Subject: ST;Re:new urbanism
We've been able to watch this trend at work, just across the street
from us in North Denver. The site is one 27-acre area that was an old theme
park dating back to the late 1800's.
...
One area is set aside for small business, art studios or cafes, with on-site
living included. The developer hopes that creative users of this space step
forward--but if Starbucks and Benetton are the only ones to do so, then the
local guilds could still be pushed out.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Wed Jan 21 12:00:23 1998
Date: Wed Jan 21 12:00:23 1998 -0700
From: coxnson@kjsl.com (Cox & Son)
Subject: ST;Re: Downsizing *Coffee* Spending
I have ... reduced most of my spending satisfactorily.
The one area that I still feel a twinge of guilt and ponder further
reductions is coffee.
Sigh. I have cut out the $3 lattes every other day, at Starbuck's et alia
... I gave myself a nice little (cheap) expresso machine last Xmas. It paid for itself in the first month.
...
I'm not hooked to caffeine (no headaches) but I do sooooo enjoy a good cup.
Still 'n all, coffee is a pretty sizeable chunk of my grocery budget for
the "nutrition" it returns.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Oct 23 16:49:23 1998
(the following date is spurious)
Date: Fri, Jan 23 05:53:23 1998
From: "Arnie P. Anfinson"
Subject: ST;Re: *Coffee* Spending
...
I hear from a friend in a retirement home that the homes management had found that by switching from Starbucks to another brand (El Cheepo??) they save $600 a month. And the residents don't seem to miss the `luxury' Starbucks.
...
Arnie in Seattle
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Jan 23 05:53:23 1998
(the following date is spurious)
Date: Fri, Jan 23 05:53:23 1998
From: Jajudge
Subject: ST;Enough with the kawfee, already!
This coffee discussion is getting ridiculous
Coffee. A small pleasure. Not a guilty pleasure. A good cup of coffee at
home: just the type of inexpensive satisfaction that should be part of
Voluntary Simplicity.
Now three bucks at Starbucks-- another story.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Jan 23 05:53:43 1998
(the following date is spurious)
Date: Fri, Jan 23 05:53:23 1998
From: cnhamilton@juno.com (Carol N Hamilton)
Subject: ST;Yeah for Coffee!
Extremely good rich coffee each morning is one of my "makes feel happy'
indulgences. And I even thought that taking my deaf and autistic brother
who experiences the world through smell and sight would love a $3 coffee
from Starbucks (in the shop for the full experience of the powerful and
delightful coffee aroma) more than most gifts I could possibly get him.
- Carol
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Jan 23 07:42:55 1998
Date: Fri Jan 23 07:42:55 1998
From: Betsy Barnum
Subject: ST;Re: Downsizing *Coffee* Spending
MURRAY,JEFFREY P wrote:
> Sounds like you've already done much adjusting to reduce the amount
> spent for coffee. At this point, if you really still enjoy the stuff,
> I'd say let it go and accept that, for you, you are getting value in
> proportion to the amount of life energy you are spending on this treat.
I kinda hate to bring this up, and I'm certainly not pristine myself, I
do drink coffee and also agonize over it, like so many here.
But I think there is definitely more to this issue, and many other
consumption issues, than whether *I* deem that the expenditure is worthy
of *my* life energy. Alan Durning and John Ryan of Northwest Environment
Watch in Seattle wrote a book published last year called _Stuff_. It
traces the entire life cycle and associated monetary, social and
environmental costs of a series of commonly used products, including
coffee. Check out a coffee chapter excerpt at the NEW site at
http://www.northwestwatch.org/stuff.html
Like so many things we use that come from far away, coffee has an impact
in all these areas-- monetary, social and environmental-- disproportionate
to its volume or its value. Even if your coffee is grown responsibly (in
the shade, no chemicals and with fair return to the growers, which
certainly not all coffee is, especially the cheap stuff), it is at least
somewhat likely that the land used to grow it is displacing food crops
to feed local people in Guatemala, Kenya or Colombia. Growing for the
U.S. market is often the only choice for people who are unwillingly
being sucked into the global economy due to their own governments'
policies and to pressure from the big nations and corporations, as well
as grossly unfair land ownership situations.
Then, the fossil-fuel-based energy required to transport the coffee from
where it is grown to your coffee cup needs to be considered. Is it
coming by ship, burning fossil fuel and leaving a polluting wake of oil
and garbage? Is it coming by air, the most energy-inefficient form of
transportation going? Inevitably there will be truck transport involved,
probably at several points in the trip, resulting in costs for fossil
fuel burning as well as wear and tear on highways.
Then, there's the packaging, which probably involves at least several
different permutations along the way, some reusable but some not even
recyclable. Add the energy to roast the beans, the energy to brew the
coffee, plus the production and associated costs of every piece of
equipment used in the entire process, and you begin to see the impact of
coffee.
If you put cream and sugar or honey in it, as I do, or drink lattes or
cafe au laits, then the whole costs of producing dairy products and
sweeteners also need to be considered.
My point is not to ladle on the guilt, or shake my superior moral finger
at people who drink coffee. Like I said, I drink it--2 to 3 cups a day.
Sometimes I buy it at Starbuck's or our local chain, Caribou. I try to
ameliorate my impact with coffee as much as possible, by buying in bulk
at the food co-op and choosing ethically grown coffee where I know the
growers are receiving a fair price for it.
But the fact remains that coffee consumption has a huge impact in many
ways that I can't affect by my choice of which coffee to buy. I think it
is essential that we, especially we North Americans most of whom are, as
Arnie said, living a life of incredible luxury compared to most of the
world (including those coffee growers), be as cognizant as possible of
the consequences of our choices. We who are already aware of the false
message of consumer culture that "there are no consequences, you can
have it all," need to keep our eyes open to the impacts of our actions
and choices, impacts that ripple out way beyond our own lives and our
own bank accounts. Make the choice to drink coffee--and also *know* what
your choice means. It's not just about *your* life energy.
Betsy
--
Betsy Barnum
bbarnum@polaristel.net
http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1624
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sun Jan 25 07:23:47 1998
Date: Sun Jan 25 07:23:47 1998
To: David MacClement
From: jacqueg@open.org (jacque greenleaf) (by way of David MacClement )
Subject: ST;Re: Downsizing *Coffee* Spending
>Sigh. I have cut out the $3 lattes every other day, at Starbuck's et alia
> ...
>I'm not hooked to caffeine (no headaches) but I do sooooo enjoy a good cup.
I'm physically hooked, but one cup of strong coffee a day does it. And I
buy the organic, specialty roast stuff for drinking at home, or I visit my
favorite coffee shop, which, unlike Starbuck's, has actual tables and
chairs and invites "hanging out". so yes, it costs - I figure $400+/year.
no way am I giving it up. for me, the leisurely morning visit to my
favorite coffee shop, where I am part of a friendly regular crowd, or my
excellent strong coffee at home, is part of feeling truly rich. On the
other hand, I don't give a damn about clothes, makeup, motor vehicles, cell
phones, pagers, skiing vacations, or TVs, so I spend little or nothing on
them.
repeat after me - voluntary simplicity is about deciding what is important
*to you*, and concentrating your life energy there. Only you can decide
where good coffee is on your scale of priorities.
Jacque Greenleaf
Salem, OR
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Oct 23 13:19:35 1998
Fri Oct 23 13:19:35 1998
From: PRichter1@aol.com (by way of David MacClement )
Subject: ST;Re: Comments On Nutrition & Food & Toxics & Farming
... I think, in the many months that I have been
on this list, and in the couple of years that I have pursued a simpler
lifestyle, that I have finally gotten it that simplicity is not One True
Course or Way, certainly not for everyone.
I believe that what is true for us differs greatly. I think that there are
some areas of common ground that we can claim, though. On this
vegetarian/meat debate, I think that we can agree that today's agricultural
practices are problematic. Today's ways of meeting meat demands are
problematic. The stuff that is called food that we find filling our gigantic
food stores is problematic. And, as Betsy points out, these are the result of
corporate greed gone awry with complicity of government systems that are
charged with the oversight of a safe food supply. But as individuals we come
up with different solutions. Some stick with only organic, raw foods. And
they see benefits in their own lives. This is their truth. Others will eat
meat, but limit their intake or perhaps eat meat from other than corporate
sources. They also see benefits in their lives. This is their truth.
... Who determines truth? I believe that our life process is one of discerning for ourselves our own truth.
And, lastly, I think that all of this does have ultimate *change the planet*
benefits. Individual choices in the marketplace do have a degree of influence,
however small. ... Maybe not large, maybe it's only infinitesimal influence, but it is a ripple in a pond. I believe that any change has to start with us.
... After our discussion last winter about coffee and corporate
practices, I, who was a very occasional Starbucks customer, have vowed to
never set foot in a Starbucks establishment again. Will they miss me? Not on
your life. But I have also educated others who have suggested that we meet at
Starbucks. And maybe down the line this may have a tiny bit of impact. At
least I feel better about my choices and feel more empowered to engage the
world a bit more.
...
Just my thoughts on this cloudy, damp morning.
Priscilla
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Oct 23 13:20:06 1998
Fri Oct 23 13:20:06 1998
From: "rdw"
Subject: ST;starbucks
> snip I didn't save anything from the Starbucks thread last winter,
but the gist of it was that coffee plantations in general are unecological, and Starbucks (along with other coffee emporia) have spurred demand, which results in more pressure to grow coffee unecologically. Also, Starbuck's marketing practices have evidently been geared to putting neighborhood style coffee houses out of business. <<<
Dear Priscilla,
I thank you for your response. Once again if it looks like a national chain
means hi-dollars going out of the town vs in town for local businesses. it
is quite bad in urban "revival". I have only seen Starbucks in Austin Yuppie
land, where ther was previously only cattle pasture - or in airports. I am
not much of a coffee drinker for health reasons, I love tea and, like you,
am blissfully ignorant of the financial or environmental repercussions of
the industry.
...
So simple living for me means not using much money, IE living as if I were
quite poor. Not that much of a stretch after medical problems without
insurance for years!
Jodi H.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Oct 23 13:20:31 1998
Fri Oct 23 13:20:31 1998
From: merkes@juno.com (Donald J Merkes)
Subject: ST;Re: starbuckss
<< Also, Starbuck's marketing practices have evidently been geared to
putting neighborhood style coffee houses out of business. >>
Jodi H.:
<< Once again if it looks like a national chain means hi-dollars going out
of the town vs in town for local businesses. it is quite bad in urban
"revival". >>
Not everyone loves Starbucks. A month or so ago a Starbucks opened on
State Street, between the Wisconsin State Capitol and the University of
Wisconsin, the people of Madison apparently were not happy, as the protest
made the front page of the Capitol Times. This went as far as to trying
to create a city ordinance to protect State Street from "chain stores", I
don't know how far this went. While I don't agree we should prohibit
chain stores to open, I don't understand why people are so eager to
patronize these nameless placeless monuments to greed. Personally I
visit my locally owned cafe a couple times a week, I'm greeted by name, and know the owner and some of the patrons its a wonderful experience.
Don
"Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit
without individual responsibility".
-- Ambrose Bierce
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Oct 23 15:08:31 1998
from Edsac (p32-max53.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.110.32]) by
smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA03589 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:10:52 +1300
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:08:31 +1300
From: David MacClement
In-Reply-To: <19981006.122445.3734.0.Merkes@juno.com>
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981023150831.006da970@mail.oocities.com>
References: <199810060018.TAA19357@georgetown.igg-tx.net>
Subject: Re: starbuckss
To: Positive Futures
At 12:24 6/10/98 -0500, you wrote:
><< Also, Starbuck's marketing practices have evidently been geared to
>putting neighborhood style coffee houses out of business. >>
>
>Jodi H.:
><of the town vs in town for local businesses. it is quite bad in urban
>"revival". >>
>
>Not everyone loves Starbucks. A month or so ago a Starbucks opened on
>State Street, between the Wisconsin State Capitol and the University of
>Wisconsin, the people of Madison apparently were not happy, as the protest
>made the front page of the Capitol Times. This went as far as to trying
>to create a city ordinance to protect State Street from "chain stores", ...
>
>Don
>"Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit
>without individual responsibility". -- Ambrose Bierce
>
** Just yesterday (Thurs 22 Oct.), our radio news' Business segment
mentioned that Starbucks was opening their first store in New Zealand, in
Auckland. Today they gave them more free advertising: the general manager
stated Starbucks was planning 10 stores by sometime next year.
I'll be circulating to a few friends (in the Greens, and my children in
their 20s) a compilation of some comments on Starbucks in this list,
starting with Priscilla's in January, and including Betsy Barnum's.
If anyone else wants it (14 kB), just drop me a line.
David.
** http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/6783/index.html#top
David MacClement
http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Delphi/3142/index.html#top
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 24 05:49:24 1998
from hgebeaux01 (207.140.91.174) by 3n.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with
SMTP id ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 05:55:52 -0400
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 05:57:22 -0000
From: "Howard L. Gebeaux"
Message-ID: <001f01bdfe4a$019f6420$ae5b8ccf@hgebeaux01.3n.net>
Subject: Re: starbuckss
To: "Positive Futures"
This is my first message here. I've been sitting back reading, not sure
just what to say. But this Starbuck's thing has gotten me. Sure, Starbucks
is a big chain with lots of muscle. But what really does in the smaller
coffee houses and lets Starbucks win is the eagerness and willingness of the
people to go there and buy.
Ultimately it is up to the people whether chain stores - be it Starbucks
or Borders or WalMart or whatever - succeed in hurting the local economy and
local businesses. We have it within our power, and responsibility. We can't
shift the blame onto Starbucks.
Howard
-----Original Message-----
From: David MacClement
To: Positive Futures
Date: Friday, October 23, 1998 3:18 AM
Subject: Re: starbuckss
>At 12:24 6/10/98 -0500, you wrote:
>><< Also, Starbuck's marketing practices have evidently been geared to
>>putting neighborhood style coffee houses out of business. >>
>>
>>Jodi H.:
>><>of the town vs in town for local businesses. it is quite bad in urban
>>"revival". >>
>>
>>Not everyone loves Starbucks. A month or so ago a Starbucks opened on
>>State Street, between the Wisconsin State Capitol and the University of
>>Wisconsin, the people of Madison apparently were not happy, as the protest
>>made the front page of the Capitol Times. This went as far as to trying
>>to create a city ordinance to protect State Street from "chain stores",
...
>>
>>Don
>>"Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit
>>without individual responsibility". -- Ambrose Bierce
>>
>
>** Just yesterday (Thurs 22 Oct.), our radio news' Business segment
>mentioned that Starbucks was opening their first store in New Zealand, in
>Auckland. Today they gave them more free advertising: the general manager
>stated Starbucks was planning 10 stores by sometime next year.
>
> I'll be circulating to a few friends (in the Greens, and my children in
>their 20s) a compilation of some comments on Starbucks in this list,
>starting with Priscilla's in January, and including Betsy Barnum's.
> If anyone else wants it (14 kB), just drop me a line.
>
>David.
>** http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/6783/index.html#top
>David MacClement
> http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Delphi/3142/index.html#top
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 24 05:50:03 1998
from the-word-garden (pm-3-075.dynam.WaveTech.net [206.146.145.76])
by riptide.wavetech.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA08555
for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:26:57 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:34:27 -0500
From: Betsy Barnum
Message-ID: <363093F3.3BDE@wavetech.net>
Organization: Great River Earth Institute
References: <001f01bdfe4a$019f6420$ae5b8ccf@hgebeaux01.3n.net>
Subject: Re: starbuckss
To: Positive Futures
Howard L. Gebeaux wrote:
> Sure, Starbucks is a big chain
> with lots of muscle. But what really does in the smaller
> coffee houses and lets Starbucks win is the eagerness and willingness
> of the people to go there and buy.
> < snip > We can't shift the blame onto Starbucks.
I reject this thinking. This lets businesses completely off the hook!
Why is it entirely the people's responsibility and not Starbucks'? This
logic would leave businesses free to operate in any way they wish, and
hold people responsible for any harm resulting from their purchase of
the company's product. In a society where people are told lies every day
about products and businesses and the economy itself, where advertising
and marketing are geared to penetrate people's psychology to convince
them to buy products, it is incredibly unfair to lay responsibility upon
people and leave these businesses blameless.
I get very tired trying to keep up with which companies and products are
being produced in ways that are least harmful to people, the Earth, and
communities. I get very annoyed at how I am manipulated by the 3,000
advertising messages I am exposed to daily. Companies like Starbucks not
only hide their corporate policies from their customers, but they engage
in efforts to demonstrate how really they are socially responsible
because of their support for various coffee co-ops. This is usually
known as green-washing, and it is done to convince customers that even
if they did hear something negative about the company seeking actively
to drive local coffee shops out of business, they really are ok and
customers should continue to come there.
We are living in a political culture that holds people responsible for
their condition. You don't have health insurance? It's your fault. You
can't find a job paying enough to support your family? It's your fault.
You bought a product that harmed your child? You can only collect so
much in damages from the company that made it. You have been injured on
the job due to repetitive motion? Just try to get compensation. It's
your fault.
This notion that every individual is responsible for the harm that comes
to them in an economy controlled by corporations is a notion that the
corporations have created and that we need not accept. This thinking
extends to less obvious harm such as that perpetrated upon communities
and small businesses by corporate giants like Starbucks. People who buy
coffee at Starbucks are not responsible for Starbucks' heartless
corporate policies. Sure, if no one bought coffee there, the company
wouldn't exist. And I do encourage people to buy coffee (and every other
possible product) from locally owned businesses and not from national
chains. But if the company wasn't so nasty in its efforts to expand, the
problem wouldn't exist. It seems very unfair to hold people solely
responsible for the success of this kind of company.
Why can't we expect businesses to operate in ways that are respectful
and community-oriented? I don't think this expectation is so utopian. I
think every business should operate this way, and I deeply resent that
so many don't, and that they try to persuade me to be their customer
anyway, and that I and other people are being blamed for the damage
these companies cause rather than the companies themselves being held
responsible.
Betsy
--
Betsy Barnum
bbarnum@wavetech.net
http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1624
**************************************
Be quiet
and sit down.
You are drunk
and this is the edge of the roof.
-- Rumi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 24 05:50:08 1998
from clb5q.virginia.edu (bootp-109-239.bootp.Virginia.EDU
[128.143.109.239]) by server1.mail.virginia.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id
KAA19606 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:46:22 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:47:46 -0400
From: Sherry Boyd
Message-Id: <199810231446.KAA19606@server1.mail.virginia.edu>
Subject: whose responsibility is Starbucks? Wal-Mart?
To: Positive Futures
I simply want to second what Howard has said here. Until we are all more
mindful of WHERE we spend our money and until cost is not the only
motivating factor for purchase, Starbucks and Wal-Mart will continue to put
our locally owned businesses out of business. WE all have to be willing to
vote with our dollars with EVERY SINGLE PENNY we spend. No business can
stay in business if they don't make enough money which is obviously
directly tied to how many people are willing to shop there.
Sherry Boyd
In the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sun Oct 25 14:24:57 1998
from [209.66.100.155] (SantaCruz-x2-3-155.got.net [209.66.100.155])
by always.got.net (8.8.8/8.8.7/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id NAA10667
for ; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 13:41:32 -0700
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 13:41:32 -0700
From: Cecile Mills
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981023150831.006da970@mail.oocities.com>
Message-Id: <v04003a06b25770098b9a@[209.66.100.31]>
References: <19981006.122445.3734.0.Merkes@juno.com>
<199810060018.TAA19357@georgetown.igg-tx.net>
Subject: Re: starbuckss
To: Positive Futures
>>Jodi H.:
>>This went as far as to trying
>>to create a city ordinance to protect State Street from "chain stores", ...
It would be helpful to know what cities already have such ordinances and
how they worded them. Does anyone know of web resouces that might contain
such information? If not, we could start a website on one of those free web
spaces places with this info.
