mercat | ethical spending

Entry tags:

ethical spending

Okay, I have a discussion question for you guys, so I'd really like your input.

I'm not sure exactly when it started, but somewhere along the line I became really concerned about ethical spending. I didn't think of this as too obscure, because, I mean, who allows themselves to be subjected to scams and stuff? And shouldn't you be monetarily supporting that which you only actually support? But it seems like recently I've come to realize most people just aren't aware. And I realize part of awareness is stumbling onto topics, and I spend a lot of time online stumbling onto things, so it would make sense that I know a bit more than your average person on the street; but these sort of things are things we talk about in Environmental Ethics, too, and I'm finding it hard to believe people make it through school without philosophy or some sort of ethics thing.

What reminded me of this was a madTV (ugh) skit about those "name a star" gifts. Those are a total scam, you're basically paying for a random star and name printed on a piece of paper that gets stored in a database that has nothing to do with actual technologies involved in studying stars, and I'm guessing they will sell repeats. I'd find it hard to believe they haven't run out of stars by now--I know there are a lot of them, but people are going to want to buy stars they can see with the naked eye or a cheap telescope.

SO ANYWAY. The other reason this came up is that Laura came up to me the other day and said that through boredom she and Savannah had found the wedding rings they wanted some day, and I went off on my whole diamond/wedding-ring spiel. To me, there are so many things wrong with that market that I just can't support it. Human rights violations, monopolization of a market (leading to prices tens or hundreds of times the actual value), and all the anti-feminist angles including "it's what women should want", it being a status symbol, men should spend twice their monthly salary on it, "it means true love", the fact that the market was MADE UP in the 1930's, all that jazz. How about diamonds don't actually last forever? They're not even the hardest material on earth known to man anymore, sorry2say. And you may say, oh, well, there are still cruelty-free diamonds (usually from Canada, for some reason? or are there actual mines there?), and lab-created diamonds, but how about the monopolizing "natural" diamond market sending mobsters to kill lab technicians and send threatening letters? Or the fact that recently they've started marking what used to be "imperfect" diamonds as colored and "chocolate" diamonds and stuff? (By that I mean the "colored" ones that aren't supposedly "rare".) I mean, good on them for choosing to have less "waste", but then marking up the price and everything... It seems like a huge farce, to me. Even if you're buying an "ethical" diamond, I don't understand why people choose to ignore the other issues at hand.

Anyway, this just continues onto my ethics class--why don't people recycle? It's so easy--throw your paper and plastic and glass in a different wastebin than your food and unrecyclable material. And why do people waste so much? I try to buy stuff with less packaging, or use fewer utensils, or that sort of thing.

And as for packaging, why isn't more packaging efficient? Or made of recycled material?

I dunno, I could go on and on, but I'm not really feeling "ranty" right now, I'm more curious as to other people's spending habits.

For example, one of my favorite blogs is youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com, and through it I've learned that places like Forever 21 and Urban Outfitters, and if I'm remembering it right, Anthropologie as well? I'm only about 25% sure on that one though-- steal designs willy-nilly from independent artists, and because of that, I choose not to shop at their stores. But, for example, if I point that out to Laura, she just says "meh". What does it take for people to realize they are just supporting a destructive sort of business model?

Is it just that I think too much, I read too much, I'm too aware?

I've started trying to buy safe organic stuff, if I can, because 1) it removes a lot of toxins from the entire business cycle, and works just as well if not better, 2) the business are more likely not to have extreme animal testing/abuse or pollution issues and tend to use recyled/recyclable materials (amognst other things--basically, better business ethical practices), and 3) it may be more expensive but I feel like that is not a sacrifice to make for ethics AND, to me, it demonstrates what capitalism is all about. Plus I've started preferring business based on their practices in general; I've read some skeevy things about Coke, for example, so I'm glad I'm a Mountain Dew (a Pepsi product) person, and I was even more happy to find out Pepsi or one of the top guys there had donated a lot to the gay marriage initiative in California. I realize I'm not 100% of everything that goes on, and I'm just starting down the rabbit hole, as it were, but it seems like such small choices per capita can have such a hgue impact, that people's decisions to ignore/remain ignorant of them truly make me curious. The world can clearly not go on with so much human chauvinism.

