Sync Weekly

Archive for the ‘Ethics’ Category

Obama, Noooooo!

Wednesday, August 18th, 2010

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/13/obama.islamic.center.support/index.html

In New York, there has been a controversial debate whether an Islamic Center should be built near Ground Zero.   On Monday, the news soon spread that President Obama threw his support behind the proposal to build the Islamic Center.

My initial reaction upon hearing this (from 1:15-1:27):

Besides the fact that this news heats up the political landscape for the upcoming elections in November, it provides more fodder to those arguing the President is a foreign-born Muslim-Communists-Nazi, bent on setting up a Marxist-style government that allows death panels to kill grandma.

It’s just not a good look.

However, Obama did have great reasoning and justification for his support:

“Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country… That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,”

They say that there is nothing new under the sun, and that history repeats itself.  Our country’s first president, George Washington, responded to a letter,  from a Jewish citizen, which supported our newly formed government, and welcomed Washington on his goodwill tour.  Prior to the Revolutionary War, Jews in Newport, Rhode Island, were somewhat accepted, but not able to obtain political equality as citizens of Rhode Island.  Washington’s response to the letter:

“The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens…

May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

This day in age, it is very easy (and wrong) to associate Islam with terrorism, extremists, and the like.  If we had the type of media and technology back in the days of Jim Crow that we have today, one could easily (and wrongfully) associate Christianity with extremists who lynched blacks, hated Jews, and burned crosses as a way of intimidation.

With all of that said, I know that, legally, those looking to build the Islamic Center have every right to do so.  I know that it is supposed to promote unity and peace in the midst of the tragedy that occurred at Ground Zero.   I also know that the wound of 9/11 still hasn’t fully healed; and I believe that it is somewhat disrespectful to the families of those who lost loved ones on 9/11, to build, next to Ground Zero, a center associated with a religion, that is still somewhat associated with negative sentiments.  And though these sentiments are wrong, it still takes time to heal.

In other words, right now,  it’s just not a good look.

Shirley Sherrod: Special Comment

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

In the midst of Lebron moving to South Beach, the ongoing Epic Fail that is the BP oil spill, Lindsey Lohan going on vacation to  prison, and Mel Gibson saying “FML” in only so many words… a bigger news story managed to emerge this week.

As most of you may know, Shirley Sherrod, a U.S. Department of Agriculture official, was fired forced to resign and offered her job back in 48 hours.  A video of her giving a speech was edited to portray her as a black woman, in a position of power, using this power to exercise reverse racism against a white farmer.  She was painted as not helping the white farmer out because of his skin color and “superior attitude.”  (The events she recalled in the speech occurred 24 years prior)

That’s when fhit hit the san.  Things got real.  The plot thickened.  Fallout occurred:  The NAACP condemned her.  The White House, in an attempt to jump on the situation before Glenn Beck, threw her under the bus.  The media, primarily Fox News,  judged her faster than the word “prejudice” itself.  When the facts came out, and the full video surfaced, her speech was actually one of reconciliation, self-reflection, and the plight of poor people… regardless of skin color.  Oh, and it also helped that the very white farmer she was accused of discriminating against 24 years ago said she helped save his farm, and that she deserved her job back.

On Wednesday afternoon, Mrs. Sherrod was apologized to by the president of the NAACP, her superior at the department of agriculture (Mike Vilsack), and the White House.  She was also offered her job back.

Now that this story has reached its climax, what is there to say?  I believe Keith Olbermann said it best in the video below:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

AIDS Breakthrough… But Needed?

Sunday, July 11th, 2010

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,596242,00.html

It appears we’re on the edge of an AIDS/HIV breakthrough:

“U.S. researchers discovered two powerful antibodies that neutralize more than 90 percent of all known strains of the HIV virus in the lab, new research released Thursday showed.

… NIH-led scientists discovered the antibodies known as VRCO1 and VRCO2 that prevent most HIV strains from infecting human cells. The find is a potential breakthrough for advancing HIV vaccine design, and antibody therapy for other diseases.

“The discovery of these exceptionally broadly neutralizing antibodies to HIV and the structural analysis that explains how they work are exciting advances that will accelerate our efforts to find a preventive HIV vaccine for global use,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health.

“In addition, the technique the teams used to find the new antibodies represents a novel strategy that could be applied to vaccine design for many other infectious diseases,” Fauci stressed in a statement.”

I’m conflicted.  Yes, I know… strange.

