[RE]

 This is a response to Amir's post about Terrorism or FBI-ism:

I honestly didn't believe that this was true at first because it just sounded so ridiculous to me. The thought that our own government agencies are fabricating and even creating "terrorist" attacks is completely disgusting to me. They are creating these attacks that cause fear to the public when in actuality no one was ever in danger. The FBI should be focusing it's time and resources on real potential terrorist attacks instead of creating fake attacks so that they can look like hero's that saved the day.  I just can't believe that the FBI would actually hire people to attack our own country to use as propaganda or to distract Americans from other problems in the United States.

This article by Glenn Greenwald that Amir responded to is really eye opening and shocking. "The FBI has received substantial criticism over the past decade — much of it valid — but nobody can deny its record of excellence in thwarting its own Terrorist plots.  Time and again, the FBI concocts a Terrorist attack, infiltrates Muslim communities in order to find recruits, persuades them to perpetrate the attack, supplies them with the money, weapons and know-how they need to carry it out — only to heroically jump in at the last moment, arrest the would-be perpetrators whom the FBI converted, and save a grateful nation from the plot manufactured by the FBI." This article describes some the “terrorist attacks” that the FBI has created and of course stepped in and prevented right before they were supposed to occur. I feel like people just assume that whatever the government says is true. It really sucks that we can’t trust what our government says or does. This issue is completely ridiculous to me and I can’t believe that our government would stoop to such a level as to hire people to attack their own country.  

[CE] "A Tigers' Tale"

I was looking through the Bay Area news feed and found this really interesting article about the Oakland Zoo rescuing tigers from horrible conditions in Texas.

The Oakland Zoo rescued four tigers from a Texas Zoo that was giving them away after the tigers had been rescued from a "roadside freak show." Apparently the four female tigers were on display where people could pay $20 to take their picture with the animals. The animals were rescued after authorities were called when one of  the owners of the sideshow announced that he planned on shooting the tigers because they were costing him too much money. The tigers were then taken to a zoo in Texas where they were supposed to stay, but then more and more tigers were being delivered to the zoo after being rescued from similar circumstances that the zoo no longer had any room. The Oakland Zoo was willing to take the tigers because they felt that it was such a critical issue.

The Oakland Zoo hopes that the tigers entertain guests and also help educate the public about tiger mills. According to this article "more than 8,000 tigers live in the U.S., far more than live in the wild globally. Of the 8,000, only a few hundred live in accredited zoos. The rest live in backyard." Most of these tigers are owned by people who originally bought tigers because they are so cute as cubs but then want to get ride of them once they mature and are eating pounds and pounds of raw meat a day.

I find it ridiculous that people would keep tiger's in their backyard because they grow to such a huge size and are wild animals. However, I find it nice to know that zoo's rescues these animals when they can and that the Oakland Zoo is made up of mostly rescued animals.

[FREE] New Malaria Vaccine

I was looking through the al jazeera news feed and I saw a story about a new vaccine for malaria that could cut the risk of getting the disease in half. I chose to blog about this story because this could be something very relevant in the near future if the vaccine continues to have good results in the trials. This is one of the only positive stories that I found in the news feed so I decided it would be worth writing about.

Malaria is a disease spread by mosquito's that is a large cause of death in people living in parts of Africa and very remote parts of Asia. This new vaccine will help reduce the risk for young children to get malaria. The first trial showed that children aged from five to seventeen months had reduced their risk of contracting the disease by up to 56 percent after three doses of the vaccine. This vaccine is so remarkable because it is the first vaccine to be successful that targets parasites instead of bacteria or viruses. This trial is the largest malaria vaccine trial up to date with over 15 thousand young children involved. This trial is going to continue for two more years so that the creators of the vaccine can evaluate how effective it is against preventing malaria. Hopefully the trials continue to produce good results so that malaria will be better controlled and be less of a problem so that researchers can focus on preventing other deadly diseases.

[FREE]

This is my first experience with Ted talks and overall I thought it was really interesting. This Ted talk was about how to detect liars. Lying is apart of our daily lives, our culture and history. Truth is just handed out on a need to know basis. According to this Ted talk a person is lied to on average 10 to 200 times a day! Throughout the Ted talk she describes some obvious ways to tell if someone is being deceptive. One major way to tell if someone is lying is by observing the language they use and how they express it. If someone is dodging a question and trying to distance themselves in the conversation they are most likely being deceptive. Also when someone over compensates emotions or doesn't have a common reaction to something there is a good chance they are lying.

Lying in our society has become such a common practice and is almost a necessary skill. Nowadays it is considered to be a good trait if someone is able to lie convincingly. During the Ted talk she said that lying is a cooperative act because you are agreeing to get lied to. I never thought about it like that. I just always place the accountability with the person who lying. It would be such a great tool to be able to tell when someone is telling the truth or not. Personally I would love to know when someone is lying to me which is why I found this video so interesting.

[CE] Debt Crisis in Food Security Rates

 

The financial and economic crisis in the United States has left many without a job or even without a home. Millions of Americans are struggling to provide for their family. Some unfortunate people do not even know when there next meal is going to come. Soup kitchens and other charity organizations have had a huge spike in the number of people needing their services.

So many people have been affected by the tough economic conditions our country has been facing. Almost everyone knows of someone who has been affected by this crisis. Personally I know so many people that have been affected. Most of these people were laid off and have been unemployed for months because it is so hard to find a job. Applying for jobs is a lot more competitive now because so many people are looking for jobs. Now a day’s just being qualified for a job isn’t enough. To get hired people almost need to be extremely over qualified to ensure that they get a job as quickly as possible. These people who are unemployed have had to drastically alter their lifestyle in order to make the money they have last as long as possible. This lifestyle change is so hard to cope with because people get used to living a certain lifestyle when they have a comfortable and steady income, but when they lose this stability it is hard to completely change how you live. I sincerely hope that the financial and economic crisis will start to improve and that people who are struggling will find a way to make it through this tough time.

