More on Marketing Manipulation

Photo Credit: Asif Akbar at stock.xchng

Consumers are easily manipulated. No matter how savvy we think we are, we fall for many of the tricks advertisers and marketers use to sell products to us. We don't believe those "Going Out of Business Sale" signs that are permanent fixtures in some store windows, but we will succumb to just the right color, the right descriptive word, or perhaps the right scent. Here are several articles that may make you rethink just how sophisticated your choices are when you make purchasing decisions.

"Does This Smell Clean to You? - Products Bring Aromatherapy To Household Chores; Don't Say 'Banana'"

"Forget lemon and pine. People are fumigating their homes with exotic essences of ginger and hibiscus while scrubbing floors and bathtubs. That's because packaged-goods makers, in their endless hunt for the new and improved, are ramping up the complexity of product fragrances. Adding an elaborate bouquet that consumers crave to a product line helps build loyalty, marketers say. . . .Mr. Clean has New Zealand Springs, promising 'ferns, forests and glacier-carved waterfalls.' No matter that consumers may not know what a glacier-carved waterfall actually smells like. 'They're fanciful. You want to evoke a feeling or emotion, like when you're out in a meadow,' says Deborah Betz, a senior fragrance development manager at International Flavors & Fragrances, an industry supplier. 'It doesn't have to smell like an actual meadow.'"

Read more here to learn how the colors you see on the fashion runways and foods that are currently popular also affect the scents in cleaning products. It's a safe bet that these same factors influence personal hygiene products and cosmetics, too -- even organic ones.

"7 Reasons Why Diamonds Are a Waste of Your Money"

"Ira Weissman is a diamond industry veteran with a decade of experience at one of the world's largest diamond polishers. He has traveled the world buying and selling diamonds and now dedicates his time to helping consumers make the most of their diamond buying decisions."

The focus of the article is on the diamond engagement ring: Long-standing tradition? No. Great investment. No. Good way to stall when avoiding a marriage commitment? Possibly. Read the list to see if you want to rethink how you feel about diamonds in general.

"Cheap Clothing Costs a Lot More Than You Think"

I've posted in the past about the complex dilemma of cheap products produced under horrific conditions in foreign countries and sometimes in the U.S. (here's one previous post).  Elizabeth Cline is the author of a new book entitled “Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion” (I have not read it yet) in which she explains that the high volume/cheap labor/cheap materials business model has resulted, as most of us already know, in human suffering and negative environmental impact. "Cline states that 'There are very few middle-market brands and retailers and everything has become very cheap or irrationally expensive on the other end.' Leaving little room for quality products that don’t cost a fortune, most of us fall victim to clothing items we know aren’t the best sourced, yet we buy them anyway."

The article promotes www.fashioningchange.com, a website offering free shopping links and information about "stylish, eco-friendly and ethical alternatives to top name brands." My personalized recommendations look good enough for me to investigate further and probably purchase a few items. Read more here.

*********

And one final note: The Thoughtful Consumer blog celebrated its 6th anniversary on August 3rd. Thanks to all of you who read and comment!

Five Aggressive Advertising Techniques

A thought-provoking update to my previous post about facial recognition software:

"5 Sci-Fi Ad Techniques That Are About to Make Life Creepier," a post on Cracked.com, lists some surprising methods, including facial recognition, that will affect -- or already are affecting -- how advertisers reach us:

1. Ads that literally whisper in your ear
2. Billboards that watch you back
3. Digitally editing product placement into old TV reruns
4. Eavesdropping on your phone calls
5. Eavesdropping through your computer

Notice this startling ad for Amnesty International that's mentioned in category #2; technology can be put to work for non-profits, too.

But have we gone too far? Of course, even if we have, there's no turning back now. Do you think these techniques will make you more susceptible to the ads you see or might your awareness make you resentful of the advertisers? Do you have greater concerns about your privacy? Will you alter your shopping behavior or use of technology now that you know what's going on? Is "1984" almost here?

Advertising to Children: Geo Girl Make-up

Does an eight-year-old girl need an anti-aging face cream? WalMart thinks so.

Geo Girl is a line of "natural make-up and skin care" in recyclable containers. The target users: girls eight to twelve, also known as "tweens." The products were scheduled to launch in WalMart stores this week but have not yet appeared on the shelves.

Make-up for kids is just a slight modification of a phenomenon started with the 2006 make-up line from Ashley and Mary-Kate Olsen. It was successfully marketed for teens although it also proved to have pre-teen appeal. But the twins extraordinaire have grown up and refocused on a fashion empire, and their followers are now all old enough to pop for "real" make-up. Marketers needed to move on, but this time why not include an even larger group of potential customers who already spend about $24 million per year on make-up? Most of this tween money is spent on lip gloss, eye shadow and mascara. According to an ABC News report, mascara use in that age group increased from 10% to 18% in 2009.

The report has much more to say on the subject of young girls and make-up, including concerns about skin damage from inappropriate use of exfoliators on youthful faces and possible psychological damage from pressure to be beautiful and sexy at an age when those demands are premature. You can watch the entire 6-minute video in the link, but here's one obvious conclusion:

"We are raising another generation of girls who kind of measure their self-worth based on what's on the outside," Dr. Logan Levkoff, author of the book Third Base Ain't What it Used to Be said to "Good Morning America."

Make-up is just part of the challenge. Young girls are confronted daily with advertising and media input that insists that they should be concerned with how they look. The NYU Child Study Center offers this disturbing information in an article entitled "How to Raise Girls with Healthy Self-Esteem:"

• Eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression are the most common mental health problems in girls. 
• 59% of 5–12th grade girls in one survey were dissatisfied with their body shape.
• 20–40% of girls begin dieting at age 10.
• By 15, girls are twice as likely to become depressed than boys.
• Among 5–12th graders, 47% said they wanted to lose weight because of magazine pictures.
• Health risks accompany girls' drop in self-esteem due to risky eating habits, depression, and unwanted pregnancy.
• Girls aged 10 and 12 are confronted with "teen" issues such as dating and sex, at increasingly earlier ages. 73% of 8–12–year-olds dress like teens and talk like teens.
• 20–40% of girls begin dieting at age 10.
• By 15, girls are twice as likely to become depressed than boys.
• Among 5–12th graders, 47% said they wanted to lose weight because of magazine pictures.
• Health risks accompany girls' drop in self-esteem due to risky eating habits, depression, and unwanted pregnancy.  
• Girls aged 10 and 12 are confronted with "teen" issues such as dating and sex, at increasingly earlier ages. 73% of 8–12–year olds dress like teens and talk like teens.

The countermeasures to all these sad statistics are in the hands of parents. There's a list of specific suggestions in the report (such as open communication about the issues, good role modelling, avoiding stereotyping), but the conclusion is:

"It is within the family that a girl first develops a sense of who she is and who she wants to become. Parents armed with knowledge can create a psychological climate that will enable each girl to achieve her full potential." 

Make-up for children is more than a consumer issue; it's an ethical issue. But how young is too young to wear it? I was surprised to learn that some parents don't find Geo Girl products objectionable. And, for the record, WalMart marketers have said that they'll be targeting the parents, not the kids, offering the make-up as a "green" alternative. Somehow that seems as disingenuous as toy manufacturers saying they target parents with their advertising.

