All Are One

I enter the room which is stark and somber. No one inside is smiling but rather having discontent smirk on their face. I am one of the few people inside that isn’t black. I scan the room and people are attentive, proud and eyes are glued to the speaker at the podium. He is tall and large. His white beard and bald head is capped on top of his generic looking tuxedo that looked liked it had been picked up at a thrift store. I am just wondering what this man is going to talk about and if I am going to relate to a thing that he says. I look around the room again and figure that I probably will not come remotely close.

The man begins to speak and he carries a thick African accent from a country that I have no clue of the origin. Because this was an African American sponsored meeting I guessed correctly that this man was going to be talking about race and its problems of sorts. What he said was surprising. He said that race in fact is not a biological construct but rather a social construct and that there is no way to classify race. According to him the race we identify with and associate with are socially created in order to belong amongst so many people around us.

The more the speaker talks and goes on about his findings and hypotheses about race the more attentive and engaged the blacks become. I think what the speaker was basically trying to communicate is that because race is socially manufactured and exercised that one has no reason to act as if race predicts or validates anything. While the findings are not that shocking or revealing since it is rather predictable that people would separate themselves according to race, what is predictable is that people keep identifying their place in this world according to race. To me I just figured that people are who they are because of what they accomplish and that’s it. Some people though attach heavy meaning to race because they are treated a certain way because of it.

This lecture was different from others in that this man was much more academic and not trying to be on a soapbox rousing up people’s emotions. He was neutral in attitude and presented his findings in a factual manner. He wasn’t hateful and didn’t blame white people for racism or wasn’t passive aggressive like other lectures I have been to. Many lectures I have been to professors and guest speakers act condescending and full of themselves but this man was humble, soft spoken and knew his material backwards and forward. He presented his facts and while he had his opinion he left enough open for the audience to form their own conclusions and interpretations which I found very respectable.

While race according to the speaker is a social construct there will always be a sort of separation and groups that form because of it. People gravitate towards their own race and background naturally especially if they haven’t had lots of friends growing up that were different than them in background. Today it seems to be changing but outside the college environment I am not sure how this plays out. Some people insist on staying with their own group while others mix into other groups freely. To me diversity is not about different backgrounds and races but at different mindsets and ways of looking at the world.

To Give or Not To Give

“I’m on a tight budget, Howard, and I need to get an IPhone. How am I going to make 600 bucks very quickly?”

“Hmm, well, Gordy, you could get another job, an honest, paying job. We’ll hit up Craigslist.com and find some quick side jobs like landscaping, moving, or painting. We’ll find you a job where you work for good people, people with integrity, people with values, Gordy. Sure, you’ll work hard but it’ll be worth it. Think of it as a life lesson.”

“Uhh, honesty? Integrity? Life lessons? Sounds…lame. I need something fast, quick, and lucrative. Fuck morals. I just need 600 bucks. I’m not out to find a purpose in my life, make lifelong friends, or learn the meaning of hard, honest work. I just need 600 bucks.”

“Gordy, I don’t know what you’re getting at here but…”

“I’m going to scam people! I’m going to trick them into thinking I am homeless! A beggar! A pauper! They’ll have to give me money. No one turns down a homeless guy these days. First, I have to get the look. That means no shaving, no showering, and no brushing. I’ll head to Goodwill and get some sweatpants and flannels. I’ll come up with a heart wrenching story about my parents dying and how I’ve been on the streets since I was 12. Then, I’ll head to the nice part of town and feed off of other people’s integrity, compassion, and warmth. This is the perfect scam! My act, my story, my look will be so tight, there will be no way people will be able to distinguish me from a person who is really in need. Brilliant! They’ll think I live under the docks in a cardboard box and have no job. Little do they know, I’m an accountant that lives with his parents. I’ll give them hope, Howard. I’ll tell them of my desire to turn it all around and how all I need is a couple bucks to get my feet planted, get a job, and start down a better path towards a new life. It’s going to be so easy it’s sad, HAHA. Let’s see, we’ll average, say, two bucks a person every ten minutes, that’s 12 dollars an…”

(Turns to camera, cue melodramatic piano music, background fades to black)

“It is sad, very sad. See, what Gordy thinks is a quick, fun, easy way to make some cash is really a terribly immoral scam that will ultimately send him down a path towards total immorality, a world filled with cheap thrills, empty promises, and quick fixes. In addition to his own demise, he is making money at others’ expense. By feeding off of people’s compassion, warmth, and integrity, he is only adding to the degradation of society as a whole. Way to go, Gord! And it seemed so simple…

By now, your mind is racing. You’re wondering, how do we determine if a homeless person is really homeless or is faking it? You’ve seen the potential ease of the scenario and you’re left confused as to what to do next time someone asks for a handout. How do we decide whether to give money to a homeless person? Is that homeless man a scam artist or a person in need? In a perfect world, this ethical controversy wouldn’t exist. But the world just isn’t full of rainbows, butterflies, and dreams that come true."

You could do one of two things. You could never give money to anyone in fear that they are all scam artists making six-figures as accountants during the weekdays. You could refuse to lend the helping hand to someone in need because you think they might be faking it. And, you could live a very selfish and introverted life wherein what is yours, is yours and no one else’s. But, hey, you’ll never get duped out of money, right?

