Trayvon Martin’s death has infected headlines since news of its occurrence became known to the public. Several media outlets have reported the story, commented upon the story, and even advocated manners in which to help the Martin family seek justice against George Zimmerman --the man that shot and murdered Martin in his gated, suburban Florida community. No media coverage of the situation has received more backlash than The Daily Texan. The Daily Texan, University of Texas at Austin’s school newspaper, published the following image in connection to a story they ran about the Martin case.


This above image created a large deal of uproar for four chief reasons.

1. The image is overtly satirical with the descriptions “Big Bad” and “sweet, innocent.” 
2. The image accused the media of sensationalizing the Martin case by labeling coverage of Trayvon Martin’s incident as yellow journalism. 
3. The description of yellow journalism downplays the extremity of the situation and essentially pardons Zimmerman because he was a victim of stories hyperbolized in order to seem newsworthy.
4. The illustration uses “colored boy” to describe Martin. The term “colored” is a racial slur in modern day society.

The Daily Texan’s Editorial staff responded in a manner that parallels the palaver tree’s values to appease critics of their initial publication about the Martin case. They worked to create harmony instead of promoting truth, for they released the following statement:

A controversial editorial cartoon on the Trayvon Martin shooting was published Tuesday on the Opinion page of The Daily Texan. The Daily Texan Editorial Board recognizes the sensitive nature of the cartoon’s subject matter.

The views expressed in the cartoon are not those of the editorial board. They are those of the artist. It is the policy of the editorial board to publish the views of our columnists and cartoonists, even if we disagree with them.

I doubt the final statement made in their release is true, for editors have the power and responsibility to control the flow of information that reaches their intended audiences. This is a part of the gate keeping function of journalism. I understand a desire to create harmony and minimize any discord between the UT community and its school paper. Creating harmony, however, is unethical when it allows or causes people in a position of power to avoid being accountable for their actions. If the editorial-board would have decided to not act in accordance to the palaver value of harmony but instead truth, I would have had more respect for the Daily Texan. They would have risked breaking bridges, true, but they would not have blamed one of their own to protect image. The accountability that they should have had is a true mark of integrity.

The Ethics Behind Siding with WBC

March 10, 2006 marked a monumental time for Maryland native Albert Snyder. Snyder’s son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder, died in a non-combat Humvee accident in Iraq 7 days prior, and the 10th was the day of the funeral. On his way to the funeral, Snyder saw the tops of picket signs, but paid no attention to them, because the sorrow he bore in his heart felt like an elephant sitting on his chest. The funeral occurred, and Albert Snyder stumbled home with tear-filled eyes and snot-filled nostrils after burying his son. Looking for an escape for the emotionally crippling world surrounding him, Snyder turned on the television. A pulse surged through his body, however, as he heard both he and his son’s names on the news. His focus immediately drew toward the TV screen, and he found out that the signs he previously ignored contained the following messages in connection with his son’s soldiers: “‘Thank God for Dead Soldiers,’ ‘Fags Doom Nations,’ ‘America is Doomed,’ ‘Priests Rape Boys,’ and ‘You’re Going to Hell.’”
Unbeknownst to Snyder, Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) received permission to lawfully gather and peacefully protest at public areas near the funeral while Snyder was coordinating the pickup and burial of his son. The picketing occurred 1000 feet, nearly three and a half football field lengths, away from the Catholic Church in Westminster where the funeral was being held. It also occurred in accordance with all guidelines and rules given to the protesters before the funeral occur. The WBC protesters also never infringed upon the funeral procession or breached onto private territory during their peaceful condemnation of gays in the military and declaration of God’s angers and hates.


After the funeral, Snyder began feeling bouts of depression that he alleged were in connection to Westboro’s protest. Whenever Snyder spent time alone, the words from slogans etched on Westboro’s protest sign (including "God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”) constantly scrolled through his mind like scores on the bottom of ESPN. There was no way for him to escape the memories of either his son’s death or his son’s funeral. These images continued to flash in Snyder’s mind, and on June 5, 2011 Albert Snyder decided to sue Westboro Baptist Church for defamation of his son, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, publication of private facts, and civil conspiracy. In October of 2007 the case went to the U.S. District court of Baltimore and, through a process riddled by appeals, landed into the laps of Chief Justice John Roberts and the other 8 justices of the supreme court.





