[2003.12.30 - 07:50 A.M.] Whose Recovery?
Professor Shrill & Gloomy has a depressing op-ed today on Our So-Called Boom. Krugman's central thesis? Although GDP has turned the corner because of increased worker productivity, the still-crappy job market has kept wages and salaries down, leaving Guess Who to pocket the resulting windfall. Here's P-Krug:
Payroll employment began rising in August, but the pace of job growth remains modest, averaging less than 90,000 per month. That's well short of the 225,000 jobs added per month during the Clinton years; it's even below the roughly 150,000 jobs needed to keep up with a growing working-age population.
But if the number of jobs isn't rising much, aren't workers at least earning more? You may have thought so. After all, companies have been able to increase output without hiring more workers, thanks to the rapidly rising output per worker. (Yes, that's a tautology.) Historically, higher productivity has translated into rising wages. But not this time: thanks to a weak labor market, employers have felt no pressure to share productivity gains. Calculations by the Economic Policy Institute show real wages for most workers flat or falling even as the economy expands.
So if jobs are scarce and wages are flat, who's benefiting from the economy's expansion? The direct gains are going largely to corporate profits, which rose at an annual rate of more than 40 percent in the third quarter. Indirectly, that means that gains are going to stockholders, who are the ultimate owners of corporate profits.
The picture Krugman paints speaks for itself. What's more is, we know it's true. How did your last raise look? How's your job? Having fun compensating for the half of your department that got downsized last year? How's your friend doing? You know, the programmer who's been unemployed for 14 months and counting?
But never fear: I'm sure that at this very moment the Anti-Krugman Squad is out there, spinning bile, distorting the numbers, hurling smears at the intrepid professor. All in a singular effort to do one thing: Shout down the truth. Because the truth hurts them. If most Americans knew how bad the One Percent were screwing us, you'd see major political change in this country in a hurry, and they don't want that. So spin on, Luskin and friends. Your corporate masters will surely reward you with a fat paycheck and maybe a pat on the head...
[2003.12.29 - 07:50 P.M.] Off-Shore This!
All indications are that "off-shoring" in the IT industry is going to pick up the pace considerably in 2004. "Off-shoring", in case you don't know, is the cute little euphemism that our corporate leaders use to describe the mass exporting of well-compensated positions overseas to India, China, and other parts of Asia where the workforce is reasonably well-educated but labor is dirt cheap by comparison with U.S. standards. In other words, it's a nice, harmless sounding catch phrase for a trend that threatens to destroy the American middle class.
This was not supposed to happen. This was not part of the plan. Tech sector jobs were supposed to be the foundation of the newer, smarter American economy, remember? No? Let Bob Herbert of the Times refresh your memory:
Years ago, when concern was being expressed about the shipment of factory jobs to places with slave wages, hideous working conditions and even prison labor, proponents said there was nothing to worry about. Exporting labor-intensive jobs would make U.S. companies more competitive, leading to increased growth and employment, and higher living standards. They advised U.S. workers to adjust, to become better educated and skillful enough to thrive in a new world of employment, where technology and the ability to process information were crucial components.
Well, the workers whose jobs are now threatened at I.B.M. and similar companies across the U.S. are well educated and absolute whizzes at processing information. But they are nevertheless in danger of following the well-trodden path of their factory brethren to lower-wage work, or the unemployment line.
No one's sure how to fight this. No one knows what to do. There's virtually no union presence in IT -- although if this insanity continues to accelerate, that's bound to change. Right now, most of us in the industry are still kind of shell-shocked. To make matters worse, the majority of the news media isn't even paying attention to what could be the biggest story of the decade. They're too busy with Iraq and Michael Jackson. If you want to read about the wholesale slaughter going on in cube farms across the country, you usually have to dig deep into the business section. At least Herbert is stepping up. He's got another piece today on the subject that's well worth a read. I'm hoping he's got plans to make this an ongoing series.
Folks, pay attention to what's happening here, because you never know whose job the Cheap-Labor crowd is going to come after next. Could be yours. Could be your spouse's. Could be your neighbor's. But make no mistake, this affects all of us, and it's time to raise our voices and tell our representatives to send a clear message to Corporate America: You sell out our workers, and the gravy train you've been riding is going to come to a screeching halt.
