BloggingStocks http://www.bloggingstocks.com BloggingStocks http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/http://www.bloggingstocks.com/media/feedlogo.gif BloggingStocks http://www.bloggingstocks.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/<![CDATA[Does support of our troops affect your perception of a company?]]>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/02/14/does-support-of-our-troops-affect-your-perception-of-a-company/http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/02/14/does-support-of-our-troops-affect-your-perception-of-a-company/http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/02/14/does-support-of-our-troops-affect-your-perception-of-a-company/#commentsFiled under: , , , , ,

question markThe comments on a recent blog post by Sarah Gilbert, about Starbucks retraining efforts took an interesting turn towards discussion about whether or not that company supports our troops. This seems to be a subject which elicits strong passion among many blog readers, which prompts me to ask this question of you: Does a company's position, openly declared or not, regarding support for our troops, affect your perception of that company and whether or not you'll intentionally do business with them?

This issue can be difficult to assess, because often times a company's position on the matter is cloaked, unavailable or skewed by misinformation. The comments on Sarah's blog post give clear evidence of that. Some folks seem convinced that Starbucks doesn't care about our troops, yet packages bearing its logo are reported to arrive at military addresses every day. What's more is the fact that often companies elect not to state a position regarding our restructuring efforts in Iraq. To some people, silence on the matter is interpreted as contempt rather than consent.

I must admit that my own opinions about individual companies regarding their stance on our military involvements are sometimes colored by unconfirmed email commentary and careless internet banter. That is why I generally refrain from discussing the issue. What about you? Do you base your opinions on random emails which purport to reveal a company's stance regarding our military, or do you research the topic before coming to your conclusions?

Continue reading Does support of our troops affect your perception of a company?

Does support of our troops affect your perception of a company? originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:27:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>AirforceArmycorporateIraqMarinesmilitaryNational GuardNationalGuardNavyopinionpoliticalPresident BushPresidentBushpublicsoldiersThu, 14 Feb 2008 20:27:00 EST<![CDATA[This smoking blog post rated R]]>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/05/12/this-smoking-blog-post-rated-r/http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/05/12/this-smoking-blog-post-rated-r/http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/05/12/this-smoking-blog-post-rated-r/#commentsFiled under:

Cigarettes can kill you, or at least assist in the project. But, in the interest of equal attention I must mention that french fries, alcohol, stress, and overexertion can assist in killing you also. Perhaps now this blog post needs a rating of X. In the ever-present mind-set of those who are paid to protect you from the bad choices you can make that might harm you, the Motion Picture Association of America has again taken up the daunting task of sculpting artistic creation to better fit within its own concepts of what you need protection from. This time the MPAA wishes to include certain smoking scenes as criteria for an "R" movie rating.

As a smoker I haven't minded being relegated to the status of second-class citizen while being summarily tossed to the street in the interest of protecting others from my habit. In fact, I don't even smoke in my own home because I don't want to expose my daughter to secondhand smoke. It's my habit, it's dangerous and I have no right to expose anyone else to the stuff. I do however find it disconcerting that a regulatory agency wishes to take it upon itself to demonize approximately 30% of the American population by declaring that our nicotine addiction is unfit for general public viewing. Excuse me please but I'm a human being too you know, and 90 percent of the nonsmokers I know have no problem with my habit as long as I do not force them to inhale my smoke.

So here's my answer to the MPAA's declaration that as smokers we are evil people who need to be labeled so that parents may protect their children from looking at us:

The American Medical Association has determined that obesity is at least as detrimental to the public health as smoking is. In fact, a majority of health studies make clear that people who are overweight face greater health risks in a shorter time span than even the heaviest smokers do. Obesity places a greater burden on health care resources than tobacco does, and being chronically overweight exposes one to more vast and varied health concerns than smoking ever will. Additionally, excessive consumption of calories assists in depriving the rest of the world from adequate nutritional sustenance. Therefore, it is my solemn duty to inform the MPAA that being overweight is a life choice that poses greater risks to society than smoking does, and I demand that it does something about it. Never mind the fact that probably two-thirds of its own board meet the criteria for being chronically overweight. MPAA owes it to society to protect us from the dangers of being overweight, and it should restrict the viewership of motion pictures that display obese people.

Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

This smoking blog post rated R originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Sat, 12 May 2007 15:27:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>filmmoviesMPAApublicRratingsmokingSat, 12 May 2007 15:27:00 EST<![CDATA[Optical IPOs slowly coming back]]>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/02/12/optical-ipos-slowly-coming-back/http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/02/12/optical-ipos-slowly-coming-back/http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/02/12/optical-ipos-slowly-coming-back/#commentsFiled under: , ,

Opnext, a maker of laser diodes, optical modules and pluggable modules, is expected to go public this week, and will trade under the symbol OPXT. Opnext is the second optical component company to come public in the last four months. Optium Corporation (NASDAQ: OPTM), a Chalfont, Pa-based company, came public in October 2006 at $17.50 and is now trading at $24.95.

Opnext has been funded by Hitachi and venture capital firm Clarity Group. Hitachi will be transferring some 670 patents to this start up.

The stock is supposedly going to be priced around $14 per share. With only two optical companies recently coming public, as one would expect, the financials for the company are pretty solid.

Supposedly, Opnext is strong in the 10-Gigabyte optical space and also has product for 40 gigabyte technology.

These optical components are very cyclical, as are most new higher growth industries. The upcycle in this space appears to be still in its early stage. It may be worth a spec on this IPO.

Optical IPOs slowly coming back originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:45:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>ipoopnextopticaloptiumoptmopxtpublicMon, 12 Feb 2007 07:45:00 EST