17. Now they admit dangers

"Phillip Morris USA agrees with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases in smokers," is the first sentence in the health section of Phillip Morris' website regarding "Cigarette Smoking and Diseases in Smokers." Although this is nothing new, the Surgeon General notice has been on packs for years, it is interesting from a number of perspectives. Of first note, is the admission of Phillip Morris that their product does indeed cause harm to its consumers. Elsewhere in its website, Phillip Morris makes nearly the same statement concerning addiction, "Phillip Morris USA agrees with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking is addictive." Thus, of second note is a company that admits its product is harmful and addictive. Of course, the debate of this admission has been a historic struggle, for, understandably, Phillip Morris and other cigarette manufactures were not in any hurry to make such admissions.

The battle of its customers has been equally as historic, as smokers were reluctant to accept the harm of cigarettes; then quick to sue over its addictiveness. If there was ever a doubt, all anyone had to do was consult the life insurance companies- for the most important information in their analysis is: smoker/nonsmoker. Most consumers have given in to acknowledging the health dangers, although I do still occasionally hear the argument, "Aunt Mary lived to 108 and smoked three packs a day." The lawsuits that were to follow were justified, especially if companies held in confidence the addictive nature of nicotine.

Further on the Phillip Morris website is a section on "Responsible Marketing." With a product that is addictive and harmful, could there be such a thing as responsible marketing? In fact, their mission statement claims, "Our goal is to be the most responsible, effective and respected developer, manufacture and marketer of consumer products, especially products intended for adults." It is easy for me to say as a nonsmoker, but the only responsible action might be to go out of business- for is there a responsible way to market and sell an addictive and harmful product? The more responsible mission statement might read, "We at Phillip Morris apologize for the emotional and physical trauma placed on the lives of our customers due to the harmful and addictive nature of our product. We will continue to serve our customers only as long as it takes to rid them of this addictive habit, or until death ensues- whichever comes first."

The remaining issue concerning cigarette smoking is that of second hand smoke and smoking in public areas. Again, I can reference the Phillip Morris website. Although not as adamant, Phillip Morris states, "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung and heart disease, in nonsmoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma..." And, furthermore, that, "We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials concerning secondhand smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places." Here, perhaps, the battle lines have been drawn as consumers fight for their right to smoke against the rights of those seeking to escape the dangers of secondhand smoke.

From a societal perspective, the issue is that Phillip Morris admits that not only is their product harmful and addictive to their customers, but also to anyone who comes in contact with it. The ethical issue examines the conscience of the company and its employees- that is, the production of a product that is so knowingly harmful. American philosopher, Henry David Thoreau, wrote, "It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience." That may be true enough, but the business conscience of today is not of right and wrong, rather it is of profit and loss.

I am well aware that people want Phillip Morris to continue to make their product, and dare not suggest that cigarettes be deemed illegal. But it is interesting to note, in today's health and safety conscious world, that a company could continue to produce a harmful product, market a harmful product, employ employees to make a harmful product, steadfastly inform the public of the dangers of their product and still thrive as an entity.

16. Wahoo story is propaganda

Baseball is just around the corner, accompanied by the annual debate over Chief Wahoo. Each opening day brings protesters, who, more often than not, are met with a lack of respect and understanding.

So among the fastballs and hotdogs, the issue increases in intensity heating the debate over whether Chief Wahoo balances in favor of honor or racism.

Over time, and in the spirit of open-mindedness, I have changed my viewpoint on the subject - so much that I can't believe I ever though otherwise. For many, the issue entertains only superficial thought - especially if one grew up rooting for the team. In addition, it is easy to offer justification for the use of the name and mascot as a measure of honor, a point I will argue against in this column.

To begin, the discussion requires a brief history.

The Cleveland Naps in 1915 changes their name to the Cleveland Indians to, allegedly, pay homage to Louis Sockalexis, one of the first Native-Americans to play professional baseball. The honorary "mascot" consisted of an orange-faced Indian with a large nose and big teeth. Through the years, the image has undergone several changes leading to the current version of Chief Wahoo.

Since 1972, several American Indians groups have protested the use of Chief Wahoo as a mascot, including the American Indian Movement (AIM) who picketed Jacobs Field in 1994.

The most persistent argument offered by the team and its supporters is that the name change and the creation of the logo were done to honor Louis Sockalexis, an honor that, notably, he did not live long enough to receive.