[2003.12.28 - 06:00 P.M.] Partisanship, Ideology, and Me
This may come as a shock to some of you: I have, on occasion, been accused of being "partisan". Usually, this poison dart is tossed my way by one of my more conservative friends after I've fired off some scathing commentary on the Republican Atrocity of the Day, whatever it may be. Now, the intended effect of slapping someone with the "partisan" label is to strip their positions of legitimacy. The accuser is saying "I'm not going to listen to you because I believe you're just mindlessly backing your party - your 'side' - rather than really thinking about the issues." Given that I spend a great deal of time thinking about political issues, considering my positions, and refining my defenses of those positions, being called a partisan pretty much drives me nuts.
Dictionary.com defines a "partisan" as:
[an] "Adherent to a party or faction; especially, having the character of blind, passionate, or unreasonable adherence to a party; as, blinded by partisan zeal."
In our current political context, I would refine that definition as follows: A partisan is someone who will stubbornly support a political party even as that party changes the ideals they stand for and the policies they support. A partisan is someone who is more interested in their party being in power than they are in what that party does with that power. Sometimes, a partisan behaves almost like a sports fan. A sports fan doesn't spend a lot of time ruminating over normative questions relating to whether their team "should" win, they just root for their team.
I've met both Democrats and Republicans who, by the criteria above, qualify as partisans. Do I fall into that category? Nope. I don't think so.
"But Toast," the critics reply, "If you're not partisan, how come you're always trashing Republicans and you never have anything bad to say about Democrats?"
The answer to both questions is: Ideology.
Specifically, the Republicans have it and the Democrats don't.
The fact that I am consistently against Republican positions can only be read as evidence of partisanship if one believes that Republican policy positions are typically inconsistent. After all, if I am, as I claim, evaluating the Republican party based primarily on their policies, then statistically, if the RNC made policy randomly -- say, by rolling a 20-sided die before each vote -- odds are I'd side with them n% of the time (where n > 0).
Maybe my conservative buddies think that's what they do, but it's not. Republican policies are the result of a suffocatingly rigid ideology that has two primary components: 1.) Regulate social behavior, particularly when it involves matters of individual prerogatives that have a minimal effect on the community, and 2.) De-regulate economic behavior, particularly when it involves matters of corporate prerogatives that have a pronounced impact on the community.
The New York Times today has an editorial, The New Republicans, that nicely summarizes the development of this agenda and the form it has lately crystalized into (emphasis mine):
Late-20th-century Republicanism was an uneasy alliance of social conservatives — who were comfortable with government intervention in citizens' lives when it came to morality issues — and libertarians who wanted as little interference as possible. That balancing act ended on 9/11. Since then, the Justice Department has enlarged the intrusive powers of government by, among other things, authorizing "sneak and peek" searches of private homes and suspending traditional civil liberties for certain defendants. The story of the military chaplain who was arrested — apparently mistakenly — as a suspected terrorist and then wound up being publicly humiliated with a public vetting of his sex life seems like a summary of a libertarian's worst fears of an overreaching federal government.
The Republicans' newly acquired activism, however, has very clear limits. The modern party's key allegiance is to corporate America, and its tolerance for intrusive federal government ends when big business is involved. If there is a consistent center to the domestic philosophy of the current administration, it is the idea that business is best left alone. The White House and Congress have chipped away at environmental protections that interfere with business interests on everything from clean air to use of federal lands. The administration is determined to deliver on corporate America's goal of cutting overtime pay for white-collar workers. At the same time, it has been tepid in asserting greater federal vigilance over the developing scandal of workplace safety.
Republicans have always enjoyed their reputation as the champions of business. The difference now is that they no longer couple their business-friendly attitudes with tight-fistedness. Discretionary spending has jumped 27 percent in the last two years; budget hawks complain Congressional pork is up more than 40 percent. Some of that money has gone to buy the allegiance of wavering party members in the closely divided House and Senate, but much of it is directly tied to the demands of big business. Agriculture subsidies to corporate farms have swollen to new heights, while energy policy has been reduced to a miserable grab bag of special benefits for the oil, gas and coal companies. The last Bush energy bill, which passed the House but died in the Senate, seems likely to be remembered most for the now-famous subsidy for an energy-efficient Hooters restaurant in Louisiana.
