********************************
D) The New York Times/The Ethicist: Recycling for profit [Conseils sur l'éthique et la déontologie. Cette semaine : Un jeune parent a profité d'un opération de recyclage pour se servir. / Retour sur la question du manteau de fourrure hérité.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/11ETHICIST.html
THE ETHICIST
Recycling for Profit
By RANDY COHEN

Published: April 11, 2004

Q:
A 17-year-old relative participated in a school ecology-club event in which people dropped off computers, cellphones and TV's to be recycled. Afterward, he brought home a box full of these things, as did some other volunteers. Later, I discovered that he sold some of the stuff. I think this is a major ethical breach; he disagrees. What do you think? J.P., Kalamazoo, Mich.

A:
If the purpose of the event was merely to dispose of these gizmos safely, then your relative did no wrong by selling what would have been thrown away. Abandoned property is just that, abandoned, and he has as much right to it as anyone. But he did have an obligation not to mislead either the ecology club or the people who schlepped their old computers to the recycling fete.

He would have done better to tell the club that some of these discarded devices could be sold and the money put back into its worthy program. What's more, both he and the club should have made it clear to donors where their discarded electronics would end up, whether safely dumped at a disposal site, turned into cash for the club or converted to inventory for your relative's mercantile activities -- even if that meant driving away people reluctant to contribute to a 17-year-old stranger's entrepreneurial ambitions.

-*-*-*-*-
The ethicist revisits fur: A woman opposed to wearing fur inherited a fur coat from her husband's great-aunt and asked if it was ethical to wear it and, if not, what she should do with it. I replied that wearing even an old fur announces that doing so is acceptable. Seeking ways to use the coat that did not send a pro-fur message, I asked readers for suggestions.

This request generated an unusually high number of responses, more than 500 as of this writing. The most frequent idea by far was to make that old fur into a teddy bear -- a collectible, a fond memento of the great-aunt, a toy kids love. Several Web sites list seamstresses who perform these coat-to-bear conversions professionally. This seems to meet my standard for fur reuse -- utility without propaganda -- but does convey an odd message to the child cuddling that former coat (and former mink). Perhaps that's why I'm uneasy: this smacks too much of taxidermy. My objection may be aesthetic, not moral, but I can't help wondering what materials these hobbyists would use to construct a baby doll.

The next most popular idea was to give old fur coats to the homeless, an altruistic act to be sure. However, if wearing fur endorses its use, then even the poor should not wear these coats. There is no shortage of wool or down or Thinsulate coats that can be donated. What's more, there is something redolent of crumbs-from-the-rich-man's-table in dressing legions of the desperately poor in ermine coats. (Although it may well deglamorize fur to distribute it to poor folks.)

Surprisingly, such gifts are acceptable to PETA: the organization has itself sent fur coats to earthquake victims in Iran and refugees in Afghanistan. Those who are put off by the thought of a war victim huddled in my imaginary Aunt Minna's fox stole may be comforted to know that PETA also uses old fur coats in educational displays and for animal bedding. This last use is vigorously employed by the Humane Society of the United States, which sends old furs to licensed wildlife rescuers, who make nesting materials out of them for orphaned and injured animals.

Other oft-submitted suggestions: donate that old fur to a local theater company; make it into a pillow or throw; give it to a science teacher for static-electricity lab work.

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
2) Yahoo/Associated Press: Employers, Schools Issue New Dress Codes [Des employeurs et établissements scolaires imposent de nouvelles règles vestimentaires]
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=
519&ncid=519&e=3&u=/ap/20040908/ap_on_re_us/wear_this

Employers, Schools Issue New Dress Codes

Wed Sep 8, 5:07 PM ET, By MARTHA IRVINE, AP National Writer

CHICAGO - It's the latest trend in fall fashion: Workers and students who dress down or show too much skin are being told to button up.

Tired of staff members who they see as pushing the limits of professionalism and good taste, a growing number of employers are issuing lengthy dress codes, some with photos to illustrate the do's and don'ts. More schools also are getting stricter about student attire.

