 |  | top stories | | 1 new story
no new comments | | etcetera | 2 new stories
33 new comments | | filmtv | 3 new stories
48 new comments | | media | 1 new story
44 new comments | | politics | 3 new stories
127 new comments | | scitech | 1 new story
11 new comments | | work | 2 new stories
28 new comments | |
| | | | | Attention Shoppers: The Misery Of The World Is All Your Fault! | | | | | found on OneWorld via Yahoo
written by chlim01, edited by John (Plastic) [ read unedited ]
posted Mon 21 Oct 4:04pm | | | | |
 |
"Companies and rich nations that benefit from cheap raw materials have long turned a blind eye to the destruction at their source, and most consumers don't know that a number of common purchases bear the invisible imprint of violence."
"According to the simple (simplistic?) moral calculus of the Worldwatch Institute, shoppers in the Developed World have blood on their hands by virtue of their unthinking purchase of goods like hardwood furniture, cell phones and diamonds. According to Worldwatch, the purchase of such goods has 'earned at least US$12 billion last year for rebels groups, rapacious governments, and warlords,'" chlim01 writes. A similar site is Ethical Consumer. "Consider, for example, your cell phone: 'If you purchase a cell phone, you may very well be paying to keep the war going in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), where rival armies fight for control over deposits of coltan, a commodity that just over a decade ago had little commercial value, but is now vital for the one billion plus cell phones in use today.' Diamond jewellery is no better. The pretty engagement ring you bought for your girlfriend could very well have funded the bloody wars in far away Angola and Sierra Leone, or more disturbingly, helped pay for al Qaeda's flying lessons.
"But of course questions remain about Worldwatch's moral reasoning. Consider, for instance, the fact that your supposedly-evil purchase of your cell phone has also helped pay the wages of industrious workers in the Third World."
| |
| | | Similarly is a story zounds informs us of: "Al-Manar, the Arabic word for 'beacon,' is the official television station of Lebanon's Party of God, more commonly known as Hezbollah. The station transmits via satellite 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with the express goal of waging 'psychological warfare against the Zionist enemy.' Hezbollah is largely funded by Iran...but apparently it's also sponsored by Pepsi. According to an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, local Lebanese subsidiaries of major American corporations like PepsiCo, Proctor & Gamble and Western Union are 'lending comfort and support to terrorists' by advertising on al-Manar television. Given that Hezbollah has been implicated in several ruthless terrorist attacks, including the bombing of the US Marine Barracks in Beirut that killed 241 people in 1982, should Americans consider a boycott against U.S. companies that allow their subsidiaries to advertise with media outlets affiliated with Hezbollah?" |
| | |
[ more plastic... ] |
| | | | | | | 1. Guerrilla Sales... | | | | by Lakaien |  | | | at Mon 21 Oct 4:38pm | score of 1.5 clever | | | | | | |
Great, and I thought the only bloodthirsty warlord I was supporting by selling mobiles for a living was my district sales manager...I wonder if that's where he learned his management tactics?
if you had a funeral- i'd be there with bells on- Chris Murphy
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 2. Some background on Worldwatch | | | | by gordon shumway |  | | | at Mon 21 Oct 4:43pm | score of 4 informative | | | | | | |
I would like to note for the record that in the past the doomsayers at Worldwatch predicted an Ice Age by the year 2000 (though now they have switched to a prediction of massive global warming), global famines (including in the US) in the 1980's, massive oil shortages, and a massive global shortage of water. Strangely, none of these things ever happened. The Worldwatchers seem to lack the ability to learn about or grasp simple economics. I now have to make a call on my diamond studded cell phone which was built by child labor.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 3. Re: Some background on Worldwatch | | | | by kipmanley |  | | | at Mon 21 Oct 4:48pm | score of 0.5 obnoxious | | in reply to comment 2 | | | | | |
Could you put down your cell phone long enough to cite something? Anything? Even a link to a right-wing mouth-breather spouting the same guff? I'm not saying they didn't do what you say they did, no; I haven't got a dog anywhere near this fight at the moment. But if you're going to dance like this in the end zone, give us a reason to give a fuck.
Long story; short pier.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 34. Re: Some background on Worldwatch | | | | by waldeaux |  | | | at Tue 22 Oct 8:23am | score of 2 funny | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
Google is your friend - sheesh.
Why has "I don't agree with you but I can't bring myself to present a coherent argument" turned into "show me everything that was ever written on the subject or else you're either a liar or are being somehow dishonest in your claims"?
Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 77. Re: Some background on Worldwatch | | | | by gordon shumway | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 4:58pm | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 73 | | | | | |
i guess I thought people were more familiar with Worldwatch than they are. As a kid in school we used to have to read Worldwatch publications in class. They were entertaining, in a sci-fi kind of way. And you don't have to agree with Simon's overall view towards environmental policy to mock Worldwatch's and Lester Brown's track record.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 85. Re: Some background on Worldwatch | | | | by mischief | | | | at Wed 23 Oct 5:24am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 34 | | | | | |
Why has "I don't agree ..." turned into "show me everything..."
Waldeaux: Hmm, you don't happen to have a link to back this assertion, do you?
"And then... and then... and then...", and then the man who stuttered died, his last words an echo of his life
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 42. Re: Some background on Worldwatch | | | | by aturley | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 9:27am | score of 1.5 informative | | in reply to comment 13 | | | | | |
Eh, melting of the ice caps would probably mostly result in more water in the ocean. This would not do much to give us drinkable water, since drinking salt water isn't a really good idea, and you can't use it to water your crops.
Water water everywhere, and not a drop to drink.
But yeah, the predictions were mostly a scare tactic.
andy
Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between irony and sincerity.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 76. Maybe. Maybe not. | | | | by JKConsult | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 4:31pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 42 | | | | | |
Well, I considered that before my post. Two things about that. One: there is a massive (massive, massive, massive) amount of water in the polar ice caps. If a large amount of that water is released into the overall system, the salinity of water would drop, and not at an unnoticeable level. Two: We could always run the water through treatment plants. Expensive? Maybe, but with the incentive provided by a "global water shortage", methinks a relatively simple process could be found posthaste.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 56. Re: Some background on Worldwatch | | | | by mex | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 10:09am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 2 | | | | | |
Well, for the record, I'd like to note that yes, Mexico does have a shortage of water. It's becoming a national issue.
I also visited France a few years ago and they were already having water problems. What's it like today?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 4. Pepsi Co. pro-Arab, quel suprise! | | | | by Thalia | | | | at Mon 21 Oct 4:49pm | score of 2.5 informative | | | | | | |
You're talking about the same company that boycotted Israel for 30 years, because they were afraid of losing support in Arab nations. Until 1992, you could not purchase Pepsi in Israel, nor could you buy Coke in Arab nations. Pepsi boycotted Israel, and Coke was boycotted by the Arab nations. Which is not to say that Coke was any better, merely that they gave up the boycot earlier (in the 60's). All this, in spite of the fact that the US specifically prohibits American companies from participating in boycotts.
Why are we surprised? American companies are generally evaluated by their performance... how much stuff they sell. Whether they sell to the Chinese market, the Arab market, or any other oppressive regime is unimportant in the final evaluation of stock price. Have you seen a stock price drop because a company was found to be selling torture instruments to oppressive regimes? Of course not. But you may have seen a stock price drop because a company was shut out of the Chinese market...
Thalia
Judeo-Christianity: just like regular Christianity, only insincerely 5% more inclusive! -- MC Nally
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 5. Yeah, and what about foreign aid? | | | | by JulesRules | | | | at Mon 21 Oct 5:06pm | score of 2 compelling | | | | | | |
You people donating money to foreign aid organizations are even worse. Talk about negligent. You donate money which is used to buy food, and foreign aid workers use that food to barter for sex with starving children in Africa. How could you allow this to happen?
yada yada yada
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 7. Yeah, whatever | | | | by ksu93 | | | | at Mon 21 Oct 5:54pm | score of 4 succinct | | | | | | |
If I pay my taxes I'm helping to fund the execution of innocent people who were wrongly convicted for capital crimes. If I wear leather I'm contributing to the slaughter of innocent cows. If I eat chocolate I'm supporting slavery. God only knows what heinous crimes I'm supporting when I buy a computer with a modem, hook it up to a phone line in a house made from wood and brick, and visit the Worldwatch Institute web site.
Trying to be a socially conscious consumer, like anything else, is an endeavor that can be terribly overdone. The only way to guarantee that you're not funding something bad somewhere is to live naked in a cave and eat bugs. Of course, then you'd get criticized for sitting by idly while innocent people are victimized around the world. So I guess that just leaves suicide.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -Ambrose Bierce
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 8. Re: Yeah, whatever | | | | by hammurderer | | | | at Mon 21 Oct 6:29pm | score of 1.5 brilliant | | in reply to comment 7 | | | | | |
I totally agreed with you, except I decided that I'd not wear fur. That way, whatever else people would say about me, they couldn't say I supported seal-clubbing.