I can't imagine the pressures that little girls feel today to be sexy. It seems such a sad loss of innocence and childhood years that should be enjoyed without that kind of burden. I'm not a parent, so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I'll try to keep an open mind, but I don't think anyone will be able to convince me that an eight-year old needs anti-aging cream.

© 2011 Cynthia Friedlob
Image credit: Sonia Castro at StockXchng

Juxtapositions: $11 Million Christmas Tree and a Global Perspective on Children

If you're not concerned about keeping your holiday spending under control, hop onto your private jet and go check out a self-proclaimed "seven star" hotel, the Emerites Palace in the United Arab Emirate. They tipped the scales of extravagance almost beyond imagining when they installed this year's Christmas tree a few days ago:

It is the "most expensive Christmas tree ever," with a "value of over 11 million dollars," said Hans Olbertz, general manager of Emirates Palace hotel, at its inauguration. The 13-metre (40-foot) faux evergreen, located in the gold leaf-bedecked rotunda of the hotel, is decorated with silver and gold bows, ball-shaped ornaments and small white lights.

But the necklaces, earrings and other jewellery draped around the tree's branches are what give it a record value. It holds a total of 181 diamonds, pearls, emeralds, sapphires and other precious stones, said Khalifa Khouri, owner of Style Gallery, which provided the jewellery.

"The tree itself is about 10,000 dollars," Olbertz said. "The jewellery has a value of over 11 million dollars -- I think 11.4, 11.5."

But, upon reflection, the hotel decided that this tower of luxury gone wild might not have been such a great idea after all:

. . . the hotel now regrets "attempts to overload the tradition followed by most hotels in the country with meanings and connotations that do not fall in line with the professional standards" of the hotel.

"Putting the Christmas tree is not a novelty, rather it is a tradition meant to share in celebrating occasions guests hold while they are away from their home countries and families," the Gulf News daily quoted a hotel statement as saying.

This tradition "is within the framework of the UAE's policy which is based on the values of openness and tolerance," the hotel added.

I'm not sure what the "professional standards of the hotel" have to do with it, but I think somebody realized that a tree with decorations worth $11 million could be perceived as a bit gauche, especially when viewed in the context of a world full of major economic crises. Fortunately, after the holidays the hotel can go back to its lower key existence as the only place outside of Germany (who knew?) with a "gold to go" vending machine.

* * * * * * * * *

Those of you who would like a global view of how the rest of humanity lives might be interested to take a look at Where Children Sleep, a recently published fabulous book by photographer James Mollison. He travelled extensively to gather his material and quickly realized that not every child has what most of us probably would consider a traditional bedroom:

Where Children Sleep presents English-born photographer James Mollison's large-format photographs of children's bedrooms around the world--from the U.S.A., Mexico, Brazil, England, Italy, Israel and the West Bank, Kenya, Senegal, Lesotho, Nepal, China and India--alongside portraits of the children themselves. Each pair of photographs is accompanied by an extended caption that tells the story of each child: Kaya in Tokyo, whose proud mother spends $1,000 a month on her dresses; Bilal the Bedouin shepherd boy, who sleeps outdoors with his father's herd of goats; the Nepali girl Indira, who has worked in a granite quarry since she was three; and Ankhohxet, the Kraho boy who sleeps on the floor of a hut deep in the Amazon jungle. Photographed over two years with the support of Save the Children (Italy), Where Children Sleep is both a serious photo-essay for an adult audience, and also an educational book that engages children themselves in the lives of other children around the world.

Sample photos are here; be sure to scroll down to read the captions. This is the kind of book that can provide perspective, a particularly valuable and often scarce commodity at this time of year for most of us -- even folks who can afford an $11 million Christmas tree.

© 2010  Cynthia Friedlob

Image credit: Bogdan Munteanu at stock.xchng

Blog Action Day: Water

Consumer choices may feel personal, but they're always global. Whatever we do has some impact on everyone else, even if it's indirect. That thought is rather mindboggling and can make us feel paralyzed with indecision or resentful that we're supposed to be so darn responsible when we've got plenty of other thoughts to occupy our minds that have immediate impact on our own lives, thank you very much. That's why I want to take a different approach to my participation in this year's Blog Action Day. The topic is water. Over 4,000 bloggers will be discussing it in their posts today, covering every facet of the issue. But here at The Thoughtful Consumer, first let's just cut to the chase:

(1) There's not enough water in many parts of the world and often when there is enough, it's not readily available or clean.

 (2) if you're reading this blog, you're undoubtedly one of the lucky people who has access to water by simply turning on a tap. You're also probably quite aware that there are things that you can do to conserve water (maybe you're even doing many of them) and that there are charities that are working very hard to provide water for people who desperately need it (Drop in the Bucket is a favorite of mine that I've mentioned in the past).

And now, rather than focusing in more detail on the substantial and often tragic problems that the world faces concerning water, or even on other charities or specific solutions to those problems, I'd simply like to offer some images of water that, I hope, will make all of us feel gratitude and will inspire us to find a way to help share this crucial, life-giving natural resource that belongs to everyone.

Please enjoy, contemplate, then do whatever feels right:



(c) 2010 Cynthia Friedlob
All images from Stock.Xchng

Juxtapositions: Executive Compensation and Poverty Guidelines

Let's start with a simple, reasonable premise: everybody wants to be comfortable and happy.

Now let's figure out what that means. How much money do you need to live comfortably? How much stuff? And how do money and stuff affect your happiness?

I've discussed these topics on numerous occasions, including in an interview by Alex Fayle on his helpful Someday Syndrome website as well as in my book. Everyone has different answers to the questions, but I was prompted to think about them again by a Los Angeles Times article today about the pay scale of media moguls that demonstrates just how huge the disparity of wealth is in the U.S right now. At one extreme:

Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Bob Igor collected a package worth nearly $24 million for 2009. Philippe Bauman, who manages Viacom Inc., which includes the MTV networks, Comedy Central and Paramount Pictures, got an almost 22% raise to $34 million. CBS Corp. chief Leslie Moonless' pay more than doubled to $43.2 million. [The article consistently spells Les Moonves' name incorrectly.] News Corp.'s Rupert Murdoch topped $22 million, and Time Warner Inc.'s Jeffrey Beaks received nearly $20 million.

At the other extreme: the Health and Human Services Department 2009/10 federal poverty guidelines state that a family of four is at the poverty level if their income is at or below $22,050 per year (about $1838 per month). The guideline amount is the same no matter where you live.

We know that those highly compensated executives are doing just fine, but let's see how a family of four living at the poverty level would fare here in Los Angeles. According to rent.com:

If you want to live in the City of Angels, you have to pay a premium. The overall cost of living here is 33% above the national average, with housing costs tending to be among the most expensive in the nation.

In the city of Los Angeles, the median cost for apartment rentals was $1699 for Q1 2008. Prices are lower in the valleys, higher in Santa Monica and other areas near the beach. That's the rent for a one-bedroom apartment, clearly not a comfortable arrangement for a family of four. We'd have to up the price by at least $100 to get another bedroom.
 
