Being A Good Parent :: Parenting

There are many different things that I take into consideration when it comes to parenting. Parents have many different responsibilities but there are three in particular that I think are very important. Being a good role model is important, as well as listening to your children and disciplining them appropriately. If you want to be a good parent you have to put your kids first. The first responsibility that I think is very important is being a good example for your kids. Parents are examples for their kids whether they like it or not. My boys watch and copy everything that I do, and even if I don’t think their listening they are listening. If they see me finishing school and working a good job that’s what they will expect to do themselves because that is all that they know. Children are like sponges. I want to show my kids how to be a good person by being a good person myself. As a parent I want my children to know that they can be anything they want to be, but at the same time I am controlling their physical and moral environment so that they can be good people. I want them to be in an environment where they can develop habits of honesty, generosity, and responsibility. I think that one of the greatest things that I can do for my kids is to take them seriously and listen to them. My five year old is constantly showing me everything that he learns and it’s very easy to tune him out sometimes, but I think its very important not to. It is important to listen because if you don’t give your kids enough attention they might try and seek it in a negative way. It is important to listen to your children when they have learned something new or want to tell you something that they are proud of. Children seek your approval, and that gives them confidence. Lastly discipline is another very important responsibility. The best thing to do is to pick your battles, because if you are constantly saying â€Å"no† your child will tune it out. You also have to be consistent. For example, you can’t let your child eat candy before dinner one night and then tell them not to the next night, you will be sending them mixed signals.

