Is The Dream Alive?

On this date 44 years ago Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have A Dream” speech at a civil rights rally near the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. The rally was organized by a number of civil rights groups that partnered together to mobilize the public to put pressure on congress to pass a strong civil rights bill.

44 years later the U.S. Department of Justice reports that while African Americans comprised only 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2005, they were victims of about 49 percent of all homicides that year.

Is the dream still alive?

Starbucks + Arctic Tale + Global Warming = Corporate Hypocrisy

“Be inspired to change the world” is the marketing slogan for Starbucks current in store and online promotion of the new film Arctic Tale. To publicize the new film Starbucks entertainment division, “Hear Music”, is currently partnering with Paramount Pictures and National Geographic to saturate the market with Artic Tale posters, billboards, toys, and memorabilia. The trailer for the film explains that Arctic Tale is the story of a baby polar bear and walrus as they grow up in the Great North. As images of furry, playful animals tug on your heart strings with one hand, Starbucks makes use of the other to smack you in the face with a heavy dose of global climate change rhetoric. Unfortunately, Starbucks promotion of Arctic Tale appears to be much less of an attempt to inspire people to care for the environment and more of an attempt to distract the public from their lack of a corporate recycling program.

I contacted Starbucks via email to find out why they don’t provide recycling bins for their customers paper or plastic cups and cardboard sleeves. I asked specifically why the decision to recycle is not corporately mandated and why the decision is left up to the individual store owner. A Starbucks “Customer Relations Representative” replied to my inquiry and stated that,

“Most of our retail store recycling is conducted “behind the scenes” in the back room (boxes, milk jugs, etc.).”

To confirm this I spoke with two former employees of Starbucks stores in Bloomington, IN.

Employee #1 – “Starbucks finds it cost prohibitive to have a corporate recycling program. Although the Bloomington market is capable of recycling milk jugs and cardboard, we didn’t consistently separate milk jugs from the other trash. Additionally, we would break down our cardboard boxes so they lay flat then sit them out with the other trash.”

Employee #2 – “As for behind the scenes recycling, I only know about Bloomington (and Bedford) and there is nothing like this going on. When I worked there, the manager seemed to care about recycling, but claimed there was nothing that could be done because the city doesn’t come to that area to pick up recycling”

So apparently recycling at Starbucks takes place “behind the scenes” for two reasons:

1. If Starbucks were to operate their recycling program in plain view of the public eye people would quickly realize that Starbucks has no real commitment to recycling and is more concerned with appearing environmentally sensitive than actually conforming their business practices to the ideals they profess in their PR statements and marketing campaign for Arctic Tale.

2. Starbucks managers are somehow under the impression that the burden to recycle their waste is actually the responsibility of the taxpayers (via the city’s recycling services). My question is, does the city receive any benefit from the increased profit margins that Starbucks collects by refusing to spend a dime on a recycling program of their own? The answer is no. Taxpayers in Bloomington simply get more unnecessary and perfectly recyclable content dumped into their public landfills.

Although unwilling to make any significant changes to their own business practices for the good of our earth, Starbucks is more than willing to point the finger at their customers. To “inspire change” in the lives of others, Starbucks has partnered up with eco-groups Conservation International, Earthwatch Institute, Earth Day Network, and The Climate Group. Starbucks also organized a “National Day of Discussion” on August 15th in their stores and coordinated a discussion forum online featuring Michael Totten, Senior Director of Climate, Water and Ecosystem Services at Conservation International. In the Conservation International Forum, only two mentions of recycling occurred in the entire discussion of more than 8,500 words. Not surprisingly, neither of those two mentions was in any way connected to Starbucks unwillingness to implement a corporate program to recycle the millions of perfectly recyclable coffee cups they push across the counter everyday. In fact, none of the questions regarding Starbucks business practices made it past the screeners. Apparently Starbucks believes it is more important to discuss how you and I should change our behavior and lifestyle than to acknowledge that without a serious recycling program they continue to produce more unnecessary waste in one business day than the average family could in years.

Furthermore, if you check out the websites for all of the organizations that Starbucks has partnered with for their promotion of Arctic Tale, you will find that recycling appears on each and every list of “what you can do” to stop global climate change. Please take a look for yourself.

