|
|
|
| Something WE already know. |
|---|
| message from elizabeth on 26 Dec 2002 |
http://globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/TGAM/20021224/COMACA/Headlines/headdex/headdexComment_temp/1/1/3/
PRINT EDITION
A child's Christmas in sales
If we really loved our kids, this season wouldn't
be about buying them things, it would be about making
their futures brighter, says JOHN MacARTHUR
By JOHN MACARTHUR
Tuesday, December 24, 2002 – Page A15
Not long after a bizarre scandal broke in the New York papers -- an
analyst upgraded a dodgy stock in order to secure admission for his
kids in a toney Manhattan preschool -- I found myself on a plane,
leafing through a Financial Times luxury gift supplement titled
"Christmas Unwrapped" (the "How to spend it Christmas edition").
Dec. 25 long ago ceased to be a holiday for or about children --
Madison Avenue and Hollywood have seen to that -- so such glossy wads
of adult consumer excess have pretty much replaced the quaint old
notion of Christmas spirit. But, ironically, this particular promotion
of glittering goods for the high-rolling investor class -- from the
diamond pendants on the front cover to the diamond-encrusted Armani
watch on the back -- finally placed Jack Grubman's and Sanford Weill's
frenzied ambition for Mr. Grubman's twin toddlers into some kind of
perspective.
Until then, I'd been mystified about what could have driven Mr.
Grubman to boost his rating of a clunky stock in exchange for a
$1-million corporate contribution from Citigroup (of which Mr. Weill
was chairman) to the ultra-exclusive 92nd Street Y prekindergarten
that Mr. Grubman's daughters just had to attend.
We know that such corrupt touting of mediocre to worthless securities
by brokerage "analysts" -- to help their investment bank colleagues on
the other side of the "Chinese wall" (better named "Potemkin wall") --
was commonplace in the 1990s. But usually this wasn't kid stuff --
billions of dollars were in play.
Mr. Weill's (and Citigroup's) benefit from the bargain with his
underling is clear -- Mr. Grubman made an unjustified shift from a
"hold" to a "buy" recommendation of AT&T (for Salomon Smith Barney's
brokerage side) in November, 1999, which clearly led to Salomon's
investment bankers getting part of the underwriting business of AT&T
Wireless as a reward.
For Mr. Grubman, however, the only thing at stake was two spaces
during The Hokey Pokey segment of circle time. Did he really love his
kids so much that he was willing to risk his reputation and his
liberty, just to get them into a nursery school?
The women's fashion spread in the FT's gift supplement provided a
clue, aimed as it was at the Grubmans of the world and their wealthy
clients. Headlined "Swathe New World," it featured a luscious,
spooky-looking female model, each shot featuring the same heavy blue
eye makeup, but different (and outrageously revealing) haute couture.
More revealing than the garments, though, was the declaration by the
FT advertorial staff in the accompanying text that "A babe in arms has
become the ultimate fashion accessory, and what better time to carry
one than at Christmas?"
In each pose, the model carried a "baby," but these babies really were
accessories -- plastic facsimilies to be precise. Their "mother,"
garbed in such finery as Christian Louboutin lace boots (£595); Maria
Grachvogel gown (£8,775); and Bzero white-gold-and-diamond earrings
(£750,000) affected the unsmiling cadaverish look made popular by
supermodel Kate Moss, very much in keeping with her lifeless
offspring. Whether this woman was actually alive or dead was open to
conjecture. But if she was, like Dracula's victims, the living dead,
then it logically followed that she had killed her babies by sucking
the lifeblood out of them.
With its vulgar transformation of children into fashion props, the
World Business Paper unwittingly hit upon the truth about Jack Grubman
and thousands of other mammon-worshipping rich folk -- that children
in the upper class are more and more viewed as essential wardrobe
items, rather than as . . . children. And as any good merchant knows,
once you acquire an accessory, more accessories are needed to complete
the set; thus the "right" sort of private school suddenly becomes a
necessity, more than a luxury.
I suppose none of this should be surprising. Ronald Reagan launched
our current wave of decadence more than 20 years ago with his campaign
to commodify everything in America. In due course, almost all
institutions have become polluted, even seemingly innocent ones like
schools. I'm still rather shocked by the way some mothers at my own
toddler's expensive, private prepreschool talk about their children's
future education as though it were next year's collection in Milan or
Paris.
Mr. Reagan's (and Margaret Thatcher's) genius was understanding that
high-end commodity craving need not be limited to the top 1 per cent
of income earners (soon to be rewarded further for their good luck by
an elimination of the inheritance tax). Few parents in America want to
be left out of the mad scramble for things -- for things constitute
the culture nowadays -- so they go deeper and deeper into debt,
sometimes corruption, to feed their appetites. Who has time for kids
when there's stuff to be had; if the kids feel neglected, well, then
get them more of the stuff advertised on TV.
Remember the mass obsession with Elian Gonzales, the Cuban boy
kidnapped by his American relatives from godless, Communist Cuba? I
understand now that for the Elian-obsessed, the very idea of Cuba was
an affront to U.S. consumer sensibility. How on earth could a child be
better off with poor parents in a socialized economy than in
shopping-mall U.S.A., where he could be deluged with junk toys? Return
to Cuba was unthinkable, like a return to the old days of only three
network television channels.
But the mass Elian outcry, like the elite Grubman/Weill kickback,
indicates something worse in the American psyche than mere greed or
objectification of the young. I wonder if the Anglo-Saxon West, as a
culture, is fundamentally hostile to children.
The exaggerated "concern" shown for Elian and the Grubman twins is a
metaphor for this anger because in the end, the lavish attention paid
to them was hollow, a guilty cover for our inattention to our own
children and to the care of the young in general.
If Americans, middle-class and wealthy, really worried about kids, my
country would have a public school system second to none, with 15
students in a class, competent teachers paid more than a securities
analyst, and an English and math curriculum that would educate our
offspring in how to defend themselves against salesmen, especially
stockbrokers.
But we don't really care. Children, wonderful accessories though they
are, so often get in the way -- such tiresome obstacles to
gratification. The FT copywriter understands the parent's dilemma:
"Don't be upstaged [by your baby] -- the simplest of swaddling clothes
will set off your lavish gowns a treat."
This -- for the love of Jesus!
John R. MacArthur
|
| Abbie F. replied to elizabeth on 29 Dec 2002 |
Headlines/headdex/headdexComment_temp/1/1/3/
The caveat concerning childrun as fashion accessories is that consignment
stores won't take them at season's end.
- Abbie CF +++F TK ++++ TPI +++ A ++ VF +++
Nureyev on why he never had kydz: "They wouldn't be as good as I am, and then
I wouldn't know what to do with the little imbeciles."
New? Please see http://www.altsupportchildfree.com/faq1.html. :)
|
| JesterKat replied to Abbie F. on 29 Dec 2002 |
I must admit, I love the title. ;-)
|
| Noelle replied to JesterKat on 29 Dec 2002 |
*snork* Useless Presents, indeed.
|
|