When historians look back on our times and try to pinpoint the moment when the American century became the Chinese era, they may emphasize a recent battle over labor practices. To be specific, the Chinese government has drafted a law to strengthen the rights of unions to organize and fight workplace abuse while the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai has lobbied against reform, threatening to discourage the opening of US factories in China if the law is passed.
It is an important moment because it represents the first time in the last three decades that the Chinese have questioned the American neoliberal model of economic development and sought to chart their own course. Responding to the vast inequality and social unrest created by what has essentially been Robber Baron capitalism, the Chinese, especially its New Left intellectuals, may well be rediscovering the role of social justice, collective organizing, the welfare state, and workers' rights.
This moment also exposes the fundamental cynicism of American multi-national corporations. Having already used the cheap labor supplied by Chinese factories to undermine US labor unions and lay off hundreds of thousands of American workers, they are now employing similar tactics in China.
What with the passage of legislation sanctioning torture and, now, US multinationals signing onto crushing domestic and overseas labor unions--so much for America's moral authority.
I often disagree with TNR's Peter Beinart. But his latest essay, debunking the myth that George W. Bush isn't really a conservative, is dead on.
"Rarely has so widespread a view been so wrong," Beinart writes. "In fact, Bush is not merely conservative; he is more conservative than Ronald Reagan, the man whose ideological legacy he has supposedly betrayed."
The argument being peddled by conservative intellectuals is as disingenuous as the argument made by liberal hawks that they didn't know Bush would screw up Iraq so badly.
It's a convenient excuse for movement conservatives. The governing philosophy isn't the problem, the man is. Yet it's factually inaccurate and a gross misrepresentation of history.
In fact, Bush's policies were always the problem. "Conservatives aren't turning on Bush because his policies aren't conservative," Beinart writes. "They are turning on him because his policies, from Iraq to Hurricane Katrina, have dramatically failed--and failed policies, by definition, cannot be conservative. Poor George W. Bush. His supporters fear the Democrats, but they fear cognitive dissonance far more."
A group of venerable moderate Republican millionaires are starting a new group, Republicans Who Care. As Ellen Miller writes on TPM Cafe, "Does that mean that the rest of the Republicans are members of 'Republicans Who Don't Care'?"
And what precisely do the moderates care about? According to Bloomberg News, the group is raising money for "Republicans who favor balanced federal budgets and believe government should take a hands-off approach on such issues as abortion." The candidates they're planning to help include Senator Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island and Reps. Chris Shays, Nancy Johnson, Rob Simmons, Martha Rainville and Deborah Pryce.
But do these candidates stand up on the aforementioned issues? Take abortion. Pryce had only a 40 percent rating from NARAL last year and is the fourth-ranking Republican in a GOP leadership that is adamantly pro-life.
The rest of the aforementioned Republicans voted for the Bush tax cuts that bloated the federal deficit.
And if Lincoln Chafee is re-elected to the Senate, he'll vote for Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, hardly a moderate.
It doesn't seem like the rich Republican "moderates" are getting too much bang for their buck.
From Vermont to Illinois to California, voters this fall will be deciding the fate not just of candidates for Congress but of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
Communities that are home to more than 1 million Americans will have an opportunity to cast ballots on the question of whether Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against the president and vice president.
Only the U.S. House of Representatives can impeach a member of the executive branch, and only the Senate can convict the targeted official and remove him from office. But the founders always intended for citizens to have a voice in the process. Thomas Jefferson, who argued that power must ultimately rest in the people, as they alone are the surest defenders of the republic and its democratic aspirations, observed, "It behooves our citizens to be on their guard, to be firm in their principles, and full of confidence in themselves. We are able to preserve our self-government if we will but think so."
Duly troubled by a president and vice president who have launched wars without congressional declarations, who have spied without warrants, who have disregarded and disdained the Constitution, citizens across the country have put themselves to the task of preserving self-government by raising the call for impeachment. Dozens of communities have considered resolutions calling on Congress to act, and this fall's referendums will raise the volume.
The precise wording of the questions varies from town to town. Prepared with the assistance of activists with the Constitution Summer project (www.constitutionsummer.org), the propositions in San Francisco and Berkeley read like actual articles of impeachment. In urging members of the House to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney, for instance, San Francisco's Proposition J goes far beyond now standard complaints regarding abuses of power related to invasion and occupation of Iraq and argues for holding the administration to account for the mismanagement of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina.
