Saturday, August 30, 2008

Much Ado about Nothing?

So, I went out today canvassing for the Obama campaign. Yes, you read that right: a former Hillary supporter was going door-to-door for Barack Obama even after Sarah Palin was announced as the Republicans' VP pick. Just because she has a uterus doesn't mean she's anything like Hillary, ok? Anyway, the mainstream media was touting the appeal that Palin would have to Democratic women and the Republican base. But, you know, from my experience today, not so much.

Not a single actual voter I talked to today was impressed by the Palin pick. Most were figuratively scratching their heads about it. I met other former Hillary supporters and the words "insulted" and "pandering" came up quite a bit. One former Hillary supporter said that she really had to question McCain's judgement in picking a vice presidential candidate that he had only met on one occasion before the day that he offered her the spot.

I talked to Republicans today and the Palin pick threw them for a loop. Going door-to-door, I met a a registered Republican in his 40s with a background in the computer industry . He said that he was fairly confused as to why McCain would tout his experience as one of the primary reasons he should be President and Obama should not be, and then turn around and choose Palin. He said he was now heavily leaning towards Obama because "the country needs the change and inspiration and personality that he brings." And in discussing Obama, he mentioned the inspiration and vision that Kennedy brought to the presidency and the United States, and how that was something the country sorely needs at this time.

Closer to noon, I met a retired woman in her 80s - a registered Republican who has never voted Democrat before. In discussing Sarah Palin, her brows furrowed and she said that she was quite upset by the choice. She stated that she had supported Mitt Romney in the primary and had been prepared to support McCain. However, his choice of Palin has put her on the fence and into the undecided camp.

So there you have it - my experiences going door-to-door in Davidson, North Carolina the day after Sarah Palin was placed on the Vice Presidential ticket. I'm not going to say that it is representative of the country as a whole, but it does suggest that maybe, once again, the talking heads on tv should get out a little more before they start spouting off.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Universal Healthcare: McCain-style

Good news everybody! According to John Goodman, who helped to create the healthcare policy of John McCain, all Americans already have health insurance - it's called the emergency room! No, he's not kidding! Since, by law, emergency rooms cannot turn a person in need of treatment away for inability to pay, Mr. Goodman makes the case that all Americans are insured. He even states that the Census Bureau should stop categorizing people as "uninsured" and instead "categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care."

Look, I know that this doublespeak worked well for the Bushies - calling a law to trample our constitutional rights and civil liberties "The Patriot Act," naming another law that encourages mediocrity and guts the basics of our schools "No Child Left Behind" - but this is really reaching! Are McCain's people so desperate that they are not just taking a page here and there from Karl Rove's playbook, but actually stealing the very ink he used to write it? That's really desperate!

From a financial standpoint, suggesting that the use of emergency facilities is comparable to having health insurance that covers preventative care is ludicrous. The costs of emergency medicine are far greater than for comparable care providing by a doctor's office/clinic or urgent care. In 2005, the Minnesota Council of Health Plans published a comparison of costs of various procedures in both the ER and a doctor's office. I don't think it is at all surprising that the costs were much higher in the ER. If we are really committed to bringing down healthcare costs, pointing people toward the emergency room is not the way to go! Using the ER for regular healthcare is certainly not the way to make healthcare more affordable to the masses.

During graduate school, part of the requirements of our program was to work in the psychiatric emergency room at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. While indigent patients did receive care, the amount of time and money that was used to deal with issues better left for a regular psychiatric visit was amazing. Trying to deal with a stabilized patient's lack of an antidepressant refill meant less time trying to help a suicidal patient, other than finding a facility for him to go to.

Oh, and last time I checked, the emergency department of most hospitals does not offer chemotherapy, well-baby checkups, routine pre-natal care, cancer screenings, physical therapy, routine physicals...

The Democrats have been suggesting that McCain and his campaign are out of touch with the American people. I think John Goodman may have inadvertantly proved it for them.