I believe Carmel, Santa Cruz and Berkeley have such ordinances--does anyone
know?
p.s. does Starbucks use the same lawyers as Bill Gates? They use the same
strategies.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sun Oct 25 15:41:51 1998
from Edsac (p54-max53.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.110.54]) by
smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA01322 for
; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 15:30:27 +1300
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981025145102.006ddba4@mail.oocities.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 14:51:02 +1300
To: David MacClement
From: "Michael J. Coffey" (by way of David MacClement )
Subject: Michael Yount's list-server/Frugal-Ed info
A Simplicity Council in its own list would seem far more useful to me,
because it allows those who wish to participate to do so, and those who
don't to not be bothered by the discussions. The SC could then "report
back" to the main list when some kind of solution or answer has been found.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Yount
Sent: Tuesday, 06 October, 1998 8:51 AM
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Subject: Re: Censorship & Topics on the List
Hi all,
I agree with Tom that any of you should feel welcome to
express yourselves.
A technical suggestion...if you all decide to cooperate with
Harry on his simplicity encyclopedia, it'd be fairly
easy to spin off a parallel list for short-term, un/moderated,
focused discussions on subjects like basil, garlic, or what
have you. The results of the focus groups could then be
summarized and posted to positive-futures. For a peek at
the software, see
http://csf.colorado.edu/moderate/
login: guest, password: visit
Frugal-ed info may be found at
http://csf.colorado.edu/perma/frugal/
Please write to me if you can't use the web and would like more details.
Thanks,
Michael
csf@moscow.com
:}
:}It's true, these are options. But not everyone wants to take
:}these approaches. Some people get tired of deleting dozens of
:}messages a day on topics that don't interest them, and would
:}prefer to unsubscribe. Personally, I prefer it if they express
:}themselves. This is a new technology, and we don't know much
:}about why people use it or don't use it.
:}
:}Tom
:}
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Mon Oct 26 14:33:40 1998
from the-word-garden (pm-4-109.dynam.WaveTech.net [206.146.145.110])
by riptide.wavetech.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id MAA03587
for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 12:25:35 -0600 (CST)
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 12:33:05 -0600
From: Betsy Barnum
Message-ID: <36336EE1.1FC7@wavetech.net>
Organization: Great River Earth Institute
Subject: [Fwd: Re: starbuckss]
To: Positive Futures
Return-Path:
Received: from hgebeaux01 (207.140.91.174) by 3n.net
(EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ;
Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:00:45 -0500
Message-ID: <000601be0007$03f34c00$ae5b8ccf@hgebeaux01.3n.net>
From: "Howard L. Gebeaux"
To: "Betsy Barnum"
Subject: Re: starbuckss
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:02:52 -0000
Betsy,
I'm not sure if I should respond to this just to you or to everyone.
I'll leave that up to you. I am new to such discussion sites. Actually new
to the Internet. I'm just an old crusty man living in a cabin on the Potomac
River trying to make sense of life. Finally decided to open my horizons to
the net. What a shock.
Anyway, if you feel this should be for all, is there a way you can
forward it to them? Again, it's up to you.
I appreciate your response, although I think you jumped a little too far
overboard. I don't feel at all that my statement/stand "lets businesses
completely off the hook!" It only attempts to show that in the business
world, so much of the bottom line CAN BE determined by the buying public
and SHOULD BE determined by the buying public. We, as consumers, have a
strength I don't think we realize. We seem too ready to just accept, to lie
down, to let whatever and whomever roll over us. We, simple WE, can stop the
world if we wanted.
In your first paragraph you wonder what role a business would have if a
product harmed others. That's an entirely different issue from the one I
addressed, which dealt more with the success or failure of a particular
business site and of those non-chain sites around it, all taking place
within a community of consumers.
But I will admit there can be a connection. If, as you suggest, these
companies manipulate the thinking of consumers to "convince them to buy
products," then perhaps there can be a related issue. But I'd like to ask
you here if such practices ("where advertising and marketing are geared to
penetrate people's psychology to convince them to buy products") are only
bad if practiced by a chain store? Would they be bad also if that little
independent coffee shop or book store undertook those same avenues to get
people to come to their places? I'd have to assume from the way you wrote
that paragraph that you see the practices as evil and thus it would be wrong
for either a chain store or independent store to practice them. Think about
the implications of that. How would we know that store was there? How would
we know there is a "good" deal on coffee or books?
But you were only suggesting that, it seems, in an effort to place some
of the blame on the businesses. And I certainly agree. But what this raises
is again a completely different issue - that of ethics. When is advertising
"wrong?" "bad?" To determine this we would need to come up with some kind of
standard. It seems from your second paragraph that you gain your standard
from the impact on people, the earth, communities. If an act is harmful to
people, the earth, communities, then it is a wrong act. I can agree
completely with that. I have gained my ethical stance mainly from Aristotle,
who looked to man to determine his values. What is good for man is good (for
man). What is good for a stone is good (for a stone). Thus, we act (should
act) is the way that a "practical" and "reasonable" man would act. And it
seems your suggested standards (people, the earth, communities) are along
those same lines.
So, with such standards, I think we can legitimately observe, criticize
and praise practices by businesses, as well as by government, other people.
But again, that's another issue from the one I addressed initially.
You also bring in the issue of a company's corporate policies. And
again, this issue is not the one I addressed. But I agree that it is
important and is one that should be pursued and publicized. All efforts to
accurately access these policies in terms of some stated and legitimate
standard should be undertaken and publicized.
You then get onto a bandwagon that is certainly exciting but again
unrelated to the issue I addressed. Again, I have to assume your standard is
based on people, the earth, communities. And yes, with that standard it is
legitimate to wonder why people aren't paid enough to live on (a fact of my
life), why they can't get health insurance (another fact of my life) why
they suffer in boring and repetitive jobs (my injury is to my psyche as I
have worked in jobs during my life that have been truly numbing), and so on.
But then you take a tack that is just like the one the thought I had
taken and that you criticized. Instead of solely blaming the individual (as
you thought I was advocating), you now place the entire blame on the
"economy controlled by corporations." The problem here is the use of the
word "solely."
Neither, Betsy, is "solely" to blame. But surely both have
responsibility. And both can do something about it. Both have power. And
when it comes to the issue I was addressing - the tendency of these large
chain stores to shut down smaller independent stores in that same
community - the power that can be the strongest and best and most effective
is that held by the individual. Starbucks or Borders or WalMart isn't going
to change its corporate policy when faced with a competing independent in
"Little City, USA," but if the consumers in that city refuse to buy the
product, Starbucks will indeed change and respond, mainly by closing and
leaving. It's the consumer who can cause that to happen.
(Then it's up to other efforts to do those things you mentioned - expose
corporate policies, etc. That can't easily be done by the individual
consumer.)
And in terms of the consumer, I think an interesting question is why
they shop at those chain stores? Sure, I agree that some of it is because of
the effect of advertising. But I think there's more to it than that,
something that goes all the way back to the question at the top about
standards. Where do we get our standards? It's not off the wall to suggest
that our standards could come from popular vote. If we live in a community
that wants X and Y, then why shouldn't X and Y be deemed "right?" That is
suggested in a later note on this Starbucks issue when someone pointed out
that some towns are outlawing chain stores in certain streets, districts.
Now that's taking the standard right from popular vote, right at the grass
roots level.
And if we do that, then why do we reject the vote by the people who
flood Starbucks, who buy their books from Borders, who turn away from the
smaller, local, independent store in favor of these chain stores? I'm not
saying they are right. I'm just raising that question.
And to me, the answer is obvious. The local independent needs to change.
The chains are obviously providing something that the public wants - be it a
central location for many things, lower prices, greater selection, whatever.
So, it seems that the independent needs to get off its duff and rather than
moaning and bitching and complaining begin to find out what the consumer,
their customers, want and then try to provide it. That's basic marketing.
Let me end this with one point in your last paragraph. You write "I
deeply resent that so many don't (operate in a respectful and
community-oriented manner), and that they try to persuade me to be their
customer anyway...." OK. I can agree with that completely. But so far you
don't touch on what makes them successful. After that attempt at persuasion,
the consumer DOES INDEED BECOME THEIR CUSTOMER. If they didn't, the chain
store would close. And that's why I see the power at this level as resting
with the individual consumer. I use the word "power." You use the words
"blame" and "responsibility." I like my word better.
Howard
-----Original Message-----
From: Betsy Barnum
To: Positive Futures
Date: Friday, October 23, 1998 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: starbuckss
>Howard L. Gebeaux wrote:
>> Sure, Starbucks
>> is a big chain with lots of muscle. But what really does in the smaller
>> coffee houses and lets Starbucks win is the eagerness and willingness of
>> the people to go there and buy.
> We can't shift the blame onto Starbucks.
>
>I reject this thinking. This lets businesses completely off the hook!
>Why is it entirely the people's responsibility and not Starbucks? This
>logic would leave businesses free to operate in any way they wish, and
> ...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Tue Oct 27 17:28:16 1998
from the-word-garden (pm-3-077.dynam.WaveTech.net [206.146.145.78])
by riptide.wavetech.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA20776
for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 20:04:12 -0600 (CST)
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 20:11:42 -0600
From: Betsy Barnum
Message-ID: <3633DA5E.1913@wavetech.net>
Organization: Great River Earth Institute
References: <000601be0007$03f34c00$ae5b8ccf@hgebeaux01.3n.net>
Subject: Re: starbuckss
To: Positive Futures
Howard:
Thanks for your thoughtful response to my post about Starbucks and the
issue of individual choice in the marketplace. I'm going to try to
answer you point by point, to allow me to clarify my point of view WRT
corporations, the "system" and personal reponsibility.
You wrote:
> I don't feel at all that my statement/stand "lets businesses
> completely off the hook!" It only attempts to show that in the business
> world, so much of the bottom line CAN BE determined by the buying public
> and SHOULD BE determined by the buying public. We, as consumers, have a
> strength I don't think we realize. We seem too ready to just accept, to lie
> down, to let whatever and whomever roll over us. We, simple WE, can stop the
> world if we wanted.
I agree with you to a point. People in an economy, people in their role
as "consumers," do have an impact on corporations by voting with their
dollars--and "ultimate" impact by abstaining with their dollars.
My point is two-fold: One, getting information on which to base
decisions to buy or not buy a given product or shop at a given store is
sometimes very difficult, and that (making it difficult to know the
truth) is often the purpose of corporate advertising and marketing. The
manipulation is subtle, constant, distracting and more and more it is
without moral compunction at all--anything is acceptable. In the TV
program "Affluenza," a Disney executive told marketers that sociopathic
behavior on the part of youth, such as assaulting another person to take
their brand-name jacket or shoes, is acceptable to Disney in the quest
for customer loyalty.
The second part of my point is that people are more than consumers, and
have (or ought to have) more options available to them to influence
corporations than how they spend their money. Why don't people expect
higher standards of behavior from corporations? Why is it *only* or even
*mostly* by shopping or not shopping that we can influence corps.? Being
able to use other options requires being able to see that they exist,
and in the political and economic culture of today, most people don't.
As you say, they just lay down and let whatever comes roll over them.
I'm getting wordy again. The point I'm trying to make is that I don't
see it as helpful or fair to hold people responsible for the fact that
they feel powerless. I think it is a fundamental reflection of the
culture we live in, dominated by corporations, defining power as control
and domination, winking at and even encouraging greed and manipulation
and "anything goes" when the goal is money. I see people as being so
convinced of their powerlessness that they don't even use their consumer
power. And I think encouraging people to feel powerless is a deliberate
strategy of corporations, though it has other origins as well.
Another aspect of this is that stopping a destructive corporation
shouldn't require people *not* shopping at a given store or buying a
given product. At that point, the company has already begun producing
its product, implementing its corporate plans, doing whatever it does
that is harmful to people, communities or the Earth. Standards should be
in place *before* a corporation sends its toxic effluent into the air,
before it tools up to produce athletic shoes in Indonesia where workers
are paid $2 a day and then the shoes are sold for $125 a pair, before it
sets out deliberately to destroy local coffee shops through using its
deep corporate pockets to undercut smaller competitors' prices. The
standards I'm talking about are those that still for the most part exist
in corporae charters, but are ignored, or are defined *by* the corps and
not by the people: standards requiring corporations to exist and operate
for "the public good."
Corps. have accumulated so much power and so many "rights" in the legal
system that immediately taking back the people's power over them is not
possible. But if it is *ever* to happen, we need to stop believing that
we are consumers and that our only or primary way to influence corporate
behavior is by spending or not spending our money. We are citizens, we
are The People, and every corporation chartered in the U.S. was
chartered to serve the public good. Not to offer us products we can
accept or reject by buying or not buying them. To *serve the public
good* as We The People define it.
> In your first paragraph you wonder what role a business would have if a
> product harmed others. That's an entirely different issue from the one I
> addressed, which dealt more with the success or failure of a particular
> business site and of those non-chain sites around it, all taking place
> within a community of consumers.
It's not an entirely different issue. The issue in both cases is
corporate harm. Harm to an individual, harm to a community. Both types
of harm are about corporate behavior and both are about whether they are
operating in the public good. Starbucks sites do not prosper without
harming the community in which they operate. Every time they drive a
locally owned coffee shop out of business, harm happens. The owners of
the local shop lose their livelihood. The local residents lose variety.
The local economy loses as money that previously went to local suppliers
and continued to circulate in the community now goes out to Starbucks
headquarters. Since doing exactly this is Starbucks outright policy, it
seems unfair to say that consumers, most of them not knowing any of
this, are responsible for the harm, whether or not they buy coffee
there. Starbucks developed the policy, implemented it, and is
responsible for the harm.
> But I will admit there can be a connection. If, as you suggest, these
> companies manipulate the thinking of consumers to "convince them to buy
> products," then perhaps there can be a related issue. But I'd like to ask
> you here if such practices ("where advertising and marketing are geared to
> penetrate people's psychology to convince them to buy products") are only
> bad if practiced by a chain store? Would they be bad also if that little
> independent coffee shop or book store undertook those same avenues to get
> people to come to their places?
Small local businesses don't usually engage in this type of
marketing--it's very expensive. There's nothing wrong with information
in an advertisement. "This is the name of our store. This is what we
sell. This is when we are open and here is our address. Here is an
example of what we sell, some of our prices, and a special sale item
available this week."
I'm talking about image advertising and the slick, manipulative ads
whose whole purpose is to convince us we need something that we don't
really need, or to create a warm and positive impression in our minds of
a company or a brand. Big corporations spend millions of dollars on
focus groups and market research to find out how to appeal to people in
given groups, how to generate an emotional response, how to penetrate
their defenses or doubts. Local stores and companies don't have the
wherewithal to do this, nor the need, because they are right there and
everyone can see them, see what they are and how they operate.
When I was in graduate school in journalism about 23 years ago, most of
my classmates were in the "advertising/public relations" track (only two
of us were in "news"). I was somewhat nauseated to see how eager they
were to learn all they could about communication theory and the
psychology of it, and the ways to "reach their audience" with their
message in the most subtle ways possible. Most of them were going to
work for corporations. Technology and the sophistication of market
research techniques today have made it even easier to pinpoint the
groups they want to reach and target messages custom-designed for their
vulnerable spots. Psychological manipulation is the stock-in-trade of
high-end advertising. Check out a copy of Adbusters for some trenchant
analysis of advertising and the culture it creates.
> You then get onto a bandwagon that is certainly exciting but again
> unrelated to the issue I addressed. Again, I have to assume your standard is
> based on people, the earth, communities. And yes, with that standard it is
> legitimate to wonder why people aren't paid enough to live on (a fact of my
> life), why they can't get health insurance (another fact of my life) why
> they suffer in boring and repetitive jobs (my injury is to my psyche as I
> have worked in jobs during my life that have been truly numbing), and so on.
I brought up these issues to illustrate the political culture of our
times--individuals being held responsible for their own situations even
when corporate and political choices in the larger systems have left
them with no options. Especially with the crew in Congress right now,
this is becoming an even more prominent mindset. I don't see a great
leap between this and holding people responsible for local coffee shops
being driven out of business. In both cases, there is a huge component
of corporate power being wielded for corporate gain, at the expense of
individual and community well-being. And the people being harmed are
those being held responsible. That's the problem I have with the
consumer-driven analysis.
> Neither, Betsy, is "solely" to blame. But surely both have
> responsibility.
The word was poorly chosen. I was responding to your earlier comment
about "shifting the blame to Starbucks," which I interpreted as shifting
the blame off of Starbucks and placing it on the people who buy coffee
there. Certainly, there is responsibility on both sides, but the bulk of
it lies with the corporation.
> And both can do something about it. Both have power.
Sure, both have power--but who has more--Starbucks or an individual
consumer? The tremendous imbalance between them is why I feel the
majority of responsibility is upon the corporation not the individual
person.
> And
> when it comes to the issue I was addressing - the tendency of these large
> chain stores to shut down smaller independent stores in that same
> community - the power that can be the strongest and best and most effective
> is that held by the individual.
Here I disagree. Again, the balance is so far out of whack. It's my view
that corporations want us to think this way, rather than thinking about
whether or not the corporation is operating in the public good and doing
something about that through our government. (Obviously, in the current
political climate this is unlikely to happen--however, it is the
direction we as citizens should be moving, I believe.) Corporations know
that as long as it's you or me against the corporation, they will win.
Unless consumers band together to make their voice heard in large
numbers, corporations know that the "power of the consumer" is just an
idea. Even consumer movements, such as boycotts, have historically had
limited effectiveness. Neslte, I understand, after all the years and all
the promises, is back to selling infant formula in the Third World. As
if all those years of boycott never happened.
> Starbucks or Borders or WalMart isn't going
> to change its corporate policy when faced with a competing independent in
> "Little City, USA," but if the consumers in that city refuse to buy the
> product, Starbucks will indeed change and respond, mainly by closing and
> leaving. It's the consumer who can cause that to happen.
> Where do we get our standards? It's not off the wall to suggest
> that our standards could come from popular vote. If we live in a community
> that wants X and Y, then why shouldn't X and Y be deemed "right?"
This is precisely the thinking we need to get back to. Community
standards. Let's tell the people in Little City what the impact on their
community will be of having a Starbucks coffee outlet. Will the people
be happy to let the Jones couple, who run the coffee shop downtown, be
forced out of business? Will they choose the lower prices at Starbucks,
knowing the lower price will be only in place until the Jones business
is gone? Will they care that thousands of dollars of local wealth will
be sent to Seattle instead of continuing to circulate in little city?
Will they care about the local suppliers used by the Joneses, one of
whom may be unable to replace the lost business when the coffee shop
closes? Will they shrug their shoulders when they learn about Starbucks
corporate policy of driving local competitors out of business, their
greed to have *all* the business and their dishonesty and
underhandedness in trying to do so? Will they want a business like this
in their town?
Presented this way, I'd bet not very many communities would welcome
Starbucks. What's the up side for them? Lower coffee prices for six
months. That's about it. The down side--when it is openly presented--is
serious. If people had the chance to vote--really vote, not just with
their dollars--we'd see a very different economic and political scene.
Because then *we* would be the ones deciding what corporations could do
and what they couldn't do in our communities, by *our* standards--not
have them telling us what they will do and we either living with it or
opposing it individually, one person at a time, one harm at a time.
> So, it seems that the independent needs to get off its duff and rather than
> moaning and bitching and complaining begin to find out what the consumer,
> their customers, want and then try to provide it. That's basic marketing.
And I'll just point out that the balance of power between a huge
corporation with mega-stores and a small independent retailer is almost
as out of whack as the balance between the corporation and an individual
consumer. The independent can't possibly provide what the big-box store
provides in terms of price or selection. They can't survive for long if
the competition is based solely on those factors.
People, I'm convinced, don't want low prices and massive selection at
any cost. They simply haven't been told what the cost is. If there were
an honest process for deciding what kind of commerce a community wanted,
I think the independents would be much more highly valued.
> Let me end this with one point in your last paragraph. You write "I
> deeply resent that so many don't (operate in a respectful and
> community-oriented manner), and that they try to persuade me to be their
> customer anyway...." OK. I can agree with that completely. But so far you
> don't touch on what makes them successful. After that attempt at persuasion,
> the consumer DOES INDEED BECOME THEIR CUSTOMER. If they didn't, the chain
> store would close.
