Recent cover headlines include:
- America is thirsty: Let's sell them our water before they take it.
- Elisha Cuthbert: Puck-Bunny Blogger
- Svend Him Packing: Will the voters of Vancouver Centre please do the rest of Canada a favour? (an article on Svend Robinson)
- The Real Stephen Harper: He's known as icy and inflexible. Up close, he's anything but.
- What's Not to Love?: A grassroots defence of the much hated retailer. (an article on Wal-Mart)
The fear mongering, flippant mysogyny, boldly aired political slant and fervent defence of the status quo are usually the hallmarks of American news networks like Fox News. So, it was surprising to see the venerable Maclean's become equally undignified and bombastic. I puzzled over the change until I looked over the masthead and it all became clear: Kenneth Whyte, Editor-in-Chief.
Ken Whyte, former Editor-in-Chief of The National Post, has brought his "sex and violence sells" strategy to Maclean's, and the results can be unintentionally comical. My personal favourite: "Activists defend them, but the first fatal attack in 100 years shows wolves aren't so cuddly after all." Oh my!
Ken Whyte has never learned that desperately screaming for attention by appealing to the lowest common denominator is cheap. With his strategy in mind, I would like to suggest that Ken Whyte report a rise in the homeless cannibalizing white babies, yet another scientific study that suggests women are genetically incapable of becoming leaders, present an exclusive scoop on Jack Layton's secret crush on and acquiescence to Stephen Harper, and list the upsides to being a 12 year old working for Nike.
2 comments:
What's wrong with child labour? Are you familiar with the term "chores"?
As a child, I remember mowing 5 acres of knee-high grass for less than the price of a sandwich at Starbucks (which, true, is an expensive sandwich), spending two weekends painting a fence surrounding said acreage for what amounts to a return trip on the TTC, and shoveling truckloads of bark mulch into a pen for horses all for the sake of enforced "familial obligation". I don't remember any activists clamouring to remove me from my deplorable forced labour, or boycotting my family's home out of respect for my rights.
Why are basic human rights neglected when families are involved? Perhaps third world countries should employ family members of said children for the same wage the child is making, merely to tell their child to make wallets or shoes as part of their daily chores? Would that mollify all the angry protestors of the world who, no doubt, have their children clearing their gutters, mowing their lawns, and cleaning their houses?
These children are *paid* for their work. Certainly, the wages are low, but who are we to dictate the economic practices of another country? These children seek these jobs willing (or, at least their parents do), in order to survive in impoverished countries with bloated populations. We could certainly demand that these countries increase employee wages, but for them to do so would obliterate their hold on that sector of the world economy. They remain competitive solely due to low wages. Losing that hold would ultimately lead to loss of livelihood for a large portion of the population.
Nor can you criticize the companies that employ workers in these countries. We live in a "show me the money" world. We want bargain basement prices, but are disgusted by the ethical cost of these outrageously fantastic prices (that is, on the two days a year we consider them). As a company, how can you survive in this world unless you pay homage to the holiest of holy: the dollar bill?
You want to change the world? Change the consumer. Not the manufacturer. Not the supplier. Not the distributer. And good luck with THAT!
Funny, this started as a joke (I don't seriously consider chores tantamount to child labour). But protestors (and any discussions that lead me to think of them) have always been anathema to me.
Sorry to focus on one tangential line in a whole story!
Thanks for the comment. I'm impressed and flattered that my blog provoked such largesse.
I object to child labour because corporations do not care for the longterm welfare of the child or his/her country. Unlike child labourers working under familial obligations, corporate child workers are not offered access to education, and there is no hope of promotion to owner/boss, or even manager, of the factory.
Frequently, third world countries have allowed corporations access to cheap child labour in a misguided attempt to bring about economic growth. When the contract is up, the country hopes the corporation will continue to use the factory and its workers at better wages. But corporations like Nike hit and run once the contract is over; the corporation finds it cheaper to start another child labour contract in another third world country.
We cannot excuse companies for unethical behaviour as the cost of business. If that were the case, slavery would continue to be a viable business practice.
I agree that consumers have all the power. Hence, consumers need to understand that their cheap t-shirt comes at a cost of pennies that do not even begin to pay for the children's livelihood, much less their wasted future.
Post a Comment