Monday, May 30, 2005

No Blood for Strips of Silicone!

Found this article in the Sunday Telegraph on 29 May.

Whoops.

It's like, I dunno, Coca Cola calling McDonald's unhealthy.

But anyhow. I mentioned this to certain individuals at college and I must say I did enjoy watching them backpedal furiously, saying that it's "justified" profiteering because they can now send 70% of the money from the wristbands to charity. Lesser of two evils and all that.

Only thing is, it isn't the lesser of two evils at all. It's the same evil that is among what the people beind MPH seek to stamp out but in a different place. Again, the end appears to be justifying the means. Again, we see double standards - slave labour is bad unless the fruits of said slave labour go to good causes. I can just see hundreds of the socialite munters who blindly back the campaign looking to boost their profiles making a big deal about whether they should cast aside their wristbands and boycott it as they do Tesco's and M&S for their tenuous links to Israel (which is unquestionably evil, apparently.) In fact, the white silicone indulgences could feasibly become a self-feeding cycle whereby the people in charge of the campaign pocket a few pence here, a few pence there, doing good, but never quite completely stamping out poverty. It could be quite profitable, couldn't it?

And another thought - Suppose that the yellow "Live Strong" anti-cancer wristbands are made in sweatshops as well. The "lesser of two evils" writ doesn't run here either. If it is unethical for people in developed countries to exploit those in developing countries for profit and consumer goods, then how is it any less unethical for people in developed countries to exploit those in developing countries to help cure or prevent cancer in developed countries? It's the same thing, is it not, enslaving one group of people for the benefit of another?

This whole affair only comfirms my suspicion that with self-publicising celebrity socialites in charge of the campaign, the left hand just doesn't know what the right is doing.

13 Comments:

At 8:28 pm, Blogger Withiel said...

Excellent. There's nothing like a bit of massive fashionable hypocrisy to put a smile on my face. However, I think the reason that most people who boycott Tesco do so because of its ridiculous UK monopoly rather than links to Israel.

 
At 3:43 pm, Blogger Sable X. Veins said...

Tesco monopoly? What about Asda (WalMart), Morrisons, Sainsbury's, Waitrose? They all see fit to construct their eye-scarring temples to Mammon with little or no regard for their local communities (Sainsbury's in particular). Besides, surely WalMart is a more dangerous corporation than Tesco's?

But, excellent reporting from the Telegraph, and well spotted by Mr. Hazlenut. This has made my day.

/SXV

 
At 6:14 pm, Blogger Withiel said...

Yes, that's true, but Tesco in the UK is ridiculous - figures I heard were something along the lines of "£1 in every £6 is spent at Tesco's". Which is fucking alarming. Although not as alarming as WalMArt. I second the motion that this is excellent reporting by Mr Hazelnut.

 
At 6:21 pm, Blogger Sable X. Veins said...

You're quite right, that is alarming. What's your source?

Motion carried.

/SXV

 
At 9:19 pm, Blogger Laura said...

In the absence of anyone else stepping in, I shall shamelessly over-cite the Guardian website: it's £1 in every £8, apparently. href="http://money.guardian.co.uk/consumerissues/story/0,14150,1384364,00.html See also http://www.fashionunited.co.uk/news/tesco.htm

 
At 10:09 pm, Blogger Sable X. Veins said...

Thankyou kindly, ma'am.

Now start writing articles for us or I'll exercise the droit de seigneur over your first-born (regardless of gender).

/SXV

 
At 10:56 pm, Blogger Withiel said...

He will, as well.

/shudders

In other news, Blogger still thinks we have 42 posts in total. Its recent post archive goes back to about November. I think we broke it.

 
At 8:46 am, Blogger Laura said...

You assume I ever plan on having kids and, if I did, wouldn't leave them in a bookshop or something. This amuses me.

 
At 11:25 am, Blogger Withiel said...

I do think the advent of children as currency is woefully overdue.

 
At 12:04 pm, Blogger Laura said...

You know me; the leaving-them-in-a-shop would be equally likely to be forgetfulness or a down payment for some particularly interesting set of books.

Hypothetically, of course.

 
At 3:55 pm, Blogger Sable X. Veins said...

Poppycock. You'll have children, if only to wring dry the bastard who knocked you up. Hell, I would. Spite and greed are the noblest incentives for reproduction.

/SXV

 
At 4:48 pm, Blogger Laura said...

But the PAIN! And the wearing of dresses made from half an old tent! Couldn't I just slip antiandrogens into his drink?

 
At 5:38 pm, Blogger Sable X. Veins said...

Antiandrogens won't pay for the abortion. Piss your money away on revenge, and it's the coat-hanger for you.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home