Success, hmmmm....well, if Starbucks is any indication, they obtain
customers by being dishonest and artificially lowering their prices. If
they told the truth, that they place their corporate success and profit
above every value in the community, I doubt they'd have many customers.
In a world where people cared only about getting the lowest price for a
short time, this would define success. That's what our current economy
tells us we are--consumers who care about price and convenience above
all other values. Perhaps some people believe that about themselves and
others. But most people don't. I'm thinking about William Greider's
book, Who Will Tell the People, which deals extensively with what people
in the U.S. *really* value, what they *really* care about, based on
polls and surveys and organizations and articles and lots of other
sources of information. And why the concerns that the vast majority seem
to share, which are concerns about healthy people, families and
communities, somehow don't get heard or dealt with in the economic and
political system.
> And that's why I see the power at this level as resting
> with the individual consumer. I use the word "power." You use the words
> "blame" and "responsibility." I like my word better.
I agree that people have more power than they think, and consumer power
is just one kind. In my opinion, in the absence of an organized consumer
movement, individual consumer power is not enough to direct corporate
behavior. We need to reclaim our united power as the citizens of a city,
state, region, country, as residents in a democracy, as people with
values and concerns that extend way beyond buying and selling in the
marketplace.
We aren't just separate individuals operating in our separate circles,
making our separate choices to buy or not buy, to patronize or not
patronize. I think the first step toward reclaiming our political power
as citizens is to understand how much of our power we've given away to
corporations and "market forces" and economics as defined by the people
who stand to benefit from the global economy. We won't get that power
back by changing our shopping decisions--we will get it back by
demanding that corporations operate according to *our* standards of
health for ourselves and our families, our communities and the wider
community of the Earth.
I had more to say regarding the mentality (not yours, Howard--the
mentality in general) of individual responsibility and how it has been
twisted in our times. But this is long enough for now.
Betsy
--
Betsy Barnum
bbarnum@wavetech.net
http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1624
**************************************
Human purpose and meaning is an ecological and evolutionary
meditation, and where there is body/mind separation from
the ecosystem, restoration is the foundation of healing.
--Mitchell Thomashow
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Tue Oct 27 17:28:42 1998
from default(cust41.max1.firstdial.com[206.253.205.41]) (2862 bytes)
by smtp.firstdial.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:inet_hosts/T:smtp
(sender: ) id
for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 01:28:13 -0800 (PST)
(Smail-3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #11 built 1998-Jun-28)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 01:40:10 -0800
From: "Joshua Heath B. Heath"
Message-Id:
Subject: Re: Starbucks
To: "Positive Futures"
I have read the posts regarding "Starbucks" with great interest. I see two
points of view emerging.... one that gives power to "consumers" (I really
dislike that word!) and one that gives more power to the corporation.
I must take a stance somewhere not quite in-between these two perspectives
but is somehow overlaying them both. I think that yes, we the people hold
the balance of power, but not necessarily just as "consumers", it is more
as Betty hinted, as "citizens." But I don't blame the corporation at all.
They are simply following the rules of the day regarding how to create
wealth.... (Can you believe there is even a book out about the
"enlightened" way of doing business that sets Starbucks aside from the
average chain?)
Business will never decide all on its own to stop exploiting our resources,
environment, and culture all on its own-- eventually we just have to stop
supporting them! But I don't think this power lies primarily in our
consumer choices. The balance of power, I believe, lies in our ability to
get organized locally and exercise our right to choose which corporations
operate in our areas. I agree with Betty that once the Starbucks is there,
it is almost too late.
So, yes it is our fault as individuals, but it is not enough to simply not
buy things from places that we don't like. This is the status quo.
Everyone knows you cant make EVERYONE happy all the time, so businesses
with poor ethics will continue to thrive even if the concerned among us
quietly take our business elsewhere. And organizing boycotts is draining
and only of limited effectiveness. SO, I believe we are left with a
responsibility to get involved in creating the kind of community we desire.
To me, this means not sitting passively by when word of a Starbucks coming
to your area is circulated-- it means getting active in your community
drumming up support to protect the sanctity of your neighborhood. And
equally important is being creative in supporting local people to operate
businesses that contribute to a vision of the kind of community you really
want to live in. eg. co-operatively run businesses (especially food
co-ops), art gallerys, coffee/tea shops, non-chain restaurants, small
bycycle repair shops, etc etc.
thanks for the chance to release some of my steam....
Joshua
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Tue Oct 27 17:28:49 1998
from default(cust41.max1.firstdial.com[206.253.205.41]) (2179 bytes)
by smtp.firstdial.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:inet_hosts/T:smtp
(sender: ) id
for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 01:46:50 -0800 (PST)
(Smail-3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #11 built 1998-Jun-28)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 01:58:30 -0800
From: "Joshua Heath B. Heath"
Message-Id:
Subject: Re: starbuckss
To: "Positive Futures"
All this talk about Starbucks has got me thinking.....
I remember when I used to live in Victoria, There was a Starbucks and then
a "Mocha House" that opened up across the street. We all know about
Starbucks(multi- million dollar business to be sure!), and the Mocha House
was not really much better.... It was owned by "locals" (as in lived in
the general area) who also ran three other "Mocha Houses". They were very
hard working and industrious and provided a great service that did well in
comparison to the Starbucks that had previously been overflowing. But the
joke became, whould we support local Billionaire, or the local millionare,
and is there really any difference. Neither showed any desire to give back
to the community or do anything less than simply earn as much money as
possible! SO, my question is is locally owned always really better?
Actually I can answer that one, yes it is prefferable most of the time.
But this brings up the point that just being local and independant doesnt
guarantee anything.... and this is a big part of the problem.... we have
TONS of htese sort of stores... jsut exisiting for no other reason than to
dolover a product.... no one especially bieieves in the products value, it
is simply marketable and therefore someone is willing to make a buck
selling it.
So, I guess I am trying to say that in invisioning our "ideal" communities
it is good to include businesses with a real purpose above and beyond
making money! (for a coffee shop, provinding a community space for hanging
out and holding events and provinding a living for the people who run it.)
My $.02 worth! Joshua
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Tue Oct 27 17:28:56 1998
from catalyst.pacifier.com (ip29.van1.pacifier.com [216.65.136.29])
by smtp.pacifier.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA01175
for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:23:34 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:20:59 -0800
From: John Gear
In-Reply-To:
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981026092059.007bae40@mail.pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: starbuckss
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
Other options:
Giving up coffee entirely or almost so.
I've been experimenting to see whether or not I actually get any pleasure
from coffee any more, or merely feed the Jones. I've been going without
coffee all week, first time in 20 years or more. Surprisingly I haven't
noted any of the bad symptoms--irritability, headaches -- commonly
reported. I have noted that I sleep better, even though I never drank
coffee after noon anyway.
I would guess that I'm going to move coffee into the once-a-week or "treat"
category, like chocolate, rather than into the "first and most important
food group" category that it has formerly occupied, a habitual start to my
day. That also means that I won't mind paying the higher prices for
shade-grown/fairly-traded/organic beans quite so much, because I'll go
through it so much more slowly. (Coffee is one of the most destructive
crops in the world, and the agribusiness end of it is horrible. $tarbuck$
is one of the worst double-talking, greenwashing businesses there is.)
I find that our affluence sometimes means that we don't much enjoy things
that were once rare pleasures because we have them so often.
> But the
>joke became, whould we support local Billionaire, or the local millionare,
>and is there really any difference. Neither showed any desire to give back
>to the community or do anything less than simply earn as much money as
>possible! SO, my question is is locally owned always really better?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Tue Oct 27 17:28:59 1998
from clb5q.virginia.edu (bootp-109-239.bootp.Virginia.EDU
[128.143.109.239]) by server1.mail.virginia.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with
ESMTP id OAA13599 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998
14:07:31 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:08:57 -0500
From: Sherry Boyd
Message-Id: <199810261907.OAA13599@server1.mail.virginia.edu>
Subject: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: Positive Futures
Betsy, thanks for forwarding
Howard, thanks for writing,
I agree with every point Howard has made right up to the very end. I
agree that neither is solely to blame. That both are responsible.
BUT.......it is MHO that the major motivating factor for buying from large
chains on the part of the individual is almost always price. And that is
not something that the small independent can compete with. If our
standards are price alone, then the chain stores will always win. They
can buy in bulk and pay less per item. They have so many outlets, they can
give a 30% discount on hardback best sellers.
Perhaps I am one of few who feels that there are other things important in
our choice of where to spend our money than the mere price alone. I don't
see, Howard, how the local independent operation can compete with corporate
America in any better way than our family farms have been able to compete
with government subsidized agri-business. If we want to keep our food
supply from genetic engineering and chemical corrosion, then we have to
choose to spend more not less in order to keep the independent in business.
I don't think it is a matter of the little guy getting off its duff as you
put it.
I agree the consumer has the power to choose but I worry about what values
we demonstrate by our choices. I don't think the independent can under
price the conglomerate.
Sherry
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Tue Oct 27 17:29:06 1998
from the-word-garden (pm-3-064.dynam.WaveTech.net [206.146.145.65])
by riptide.wavetech.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id QAA10818
for ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:23:01 -0600 (CST)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:30:34 -0600
From: Betsy Barnum
Message-ID: <3634F80A.5F10@wavetech.net>
Organization: Great River Earth Institute
References: <199810261907.OAA13599@server1.mail.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: The choices we make (was Starbucks) (lo-o-ong...)
To: Positive Futures
Sherry Boyd wrote:
> Perhaps I am one of few who feels that there are other things important in
> our choice of where to spend our money than the mere price alone.
I think there are more people than just a few who are concerned, or
would be if they had access to all the information and weren't assaulted
daily with all kinds of messages to *not* care. The assumption that
people really *don't care* or are too selfish or short-sighted to make
good choices is really what I was challenging originally in Howard's
post (perhaps it was not what he said, but it was what I read). I'd like
us all to take another look at this notion, if it is one we hold, and
not think that because people *choose* to shop at chain stores or at
Starbucks, that this means they only care about getting the lowest price
and *don't care* about the other values.
I think people in general just don't know where to go, and it's so
difficult to find information and so time-consuming and discouraging,
that they don't seek it out. When new retail centers are sited, the only
consideration is the community's tax base (and maybe jobs for
construction companies). Residents are rarely consulted about what kind
of stores they want, or given the whole picture of what a given new
development will mean.
Or, in some cases, people really haven't thought about it, they have
gone along with whatever's presented to them, they aren't thinking
critically about *why* they are doing what they do or what the
consequences are.
I think we live in a culture that *actively*, from many angles, operates
to keep people from seeing the consequences of their choices, and even
tells them, practically in so many words, that there *are* no
consequences. This is supposed to be what the "good life" is about. TV
ads, of course, never mention the ecological damage that went into the
making of that car, or the union-busting of the company, or the short
time left before gas prices skyrocket due to oil running out. The Mall
of America, which I am ashamed to say exists in my area and my son works
there, has an ad campaign here with the slogan, "Who told you you can't
have it all?"
This is what people are hearing, and in our media- and
advertising-saturated society, lots of them are simply absorbing these
messages and looking no further. Isn't it appealing to think that you
can have what you want, comfort, leisure, new stuff, vacations, and
there are no consequences? In the absence of perspective, critical
thinking skills or a good reason to question these assumptions, I don't
think it's surprising that people are willing to believe this.
And there are other influences on people's seeming not to care. The
global economy is so huge, so far-flung, so difficult to comprehend.
Who, really, wants to believe that a 19-year-old Vietnamese woman (same
age as your sister) was sexually harrassed daily, denied bathroom breaks
and given enough money to buy lunch for a day's work when she made those
shoes you just bought for $80? Multiply this many times every day, with
knowing about the lives of the coffee plantation workers, the wildlife
coated with oil near drilling rigs after an accident, the cancer
suffered by Navajo uranium miners and children who play among the
tailings, and on and on and on. It's horrifying, it's overwhelming, it
shouldn't be so surprising that people numb out. It's also for the most
part far away, unseen, and therefore somewhat unreal to many.
And then there's the issue of addiction. Many people, such as
ecopsychologists, are starting to see that addiction is a fundamental
characteristic of consumer culture. People are individually addicted to
drugs, alcohol, other substances; also activities like work and
shopping. Lots of people are caught up in this, and even if they know
it, are unable to stop. Since addiction to activities like shopping is
not really recognized as a serious issue like alcoholism, for example,
there's not much help available even for people who do see their
addiction.
But it's bigger than that--our whole culture is addictive. Our economy
is addicted to growth and expansion, even in the face of the obvious
fact that growth can't go on forever. The massive, almost indescribable
level of cognitive dissonance this causes is, I think, an unacknowledged
cause of people switching off and going into a "taking care of me and
mine" mode rather than confronting this untenable situation.
Which leads me to yet another influence I see that disempowers people:
the sheer size and scope of what is going wrong. Many, many people are
desperately frightened of what they know about the ecological crisis,
the economy's precarious bubble, the growth of gangs in the cities and
armed militias in the countryside, kids with guns, global warming and
ozone holes, cancer rates and deformed frogs. But they feel they are too
small to make a difference--they deeply believe that what they do
doesn't matter. It's too big, it's too strong, it's going too fast, it
can't be stopped.
The promoters of the global economy (which is a powerful force behind
ecological destruction, economic disparity, consumerism and the fast
pace of modern life) preach this message into people's minds every day
in the news and speeches from the chambers of commerce and political
podiums: "The global economy is here to stay. It's unstoppable. It's
inevitable. There's nothing you can do." It's almost hypnotic.
My work is around transformation, giving people a venue and
psychological space to examine their assumptions, their values, their
habits, to begin to look at consequences, at impacts, at their role in
the whole system. I hear people's fears about where things are going,
and I hear "It doesn't matter what I do" all the time.
My mission is to help people see that it *does* matter what they do, it
matters in so many ways, and that they are *not* powerless. Even simply
*believing* this makes a difference for the better--adds to the positive
balance in the universe, helps the person to *wake up* more fully, gives
strength to overcome denial and face the huge and horrendous knowledge
we need to have to live a life of integrity in today's world. I know
from my daily experience that it *is* possible for people to wake up, to
look at their values and their lives, to take responsibility and to feel
empowerment and hope--that what they do matters.
People need compassion, not blame. I really don't like to even use the
word blame, and I usually don't. Here's how I look at it: people need to
take responsibility for their choices, and to do that they need support,
information, freedom to grieve and be overwhelmed sometimes, and a
context for making aware and compassionate choices (a philosophy, a
spirituality, a vision of a positive future they are building, something
to give *meaning* to the choices). I think most people don't have most
if any of these things.
And if people don't take personal responsibility, I think they still
need compassion and not blame. This is a very challenging time to be
alive. A huge transition, perhaps the biggest ever in human history, is
in process. Tremendous change is happening, the familiar foundation of
continuity is crumbling, the future is uncertain. Things are confusing
at best, intolerable at worst. Some people, maybe lots, aren't able to
meet the challenge, for whatever reason. I feel it's wrong to judge or
condemn them for this; compassion is called for.
I hold a view that may seem contradictory, but to me it's an effort not
to dichotomize but rather to encompass. People are responsible, and they
are *not* to blame. They can make a positive impact if they choose, and
if they don't choose to make a positive impact, they are not to blame
for that choice. They have power, they have responsibility to other
people, to the Earth and to the following generations to live as
harmlessly as possible. And if they don't, they should not be blamed or
held in contempt or reviled, even if their failure to take
responsibility results in harm.
And, I will continue to maintain that even though as a group,
individuals could shut down Starbucks--they could take
responsibility--it is Starbucks itself which is responsible for the harm
it does (the action it takes). To my mind, no matter how cynical or
unaware or unwilling to face reality a person is who buys coffee at
Starbucks, that person is *not* responsible for the community harm
Starbucks does and is not to blame for it. Starbucks made the choice to
operate in a way that harms the community. The responsibility for that
harm rests with Starbucks--perhaps individually with the board of
directors or the upper management who made up the corporate policy--but
it does not rest with each individual who buys coffee there even though
those individuals could choose to make a positive impact by boycotting
Starbucks.
One last point, delete now if you dislike preaching (or have already
heard enough of it!). Part of the underpinning for my views expressed
here about responsibility and blame is a consciousness that there is
much more that unites people than separates them. I think it is
unproductive and even dangerous to make too many distinctions between
ourselves and other people who are making choices we find
incomprehensible or destructive, or refusing to take positive action.
This doesn't mean placidly accepting all behavior; it just means
remembering we're all members of the same family (well, species, really,
which is an even closer relationship...)
Betsy
--
Betsy Barnum
bbarnum@wavetech.net
http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1624
**************************************
Human purpose and meaning is an ecological and evolutionary
meditation, and where there is body/mind separation from
the ecosystem, restoration is the foundation of healing.
--Mitchell Thomashow
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Tue Oct 27 17:29:16 1998
from catalyst.pacifier.com (ip78.van3.pacifier.com [216.65.136.78])
by smtp.pacifier.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA06570;
Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:49:24 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:46:49 -0800
From: John Gear
In-Reply-To: <3634F80A.5F10@wavetech.net>
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981026154649.007bfb10@mail.pacifier.com>
References: <199810261907.OAA13599@server1.mail.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: The choices we make (was Starbucks) (lo-o-ong...)
To: Positive Futures
I started reading a wonderful book last night that kept me up too late it
is so good.
It's "The Cult of Impotence--Selling the myth of powerlessness in the
global economy" by Linda McQuaig (ISBN 067087278-4; Viking 1998)
It's about Canada per se, but every single page is applicable to the US,
not only because it's our own Chicago boys who sold Canada the bill of
goods about how to 'manage' their economies for the benefit of the rich,
but also because it's virtually the identical story as described by Bob
Woodward in "The Agenda"--ostensibly liberal politician comes to power only
to be told that, if he dares to make a move to fight unemployment and
actually "Put People First," that he will get hammered by the bond market
and the international finance game, who will disinvest and bankrupt his
nation.
It's got a wonderful critique of the 'theory' (incantation is more like it)
of the "natural rate of unemployment" among other jewels.
Anyway, it's a great book and it really helps illuminate how we're so far
gone into the destructive growth/free-capital mindset that alternatives are
not even allowed to be discussed. It is this destructiveness that is at
the heart of why we don't seem to be able to act to respond to the obvious
human and environmental needs before.
Maybe you've already read it? You have the point anyway (although I'd
recommend it anyway, it's a great read.)
>Which leads me to yet another influence I see that disempowers people:
>the sheer size and scope of what is going wrong. Many, many people are
>desperately frightened of what they know about the ecological crisis,
>the economy's precarious bubble, the growth of gangs in the cities and
>armed militias in the countryside, kids with guns, global warming and
>ozone holes, cancer rates and deformed frogs. But they feel they are too
>small to make a difference--they deeply believe that what they do
>doesn't matter. It's too big, it's too strong, it's going too fast, it
>can't be stopped.
>
>The promoters of the global economy (which is a powerful force behind
>ecological destruction, economic disparity, consumerism and the fast
>pace of modern life) preach this message into people's minds every day
>in the news and speeches from the chambers of commerce and political
>podiums: "The global economy is here to stay. It's unstoppable. It's
>inevitable. There's nothing you can do." It's almost hypnotic.
> (snip)
>My mission is to help people see that it *does* matter what they do, it
>matters in so many ways, and that they are *not* powerless. Even simply
>*believing* this makes a difference for the better--adds to the positive
>balance in the universe, helps the person to *wake up* more fully, gives
>strength to overcome denial and face the huge and horrendous knowledge
>we need to have to live a life of integrity in today's world. I know
>from my daily experience that it *is* possible for people to wake up, to
>look at their values and their lives, to take responsibility and to feel
>empowerment and hope--that what they do matters.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Wed Oct 28 05:44:03 1998
from pop.ou.edu (dyn0-85.educ.ou.edu [129.15.102.85])
by styx.services.ou.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA13464
for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:35:36 -0600 (CST)
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:38:21 -0600
From: Diane Fitzsimmons
Message-ID: <3635DADD.FC39EFB6@pop.ou.edu>
References: <199810261907.OAA13599@server1.mail.virginia.edu> <3634F80A.5F10@wavetech.net>
Subject: Re: The choices we make (was Starbucks) (lo-o-ong...)