Although it seems that the Supreme Court should have sided with Snyder when one thinks of ethical choices, the Supreme whole.” This concept diluted becomes doing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of number of people. Court made not only a lawful decision by siding with Fred Phelps and WBC but the true ethical choice. According to John Stuart Mill’s principle of utility, now known as utilitarianism, one has to “seek the greatest happiness for the aggregate According to the majority opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts:


Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and - as it did here - inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course - to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.


Because American society highly aligns with utilitarianism when forging its subconscious code of ethics, Roberts’ sentiment makes sense. In order to protect the inalienable right of speech for all men and women, the court has to protect the inalienable right of people who use speech in an offensive and border-line abusive manner. Despite the hurtful nature of the speech’s content or the tastelessness of the speech’s context, the speech’s content was not to directly attack Matthew Snyder but rather the provide commentary on the state of religious, ethical, and political filth and corruption that America was currently in. Using utilitarianism as a basis for this decision was a great move, and ethically WBC had to win although they are the villains in this case. This victory may cause emotional and financial pain to Albert Snyder but it gives hope and power to the American public, for their First Amendment right to show political discontent,  express religious frustration, and evoke positive change through a public forum of ideas was protected and strengthened.

Hill's Alleged Assault

On April 30, 2012 Los Angeles Lakers reserve power forward/center was charged with a third degree felony for allegedly choking his former girlfriend of two years. Although expected to return to Houston--the site of the alleged incident--and be present at a 9:30 hearing at Harris County District Court on May 1st, Hill spent his Monday night snuggled in his bed at his Los Angeles home. Hill’s Tuesday morning was spent mentally preparing for athletic battle and his Tuesday night was spent in front of millions of viewers at Staples Center and on TNT.

Sure people deserve to be innocent until proven guilty; however, how can he be deemed innocent or guilty if he can circumvent the due process granted to him because of his status has a NBA player. When has playoff games or winning a championship become more important than justice in American society.

I am appalled that he was pardoned from his hearing and will continue to be indefinitely pardoned because American society wants Hill to appear at the court in the Staples Center Arena and not a court with judges and legitimate rulings. Even if the alleged crime didn’t occur, Hill should be proven innocent of the felony allegation in court before being allowed to continue game play with the storied NBA franchise. Delinquency, or rumors of it occurring, cannot be tolerated by an organization with as much financial and social clout as the NBA simply to appease basketball enthusiasts.

PETA.XXX

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an organization that prides itself on defending all animals from humans eating them, wearing them, experimenting on them, using them for entertainment, and any other actions that proliferate the abuse or exploitation of animals. PETA’s blind passion has led to several campaigns that are viewed by the general public as outlandish, libelous, misogynistic, sexist, and sexually exploitative. These advertisements --featuring nude women and women performing sexually suggestive acts with vegetables-- have become so infamous and tabooed that PETA is more known for using naked women showering together or posing to advertise a cause and less known for the actual cause they are intending to thrust into the national spotlight through controversy.
These trivial images are just the beginning for PETA’s sexually suggestive and erotic advertisements. PETA spokeswoman, Lindsay Rajt, announced in August 2011 an advertisement campaign sure to deter many supporters and further the abhorrence of negative pundits: Peta.xxx.
Peta.xxx is PETA’s audacious response to Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ (ICANN) authorization of the creation of .xxx domain names.
ICANN is an international non-profit organization and government affiliated agency housed in California. According to ICANN’s website, the organization’s chief purpose is to coordinate IP addresses, organize domain names, and manage other identifiers of internet locations across the world wide web.# As a part of their responsibility to organize domain names, ICANN is strongly encouraging pornographic websites to create .xxx domain names to facilitate internet safety by virtually creating a red light district for the internet.
.XXX domains are not only being used by distributors of the adult industry. Many corporations and schools have created .xxx domain names to prevent their brand from being tarnished from association or confusion with pornography. Another motive for organizations to block .xxx domains similar to their institution or organization’s name is to avoid cyber squatting-- the registration of domain names of well known organizations and brands to eventually resale for profit. Harvard University, for example, purchased Harvard.xxx and has reserved the website from registration. Other universities and organizations, such as Texas Christian University, Ohio State University, Red Cross, and MTV have done the same.#
PETA too bought a .xxx domain name with the appellation of PETA; however, instead of purchasing peta.xxx to block an outside force from using their title, they plan to soon launch a pornographic website to enhance their mission of “get[ting] the animal rights message out to as many people as possible.”#