The most recent statistics I could find about the cost of feeding a family of four are from the USDA in 2003/2004:
 

Average yearly expenditures on food in U.S. urban households increased between 2003 and 2004. Over the period, annual per capita spending on food rose from $2,035 to $2,207. The 2004 average comprises $1,347 spent on food consumed at home and $860 spent on food consumed away from home. These amounts reflect a year-to-year increase of 7.9 percent in food-at-home expenditures and 9.3 percent in food-away-from-home expenditures.

 
We can safely assume that costs have increased, along with everything else, in the last five years, but we'll work with these figures. (Here's a related article from the USDA about "food insecurity," i.e., households with the inability to provide nutritious meals on a regular basis. This situation affected about 11% of U.S. households in 2007; it seems likely that more are affected now.)
 
So, that's rent at an average of $1799 per month (for two bedrooms) and food costs at ($184 per month per person x four people) $736. We're up to $2,535 per month for food and shelter, leaving nothing for everything else: utilities, telephone, clothing, transportation, child care and medical expenses.
 
Minimum wage in California is currently $8.00 per hour. A forty hour work week would gross $320 or approximately $1386 per month, not even enough for food and shelter. Clearly there needs to be income from more than one job.
 
Well, we might as well forget the rest of the math and the scraping together of pennies so eloquently explained by Barbara Ehrenreich in her book, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. For poor families, just staying afloat is an almost impossible challenge.
 
But what do the ultra-rich folks do with the huge amount of "disposable income" that they have? They may start charitable foundations, endow universities or otherwise share their money generously, but they all definitely acquire the trappings of wealth: stuff -- houses, wardrobes, cars, airplanes, jewelry, the latest technological toys, maybe even a private island.
 
While I doubt that any of us would want to live on poverty's edge, in constant fear for our very survival, I also doubt that we'd assume that being ultra-rich would guarantee happiness (witness the divorces, custody battles, intra-family power struggles, alcoholism, drug addictions and suicides among the rich for proof that's not the case). It would be disingenuous to claim that life wouldn't be easier or more pleasant with tons of money, but how much money is enough? How much stuff is enough?
 
I'd like to hear what you think. How much do you need to be comfortable? What are the qualities of life that affect your happiness?
 
© 2010 Cynthia Friedlob 
Photo credit: foxumon at stock.xchng.hu

Counterfeits and Consumers

Consumers already have enough trouble trying to make responsible choices without adding the burden of worrying about avoiding counterfeit goods. Unfortunately, thanks to fact that people are flawed creatures, counterfeit products often invade the marketplace because their manufacturers hope to make a quick buck. While this is certainly unfair to legitimate manufacturers and trusting consumers of such commonly counterfeited things as handbags or watches, it can be deadly if the counterfeit product is a condom.

Of course, it's highly unlikely that anyone would choose to purchase fake condoms (we know that some less-discriminating people do make that choice for handbags and watches), but what happens if the packaging is good enough to fool an unsuspecting consumer into buying the fakes? That consumer runs the risk of contracting or spreading sexually-transmitted diseases, including HIV.

When I saw the article, "China's Latest Scandal is Counterfeit Condoms," on today's LA Times website, I thought I'd investigate further. What I discovered is that the condom scandal is nothing new. The press has been talking about it for years. Here's a timeline of reporting about the issue, using just a sample of articles from various sources:

2005 March 17 - The BBC News reported that thousands of fake condoms had hit the market in the UK.

2006 December 4 - The Guardian published an article about counterfeit drugs that included this reference to counterfeit condoms:

A few years ago, Durex executives were astonished to discover pirated condoms bearing their brand name on the production line of a prospective Chinese partner's factory. "It sparked a discussion among the visitors about whether they had found the perfect supplier," said Calum MacLeod, a consultant to Durex at the time. "But from a corporate ethics point of view, it was not realistic."

2007 December 19 - ConsumerAffairs.com cited condoms as one of many products on a list of high risk drug and medical items. The article also stated:

[Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael] Leavitt signed two agreements with the Chinese government last week that puts the onus on the Chinese and their manufacturers rather than the beleaguered inspectors of the dozen U.S. agencies responsible for imported goods. . . Despite the strong language of the accords and the report, Leavitt did not hail it as a victory or even a long-term cure. . . The Chinese grudgingly agreed to these accords in the face of a more than year-long public relations disaster and it may be difficult getting them to follow through because most reports out of the country reveal that agency leaders don't actually believe there is a serious problem.

2008 June 3 - Tu Salud, The Latino Wellness Magazine, reported about the discovery of sales of millions of fake Chinese condoms in discount stores in New York. (They referenced a May 5th Newsday story that's no longer available online.)

2009 November 11 - UPI.com posted a story about a factory in Hunan Province that had manufactured more than two million counterfeit condoms in the previous eight months:

Four people were arrested at the factory which was distributing illicit condoms nationwide that provided little or no protection and carried the risk of both pregnancy and disease. . . Authorities say when they entered the factory they saw bare-chested employees using vegetable oil to lubricate the condoms and putting them into fiber bags without any sterilization.

2010 January 21 - The LA Times article I mentioned earlier references incidents dating back to 2008 and concludes with a comment about how the Chinese government has handled counterfeiting (italics are mine):

"Given the vast size and complexities of the society, it is not surprising that there continue to be problems with product quality," said Zha Daojiong, a professor at Peking University's School of International Studies. "Back in the early 1990s, the Chinese government repeatedly launched 'strike hard' campaigns -- throwing those involved in producing and selling below-quality products to years in jail.". . But, he added, proper monitoring systems cost money, resulting in higher prices. . ."It's impossible to have enhanced surveillance on the cheap," Zha said. "A genuine dialogue [needs] to take place between the government and the populace at large [about] the costs the average consumer is prepared to pay."

The Chinese government has been trying to stop the manufacture of these counterfeit products since at least the early 1900s according to this article, but I have no doubt that it's been an issue much longer than that. I also think it's safe to assume that there are plenty of credible articles in the press about Chinese counterfeit items that pre-date the few I've listed from the last five years. We've been adequately informed. But the significant issue now is that increased trade with China has resulted in the importing of many more types of items in much greater quantities than ever before. And if the general perception in China is that counterfeiting is not a significant problem, then the risks associated with buying certain Chinese products are substantial.

How do we cope with these kinds of threats? Making sure that we're aware of them through the work of a vigilant press is the first crucial step. Obviously, there are certain governmental restrictions that can be imposed on imports. More extensive and thorough safety inspections of imports can help, too. We live in a global economy, so we can't always buy American-made goods; also, some goods labelled as made in this country use parts or materials imported from other countries. And there's always the possibility that counterfeit products can be made right here, too. It's enough to kick a person's paranoia up a notch or two.

But I also think that the Chinese professor's observation in the LA Times article touches on part of the problem: are consumers always going to choose the least expensive option or will we be willing to pay more in order to get better (in this case, safer) products?

