In recent years, the topic of obesity has become a significant issue in public policy campaigns. Obesity currently results in an estimated 400,000 deaths a year in the United States and costs the national economy nearly $122.9 billion annually (The Endocrine Society). Continue reading
Rating the Ratings: How Rating Agencies Dismiss Kantian Ethics
Last week in the Wall Street Journal, there was an article about how bonds of Exxon Mobil and Johnson and Johnson are trading with yields below those of comparable Treasurys. This is an indication that investors believe these Exxon and J&J bonds are safer than US Treasurys. The article indicated that if this trend continues, the country could face its second credit-rating downgrade following Standard & Poor’s cut below triple-A last year (McGee). After reading this article, I began questioning how credit rating agencies evaluate credit scores. How ethical and reasonable is this process? I understand that value of having a letter rating to give investors’ confidence in what securities they are about to involve themselves with, but how does one define that security of debt by a simple letter? I will research the history and background of credit-rating agencies and identify the ethical reasoning of these scores with Kant’s deontological theory.
American Express in the past was known to be the charge card for the exclusive upper class. Amex is now globally recognized as a company that works to help small and medium size businesses and is socially conscience. American Express has been awarded for six years straight as one of Ethisphere Institute’s Most Ethical Companies in the world. However, one of their recent campaigns was “Charge Against Hunger” which has been heavily criticized for spending more money on advertising the initiative than was given to the causes. Another reason that the campaign was criticized was their ad choice of using John Lennon’s “Imagine” song. The Imagine song caused the media to accuse Amex for their shameless advertisement I mean really, “imagine no possessions” in an advertisement installed by a credit card company?! Makes no sense.
I went to an all girls high school and of course any Jodi Picoult novel was acceptable as part of any summer reading list. I have read and seen the movie My Sister’s Keeper which is about a family that has one chronically ill daughter (Kate) and decides to genetically create another daughter (Anne) in a test tube and use the created child’s bone marrow, organs, ect. to save the life of the original sister. The novel illustrates Anne’s dilemma of saving her sister who she loves and also having a life for herself that does not consist of being simply “parts” for her sister. She tries to gain legal rights to her body (I think she is 13?), but her mother tries to fight it. It is a great beach read and I won’t give the ending away, but does this actually exist? In reality, do partners decide to create a “Designer Baby”, not a baby dressed up in Gucci, but a baby for the sole purpose of using their organs and marrow for other genetic matches in their family? Continue reading
I come from a family where the usual consensus is that we do not talk about politics at the dinner table, especially during big family holiday events. On my mom’s side of the family, we have a very well-rounded sampling of “the New Normal”; a former CEO of A&P at the end of the table along side a gay, democratic politician who created a beautiful baby boy in a petri dish who also sits across the table from two adopted chinese girls. My father being the outcast of my mother’s family always likes to push people’s buttons by asking about politics or religion at the dinner table. When I was younger, I never understood what was going on and why Grammy would leave the room crying because everyone was getting heated about the political topic as hand. Because of this, I have become completely “PC” at any dinner table without giving my full opinion (or better yet, lack there of). Continue reading
Yes I am one of those HBO fanatics and enjoy any series that the HBO franchise puts together. And my love for HBO series has not changed with the debut of the new series The Newsroom. If you are not an obsessive HBO fan or a huge admirer of anything coming from the mind of the creator of The West Wing, The Newsroom is a behind-the-scenes look at the people who make a nightly cable-news program. Focusing on the anchor and producer, the series tracks their mission to do the news well in the face of corporate and commercial obstacles-not to mention their own personal entanglements. So how does this unrealistic HBO show have in common with our blog theme this week?
For my paper, I would like to continue to investigate the impact both shareholders and stakeholders had on the Nike’s change of ethical attitude. I want to explore the timing of incidents where stakeholders and shareholders and significant or miniscule impacts on Nike’s public actions. I also want to understand who Nike followed more, stakeholders or the media’s light towards the “evil” Nike.
While scanning the blogosphere, I came across a blog entitled Using a Customer Culture for Competitive Advantage, I was intrigued by the first article that came up about Amazon. The article raved about how Amazon is an innovated company because of it’s mission to save customer’s money. Amazon, from this blog, seems to be a very profitable and holistic sounding company by being customer oriented and not driving up Kindle prices unlike Ipads that are overpriced nearly half of what they are actually worth. But how successful are they really? Amazon is also known for never truly making a profit. Every Kindle they make, they are actually losing money. Continue reading
Mike Daisey, I get it. If you are going to tell the public a story, it better be filled with some entertainment. And when you are recounting events that actually happen in your life, especially the details and specific people right in front of you, it’s kind of hard to be all accurate. Just take my memoir for example. Yeah, some of the facts are true, some of ’em aren’t. I mean I just sorta tried to play off memory for that stuff. And once people start asking for hard sources, that’s when the ball gets rolling. I mean, I didn’t want to give all my personal records of my arrests out to everyone, just like how you didn’t want anyone to find Kathy. I get it. And you know what, even if it wasn’t all true, we still made an impact on people. All of Oprah’s book club took my story to heart and it changed their views for the better. And just like your monologues, your still enlightening people about what is really going on the China, just like how I told the world what it is like to be a person like me in America. You got your monologue to get your story out, and I got my book tour. Who cares if we tweaked some of the details, we still opened people’s minds with in perspectives of the world. I get it. We are, like, totally same person. Right?
(except I use PC’s to type fabricated stories!)