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Betsy: Wonderful essay.
To respond to one of your points:
> I think people in general just don't know where to go, and it's so
> difficult to find information and so time-consuming and discouraging,
> that they don't seek it out. When new retail centers are sited, the only
> consideration is the community's tax base (and maybe jobs for
> construction companies). Residents are rarely consulted about what kind
> of stores they want, or given the whole picture of what a given new
> development will mean.
>
Or people do fight such things and still get defeated. I've posted
before about a vocal minority in my community that has fought the
introduction of two new Wal-mart Super Centers into our city of 100,000
and the expansion of a downtown dairy plant into a historical neighborhood.
City officials and Chamber types successfully rallied a majority to
support these decisions. For instance, the dairy expansion eventually
went to a vote of the people. The vote was close but was carried by the
well-to-do neighborhoods several miles west of downtown.
Even though my side was defeated, I am heartened that we fought the good
fight and nearly pulled it off. Our time will come.
Keep up the good work, Betsy.
Diane
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Wed Oct 28 07:52:13 1998
by mail.unitedwaycc.org from n29.together.net
(209.91.22.85::mail daemon; unverified,SLMail V2.6); Tue, 27 Oct 1998 12:06:15 -0500
Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 12:14:00 -0500
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 12:13:58 -0500
From: "Mark J. Serda"
Message-ID: <01BE01A3.4748C140.marks@unitedwaycc.org>
Organization: United Way of Chittenden County
Subject: RE: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: "'positive-futures@igc.org'"
Hi, I'm new to this list. I just wanted to say that I've enjoyed the
discussion I've seen so far and think lists like these are great ideas.
Now, to actually respond to this recent discussion.
I think it is important for us to be more socially conscious of how we
spend and where we spend our hard earned dollars, but it is important to
understand the dynamics of the audience we preach this too. I've moved to
many places around the states and I have to admit that often times I see a
distinction of those that actually do this and those that do not. In
addition, it is also important to understand the dynamics of why those that
do, can and those that should, cannot. I know I'm sounding vague here, but
bear with me. Let me give an example.
I originally from Albuquerque, NM. For those of you who know Albquerque,
you'll recognize the name of a particular section of ABQ called "Nob Hill".
Nob Hill has the distinction of being a neighborhood where co-op stores,
local businesses, herbal shops, etc., thrive. Like many other cities I've
been to, namely Austin, TX, Boulder, CO, and here in Burlington, VT, the
consumers that go there are quite distinct from the rest of the cities,
with maybe the exception of Burlington. What I'm talking about is who do
you see there? You see people like us who have this awareness right?
Well, now focus in on the income dynamics of these consumers. I may set
off some other discussions by saying this and may disturb people when I say
this, but these are based on my observations. I find that demographics of
those that shop there are largely middle class and also distinctly not
frequented by the minority population. In fact, as a hispanic, when I go
into these stores, I feel like I stand out like a sore thumb. Why I'm
mentioning this example, is that we may say that we have to be willing to
spend more for products that are more enviromentally, or socially correct,
but what about those that simply cannot afford to pay such high prices for
organic milk, organic produce, natural chemical products, etc., etc.? The
simple fact is if you are a family of say 5 that is the low-income bracket,
you may have limited choice of where you shop. It is my hope one day that
the demographics of those that frequent these co-ops, herbal shops, etc.,
change one day so that everyone is represented equally. How would you all
suggest that could be done?
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Sherry Boyd
Sent: Monday, October 26, 1998 2:09 PM
To: Positive Futures
Subject: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
Betsy, thanks for forwarding
Howard, thanks for writing,
I agree with every point Howard has made right up to the very end. I
agree that neither is solely to blame. That both are responsible.
BUT.......it is MHO that the major motivating factor for buying from large
chains on the part of the individual is almost always price. And that is
not something that the small independent can compete with. If our
standards are price alone, then the chain stores will always win. They
can buy in bulk and pay less per item. They have so many outlets, they can
give a 30% discount on hardback best sellers.
Perhaps I am one of few who feels that there are other things important in
our choice of where to spend our money than the mere price alone. I don't
see, Howard, how the local independent operation can compete with corporate
America in any better way than our family farms have been able to compete
with government subsidized agri-business. If we want to keep our food
supply from genetic engineering and chemical corrosion, then we have to
choose to spend more not less in order to keep the independent in business.
I don't think it is a matter of the little guy getting off its duff as you
put it.
I agree the consumer has the power to choose but I worry about what values
we demonstrate by our choices. I don't think the independent can under
price the conglomerate.
Sherry
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Thu Oct 29 05:56:50 1998
from default(cust37.max1.firstdial.com[206.253.205.37]) (1583 bytes)
by smtp.firstdial.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:inet_hosts/T:smtp
(sender: ) id
for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:42:55 -0900 (PST)
(Smail-3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #11 built 1998-Jun-28)
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:54:41 -0800
From: "Joshua Heath B. Heath"
Message-Id:
Subject: Re: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: <positive-futures@igc.org>
: Diane Fitzsimmons wrote:
> Even though my side was defeated, I am heartened that we fought the good
> fight and nearly pulled it off. Our time will come.
>
> Keep up the good work, Betsy.
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes! You have good reason to be proud or your efforts. I
really believe a real difference will be made when people wake up to the
fact that the only way to really make a difference is to take
responsability for what they allow into their backyards. YOu have acted on
your responsability to stand up for what you believe in! Your attitude it
terrific, because you recognize you cant always stop things form going
ahead anyway, but this doesnt cause you to be bitterly resentful or utterly
discouraged, it simply means that the people in your area where not
*enlightened* enough to value simple things beyond growth for growth's
sake. People like you, and communities like the one where you are lucky
enough to live inspie me.... there most certainly is hope for the tides to
shift in the future.
Peace,
Joshua
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Thu Oct 29 05:56:55 1998
from localhost (northcut@localhost) by lamar.ColoState.EDU
(AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id NAA356756; Tue, 27 Oct 1998
13:03:32 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 13:03:32 -0700 (MST)
From: Kathryn Northcut
In-Reply-To: <01BE01A3.4748C140.marks@unitedwaycc.org>
Message-ID:
Subject: RE: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: positive-futures
Re: "Mark J. Serda";
I think Mark raises some really interesting points. First, a lot of the
push toward natural products, less-refined foods, etc., is a fad. It won't
last and in a way, that's too bad because maybe eventually the supply
would equal the demand and these things would reach the mass market of
lower-income consumers. However, there's another method of consuming
better stuff that's NOT trendy and IS a lot of work but also saves tons of
money, gets you less-processed stuff, and is only out of reach of poorer
citizens because of:
a) education
b) connections/resources/networks
or c) cultural stigmas borne of advertising pressure or social pressure,
or some combination. I am of course talking about finding what grows near you and eating more of it... finding what can be grown in a garden and growing it, and finding out what's produced nearby and using it. Recycling more...
using free manure for gardens... avoiding malls at all costs in favor of
thrift stores, yard sales, barter, etc. We all know that a lot of people
who shop in the trendy organic stores wouldn't be caught dead wearing
another person's winter coat. Some poorer people are like this too, and
that's one reason they'd go to Walmart to buy a new, poor quality,
imported winter coat rather than get an old, warm, wool coat for less
money at a thrift store.
I don't see the demographics at the trendy shops changing in the future.
Why should they cater to the masses when they can charge more money of the
elite? I do hope that things like the Consumer Credit Counseling service
(I may not have that name right) and others grow... teaching people of all
backgrounds how to stay out of debt, what the impact of advertising is,
how our culture determines value and worth AND alternatives to this value
system, etc. It will take a huge grassroots movement to convince more
people to participate in bartering, recycling, repairing, etc., but lots
of people are getting fed up enough that it's happening more even in my
little conservative neck of the woods.
This was quite a ramble--sorry, but Mark's post got me going!
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Mark J. Serda wrote:
> Now, to actually respond to this recent discussion.
>
> I think it is important for us to be more socially conscious of how we
> spend and where we spend our hard earned dollars, but it is important to
> understand the dynamics of the audience we preach this too. ...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Thu Oct 29 05:58:50 1998
from clb5q.virginia.edu (bootp-109-239.bootp.Virginia.EDU
[128.143.109.239]) by server1.mail.virginia.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id
KAA09360 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:42:06 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:43:34 -0500
From: Sherry Boyd
Message-Id: <199810281542.KAA09360@server1.mail.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: "'positive-futures@igc.org'"
In response to both Mark and Betsy on this issue.
Mark said:
> into these stores, I feel like I stand out like a sore thumb. Why I'm
> mentioning this example, is that we may say that we have to be willing to
> spend more for products that are more enviromentally, or socially
> correct, but what about those that simply cannot afford to pay such
> high prices for organic milk, organic produce, natural chemical products,
> etc., etc.? The simple fact is if you are a family of say 5 that is
> the low-income bracket, you may have limited choice of where you shop.
I don't want to pick on Mark, just to add my observation to his. I live in
an area of Virginia which has both the very (and I do mean VERY) wealthy
and the very poor. It seems as I look around that neither of those groups
is paying much attention to how they are spending their money. The
first group perhaps because they feel they don't have to. They can
afford whatever they want but that does not make them more environmentally
responsible when they purchase or more mindful of the "real costs"
of things. The other group may feel they cannot afford to be mindful,
but these (at least in my town) are many of the same people who
do have money for cable TV, TV guide, and name brand athletic shoes.
I'm not sure how many decisions are really based on how much we have to
spend, except in the most extreme cases, but rather on what we most want.
Betsy said:
>People are responsible, and they are *not* to blame. They can make a
>positive impact if they choose, and if they don't choose to make a
>positive impact, they are not to blame for that choice.
> They have power, they have responsibility to other
>people, to the Earth and to the following generations to live as
>harmlessly as possible.
> And if they don't, they should not be blamed or held in contempt or
reviled, even if their failure to take responsibility results in harm.
While I agree with Betsy in principle regarding most things, I'm not sure
my compassion makes me as willing to exempt people from accepting total
responsibility for their decisions and choices. I know "blame" is not a PC
word but if the responsibility is left with the individual and he/she does
not accept it then who is responsible for the resulting consequences? I
guess I am tiring of hearing about everyone's "rights" and no one's
"responsibilities" and that goes all the way back to blaming one's parents
for the person one has become today.
Betsy also said:
> I think it is unproductive and even dangerous to make too many
>distinctions between
>ourselves and other people who are making choices we find
>incomprehensible or destructive, or refusing to take positive action.
>This doesn't mean placidly accepting all behavior; it just means
>remembering we're all members of the same family (well, species, really,
>which is an even closer relationship...)
I agree that it is not productive to turn the world into an "us" and "them"
situation but if we do not accept all behavior in a system of no blame then
how do we deal with the harm that results not only to us but to other
innocent species from an individual's failure to take responsibility?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Thu Oct 29 10:53:34 1998
from localHost ([166.33.49.79]) by omta3.mcit.com (InterMail v03.02.05
118 121 101) with SMTP id <19981028174806.TNJX649@localHost>; Wed, 28 Oct
1998 11:48:06 -0600
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Stan King
Message-Id: <19981028174806.TNJX649@localHost>
Organization: MCI
Subject: RE: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: "'positive-futures@igc.org'"
Mark J. Serda wrote:
> Why I'm mentioning this example,
>is that we may say that we have to be willing to
>spend more for products that are more environmentally, or socially correct,
>but what about those that simply cannot afford to pay such high prices for
>organic milk, organic produce, natural chemical products, etc., etc.? The
>simple fact is if you are a family of say 5 that is the low-income bracket,
>you may have limited choice of where you shop. It is my hope one day that
>the demographics of those that frequent these co-ops, herbal shops, etc.,
>change one day so that everyone is represented equally. How would you all
>suggest that could be done?
We purchase much of our organic produce and bread at local farmer's
markets. We live in the San Francisco South Bay and I believe an
increasingly high demand for organic foods is driving down the
prices of such foods. For example, during this past summer the
prices we paid for our organic produce at our local Sunnyvale farmer's
market has been on par with or lower than comparable products at
our local Safeway. By the way, we also keep detailed records of our
food costs and as we have moved from processed, unorganic food to
organic, whole foods over the years our monthly food costs have remained
under $200/ month for two people.
I certainly agree with Mark that purchasing organic and natural
foods/products can cost more and may not always be financially
feasible for lower income families. However, the more we all start
buying these products and voting with our dollars, the sooner we will
see more ubiquity and lower prices for these items.
Regards,
Stan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Thu Oct 29 10:53:41 1998
by hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA00749
for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:05:15 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 10:20:23 -0700
From: Rain
Message-ID: <3617AE56.4C8C611F@earthlink.net>
Organization: Pugnacious Productions
References: <199810281542.KAA09360@server1.mail.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: "'positive-futures@igc.org'"
> Mark said:
> > into these stores, I feel like I stand out like a sore thumb. Why I'm
> > mentioning this example, is that we may say that we have to be willing to
> > spend more for products that are more enviromentally, or socially
> correct, but what about those that simply cannot afford to pay such high
> prices
> for organic milk, organic produce, natural chemical products, etc., etc.?
Hi,
I'm new to the list, and I'm really enjoying this discussion because it has
been a major issue for my family in the recent months. We live in West LA,
which is definitely not an area with many resources for frugal living. Most of the health food stores in WLA are very trendy (Whole Foods, Wild Oats, etc.) chains with inflated prices - and I'm not very happy about supporting them.
However, I can't find a small locally owned health food store or co-op with a
decent bulk selection and produce, because the chains have driven them out of
business, so... I find myself spending my dollars and "voting" for these large
chains and buying products I'd rather not use, but must, because I can't afford
green alternatives.
We grow some of our own vegetables - in a tiny city yard we can't grow much,
but we grow some. We recycle and compost and try to be concious of the waste
we are producing. We take advantage of farmers markets whenever we can. I
stay home with my kids, a decision based on our values NOT money, and that
seriously impacts the other financial choices we can make. I find myself
shopping at places like Target, Wal-Mart, etc., just to save a few dollars so
that we can pay our medical insurance each month. We are *not* middle class!
We drive used cars that we bought outright. We don't have cable! We have made
all kinds of frugal choices, and we're still struggling to live sanely in a
very toxic and expensive world. I guess it is all about finding a balance, but
sometimes it's really difficult to get your values to reconcile with necessity.
While we're on this topic, is there anyone on this list in the LA area? I'm
trying to start a frugal living support group, but can't find any one who wants
to live frugally here! I guess the siren song of the mall drowns out the small
quiet voice inside that whispers that we should slow down and consume less...
Rainy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Thu Oct 29 10:54:44 1998
from the-word-garden (pm-3-066.dynam.WaveTech.net [206.146.145.67])
by riptide.wavetech.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id NAA29446
for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:28:10 -0600 (CST)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:35:42 -0600
From: Betsy Barnum
Message-ID: <3637720E.957@wavetech.net>
Organization: Great River Earth Institute
References: <199810281542.KAA09360@server1.mail.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: "'positive-futures@igc.org'"
Sherry Boyd wrote:
> While I agree with Betsy in principle regarding most things, I'm not sure
> my compassion makes me as willing to exempt people from accepting total
> responsibility for their decisions and choices. I know "blame" is not a PC
> word but if the responsibility is left with the individual and he/she does
> not accept it then who is responsible for the resulting consequences? I
> guess I am tiring of hearing about everyone's "rights" and no one's
> "responsibilities" and that goes all the way back to blaming one's parents
> for the person one has become today.
What I'm trying to say (it's becoming clearer as I write and think about
the responses from the list) is not that people should be excused from
taking responsibility in their lives, but that we should not confuse who
is responsible for harm caused by corporations and their decisions about
how to operate in the economy.
People certainly are responsible for their behavior, for how they treat
other people, for their relationships. But to me there's a difference
between this and holding people responsible for corporate harm because
of how they spend their money.
It seems to me something of a blind spot in our thinking that we are
critical of people who, to use our own example, buy coffee at Starbucks,
instead of directing our criticisms at Starbucks itself. Even though
people at least theoretically could have an impact on Starbucks and even
cause them to close, it is still not their responsibility to do that--it
is Starbucks' responsibility to operate in an acceptable way. In other
words, the responsibility for how corporations harm people and the Earth
does not belong with each individual. It properly resides with
corporations and with the people as a body--the government usually, or
other large organizations that represent the people.
It's about class, I think. It has always been in the interest of the
owning class to deflect attention and criticism from what they do and
instead encourage divisions and blame among the people they dominate for
the conditions of life that the owners create and perpetuate. Whether
the dominant group is the boards and shareholders of today's big
corporations, the factory owners of the industrial revolution, or the
feudal lords of the manor, what they choose to do should be viewed as
*their* responsibility, *their* misuse of power. Individuals can
certainly act responsibly in their economic decisions, and I fully
endorse encouraging people to do this. But if they don't, that doesn't
mean they are then responsible for the harm done by the corporation.
It seems to me that modern-day corporations have succeeded extremely
well in shifting the focus away from their goals and activities and
forcing people to deal with whatever they do *after* it has been done.
We then argue about what people individually should do to exert their
power against a corporation, and even develop hostile attitudes toward
people who are not making "responsible" choices. Rather, we should be
uniting to challenge the corporation's right to operate in ways that are
harmful to people, communities and the Earth--their right to put each of
us in a position of feeling responsible for what that corporation does
because we buy its product.
> I agree that it is not productive to turn the world into an "us" and "them"
> situation but if we do not accept all behavior in a system of no blame then
> how do we deal with the harm that results not only to us but to other
> innocent species from an individual's failure to take responsibility?
Individuals whose failure to take responsibility results in harm to
people and other species are the Bill Gates of the world, the board
chair of Starbucks, the CEO of Exxon, the owner of the agribusiness
farm, the biotechnology project manager at Monsanto, the economists who
continue to preach growth and capitalism, the politicians who fail to
listen and do the will of the people, the media that fail to challenge
the predominant paradigm, etc. etc. etc. These are the people whose lack
of responsibility we ought to focus our energy on, not turn it against
each other. IMHO.
Betsy
--
Betsy Barnum
bbarnum@wavetech.net
http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1624
**************************************
Listening is a magnetic and strange thing, a creative force... When we
are listened to, it creates us, makes us unfold and expand. Ideas
actually begin to grow within us and come to life...
--Brenda Ueland
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Thu Oct 29 13:25:37 1998
from default(cust28.max1.firstdial.com[206.253.205.28]) (2921 bytes) by
smtp.firstdial.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:inet_hosts/T:smtp (sender:
) id for
; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 15:04:14 -0900 (PST) (Smail-
3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #11 built 1998-Jun-28)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 16:16:10 -0800
From: "Joshua Heath B. Heath"
Message-Id:
Subject: Re: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: "'positive-futures@igc.org'"
----------
Betsy Barnum wrote,
> People certainly are responsible for their behavior, for how they treat
> other people, for their relationships. But to me there's a difference
> between this and holding people responsible for corporate harm because
> of how they spend their money.
I am enjoying this fascinating discussion very much. Here I have to add
that I sort of agree and sort of disagree. I DO think the responsibility
lies squarely on the shoulders of us, the people, not the corporations and
their CEO's. But I agree how people spend their money is not a good
measurement of this responsibility. I don't agree that "voting with our
dollars" is the largest power we have as consumers. Our real
responsibility lies in not allowing corporations to continue to operate the
way they do. To do this requires getting involved the way that Diane(I
think) mentioned-- organizing to stand up for what we believe in. Similar
to fighting racism/sexism, at one level the biggest difference an
individual can make is to challenge stereotypes and barriers in their own
lives.... however of course this is not the stuff of revolutions....
Without dynamic leadership of people willing to stand up for their cause,
and to organize and volunteer etc, the kinds of sweeping changes in rules
and regulations about gender and race equality could never have occurred.