While spreading their mission, PETA acts in a Machiavellian manner. Niccollo Machiavelli is an Italian writer based in Florence during the Renaissance. He is Best known for writing The Prince which was published in 1532. In the Prince he write, “Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil.” No matter how you go about doing things (people will judge and hate you), thus you have to work to reach your end goals. Your ends will justify your means, so it doesn’t matter if they are good or ethically strong.
This concept--originally created by Machiavelli--has now been adapted in the ethical system consequentialism. This ethical standard basically states that the results/final consequences of an action determines whether or not that action was ethical in the first place. Although they feel that their advertisements get their message across, one has to ask if their means (exploiting women) justifies their ends (promoting the ethical treatment of animals).

Ethical Elkind?

In honor of the recent visit by Mr. Elkind, I thought is was only appropriate to comment on what I found unethical about Elkind’s critically acclaimed novel The Smartest Guys in the Room. Although Elkind’s book easily captured me as a reader and brought me into both the general business world and the world of Enron with descriptive language and clear translations of business jargon to common English, The Smartest Guys in the Room wasn’t perfect. Elkind’s writing throughout the story showed one large flaw that could not be overseen: extremely poor attribution and sourcing.
First there was a great amount of use of anonymous commentary in the story. As a journalist, this bothered me. As stated in the 2009 AP Stylebook:
Under AP’s rules material from anonymous sources may be used only if: [a] The material is information and is not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the news report. [b] The information is not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source. [c] The source is reliable, and in a position to have accurate information…Explain in the story why the sources requested anonymity. And, when it’s relevant, describe the source’s motive for disclosing the information. The story also must provide attribution that establishes the source’s credibility; simply quoting “a source” is not allowed. Be as descriptive as possible.
The anonymity used could have been seen as a means to garner background information; however, the majority of the information gathered from anonymous sources were opinion. A great example of the frivolity of a large some of the anonymous comments comes when Elkind and McLean quoted a nameless credit officer from an unspecified Wall Street firm saying, “We thought Enron was a very funky animal that kept getting funkier and funkier” (340). This quote added absolutely nothing to the story. I had no idea who it came from, and the description of the source was so ambiguous that I paid it no mind. Further, the substance of the quote was poor at best. Also, Elkind and his co author never mentioned why any sources were anonymous. As a reader, I feel that this prevarication takes away a great deal of transparency. It is the author’s ethical obligation to provide the reader with a sense of legitimacy coupling his/her work. Without sourcing or attribute, I have no basis to believe whether or not the information he provided was truth. I am forced to go off of blind faith, and he remains free of not “abusing” his ability to utilize anonymous sources.
When sources were given a name and a face behind them, none of their quotes were attributed. There should have been hundreds of endnotes littering the last printed pages of the book. Instead, there is nothing and the reader is left contemplating the legitimacy of the entire story. Elkind and his co author empowered the readers with a great deal of trust, for the readers had no idea if the information presented to them by the authors was completely falsified or not. A lack of attribution is synonymous with a lack of credibility in the journalism world. This coupled with the inherent lack of credibility created through anonymity is the author’s major downfall in regards to the research and presentation of the book. Despite these “flaws,” The Smartest Guys in the Room was exceptionally engaging and entertaining. It provided an insider’s approach to the famous Enron story and by capturing the personalities and actions of the 125 characters noted in the story, Elkind and his co authour created an easily accessible work of non-fiction business literature.

