[RE] Andre Nguyen: Going for the look

        I agree with Andre Nguyen, while retailers defend their hiring practices their practices ultimately set a bad name for the company. It is wrong for companies to hire solely based on appearances, yet it is completely legal.  This allows discrimination to take its path.  When people choose what type of employee they want,

"people's views on what's attractive may be influenced by their race, their religion, their age".

 This approach now can be called out as racist, and now what? Is it still legal then? It would not be fair that people be denied jobs because of their race. How do companies expect to defend themselves then? Andre says,

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically Title VII, gives people who applied for a job but got denied because of race the ability to sue the company based on denial of their civil liberties and discrimination".

Companies are setting themselves up for lawsuits and bad reputations. Also, people allowing these hiring processes to take place is giving racism and discrimination a green light, not just into job situations but simple life situations. We are taking backward steps, when we should be taking steps forward to try and eliminate racism that still exists today.

        Companies should be searching for people that can contribute positive working qualities and help bring positive aspects to the working environment. Hiring based on appearance can only contribute minimally. It's wrong to choose a good looking person over a highly qualified person. It's sad that companies prefer appearances over merit. A less attractive person should not be denied a job when they prove to be obviously more qualified than a "good looking person". Companies should focus on hiring people who will get the job done right. 

[CE]: Toddler in China hit by 2 vehicles then ignored

        On Tuesday October 18, 2011 in Beijing China, a child was run over by two cars and ignored. The 2 year old was left on the street to die. "According to surveillance video of the scene", 18 people passed by the injured child without helping her. Cars and motorcycles even drove around the child without caring to stop. The girl was eventually pulled to the side by an old woman! Of all the people that could have helped the child, an old woman went in the street and pulled her off the road. I'm sure there were plenty of other younger and stronger people who could have helped her, but yet the old woman  was the only one who attempted to pull her off the road. The little girl was interned in the hospital and in coma for a week. Unfortunately, the little girl dies of her injuries.
        Apparently many people defended the situation from previous incidents that occurred where people had tried to help the elderly and had been accused of wrongdoing. This has brought about a lot of discussion about the morals of China. Honestly, in my opinion I wouldn't care about being accused of wrongdoing. If someone is in need of help, I'm going to help them to the best of my abilities. Especially if its a 2 year old child. I mean I know a lot of people are scared of being sued and accused of wrongdoing, but wouldn't you risk all that to save a child's life, especially one who is pain? There is no excuse for these people, they should have helped the innocent child.

[CE]: Anti-government T.V. channel find in Venezuela

        Venezuelan government fined Globovision 2.6 million dollars for some coverage they produced on prison riots. Globovision was the last anti-government channel remaining. The fine on Globovision was imposed by Conatels'  telecommunications regulator. Apparently, Globovision's coverage on "The Rodeo Prison Riots"  was said to have caused "hate and intolerance" and brought about anxiety in the public. Vice-President of Globovision said that the fine will lead the company's collapse because the company cannot afford to pay the huge fine. Globovisions said they plan to fight the issue in court accusing them of violation of press.
         The majority owner of the company Guillerom Zuloaga, who recently fled the year before for an arrest warrant, accuses the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez of vendetta. I completely agree and believe that the fine was scheme that the government planned to bankrupt the remaining anti-government channel, Globovision.  In fact, in 2010 RCTV, another opposing  station was forced off cable and satelite stations for unmentioned reasons in the article. Could this have been planned by the government? I sure think so. The government saw them as a threat and had to get rid of them before it revealed and damaged them. The government likes to control everything, including what is said. They're job is to keep the public uninformed and ignorant of things occuring around them. The government ensures that people are not taught things that they shouldn't know. So that's why I think they planned this. They waitied for something that was worth accusing and they made their move. I hope that the media is able to fight this in court and remain employed.

Uproar

           So this weekend I went to a concert called Uproar. I can honestly say that it was one of the best experiences I have had. All through out my life I have struggled with my music preference. Since I can remember I have always liked to listen to rock and metal. My family always thought that it was weird for me to listen to that kind of music, especially being Mexican-American. I was always made fun of by my cousins because they listened to rap and hip hop. I was always forced to listen to their music although they didn't give me the chance to show them that my music wasn't so bad. Sometimes my family prohibited me to even listen to it while they were around because they didn't think it was right for me to listen to "devils music". Now that I'm older, I could really care less what they say about my music. Fortunately, my music is accepted by much of my family now. I'm happy to even say that my cousins even listen to rock at times with me.
          So going to this concert made me realize that I'm not alone. When I was at Uproar I was surprised to see a lot of Hispanics listening to the type of music I listen to. It made me feel I guess sort of normal knowing that there where other people just like me. It was weird, I did not expect there to be as many Hispanics as I saw. I mean I knew there were some out there but not as many as I saw. Now that I think about it though, why should the Hispanic aspect matter. Music is music, and everyone should be able to enjoy all different types of music no matter what race they are. Anyways this concert was fantastic, I think what made it fun was the fact that I was able to let go of the stereotypes and embrace the whole experience. I'm happy I was able to let go and ignore insignificant factors and and be myself.

