Job Discrimination Using Facebook

Imagine being rejected from a job you have been waiting for your whole life because of a mistake you made in high school. This is a tactic that employers are starting to use on a regular basis. Facebook is a commonly used social network that has everything from sexual orientation to political views of the user. The profiles also include pictures that date back to when the account was created, this means that everyone can see the events you were attending and who you were with. Anyone who views your profile will have their opinion on what they see, these people could be your future employers. Is it right to be judged by your social profile? Some states do have laws stating that you are not allowed to keep a job away from someone because of their political views, sexual orientation or religious beliefs. There is also a side to the story saying that the employers need to refrain from doing this because the information that is being evaluated may be altered or could come off having a different meaning than what was intended. A survey of 350 employers was conducted in the city of New York. The conductors of the survey found that 44 percent of the party viewed the profiles of possible job candidates, 35 percent have looked at profiles of current employees. If there are pictures of this person on the internet with a cigarette in his/her hand can the employer assume that the person is a smoker? Also, is it right to discriminate people by what they do on their own time? Absolutely not. What people do on their own time and what they have done in the past on their time is none of the employers business. The concept that the internet is public property is an understandable argument but you cannot judge someone by pictures on a website, it is morally wrong. I feel that job discrimination using Facebook and other social networks is wrong but if you want to protect yourself, keep the pictures you wouldn't want your grandmother to see off of the internet.

Youtube Video: Facebook & Employers- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaIhXe_nT4k

Animal Testing: Let the Suffering Stop

http://showloveforanimals.blogspot.com/

Monster Vs. Vermonster

Vermonster… hmmmm…. That name is very similar to the name of Monster's energy drinks. But is it similar enough for Monster to sue this man's company who has been brewing his Vermonster beer for 12 years? Apparently Monster energy drinks believes so.

Matt Nadeau of Vermont started his brewing company in his basement 12 years ago to fulfill his dream. His beer, one of which is called Vermonster, is now brewed in a brewery where he has 7 employees, not including himself and his wife. Life was good for him! Suddenly, on September 14, 2009, he received an email from the lawyer of Monster energy drinks in California saying that he must cease and desist his Vermonster beer. Monster felt threatened that Nadeau’s Vermonster had a name too similar to theirs. Nadeau called his lawyer and is now accepting the court case because he refuses to change the name of his already known beer.

With this case, Matt Nadeau points out a huge deficiency and flaw in the world of law. Basically there is Monster, a billion dollar corporation, and Nadeau's brewery, which has no where near that sum of money. The court case costs both the plaintiff and the defendant 65 thousand dollars. If Nadeau wins his case in the first round, Monster can have the case appealed. This pattern can happen over and over again. The issue is that if Nadeau can’t keep paying for Monster’s appeals, then he will lose the case by default. Monster has a ton of money and will intentionally keep appealing the case until Nadeau can’t afford the appeal in which Monster is victorious. All of a sudden this whole case becomes a competition of who has the most money, which is obviously Monster.

An issue like this immediatly makes me sympathize for Nadeau. Here you have a man whose dream is to own a brewery. He has been peacefully making popular beer for 12 years and all of a sudden a big billion dollar corporation steps in and is willing to use money to force Nadeau to change the name of his Vermonster beer. Monster definitely looks like the bad guy in this case. Nadeau has support from people all over the country. On top of this, websites have sprung up to support Vermonster as well. This support is what keeps him willing to fight the battle against corporate America. Will this be the case that changes the way the Court System rules?

Monster Vs. Vermonster

Video Courtesy of YouTube

The Arbitration Process in Major League Baseball

In the month of February, all baseball fans hear about an event that takes place that goes unquestioned, yet has significance to a player's amount of money they will be making in the coming season. This way to decide contracts, arbitration, is never explained on the major networks that cover sports. To be the medium between the major networks and the people, give this a five minute read to discover the simplicity of arbitration.

Arbitration happens when a player, with at least 3 years but less than 6 years of service in Major League Baseball. The two sides disagree on the given figure of money that will be made by the player for next year. To eliminate this discrepancy, the team (typically represented by either a club executive or an attorney) and the player (typically represented by his agent) sell their case to a panel of 3 professional arbitrators. The two sides present their case for an hour each to the panel arguing for the amount of money each side believes the player should earn. Afterward, each side will offer rebuttal to the opposing arguments for 30 minutes. Once this is settled, the panel will meet and decide the ruling. The ruling is a one year contract and is either the team's number of the player's number that is chosen. The panel doesn't average the numbers, but instead makes the choice of only one of the two figures that were given.

Players have taken advantage to this form of negotiation. Of the 110 players that filed for salary arbitration last season, their average salary increased 120 percent from $1.38 million to $3.04 million. Tim Lincecum is the perfect example. He went through arbitration with his team, the San Fransisco Giants in the past winter. He had an unheard of 1,769% increase in his salary from last year. In 2009, he made $650,000, and with his two year deal $11.5 million.