Or, you could give money to every person that ever asks for a handout knowing that they will use it for a meal or a jacket. You could have so much faith in the human race that you trust each individual person has inside of them very honest qualities. You could be completely free of judgment for a homeless person and what he or she wishes to do with that buck you gave him.

Ultimately, it is your choice. It is your choice what you do for your fellow man or woman. It is your choice where you would like to take this little thing we call, the human race. It is your choice what you will contribute.

But personally, I think Mike Tyson says it perfectly…Stacey McKinley on Mike Tyson: "He sees a guy beggin' in the street and he gives him a hundred dollars. I'll say, 'Man, y'know the guy's just gonna spend it on crack!' But he says, 'I leave it to Allah to judge him.'"

Simple Math

The Declaration of Independence states that we the people are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Enforcing helmet laws may or not increase life, but it definitely takes away from liberty. Anyone over the age of 18 should have the legal right to foolishly put his or her own life in danger, as long as it does not endanger anybody else. Helmets are also uncomfortable, a hassle to remember, they look nerdy at times, and they cost approximately 18 dollars that could be spent on something else, like the pursuit of happiness.

Let’s be honest, the value of helmets can be confirmed with elementary math. You’re name is Joe, and you are peddling east at approximately 12 miles an hour, plus rush hour traffic on a small side road off Wrightsville Ave, plus you have to be at work in 3 minutes, squared. Drunken driver bob is traveling south, speeding in his car at approximately 45 miles an hour. He is changing the music on his shuffle Ipod, and cursing because it has no LCD screen, and he could swear he put Little Jon’s “Crunk Juice” on it; but alas, he cannot find it, hence the f bombs, times 6.

When you cross the road in a hurry, and he doesn’t realize he’s swerving into you, you collide and your helmet protects the top of your head when you fly off the bike and hit the ground with a shattered spine at approximately 28 miles an hour. So after carrying the one, the answer is x equals crap. That’s what helmet’s are worth. But that may be overstating the issue: helmets do make dangerous activities safer, just not safe.

If you want to prevent cyclist deaths, the answer is not in forcing people to protect themselves. It is in making sidwalks in residential neighborhoods, bike crosses, stop signs, bicycle signs, and increase awareness. However I can see a few ups to enforcing a seat belt law, but they are all in favor of the perpetrators. If driver Bob hits Joe, and he’s not wearing a seatbelt and he kills him, and it really was just an unfortunate coincidence that he could not have prevented, than that’s still manslaughter. If he survives the collision, he’ll do less in jail. Also if you happen to be driving around, intoxicated, the helmet laws will keep many cheapskate cyclists, paranoid of a fine, off the street thus reducing your chance of serving a few years in prison for reckless endangerment, manslaughter, etc.

Seatbelt laws are understandable, because by not wearing a seatbelt, you are not only endangering your own life. If you were to get in an accident you would become a human bullet with enough fatal momentum to fling about the car killing others, or propel through the window hitting pedestrians or fellow motorists. However by not wearing a helmet you are only endangering yourself, this is your business only, not your governor’s, not George Bush’s, not Big Brother, not the Illuminati’s, only yours. Who gives a flying cyclist anyways?

Sad end to a sorry episode

As baseball’s acting commissioner in 1994, Bud Selig was welcomed to the job with a 232-day work stoppage and the first cancellation of the World Series since 1904. Little did he know (or maybe he did, but that’s another story) that the strike wouldn’t be the last controversy he’d have to deal with. Now that congress has gotten involved with the steroids investigation, it has raised the controversy of whether pro sports should be able to govern themselves. Based on the recent steroid controversy in baseball, it's become painfully obvious that professional sports leagues may require a bit of monitoring from the government.

One of the first questionable seasons happened in 1996 when Brady Anderson hit 50 home runs. In his previous seven seasons with the Baltimore Orioles, he only had 72 career homers. Though he admitted to using Creatine and protein, which are both legal, it’s awfully hard to attribute such a gigantic number to the use of legal supplements.

In 2002, the steroid controversy in baseball started moving onto sports pages daily. Bob Costas noted on the Dan Patrick Show that there had been nineteen 50-plus home run seasons between 1995-2002. Prior to 1995, only eighteen 50-homer seasons had occurred.

Then came Barry Bonds going for 73 home runs in one season as well as having his four highest home run after his 37th birthday. Where many home run hitters continue their success into their late 30s, it’s rare for a player to peak at that age. On top of the already mounting circumstantial evidence, Bonds came under more scrutiny when he and his personal trainer were linked to the Bay Area Lab Cooperative. BALCO was known to provide clients with Human Growth Hormone, Insulin and Trenbolone -- a hormone generally given to cattle. Bonds admitted to using steroids, but claimed that he was fooled and thought he was using Flaxseed oil for his arthritis.

Jose Canseco alleges in his book Juiced that Selig knew about the growing steroids problem in baseball after the strike but decided to let things go because baseball needed to bring fans back to the ballpark. With Mark McGwire -- who Canseco says he personally injected with steroids, banging out 70 home runs in 1998 -- baseball was beginning to make its comeback. Attendance had been down until Sammy Sosa joined McGwire in the chase for the single-season home run record. Being a business-minded commissioner, Selig avoided addressing the situation because it put more money in the pockets of he and his buddies.

