Working Life's ongoing special section devoted to holding the Cafta Fifteen accountable.
Buy the Wal-Mart documentary for $12.95
« FTAA On Life Support | Main | Union Coalition At Delphi »
November 07, 2005
New Take on the Wal-Mart 22
Last week, we had a fair amount of discussion on the ties between the Democrats and Wal-Mart. My latest column at TomPaine.com is an updated version of the issue, with more info: "The Wal-Mart 22." And feel free to keep the conversation going.
Another reminder: don't forget to get your own copy here of Robert Greenwald's new film, "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price."
November 7, 2005 in Wal-Mart | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b76269e200d8345f469153ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New Take on the Wal-Mart 22:
Comments
SEIU took on the Congressional Black Caucus in May and caused quite a stir.
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/051005/cbc.html
Posted by: Dominic Chan | Nov 7, 2005 5:51:59 PM
This is an issue that will not go away. Until:
The Clean Elections movement makes it moot.
Posted by: David Bruner | Nov 7, 2005 7:35:53 PM
In Sunday's NYTimes Education supplement, writer Perdita Buchan wrote an essay on the prevelence of the preposition "toward," and how its very vaugueness defines our time. She writes:
"If you think about it, this is a "toward" world. We move toward war,
toward peace, toward a new definition of religion, of the literary
canon, of race, of gender.
"I can't help feeling, though, that "toward" often provides the
appearance of effort without the demand of actually getting
to or by or around something. "Toward" never declares itself,
whether the question is geographic or emotional. I'm driving
toward New York; I am friendly toward others. I may never
get to New York, and my friendliness may remain a sort of
radiance spilling into the crowd. How I feel about my sister
can be pretty specific at an y given time; how I feel toward her
is soft-edged, glancing."
As I read the essay, I couldn't help by think that this is exactly what's wrong with the Democratic Party. They are not FOR anything. They merely believe we should move toward workers rights, without every having to be really FOR workers rights, thereby ensuring the donations from the Waltons et alia (and I'm not talking John Boy here). The Democrats have developed a culture of avoiding taking strong stands (for reasons I have yet to fully understand), a culture in which nothing is definite and everything is nuanced. They are neither FOR nor AGAINST war. They are neither FOR nor AGAINST unfair trade. The are neither FOR nor AGAINST Wal-Mart. They offer " appearance of effort without the demand of actually getting to or by or around" the point of the effort.
If politcs were theology, Democrats are committed agnostics. In the long run, their decided indecisiveness is taking a stand... FOR the Wal-Marts of the world, AGAINST workers.
Posted by: Joseph Horgan | Nov 8, 2005 12:10:22 PM
As a former Clinton administration appointee in Bob Rubin's Treasury Dept. who now toils for an industrial trade association, I proffer a possible answer to Jonathan's recent question to Democrats, "Why work for WAL-MART?": To pay the mortgage and feed the kids, maybe?
Big Labor's all but dead, and so is the stuck-in-the-70s enviro movement. Inevitable drilling in ANWR and along the OCS will prove that cries of environmental "wolf" are hysterical and, along with courts less willing to entertain silly litigation, will once and for all finish the greens as a politically and economically relevant force.
The UAW should take notes. If union workers won't eat their spinach and accept reasonable co-pays like the rest of us real soon, they'll quickly become as irrelevant as their green pals.
And if you're an Ivy educated Washington insider with a liberal pedigree, you have no choice but to start drummin' up business with more promising clients.
Posted by: Darren | Nov 8, 2005 12:37:48 PM
Dear Darren
What ever a liberal pedigree stands for at this time I can only guess. If it is what is now main line Democratic Party, please do find some other employers. With friends like you we don't need enemies.
Posted by: al peppard | Nov 8, 2005 5:53:52 PM
This will make you laugh, or it'll make you cry out in disgust: Latrell Sprewell will be paid $14.6 million this season to play basketball and is worried about making ends meet.
Spree isn't at all happy with the Timberwolves' offer of a contract extension. He called the reported three-year, $27 million offer "insulting'' and is demanding a trade.
He also said Sunday, in the midst of a rant, "I've got my family to feed.''
Sounds like Darren and Spree might have been separated at birth.
Posted by: alexh | Nov 8, 2005 6:07:36 PM
Awesome comments Darren; nice to see politicians and their lackeys finally just coming out and admitting the boys are for sale to the highest bidder. But what the hell, they gotta eat too.
Posted by: Bill Pearson | Nov 8, 2005 8:06:30 PM
FYI;
Darren is selective in his bio. Although he served as a "spokesperson" at Treasury under Rubin, he is now employed as the main flack at NAM under that old friend of labor, former MI governor John Engler. Remember the joke about white rats being replaced by attorneys as experimental participants because "there are somethings that even rats won't do."? We may have a new variation to the theme.
Posted by: George | Nov 9, 2005 9:39:56 AM
