Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 09, 2015

American Companies & American Dreams





Edd Doerr focuses on a NY Times story " Walmart’s Imports From China Displaced 400,000 Jobs, a Study Says" , dated Dec 9 that reports on a new study showing that between 2001 and 2013 Walmart, the US’s largest retailer and importer, “eliminated or displaced 400,000 jobs in the US....an estimate by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive research group that has long targeted Walmart’s policies.

The jobs, mostly in manufacturing, represent about 13 percent of the 3.2 million jobs displaced over those same years that the study attributes to the United States’ goods trade deficit with China. Walmart’s Chinese imports amounted to at least $49 billion in 2013, according to the study, which was based on trade and labor data. Over all, the United States’ trade deficit with China hit $324 billion that year.”

But that’s not all, the Walmart “charitable” foundations have been pouring many millions of their dollars into expensive campaigns
to undermine church-state separation and public education throughout the US.See also "5 Reasons Shopping at Walmart Makes You a Scrooge This Holiday Season"

Is it too much of a stretch to say that shopping at Walmart is a subversive activity?



As noted in the Scrooge article:

Walmart doesn't support American business.
While the company proudly boasts and encourages shoppers to "Buy American," the majority of the company's goods are made outside of the United States and often made in sweatshops. When you buy something at Walmart, you are not buying American.
2. Walmart creates more poverty than jobs.
When a Walmart store comes to town --  it isn't the economic golden child the company's PR machine would like you to believe. In fact, a study done by the Northwest Community group estimates that a Walmart opening up in a local town will actually decrease the community's economic output over 20 years by an estimated $13 million. It also estimates that Walmart will cost the community an additional $14 million in lost wages for the next 20 years. This translates to communities being worse off in the long run when Walmart strolls into town. When you shop at Walmart, you are not creating jobs.
3. Walmart's jobs are poverty jobs.
This year numerous studies released expose Walmart's poverty wages and the corporation's willingness to place that burden on taxpayers -- not the company. A report by Wisconsin's Democrats looked at how to quantify Walmart's cost to taxpayers in that state. At a minimum, Walmart workers in the state rely on at least $9.5 million a year to subsidize medicaid for workers. If these poverty level wages were raised to $10.10 an hour it would create 100,000 new jobs in the overall Wisconsin economy, not to mention adding another $13.5 billion to the overall economy. When you shop at Walmart you support poverty wages.
4. Walmart fires workers illegally.
Walmart has a long history of violating workers' rights far beyond mistreatment. The National Labor Relations Board found that Walmart has violated the rights of workers by "unlawfully threatened, disciplined, and/or terminated employees" for "having engaged in legally protected strikes and protests" and "in anticipation or response to employees' other protected concerted activities." In essence  --  Walmart not only encourages its managers to bully employees who want to speak out about unfair practices, they will also fire you if they find out you're planning a strike. When shopping at Walmart you support their anti-worker practices.
5. Walmart is a JOB KILLER. 
We've touched on how Walmart promotes itself as a company that values made-in-America products while their products on its shelves are largely produced overseas and in sweatshops. We've highlighted how Walmart relies on subsidies by the federal government to legally pay their workers poverty wages. We've even exposed Walmart for illegally firing its workers who plan to strike or threatening their jobs to keep the workers from speaking out. All of this adds up to Walmart costing us an estimated 196,000 jobs  --  many of them manufacturing jobs between 2001 and 2006. To prove the power Walmart has in the job market  -- each store opened destroys almost three local jobs for every two it creates. When you choose to shop at Walmart you don't create jobs.

Monday, June 30, 2014

Human Origins at the Folklife Festival

By Gary Berg-Cross

It’s early summer, just past the Solstice and the annual Smithsonian Folklife Festival celebrates the season near and on the Mall between 7th & 14th streets NW. This year it runs until July 6 and features the cultures of China & Kenya. . Kenya: Mambo Poa  focuses on various aspects new and ancient history of the East African country. There’s daily music & events. For runners every morning of the Festival (10:30–11 a.m.) one can meet at the Kenya House, just off the Mall and join Olympic athlete and long-distance track runner Tegla Loroupe for a jog through the National Mall.  If that doesn’t resonate there is a humanist connection to consider.  Some of the oldest artifacts of human/Homo Sapiens existence have been discovered there. Kenya is thus one of the early cradles of human kind. The festival a very nice exhibit on the mall called Searching for Human Origins in Kenya noting this

Kenya has been the epicenter of millions of years of human evolution leading up to our species, Homo sapiens. Before we came along, however, another species roamed the earth for over a million years. Homo erectus was the longest surviving species in human history, and evidence of their success can be found throughout Kenya.