Re: Gigi Zeng California Shooting

        This is in response to Gigi Zeng's blog about the California shooting. Scott Evans Dekraai, a former member of the U.S Armed Forces killed his ex-wife along with seven other people at a hair salon where his ex-wife was employed. When Scott  was arrested he revealed he was armed with rifles and knives all over his pockets. They said his motives where caused from a custody battle over their eight year old son. First of all, it is horrible that the child is left parentless. His child not only lost his mother, but his father too now that he will be convicted of murder and will be serving a long time in jail. There must have been something really wrong with him, if Scott thought killing his ex-wife was going to help win his son over. Also, If he loved his son so much why would he do this to his son's mother?

"What kind of twisted fatherly love is this? Now his 8-year old son has no mother, and has to live with the fact that his father is a murderer. Scott  Dekraai wouldn't have done this if he truly loved his son. I think he simply wanted revenge."

            I agree with Gigi Zeng, what kind of love is this? You love your son soo much, but you're willing to hurt them to get what you want. Not only that but it is very sad that 7 innocent people, were killed due to Dekraai's actions. While I agree that his actions where wrong, I do not completely blame him. I think that here is more to the story. I think there was something else that may have caused him to commit the murders. Maybe he has undiagnosed psychological problems caused from his time in the Armed Forces. I don't know though, we will have to follow the story to find out what happens.

Essay: Cohens argument

                 Forms of advertising are changing rapidly. Before, businesses focused their advertising on attracting customers solely based on the product itself. Now a days, companies focus their advertising through the enticing projections of beautiful people. Clothing companies display images of beautiful people all over magazines, billboards, and television in an attempt to lure people in to buy their product. While this approach works to grab some people's attention, it can put a stereotype on what type of people should and should not shop at that particular clothing store. Even though good looks and  images bring forth intrigue in some people, it should not be the ultimate thing that sells the product. Hiring people based on requirements such as appearances and images can be detrimental to the company if they do not have any positive qualities to offer besides looks. Not only this, but when hiring  people based on an image this could also discriminate against race, age, and gender. Hiring people based on looks and appearances may be more profitable in the beginning, but this process may also be a  damaging factor towards companies like Abercrombie.     
                Choosing something based off appearance is not something uncommon. In fact, almost all of us do it. However, I think that when it comes to hiring people it should not be as applicable. Before,  businesses hired people that displayed good attributes, now companies hire and prefer people that are beautiful and good looking. Many clothing industries like Hollister and Abercrombie hire good looking people to be "walking posters" to attract people to their products. What good does it do them if their walking billboards are complete jerks to customers? No one will want to purchase any item, let alone come in a store where they feel uncomfortable or mistreated. The company will be greatly affected by this factor. If image is preferred over merit, how do companies expect to prosper if they hire a good looking, lazy and irresponsible person. I'm not saying good looking people are lazy and irresponsible, I'm just saying that if they choose to hire people based on qualities such as appearance, how will the company know they did not choose someone who might affect the company in a negative connotation. No one wants an unhelpful employee. Also, I do not go to a mall and buy something because the sales representative is pretty. I choose buy an item if I like it.  In my opinion a sales representative's image is not nearly as important as their character and the way they treat their customers. Anyways, shouldn't the item be able to sell itself; does it really need a person to accesorise it?
                    When companies try to center themselves around an image, this can cause them to narrow their potential cliental. When companies hire models that are tall, thin, pretty, young or of a particular race, they can unintentionally send a message to the public that their clothes or merchandise are only for those specified type of people. People may begin to think that they need to fit those requirements in order to have the item. This can lead to the formation of stereotypes. Companies say that the reason for their approach is for profitable business purposes. However, if this was the case, then wouldn't companies be focused on finding an approach that would include everyone? Companies should not be trying to stereotype things, instead they should find a way to try and incorporate the idea of diversity in their company. When they put labels on their products, they can cause people to repel from the product because they may feel they do not belong or fit in with the product.
                   While choosing employees based on appearance may be effective and productive for the company, it can also be viewed as discrimination. Choosing someone based on appearance can be viewed as racist because someone might think that someone from a particular race might be more attractive then someone from a different race. This process of choosing based on appearance is still considered legal, although it is considered as discrimination by many. Another way it is discriminatory is because when companies choose on appearance it can also be sexist. Someone might prefer a female employee over a male employee or vise versa. Many companies also prefer younger employees over older employees because they seem to be more attractive. I am not saying companies do not have a right to choose who they want to employ, but is't there a limit to what they can and can not do? The process that these several companies take although still legal, are unfair as they cross the lines of racism, sexism and discrimination of age.
                   It is hard to choose a side. Although appearance may be beneficial in some ways to companies, I feel that overall it has more downsides. Although hiring beautiful and attractive people may help invite customers in the stores, it also repels many potential customers due to the stereotypes it imposes. Hiring for merit may be more beneficial to the company than hiring a person for his or her looks. A more qualified person can help the company run more successfully and can contribute to a positive environment in the store itself. I think the hiring practices are wrong although they have a choice to say who they want to work for their company. Although Cohen's arguments may be partially correct, overall I feel the argument he brings forth are not enough to compensate for the discrimination that takes place in the hiring practices by these companies.