Similarly, corporations nor consumers are going to change substantially on
their own incentive. So, nothing short of large scale activism at the
grass roots level will bring sweeping changes to the way business is
conducted on this continent. My guess is that it will have to come to the
point of widespread civil disobedience, large demonstrations, etc
concurrent with integrated grass roots action in building viable
alternatives that can be demonstrated to be workable.
So, I don't believe people should be "blamed" for shopping at Starbucks
either, I believe though that the people should be held 100% responsible
for allowing Starbucks to exist in the first place.
Of course, this begs the question: isn't it partly government's
responsibility? Yes and No, the government will only do things that people
DEMAND! and also, whose fault but the voters is it that we continue to only
have two choices in the political spectrum, both very pro- big business?
Cheers,
Joshua
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Oct 30 05:42:08 1998
from PRichter1@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 1CKCa19214
for ; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:29:12 +1900 (EST)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:29:12 EST
From: PRichter1@aol.com
Message-ID:
Subject: Re: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Hello, all...
I am a bit uncomfortable with the discussion about the spending habits of *the
poor* (and I have cringed at some of the assumptions that seem to be behind
some characterizations).
Organic stuff and ecologically correct products are not usually located in
areas that house lower income people. And these areas may also be inaccessible
to those who may not have adequate transportation. Yes, many whom we identify
as *poor* do have cable and make spending choices that we might not make. But
keep in mind that advertising is most insidious in lower income areas. It is
forceful and compelling.
Also, in a consumer-driven society, how can we expect
those who a) do not have much money and b) live "under the thumb" of more
powerful folks to be so noble as to resist this powerful pull of acquisition?
Our response (this is a royal "we", not restricted to this list) is to blame
*the poor* for spending unwisely -- yet another put-down and a way to keep
folks dependent rather than independent (or better yet, interdependent). I
think the real question needs to be, "how can we empower folks to make the
wisest choices for themselves?" This is where Betsy's analysis of the
corporate economic climate is so strong. Let us not buy into (pardon the pun)
the further disempowerment of those whom we label *poor*.
My sermon for the day,
Priscilla
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Oct 30 05:42:31 1998
from nt_email_server (asl.asl.westminster.sch.uk)
by mdx.ac.uk (PMDF V5.1-12 #29137) with SMTP id <01J3JFBCDTPQ001JA8@mdx.ac.uk>
for positive-futures@igc.org; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:14:10 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 09:12:12 +0100
From: Gillian_Crossland@asl.org (Gillian Crossland)
Message-id:
Organization: The American School in London
Subject: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Hi, all.
Ive just joined the list and although I dont intend to participate
yet, I thought I would just say hello. Why do I not intend to
participate yet? Im fairly new to all this (both mailing lists and
voluntary simplicity) and I want to observe and learn. I am fascinated
and stimulated by all that I am reading so far and it is a pleasure to
see sometimes differing views exchanged with thoughtfulness and
respect. I would like to raise a cheer for Mark though, and found the
account of his lifestyle inspiring, despite the frustrations of having
very few resources for frugal living in his area. I live in London,
England and there appears to be very little in the way of resources or
support for voluntary simplicity here. I have, however, established a
very supportive e-mail relationship with a Canadian simplifier I met
through the Simple Living Network (hi, Jennifer!) and have found our
mutual correspondence both stimulating and challenging. Having a
simplicity buddy has made a deal of difference as I strive to make
personal changes in such an uncompromising world.
Have a peaceful day.
Gillian.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Oct 30 05:42:57 1998
from localhost (gthomas@localhost) by acad.suffolk.edu (AIX4.2/UCB
8.7/8.7) with SMTP id IAA36336; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 08:37:31 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 08:37:30 -0500 (EST)
From: gthomas@acad.suffolk.edu
In-Reply-To: <19981028174806.TNJX649@localHost>
Message-ID:
Subject: RE: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: "'positive-futures@igc.org'"
Stan King
Stan,
This is astounding. We could never keep our total
food bill below $300 per month in the Boston area and now that we've
started buying organic, we actually buy better, less food, but the bill
has shot up and is hovering around $500 per month for two people. That
includes very basic food, -- fish, vegetables and fruit, grains and
cereals, milk products and a little bit of meat now and then -- not a lot
of prepackaged stuff. I'm impressed that you feed two on
only $200 or so. That's great!
Before we started buying organic foods, my main goal had
been to bring our grocery bills down as far as possible and we did manage
to get then down from $400 or so to averaging in the upper 200s, but then
some health problems forced us to really look at what we were eating and
we started growing our own and buying organic everything. I'm still trying
to bring that bill down, in spite of the cost of organics.
I grew up poor and totally understand Mark Serda's point. When
you are poor you are concerned with eating and feeling not so much poorer
than your neighbor, not necessarily with nutrition. We ate lots of plain
white pasta and iceberg lettuce growing up. People have to feel secure
enough and like there is enough to spare, before they can think about what
they are eating and why and where they buy it from. There are so many
issues for the poor to empower themselves around that
nutrition and cheap, but good, food may not be such a compelling one.
Incidentally, our organic food stores are largely a white,
upper mid-class demographic, but our coop is very multi-culty (as I like
to say) and has every economic class represented.
Glynys
Boston
On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Stan King wrote:
> ...
> increasingly high demand for organic foods is driving down the
> prices of such foods. For example, during this past summer the
> prices we paid for our organic produce at our local Sunnyvale farmer's
> market has been on par with or lower than comparable products at
> our local Safeway. By the way, we also keep detailed records of our
> food costs and as we have moved from processed, unorganic food to
> organic, whole foods over the years our monthly food costs have remained
> under $200/ month for two people.
> ...
> Stan
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Oct 30 05:43:04 1998
from hgebeaux01 (207.140.91.156) by 3n.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with
SMTP id ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:03:57 -0500
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:05:50 -0000
From: "Howard L. Gebeaux"
Message-ID: <001501be0323$b5546be0$9c5b8ccf@hgebeaux01.3n.net>
Subject: Assumptions - Starbucks
To: "Positive Futures"
There are two things I've
seen recently on this Starbucks topic that I must respond to.
One, there seems to be an
assumption that there are "good" and "bad" products that we
consumers buy. Falling under the "good" category are things like
organic foods. Falling under the "bad" category are things like cable
TV. I think we need to justify those categories. What makes organic food
"good" and cable TV "bad"?
Betsy has offered the best
argument in my mind for this, offering the standards of people/community, the
earth and future generations. But then we need to apply that standard in each
case, not just accept blindly that X product doesn't meet those standards, Y
product does. The rest of us can't be sheeps accepting another's
categorization.
Let's support our
assumptions.
And two, there seems to be
complete acceptance of the suggestion that any time someone buys a
"good" product, he or she is buying that from a decision made
independently and from within. And also that anytime anyone buys a
"bad" product, he or she is buying from a decision made from without,
by the advertising people, by other influences.
Come on now. Give us humans a
break here. If we buy that, then we have to assume that those people who do
indeed buy the "good" products are strong, healthy, smart, wise,
aware, able to reject advertising jingles, good people. And that those who buy
the "bad" products are ignorant, easily influenced, pawns, zombies.
And we all know this isn't true.
I'm sure there are some of us
out here who do both - buy organic food and have a TV, perhaps even connected to
Cable, and at times buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks or perhaps a book at
Borders. Does that mean our minds/souls jump from being aware and smart to being
blind and ignorant, all depending on what product we are thinking about.
Right.
So we have to go deeper here.
We have to look at something else. I think the conversation I've read in the
past few days has gotten stuck in these assumptions. Let's get out of the rut
and dig a little deeper for the truth.
I read people who easily say
that buy a cup of coffee from Starbucks is "bad." Why? Let's explain
this a bit more. Or are we just accepting Betsy's argument blindly? (And isn't
that just like following the advertising jingle?) Let's don't be brainwashed.
Betsy might be 100% right, but we can't just accept that. Let's argue with her,
look into the argument, demand something more than acceptance. Let's be more
rigorous. We'll be stronger for it.
Thanks.
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Oct 30 11:33:38 1998
from the-word-garden (pm-3-062.dynam.WaveTech.net [206.146.145.63])
by riptide.wavetech.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA01774
for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:47:24 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:54:56 -0600
From: Betsy Barnum
Message-ID: <36389DE0.3030@wavetech.net>
Organization: Great River Earth Institute
References: <001501be0323$b5546be0$9c5b8ccf@hgebeaux01.3n.net>
Subject: Re: Assumptions - Starbucks
To: Positive Futures
Howard L. Gebeaux wrote:
> I read people who easily say that buy a cup of coffee from
> Starbucks is "bad." Why? Let's explain this a bit more. Or are we just
> accepting Betsy's argument blindly? (And isn't that just like
> following the advertising jingle?) Let's don't be brainwashed. Betsy
> might be 100% right, but we can't just accept that. Let's argue with
> her, look into the argument, demand something more than acceptance.
> Let's be more rigorous. We'll be stronger for it.
Wait a minute. I have never said buying coffee at Starbucks is "bad." In
fact, it was you who came much closer to saying that, when you said in
your post last Friday, "Ultimately it is up to the people whether chain
stores - be it Starbucks or Borders or WalMart or whatever - succeed in
hurting the local economy and local businesses. We have it within our
power, and responsibility. We can't shift the blame onto Starbucks."
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in this paragraph I hear you saying
that Starbucks, Borders or WalMart, for example, hurt local economies
and local businesses, and that the *blame* for that lies with people who
shop there, not with these corporations. You didn't say "buying coffee
at Starbucks is bad," but your meaning is fairly close to that, as I
read it. Am I misunderstanding?
What I have said is that the *blame* for Starbucks, Borders etc. hurting
local economies and local businesses does *not* belong to the people who
shop there. It belongs to these companies. I have in fact studiously
avoided using the word "blame," and I have most certainly not used the
word "bad." I have tried very hard to avoid making value judgments about
people who shop here, there or anywhere, and have in fact argued
strongly for compassion to be shown even to people who *knowingly*
patronize stores that harm local economies and local businesses.
The closest I have come to laying blame is to point out that the owners
of businesses are responsible for the harm their companies' policies and
ways of operating cause to people and communities, as well as to the
Earth. I think this issue is really more complex than that, but if any
*people* ought to be held responsible for what is happening in our
economy, in my mind it is the people who are benefiting financially from
industrial capitalism and the global economy. It is *not* us
"consumers," harried and distracted, pushed to the limit, lied to and
deceived, assaulted daily with psychologically subtle advertising,
tired, discouraged and disempowered, who are responsible for what
corporations do to us and our world.
Argue with me, if you want to Howard, but let's be clear what the
arguments are. I don't think you have understood mine, based on your
comments above.
Betsy
--
Betsy Barnum
bbarnum@wavetech.net
http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1624
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Oct 30 11:34:27 1998
from default(cust28.max1.firstdial.com[206.253.205.28]) (3455 bytes) by
smtp.firstdial.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:inet_hosts/T:smtp
(sender: ) id
for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:07:34 -0900 (PST) (Smail-
3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #11 built 1998-Jun-28)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 11:16:16 -0800
From: "Joshua Heath B. Heath"
Message-Id:
Subject: Re: Assumptions - Starbucks
To: "Positive Futures"
Howard L. Gebeaux wrote;
One, there seems to be an assumption that there are "good" and "bad"
products that we consumers buy. Falling under the "good" category are
things like organic foods. Falling under the "bad" category are things like
cable TV. I think we need to justify those categories. What makes organic
food "good" and cable TV "bad"?
-----------
I agree that there is no black and white. good/bad products... it is a
complicated issue. I have two comments:
1. I have always thought it would be a really good idea to start an
organization that developed a sort of index to rate products based upon
things like being locally owned, the companies human relations,
environmental impact of the product (extractive?) etc. As far as I know
the only organizations I know of focus on rating big multinational
corporations... I think it would be more interesting if smaller companies
were also "rated" so there was a fair comparison between them and the
multi-nationals. I think the "ratings" could be promenently displayed in
retail stores wishing to offer product information.... (food co-op's?)
2. Personally the biggest distinction I use to put things into categories
of things I want to support and things I don't really WANT to (but of course
do end up doing often) is the SIZE of the ownership. Is there a trickle-up
effect from the money I am spending that goes to make rich men even richer.
Most if not all products in a Supermarket or a mall have this quality.
The only hope I see around it is to buy from co-ops and buy from small or
local companies/farmers at markets/fairs, to shop at thrift stores, and to
do garage sales etc. But the most important thing to me is simply to be
conscious of the fact that when I shop at Safeway (etc etc) a portion of
every dollar I spend is going to end up increasing the net worth of already
EXORBITANTLY rich people.
But I agree i dont neccesarily think that even being aware of this, it is a
reflection of "poor taste" to continue to shop in places where I am
contributing to this effect. I simply do not have the space i my life at
present to take on a comlete drop-out of consuming these products.....
One day soon, however, when we finally settle in ONE place we can call home
(permanently!) I will work hard to promote a local economy and simplify so
I can make purchasing choices that try to avoid supporitng big business. I
want 100% of my dollar to go to working people who have earned it through
provinding a real service.
Things like having a root cellar, buying at markets, growing our own,
volunteering at the local co-op to recieve a discount there, joining a
brown box program, and I don't even know yet ... but to me it is about
getting involved and creating an alternative that really supports the local
economy.
Joshua
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Oct 30 11:34:43 1998
from pop.ou.edu (dyn0-85.educ.ou.edu [129.15.102.85])
by styx.services.ou.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA16920
for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 13:17:03 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 13:19:51 -0600
From: Diane Fitzsimmons
Message-ID: <3638BFD7.8F158F3C@pop.ou.edu>
References: <001501be0323$b5546be0$9c5b8ccf@hgebeaux01.3n.net> <36389DE0.3030@wavetech.net>
Subject: Re: Assumptions - Starbucks
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Betsy: I find your essays of the last few days to be eloquent and on
target. But I did have a question on your statement below:
> I think this issue is really more complex than that, but if any
> *people* ought to be held responsible for what is happening in our
> economy, in my mind it is the people who are benefiting financially from
> industrial capitalism and the global economy. It is *not* us
> "consumers," harried and distracted, pushed to the limit, lied to and
> deceived, assaulted daily with psychologically subtle advertising,
> tired, discouraged and disempowered, who are responsible for what
> corporations do to us and our world.
>
I feel that (as I believe it was said in Pogo) "I have met the enemy and
it is us." I don't feel like a harried consumer beat down by
monolithic corporations filled with money-grubbing bad guys (I am
personally using hyperbole and am not trying to say that was your
description). I agree with you that the PEOPLE in corporations who
implement bad policy should accept the repsonsibility for their bad
policy, but I also don't feel the average American has no choice in
fighting those bad corporate policies implemented by PEOPLE (PEOPLE who
I probably know).
Now, I have much more sympathy for a person who is truly impoverished,
be it here or overseas. I feel as if they truly are at the mercy of THE
SYSTEM (however we define it).
But as for me, my husband and I are college educated, our family income
is about $30,000 a year, we have health insurance, we live in a safe
suburb, our kids go to good schools, we rent an old but decent house --
although not everything in my life is going the way I would want I feel
as if I'm living off the cream. I feel I'm benefitting from the good
economy of those corporate baddies and the prosperous lifestyle of
America. I feel like I should share the responsibility of the bad
choices, as well as be able to criticize the system. AND I feel most
Americans are in the same situation as I, living the good life at the
expense of others.
I am not trying to goad you, but are the feelings I've expressed above
part of the delusion you feel has been fed to the American public?
Just curious, Diane
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Oct 30 11:34:49 1998
from default(cust28.max1.firstdial.com[206.253.205.28]) (1673 bytes) by
smtp.firstdial.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:inet_hosts/T:smtp
(sender: ) id ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:24:52 -0900 (PST) (Smail-
3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #11 built 1998-Jun-28)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 11:36:53 -0800
From: "Joshua Heath B. Heath"
Message-Id:
Subject: Re: Assumptions - Starbucks
To: "Positive Futures"
Betsy Barnum wrote;
> It is *not* us "consumers,"
> harried and distracted, pushed to the limit, lied to and
> deceived, assaulted daily with psychologically subtle advertising,
> tired, discouraged and disempowered, who are responsible for what
> corporations do to us and our world.
Your above statement reminds me of victim-mentality. Yes, all that you
said is true, but please lets not give away our power to say "enough is
enough" and organize people against the current system. We are not
powerless to do anything....
I see what you mean about the average consumer being oppressed by our
consumer society, however, just like other oppression, it is not realistic
to think that the oppressors will suddenly "see the light" and stop
oppressing. Rather it has to be spelled out clearly by people willing to
stand up to the oppression and reclaim their power. Sure lets *blame* the
corporations, but lets stop giving our power up to them.... and promote a
message where others can also become motivated to stand up to their might
power.
My rant for today.... sorry if I am over-generalizing.
Joshua
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Oct 30 14:02:12 1998
from the-word-garden (pm-4-099.dynam.WaveTech.net [206.146.145.100])
by riptide.wavetech.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA26621
for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 17:18:32 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 17:16:23 -0600
From: Betsy Barnum
Message-ID: <3638F747.3CCB@wavetech.net>
Organization: Great River Earth Institute
References:
Subject: Re: Assumptions - Starbucks
To: Positive Futures
Joshua Heath B. Heath wrote:
> Betsy Barnum wrote;
> > It is *not* us "consumers,"
> > harried and distracted, pushed to the limit, lied to and
> > deceived, assaulted daily with psychologically subtle advertising,
> > tired, discouraged and disempowered, who are responsible for what
> > corporations do to us and our world.
>
> Your above statement reminds me of victim-mentality. Yes, all that you
> said is true, but please lets not give away our power to say "enough is
> enough" and organize people against the current system. We are not
> powerless to do anything....
I am having a frustrating time here, trying to make myself understood.
I'll try for the fourth time around, in one-syllable words if possible!
People are not responsible for the decisions made by corporations.
People are not responsible for the system that is dominating the world,
a system of global finance, transferring wealth from the pockets of the
many into the pockets of the already-rich few, producing things people
don't need at tremendous expense to the health of individual people,
communities and the Earth herself, running full-tilt on a path of
endless growth as the wall of limits to growth looms visibly before us.
People who shop at any given store are, knowingly or not, helping that
store to be profitable--perhaps they are abetting it in its destruction
of their very own city and ecosystem. But that does *not* make them
responsible for the corporation's destructiveness *nor* for its success.
Even though their business helps the corporation succeed, and they could
put a tiny dent in that success by *not* shopping there, that individual
is *not* responsible for the harm done by the corporation. The
corporation alone is responsible.
I am trying to draw a distinction between the kind of responsibility
that people *take* when they realize the consequences of their actions
and act in ways that reduce or eliminate their ecological and social
impact, and the kind of responsibility that corporations *bear* for the
choices they make in how they operate, produce or market their product.
It is a highly responsible choice, in my view, for an ordinary person to
avoid spending money at a business that is having a destructive impact
on one's community and life. People *should* do this. It is important in
many ways.
But if they *don't* take this type of responsibility--if people do shop
or buy from these businesses--they do not then *bear* responsibility for
the harm the business causes. The corporation is responsible for its
policies and its operations. People who buy from it are not.
A situation with a similar distinction between taking responsibility and
bearing responsibility might be a burglary. I leave my car unlocked on
the street in front of my house, and someone steals my CD player. Who is
responsible? Is part of the responsibility mine because I made it easy
for a thief to take my CD player?
It would be wise and prudent for me to *take* responsibility for locking
my car. I can and should do that. But if I don't, for whatever reason, I
do not *bear* the responsibility for the theft of my CD player. The
thief bears that responsibility entirely. By leaving my car unlocked I
was stupid and short-sighted, or distracted and forgetful--but I am not
even partially responsible for the crime someone else committed. (If I
am, where is the idea that people are responsible for their own
actions?)
Have I been clear about what I mean by responsibility? This makes
perfect sense to me, but maybe it doesn't to others.
On the question of power, however, I feel I have been grossly
misunderstood. People are not powerless. I have said this, I think
several times. If I thought people were powerless victims, why would I
have as my mission in life to shift people from "I'm too small and
powerless to have any impact on the things I see wrong" to "I accept
personal responsibility for the Earth and my impact on it"?