M.J. Dean, who's starting his senior year Thursday at the private Cape Cod Academy in Osterville, Mass., discovered new rules at his school when he received the updated student handbook this summer. Among the new guidelines: no pants with side pockets, including popular cargo pants, or T-shirts with writing on them — and "no tight or excessively loose clothing."

"This very strict new dress code is, quite honestly, ridiculous," says the 17-year-old student body vice president. "You can't really represent yourself the way you'd like."

Likewise, some employees think they should be trusted to use good judgment about their clothes. Joe D'Adamo, associate creative director at Chicago ad agency LKH&S, usually wears jeans, a T-shirt and sneakers to work, and dresses up when he sees clients. He says a specific dress code would be "irritating" — but that hasn't stopped bosses at some companies.

Effective this week, Target Corp. has a new, 20-page dress code for employees at its Minneapolis headquarters. Men must now wear a sport coat or tie if they leave their usual work area. Women are required to wear a jacket over any sleeveless blouse; sweater sets are among the other options.

The staff at G.S. Schwartz & Co., a New York investor and public relations firm, also received a recent e-mail memo asking them to bump up their apparel choices "at least one more notch." "For example," the memo read, "we would prefer that properly fitting sweaters be worn with a collared shirt underneath. Certainly, khakis should be neat and clean ... Shaving regularly also is a good idea," the memo suggested, "for either sex."

Rachel Honig Peters, a senior vice president at the company, says the e-mail was sent after company officials noticed their clients dressing up more.

Elsewhere, business owners in the service industry say customer complaints are driving them to put tougher dress codes in place. That was the case for Erika Mangrum, owner of the Iatria Spa and Health Center in Raleigh, N.C. She recalls sending one employee home to change after she came to work wearing a cropped Playboy T-shirt that showed her stomach and a navel ring. "This is really tough stuff," says Mangrum, who understands how frustrating dress codes can be for employees. Mangrum herself once got in trouble, more than a decade ago, for not wearing panty hose when she worked at a major telecommunications firm. Now, she's had to institute a dress code at her own company — "no shorts, no denim, no flip-flops." And she's wondering if she should add rules about piercings. "How far can and should a company go? We're wrestling with that," Mangrum says. "And frankly, we don't have an answer."

The good news, say those who monitor trends, is that modesty and more formal attire are gaining favor even with teens and 20somethings. Many employers say that young workers are the most frequent dress code offenders. Tina Wells, the 20something CEO of Buzz Marketing, says anxiousness over the economy, the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and the upcoming election have created a mood that's more "focused and serious." "Besides, how much lower could low-rise jeans get?" quips Wells, whose New Jersey firm compiles feedback from teen advisers.

In the end, Thomas Evans, headmaster at Cape Cod Academy, says he'd rather not have to police student attire. But he says administrators at the K-12 school had little choice after parents of younger students complained about some older students' clothing.

Much the same has happened at schools elsewhere, from Texas to Kansas and Illinois. In Chicago, for instance, strict dress codes — and uniforms — are a matter of safety, since the way a student wears a pant leg, a bracelet or a hat can indicate a gang affiliation. And even Dean, the student body vice president at Cape Cod, acknowledges that a few students at his school dressed inappropriately last year — "skankily," he says, "if that's a word." He just doesn't think everyone should be punished over the actions of a few. So he and other students plan to meet with their headmaster to see if he'll loosen the dress code. Asked what he thinks their chances are, he sighs: "Slim to none."

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
3) The New York Times/Consumed: Yellow fever [Le bracelet de la fondation de Lance Armstrong est devenu un bijou à la mode]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/magazine/29CONSUMED.html
CONSUMED: Yellow Fever
By ROB WALKER

Published: August 29, 2004

Live Strong Bracelet

Alliances between corporations and nonprofits for the benefit of this or that cause are hardly a rarity these days. In fact, U.S. companies now sink about $1 billion a year into partnerships with do-gooder organizations, about 10 times what they spent a decade ago, according to David Hessekiel of the Cause Marketing Forum. Some of these efforts are successful; some aren't. But rarely does one manage to do what the Live Strong yellow bracelet has done, which is spark a consumer craze.