[CE] Bad Apple

       Recently, Apple’s new CEO Tim Cook announced the launch of IPHONE 4S. Apple hadn’t launched any new products for months. Many people became disappointed that there would not be an IPHONE 5. Tim Cook announced that the IPHONE 4S has the same design as previous phones, it is just a bit more upgraded with faster processing and updated with hardware and software systems. People were disappointed because they were expecting more from what Apple had to offer at the recent launch. Now more than ever, Apple has a lot of pressure because there has been a major rise in Android users. Apparently Android sells have been damaging Apple’s IPHONE sells. Many people were expecting the launch of the IPHONE 5 to change all that, but the IPHONE 4S did not meet people’s expectations.

        The thing with Apple is that they launch something and a few months later they would launch out a newer version. In the past they greedily launched out their products, one after the other and now that they have nothing new to launch it hit them and it hit them big. They set it up that way. They created a cycle where people are constantly expecting them to come up with something better, even when what they already have is good. I would hear many people talk about their new IPHONE and a couple months later talk about how they couldn’t wait for the new one. I’m not saying it’s bad, but I’m not saying it’s good either. The IPHONE 5 will come out when Apple is ready that they have something worthwhile, it just takes time.

Free: Not so good weekend

          On Thursday all I could think about was the weekend, and how amazing it would be. I was so happy that I was going to have a three day weekend thanks to the furlough day. As the bell rang fifth period, I ran out of school because I was headed to the mall with my friend. I got to the mall and enjoyed myself. I went home knowing that this would be the start to an amazing three day weekend. Friday passed and I went to Sacramento to visit my sister and brother. Saturday and Sunday however, I was all alone and bored. Everyone was out the house doing something and I was stuck doing homework. My sister got to go to my cousins’ house and I couldn’t go because I was stuck with boring old homework. I felt horrible; I wanted to have fun too. I was in the house all day Saturday and most of Sunday. This was not how I planned my weekend to go; in fact it was far from it. I was upset and sad the whole time.

       Now that I think about it though, not everything goes as planned. Sometimes things happen and you just have to go with it. I learned that you can’t sit there feeling sorry for yourself because that won’t make a difference. You will still be in that same position; in fact the only thing it will do is make things worse. Sometimes you have to prioritize before you can have fun. You just got to go with what you’re given and make the best of it. 

[RE] to Terrace: Marijuana

        After reading Terrace’s blog I decided to do a response about the legalization of Marijuana since it sounded pretty interesting and prevalent. A lot of people believe Marijuana is bad just because it is labeled as a drug. Marijuana is one of the safest illegal drugs out in the world today. The fact is that Marijuana is a lot safer then legal products out in society today. Marijuana is a lot safer and less deadly then cigarettes and alcohol. Cigarettes affect millions of people worldwide, causing cancer, first and even second hand smoke. Marijuana has fewer carcinogens, cancer causing agents, then cigarettes. Most people smoke cigarettes daily, while marijuana is only used casually for recreational and medicinal use. Alcohol is said to be a hundred times more toxic to the body then marijuana. Many people are hurt and killed from using these substances irresponsibly and yet there are no reported deaths caused by marijuana. Terrace adds,

“I have not once heard of someone dying due to a marijuana overdose”.

      Marijuana can instill more positive contributions on society then it can negatively. In fact, it can help many people in society. Marijuana is used medically to treat many sick people. It helps people living with HIV, cancer and even glaucoma. It alleviates physical pain and also provides a relief for the patient. It also helps these patients to live a life away from their disease. Medical marijuana helps patients to live happy and normal lives. If marijuana is so harmful and destructive, why do doctors choose to use it for patients?

        I think that Marijuana should be legalized because prohibiting Marijuana is causing more havoc then its intention of creating peace and tranquility. Legalizing Marijuana would create safer conditions in communities. The distribution of drugs would be in the hands of the government and not drug dealers on the streets. People could feel safer knowing that their product is coming from a safer place. Prohibiting Marijuana allows drug dealers to stay on the streets and is one factor of the violence on the streets. The profits of selling marijuana could go to help boost our declining economy and can even be beneficial towards our education system. If legalization is working for other places like Canada, Holland and Netherlands, what’s to say it won’t work for us?