Columbine

In Salon.com's article "What you never knew about Columbine," the author, Joan Walsh, first reviews Dave Cullen's novel of Columbine, and then follows up with a personal interview. All in all, I found this piece very engaging and interesting, and for me it raised many ethical questions.

In the interview section, Dave Cullen speaks about how he and his publishers had to decide whether or not to print a certain fact he uncovered from the Columbine tragedy. While researching for his novel, he discovered that the idea that a female student was shot because she said "yes" when one of the shooters asked her if she believed in God, is actually false. This story was very widely known, many religious organizations and churches named this girl as a martyr, and her own mother wrote a memoir for her about her connections with God, and how he led her through life, and through death. The news of this encounter also appeared on various tv shows. However, in the end, Cullen and his publishers decided to let the public in on the facts, and to print that that experience never actually occurred the way many were told it did.

In the article, the author and Cullen agree that they couldn't not tell the public the entire truth, when Cullen was already discounting other Columbine myths as well, even if it proved fault in some religious organizations and the mother's memoir.

Was this the right ethical choice? Was it an ethical choice at all, or rather a marketing one? Did the publishers consider the ethical ramifications or merely how much more money the book would make if it was controversial?

Ask a Wingnut

In the article, Ask a Wingnut, the author discusses how the media is biased towards the liberal side, aka the media "unscrews to the left." The author also comments on how unlike the rumors, the media is not to blame for the GOP to lose in 2006 and 2008. Instead, the journalist remarks, "It wasn't the media that went on an orgy of spending mimicking the behavior of sailors on liberty; it was congressional Republicans. It wasn't the media that turned its back on the principles of limited government; it was the Republicans. And it wasn't the media that nominated John McCain for president (though the media helped by anointing him its favorite Republican) — it was the Republicans. So conservatives don't really blame the media for the election losses in 2006 and 2008. We blame ourselves, which is why what we have been doing, airing our internal ideological laundry in public, has been so much fun for you to watch. And for the media to cover, gleefully."

Although this wasn't one of my favorite op-eds, i think the author did answer the contributor's question well, and made it entertaining to read. I think they answered the question in an opinionated, but fair and factual, way, and that it was overall written well. Did it make me believe her opinions completely? Not really, but i think they did make a good point of trying to convince their readers. I do give them credit on the headline though, it drew me in!

3/8/09

In the article in the New York Times, Moderation and the Modern Mom, the author uses vivid humor, and amuzing anecdotes to connect with her readers.  She talks about how becoming a parent forces you to become responsible, a subject that to many would not seem to make a quality OP-ED.  However, she takes the position with such originality and really spices up her article.  It was fun to read, as well as insightful.  Her use of language clearly captivated her readers, as well as conveyed her message across fully.  I thought the article, even though it wasn't controversial or political, was charming in a way, and I'm glad I read it.  These days much of the news and media is depressing or violent.  This article was witty and simple, which was a nice break from the madness.  

12/12/08 It should have been a snowday

In the article, Will Stem Cells Finally Deliver, researchers announce new findings with stem cell research. The article announces that scientists have discovered 2 different ways to alter stems without creating an embryo. The first way, is by created iPS cells, clone cells, which can be created using adult cells. These cells than can be alterted, and re-inserted into the body to perform the tasks that the original cells could not do. The other way, is a complete breakthrough in scientific study. A researcher at harvard discovered that instead of creating clone cells and altering them, that he could simply alter the cells already within the body. His research proved positive when he altered the cells in mice that (because of the modifications) cured type one diabetes in the mouse.

Keeping this article in mind, I would like to raise the question of should mankind even be taking this so far? At what point do we stop trying to change or prevent nature? Does Darwins theory of natural selection still apply? Should it? Will this new technology be used only for medical purposes, or will we start choosing our own genetic modifications? Does of all mankind have a right to perfect themselves to live a longer life? And, to take a point of of view from silence dogood, when do we stop trying to prolong life and start trying to enhance our quality of life?

12/9/08

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/first-the-bad-news/?ref=opinion

This OP-ED is written by a mother who is concerned about the effect of the world's events on her young daughter. She believes that by not informing her daughter about events such as 9/11 and the Holocaust, her daughter will believe the world to be a better place, and be a better because of it. When her daughter asks about such events, the mother either ignores her, or blatantly lies to her. She believes this is good parenting.
The mother continues to blame schools for teaching about the Holocaust, as well as the wars, and other past events that are infortunately in our history. She says she tries to correct what the schools teach her daughter at home, but she is afraid that in this world, her daughter will never have only pure thoughts.

In my opinion, I think this mother is ludicrous. The only way to change or overpower the evil in this world is through knowledge. To learn about sad, and horrible events may be scarring, but it is the truth, and every person should be aware of what is happening, and be taught that even though it was wrong, it happened. This girl may never know that anything bad happens in life, and she will be completely oblivious to the world around her. This kind of igonorance is what causes discrimination, and hate, that powers the wars, and violence in this world.

The Flight of the Penguins

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/08/rescued.penguins/index.html

In this article the animal activists rescued 373 magellanic penguins that were stranded after searching for food. They flew the penguins on a C-130 military plane back to an animal shelter, where the penguins were cared for and fed. Then they were released back into the wild in Brazil. According to scientists, these penquins would not have harmed the poluation of the magellanic penguins, so man was not preventing an extinction. As much as I love penguins, my question is does man-kind have the right to intervene in nature? Should we interrupt and change the lives of other living beings without even thinking twice about it? Will our actions cause a butterfly affect? What if these penguins, now introduced to care and being looked after, do not hunt as hard, disrupting the food chain, because they think that man will come and save them again? What if these penguins will now become easier prey for other animals, and mess up the food change? Do we have the right to do as we please without thinking about the repercussions?

About me!

Hey I'm Cristin! This is my blog. Have fun.