>not to be snide, really, but gee whiz, what's so bad about adopting
>agricultural practices that respect local wildlife? the only angle i can
>see is the one a friend of mine used to take--she'd see "dolphin-safe" on
>tuna cans and could only wonder why we don't have "worker-safe" labels. of
>course, in the case of coffee, i believe most shade-grown (bird-friendly)
>coffee you'll see in this country is produced on a coop.
>
>j
probably b/c, like me, she hasn't a clue about how coffee is grown and that bird habitats are destroyed under rationalized farming methods. and probably b/c, like me, she finds it exceedingly annoying that berkeley wankers would just be aghast that she doesn't know this arcane piece of information and she gets to sit and listen to a wankfest about how she should know what her consumption habits do to the earth. and, like me, she probably wouldn't give a bat's eyelash about the fact that it was produced by a coop since the very fact that they don't see that as fit to brag about on their label is an example of just what's wrong with environmentalist's who don't give a whit about the exploitation of labor and turn their consumption habits into a moralizing lifestyle issue. and, because like me, she probably finds it exceedingly annoying that the lifestyle left tends to have a snide attitude about ordinary workers who are holed up in the incestuous backwaters of the cultural tundra.
kelley