Basically, I'm curious-- to what extent do your ethics/awareness play into your shopping?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I would rather eat at a local Mom/Pop Shop than a chain, but I don't seek them out.
I tend not to wear "name brand" clothing... but that was mostly because I don't like the big logos. I like plain.

I think it's dumb to avoid things just because marketers want you to buy it. To take your ring thing to a situation more at home: I want Steak n Shake. Not because I just saw a commercial for it that told me I want steak n shake. Not because society tells me that steak n shake is where people my age like to eat. I want it, because I thoroughly enjoy their nasty disgustingly unhealthy food. I don't really care that the servers are underpaid. I want Steak n Shake.

"Ethical Spending" is stupid. People do the "I buy _____. And they support (Insert philanthropy). Therefore, I support (insert philanthropy)" All the time. Just because you drink Pepsi, doesn't mean you support gay marriage. You can't say that you support gay marriage just because you drink pepsi. People should be less concerned about what the products they buy support, and do more actual participating in the philanthropies they claim to support.

On the flip side. Just because someone likes Nike clothes, doesn't mean they like little children dying in sweat shops. There's no reason to boycott things such as Nike, because, well, don't you think that if there were better options for jobs, the kids would go after those? There aren't. If those jobs weren't there, there wouldn't BE another option, so they are at least giving a TINY income, which, is better than none?

People hate Wal-Mart for shutting down businesses. Well, maybe it's just that they guy who runs Wal-Mart was a better businessman? Why get pissed at somebody for being good at what they do? Yeah it sucks, but if you truly have a good thing going, it won't get shut down by wal-mart.

I think Ethical Shopping is stupid, especially when it's done so people can say they are an ethical shopper. Support the local stores. But don't support the local stores because they support some other crap.

I know what you mean about the Steak'n'Shake thing, I'm kind of the same way. If you want something, then go for it, it's a free market. But I have qualms on things like the whole "diamond wedding ring" market, because it's not just aadvertising telling you you want it, but whole line of social conditioning that's been running since the early 1900's, which I take feminist and social issue with. But obviously, a diamond ring is a completely different issue than a burger.

And I'm not saying I support Pepsi TO support gay marriage, but that I support their company's choices over another. I mean, I get the difference; me making a donation for/against Prop 8 is different than supporting Coke vs. Pepsi, but I'm not sure how you're playing that aspect into your argument still. It can still be effective, like in the Nike example. If you think their ethical practices are bad, don't support them, support independent business and artists if you can (and assuming they have better ethics).

And with Nike, the kid's options aren't the issue, it's that businesses like Nike are allowed and DO outsource their jobs in such a way that allows them to cirumvent our governmental standards of workplace rights and such. I guess my point is, I don't really get what you're after, there.

Same thing goes for WalMart; do you realize they were paying women consistently less than men, and that some stores will not allowt employees to work enough hours to earn health benefits? That sort of thing is the issue--we're past the point where "cheaper is better" has proved that capitalism works, because it has. My point is, we need to start being more aware of what's going on, and money can't be the only arbiter of value anymore. It's hurting rights, the environment, whatever angle you want to pick. I'm all about the awareness side.

And... I'm just really confused by your last statement.

My last statement was just restating the "don't support pepsi just because they support gay rights" point.

I diagree. A diamond ring is no different than a burger. They are both goods that are bought, sold, and advertised. Just because society tells you should want something, doesn't mean you should NOT want. All goods are a form of currency. Diamonds and burgers are basically the Euro and the Mark. The Euro is worth a heck of a lot more, but the Mark holds so much cultural history that people resisted the transation. Me, I prefer burgers to diamonds, but that doesn't mean diamonds aren't worth desiring.

Nike: Our government doesn't rule the world. Tough cookies. Some people think that paying everyone equally is stupid, some people think everyone should be treated the same. Oh nos.

Wal-Mart: If the issue were men being paid less, there would be a lot less complaining. It's only because it's women and women have gotten the short end of the stick in our history that it happens. Maybe wal-mart can't afford to give everyone benefits?

The latter half of your wal-mart statement:
I am shopping for a floral arrangement. Suzie Smith does a decent job, and she's a good person. She charges $10. I go next door. Clyde Collins is kind of a jerk and pays a local chinese girl $0.50 rip the weeds out of his garden every week. His arrangement costs $6.50. It's healthier, a lot more asthetically pleasing, and his flowers tend to last longer for some slightly questionable reason. Sure, Suzie is a nice gal, but damn Clyde's flowers are pretty and it sure is nice to keep an extra $3.50 in my wallet.