The proposal is more to the point in tiny Pittsville, Wisconsin -- population 866 -- where voters will be asked to vote "yes" or "no" on a local resolution that declares: "The U.S. House of Representatives should start an impeachment investigation against President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney now."
If the voters say yes, says Bob Hoch, organizer of the Wood County Impeachment Coalition's petition drives, a call to act will be dispatched to the state's congressional delegation -- two of whom, Madison Democrat Tammy Baldwin and Milwaukee Democrat Gwen Moore, have already joined a House call for an impeachment inquiry.
There are those who will suggest that referendum votes in handful of communities as distinct as San Francisco and Pittsville can't possibly mean much to the national discourse. But, surely, the cynics are wrong.
The referendums in those communities, and Montpelier, Vermont, and Urbana, Ill., and other locales across the land are classic illustrations of the petitioning for the redress of grievances that the Constitution does not merely protect but in fact encourages. The impeachment-from-below movement is the modern-day expression of the oldest of American ideals: No man, be he pauper or president, shall stand above the law. And it is wholly appropriate that it is beginning at the municipal level.
Former Harper's magazine editor Lewis Lapham, was asked during a recent visit to San Francisco: "Do you think that's the way we should go about impeachment -- municipally?"
"I don't see why not," Lapham, one of the Republic's most thoughtful and consistent defenders, replied. "I don't see any other way to go about it. I think that the impetus for any revival for democratic government is going to come not from a national level but from a municipal and state level."
There is something satisfying about the fact that the communities that are voting on impeachment -- which range from urban centers to college towns to rural towns -- cannot be stereotyped. That is as it should be, says Buzz Davis, the Veterans for Peace activist who has been leading the impeachment campaign that has qualified two referendums for the November ballots in Wisconsin cities and hopes to qualify many more for next spring's local election ballots. "Impeachment is not a partisan issue but a question of whether our nation will live under the rule of law as our Founding Fathers believed," argues Davis.
James Madison said that "it may, perhaps, on some occasion, be found necessary to impeach the president himself."
It would come as no surprise to Madison or Jefferson that citizens are the first to recognize the occasion and to call upon Congress to act. Nor would this trouble the founders; indeed, they would say that the impeachment-from-below movement is the truest expression of the patriotism that alone will preserve the republic.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism is being published this month by The New Press. "With The Genius of Impeachment," writes David Swanson, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, "John Nichols has produced a masterpiece that should be required reading in every high school and college in the United States." Studs Terkel says: "Never within my nonagenarian memory has the case for impeachment of Bush and his equally crooked confederates been so clearly and fervently offered as John Nichols has done in this book. They are after all our public SERVANTS who have rifled our savings, bled our young, and challenged our sanity. As Tom Paine said 200 years ago to another George, a royal tramp: 'Bugger off!' So should we say today. John Nichols has given us the history, the language and the arguments we will need to do so." The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com
The US-backed special tribunal in Baghdad signalled Monday that it will likely delay a verdict in thefirst trial of Saddam Hussein to November 5. Why hasn't the mainstream mediaconnected the dots between the Saddam's judgment day and the midtermelections?
Here's how the story was reported pretty much everywhere: "An Iraqi court trying Saddam Hussein for thekilling of Shi'ite villagers in the 1980s could deliver a verdict onNovember 5, officials said, a ruling which could send the ousted leaderto the gallows…"
A possible death-sentence for Saddam and his top lieutenants on November 5? Now, shouldn't that raise a few eyebrows somewhere? If you happento have a calendar close at hand, pull it over and take a quick look. That verdict would then come, curiously enough, just two days before themidterm elections. It's the sort of thing that--you would think--thatany reporter with knowledge of the US election cycle (no less of howKarl Rove has worked these last years) would at least note in anarticle. But no, you can search high and low without finding areference to this in the mainstream media.
I must admit I hadn't thought about this myself until a friend forwardedme "No Comment," the e-mail newsletter that ScottHorton sends out from time to time. ("It's intended as ironic. AllI do is comment.") Horton, who likes to identify himself in hisnewsletter as an "obscure New York lawyer," is actually an adjunctprofessor at the Columbia University Law School, as well as chairman ofthe International Law Committee at the New York City Bar Association. He makes frequent trips to Iraq, working as an attorney"representing arrested local-hire reporters of US media."
