I HATE FOX NEWS

I have gotten into the habit of watching the news every night the past couple weeks. It seems like the CNN and Fox News compete to see which can spin their agendas more. As for the Rev. Wright issue goes, it seems as if MSNBC as been the only station that has really analized the success or failure of the speach. Fox only talks about the failure. (Greta needs to contract something dreadful) While CNN regard Obama as an Ubbermiench who can do no wrong.

Enough of my rant on mainstream news and on to the task at hand. Newsweek has a really cool delgate model:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/68123

I like this model because of it's user friendly interface. the javascript is pretty cool here. With the mouse-over coding and such, it works really well.
It has bar graphs followed by a GIS followed by a timeline showing when the next elections occure.

The only thing that confuses me is why Hilary got the points for Michigan and Florida. Did I miss something???

Magically moral models that makes malpractice most maliscous

While presenting about Monsato's Hyperion planning system, business ethics came into the discussion. So that got me thinking about how to incorporate morality into a business model.

First, the assumptions:

1. The word "morality" is defined as: The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. - American Heritage.
2. Businesses should place morality at a higher priority than profit, regardless of how much profit or loss is cause by morality
3. Assumptions one and two are absolute and are not allowed to be argued.

That said, practical applications of factors could be included into decision support systems. Environmental factors such as emissions or bi-products are completely quantitative and therefore can be monitored. Employment benefit packages and rewards systems can also be measured and recorded. There are many different qualities that can be added to a DSS and have ethical basis.

The question purposed earlier this evening about the poor, third-world farmer who loses his life's savings because of one bad season becomes much more complicated. I am still trying to figure out morality's role in this situation. Perhaps it is my version of the made up story...

• Monsanto markets globally, even to third world countries
• Poor farmer in third world country, cashes out all assets in order to purchase enhanced seeds to plant.
• Monsanto quotes sale of however many bags of seed.
• Farmer agrees and purchases.
• Drought occurs and farmland is wasted by an "act of God."
• Farmer loses everything.
• Monsanto markets farmer again on the next season.
• Farmer dies of starvation

This is how the story played out in my head. Monsanto's decision to market globally does not seem to be any more ethically wrong than a billboard advertising Limo service in rural Montana. A waste of resources may be a more accurate description.

The immoral decision occurred when the farmer decided to put all his eggs in one basket! Is it Monsanto's obligation to insure against acts of God? Agriculture is an extremely risky business, which is why we have farmers insurance.

Let's assume that Monsanto is guilty, think of how that would affect sales. "I'm sorry I can't sell to you. Well, uh your land has a bad record. You see there was a flood back in 1993 that basically wiped out your entire estate. Yes sir, I understand you own some of the most nutrient soil in the world, but when you combine the risk of another flood with the fragility of the market, I just can't sign off on this sale."

Now that seems more immoral than the alternative. It also sounds as if someone outside of the market is deciding the demand within it. To be perfectly idealistic and humanistic about it (of which I have the right, being 21) that is the most dangerous thing you can do to a market. Demand must be decided by the consumer, not any other entity.

But of course we must have our big government because people are not smart enough to make there own decisions....

Oh boy I can't wait for a response.

forever yours,

James