomp on Robin Van Persie and the football association is reviewing the goal celebration (which cased a steward to get a concusion) to see what to do.

The question now arises. Was Adebayor wrong to have celebrated the goal as empathic as he did? Should he had respected what Arsenal FC had done for him and his now bright future and not celebrated the goal (atleast not celebrate that way). Does Adebayor really OWE Arsenal FC?

Dead Father

Dead Father

The article just brought up the issue of extracting a dead man’s sperm and using it for concieving a child. Are they allowed to do this? Is it okay for someone to become a father without his consent or without actually entering into the act needed for conception?

The issue of using frozen sperm to conceive a child is certainly not new; it has been done for years now. Mostly by people who have a disease and fear that they will not be able to have a child the “natural” way. Army officers before going into to battle etc.

I believe that extracting a man’s sperm after he has been deceased is unethical and just straight wrong. The article argues that the sperm is very abundant and not a limited resource such as other parts of the body (kidneys etc) despite this fact it should still be taken into consideration that a man needs to be able to have some form of knowledge about what happens to him after he has passed away. Is that not the purpose of a will? He didnt leave you his sperm so why should you steal it?

what are your views on the subject?