Feeding the Monsters: How I Support My Favorite Corporations

I love information. For some reason, I've always had an interest in facts, trivia and general knowledge- the kind of stuff you might find in an almanac or on Wikipedia, which is possibly my favorite website. I like to read mini-profiles of the world's movers and shakers. I like to know how the world works, why it works (or doesn't work) a certain way, what people think and where their ideas came from. I like to know who said what and why they might have said it.

I also believe there are reasons that help explain why people do the things they do. Their reasons may not be simple, logical or popular, but there are always factors beneath the surface that help to place a person's words or actions into context. If someone presents an opinion that is new to me, I hope that I am always gracious enough to find out the reasons behind their words before I decide whether or not I agree. I always seem to have more questions because the 'big picture' is very important to me.

But sometimes information can be scary. There are certain things I just don't want to know. How many calories and grams of sugar are in tonight's dessert? How did the meat and vegetables on my dinner plate get from the farm to the grocery store? How much water do I waste in the shower every year? Who makes the clothes and shoes that I wear every day? What were the factory conditions like and how much were the laborers paid? Who is getting rich off my consumer spending habits? How many children died yesterday from preventable disease? How much of the injustice and exploitation in the world am I directly or indirectly responsible for? Don't tell me the answers because I don't want to know.

The phenomenon of globalization has made us more aware of how no single person or nation is an isolated island. All of humanity is interconnected not just by technology, but by the global marketplace that plays a role in everything from the cost of oil to the scarcity of food. The demand for resources can trigger innovation and collaboration, but it also can lead to war and environmental degradation. Thanks to the mixed bag of globalization, a host of transnational companies have arisen to provide goods for wealthier nations at the expense of poorer countries who supply the labor. Massive, multi-national corporations like Nike, McDonalds, Wal-Mart and Shell Oil can exercise extraordinary power through leveraging trade agreements that are necessary to keep profits up. Sadly, the production and distribution of these goods often results in pollution, deforestation, labor rights violations and infringement on cultural practices in developing countries.

In her anti-globalization bestseller entitled No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies, Canadian journalist Naomi Klein explored the negative effects of brand-oriented corporate activity such as pervasive marketing targeted at increasingly younger audiences, the elimination of competition and the exploitation of cheap foreign labor. The critically acclaimed 2003 documentary The Corporation (also Canadian, hmm...) even compared the profile of the modern, profit-driven corporation to that of a clinically-diagnosed psychopath. After all, corporations are known to demonstrate callous unconcern for the feelings of others, an incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, a reckless disregard for the safety of others, deceitfulness (repeated lying to and deceiving of others for profit), incapacity to experience guilt, and failure to conform to the social norms with respect to lawful behaviors!

More frightening that the thought of an evil, merciless corporation invading my home is the reality that I have already invited them in and given them the run of the place. How could this be since I don't drink, smoke, drive an SUV or consume super-sized Big Mac meals on a daily basis? Does the fact that my wife buys all-natural fair trade cloth diapers and organic soap count for anything?

Time Warner Inc., the world's largest media and entertainment conglomerate, has the distinct privilege of being Hawaii's only local cable provider. Every time I pick up the remote, they have a reason to smile. But television is just the tip of the iceberg. If I pop in one of my favorite DVDs like All the President's Men, Chariots of Fire, The Mission, L.A. Confidential or The Fugitive, guess what? These movies all belong to Warner Bros. which is part of the Time Warner "family" that also includes box office cash cows like the Batman and Harry Potter franchises. Even my beloved Lord of the Rings movie trilogy cannot escape the clutches of Time Warner Inc. (formerly known as AOL Time Warner) since they own New Line Cinema too! What about artsy "independent" films in my collection like Before Sunset or Good Night and Good Luck? I was disturbed to learn that both are distributed by Warner Independent Pictures- an oxymoronic name if there ever was one. With this level of influence and control, it's easy to feel like you're trapped in The Matrix- another WB movie by the way!

But there's more. How often have I used MapQuest to get directions or visited CNN.com to catch up on the news? Same corporation, folks. I don't collect DC Comics, watch Looney Tunes or use AOL instant messenger, but those who do are inadvertently feeding the same monster. Time Warner practically owns the entire stack of waiting-room magazines because Time, People, InStyle, Real Simple, Sports Illustrated, Entertainment Weekly, Life and Fortune are all subsidiaries of this corporate giant. Even music acts ranging from Relient K to Eric Clapton, Matchbox Twenty to Ladysmith Black Mambazo are all part of their empire.

Don't worry, I am generously spreading the love to other corporations as well. You probably won't catch me watching Bill O'Reilly on Fox News Channel, but Rupert Murdoch still gets my money in other ways. Did you know that in addition to owning MySpace, The Wall Street Journal and every TV channel and movie studio with "Fox" in its name, News Corp is also the parent company of publishers like HarperCollins and Zondervan? So now I can't even pick up a book by C.S. Lewis, Philip Yancey, Dallas Willard or Rob Bell without selling my soul to 'the man'? Geez Louise!