See, for me I'm thinking "how the hell is that Chinese girl going to support herself on .50 a day? What will Suzie Smith do when she has to close her shop down? What will happen to my town when all the empty shops lead to crime and no one wants to come to my part of town/downtown?"

For me, it's worth the extra $3.50. For my soul.

Good questions. If you were at all wondering for discussion purposes, I posted mine down a few comments. =)

And if I can't afford the extra $3.50, maybe I didn't really need it in the first place.

Yeah I don't buy into the "$3.50 for my soul" bit. Who says the little chinese girl has to support herself? Maybe I only have 10 dollars to my name. So, that extra $3.50 is 35% of my total wealth. The flowers are a necessary investment. So, why not get better quality and not go bankrupt?

Suzie should produce better quality products if she wants to charge more.

If you only have $10 to your name, how are flowers a necessary investment?

So flowers is a bad product choice. Okay. Substitute Flowers for food and pretty for nutritious and tasty.

I kind of mentioned this before, but if you're poor, you're poor, there's not a lot you can do. But I think if you DO have spending power, you should be paying attention and making conscious decisions about what you use that money for.

And, does "why?" matter?

haha, sorry to be posting all over like crazy, but I think if you are desperate to the point of need, then "why" often does not matter, and I couldn't judge to say it should. I haven't been there, and survival instict drives us to do what we must, sometimes what we think we could have never done before. I believe, though, if you are past the point of "need" to the point of "want", you can afford (or... should afford? I've confused myself now) the "why", and it is the responsible thing to do so, so long as you have knowledge of it.

I would try to come up with an example, but I'm trying to stay away from hypotheticals as they are often kind of irrelevant to real life. What is that, straw man argument? I can't remember, lol.

If we're substituting food for flowers, then yes it does.

One can no longer claim ignorance about the state of the world or where their food comes from. Poor is no longer a valid excuse. There have been tons of articles posted about living well and buying fresh for a dollar a day; you just have to work a little harder. We're buying the CONVENIENCE from Carlmart, but at the expense of whom? One has to work a little harder, it takes a little longer to shop for local ingredients that may actually be cheaper. And then one has to cook them oneself.

By what standards of better quality? I'm just using this as an example, but consider the food industry. Larger companies have the advantage of being able to more cheaply create "better" food in terms that it can be stored longer, stays fresher longer, might be "bigger". But those things that make it that way--preservatives, pesticides, hormones, treated feed--are not necessarily better for us. They can, in fact, be very bad for you.

Just for anecdotal discussion, fruits and veggies are often dyed for color and grown to an extreme that may lessen their flavor. Another example, free-range animals that are slaughtered for food (which I am kind of short-handedly calling "organic" though that is nowhere near the correct term, I'm just kind of lumping it in there) are often much richer in both nutrients and flavor.

I guess, in terms of mechanically produced things, faster turnaround is not necessarily equal to "better".

by better quality, i mean better quality. Not fake better quality. better quality.

RE: diamonds: I'm not saying they shouldn't be on the market, and I'm not saying you shouldn't want them simply because they're being offered. I'm saying that I dislike it because I take moral offense to many of the issues it has, and part of their manipulation relies on keeping people ignorant, which I choose to fight. With both that and the Pepsi issue I think you are trying to simplify my argument to something it is very much not, whereas what I've distilled it down to in my post is already what I would consider the "shorthand" version for discussion. I didn't really present it for discussion, admittedly, but I wasn't trying to; I was just trying to introduce a few topics to get people's gears grinding about their own personal choices.

Same goes for the whole "ethical spending thing; I'm not using it as a fashion term, I'm simply using it as two words that are a part of ethical decisions any person should make in their life. =/ I kind of feel like you're trying to trivialise the issue as a fashion statement, which is insulting, and, to be frank, ignorant. And if that's just me misinterpreting your words, tell me, but that's the vibe I'm getting, just so you know.

Nike: I'm not saying our government should rule the world. I'm saying people should make better ethical choices. This in no way precludes businesses; in fact, most lines of work include a code of ethics. And I know trying to apply philosophical models never works perfectly, but as a sort of debate, I'm wondering--do you not think every human should be treated as a human?