The Ethics of Eating Meat

As a member of modern day society, I feel that it is my moral obligation to eat meat. Meat isn’t just one of many sources that provides vitamins and nutrients. It isn’t just the remnants of an animal carcass. It is not just a by product of animal cruelty. Meat is a representation of a large network of industries that provides economic security to families and ensures health of both animals and humans.

Before I start trudging through my argument, let’s look at a world where no human is a carnivore. Without meat eating, the world would be devoid of a slew of restaurants, processing plants, packaging plants, and other job sources for the nation’s men and women. Deer would run rampant, because there would be no justifiable reason for hunting. Areas with deer overpopulation have a raised amount of car accidents, higher rates of dangerous illnesses like lyme disease, and have a population of dear that are weak and malnourished due to a high demand of nutritious food for them. There would be a large amount of deforestation (which is the removal of trees from land) to create fertile soil for crops. This would in turn run animals out of their present homes, take away their shelter, and reduce their natural mechanisms of survival. These animals will either adapt to their new environments or die. The cute farm animals whose lives we wish to save, will too most likely die, for they are protected by farmers and bred for the purposes of providing meat, eggs, milk, etc. Without this protection, they stand low on the totem pole of animals in the wild. Maybe you think this sounds wonderful, but I personally find this probable outcome of a world devoid of meat to be awful. If you are a vegetarian or vegan and don’t think this sounds like a beautiful place, maybe you should reconsider your stance on the ethics of eating meat and starting grilling a steak before you continue reading.

Now, I want to point out a common flaw in the quibble that most individuals have with meat eaters: People eat meat at the expense of killing an entity that is already living. Fruit, vegetables, and other plants are all living things as well. We take the lives of those things everyday to provide our bodies with sustenance. The easy counter argument to this is that plants don’t feel pain and animals do, but how do we know? There are no studies showing whether or not plants feel pain, so until we know for a fact it is ridiculous to make an assumption.

Many of you are probably laughing now, but let me delve further into this past idea. We are against killing animals for food because they feel pain and they are helpless. Killing animals, however, provides economic security through a creation of jobs, provides people with food necessary to survive, and in some cases reduces health issues from overpopulation (as with deer and duck). Isn’t this very similar to war? We send fleets of men and women to kill in order to provide a sort of security to our land just like we kill animals to provide security. The people who die at the hands of American soldiers feel pain just like animals do. The individuals who end up being killed are rendered helpless as well. They aren’t as well equipped as us, for they have inferior technology and weapons. More disturbing, they are actually people. Even worse, many times casualty numbers are forged by the deaths of innocent children, men and women just because they live in a certain location.

We as Americans have virtually no sympathy for the lives slaughtered intentionally during warfare, and those are our brothers and sisters inherently bonded to us by our common humanness in this global community. We justify killing other humans with a utilitarian outlook--saying that we are doing the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of Americans. We have to kill them to provide for ourselves and others. Killing animals for food is the same exact thing but with more justification. It is only right and necessary to eat meat.

Miami Heat Takes Bold Action

Before taking care of business on Friday night in a lopsidedvictory over the Detroit Pistons, The Miami Heat banded together to take care of business both socially and ethically by shedding light on the unfortunate death of a 17-year-old, hooded Trayvon Martin.

Nearly a month ago, Martin was shot and killed by the captain of his community’s neighborhood watch while he was returning home from a nearby convenient store after iced tea and skittles. The neighborhood watch captain, 28-year-old George Zimmerman, alleged that he shot and killed Martin as self-defense. Police reported that Martin was unarmed.

The police officials who handled Martin’s case initially dismissed what occurred. Those same police are now under heavy scrutiny for their lack of effort to seek justice for Martin. Many people believe the lack of follow through by the police was caused by Martin being African American.

In response to the event, the Miami Heat took a team photo where every individual was hooded in a similar fashion to Martin. NBA All-Star and Miami Heat small forward Lebron James tweeted the photo (seen below) prior to the game with hashtags #WeareTrayvonMartin, #WeWantJustice, #Stereotyped, and #Hoodies accompanying the photo. The team scribbled similar messages on their shoes to honor the murdered teenager. They wore them during their game against the Pistons.