Cross Cultural Ethical Perspectives

Cross-Culture Ethical Perspectives Amanda Bravo, Mary Malone, Doneice Johnson, Jose Robledo, Kanosha Mitchell, Josephine Johnson ETH/316 September 24, 2012 Bette Bellefeuille Cross-Culture Ethical Perspectives Globalization is common in most large organizations as they thrive to maximize revenue and expand customer base by establishing operations in different countries and within different cultures. Consequently, these organizations have to consider cultural perspectives of the country in which that plan to operate.McDonald’s, established in 1954 by Ray Kroc in conjunction with the McDonalds brothers and with over 30,000 restaurants in more than 120 countries, is one of the world’s biggest fast food restaurant chains employing 1. 7 million people† (McDonalds, 2010-2012). This organization is no different and has to face issues resulting from globalization such as dietary preferences or needs from culture to culture or country to country as well as religion as it r elates to its advertising and such..A good example of the aforementioned was faced in India where currently McDonald’s operates 123 restaurants (India Marks, 2011-2012). A large percentage of that population is Hindu or Muslim and Hindus do not eat beef and Muslims do not eat pork. With both types of meat being a large part of their menu, McDonald’s had to reconsider the menu and decided to adapt it by introducing 100% vegetarian burgers and more than half of their menu being vegetarian (India Marks, 2011-2012). This has helped McDonald’s be successful in that country.McDonald’s does takes cross-culture issue serious and in one particular incident maybe too serious. In 2010 McDonald’s had launched a new line of promotional soft toys in Singapore which entailed a 12-character Doraemon set depicting the animals of the Chinese zodiac calendar. Because McDonald’s did not want to offend Muslims, they decided not to include the pig character in th e line of toys and replaced it with a cupid to represent the Valentine’s Day. As a result, many Chinese customers were upset as they were keen on collecting all 12 characters.A flurry of irate emails and demands by collectors and customers followed which made the fast food restaurant reverse its decision and apologized for their insensitivity as it was never their intention to disrespect any religion or culture. Experts say it showed a lack of cross-culture understanding. Daniel Goh, a sociologist, said that McDonald’s did not consult Muslim opinions before making the decision then assumed Muslim sensibilities which amounted to a form of self-censorship. Dr.Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied, said, â€Å"Pigs and dogs are not non-halal, except when they are consumed† (Loh, 2010). In any case, clearly McDonald’s takes special cultural considerations and precaution when promoting products into other countries. As per the aforementioned, some of the issues that Mc Donald’s faces as a result from globalization may be different in perspective and in nature. In some countries the fast food chain has to accommodate its menu to the dietary needs or customs as done in India.Had the organization not done so, perhaps the chain would have been unsuccessful. In other countries however, it has to thrive to avoid any cultural insensitivity as was the case in Singapore with the promotional soft toys as it attempted to avoid insulting the Muslim community and unfortunately ended up being less catering to the Chinese community. McDonalds is a common household name in many countries, but has backlash from many cultures as mentioned with those among Chinese and Muslim communities.To cater to international customer McDonald’s has added item to their menu such as the McArbia, the McPepper, and the Mushroom Pinwheel in Chinese and Middle Eastern countries (Old McDonalds has some Smarts in China, 2006). However McDonalds’ has been viewed has having an influence on these countries by taking away from the cuisine and traditional foods that these cultures and accustomed to eating. â€Å"Critics claim that the rapid spread of McDonald’s and its fast-food rivals undermine indigenous cuisines and helps creates a homogenous, global culture† (Watson, 2006).This is viewed by those who value the culture and history of the Korean, Chinese, Middle Eastern culture as taking away from the culture. McDonald’s global operations not only is a threat to international cuisine but also factor into many of the religious beliefs with various types of items that are served on their menu such as beef whereas in many countries are holy among Hindus. Working from within the company, management realized that certain guidelines must be met within different cultural communities.The changing of the menu represented respect for the people that it hoped to become customers. A company must recognize standard cultural changes that i nfluence the local operational area. However, understanding the local culture does not guarantee success of the operation. Just because the company is knowledgeable of the local culture and what to expect, does not reflect what can actually occur. Assuming that certain cultures would be offended by a toy to be given out, shows lack of tact on McDonald’s behalf.However, as organizations such as McDonald’s attempt to increase market share by entering different countries and different cultures, proper research should always be done before automatically assuming anything about those cultures in order to be able to address issues that result from globalization. References India Marks. (2011-2012). What you can and can't get at McDonald's in India. Retrieved from http://www. indiamarks. com/what-you-can-cant-get-mcdonalds-india/ Loh, Larry. (2010). McDonald’s frantic backpedaling: The pig toy fiasco. ttp://www. cnngo. com/singapore/none/mcdonalds-pig-toy-fiasco-371923 McDonald's. (2010-2012). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from http://www. mcdonalds. ca/ca/en/contact_us/faq. html â€Å"Old MacDonald’s has some smarts in China† Chicago Sun-Times. Sun-Times News Group. 2006. Retrieved September 23, 2012 from HighBeam Research: http:/www. highbeam. com/doc/1P2-2791332. html Watson, J. L. (2006) China’s Big Mac attack. In J. Johnson (Ed. ), Global Issues, Local Arguments. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education