Walmart: seriously, are you trolling? Do you think people complain less because gay men can't marry versus lesbians? Feminism is not about "WOMEN POWER" or some bullshit idea like that; it's about equality, and it's just the fate of history that it's called that. If it were men, I guarantee you there would be people complaining, and I am not afraid to be one of them.

As for your last part, I'm not saying any moral choice is black or white, and that's what makes life tough, that there's so much gray area. It depends on a lot of stuff; is Suzie Smith someone who studied the art of floral arrangement in college and doesn't have another degree? Is Clyde a huge business owner who is taking advantage of corporate structure, or is he just a one-on-one guy who's not afraid to charge less? To what extend are we talking "slightly questionable"? How exactly is he treating this girl and everything?

My point is not to get you to answer all these questions, it is simply to point them out. Each decision should be looked at individually with these questions or else I think we will be running into a lot more ethical problems in the future than we'd like to admit right now. Every situation has its own details, and you just have to look at them. What I'm more curious is learning what things other people are looking at that I might be missing.

I think it's EXTREMELY important that we think about what we're buying before we buy ANYTHING. Think about where it came from, what it's made from, what kind of effect it's having on the ENVIRONMENT and on OTHERS AROUND US.

What we buy does not only affect us, it affects everyone else in the world. We can only keep our heads buried in the sand for so long.

(btw, I'm agreeing with most of your comments,

mercat!)

Haha, agreed so hard. This environmental ethics class has just kind of slapped me upside the head, saying, you know, despite the fact that I would have previously considered myself a responsible person for recycling and turning off lights when I leave the room, is that really enough any more? What kind of problems are we facing (or will we be facing soon) and can we try to stop them? With engineering I've taken an interest in energy and some recycling, but this class has pointed out that we're running out of space, we're running out of resources, and eventually we're going to run ourselves out of this planet. So... there are a LOT of issues, to say the least. =P

I see your questions, and I realize it seems like i'm trivializing it... but... I mean, you will only see the "save the world from injustices" view, where as I side with the practical view.

The Diamond company doesn't strive to keep people ignorant. ANY advertising plays up it's good points. No one is like "Dudes, my product is cheaply made and will break as soon as you buy it, but it looks pretty. Buy my shit."

And seriously, the women getting paid less thing is the same as the blacks and whites thing. If white people got paid less than black people, society would be fine with it because "we would be righting wrongs from the past." People bitch about affirmative action and Title IX, but there would be far MORE bitching if they didn't exist. Do I think either are good things? well, No. I think they're stupid. The IDEA is good, but sorry, righting wrongs that happened years ago is pointless (affirmative action) and Cutting men's activities because the women's don't have enough... okay, Africa doesn't have food? No one get's food.

Suzie Smith is your average florist, but Clyde happens to be better. Because he's better, he eventually makes enough money to start a chain, and eventually his shop is the most well known in the world and every florist strives to be a part of it. But the workers wages don't increase, and neither does the little chinese girl's. Eventually Suzie Smith has to shut down because she doesn't know how to compete.

Survival of the Fittest. It's a bitch. But, that's the way the world works.

Are you going to boycott microsoft because bill gates took steve Jobs' ideas? Are people boycotting vista because it looks exactly the same as Mac OSX? Are Macs growing in popularity because they make ethical decisions?

Do you host a book burning party to burn a truly fantastic book written by someone who rapes little girls?

P.S. I'm anonymous... I just keep forgetting to sign in.

So what, we aren't supposed to make the world a better place? A lot of little every day decisions adds up. And I don't see how trying to save the world is a bad thing, whereas deciding to just go on with your life as it is--though you have every right, which I will not deny--is ignorant. I'm not saying you have to give up everything in your life to equalize everything, because life is not fair and we can't get a perfect life arranged for everyone, but why should I stop trying to make better decisions about what I do? If I can make a choice that betters the world, what is there to stop me from doing it other than pure human chauvinism? Or if you extend that to generations past (and sometimes present), male chauvinism, racial chauvinism, religious chauvinism?