Part of me is excited for this breakthrough in medicine and science.  Another part of me wonders about the ramifications of an actual H.I.V. vaccine on society.  Would we see a spike in pregnancies?  What about other STD’s?  Would the vaccine promote promiscuous behavior?  Suppose the vaccine works, but we eventually run into another strand of H.IV. that is immune to the vaccine and more deadly.

The same debates and concerns have arisen with contraceptives causing more harm than good.  But what do you think?  What ramifications do you see arising with an H.I.V. vaccine?

Is it just a cartoon or something deeper?

Friday, April 30th, 2010

What do you think of the Southpark situation?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

In the article Who’s Afraid of South Park.  Frida is very condeming of the execs over at Comedy Central.

Background Story:  Basically there is a extreme Muslim website that said if SouthPark aired a show that depicted Muhammed in a comedic way thay would suffer the fate of Theo Van Gogh, who was almost decapitated for a film he made about the Koran.

Frida’s editorial say’s that Comedy Central allowed fear to make them give up their 1st amendment rights.   Now some would argue that it’s just a cartoon that isn’t worth risking your life over.  So which side are you on?  Is it something deeper?   Or is it just a cartoon not worth dying over?

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2010/apr/29/columnists-whos-afraid-south-park-20100429/

Who’s afraid of South Park?

By BY FRIDA GHITIS MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands — Despite much-quoted claims to the contrary, evidence abounds that the sword frequently defeats the pen. If you don’t believe me, come to Amsterdam, to the bustling street where, in plain daylight four years ago, a man called Mohammed Bouyeri cut the throat of Theo Van Gogh, almost severing his head off.

By way of explanation, the Dutch-born Bouyeri plunged a knife into Van Gogh’s body, skewering into him a letter threatening to also kill Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a fierce critic of Islam, whohad collaborated with Van Gogh on a film about the Koran. The killer, it seems, did not like the film.

Another similarly disposed art critic brought up Van Gogh’s name a few days ago in the United States. Writing on the website Revolution-Muslim.com, he threatened a fate equal to what befell Van Gogh’s for the creators of South Park, the animated cartoon that makes it a pointto offend just about everyone. According to Revolution Muslim, a South Park episode depicting the Prophet Mohammed (in a bear suit) along with figures from other religions is a crime punishable by death.

Quoting Islamic scholars, Revolution Muslim explains that, “Whoever curses the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him)-a Muslim or a non-Muslim-he must be killed and this is the opinion of the general body of Islamic scholars.”

While most Muslims would not shed blood over a comedy show, we have known for a good many years that among the followers of Islam there are those who would kill anyone-even other Muslims-who offends their religious sensibilities. That is not news. What we learned from the South Park event, however, is just as troubling. In the face of threats, the bosses at Comedy Central folded like cheap TV trays. Comedy Central heavily censored the cartoon, granting the blackmailer exactly what he wanted. Forget Land of the Free, etc. They gave up without even considering a fight.

Jon Stewart, the Comedy Central faux anchorman, regaled viewers with a musical number carrying a message to Revolution Muslim. Marveling at the extremists’ chutzpah for living in New York-home of the world’s best Jewish delis-and enjoying American freedoms only to threaten South Park’s Matt Stone and TreyParker and their freedom of expression, Stewart sang a feverish, and profane, song telling the blackmailers exactly where to go, complete with backup gospel choir.

But Stewart went curiously easy on Comedy Central’s spinelessness. “It’s their right,” he allowed. “The censorship is a decision Comedy Central made to protect their employees.”

Yes, they can do it. But that doesn’t make it any less scandalous. Comedy Central should have hired bodyguards for Stone and Parker and aired the episode uncut. That way the rich and powerful corporation (Viacom) could have really protected them-protected their safetyand their freedom of speech and their ability to do their work and to give Americans their often-hilarious and frequently cringe-worthy material. It goes without saying, but let’s say it anyway, that nobody is required to watch the show. Not Muslims, not Mormons-whose theology South Park mercilessly mocks. Not Jews, not Christians, not anybody.

The show often goes over theline. Those who find it offensive can change the channel. They can write letters, start boycotts, picket the studios. Death threats are simply not acceptable. Caving in to them is shameful.

Too many times in the West we have seen powerful media empires behave like craven weaklings. It was Bart Simpson, aptly, who put it best, writing a hundred times on the blackboard “South Park-We’d stand beside you if we weren’t so scared.”

A few years ago, after extremists threatened (and later attempted) to kill a Danish cartoonist for depicting Mohammed in his work, I saw the artist interviewed on CNN, my once-proud home. When the cartoonist tried to hold up a page with the drawings, CNN almost tackled the camera to the ground to keep the pictures from airing. Cowardice was never so pathetically hilarious.