Selig was forced to address the issue after the BALCO scandal and created the original steroid policy in 2005, in which a positive test equaled a 10-game suspension on the first offense. Only on the fifth positive test were players subject to being banned from baseball.

Many people argue that professional sports should be able to govern themselves and what happens on the field should stay there. Very rarely has the law become involved in sports, but in select cases, it has to. Such was the case when Marty McSorely decided to use his hockey stick as a weapon to nearly end Donald Bradshear’s life on the ice. McSorely was banned, as he should have been, but he also had to face the consequences of the law.

Now, people will say that the investigation could blur the lines of just how involved in sports the government can be. What if Congress isn’t pleased with a player going unpunished for breaking the rules, can they then step in to suspend or ban the player?

I highly doubt that any of that will ever become a problem. Though I don’t like the government getting involved with sports, I support the Congressional investigation 100 percent.

Selig has never been too concerned with the well-being of the game whether it be letting an All-Star game end in a tie or enacting his original joke of a steroid policy. This is the same man who considered getting rid the Minnesota Twins, a proud franchise with a history of doing things the right way.

He had ample time to clean up the game and give the fans a true representation of what the game is all about. It’s hard to say at this point if anything we saw recently in baseball was real, such as Roger Clemens being a dominant pitcher into his mid-40s or Barry Bonds’ head swelling to the size of a watermelon while he banged out 70 homers at age 37.

Though baseball has since enacted a tougher policy, none of that would have ever happened without Congress stepping in and telling Selig to clean up the game or they’d clean it up for him.
For the past 15 years, baseball fans have been fooled by what Selig allowed to happen right under his own nose in the pursuit of profits and bringing baseball into the national relevance.
When all the names drop in connection to steroids at the end of this, effectively rendering many players’ careers as irrelevant frauds, Selig’s name should drop too. Congress has to clean up the spilt milk that Selig let sour for too long.

To borrow a statement from one of the great commissioners in baseball history, this is the sad end of a sorry episode.

Thing is, it could have all been avoided.

The Freedom To Speak

In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9

He stands next to the water tower casting perpetual torture to the right and left. To sinners that inhabit this campus. To the heathens and temptresses that scurry about. Accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your one and only savior or be cast into eternity for all damnation.

Then around him stand the shocked onlookers, mouths open in disbelief. A few of the braver students speak up.

“Stop speaking hate,” one yells.

“God is love, you’re a monster,” says another.

They accuse him of bigotry and sexism. They call him a hate monger and a false Christian.

I walk by, head down, hat pulled low. Something catches my attention and my head perks up. I listen in for a second and catch the faint sound of the most annoying thing in the world, the unscheduled public debate. I hear the words "hate", "love", "God", "damnation" and "evil" shouted from different directions. I shake my head and return my gaze to the ground.

The fact is I don’t know which side is right. Maybe God does love all his creatures equally. Maybe he wants to save the righteous and punish the wicked. Maybe neither side is right. The only thing I know is that both sides deserve the right to speak, no matter what outlandish, ludicrous speech they emit.

Even if what they say is hate speech. I don't think hate speech can have any effect on our campus. Depending on the point of view, perhaps what the preacher was saying was hate speech. I just don't believe that hate speech has any power in this environment. Hate speech is only effective in impoverished areas where knowledge is controlled. That’s why the KKK is effective in the deep south, Islamic fundamentalism spreads rapidly in poor Arab countries, and Hitler was able to convince an entire nation and eradicate an entire religion.

This is hardly the environment that we face here on campus. The point of a University is to hear different theories on all topics. In this environment, the views of all should be listened to openly.

Who looks crazier, the man preaching about a lake of fire or the mob that waits on with a look of blood lust stained on their faces? The phrase “God is love” has a less than enlightened ring to it when it is followed with “you bastard.” I look into the crowd and see the angriest looks on people's faces. If they walked twenty feet to the right the “hate speech” would be merely a muffle.

In reality, having the ability to speak freely is a mixed blessing, but it is essential to our society. I don’t agree with the backwards ranting of the clock-tower preacher. He speaks of a creator that needs to be feared rather than worshiped. But as an American he has the right to share his views no matter how slanted they are. Of course he contradicts his own message by judging us. It is our right, as the harlots, blasphemers and sinners, as he calls us, to disagree with his speech. And though the majority disagrees with what he says, he has the right to say whatever he pleases.

The Little Things

Clutching my soda and the steering wheel with my right hand, I take a drag on a cigarette with my left. With my cell phone tucked tightly between my face and my shoulder, I veer quickly into the right lane without the nuisance of a turn signal. I flick away my cigarette and roll the window down further to chuck my coke can at a road sign. Nice, two points.

I arrive at my destination and pull into a handicapped spot. I continue to gab as I throw an old hanger on my review mirror, saved from when I had a broken foot. I walk to class, not bothering to throw a "thank you" to the person who opened a door for me. I sit in class, sign the attendance sheet before deciding to call it a day and take a nap on a textbook.

I continue throughout the day to break every common courtesy known to polite society.

I could be this obnoxious and not be arrested or persecuted, unless that includes one or two people flipping me off. In the end, that really doesn't bother me that much. I don't believe these actions are the difference between going to heaven or hell. So does it really matter? I wouldn't like to be called a lazy or selfish person, so spreading it out into small increments throughout the day should make my behavior unrecognizable as character flaws.