I was there on the first Sunday and was really excited to see Paleoanthropologist  Rick Potts (director of the human origins program at the Smithsonian Institution who has significant wok in Kenya AND China!).
The longest running Smithsonian excavation is in Kenya at site called Olorgesailie. Where Rick Potts and his team have worked to uncover evidence to explain how early humans in Kenya adapted and survived harsh, changing climates.  This Sunday Potts wasn’t at the museum or in Kenya.  He was  signing certificates of kids of all ages as they successfully dug into the fossil
realm as part of the exhibit. It is always wonderful to see kids interested in a science like anthropology exercising its tools and feeling the thrill of discovery and connection.

You could see a range of human origin fossils, replicas & artifacts including the recent, notable Homo erectus discovery in Kenya now widely known as “Turkana Boy.”  It’s an almost complete skeleton that dates back to about 1.6 million years.
A final nod to humanism at the event is a wall that allows visitors to past up ideas on “what makes us human.” It’s a nice thing to explore in the presence of our origins. Poets, like Christy Chiang,  have tried

What makes us human?
Is it love?
So many of us take it for granted
Yet so precious few know how to give it.
Is it hope?
So many of us fall into despair over tiny things
Yet so precious few know how to find strength in it.
Is it intelligence?
So many of us ooh and ahh over what technology can bring
Yet so precious few know how to live in harmony with nature.
Has two thousand years of civilization
Really brought nothing more than destruction?
Has it not also brought realization?
Within time, there is change.
Change for the better, bringing us back from the fringe.
There is always love,
To guide us through storms and roads that are rough.
There is always hope,
To back us while we cope
With our troubles, every day that we live
Every day that the sun rises from the heaving sea.
And though we face a heating Earth,
A dimming of our days,
With our intelligence we can fix it in a thousand small ways.
Human qualities come shining through
They almost always do.
It is the "always" that we dwell upon and have faith in,
So that a new, better age may begin.
There’s a Festival Blog to keep up on this and more.



Thursday, March 14, 2013

Leaders' Images, Words and Policies


By Gary Berg-Cross
 

News often arranges things such that common themes come to mind. An example is the image of leaders and the superficial aspect of their image &  words vs. the hidden policy beliefs.

This happened to me today as the election of a new pope, Mitt Romney’s updates on his “47 percent” remarks and a new PR course was launched by the new leadership in China.

Mitt Romney and the upcoming CPAC have reasons to reflecting “mistakes” in the last election and what to do going forward, Romney understands that he was hurt by his “47 percent” remarks, but argues it was a bit of messaging problem, as opposed to some important policy different.  This ‘it’s just a matter of semantics” seems to me really dishonest and a problem of our age.  Romney also said his remark that "47 percent" of Americans believed they were "victims" and expected government to provide for them was an “unfortunate statement.”

“It's not what I meant.  I didn't express myself as I wished I would have. You know, when you speak in private, uh, you don't spend as much time thinking about how something could be twisted and distorted and -- and it could come out wrong and be used,” he went on to say. 

I don’t buy this just as I didn't buy many of the empty messaging of past conservative like George Bush (see Pict above for a 47% like truth slipping out).  There is perception versus reality issue here.  Supporters & the funding class pay $50K or so for a meal and expect an idea of policy.  Romney is papering over real differences about what is likely intended policy and you can see some of this in the Ryan budget where the funding class’s taxes are not raised but programs for the 47% are and account for about 60% of Ryan’s budget savings.

I had a similar feeling of perception and policy reality differences when listening to the coverage of the new Pope Francis, aka Jorge Mario Bergoglio. He’s describes as a Jesuit known for simplicity and his very humble lifestyle, emphasis there, but also and conservatism.  He’s described as flashback to an older view of Catholic clerics as humble leaders.  And yes he did rode the bus because he gave up a cardinal’s chauffeured limo.

