Marie Colvin (left), Remi Ochlik (right)

A story that really stood out to me this week was the deaths of French photographer Remi Ochlik and the journalist Marie Colvin. The pair were killed in Syria, by rockets said to have been targeted at the house they were staying in, by government forces.
According to many news sources, the Syrian conflict has been very difficult for many journalists to cover - Colvin and Oclik were not the first to be killed during the uprising.
I first heard about this story when listening to NPR news yesterday, and it truly saddened me to hear about these journalists losing their lives. I feel that the random shellings that are occuring in Syria, illustrate that the European Union needs to attempt to do something... anything... to help to mollify issues in Syria.
Below is Marie Colvin's last story covering the Syrian uprising:
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/public/news/article874796.ece

Last class we discussed how the Texas Rangers handled the case in which a father fell trying to catch a foul ball at a game last year.  We ultimately decided that Nolan Ryan and the Rangers made the right decision and handled the case in the best manner possible - quickly & compassionately. They showed that the Texas Rangers do care about their fans and their safety.
After this weeks events with the drug bust at TCU, it is hard not to think about TCU's handling of the issue. Did TCU take care of the situation in the best manner?
I feel that they did. TCU addressed an issue that is not exclusive to the school but is an issue at most, if not all, universities. They were the first to actively bring light to the issues themselves and show that the behavior was intolerable at our university and that action would be taken. 
As far as PR decisions go I think that TCU handled the issue the best way that they could.

Class Discussion: Komen & Planned Parenthood

In class we discussed the issue of Komen giving into public pressure and making the decision to pull their support from Planned Parenthoold. In making the decision to pull funding away from Planned Parenthood, Komen became the focus of a huge credibility-related scandal.  Komen not only lost their credibility as an organization that believes in the the empowerment of every woman, but they also lost the funding and support of many of it's former supporters.
It is fine to be openly against the practices of another organization or what they stand for, as long as you remain reasonable and have a justified way to support the reason you disagree with their practices. The fact that Komen decided to discontinue it's alliance with Planned Parenthood only after being faced with adversity and judgment from the public is what makes their actions questionable.
I feel that in finally making the decision to stand by Planned Parenthood was a good play by Komen, but it may be "little too late" for their current situation. They have lost any hope of obtaining a reputation as a strong and steadfast organization that stands for what they believe.

Playing Fair

According to Rawl's Veil of Ignorance, in order to achieve nonpartisan attitude, one must push aside who they are, completely ignore their social identity, and make decisions without it.
It sounds nice, but is that really possible?
I'm taking criminal justice courses, and we're learning about different cases - criminal, white crime, environmental, and in each classification, it who the person is, and where they come from that plays a role in the case, whether it be psychologically/mentally or where they come from geographically.
Just recently, I read an article about a billionaire who was around 48, and decided to commit to his girlfriend... by adopting her to avoid any monetary discrepancies. We live in a society where people place so much emphasis on status and money that it is difficult, no matter how hard we try to get away from being discriminatory towards others.
In regards to things like race and money, I hope that someday we will be able to get past the bias, and live in an equilibrium - but if it's not one thing it's another. We always find a way to differentiate ourselves from other people; it's our human nature.
I feel that Rawl's veil of ignorance, is a nice concept, but realistically, I'm not sure if its an entirely plausible ethical guideline.