Pacific Heights

Earlier in class we watched a movie called Pacific Heights. The movie was basically about a couple, who is not married, who took a challenge and bought a home for the first time. To make ends meet, they needed to rent out the 1 bedroom and studio apartments below them. The first tenants to move in were a Japanese couple who had an excellent credit check. An African-American man wanted to move into the studio apartment but his credit check was misplaced when the Japanese couple moved in. Another man, Mr. Hayes, wanted to move into the studio as well.

The owner of the home, Mr. Goodman ran into Mr. Hayes in the beginning in front of his home. Mr. Hayes automatically said that he had already spoken to Mr. Goodman’s girlfriend and that she had a meeting with her to check out the apartment. With no questions asked, Mr. Goodman willingly let Mr. Hayes into the apartment to check it out. They start to discuss the apartment conditions and some of Mr. Hayes’s background. Mr. Hayes then tells Mr. Goodman that he wants the apartment, but since Mr. Goodman requires a credit check on all tenants, he waves the piece of paper to Mr. Hayes. Mr. Hayes then flashes his wallet full of one hundred dollar bills to Mr. Goodman claiming that he can pay 6 months worth of rent. Mr. Goodman is intrigued and lets go of the credit check. He then just asks for references.

Some red flags that Mr. Goodman should have considered before allowing Mr. Hayes to move in was that his own girlfriend had said she never spoke to a “Mr. Hayes”. Of course, he did not believe her. Second, the fact that Mr. Hayes was not able to supply a credit background check should have had Mr. Goodman thinking twice about the guy. Third, while Mr. Goodman was calling for references, some people that were given to him by Mr. Hayes didn’t even know he existed and the woman who had gave him an excellent reference asked for the address and where Mr. Hayes was currently staying in. To me that’s not very professional-like. Fourth, the money never got transferred to Mr. Goodman’s account for the first 6 months of rent like Mr. Hayes had promised, nor did he provide a security deposit. There were so much more hints and clues to why Mr. Goodman should not have let Mr. Hayes stay at his home. I actually got pretty interested in this movie and would like to see what happens in the end. I bet Mr. Hayes will try and seduce Patti then kill her or something.

FACTS OF THE CASE -- Part I: Tinker vs. Des Moines School District (1969)

1. Facts of the case -- a concise statement of the facts that brought the case before the Court.

“In December 1965, a group of adults and students in Des Moines held a meeting at the Eckhardt home. The group determined to publicize their objections to the hostilities in Vietnam and their support for a truce by wearing black armbands during the holiday season and by fasting on December 16 and New Year's Eve. Petitioners and their parents had previously engaged in similar activities, and they decided to participate in the program” (bc.edu). The principals of the Des Moines school district became aware of the petitioner’s plans on wearing armbands to school and on December 14, 1965, the school adopted a policy that any students wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it and will be suspended if refused. On December 16th, two high school students, John F. Tinker (15 years old) and Christopher Eckhardt (16 years old), and one junior high student, John’s sister, Mary Beth Tinker (13 years old) wore black armbands to school. “They were all sent home and suspended from school until they would come back without their armbands. They did not return to school until after the planned period for wearing armbands had expired – that is, until after New Year’s Day” (bc.edu). The fathers of the children sued, but the District Court ruled that the school had not violated anything on the Constitution. “The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court, and the Tinkers appealed to the Supreme Court” (infoplease.com).

Works Cited:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html
http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar39.html

"Greed is Good"

“Greed is good.” Now what can we think of when we hear that quote? I don’t necessarily agree with that saying 100%, but depending on a certain type of situation, that quote can pertain to something morally good and not so wrong. That quote pretty much takes us back to chapter 2 in the book when we learned about ethics and morals. “Ethics takes a more philosophical approach, examining what is good or bad. Morals are concerned with behavior as judged by society” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo; Pg. 19). With those definitions in mind, would a quote such as “greed is good” fall under the category of an ethical dilemma? We were taught that being greedy in this world is not nice and that we will never get anywhere in life being hated on. That’s not always so correct once you live in the real world. When you think about it, so many people in this world have made it through life became rich by being greedy. Of course morally, it’s not good to be greedy, but you do what you have to do to reach your goals. For example, there are good and bad types of being greedy. If you were to start a foundation, say a foundation for helping kids fight cancer, you would want to be greedy and find ways to manipulate people into giving you money for raising money to these kids. Would that be so bad? You’re doing whatever you can to help them out. It’s for the cause of helping others. If you were to start a company for your own benefit and would trample over anybody just to get what you want, then that would be considered greedy in the form we all know the word to be.