Once he had pointed out the timing in his newsletter, I couldn't get itout of my head and, since a Google search and a spin through variousmainstream articles on the changed verdict date, brought up only acouple of passingmentions online of its relationship to the US elections, I calledHorton directly. Here's what he had to say when I asked whether hethought Karl Rove might have anything to do with this:
"For sure. That November 5 date is designed to show some progress inIraq. This is the last full news-cycle day in the US before theelections. It'll be Monday. And the American public will see Saddamcondemned to death and see it as a positive thing.
"When you look at polling figures," Horton said," there have been threesignificant spike points. One was the date on which Saddam wascaptured. The second was the purple fingers election. The third wasZarqawi being killed. Based on those three, it's easy to project thatthey will get a mild bump out of this.
"After all, almost every newspaper reserves space for Iraq reportingevery day. This just assures that they will have a positive news storyto feature. I find it amazing not that journalists don't editorializeon this, but that they report the story without even noting that this isright before the midterm elections. That's pretty amazing to me!
"This is not coincidence," he continued. "Nothing in Iraq that'sset up this far in advance is coincidental. Look at Michael Gordon'sbook Cobra II. One of the points he drives home ishow everything in the battle for Baghdad was scripted for US mediaconsumption.
"In fact, in my experience, everything that comes out of Baghdad is verycarefully prepared for American domestic consumption.
"As for Saddam's trial itself, I've spoken with dozens of lawyers andjudges in Iraq and they have a uniformly very negative opinion of thisspecial tribunal. Everybody -- pretty consistently across the board,and despite the fact that there's no love lost for Saddam himself--has ahigh level of irritation about the tribunal. Judges have said to me, ‘Iwouldn't serve on that. I wouldn't have anything to do with it. It's ablot on our country.' Their main point of criticism is its lack ofindependence. There is a team of American lawyers working as speciallegal advisors out of the US embassy, who drive the whole thing. Theyhave been involved in preparing the case and overseeing it from thebeginning. The trial, which is shown on TV, has mild entertainmentvalue for Iraqis, but they refer to it regularly as an American puppettheater."
Still, scheduling the announcement of what will almost certainly be a futureexecution to give yourself one last shot at a bump in the polls?
Welcome to Bushworld.
[If you are interested in receiving Scott Horton's "No Comment," you canrequest it at Shorton99@aol.com.]
Doonesbury cartoonist Gary Trudeau had a terrific idea which he introduced in his Sunday strip. Explaining that the public is "increasingly disconnected from the troops," in part because it has become increasingly dangerous for reporters to cover the war, Trudeau created a milblog for troops to "report on themselves" in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Sandbox offers soldiers a forum to share "… the unclassified details of deployment -- the everyday, the extraordinary, the wonderful, the messed-up, the absurd."
"I think the wars are just too remote for people's minds," Trudeau said. "They see two, three minutes on the evening news, maybe, if they don't look away."
Visit the site for authentic, first-hand accounts of soldiers' experiences. Here are some excerpts from recent posts:
"Tadpole," serving in Special Ops in Afghanistan, posts: "While I was home on leave recently, all the talk on every news channel was about the 10-year-old murder case of a little girl, hardly any mention of the war at all. When there is mention of the war, it's almost always of Iraq. Many people seem to have forgotten about Afghanistan altogether. Many of us over here feel like the forgotten bastard step-children of war. We get the leftover equipment, and very little recognition."
Staff Sergeant Emily Joy Schwenkler writes from Baghdad: "It is extremely hard to be here and not question the people and events that led to our being here. I don't question my own personal choice to be here. I ran, not walked, to my local recruiter with the desire to serve my country…. But there is no "winning" here. I can see the signs that our government is beginning to realize the same thing, beginning its modern-day version of Vietnamization…."
"Spc. O," stationed in Iraq, observes, "It's easy to say ‘WE have to go to war' if you're not WE, and it's easy to say ‘Bring home the troops' if they are not your brothers getting left behind on the return trip."
Zachary Scott-Singley describes his first Memorial Day after returning from Iraq: "The memories, and feeling that guilt for coming back alive while so many others have died, both soldiers and civilians. That was all I could think about that day: Why me? God, why did you let me live when you took so many others? But it wasn't God; it was us, mankind that did this."