After that, I figured maybe I should back off from McDonald's when I got that burger craving, and try In'N'Out instead. That way, I'd feel like I was at least excersing some kind of consumer force against bad farming practice.
Of course, I still shop at Banana Republic, send my old computer parts to Chinese landfills, and go through about 80 pounds of styrofoam a day. Baby steps, man. It's all about the baby steps.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 36. Re: Yeah, whatever | | | | by Bearpaw | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 8:26am | score of 2 brilliant | | in reply to comment 7 | | | | | |
Trying to be a socially conscious consumer, like anything else, is an endeavor that can be terribly overdone.
Well, sure it can be overdone. It can also be terribly underdone ... and almost always is.
Can we be perfect at it? Of course not. Can we do a hell of a lot better than we are? Absolutely.
Proud member of the reality-based minority.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 9. Oil | | | | by gameCoder | | | | at Mon 21 Oct 6:32pm | score of 1 astute | | | | | | |
I'm surprised no one has brought oil into this yet.
"By driving my Really Fucking Huge SUV, I'm contributing to terrorist activities"
I thought that would be a great commercial to rival the US-sponsored Buying-Drugs-Funds-Terrorist commercials.
Master Shake: "Oh you think you're the expert? Lets see how much your ass knows about flyin'!"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 11. Re: Oil | | | | by Bearpaw | | | | at Mon 21 Oct 8:39pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 9 | | | | | |
I'm surprised no one has brought oil into this yet.
I'm not. Except for the really heavy-duty brand loyalists, it's a pretty minor sacrifice to switch caffeine sources. But rather than think about how fucked up our reliance on foreign oil is, most people in the US would rather sell their children into slavery.
(In fact, that's sort of what we're doing.)
I thought that would be a great commercial to rival the US-sponsored Buying-Drugs-Funds-Terrorist commercials.
Various folks pointed this out after the debut of those silly ads. But for some reason the comparison probably didn't make it into a lot of (auto-advertising sponsored) media.
Funny, that.
Proud member of the reality-based minority.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 18. Re: Oil | | | | by vauxhal | | | | at Mon 21 Oct 11:58pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 9 | | | | | |
If my roommate and I were independently wealthy, we would have made a commercial that traced a tax dollar from taxpayer until it bombed a wedding.
Ok, we're obnoxious, I'll give you that. It's just very frustrating to see really crappy propaganda that you don't even have to think hard about to see why it is stupid.
gold teeth and the curse of this town were all in my mouth.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 29. Re: Oil | | | | by plutocracywatch | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 7:58am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 9 | | | | | |
Something like this: Because you bought those gallons of gas, the money went to Saudi Arabia who funded the madrassahs in Pakistan, that taught hatred of all things Western to little children, who supplied the foot soldiers for the Taliban, who trained and sent the 9/11 hjijackers who killed 3000 innocents. Because you bought those gallons of gas.
read
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | 23. Re: It's official. | | | | by alaffin | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 6:41am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 10 | | | | | |
um . . .
I'm pretty sure that blowing up the Marine barracks in Beirut counts as a terrorist attack. I mean OK, it's probably more accurate to call it a guirella attack and all but, well, that doesn't mean that it wasn't also terrorism.
See:
terrorism
n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments
Yeah, you could argue that there should be something about non-combatants in there but, well, honestly it seems to me that you're splitting hairs.
satire
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 67. Re: It's official. | | | | by SVDave | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 12:24pm | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 23 | | | | | |
Yeah, you could argue that there should be something about non-combatants in there but, well, honestly it seems to me that you're splitting hairs.
On the contrary, that distinction is crucial. Without it, any military activity would be considered "terrorism".
Blowing up the Marine barracks in Beirut was not a terrorist attack, because the targets were members of the military. That alone makes them legitimate military targets. The 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was a terrorist attack only because the terrorists used a plane full of civilians to execute the attack. Had the al-Qaeda agents been alone on the plane (e.g. they were FedEx employees flying a cargo plane by themselves), it would have been an act of war, but not a terrorist attack, because the Pentagon is legitimate military target (as is the White House and U.S. Capitol).
"Please turn off your spam filters and pop-up blockers prior to your ordination." - ULC
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 72. Re: It's official. | | | | by ignoblus | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 2:12pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 23 | | | | | |
The Marines were non-combatants. They were sent there as peace keepers. Peace keepers, in that particular case, amounted to nothing more than having a base there.
Michael Kinsley has also suggested that the definition require that terrorism not be conducted by official government organizations. Not to imply that official government organizations can't do things with similar effect that are just as immoral, just that we shouldn't call it terrorism. It is also how I've always understood the word.