Lebron also tweeted a link to a petition website called change.org where Martin’s parents are hoping to acquire 2,000,000 signatures inorder to prosecute Zimmerman for murder.

The Miami Heat is a team that is considered to be the filled with villains of sports and stereotyped to represent all that is unethical in the National Basketball Association. The Heat’s poor reputation primarily stems from two events: Lebron James’ “The Decision” and Dwayne Wade’s hard foul on Kobe Bryant and subsequent comments earlier this season. Despite this, the members of the Heat did a bold thing.  They opened themselves up to criticism and public scrutiny by publically supporting the Martin family. They took this risk, however, because they are leaders in their communities and not just athletes. They did what they thought was ethical and used their prominence to bring the social inequalities/ racial undertones associated with the shooting of Martin to the forefront of both the media’s and the general public’s attention.

NOTES

During the summer of 2010, free agent all-star Lebron James hosted the ill-advised “The Decision” on ESPN. During the special, he announced that he would leave the Cleveland Cavaliers—where he had been a stalwart for both the team and the city—and “take his talents to south beach.”

The Heat’s reputation for unethical discourse was furthered in early 2012 when all-star shooting guard Dwayne Wade showed little remorse after breaking the nose of fan favorite Kobe Bryant and leaving him with a concussion during the 2012 NBA all-star game.

 

How much do we value life in America?

How much do we in America value the lives of our youth? As the French government unintentionally revealed four days ago, we don’t value life enough. On Monday March 20, unprovoked gunman opened fire at a Jewish school in Toulous, France and killed three students and a rabbi. Late that day, French President Nicolas Sarkozy released a statement calling the shooting a “national tragedy,” and according to NYTimes reporters StevenErlanger and Scott Sayare, Sarkozy “ordereda minute’s silence at schools across France at 11 a.m.”

This nationally sanctioned pause from the day, although very small, shows that the French nation really values life and the journey it affords the person. More than anything, this action shows that the members of the French nation value the lives of their children and are willing to unite—if only for a minute—to pay homage to a child tragically slain. Nothing similar to this occurred, however, when Chardon High School students died last month in a school shooting last month in Ohio, news coverage swirled around the topic for hours. That was it. President Obama released no statement acknowledging the situation and no apparent resolution, or attempt for resolution, was provided for the community of Chardon, OH. Sure, CNN, ABC, and others responded quickly and accurately to the situation.

We as a nation responded greatly from a news standpoint; however, we barely responded from a human standpoint. It is sad to see this, for it alludes to a sad, crippling reality that our nation is moving towards. The American culture is becoming more and more desensitized to tragic, unwarranted violence. Instead of looking at things with a human or emotional lens, we analyze things very systematically. Something is ethically and cognitively wrong with this innate reaction to unnecessary and unpredicted violence. This scares me, and hopefully this scares you as well.

