November 16, 2007
FOUR FOR FRIDAY
Q1 - Request: If you opened your email program and found two messages from a friend or co-worker -- one with this subject line: "Something You Should Know!!!", and the other with this subject line: "DO NOT OPEN PREVIOUS MESSAGE, EVER," would you open the first message?
Q2 - Gambling: Earlier this week, a professional tennis player was suspended for nine months and fined $60,000 by the Men's pro tennis tour for betting on tennis matches. Thirty-year-old Alessio Di Mauro, who is ranked 124th in the world rankings, was found to have bet on the matches of other professional players but not his own. Do you think professional athletes should be allowed to bet on sporting events like the rest of us--so long as they do not bet on their own games, matches or results--or should professional athletes never be allowed to bet on the outcome or statistics related to any college or professional sporting match?
Q3 - Secret Societies: If you were offered membership in a highly selective yet secret society--one whose members were rumored or shown to be significantly influential in government, banking, law, international affairs, the arts and entertainment, and more--would you accept?
Q4 - Adoption Records: Most states prohibit adoptees from obtaining birth certificates and other information from their court adoption files unless a judge approves their request. However, a recent study by a Boston-based adoption research institute says open records for adoption after the age of 18 does not result in decreased adoptions or fractured adoptive families. According to the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, sealing adoption records "is a living symbol of the bad old days, when we hid unwed mothers, and stereotypes about them ruled the day." The Donaldson Institute advocates reshaping public policy to address what it sees as: 1). a basic civil right issue, and 2) a necessary step to provide access to important information about an individual's mental and physical health history. Others, like the National Council for Adoption, advocate a "mutual consent" policy rather than mandated open records. What rights if any do you feel should be extended to people of age when it comes to gaining access to their adoption records?
Posted by Mikal at November 16, 2007 9:03 AM
| TrackBack
1. REQUEST: I probably would not open either message. I simply have too many to read as it is PLUS I'm at an age where curiosity may just kill me. It killed the cat, from what I hear.
2. BETTING: I do not think pro athletes should be allowed to bet on any professional games or competitions. Pete Rose was rightly banned from baseball and, most likely, will never be in the Hall of Fame. It was a good decision then and it is a good decision now.
3. SECRET SOCIETIES: I certainly would join such a society. Who's to say I haven't joined one already? In fact, I joined a highly selective - yet not so secret - society when I matriculated at Brown, thereby entering the elite corp of Ivy Leaguers.
4. ADOPTION RECORDS: Generally, I oppose such research and disclosure, but could accept a "mutual consent" policy. The rights of all parties must be considered.
Q1 - Request: Oh heck yes! That just screams "READ ME." If they would say, "Please disregard my first email" then I would be less likely to pay any attention to it.
Q2 - Gambling: Because of the inside information they may have, I say no. But then again, I don't really care who can or cannot throw their money away on whatever they want.
Q3 - Secret Societies: Nope. Secret society stuff just isn't one of my hot buttons, but a secret office email like Q1, heck ya! Right up my alley.
Q4 - Adoption Records: Absolutely. Adoptees should have a right to such information.
q1: no at least not before actually talking to the person. well maybe I would. I'd just go to some one else's computer to do it :)
q2: I don't think they should be allow to bet on any games for the sport and league they play in. If a tennis player wants to bet on some nfl games, fine. Other tennis games though is a no.
q3: I can honestly say I've never thought about the prospect of this...what brings it up Mikal you get any interesting offers lately?
q4: I don't see anything big wrong with letting someone of age gain access to their own adoption records. For the "mutual consent" is that between the adopted child and his birth parents, or the adopted child and his adopted parents?
1. Something like that would have the same effect on me as "don't touch that" has on a child. I'd fear the consequences, yet curiosity would crack its whip next to my ear out shout "Yah, mule! Yah!" And, like that child, I'd probably open the first email. Curiosity is a horrible burden :).
2. If it's their own sport they're betting on, I'd say no way. The bets they place may be completely innocent, but I don't think ANY professional athlete needs the temptation. One bet leads to another, and before you know it, they'd placing bets on their own matches that are dirtier than Britney Spears' new album. If they're betting on other sports than their own, I'd say, "Knock yourself out."
