From a Friday editorial: Consumerism as recently as a decade ago, the most existential question confronting US shoppers was a simple choice between paper and plastic. This year, as Americans rush to complete their annual spending spree, they can pick from an array of products with social objectives - products defined not only by how they look, work, or taste, but also by whom they help and, often, by what they aren't.
First came cruelty-free cosmetics (not tested on animals) and free-range chickens (not stuck in cages during their brief time on earth).
Supermarkets now sell fair-trade coffee (not harvested by exploited farmers). And as of this fall, New England's two largest dairies sell milk from artificial-hormone-free cows. Beauty products purport to raise money for research on breast and prostate cancer.
A new, Bono-blessed collection of red iPods and T-shirts supports anti-AIDS efforts in Africa.
This trend shows that people care about the economic, environmental, and health consequences of their purchases. Then again, such products may contribute to a guiltless form of gluttony.
They soothe the consciences of people who are uneasy about their own consumption - but not so uneasy that they give up shopping altogether.
Earlier this decade, rebel groups in Angola and West Africa sold diamonds to finance their war-making. This year, the diamond industry has been running a PR campaign highlighting efforts by governments and diamond companies to keep so-called conflict diamonds off the market. This isn't a marketing gimmick, industry representatives say.
''Millions of people around the world make their living because of diamonds," said Cecilia Gardner, general counsel of the World Diamond Council. The initiative ''is important in maintaining the integrity of the supply side."
Still, some jewelers heavily promote their ''conflict-free" diamonds.
By accident or by design, the industry has created a masterpiece of aspirational marketing. If only our daily lives, and not just our precious stones, could be conflict-free!
As badness-free products proliferate, the issues confronting consumers grow ever more complex.
Which is better: a red Gap T-shirt made in Lesotho, a poor African country that would benefit if textile jobs were outsourced there, or a US-made, ''sweatshop-free" version by American Apparel? Meanwhile, pretenders are slipping in. Natural American Spirit cigarettes claim to be ''additive-free" - as if anyone who inhales burning carcinogens should worry about fillers and dyes.
Even so, one has to marvel at the sheer variety of products with social overtones. One Seattle nonprofit promotes ''sustainable" clothing made from a combination of bamboo fiber and Spandex. Earth-conscious and form-fitting?
Who knew? One hopes that the bamboo is free-range, and the Spandex cruelty-free.
From a Friday editorial in the Raleigh News Observer: Papers just released on FBI surveillance of the late John Lennon serve to remind us of the old but wise cautionary note about studying history so that mistakes can be avoided in the future.
It's been known for some time that the late J. Edgar Hoover's FBI was under the direction of an eccentric who liked to focus on juicy tidbits about movie stars and civil rights leaders, along with, of course, the personal lives of the Kennedys. Hoover's agency did some good work, to be sure, and still does today.
But for a time there in in the activist '60s and '70s, the blue suits of the FBI were assigned some ill-considered tasks.
In the case of Lennon, a free-spirited Beatle who supported liberal causes, the FBI followed the efforts of two British leftists to persuade him to lend them financial backing. He didn't, but the bureau watched.
(The documents were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. They previously had been withheld because of, unbelievably, national security.)
The agency even wrote up reports on interviews Lennon had given, which calls to mind the files found in some government archives wherein newspaper stories had been clipped and classified -- after being read by hundreds of thousands of people.
In the days when Lennon, who was shot to death in 1980 by a deranged fan, was active, being a rock 'n' roller could be enough to get you in the FBI's files. That was a waste of the government's time and the people's money. Not to mention that most of these show-biz folks were concentrating on their music and their movies and their money and wouldn't have been inclined to organize and overthrow a lemonade stand, much less the government.
The information in these documents simply goes to show how far-fetched were some of Hoover's ideas about security risks, and how dangerous it was to have such an individual in charge of this important and powerful agency.
News RSS