And I agree with you, Joshua, about the other ways that people have
available to them to exert their power beyond consumer choices. In fact,
I think I was pretty clear on that in a recent post. --maybe I
haven't been as clear as I think I'm being!
What I thought I said was that consumer choice, "voting with one's
dollars," is by no means the most effective way for people to wield
their power. People are not just consumers. We are citizens. Yes, we can
decide where to spend our money, "take responsibility" for which
companies and products we are helping to succeed in the marketplace. A
simply wonderful thing to do! More of it is essential!
But it's only one way to use our power. As Joshua has pointed out, there
are a number of ways people can organize to oppose corporations. Local
efforts to stop developments are essential, and must continue. Sometimes
they are unsuccessful; sometimes they succeed. There are many stories
now of towns that have kept McDonald's out, or WalMart, or other big
chains. It *can* happen.
There is also the political route, organizing to demand accountability
from elected officials who are supposed to be doing the will of the
people, not the will of the corporations or big campaign contributors.
Join the Green Party, or the Reform Party, or the Labor Party and work
for them on their issues. Push for proportional representation, campaign
finance reform, an end to corporate welfare. Write letters, organize
forums, start talking about the other alternatives to a two-party system
in which both parties function as nothing more than mail drops for big
contributions.
Join organizations like Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy or
Democracy Unlimited. Get their literature and read it.
Start study circles on topics relating to democracy, electoral systems,
gobal economics. Raise the consciousness of yourself, your friends, your
neighbors, people you go to church with, people you work with. Contact
United for a Fair Economy to do a presentation in your community. They
have trained facilitators all over the country, and the cost is low.
Write and call your elected representatives to tell them your concerns
about corporate power and corporate welfare. Persist. Keep calling, keep
writing, not just once. (I'll admit I've burned out on this approach,
but I've been learning recently about persistence and how important it
is. I'll resume my communication with my reps.)
And I think one of the first steps in raising consciousness about
getting back our democracy is to think about why we want to hold
individual people responsible for the harm corporations do. Let's look
at where the harm is really originating, and stop it there. Upstream, at
the source, just like we ought to be approaching pollution. Not after
it's already been done and damage needs to be repaired--*before* the
harm happens. I have devoted so many words to this topic this week
because I think this shift in "who is responsible" is a subtle but
significant one into a different level of awareness of how much we
*have* let our power go and how much we *have* let corporations
establish the ground rules for how they are to be dealt with, and have
shifted responsibility for the economy away from themselves and onto us
as individuals. (There's a whole history to this, in the U.S. legal and
political system, that happened about 100 years ago. It's fascinating.)
Above all, take some of Joshua's suggestions in a recent post about
building alternative ways to meet your economic needs with less
dependence on the global economy. As Y2K approaches, I think more and
more folks will be interested in such things as co-ops, barter and local
currency, community gardens and CSA farms, and local small businesses,
as well as learning to do things for ourselves. Doing these things is
important beyond the very essential and wonderful result of reducing
communities' enmeshment in the global economy and withdrawing support
from it. They are also ways that each of us can actually *create* a new
economy right on the spot.
If we don't, who will? (And I'll just add that we would best do this
without saying that people who don't are responsible for the
continuation of the present system.)
Betsy
--
Betsy Barnum
bbarnum@wavetech.net
http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1624
1. What are you doing now, today, to "be the change you want to see?"
2. What is the most important action for an "awake" person to take?
3. Alice Walker (African-American feminist novelist) says "anything we
love can be saved." What do you love and want to save?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Oct 30 14:02:21 1998
from DNC.NET.DNC.NET (albany-PM2-10.dnc.net [206.58.127.140])
by dudley.dnc.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA16846
for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:31:55 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:29:42 -0800
Disposition-Notification-To: "Susan Masse"
From: "Susan Masse"
Message-ID: <60A7BC70FC62D211AA0B00A0C995083D4B1C@NTSERV1>
Subject: RE: Assumptions - Starbucks
To:
I have been following this with attention; and finding the
commentary very stimulating. I was very frustrated because
due to a problem with my PC, I could receive my mail,
but wasn't sending. There were so many things to say!
(And, thank you all for saying, mostly better than I could.)
However, being essentially a pragmatist, I felt an action was
in order. Just at the beginning of this dialogue, my local
store (a family owned chain of about 6 markets in the Willamette
Valley) began carrying Starbucks coffee.
I was talking to the store manager about carrying larger bags of
my favorite kitty litter (WallyCat -- made locally from ground up
nut shells -- great stuff). I also mentioned how unhappy I was to
see them carrying Starbucks, and why.
He suggested that I write a letter outlining my position to the store
management, and I have done that. I know from past encounters
that a real person will look at my suggestions, discuss them and
arrive at a decision, so I am encouraged.
We don't always have to organize at the grass roots to change a
corporate policy. (Although a petition is my next option if I get
a negative response to my letter.)
There are many ways to "fight" -- and the most confrontive
is not necessarily the best first choice.
Which is a long way around the barn to say that responsibility
is personal for personal actions. First, I don't buy Starbucks.
Second, I urge friends and acquaintance not to purchase
their products. Now I am asking my store not to sell them.
I *can't* stop Starbucks from doing what they do -- but if
enough of vote with our wallets and/or our feet, we may be
able to turn some of their policies around.
In Peace,
Sue
around.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Oct 30 15:09:41 1998
(from thegardeners@juno.com) by m13.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
id DSR4S53X; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 19:50:16 EST
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 19:50:16 EST
From: thegardeners@juno.com (Lila O. O'Brien)
Message-ID: <19981029.172756.6279.8.thegardeners@juno.com>
Subject: Betsy: right on! (Assumptions: Starbucks)
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Betsy, your post was clear and right on! Thanks! Jean
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Oct 30 15:09:45 1998
(from thegardeners@juno.com) by m13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id DSR4S57Q; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 19:50:16 EST
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 19:50:16 EST
From: thegardeners@juno.com (Lila O. O'Brien)
Message-ID: <19981029.172757.6279.11.thegardeners@juno.com>
Subject: Starbucks
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Sounds good, Joshua. What's a brown box program? Jean
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Oct 30 15:09:56 1998
from the-word-garden (pm-4-098.dynam.WaveTech.net [206.146.145.99])
by riptide.wavetech.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id TAA04952
for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 19:13:21 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 19:11:13 -0600
From: Betsy Barnum
Message-ID: <36391231.4BF@wavetech.net>
Organization: Great River Earth Institute
References: <001501be0323$b5546be0$9c5b8ccf@hgebeaux01.3n.net>
<36389DE0.3030@wavetech.net> <3638BFD7.8F158F3C@pop.ou.edu>
Subject: Re: Assumptions - Starbucks
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Diane Fitzsimmons wrote:
> I feel I'm benefitting from the good
> economy of those corporate baddies and the prosperous lifestyle of
> America. I feel like I should share the responsibility of the bad
> choices, as well as be able to criticize the system. AND I feel most
> Americans are in the same situation as I, living the good life as the
> expense of others.
>
> I am not trying to goad you, but are the feelings I've expressed above
> part of the delusion you feel has been fed to the American public?
I think most middle-class Americans are definitely living the good life
at others' expense--to be more blunt, we are living on the backs of
tens, perhaps hundreds of people in poor countries and even within our
own borders whose share of the world's largesse we are taking for
ourselves. We aren't doing it deliberately, but that is the effect. When
each person in the U.S. uses on average between 10 and 60 times the
resources used by a person in Bangladesh, the Philippines or Mexico, it
is difficult not to conclude that we have way more than our share, and
that the disparity is causing direct harm to others.
We should take responsibility for this disparity, for reducing the gap.
We should do it for the sake of the people and Earth that suffer so we
can enjoy luxury, and for the sake of our own conscience, our souls, our
cognitive dissonance, our morality, whatever you identify as the inner
"rightness" that gives you peace. This is taking personal
responsibility, and it is critically important that more and more people
do this. It's important, again, both physically and spiritually.
The point I have been trying to make is simply that corporations, not
individual people, must be held responsible and accountable for the harm
that corporations do. Holding individual people responsible for
corporate harm is a huge mistake and blinds us to where the harm is
coming from. I addressed this in more detail in another post this
evening.
I also will say again that because of the tremendous pressure on people
not to pay attention, not to wake up, we who have awakened should not
hold others in contempt or view them as irresponsible because they are
continuing to live in ways that increase the disparity and the suffering
of others. Work on them, talk to them, explain, give information, urge
and plead--but stop short of condemning them if you can. I just think
there are many things we can never know about another person's
decision-making process, the things that influence them, their
experiences, beliefs, pain, fear and so on. I'm simply arguing in favor
of forebearance and compassion, while advocating strongly the taking of
personal responsibility by everyone.
Betsy
--
Betsy Barnum
bbarnum@wavetech.net
http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1624
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Oct 30 20:02:10 1998
from default(cust52.max2.firstdial.com[206.253.205.52]) (2035 bytes)
by smtp.firstdial.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:inet_hosts/T:smtp
(sender: ) id for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998
19:31:23 -0900 (PST) (Smail-3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #11 built 1998-Jun-28)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:43:21 -0800
From: "Joshua Heath B. Heath"
Message-Id:
Subject: Re: Assumptions - Starbucks
To: "Positive Futures"
> From: Betsy Barnum
>
> I am having a frustrating time here, trying to make myself understood.
> I'll try for the fourth time around, in one-syllable words if possible!
>
> People are not responsible for the decisions made by corporations.
(big snip)
Betsy, I think after careful consideration, that we actually agree on all
counts. I think that in your above post I would have liked the word
"consumers" instead of people. I think what you have (effectively) implied
in your posts though, is that as *citizens* we are "responsible" to do
something about the way things are. I can see the potential for this sort
of discussion to revolve around in circles... I think it is because it is
paradoxical. On one hand we are responsible to change things since no one
else is going to do it for us, and on the other hand clearly we and the
rest of the earth's inhabitants are being taken to the cleaners by
corporate greed. (they are getting richer, the world is getting poorer.)
But I do agree with you that it is important to acknouledge that we are
being victimized by their tactics and it is not our "fault" just because we
are the ones shopping at their stores.... this lets the corporations off
the
hook when in fact they need to be held responsible.... the only thing is
that it is we the people that have the unfortunate responsibility to hold
them responsible! (clear as mud right :-) )
Joshua
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:31:16 1998
from localhost (cynthia@localhost)
by shooter.bluemarble.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id EAA03647;
Fri, 30 Oct 1998 04:55:03 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 04:55:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Cynthia Bretheim
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
Subject: Re: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: 'positive-futures@igc.org'
On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Joshua Heath B. Heath wrote:
> ...Of course, this begs the question isn't it partly government's
> responsibility? Yes and , the government will only do things that
> people DEMAND! and also, whose fault but the voters is it that we
> continue to only have two choices in the political spectrum, both very
> pro- big business?
> Cheers,
> Joshua
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hi folks,
Going way back, the government will only do things that people DEMAND? The
majority is against continuing the impeachment proceedings and they
continue to drain important congressional and media focus. The elections
are coming up and I'm going to follow Michael Moore's suggestions to get
those officials (who ignore my calls and the opinion polls) off of it by
voting them out! Sometimes we demand and demand and nothing happens until
we walk our talk making conscious decisions. Over a long period of time
it soaks in eventually. Keep up the conscious deliberation for simple
decisions, whatever they are, and everything works better whether you
drink coffee, watch TV or not. It's a matter of whether or not the
decision is conscious.
Cynthia
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:31:34 1998
from nt_email_server (asl.asl.westminster.sch.uk)
by mdx.ac.uk (PMDF V5.1-12 #29137) with SMTP id <01J3KVMZN3OA004C0N@mdx.ac.uk>
for positive-futures@igc.org; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:12:29 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:10:40 +0100
From: Gillian_Crossland@asl.org (Gillian Crossland)
Message-id:
Organization: The American School in London
Subject: Starbucks
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Hello everyone
I'm sorry to be tiresome, but as a (new) British member of the list,
I'm afraid I don't know what Starbucks is (Supermarket? Coffee bar?)
and what the issues were surrounding this current debate. Could
someone give me a quick paragraph so that I can more fully appreciate
what's going on here. Hope this isn't an inconvenience.
Sincerely,
Gillian.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:33:19 1998
from the-word-garden (pm-4-103.dynam.WaveTech.net [206.146.145.104])
by riptide.wavetech.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA11624
for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 08:07:49 -0600 (CST)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 08:05:39 -0600
From: Betsy Barnum
Message-ID: <3639C7B3.7DE9@wavetech.net>
Organization: Great River Earth Institute
References:
Subject: Re: Starbucks
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Gillian Crossland wrote:
> I'm afraid I don't know what Starbucks is (Supermarket? Coffee bar?)
> and what the issues were surrounding this current debate. Could
> someone give me a quick paragraph so that I can more fully appreciate
> what's going on here. Hope this isn't an inconvenience.
A coffee house in the "new style" that is a national chain, one of the
first. Their tactics for entering a new market include locating on the
same block as an existing locally owned coffee house and pricing their
coffee lower to get business away from it. They have even been reported
to make kickback and other underhanded deals with property management
firms to force existing coffee houses *out*, for example in little
downtown mini-malls or office buildings, so they don't even have to wait
for their artificially low prices to drive the competitor away.
They greenwash by marketing themselves as concerned about third world
farmers and claiming to support coffee co-ops, return profits to the
farmers, give them other kinds of assistance and so on.
And I sometimes buy coffee at a nearby Starbucks, and while I feel
guilty for doing so, I do *not* feel responsible for the above corporate
policies and tactics. I buy coffee much more often at local cafes or a
locally-owned coffee house chain that is much less nasty and is not
trying to get *all* the business.
--
Betsy Barnum
bbarnum@wavetech.net
http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1624
1. What are you doing now, today, to "be the change you want to see?"
2. What is the most important action for an "awake" person to take?
3. Alice Walker (African-American feminist novelist) says "anything we
love can be saved." What do you love and want to save?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:33:22 1998
from nts1.novartis.com ([192.168.50.131])
by mta3.is.chbs (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA27138
for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 15:18:43 +0100 (MET)
Received: by nts1.novartis.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v1.2 (600.1 3-26-1998))
id 412566AD.004E597D ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 15:15:47 +0100
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:11:42 -0500
From: cynthia.maurus@pharma.novartis.com
Message-ID: <852566AD.004D7EED.00@nts1.novartis.com>
Subject: RE: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Folks,
In response to the posts regarding food costs, perhaps some of you who have
successfully trimmed your food budget considerably while at the same time
improved your diet, could share some insight into what you do to accomplish
this daunting task. I have recently being putting a great deal of effort
into this endeavor, but my progress is negligable. Any input is
appreciated.
Cindy
p.s. I know that part of my problem is my location which is pretty much the
Yuppie capital of the world-Morris and Sussex County, N.J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:33:29 1998
from localhost (northcut@localhost) by lamar.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.2/UCB
8.7/8.7) with SMTP id HAA244220; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 07:41:04 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 07:41:04 -0700 (MST)
From: Kathryn Northcut
In-Reply-To: <3638F747.3CCB@wavetech.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.02.9810300739120.400778-100000@lamar.ColoState.EDU>
Subject: Re: Assumptions - Starbucks
To: Positive Futures , Betsy Barnum
Betsy Barnum wroye:
> I am having a frustrating time here, trying to make myself understood.
> I'll try for the fourth time around, in one-syllable words if possible!
>
> People are not responsible for the system that is dominating the world,
> a system of global finance, transferring wealth from the pockets of the
...
Why not? People made the system. People keep the system going. People can
change it. Therefore they seem pretty responsible for it to me.
Small words. Good idea.
Kathryn
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:33:33 1998
from DRGUS@aol.com
by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id FQXDa07908 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:39:14 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:39:14 EST
From: DRGUS@aol.com
Message-ID: <876a5b48.3639cf92@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: The choices we make
To: positive-futures@igc.apc.org
Hi Folks,
I am one of those people who mostly lurk. I have followed the discussions in
this group for over a year now, and occasionally take the time to put in my
oar. There are (at least) three issues that I think are central to this
discussion: 1. Mindfulness is central to Voluntary Simplicity. 2. Truly
Mindful decisions can only be made well if we have enough information. and
3. Even for people as aware and responsible as those in this group, denial of
what we don't want to know is a human tendency.
1. Because Voluntary Simplicity is more a process than an event, over time we
can increase in our ability to make mindful decisions. It is highly risky
(and somewhat unfair) for one to judge the absolute decisions of another,
because we seldom if ever can know enough about that person's circumstances to
know what is best at that particular point in the process. The decision I
make today may well not be the one I will make next week, based on my growth,
process, learning, and changing circumstances. So let's be respectfully
supportive of one another's process.
2. The above statement does not mean that we have nothing edifying to say to
one another. We cannot truly consent unless we have sufficient information.
"Informed consent" is a legal term that says we have to know both sides in
order to make a valid decision. Much of what I read in this group increases
my ability to be informed. I have seen little evidence, however, that
corporate America (including the multi-national corporations) values the
principle of informed consent in its advertising or its competitive practices.
The argument is being made increasingly that corporations, in fact, conspire
to keep necessary information from the consumers and communities. (If we
consumers know both sides of the truth, we might not buy the product!) I
would argue that one possible "mindful" decision is to challenge corporate
America to provide the information we need or get the information ourselves
and publicize it. I am grateful that many individuals and groups are doing
this.
3. We have argued several times in the past year or so that consuming can
have an addictive quality, by which I mean, it feels so good in the short run
that I am motivated to do it more, and furthermore, the decision to do it
tends to be somewhat automatic. (The opposite of mindfulness). For example, I
like my coffee (not Starbucks, particularly). Sometimes, I think of the
consequences of my "coffee pleasure", but too often, I just drink it
automatically. Groups like this help me move my decisions out of the realm of
the automatic and into the realm of mindfulness. But, once again, to be fair,
this is a process.
Thanks to the group for the many personal examples of mindfulness, for the
information that helps make my consent more informed, and the gentle reminders
to confront my denial so I can act.
(See why I write so infrequently. When I get started, I do go on, and on...)
Wayne
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:33:51 1998
(from tomgray@localhost)
by igc4.igc.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA24993
for positive-futures; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 07:14:38 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 07:14:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Tom Gray
Message-Id: <199810301514.HAA24993@igc4.igc.org>
Subject: RE: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: positive-futures@igc.org
One of the best moves we have made along these lines is to buy
a (gasp) bread machine. I did a detailed analysis, and the bread
costs about 35 cents a loaf, for a good fresh loaf with no
preservatives and lots of nutrients. I make about three loaves
a week (1.5 pound) and they supply about a quarter of the diet
of a family of four.
Or just bake your own bread if you have the time.
Tom
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:33:54 1998
from cara.sportsline.com (caram.sportsline.com [207.0.201.40])
by mail.sportsline.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA09550
for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:10:42 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:07:21 -0500
From: Cara McNulty
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981030100720.0070712c@mail.sportsline.com>
Subject: Re: Assumptions - Starbucks
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Betsy wrote:
>I am having a frustrating time here, trying to make myself understood.
>I'll try for the fourth time around, in one-syllable words if possible!
As a newer member to positive-futures I normally stay in the background,
listen and learn from you all but this really struck a nerve with me. I
don't think this condescending tone is necessary, we probably understand
more than we are given credit for. If someone has a problem with one
individual maybe conversing offline would be more appropriate. We all seem
to be a very well read, intelligent group and can more than likely grasp
more than one-syllable words!
Cara McNulty - Manager, Testing & QA
SportsLine USA - http://cbs.sportsline.com
Contact Information:
caram@sportsline.com
tel 954.351.2120 x219
fax 954.776.4745
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:33:57 1998
from nt_email_server (asl.asl.westminster.sch.uk)
by mdx.ac.uk (PMDF V5.1-12 #29137) with SMTP id <01J3L4NTX4ZU002Z3W@mdx.ac.uk>
for positive-futures@igc.org; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 15:30:27 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:28:21 +0100
From: Gillian_Crossland@asl.org (Gillian Crossland)
Message-id: <msg20528.thr-212387.5b8db4@asl.org>
Organization: The American School in London
References: <msg20297.thr-212387.5b8db4@asl.org> <3639C7B3.7DE9@wavetech.net>
Sender: owner-positive-futures@igc.apc.org
Subject: Re: Starbucks
To: positive-futures@igc.org, bbarnum@wavetech.net
Sounds worrying. Thanks for the clarification.