3. Not in a million years. Most secret societies are secret for one reason: So they can get away with something aberrant or abhorrent. Of course, a lot of people would argue, "Well, you're Mormon. You guys are pretty secretive about a lot of what you do." To that I would respond: "What we do isn't secret. It's sacred." The difference between secret and sacred is that EVERYONE is invited to find out everything there is to know about Mormons no matter who you are. There just needs to be a certain amount of preparation for those sacred things so that they can be fully comprehended and appreciated. Admittedly, I'm sure there's also a certain amount of initiation that takes place before anyone is accepted into secret societies as well. The difference there is that what happens in the Mormon church builds faith, strengthens character, and genuinely serves our fellow man. I doubt that many secret societies do more than serve themselves.
4. Yeah, for heaven's sake, let these people see their records. I see no harm in allowing adoptees to know more about who they are, especially when they're old enough.
Q1 - I would probably open both, but from a computer that is not mine...probably a friend's computer or at a library or something. I am too curious not to open them.
Q2 - Just to have a level playing ground, I do not think players should be able to bet on matches or games, even if it is not on their own. Too many people would try to get other's to alter their performance to make an extra buck. We need to try to keep as much of the politics and games out of the games. I hope that made sense.
Q3 - In the words of Will Beckford (Played by Hill Harper in the movie The Skulls) "If it's secret and elite, it can't be good." I agree with this statement.
Q4 - I feel that once they are of age, people should have the right to any record of themselves they desire. It is their life, not matter what happened to be the situation. It's their records.
Q1. I usually open my email in order received, so I don't know if I'd notice the second email. If I did I would probably just delete both :).
Q2. I don't think a professional athlete should be able to bet on his sport at all. They have more insider information than the general public.
Q3. I would have to say yes, because if I didn't, my husband would hate me ;).
Q4. I feel an adopted child should be able to access their records at 18 without court order. They have a right to know about medical history and all that.
1. Request: I have a habit of not reading subject lines, so I open pretty much all email no matter what.
2. Gambling: Hmm... tough one. I tend to think they shouldn't gamble on their own sport, period, at the least.
3. Secret Societies: I'm not allowed to talk about that.
4. Adoption Records: I like the idea of mutual consent. If the natural parent wants their record made public, then have it be so, then the adopted can find them if they so choose.
Q1 ñ Request: Considering half of the spam I receive starts off with ìSomething you should Knowî I probably wouldnít open it at all in fear that it would be explaining different sorts of medical ìbreak throughî that are great for enhancing things.
Q2 - Gambling: I think they have a total right to gamble as long as the individual person or association they are trying to gamble with have the right to refuse the bet.
Q3 - Secret Societies: Iím already a member.
Q4 - Adoption Records: I worked for an organization where I interviewed people searching for there parents. I was filtering them for television shows like Opera. What I found was that there is a rare potential risk that some of these orphans had a desire to express anger sometimes, but for the most part they had a sincere passion for knowing who they are and where they came from. I think there should be a central organization to communicate to both parties and see if the desire to connect is mutual, and to filter for any hostile intent. I believe they should be able to see there family for medical and spiritual reasons.
A1) Of course not.
A2) If he wants to be pro player then he should abide by the rules, is creates a good morale.
A3) Probably not, because chances are that it would be illegal or unethical, or shady. What goes on in the dark always comes out to the light...eventually.
A4) They should have access to everything that they need to know.
1) I would likely open both. Just don't read my following comments under any circumstances!
2) I think they should be allowed to gamble if they're not playing in the games in question. Since steroid use bulks players up so much, they can use the time they save (by not working out) gambling.
3) It would be a great networking opportunity. Yes - as long as I don't have to break the law.
4) I like the mutual consent arrangement. And if the birth parent dies, I think the records should be open to the child automatically, as long as the parent wasn't in a secret society.
1. No. I got a virus once that way. And it suuuuuucked.
2. Betting is dumb in the first place, so I don't really care.
3. As long as their rules etc. didn't violate my own principles, sure.
4. They should be able to see their own records.
1) I wouldn't open either one. Those just look like spam/forward subject lines to me, and I just delete them. My dad might be offended to know that I trash 95% of the email he sends me without opening it.
2) That sounds like insider-trading to me. A pro tennis player may be privy to private information about other players which may effect the match outcomes. Maybe Venus has a cold, or Andy has an ingrown toenail.
