Terry Cowgill

18 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1. Oy vay, Terry. Or as my Hebrew teacher might have said (slightly altered here), Oy vay smear. You are in danger of becoming our local Rush. Is there any issue you won’t trot out in order to pillory the Democrats–not to mention “out-of-touch elitists” and “hardcore labor union types” (as opposed to what, exactly? “Softcore” union types? Workers who genuflect to the captains of industry? Slaves and migrant workers?)?

   Once again, for a self-proclaimed “moderate” and someone who gets farklemt at mud-slinging and the “uncivil” discourse of modern politics, you seem to enjoy painting the issue in the broadest black-and-white terms and slamming the door on any more complex interpretation — for no other reason, it seems, than bashing your target-du-jour.

   I suggest to you, without taking sides or asking you to do so, that there are legitimate issues on both sides of the coin that at least deserve a hearing. It is no state secret that WalMart workers’ wages are low and that their health care is minimal or non-existent. Other issues revolve around whether big box juggernauts like WalMart drive out small, locally owned retail establishments and are (or are not) eyesores in our communities.

   Legitimate arguments in favor of big box stores have been made, as well, such as making retail goods more affordable for middle- and low-income consumers. (Though some would counter that this induces a downward spiral of wages.)

   I don’t claim to be an expert on these issues. Neither, I dare say, are you. Here’s hoping you’ll use your blog to raise interesting questions and examine issues, not to throw empty labels and accusations around, with the help of your many interesting friends who leave comments here.

   Your friend,

   –Fred–

   Comment by Fred Baumgarten — September 14, 2006 #

2. Fred,

   I think I just “raised” some issues to which you yourself responded. And I thank you for doing so. If you would like a more nuanced and complete look at the Wal-Mart issue, check out my first post on the subject. I address many of the issues you raise about the company (and more). This post was a shortie confined to one small aspect of the topic.

   If being against the Iraq war, Bush’s misuse of FISA and the reckless neocons makes me a right-winger, then I guess it’s a label I’ll wear proudly, if inaccurately. If being pro-gay marriage and anti-religious right makes me a Rush wannnabe, then I think you’re not being fair to Rush (not that he deserves it).

   I only call myself a moderate for lack of a better term. I am not really a mayonnaise moderate like David Gergen, but rather a hybrid. I think you would find we agree on many of the above subjects, but when it comes to the Israel/Hezbollah, education and economics, we part company. And that’s fine, but I would hesitate to label anyone’s views “simplistic” because I find them disagreeable. I don’t believe you’re an “expert” on the Middle East, either. Yet you write passionately about it and I respect that. But I daresay you’ve hurled an “empty label” and an “accusation” around here and there yourself.

   Thanks again for your contributions to my blog.

   P.S. If I strike you as ferklempt, check out 90% of the other bloggers out there.

   Comment by Terry — September 14, 2006 #

3. It occurred to me tonight while on my weekly pilgrimage to WalMart that it might do some people quite a bit of good to mingle with the “folks” who shop and work there. You know, introduce a little “diversity” into their lives. They might even get a thrill out of paying $1.95 for a bike lock.

   Comment by Jake — September 14, 2006 #

4. Terry, you just wrote:

   “This is a perfect example of why no one but the hardcore labor union types and out-of-touch elitists trust the Democrats to mind our economic store.”

   Quite a sweeper, that. Are you condemning Chicago democrats, or the whole national party, including Robert Rubin? Was the prosperity of the 1990’s an illusion?

   Comment by Peter Halle — September 15, 2006 #

5. Peter,

   Thanks for your comment.

   Please note I didn’t say the Dems aren’t capable of tending to the economy, but that examples like this cement the perception that they are not, especially among the working class who love Wal-Mart and whose votes the Dems have been steadily losing. How can they get those votes back? Not by doing things like the Chicago City Council did.

   Comment by Terry — September 15, 2006 #

6. One thing I find odd is that Wal-Mart is willing to sway to it’s customer demands (like covering the headlines of a racey magazine and pulling or censoring all books, music and movies with questionable vulgarity or parental advisory sticker)

   but will not bend an inch for it’s employees… even tough nearly all of wal-marts work force are probably also wal-mart shoppers.

