If it's true that they only pulled the ads because the show would cause controversy, I'm unimpressed; the mucky-mucks at Lowe's certainly aren't uncanny outlaws.

How true that is; sadly.

I like that she makes the statement about Congress needing to be diverse; that doesn't mean all women, it means a more equal mix.

As far as I can see, it looks like this is a true story (and generally I trust NPR to have done their due diligence to test before they air a story). This guy is truely inspiring. Sometimes all people need is someone to get nice to them and treat them better than they think they deserve to be treated.

This is actually most of the last paragraph of the post on this page but I thought it was a nice summary of the principles behind this group: "In our concluding remarks, we touched on the connection between the biased images seen in the film and cognitive bias. The media continually recreates stereotypes, which generate cognitive biases, which lead to real-world discrimination in our workplaces and schools. How can we break that cycle? Educating ourselves about cognitive bias is a good start."

What would you do? With the weather change this weekend, I noticed a few accidents on the freeway.

I see a couple of ethical questions: 1. Is this improper censorship of websites or justified ceasing of sites that may be acting illegally? 2. Is it okay to apply a broad net that may catch more innocent fish than is justified?

Are we truely so selfish that we've lost our chance to continue much long on this planet? Do we need to find a new home before this one is destroyed?

This is an amazingly insightful TED talk. It definitely got my mind going.

Wait, did you say "Music Video?!" I'm not sure that this is unethical per se but I'm not sure what to call it. To me this is a move from the old tradition of kissing babies. It makes me laugh because I feel it shows that this man and his party think that the American people are stupid enough to fall for this kind of stunt. At least I don't think we are.

This has always been interesting to me and makes me not only question the candidates but religion itself.

It's Guy Fawkes day today and it's not only being celebrated in the U.K. this year.

When thinking about advertising and people's views of objectifying women, I thought of this billboard. The woman, Jenifer Robb, who they mention in the article, is a friend of mine. I personally loved the ad and didn't feel objectified in the slightest. I found it funny that the one woman who made such a stink about it actually caused more people to go to the store.

I found this cartoon and thought it was perfect for this weeks topic of ethical advertising. To me this cartoon means something different depending on how you view it. Is the boy on the right causing people to think that the boy on the right pees in his product, when he doesn't? Or, is he being transparent whereas the boy on the left (who does pee in his lemonade), not disclosing that fact?

This is the reason I don't see myself going into politics. I have friends who are politicians and have been blasted like this. I'm proud to say that none of those friends have stooped to these tactics. Unfortunately though, when mud is being slung, it's difficult to get out of the trench if you don't throw mud back out. Our society seems to see people who don't fight back as cowards or that they have something to hide, but if they do fight back, they are low.

I was trying to find a link about learning about good and evil. Then, I remembered seeing this poster many times in the past. I'm sure you've seen it too (or heard about it). This link is to the book on Amazon. I highly suggest clicking on the "Look Inside" on the picture and reading the "First Pages." Amazon allows you to read a select amount of pages. I suggest reading the Credo at the beginning and the Reflections in the back. I, for one, plan to purchase and read the entire thing. Sometimes I think we overthink. Life doesn't always have to be complicated.

A friend had shared a picture on Facebook that I saw today. It was copies from two articles about two different crimes. One was of a wealthy white man and one was of a homeless black man. The pictures note the sentences and crimes committed and imply that there was disparity in the sentencing. Here is a post I found on the two cases. What are your thoughts on the different cases?

I did some extra research on these two cases as well (including Snopes). I posted the linke that I did (and only that) for a couple of reasons. 1) Because of the potential inequality of the two cases and 2) because I don't think that most people look past the information give to them. I was glad to see that someone (granted you are the professor, but still) looked into the stories a bit more. I think that also says something about ethics. I recently sent a friend of mine (who was making claims about products other than those she was selling). The claims were that there was bat guano in many brands of mascara. She told me she had heard this from an optometrist but she had never done any research on her own. When I did (because I did not want to make claims that I did not know to be true), I forwarded some of the sources I found to her. In our society, we tend to take things at face value.

I thought this was interesting and meshed well with Abraham Verghesse's talk about the value of touch. I really liked how Whitehouse notes the benefits of touch to both parents and the fetus's ultimate health and development.

While I can see the logic behind someone losing assistance if they find a way to raise money, I don't believe that this woman would have tried to sell her home (a roof over her head which is a necessity, especially for someone so ill).