I'm not sure if this qualifies as a large moral dilemma. More like very small, insignificant dilemmas, so small that they almost don't count. After all, it is not likely that I or anyone else will stay awake at night pondering the pros and cons of turn signal usage.

In the end, I guess it's not a big deal. That is, unless everyone was like me. Wilmington traffic might be a bit more hazardous than it already is, with it being a requirement to talk on a cell phone while driving. I may walk a city street and kick my way through a sidewalk littered with trash and mounds of cigarette butts. There may be a few more people on crutches or in wheelchairs that have to walk a bit further to class. On a positive note, there would be a large increase in inmates that are employed to clean up the roadsides.

I am not typically this obnoxious. And the majority of people aren't. Hence the expression "common courtesy." Which is why I become so annoyed with those people who think it's ok to be the exception, and that the world has room for them and doesn't mind. In reality, I think the world does mind, and I definitely mind. It's small, insignificant things, I know. My point exactly. It takes little time and effort to be a polite functioning human being. So cowboy up, be a man and take your burger wrapper over to the trash can.

Two-way street

I'm standing in line at my local convenient store, located on Wrightsville Avenue. The surrounding area is a latent cultural reminder of this country's immigration "problem." At any given point you will see Hispanics, a race who is quickly increasing in numbers inside Americas working class environment. Of course there's the multitude of different visitors Caucasians, college students, farmers, toothless country folk, and affluent soccer moms. All recipients of differing warm hearted welcomes or the disheartening good-byes. It all depends on which category one most closely matched.

On this particular evening, while I was loosely grasping my time-heavy case of beer by my sweaty palm the line had made me restless. The line is long, it's a summer night. Hot. One of Wilmington's classic afternoon thunderstorm had just come and gone, leaving the air muggy. Most of us in the line are well aware of the areas constant summer climate for the long days here, and we're not comfortable with it.

However, at the front of the line a small family of Hispanics confidently breeze through the otherwise uncomfortable environmental scenario. They look familiar; I see the father there on my morning surf ventures as he heads of to his physical labor for the day. Always friendly.
They approach the register.

Because of my uneasy impatience I'm glaring at the new girl behind the counter. She had been watching the family with bias from the beginning. It was easy to predict her first dialect.

She's stinking bad of judgmental hate-her confidently ignorant smirk towards the gentlemen, staring at each of the family members.

"Uhmm... Where's your id?" She rudely couges.

"Great, a gosh darn pure bread southern racist," I quietly mutter to my roommate standing on the opposite side.

"What was that?" Her breathlessness is suddenly aimed towards me. I'm shocked that she heard me. Did this girl have a hearing possessed by the ominous ones? Conscious they're always being judged in a world slowly growing out of their "just" racialy-inequitable beliefs.

"I'm sorry, my mistake, I wasn't sure about a darn ethics class stance on atheist." Did I save myself? I hope I just made sense, man this could get ugly.

"Oh, alright then." She smiles assuredly.

Now her focus was elsewhere, she had forgotten about the green cards or whatever id my friend was in need of at the time. He purchased his own case of beer along with some treats for the little ones then preceded out of the store.

It was then I caught myself wondering how I just did that. Was it possible that this girl was so taken up by what I said that she just up and forgot to get this man's id. This wasn't a coincidence. I've seen this girl turn down my Hispanic convenient store acquaintances before for lack of proper identification, when they we're obviously well over the age of twenty one, and needed no proper identification.

This was odd to me and I had a brief moment of clarity, I was sure that the possibility of her ignorance could be persuaded to change. She might someday be able to break her own misunderstood beliefs about our neighbors of the south and support them instead of make the feel less welcome then they do during their day-to-day lives.

Ethically I feel like most of what we deal with during our day to day lives is decided in small incidents which bring to question our moral base-lines. This woman's behavior helped me reach my conclusion. It was disheartening at first, but as she slowed down because of my comment she seemed to forget about her misconstrued bias, just moving on without passing judgement.

The Price of Ethics

As a business major, ethics has been an area of high interest not only personally but in my career choice. Ethics can be applied to any job or situation. However ethics are especially important than the business world. What you do isn’t any more important as how you do it. Business is based around customers, and the customers not only value satisfaction, they expect it.

Ethics can make or break business deals and relationships. Companies revolve around people: employees, management, and customers. There is certain ways in which a company should interact with its people on the inside and out. In companies, the CEO is the parent, and employees are the children, which together make up a family. Both are important elements in making the family complete; however, the children (employees) look to the parent (CEO) for guidance and perform according to their actions. With such hard work, intelligence, responsibility, and power, CEO’s are clearly financially comfortable. Although this can make other employees in and out of the company frustrated and envious, this position has stern obligations. The job of the CEO goes beyond increasing revenue; the job flows into a much more personal level. How you speak, interact, compromise, and satisfy employees becomes just as (if not more) significant to the company. A CEO is nothing without its employees. Being "socially successful" has become just as effective as being financially successful. In fact, the two correlate so closely that one relies on the other.