3) Yes. I'm in. Where's their recruiting office?
4) I think every adopted child should come with a health history record, but no personal details about the parents. After that, I really don't have enough knowledge or experience to opine. The mutual consent thing sounds like a good idea.
Q4. An adult adoptee's original birth certificate has his/her own personal information on it. How can they be hurting their OWN privacy by accessing those records? There is a new video on You Tube that clearly shows the adoption process, including the Senate bill that is needed to pass to get adoption records opened. Here is the link that can be pasted after you get to You Tube. This blog will not let me put the entire link in. watch?v=stAspMlwht8&
Sorry, didn't sign my comment. I posted at November 16, 2007 05:14 PM.
Q1- I sent the first message this past week to all my family and personal friends. My boy's Father died and so to notify people I sent a collective message. There might have been people I should NOT have sent the 1st message to{didn't send a second}...where the second message might be appropriate. I think most people would open the 1st message. ..because IT was sent. {perhaps we should be careful with what we post?}
Q2- If you bet on anything...you will do it. Not sure if "professionalism" has anything to do with the should/or should not. Noses in the news drive me crazy!
Q3- NO!
Q4- Everyone should know who gave them life. {ALL} Laws should give the innocent that right to know.
..Interesting questions. Q1 was a bit ironic. Hugs sent to you... "Dear Blog-Father".
My response is posted on my site. Once again, I am unable to post the link here. :-( Please add it manually.
1. I probably would open the "Something You Should Know!!!" email if it was from a friend or co-worker. If I know the person, I usually open the email. Plus, I'd be too curious not to open either one.
2. Maybe it's not such a great idea to bet on ANY match in your own sport. But, it's a free country, if someone wants to place a bet on other sports, that's their business.
3. Probably not.
4. I absolutely believe the adoptee should have access to his or her birth records. People have a right to know where they came from, any particular health issues, etc. I have a friend who was adopted and decided to search for his birth parents, so far he hasn't had any luck. I understand why it was done and is done, but once a person is old enough to handle the information and wants to know, they should be allowed to know. Afterall, it's about their life, those of us who live with our birth parents know where we came from and have family history, I think adopted children should be able to learn the same about their history.
1. I'd probably delete both of 'em without reading them.
2. Even if you're not betting on your own matches or games, it's still not a good idea. Even if no impropriety occurs, the potential for collusion is still there. However, I don't have a problem with them betting on college or amateur sports, or even professional sports as long as it's not the sport they participate in.
3. I probably would just out of curiosity. I can't say that I would remain a member if their activities turned out to be morally repugnant to me though.
4. Toughie. If the parent (or child) does not want to meet their child (or parent). I don't think they should be forced to. However, I definitely believe that every child deserves to know about their bio-family's physical and mental health history, which could be accomplished if it was made a requirement that parents who place a child for adoption MUST provide detailed family health profiles to a neutral party and update them regularly under the proviso that the information will be available anonymously, ie the child will have the information, but will not know the parent's identity if that is what the parents wish.
Q1 - Request: Yes. My curiosity would get the better of me. Of course, after reading that first message, I would try to forget about it based on my friend's concern.
Q2 - Gambling: As long as the athletes don't have an unfair advantage, I think it would be okay for them to bet on games. What I would be concerned about is an "insider trading" scenario, in which a player would have some key information that others placing bets would not be privy to.
Q3 - Secret Societies: I would feel honored. Of course I would accept.
Q4 - Adoption Records: Open the records. If nothing else, people need this information to assist with the management of their health and family planning.
1. yeah if someone tells me not to do something, just because, without knowing the consequence, I'll naturally become interested and do it.
2. No, insider betting is out. Isn't it illigal to bet on sports anyways ? Was it in Vegas, Atlatic City? why not just go there and play some high stakes Baccarat? Yeah I know..better odds since he knows the game..but that's not fair, my job doesn't give me any edge of betting. Guess that's the point I'm trying to make
3. Sure, and if there was any corruption or injustice I would expose it later in a book : )
4. I think that there should be full right to see their record, just like birth certificate or any other private documentation. However the birth parents may have some problem with this. In this case there should be an intermediary to deal with this who can communicate between the adopted and the adoptee. It gets dicey after that...and er this feels like an ethics/law test question where I would get most points taken off for not citing past court cases.
Post a Comment:
|