The Very Friendly Skies

So, the internet is coming to American Airlines and it's not coming with a filter. And people are starting to wonder whether this means more guys will be joining the Mile-High Club with Rosie Hand. As CNN's Mike Galanos states, "First off, filter out the crap. I don't want my son sitting next to some pervert who's watching porn." Relax Mike - I'm sure you can have your son seated in a different part of the airplane, far away from you.

But seriously. Unfiltered internet on an airplane? I'm not a big fan of censorship, but I agree: I don't need my kid to be watching the latest bestiality-S&M-German scheisse video thanks to the surfing preferences of the guy sitting next to him. I mean, aren't these the same airlines that had issues with women breastfeeding without hiding under a blanket? And I definitely would not want to use one of the airline blankets ever again!

Maybe they should change the slogan to "Cum Fly the Friendly Skies."

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Trigger-Happy Jack

Another day, another attack on Obama. This time, McCain, once again harping on Obama’s seeming lack of experience, suggests that Obama underappreciates the threat that Iran poses, pulling out of context (of course) Obama stating that Iran is “tiny” and “doesn’t pose a serious threat.”

Where to start?? Decisions, decisions…

First, let’s address the ad itself. How could McCain have approved it? Does he even know where Iran is? He has said that it shares a border with Pakistan.

Then there’s the fact that the Obama quotes were pulled entirely out of context. Obama made the remarks during a speech in Oregon during May 2008. In it, he talked about the fact that even though Russia posed a huge threat to US – a far larger than what Iran poses to us now – neither John Kennedy nor Ronald Reagan rushed to war in the way that McCain is advocating going into Iran. In fact, Obama emphasized that those leaders chose to sit down and talk to the Russian leaders. I guess that talking about the issues would require some basic knowledge (such as geography), so maybe it would be best for a McCain presidency to go to war instead. Hey, it’s worked out brilliantly for Bush in Iraq, right?

For someone who sees Iran as such an enormous threat, McCain couldn’t be bothered to stop campaigning and be in the Senate to vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that outlined the Senate’s feelings about Iran. And while Obama also missed that vote, at least he attempted to introduce legislation in March 2007 that would have designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Where is the proof of McCain’s preparedness to the fight against the apparently ginormous Iran threat? Is it merely in the his support of the much-ridiculed Bush designation of Iran as a member of the Axis of Evil?

Doesn’t sound like a lot of preparation there, McBush.

Even die-hard Republican Pat Buchanan admits that a vote for McCain is a vote for a war with Iran. Is this the kind of preparedness we want from our president? How the hell are we, the American people, expected to provide the resources for yet another war – we have neither the military manpower nor the monetary backing for such an undertaking. I’m getting a sense that John McCain is not a student of history, otherwise he might recall that another great superpower once found itself overstretched due to military entanglements that were seemingly without end. That superpower was the USSR. And we all know how that one turned out.

So while McCain is trying to paint Obama as “dangerously unprepared,” I think it is only valid to view McCain as just plain dangerous.

And That's Why You Didn't Get To Select the Veep Nominee

I am absolutely touched - touched I tell you - by the outpouring of support by the Republicans for Senator Clinton. Just today, Rudy Giuliani, in a CNN article, stated that the"best decision to win" would have been for Obama to pick Clinton for the VP slot.

Yeah, maybe the best decision for McCain to win. But certainly not for Obama.

I mean, let's be honest. We already have the racists lining up behind McCain, trying to disguise their bigotry by hiding behind claims that Obama is a closet Muslim or has a hidden agenda or has "Hussein" as a middle name (as brilliantly outlined in this article). An Obama/Clinton ticket would not only send the misogynists and chauvinists scurrying to the Grand Old Party, but all the Clinton-haters as well.

