In response to Douglas Sack

Do you think a paid vacation trip is an effective motivational tool? What incentives would you like to see as an employee?

I have to disagree with Douglas because I think that a paid vacation is an effective motivational tool. (Just to clarify the paid vacation or incentive trip is an all-expenses-paid excursion). I am also positive that a company would at least find out what incentives would motivate their employees before deciding to use paid vacations. I doubt very much that if someone that was being rewarded preferred something other than the paid vacation that some alternate compensation could not be agreed upon. Remember, this is a reward not punishment. By law employees have to be given vacation time and if they worked hard enough to be rewarded with a paid vacation, what more can they ask for. Personally, I would love to have one of those.

On the other hand, the criticism of A.I.G was called for and I see no reason why the executives were on a lavish paid vacation a week after government had to bail them out. Regardless of how the vacation was paid for, their actions led to the company’s failure and yet still they are been rewarded, ridiculous. Yet still people wonder why the economy is in such a mess.

Do you think that top paid executives should have company paid vacations after mismanagement led to companywide failure resulting in the government spending billions of hard earn tax payers money to bail them out? Please do not forget that those are the same millionaire executives who receive tax cuts/breaks.

Japan and results of the largest earthquake in the country's recorded history



The earthquake and resulting tsunami has devastated Japan and is the largest in the country’s recorded history. There are billions of dollars worth of damage caused and will take years to recover but there is even more danger looming in the horizon. There are tens of thousands of people homeless without food and water and the situation in Japan is quickly becoming worse. The resulting destruction may also be the catalyst for an even greater catastrophe, if the country’s nuclear plants are unable to cool their reactors. According to the World Nuclear Association, Japan’s 54 reactors provide approximately 30% of the country's electricity. Nuclear scientist all over the world are coming together to try to solve this problem as well as different governments.  There has been one explosion so far and people have been reassured that the amount of radioactive particles released in the air is small. The plants were built to keep any radioactive material trapped within even if the reactors melted (let’s hope that it works) but the explosion happened at the oldest nuclear plant. We all know the dangers involved if the reactors are not cooled and the country will not be the only ones to suffer if the unthinkable happens.

According to NPR (after listening to Car Talk-love it), the country’s debt is approximately twice the size of its GDP but unlike countries like the US for example, Japan’s debt is held by Japanese. The country is also one of the richest in Asia with savings rate much higher than that of the US and a culture steeped in honor, sacrifice and seeing things to the end. This means that although their recovery will be difficult, the people are resilient and the country has a fighting chance.
Give strength to the survivors and may the souls of the dead rest in peace.

Do you think the benefits of Nuclear power is worth the risk?

Obama Tells N.F.L. Owners and Players to Settle Dispute Without Him

I was so happy to read Sheryl Stolberg’s article in the Wall Street Journal and applauded the President Obama’s actions. I thought that it was utterly disgusting for the NFL to request the president’s intervention to help mediate their dispute.  Can you believe it; on one side there are million Americans out of jobs, people without health care, people losing their homes left, right and center and on the other, we have millionaires and billionaires disturbing the president over trivial bullshit (everyone would know what I’m saying if I had this bullsh*t so why pretend)  in my opinion. The president was right when he said, according to the article, that “you’ve got owners, most of whom are worth close to a billion dollars; you’ve got players who are making millions of dollars,” the president went on to say, “my working assumption, at a time when people are having to cut back, compromise and worry about making the mortgage and, you know, paying for their kid’s college education, is, is that the two parties should be able to work it out without the president of the United States intervening.’’

Do you think that with all the pressure that the president is under and trying to revive the economy that he should be disturbed by such inconsiderate idiots?

In Response to Stephan Rolfe

Do you feel that other generations role models acted this way or are we the beginning of a new look on our figure heads? 

I think that every generation has role models who acted in ways that disgusted some – particularly parents while they fascinated others. I was listening to NPR because they have some very interesting programs and Alice Cooper was being interviewed. Vincent Damon Furnier and his friends formed a Rock ban in the late 1960’s called Alice Cooper and were the ones to introduce theatrics in Rock N’ Roll. The ban members dressed in women lingerie; wore makeup and did crazy things on stage. The ban KISS followed in their footsteps except for the lingerie. Parents hated them and the younger generation loved them. The Rock and Roll bands back then were known as hard partiers indulging in a lot of alcohol, drugs and women; they were very promiscuous just like the bands today. Even before Alice Cooper and KISS came Elvis Presley who in the 1950’s scandalized parents with his gyrating hips.

