I sincerely hope you had a good day on the big day, and that the strain of taking all those socks, ties, and sweaters back on the next big day wasn't too much for you—or for the poor beleaguered clerk on the other side of the counter.
So as I sit here in the brave solitude of my lonely office, looking in vain for some snow, more gifts, and the nerve to eat yet another dish of turkey-whatever, I am going bananas. (That's it! Maybe I should try bananas.) Okay, not going bananas, but I am thinking bananas, as in Chiquita bananas.
That would be those “we're-so-ethical-we're-not going-to touch-your-stinking-oil” Chiquita bananas.
My oh my, a corporation with conscience, I dare say? Where did that pompous attitude come from--the ghettos in Ghana, the slums in Sri Lanka? Was that after or before they paid their child slaves their token wage for harvesting their bananas?
At least Chiquita is consistent—consistently irrational, that is. On the one hand, they dredge up this moralistic principle of not dealing with so-called dirty oil from Alberta; but on the other hand, they have no problem dealing with dirty regimes from the Middle East, to use their oil.
I think I get the logic: Hard-working (yes, possibly slightly over-paid) Canadians, trying to earn an honest living are to be penalized for pulling otherwise useless liquid out of some barren soil. And the spin-off impact throughout Alberta, as well as the rest of Canada, is positively staggering. (And it's staggeringly positive, to boot.) Especially when you consider all the trades and manufacturing jobs that are directly and indirectly connected to said oil.
I'm not quite sure the oil industry in any one of those Middle East fiefdoms can say the same. But I do know that the tyrants at the top take off most of the profits, for starters.
To be sure, the tar sands oil is duty. My engine gets dirty because of oil. My pants and hands get dirty because of oil. And I'm sure there is too much air pollution because of the oil refineries, processed oil (aka gasoline), and other unfortunate but necessary emissions.
Wait: Is that the way they're using the term “dirty”? (No, Maurice, actually it isn't.) It's a clever ploy on the part of many of these global corporations to play on people's sense of saving the planet, one environmental issue at a time. At least the belligerent squatters will be happy with that position: I'm sure there will be no Wall Street Occupation in front of Chiquita's corporate offices.
There appears to be an apparent ethical element to this boycott, and believe it or not, I can buy into it. That is, the argument that there should be an ethical element to everything we do, buy, and say. What I don't buy is the total tripe that we're being handed from the Chiquitas, Walgreens, Timberlands—among others—of the corporate world. I like businesses with a sense of ethics, but I'm thinking that it should actually start with the business itself.
You might say that they should mind their own business first, before they start minding somebody else's.
Sweatshop factories in India, China, and other parts of Southeast Asia are rife with underaged and under-paid workers. Remember the big ballyhoo with Nike a few years ago? That worked, didn't it? Maybe we should do due diligence and make certain that those tops we buy from our local department store don't fall into the same category.
For that matter, not only should we be ethical in our business, but likewise in our buying.
Ethics in every angle of consumerism (that is, buyer, shopper, producer, and transporter) is a most welcomed exercise, something we should all engage in. Any company, whether dabbling in oil or bananas, should be scrutinized for any ethical, economical, or environmental violations.
I'll start by holding off on banana splits until further notice.
No comments:
Post a Comment