There are a few problems with this account of what seems to be nothing more than propaganda, that is, a story created to silence the protests of the majority. Louis Sockalexis only played three seasons with the Indians (1897-1899), amidst racial slurs and ridicule, before prematurely ending his career after he suffered a knee injury when, while intoxicated, he jumped from a second story building.

While he was exploited as an American Indian when he played, his accomplishments and legacy (until now) was neither extraordinary nor memorable.

In 1915, a "nomenclature committee" made up of baseball writers had been selected to choose the name of the now "Napless-Naps." The Cleveland Press did run an article soliciting new nicknames.

However, the results of this solicitation subsequently listed in the paper did not include Indians. Furthermore, the articles in the local papers announcing the new team name neither mention Louis Sockalexis nor assert that the name was even permanent. Thus, the account that the name came from a fan "in honor of Louis Sockalexis" is most likely both erroneous and improbable.

Even if the name was intended to honor Louis Sockalexis, there is a difference between original intention and current perception. Mascots are typically animals of ferocity, or admiration, not races of people.

Furthermore, they should not be conquered people, whose land was invaded, whose families were butchered. What honor could possibly be realized as they are caricaturized and ridiculed (e.g. white people dressing up like Indians, a fake teepee in the stands)?

Let us further note that the wearing of eagle feathers, religious changing, and dancing were sacred to the Indians and their way of life. The depiction of our views in respect to the history and treatment of Indians has been consistently less than honorary.

Imagine other races so insensitively exploited. Could one suggest another race that would tolerate its worst caricature plastered on a baseball hat? Or its sacred culture stereotypically imitates and ridiculed? The point could be better made with examples, though the idea is so offensive that I dare not offer them.

Finally, the idea that early 1900 America would honor the first Native-American to play baseball, by naming a team after him, is preposterous, especially considering that baseball was 30 years away from allowing the first African-American to even step on the diamond.

Therefore it seems that, as sport sociologist Ellen Staurowsky aptly reasons, "Through the manipulation of selected information, the franchise uses a partially fictionalized "Indian" past for purposes of silencing the protests of real Indians in the present. As a consequence, the majority are empowered to reject the notion that the ball club's name and logo are racist while ignoring protests from some Native-Americans and their allies."

If the Cleveland baseball team wants to recognize Louis Sockalezis, they should build a sculpture in his likeness, or retire his number. If they want to honor the Native-Americans, they should consider a new nickname and a new mascot, for, alas, a new peace treaty is probably out of the question.

15. Winter survival no sweat

On a recent trip outside to feed the birds and the deer, as I slowly plowed through the snow, my bones froze as the brisk cold of January ripped right through me.

I could even see my dogs, which joined me on this quick endeavor, shaking, as their once adaptively sufficient winter coat now failed to provide adequate protection. "The poor animals," my wife always says. To which, I usually reply "Well, they have adapted to these conditions; I doubt they know the difference."

This, of course, is my standard line to reassure the both of us - fully understanding the hardship these animals face.

I quite enjoy feeding the animals; sometimes watching families of deer warm their bodies with our offering of "free" corn. Birds of several species, cardinals, blue jays, finches, doves and even crows, visit our feeders 24 hours a day - consuming the energy required to battle the harsh weather conditions. It is amazing how just a few minutes in the cold can both make you appreciate the progress made by our species and turn your stomach as to how spoiled we have become.

In a blink of an eye, relatively speaking, or namely, a few thousand years, our species fears little of harsh winter conditions other than the inconvenience of shoveling the driveway, cleaning off the car, and leaving a few minutes early for work.

Just a few short years ago, our species battled winters like all other species. We faced the challenges of shelter, hunger and disease. A December trip to Hocking Hills included a visit to the famous caves that surely provided shelter to ancient humans.

An eerie feeling overcame me as we battled the cold for only a couple hours through the natural heat of the campfire. What these people must have gone through, I thought. Moreover, how lucky they were to have found such a cave. Undoubtedly, many others did not have it so well.

Just hundreds of years ago, when the European settlers invaded this land, surviving the winter was an accomplishment for all those that did. There were no guarantees. American settlers often remarked on the winter conditions and how many did or did not survive.

Technology had advanced to include cabins and fireplaces but times were still tough. Travel could be difficult, even impossible. People worked hard and died young.

