Will getting lost become a lost experience?

NPR aired a story this morning about how this holiday season has really ushered GPS technology into the mainstream. 'Millions of people will never get lost again ... ' was one of the first lines of the story. 'Horrible!' I thought. Getting lost can be aggravating, for sure, but think of all the great things it opens up to you. Running into unexpected places, interacting with strange, interesting people when you stop for directions, finding otherwise hidden treasures that necessitate a little non-sheduled recon. I want to continue getting lost once in a while, enjoying the pleasant bi-products of not knowing exactly where I am. And I want other people to too. 'A compass and a map should be plenty for the regular old Joe,' I said to myself.

However ... the reporter then started talking about how you can jog or hike or whatever with the little GPS do-dad and then go home, hook it up with google maps, and see where you ran, what landmarks you were close to that you’d like to venture to next time, etc. And about how there’s a company making tour-guide-like informational commentary for certain areas so that when you drive through these areas, it’ll automatically start up a little educational spiel about it. Drive on a stretch of highway near a civil war battleground, the device will come on and tell you that you're close to this site and describe the historical significance. I'm sure it gives directions on how to get off the highway and visit, too. Cool. Very cool.

Now, my cell phone may be from 2002 and I may watch fuzzy tv picked up by bunny ears, but I wasn't oblivious that GPS technologies go beyond spitting out directions to drivers. However ... it's always sounded annoyingly yuppy-ish to me till today. Like a really, really manicured lawn that kids aren't allowed to play on. Or store-bought, pre-rolled, pre-cut sugar cookies. Something cool, but that takes some of the fun out of life. I didn't really let myself see how it actually opens up opportunities for adventure and exploring. So, my apologies, GPS. You aren't so bad after all.

Donut drosophila

Today I brought in a box of donuts for my coworkers, and as I went to open them I saw a fruit fly trapped inside, flying around under the cellophane. I didn't tell them. It's just a fruit fly. The donuts were delicious.

I finally got my laptop today, to join the rest of the modern world. My nice neighbor Jonah accepted delivery of it today while I was at work. He's from Singapore, and they raise 'em right. After the surprise of such speedy shipment, my evening got even better when I discovered I have a wireless connection for now, something several attempts with university laptops failed to provide. Bad, bad university wireless cards. Shame on you. The only slight downer in this new chapter of Suzanne's personal computing is that in sitting here trying to figure out what I can do online instead of going to bed, I realized ... well ... that I was sitting here thinking really hard trying to come up with something I wanted to do online. Which means I'm probably not too hip when it comes to embracing technology. Oh well. Whatever. I'm sure my web surfer's block will have lifted by the time I get to work tomorrow.

Our fascinating brains

This story was on the radio this morning, and I think it's amazing. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16956039

Besides how interesting it is in terms of autism research, it also a.) reinforces my belief in how behavior is powerfully affected by chemicals/hormones/proteins/name-your-own-substances and b.) deepens my fascination/frustration/confusion with the notion that people do not always have control over their own feelings, thoughts, motivations, and ultimately behaviors, as they cannot control the levels and effects of these substances. Most people are accepting of this notion when it comes to something like autism—an identified disorder. If there's a name to go along with it, it seems more 'understandable.' Perhaps we'll even feel sorry for the person; certainly we will if it's a child. No one (hopefully) would blame the autistic kid in this article for outbursts at his parents or for running into furniture during tantrums.

But when it comes to physiological idiosyncrasies that do not have an identified name b/c they are just that—idiosyncrasies —when it comes to these very person-specific chemical imperfections that may cause people to ignore right from wrong, to lack motivation to care, to act out ... we have much less grace for those folks. I'm not saying dismiss every person's culpability for their acts because of the possibility that a less-than-ideal bodily make-up is at fault. But is it a possibility?

I'm hard pressed to rule it out. I know, though, that it's a pretty scary thought. It would completely change the way we interact with others, how we judge others, how we deal with deviance ... it would change everything, if we would allow ourselves the empathy to let it: The question is, if we were able to identify specific genes, chemicals, etc. as causes of specific patterns of thought/behavior (as they've already done with alcoholism, e.g.), would we, as a society of people so indoctrinated with a 'personal responsibility' mindset, ever be willing to extend grace not only to groups of people with identified, common disorders, such as the kid with autism, but also to the individual who cheats on his wife over and over b/c he's low in a particular combo of chemicals that help with regulation of urges, or to the jobless woman who sits at home letting her kids play in squalor and eat rubbish because her particular combo of chemicals and brain firing keeps her from building up enough motivation to change her lifestyle? Would we ever get to the point where we'd extend caring understanding to people who do things that we currently find despicable? Would we try to help them rather than punish them?

I'm really not crazy, I swear. But I don't think the notion that our thoughts and behaviors—things we're currently held completely responsible for unless we have some medically categorized disorder—are very mediated by physiological factors beyond an individual's control. Articles like this one on autism make me think that perhaps science is in the nascent stages of lending this notion more validity.