Trudeau is relying on word-of-mouth to promote the site and is already pleased with the traffic. "We're in the odd position of not wanting to be too successful," he said. "We really don't have the resources to edit and post more than four to five submissions (and their comments) a day."
Check out what the troops have to say at The Sandbox. It's a great opportunity to hear from those making the greatest sacrifices and directly bearing the consequences of these wars.
Yesterday, more than 200 Wal-Mart workers held a demonstration in front of a Wal-Mart store in Hialeah Gardens, Florida. In the first significant protest ever organized by Wal-Mart employees in the United States, workers objected to managers cutting their hours, and to the company's insistence on employees' "open availability," as well as to a new, more stringent attendance policy. It's courageous of these workers, who are part of a Florida group called "Associates at Wal-Mart," to speak out publicly and demand better treatment. Let's hope their protest is a turning point in the fight for workers' rights at Wal-Mart, and that more workers will be emboldened by the Florida workers' example and begin to organize. Too much of the debate over Wal-Mart takes place without the perspective of the true experts -- the workers themselves.
Speaking of retail workers, the IWW's Starbucks campaign -- which I've mentioned on this blog before -- is growing, and having some encouraging effects. Workers have organized in New York City, and, this summer, Chicago. Last week, the company raised its Chicago workers' wages, increasing starting pay by thirty cents (to $7.80) and promising that if an employee gets a favorable performance review, her pay will go up to $8.58 after six months. New York City workers will make $9.63 an hour after six months on the job (and a favorable review), which means that the IWW campaign will have raised many employees' wages by nearly 25% in two and a half years. The company insists that the raise has nothing to do with the union, but that claim simply isn't credible. As Daniel Gross, who was recently fired for from Starbucks for union organizing, points out, the wage increase "isn't justified by macroeconomic factors, or by any factors other than the union. Real wages for other workers in New York City haven't increased by 25%, or anywhere near that!"
Of course, as Daniel points out, even with the increase, Starbucks workers do not make a living wage. He also stresses that the wage increase needs to be viewed in the context of Starbucks' anti-union campaign: "The company still doesn't recognize the union's right to exist." Starbucks still has a long way to go before the reality behind its counters matches its socially-responsible image.
Twenty years ago this month the world might have taken a different course. On October 11, 1986, at the Reykjavik Summit, Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan entertained the idea that had long been unthinkable among the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union: a world free of nuclear weapons. Yet, despite the end of the Cold War and the development of relatively normal relations among the world's nuclear powers, the idea of a non-nuclear world seems more distant than ever. As the recently released report of the International Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction makes clear, even the limited goals of nuclear arms control and non-proliferation have been set back by the lack of leadership on the part of the United States and by the proliferation of new weapons states. Also worrying, the goal of nuclear disarmament no longer seems to animate the progressive community or the peace movement-- let alone figure into today's discussion of American national security policy.
But even as the idea of a non-nuclear world seemed more distant than ever, Mikhail Gorbachev was in New York speaking eloquently of his belief that there are always alternative roads to sanity. At a gathering at the Museum of Television and Radio's auditorium, the former Soviet President insisted that the major nuclear powers must abide, in good faith, by the Non-Proliferation Treaty's core obligations. That includes, he reminded the packed hall, pursuit of real nuclear disarmament leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Just hours before Gorbachev spoke to a standing ovation, the New York Times' lead story called our era a "second nuclear age." And the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to impose sanctions on North Korea for its reported nuclear test.
Lost amidst so much of the coverage of today's nuclear threats is a full understanding of how we got where we are. That doesn't mean listening to Hardball or one of the cable show's foodfights about who lost North Korea (we know it was Bush); but, rather, it requires a clear understanding of the history of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, and what it called for. In a cogent "Talk of the Town" piece in the current issue of The New Yorker, Steve Coll reminds us that the NPT "proscribes all but five countries--the US, Russia, China, Britain and France--from possessing nuclear weapons, in exchange for a pledge from the five to eliminate their own stockpiles at some unspecified future time." But, as nuclear weapons expert Joseph Cirincione argues persuasively in the Los Angeles Times, by "rejecting international treaties as the solution to proliferation" and "by clinging to our own nuclear arsenal and touting the importance of these weapons to our own security," Bush and his Administration have "sent the world a schizoid message: Nuclear weapons are very, very important and useful--but you cannot have them." As Cirincione explains, "This double standard is impossible to maintain."
