The history of American comic strips begins with one timeless line from Walt Kelly:“We have met the enemy and he is us.”
Cary Stemle, editor of the Louisville Eccentric Observer (LEO) spoke briefly to the crowd before the first screening of the documentary.
So what?
Does it matter one jot to the monolithic retailing colossus Wal-Mart that fifty hardy souls gathered outdoors and braved chilly, windy conditions to watch two showings of a powerful documentary that provides sordid, outrageous details about one of the most powerful corporations in the world, facts that most of those in attendance – being generally responsible and responsive citizens and well-informed voters – knew beforehand?
After all, it isn’t a question of whether the sales volume of a single Louisville area Wal-Mart during the same four-hour period is more than the combined yearly salaries of all those frozen crazies in attendance.
Rather, it’s a question of the multiplier to be used in arriving at an answer to an equation that I wouldn’t attempt without a Chinese-made calculator.
Projectionist Jim Sprigler seemed undeterred by the cold November gusts.
A consistent theme throughout Robert Greenwald’s compelling, devastating critique of Wal-Mart’s way of doing business – targeting local mom ‘n’ pop businesses for demolition, extorting community leaders, mistreating its workers, despoiling the environment – is that these arrogant and destructive modes of corporate behavior somehow represent a mutant strain of American-style capitalism.
How, then, do we account for the ringing endorsement proffered by millions of satisfied Wal-Mart shoppers each and every day?
How many union members shop at Wal-Mart, which is described by one of Greenwald’s witnesses as perhaps the most virulently anti-union business in retailing history, and is known to have installed surveillance cameras not as an anti-crime measure, but one intended to prevent unionization?
How many women shop at Wal-Mart, which apparently prefers to settle dozens of sexual discrimination lawsuits out of court rather than modify the corporate culture to prevent them?
How many Americans spend their money at Wal-Mart and never consider the high cost of the low prices they cherish, who never consider the impact on the community of competition that is far from fair, who never ask a question about conditions in Chinese sweatshops, who are as “stunned” as the woman in the film after being told that Wal-Mart acquiesced in the abuse of illegal immigrant cleaning crews?
To which a bemused Jon Stewart replies, “Stunned? You just bought a sweater for 29 cents.”
Dave and his assistant from Federal Hill Cafe came bearing thermos jugs of coffee.
Mutant? Or perhaps we’re far too fully aware that this type of monopolistic, exploitative capitalism is far too common to be dismissed as an aberration, and cognitive dissonance being what it is, “we the people” just can’t quite bring ourselves to face up to such a nasty little secret?
Oh yes, and how many “little people” of New Albany did we see tonight?
To paraphrase the second most important moment in comic strip history, as first unleashed by Bill Watterson, creator of Calvin and Hobbes:
Wal-Mart shoppers are the ones who need Greenwald’s “swift kick in the butt” the most ... but they’re not asking for it.
21 comments:
Yes, and this includes my mother. I hope to arrange a screening as soon as possible, but it isn't going to be pretty ...
Advance note to any Tribune personnel who may be reading: I'll be in Indy today on business, but as soon as there's time, you're going to be asked several questions.
Why didn't Greg Gapsis's story about the film showing make it onto the web site?
Why no coverage of the event?
Also, I didn't see anyone from the Tribune at yesterday's Baron Hill announcment.
Have a marvelous day -- by the way, you still kaven't answered my last question about the smoking editorial.
Hello? Anyone home?
Although the film does bring out some interesting points, it is not entirely factually accurate.
For those that continually harp on "intellectual honesty", let's be sure to comment on some of the films inaccuracies.
I believe in the free market. I also believe that if people choose to shop at Walmart and Walmart continues to thrive, then the free market is working.
If there are unfair, illegal, or antitrust issues, they need to be addressed through our legal system.
Citizens are speaking with their wallets and so far it appears they are speaking very clearly.
How many of the bloggers have shopped at Walmart and for what reason?
The following is a response to a post by Shirley Baird. The response was posted you know where, and because it stands a chance of being erased, I thought I'd place it here, for the record.
---
Shirley, in keeping with the spirit of your post, I'd recommend that you watch the Wal-Mart movie.
You'll be interested in the part that shows how the Walton family paid $6,000 into a company fund for needy employees, while the employees themselves gave half a million.
Where the average wage is considerably less than the 27 million Lee Scott (chairman) was paid last year.
It's a fine line, though. Laura's done good work with these posts about housing; it's obviously something she knows inside and out. I believe she has ommitted information with respect to making the pie itself bigger.
So, do I believe that economic development is at least part of the way to help needy people? I do.
Wal-Mart style development? I don't. My partners and employ 30+ people now (10 full-time with insurance, hoping to expand that) and have borrowed heavily to expand the business and keep pace with changes.
Guess who doesn't get paid when we scrape to pay property taxes? Rest assured, it's no easier for us than for you -- so why give the Wal-Marts all the breaks?
Please consider watching the movie, Shirley. I have an extra DVD copy that I'd be happy to loan you.
Today I'm off to Indy to assist a friend in dealing with the Alcohol & Tobaccvo bureaucracy. You might say the trip is to advance the cause of economic development in downtown NA. More on that when there's news to report.
HB, when the vast majority of Americans -- I repeat, vast -- voted not with their wallets, but with their ballots to ensure that African-Americans remained classified as sub-human, was that the free market in action?
Oh, wait -- they just didn't have the information that might have altered their view, right?