And whilst we Dems become verklempt over Rudy's concern for our party, let's not forget the ways in which he, too, bashed Senator Clinton when he actually thought he might have a chance of winning the Republican nomination. Let's see...there was the time he accused Hillary of character assassination. There was the time he compared her negatively to George McGovern. There was the time he criticized her for stand on the Iraq War. And those are just the easy citations to find.

Could it be, Rudy, that you were hoping, like so many Republicans, that the Democrats would provide McCain with an easy way to mobilize a base that isn't quite so excited about their presumptive nominee? Do you really think that the American people are really that enamored of you that they don't realize where your biases lie?

Nice try, Rudy. But it's time to dry those crocodile tears of yours. In the words on Senator Clinton: No way, no how, no McCain.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Declawing the PUMAs

"No way, No how, No McCain."

It's 12:30 at night, and I am still sitting here, smiling over an incredible speech by Senator Hillary Clinton. I would still be enthusiastically pumping my fist in the air if it weren't for the comments I've been reading on CNN - not just from the general public, but also from the commentators. As someone with a degree in journalism, who, for a time, planned on going into the press and interned for different outlets, I am absolutely sickened by the talking heads who try to spin themselves as unbiased. I am not even talking about Faux News, I am talking about CNN and their vaunted "Best Political Team." What a load of crap. For months, they zeroed in on the negative of Hillary, treating her as a second-class candidate, while treating the male candidates with more dignity. And the minute she stepped out the race, suddenly (in a move that makes me recall my psychological training), they started projecting all of their bias onto the Democratic Party, implying that it was the Dems who were being unfair. Granted, the Obama campaign could have done a better job trying to soothe the wounds of the primary, but the media's attempts to make itself look blameless and unbiased were (and still are) the height of hypocrisy.

But tonight, Senator Clinton, in a masterful speech, made it clear that this isn't about grudges or chauvinism. This isn't about who disrespected who. This is about how America can not bear 4 more years of the same failed Republican policies. This is about our children and the future we want to give to them. This is about supporting someone because you believe in the causes that she believes in and will continue to support those causes and that fight, regardless of which person is leading that charge.

Some of the CNN viewer comments suggest that supporters of Clinton should vote for McCain so that Clinton can run and be the nominee in 2012. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. This isn't a game of chess - these are real issues, real decisions, and real impacts. A lot can happen in 4 years: we can begin the process of rebuilding our economy and begin looking to renewable energy, or we can do nothing because (as McCain believes) the fundamentals of the economy are sound and all we need to do is drill offshore in order to support our energy needs. Another 4 years of Republican "leadership" in the White House will lead to a decidedly conservative Supreme Court - a consequence that will have long-term effects that no Democrat would have the power to undo as president in 2012. Not even Hillary Clinton.

Senator Clinton made it clear that any follower of hers should now become a follower of Obama's, because a vote for McCain is a vote for 4 more years of the last 8 years. The causes, the issues that are at stake are larger than just one person, whether it be Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. And any true supported of Hillary Clinton could never be a supporter of John McCain. Hillary told all of the PUMAs, loud and clear: It's not ok. Really.

But I'm a Cheerleader!!

Oh, the humanity. It seems that the school system in Monroe County, Ohio recently revised their dress code, mandating that the bottom of shorts and skirts be no more than 3 inches higher than the top of the knee. Sounds like a pretty sensible rule - after all, school should be about learning about things like the Netherlands, not other classmates nether regions.

However, not everyone is happy with the dress code. It seems that the poor, peppy cheerleaders can no longer wear their short skirts to class on Fridays thanks to the new code. And they - and their parents - are not happy.

Boo freaking hoo.

From the article posted on WLWT.com:
Parents said that it's frustrating to have the school say that the uniforms they provided come up short.

“My daughter is a senior, this is her last year. We paid for uniforms and they should be able to wear them on game day," Becky Daniel said.

"They conduct themselves like ladies, they are representatives of the school, they all handle themselves very well, and I think that it's ridiculous," Tonya Turner said.