Pain of Utilitarianism

This past weekend, I took an impromptu, two-day trip to my hometown of Cleveland, Ohio. As soon as I exited to the plane on Thursday night at 11:41 pm, my legs became heavy as if the marrow in my bones began to freeze. I slug through the terminal, exhausted from the day filled with class and travel, and exit the airport to  meet my dad’s Honda Pilot. I toss my carry-on suitcase into the trunk, and as I walk to the passenger-side door, a cold breeze between runs down my spine with the discomfort of nails clawing a chalk board.
Friday night was even more frigid. Armies of snowflakes battled through the air. I stumbled gingerly through the wintry mix-- hoping not to get caught in the crossfire of the mini-blizzard-- and barely spotted the white door to Original Harvest Missionary Baptist Church.
I walk into the door hesitantly and enter a waiting room. I’m 10 minutes tardy. I tuck in my purple shirt, straighten up my purple tie, grab a program with the picture of my aunt and the words “Kimberly Burch-Lawson” stretched across the lower third of the paper in Lucida Handwriting font. Seeing the pamphlet with her face decorating the front causes the emptiness of my heart to suck the happiness from my soul like a black whole ripping away life from the cosmos. She really isn’t with us any more.
I reach the far side church and sit adjacent to my God mother on a pew. I sit there for an hour straight. An hour filled with frustration, sorrow, regret, emptiness, and more frustration. My frustration stemmed from the manner in which the service was dealt with. The service seemed less of a celebration of my aunt’s life and more of a stereotypical black church setting. People were clapping, pastors were yelling and making pop culture references, music paraded out of the overheated church and marched into the parking lot and street surrounding the church building, men and women were praise dancing through the isles, and people danced and rejoiced in the glory of God with each new section of the service. Now notice, I write the glory of God and rejoicing for God. With no disrespect, where was the focus on my Aunt? Where was the celebration of my aunt? She was barely mentioned or spoken about. She was only mentioned when it was convenient to push the Christian agenda of speaking of how mighty and wonderful God truly is. It seemed that everyone in the room forgot the true purpose of us flying hundreds of miles and driving through blizzards. That purpose wasn’t God but rather my wonderful aunt Kimberly Burch-Lawson.
This experience and accompanying frustration truly had me questioning the entire concept of utilitarianism-- doing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. For the majority of the people at the funeral service, this was the greatest thing for them. They only had superficial, loose relationships with my aunt. These relationships were forged at the church, so they only knew my aunt as Sister Kim, the great, god loving and fearing woman. They didn’t know her as a mother of 3, grandmother of four, sister of 3 (2 of whom are deceased), etc. They didn’t know her as the woman who grew up on Griffing avenue and eventually moved into the gray house directly across the street from her parents and my grandparents. They only knew her in the church setting.
For the members of the family that traveled to the church, whether by car for 10 minutes or plane for 3.5 hours, the service was poorly done. It didn’t do her justice and didn’t help spread and convey her awesomeness and beautiful legacy. It only conveyed God’s awesomeness and legacy. This imbalance of attention started out as annoying but gradually became exasperating. Further, it didn’t do the most good for the few who needed and deserved that good the most-- the family of my aunt and my aunt herself.

At what cost do we "Lift the Curtain"

The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, has rested as an independent and unnoticed country in the region of South Eastern Asia. This streak of abandon soon changed when Robert H. Lieberman landed in Myanmar during the Winter of 2008. There, he shot 120 hours of footage which has now been condensed and edited into the 88-minute documentary, “They Call It Myanmar: Lifting the Curtain.” Lieberman’s film will be debuting next Monday and Tuesday at Sunshine Cinema in New York, New York. The film will then trickle out into the United States and ultimately the globe as it is expected to reach full release within the year.

According to Lieberman, his “ultimate goal was to bring Burma into western consciousness…put a human face to the country. Up until Hillary‘s visit, it was really one of the most isolated countries on the planet.” Although he is bringing great, positive exposure to an isolated land and is helping westerners gain insight on the culture and political woes of Burma through his documentary, this project was ethically wrong.

The Burmans are a people hidden to the western eye by intention. They choose to be recluses from society; therefore, Lieberman imposed his own will and his own value of equality (through exposure) and transparency (of multiple cultures) on the Burmans. What’s worst is that he was sternly instructed to not film, for it is against the cultural norm of the Burmese people. He did it anyway, with complete disregard of the Burman culture.

How can someone fight to expose another’s culture if they can’t even respect that culture? This question is a mystery to me; however, Lieberman may have the answer. He managed to go on with his life, with a clean conscious and a new movie that is bound to be successful, by cautiously sneaking around Burma with a hidden camera and video camera to capture footage of military and government buildings and activities. If caught, he could have easily been arrested; however, he thought the ends (the eventual movie) justified the ends (breaking the Burmese law). The question I have for you after all of this is can we use American capitalistic ends to justify American imposed means on a foreign culture. I think that is ethnocentric crap, but it’s up for you to decide.

NBC does the right thing

Because of the huge drug scandal that has 17 TCU students more despised by the American public than Jerry Sandusky, journalists have been working swiftly to gather information and report the sting operation involving TCU and Fort Worth’s Police Departments. Because of this, I feared that the well written and powerful reporting of many would be skewed by the rushed and inaccurate. Instead of these findings, however, I have been impressed with great, ethical decisions in reporting during the past day.