“Despite a few glaring lapses, many companies today understand the need to maintain ethical standards in their dealings with customers, suppliers, and employees. To do this, some firms or industries establish a code of ethics…” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo; Pg 21). Having a code of ethics in the business would definitely set some standards in order for people to be not so greedy. “Greed is good” is such an iffy quote and a tough subject to put my finger on. One side of me agrees and another disagrees. Have you ever seen a movie called “Envy” starring Ben Stiller and Jack Black? It’s a story about two friends who shared everything and one day Jack Black discovers a miracle spray that got rid of any kind of animal feces and made it disappear into thin air. Of course, he became rich, bought a big house, and bought everything his money could buy, while his best friend was left all by himself. The thing is, Ben Stiller never asked to be a part of his company and just watched his best friend do his thing. He then began to get jealous of his friend’s success. Throughout the movie, you realize that none of this is Jack’s fault because he had been nice to Ben and offered him everything he ever needed and that Ben had so much pride and acted like his success was nothing to him. Jack wasn’t really greedy, he was actually giving, but the thought of Ben being jealous, he was green with envy. It really comes down to what situation and how you’re looking at the quote to truly understand its meaning. It’s up to you to decide whether greed is really good, or if greed is bad.

Smash-Me Doll

If I could create a smash-me doll, I would make a doll of my roommate, Chris. He basically instigated a war between two people that used to live in our house with us and myself. He would always be telling me about the things they would say when I was gone, and being pregnant with raging hormones does not help the situation. A fight broke out between me and the girl that used to live with us (at the time her and her boyfriend still lived with us) and it turned into a pretty bad fist fight. I won, of course. That day of the fight, they were in the process of moving back to her dad’s house and they still haven’t given the key to our house back and that day was supposed to be the last day to take their stuff out of our house. Instead, they refused to give the key and locked their room door with a bunch of their junk still left over and drove to her dad’s. I was furious so the next morning I picked the lock and threw their junk outside, everything that they had left.

(This is where Chris comes in) Chris even helps me out with taking their crap outside of the house, especially the bed since I couldn’t move that on my own. Since Chris had been sleeping on the couch and had no room, the room the couple used to own would be his room. He got right to it and started cleaning and moving his stuff into his new room. Just for a little background, I trusted Chris as if he were my brother. We clicked pretty much when we first met and we even talked him out of moving to Florida because he would only get in trouble there. But anyways, I was already late for work since I had been moving the couple’s belongings outside. It was garbage day that day. I had told the couple that if they didn’t want their stuff to be taken away by the garbage man then I suggest they take it now. I had asked Chris to do me one thing, and it is to watch my room and make sure they are not allowed in the house. I knew that the couple was going to be pissed and do something with my stuff since all their crap is out of the house. But they didn’t stick to the agreement, they were supposed to leave the house key and have all their belongings out of the house by a certain date and they failed to do so. Chris said, “Yeah I understand, don’t worry about it, I wouldn’t want my stuff to get trashed too.” So then I left for work. I get a call from my other roommate (Chris’s cousin) saying that the couple had already left and took their stuff with them. I asked her if they came into the house and she said the girl came in. Right there and then I asked her to check my room. I was right, it was completely trashed.

I drove home immediately and began yelling at Chris. He first said, “She needed to get some movies inside the house” then I had asked him if he watched her, he said no. I became even angrier and started to lose my cool. He then started yelling back, getting in my face, and threw things around saying, “You’re a grown woman and don’t expect her to not do anything to your stuff when you threw theirs outside! It’s not my responsibility!” So… there you have it. I asked him to do one thing, and one thing only. WATCH MY THINGS. He said he would and that he wouldn’t want things like that to happen to him. He said he wasn’t going to let them into the house. I trusted him, and now all that happened. Ever since then, I took back my laptop, iPod, and television that he was using in his room and we haven’t spoken to each other ever since then. He apologized to my boyfriend and said that he’s embarrassed to talk to me. I don’t give a flying fuck. He doesn’t have the balls to come to me and apologize, and every time I’m in the same room as him he would run back upstairs to his room. He’s a coward and I would love to see his face get smashed, but I guess a doll would do the trick. For a 21 year old guy with long hair and has no qualifications to get a job what-so-ever, good luck trying to survive in this world. He already can’t pay for rent!