Today Gorbachev speaks of the paramount need for political will and leadership to end the insanity of a nuclear weapons race. He speaks of what real security means--envisioning governments tackling global poverty, and the fact that simply providing access to clean water could save two million lives each year.
We've lost twenty years since two leaders envisioned an alternative world. Today, as Coll says, " the only solution is to engage in the daunting, dull and entirely plausible project of steadily making such weapons marginal, illegitimate and very difficult to acquirem inspired by a final vision of enforceable abolition." The NPT, as Gorbachev told the hall on Sunday, is a guide to such a moral and practical end--if only the major nuclear powers would abide by the agreement they signed onto.
CODA: No other major US media outlet I know of commemorated that moment, 20 years ago, when the world came close to a nuclear-free world. However, at thenation.com, following on this magazine's longstanding commitment to nuclear abolition, we published a Forum on the summit's anniversary (October 11) with leading figures of the nuclear disarmament movement at that time. Their incisive, sometimes passionate reflections on what went wrong --and how to put the issue of nuclear disarmament back onto the political agenda--should make us understand why we must never give up on saving our world from nuclear peril.
Here's how the President described the enemy in Iraq at his press conference last week. "The violence is being caused by a combination of terrorists, elements of former regime criminals, and sectarian militias." "Elements of former regime criminals," aka "bitter-enders," aka "Saddamists," aka "Anti-Iraqi Forces." The "sectarian militias" may have been a relatively recent add-on, but this is essentially the same list, the same sort of terminology the President has been using for years.
In the last two weeks, however, rumblings of discontent, urges for a change of course in Iraq have been persistently bubbling to the surface of already roiling Washington. Suggestions are rife for dumping the President's goal of "democracy" in Iraq and swallowing a little of the hard stuff. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, for instance, reports (as did Middle Eastern expert Robert Dreyfuss at Tompaine.com a week earlier) that in two desperate capitals, Washington and Baghdad, rumors about possible future Iraqi coups are spinning wildly. People of import are evidently talking about the possibility of a new five-man "ruling commission," a "government of national salvation" there that would "suspend parliament, declare martial law and call back some officers of the old Iraqi army." Even the name of that CIA warhorse (and anti-neocon candidate) Ayad Allawi, who couldn't get his party elected dogcatcher in the new Iraq, is coming up again in the context of the need for a "strongman."
This was, of course, the desire of the elder George Bush and his advisors at the end of Gulf War I, when they hoped just such a Sunni strongman, who might actually work with them, would topple a weakened Saddam Hussein. Dreams, it seems, die hard. And, as if on cue, who should appear but former Secretary of State and Bush family handler James A. Baker III, a Bush Elder kind of guy whose bipartisan commission, the Iraq Study Group is, according to a leak to the New York Sun, considering skipping "democracy" in Iraq, minimizing American casualties, and focusing "on stabilizing Baghdad, while the American Embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents."
A political accommodation with the insurgents. Curious how word gets around. Sometimes a small change in terminology speaks volumes for future mid-course corrections. The other day, Gen. George Casey, commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, gave a Pentagon press briefing. As part of his prepared introductory remarks (not in answer to some random question), he offered this list of "groups that are working to affect [the situation in Iraq] negatively":
"The first, the Sunni extremists, al Qaeda, and the Iraqis that are supporting them. Second, the Shi'a extremists, the death squads and the more militant militias. In my view, those represent the greatest current threats in Iraq. The third group is the resistance, the Sunni insurgency that sees themselves as an honorable resistance against foreign occupation in Iraq."
"The resistance"? "An honorable resistance against foreign occupation"? Where did those bitter-enders, those Anti-Iraq Forces go? Take it as a small signal -- noticed, as far as I can tell, by not a single reporter -- of things to come.
For more on mid-course corrections, check out Michael Schwartz's "9 Paradoxes of a Lost War" at my Tomdispatch.com website.
[Correction, 11/2/06: The percentage that AmEx Red donates to the Global Fund was incorrectly reported. See my note in paragraph 8.]