Gillian.
bbarnum@wavetech.net writes:
>From: Betsy Barnum
>Subject: Re: Starbucks
>Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 08:05:39 -0600
>Gillian Crossland wrote:
>> I'm afraid I don't know what Starbucks is (Supermarket? Coffee bar?)
>> and what the issues were surrounding this current debate.
>> ..
>A coffee house in the "new style" that is a national chain, one of the
>first. Their tactics for entering a new market include locating on the
>same block as an existing locally owned coffee house and pricing their
>coffee lower to get business away from it. ...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:34:01 1998
from localhost (northcut@localhost) by lamar.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.2/UCB
8.7/8.7) with SMTP id IAA593392; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 08:39:57 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 08:39:57 -0700 (MST)
From: Kathryn Northcut
In-Reply-To: <852566AD.004D7EED.00@nts1.novartis.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.02.9810300817410.400778-100000@lamar.ColoState.EDU>
Subject: RE: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: positive-futures@igc.org, cynthia.maurus@pharma.novartis.com
1. I found out that my uncle had a line on pinto beans from a warehouse
floor somewhere in Wyoming. He sweeps the beans into trash barrels, crates
them up, ships or brings them to me, and I reciprocate by being nice to
his kids and grandkids when they visit and cooking... really, it costs him
almost nothing so he doesn't need much back. So far this year I've gotten
15 pounds. I guess they would otherwise have been trash. We've marked the
bin with the date so we'll know how long 15 lbs of pintos lasts us.
2. I found out that I can do without coffee.
3. We make our own beer and barter it for other things (generally luxuries
but could trade for necessities too.)
4. We buy meat from the university meat lab. Incredibly cheap, incredibly
good.
5. We buy rice in 25# bags.
Just some ideas... working your network is the best way to find out about
great deals.
Kathy
On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 cynthia.maurus@pharma.novartis.com wrote:
> Folks,
>
> In response to the posts regarding food costs, perhaps some of you who have
> successfully trimmed your food budget considerably while at the same time
> improved your diet, could share some insight into what you do to accomplish
> this daunting task. I have recently being putting a great deal of effort
> into this endeavor, but my progress is negligable. Any input is
> appreciated.
>
> Cindy
>
> p.s. I know that part of my problem is my location which is pretty much the
> Yuppie capital of the world-Morris and Sussex County, N.J.
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:34:05 1998
from cara.sportsline.com (caram.sportsline.com [207.0.201.40])
by mail.sportsline.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA21138;
Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:26:42 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:23:20 -0500
From: Cara McNulty
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981030112319.0070c748@mail.sportsline.com>
Subject: RE: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: cynthia.maurus@pharma.novartis.com, positive-futures@igc.org
At 09:11 AM 10/30/98 -0500, cynthia.maurus@pharma.novartis.com wrote:
>Folks,
>
>In response to the posts regarding food costs, perhaps some of you who have
>successfully trimmed your food budget considerably while at the same time
>improved your diet, could share some insight into what you do to accomplish
>this daunting task.
The two biggest things we have done to cut costs on food and improve our
health are as follows;
1. Carbohydrates are the centerpeice of our meals, not meat. Instead of an
8 or 10 oz piece of meat we have a large serving of potatoes, bread, rice,
pasta or grains with a 2 or 3 oz piece of meat and one or two veggies.
Some meals we have no meat products at all like spagetti or three bean
chili. I'm not advocating vegetarianism here just saying if meat's not the
star of your meals it's better on your pocketbook and health.
2. Buy fruits and veggies that are in season, in your area. In
supermarkets today you can buy just about any type of produce at any time
of the year. However paying 3.99 a pound for asparagus offseason does
nothing to help your pocketbook or your local economy. If you have a local
farmer's market or fruit stand this also helps ensure your getting fresh
local produce in season.
Cara
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:49:40 1998
from default(cust40.max1.firstdial.com[206.253.205.40]) (4036 bytes)
by smtp.firstdial.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:inet_hosts/T:smtp (sender:
<heathfam@firstdial.com>) id <m0zZHuG-000trJC@smtp.firstdial.com>
for <positive-futures@igc.org>; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 08:00:12 -0900 (PST)
(Smail-3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #11 built 1998-Jun-28)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:07:16 -0800
From: "Joshua Heath B. Heath" <heathfam@firstdial.com>
Message-Id: <m0zZHuG-000trJC@smtp.firstdial.com>
Subject: Re: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: <positive-futures@igc.org>, <cynthia.maurus@pharma.novartis.com>
Hi Cindy,
IN response to how to improve diet at the some time as cutting costs, here
are a few things that we do. I would be fascinated to hear others ideas
too.
1. we eat lots of tofu (in stir-fry wth grlc/ginger, raw marinated, etc etc)
2. Buy whole grains in bulk (rice, millet, and others)-- we use them as
staples-- probably 3-4 nights per week
3. We east meat, but it is a "treat" for the kids, about once a week. We
shop for extraordinary specials on it.
4. We do some shopping at a local store called the "grocery outlet" it is
a sort of bargain supermarket with lots of discontinued and non-big name
brand items. (in Corvallis or. it was called the "Canned Food Outlet" but
it was the same chain.
5. Beans/lentils
6. Diet for a new America is a classic book that helped us reconsider our
protein sources. Strictly economically, non meat sources are usually
cheaper.
7. In the fall we buy a box or 2 of apples & pears that will keep for a
couple of months in the basement. (one day I hope to do more of this-- even
if I dont personally grow them myself, id like to get hold of a big bag of
onions, potatoes, carrots, winter-keeper squash, + more to store in a cool
place in the basement.
I grew up in a relatively isolated spot, and we would go for weeks without
grocery shopping.... mind you we had a garden, and chickens and goats, and
a freezer full of stuff.
This year one small thing we did that was fun was just picking a lot of
blackberries and freezing them on trays. We have a spirulena smoothie
every morning, and we have been using the blackberries every day now for
over a mont... not a huge savings... but all the little things add up.
We spend about $75-100 per week to feed our family of four. Not as frugal
as we know we could be (we still splurge on *coffee*,half/half, ice cream,
Kettle Chips, real butter, cases of soy-milk, and other non-necessities.)
but we do spend about half of what some of our friends spend for the same
number of people.
Joshua
p.s., it helps to get to know your local fruit stand person. Near here is
a lady who runs Suzy's fruit stand, and we have been patronizing her all
summer. We have saved a lot there, and love supporting her since she is a
single mother of teenage girls who actually grows a good portion of the
veggies she sells herself-- right in front of and behind the stand.
We went there yesterday and we spent $10 for a big box of apples and pears,
a basket of fall strawberries(she grew), 2 nice squashes(she grew) and a
big sunflower seed head. + the kids got to pick a pumpkin each for free
and she gave us a bunch of corn stakes for Halloween decorations. All for
ten bucks!
----------
> From: cynthia.maurus@pharma.novartis.com
> To: positive-futures@igc.org
> Subject: RE: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
> Date: Friday, October 30, 1998 6:11 AM
>
> Folks,
> In response to the posts regarding food costs, perhaps some of you who have
> successfully trimmed your food budget considerably while at the same time
> improved your diet, could share some insight ...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Oct 30 15:09:53 1998
from Edsac (p55-max53.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.110.55]) by
smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA17556 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:02:05 +1300
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:01:16 +1300
From: David MacClement
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981030140116.006ec37c@mail.oocities.com>
Subject: Truth and Reconciliation; South Africa
To: Positive Futures
http://www.newsroom.co.nz/stories/HL9810/S00148.htm
starts:
Friday, 30 October 1998, 11:28 am
Successive South African governments were responsible for the vast
majority of human rights violations committed during the apartheid years,
but other major political organisations were also violent, according to the
report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, released today.
...
"The predominant portion of gross violations of human rights was committed
by the former state through its security and law-enforcement agencies," the
report says.
"In pursuit of these unlawful activities, the state acted in collusion
with certain other political groupings, most notably the Inkatha Freedom
Party (IFP)."
...
The ANC said the vast majority of their supporters engaged only in peaceful
political action, and has offered no apology.
"The masses of our people and the organisation that led them to
freedom will always be proud of the fact that by the way they conducted
themselves in struggle. They laid the basis for national unity and
reconciliation in our country as well as the very establishment of a Truth
and Reconciliation Commission," they said in a statement today.
...
Related Links:
http://www.truth.org.za/
http://www.woza.co.za/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
sent by David.
** http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/6783/index.html#top
David MacClement
http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Delphi/3142/index.html#top
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Fri Oct 30 20:02:10 1998
from default(cust52.max2.firstdial.com[206.253.205.52]) (2035 bytes) by
smtp.firstdial.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:inet_hosts/T:smtp
(sender: ) id
for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 19:31:23 -0900 (PST) (Smail-
3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #11 built 1998-Jun-28)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:43:21 -0800
From: "Joshua Heath B. Heath"
Message-Id:
Subject: Re: Assumptions - Starbucks
To: "Positive Futures"
----------
> From: Betsy Barnum
> I am having a frustrating time here, trying to make myself understood.
> I'll try for the fourth time around, in one-syllable words if possible!
>
> People are not responsible for the decisions made by corporations.
(big snip)
Betsy, I think after careful consideration, that we actually agree on all
counts. I think that in your above post I would have liked the word
"consumers" instead of people. I think what you have (effectively) implied
in your posts though, is that as *citizens* we are "responsible" to do
something about the way things are. I can see the potential for this sort
of discussion to revolve around in circles... I think it is because it is
paradoxical. On one hand we are responsible to change things since no one
else is going to do it for us, and on the other hand clearly we and the
rest of the earth's inhabitants are being taken to the cleaners by
corporate greed. (they are getting richer, the world is getting poorer.)
But I do agree with you that it is important to acknouledge that we are
being victimized by their tactics and it is not our "fault" just because we
are the ones shopping at their stores.... this lets the corporations off
the hook when in fact they need to be held responsible.... the only thing is
that it is we the people that have the unfortunate responsibility to hold
them responsible! (clear as mud right :-) )
Joshua
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:31:16 1998
from localhost (cynthia@localhost)
by shooter.bluemarble.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id EAA03647;
Fri, 30 Oct 1998 04:55:03 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 04:55:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Cynthia Bretheim
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
Subject: *#2*Re: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: 'positive-futures@igc.org'
On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Joshua Heath B. Heath wrote:
> ...Of course, this begs the question: isn't it partly government's
> responsibility? Yes, and the government will only do things that
> people DEMAND! and also, whose fault but the voters is it that we
> continue to only have two choices in the political spectrum, both very
> pro- big business?
> Cheers,
> Joshua
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hi folks,
Going way back, the government will only do things that people DEMAND? The
majority is against continuing the impeachment proceedings and they
continue to drain important congressional and media focus. The elections
are coming up and I'm going to follow Michael Moore's suggestions to get
those officials (who ignore my calls and the opinion polls) off of it by
voting them out! Sometimes we demand and demand and nothing happens until
we walk our talk making conscious decisions. Over a long period of time
it soaks in eventually. Keep up the conscious deliberation for simple
decisions, whatever they are, and everything works better whether you
drink coffee, watch TV or not. It's a matter of whether or not the
decision is conscious.
Cynthia
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:31:34 1998
from nt_email_server (asl.asl.westminster.sch.uk) by mdx.ac.uk (PMDF
V5.1-12 #29137) with SMTP id <01J3KVMZN3OA004C0N@mdx.ac.uk> for positive-
futures@igc.org; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:12:29 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:10:40 +0100
From: Gillian_Crossland@asl.org (Gillian Crossland)
Message-id:
Organization: The American School in London
Subject: *#2*Starbucks
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Hello everyone
I'm sorry to be tiresome, but as a (new) British member of the list,
I'm afraid I don't know what Starbucks is (Supermarket? Coffee bar?)
and what the issues were surrounding this current debate. Could
someone give me a quick paragraph so that I can more fully appreciate
what's going on here. Hope this isn't an inconvenience.
Sincerely,
Gillian.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:33:22 1998
by nts1.novartis.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v1.2 (600.1 3-26-1998)) id
412566AD.004E597D ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 15:15:47 +0100
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:11:42 -0500
From: cynthia.maurus@pharma.novartis.com
Message-ID: <852566AD.004D7EED.00@nts1.novartis.com>
Subject: *#2*RE: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Folks,
In response to the posts regarding food costs, perhaps some of you who have
successfully trimmed your food budget considerably while at the same time
improved your diet, could share some insight into what you do to accomplish
this daunting task. I have recently being putting a great deal of effort
into this endeavor, but my progress is negligible. Any input is
appreciated.
Cindy
p.s. I know that part of my problem is my location which is pretty much the
Yuppie capital of the world:- Morris and Sussex County, N.J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:33:29 1998
from localhost (northcut@localhost) by lamar.ColoState.EDU
(AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id HAA244220; Fri, 30 Oct 1998
07:41:04 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 07:41:04 -0700 (MST)
From: Kathryn Northcut
In-Reply-To: <3638F747.3CCB@wavetech.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.02.9810300739120.400778-100000@lamar.ColoState.EDU>
Subject: *#2*Re: Assumptions - Starbucks
To: Positive Futures <positive-futures@igc.org>
Betsy Barnum wrote:
> I am having a frustrating time here, trying to make myself understood.
> I'll try for the fourth time around, in one-syllable words if possible!
>
> People are not responsible for the system that is dominating the world,
> a system of global finance, transferring wealth from the pockets of the
...
Why not? People made the system. People keep the system going. People can
change it. Therefore they seem pretty responsible for it to me.
Small words. Good idea.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:33:33 1998
from DRGUS@aol.com
by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id FQXDa07908 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:39:14 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:39:14 EST
From: DRGUS@aol.com
Message-ID: <876a5b48.3639cf92@aol.com>
Subject: *#2*Re: The choices we make
To: positive-futures@igc.apc.org
Hi Folks,
I am one of those people who mostly lurk. I have followed the discussions in
this group for over a year now, and occasionally take the time to put in my
oar. There are (at least) three issues that I think are central to this
discussion:
1. Mindfulness is central to Voluntary Simplicity.
2. Truly Mindful decisions can only be made well if we have enough information.
and
3. Even for people as aware and responsible as those in this group, denial of what we don't want to know is a human tendency.
1. Because Voluntary Simplicity is more a process than an event, over time we
can increase in our ability to make mindful decisions. It is highly risky
(and somewhat unfair) for one to judge the absolute decisions of another,
because we seldom if ever can know enough about that person's circumstances to
know what is best at that particular point in the process. The decision I
make today may well not be the one I will make next week, based on my growth,
process, learning, and changing circumstances. So let's be respectfully
supportive of one another's process.
2. The above statement does not mean that we have nothing edifying to say to
one another. We cannot truly consent unless we have sufficient information.
"Informed consent" is a legal term that says we have to know both sides in
order to make a valid decision. Much of what I read in this group increases
my ability to be informed. I have seen little evidence, however, that
corporate America (including the multi-national corporations) values the
principle of informed consent in its advertising or its competitive practices.
The argument is being made increasingly that corporations, in fact, conspire
to keep necessary information from the consumers and communities. (If we
consumers know both sides of the truth, we might not buy the product!) I
would argue that one possible "mindful" decision is to challenge corporate
America to provide the information we need or get the information ourselves
and publicize it. I am grateful that many individuals and groups are doing
this.
3. We have argued several times in the past year or so that consuming can
have an addictive quality, by which I mean, it feels so good in the short run
that I am motivated to do it more, and furthermore, the decision to do it
tends to be somewhat automatic. (The opposite of mindfulness). For example, I
like my coffee (not Starbucks, particularly). Sometimes, I think of the
consequences of my "coffee pleasure", but too often, I just drink it
automatically. Groups like this help me move my decisions out of the realm of
the automatic and into the realm of mindfulness. But, once again, to be fair,
this is a process.
Thanks to the group for the many personal examples of mindfulness, for the
information that helps make my consent more informed, and the gentle reminders
to confront my denial so I can act.
(See why I write so infrequently. When I get started, I do go on, and on...)
Wayne
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:33:51 1998
(from tomgray@localhost)
by igc4.igc.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA24993
for positive-futures; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 07:14:38 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 07:14:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Tom Gray
Message-Id: <199810301514.HAA24993@igc4.igc.org>
Subject: *#2*RE: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: positive-futures@igc.org
One of the best moves we have made along these lines is to buy
a (gasp) bread machine. I did a detailed analysis, and the bread
costs about 35 cents a loaf, for a good fresh loaf with no
preservatives and lots of nutrients. I make about three loaves
a week (1.5 pound) and they supply about a quarter of the diet
of a family of four.
Or just bake your own bread if you have the time.
Tom
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:33:54 1998
from cara.sportsline.com (caram.sportsline.com [207.0.201.40])
by mail.sportsline.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA09550
for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:10:42 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:07:21 -0500
From: Cara McNulty
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981030100720.0070712c@mail.sportsline.com>
Subject: *#2*Re: Assumptions - Starbucks
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Betsy wrote:
>I am having a frustrating time here, trying to make myself understood.
>I'll try for the fourth time around, in one-syllable words if possible!
As a newer member to positive-futures I normally stay in the background,
listen and learn from you all but this really struck a nerve with me. I
don't think this condescending tone is necessary, we probably understand
more than we are given credit for. If someone has a problem with one
individual maybe conversing offline would be more appropriate. We all seem
to be a very well read, intelligent group and can more than likely grasp
more than one-syllable words!
>I am having a frustrating time here, trying to make myself understood.
>I'll try for the fourth time around, in one-syllable words if possible!
Cara McNulty - Manager, Testing & QA
SportsLine USA - http://cbs.sportsline.com
Contact Information:
caram@sportsline.com
tel 954.351.2120 x219
fax 954.776.4745
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:34:01 1998
from localhost (northcut@localhost) by lamar.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id IAA593392; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 08:39:57 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 08:39:57 -0700 (MST)
From: Kathryn Northcut
In-Reply-To: <852566AD.004D7EED.00@nts1.novartis.com>
Message-ID:
Subject: *#2*RE: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: positive-futures@igc.org
Replying to cynthia maurus :
1. I found out that my uncle had a line on pinto beans from a warehouse
floor somewhere in Wyoming. He sweeps the beans into trash barrels, crates
them up, ships or brings them to me, and I reciprocate by being nice to
his kids and grandkids when they visit and cooking... really, it costs him
almost nothing so he doesn't need much back. So far this year I've gotten
15 pounds. I guess they would otherwise have been trash. We've marked the
bin with the date so we'll know how long 15 lbs of pintos lasts us.
2. I found out that I can do without coffee.
3. We make our own beer and barter it for other things (generally luxuries
but could trade for necessities too.)
4. We buy meat from the university meat lab. Incredibly cheap, incredibly
good.
5. We buy rice in 25# bags.
Just some ideas... working your network is the best way to find out about
great deals.
Kathy
On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 cynthia.maurus@pharma.novartis.com wrote:
> Folks,
> In response to the posts regarding food costs, perhaps some of you who have
> successfully trimmed your food budget considerably while at the same time
> improved your diet, could share some insight into what you do to accomplish
> this daunting task. I have recently being putting a great deal of effort
> into this endeavor, but my progress is negligable. Any input is
> appreciated.
>
> Cindy
>
> p.s. I know that part of my problem is my location which is pretty much the
> Yuppie capital of the world-Morris and Sussex County, N.J.
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:34:05 1998
from cara.sportsline.com (caram.sportsline.com [207.0.201.40])
by mail.sportsline.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA21138;
Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:26:42 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:23:20 -0500
From: Cara McNulty
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19981030112319.0070c748@mail.sportsline.com>
Subject: *#2*RE: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To: positive-futures@igc.org
At 09:11 AM 10/30/98 -0500, cynthia.maurus@pharma.novartis.com wrote:
>Folks,
>In response to the posts regarding food costs, perhaps some of you who have
>successfully trimmed your food budget considerably while at the same time
>improved your diet, could share some insight into what you do to accomplish
>this daunting task.