So can "terrorism" mean acts of violence in support of political goals except when committed by a government? This sounds deeply cynical but actually makes a lot of sense. Giving governments a monopoly on violence is how we bring order out of chaos in the world.
It never was that simple, and it still isn't.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 12. An argument against apathy | | | | by Djerrid |  | | | at Mon 21 Oct 9:05pm | score of 5 astute | | | | | | |
The general consensus here seems to be, "If whatever I do contributes to the torture, rape, slaughter and slavery of untold innocents, why even bring up the subject? Why guilt trip us needlessly?"
Yes, it is true that almost every purchase you make has the chance of ruining someone's life, but I'd rather make the slight effort to have the chance to influence a life for the better than to be frozen with the fear of hurting someone, or with apathy that you will inevitably hurt someone.
For instance, I buy Hersey instead of Nestle:
In order to sell more of its infant formula in third world countries, Nestle would hire women with no special training and dress them up as nurses to give out free samples of Nestle formula. The free samples lasted long enough for the mother's breast milk to dry up from lack of use. Then mothers would be forced to purchase the formula but, being poor, they would often mix the formula with unsanitary water or 'stretch' the amount of formula by diluting it with more water than recommended. The result was that babies starved all over the Third World while Nestle made huge profits from this predatory marketing strategy.
But I can't research every company that I purchase from. When I'm standing in the isle, I want to know which would be better to take off the shelf: Pop Secret or Orville Redenbacher, Minute Maid or Tropicana, Brawny or Bounty.
What I'd like to see is a public intrest group rate the major companies and set up a sort of "morality index" to help influence my purchase. If I'm going to cut down healthy trees to wipe up my daughter's "tomato sauce art", I'd rather have the company I buy my paper towels from plant seedlings to replace their pulped trees or treat their employees better than the other company.
I'm just wary of arguments for apathetic inaction. (You know, like when Bush finally admitted that global warming's a problem but it's too late to do anything about it now.)
'In cases of major discrepancy, it's always reality that's got it wrong.' -Douglas Adams
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 20. Re: An argument against apathy | | | | by tdahnsn | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 4:28am | score of 1.5 intriguing | | in reply to comment 12 | | | | | |
"But I can't research every company that I purchase from. When I'm standing in the [a]isle, I want to know which would be better to take off the shelf: Pop Secret or Orville Redenbacher, Minute Maid or Tropicana, Brawny or Bounty."
But it makes no moral difference, you can find horrible things done by all of them. For example, Minute Maid or Tropicana: read the label, they have to disclose the source of the oranges. If they claim it's 100% Florida Oranges, then chances are that it was produced by a massive cooperative of hundreds of grove owners in Florida rather than by slave labor in South or Central America. Of course, being grown in Florida means having the run-off from the fields slowly choke off the Everglades, abusing migrant labor, and bribery of US, State, and local government officials. It's a matter of picking which is more important to you.
Morality is not qualitative. You cannot make the decision for me whether it's better to abuse migrant labor in the US or poor labor in the third world. You cannot make the decision for me that funding civil wars in sub-Saharan Africa is better or worse than the brutal and sickening condition in South American mining operations. It's all shit, but different folks can tolerate different shit.
So rather than someone rating the companies, why not go for some sort of minimum disclosure? Have companies list where the materials come from and where the products are assembled and then have the public interest groups rate locations. At least then most folks could, if they wanted to, find out just how crappy life is where the stuff we buy is assembled.
Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 25. Re: An argument against apathy | | | | by Djerrid | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 7:11am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 20 | | | | | |
Well written reply. What I'm looking for is the lesser of two or three evils. Yes, almost by definition, in order for big companies to get that big and acquire the resources that they do and stay competitive they would have to test the bounds of morality. I just want to know which business' practices are less harmful. So if I'm going to drain the everglades to get my vitamin C in the morning, I'd rather get it from Flordia's Natural if, as a co-op, they devide their profits more equally among their employees.
You are right in that morality is not quantitative and it is repugnant to reduce slave labor and selling to warlords to numbers, and gage which of the two is worse, but it is better than choosing between Tide and Gain with the flip of a coin, not knowing which is worse.
So rather than someone rating the companies, why not go for some sort of minimum disclosure? Honestly, because it would be too much damn work to to dig through the government websites and compare and contrast all of the companies and their parent companies. I know I'm passing along the buck but I'd rather have a PIRG look at the Fortune 1000 and centralize a database on them with rankings then have myself and hundreds of other individual consumers do independent work with no basis of comparison between them.
