Musically, I have never been a huge fan of Justin Bieber. I just don't take much pleasure from his songs. They're definitely aimed at early teen girls. Because of his huge superstar status, nearly everyone loves him or hates him. This tends to happen to nearly everyone who is able to reach the level that Bieber has. I think it would be fascinating to take a deeper look into that. Why is it that humans always adopt such strong opinions on people of high popularity without knowing much at all about the person themselves? I, myself, am not entirely sure, but Bieber is surely an example of this occurrence.
As far as the Anne Frank controversy goes, I am not too sure how I feel about it. I can sympathize with the second article on the controversy. However, as Dr. Herron told us, there is a contradiction between the two articles so who knows at this point. We might have to take a field trip to Anne Frank's house to figure out if Anne Frank idolized the biggest stars of her time for ourselves. Honestly, if she did and Bieber was this popular in her time, then I would most likely bet money that a young girl would have his picture on her wall, just as so many do now.
At the same time, however, I can see Bieber's ego within the situation. He didn't really have to make the visit about him. This is where you see the problems that develop with someone getting so much popularity at such a young age. I don't imagine that he always thought of himself so highly, but when the whole world is telling you that you're the best thing since sliced bread then you may start to believe them. At the end of the day though, I believe that personal responsibility is very important so it is his job to be level headed and humble. I do not believe the situation is as crazy as many have made it out to be, however.
The piece on Bieber's early life was very interesting to me. I never knew about his mother and his upbringing. It makes me happy to see that his mother made the best of her situation and turned her life around. God really does work in mysterious ways.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Johnson & Johnson Settlement
When I first heard about this incident, it seemed as if those who make baby products got busted for running drugs through them. I thought to myself, "Wow, that is pretty interesting." However, now I'm not so sure just how interesting it is. It seems as if Johnson & Johnson has illegally promoted one of their drugs (in a separate branch of their company) to young children and the elderly, and just like every other time a large company has done something that they aren't supposed to do, they are going to get away with it by paying their way out.
At $2.2 billion, this is the third largest pharmaceutical settlement in the history of the US, according to The New York Times. This seems like a very large sum of money, and to most people it is, but not to Johnson & Johnson, who, according to The New York Times, in one year, brought in $3.1 billion in revenue just off of the drug in question alone! And to make this number seem even smaller to them, this was only five percent of their total revenue for that year.
Now, I am not one who believes that people with money are evil, nor do I believe that they should have it stuck to them anytime that society gets the chance. However, I do believe that people should be held responsible for their actions, and that people should each be treated fairly under the law. I am not an expert on this exact case, it actually seems pretty confusing to me, but the article brings to mind all of the times I have heard of big companies throwing money at people in lawsuits and having them run away. I do not think that this is the best way to go about handling this. Someone should be held accountable personally, not a settlement that involves the handing over of a large sum of money. If we were to hold those at the top, as well as those who call the shots in the company, responsible for their actions, then I do not believe that we would see as much as this. These people tend to feel somewhat invincible or indestructible due to their status at the top. At the very least, Johnson & Johnson should've fired someone for this.
At $2.2 billion, this is the third largest pharmaceutical settlement in the history of the US, according to The New York Times. This seems like a very large sum of money, and to most people it is, but not to Johnson & Johnson, who, according to The New York Times, in one year, brought in $3.1 billion in revenue just off of the drug in question alone! And to make this number seem even smaller to them, this was only five percent of their total revenue for that year.
Now, I am not one who believes that people with money are evil, nor do I believe that they should have it stuck to them anytime that society gets the chance. However, I do believe that people should be held responsible for their actions, and that people should each be treated fairly under the law. I am not an expert on this exact case, it actually seems pretty confusing to me, but the article brings to mind all of the times I have heard of big companies throwing money at people in lawsuits and having them run away. I do not think that this is the best way to go about handling this. Someone should be held accountable personally, not a settlement that involves the handing over of a large sum of money. If we were to hold those at the top, as well as those who call the shots in the company, responsible for their actions, then I do not believe that we would see as much as this. These people tend to feel somewhat invincible or indestructible due to their status at the top. At the very least, Johnson & Johnson should've fired someone for this.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Tobacco in New York City
Just recently, New York City passed legislation to change the age that it is legal to purchase tobacco from 18 to 21. This is a victory for health enthusiasts across the country. New York City has also tried to limit soft drink sizes in the past. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has definitely been a big activist in the health area, so there is no question as to whether or not he intends to sign this bill into law.
Personally, I see no problem at all in trying to live healthier. I try to not eat too many things that are bad for me in order to be healthy. I also enjoy working out and playing football and basketball in order to be fit. However, I do not think that it is the government's place to force it upon us. This is an example of a lack of personal responsibility on account of the smokers themselves. I would support public leaders encouraging healthier lifestyle choices and a sense of respect for those around you who do not want to get second hand smoke, but I do not support them taking away the freedom of the people to make their own decisions.
Of course smoking is bad for you. I watched my grandma die of lung cancer from being a lifetime smoker when I was pretty young. That is why I, personally, don't do it, but the government is foolish to think that it will actually stop people from doing something that they really want to do. It is very easy to buy alcohol if you are under 21. Plus, in this case, it will be even easier because they will be allowed to possess it, just not purchase it. In over ninety percent of states, marijuana is still illegal for anyone to possess, much less purchase, however, in my experience, just about as many young people smoke marijuana as they do cigarettes.
The argument for this bill was, according to The New York Times, "that raising the age to buy cigarettes would discourage people from becoming addicted in the first place." I would argue that the first cigarette smoked by most is not one that they purchased on their own. People begin purchasing cigarettes after they have tried it a few times before. So now the only difference is going to be that these people must have someone else buy cigarettes for them when they want to smoke, or they will just obtain a fake ID and do it themselves.
Personally, I see no problem at all in trying to live healthier. I try to not eat too many things that are bad for me in order to be healthy. I also enjoy working out and playing football and basketball in order to be fit. However, I do not think that it is the government's place to force it upon us. This is an example of a lack of personal responsibility on account of the smokers themselves. I would support public leaders encouraging healthier lifestyle choices and a sense of respect for those around you who do not want to get second hand smoke, but I do not support them taking away the freedom of the people to make their own decisions.
Of course smoking is bad for you. I watched my grandma die of lung cancer from being a lifetime smoker when I was pretty young. That is why I, personally, don't do it, but the government is foolish to think that it will actually stop people from doing something that they really want to do. It is very easy to buy alcohol if you are under 21. Plus, in this case, it will be even easier because they will be allowed to possess it, just not purchase it. In over ninety percent of states, marijuana is still illegal for anyone to possess, much less purchase, however, in my experience, just about as many young people smoke marijuana as they do cigarettes.
The argument for this bill was, according to The New York Times, "that raising the age to buy cigarettes would discourage people from becoming addicted in the first place." I would argue that the first cigarette smoked by most is not one that they purchased on their own. People begin purchasing cigarettes after they have tried it a few times before. So now the only difference is going to be that these people must have someone else buy cigarettes for them when they want to smoke, or they will just obtain a fake ID and do it themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)