Ethics are an imperative part of CEO’s responsibilities; however, using them as a monetary incentive does create problems. The goal of being ethically responsible isn’t based solely on expectations. Of course there is a standard of what’s “right and wrong.” A CEO could easily pretend to care about maintaining an ethically strong work environment simply to gain the benefits (money). This itself is ethically wrong, and is makes the whole idea appear hypocritical. It is understandable that by placing a reward system on a necessity in the business world. In a society where everyone’s concern is to make more money, surpass the competition, and strive to be better, people will do what it takes to get ahead. To behave ethically in order to make more money could focus the attention of CEO’s away from what real ethics is all about. Employees would also be affected from this in that genuine relationships with customers lose their meaning. With this motive, why would a CEO care about what ethics truly mean to the company and customers? Morals and values can easily be expressed as long as they can earn more money. The idea is affective and optimistic but I am afraid the desire for money will exceed the desire to be ethically authentic.

Someone in such a high paying, respected career should treat these matters as priority. To employees and CEO’s especially, ethics should hold a high importance not matter what you are paid. Unfortunately, money has extreme power over our decisions and actions. A CEO is expected to act morally and provide standards which employees adhere to. Developing relationships with customers is heavily dependent upon how the company is in a social and moral sense. People have many options when it comes to doing business; a CEO who practices people skills will not only generate revenue, but they will gain loyal customers. What sets businesses apart is how they interact and what they value. These issues are all based around the leader-- the CEO. Ethics are not just our conscience, they are also learned. I strongly believe a CEO who is able to demonstrate ethic principles to those around them in and out of the office deserve to benefit. Although money can cause trouble, I agree with this idea of an incentive. This not only rewards a strong ethic leader, it shows the business world what really matters. It’s not about doing business, it’s about how you do business.

Waltonville, USA

James and Ethel Windemere walk home from work now. Their new apartment is on the grounds. Tuesday is their day off and they are planning a barbecue with some other associates. They submitted a reservation request for the “Stars-and-Stripes Backyard Common Area” a few weeks ago and are hoping to get the call tonight. Their shopping cart chugs down the narrow, heavily lit street. Bentonville Boulevard is the next left. The little apartments are reminiscent of sci-fi habitats, little pods stacked closely together like a wall of Mars-edition Legos. The Windemeres moved into the new Wal-Mart on-site living community two weeks ago. They keep telling themselves they “can’t afford not to take advantage” of the opportunity. It’s unclear whether they are aware that they are repeating that saying verbatim from the pamphlet:

"Waltonville USA – A new life, a new future. You will literally never have to leave Wal-Mart again. We’ve created the circumstances where you can’t afford not to take advantage of this fabulous opportunity. Trust us – we know what’s best for you."

While this scenario is an exaggeration (though not completely unrealistic or unforeseeable), it is true that Wal-Mart has changed the landscape of American consumerism and exercised viscous business practices to get where they are today.

Where is Wal-Mart today? It averages $10.3 billion a year in pure profits. CEO Lee Scott earned $22 million in stock options and bonuses last year alone. That’s $22 million in bonuses – in addition to his salary.

The following is from the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union website: “In 1970, the country's largest employer was General Motors, with 350,000 workers. Overwhelmingly union, they earned $17.50 an hour plus health, pension and vacation benefits and cost-of-living increases. Today, the country's largest employer is Wal-Mart, with over 1 million U.S. workers. They earn an average hourly wage of $8.00, with no defined benefit pension, and inadequate health care.”

Employees today are making less than half of what their parents and grandparents made almost 40 years ago. Even more despicable, Wal-Mart subcontractors in China, Indonesia and Bangladesh make an average of 17 cents an hour. Countries with lax labor laws are a great place to wave the flag of democratic capitalism.

Wal-Mart has found a way to profit, not just from the hard work of their employees, but from their deaths as well. The company has taken out more than 350,000 life insurance policies on its employees, naming itself as the benefactor. And at least 453 deceased employees’ policies have actually been collected on. Class-action lawsuits have been filed against the company in Texas and Oklahoma because of the so-called “dead peasant” policies. The company eventually settled in the Oklahoma case for $5.1 million.

If someone dies, their family should be the only one to collect insurance money. In most cases, the employees and their families were not aware that a policy was taken out. What right does a multi-billion dollar corporation have to collect the life insurance payoff on a near minimum wage employee?

Wal-Mart claims it “regularly spends millions of dollars each year to recruit, screen, train, and retain its employees because its success depends on a trained, experienced work force,” according to the AP, which cited a court document in the Oklahoma case. But according to the UFCW, “more than half of Wal-Mart’s U.S. employees leave the company each year.” That sure doesn’t sound like a satisfied crew of experienced employees to me.

In the end, Wal-Mart has become and is becoming morbidly obese, creating an animal appetite for profit that breaks many unspoken human ethical codes. All laws aside, this company is what writer and activist Naomi Klein describes as the equivalent of a sociopath – morally bankrupt, manipulative and superficially charming, pathologically lying, with a complete lack of remorse, and acting exclusively on self-sustaining instincts.

I hope the Windemeres make it through their stay in Waltonville without too much trouble. I’m sure as long as they stock the shelves during the day and keep to themselves at night they’ll be okay. It turns out they didn’t get approved for their Tuesday barbecue. The “Stars-and-Stripes Backyard Common Area” is going to be used for a seminar called “The Union and You: The Dangers of Organized Labor.” The Windemeres are not sure whether they will attend, but the word on the street is that there will be an abundance of Krispy Kreme donuts and a raffle for a state-of-the-art foot spa.