And this is different from the Wal-Mart saga how?
Racial discrimination is always wrong.
But free trade and racial discrimination are completely different topics.
Walmart is not the first nor will be the last to be accused or even convicted of discrimination.
Walmart may even have monopolies in some locations, but that is not the facts nationwide.
Salaries may be low in some areas, but that is not the facts nationwide.
Unions have been there own worst enemies and have protected workers that should not have been protected for too long. They created much of their own problem. We still have people trying to save the union Sanitation workers here in our city.
Look at oil companies, insurance companies, pharmeceutical companies and a host of other large organizations with some unfair advantages.
Do you want a socialist society?
Neither "socialism" nor theocratic fascism, but a level playing field.
And Wal-Mart does not compete on a level playing field.
Roger, that was in 2004 (the donations to needy co-workers, victims of fires, etc.) that the entire Walton clan contributed $6,000. The employees contributed not 1/2 million, but $5 million from their meager paychecks.
Obviously, it's a volume game, but the facts speak for themselves.
We have neither a socialist nor theocratic fascism as it stands.
A level playing field would be ideal, but you and I both know that is not reality.
No one ever promised life to be fair. There is too much special interest money dictating policies on both sides.
We need to find ways working within our current system to make things fairer.
They will never be fair!!
Probably true, HB, but defending Wal-Mart with ridiculous free market claims can only make things less fair.
Shopping at Wal-Mart is a sign that an individual doesn't care that things aren't fair. In fact, it goes a long way in showing support for keeping the system unfair, in essence saying "This is how things should be".
So Bluegill,
Let me get this right. You said:
“Shopping at Wal-Mart is a sign that an individual doesn't care that things aren't fair.”
Yet you are always talking about how the people are so strapped for cash and struggling (which I agree with) but you want them to boycott Walmart which will cost them more when they cannot afford it already.
People do care, but they need to survive.
Low prices do help these people and the free market is still the best system going anywhere.
We need to help them by working through the system we have to make the changes.
But that's just it, HB.
Wal-Mart drives down wages nationally and internationally. They do more than any other company in the world to ensure that those strapped for cash remain so. When low wage workers shop at Wal-Mart, they are working against their own economic best interest. A part of changing that system has to be educating people so they know that. If, after being educated, they continue to shop there, they don't care.
Besides that, there are ways to get better quality products cheaper than Wal-Mart. I do it regularly.
Wal-Mart doesn't represent a free market nor advocate for one. As stated above, Wal-Mart is subsidized with tax dollars to the tune of $1.5 billion a year and is constantly asking and pressuring for more. They cost all of us every year.
If you add the costs (lower wages, tax subsidies, legal fees) on to the retail price of every product purchased at Wal-Mart, shopping there is more expensive than at other businesses.
Boycotts are part of the system we have to make those changes. Not shopping at Wal-Mart is free.
Again, your comment:
"Wal-Mart doesn't represent a free market nor advocate for one."
A free market is one in which supply and demand are not regulated or minimally regulated. I don't see the supply and demand side being regulated.
It is being driven by consumers as it should be.
Most large corporations have subsidies and we can debate the fairness of that.
But I still believe Walmart does represent and is part of the free market.
Under your definition, the government could allow only one business to sell products and it would still be considered a free market.
Does competition not play a role?
HB with respect,you must live in a different part of society than I, as well as viewing this country in a different light than my family is able to.
Sam Walton himself would not like the direction in which his family has taken the business. Granted he was still alive when they starting expanding, but at least you could purchase items that were for the most part USA made and mostly Union Made. That has all changed obviously.
You gotta love strong communities that will not let them in to do business.
It is not my definition. It is the definition in dictionaries. I don't know what Sam Walton would think and do not feel I could speak for him.
I am not a huge Walmart fan, but the intellectual honesty that continues to be advocated needs to include both sides of the debate.
What would be helpful is to list some ways that consumers can start to kick the Walmart habit and what shopping alternatives are better choices–and why.
I seem to recall Healthblogger waving the banner of personal responsibility, and that's just fine and dandy, but when we ask hik to consider personal responsibility in the context of predatory retail, suddenly we're socialists.
Isn't it the case that if people stopped to consider the cost of the price, such thinking might eventually extend to fast food and other practices that are damaging to the health?
Or is it that there are certain "taboo" topics, like this weird notion of Wal-Mart's market being "free" and "competitive," when it isn't?
Also, I suppose I need to admit that I never thought of looking on the Lifestyles page for a NEWS story such as the Gapsis piece on the film screening. Apparently I'm funny that way.
However, I was right that the 'Bune did not cover the Baron Hill announcement, and of course also right that the newspaper didn't bother to send someone to cover the screening.
And no one there has yet to explain the abysmal smoking editorial last weekend.
Dana said: "When NA was referring to the racial thing, I took it as he was simply stating that the masses can be, and have historically been, wrong due to lack of information."
Precisely. Thanks.
HB I am a newcomer to this medium but I do have a blogsite at http://highwayview.blogspot.com/ and would like to invite you to look at one particular post I made entitled "You Load 16 Tons and Wadda You Get...!" This is not fiction, it is fact!
Furthermore I agree that the playing field is not level but I propose to you there is a place called the United States of America where it is more so than has ever been in recorded human history. Our forefathers died to make it so and all that was asked in return was that we continue the effort!
If we are to give up that effort then their contribution was wasted and we deserve what we will surely get!!
Post a Comment