The bracelet -- a round hunk of synthetic silicon rubber stamped with the phrase ''Live Strong'' -- started selling in May at Niketown outlets, as well as at Foot Locker stores and various independent retailers. It cost $1, and proceeds were sent to the Lance Armstrong Foundation, the nonprofit charitable organization associated with the champion cyclist, who is a famous cancer survivor. ''Live Strong'' is the foundation's motto; yellow, among other things, echoes the color of the lead rider's jersey in the Tour de France. Nike underwrote the production and distribution of the entire first run of five million, meaning that 100 percent of the proceeds, plus another $1 million Nike threw in, went straight to the foundation.

Sales were brisk from the start but really took off when the Tour de France got under way this summer. Armstrong wore the wristband, and so did his whole team, including mechanics; as the tour wore on, competitors and even officials starting wearing it. As Armstrong cruised to his record-setting sixth consecutive Tour de France victory, celebrities started wearing them, and suddenly the bracelets were everywhere -- a charitable must-have. John Kerry even wore one while making his acceptance speech at the Democratic nomination. The original five million bracelets sold out; four million more have been made and sold, and another two million are on the way. And perhaps inevitably, a secondary market popped up on eBay. ''These are the summer's hardest item to get!!!!!!!!'' one seller announced, without making any mention of, say, passing along a cut to charity.

While the motives of eBay profiteers got some attention, the more interesting question is what motivated the people who bought from them -- paying $8, $10 or more. Obviously anyone who was particularly keen on supporting the Lance Armstrong Foundation but couldn't find a bracelet could have simply sent a dollar (or $10) directly to the organization itself. But just as obviously, that would leave the buyer without wearable proof of his or her good will. Apparently a visual symbol of concern can take on a value completely independent from whatever it was the buyer was supposed to be concerned about in the first place. As one Consumed reader asks: Is this philanthropy posing as style, or vice versa?

The answer is that it's both. The foundation almost certainly did not anticipate the demand, which seems to have come about through a kind of harmonic convergence of factors. Because the bracelets are often worn in tribute to or in support of an individual known to the wearer, there's a personal dimension. And because the bracelets are bright yellow, they attract attention. This has drawn comparisons to red AIDS-awareness ribbons, but the difference is that there's nothing even vaguely controversial or political or even provocative about a visible declaration of concern about cancer.

Perhaps more crucial, the item is associated not just with a cause but also with a heroic athlete at the peak of his popularity. ''His story,'' Hessekiel notes, ''is unique in the world.'' Even the most hardened cynic on the subject of contemporary celebrity worship would have to agree. ''This ties into some very deep-seated emotions that the American public has,'' Hessekiel continues. ''There is a desire to have something to believe in.'' The wristband offers an array of ways to satisfy that need, from the intensely personal to the blatantly public, and that's what made it a champion of the good-will game. Look around the Internet, Hessekiel suggests, and you'll find all manner of items you can buy to support various causes. ''If this was a bracelet done by an obscure organization, and didn't have the celebrity attached that created this buzz,'' he says, ''we wouldn't be talking about it.''

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
4) Salon/AP: Via cell, help's on the way for bad dates [Les opérateurs de téléphone mobile proposent un service pour vous permettre de quitter une soirée barbante.]

http://www.salon.com/mwt/wire/2004/08/08/cell/

Via cell, help's on the way for bad dates

Aug. 8, 2004 | The peak time for dates from hell in New York City is Friday at 8 p.m. -- judging by the cell phone calls delivering emergency excuses to bolt.

Truth is, they're fake "rescue" calls -- now being offered by two cell phone providers, Cingular Wireless and Virgin Mobile USA. In an era of Internet-set dates, it's just customer service -- a hip way to wiggle out of an uncomfortable encounter.

The rescue calls are a way to use the phone as a lifestyle accessory, Virgin Mobile spokeswoman Sarah Koening said.

For both Cingular and Virgin Mobile, the prerecorded messages are created at a high-tech central command in California's Silicon Valley. There, five people with doctorates in linguistics dream up excuses for folks to repeat before suddenly dropping a date gone sour.