The two halves of Republican policy no longer fit together. A political majority that believes in big government for people, and little or no government for corporations, has produced an unsustainable fiscal policy that combines spending on social programs with pork and tax cuts for the rich.
Why am I so consistently opposed to the Republican Party? Because my system of values has led me to embrace an ideology that is 180 degrees counter to theirs: little or no government for people and big government for corporations.
Liberalism, at it's core, is about human freedom. It's about maximizing the potential of each of us as individuals. In order to accomplish this, tyranny - in all it's forms -- needs to be restrained. When Locke first formulated the outlines of liberalism as a political philosophy, the main perpetrators of tyranny were monarchs and the church. Centuries later, monarchy, in the first world at least, isn't such a problem. The church, ever dedicated to obstructing progress, still poses many challenges. But the main threat to individual liberty and personal achievement by humanity at large is, without a doubt, the power of the Corporation.
These administrative fictions (no, Virginia, corporations are not people) have, for a hundred years, systematically used their inherent advantages -- coordinatinated bargaining power, large capital stores, and access to the political system -- to (what else?) increase their wealth, power, and advantage. Who benefits? Captains of industry, CEO's, and investors. Who suffers? Everyone else. Every worker who goes longer hours for a smaller paycheck with no overtime and ever-increasing competition from overseas. Every employee who labors in an unsafe environment while the Republican party strives to restrict their avenues of recourse should they be harmed. Every mom and pop that wants to open a small store but can't because of mega-chains and their predatory practices. Every kid who has to breathe polluted air because heaven forbid we demand the energy industry clean up their act. Everone else.
The Republican party favors the rights of corporations over individuals at every turn. They are utterly consistent about it. They are relentless about it. Some of them no doubt do this because they believe - erroneously - that such policies will accrue a net benefit to the population at large. Many of them no doubt do it because it helps them and their friends personally. In any case, this is the defining kernel of their policies: Corporate interests pre-empt individual interests. That is their ideology.
So long as they are consistent in pursuing policies that support that ideology, I will oppose them. That's not being partisan. It's being sane.
[2003.12.19 - 6:15 P.M.] The Bush Tax
Somebody in the Dean campaign must be hip to memetics, because the latest
addition to Dean's stump arsenal -- the Bush Tax -- is too finely
crafted to be described as nothing more than some catchy rhetorical flourish.
The issue of states being bankrupted by reduced financial support from the federal government - a direct result of Bush's raping of the federal
treasury - has long been considered a potent one, but it's not something that's easy to get into a simple sound bite. Bush cuts taxes on
corporations and the wealthy. The federal revenue stream takes a huge hit. Redistribution of federal revenue to the states dries up. State
and local programs suffer. Constituents raise hell. State and local taxes go up. See? It's just too much for the average denizen of Moron
America to get their head around. Most of them get lost somewhere around "The federal revenue stream..."
No more. With the Bush Tax meme, Dean has injected into the body politic a simple, devastating, and effective viral idea:
Your skyrocketing property taxes? Bush's fault. Rising state income taxes? Bush's fault. New and burdensome locality taxes? Bush's fault.
(Alternatively, After school programs slashed? Bush's fault. No money for firefighters? Bush's fault. You get the picture.)
Evolutionarily speaking, the Dean campaign has a winner here. The Bush Tax is a structurally simple, allows lightning-fast
transmission, panders to the hosts desire to blame someone for their woes, and -- big bonus -- happens to be 100% true.
The Bush Tax. Catch it. And pass it on...
[2003.12.14 - 9:45 A.M.] Saddam Captured
Saddam Hussein has, apparently,
been captured. Wow. Didn't see this coming. Honestly thought Saddam would go the way of Bin Laden, slipping off down the memory
hole after his immediate usefulness as a prop for Bush had been served.
In a perfect world, under other circumstances, this would be cause for unmitigated joy. Saddam, a brutal dictator right out of
central casting, will now be brought to justice. He, personally, can do no more direct harm to his people.
But this, of course, is not a perfect world. And these are not other circumstances.