The two biggest things we have done to cut costs on food and improve our
health are as follows;
1. Carbohydrates are the centerpeice of our meals, not meat. Instead of an
8 or 10 oz piece of meat we have a large serving of potatoes, bread, rice,
pasta or grains with a 2 or 3 oz piece of meat and one or two veggies.
Some meals we have no meat products at all like spagetti or three bean
chili. I'm not advocating vegetarianism here just saying if meat's not the
star of your meals it's better on your pocketbook and health.
2. Buy fruits and veggies that are in season, in your area. In
supermarkets today you can buy just about any type of produce at any time
of the year. However paying 3.99 a pound for asparagus offseason does
nothing to help your pocketbook or your local economy. If you have a local
farmer's market or fruit stand this also helps ensure your getting fresh
local produce in season.
Cara
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Sat Oct 31 06:49:40 1998
from default(cust40.max1.firstdial.com[206.253.205.40]) (4036 bytes) by smtp.firstdial.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:inet_hosts/T:smtp
(sender: ) id
for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 08:00:12 -0900 (PST) (Smail-
3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #11 built 1998-Jun-28)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:07:16 -0800
From: "Joshua Heath B. Heath"
Message-Id:
Subject: *#2*Re: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
To:
Hi Cindy,
In response to how to improve diet at the some time as cutting costs, here
are a few things that we do. I would be fascinated to hear others ideas too.
1. we eat lots of tofu (in stir-fry with garlic/ginger, raw marinated, etc)
2. Buy whole grains in bulk (rice, millet, and others)-- we use them as
staples-- probably 3-4 nights per week.
3. We eat meat, but it is a "treat" for the kids, about once a week. We
shop for extraordinary specials on it.
4. We do some shopping at a local store called the "grocery outlet" it is
a sort of bargain supermarket with lots of discontinued and non-big name
brand items. (in Corvallis OR). it was called the "Canned Food Outlet" but
it was the same chain.
5. Beans/lentils
6. "Diet for a New America" is a classic book that helped us reconsider our
protein sources. Strictly economically, non meat sources are usually
cheaper.
7. In the fall we buy a box or 2 of apples & pears that will keep for a
couple of months in the basement. One day I hope to do more of this-- even
if I don't personally grow them myself, I'd like to get hold of a big bag of
onions, potatoes, carrots, winter-keeper squash, + more to store in a cool
place in the basement.
I grew up in a relatively isolated spot, and we would go for weeks without
grocery shopping.... mind you we had a garden, and chickens and goats, and
a freezer full of stuff.
This year one small thing we did that was fun was just picking a lot of
blackberries and freezing them on trays. We have a spirulena smoothie
every morning, and we have been using the blackberries every day now for
over a month... not a huge savings... but all the little things add up.
We spend about $75-100 per week to feed our family of four. Not as frugal
as we know we could be (we still splurge on *coffee*, half/half, ice cream,
Kettle Chips, real butter, cases of soy-milk, and other non-necessities.)
but we do spend about half of what some of our friends spend for the same
number of people.
Joshua
p.s., it helps to get to know your local fruit stand person. Near here is
a lady who runs Suzy's fruit stand, and we have been patronizing her all
summer. We have saved a lot there, and love supporting her since she is a
single mother of teenage girls who actually grows a good portion of the
veggies she sells herself-- right in front of and behind the stand.
We went there yesterday and we spent $10 for a big box of apples and pears,
a basket of fall strawberries (she grew), 2 nice squashes(she grew) and a
big sunflower seed head. + the kids got to pick a pumpkin each for free
and she gave us a bunch of corn stakes for Halloween decorations. All for
ten bucks!
----------
> From: cynthia.maurus@pharma.novartis.com
> To: positive-futures@igc.org
> Subject: RE: The choices we make (was Starbucks)
> Date: Friday, October 30, 1998 6:11 AM
>
> Folks,
>
> In response to the posts regarding food costs, perhaps some of you who
have
> successfully trimmed your food budget considerably while at the same time
> improved your diet, could share some insight into what you do to
accomplish
> this daunting task. I have recently being putting a great deal of effort
> into this endeavor, but my progress is negligable. Any input is
> appreciated.
>
> Cindy
>
> p.s. I know that part of my problem is my location which is pretty much
>the Yuppie capital of the world - Morris and Sussex County, N.J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ???@??? Mon Nov 09 15:46:51 1998
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 15:46:51 -0800
From: John Gear <catalyst@pacifier.com>
Subject: (Fwd.) Wal-Mart and the Strip-Mining of America
----------Fwd.---------
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 17:42:46 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: rob@essential.org
From: Robert Weissman <rob@essential.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list CORP-FOCUS <corp-focus@essential.org>
Subject: Wal-Mart and the Strip-Mining of America
X-Comment: To unsubscribe from this list (CORP-FOCUS), send the
one line message "unsu*bscribe corp-focus" to "listproc@essential.org".
Leave the "Subject:" line of your message blank.
Walk into any Wal-Mart and marvel. One near us is open 24 hours. Never
closes. Consumer goods as far as the eye can see. Quality product at a low
price. Friendly workers greeting eager consumers at the door.
In 1997, Wal-Mart had sales of $118 billion and is on course to
become, within 10 years or so, the world's largest corporation.
Wal-Mart is three times bigger than Sears, its nearest competitor,
and larger than all three of its main rivals (Sears, Target, and Kmart)
combined.
Wal-Mart now has 3,400 stores on four continents. "Our priorities
are that we want to dominate North America first, then South America, and
then Asia and then Europe," Wal-Mart's President and CEO David Glass told
USA Today business reporter Lorrie Grant recently.
And given the history of steady rise of the Bentonville, Arkansas
retailer, who would doubt it?
Certainly not USA Today, which last week ran Grant's glowing
review of Wal-Mart's worldwide operation under the headline: "An
Unstoppable Marketing Force: Wal-Mart Aims for Domination of the Retail
Industry -- Worldwide."
But Bob Ortega, a Wall Street Journal reporter, reveals a
different side of the Wal-Mart phenomenon in his recently released book,
In Sam We Trust: The Untold Story of Sam Walton and How Wal-Mart Is
Devouring America, (Times Business, 1998).
Ortega documents how Sam Walton -- perhaps the most driven
corporate executive ever to walk the face of the planet -- built his
empire. Wal-Mart has used Asian child labor to make blouses for sale under
"Made in America" signs in his stores. When he began his operation in
Bentonville, Arkansas, Sam Walton hired a union-busting attorney to quash
worker organizing. Outer city Wal-Marts have steamrolled inner city
shopkeepers.
Ortega speaks to Kathleen Baker of Hastings, Minnesota, who was
fired after talking with other workers about asking for a pay raise.
He speaks to Mike and Paula Ianuzzo, of Cottage Grove, Oregon, who
blamed Wal-Mart for wiping out their photo-shop business.
In Guatemala, he interviewed Flor de Maria Salguedo, a union
organizer who arranged for Ortega to talk with workers making clothes for
Wal-Mart and other giant retailers.
Salguedo, whose husband was murdered during an organizing drive in
Guatemala City, was herself kidnapped, beaten and raped shortly after
Ortega left Guatemala City. After the attack, one of her attackers told
her, "This is what you get for messing about with foreigners."
Ortega documents how communities around the country have revolted
against Wal-Mart's plans to plunk down giant superstores in their
communities, ripping apart the fabric of small town life.
In Oklahoma, the owner of a television and record store adversely
affected and eventually closed down after a Wal-Mart moved into the area,
told reporters, "Wal-Mart really craters a little town's downtown."
Shelby Robinson, a self-employed clothing designer from Fort
Collins tells Ortega that she "really hates Wal-Mart." Why?
"Everything's starting to look the same, everybody buys all the
same things -- a lot of small-town character is being lost," Robinson
says. "They dislocate communities, they hurt small businesses, they add to
our sprawl and pollution because everybody drives farther, they don't pay
a living wage, and visually, they're atrocious."
James Howard Kunstler, an ardent Wal-Mart foe from upstate New
York, talks about what he calls the $7 hair dryer fallacy.
Kunstler argues to Ortega that "people who shop at a giant
discounter to save $7 on a hair dryer don't realize that they pay a hidden
price by taking that business from local merchants, because those
merchants are the people who sit on school boards, sponsor little league
teams and support the civic institutions that create a community."
Kunstler calls Wal-Mart "the exemplar of a form of corporate
colonialism, which is to say, organizations from one place going into
distant places and strip-mining them culturally and economically."
Ortega documents how communities around the country are rising up
to slap down Wal-Mart's plans at expansion.
But Ortega questions whether, given the amazing popularity of
Wal-Mart among consumers worldwide, anything will stop this juggernaut.
As Ortega points out, consumerism has not always held sway on this
soil. Back 200 years ago, in the United States, "one did not shop for
pleasure."
"The very idea of coveting goods ran counter to a broad
Puritanical streak in American society, and to its proclaimed values of
living simply, working hard (the famous 'work ethic'), being thrifty, and
seeking salvation through faith," Ortega writes.
Ortega closes the book with a story of how Tibetans believe,
depending on their past actions, people can come back to other realms
besides this one.
"Among the worst of the realms is the realm of the hungry ghosts
-- a place reminiscent of certain neighborhoods of Dante's Inferno," he
writes. "The hungry ghosts are the reincarnations of people who were
covetous or greedy in this life. In the realm of the hungry ghosts, they
are constantly ravenous but can never be satisfied. They despoil and
devour everything around them. They consume endlessly and insatiably. It
struck me immediately as a metaphor for our own mass culture."
On April 6, 1992, Sam Walton died one of the wealthiest men in
America. Ortega says that he cannot presume to know where Walton went
after he passed on. "But I can't help but think, at times, that his hungry
ghost is still with us, in the form of Wal-Mart itself."
Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime
Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based
Multinational Monitor.
(c) Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
Focus on the Corporation is a weekly column written by Russell Mokhiber
and Robert Weissman. Please feel free to forward the column to friends or
repost the column on other lists. If you would like to post the column on
a web site or publish it in print format, we ask that you first contact us
(russell@essential.org or rob@essential.org).
Focus on the Corporation is distributed to individuals on the listserve
corp-focus@essential.org. To subscribe to corp-focus, send an e-mail
message to listproc@essential.org with the following all in one line:
subscribe corp-focus
In-Reply-To: <199810071333.JAA04889@hme0.mailrouter01.sprint.ca>
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981025110029.006da22c@mail.oocities.com>
Subject: Re: I need Career Suggestions: volunteering in Africa.
To: David Morris , positive-futures@igc.org
At 09:35 7/10/98 -0400, David Morris wrote:
>Thanks for all the contacts and info so far!
>Please keep 'em coming for me, and the others on the list who may be
>interested. Please make your messages public if you can.
>David
>
** I'm responding even though it's late, since going thoroughly VS is a
real culture-shock for city-dwellers and those who were teen-agers in N.
America after 1960.
[earlier, Robin Woolmer, 6 Oct 1998 19:11:00 -0700 wrote:
(RE: I need Career Suggestions) a volunteering suggestion.
** My wife Bera and I have always valued our 2 years with CUSO, as (in our
case) volunteer teachers (of Physics & Maths) in Ghana West Africa, in '68
to '70.
** The preparation (partly against culture-shock) was quite well-done,
though it wouldn't have been enough for Bera - she had had less experience
than me of enjoying the challenge of making do with very little (sometimes,
absolutely nothing), and would have cancelled-out after less than a year if
I hadn't been with her. Also I was not a social person; many of the CUSO
(& Peace Corps and VSO) volunteers _needed_ to have social contact every
few weeks - sometimes with certain of the locals, but often going to a big
city to be with other expatriates for at least some hours.
** Earlier this year I eMail-talked with a nurse, XX, who asked for all I
could give her about being a 1-to-2 year volunteer in a "Third-World"
(South) country. I've compiled my replies below.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
At 19:04 3/06/98 EDT, XX wrote:
>I would love to hear anything you could share about living and
>working in Ghana and or Nigeria. ... Have a diverse background
>and just having a desire (always have) to work interculturally.
>Will be attending a graduate program in intercultural and
>international management and am also entertaining the idea of
>getting a Masters in Public Health with emphasis in
>International Health.
>
>XX
>
[David replied:]
Re(1): Peace Corps/CUSO: Africa
** The big thing in making sure you can continue to be effective (and this
is the main/only reason for being there, as far as the locals are
concerned), is that you have to be _very_ flexible and tolerant: willing to
embrace the attitudes and way of life with its limitations (often daunting)
that the people there work with.
Bera too was quite sure she wanted to volunteer for work overseas, even
before she met me (she says), but before the end of the first of the two
years in Ghana, while we were still "up-country" teaching physics and maths
in a good secondary school, she confided that she wouldn't have been able
to continue into the second year if she'd been on her own. I think it was
true culture-shock.
I at least had been shifted around a great deal in my childhood, from
England (shortly after war was declared) to Canada (my father's country) to
New Zealand (mother's country) and back to Canada (for grad school) where I
met Bera. So my personal experience of fitting-in was adequate.
I'm making my lunch*, now. More later.
*:
http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/6783/dsmenu.html#top
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re(2): Peace Corps/CUSO: Africa
** I said: "... you have to be _very_ flexible and tolerant ..."
I started with that because Bera & I were 27 & 31, which I thought was
still young enough to be easily capable of switching our world-view. Not
so easy! I don't know whether 2 years immersed in a very different culture
with little or no let-up, is wise for a 46-yr-old. Working, days, with
people of a somewhat different culture, but going home at night/weekends to
what you're used-to and can truly relax in, isn't the same.
** I also said: "... she wouldn't have been able to continue into the
second year if she'd been on her own."
There were other CUSO volunteers in Ghana (by the way, we all had good
preparation in Canada), who we heard had to quit after less than 4 months.
My assumption was that they were too much on their own (i.e. no other North
Americans around to reach-out-to of an evening), and too far away from a
big town to be able to just "take off" for a few days, when they were close
to breaking-point.
** One aspect _I_ appreciated very much, of the local (and I think almost
any undisturbed indigenous) culture, was that there was much less need to
"push yourself to get things done". Time was flexible. Here in a
"Northern" society, I like to "arrive within seconds" of the "right" time;
hardly any need for that in Africa - "maņana" is fine!
This is related to the actual _need_ for a siesta / two active parts to
the day. Most people got up at dawn or before, did whatever it was until
it got too hot, then went home to sleep for an hour or two. We lived within
walking distance of a mission hospital (where we went for diagnosis and
treatment for hepatitis - gamma-globulin plus some vitamin [B?]), and we
were told to come morning or evening only.
** Speaking of disease:
(1) We were so concerned about it when we arrived that for a few weeks we
would eat only local grapefruit and bananas (i.e. peelable),
pressure-cooked rice (yes: well worth taking one), and some tinned fish.
(2) Both in Africa (West and East) and India (where we lived for over 1/2 a
year in 1988), we expected to have "tummy-trouble"; in fact, each time we
changed to a different city/town in northern India we counted on most of us
having to be close to a toilet for the first 2-3 days, and somebody
sufficiently ambulatory that the sick-a-beds could be cared-for. We
welcomed this opportunity to be inoculated with the local bugs, and it
always worked well (except for the time I allowed our 16-yr-old oldest son
to go for a swim like the local boys, in Dal Lake just before it emptied
into the river through Srinagar. I told him to keep his mouth closed, but
he got dysentery and I got him to the local civic hospital after he'd
almost collapsed from dehydration. They gave him [intravenously, over 2
nights and a day] 5 litres/pints of saline solution).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re(3): Peace Corps / CUSO: Africa
I've just realised that, in my opimion, going as a traveller (_not_ a
tourist) could be a much better option, if you've not spent at least 2 - 3
months in a "South" country before.
You'd not be on contract, so anything you do for the locals (e.g. nursing)
could, if you decided it was necessary, be cut short. You could at least
take a couple of weeks relaxing on your own in a major city to get yourself
in order, or if that wasn't enough, tell them you weren't coming back and
go back to [North America].
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
At 22:17 4/06/98 EDT, XX wrote:
>At this date I have not had an initial interview which is
>actually about two hours long .
>As I understand it this interview consists of an opportunity to
>ask questions and consider what it would really be like to take on
>this kind of experience.
>
>I'm not sure if I am up for it but I certainly feel like I have
>to pursue it. I'm relatively flexible, having grown as a
>military brat and spending some time in the military myself,
>liking very much being around new people all the time.
>
> ...
> I really want to go to India! ...
>I have a friend Richard, who went to the Ivory Coast to teach
>and returned with a newly adopted African son who has just
>completed his first year as a college freshman here in the States.
>Richard misses Africa. He speaks of the >sense of family
>he felt with the people, the warmth, the simplicity of living
>and more."
** This is right; Bera and I, _after_ our two years there, would have been
happy to have had our kids back in Canada (Geoff, our eldest, had pyloric
stenosis at about 6 weeks, and we were very glad to have excellent
diagnosis and surgery available, in London, Ontario), and then return with
the family to live in Ghana.
Bera was homesick for Nigeria for several years, after we returned here to
New Zealand, in the early '80s. It was a special time for us.
I've been on the negative, warning theme, because I guessed you'd been
hearing the good things about working in a South country and were thinking
of going, as a consequence.
** More detail on three points:
1/ being the (sometimes) unacceptable outsider; "goldfish-bowl";
2/ only rare opportunities to talk to like-minded people, friends; Accra
visits;
3/ the relaxation of the inter-year holiday in the hills;
**1/ As the white-skinned expatriates, we were assumed to at least be
something like dilettants, able to leave if things got bad (_they_
couldn't), and often seen as rich: "give me shilling!". The local school
supplied us with a house for the year (they wanted it to be two), and
access to a car, which was a luxury but a possible goal in the late '60s,
whereas that went totally out of reach as the economy and politics went
downhill in the '70s and '80s.
So we were envied by almost all, and were always watched, virtually always
with good humour. But watched; we felt like a fish in a goldfish bowl. We
told ourselves: "this must be how recent immigrants to England from the
Caribbean and Africa must feel."
**2/ The coping strategy of a significant number of CUSO and Peace Corps
volunteers was to spend quite a lot of time with friends, e.g. 3 evenings a
week. Usually, but not always, these would be other volunteers; sometimes
a local person (eg. a teacher, in our circumstance). You had to actually
_go_ to their place: telephones were either non-existent, or uncertain if
they'd be working, or in some way inaccessible, like in the Headmaster's
office. I.e. possibly usable in an emergency, but not just for spending
time with friends.
There was also an unexpected (to us) amount of alcohol dependence.
For many of us, being able to look forward to getting out of the "bush"
and going to Accra (by bus/mammy-lorry) for at least a day, hopefully a
weekend, every month or so, was a great help in staying effective.
There _were_ a very small number (count on one hand) of special volunteers
who were able to stay on their own without any contact with other North
Americans for six months at a time. I don't know if CUSO was able to pick
them out for such postings, or whether the knowledge they were stuck there
made the difference for them. As I say: rare.
**3/ At the end of the first of the two-year posting, we had a CUSO
get-together, then about two months free. We spent about 4 weeks up in the
hills, in the blessed coolth, just unwinding, recreating ourselves. Then
we took a plane to East Africa, and were tourists around central and
northern Ethiopia. Well worth it. We also took in a durbar at an old town
in the hills north of the capital city, Accra.
David.
** http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/6783/index.html#top
David MacClement
http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Delphi/3142/index.html#top
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(order:)
| To: positive-futures@igc.org
| Message-Id: <199803271511.HAA06915@igcb.igc.org>
| Date: 27 Mar 1998 09:53 EST
| From: "Marco Santarelli"
| Subject: re: Should one work hard?
This is: http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/6783/0dds-and-ends/Starbuck.html#top
Return to Athens/Delphi: David's Pi_ge
Return to RainForest: David's Page