Doing good work by killing off good ideas:

It seems counterintuitive to say turning down good ideas is the sign of a good business. Just because you are turning down ideas, doesn’t mean what you have is even better. If better ideas take time and money, that seems like an investment that should be worked on, not brushed off the the side. It is very true that bad ideas need to be shot down, but it seems lazy to turn down the ones that are good just because it’s a lot of work. A good leader takes all ideas into consideration, and can see that an idea that is bad for business is not a good idea at all. Good ideas are things that can change the company for the better, no matter how expensive or time consuming. Those types of ideas should never be turned down.

Do Tom’s shoes really help anyone:

It seems counterintuitive to criticize Tom shoe’s and whether or not they actually make a difference, when the website themselves don’t do much either. Tom’s shoes is an organization that stands on a buy one give one practice. Mother Jones, the website providing this article, asks for donations at the end of each article. The article touches on the ideas that donations to these types of businesses can be risky, since we cannot see the fruits of our money. This is exactly true with this website, since donations go to, “hard-hitting journalism”. We have no idea what that could actually mean. The article states that these charities can work if they don’t compete with local business and if the solve a real problem. I don’t see what Mother Jones is solving with their journalism, and they’re definitely in competition with many other journalists.

Mormon Baptism of Anne Frank:

It seems counterintuitive to argue the rules of the Mormon and Jewish laws when it comes to the baptism of Anne Frank, when she’s been dead for 67 years (time the article was posted). It seems especially counterintuitive to have her baptized when she was Jewish, and is known as a Jewish symbol. With this, an entire new can of worms is opened in regards to baptism after death. What is even the point, when baptism is supposed to save you in the after life. If we can change the fate of those who have already passed on, does the Mormon teachings have to change with it? The article states how egregious this is, since Anne Frank was an unmarried teen who left behind no ancestors, as if that has any impact. Many are upset that her name was submitted in the list of proxy baptisms, and I can see why.