Posted by sean at 169.71.1.249 on May 03, 2002 at 12:45:39:
In Reply to: Now, it's the "Goodbye Redwoods" argument. posted by Isis on May 03, 2002 at 12:33:45:
: The Fisher family, which owns Gap Inc. (including Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic), also have amongst their business holdings lumber companies which have been cutting down the last of the old-growth forests in California for several years. This is well documented. More info:
: http://www.powerlink.net/fen/TMW_LateWinter2001/boycott_the_gap.html
I'd say that this has about as much to do with whether Gap has good clothes or not as the Hopper commercial in question will affect the quality of the next Coen Brothers work.
Meaning: First, that to attack Gap for what else it's owners own isn't really all that fair. I doubt that the CEOs are the same. But, moreover, the bottom line is whether you like their clothes and, as a correlary, whether they're worth the money.
All the other stuff -- except possibly for how they make their clothes, but including their trendiness -- shouldn't matter.
: As for sweatshops, I don't really know. Various groups have claimed that Gap produces garments in sweatshop regions, but they are liberal activist groups, so you can take that with as large a grain of salt as you wish.
: http://www.sweatshopwatch.org/marianas/
I believe it, especially since Gap never seems to deny it, and I'm sure they could afford good lawyers if they wanted to. And I don't even buy Gap clothes, 'cause I don't find them interesting. But the thing is, as long as it's legal to do, there's no way that Gap could avoid it. They'd be out of business in a month, because the competition could destroy them, profit-wise. The *only* way to change the sweatshop stuff is to change the laws, either in our country or in every single other country.
: And you can look in my closet any time. I shop at the Salvation Army for the most part. What I'm disturbed about is that people whom I consider artists, and whom I admire, would be willing to lend their image to any cause -- no matter how nefarious -- for a few lousy bucks.
Which would you rather see, Kate:
1) A bunch of people you consider artists waste months of their lives on a shitty movie so that they can get a lot of money and be comfortable for a little while and do their own thing.
2) A bunch of people you consider artists wasting an afternoon on a decent commercial for a shitty company so that they can get a lot of money and be comfortable for a while and do their own thing?
To add to the pot, generally speaking, I'm pretty sure they'd be better paid for the commericals. Sure, they'd make more overall for the shitty movie, but I just mean, in relation to the time spent.