Personally, I think arbitration is an issue that escapes the notice of many, but can impact a player's performance. Essentially, the player and the team are in disagreement, however the time of the year forces the two parties to come together and resolve the dissagreement. In the same month that players report to spring training, the two sides are going to the alternative to a lawsuit. Although players and managers will negate the complexity of the disagreement, such as Ryan Theriot, Cubs shortstop, I believe there is lots of resentment that goes unseen. If you are telling me players and managers alike can look back after their encounter on arguing over a money value and say everything is better than before, I would consider that ludicrous. Nobody can let such hard feelings go as quickly and painlessly as these MLB players would let on to the media. I believe deep down inside, the players are still bitter over the need to put effort into an issue that should be solved between a player and the team. In other words, no suits necessary.

It's a bird! It's a plane! No, It's Superman!

When we were little, we all wanted to be some superhero; whether it be Aquaman, Batman, or Superman we have all had some craving to become a hero. Now as a kid, if you were presented with a suit to make you turn into, say Superman, you would wear the suit right? Also, would you try to fly around like Superman does? If you did wear the suit, however, you would have noticed that you were the same person except just wearing a superhero costume.Perhaps as a child you thought that the suit could in fact empower you with the ability of flight, but most, if not all (hopefully), adults realize that those suits are just costumes that enable you to fly in your imagination and not in reality. Nevertheless, there still are people, mostly children would try to fly and end up hurting themselves. Their parents seeing the resulting damage from the fall, sue the company for not having proper warning labels illustrating how one might hurt themselves trying to fly. That is why companies have to be very diligent about their warning labels, however bizarre, abstract or absurd.

Having allergies to nuts is a serious thing; you have to stay away from an abundance of food because it has trace amounts of nuts in them that could render you seriously ill. Now you see food labels that advertise that they contain nuts, but should a bag of PEANUTS, that's right, peanuts, have a warning label that warns a person that there are nuts in a bag of peanuts? Honestly I thought that peanuts did not contain ANY amount of nut related material... There has definitely been a drop in just actually thinking, and using common sense.

I understand why companies put most of these warning labels on their products. It is to protect themselves from massive liability suits that take away large sums of money away from the company. Like, in a suit, where this woman sued Starbucks because she spilled a hot beverage on herself. She knew that the coffee was hot, maybe to the fault of Starbucks, too hot; but nevertheless she knew before hand, it was hot. Also she did nothing to protect herself from getting burnt. She put her coffee between her legs and started driving... She didn't even think about what could happen until it was too late. These cases where the plaintiff's common sense was definitely in question shouldn't reward them with millions of dollars. At most the case should cover the person's medical bills, but in the case of the woman who was burnt by coffee. It was her own fault she was burnt. If you put a cup of hot coffee between your legs with or without a lid, when you drive, you should be aware of the possible consequences.

Photos provided by Flickr.com

Starbucks and Guns

How would you feel if you walked into Starbucks one afternoon with your children, and right before you is standing a man with a pistol hanging from his belt? Is this the kind of environment you would feel safe to be in? Well this has been happening multiple places in the United States. This is known as the "Open Carry" movement. It is a movement enforced by gun right extremists to voice their interpretation of the second amendment. They interpret this as their right to carry handguns around with them in public. While basically all states have at least some small restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons, few states do anything to regulate the "open carry" of guns. The people for the "Open Carry" movement see this as "normalizing" their self-defined right to carry guns with them whenever and wherever they would like to.

In Northern California, "open carry" believers have been gathering in Starbucks and other coffee shops and restaurants with their semi-automatic pistols and revolvers out for all to see. "Studies show that the more guns there are, the more gun violence there is in that location." Also 80 percent of the people who do not possess a gun say that they would feel much less safe if more people in their community had guns.

"Starbucks put out a statement saying they don't want to be in the middle of this fight. Well, they are. They are the middle," Brian Malte, director of federal and state mobilization at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a national gun-control group, told reporters at Victor Steinbrueck Park at Pike Place Market. Starbucks is not doing making anything be done about guns in their franchises. They are allowing this to continue even though it is not in the best interest of their customers. Starbucks' efforts to maintain an ethical buying practice is a reason to expect it would ban guns from its stores. Starbucks calls itself a "socially responsible" company, so doesn't that mean Starbucks should do the "socially responsible" thing?

By allowing people to openly carry guns in their stores, Starbucks is violating the public's trust. However, few even cared about Starbucks' gun policy, until January, when word was spread that gun carrying followers of open-carry laws were meeting in coffeehouses and restaurants in California's Bay Area. This is when all the commotion began. This forced Starbucks to make the decision on whether or not to ban firearms from their stores, they chose not to. By making this decision has come a lot of hardships among Starbucks clients, but they are standing tall with their choice.

In my opinion, i believe that Starbucks made the wrong decision by choosing to not ban firearms from their stores. They are putting the safety of their customers in harm. They are also losing some respect from customers. I think that by allowing this they are sending out an open invitation for more violent acts to take place in their stores. They are in a way putting their customers in harms way. If just anyone is allowed to bring in a handheld gun, how will they be able to control what is happening in their stores. For example if a man brings his pistol into a Starbucks location and he "accidentally" drops it, and it goes off and fires a bullet that kills an innocent bystander, what can be done? Will Starbucks be to blame or will it be the man's fault? Why should we have to wait until this or an alike accident happens? The smart thing would have been to ban the firearms from all their locations. All we can do now is watch and see how this unfolds.