You know, Ms. Turner has a point. I think that the cheerleaders should be able to wear their short skirts to class, because, well, you need to have someone represent the school while you're at school, right? In fact, I think that the members of the football team should go class fully decked out in their game gear. I think that members of the wrestling team should go to class in their spandex. And as for the swim team...? I'm sure they will all handle themselves very well.

Kiefer Explains It All

Finally, a Hollywood star that seems to get it. In an interview published on IMDb, the lovely Mr. Sutherland boldly states that he, and other actors, are in fact paid too much. He goes on to state that the real stars are doctors and other emergency services personnel.

Hallelujah. Someone finally understands that making a Hollywood blockbuster or a hit tv show is not as important as doing brain surgery.

Now, if only Kiefer could get that much clarity about drinking and driving.

Monday, August 25, 2008

Come Together, Right Now

I'm ticked off. I, who have been a loyal Democrat since the wee age of 6, am royally ticked off at my party and our presumptive nominee, Barack Obama. No, no, no - it has nothing to do with the fact that I supported Hillary Clinton for the nomination. She lost, it's over and done with. I am ticked because for a bunch of politcos, the Dems and Mr. Obama are playing a seriously crappy political game. From where I sit, I see a party that is yearning for unity and healing after an incredibly bruising fight to the nomination. But instead of trying to soothe the wounds and be a real uniter, I see the party leadership and Mr. Obama seemingly ignoring those who supported Hillary Clinton instead of trying to reach out to them. Worse yet, I see John-freaking-McSame trying to bring them into his campaign!

The Dems need to get their asses in gear and their message clarified. Screw the historic nature of an Obama presidency - a Hillary presidency would also have been historic. You're not going to score points that way. They need to make it clear - especially to the PUMAs - that a vote for McCain is no better than cutting off your nose to spite your face. Obama needs to swallow his pride and honestly try to reach out to the Clinton supporters and make them feel like a necessary and vital part of his campaign and the fight for the White House. Acknowledge them and acknowledge Hillary - you've already got the nomination, genuinely acknowledging Hillary and what she stands for and what her candidacy meant to the party and the nation is not going to lessen you any. Be a gracious winner. It's still not too late to win those 18 million voters back to your side.

Friday, August 15, 2008

Facebook, schmacebook

Behold, for I present you with an amazing oddity in this technologically connected age of ours...I blog before as the last American between the ages of 13 and 45 who does not have a Facebook page. The horror!!!

Ok, ok, so it's not quite that dramatic, but yeah, I do not have a Facebook site. And in spite of forcing my friends to resort to old-fashioned email to stay in touch with me, I don't plan on getting a Facebook site. Honestly, I already spend wayyy too much time online. Another online addiction won't help me get anything more accomplished in my life. Between email, Lake Norman Mommies, E!Online, CNN.com, IMDb, and my recent return to Yahoo! Answers, I spend a disgusting amount of my life plugged in and tuned out.

So, my dear friends (if you happen to be reading), please don't see me lack of a Facebook page as an affront to you, to technology, or to progress. Rather, see it as an attempt to get out and enjoy a little sunshine every once in a while (without having a WiFi network nearby).

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Homebirthing in the USA

The latest issue of Newsweek features an article about homebirthing. The article discusses the AMA's push to outlaw homebirthing, and, of course, there is the obligatory scare comment from an ob/gyn about how women come in half-dead from hemorrhaging while attempting to homebirth, this one courtesy of Dr. Ellen Tracy of Massachusetts. " 'We've all seen scenarios where mothers came in, after very major blood loss, in a very catastrophic state,' she says. 'By the time they arrive in the hospital, you're sort of behind the eight ball in trying to resuscitate these patients. The same thing with neonatal outcome.' "

