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
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
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 ... )
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 ... )Monday, November 19, 2007
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/
http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/06/real_estate/college_football_town_index/
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
