Doing Charity... for money?

Most of us are familiar with the Salvation Army bell ringers who stand outside in the freezing cold collecting money for charity. I know that I always appreciate the fact that these people are giving their time and braving the cold to help others.

However, what I didn't realize, was that this was a paid position, not a volunteer based community service. I read an article which talked about the current state of the economy's effect on the Salvation Army. The positions of a bell ringer (which requires an application and then pays about minimal wage - $7.25 an hour) are extremely sought-after. According to the article, more and more people are applying for this job because of the economic downturn.

At first, I was a little bit outraged - getting paid to do charity?!

But then my friend Sophie brought up a good point: The Salvation army's mission is to help others, especially during the holiday season. By giving jobs to these people who otherwise wouldn't have work, they are helping those people who are in turn helping a huge number of people. When I look at it that way, I can see the good in the situation. However, this also means that everytime you drop some spare change into the collection jars, the money may be going to someone's paycheck, as opposed to 100% going to charity.

What do you think about this situation? Is it wrong to be paid for volunteer work in your opinion?

New Method for Executions

A few months back, I blogged about the failed execution of Romell Broom, a man who was given the death penalty in Ohio for murdering and raping a 14 year old girl. In a recent article I read, the state of Ohio employed a new method for administrating the death penalty: a one-drug intravenous lethal injection. This new method is very much alike to that of putting an animal to sleep (euthanizing animals), as it involves a large dose of anesthetic. According to many experts, it is a painless procedure. Furthermore, most experts see it as an improvement to the widely used method of a three-drug cocktail, because this method requires "a short-acting barbiturate to render the inmate unconscious, followed by a paralytic and then chemical to stop the heart." A barbiturate is used as a sedative and acts as a depressant to the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord). According to Romell Broom's lawyer, Broom was wincing in pain during the administrators attempts to execute him with the three-drug cocktail.

Personally, I think that this new method sounds much more humane. I've known many people who have had to put pets to sleep, and I know that these animals do not suffer, but simply drift off to sleep before they are killed. Well, this then begs the question, does this man (Kenneth Biros), who sexually assaulted and then murdered and desembled a girl, deserve to be killed humanely? I think this is a very hard question to answer, and I'm not exactly sure where I fall on the issue. I guess I believe that he should be killed as humanely as possible, because he is still getting punished - his life is getting taken away.

Another interesting debate the article sparked up was that this was the first time that this euthanizing method had been used on humans, so it has been dubbed "human experimentation" by medical and legal experts. The phrase "human experimentation" has bad connotation to me, as it reminds me of horrendous procedures done on Holocaust victims by the Nazis during World War II. However, as the legal director of the Crimminal Justice Legal Foundation - Kent Scheiddegger - pointed out, “What kind of test do they [critics of human experimentation] expect?” he said. “A controlled study with volunteers? Not likely.”

What do you think? Is it ok in this situation to test out a new method on humans, or is it never just for human experimentation never occur?

Picture from: http://ucsbglobalvoices.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/death-penalty.jpg

Privacy and Youtube

This morning while eating breakfast, I was skimming the newspaper (Chicago Tribune) and saw an interesting Ask Amy Article: At a birthday party, a woman's ten year old son was filmed, and the video was posted on Youtube without the permission of parents of children at the party. The woman said that she called the family, expressing politely her unhappiness at the video, and then asked Amy whether or not she was mistaken in doing so.

Amy responded by saying that there is a difference between Youtube and National television, and that most likely, videos involving her son at a school concert or sporting event, or of him and his friends, would probably end up on Youtube someday too. And, she brought up a good point at the end, to, saying that the mom should take this opportunity to educate her son on the risks of sharing videos (privacy and safety issues).

This article made me think about the conversations regarding privacy we had in class. I'm split on this situation. On one hand, I think that it was not that big of a deal that a video from the birthday was posted on Youtube, such a huge site where the video was probably only posted so that others attending the party could see it. However, I can also see from a parents point of view and where the mom was coming from, in feeling like her and her son's privacy was invaded because they family did not ask permission. To be on the safe side, the family probably should have asked permission before posting. What do you think? Is it an invasion of privacy if a family posts a Youtube video of other kids without consulting the parents first?

picture from: http://www.dolphin.upenn.edu/pennband/img/youtube-logo.jpg

Name Defines Job Applicants

I read a very suprising statistic while reading an article, "In Job Hunt, College Degree Can't Close Racial Gap". The article described the inequalities in our society regarding companies hiring more whites over blacks, even when those who weren't white had prestigious educations and lots of work experience. However, the statistic that suprised me was from a study in The American Economic Review, called "Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?" The study showed that those applying for jobs with "black-sounding" names recieved 50% less callbacks for interviews than people with "white-sounding" names.

This infuriated me a bit, because your name should not be what defines who you are in regards to whether or not you will be a good employee. No one can control what they are named, however, they can control what type of education/experience they can bring to a position. A company should give each application a fair chance, focusing strictly on what is there, and give fair interviews to all applicants. According to the article, "Discrimination in many cases may not even be intentional, some job seekers pointed out, but simply a matter of people gravitating toward similar people, casting about for the right “cultural fit,” a buzzword often heard in corporate circles." In other words, some companies don't even know they are being discriminatory, but simply gravitate toward names that sound "white". Just because your name is not Emily or Greg, for example, doesn't mean that a person is any less adequate for a job. With college graduate black males having an unemployment rate of twice that of white males, and interviewers superficially judging people by their name, something people are not in control over, how can there be equal opportunities for all men in our country?