I wanted to take time in this blog to applaud ethical reporting by NBC DFW, for they were the only news organization that I thought did a considerably great job in following the SPJ Code of Ethics by minimizing harm. In the article "18 Arrested in TCU Drug Bust," by Frank Heinz, they mention a student as “Jonathan Blake Jones (not to be confused with the Jonathan Jones who is on the football team and is in no way connected to this case).” This act was very small--in fact it only lasted for 23 words-- but it made a world of difference in the reputation of not only TCU athletics but of Jones (the athlete).

This is the kind of reporting I wish to emulate in the future. NBC made the extra effort to do what was ethical and not further tarnish the names of TCU students and athletes. As Boschini pointed out in a press conference earlier today, this drug incident was not an athlete problem but a TCU problem. NBC silently echoed this statement by doing all they could to prevent further assumptions about the football team, its players, and athlete-related drug usage from occurring. Also, they protected the image of the Fort Worth native. Some would have assumed it was Jonathan Jones, the athlete, because the focus of this incident has been the four athletes involved with the drug incident.

Fashion Woes

It pains me to say this, but NY Times’ article “Checking Model's ID’s at the Door,” will have no effect on the modeling industry. No one will become miraculously safer now that . Sure the exposure is nice, but the popular audience cares as much about model safety as they do about Asian worker mistreatment by Apple. The product, sadly, justifies the means it takes to get said product. The new line of models are more desirable than the fashions that they will be promoting during this year’s February installment of New York fashion week.
Is this right? OF COURSE NOT. However, as long as people continue to support modeling agencies who fill their Runways with mentally ill, anorexia weakened, 14-year-old girls, nothing is going to change. This is brutally unethical, and we as a society support this industry although it is destroying its employees. Even the individuals who are supposed to be regulating the fashion industry, like Council of Fashion Designers of America’s president, Diane Von Furstenburg has done nothing to advance the cause of safety and promote clear images of beauty to the fashion or public community. She said to NY Times, “If we haven‘t done anything else, we certainly have created awareness.” This statement is absolutely ridiculous. Awareness won’t inspire action for complacent individuals who are comfortable and even pleased with the results of the fashion industry’s ancien regime. Only actions will inspire change and more action.
The  lack of punishment for breaking modeling rules sends negative messages to masses of women. First, it weakens women by only placing women of a certain ethnicity and waistline on the pedestal of the fashion industry. The fashion industry only promotes one idea of beauty, thus larger women, Hispanic women, African American women, etc. will start to degrade themselves and depreciate their value and beauty. They will no longer be able to find beauty when they look in the mirror, for they won’t see what popular media has arbitrarily defined as beautiful.

Pfizer's adherence to utilitarianism

In his book Utilitarianism, British phillosopher John Stuart Mill brilliantly wrote, “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain.”
Through his definition, happiness is not a state of being filled with smiles, hugs, and giggles. Happiness can be coupled with a state of frustration a pause filled by sorrow; however, it has a later resolve of ease, no pain, and a pleasure when clarity is found.
Therefore, Mill’s work is less about gauging happiness and more a meter determining the amount of good that is present in a situation. In layman’s terms, Mill’s principle of utility is about doing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people--regardless of the effect the act of good may have on a person, company, etc.
Pfizer company recently set itself apart in the health care industry, in my eyes, with a public announcement and press release they sent out Wednesday February 1. In it, they describe that they recalled 14 lots (which is nearly 1 million pills) of birth control, for their may have been a misplacement of the placebo pill and thus an increased risk of becoming pregnant for women. Pfizer sent the announcement to all of the major media venues, posted statements on its website, and released a video explaining their packaging error and why it could be a problem.
The video notes that a maximum of 30 packages were incorrectly packed. However, they decided to potentially tarnish their reputation to do the best good for the best people. Their admittance of this “error” shows that companies are ethical and are willing to admit mistakes in order to benefit their consumer/client. Pfizer’s courage gives hope to not only women who can become pregnant but all individuals who have become enslaved to the products afforded to us by corporate America.