Africa's poor had, like, the best week ever. Not since the days of khaki colonialism has buying Africa been so sexy, so fashionable. Early last week, Madonna and husband Guy Ritchie swooped into the village of Mphandula in Malawi and adopted 13-month old David Banda. Price tag for this celebrity accessory du jour: $3 million to anti-poverty programs and $1 million to produce a documentary on the plight of Malawi's children, one million of whom are AIDS orphans (though little David is not, his father is very much alive and planned to reclaim the child until the Material Girl made an offer).
But don't worry, if an African baby is too pricey for you (and conjures up undesirable associations to Angelina Jolie or slavery), then you can buy Red instead. Launched this week in North America, Bono's campaign re-brands Motorola Rzr phones, Gap t-shirts, Armani sunglasses and Converse sneakers with the Product Red logo. Up to half of all profits will go to The Global Fund to Fight AIDS; a $199 Red Ipod Nano will, for example, lead to a $10 donation by Apple. Oprah, Steven Spielberg, Penelope Cruz, Christy Turlington, Chris Rock, Mary J. Blige and other celebrities have all endorsed the campaign. "Can a tank top change the world?" asks one Gap ad. In the UK, where AmEx Red donates 1% of all purchases to The Global Fund, the question was simply "Has there ever been a better reason to shop?"
Call me a curmudgeon but...Hello, hello? I'm at a place called vertigo. It's not that I think Bono's crusade has had a negative net impact on the fight against AIDS (though one could certainly make the case a la George Monbiot). And I'm not discouraging anyone who was already in the market for a $150 Gap denim jacket or Apple Ipod from buying Red. If you really need one, you might as well kick back a few bucks so that someone in Africa can live. But spare me the fantasy that shopping till you drop somehow affects radical change.
The perniciousness of this corporate consumerism masquerading as activism was best represented by Bono's partner in the Product Red endeavor, Bobby Shriver of the Kennedy clan who said to the New York Times:
"Gap in the beginning couldn't understand how they were going to make money. They wanted to do a T-shirt and give us all the money. But, we want them to make money. We don't want anyone to be thinking, ‘I'm not making money on this thing,' because then we failed. We want people buying houses in the Hamptons based on this because, if that happens, this thing is sustainable."
Aside from the sheer, murderous calculation involved (preserving the perception of corporate profitability at the cost of millions of dollars of charitable aid and thus at the cost of thousands of African lives), it's the whole notion that sustainability and success requires summer estates in the Hamptons that really rankles me.
Welcome to the gilded age of corporate empire or what its leading citizen Bill Gates calls "frictionless capitalism." In this universe there are no states, no rights to health care, no trade policies and corporate welfare programs that keep Big Pharma the most lucrative industry going. In the place of anything resembling citizenship we have consumer choices, "innovation" and above all brand marketing, which is even now in Product Red being cast as some sort of corporate largesse. ("Isn't it so great that the Gap and Apple would submerge their own brand identity," glowed many a business page article). Shopping is sharing, and the unprecedented accumulation of wealth squares entirely with "ending poverty" -- just ask Gates or Warren Buffet. In their world, fighting AIDS somehow never seems to query how Europe and the US underdeveloped Africa and how the continent's abundant resources are still exploited by the world's wealthy.
And as this smart blogger points out, the AmEx board is stacked with former and current CEOs and directors of major Pharma companies who waged a genocidal campaign against the generic production of AIDS drugs. At 1% of AmEx Red profits, absolution comes cheap these days, don't it? [Correction: According to Product Red CEO Bobby Shriver, AmEx Red donates "1% of a cardholder's bill" or roughly "40% of AMEX's gross revenue" to the Global Fund.]
So what's an MP3-stealing, cell phone-addicted fashion follower like myself to do? Here's my DIY solution that still involves shopping and branding. A red Sharpie marker costs about a $1. Go get one and mark up something you already own. A giant red A will suffice, I suppose, but don't be afraid to stretch your imagination. Then send $198 (or $149 or whatever you can afford) to the Global Fund. Or if you prefer an organization that does political advocacy instead of direct service, try HealthGap at the Mobilization Against AIDS. You may not be wearing the hottest shade of red, but your contribution will be significantly larger and cleaner.
Click on the links below or send checks or money orders to:
United Nations FoundationAttn: Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and MalariaDept. 344Washington D.C. 20055-0344
Mobilization Against AIDS(insert "Health GAP" in memo line)584 Castro Street, Suite # 416San Francisco, CA 94114