Theo Van Gogh, whose antics occasionally resembled South Park’s in their tastelessness, discovered that his pen was no match for a killer’s sword. And yet, the pen, the keyboard, the comedian, the editorial cartoon, Bart Simpson, Cartman, Kyle and Kenny actually hold enormous power. To win, however, they need their backers to show backbone. Too bad South Park’s bosses have none.

What If?

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh the other day.   A man who I think is a genius.  The man is quite possibly one of the greatest marketing minds of the our era.  This guy spews nonsense from his mouth everyday.  Some of the things being blatant lies and somehow he keeps a top rated show.  He scares people into listening to him everyday.  And I really don’t believe he believes half the stuff he says.

Well Rush really finds his niche in scaring Conservative into believing that Democrats are trying to take over the government and your everyday lives.  Well this got me to thinking what would happen if one political party took over the government.  Would it be as bad as the other side says?

If Democrats took over – Would they really tax us into a socialist society?   Would we all have to stand in breadlines and dress in burlap sacks?  Would corporations have to stop making profits?  Would we slowly lose all of our freedoms? Would we have to give up our standard of living for people unwilling to work as hard?

If Republicans took over-  Do they really not care about the poor?  Would all social programs be cut? Would people not be able to have abortions?  Would gay marriage always be outlawed?  Would the rich get richer on the back of the poor?  Would government regulation go out the window totally?

What do you guys think?

-Trillionaire Wood

Jackie Robinson Day

Friday, April 16th, 2010

kevin-blackistone.fanhouse.com/2010/04/15/jackie-robinson-day-whitewashes-baseballs-sordid-history/

No, conference callers Rice has not left the building, been deleted or shuffled loose this mortal coil. Not going to offer excuses, but I have returned.  Yesterday, apart from being tax day, was Jackie Robinson day in major league baseball. This prompted the article above from Kevin Blackistone.  I heard a lot of discussion on my local (Houston) sports radio affiliate about the merits of the article and the designation by MLB of Jackie Robinson day.

Mr. Blackistone calls the institution of Jackie Robinson day in major league baseball “a most-remarkable whitewashing of American History” and “one of the greatest public relations and marketing campaigns of all time.” He claims that “it pulled the wool over the eyes of an increasingly philistine public.” He also makes the assertion later in the article that Larry Doby’s charging of the mound 10 years later a more significant contribution for black dignity.

I believe that Mr. Blackistone is entitled to his opinion, of course, but I find that I disagree whole heartedly.  I believe that Robinson’s contribution was dramatic and deserving of praise for exactly the reasons why Mr. Blackistone dismisses it. Robinson was a fighter, as evidenced by his willingness to suffer a court martial rather than take a seat at the back of the bus while stationed in Fort Hood TX, but he was also smart enough to know what weapons served him best in the fight before him. He knew that he was fighting for something greater than himself. He knew that whatever personal satisfaction he may have garnered from physically fighting back was dwarfed by the consequences that they would have for future generations of non-white baseball players.

Was it wrong that he should have to approach the game differently than his white teammates? Yes. Was MLB’s instituting of Jackie Robinson day a PR “stunt?” Probably, but lets be honest what these days is not part of someone’s PR campaign. Should he have had to endure the racial epithets thrown around by fans, players, and umpires alike? No. What is right is the way he conducted himself. When others were behaving like animals he was a man and rose above the petty taunting of those around him proving himself better than those who would judge the worth of a man by anything other than his character.

I don’t claim to know all about everything that transpired between the beginning of the segregation of MLB and Robinson’s arrival on the scene, I wasn’t yet born, but I do believe that Robinson’s contribution is worthy of notoriety and honor. I also am of the opinion that sometimes the most heroic people in our lives are not the ones who make the biggest splash, but the ones who simply behave better (read more human) than anyone has any right to expect they should. Hows that for dignity my friends?

So, yeah I’m a fan of Jackie Robinson day, and not only because my Astro’s won their first game of the season with the whole team wearing #42 ;-)

What say you?

~Rice

Privacy? WTF Is Privacy?

Wednesday, April 14th, 2010

The Library of Congress is archving every Tweet in the public timeline. How do you feel about it?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Do you have a Twitter account?

Have you considered running for public office any time soon?  Say, in the next… forever?

Consider this: http://www.loc.gov/tweet/how-tweet-it-is.html

“Have you ever sent out a “tweet” on the popular Twitter social media service? Congratulations: Your 140 characters or less will now be housed in the Library of Congress.

