Comments

1. Not Such a Bad Idea

   At first this seems nothing more than a bribe, as critics note, but in thinking it over, I think it's not so bad. Learning for the sake of learning and as an investment in their future is not an easy lesson to impart on many kids. And the results are, they learn. After all, would most people have stayed in college or sacrificed to move up in our careers without being motivated by a better career, more money, or whatever motivates one? Would you have done it solely for the reward of learning and self improvement?

   2 months, 3 weeks ago In response to Cash for Grades

2. Nobody's Fault

   A terrible tragedy indeed, and there is no excuse for the lack of taste exhibited by the contributors, but Mr. Tilley had to have other, much more serious issues. Nobody is loved by everyone at their workplace, especially managers. We all know people talk. Seeing it in writing hurts no doubt, but shouldn't drive an intelligent, successful man to such action. A sad tale nonetheless. Rest in Peace.

   4 months ago In response to Death by Blog?

3. I Must Politely Disagree

   If it were indeed as you say a decision to "save one life or 5 lives" I would agree. But it's not. It is TAKING one life to save five. It's a fine line...but one I don't think I could cross.

   4 months, 2 weeks ago In response to Test Your (Moral) Mettle

A Deterrent?

I doubt this is a deterrent to drunk driving...when a drunk person gets behind the wheel, they think they are OK to drive. Judgement is impaired. If the thought of possibly killing someone doesn;t stop tem, would a billboard?

4 months, 2 weeks ago In response to Shame Game

You Could Keep Them In A Bubble

Too much time spent watching TV or engaging in ANY single activity, even positive ones is not good for children. They should have variety and be exposed to many things...they are taking in the world for the first time and the more they see the better. And, before I go on, why do people often act as though some behavior a child sees on TV or otherwise that is probably insignificant (not a factor in the scene for example)is going to have life altering impact and will be acted out regularly by the child? Kids don't pick up every detail on TV-they tend to focus on certain things, hence their desire to view the same thing hundreds of times. I doubt there is a human on this earth who was influenced to start smoking becasue of a 10 second scene in a sesame street episode in which Oscar had a pipe. Parents must be diligent in avoiding exposure to age-inapproprite material for which an explanation of what it is or why it is right or wrong is outside of the childs ability to understand. If they can't understand your explantion it has no impact and they may simply formulate their own ideas, which could be undesirable. However, exposure to "flawed" characters or unhealthy behavior depicts a realistic view of the world, and presents an opportunity for parents to teach right from wrong. Censorship is not the answer...rather they know what smoking is and learn that it's bad (and why) from me at 4 years old than being told it's cool at 12 yrs old from a classmate. Creating a perfect world for kids would be great-if only you could keep them in it.

4 months, 2 weeks ago In response to Seen on the Street

Don't Read This Until After You Take The Test

Because other's opinions may bias your answers, as the authors of the test advise...No "cheating"! Your rationale seemed the logical choice for me at first quick glance, but then it became clear to me that preventing the deaths of 5 people through justifiable INACTION was preferable to killing one through preventable action. Failure to stop something bad from happening (that you had no part in causing) is not as bad as causing something bad to happen-that was my logic. But an intersting test.

4 months, 2 weeks ago In response to Test Your (Moral) Mettle

Celeb Obsession is the Real Problem

Awards are about talent and producing a good piece of work. Like many other posters said, if we took awards away from musicians and actors becasue of substance abuse or other "bad" behavior there would be few left holding their statues. It is reasonable for consumers to avoid supporting artists whose lifestyles they disagree with. I actually applaud their commitment to their principles. But an artist's talent and the judement of it is separate from his/her personal life and bad choices. And when did people start looking to celebs to set the standards for good behavior and clean living? That's ludicrous. Historically, much of their appeal has come from their carefree, "i'll do what I want with whom I want" attitude. They are entertaining people and practicing a craft-they never signed on as role models. YOU are supposed to be your kid's role models-don't put the responsibility on others, especially those who never claimed to be able to do it, let alone wanted to. And if the papparazzi weren't following most of these people 24/7 we wouldn't know about their frequent indiscretions. I am not excusing bad behavior, but the media exploits it to sell papers. Who's more at fault here? Finally, if celebs use rehab for publicity, so what? Maybe it will help remove the stigma, such that average folks will seek help when needed. The problem is not what these people do-it's our obsession with it.

4 months, 2 weeks ago In response to Rehab

Maybe Means Justify End

First of all, if the Rwandan govt. is against her visit, she should not go. Period. My further comments also assume the project employs responsible journalism that accurately depicts the situation, rather than consisting of a bunch of photo ops. That aside, I'm thinking that altruism is admirable, but altruism combined with total selflessness is much different and rare. Consider average, non-celebrities-parents who volunteer tirelessly at their children's schools, for their sports teams,etc. Admirable? Yes. Selfless? No...they are doing it for their kids. I am not criticizing, but how many stay at this after their kids move on? Why should celebs be held to a higher standard...if they "do good" in exchange for publicity, so what? In this case, the benefits could be enlightenment and education about a very important issue to a group of young people (Hilton's fan base)who may not be otherwise exposed. Perhaps some of them will be moved to type "Rwanda" into Google and learn something. Perhaps a few of those will be moved to action of some sort. Maybe for some it will be the beginning of an interest in world events, politics, ending human suffering. Should we or the Rwandan people look to Paris Hilton to make even a measurable difference in the problems that country faces? Of course not. But if even a little good comes from it, and Paris gets some good publicity (after we stop laughing), what's the problem?

4 months, 2 weeks ago In response to Hotel Rwanda Hilton?

Do it For Yourself

Forgiving someone is something that rewards the forgiver as much or more than the "offender". As noted in the blog, holding on to anger and bitterness is not only unhealthy in and of itself but what can be even more unhealthy is having to face the loss of a presumably valued relationship. Nobody should allow themselves to be a doormat-those whose actions and/or words require regular forgiveness are probably not worth the pain or effort they cause you, and it may be best to break ties if possible or minimize their roles in your life. But when dealing with isolated events, one needs to look at more than just the action and it's affect on your feelings. Most likely they made a mistake...an out-of character behavior due to perhaps a lapse in judgement, perhaps one too many cocktails, or a verbal lashing out in anger, defensiveness or irritability on a bad day. We all make mistakes. Secondly, examine the value of the relationship in terms of the role the person has had in your life, and ask if the "mistake" is so grave that the relationship should be dissolved. Acceptance and forgiveness are key to building long, close relationships.

4 months, 2 weeks ago In response to From the Heart

Define what responsibility means to you.