For inquiring minds:

Harper’s magazine – October 2007

Institute for Policy Studies - www.ips-dc.org

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union - www.ufcw.org

Wal-Mart Watch - www.walmartwatch.com

Free Speech...What a Joke

Freedom of speech in the First Amendment to the US Constitution is a constantly debated item . While we were founded on the premise of freedom of speech, there are lines that can be crossed. When does freedom of speech become hate speech and truly offensive? Does the First Amendment allow for the protection of free speech protect the content of the speech or just the right to say it?

The concept of “freedom of speech” is stated but not defined the in Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does this mean that you can say whatever you want and get away with it? No, you cannot. Military personnel can be punished for saying negative things about the Commander-in-Chief under the UCMJ. There are restrictions. Even if Commander-in-Chief is doing a horrible job and wasting taxpayer dollars and soldiers lives, we, as soldiers, cannot say one negative thing. We can praise him until the sun comes up the next day, but negativity is punishable. Free speech is just a concept rather than actual policy. The US military’s policy is just one example of restricted free speech. Another example of restricted speech is saying “fire” in a theater, or “bomb” on an airplane.

How far does free speech get pushed? A preacher came to the UNCW campus last Monday spreading his holy word and the Bible. A form had to be filled out for him to do so, and a free speech clause allows him to do that. The catch, he can say whatever he wants to under the premise that it is his preaching the word, twisting concepts in the Bible to advocate his hate speech. The free speech idea is pushed all the way to the limit here. He did not stop there.

Within his preaching, the preacher is using his “free speech” rights to advocate what was widely defined by the gathering crowds, as hate speech. Saying women should be subservient to men and belong in the kitchen and that gays are going to die of HIV and go to hell, are just a few examples of his scathing words. While they are viewed as his religious views, he has crossed a dangerous line into hate speech. Yet, because the paper he filled out prior to his arrival stated that he was merely preaching and the content was not listed, he was allowed to preach.

Freedom of speech is exactly what it is. You are exercising your right to say what you want. The right is backed by the Constitution. Institutions pick and choose who can practice their free speech;after all, UNCW is a public university and federal and state funds are pumped into the college. But, had the KKK or Islamic Jihad tried to voice their “free speech” rights on a public campus, I would wager my entire enlistment bonus on their immediate rejection. Not only does UNCW cater to public opinion, but also, the college is catering to a social majority. This is the Bible belt, the idea goes without saying why they would not refute a preacher from spreading his/her good word. Since the preacher was using the pretense of religion as a guise for his hate speech, it was acceptable. Had he been part of an actual hate group, then under no circumstance would he have been allowed to speak at the campus unless it was probably closed forum of sorts. His exercising his right to free speech should be upheld, but what is defined as hate speech by those in attendance did not facilitate the removal of the preacher. Simply put by a staff member from the Dean of Students Office, “If you don’t want to hear what he has to say, then go around him and ignore him.” That’s really difficult to do considering he’s preaching where a majority of traffic on the campus occurs.

The downside to all of this is that often individuals push their free speech rights over the line in order to advocate hate under the guise of benign ideas, like religion. The schools or other institutions where these people exercise their rights are often duped into believing they are allowing a good thing to happen. Considering the social geography of the area, the Bible belt, they think they are doing the area a service.

A university is an open forum to discuss ideas, not preach hate.

Decisions

Imagine if you can a bright autumn afternoon. You’re walking across the UNCW campus having just aced your AP exam. A cool, but not chilling, breeze whips into your lungs and fills your senses with a feeling of complete tranquility. You throw up a wave to a friend and give a shy smile to a passing stranger. As you admire the sunbeams ricocheting off the grass, something catches your eye. An object. A simple object that has no earthly business lying among the landscaped green. You study this object with a curious eye and suddenly find yourself magnetized. You look around to see if anybody’s watching as you swoop down and snatch the item. It’s a wallet. Upon opening the wallet, you find credit cards, a student ID card, pictures, and seven crisp one hundred dollar bills. What do you do?

Take it. Nobody saw you pick it up. Finders keepers, losers weepers, right? You could really use that money. You could pay off a credit card, finish your Christmas shopping, or even put a substantial down payment on that new guitar you’ve been looking at. What possibilities. Today is definitely your day. First the exam and now a little bonus. Besides, whoever lost the wallet could obviously afford to buy a new one. Why would anyone be carrying around that much money? Things aren’t always easy but it’s times like these that reward you for your whole hearted efforts. Free money just walked into your life.

But wait. Do you really want to take that money? Just stop and think for a couple of minutes. What if that was your wallet? Wouldn’t you want someone to turn it in? There is no such thing as free money. Everything comes with a price tag. Maybe the whole thing is a test. Maybe someone placed that wallet there for the sole purpose of seeing if it would be returned. You could be on film right now and not even know it. And how would that look for your character when you‘re asked about why you didn’t return it? You don’t really need this money. It’s just government paper with some numbers on it; it comes and it goes. Not to mention the fact that you did nothing to earn this money and even if you don’t get caught, that doesn’t make it anything less than stealing.