As for diamonds: no, of course, I see the capital sense in that sort of advertising, which is why I don't have as many problems with the "conflict-free" and lab-created diamonds. They don't have (all) the same issues, though some are still there. I don't really agree 100% with capitalism (omg put me in jail I must be a communist) and the advertising business it's created, and I see the diamond market as a really egregious example of the sort of monopolization that's resulted from it. =/

Okay, as for the "equalization" thing, no, I don't think people would be happy if people tried to "make up for the sins of the past" by switching the dynamic; they're still not equal, which is my whole point.

Also, I absolutely agree with survival of the fittest, that's how life is and it's the reason we have so many issues. It's only going to get worse, too, with overpopulation and everything. I know, it's a shame, but that's life. Maybe I am just trying to abate it but I'd at least like to think I'm trying. I don't know if humanity as a race has a whole lot of time left to live like we are, which is why I think we need to change, and part of that for me is awareness of my decisions, of which economic decisions are only a small part.

Um, and sorry about the anonymous thing, I just don't take lightly to possible trolls now. =/ Waste of my time, for sure...

Uh, so, as for the original question which I'm not sure you ever really answered, where do your ethics meet your wallet? Or if they don't, what's the line you draw for them?

" And I don't see how trying to save the world is a bad thing, whereas deciding to just go on with your life as it is--though you have every right, which I will not deny--is ignorant." Ignorant: lack of knowledge, education, or awareness. Don't call people ignorant who are aware of their decisions and make a choice.

No one is stopping you from saving the world, but don't bitch people out who choose to make their own life happier. Not saying you are. Just saying it's hypocritical.

As far as my stance? I don't think about it. If I'm in NY city, I sure as hell won't be going to a pizza hut. But, that's partly because I enjoy the atmosphere of Mom and Pop shops. I prefer local stores to chains, mostly because they offer a completely different atmosphere. I see the value in diamonds, but if the social norm were for women to buy men diamonds, I'd just prefer them make me a card.

Will I go to a local clothing store when I can go to walmart? probably not. But then again, I'm all for going to a thrift store. If it's cheaper, I'll probably buy it. But i'm not going to go out of my way to buy the hand crafted dishes made by the hard working indigenous peoples of... wherever... for the sake of supporting them, ESPECIALLY if it's more expensive.

As far as my stance? I don't think about it.

That is the very thing I am trying to get at with "ignorance". If you are aware but choose to ignore it, it is still ignorance. And if you aren't ignorant of the issues, then you are at least not doing a very good job of defending them (though we just got started since you just answered, so you haven't had much chance), as all we have done so far is discuss my views. So, as far as I have learned in the conversation, I don't know what your views are, but they seem (or, seemed, I'm fucking up all my tenses and shit) ignorant, as they are currently supportless. And I am very much not trying to be hypocritical, and by answering the question you have obviously given some support, so as long as you are supporting yourself and showing a thought/logic process then I would never make the comment in the first place. =P

As for cheaper, I can see your point of view on that. I'd say you probably qualify as a struggling college student, and obviously there are sacrifices to be made, which in this case is the leisure of shopping with values other than the dollar. So I'm curious--how do you see that playing into future decisions, assuming you will not be poor? [insert music major joke here]

As for the dishes, so maybe cultures aren't your cause, but if you had the money there are obviously causes you would support, right? Probably music and arts stuff (just guessing)? I mean, I am curious to know.

Also, I do really want to know: what value do you see in diamonds? And I mean jewelry-diamonds, since that is the market we're talking about, not applications like tools or anything else.

Shit, forgot the last part of your comment.

Well, no, I didn't know that about Microsoft, but I've been into open-source projects lately and I'm planning to make the switch to Linux eventually, so that's kind of a moot point at this point, for me persoonally. And, a bit of a tangent, Macs I think are popular because their marketing and design divisions did a great job of making them popular, especially now that they no longer have the graphic-design-capabilities-advantage they once had over Windows, and they're being marketed as a fashion accessory. Which, personally, I don't like being ripped off for the sake of fashion if I don't particularly LOVE the style (say maybe, retro?), and I'm one of those people who shops around anally for good deals. Which is why my new laptop is a $300 EEEPC with more capability and carryability than a MacBook Air, and all at a TENTH of the cost. Though it doesn't have a CD/DVD drive, which I'm fine with, but the next models will so that's good too.

Also, no, I don't believe in burning books, or destroying things just because they're bad. People should be educated about why they're bad, but they should still be exposed to them.

