According to this article, Abercrombie and Fitch spent 131 million dollars to construct a 'parallel universe of beauty and exclusivity' in the form of their Ohio campus.

It doesn't surprise me that the company would want to protect itself and Mike Jeffries from the harsh realities of the outside world and from the people in it who they perceive to be 'uptight moralists' as they clearly need to be protected from all of this. But what does surprise me is how much less A&F spent to protect garment workers on Saipan from the conditions inflicted on them by Abercrombie and Fitch. In 2002, A&F was one of seven retailers who were part of a whopping 11.25 million dollar settlement of 'a class-action lawsuit alleging factory sweatshop conditions' on Saipan. A fraction of 11.25 million dollars must have been quite a financial blow for Abercrombie and Fitch as they only had net sales of 1.6 billion dollars in the year of the settlement.

I would have liked to hear Jeffries' comments on these Saipan sweatshops, but, much to my surprise, despite having been asked about many other A&F controversies, he was never asked about this one.

And why is Salon all of a sudden writing articles touting the wonders of a retailer like Abercrombie and Fitch anyway?

How odd.

For more on the lawsuit:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/26/national/main523469.shtml

http://www.cleanclothes.org/legal/04-01-08.htm

There is Africa. A continent with a population of over 800 million, many of whom could be paid very little at this point.

And China is already outsourcing some textile manufacturing to Swaziland.

I imagine globalization stretching out into the future like a mobius strip of self-resetting dominoes.

One economy collapses as another one rises and each time this happens a new and desperate source of labor is made available.

Although, in a way, this has been the way of things already, we just didn't have this level of manufacturing prior to the industrial revolution; instead we had agriculture, resource extraction, colonization, slavery, and forced labor. In the past we had to use force to get the rest of the world to sustain Western appetites, but now the governments of the world are offering up their "workforces" willingly.

Although it can't go on forever. If we can't curb our population growth [and the resulting increased consumption of resources] on our own, then it will be curbed for us when the earth's resources can no longer sustain our population. And I believe that this has already begun.

In the interim, people have essentially bred themselves to the point that they have no bargaining power, and until we really start scrapping for resources [Iraq, I imagine, is just a prelude], the mobius strip will continue to turn.

When I was in Africa, I spoke to some Ugandans about China outsourcing manufacturing to parts of the continent and they were ecstatic, one of them said something like, "It's finally our turn!" And why shouldn't it be? And why shouldn't they be excited? It all seems so great: cigarettes, cell phones, Western-style toilets, homes made out of materials that can't be obtained locally. How wonderful it will be for them when they can all have that.

And we have already bought it all. Americans already depend on things that we cannot obtain on our own to sustain ourselves. And so, on to the rest of the world and its "emerging markets".

I have no idea what is in store, but I can say with almost complete certainty that it won't go on forever.

If you look at the president's actions in the form of legislation passed on his watch, then it is clear [as a smogless sky] that Bush has absolutely no intention of turning his back on the oil industry by curbing the use of oil.

He has made similar assertions in the past, and then signed an energy bill into law that was basically a 'piñata of perks for energy industries' according to the Washington Post.

So this is probably just another strategic maneuver [and the CEI's comments would help to bolster it] to make it look like Bush and his party aren't catering to oil industry needs and actually share the concern over our deteriorating environment that most Americans have.

And I believe that the Republican Party usually calls this 'pandering' when they aren't the ones engaged in it.