To some people, this decision would be natural as breathing. To others, the vast complications in making a decision would turn their brains into a superhighway of chaos. In an ideal society, anyone who stumbled across a lost wallet would see that it gets back to the rightful owner. But reality is no fairy tale world. For so long have the righteous people of society struggled to keep moral beliefs a part of American culture only to be undermined by the greedy and apathetic. I would return the wallet to the rightful owner. The main reason I would do this is because I have been raised to do the right thing. However, my upbringing was in no way blinded to the evil entities of the world. The exposure to such things has left me watching my back every step of the way. I would do the right thing but I would never expect everyone to make the same decision. Such an occurrence of honesty would be a paradox in an imperfect society.

Tainted Love

Death inevitably comes to us all. Some experience death untimely because of actions that are beyond our control. When catastrophic events such as hurricanes, floods, or tornadoes arise we are not prepared for the number of people that are sometimes killed. Yet there are other times when other people take our lives and these murderers end up setting on death row for what seems like an eternity. But when you try to steer clear of having a personal opinion that is not too extremely jaded by our own personal belief system is extremely hard. When we intertwine our personal feelings about the ‘right and wrong’-ness of murder we start to run into a lot of red tape. This is especially true when it comes to the execution of ‘death-row inmates’.

These men and women are on death row for murder themselves. But the controversy lies in the dark corner of people’s mind when they try to figure out whether or not it is justice to kill a man or woman who has killed someone else. These people are sentenced to death and most of them are ready to die. This would seem like a formidable match but a lot of the people in society (and the government) are not agreeing on this matter.

Most people are confused about the justice that sitting in a jail cell wasting tax payers money for the average of 10 years that it takes for the court system to cancel out the appeals that come up over and over again. I can only imagine how impatient that a person can become, sitting in a cell waiting for the moment that they are supposed to die. Many men and women are doing what is been dubbed ‘volunteering’ so that they can go ahead and get their sentence carried out. They waive their appeals and ask for the death penalty to go ahead and be carried out.

In these situations some people are thinking whether or not justice is being carried out. Some believe that they are truly not punished enough just by letting their lives come to an end. Allowing them to sit and sulk in the misery that they have produced is a better way to punish them. Making them relive the days, nights and afternoons that they murdered people. Seeing the gory photographs and hearing the moaning and groaning of the families that they have destroyed.

But when a murder is committed, it affects more than just the accused. The family and friends of the victim is tortured with memories of their lives and tragic death. In my opinion a murderer on death row is not taken out of his misery by allowing his death to be early. I think that justice is truly served by taking the life of someone who purposely takes the life of another. Whether you are someone who believes in capital punishment and opposes the death penalty, or whether you are someone who embraces the fact of taking the life of someone who kills another human being…we all must agree that some sort of retribution has to take place. The mere disagreement that we all have is severity of the punishment that we think should be given to that individual.

"Some People Call it Global Warming, Some Climate Change, What's the Difference?"

The media, throughout history, is an extremely powerful tool for manipulation, fear, and strategies to gain public approval and/or criticism. Political machines utilize buzzwords and conceal agendas to get their opinions across without becoming too specific and/or controversial. Simple alterations in the negative or positive connotation of words, for example: “‘tax cuts’ becomes ‘tax relief,’ and the ‘war on Iraq’ becomes ‘war on terror,’” have the ability to sway public opinion for or against an important issue; issues such as gay rights.

Recently there have been rumblings about specific children cartoons manipulated into a vehicle for the pro-gay agenda. Dr. James Dobson, founder of a conservative Christian group called "Focus on the Family" and a popular Colorado radio minister, “addressed members of Congress at a black tie dinner in Washington celebrating the president's election victory. He spoke out against cartoons such as Nickelodeon’s Spongebob Squarepants; the title character appeared in “a pro-homosexual video which was to be mailed to thousands of elementary schools to push a tolerance pledge by kids, including tolerance of differences of what Dr. Dobson called ‘sexual identity.’” Other popular characters in the video were “Barney and Jimmy Neutron.” The Education Secretary Margaret Spelling “spoke out against an episode [of PBS’ Postcards from Buster] in which the cartoon character visits lesbian mothers”. The purpose of these rants and continuous uproars are not too bring about the cancellation of these lucrative and consequential characters, but many believe they are stirred to “demonize key buzzwords among their faithful followers.”

Having grown up in a fairly liberal community, extremely accepting family, and surprisingly tolerant schools, the ideals of some people in this country continually perplex and occasionally even disturb to me. These cartoons may very well be a tool used by people to create acceptance and understanding within the younger generation; however, this is necessary for the development of healthy and open-minded society. When a child is raised in an atmosphere of intolerance and judgment, ignorance will reign and people will continue to be cast out. Hatred will grow and bleed into hatred for many things, like race or even religion. Homosexual parents, and an increase in openly homosexual teens, are a social norm that children and even their parents will have to learn to accept. “[If] Dobson can convince enough Americans that ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ are simply code for ‘gay rights,’ then he's won a war on the language battlefield - the same way Rush Limbaugh helped demonize ‘liberal’ and ‘feminist.’” An assistant of the “Focus on the Family group” stands by its claim, and says, "We see the video as an insidious means by which the [film] organization is manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids. It's a classic bait and switch."