What's the cost of Hyper Connectivity?

What is the price of hyper connectivity in today’s American society? Let’s say roughly $3,000.

$1,000 for a laptop and minimal software, $400 for a top-shelf smart phone and a fully functional data package, $500 for an iPad or other tablet, $600 for an adequate TV to stay current with news and popular media, and $500 for miscellaneous spending (Cable services, subsrciptions, apps, kindles, etc.). That doesn’t seem that bad does it?

What if the price of digital maximilism is a life-- not an American life but rather a life of a Chinese worker in a factory abroad. A Chinese worker who acquired an outsourced factory job from and American-based manufacturer, for his/her work is cheaper and he/she is less likely to complain about.


We in society have become so consumed with staying connected that we have become ignorant and oblivious to the expenses. The expense is far greater than missing out on a piece of daily solitude or respite that provides a peace of mind.

We have been spoon fed the idea that “digital connectedness is [so] intrinsically good” that we blindly and irrationally act, as children do, to get the newest fastest, and most capable “toy” available. We are not being more connected with this purchases, however. Instead, we are feeding into the iconoclastic view that fueling capitalistic greed and emotional desire is more valuable to our  lives than being at peace or creating a face-to-face verbal relationship. We are becoming spoiled children.

This gluttony to purge our hunger for new technology and new mediums to facilitate a superficial connection is now disguised under the cloak of digital maximalism. According to Powers, “Digital maximalism is clearly a superior way of living.” Is this superioririty worth the unconscious subjectification of others to a state of inferiority?

On January 25, 2012, New York times released a story title, “Human Costs are Built into Apple‘s iPad.” The story explains how two recent explosions in Apple factories abroad killed 4 workers and injured 77 others (some critically). These explosions weren’t unforeseen. Prior to the blasts, a Chinese group titled Students and Scholars against Corporate Misbehavior published an article chronicling the hazardous conditions inside of the plant with the larger, more deadly explosion, Chengdu.



Apple’s capitalistic greed caused it to ignore the conditions in order to produce more and more goods for the consumers. The consumers’ self-aggregated and society influenced “need” to stay current fuels the manufacturers need to carryout swift and unsafe productions, for the manufacturer (in this case Apple) has to keep up with demand it wants to keep business. It is a vicious cycle.

 This recursive process, created by the digital maximalistic lifestyle has monstrous implications on more than the producer and consumer of these goods. It is negatively affecting innocent and hard working Chinese Americans, it is taking away father’s from families, children from their parents, and wives from husbands. Is all this truly worth staying connected? If your answer is yes, you are no longer a person using digital maximalism to your advantage. You have become a slave to the ensuing digital revolution.

Obama Vs McLuhan

November 2012 is drawing more and more near. Sweat is accumulating on the brow of President Barack Obama as Mitt Romney and the other Republican candidates present themselves well to the American public in primaries. The incumbency looks has lost clout with the constituency in regards to the upcoming election, for the past four years of the white house has become exclusively ornate with poor economic policies and “deceptions” about taking the troops out of war in the Middle East. Even worse for the incumbency is the trends shown by NY Times in the article, “Poll Sees Shift in Independent Vote, a Hurdle for Obama,” published January 18th. NY Times’ findings show that only 31% of independent voters approve of Obama and his work as a president this year. After running away with the independent vote last election, this lack of support could be detrimental this year. If Romney or any other Republican nominee can convince these voters to support him, Obama would be out of his must lucrative support system.

With the threat of voters jumping off of the Hope bandwagon, it is interesting to see what means the Obama administration will go to in order to re-secure these or other voters. This makes me think of the McLuhan quote that Pico Iyer mentioned. It says, “When things come at your very fast, naturally you lose touch with yourself.” Sure, the election is 10 months away; however, in political time the 10 months is 7 minutes. Obama’s reign as president may soon be over. I hope he doesn’t stoop to going against his principles or the value he stand for just to garner more votes and either neutralize or swing the swing voters back to his side. The Obama administration should not lose focus of how they won in the first place and what defines Obama as a man and/or leader if they care to continue working for the White House for 4 more  years.