Go to this site to make your voice heard and take a stand against allowing firearms in Starbucks.

Picture Courtesy of Flikr

Video Courtesy of YouTube and CBS News

Freedom of Speech on Facebook?

Katherine Evans was just a high school student in Miami, Florida. All she was trying to do was express an opinion. She did not like her teacher and wanted to let people know. To do this she started a group on the social networking site, Facebook.com. The group was titled, “Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I’ve ever met.” When Katherine posted this she did not think it would escalate to something big, and it shouldn’t have.

When her principal told Evans that she would be suspended for making the Facebook page she was appalled. After all, doesn’t this violate her freedom of speech? Katherine Evans, just like every American is entitled to freedom of speech unless it is threatening or dangerous in some way. All Evans was doing was expressing her opinion. She did not mean any harm at the teacher and it was not a threat to her in any way.

When she was suspended from the school in 2007, Evans was also taken out of advanced placement classes and put into regular level classes. She hired a lawyer who is trying to remove the suspension and have the files relating to the suspension dismissed from her file. Also, trying to put her back into advanced classes.

The attorney states that all she was doing was giving her personal opinion and gossiping. If you look in the constitution there is nothing against that. The first amendment says that you are entitled to freedom of speech. Katherine Evans spoke with freedom and now she has to pay a punishment. Even though there are now new forms of technology and communication, that does not mean we should change the constitution or someone’s rights.

On Facebook, this happens all of the time. When a friend comments on another friends page saying how they hate their teacher or how their teacher is awful. Students should not get suspended for this behavior. When I am on Facebook I always see people talking like this. There is nothing wrong with it unless it gets out of hand. In some cases threats on Facebook happen and then the police or other authorities need to get involved. But for Katherine Evans it was not like this. Students have the right to express their feelings and there is no way that they should get suspended for it.

I agree with Evans and her attorney. She should not have been suspended and dropped from advanced classes. They needed to put her back in advanced classes as soon as possible and drop the suspension.

Other cases like these if they are similar, there should not be a suspension involved. Like this case…a teen student in Oak Park, Illinois posted a comment about a teacher. He then got suspended and it was dropped after a lawsuit. Contact the student first and make them take down the page. Then, work it out with the teacher and the student. The Evans case did not need to be taken this far.

The article did not share the outcome of the case but Katherine Evans is 19 now and she is in college now.

Should Endorsement Contracts be More Strict?

The Tiger Woods scandal may be nearing an end as he is fixing his problems at home and getting ready to return to golf, but this scandal’s impact on the sports business world will be everlasting. Recently, too often has an athlete endorser’s decision caused trouble for the companies they endorse, causing companies to rethink their relationships with the athletes that are endorsing them. These athlete endorsers are faces of the company, so making bad decision can put a permanent black eye on the company. Because of this, the impact of athlete endorsers making bad decisions can be enormous. This impact is apparent in the recent Tiger Woods scandal. Seven companies that Woods has or had sponsorship deals with lost an estimated $12 Billionin market value after the first month of this scandal. Companies are sick of investing so much money in these athletes who make bad decisions that end up hurting the company, so the contracts between endorsers and companies from hear on out are likely to be extremely different. Future contractswill likely consist of significantly tougher moral clauses including the right to terminate the contract after basically anything that could possibly damage the companies’ image. This is very different than most current moral clauses in which the company can only terminate the contract if the endorser is convicted of a felony. Because of the irresponsibility of some athlete endorsers, the risk of hiring an athlete endorser has been increased resulting in the price of insurance to increase, which ultimately results in that athlete endorsers being paid less. The Tiger Woods scandal has caused companies to rethink the monstrous contracts they are giving athlete endorsers, which will most likely result in athletes no longer being paid massive amounts of money to endorse companies.
I think that it is about time that these companies look at these contracts again. Just over the past couple years, multiple superstar athletes have made bad decisions that have tarnished their reputations, making the companies they endorse look bad. Other than Tiger Woods, major endorser athletes such as Michael Vick and Gilbert Arenas have gotten in trouble, resulting in their inability to participate in the sport that they play. Gilbert Arenas may be the first superstar athlete to be suffering from the "Tiger Woods Effect." In January, it was made public that Gilbert Arenas had brought guns into the Washington Wizards locker room, resulting in the suspension of Arenas from the NBA. Arenas has not been convicted of anything yet, but corporate sponsors are no longer afraid to bring down the hammer fearing that their endorser will have the same effect on them that Woods had on his. Adidas, Arenas' major corporate sponsor, announced that they would cut ties with Arenas, a move that shows just how careful companies are going to be with athletes that represent them.
It makes a lot of sense for these companies to rethink the contracts they offer the athletes who represent them. When choosing an endorser, the company looks for someone who consumers want to feel connected too. Everyone wants to wear the same shoes as Michael Jordan. Athletes who make bad decisions are breaking this bond between the consumer and the company, and it is severely damaging the companies. I think that because the endorser is so essential to the company's success, the penalties for making bad decisions should be harsher than the expected ones. I think that the athlete should have to pay back a portion of their contract to the company, to cover some of the damages that the company would suffer from. I also believe that the company should have the right to terminate the contract at any time that they want, which would force the athletes to represent the company to the best of their ability. I think that it is an honor to be asked to be the face of a corporation, and it is time that athlete endorsers begin treating it like one.