Also, if most of the resources for a product come from one place (coltan, cell phones, central Africa), then knowing where a company gets its resources won't effect who I purchase from, and consequently, I won't effect how businesses behave.
'In cases of major discrepancy, it's always reality that's got it wrong.' -Douglas Adams
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 27. Re: An argument against apathy | | | | by tdahnsn | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 7:44am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 25 | | | | | |
But which is more important to you? The environment in a national park, the treatment of migrant workers, or the treatment of Central and South American workers? Orange Juice shows just how complex the moral calculus really is. If you choose a brand made from only Florida oranges, you have to understand that you are choosing to destroy the everglades and you are choosing to buy a product from companies that abuse migrant labor (albeit, in the US) and hire undocumented aliens. If you choose one made from other oranges you're choosing between peasant abuse, deforestation, cultural imperialism, or any strange combination of evils.
So you need disclosure from manufacturers and producers about where the goods come from and some group to collect research about those places in one location that you can get to. Just having PIRG (a group with an agenda) do it won't help you make your choices.
As for resources like Coltan, would you pay more for a phone that had an alternative? How much more? At what point does the price outweigh the benefit to your conscience? Each person has to make their own choices, again, and to some the lives of Central Africans really aren't going to be worth that much. I don't mean to demean those who use cell phones, but there are limits to what people will keep in mind when buying goods. No one really keeps in mind that every time they fill their tank with some nice tasty Shell, they're keeping alive all the Bad Things done by Shell is some places. Sure they think about it sometimes, but not when they're driving downthe highway looking for a gas station.
I think it gets more complicated and overwhelms people. You realize that every consumer choice does involve some moral compromise and eventually take the moral calculus out of it because you convince yourself that it's pointless. It's not apathy, it's overwhelmed.
Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 57. Re: An argument against apathy | | | | by Djerrid | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 10:09am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 27 | | | | | |
I do agree that companies should be more transparent so that we can choose between them better. But if that law was passed tomarrow, it wouldn't help me unless the info was edited usefully. So an analysis of business' practices by a PIRG or, better yet, a consortium of independent researchers would more useful to the average consumer.
Also, the research group would not only have the "index" on display, but also the way they came about that number for each company. That way you can take the time to be more informed before you choose a company.
No matter how independent or objective they try to be, the researchers' weighing of moral issues will be biased and probably not accurately reflect your own. Here's a simple way this can be rectified: If there is a website for this research, then it could allow you to choose what factors are more important to you. For instance, on a 10 point scale you could choose the environment or women's rights to have a higher rating of importance. These ratings would then effect how the factors would be weighted. There you go, customizable morality.
Apathy is created by feeling that you are ineffectual. Feeling overwhelmed is one of the factors that induces apathy. Once you feel that you can do at least a little bit to make a difference, the viscous circle of inaction can start to be broken. I'm just sayin' that it would be helpful to know that out of two similar products with similar prices that you could choose from, which product's company was Horrible and which one is just Bad.
'In cases of major discrepancy, it's always reality that's got it wrong.' -Douglas Adams
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 35. Re: An argument against apathy | | | | by Mad Ogger | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 8:23am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 12 | | | | | |
I'm doubtful that individual shoppers making decisions like that has much effect in itself. It seems to me it would be more effective to select a single target and try to get wide participation in a boycott. Or better yet, an embargo.
Still, Angola, Sierra Leone, and such are basically thugocracies, and I don't know that an embargo would do anything to put them out of power. The Taliban didn't have any weird little unique resources, and they even gave up any income from opium, but they held on to power long enough.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 54. Re: An argument against apathy | | | | by ear to the ground | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 10:08am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 12 | | | | | |
Yes, it is true that almost every purchase you make has the chance of ruining someone's life, but I'd rather make the slight effort to have the chance to influence a life for the better than to be frozen with the fear of hurting someone, or with apathy that you will inevitably hurt someone.
I tried doing that too but I ended up drinking only water (from the tap) and not being able to drive anywhere (the library was the only ethically permissable place to go anyway). Point being, when you live in capitalist society you are pretty much damned to participate.
When a company slits throats to get ahead, they're still ahead; and 'ahead' isn't so much the measure of immediate cash profit as is your dependency.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 15. Trickle down economics | | | | by Conrad Bombora |  | | | at Mon 21 Oct 10:35pm | score of 3.5 brilliant | | | | | | |
'If you purchase a cell phone, you may very well be paying to keep the war going in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
See people "trickle down economics" does and can work.