Lots of us are watching our spending more closely now because of the economic crisis that has affected the majority of our population. That means shopping for "bargains." But cheap isn't always a bargain. As a society, we need to make an important shift in our thinking and realize that buying fewer things of higher quality from trusted manufacturers (or, in the case of some products, from local sources) is better than buying lots of things of shoddy, or perhaps even unsafe, quality.

Consumer decisions are often more complicated than they seem on the surface, but there's nothing to debate when it comes to avoiding dangerous counterfeit products. We can't control all of the factors that allow them to get to market, but to be safe, we can and must make reasonably informed decisions when we're shopping for food, drugs and other medical items.

So, let's kick that paranoia back down where it belongs and remember that thoughtful consumers just do the best we can to avoid fakes. Like the song says, "Ain't nothin' like the real thing."

© 2010 Cynthia Friedlob
Photo credit: seesky @ stock.XCHNG

Connections: Cadmium-Tainted Children's Jewelry and Why We Should Still Buy Newspapers

China is a country intent on growth from increasing exports but, whether through ignorance, carelessness or greed, it has a history of selling contaminated products, such as toothpaste, cough syrup and melamine-tainted milk. When they arrive in the U.S., all of those products fall under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration, the federal agency charged with the daunting task of regulating and ensuring the safety of food, drugs and many other products that affect our health.

Many other consumer products, including toys and jewelry, are the concern of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, another agency with a gigantic task involving the protection of the American public. Because of China's woeful record with deadly exported food, it should come as no great surprise that companies in China have been selling dangerous cadmium-laden inexpensive children's jewelry and trinkets to the U.S. Recent studies indicate that cadmium may be more toxic than lead to the developing brains of very young children. It was rather astonishing that the public response from at least one Chinese jewelry seller just a day after the Associated Press broke this story was that using cadmium cuts costs and profit was the only concern for the makers (see this article):

"Business is business, and it's all up to our client," said He Huihua, manager of the Suiyuan Jewelry Shop at International Trade City in Yiwu, a sprawling wholesale mecca where sellers pitch their wares in hopes of landing a lucrative export contract."

The response by U.S. retailers was swift. Wal-Mart pulled the jewelry immediately and other retailers followed suit. I would imagine that Wal-Mart, so often the big corporate "bad guy" in consumer stories, enjoyed having an opportunity to take an indisputably correct stance:

"Melissa Hill, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., called the AP findings 'troubling.' She said the company, which is the world's largest retailer, had a special responsibility 'to take swift action, and we are doing so.'"

AP writers Justin Pritchard and Jeff Donn also reported:

"U.S.-based trade groups, as well as distributors and sellers of the jewelry containing cadmium, said their products meet safety standards. Cadmium is regulated in painted toys but not in jewelry. . . 'This is just the latest example of the need for stronger consumer safety laws in this country, especially for products manufactured and marketed for children, and shows yet again why products from China should be subject to additional scrutiny,' said Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat."

What an interesting, complex story that involves government agencies, corporations, and most significantly and wonderfully, at least to me, the press:

1. Cadmium, a hazardous metal, is not federally regulated when used in jewelry, information reported in the press when this story broke, resulting in many calls for such regulation.

2. Children's jewelry that was saturated with the metal (sometimes as much as 90% of its content) was manufactured in China because using the metal was cheap, as the press discovered through their own AP-funded investigation and research.

3. The press reported that the jewelry was being exported to major U.S. retailers whose primary appeal to the public is offering inexpensive goods.

4. The retailers stopped selling the jewelry, we hope for wholly for ethical and responsible reasons, but also certainly to avoid a public relations nightmare in the press.

5. Consumers are being alerted by the press so that they can get rid of the tainted jewelry before their children are harmed.

Internet lovers (and, obviously, I like being online, too), please take note that it was the Associated Press that broke this story. The AP, a mainstream media giant, was founded in 1846. Here's its mission statement (italics are mine):

"AP's mission is to be the essential global news network, providing distinctive news services of the highest quality, reliability and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed. AP operates as a not-for-profit cooperative with more than 4,000 employees working in more than 240 worldwide bureaus. AP is owned by its 1,500 U.S. daily newspaper members. They elect a board of directors that directs the cooperative."

Those daily newspapers are suffering right now, cutting back reporters and columnists, and struggling to provide a crucial service to all of us.

Even the most noble government servants must deal with bureaucracies and political agendas, and even the most benevolent corporations are beholden to stockholders and profit motives, but a truly free press is the thoughtful consumer's best friend.

The LA Times. The New York Times. The Washington Post.

Your paper?

© 2010 Cynthia Friedlob
Photo credit: Lusi at Stock.XCHNG

Blog Action Day: Climate Change

The challenge facing a call to action to deal with climate change is that the issue is not an obvious problem on a daily basis. We might notice an unseasonal heat wave, or be inconvenienced by a drought that restricts our water usage; we might even have an intellectual awareness that the issue is a serious one, but most average consumers in our country don't really suffer as a result of it -- not yet.

The majority of people probably don't even see much of a connection between consumerism and climate change, but it exists. Every product that we consume requires not only the ingredients or components of the product itself, but also a manufacturing and distribution process for those components and the final product, all which have some sort of environmental impact. Often there's also an environmental effect during or immediately after the consumption of the product.

Probably the most obvious example that contributes to the climate change problem: a car. When we buy a car, we're not just buying transportation; we're buying the various metals, glass, fiberglass, rubber, etc. that were used to build the car, as well as the manufacturing process itself. Then we need fossil fuels to run the car. Fuel requires not only raw materials (which are extracted in an environmentally unfriendly way), but also plants to process them (also not environmentally friendly). When fuel is burned in the car (and in the giant tanker trucks used to deliver the fuel to our gas stations), the waste product contributes to pollution. The Environmental Defense Fund states, "U.S. autos emit more than 333 million tons of carbon dioxide each year, more than one-fifth of the nation's total carbon dioxide emissions. Any serious effort to fight global warming must include cutting auto emissions." (Click here for a detailed analysis on the EDF site about how cars contribute to global warming.)

Everything that we consume has some kind of environmental consequences, so limiting our consumption seems to be a simple way to lessen our negative impact (our carbon footprint) on the environment. And because we are such a wealthy society, our impact is substantial. Global Issues reported that "using the latest figures available, in 2005, the wealthiest 20% of the world accounted for 76.6% of total private consumption. The poorest fifth just 1.5%" (See Material World: A Global Family Portrait, one of my favorite books, for some startling images that show the differences between us and consumers in other cultures.)

We may not have a lot of time to make changes in our patterns of consumption in order to halt and perhaps reverse the climate change trend. A recent British study predicts that the polar ice caps will be gone in twenty years. "Remove the Arctic ice cap and we are left with a very different and much warmer world. . . Loss of sea ice cover will 'set in motion powerful climate feedbacks which will have an impact far beyond the Arctic itself' . . . This could lead to flooding affecting one quarter of the world's population, substantial increases in greenhouse gas emission from massive carbon pools and extreme global weather changes."