Lindsay is a milkaholic?

Lindsay Lohan is suing the financial company E-Trade, insisting that E-Trade’s latest commercial – which aired during the Super Bowl – contains a baby that was modeled after her. Lindsay is suing for $100 million for her pain and suffering (click here to read the article from the New York Post).

The E-Trade ad features babies playing the stock market. During the commercial, a boy baby apologizes to his girlfriend baby via video chat for not calling her the night before. "And that milkaholic Lindsay wasn't over?" the baby girl asks. "Lindsay?" the boy replies. Just then, another girl baby sticks her head out and says, "Milk-a-what?"

Lohan's lawyer, Stephanie Ovadia, said the actress has the same single-name recognition as Oprah, Madonna, Lebron, and Kobe. "Many celebrities are known by one name only, and E-Trade is using that knowledge to profit," Ovadia said. "They're using her name as a parody of her life. Why didn't they use the name Susan? This is a subliminal message.” Ovadia said E-Trade has violated Lohan's right and used her "name and characterization" without paying her or getting her approval.

Chris Brown, a spokesman for Grey Group, which produced the spot says the company "just used a popular baby name that happened to be the name of someone on the account team."

I think that it is outrageous that Lindsay even had the thought to sue. Obviously her rehab hasn't fully corrected her decision making. There are a number of issues with this law suit: First, she is not the only famous Lindsay in the world (for example, Lindsay Vonn who recently was successful at the Winter Olympics, or Lindsey Hunter who plays on the Bulls). Therefore, it is somewhat ridiculous and egotistical for Lindsay and her lawyer to assume that the commercial was referring to her. Furthermore, had E-trade used the name "Susan" in the commercial, what is to say that they would not get sued by my next door neighbor, Susan, or any other famous Susan for that matter. Not one person's birth-name is copyrighted. Second, how is this "pain and suffering" worth $100 million in damages? There is no way to prove that this damages her reputation, or that people even assume that the character is her. Most likely this is an attempt for Lindsay to make money, given that her acting career turned her into either an alcoholic or a milkaholic.

Are Traffic Cameras Ethical?

You’re in a rush to get to the movie and then of course with your luck, the light turns yellow. You accelerate to make it through the light before it gets red, but then flash! You’ve been caught blowing a red light by the slightest of margins by the newly installed traffic camera. Now you can expect a hefty fine to be sent to you through the mail as well as a picture and possibly video of you just trying to make the movie on time. Is this fair? Or even is this necessary?

In the recent years, over 3,000 new traffic cameras have been installed at our intersections and on our highways. These cameras can do anything from issuing speeding tickets to scanning license plates and seeing if that car has any unpaid fines. The one thing that every camera has in common is the blatant fact that they produce revenue.

The companies that produce these cameras claim that these cameras are making streets and highways safer. If monitored at all times, people won’t blow red lights and definitely won’t take a chance hitting dangerous speeds on high ways. In New York City, a plan is in the works to install traffic cameras to make the city’s bus system more efficient. The main reason for the installation of these cameras, and also the most controversial reason is that the cameras produce revenue for the companies and for the government.

For people who drive the streets that are monitored by traffic cameras, the tickets are piling up. A camera was recently installed at an intersection in Schaumburg, Illinois and produced around 1 million dollars in fines in only 3 months. Throughout the entire US, traffic cameras have given out 200,000 violations since September. To the people, traffic cameras are just another way that they are being cheated out of their own, hard earned money.

I think traffic cameras are a violation of privacy. Whatever happened to human judgment? We should be given tickets and given fines when found committing a violation by a human police officer. Humans have the ability to think before handing out fines, unlike a machine. If we are going to have machines patrol our streets then why not have machines patrol out entire police force as well? Traffic cameras can’t think and can’t assess situations and therefore should not be patrolling our streets.

Overall, I feel that the police have been doing a fine job on our streets and that traffic cameras are used solely as a source of revenue. These cameras are produced and operated by for-profit companies that don’t worry about how many violations they give out. Each camera that is put on the street makes these companies approximately 5,000 dollars every month! According to the Journal of Law and Economics, during economic hardships, the number of violations assessed goes way up as revenue is the only goal. Some cities, even a major city such as Dallas have been caught shortening the time that a stoplight is at yellow in order to try and catch more people running red lights. I think that the entire idea of giving more tickets to create more revenue is unethical and the main source of these tickets are the cameras that are being installed in our neighborhoods every day.