"Must be nice to hope for the thing you wish to want... Sure beats doing it." Strangers with Candy
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 16. I hate the underlying racism of such statements. | | | | by eduardo | | | | at Mon 21 Oct 10:47pm | score of 3 compelling | | | | | | |
'If you purchase a cell phone, you may very well be paying to keep the war going in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), where rival armies fight for control
Next time I hear someone voice such a sentiment, I'll punch him in the fucking nose - it's not like they will blame me for my actions.
Here's the deal. We're all adults here and we're all responsible for our own actions. If I go to buy a cell phone, I am not sponsoring a war, I am buying a cell phone so I can call AAA when my car breaks down in the middle of the highway or I am lost or something. If this money eventually ends up in the hands of someone who buys a gun or explosives with it, the responsibility is their, not ours.
This is the white man's burden. According to this point of view, these non whites don't have the cranial capacity to figure out what's good for them. Give them five bucks and they'll buy a gun, and not food for their kids. What kind of bullshit is that? Because we're white and wester, we are called to "know better" and hold off our purchases because all the "savages" will do with it is buy weapons to kill each other? Sorry, but that's racist to me.
The blood is on the hands of those who kill. What's on my hands is a cell phone, and that's that.
To quote PWEETA: Meet is not murder.... Murder is murder..
J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 19. Re: I hate the underlying racism of such | | | | by Laputan Machine | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 12:29am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 16 | | | | | |
So, ceasing trade with Japan and Germany in WW2, while heavily supplying the Soviets, Chinese, and British provided not a single valid reason for the Japanese/Germans to consider the US their enemy?
The development and sale of nuclear/chemical weapons to anyone and everyone is now fine, as it's only the person who uses the weapons who should be held accountable?
Yeah, right. No one's blaming the consumer for the warlords, but they are saying that it's unwittingly helping them, regardless of who's shoulders final responsibility should fall on. Anyway, hardwood tables, cell phones, and diamonds are all unnecessary convienence items. Feh!
The nation is divided, half patriots and half traitors, and no man can tell which from which. - Mark Twain
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 37. Re: I hate the underlying racism of such | | | | by BigBoote66 | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 8:29am | score of 2 astute | | in reply to comment 19 | | | | | |
No one's blaming the consumer for the warlords, but they are saying that it's unwittingly helping them, regardless of who's shoulders final responsibility should fall on.
That's as disingenuous as those commercials that tell you that if you smoke marijuana, you're helping the terrorists blow up buildings. The bad guys live in a geographic area. They will move to co-opt whatever is the most most profitable business in that area. Do you think if everyone stopped buying cell phones the bad guys in the Congo would disappear from lack of funds? They'd just move to the next most profitable enterprise in that area - cash crops, drugs, slavery, whatever. Consumer boycotts of this nature are pointless (as opposed to economic embargoes of a whole nation, which actually do inflict pain on the local economy that cannot be avoided).
-BbT
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 44. Re: I hate the underlying racism of such | | | | by tevenson | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 9:32am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 19 | | | | | |
Yeah, right. No one's blaming the consumer for the warlords, but they are saying that it's unwittingly helping them, regardless of who's shoulders final responsibility should fall on. Anyway, hardwood tables, cell phones, and diamonds are all unnecessary convienence items. Feh!
From the write-up: 'If you purchase a cell phone, you may very well be paying to keep the war going in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) ...'
That sounds like blame to me. Who's keeping the war alive in the Congo? Cell phone buyers.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 61. Re: I hate the underlying racism of such | | | | by workerant | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 10:50am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 16 | | | | | |
I don't see it as racism. Think of yourself knowingly, intentionally patronizing businesses that support the Mafia. Lots of corrupt organizations derive funds from legitimate sources. I just don't want MY funds to go to them.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 22. Pepsi loves Terrorist (message sponsored by Coke) | | | | by Cathedral | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 5:41am | score of 2 astute | | | | | | |
Not to attempt to discount any of the valid and apparently very factual points and articles listed in this post, but one thing did stand out. The article about PepsiCo "sponsoring" Hezbollah is in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. If you had to list five basic things about Atlanta, one of them would be that Coca Cola Corp., headquartered in Atlanta, is a major player in that town that has direct and indirect influence over most major institutions there. I can't help but to be very suspicious that Coke is using its home town paper as a platform to bring to light any dirt it can on its competitor.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 26. Two counterpoints | | | | by LostBoyJim | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 7:14am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 22 | | | | | |
1) Just because coke may have encouraged this report doesn't make it false. Yes you should consider the source, but this is a fairly easily checked fact. The fact that Coke sold to Israel and thus was boycotted by Arab Nations, and Pepsi boycotted Israel in order to sell to said Arab nations, is well-documented.