Well, that would get our attention, but let's not wait that long. We can get involved right now by supporting these or many other fine organizations that are making efforts to deal with climate change:

The Nature Conservancy

Greenpeace

Oxfam

There are also opportunities for political involvement here:

350.org (sponsors of the International Day of Climate Action, October 24th)

TckTckTck (a cooperative umbrella organization working for an international agreement to address this issue at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, December 7-18, 2009. You can read more about the UN's effort to make this deal happen.)

And you can check out the other 7900+ blogs from all over the world that are participating in Blog Action Day. [Update at 4:00 p.m. Pacific Time: over 10,000 bloggers are participating and the event was kicked off by a topical post from UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown.]

I know, it seems a little overwhelming. I've written in the past about "shopper's compassion fatigue," that oppressive feeling of the weight of the world on our shoulders that we can get when trying to make the "right" decision about what to buy, or whether to buy at all. But as long as we're all traveling together on this small planet, it seems like a good idea to do what we can to keep that planet healthy enough to take care of us. And nobody ever said that being a thoughtful consumer was easy.

© 2009 Cynthia Friedlob

Going Wrong Going Green, Part 2

Synchronicity, according to Dictionary.com, is "a coincidence of events that seem to be meaningfully related." After my previous post, I haven't been searching for more examples of the complexity of the decision-making process when you want to be a thoughtful consumer, but the LA Times had two articles today that relate to the topic. Synchronicity? Why not?

First, fabric. Let's consider the fact that many consumers who think of themselves as concerned and aware disdain anything other than "natural" fabrics like cotton, yet "Hard Truths about Uzbek Cotton," an opinion piece written by Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), details the plight of children forced to pick cotton in Uzbekistan, the world's third largest exporter of cotton -- cotton that ends up in our marketplace.

"Unlike most instances of forced child labor in agriculture, this mass mobilization is not driven by exploitative plantation owners or desperate families but by the government. . . Consumers and companies in the West prop up this monstrous system by unwittingly purchasing cotton harvested by forced child labor. Supply chain analysts have determined that most Uzbek cotton is sold to countries in South Asia and Eastern Europe. From there, the cotton is processed and turned into garments sold in retail stores in the United States, Canada and Western Europe."

Is child slave labor cotton any more acceptable than blood diamonds? No.

And don't think that buying "organic cotton" necessarily solves the problem. Erik Cussack's "Organic Cotton" blog has interesting posts about fake organic cotton that's being sold as the real thing and about genetically-modified organic cotton from India. Also, if organic cotton fabric is dyed with toxic chemicals, which does happen, that defeats its purpose. There's also a cost factor if you're purchasing most legitimate organic cotton goods; not everyone can afford a $35 T-shirt.

The next issue may sound amusing, but it really isn't: toilet paper. Reporter David A. Fahrenthold wrote, "Environmentalists Target Plush Toilet Paper," in which he explains that "plush U.S. toilet paper is usually made by chopping down and grinding up trees that were decades or even a century old. Environmentalists want Americans, like Europeans, to wipe with tissue made from recycled paper goods."

Although toilet paper and facial tissues account for only 5% of the products made from "the forest goods industry," do we really want to cut down a single old growth tree so that we can have three-ply toilet paper? No.

And finally, before I put to rest, at least for awhile, the problems inherent in going green, I want to close with some information I just happened to come across recently having to do with ethanol, which has been touted as as a biofuel alternative to gasoline. In 2008, the U.S. and Brazil produced 89% of the supply of ethanol fuel; Brazil has been nicknamed "the Saudi Arabia of biofuels."

From Wikipedia: "Because it is easy to manufacture and process and can be made from very common crops such as sugar cane, potato, manioc and corn, in several countries ethanol fuel is increasingly being blended as gasohol or used as an oxygenate in gasoline. Bioethanol, unlike petroleum, is a renewable resource that can be produced from agricultural feedstocks."

This makes it an appealing commodity to environmentalists. But, it turns out that, in addition to potential ecological problems affecting water quality (see the NY Times) and the contamination of grain fed to livestock (see Minnesota Public Radio), once again the human cost must be considered.

According to an LA Times article by Patrick J. McDonnell from June, 2008, "[m]ore than 300,000 farmworkers are seasonal [sugar] cane cutters in Brazil, the government says. By most accounts, their work and living conditions range from basic to deplorable to outright servitude. . . In its annual report, Amnesty International last month highlighted the plight of Brazil's biofuel workers, more than 1,000 of whom were rescued in June 2007 after allegedly being held in slave-like conditions at a plantation owned by a major ethanol producer. . . Although slavery cases tend to grab headlines, advocates say laborers typically face more quotidian abuse -- low pay, excessive work hours, inadequate safety gear, an absence of sanitary and health services, and exposure to pesticides and other toxic chemicals."

So, this is what it takes to produce one type of alternative fuel? Is that okay with everyone? No.

Unfortunately, I could list many more situations that most consumers may not be aware of, including some that I've covered in previous posts (see, for example, Fair Trade Jewelry). Clearly it's not easy to understand the complex issues surrounding every single thing we buy, to make the right decision, to do the right thing. But accepting that fact may at least help us make some decisions that we know are right:

I know for certain that I can live without that third ply.

© 2009 Cynthia Friedlob

Photo credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Going Wrong Going Green

We all like to think we’re making wise consumer decisions that are good for us and good for the Earth. We like to think we’re making informed decisions, not irrational, arbitrary ones. Okay, at least we like to think we’re giving it our best shot. Turns out that often there are trade-offs and compromises that probably don’t even occur to us when we’re making those decisions.

Here are just a few things to consider:

Sometimes the real cost of "buying American" defeats, or seriously compromises, our efforts to go green. For example, Newsweek recently reported that "[a] New Yorker leaves a smaller carbon footprint drinking a French Bordeaux shipped across the Atlantic (2.93 pounds of carbon per bottle) than drinking a Napa merlot (7.05 pounds). That's because when it comes to calculating carbon costs, the method of transportation matters as much as the distance. Shipping freight by sea generates less than half the emissions associated with airplanes and tractor-trailers."

The same shipping problem exists for groceries. Consumers have come to expect fresh produce in our stores throughout the year, so importing is the only option. But the New York Times reported that "the movable feast comes at a cost: pollution — especially carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas — from transporting the food. Under longstanding trade agreements, fuel for international freight carried by sea and air is not taxed. Now, many economists, environmental advocates and politicians say it is time to make shippers and shoppers pay for the pollution, through taxes or other measures."

But the transportation/fuel issue isn't straightforward: "The problem is measuring the emissions. The fact that food travels farther does not necessarily mean more energy is used. Some studies have shown that shipping fresh apples, onions and lamb from New Zealand might produce lower emissions than producing the goods in Europe, where — for example — storing apples for months would require refrigeration."

And how about those "green" re-usable bags we're all supposed to remember to carry into the store when we go shopping? Again, it's not so simple to figure out the benefits. From the Wall Street Journal: "'If you don't reuse them, you're actually worse off by taking one of them,' says Bob Lilienfeld, author of the Use Less Stuff Report, an online newsletter about waste prevention. . . . [and] Finding a truly green bag is challenging. Plastic totes may be more eco-friendly to manufacture than ones made from cotton or canvas, which can require large amounts of water and energy to produce and may contain harsh chemical dyes. Paper bags, meanwhile, require the destruction of millions of trees and are made in factories that contribute to air and water pollution. Many of the cheap, reusable bags that retailers favor are produced in Chinese factories and made from nonwoven polypropylene, a form of plastic that requires about 28 times as much energy to produce as the plastic used in standard disposable bags and eight times as much as a paper sack . . ."