Protesting at Funerals Protected by the Constitution

In 2006, a soldier by the name of Matthew Snyder was killed in Iraq and his funeral was held in Westminister, Maryland a few days after. The Snyder family was just trying to give their son, an American hero, a proper burial when members of the Topeka, Kansas Westboro Baptist Church arrived with plans of "seeking to spread the word of God." The members of this church, the Phelps family, showed up to the funeral and were chanting and holding signs with messages like "Thank God for Dead Soliders", and "God Hates You." Snyder's father was outraged by the situation and decided to sue the religous picketers that ruined his son's funeral while causing "emotional distress" to the family during a time of grief and mourning. Mr. Snyder claimed that, "Matthew deserved better. A civilized society deserved better."

After the initial case, the jury awarded the Snyder family $10 million for the damages that were caused by the hateful messages directed at the family during a very sad, emotional period of time. The amount was later reduced to $5 million and then the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the initial decision based on the grounds of the First Amendment. The Phelps family argued that their protest was not intended to hurt the family, they were meant to speak out against a nation that was "once great." The Phelps' argued that their freedom of speech about public matters should be protected and the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed.

Is this really what this nation has come to? These people are absolutely crazy and the government is pretty much saying, "go ahead, why not? It's your freedom to absolutely deminish a family while they are burying their son who died while fighting for your freedom." I mean I don't understand, I just really don't. Look, I get the fact that the right to protest is protected by the Constitution and the freedom of speech and so on, and I think that's great, but don't you think there should be some kind of median that people should follow? One would think that people would have the morals to not speak out and practically rip the reputation of a soldier apart while his family is giving him a proper burial, but obviously that is not the case. I guess what I don't understand at all is how this family can come in and put a pernament wound in the souls of the people who were trying to mourn this hero's death and they can get away with it. There has got to be some kind of way to avoid these things from happening because this family will do this again and again, but they have the right to do it, right? I don't know about you, but I believe the Phelps' were way out of line and the Snyder family does deserve better. This society deserves better. Matthew Snyder and the many other soldiers who have passed deserve much much better.

Walgreen's Sued For Wrongful Death

In florida, a Walgreen's pharmacy was sued for giving someone the wrong prescription. Beth Hippely was the victim, and her family sued Walgreen's and won the case for 33.3 million dollars. Walgreen's was sued for negligent breach of duty and wrongful death. This means that Walgreen's failed to realize the mistake on the prescription, and therefore they are held liable for the damages that occurred to Beth Hippely because of their mistake.

Beth Hippely was a fourty-two year old mother of four. She lived in Bartow, Florida and was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2002. Hippely began chemotherapy and her doctor prescribed her with Warfarin, a blood-thinner. However, the pharmacist at Walgreen's made a mistake and gave Hippely a dosage that was ten times as powerful as the amount she was supposed to take. The drug caused Hippely to have a stroke, which caused her to stop chemotherapy. Her cancer returned and she died in 2007. One reason Walgreen's was found liable was that the requirements to become a pharmacist at Walgreen's is very low. Walgreen's does ont even require a high school diploma for someone to work in their pharmacy. The person that worked there was supposed to type "one milligram" into the computer, but instead she typed, "10 milligrams" into the computer. To read more information on the case click Here.

Some people believe that a person has a duty to use reasonable care when picking up their prescription from Walgreen’s. Walgreen’s believes that people should know what their prescription is and should check it to make sure that they are taking the right medication. This is one reason why Walgreen’s appealed the original court decision. However, the court decided that Walgreen’s is ultimately liable for giving out an incorrect prescription. I agree with this decision because even though people should know their prescriptions, they should be able to trust Walgreen’s not to make a mistake with a person’s prescription. The requirements to work in the pharmacy are too easy, and these people are making mistakes that are costing peoples’ lives. This is not the first time that a prescription mix-up has occurred. It has happened many times and Walgreen’s needs to be made an example of by being sued for 33.3 million dollars. This case will make other companies more careful when giving out prescriptions. Also, companies may make the requirements to become a worker more difficult. This way, there would be fewer mistakes when dealing with prescriptions.

Major Corporations Making the Switch to Fair Trade

When you're working at your minimum wage job, do you feel unappreciated? At the end of a three-hour day, is $24.00 just not enough? Well, I'd hate to put you on a guilt trip, but there are people all over the world who are not being paid well for their hard work. Fair trade was created to instill positive change in the working conditions for countries all over the world. Large companies take advantage of cheap labor to increase their profits. To counteract the injustice of cheap labor, fair trade ensures that workers are being sufficiently paid and working in adequate conditions. Millions of children are being forced into cheap labor and will exhaust themselves for over twelve hours and receive less than 20 cents a day. Fair trade follows the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects the best interests of children. Fair trade company's are obligated to set prices for costs of material and labor. Another vital factor that fair trade companies must agree to is no discrimination in pay. No longer will superiors mistreat diligent workers' pay on the basis of gender, race etc.