Ok, I'm not going to say that there aren't scenarios like this. But if Dr. Tracy is going to pull out the worst-case scenario card on home-birthing, I think turnabout is only fair. I would love to ask Dr. Tracy or the AMA or ACOG to produce the numbers on the women who ended up hemorrhaging due to unnecessary interventions, such as cord traction and c-sections. How many women have experienced disastrous outcomes due to the use and misuse of drugs like Cytotec and Pitocin? I am sure I will never hear the numbers - I mean this is an industry that refuses to even voluntarily make public the c-section rates of various hospitals and doctors so that patients can make an informed choice - but I have a strong hunch that the numbers of poor outcomes in the hospital setting are much higher than than for a homebirth situation. And yet, I have not heard about the AMA sponsoring a resolution encouraging more restraint and fewer routine interventions during hospital birth.

More from the Time article: "Doctors argue that what may seem like a low-risk pregnancy can go very wrong at the time of delivery--and that making home birth easier to access could lead to a huge step backward. After birthing moved to hospitals en masse in the 1950s, the maternal mortality rate plummeted, from 376 per 100,000 live births in 1940 to 37.1 per 100,000 in 1960. The most recent statistics show 15.1 deaths per 100,000." Yeah, I won't even rehash how unnecessary interventions are often the reason for low-risk pregnancies suddenly going "very wrong at the time of delivery." But I do take issue with the author just throwing out the statistic about maternal mortality rate dropping at the same time that birth moved to hospitals and implying that the two are related. Fact is, when birth initally was moved to the hospital setting, mortality INCREASED due to poor handwashing and sanitation in the hospital-setting. The time period being highlighted by the author also happens to coincide with improvements in nutrition and prenatal healthcare within the United States - with those statistics, the author is comparing a group of women who were at the end of the poverty and paucity of the Great Depression to women in the gleam of the post-WWII era, but that is not mentioned. Is it possible that these improvements could have had something to do with the decrease in mortality?? Hmmm...

One thing is for sure, this issue is not going be fought quietly. As midwife Joan Bryson states in the article, "Legislating against home birth is totally un-American and unfair." Amen, sister.

Power to the people!

Sunday, August 3, 2008

Just Another Cog in the Baby-Birthing Machine

*sigh* What will they come up with next? As Rixa reports on her blog, the race to dehumanize birth has passed another milestone with the invention of the BirthTrack. Now, instead of just having to fight off unnecessary IVs, vaginal exams, Pitocin, and the cesarean-increasing Continuous Fetal Monitoring, the 21st century American mother who hopes to have a somewhat-natural hospital birth will have to fight off this marvelous monstrosity.

What is BirthTrack? According to the maker, Barnev, Inc, BirthTrack "monitors cervical dilatation by transmitting ultrasonic waves from transducers (placed on the abdomen) to receivers affixed safely and painlessly to the mother's cervix. Thus cervical dilatation is monitored continuously and automatically with a high degree of accuracy, reducing the need for manual examinations." And how does BirthTrack do this? By affixing sensors to the right and left side of the cervix, as well as to the top of the fetus' head "as soon as it is accessible." Never fear, though, the manufacturer's website assures those of us who might question such things by stating, "These clinically proven and safe disposable sensors were designed for ease of use and minimal disruption of patient comfort." Um, yeah. Try telling that to a birthing mother who wants to walk during labor.

So let me posit a question or two here. Why exactly does dilatation need to monitored so closely? According to the BirthTrack website, there are 4 benefits to the system:

  1. "Early decision making...Precipitous and non-progressing labor may be detected earlier and appropriate actions taken for improved outcome." *snort* Excuse me while I scoff! As a woman who has had a precipitous labor (under 2.5 hours from first alert to crying, peeing baby), let me say that if you, as a health provider, need a MACHINE to figure out whether a woman is having a precipitous labor, then you probably shouldn't be in this field. And as for detecting non-progressing labor earlier, um, excuse me? In spite of what some may believe due to the Friedman Curve, a birthing woman's body does not follow a timed schedule. Some women (like myself) go from 0cm to 10cm in no time flat, while others go in spurts, hitting peaks and plateaus, before reaching 10cm. Most women WILL hit 10cm, given the time, support, and space to do so. Detecting "non-progressing labor" sooner just means that that number more women will have their natural progress interfered with, and unfortunately, even stalled out.
  2. "Efficient labor room- Allows staff to utilize their time with patients more productively, in the absence of repeated digital vaginal examinations. Staff time spent on digital examinations is potentially utilized better elsewhere. Better use of personnel resources leads to cost reduction and more." Allow staff to utilize their time more effectively? Doing WHAT?!? From the stories I've heard from my fellow hospital-birthing moms, in many cases, the ONLY time they saw their doctors or nurses was for a vaginal exam.
  3. "Increased patient comfort- Limiting the number of intrusive, vaginal examinations provides the mother-to-be with the comfort and privacy she desires. The partner becomes an informed participant. The displayed data allows them to follow the labor process together minimizing anxiety and contributing to a relaxed atmosphere in the labor room." Ooh, I know a way to limit "intrusive, vaginal examinations" - don't do them! As for the partner "becoming" an informed participant, excuse me if I sound too preachy, but the partner should have been participating by supporting and helping the laboring woman from the word go and should have been informed by reading and/or taking classes before ever setting foot in the hospital. The BirthTrack sounds more like another "Machine that goes Ping!" and will only redirect attention away from the woman and onto a readout.
  4. "Support tool during litigation- BirthTrack provides full documentation of cervical dilatation and fetal head descent during the labor process" Ahhh - finally, we hit the crux of the issue and the real reason that BirthTrack will be coming to a birthing unit near you.

Elsewhere on the BirthTrack site, the makers state the reason that such a machine needed to made: "Despite advances in modern childbirth technology, it is still impossible to obtain accurate measurements of key variables needed to identify the approximately 1/3 of labors that require intervention." You know, I think Ina May Gaskin (amongst others) might take issue with that "statistic." The site goes on about the negatives that occur as a result of poor estimation of cervical dilatation and fetal descent: "Hours of unnecessary suffering on the part of the mother;
Risk of infection for mother and fetus; Substantially increased rate of labor complications;
Significant waste of hospital resources including caregiver time, administered drugs and equipment usage." Ok, and rushing to inject pitocin and/or do a c-section is going reduce the "unnecessary suffering" or the rate of complications? If so, then how do so many countries in Western Europe that have fewer interventions manage to have far better maternal and infant outcomes than the US with far fewer c-sect - Ohhhh. Nevermind.

Helpfully, the BirthTrack website has a FAQ section. Here are some a nuggets:


"8. How can it reduce C-Section rates?
We do not yet have proof that the use of BirthTrack will reduce CS rates yet. However, there are several ways it may help to reduce CS rate. It is well known that oxytocin receptors down regulate their numbers and therefore earlier detection and management of dysfunctional labor are likely to reduce CS rate. It is also possible that the displayed information showing the effect of individual contraction on dilatation and station may be useful in titration of oxytocin. In addition, an earlier management is likely to result in earlier recognition of a need for CS and earlier performanceof CS may ,in its turn, eliminate difficult CS and fetal distress that is linked to prolonged labor." Earlier "management" of "dysfunctional" labor will lead to fewer c-sections? Because the research shows that women with earlier and more interventions have fewer c-sections, right? Yeah. Anyone who thinks the BirthTrack will lead to fewer c-sections rather than more, please raise your hand. Didn't think so.

"1. What about my mobility ? Will the sensors disturb my walking around?
No. You can walk with the sensors. However you need to realize that the system will not collect information on the progress of labor while you are walking" But wait - I thought one of the points of the BirthTrack was to provide continuous information. So, while the sensors won't disturb your walking around, chances are the staff, whose time is now being better utilized more effectively, and the hospital policies probably will.