Indiana slave narratives

I happened across this page a few months ago and bookmarked it. I just found the link again today. It's a compilation of interviews with former Indiana slaves, put together in 2004. It's pretty fascinating to read the accounts that are so specific to our area.
http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/1/3/5/7/13579/13579.htm

Extra potatoes, please

So, I'm leaving the Career Center and moving over to Dining to be their Marketing Coordinator. Turns out that cake on my Facebook page could have been mine. (And if the CC gets a cake for my goodbye party, I'm definitely requesting an exact replica.) I'm pretty excited for all the good parts of the new job, but I'm going to miss the environment at the Career Center. There are some fun folks in these parts. I know I complain at times (and then some other times, and some other times) about certain personality quirks and sartorial habits that drive me nuts and/or crazy here, but overall I laugh much more here than I can imagine laughing at any other job. Hopefully Dining has a sense of humor like people here do. Oh, and hopefully my close proximity to the test kitchen will yield large amounts of free food. Otherwise you can expect me back at the CC the day after events. ("You mean yesterday was the job fair? Well, I'll be. Oh, what's this over here ... )

Way to go Muncie

We're the most affordable college football town in the country! (So what if we're also the 168th most dangerous.)

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/06/real_estate/college_football_town_index/

Philip Morris (and, as it turns out, a slightly more-detailed-than-I'd-planned explanation of why I despise them)

As my animosity toward tobacco companies has grown through the years, I've taken quite a bit of flack from friends who think my stance is a bit out of focus. Their arguments are mostly based on the idea that people make their own choices and no one is forcing anyone else to smoke. I preface this post by saying I understand that people make their own decisions. I also understand, though, that if we lived in a world where there were no such thing as influence, none of us would recognize the world. We all influence each other, and I think we have a responsibility to do so in a pretty positive way. At the least, in an innocuous way. So if you know the consequences of your attempted influence are likely pretty dire and you continue to exert that influence or try to brush the consequences under the rug, I think you're committing a pretty grave moral error.

This is why when i hear yet another story about tobacco companies hiding info about how harmful their products are, I get pretty pissed off. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-tue_cigs_1113nov13,0,7117009.story.

(Basic summary: "The nation's largest tobacco company knew as early as the 1970s that smokers of light cigarettes took larger puffs that delivered greater amounts of tar, according to a newly released [1975 Philip Morris internal] memo...")

The idea is, Philip Morris knew that the way light cigarettes are generally smoked results in their being no healthier than smoking regular cigarettes. And they knew this much earlier than they let on. Yet they continued to come up with new ways to foster the consumer's sense that he's doing his body a favor switching to lights—slimmer cigarettes, ultralights, etc. For 30 years they've known the idea they were promoting was influential and fallacious.

Now, according to the article, the Philip Morris's Web site does give this disclaimer: "There is no safe cigarette. 'Medium,' 'mild,' 'light' and 'ultra-light' cigarettes are no exception." Nearly commendable, Philip Morris. Thanks for at least a tidbit of truth, even if it's out of self-interested legal protection and not out of concern for fellow humans. So why again do they even continue to produce light cigarettes, if the benefits they used to promote (and still covertly do, some say) doesn't actually exist, by their own acknowledgement? Well, b/c of brand loyalty you might say. Even if a consumer learns the product isn't any better than another, but they like their current product, they're going to want to stick with it. Fine. That doesn't explain PM's marketing of light cigarettes more heavily to demographics likely to be health conscious (relative to how they market them to other groups). There are all kinds of articles out there about the specific marketing practices, the actual media placement tactics tobacco companies use, if you're interested. Just get on any academic library's site and search the periodicals. They're not all from special interest organizations either. (And I try to read them with an objective eye, recognizing that I have to if I expect people to read my blog/listen to my rants and feel 'safe' taking my opinions to heart.)

So, back to this idea that we can't really hate a product or its producer, since we all make our own decisions and all have our own ability to reason sensibly (which, honestly, we don't all—especially among kids, people with existing addictions, the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped ... the list goes on). The real crux of this whole post: Is it okay to try to encourage people to do something that is harmful to themselves? People do make their own choices, but as influential beings, does that mean we have moral freedom to push people toward whatever bad choice we want? Is it okay to offer a recovering alcoholic a beer? Is it okay to take a suicidal person up to the roof of a building to show them the view? Is it okay to coax a person into driving your get-away car? We all make our own decisions, but a person's decision-making process does NOT soley involve himself. And when you know you have an influence on someone—especially if you're purposefully trying to have an influence on someone—to then exert an influence of detriment to that person, even if he has to reach out and grasp it for the detrimental effect to take place, is fairly worthy of despise in my book.

Even if PM did absolutely no marketing for its tobacco products—even if the products were merely on the shelves with no suggestion from anyone that people should buy them—PM's purpose in manufacturing the product is for people to use it. It's purpose is still for people to use a product that causes death in 33% of regular users. I know of no for-profit company that produces items with the hope that people won't use them.