Saddam's capture does not change the fact that we should not be over there in the first place. It does not legitimate, in any way, this
illegal, ill-conceived war. It does not bring back our dead. It does not patch up our alliances. It does not mend the delicate structure of
international laws and traditions that the Bush Administration, urged on by a gang of neocon monomaniacs, rent to pieces.
This end, as with all ends, does not have the power to retroactively justify the means employed to achieve it.
And it is, in the final analysis, a smaller end than most people will think it -- certainly smaller than the media will make it out to be.
Unless Saddam suddenly 'fesses up to his buddy-buddy relationship with Osama.
Unless he leads our troops to his enormous store of deadly WMD's.
But we know those things are not going to happen, don't we? Because we know that this man, however evil he was within his relatively small realm
of influence, was never a threat to us. However real his malice on his own sands, when it came to the international stage he was a paper tiger,
a Baathist Boogeyman, a cudgel that larger interests back here could use to manipulate public opinion.
And that's what really has me in the dumps at this moment. That's what really fills me with dread about this, crushing any small satisfaction
I might otherwise be able to dredge up: The thought of what this might do to Bush's poll numbers. I think it was about 2.3 seconds between
when I heard the news and when the "Oh Shit" moment crashed through my consciousness. Brace yourselves: The beating heart of Moron
America will be all a-flutter at this development, and president doofus' popularity will spike upwards again. Forget the exploding deficit. Forget
the continuing lack of jobs. Forget the damage done by the war. Forget everything. Deputy Dumbass got his man, and the rubes will love him
for it.
I find myself hoping, for once, that our collective attention span is as short as advertised.
Let's get this show over with so we can turn our attention to deposing our own despots.
[2003.12.02 - 06:15 P.M.] He's BAAAA-ackkkkk!
Dropping by Altercation this evening, I was depressingly
un-shocked to see the following item:
RALPH NADER AND THE ABYSS
Ralph Nader, the single individual on the entire planet who could have saved us from the
presidency of George W. Bush simply by asking his supporters on election night to do the prudent thing, appears
ready to do it again.
This website has been formed, the Nader
2004 Presidential Exploratory Committee, which means Ralph is, at a minimum, flirting with ensuring Bush’s
re-election. What was it Scotty used to tell Kirk vis-à-vis the Klingons? “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me
twice, shame on me.”
There can be no excuses for any intelligent progressive supporting Nader in 2004 after all we’ve
seen from the White House for the past three years. Ignorance? Idealism? I did not put much faith in these arguments
in 2000, but now, well, really: war, tax cuts, Medicare, Kyoto, abortion.
Remember what Ralph said. “Not a dime’s worth of difference.” If Nader — who could not even
bring himself to support Paul Wellstone in Minnesota — wants to further destroy what little remains of his reputation
as a progressive leader with this Quixotic race, that’s his prerogative. But let’s be clear. The man is a menace to
everything he once professed to represent, which makes him either delusional or hypocritical. I’m not a psychologist,
and I don’t really care which explanation holds. Perhaps he’s both. I just hope the only damage he does is to himself,
and not, once again, to his country.
Now, after the 2000 election, a lot of moderate Democrats - and even many progressives - took out a great deal
of their anger on Nader supporters. Some wanted to put the entire onus of Bush's presidency on them. I was not
one of those people. An awful lot of factors went into Bush taking the White House that had nothing to do with
Ralph Nader or the Greens. There was the overwhelming media bias against Gore, coupled with bad campaign
strategy from the Gore camp that was ineffective in combating that bias. There was the corrupt Republican machine,
from the fake rioters in Miami all the way up to the Supreme Weasels, that worked to prevent an accurate recount from ever
happening. And, let's not forget, there were your fifty-million-or-so lazy, uninformed, often even willfully ignorant
fellow Americans who wanted this clueless serial failure of a human being to be our leader. None of that
was the fault of Ralph or his Ralphite supporters.
At the time, I actually understood and sympathized with a lot of what the Greens were saying. I, too, had often
felt betrayed by a Clinton administration that was too quick to triangulate on an issue instead of sticking to principles.