2) I doubt it is more of Coke telling the AJC to print something, and reporters for that paper being generally more sympathetic to Coke because they are a big player in the area.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 45. Re: Two counterpoints | | | | by Cathedral | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 9:34am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 26 | | | | | |
My first line :"Not to attempt to discount any of the valid and apparently very factual points and articles listed in this post, but one thing did stand out." clearly stated that I wasn't discounting the facts stated. I do not believe the report is false. Therefore, your first counterpoint really isn't countering anything, but is a valid point.
As for your second counterpoint, I agree that the reporters in Atlanta are generally more likely to be sympathetic to Coke. However, I would ask you what you find to be more likely:
1)Coke passing on damning information about a competitor to the AJC for the AJC to investigate, hoping to smear the reputation of their mortal enemy.
2)The AJC having field reporters in Lebanon who independently decided to start researching the funding sources for a local television station. Coincidentally, their investigation found some damning information regarding their hometown's largest corporation's competitor. They then mentioned Pepsi more than any of the other corporations giving money to al-Manar and ended their article by mocking Pepsi's logo "Generation Next", because they are unbiased and beholden to no one.
While we'll most likely never know, some basic logic seems to favor one of the two options.
I don't have a problem with large corporations encouraging journalist to get some balls and get back to the fine American tradition of muckraking. In this case, I just thought bringing attention to a likely trigger for this investigation was worthy of a post.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 32. Trade & Politics | | | | by orangeguru | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 8:03am | score of 0.5 incoherent | | | | | | |
Consumers so far have never really cared about where their goods come from. Did the citizen of the English Empire really care where the cotton or tea come from?!
Consumer pressure only works if either if coordinated by fighting political parties or action groups.
Most people won't stop to destroy their enviroment or other peoples cultures just for pure reasoning/logic. Or what's the logic of driving a big SUV to carry a single person down to the gymn in a big city, so this person can do some fitness to get rid of fat?!
And politics was always keen to support trade and economics at home to keep the peace and votes. They will only care for bloody foreigners or nature if pressured to.
Power play always involved to make money, because wars need a lot of ressources. Rebels, terrorists and so called just governments - they all need money:
The IRA has long since been accused to make money out of drug trafficing.
In China and Russia armies and divisions often have their own factories and other businesses to support themselves.
etc.
If you tried to be the perfect consumer, you would hardly be able to buy anything, because even a so called fair trade product might rely on not so fair other elements in the economic chain of supply.
orangeguru
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 48. Way out from deep outfield | | | | by crowley | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 9:45am | score of 1.5 informative | | | | | | |
Here's a thought. Instead of it being the consumers who buy the goods that are supporting terrorists, dictatorships and various psychopaths with guns, maybe it's the corporations that do business with them. Maybe it's the people themselves. Do I think there's something with the fact that Nigeria is basically owned by an oil company? Yes. But the fact is, consumers don't have much of a choice in the matter. A few corporations own a huge share of the market, which means there isn't much of a choice for consumers.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 50. Why Grandmother, what puny numbers you have, | | | | by tylerh | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 9:52am | score of 2.5 compelling | | | | | | |
According to Worldwatch, the purchase of such goods has 'earned at least US$12 billion last year for rebels groups, rapacious governments, and warlords,'
$12 Billion? That's it? Isn't that the Pentagon's dental floss budget? Let's put that number into perspective. US GDP is roughly $10 Trillion. The EU is a bit bigger, Japan smaller. Let's call itll $25 Trillion. So even using Worldwatch's number, only about twentieth of penny for each dollar of first world economic activity goes to all this immorality.
Numerically, we consumers look pretty damn good: show me any other group that is moral 99.95% of the time.
Courage
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 51. Perfect Perfectionism | | | | by mrwarmth | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 9:58am | score of 1.5 brilliant | | | | | | |
When I was a teenager my family attended a fundamentalist church. They had a speaker come one Sunday to lecture us all on the evils of rock and roll music, how it was satanic, etc. He made the point that to buy the records of rock stars was exactly the same as buying their heroin and hookers for them, since without your money they couldn't sustain their lifestyle.
I'm reminded of this now by the paranoid, levitical rantings of WorldWatch. What bothers me about it all is that the emphasis isn't on providing meaningful solutions to the problems they mention, but rather on proving to the world that they are blameless and innocent.
I think a lot of activism has degenerated into exactly this kind of moral narcissism, where the goal of our action and discourse is simply to be able to establish, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we are blameless on all scores and issues. I call this levitical, because it reminds me very much fo the detailed ritual proscriptions of the Book of Leviticus.