Before I hop down, I want to touch on another side of the "Suzanne, give it a rest" stance. In addition to the argument that people have free will, I hear these at times: "If there were no smoking in the world, think of how many people would be out of jobs." "The economy of the South depends on tobacco growers. Without that crop, the economy would suffer." "Tobacco growers need to feed their families too. If that's their livelihood and it's been passed down through generations, they can't up and change their profession." And my response is one of a fairly tough-luck nature. I'm sorry that that's your job. I'm sorry that that's seemed 'normal' to you your whole life and you haven't really thought about the consequences of growing or selling tobacco as necessitating occupational change. I'm sorry that your economy is dependent on this crop. (I'm not being sarcastic. I'm genuinely sorry for folks who come to realize these things and find themselves in a moral dilemma.) If you can live with the reality that you're a part of a system that feeds a poisonous product to millions of people, then fine. Don't go through hardship to change your lifestyle. Don't endure some years of economic turbulence to try to start fixing the problem. But also don't be surprised when I write blog posts that are critical of your choice. The truth really hurts sometimes, and it would definitely hurt to start viewing the industry you and your father and your grandfather have put sweat and tears into as one that ultimately hurts societies, families, and individuals. It hurts to realize the product you've promoted is one that helps cripple the health care system to the point that some families can't afford insurance any easier than you'd be able to if you had to endure the financial hardships of making a career change at an inopportune time in your life.

So then where is the line? When are you "too much" of the problem that you need to get out of a particular situation? Is it once you reach a corporate-level position in a tobacco company? Is it when your ad agency assigns you a tobacco account? Is it when you're hired as a seasonal tobacco farm hand? Is it when you work for a convenience store where you'll have to ring up pack of cigarettes? Is it when you purchase anything Kraft, Nabisco, Boca, Oscar Mayer, Post? (This list also goes on ... see all the PM/Altria Group brands at http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/rs/profile.cfm?id=183). In fact, where does the line cross into the philosophically positive quadrant that asks "when have we done enough to help others?," not just "where do I have to stop to sufficiently not hurt others?" I don't know where the line is. I'd have a lot less cognitive dissonance if I did. But I do know that I try to avoid Philip Morris/Altria Group brands so that my consumer dollars don't support a company that produces and markets death. Do I sound dramatic? I'd encourage you to really, with an open-mind, spend time thinking about whether that's actually all that dramatic of a statement.

TIME article on the decision to charge/not charge the boy

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1681041,00.html?xid=newsletter-weekly

fire starter

I heard on the news a while back that authorities were contemplating whether or not to file criminal charges against the boy—nine or ten years old, i think—who started one of the recent California fires playing with matches. (I dont' know if they ended up filing charges or not. It doesn't matter for the purpose of this entry.) Solid science tells us that kids' incomplete cognitive development keeps them from being able to see the 'larger picture' as adults can; they can't readily view their present actions in the context of far-reaching possible consequences. Did these authorities ever play with matches when they were little? Did they ever do anything stupid as a kid? Did you?

Even if this kid would happen to be an obnoxious little snot, always getting into trouble and never respecting authority—even if he'd been told over and over not to play with matches—his actions are still those of a normal little kid. What about kids who've caused their own homes to burn down by playing with matches? That's the same act this kid committed; a child who starts a house fire, forest fire, or any other accidental fire doesn't have control of how out of control the fire ends up. Should we ferret out every kid in San Diego who's ever played with matches and charge them with criminal recklessness?

I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished. I'm not saying it shouldn't be hefty punishment. But pulling him into the legal system with criminal charges? I'm just asking for a little balance here. A little humanistic realism.

Don't pedal backward unless you're prepared to go backward

I'm getting fairly tired of hearing pundits ask "what does it mean that 1/2 of the black caucus in congress supports Hillary over Obama?" Why is this an issue? Maybe it simply means our country is continuing to make strides in caring more about what people believe and do than about what color they are. I sure don't want a congress where we expect the blacks to vote for blacks, the whites to vote for whites, the women to vote for women, and the homosexuals to vote for homosexuals. Suggesting it's an anomaly that the black caucus would choose a white candidate over a black candidate is an egregious insult to those representatives' intellect and leadership ability.

Whippets and whatnots

I got to pet a whippet Sunday. I'd seen it Saturday at the campground some friends and I were at, at which time I announced my intention to pet that dog before leaving. So Sunday I petted a stranger's dog for far too long while Tara waited all too patiently in the car. I'm enamored by greyhounds, and whippets are like small greyhounds. Sometimes it requires mild stalking, but you see them just rarely enough that I can't help but create a petting opportunity when I spot one. Similar to the feeling I get at the farmers market—the veggies are just so bright and smooth and a host of other adjectives that I have to have them in my kitchen. There's no real explanation other than that they give me some giddy form of happiness.

A friend, the most unlikely, really, insists that only things from nature can really be called 'beautiful.' It's a good thing greyhound-like dogs and summer vegetables aren't made from Styrofoam or something, because they are awfully beautiful.

You see, James, I am apparently not cut out for this. I've already failed multiple times to get my pic to show up, and i'm somehow 1928 years old. What the heck? Thanks for the misventured vote of confidence, though. It's always nice to end up being right. :)

i thought i was going to get to see my template now ...

Just like my first attempt at Xanga, this experience has started out differently than i thought. That's fine. I just need to figure out what this site looks like ... must maintain previsouly impecable persona of cool. (um, insert chuckle here)