   I guess the lure of the “Employee Discount Card” is too great. But I have a feeling that if the workforce banded together and instilled some sort of an internal boycott, their profits would suffer (if even only slightly) and force them to take a second look at their policy.

   Comment by melissa — September 15, 2006 #

7. Mall-Wart too, is getting choosy as to What customers they want, they just announced the end of the Lay- Away. Wally is an elitist.!

   Comment by bill h — September 15, 2006 #

8. now how am I going to complete my christmas shopping?

   there was one time when wal-mart lost my lay-away, and issued me a full refund for all the merchandise (in the form of a gift card, so I had to re-buy all my items in-store.

   Comment by fred — September 15, 2006 #

9. Terry,

   Fred B wrote, “It is no state secret that WalMart workers’ wages are low and that their health care is minimal or non-existent. Other issues revolve around whether big box juggernauts like WalMart drive out small, locally owned retail establishments and are (or are not) eyesores in our communities.”

   You deflect him by saying you DID address these issues, not only in the current post, but in the previous post on Wal-Mart. I’ve read them both, and just don’t see where/how you’ve addressed them.

   You seem most interested in a “gotcha” story about a friend, and a little snide remark about Lamont’s, supposed, shopping preferences.

   I really cannot believe that Democrats will lose the support of the middle or working class if they take a stand in favor of a living wage and adequate health care for Wal-Mart workers.

   The middle class shop owners, who are being driven out of business by Wal-Mart, would certainly welcome a little recognition/help from someone.

   For the multitude checking in here, a little personal info: My wife and I live comfortably, although our income is below the poverty line, and we never, never, never shop at Wal-Mart or CVS or The Gap or Starbucks, etc, etc. We support our LOCAL merchants.

   This approach is difficult when purchasing gasoline, so we go out of our way to a Citgo station whenever we can. Buying from Citgo benefits Venezuela, and we think South America could use a little help to stave off the North American juggernaut that would crush them as blithely as “Manifest Destiny” crushed Native Americans.

   Finally, there is the “eyesores in our communities” issue that Fred B mentions. Aesthetics are important! Meryl Streep, Estee Lauder, Philip Roth, Arthur Miller and Dustin Hoffman, whomever is left in Litchfield County, can’t hold off the juggernaut alone. Cathedral Pines? Great place for a mall!

   Comment by Rick Howe — September 15, 2006 #

10. Rick,

    I addressed many of my concerns about Wal-Mart in the first post (but not the most recent; I never claimed I did that).

    Here is a sampling:

    But Wal-Mart has in the last couple of years become the object of strong criticism (some of it justified) for its labor practices, environmental record and the effect its hulking stores can have on host communities.

    I, too, share concerns about Wal-Mart’s treatment of its employees and especially the need for state goverments to supply healthcare for those Wal-Mart employees whom the company will not cover or who are are not yet elegible for Wal-Mart’s healthcare plan.

    That post centered more on political strategy (which I know Fred doesn’t think I should be writing about) than a fair-and-balanced critique (I’d better strike that as I believe Fox has copyrighted that phrase).

    Comment by Terry — September 16, 2006 #

11. Dear Terry,

    I never said I don’t think you should be writing about political strategy. What I said is that this particular posting seems mainly to be a pretext for categorically bashing certain groups that you dislike, an impression echoed by Rick, and it contradicts your distaste for uncivil discourse.

    I am old enough to know that politics involves a heaping helping of gamesmanship — in this case, shall we say “Pin the Tail on the Donkey”?
    All the same, I am both cynical and idealistic enough to believe that discussions of “political strategy” are often convenient diversions from grappling with critical human issues, be they war, education, standards of living, health, or whatever.

    Take the Iraq War, which you are adamantly against: Arguments over political strategy not only obscure the real human costs of the war, but also frame the issue in the narrowest terms. Branding anyone who believes in withdrawing the troops a “cut-and-run Democrat” — and worse — politically limits our options, ignores the fact that Iraqis and Americans are killing and being killed, and obscures questions about the moral legitimacy of our actions in the first place.