Conservation International -10 Things You Can Do Every Day

Earth Day Network -What You Can Do Right Now

Global Green USA – Recycling Fact Sheet

On their resource page, the Earthwatch Institute encourages people to move beyond simply recycling paper. For the Earthwatch Institute, recycling paper is so fundamental to environmental conservation they feel comfortable encouraging people to move beyond this basic practice. By not offering the most basic recycling resources to their employees or customers, Starbucks is neglecting what their partner views as one of the most basic principles of responsible earth care.

A small ray of light does glimmer for Starbucks on the website for The Climate Group, which states that, “The EPA has ranked Starbucks the 6th largest purchaser of renewable energy in the USA as of April 2006.” However, according to their profile on The Climate Group webpage the benefits of Starbucks current efforts to reduce their greenhouse emissions is listed as, “Not Documented”. Does that sound like the behavior of a profitable mega corporation like Starbucks? Engaging in environmentally friendly activities and then NOT tracking the results to tout as evidence of their “concern” for the environment? Sure, offsetting their massive consumption of fossil fuels is a start, but no mention of recycling appears anywhere amongst The Climate Group’s “accolades” for Starbucks. Accolades which are significantly diminished by the fact that one of the founding organizations of The Climate Group is, (drum roll please), Starbucks! The roster for The Climate Group finds Starbucks in great company, BP and Duke Energy, (two of the largest polluters in the world), are also charter members of the organization. Could it be that The Climate Group is little more than a PR conglomerate created to protect the image of corporations with environmentally damaging business practices?

Finally, here are a few prescriptions for curing this problem, (please post more if you can think of any).

1. Don’t go see Arctic Tale. We don’t need Queen Latifah, (narrator of the film), telling us how to live our lives. Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle because it’s the right thing to do for the future generations of our earth.
2. Only buy coffee from Starbucks stores that offer recycling for both the materials they use to make their products and the cups which they serve your drink in.
3. Bring your own mug. The best way to avoid the creation of more beverage container waste is a reusable mug.
4. Find a locally owned coffee shop. As a general rule, always patronize businesses that have a vested interest in the wellbeing of your community and not simply the maximization of their profits.
5. Recycle this blog. Tell someone about Starbucks corporate hypocrisy today.

AT&T – From Censorship to Surveillance

More bad news for the PR department at AT&T may be close at hand. While the dust from their censorship of Pearl Jam still hangs thick in the air,(AT&T Censors Pearl Jam (a.k.a.) “A Free Market of Ideas”), AT&T might soon find themselves in court defending charges of collaboration with the NSA to illegally track the domestic and foreign Internet communications of millions of Americans.
Please read the full article below for more.
Lawsuits May Illuminate Methods of Spy Program

AT&T Censors Pearl Jam (a.k.a.) “A Free Market of Ideas”

The first amendment of the Bill of Rights states that the U.S. Congress can make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. Unfortunately for Pearl Jam, and fans that chose to watch the webcast of their headlining performance at Lollapalooza last weekend, AT&T did not broadcast the Pearl Jam performance with the same concern and respect for freedom of speech that guided our founding fathers as they authored the Bill of Rights.

Please take a minute to watch this video and you will see how blatantly AT&T producers censored Pearl Jam lead singer Eddie Vedder when he began to sing anti-Bush rhetoric to the tune of Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall pt. 2”.

In a statement released on their website Pearl Jam said, “AT&T’s actions strike at the heart of the public’s concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to determining what the public sees and hears through communications media.” In my opinion, this one act of gratuitous censorship alone is enough to read anything with an AT&T logo on it with a skeptical eye. However, AT&T’s actions are further amplified by the fact that their recent acquisition of Cingular and exclusive partnership with Apple to release the iPhone in the U.S., as Rupert Murdoch begins his takeover of the Wall Street Journal, have stoked a fire of great anxiety in the mind of the public over the narrowing of opinions and information that will result from these far reaching consolidations of influential media outlets.

Simply put, our great nation thrives on freedom and liberty. A free market of commerce, unregulated by coercive governments, creates pressure on business owners to work harder and smarter to develop the best products at the best prices for consumers. Likewise a free market of ideas, unregulated by invasive censorship, grows a fertile landscape of opinions from writers, thinkers, and scholars that encourages people to gather ideas on their own, and empowers people to develop their own unique perspectives.

So what is our prescription for this mess? As it relates to AT&T, the key word is net neutrality. Please check out Save The Internet and join their mailing list and action network. As to the broader issue of media consolidation and the shrinking landscape of the U.S. media, that will be the subject of a future post to come very soon………unless AT&T censors it.