Fair trade strives for large corporations to adapt to their policies. Recently Ben and Jerry's announced plans to make their company use fair trade certified products by 2013. Ben and Jerry's is also determined to convert all their European products to fair trade standards by 2011. They began using their first fair trade certified flavor five years ago. Another well-known company that uses fair trade products is Starbucks. Starbucks has been using fair trade certified coffee for ten years. Starbucks helps farmers market fair trade coffee for United States and increase farmers' knowledge of business skills. Companies along with Starbucks and Ben and Jerry's acquiring fair trade products are making an ethical move. Their decisions make a statement against cheap labor as well as promising that the money that the average consumer is spending will be properly distributed in the company.

Fair trade is not a movement that is well publicized, in my opinion, and if fair trade could get great press people would make changes in where they spend their money. Currently, fair trade organizations are campaigning for Michelle Obama to make the White House a "Fair Trade Home". If the White House were to only use fair trade products, I believe fair trade would become a universal trend. Fair trade is not a topic that came up frequently on my Google blogging account, leading me to believe that more awareness of fair trade needs to be spread. If major corporations such as Starbucks are making the fair trade change, it is apparent that fair trade is working. Making fair trade certified products can take a few years so by no means can the world expect this change to happen fast. This will be a gradual process hopefully creating a chain effect of other major corporations to follow.

To be honest, I have never given consideration to where I spend my money. My spending habits would be based on immediate gratification and on buying inexpensive products. After researching fair trade, I feel obligated to spend my money with ethical businesses. We have the tools necessary to research whether or not a company is practicing fair trade. In particular we have the Internet at our disposal. There are no excuses. Spend your hard earned income at a place deserving of your money.

If you are interested in purchasing fair trade products check out this website!

All photos courtesy of creative common search.

Do players on more liked teams get less severe punishments?

Recently All-star basketball player Gilbert Arena's was arrested on illegal possession of guns in his locker room. The controversy was based around if his locker room was a place of business. If it was then he would face only $4000 of charges and/or 4 years in prison. If the locker room was not considered a place of business then the charges could be escalated to $20,000 and/or 20 years in prison. Since he is a basketball player his locker room could be considered a business place, but also so could the court. So which one is it? the locker room or the basketball court? The sentence will come in on March 26th, but he did plead guilty for the gun charge. He even wrote a very nice apology and then on the same day, he jokes around with his teammates pretending to shoot them with his guns. For now he has been suspended from the NBA until we wait on his sentence. He signed a $111 million contract with the Washington Wizards and now that huge sum of money could very well be in jeopardy. The Wizards are not a well liked team and have a record of 21-38 and stand last in the Southeast division. However a few months back Delonte West of the Cleveland Cavaliers was pulled over for speeding on his motorcycle. He was then found carrying two hand guns and a shotgun, all of which were fully loaded. He faced 3 years in prison and/or $2500 of charges. This clearly was not a place of business and he did not have a gun license for any of them. Did i mention they were fully LOADED? Delonte returned to the NBA after a couple game suspension and a $2500 charge. Now how come Delonte gets a 3-5 game suspension and Gilbert has a chance to never play in the NBA again? I mean Delonte's guns were full loaded and clearly not in the business place and Gilberts were not loaded and questionably in the business place. Usually when people carry loaded guns they are intended for usage. Also why was he carrying that much firepower in the first place? seems like he intended on using it. This wasnt a revolver under his seat for protection this was two loaded pistols and a loaded Remington 870 shotgun. Now Delonte West plays for the Cavs which have a record of 49-15 and are number one in the Nba right now. Delonte is a key part for their team being a starting guard. Why does Delonte get a lesser sentence for a bigger crime then Gilbert Arenas? I think that players on more liked teams get a smaller punishment because people want to seem them play. The Cavaliers are headed to win a NBA title and they clearly show their dominance, while the Washington Wizards are struggling to win against mediocre teams have lost Gilbert and now Antwan Jamison due to him being traded to the Cavs. So the question is why did Delonte return to play for his team and Gilbert was suspended until his sentence arrives. Because for me it seems like Gilbert had the guns for his protection and Delonte had them for god knows what.

Erin Brockovich- Obligations of Utility Companies

Erin Brockovich-Ellis was born on June 22, 1960 in Lawrence, Kansas. One day she got seriously injured in a car accident and hired Masry & Vititoe to represent her. Unfortunately she only received a little amount for her suffering and therefore she desperately tried to find a job to provide for her three children. Even though she did not have any formal law school education she started to work at Masry & Vititoe as a file clerk. There she worked on a real estate case in 1993 and noticed that the family´s medical records were in the real estate file. Erin´s attention was caught and she intensified her research. This way she discovered what big mistake the utility company Pacific Gas and Electric had made. For more than 30 years PG&E had been poisoning the water of the small town Hinkley, California. They were leaking Chromium (VI) , which is very toxic, into the groundwater. The population of Hinkley suffered from this poison without knowing the real reason of their severe illnesses and pain. Thanks to Erin Brockovich, the families who were affected by in example cancer were finally compensated in 1996. Erin Brockovich and Ed Masry won the largest civil class action lawsuit of its kind and thus the utility giant PG&E was forced to pay out the highest toxic tort injury settlement in US history: $333 million, what was fairly divided on about 600 Hinkley residents.