    As political strategy, the CCC’s actions may have been wrong. As economic strategy, they may have been misguided. But as a response to a problem, it was an interesting idea that deserves closer examination. Perhaps people will never agree on a remedy, or perhaps they’ll come up with a solution that at least makes things a little better for everyone.

    The problem with political analysis of a certain kind is that it depends on the pigeonholing of people into rigid categories. There are the “anti-WalMart alarmists,” the “out-of-touch elitists,” etc. Membership in one or another of these clubs makes you automatically and categorically wrong (or right). It’s telling that you say “We part company on economics,” because I’ve never said anything about my economic beliefs.

    Gotta go!

    –Fred–

    Comment by Fred Baumgarten — September 16, 2006 #

12. Fred,

    I think it was this earlier comment of yours that caused to think we may have different economic outlooks:

    I didn’t know being on the left meant being for “class warfare,” whatever that means! How about “being for a more fair and equitable distribution of resources”?

    But maybe I’m wrong.

    Comment by Terry — September 16, 2006 #

13. Terry,

    I had to go into your archives to discovery where you and Fred B first used the term “class warfare.” You can link to your former posts. Is it possible to link to commenters previous statements?

    In that July entry you describe yourself as “anti-class warfare.” WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

    Like Fred B, I am for “a more fair and equitable distribution of resources,” and you seem to see this as a sure sign of liberal/left thinking.

    Yet, in that July post you mention that with maturity you discovered, contrary to what your father told you when you were 11, some conservatives were compassionate and philanthropic. How can you characterize Fred B’s view as one or the other if both conservatives and liberals can possess the belief he states?

    What do you mean “we may have different economic outlooks[.]” Please, don’t be a sphinx here!

    Comment by Rick Howe — September 16, 2006 #

14. Rick,

    You keep me honest. By “compassionate and philanthropic,” I refer to voluntary efforts to alleviate problems (charitable giving and the like), which I support. “A more fair and equitable distribution of resources” is usually code for a policy-driven redistribution of wealth, which I generally do not support. If my assumption about the above phrase is true, that would explain our differing economic outlooks.

    “Class warfare” is the pitting of one class of people against another for political benefit (be it on the left or right). The left when they try to foment resentment against the wealthy and the right-wing Christians when they portay themselves as morally superior to people who lead different lifestyles than themselves (the GOP brings up gay marriage every two years) –although typically the phrase refers more to the former, which is how I used it earlier.

    I don’t know if there is a way to link to former comments. If there is, I haven’t yet figured out how to do it.

    Comment by Terry — September 16, 2006 #

15. Terry,

    Damn, you really are a centrist! Too bad, because we partisans on the left could use a few more voices in these dark times.

    The only people I’ve heard use the phrase “class warfare” (as in, Are you trying to ferment . . )are partisans on the right whenever anyone brings up the possibility of “a more fair and equitable distribution of resources.”

    Comment by Rick Howe — September 16, 2006 #

16. Terry,

    You say ” ‘A more fair and equitable distribution of resources’ is usually code for a policy-driven redistribution of wealth, which I generally do not support.” Is there any policy-driven redistribution that you do support?

    Voluntary efforts to alleviate problems (charitable giving and the like) can never mitigate the harsh distribution of wealth of a purely capitalistic system. No one but the hardcore big business types and out-of-touch elitists believe that.

    Comment by Tom Cowgill — September 17, 2006 #

17. WOW!

    And I thought people around here hated Bush!

    Folks: we are talking major hypocrisy on the part of some members of the Chicago Board of Aldermen that have cost the city 325 jobs plus the TAX REVENUE of the Wal Mart.

    If Wal Mart is so bad a place to work, why do they get thousands of applicants?

    If the left is so in favor of the “woking man,” why do they continue to promote more taxes on the working man?

    Comment by Paul Bartomioli — September 18, 2006 #

18. So, Tom, do you prefer the government of Joe Stalin, Pol Pot or Idi Amin? Or is Castro’s version of wealth distribution more to your liking?

    BTW, why is it more people enter this country daily, legally or illegally, if it is such a terrible place?

    Comment by Paul Bartomioli — September 20, 2006 #

Leave a comment