Kind of makes you want to throw up your hands and surrender, doesn't it?

But let's not do that. Let's continue doing our best to make good decisions, but let's also remember that life is full of compromises. In fact, it's not always possible to make the "right" consumer choices because we can't always figure out what they are. Maybe realizing this is an opportunity to develop a more tolerant response to people who make choices that we don't understand. Maybe it's an opportunity to lighten up.

And maybe the whole dilemma doesn't matter all that much because if we don't start making better choices about how we relate to and care about other human beings, trust me, shopping will be the least of our problems.

© 2009 Cynthia Friedlob

Photo credit: StockVault.net

Hunger Action Month

Better late than never!

Just a quick post to let you know that September (almost gone!) is Hunger Action Month, a worthy event sponsored by Feeding America (formerly America's Second Harvest, The Nation's Food Bank Network).

Macy's, The Cheesecake Factory, United Airlines, Sony Pictures Animation and Microsoft are partners with Feeding America for this project.

Click here to read the full press release.

Click here to find out what's going on in your community.

If you're in the Los Angeles area, you can head for the "Rock a Little, Feed a Lot" concert at Club Nokia on September 29th featuring Sheryl Crow, Ben Harper and other performers in an LA Food Bank fundraiser.

The Feeding America site has a calculator that demonstrates how many meals they can provide if we skip purchasing something we don't need and donate the money we would have spent to them instead:

New shoes = 240 meals

New purse = 135 meals

Round of golf = 180 meals

A single latte = 9 meals

Wherever we are, this month can help us keep in perspective our role as consumers. If we're fortunate enough to be able to cut back a little on shopping and entertainment, we can make quite an impact on the lives of others who can't afford one thing every consumer has to buy: food.


© 2009 Cynthia Friedlob

Photo credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Stop Screaming About Health Care Reform

Watching an older man scream that he wants the government to keep its hands off his Medicare insurance has probably been the most ludicrous image I've seen in the so-called debate about health care reform.

The most disturbingly ignorant image was the woman holding a poster depicting President Obama with a Hitler-style moustache as she challenged Representative Barney Frank with the astonishing claim that the President's suggested reform is a "Nazi policy."

The visions of men openly, although legally, carrying guns (including an assault rifle) at several of the President's Town Hall meetings across the country I've found almost incomprehensible.

The biggest problem our society faces is that these are not isolated incidents. Many people are enraged, but they're also woefully ignorant. Political discourse can barely exist in this uninformed, hostile atmosphere.

As blogger Seth Godin said, the screaming of nonsense and lies "is often a tool used to balance out the lazy ignorance of someone parroting opposition to an idea that they don't understand. . . If you want to challenge the conventional wisdom of health care reform, please do! It'll make the final outcome better. But if you choose to do that, it's essential that you know more about it than everyone else, not less. Certainly not zero. Be skeptical, but be informed. . . Screaming ignorance gets attention, but it distracts us from the work at hand."

And there is serious work at hand.

Anyone who denies that health care reform is necessary must be completely out of touch with reality. Steve Lopez of the LA Times reported on a recent free clinic staged in Los Angeles by Remote Area Medical (I mentioned RAM in my August 1st post on charitable giving). He described what he saw there as "scenes from the Third World": The Forum, a huge facility that formerly housed the LA Lakers, converted into a massive medical clinic. Exhausting waits in long lines full of desperate people, often entire families, who had no insurance, not enough insurance or who were unable to pay the deductible required for the treatment they needed. Overwhelmed doctors, dentists, opticians, nurses and other support staff. And not enough time to help everyone.

Unless we were to follow the lead of the UK, Canada or France and offer universal health care -- something that won't happen in this political climate -- whatever changes are made will require many of us to continue to buy some form of health insurance. To say that we will need to be thoughtful consumers is an understatement.

So, in order to participate in this crucial debate -- and let's remember that it is a debate, not a showdown at the OK Corral -- let's at least do enough research to get the basic facts straight. I suggest starting with this very short, informative article from BBC News in which you'll learn that our current health care system is less efficient than those in the UK, France and Singapore.

Then search on-line. Thanks to the Internet, it is possible to get accurate information about the reform that's being discussed (there are no "death panels," no euthanasia for older people, no one interfering with your health care to any greater degree than it's already being interfered with right now by your insurance company, if you're fortunate enough to have one). We can go to major, reliable sources that still have journalistic integrity (thank Heaven) and read. There are no short cuts. We need to get that information and, even if it's confusing or there's a tremendous amount of it or we'd just rather do something else with our time, we need to try to understand it so that we can act to make responsible reform happen.

How do we act? Obviously not by screaming, not by spreading false rumors or innuendo, certainly not by making ridiculous and outrageous claims. Instead, click on these links to find out (if you don't already know) who represents you in the House and who represents you in the Senate and e-mail your opinions to them. Members of Congress can't act in our interest unless they know what we think.

This is no time to bow out of the decision-making process; we all must participate to make sure that we get the health care reform that we need.

Our lives depend on it.


© 2009 Cynthia Friedlob
Photo Credit: Library of Congress via PingNews
Public Health Service Nurse and Patient (pub. date: between 1918 and 1925)

You can read more and get links to many other blogs that are publishing posts on this topic today, "Elders for Health Care Reform Day." Go to www.TimeGoesBy.net.

Charity: Three Ways to Give

My last post (Small Houses, No Houses) included some disturbing information about several tent cities that have been created by people who are homeless. Who would have imagined that in 2009 our society would have tent cities that look like something out of the 1930s? At least there are finally predictions that the economy is on the upswing again. Today, an LA Times article by Don Lee said:

"The worst recession since the Great Depression could be coming to an end shortly, with a fresh [economic] report raising hopes that a recovery may be stronger than previously projected."

I hope that optimistic prediction is right, but the current global financial mess still indicates that charitable giving is needed from any of us who can afford to give it. With that in mind, here are three ideas for giving -- our cash, our clutter or our time.

(1) Donate cash: Regular blog reader Sue Sorensen alerted me to an unusual project that's being initiated in Edmonds, Washington:

"A friend, Carol Schillios, runs a nonprofit organization that provides micro-loans to women in Third World countries and runs a craft training school in Africa for young women beggars. The Fabric of Life Foundation also has a fair trade boutique on Main Street in Edmonds, WA, where I live. You will be seeing a lot of Carol in the news later this week when she moves to the roof of the boutique to promote awareness that we can all be of service to the world in our own small ways. Carol will live in a tent on the roof [for one month to encourage] one million people to send her a dollar and tell her one small thing they're doing to help their community or the world."

