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

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?

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.

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.”

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.

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!

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.

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–

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).

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!