I, too, felt that the DLC-dominated Democratic Party was quickly becoming more like Republican Lite. In the end, I chose the
path of practicality, knowing that even the most egregious Democratic compromises with the right would be ten times
better than what those bastards would do if they had complete control of our government. But I remained open to the
fact that some progressives could see it otherwise.
Not anymore.
The evidence is in. The cards are all on the table. The bill has been tallied and presented.
The Bush Administration specifically - as well as the conservative movement more generally - poses the greatest
threat to the American political system that this nation has faced in its history. They are systematically eradicating
the values, principles, policies, and behaviors that made us the envy of the world and replacing them with institutionalized
corporate greed and graft at home and unilateralist militant bullying abroad. They are not merely the "greater of two
evils", they are Evil Incarnate. Anyone whose head is not firmly embedded in their rectum should be aware of all
of this by now.
Debate over, Greenies, got it?
People are funny. They can talk themselves into damn near anything. I'm sure that there are progressives out there
who will try to rationalize backing Saint Ralph. They'll talk themselves into believing that a Democratic administration
wouldn't do much better. They'll blow smoke about the importance of expanding beyond the two-party system. Whatever.
The following admonition is for them:
A vote for Nader in 2004 is a vote against everything you pretend to stand for.
My hope is that real progressive voices, like Eric's above, are raised loudly and without hesitation, sending
a clear message to Ralph that, unless he's here to rally the troops behind the eventual Democratic nominee, his presence
is not wanted on the political stage at this time.
[2003.11.23 - 03:00 P.M.] There They Go Again
The Republican party continued their War Against the American Political System on Saturday,
holding an unprecedented three-hour long
House vote on the Bush-backed Medicare bill. Typical procedure usually results in votes
taking 15 minutes or less, but in an extraordinary move, Leaders of the Evil and Stupid Party kept
voting open for over three hours. They used this time to round up additional votes from
missing members and to pressure conservative - that's right, conservative - Republican
members to support the President's massive giveaway to the insurance and pharmaceutical
industries.
Luckily, at least some Democrats are committed to fighting back. Ted Kennedy has vowed to
filibuster the vote on the bill in the Senate:
.. Senate opponents, including some Republicans and most Democrats, promised
a major fight. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who pushed for years for a drug benefit but
opposed the bill as a threat to Medicare in its current form, told reporters yesterday he would
lead a filibuster against the legislation, although he knew it would be an "uphill battle." Sen.
John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said he would return from the presidential campaign to help lead the fight
the bill, calling it a "boondoggle for the pharmaceutical industry."
Kennedy said the House vote was "rigged" and accused Republicans of trying to
"jam" the Senate by seeking a quick vote before the scheduled adjournment. He suggested that the
House tactics could ignite a Senate backlash.
Look, this isn't anything like stealing a Presidential election. Nor is it as bad as organizing
a recall on spurious grounds to overthrow a governor. Hell, it's not even as bad as forcing
through bogus off-year redistricting plans. It's just one more straw, that's all. One more piece
of evidence that Republicans have no respect whatsoever for this country's tried-and-true
methods of governance.
Paul Krugman knew what he was talking about when he characterized today's Republicans as a
"Revolutionary Power", intent on overthrowing the existing political order, albeit from the
inside. Texas state Senator Mario Gallegos, reacting to the redistricting fiasco, put it even
more succinctly when he said "They don't want to govern. They want to rule."
If you think this is politics as usual, you are wrong. It is not. Right or left, conservative
or liberal, if you believe in the American system of government, it is your duty as a citizen
to repudiate the tactics of the Republican Party.
[2003.11.21 - 07:45 A.M.] AARP Joins The "Coalition of the Bought-Off"
The Shrill One has an excellent analysis of the AARP's surprising - and sudden - support for the Republican-backed
Medicare prescription drug bill. The bill is loaded with goodies for the insurance industry, such as provisions allowing them to select only
healthy members for their private Medicare-alternative plans, hefty government subsidies for same, and restrictions on the government-run
program's ability to negotiate drug prices with big pharma. It will also "force millions of beneficiaries to pay more for drugs, thanks
to a provision that cuts off supplemental aid from Medicaid." So why, Krugman asks, was the AARP, which ostensibly exists to fight for
the best interests of their members, so quick to jump on board?