I don’t believe that we are seeing anything new we may have become a bit more open but it’s all been done before. In my opinion, I think that shows like “Jersey Shore” are showing people how not to behave and the hardships resulting from irresponsible behavior like”16 and Pregnant.” They are warnings and if you take them for anything else and want to emulate them, then you are a fool and deserve anything that befalls you.

If everyone is jumping into shark infested waters and getting torn to pieces would you do the same?

In response to Britney Perkins

Do you think paying a little bit extra to consume products and services from socially responsible companies is worth it?  Why do you think Wal*Mart has been so successful when they have been criticized about so many socially irresponsible aspects of their company (paying women lower wages, sweatshops over seas, child labor over seas, poor animal conditions, etc)?

I personally think that it is worth paying a bit more for products and services from socially responsible companies. There are a lot of companies that are socially responsible and are profitable so it can be done. If a company allows greed to guide their decisions then they are capable of anything. For example, the peanut butter incident should not have occurred because the company knew that it was contaminated, but still shipped it out, costing lives. A socially responsible company indicates that they don’t regard their customer as dollar signs but rather as human beings; it shows that they care.

On the other hand, because of the economy some people do not have the luxury of paying the few extra dollars when they are struggling to get by. Wal-Mart caters to those people and to them the company is god sent. At the end of the day as much as people care about those issues they are going to take care of their families first.    

Johnson & Johnson

Daniel McGinn’s September 21, 2009 article “The Greenest Big Companies in American” for Newsweek, ranked Johnson and Johnson number four in the U.S out of 500 companies and number three in the world out of 100.  Newsweek worked with the environmental researchers KLD Research & Analytics, Trucost, and CorporateRegister.com to rank the companies. The companies were ranked based on their actual environmental performance, policies, and reputation. Ranking the companies was very challenging because of the different industries involved. Another obstacle was the incompatibility of different companies’ data due to the lack of a uniform standard for reporting green data; as well as the limited corporate emissions data.

Jacquelyn Smith’s October 28 2010 article “America’s Most Generous Companies” for Forbes stated that the 5% increase in cash donations in 2008 fell by 7.5% in 2009.  Although profits are improving companies have reduced their cash donations to charity. It is still commendable that companies are willing to donate regardless of the economic climate. Johnson & Johnson took fourth place in the top ten givers, donating a total of $637,426,00 in cash and products in 2009; an increase of 12.7% from 2008.

According to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) press release in the article “public views U.S. companies as more socially responsible than a year ago,” Johnson & Johnson was rated the number one out of 230 companies measured. Researchers at the Carroll School of Management's Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College collaborated with Reputation Institute to develop the Corporate Social Responsibility Index. According to the article, CSR was developed to better understand how the public’s perception on the way companies should behave in areas of citizenship, governance, and workplace practice affects companies’ reputations. The results of the 2010 CSR index indicate that companies are becoming more aware that the public’s perception of them is very important especially in economic times such as these. Based on Johnson & Johnson’s ranking the company is very successful in communicating its CSR efforts to the public.

Budget Cuts – Reduction in the education.

We’ve all heard of the fight ongoing on in Washington. President Obama’s budget request included an increase in spending in education. His argument is that the country needs to educate their young in order to compete in the global market. On the other hand, House Education and Labor Committee chairman John Kline is not in agreement with the president’s proposal. According to an article in the Huffington Post, Kline stated that "throwing more money at our nation's broken education system ignores reality and does a disservice to students and taxpayers.”He goes on to say that "It is time we asked why increasing the federal government's role in education has failed to improve student achievement."

Both arguments are sound; the country needs to educate their young in order to compete in the future, especially since America’s youth are being left behind compared to other countries. According to an article in the Saratoga Falcon, “American children perform so poorly on international education tests; coming behind China, Japan, and India.” The article also supports Kline’s argument stating that “These countries work harder on their children than America, do, even though they spend less on education.” The article went on to say that “this embarrassing statistic shows the United States just how ineffective our education system really is, and should make the boards of education realize that our country is in dire need of an educational reform if it want to compete and match the caliber of children from other countries, notably East Asian ones.”

It is clear that both sides need to compromise, educating the youth is the key to the future, but it is also clear that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. Without reform, increasing educational spending will be negligent since it seems that the problem stems not from the lack of money invested.

Is the American education system to lax on their students?