Then there's the "family-oriented" Walt Disney Company. If they didn't already reel you in as a child, they'll be sure to entice you as a grown up. Even if you've managed to avoid Disney cartoons, toys, books and theme parks, you've still got to watch out for movie studios like Miramax, Touchstone and Pixar, all of whom are happy to take your dollars. How could anyone not like Finding Nemo or Ratatouille? Guess who's behind Pirates of the Caribbean, the Narnia movies and TV shows like LOST? The answer: M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E! The same goes for movies like Good Will Hunting, The Insider, Hero and Finding Neverland, which were all decent flicks in my opinion. For all the sports fans who enjoy ESPN (either on TV, radio, the web or magazine), we too have Uncle Walt to thank.

Let's move on to NBC Universal, which is owned by General Electric. If I watch shows like Meet the Press, Late Night with Conan O'Brien or The Office, I'm supporting the same conglomerate that controls film studios like Universal Pictures and Focus Features. Some of my favorite movies including To Kill A Mockingbird, Do the Right Thing, Schindler's List, The Bourne Identity, The Pianist, Lost in Translation, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and The Constant Gardener belong to this parent company. As the 6th largest corporation in the world, the executives and shareholders probably don't really care if I visit one of the Universal Studios Theme Parks, watch the Olympics on NBC or buy a GE refrigerator because they're getting into my pockets either way.

So there you have it. I have done my share to make corporations rich. Even if I threw out my entire DVD collection and never darkened the door of another movie theater or big box store, I will make plenty of other consumer choices benefiting corporations who provide me with everything from light bulbs to cheddar cheese. If we will buy it, they will make it. This very blog is owned by Google, a company with close to 20,000 employees and revenues of over $16 billion dollars last year. Such is the world we live in; an uphill battle for farmer's markets, family owned restaurants and mom & pop stores. Even Naomi Klein's No Logo book was published by Alfred A. Knopf, a company that is owned by the gigantic Random House, the world's largest English-language trade book publisher.

There are some things I just don't want to know.

W.W.J.B. (What Would Jesus Boycott?)

It's very hard to separate business from politics. How many of the current political hot topics are economic in nature? Soaring oil prices, America's national debt, the falling U.S. dollar, the economic recession, the costly war in Iraq, tax cuts, free trade agreements, cheap foreign labor, rising unemployment rates, CEO's with 'golden parachutes', Third-World debt and the success of war-profiteering corporations like Lockheed Martin and Halliburton are just a few of today's issues that have both economic and political significance. I would take it a step further to contend that these are also issues of moral and spiritual significance. As Jim Wallis of Sojourners likes to say, "Budgets are moral documents." Whether it's the federal budget, our church budget or the family budget, we declare our priorities and values by what we spend money on and who that money goes to.

The business of sports is like any other business. There are products to be sold, logos to be mass-produced, slogans to be repeated, earnings to report and market shares to be fought over. Coke doesn't want you drink Pepsi any more than Rupert Murdoch wants you to watch NBC's Summer Olympic coverage instead of baseball on his network, FOX Sports. Corporations can own media outlets, stadiums, teams and even individual players if the price is right. Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, LeBron James and Serena Williams have made far more from Nike (a brand that all 4 stars currently endorse), Gatorade, Sprite, HP and other corporate endorsements than from their actual on-the-court earnings. Those corporations in turn, have made gigantic profits relative to the pithy millions given to those athletes for their smile.

So what is the responsibility of sports fans like myself? To consume of course! Which teams do I follow? Which games and events will I watch? Which sportswriters and commentators do I like? Which website will I access to read recaps, watch highlights, view box scores (the sports equivalent of the business section's finely-printed stock prices) and maybe even buy a key chain or t-shirt displaying my favorite team's logo? At this very moment, there are well-paid market research firms and analysts being deployed with the sole purpose of discovering my patterns of consumption. It's very flattering until you realize what they're really after. Even though I didn't pay a dime to start this blog, I'm sure Google is making money off me somehow.

And that brings us to the flurry of commotion surrounding the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. Today's torch relay in San Francisco, the only U.S. city on the tour, ended up being re-routed amid fears of the large and rowdy masses. This whole scenario was an activist's dream but a nightmare for the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Seriously, of all the American cities for the torch to pass through, this was the choice? In my mind, San Francisco is clearly one of America's great cities when it comes to diversity, the arts, culture, and intellect, but if it were my job to decide on a route for the torch where it would be cheered instead of jeered, the city by the Bay would be the last place I'd pick. While they're at it, maybe the IOC could have also invited a hunting-gear-clad Dick Cheney to sit on the top of a float, rifle-in-hand, as part of the parade!

In a stinging critique of the IOC, Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports observed earlier this week that the choice of China as a host nation was made for economic reasons more than anything else. Essentially, the IOC was gambling that this move would help China to 'clean up its act' on issues of democracy and human rights (more specifically, freedom of the press and the treatment of Tibetan dissenters). Although it's difficult to obtain accurate information about conditions in China, the general consensus is that the air and water pollution are terrible, the food is unsafe and journalists can be expected to be spied on and searched without notice. There has also been widespread violence in Tibet in an attempt to squelch the protests. Wetzel writes, “The IOC willingly purchased the unholy bill of goods China was peddling so its sponsoring corporations could, in turn, sell stuff to the Chinese people.”