I would so love a doll that looks like him so I can beat the shit out of it. Sorry for the French, but repeating this story makes me so angry. I hate being pregnant sometimes.

Myspace Hoax (Blog Review)

“To me this case seems to be a clear case of slander. Slander being defined as “the spreading of damaging words or ideas about a person, directly or indirectly, in all other forms not considered libel.” (Essentials of Business Law, Luizzo, pg 45) The mother that created the MySpace account had the intent to slander the already emotionally fragile girl. (Anchor Drive Productions)”

I had written myself that this was an act of slander. The mother did create a Myspace account with the intent of emotionally hurting the young girl. The definition of slander, which Anchor Drive Productions described is exactly what the mother did.

“Because she used a pseudo names she violated the agreements on MySpace. I felt that she was responsible for pushing this young girl over the edge. Whether she knew it or not this girl suffered from severe depression. With further research could this woman also be charged with even more including negligence? (design guru 84)”

Lori Drew definitely violated the terms and agreements of Myspace. It says that you cannot make any false claims about your identity. I’m sure people lie a little bit about their selves here and there on Myspace, but the fact that she intended to do this to a girl (not just any girl, someone who is depressed) for the purpose of hurting them emotionally is just straight wrong! She did in fact push Megan to commit suicide; regardless if that was her intention in doing so. The only thing I disagree with design guru 84 is that I don’t think it would be considered negligence because Megan was nothing to her, not a relative nor someone Lori Drew was responsible of.

“I believe that it comes down to parenting. If Megan had a disorder and her parents knew that she was mentally unstable, why did they allow her to get involved with someone in the first place? With any romantic relationship, emotions-both physically and mentally, are always involved. And having a young girl such as Megan, with some type of disorder, should have never been given permission at all to have a relationship. Let alone, a Myspace account. If Megan’s parents knew that Megan was bothered and upset, why didn’t they stop online privileges or discontinue her Myspace subscription? What the hell were Mr. and Mrs. Meier thinking? (Flip Beats Productions)”

I could agree and disagree to what Flip Beats Productions said. Yes, it is true that Megan’s parents should have paid more attention to their daughter when they clearly knew that she was bothered and upset, but you have to look at it from Megan’s point of view and the parents as well. It does not discuss whatsoever about the parenting given to Megan by her parents in any of the articles. Everyone faces their teen years, whether they were good or bad experiences. Remember how we would always disobey our parents and still use the internet if we weren’t allowed to? Or making phone calls to friends when it’s past our bedtime… little things like these are a big deal when it comes to early adult hood. Megan could’ve been told to let her Myspace go and not take things too seriously, but as a teenager with hormones rushing through her brain will do the exact opposite of that. I wouldn’t say that the parents are all too blame, but I agree that they have a part in her death. I’m sure if Megan’s parents forbid her to use Myspace, she would have still found a way to access it one way or another.

“Should parents with kids that are still teens make some type of effort to monitor their child’s online time? Maybe through the use of third party software or opening better communication, parents will be able to understand their kid’s life from both an emotional and physical aspect. (Raw Impact Designs)”

The opening statement to Raw Impact Design’s post was very strong. Raw Impact Designs raised some questions to think about the entire situation. One concern I do have is privacy. When we were teenagers, all we wanted was to be left alone and not have our parents bother us. Am I right? Raw Impact Designs states that the parent’s should have a third party software to monitor their child’s internet usage. I think that would cause even more problems, especially if Megan found out. I remember once in middle school, I had been talking on the phone with my friend for hours about boys, school… and other useless information we had to tell each other in middle school and I had found out that my father had recorded the entire conversation through the answering machine. He didn’t listen to it, but the fact that I knew he invaded my privacy, at that age and state of mind, made me go crazy! Software to spy on children isn’t the best thing to do. I do agree though that the parents should have paid more attention to Megan and look for signs of depression, which she clearly had.

"Used Cars"

I was not here for week four, but upon reading other students' blogs, it says that they had watched a movie called "Used Cars" and they were instructed in listing crimes and torts that were comitted in the movie. The list is:

1. Bribery
2. False Advertising
3. Sexual Harassment
4. Perjury5. Destruction of Property
6. Lying Under Oath
7. Underage Drivers
8. 250 Counts of Driving w/o License
9. Speeding
10. Hit & Run
11. Trespassing
12. Assault w/ a Deadly Weapon
13. No Seatbelts
14. Reckless Driving
15. Child Endangerment
16. Misrepresentation
17. Libel
18. Slander
19. Defamation
20. Conversion