[ESSAY] Going for the Look

I agree on a business standpoint with Marshall Cohen’s argument that hiring employees who fit the company image is “critical” in order to maximize profits. Marshall Cohen is a senior industry analyst with the NPD group, a market research firm. He feels that hiring employees that represent and embody the store they work for may encourage more people to shop at that particular store. Attractive and trendy employees will help draw more customers to a specific store and will generate more profit for that company. This is a commonly practiced hiring technique that is not against the law. However, hiring based on looks and company image can lead to discrimination allegations. When it comes to hiring based on looks and appearance there is a fine line between what is acceptable and what is considered discrimination.

            Hiring based on appearance is nothing new as stated in the New York Times article “Going for the Look, but Risking Discrimination” by Steven Greenhouse. But the practice is spreading to new industries and is now a common hiring technique in the clothing industry. Major stores that apply to a younger demographic such as Abercrombie and Fitch, Hollister, and American Apparel have been hiring employees based on their looks and how well they represent the brand in order to attract more customers. These companies feel that having an attractive and relatable staff will draw in customers. Tom Lennox, Abercrombie’s communications director said that “we want to hire brand representatives that will represent the Abercrombie and Fitch brand with natural classic American style, look great while exhibiting individuality, project the brand and themselves with energy and enthusiasm, and make the store a warm, inviting place that provides a social experience for the customer.” These companies have created an image of what kind of style they want to represent and hire employees who fit the mold of what they are trying to portray in order to create a more pleasant and enjoyable shopping experience.

            Companies should have the right to hire employees who they feel are well suited for their company. Companies are in the business to make money and in this competitive industry should be able to do what they need in order to make money and stay relevant. Having attractive employees who represent the company image in stores have a good chance of attracting more people to the store because people will want to shop in stores where they can relate to the employees or are attracted to the employees. Fashionable employees with catch the attention of shoppers and will create a more enticing environment for shoppers. Companies feel that if a customer sees an attractive employee dressed in the companies clothes that they will want to dress like them and then will buy more of the clothes. Overall having an attractive staff that represents the company brand will most likely benefit a company in the terms of selling more clothes.

                        Marshall Cohen’s statement that “a guy wants to go hang out in a store where he can see good looking gals” is a reason for hiring employees based on how attractive they are. People are naturally drawn to what they think are good looking people. Companies try to hire based on their perspective of what potential customers will find attractive. They will tend to put the most attractive employees in the front of the store putting away clothes or helping customers while they place what they think as the less attractive employees in the back of the store where they are not as easily seen by customers. Companies think that having attractive people working with the customers will make them buy more clothes and will bring in more potential shoppers. I think that this technique works for some shoppers; I also know that some shoppers do not really care about the appearance of the employees as long as they are getting good service. The company is targeting customers that are more concerned with looks and are somewhat superficial.

            I understand why companies feel that it is “necessary” and “smart” to hire employees who fit a certain image or mold, however I do not agree morally with this practice. This hiring technique opens up a floodgate of potential discrimination accusations and lawsuits. Hiring based on looks can get companies into hot water because so many people can find discrimination in their hiring practices and patterns. It is illegal to discriminate against people based on their age, sex, or ethnicity. This is where companies can get into trouble and sticky situations. Mr. Serrano, a previous manager for Abercrombie and Fitch detailed the companies hiring procedures: “we were supposed to approach someone in the mall who we think will look attractive in our store.” Mr. Serrano also stated that they were instructed to hire these attractive people in the mall if they accepted regardless of how qualified or experienced they were. If someone applied for a job and had a lot of retail experience, but was not that attractive or didn’t fit the company image than he was told to “not hire them at all.” Companies should not base who they hire solely on looks, but instead should look for candidates that fit there company image and have some sort of experience or qualifications. It is easier in the long run to hire employees based on their experience and qualifications for the job rather that hiring based on company image and appearance because they will avoid allegations of discrimination. Companies can avoid all of this mess and scrutiny if they just practiced fair hiring techniques that do not involve only image and how well they represent the brand in an attractive way.   

            Overall I agree with Marshall Cohen’s opinion that hiring based on image could translate into more profits in this competitive retail environment. Companies need to do what ever they can to stay current and to continue to make money and this is just one way they could go about it. I agree with Cohen to the extent of the business and economical aspect, but I do not agree morally with this type of hiring practice.

[RE]

This is from Jon's blog:

“The biggest influence of my life would have to be sports and now that I am done playing competitive sports, I am starting to think about all the great times I've had.”

I totally relate to this statement because I have been playing sports all my life and they have really shaped who I am today. Unlike Jon I still play sports but I still look back on all of the memories that I have created and all of the friends that I have made.

I first started playing sports when I was eight years old and had just moved to alameda. It was my second time moving that year so my parents thought it would be a good way to keep me occupied and distracted from being overwhelmed in my new surroundings. I am so thankful that I was signed up for rec soccer because I met so many new people that made transitioning to alameda much less stressful. I then signed up for basketball and softball which also was a great way to make new friends.

One of the best things about playing sports when I was younger is that I am still friends with many of the people that I have played with. Some of my closest friends have been made through playing sports and I am very grateful that I had the opportunity to meet them. Over the years sports has really taught me how to work well with others and to be a true team player.  I will always cherish the memories that I have made with my teammates throughout my life and can’t wait for the new memories that I will make this year. I honestly can’t imagine what my life would be like if I never played any sports.