My Opinion...

In my opinion, the most important things to consider in the debate over music downloading are the artist and the law. It is important to consider the artist first, because his or her income is at stake. This is especially important for emerging artists, who depend on the sale of music for much of their income. In addition to hurting the artists, downloading music from unauthorized sites is also illegal. This fact was also very important in leading me to believe that illegal downloading is wrong. No matter how strongly people disagree with the price of music or the fact that downloading should be illegal, downloading IS illegal and therefore people should not do it.

The Music Industry in Danger

The CQ Researcher article discusses the future of the music industry at length, focusing on the effect of illegally downloading music on the entire music industry as a whole. This article appears to place heavy emphasis on the fact that the music industry simply cannot keep up with the pace of people finding new ways to acquire music for very little cost or no cost at all. It goes into great detail about the severely negative impact that this has on artists, as well as producers and labels. The second article is a case study. It offers a scenario, and asks people to react to it. It is not surprising that many people seem sympathetic of the fictional John, and don't seem to think that illegal file sharing is a huge issue. Both articles discuss illegal internet file sharing as a major issue facing our society.

A New Museum!

If I was given money to create a museum with a purpose, I would create a museum dedicated to the wildlife living in Australia's Great Barrier Reef. This museum would show visitors the important of preserving the nature of the reef. Visitors would be able to see some of the animals that live and around the reef, as well as view videos and workshops on the effects of humans on the Great Barrier Reef. The goal of this museum is ultimately to educate visitors on the global effects of both climate change and pollution. Emphasis on the Great Barrier Reef will act as an interesting microcosm for the rest of out planet.

The New England Aquarium

http://www.neaq.org/index.php

The New England Aquarium in Boston, Massachusetts is home to thousands of sea creatures presented in habitats closely mimicking their natural environments. At the aquarium, visitors will experience penguins, live reefs, and even a tide pool with creatures that can be touched and picked up by visitors, among many other exhibits. Perhaps the highlight of a trip to the aquarium is experiencing the Giant Ocean Tank--a four-story, 200,000 gallon tank that is the center of the aquarium. The New England Aquarium is certainly a great place to learn about creatures that most people have never seen or even heard of before, especially since they are all presented in environments that are extremely similar to their natural environments. The aquarium is well organized, as all exhibits have placards discussing what animals live in each tank and how they adapt to living in their certain environments. There is also lots of information about preserving the ocean and the wildlife that inhabits it throughout the building. The New England Aquarium is certainly a must for anyone visiting the Boston area, as it is one of the country's finest aquariums, as well as a live museum that certainly leaves an impact on all visitors.

A Necessary Apology

In the wake of the 1982 Tylenol crisis, the chairman of Johnson & Johnson offered an apology to customers of Tylenol. Although Tylenol was not to blame for the cyanide poisonings, James Burke still offered an apology, and promised that the company would place more emphasis on safe packaging of its products. While this apology certainly made consumers feel as though Tylenol was concerned about their best interest over profit, it also saved the company. Tylenol distributed coupons for free tylenol, helping to gain back Americans' trust in the brand. In addition, packaging of the product was completely reengineered, making it impossible for another poisoning to occur. In conclusion, while Tylenol was not to blame for these poisonings, it was a strategic and crucial business move to offer an apology to consumers.

The Tylenol Tragedy

In 1982, Tylenol was faced with a tragedy--7 people in the Chicago area had died due to taking Tylenol. Tylenol, the country's leading over-the-counter pain killer, was suddenly associated with death. After investigation, the police found that somebody had contaminated Tylenol with cyanide while the product was on the shelves in local grocery stores and pharmacies. This case is extremely important in the business world and is widely studied, as Tylenol enforced the first ever nationwide recall of a product. The chairman of Johnson & Johnson at the time, James Burke, is still widely praised for his response to this tragedy. He quickly took the blame for the event on behalf of J&J, and proceeded to offer Americans with vouchers for Tylenol tablets, the type that were impossible to tamper with. This recall cost Tylenol $100 million, but it made Americans feel safe--like they were more important to the company than profit. This strategic business move saved the company. Tylenol went on to package their product in three-layer packaging that was impossible to tamper with.

While Americans saw this apology and action by James Burke as heroism, he has said that he was simply trying to do what was best for business. Since Burke had the peoples' best interest in mind only to save the multi-million dollar Johnson & Johnson empire, are his apology and response still as relevant and heroic?

Partisan Rhetoric Quote

Following the September 11th Attacks, President George W. Bush stated in a speech, "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us or your are with the terrorists."

This is certainly a quote that is often taken out of context and misconstrued. I do not think this statement was dangerous at all--especially given the times. Although it is perhaps a bit exaggerated, I believe that Bush's goal was simply to bluntly say that the United States needed as much unity and partnership as it could get from other nations. This statement was certainly in reference to the global war on terror. If we were to censor speech such as this, this statement would certainly have had less impact.