Fear such as this is an extremely effective tool for a successful leader. The general public will shut up and follow anyone who will keep them safe from terror, stop their children from becoming gay, and keep immigrants out and away from American jobs. A recent Frontline documentary “The Persuaders” was an exploration in how powerful emotion can be in a person’s opinion and the simple method that the media employs to exploit these emotions. The documentary shadowed Frank Luntz, a consultant for Fortune 100 companies when they need communication and language guidance. Companies ranging from “General Motors to Disney, Federal Express to American Express, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable” and many, many others. Luntz explained that "eighty percent of our life is emotion and only 20 percent is intellect, I am much more interested in how you feel than how you think….Some people call it global warming, some people call it climate change. What's the difference?"

Works Cited
Deggans, Eric. "Ethics Question of the Week." http://www.polytechnic.org/faculty/gfeldmeth/Dobson.html. 28 Jan. 2005. St. Petersburg Times. 18 Oct. 2007 .

"Luntz, Maslansky Strategic Research." Luntz, Maslansky Strategic Research. 2006. Omnicom Group Company. 21 Oct. 2007 http://www.luntz.com/team.html.

Olbermann, Keith. "Will Spongebob Make You Gay?" MSNBC. 21 Jan. 2005. 21 Oct. 2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6852828/.

HmmTsssz-HmmTss, HmmTsssz-Hmmmm Ts-Isn't Going Anywhere Is It?

Electronica is how aliens must communicate with each other; mesmerizing the cerebral cortex with chaotic tones and unfathomable rhythms, it induces a bliss and drooling stupor. It is a musical art form that is misunderstood in American culture, primarily because of the exhausting “anyone-can-do-it” platitudes. Many claim that electronica is not even music, but these people are tragically misinformed or uneducated. Sure, everyone claims their friend of a friend who has the Fruity Loops 2.0 demo, can make original grooves on the spot – but they're normally lying. Just ask questions and let the unsatisfactory answers show you the way.

Are they the "purist" type, able to play several traditional instruments, putting each one into an interesting and coherent series of loops, adding tons of spacy effects, but only sparingly synthing beats and foreign samples? Maybe they are the kind of deranged sample freaks that would go through tedious lengths to record 100 different rubber band vibration sounds, 9 types of glass breaking, and the rattling of a barbwire fence, creating a motif that maybe is symbolic of the theme of their entire album as a whole? That’s cool and all, but if they obsessively tweaked the tone and frequency of each sample so that they could rock it out live on their midi processors – that would be really cool. Do they dig through piles and piles of records just to find that one obscure 8 second sample so that they can use one half as a bassline, and pitchshift the other half to create a layered call and response type phrasing? Do they scratch it all out at frenzied DJ battles?

Or … are your skeezy cynical tendencies correct in assuming they dub prerecorded basslines with generic beats, sampling choruses from their favorite songs, and quotes from their favorite horror or sci fi movies; ensuring that everything is bland and predictable. Rub the crystal ball, yes, what does it say: they equalize all their samples because they’re too lazy to really dig for appropriate material to transition. They know the basics of their software, so what? Creativity is better.

But this musical quilt of pop culture still takes a lot of technological know-how, and at least some talent to mix tracks agreeably into something that isn’t so cacophonous it defiles the ear drums. So, good for your friend of a friend, and even though their music probably makes early techno seem redundant and primitive, with a little practice they could probably land a freelance gig at a low budget bar mitzvah or maybe even a second rate gay bar.

The rise of computer chair amateurs has helped to spread the misconception that electronic music is easy to make. Although it’s arguable that it’s easy to imitate, it is very difficult to do well. Discrediting all electronica because you spent a saturday learning how to cut and loop tracks with freeware, is like discrediting rock because the only song you can play on the guitar is "Come As You Are" by Nirvana, and you learned it in 30 minutes.

Amateurs and newbs aside, the real reason so many people hate techno is the tacky repetition of the “hmm-tsss hmm-tsss hmm-tsss Tecka-Tecka!!, etc” beat. Most people associate electronica with this kind of generic trance which is indeed redundant, and not too impressive as it only involves learning a few cringeworthy patterns, and using them over and over again in slightly different ways. Perhaps its called trance because its so exclusively bassy and loud, and because the DJ’s hope that most of the ravers and techno enthusiasts are too "tranced" out on happy drugs to notice their lack of innovation and skill. Speaking of happy drugs and techno enthusiasts, maybe I’m naïve in believing that IDM, intelligent dance music, is a fitting name for a more virtuosic and surreal subgenre. Intelligently intoxicating...is that possible?

Anyways, lots of it sucks, but how is it not music? Isn’t this what reactionaries of the baby boomer culture claimed of rock, and what racist rednecks claimed during the birth of jazz? Electronica has every characteristic of music, it is has timbre, texture, melody, harmony, and pitch. It has structure, and utilizes polymetric time signatures so complex that they would be nearly impossible to duplicate with traditional instruments (although, the Alarm Will Sound orchestra does cover Aphex Twin songs acoustically and very accurately).

Electronica is not only music by definition, it can be rich with talent and flavor. Its what happens when you take every other genre of music, throw it into a blender with some ice and a good 10-second pour of vodka and press liquefy. It expands the entire world of music, and it has influenced rap, rock, metal, and even jazz; it has creeped its way into the revered guitar of John Scofield, the bass and production agenda of Bill Laswell, and the crunchy keyboards of John Medeski. To the people who have tried and still think “its not that hard,” then either you have a record deal, or you are using programs to juggle unoriginal beats. Cheater.