"2. Must the membranes be ruptured to use it?
The membranes need to be ruptured to apply the fetal electrode (to monitor the progress of head descent). " And we all know what a ruptured placenta means, right? That clock to deliver or be sectioned starts ticking...I wonder whether that will help a woman's labor to progress?

And finally, a word about the remarkable company that brings you the BirthTrack. "Barnev, Inc. is a Delaware based medical device company dedicated to improving Women's Healthcare through the development, production and marketing of cutting-edge, real-time obstetric monitoring devices." Does anyone else see a contradiction betwee wanting to improve women's healthcare by developing obstetric monitoring devices? Just me? "The company was founded in 1998 by a team of biomedical engineers, perinatologists and industrialists." Engineers - ohhhh. Say no more. As the wife, daughter, and sister of engineers, that explains it all.

Saturday, August 2, 2008

Come Fly the Nickel-and-Dimed to Death Skies

I guess it was only a matter of time. Starting today, USAirways is charging for beverages on its flights. Yep, as the Wall Street Journal details in an article, the airline is now charging $2 for soft drinks and water and $1 for coffee and tea.

I think this should be termed "Skyway Robbery."

So, basically, a passenger can't bring liquids past the insecurity checkpoint that they are supposed to be at 1.5 to 2 hours before their flight departs. And now, the passenger can't get anything to drink for free once he is onboard the plane with its dehydrating air. Which pretty much means that the passenger has to pay the outrageous prices at the airport concessions/store or, now, pay the outrageous prices on the airplane.

Though never fear, in case of medical emergency, the attendants can use their discretion to give out beverages for free. Whew! I guess that extra fee is going towards training the attendants to do in-flight triage, then?

Didn't think so.

Save Money...Live Better...Vote Republican?

Well, it would appear, if one believes the Wall Street Journal, that Walmart management has gone from merely trying to influence the economic landscape of the United States to influencing the political one. In an article published on Aug. 1, writers Ann Zimmerman and Kris Maher report that during mandatory meetings, executives have been telling Walmart managers and department managers that if the Democrats win the White House in the fall, it will be easier to unionize businesses, such as Walmart; at the same time, the managers are stressing to employees that the effects of unionizing would be negative to the employees and could lead to fewer jobs as labor costs rise and decreased take home pay as workers are required to pay union dues.

Gee, it brings a tear to my eye that Walmart execs are truly looking out for their employees.

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and assume that during these meetings, the execs don't discuss why Walmart employees lose jobs after unionization. They don't discuss the fact that after the Walmart in Jonquiere, Quebec, Canada was unionized, the company shut the entire store down rather than work with a union. They don't discuss the fact that after the meat-cutting department of a Walmart in Jacksonville, Texas unionized, it, too, was shut down, causing all 10 employees to lose their jobs. Nope, I'm sure that the Walmart execs are too busy painting the unions as the bad guys to even bother to take a look in the mirror and notice that history has a way of showing the truth, even if those involved are loathe to admit it. Walmart is anti-union because a unionized Walmart might actually have to pay its employees a decent wage, give employees decent benefits, let employees classified as "full-time" actually work full-time hours, instead of the paltry 34 hours that Walmart considers "full-time." A unionized Walmart might have a harder time competing with other stores, thereby rendering Walmart's competitive advantage moot.

Without everday low prices, why exactly would people choose to shop at Walmart? For the fashionable clothing? The high-quality goods? The well-staffed and friendly stores?

Yeah, not-so-much.

Friday, August 1, 2008

Save Money…Live Better?

Walmart, previously know as Wal-Mart or even Wallyworld, recently changed its slogan from “Always Low Prices. Always.” to “Save Money. Live Better.” Having recently read the wonderfully written The Wal-Mart Effect, as well as having seen “Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price,” I started wondering about Walmart’s new slogan. “Save Money. Live Better.” Sounds good in theory. But does shopping at Walmart really result in saving money or living better?

Save Money. Does Walmart really save people money? Sure, the products that it sells are cheaper than those found at Target or many other stores, but given that the quality is often quite poor, it’s quite reasonable to wonder whether people end up spending more on replacement items because the initially cheap Walmart item became unusable so quickly. Anecdotally, I know of a lot people who go into Walmart with a list of things to buy, but end up walking out with quite a few impulse buys thanks in part to the layout of the store and the prices of the items. Did any of them really save money? That’s questionable at best. And there’s the workers. Not just the workers who are directly employed by Walmart and earn less than poverty level in spite of working full time. I’m wondering about the workers whose jobs were either shipped overseas or eliminated all together by the juggernaut-that-Sam-Walton-created. People whose businesses were forced to close, whose livelihoods were ended. I doubt very much that they are saving money.

Live Better. Who is living better? Is Joe Schmo down the street living better because he has a brand-new, crappily made flat-screen tv? I doubt it. Walmart feeds our materialism, our need to accumulate more and more stuff. Suddenly, instead of having to save up and plan in order to buy new things, doing the research to find the best product at the best price, we can buy cheap electronics and toys imported (from China predominantly) without nary a second thought about whether we actually need or can afford said product. It’s so cheap, so why not? Is this a good thing? Is this living better? Hard to make a definite or accurate conclusion about this, but more than likely, no, it’s not living better. Focusing so much on the materials, on the stuff, leaves us little time or attention to focus on other things like family. Like society. Like the fact that the Walmart way is built on the backs of workers halfway around the world who could never in a million years afford the products they are making and shipping to the United States.

It’s interesting that one of Walmart’s clothing brands is called Faded Glory. I’ve remarked to the Mister on more than one occasion that Faded Glory is a pretty crappy name for a clothing line. I mean, come on, Faded Glory makes you think of a run-down, desolate small town in the middle of nowhere. Not exactly the inspiration for buying clothing, right? But, perhaps, in the Walmart world, calling the clothes Faded Glory was an optimistic substitution for the real truth of the matter: No Glory. After all, how many Americans have lost factory jobs because of Walmart’s relentless pursuit of lower prices, causing companies to move manufacturing overseas? How many people work in barely humane conditions for a mere pittance in a far away so that Walmart can sell remarkably low-priced apparel? Walmart branding one of their clothing lines “Faded Glory” would be like Heidi Fleiss saying she’s merely in the service industry.

I’m not saying that Walmart is evil or greedy. It’s a corporation and its corporate culture appears to be centered around providing consumers with low prices. At any cost. So focused on the bottom line that everything else is lost along the way.

I have to admit that until recently, I was an enthusiastic Walmart consumer. Lower prices were just awesome. Sure, the fresh produce was terrible, but it was cheap! And yeah, a lot of the products, whether electronic or furniture, were absolute crap, but it was cheap! And sure, parking and navigating the store itself was an exercise in frustration, but everything was cheap! And the employees always appeared miserable and unwilling to help, but everything was cheap! So, I continued to shop there. But after our recent move, the nearest Walmart is 11 miles away. Suddenly, my daily or every other day trip to Walmart had to be put off to a weekly trip. I had to start buying last minute needs at other stores. And more and more, I began to realize how much different things were at other stores, both local and national-chain, in comparison to Walmart. Workers, for the most part, at other stores actually smiled and were helpful. The items at other stores, while relatively more expensive, seemed of better quality, especially the food. I started to dread, more and more, the weekly trip to Wallyworld. It became the last stop, the dreaded stop, that anchored my weekly shopping run. The news stories about Walmart, the effect it was having on the areas it moved into, as well as worker lawsuits, environmental concerns – a whole laundry list of issues - started to penetrate my consciousness. I began to realize that my saving a couple of bucks a week at Walmart was costing others far, far more. And that was something I was not prepared to continue. I made my last Walmart run approximately 2 weeks ago – I really hope it was my last. A clearer conscience, even with a lighter wallet, is a much better way to live.