PG&E lost the case because they disregarded the state law, which requires any utility company to inform the fire department about toxic circumstances. Then the fire department would talk to the affected people and find an appropriate solution. The Environmental Protection Agency lists further amendments about water pollution on their webpage. On federal level citizens have the "right to know" what chemicals are located in their communities since 1986 when the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizations Act was passed.

In Erin Brockovich´s case PG&E did not only ignore their obligation to inform the community about the danger, but they also lied and told them that their company was using a different type of chromium, which is not toxic. That means that all these deaths and illnesses were avoidable. I do not understand how PG&E bosses and workers could live with this lie and the knowledge of how many lives they were destroying. Even though they knew about the suffering families they did not switch the chemical, but told in example the family, which caught Erin´s attention, to visit a doctor to get examined. However this doctor was paid by PG&E to tell the family that their illness had nothing to do with the chromium (VI). The unsuspecting family, like all the others, tried to live on, being thankful that PG&E paid for their doctor´s visit.

If Erin Brockovich had not by coincidence had that car accident, chosen Masry as her lawyer, than started to work for him and come across that real-estate file with the family´s medical records, who knows when PG&E´s environmental law violation would have been discovered and how many more innocent people would have had to suffer.

I personally really like the movie "Erin Brockovich" because even though it is a serious topic the movie is full of amusing scenes. Julia Roberts plays the role of Erin Brockovich outstandingly well and the movie is amazingly close to the reality, what makes it very interesting. The real Erin Brockovich even plays the waitress Julia in the movie.

If you have not seen this great movie yet I definitely recommend it and hope you will enjoy it as much as I did.

Google vs. publishers for online database of books

The world we live in today surrounds us with technology everywhere we go. Given that the popular website google is now able to scan books and put them on their database for all to see page for page, the need for a library can be a thing of the past. Federal Judge for the case is Denny Chin who hears the case for the proposed settlement that will be debated between Authors Guild and Association of American Publishers and Google. The publishers are trying to prevent Google from scanning books into a gigantic online database. Google makes profit off what they put on their website, so for them to put out books which were made for sale, means google is in violation of the copyrights for the book publisher. Privacy advocates for the case say it will allow google to see statistics and a corporate oversight of what people are reading. The justice department says google is violating exclusive rights to the authors.

I think all books should be put on google including school books so that students don't have to carry their books everywhere and overall ease of use. As far as copyrights go, i think the publisher should have the option to let everyone see the book or just a few pages and an option to purchase the book giving rolayties to the author. This way both compaines would be gaining profit from the work and providing ease of use to the buyer. I think once the case is over, more deals and settlements will be made so that all people involved in the process will get their fare share of profit from the database.

Laptops Rigged to Spy

Imagine the excitement of receiving a free laptop for school work. Outfitted with everything you need to get those big projects done including a webcam. Now imagine getting in trouble for doing something against school rules in front of that laptop, and knowing that the faculty could see whatever you did. Well, that is exactly what happened to Blake J. Robbins, of the Lower Merion school district in Pennsylvania.

When Blake was receiving punishment for inappropriate behavior. When he asked for proof. The Assistant Principle of Harriton Highschool, Lindy Matsko showed him a picture taken from a laptop at his home. The Assistant Principle had this to say...



When 2,300 students were issued laptops this September little did they know that every single one of those laptops was equipped with a "spy tracking software". This enabled them to take a still image of whatever a student was doing in front of the laptop whenever they wanted. The faculty's reasoning behind doing this was that if a laptop is reported stolen they can capture an image of the perpetrator.

The Robbins family is suing for, Invasion of Privacy, theft of private information, and unlawful interception, and aces to acquired and exported data in violation of the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, violation of The Computer Fraud Abuse Act, violation of The Stored Communications Act, violation of section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act, violation of The IV Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, violation of The Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, and violation of Pennsylvania common law. The full overview of the charges listed in this document.

In my personal opinion I think that the people behind the spying of the kids should get the punishment they deserve. Not only is it unnecessary to watch what students are doing at home, but it's just plain creepy. They claim it was used to protect from theft, but a picture could be taken at any time, giving no limitation to the power of surveillance the school has. In all honesty they probably could have thought of more conventional methods to track down criminals than taking pictures when the laptops were in use. I personally was visiting my friend who goes to that school, 3 days before the spying was discovered. To think that at any time we were using that computer I could have been photographed without permission freaks me out. I know that GBN has been talking about lending laptops to all of the students, and if I am still at this school when that happens I don't want to have to think twice about what I do in front of the computer in the privacy of my own home.