Dan Enthoven, director of marketing for BeVocal, the California company that designs complex voice-driven software for the telecom market, said the number of rescue calls go up on weekends, especially Fridays at about 8 p.m. BeVocal's two rescue-call clients in North America, Cingular and Virgin Mobile, generate at least 10,000 calls a month, he said.

With both Cingular's Escape-A-Date and Virgin Mobile's Rescue Ring service, a customer can arrange to be called at a set time, using the cell keypad.

When the cell rings, one of Cingular's eight "emergency" messages says: "Hey, this is your Escape-A-Date call. If you're looking for an excuse, I got it. Just repeat after me, and you'll be on your way! 'Not again! Why does that always happen to you? ... All right, I'll be right there.' Now tell 'em that your roommate got locked out, and you have to go let them in. Good luck!"

And bingo, the bad date is history.

The rescue-call service is part of a Cingular package that costs $4.99 a month. Virgin Mobile offers its Rescue Ring at 25 cents per use, plus the price of the call.

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
5) BBC News: Ice-cream firm agrees fat pay-out [Un fabricant US de crème glacée prétendue allégée dédommage les clients victimes du fait qu'elle était plus grasse qu'annoncée... sous forme de glace gratuite.]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/business/3150556.stm
Ice-cream firm agrees fat pay-out

A US ice-cream firm has settled a lawsuit brought by weight-watching customers - by giving them extra ice-cream. Florida-based DeConna had been hit by a class-action court case, after complaints that its famous Big Daddy brand was not as low-fat as its advertising had claimed. Although marketed towards the health-conscious consumer, Big Daddy has three times as many calories as some labelling claimed, the plaintiffs argued.

But in a $1m settlement of the two-year-old case, the firm has offered angry customers two scoops of ice-cream for every one they purchased. Anyone who bought Big Daddy ice cream between 1995 and 2001 can take part in the hand-out, even if they did not have the foresight to save their receipts for the past eight years.

Business is booming

The case is a minor one within the heavyweight context of US corporate lawsuits, but it illustrates the growing power of the consumer. US firms are particularly vulnerable to class-action legal cases, which bundle together hundreds of thousands of claims into complaints that can sometimes be worth many billions of dollars. Some 10,000 class-action suits are filed every year in the US, mainly against companies.

It is big business for lawyers: one online service, Classactionamerica.com, operated by law firm Kahn Gauthier, claims to have settled cases totalling more than $46bn. And the food business - currently under threat over allegations that it is responsible for obesity - is seen as one of the main areas of future litigation growth.

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
6) The Economist: Anti-social behaviour [La GB met en oeuvre une nouvelle arme contre l'incivilité (très d'actualité, d'après ce que j'ai vu à Londres.]

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id
=S%27%298H%28P%21%23%2B%21P%214%0A&CFID=34337405&CFTOKEN=
5605da1-1a315607-f744-4b03-a8d1-0040c225ee90

Anti-social behaviour: The war on incivility
Jul 22nd 2004

Britain's latest crime worry is anti-social behaviour. It's hard to define—and even harder to police

ARE those uncouth teenagers hanging around on the street corner just going through a difficult phase, or are they chipping away at the foundations of decent society? The tendency these days is to think the worst. “Our country faces two major threats”, says Frank Field, a Labour MP and a veteran crusader against anti-social behaviour. “One comes from international terrorism, the other from neighbourhood terrorists.”

A decade ago, people worried about tangible crimes like burglary and car theft. As figures released on July 22nd showed, those are now in remission. But the overall level of anxiety appears not to have diminished at all. In the kind of psychological shift that unnerves governments, public worries now focus sharply on petty incivilities like vandalism, loud music and public loutishness.

The need to crack down on such annoyances was the main theme of two speeches this week by Tony Blair, the prime minister, and David Blunkett, the home secretary. It was also the chief spur to plans to put 12,000 more police on the streets in the next four years, along with 20,000 extra community-support officers.