So what do China's policies have to do with the Olympics? Only as much as the business of sports has to do with politics. Which is, I guess, everything. For activists and protesters concerned with stopping the violence in Tibet, the Games provide the backdrop for publicity stunts and demonstrations. Some activists have touted the phrase "Genocide Olympics" in reference to China's strong economic partnership with a Sudanese government that has yet to put a stop to the unspeakable atrocities in its Darfur region. Others have used the Olympics to protest China's support of Myanmar (formerly Burma). Whether you agree with the tactics or not, these protests have helped the general public to begin exploring the whole connection between politics, business and sports.

On Monday, Hillary Clinton urged President Bush to boycott August's opening ceremonies as a way of denouncing China's disregard for human rights. Fellow senators Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) joined her later in signing a formal letter asking Bush not to attend. In a vacuum, this might be a noble act, but it's not like the United States currently has the credibility and moral authority in the global community to put any teeth into such a boycott. Besides, we owe them money. "It's very hard to tell your banker that he's wrong," Barack Obama said today. "And if we are running huge deficits and big national debts and we're borrowing money constantly from China, that gives us less leverage."

Politicians and world leaders are stuck between condemning China's treatment of demonstrators while still applauding the Olympic Games. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have already said they will not be attending the ceremonies. French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Australia's Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd (himself a former diplomat to China) have not decided whether to attend the opening ceremonies, although Rudd opposes a complete boycott of the Games. "My view is that boycotts do not work,” he said. “I do not support a boycott. The boycott of Moscow in 1980 had no impact on the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.” Mr. Rudd's attention is currently focused on the torch's route through his capital of Canberra on April 24.

For American politicians like Clinton and Obama, it's too risky to call for a complete U.S. boycott of the Games- at least right now. Not when they are being hosted by such a potent economic power as China. There are too many corporations involved with too much money at stake. You might as well call for a boycott on Arab oil! China and the U.S. rely heavily on each other as economic partners and neither one is in much of a position to point the finger when it comes to ethics and global responsibility.

But controversy is nothing new for the Olympics. Before the 1936 Olympics held in Hitler's Berlin, the IOC expelled American Ernest Lee Jahnke, the son of a German immigrant, for encouraging athletes to boycott the Games. Needless to say, he was replaced by someone with more support for the Games. At the 1972 Games in Munich, members of the Israeli Olympic team were taken hostage by the Palestinian terrorist group Black September. Eleven of them were murdered. At the 1976 Olympics in Montreal, 33 African countries boycotted the Games due to reasons related to South Africa's apartheid. The 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow were boycotted by 60+ countries (led by the U.S., China, Japan, West Germany and Canada) in response to Russia's invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviet Union returned the favor by boycotting the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics along with 13 of their allies. Even if the 2008 Olympics proceed without a U.S. boycott of the opening ceremonies, the Games will again be shrouded in controversy. But what is the right thing to do this time around?

For the record, I believe that Tibet should be a free and independent nation. The peaceful monks (and any other dissenters) should be allowed to protest non-violently without the threat of violence or imprisonment. I also believe that China should not be financing Sudan's genocide by purchasing their oil without even an acknowledgement of the atrocities committed. We consumers still have some power to do something about it. Raising awareness through boycotts could be part of the solution.

But as a consumer, I have to admit that the Olympics are still an appealing product to me. I think it's great that the world-class decathletes, backstrokers and gymnasts are given some attention once every four years. I always enjoy watching the opening ceremonies and rooting for the underdog from a small country who can inspire their people with hope amid darkness or draw attention to a forgotten area of the globe. I'm still fascinated, some would say naively, with what the Olympics should be about: the idea of bringing nations together at the common table of athletics in a form of 'soft diplomacy' (whether everyone at that table is actually fed is a another question). It's true that Tibetans would be oppressed and Chinese factories would be coughing out nasty chemicals whether the Olympics were held in China or Switzerland. It's only because of the Olympics that anyone is starting to care. The fact that the Olympics have become tainted (or maybe always have been) should not be a reason to wash my hands of responsibility and turn away. Maybe the Olympics are an endeavor worth redeeming. Maybe they point to something deeper about the brokenness of humanity.

Besides, what would it accomplish if I thumbed my nose at the Olympics only to change the channel (or web browser) and watch another program where those same corporations are selling me other products that perpetuate the cycle of greed and oppression? Is there any way to escape the Matrix? I think this is why some people choose to become monks. Like the Tibetan ones however, they can still find their rights being taken away by unchecked corruption from the halls of power (which also includes those business relationships that help to prop up those in power).

Maybe I'll just use the time that I would be watching the Olympics to catch up on some errands I need to run. I hear that Wal-Mart's got everyday low prices.