I-35W News Coverage

During rush hour on August 1st the I-35W bridge in Minnesota collapsed.  At this point at least five lives have been lost and eight others remain missing.  Indeed a tragedy of this nature is exceedingly rare and unexpected in our age of advanced science, technology, and engineering.  Thus it was no surprise that coverage of the collapse dominated all forms of news media last week.  As pictures, interviews, and analysis from the scene of the I-35W collapse continued to pour in through network and cable TV, talk radio, newspapers, magazines, and the Internet, all other news from our nation and world quickly faded into the background. 

According to a study conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism of most major news sources, (Listed Here), the bridge collapse received the fourth most media coverage of any story in 2007.  On cable news alone 69% of the “newshole” – the amount of time or total print space dedicated to actual news – from Aug.1st-Aug.3rd, was allotted to coverage of the bridge story.    If you’re curious, the three stories that have received more news attention are:

1. The Virginia Tech shooting

2. President Bush announces the U.S. troop surge in Iraq

3. Syndicated talk show host Don Imus gets fired for racially insensitive remarks

Several questions come to mind in response to this article – What will be the long term effects of all the news coverage that has been devoted to this event?  How many local journalists will be dispatched by their editors/producers to thoroughly investigate the safety of bridges in the areas that their viewers travel everyday?  How many newspapers and television stations around the U.S. will hold local and federal authorities accountable to maintaining our public bridges and roadways to adequate standards of safety?  Will anyone in the press move beyond describing the tragic I-35W bridge collapse and begin prescribing solutions for the future? 

Now I’m in no way suggesting that all of the blame for future infrastructure breakdowns should be placed on the press, but right now I don’t think I’ve heard anyone in the press ask, “What role might the press play in preventing this type of thing from happening in the future?”.  Although the final decision will rest with area officials, inspectors, contractors, etc. the press can, and must, play a role in mobilizing the public to action and holding the authorities accountable on this issue of great social consequence.  My fear is that for the majority of news outlets, pictures of the wreckage and interviews with eyewitnesses were simply a means by which to spike ratings and sell ad space/time, but my hope is that a strong minority of dedicated journalists will raise their voices to not only describe the tragedy, but presribe a solution.

More to come on this very soon….  

STOP Global Warming SMOKING

Today my wife and I rode our bikes to downtown Bloomington to grab some ice cream at our favorite local ice cream shop.  As we sat down to enjoy our sweets I noticed a 20 something hipster walking our way.  When she walked past I noticed two things about her that were in such conflict I couldn’t stop thinking about it:  

1. She was wearing a “Stop Global Warming” shirt

2. She was smoking a cigarette

Here are a few things to think about:

Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris USA, or RJ Reynolds, was more than likely the manufacturer of the cigarette the young lady was smoking.  Altria Group’s brands include: Marlboro, Virginia Slims, L&M, Lark and Parliament and RJ Reynolds brands are: Camel, Kool, Pall Mall, Winston, Salem, Doral, Misty, Capri, Barclay, Lucky Strike, Private Label, Monarch, Carlton, More, Vantage, GPC, Now, and Viceroy. These companies ship their air polluting products all over the world in air polluting trucks, boats, and planes.  Their products come in frivolous packaging and after consumption can’t be recycled.  The fields of tobacco plants owned by these 2 multinationals cover vast portions of land that were at one time vibrant ecosystems filled with oxygen rich plants and trees.So here is what I think. If this girl really, really, really, wants to stop global warming, she’ll not only wear the shirt, but she’ll put out the cigarette too.

Now I’m not judging anyone for being a smoker, and I’m not going to get on a soapbox about global climate change and pollution, I was just confused that this woman, who is obviously passionate enough about her beliefs to wear them on her shirt, has not allowed those passionate beliefs to transform her behavior in such a way that it reflects her beliefs.  Of course we all live in the awkward gap between our beliefs and behaviors – so either this woman has simply come to terms with the fact that she can’t completely behave in a way that reflects her beliefs or her convictions just don’t run that deep.  So let me cut right to the moral of the story - I was reminded in a BIG way that I need to allow my deepest held convictions to permeate my life in such a way that my behavior reflects what I hold dear.  I value peace and non-violence, but I often lose my temper and my words and emotions can be anything but peaceful.  I value humility, but I often speak and act with an over inflated sense of pride and self righteousness that can be bitterly insulting.  So either I need to come to terms with the dissonance between my beliefs and behaviors, or I need to allow my convictions to sting a little deeper, and transform my way of life into something worth talking about.