It is sad then that so much has been forgotten. And how much of what we have today is taken for granted. Families used to raise their own animals, grow their own crops. Kids worked the farm, families worked together, and our communities cared about one another.

How many of us today could survive those conditions of a couple hundred years ago, or even more difficult, of a couple thousand years ago? Daily "to do" lists included staying warm, finding food, protecting the children and living to see tomorrow.

The success of our ancestors made things what they are for us today. They worked hard, obtained and shared knowledge, and, most importantly, they survived. Compare their lives with ours today. Consider the leisure time we have. The time we have to choose between "American Idol" and "The Bachelorette."

And the time we have to care whether or not Brittany got married, or if Ben and Jennifer broke up. We have the luxury of passing up hard work because we can pay someone else to do it. We also have the audacity to pass up the opportunity for knowledge, because, it too, is too much work.

Today we worry about our diets, if we get enough calcium; our ancestors were just happy to eat. We get dressed up to go hunting, and hang the heads of our victims on walls as trophies- our ancestors hunted to survive; there was no time for gloating. How lucky we are today that 40 hours a week pays our way through life, considering that our ancestors put in 24/7.

Perhaps we can never completely understand the trials and tribulations that our ancestors may have endured. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe it wasn't that difficult. But at least consider what it might have been like hundreds or thousands of years ago. Step outside one cold dark night, walk into a forest or an open field and ask yourself- could I have survived?

14. I think, therefore I am, I think

Rene Descartes, considered the first modern philosopher, coined the popular phrase, "Cogito ergo sum," which means, "I think therefore I am." Literally taken, it is a restatement of the obvious. However, from a philosophical standpoint, it was a bit of a breakthrough. In search of reality, it was an "indubitable first principle." The definition of reality extends in many directions, and under many circumstances. Easy examples are dreams and mirages- periods of imagery that upon further investigation (waking up or moving closer) we discover, with a fair amount of certainty, to be illusions. Attempting to define reality in the holistic realm serves to question what most of us take for granted. For example, pick any thing or place that you have not witnessed first hand- say the country of Iraq. To question what we absolutely know or don't know to be true- one could argue that the country of Iraq does not exist. Taking the example to extreme, one could argue that although you hear about Iraq, know of countries that fight wars against Iraq, and see pictures of Iraq- that Iraq does not really exist. Perhaps the whole world is in conspiracy against you to make you believe that Iraq exist when, in fact, it does not. This argument, on a theoretical level, can be taken even further to question even the things one has, or believes to have, experienced. Hence, the existence of everything can be doubted. Conversely, the phrase, "I think therefore I am," proves that although everything can be questioned to exist, there can be no doubt that someone (or thing) is doing the doubting. Perhaps the more accurate proof would be "I am capable of doubting, therefore I exist."

Our perception of reality is a fragile entity when one considers the effects of aging, drugs and injury onto the brain. There can be, at times and even among the unimpaired, a thin line separating what we perceive to be true and what, in fact, is true. One philosopher describes our perception of reality as "the show between our ears," and as unfortunate as it is, one can duly note that some of us the channel has been changed. Some choose this altered state of reality through drug use, escaping, at least for a while, the pain of the "reality." Many individuals, however, have altered states of perception forced upon them- usually through the effects of aging or genetics. Alzheimer's disease and Schizophrenia are the more serious thought disorders that alter states of reality. Both have its roots in genetics, with Alzheimer's disease increasing in severity with age.

Considering the complexity of the brain, it is perhaps remarkable that it performs so well, for so long. There is no doubt that the evolution of the brain, and with it a vested interest in our greatest competitive advantage, succeeded magnificently. It is also easy to recognize, that until modern medicine, how those individuals that drifted from "reality" failed to survive long in a real world- and did not suffer long under "false" perceptions.

That has indeed changed, and nothing is more heartbreaking than those suffering from the effects of mental disorders. I cannot help but to consider Descartes' cogito and wonder about those who can no longer perceive our sense of reality. Perhaps the greatest fear for most of us, as we age, is the loss of our minds- as nothing more than our thoughts, emotions and memories better defines us. Anyone who has cared for someone with Alzheimer's can certainly relate to the emotional challenges of dementia and the loss of someone we used to know. And, painfully, their loss of perception sometimes challenges ours.