"Over the years AARP has become much more than an advocacy and service organization for older Americans.
It receives more than $150 million each year in commissions on insurance, mutual funds and prescription drugs sold to its members."
(emphasis mine)
Oh! That's right! Money. I should have known.
If I might wax naive for a moment: Is there anyone, anywhere, in a position of real power, who remains motivated by anything other than
narrow, short-term, financial self-interest? Just wondering...
[2003.11.15 - 11:00 A.M.] Brooks Calls for Unilateral Disarmament
David Brooks today gives us his version of the Dream Speech
he'd like to hear from one of the Democratic candidates trailing Dean. What's the gist of it? He wants one of them to renounce the
"attack Bush" strategy. He wants them to pledge to work towards greater bipartisanship, to reach out across the aisle, to work with
his adversaries. Here's a snippet of the words he's putting in Candidate X's mouth:
Remember when George Bush used to say he was going to change the tone in Washington? He lied about that.
He couldn't even reach out to Jim Jeffords, a moderate in his own party. He was never going to reach out to Democrats. He is too intellectually
insecure. He can't handle people who disagree with him, so he retreats into the cocoon of the like-minded.
I'm opting out of the game of tit for tat. I'm going to get us out of the trenches.
If I do nothing else in the Oval Office, I will free people to build new coalitions, explore new ideas and talk to one
another for the first time in a decade.
This is an evenly divided country. That is the political fact of our time. It is about time we had a president who
understands that, who has a strategy for governing in such circumstances. Howard Dean and George Bush do not. They just want
to pound away and pound away and ram things through. More artillery, more troops, more screaming and more hatred.
Noble words, to be sure. Why can't we all just get along? Enough of this fighting, already. Let's talk to one another. Let's work
together. Indeed, can you imagine if we had a president who would try that approach?
You know, someone like Bill Clinton?
Remember Bill? He was the ultimate compromiser. The ultimate consensus builder. For eight years he tried to work with the
opposition, and they massacred him for it. Everything Clinton did was wrong. Everything he wanted was bad, in their eyes, even if it
was exactly what they purported to want. Clinton worked side by side with Newt Gingrich to balance the budget and pass Welfare
"reform" even as Gingrich and his army of hateful 'wingers were trying to get him impeached.
See what trying to work with the Right gets you?
No? OK, ask Tom Daschle. Ol' Tom voted for Bush's first tax cut. He led the Democrats in the Senate in approving every last
Bush cabinet nominee, even though half of them were wholly unfit for the job. He stood shoulder to shoulder with Bush after 9-11. He backed
him on Afghanistan. He even backed him initially on this dubious adventure in Iraq, until, finally, one day, he decided to speak his
conscience and question Bush's commitment to diplomacy.
What did the Right do then? They compared him to Saddam Hussein.
See what trying to work with the Right gets you?
Sorry, Mr. Brooks, but you've got it all wrong. Appeasing Republicans is politics as usual for the Democrats. The fighting
you're seeing now - the sudden burst of spinal growth in the Democratic field - is not some lamentable condition. It's the righteous anger
that will set us free. The right can't be compromised with. They can't be reasoned with. Nothing will please them except total,
unconditional victory. And so we must respond in kind.
America cannot return to greatness until the Conservative Movement lies in ruins.
[2003.11.15 - 10:00 A.M.] Stop Wal-Mart
If you're looking for an example of how hyper-aggressive capitalism can ruin people's lives, look no farther than your local
Wal-Mart. Sam Walton's evil, mutant SuperStore has long been an innovator in such areas as predatory pricing and union busting.
Finally, it seems, the government - and the media - are starting to take notice. Check out this excellent
editorial in the New York Times today:
The 70,000 grocery workers on strike in Southern California are the front line in a battle to prevent middle-class
service jobs from turning into poverty-level ones. The supermarkets say they are forced to lower their labor costs to compete with Wal-Mart,
a nonunion, low-wage employer aggressively moving into the grocery business. Everyone should be concerned about this fight. It is, at
bottom, about the ability of retail workers to earn wages that keep their families out of poverty.