All the donations to the charity are tax-deductible. Carol's already camping out and will begin blogging on Monday, August 3rd. You'll be able to go "Up On the Roof with Carol" to find out more about the progress of her unique fund-raising plan. Her seven-year old foundation is currently setting up credit unions, savings cooperatives and educational training opportunities in West Africa and Viet Nam, but in the past they have worked in other countries from Kenya to Thailand. Sounds worthwhile. I hope it doesn't rain very much in Edmonds!

(2) Unclutter your home: Sometimes the most obvious and familiar charities may get overlooked or taken for granted. Goodwill has been around for over one hundred years, providing not only well-stocked stores filled with our gently used household items, but also offering job training and employment placement to disadvantaged people who truly need this assistance.

Goodwill of Southern California ranks number nine in the top ten charities with the most consecutive four-star ratings from the very useful organization, Charity Navigator, "America's premier independent charity evaluator."

As I continue uncluttering with my 365 Item Toss challenge, I'll be hauling more useless stuff to Goodwill so that those things can become useful again in someone else's life.

(3) Give your time: There are many charities that appreciate volunteers, but if you happen to be a health care professional, Remote Area Medical, "pioneers of no-cost health care," needs your help. RAM was founded in 1985 as a "non-profit, volunteer, airborne relief corps dedicated to serving mankind by providing free health care, dental care, eye care, veterinary services, and technical and educational assistance to people in remote areas of the United States and the world." This amazing volunteer group now stages special short-term health care events and expeditions in both rural and urban locations, offering free medical attention to anyone who is "uninsured, under-insured, unemployed, or under-employed."

The health care crisis in this country surpasses the housing crisis in severity. These medical angels make a tremendous difference in the lives they touch. They'll be here in Los Angeles at the Forum in Inglewood from August 11-18th.

Is there something, one small thing, we all can do, no matter what our circumstances, that will make a difference? Here's a quote that will help us answer that question:

"A bone to the dog is not charity. Charity is the bone shared with the dog, when you are just as hungry as the dog."

Jack London

U.S. adventurer, author and sailor (1876 - 1916)

© 2009 Cynthia Friedlob

Related Post: Embracing Charity in Tough Economic Times

Photo Credit: Maggie Smith
FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Thanks to Laura Moncur's Motivational Quotations

Thoughtful Education

There are times when we may feel that the whole world has landed in a hand-basket and it's headed . . . south. The darkest of those times also may make us feel that we're powerless to do anything about it. Of course, that's wrong.

Margaret Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Those of you who read this blog are part of that thoughtful group, a group which has gathered a sizable number of members over the years and continues to grow as we learn more about sustainable living.

For most of us, the first step we take as members of this group is unloading all the excess stuff we've acquired that we now realize we don't need. Recently there was an article in Real Simple online that provided a number of basic suggestions for places to donate used goods; it's worth a look in case you're not familiar with a few of the charities mentioned. I'm working on my own 365 Item Toss uncluttering challenge, so about once a week things get hauled away to be donated or trashed.

But sometimes cash is king, as they say on Wall Street (fewer people are left there to say much of anything now). And sometimes very little cash is all that's required to get very important things accomplished.

I'm particularly concerned about the horrible state of our school systems. Here in California, the situation is positively dire, but I know there are schools throughout our country that are insufficiently staffed and have few or no resources for students. This is ridiculous, in my mind. But in addition to us voting out the people who put such a low priority on education, there are many charities that give us an opportunity to help teachers and kids directly with small donations. Here are just a few:

Donors Choose

RAFT - Resource Area for Teaching

Adopt A Classroom

If you want to reach out internationally, investigate these charities:

One Laptop Per Child

The National Christina Foundation

Please click on these links to see what wonderful work these groups are doing. There are many other worthwhile organizations devoted to education, some undoubtedly in your local area.

We need well-educated children who will grow up understanding how to keep their life priorities straight, how to live in a global society, how to think creatively, how to be thoughtful consumers.

Then, in the future, maybe the world won't have to take another ride in the ol' hand-basket.

© 2009 Cynthia Friedlob

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day: Service

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was first observed as a federal holiday in 1986. In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed into law the King Holiday and Service Act, challenging Americans to transform the day into one of citizen action and volunteer service in honor of Dr. King. The results are annual service activities across the nation.

If you’d like to find out what’s going on in your community or around the country, you can sign on to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day of Service website which has over 11,400 projects registered. The slogan for the day is, “Make it a day on, not a day off.”

Even if you can’t sign up for a volunteer project in your neighborhood, there is one charitable thing that I know you can do: spend the day packing up your unnecessary clothes, dishes, toys and everything else you can get your hands on and take it all to your local charity shop a.s.a.p. There’s not much good economic news out there and, as I’ve discussed in the past, if you have any extra stuff around your home, this is definitely the time to let it go. Plenty of people who have never done so before are now turning to charities for help, so the demand for goods is high.

I’ve started my own weekend purge of extra stuff in order to donate as an act of service and to stay on track to complete my 365 Item Toss Challenge. (If you don’t know what I’m talking about, click here.) I’ve gathered up everything from extra office supplies to a few old videotapes to a bunch of perfectly serviceable old clothing to more candle holders than anyone should own -- 43 items so far and there will be more to add tomorrow. I’ll post the entire list at the end of the year, but I already know that I am not going to miss a single thing that I’m giving away and this is from a household that has pared down quite efficiently over the last few years. If you take a look around your home, I’ll bet that you’ll find some opportunities to be charitable, too. And you’ll reap the rewards of a less cluttered home.

The holiday also prompted me to wonder what opportunities for service on a larger scale are available to us. Fortunately, some programs that started back in the sixties have expanded the work they do. If you’d like to accept the challenge that President-elect Obama has put forth to make service a part of our daily lives, check out the Corporation for National Community Service to learn more about AmeriCorps, AmeriCorps VISTA, SeniorCorps, other programs and special initiatives. There are many other charities that could use your help, too. Scroll down the blog to take a look at the list I’ve posted on the right side of the page. You probably have favorite charities of your own that might appreciate some volunteer help.

I’m hopeful that soon we’ll see a significant change in the way we view ourselves in this society. We’re not just consumers, as advertisers would like us to believe; we are citizens, with all the benefits and responsibilities that entails.

So, if you’re struggling to make ends meet or feel like you’re on a treadmill without a moment to catch your breath, it’s okay to ask for and accept help. The whole point of a society is that we’re all in it together. Sometimes the most you can give is a smile to the grocery clerk or a hug to your kids.

But if you’re among the fortunate, and are honest with yourself, you'll agree that there’s enough to go around for everyone. Together, we can help re-write the lyrics to that famous old Billie Holiday song, “God Bless the Child.” Ms. Holiday and her partner, Arthur Hertzog, Jr., wrote, “Them that’s got shall get.” Let’s change that to, “Them that’s got shall give.”

© 2009 Cynthia Friedlob

The Angry Consumer: Black Friday Death at Wal-Mart

At five a.m. today, a 34-year-old Wal-Mart employee was trampled to death by bargain-hunting shoppers in Long Island, New York.

An AP report said:

"'He was bum-rushed by 200 people,' co-worker Jimmy Overby, 43, told the Daily News. "They took the doors off the hinges. He was trampled and killed in front of me. They took me down too. . . . I literally had to fight people off my back.