The war against anti-social behaviour may have been formally declared this week, but it has been heating up for the past few years. The state's arsenal starts, softly, with “acceptable behaviour contracts”, first introduced in 1999, in which tearaways promise to calm down. Should they fail to do so, they are liable to be slapped with an “anti-social behaviour order” (ASBO)—a list of prohibitions, issued by a magistrate, which may prevent them doing uncivil things, hanging out with known troublemakers, or even visiting their favourite stomping grounds. A petty tyrant who steps out of line is liable to spend up to six months in prison.

Such remedies are draconian, particularly given that vandalism—the most measurable kind of anti-social behaviour—has been declining since 1995 (see chart). Even coppers are surprised. “I never thought I would live in a country where the police would have these powers,” says Stuart Chapman, a chief superintendent from the South Yorkshire force.

The powers are also virtually unique. Other countries fret about youthful misdeeds, but mostly because they are thought to lead on to more serious stuff. In America, the fear about teenagers hanging around the streets is that they will get sucked into gangs. There, as in much of continental Europe, a distinction is drawn between minor indiscretions, which are dealt with through informal negotiation or community sanctions, and criminal offences, which lead to custodial sentences.

Britain's innovation is to have criminalised behaviour that is not necessarily an offence in law. To obtain an ASBO, local authorities and the police do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed. They only have to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the local lout is making other people's lives difficult. That is fairly easy, which explains why, of the 2,497 orders sought before the end of March 2004, only 42 were refused. But while civil standards of proof apply to the issuing of ASBOs, criminal sanctions can be applied to those who break them. And they can be handed out for anything, from egging houses to dealing in drugs. Kate Hammond, a specialist prosecutor in Manchester, says, mildly: “It's quite a large stick.”

For local authorities, the new laws are a blessing. They now have a weapon against troublesome tenants—even the ones who live in private accommodation, who were formerly difficult to reach. They can disperse groups of youths and drunks from traditional trouble-spots, some of which now proudly display signs declaring them areas free of anti-social behaviour. Some authorities have made more use of ASBOs than others—about a third of the national total comes from Greater Manchester, for example. But pressure from voters and the government means that local authorities are likely to level up, not down.

Oddly, though, not everyone is happy. Some point out that ASBOs are likely to put more young people in prison, or into the care of the already struggling probation service. The number of under-21s in the slammer rose by 69% between 1992 and 2003; the trend reversed last year, but a few breached ASBOs would soon change that.

And even those in the front line worry that they have unleashed a monster. Council staff report an increasing number of calls about crying babies and children playing football in the street—petty annoyances that used to be dealt with by a quiet word, but which they are now expected to do something about. As Jan Wilson, the leader of Sheffield City Council, says, “this thing seems to be gaining a momentum of its own.”

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
7) The Borowitz Report: Bush to declare war on English language [Satire : Bush tente d'assurer sa victoire en incluant la langue anglaise dans l'Axe du mal.]
http://www.borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec=946

BUSH TO DECLARE WAR ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Native Tongue Would Replace N. Korea in Axis of Evil

A just-released text of President George W. Bush’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention reveals that Mr. Bush intends to announce his boldest initiative to date, declaring war on the English language.

According to the text of the speech, advance copies of which were made available to reporters today, Mr. Bush will give the English language an official slot in the Axis of Evil, replacing North Korea.

While Mr. Bush’s relations with the English language have been hostile in the past, few had expected him to declare war on America’s native tongue.

But according to Republican insiders, an official declaration of war against the English language could give Mr. Bush a decided edge over his Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who, unlike the president, speaks English fluently.

“If Kerry starts speaking English during the debates, he could be seen as a traitor,” one Bush strategist said. “On the other hand, there’s practically no danger of the president accidentally slipping into English.”

Political science professor Trevor Bilson of the University of Minnesota said that Mr. Bush’s declaration of war against the English language should not come as a surprise: “Mr. Bush has been conducting a covert campaign against the English language for decades now.”

But Dr. Bilson believes that shifting the nation’s focus from the war on terror to a war on grammar may be Mr. Bush’s shrewdest political move ever.

“The president recently said that he doubts we can win the war on terror,” Dr. Bilson said. “But whenever Mr. Bush does battle with the English language, the English language loses.”

^RETURN TO TOP^