Remembering the Murder of Shanda Sharer

Few crimes in modern times caused more public horror than the grisly torture and murder of 12-year-old Shanda Sharer at the hands of four teenage girls on Jan. 11, 1992 in Madison, Indiana. The callousness and brutality exhibited by the four teenage girls, ages 15 to 17, shocked the public then, and it continues to be a source of fascination and revulsion as the subject of dozens of books, magazine articles, television programs, and psychiatric papers.   The Events Leading to the Murder At the time of her murder, Shanda Renee Sharer was the 12-year old daughter of divorced parents, attending school at  Our  Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic school in New Albany, Indiana, after transferring the previous year from Hazelwood Middle School. While at Hazelwood, Shanda had met Amanda Heavrin. Initially the two girls fought, but eventually became friends and then became entered into a youthful romance.   In October of 1991, Amanda and Shanda were attending a school dance together when they were angrily confronted by Melinda Loveless, an older girl that Amanda Heavrin had also been dating since 1990. As Shanda Sharer and Amanda Heavrin continued to socialize through October, the jealous Melinda Loveless began to discuss killing Shanda and was observed threatening her in public. It was at this point, concerned about their daughters safety, that Shandas parents transferred her to a Catholic school and away from Amanda. The Abduction, Torture, and Murder Despite the fact that Shanda Sharer was no longer in the same school as Amanda Heavrin, Melinda Loveless jealousy continued to fester over the next few months, and on the night of Jan. 10, 1992, Melinda, along with three friends—Toni Lawrence (age 15), Hope Rippey (age 15), and Laurie Tackett (age 17)—drove to where Shanda was spending the weekend with her father. Just after midnight, the older girls convinced Shanda that her friend Amanda Heavrin was waiting for her at a teenage hangout spot known as the Witchs Castle, a ruined stone home in a remote area overlooking the Ohio River. Once in the car, Melinda Loveless began to threaten Shanda with a knife, and once they arrived at Witchs Castle, the threats escalated into an hours-long torture session. It was the details of the savagery that followed, all of which came out later in testimony from one of the girls, that so horrified the public. Over a period of more than six hours, Shanda Sharer was subject to beatings with fists, strangling with a rope, repeated stabbings, and battery and sodomy with a tire iron. Finally, the still living girl was doused with gasoline and set ablaze in the early morning hours of Jan. 11, 1992, in a field alongside a gravel county road.   Immediately after the murder, the four girls had breakfast at McDonalds, where it is reported that they laughingly compared the look of the sausage to that of the corpse they had just abandoned.   The Investigation Uncovering the truth of this crime thankfully did not take long. Shanda Sharers body was discovered later that same morning by hunters driving along the road. When Shandas parents reported her missing in early afternoon, the connection to the discovered body was quickly suspected. That evening, a distraught Toni Lawrence accompanied by her parents arrived at the  Jefferson County Sheriffs office  and began to confess the details of the crime. Dental records quickly confirmed that the remains discovered by the hunters were those of Shanda Sharer. By the next day, all the involved girls had been arrested.   The Criminal Proceedings With compelling evidence provided by Toni Lawrences testimony, the four girls involved were all charged as adults. With a strong likelihood of death penalty sentences, they all accepted guilty pleas in order to avoid such an outcome.   In preparation for sentencing, defense attorneys spent considerable effort assembling arguments of mitigating circumstances for some of the girls, arguing that these facts reduced their culpability. These facts were presented to the judge during the sentencing hearing. Melinda Loveless, the ringleader, had by far the most extensive history of abuse. At the legal hearing, two of her sisters and two cousins testified that her father, Larry Loveless, had forced them to have sex with him, although they could not testify that Melinda, too, had been so abused. His history of physical abuse to his wife and children was well documented, as well as a pattern of sexual misconduct. (Later, Larry Loveless would be charged with 11 counts of child sex abuse.) Laurie Tackett was raised in a strictly religious household where rock music, movies and most other trappings of normal teenage life were strictly forbidden. In rebellion, she shaved her head and engaged in occult practices. It was not entirely surprising to others that she could have participated in such a crime.   Toni Lawrence and Hope Rippey had no such troubled reputations, and experts and public onlookers were somewhat baffled at how relatively normal girls could have participated in such a crime. In the end, it was chalked up to simple peer pressure and a thirst for acceptance, but the case continues to be a source of analysis and discussion to this day.   The Sentences In exchange for her extensive testimony, Toni Lawrence received the lightest sentence—she pleaded guilty to one count of Criminal Confinement and was sentenced to a maximum of 20 years. She was released on December 14, 2000, after serving nine years. She remained on parole until December, 2002. Hope Rippey was sentenced to 60 years, with ten years suspended for mitigating circumstances. Upon later appeal, her sentence was reduced to 35 years. She was released early on April 28, 2002 from Indiana Womens Prison after serving 14 years of her original sentence.   Melinda Loveless and Laurie Tackett were sentenced to 60 years in the Indiana Womens Prison in Indianapolis. Tacket was released on Jan. 11, 2018, exactly 26 years to the day after the murder.   Melinda Loveless, the ringleader of one of the most brutal murders in recent time, is due to be released in 2019.