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.

Issues with Civility and Bipartisanship

For our second paper, we were asked to write about the controversy surrounding civility in public discourse, specifically surrounding the political environment in America. This is an issue that is certainly at the forefront of political debates, and different political parties undoubtedly have vastly varying opinions of the line which separates civility from squelching free speech. While civility and bipartisanship are often praised for being "politically correct" and safe in the political arena, they are certainly flawed. For example, this type of speech often fails to alert Americans of the true severity and seriousness of the issue being discussed. If politicians are not blunt about certain topics, specifically national security, for example, their followers are less likely to heed their suggestions and information. These "feel good" responses are also under critique because they often lead to certain fakeness of the political world. If politicians no longer feel comfortable with sharing their true opinions in a way that they feel is most effective, politics suddenly take on an image of falseness, where politicians spend more time critiquing each other and crafting eloquent arguments than actually trying to help the nation. This strays from the actual point of politics--to make America a better place.