". . . A police statement said . . . shoppers 'physically broke down the doors, knocking [the worker] to the ground.' A metal portion of the door was crumpled like an accordion. "

. . . [Before police temporarily shut down the store], eager shoppers streamed past emergency crews as they worked furiously to save the worker's life."

Several other people were injured, including a 28-year-old pregnant woman who was knocked to the floor. She was taken to the hospital for observation.

The NY Daily News reported:

"'They were working on him, but you could see he was dead,' said Halcyon Alexander, 29. 'People were still coming through.'

"Only a few stopped."

An updated AP report added:

"'This crowd was out of control,' said Nassau police spokesman Lt. Michael Fleming. He described the scene as 'utter chaos.'

"Dozens of store employees trying to fight their way out to help the man were also getting trampled by the crowd, Fleming said. Witnesses said that even as the worker lay on the ground, shoppers streamed into the store, stepping over him.

"Kimberly Cribbs, who witnessed the stampede, said shoppers were acting like 'savages.'"

These were not people in a country ravaged by war or natural disaster, desperately trying to get food or water to keep themselves and their families alive; these people were clawing their way into a mega-store to get cheap prices on stuff. Savages, indeed.

Police are reviewing the store security videos and it is possible that there may be criminal charges brought against some shoppers.

But when does our society get indicted for making a $400 TV more valuable than a human life?

© 2008 Cynthia Friedlob

Continued . . .

At 4:30 this afternoon, the LA Times online reported that two people were shot to death at a Toys 'R' Us in Palm Desert, California. According to the Times, it was apparently "a personal dispute between two groups of shoppers."

Buy Nothing Day - November 28th

November 28, 2008, is Buy Nothing Day, an annual observance promoted by Adbusters Media Foundation, publisher of Adbusters Magazine:

"Based in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, Adbusters is a not-for-profit, reader-supported, 120,000-circulation magazine concerned about the erosion of our physical and cultural environments by commercial forces. . . We want a world in which the economy and ecology resonate in balance. We try to coax people from spectator to participant in this quest. We want folks to get mad about corporate disinformation, injustices in the global economy, and any industry that pollutes our physical or mental commons."

Check out the history of Buy Nothing Day here.

So, how do you participate in Buy Nothing Day? Buy nothing on November 28th, "Black Friday," the day after Thanksgiving and traditionally one of the biggest shopping days of the year.

Buying nothing for one day is a stuff consumption fast; it's not meant to prevent us from shopping ever again, but simply to make us aware of how much shopping we do, often without even thinking about it. And this is definitely the time to think about it.

We're in the midst of a financial meltdown and the entire structure of our society needs to be reconsidered. We can't continue to buy mindlessly (the personal financial losses of many people make that idea impossible anyway) and we can't continue to deplete Earth's natural resources mindlessly either.

We need to convert our consumption-oriented society into one that is much more nurturing and service-oriented. It will take some very wise leaders to figure out the specifics of how this will work, but it will also require a general shift in thinking so that people no longer value excessive possessions at all costs. We're seeing right now what those costs are and they're too high.

So let's hold off on shopping for just one day. Pay attention to how it feels. Watch the news and see if the crowds descend on the malls like crazed locusts or see if things are not quite as frantic as usual because of the failing economy.

Maybe spend the day thinking of ways that you can change your own buying habits and help nudge the world in a new direction that will benefit everyone on our small planet.

All you have to do to get started is buy nothing.

© 2008 Cynthia Friedlob

Shop 'til You Drop . . . or Until the Economy Collapses

Who knew that George W. Bush was right? After 9/11, he instructed the citizenry to go out and shop. Shop because that's what real Americans do. Shop or the terrorists win.

Well, he was only partly right to tell us to shop; he missed the boat by not giving us the most important reason to keep on spending, even in the face of a national disaster of epic proportions:

Americans have to shop or our economy collapses and when that happens, the world's economy collapses, too.

Easy to get, sub-prime mortgages were a boon to shoppers looking for homes. The fact that our country became an importer reliant on schlocky, cheap, Third World-manufactured products was a gift to shoppers looking for bargain prices. The stock market was a fabulous windfall for shoppers looking for a secure retirement. So shop, fellow Americans, and keep the machinery of consumerism chugging along!

Until everything falls apart.

Turns out the entire financial system of our country (and much of the world) was being run like a shameless scam maybe one notch better than a Ponzi scheme. The guys on top were raking in plenty of money (they always do) and most of the rest of the population of the western world consisted of poor suckers who thought that happy days were here again forever. Not so.

Recently I've read several fine articles and posts about the precarious state of our economy and its effects on corporations and individuals. I'm particularly fond of one in the LA Times by Judith Freeman, who wrote a touching story from a different perspective. It's called "Americans or Economic Beasts of Burden?" in which she writes about having observed people over the years as they shopped in thrift stores. But she begins her article with her memory of a night that she says haunts her to this day:

"On the night of Aug. 21, 2001, my husband and I checked into a motel in Miles City, Mont. Once settled, we poured ourselves a glass of wine and turned on the TV in order to relax after a long day's drive. I've never forgotten that night. It's haunted me ever since. An economist on the evening news was discussing the economy, then in the midst of a serious slump. The economist looked into the camera and said, 'If the American consumer packs it in, the entire global economy is in jeopardy. The American consumer better hang tough or we're in real trouble.'

"I don't think I had ever before quite understood in such stark terms just what beasts of burden we'd become. What the economist said made me realize something I'd never considered -- that the entire global economy, as he put it, depended on Americans continuing to consume."

Notice that the economist made this observation prior to 9/11 so the foundation for Bush's exhortations to keep shopping was already in place.

Ms. Freeman concludes her article with speculation about a possible benefit from the current malaise that is keeping shoppers from doing their "civic duty" -- I agree with her:

"It seems to me there might be a good side to this. It's as if the consuming fever has broken, if only temporarily. We're disinclined to carry more debt or keep shopping, even if we could, even knowing that the entire global economy might depend on us getting and spending. We're all wondering where this economic meltdown is headed, and how long it might last . . . And will there be a time when we can hope to be relieved of our burden of hanging tough? Can there be some different kind of engine to drive the world economy other than the endless, often mindless consumption by ordinary Americans?"

Yes, there must be another way. I'm a great believer in hope for the future and feel optimistic that this economic downturn is part of the endless cycle that humanity seems intent on repeating: greed that gets out of control until the system collapses; then a period of reflection, restructuring and ethical, responsible behavior that builds until opportunities are so prevalent that greed kicks in again.

Okay, on the face of it that doesn't sound particularly hopeful, but I like to think of the process as a spiraling forward motion in which, over time, more and more people become responsible and ethical, while fewer and fewer people are tempted by greed.

So, even though we're in turmoil and certainly many people are suffering, on a larger scale, maybe we're headed toward that rebirth of a caring, less consumption-oriented society. Maybe we're realizing that we don't have to shop 'til we drop to keep the world afloat. And maybe that realization will help us ensure that the terrorists won't ever win.

© 2008 Cynthia Friedlob