I think we are very much the same today. The need to make the world a better place has been eclipsed by the need to display one's personal moral purity. And that's not a good development.
-Niall
Where is Ratko Mladic?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 81. Re: Perfect Perfectionism | | | | by eiger | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 6:12pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 51 | | | | | |
This is something I also have noticed a lot on message boards like this and while speaking with people of extreme left-leanings. I find it very strange when talking to these people because they seem far more concerned with some sort of purity of action or complete lack of hypocrisy than finding real world solutions to difficult situations. I assume this is an idea that has always existed (especially amongst extremists), but it seems odd to someone like myself who usually is pretty pragmatic.
Then again I thought Kerry was going to win. So, what the hell do I know?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 68. So what? | | | | by MiserableKook | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 1:02pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
This country would look like a 3rd world country and probably have the economy of one if we didn't live of the suffering of others. Everyone needs to realized that our comfort rests of the shoulders of some poor schlub in some other country. I'm sure even these activists have items that are made with the blood of some poor Vietnamese girls who gets paid in M&M's.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 75. natural resources should belong to everyone | | | | by Laputan Machine | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 3:18pm | score of 1.5 astute | | | | | | |
Guh. The natural resources of the world should belong to everyone on the PLANET. The UN should make this a law or something. It makes no sense to say "Hey, since my ancestors 300 years ago declared this land to be the property of them and all of their future descendents... I get dibs on all the resources we find in and on the land."
The benefits of all the world's natural resources should be democratically metted out to all of the world's people. As it is now, nations which have fewer valuable natural resources have to work much harder to match the economies of nations which have plenty of natural resources (see Saudi Arabia/Kuwait). Such a UN-mandated law, of course, is a pipe dream, no resource-rich nation is gonna support it. But hey.
Diamonds, gold, oil, whatever. It wasn't put in the earth by ANYONE'S nationality, and it's not like there's equal opportunity for the entire world to be the ones who extract it/sell it.
The nation is divided, half patriots and half traitors, and no man can tell which from which. - Mark Twain
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 79. Re: natural resources should belong to everyone | | | | by veschke | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 5:13pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 75 | | | | | |
"The benefits of all the world's natural resources should be democratically metted out to all of the world's people."
Now, would this be direct voting, or representative? If direct, more populous nations would clearly have an unfair advantage when it comes to the meting out part.
Pipe dream is right. There's not a chance in hell that such a scheme would ever be carried out, even if (smaller chance) it could be agreed upon. You're basically talking about a planet-wide centralized economy, and we saw how well that worked for the USSR.
I know, I know - if only they'd done it right things wouldn't have worked out like that. I say that humans being what they are, it's unlikely in the extreme that anyone else would do better.
Cynicism is the opposite of wisdom.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 83. Re: natural resources should belong to everyone | | | | by Anaximander | | | | at Tue 22 Oct 11:03pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 79 | | | | | |
You're basically talking about a planet-wide centralized economy, and we saw how well that worked for the USSR.
I know, I know - if only they'd done it right things wouldn't have worked out like that. I say that humans being what they are, it's unlikely in the extreme that anyone else would do better.
NEWS FLASH: Moscow (USSR) -- Soviet economy declared "in all likelihood, the best centralized economy ever"!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 84. A different method | | | | by doomjesse | | | | at Wed 23 Oct 12:18am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
There will always be people who want cheap goods and people willing to find shady ways to provide it. It's part of human interaction.
In the end there is an individual that is responsible for making the decision on dealing with these types of people be they diamond merchants from Sierra Leone or sweatshop owners in Thailand. I suggest if you're going to boycott, boycott individuals who make decisions. You'd be amazed if a person receives enough individual boycotting(you know protest in the C.E.O.'s neighborhood, invade shareholder meetings, stuff like that) how quickly some things can be changed.
On the other hand be expecting 10 people to take the place of every one you take down. Just ask the cocaine cartels. Ain't greed beautiful?(yes folks that's sarcasm)
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 87. Agenda - Less Commerce | | | | by Verbalicious | | | | at Wed 23 Oct 9:55am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Going by this view- anything you purchase could be a contributor to the misery of the world. And it usually is. No matter what form of politicism you follow- someone gets stepped on. The utopian societal model has never worked that I've noticed.
Boycotting has worked in the past- but imagine a world where you have to research every purchase you make- no matter how minor. World comes to standstill in an effort to be PC. Perhaps if that energy was directed toward helping people in YOUR HOMETOWN- maybe the world would be a better place in general.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | Member Login | | | |
|