That’s right. Every public tweet, ever, since Twitter’s inception in March 2006, will be archived digitally at the Library of Congress. That’s a LOT of tweets, by the way: Twitter processes more than 50 million tweets every day, with the total numbering in the billions.”

In other words, the Library of Congress will have record of every #drunktweet, epic fail, crude joke, rant, and foot-in-the mouth statement we have ever made.

Kanye West made a song titled, “Big Brother.”  Now would be a good time to play it.

Anywho, if you look at it from a historical standpoint, tweets such as the first ever tweet and President Obama’s tweet after winning the 2008 election will be archived.  If you look at it from a panic standpoint, yes, your tweet on the trending topic of #sexisgoodwhen will also be on record (if your tweets are part of the public timeline).

If the Library of Congress can archive Tweets, then they certainly can archive Facebook data.

The purpose of this post, however, is not to get you paranoid.  Just be mindful of the information that you put out there for the world to see. When you put electronic information out, you are leaving a digital footprint.  In some cases, it’s out there forever.  Just remember, YOU control what YOU put out there about YOU, and everyone doesn’t need to know every intimate detail about your life, thoughts, etc.

Thoughts?  Gather around the conference room table.

This Is Getting Out of Hand

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36020850/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

Did I go to sleep and wake up in the 1960’s?

Or maybe the revolution is being televised!

According to the MSNBC article linked above, at least 10 House Democrats have had to beef up security due to threats they have received because of their vote on the recent health care bill.  These lawmakers have received threatening calls, been victims of vandalism, and have even had their relatives targeted in some cases:

“Anne Caprara, the chief of staff for Markey, confirmed that the representative’s D.C. office has received at least two threatening calls. On Saturday, a man who spoke to the office’s health care legislative assistant warned that “[you] better hope I don’t run into you in a dark alley with a knife, a club or a gun.”

Concern about possible violence also escalated Wednesday after a severed gas line at the home of a Democratic lawmaker’s brother was discovered.”

Hello, When Keeping It Real Goes Wrong.  I’d like you to meet, When Politics Becomes Personal.

I understand the displeasure among those who were against this bill, but does it have to come to this?  Aren’t there more civil, peaceful means to show your displeasure?  Do we have to re-enact the riots, violent protests, and constant tension that occurred during the Civil Rights Movement?

Personally, I feel those who commit acts like these towards individuals are no better than terrorists who commit violence towards a group for a cause.  No, I am not calling these Americans terrorists, but their methods of making a point are eerily similar to a terrorist.

Two can agree to disagree.  At the point where you feel you must act in violence towards one you disagree with, that action points to a greater hate in your heart.

If you have a problem with a certain political party, ideology, or issue, then why attack the senator or representative behind it?  Get involved.  Vote.  Join an organization.  Call your congressmen and asks how to get involved.  Perhaps you could blog about it!

But during these times, when Americans need to stand together, help each other, and rebuild our economy, violence and hateful speech only makes things worse.

Recommended Reading

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

This book is a good read. More on this later.

Black or White: Negro & Post Racial America…

Sunday, January 24th, 2010

black-or-white_l

The election of Barack Obama was predicted to have ushered in a new, post-racial society.  In this post-racial society, color or race would no longer matter.  Are we there yet?

Not so fast, I would say.  In the past year, we have witnessed the controversial arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates, The Beer Summit, President Jimmy Carter’s comments on hostility toward President Obama, members of the Tea Part, and Harry Reid’s comments.  Race matters, and it matters even more in the type of post-racial America that I see.

I don’t see a post-racial America where racism no longer exists.  The truth of the matter is that racism will always exist as long as evil exists.  I do, however, see a post-racial America where minorities are on track to being the majority; and more Americans will no longer view themselves as simply “black” or “white.”  I see the rise of multi-ethnic groups.

A recent Time article brings up the issue of the term, “Negro,” being used on the U.S. Census (View the article here). The article discusses many changes that the U.S. Census will be testing with the 2010 Census.  One of the possible changes is allowing respondents to check more than one box for race and Hispanic origin. Also, those who check “black” or “white” will be allowed to write in more specific information.

For years, through the eyes of racism, one drop of black blood meant that you were black.  Blue eyes and 0.001% melanin?  Yep, you’re white.

But if this change is implemented in the 2010 Census, bi-racial children will no longer have to identify with one group.  People of Arab descent will have a voice.  German-Irish?  Write it in.  Afro-Cuban?  Come on down.  Korean mother and Afro-Mexican father?  You’re invited too.  It’s a racial smorgasbord!

I pose two questions: 1) What is your vision of a post-racial America?  2) What race(s)/ethic groups do you identify with?