Ticket Brokers Charged with Hacking

Four men who go by the name of "Wiseguys" were charged with hacking into computers of ticket vendors including ticketmaster to buy over 1.5 million tickets to all different kinds of events such as New York Yankees games and Bruce Springsteen Concerts. With the purchase of these tickets the company made a profit of nearly 29 million dollars. The company is called Wiseguy Tickets Inc. and supposively used a software called "bots" that is able to get past internet security protocols which gives access to thousands of tickets. They also used a software that mimics individual ticket buyers in order to purchase more tickets. Three of the men live in the United States and pleaded not guilty to the charges. The bail has been set for $500,000 for Joel Stevenson while Kristofer Kirsch faces a bail of $1,000,000. The leader, Kenneth Lowson, has a bail hearing in the near future and plans to ask a federal judge to let him go free on bail. However the question to be asked in this case is whether or not this was a federal crime? Lowson and his lawyer believe that it is not a federal crime because it is not illegal according to the U.S. federal legislation or was not a crime that occured on U.S. federal property. The fourth man being prosecuted is overseas and is expected to surrender in the next few weeks.

My opinion on this topic is that I think these men were properly punished for their actions. I feel that is it more the ticket companies fault for not having a secure ticket database where they sell their tickets. If anything the online ticket companies can learn a lesson from these men and hopefully buff up their security so it doesn't happen again. These men didn't commit a federal crime but they just simply got past the system and made a ton of money selling tickets.

Celebrities Getting Punished Less Harshly

A major dilemma that has been going on for years now, is how celebrities are being treated better in court than average people.

A great example of this is Martha Stewart. She was charged on four counts including lying about a transaction where Stewart withdrew stock in a company that plummeted the day after she withdrew her stock, and altering records. Stewart saved over 51,000 dollars by selling her stock and was faced with up to 20 years in prison. However, Stewart got away with only 9 months of jail time. Less than 5

% of the maximum sentence.

It is obvious that because of Stewart's high status and her popularity, she was able to get away with less than 1 year. If this were any other person in the U.S., I would believe that the sentencing would have been much harsher than what Stewart got away with.

The judge obviously knew that if Stewart were to go to jail, her show and her career would have been finished, causing stress and anger with many fans of Martha Stewart. I think the judge brought this into account while they were making the final sentencing. If this were any other person in America, there is no way that their sentencing would have been as short as Stewart's.

Another example is Michael Vick. In 2004, he was caught gambling on fights where dogs would battle to the death. He filed a plea agreement that would give him a max-

imum of five years in jail and it was settled for a little more than one year.

Dog fighting is obviously something that is very serious as he was torturing animals and gambling illegally. But he was only given one year because of his high status in society.

Previous to this, he was a star NFL player and the centerpiece of the Atlanta Falcons franchise. I think that Vick was only given a year of prison time so that he could quickly go back and be a star in the NFL once more.

In both of these cases, it is crystal clear that they were sentenced to less than the maximum time ion jail because of their higher status than other people in the U.S. I think that this is morally wrong as celebrities are being sentenced less harshly than any average American.

Eight U.S. Missonaries Released after Controversy

Eight of the ten American missionaries detained in Haiti's capital, were released on February 17 after charges against them were dropped. The missionaries were charged with child abduction and conspiracy.
They were arrested on January 29 after their bus full of 33 children was stopped at the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic due to lack of proper documents. The children ranged in age from months old to thirteen years old.
The group's leader, Laura Silsby, and her nanny, Charisa Coulter, had visited Haiti last summer with plans to set up an orphanage across the border in the Dominican to help struggling children. But, when the earthquake hit Haiti on January 12, Silsby got a group of people together to help.
Their plan was to rent a hotel across the border where they would care for orphans in desperate need that they picked up from the street. The problem was that some of the children weren't orphans. They had parents who supposedly signed them away for a better life. This has become a large problem after the earthquake. Many of the children in the Haiti orphanages are not orphans, their families are so poor that they sent them there in hopes they would be saved.
Silsby was warned of her plans by Carlos Castillo, the Dominican Republic's consul general in Port-au-Prince. Castillo said that Silsby had applied for a permit to cross the border, but Castillo found no documentation supporting Silsby's claim. Castillo warned Silsby that she needed Haitian documents to be allowed across the border. He also warned her that without the necessary documents she would be accused of trafficking children. Silsby continued to follow out her plan despite Castillo's warning.
The missionaries had a break in their case when family members of some of the children told the court that they had handed their children over to the group. This meant that the family knew they were giving away their children to the group and that they had not been abducted. In his testimony, Johnny Antione (father who gave his 10-month-old baby away to the group) said, that Silsby had "No reason to be in jail."Silsby and Coulter are being kept in jail to answer questions as to why they went to Haiti before the earthquake.
One of the problems with this case was that it created so much attention that it distracted people, including the media, from the real problems of rebuilding Haiti. This case should not have become as popular as it did. Many people were, and still are, in need of help. Cases should not distract the real goal that is to rebuild Haiti.
Should these missionaries have been charged with child trafficking even if they had permission from the parents? You can vote here to voice your opinion. My opinion, is that they should have been charged with child trafficking because they went about this process in an improper way. Do I think they had good intentions? Yes, I do. But, if they planned on setting up an orphanage they should have investigated more into the legal work and proper documents required. I don't think it was right for the missionaries to take the children away. Their parents were desperate and they gave their children away for a better life. I think the missionaries, despite trying to help, were taking advantage of these poor parents who had lost almost everything in the earthquake.