On a similar topic, I loved Ender's Game but it came to light recently that the author, for writing a book famous for being about accepting the outliers in life, is garishly homophobic. Does that make me love Ender's Game any less? No, but because of "the power of money" I'm less likely to want to buy his books, and more likely to borrow them from a friend.

On Ender's game. Read the NEXT book. Speaker for the dead. It's the book he meant to write, but had to write "ender's game" to introduce it. It's SO amazing. So what, he's homophobic. Doesn't mean his books are bad.

And why educate people on a book that's bad if the book itself isn't bad?

Everyone HATED American Psycho. Read it and you'll see why it was banned and burned. But it's a fantastic book.

Sorry, I'm getting distracted by like three different convos I have going on.

I think I said that before, but no, I definitely don't think him being homophobic affects his books being good. But if you have Speaker for the Dead, I'll definitely borrow it. (Thooouugghhh it might be awhile until you get it back...)

And sorry, I didn't mean to say the hypothetical book was bad, when you clearly said it was good. hurf durf. If the book is good, it should speak for itself, but it clearly doesn't imply that the author is necessarily as good. I mean, I kinda hate to pull Godwin's Law, but people seem to take enough interest in reading Mein Kampf, at least for curiosity's sake, and he was clearly not a great guy. Haven't read it though, so I can't say how good it is, but I will say I am curious to read it. =) I'm a sucker for learning what I don't know.

Also, I will also be borrowing AP assuming you haven't sold it back to the bookstore. I loved the movie and I'm at least interested in the book, though if it reads anything like a history book I will probably not make it through the first two chapters, lol. BUT then again I have a really high tolerance for graphic stuff (even though I'm a flincher) so that's just another angle in its favor, I guess. I mean ffs my favorite jokes are dead baby jokes. =P

It's slightly difficult to read because he goes on and on about details about suits and albums and hair products. At one point i think 7 pages are dedicated to describing a suit someone is wearing. It's ridiculous. But then he shoves a rat up someone's vagina. And there are a few pages dedicated to describing a sex scene... so... I mean, whatev.

Haha, I don't think I'd mind it. Since I know the intention of it is to point out how overly concerned that whole lifestyle is (at least, as far as I've read about it) with that sort of thing, I think I could appreciate it. If I didn't know that, though, I don't know if I would be able to get through it as easily, because I do not really have the skills to appreciate art past "entertaining" unless I've been educated about it beforehand. Some people have the mind for it, I definitely do not. But I am not a book/media critic, so it's all good. =)

I would not assume that that is the intent of the book. (I know you said "as far as I've read)

WELL DON'T LEAVE ME HANGING =P If you're going to lecture me, lecture me!

I mean, my education is thus:
1) has seen the movie
2) has read its wikipedia article
3) has discussed in a humorous tone with people

So, as much as I can say, that's what I got out of the movie. And I know movies are usually radically different from the book, but I'm just trying to apply what I get from it... D:

Lol. The Movie is good. And yeah, you kinda get that from the movie. But the book has so many other themes.

YOU ARE NOT DOING YOUR PART TO EDUCATE ME AFTER I EDUCATED THE SHIT OUT OF YOU EARLIER >=)

READ IT. lol.

I will, I was just looking for metadiscussion.

Just to re-iterate. Orson Scott Card... he's kinda the shit. I don't really care that he's homophobic. Half of the world is. (p.s. I want to run a theory by you, for the sake of the HE IS regarding a similar topic... but... well, it's probably a little too controversial for a public forum)

I know he's kinda the shit, it's just really disappointing to see he's kind of a hypocrite just because of that one thing. :( And yeah, I know half the world is, and it's easy to get riled up in discussions like these, and I often have to step back and let myself just try to treat people like people and I try not to judge and just educate instead. I mean, I think it's the best you can do in that sort of sitch, because I don't want to be an militant preacher (no matter the subject).

Though this is kind of an exception since it's a personal journal, in which case I give myself free reign to talk about whatever I feel needs talked about and I try to be brutally honest, even to myself because then I can learn my own flaws.

If you don't mind posting here, I don't care, or I can friendslock a post for discussion, or you can just email me or whatever...

Also, sorry for disappearing, my roommate needed meds.

Tis cool. but it can't be posted here. I'll probably email you.

I don't know your email. Lol. Mine is vonneukp@muohio.edu

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

ethical spending

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject