Upon reading Weston’s blog on banning public smoking I was in favor of having a smoke free environment for everyone. I have tried cigars to find they are incredibly horrific tasting. I know that some people have reasons to why they smoke: I was peer pressured, it calms my nerves, habit, ect., but the simple truth is that some people do not wish to harm their health and safety. From the National Cancer Institute , second hand smoke causes cancer, even in low levels of exposure to second hand smoke.
The people who are smoking are using their right to smoke and ruin their health but when their smoke comes in contact with others they have no right to put smoke into others lungs.
Even a laissez-faire approach to smoking is harmful to people who wish to smoke and people who do not. If there is one restaurant in a town and it offers smoking, where does one go to eat food with out people smoking?
I can relate this to Mayfair mall in Milwaukee. There were incidents where people under the age of 18 were causing problems, creating a safety hazard to everyone who works and uses the mall. Now people under the age of 18 are not allowed in the mall on the weekends at certain times with out a someone over the age of 21. Now I know this is a different scenario but it applies to safety.
People should be free to smoke till their lungs disintegrate but the fact remains that that second hand smoke causes cancer. This is an issue of where public safety should be above the pleasure of smoking a cigarette.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Blog 8
Capitalism brings wealth to a nation. The competition between businesses assures the public of a best quality product at the lowest price. Without the competition the government is left to control: what is being produced, how much is being produced, and how much the good will sell for. Because of bureaucracy involved with the government there is always a surplus or a deficiency in goods. A privately owned business can control the levels of goods being produced.
My favorite example of this can be seen in communist Russia. In 1921, Vladimir Lenin saw that Soviet industry fell over 14 percent after initiating socialism. Every citizen had a quota for grain production once this quota was met these people had no incentive to produce any more grain. However, Lenin came up with the NEP or the New Economic Policy. This was just a fancy word for capitalism.
When a person in Russia would meet its grain quota he or she was then allowed to sell the excess on the open market. This spurred agriculture production in Russia. . “Within a well-defined legal frame-work, the economic mechanism (NEP) worked without confusion, and the economy as a whole was capable of reasonable efficiency and growth.” Socialism is an alternative to capitalism because capitalism brings wealth to a nation, many socialists believe that only the wealthy elite are making money.
While the wealthy may be making money, they create jobs for the majority of society. These innovative hard working people also create innovations that effect the lives of everyone in the world. Take Henry Ford for example, his innovation of a cheap car for the masses amassed him great wealth but his wealth dwarfs the effect he had on the world.
If you would like a explanation of why capitalism works ask one of the thousands of immigrants who risks their lives in a homemade raft to live in the United States.
My favorite example of this can be seen in communist Russia. In 1921, Vladimir Lenin saw that Soviet industry fell over 14 percent after initiating socialism. Every citizen had a quota for grain production once this quota was met these people had no incentive to produce any more grain. However, Lenin came up with the NEP or the New Economic Policy. This was just a fancy word for capitalism.
When a person in Russia would meet its grain quota he or she was then allowed to sell the excess on the open market. This spurred agriculture production in Russia. . “Within a well-defined legal frame-work, the economic mechanism (NEP) worked without confusion, and the economy as a whole was capable of reasonable efficiency and growth.” Socialism is an alternative to capitalism because capitalism brings wealth to a nation, many socialists believe that only the wealthy elite are making money.
While the wealthy may be making money, they create jobs for the majority of society. These innovative hard working people also create innovations that effect the lives of everyone in the world. Take Henry Ford for example, his innovation of a cheap car for the masses amassed him great wealth but his wealth dwarfs the effect he had on the world.
If you would like a explanation of why capitalism works ask one of the thousands of immigrants who risks their lives in a homemade raft to live in the United States.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Endorsements (Blog 7)
LeBron James is arguably the best basketball player in the NBA. His basketball talents make him excellent for selling products, including basketball shoes.
LeBron James currently has his own line of basketball shoes that are sold by Nike. Part of the advertisement campaign for these shoes can be seen in this link. This advertisement shows LeBron getting ready to dunk a basketball. This black and white photo shows LeBron almost as an immortal with the phrase ‘We are all witnesses.’ Even though the shoes are not in the advertisement, anyone who would purchase basketball shoes would know LeBron James because of his great basketball talents.
Because of LeBron James’ high skill level in basketball having him endorse shoes is optimal. People are much more likely to buy basketball shoes from a great NBA basketball player than an average basketball player. Because LeBron is one of the best in the world and he wears Nike shoes, his shoes may give one an advantage over others.
To some extent LeBron should have expertise in choosing a great basketball shoe. However one needs to be aware of the amount of money LeBron gets from wearing Nike shoes, over 90 million dollars.
Even though LeBron is being paid millions not many people would question his ability to play basketball. With his Nike basketball gear one can imagine that they too are one the greatest basketball players.
Because of the huge investment Nike has made and because of the abilities of LeBron James I believe that his advertisements will work in attracting people to buy shoes endorsed by LeBron James. I know these advertisements work because I have personally bought a pair of LeBron James basketball shoes.
LeBron James currently has his own line of basketball shoes that are sold by Nike. Part of the advertisement campaign for these shoes can be seen in this link. This advertisement shows LeBron getting ready to dunk a basketball. This black and white photo shows LeBron almost as an immortal with the phrase ‘We are all witnesses.’ Even though the shoes are not in the advertisement, anyone who would purchase basketball shoes would know LeBron James because of his great basketball talents.
Because of LeBron James’ high skill level in basketball having him endorse shoes is optimal. People are much more likely to buy basketball shoes from a great NBA basketball player than an average basketball player. Because LeBron is one of the best in the world and he wears Nike shoes, his shoes may give one an advantage over others.
To some extent LeBron should have expertise in choosing a great basketball shoe. However one needs to be aware of the amount of money LeBron gets from wearing Nike shoes, over 90 million dollars.
Even though LeBron is being paid millions not many people would question his ability to play basketball. With his Nike basketball gear one can imagine that they too are one the greatest basketball players.
Because of the huge investment Nike has made and because of the abilities of LeBron James I believe that his advertisements will work in attracting people to buy shoes endorsed by LeBron James. I know these advertisements work because I have personally bought a pair of LeBron James basketball shoes.
Comparing (Blog 6)
The use of the death penalty has steadily dropped in approval by the American people. These two articles show reasons to get rid of the death penalty and reasons for the death penalty. As of now I believe the death penalty should not be used. The amount of time and money felons spend fighting for their lives ends up costing tax payers more then just letting them sit in prison.
An article from TIME magazine shows the inefficiencies in the current death penalty system. These inefficiencies allow prisoners on death row to spend over 30 years in some cases fighting to stay in prison. The article also shows the inhuman nature of executions. One person in Louisiana was zapped in an electric chair only to survive because the chair was not working. Now even the murder did not bring his victim to death and then back again. The number of deaths by the death penalty has decreased in the United States, however some states have been expanding the death penalty.
In a CNN article, Texas and Georgia “show no signs of changing course” on the death penalty, while Virginia has been expanding their death penalty. Virginia’s death penalty now includes those who assist in murder.
By reading both articles I find that the death penalty should not be used. The current system is very inefficient and costs more money then locking up a prisoner for the rest of their life. The TIME article is more influential because of the inhumane accounts of the death penalty and effectiveness of explaining how the current death penalty system is flawed.
All in all, my views were changed after I read these articles. I always thought the death penalty should be used but because of its inefficiencies it is not the best option.
An article from TIME magazine shows the inefficiencies in the current death penalty system. These inefficiencies allow prisoners on death row to spend over 30 years in some cases fighting to stay in prison. The article also shows the inhuman nature of executions. One person in Louisiana was zapped in an electric chair only to survive because the chair was not working. Now even the murder did not bring his victim to death and then back again. The number of deaths by the death penalty has decreased in the United States, however some states have been expanding the death penalty.
In a CNN article, Texas and Georgia “show no signs of changing course” on the death penalty, while Virginia has been expanding their death penalty. Virginia’s death penalty now includes those who assist in murder.
By reading both articles I find that the death penalty should not be used. The current system is very inefficient and costs more money then locking up a prisoner for the rest of their life. The TIME article is more influential because of the inhumane accounts of the death penalty and effectiveness of explaining how the current death penalty system is flawed.
All in all, my views were changed after I read these articles. I always thought the death penalty should be used but because of its inefficiencies it is not the best option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)