Grocery stores in Southern California are bracing for the arrival, in February, of the first of 40 Wal-Mart grocery
supercenters. Wal-Mart's prices are about 14 percent lower than other groceries' because the company is aggressive about squeezing
costs, including labor costs. Its workers earn a third less than unionized grocery workers, and pay for much of their health insurance.
Wal-Mart uses hardball tactics to ward off unions. Since 1995, the government has issued at least 60 complaints alleging illegal anti-union
activities.
Wait. How much less do you think Sam Walton would make if his stores paid their workers a decent living wage with good benefits?
Ten million a year? Twenty? Do you think it would put him out of business? What sort of mental disease causes human beings like
Walton to put a marginal increase in their own already-obscene wealth ahead of the basic needs of their workers -- their neighbors and
fellow citizens?
The Times continues:
Unions understand that the quickest way to win this war is to organize Wal-Mart workers. And Wal-Mart's competitors
have to strive for Wal-Mart's efficiency without making workers bear the brunt. Consumers can also play a part. Wal-Mart likes to wrap itself
in American values. It should be reminded that one of those is paying workers enough to give their families a decent life.
Well, I certainly thought that was an "American value", but maybe I'm just a wooly-minded liberal idealist. I know people who hear stories like
this and say "Hey, that's the free market. If they don't like it they can go work somewhere else." Well, no, they really can't. They can't because
the actions of companies like Wal-Mart are triggering a "race to the bottom". Other stores follow their lead, cut wages and benefits, and
pretty soon retail workers are out of options. That's what happens when "Market Forces" are allowed to rage out of control, unchecked
by the consciences of the successful men at the top, and unregulated by a government that cares more about protecting the prerogatives of
the wealthy than the livelihoods of the poor and vulnerable among us.
If ever there were an industry that was a perfect candidate for wage regulation, it's retail. Sam Walton can't pick up his stores and
move them overseas. On the contrary, a financially healthy American workforce is the only way he can make his money. He sure
as hell won't rake in the dough selling his wares to people making third-world wages, and most other first-world countries have pro-labor
regulations far more onerous than even the most liberal here at home are proposing. It's time for our government to step in and play some
hardball. Time to raise the floor. At the rate good-paying jobs are being exported from this country, pretty soon you - yes you - could
be saying "Welcome to Wal-Mart". Might want to make sure you can earn enough to keep a roof over your head and feed your family when that
time comes.
What can you do? Two things: 1.) Tell your representatives to support the "Living Wage" movement
and the legislation that comes out of it. And, 2.) Stop shopping at Wal-Mart until Sam shapes up.
[2003.11.05 - 07:45 A.M.] Dean of Hazzard
Sounds like Howard Dean got the snot knocked out of him at the Rock the Vote debate. Dean opened himself
up to criticism last week when he made the comment that he wanted to be "the candidate for guys with Confederate flags
in their pickup trucks." John Edwards and Al Sharpton
took turns last night tearing into him for the "insensitive" comment.
Look, I understand what Dean was trying to say. He wasn't saying that he agrees with the sentiments of guys who
sport that Loser Emblem. You'd have to be pretty thick to think Dean's a bigot. What Dean meant was that the Democrats
need to reach out to poor, disenfranchised whites in the South. That they need to go after precisely those voters that
have fled en masse over to the right and show them how they can do better under a Democratic administration.
That's what he meant. But he picked a horrible way to express it.
Dean could have said he wanted to be the candidate for guys with gun racks in their pickups -- and he would have
had credibility doing so, given his "A" rating from the NRA. Dean could have said he wanted to be the candidate for
women working two jobs and living in trailer parks. Hell, Dean could have said he wanted to be the candidate for guys
who want to marry their first cousins for all I care. There are plenty of ways he could have expressed his desire to go
after the Poor Deep South voting block. He picked the wrong one.
There is no place in the Democratic party for the sort of people who display the confederate flag. It's a symbol of racism
and hatred, pure and simple. It's a symbol for those who pine after the grand old days when blacks were property instead of
people. The guys who plaster that banner to the back of their pickup trucks already have a political party that embodies their
belief system: The GOP. Let them stay there.
And Howard? Could you do us all a favor? Just admit it was a stupid thing to say and move on.
A few weeks ago, after our second snow storm of the season, the plow guys left this little sculpture for us over in the corner of our lot.