This simplicity has an undeniable appeal and I like a “Prince of the Church” who cooked his own meals  & chose to live in a simple apartment rather than the archbishop’s palace.  I like his activism for the poor.  But a deeper look shows his conservative stance on some really key issues including contraception, marriage, the role of women and Liberation Theology (too much a mix of Jesus’s message and a socialist one).

When the Argentinian government considered making same-sex marriage legal he was reported as saying:

 "Let's not be naive, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."
It’s enough to generate other views of the new pope - A pope so retro as to seem oddly new (Anthony Faiola ). That’s a view of the conservative substance living under a kinder, gentler veneer. 

I had a similar feeling reading the WaPo article:China’s Xi Jinping charts a new PR course

As noted there new leader Xi and his top advisers have introduced:

 “something previously unseen among the higher echelons of Chinese government: a retail politician…


The tactics familiar seem familiar (ala Romney or Francis) — getting control of the message and image with a simple narrative -  attacking problems in general terms (government waste) and casting the new leader as a plainspoken, unadorned man of the people.


The approach reflects a new reality confronting not just China’s leaders in the modern age.   As noted by many innovations like social media and cellphones weaken central control over the narrative. This week CPAC isn’t he only PR campaign boosting leader’s image  as the pope and China’s Xi ease into the ceremonial roles and  struggle with the various with public discontent, disillusionment & even tea party level rage over failed policies and hierarchical/oligarchic blocks of  power.

Images

George Bush’s Litmus test for Judges- policy & message: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x11212



Xi: WaPo artice cited

 

Saturday, April 30, 2011

Who Owns Human Rights?


by Carl Coon,

How serious is our disagreement with China over Liu Xiaobo, currently languishing in a Chinese prison? A pro-democracy activist, the Chinese locked him up, the Nobel people decided to give him an award, and the Chinese wouldn’t let him out to receive it. Now the West is indignant and the Chinese are protesting that the Western idea of universal human rights is anything but universal, rather it is a part of the imperialist effort to impose western values on the rest of the world.[1]
This raises the issue, who has the right to define human rights? The prevailing view here in the USA is that the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights, with its emphasis on individual freedom, is the last word, the gold standard as it were. But others. like the Chinese, disagree, and how do we deal with the charge that the values expressed in the UN declaration are culturally biased and don’t represent the values of humanity as a whole? What is the proper stance from a humanist perspective?
As humanists, we start with respect for the value of each individual member of our species. Parse this out and you eventually get to a set of values like the UN Declaration. That statement is undoubtedly thoroughly consistent with what we humanists believe. But is this enough? As a humanist, I also tend to be dubious about anyone’s claim that values as defined in any document are absolute. This sounds too much like religious faith. Let me see if I can reconcile my strong support for the UN Declaration with my discomfort at being asked to accept the validity of any document or doctrine on faith and faith alone.
Part of my reluctance to genuflect before the UN Declaration is my sense that humanity is still very much a work in progress, and we have a long road to travel before we arrive at a state where the kinds of human rights we believe in are accepted by the great majority of humankind. If we are ever to achieve global cooperation and the world at peace we aspire to, we shall need to have a common sense consensus on human rights that will provide a foundation for the shared values that such a world will require. How are we going to get that consensus, by persuasion, or by letting the powerful impose it on the weak?
I’ve had a certain amount of experience dealing with values in societies where they differ from ours. I have found that while the other society quickly adopts technology that lets them make more money, they resist any overt effort to push our values on them. You cannot just go in and tell them they’re wrong and expect them to change. You have show them what our values are and how they work in practice. Eventually they will work out the ways in which the material successes of our culture that they admire are contingent on many of the values they are resisting—and then they will change. But it takes time, and patience.
Another part of my reluctance to go the whole hog with the UN Declaration is my sense that it isn’t necessary to get into a messianic froth over it in order to get the whole world to agree to it. I’m old enough to remember when we were seriously debating whether we could only defeat communism if we fought the Soviet Union and defeated it on the battlefield, or whether there was some other way out. Back in 1969 I predicted that our very different ideologies would converge over time, and that since our system worked better in the long run, the USSR would have to do most if not all of the converging. Fortunately for everyone, my prediction (which was contrary to conventional wisdom at the time) was essentially correct.[2]
This brings me back to China, and the Liu Xiaobo affair. Chinese values emphasize the importance of maintaining harmony where Westerners stress individual freedom.[3] When some incident arises that focuses attention on these differences, we express outrage and they fire back at us. Mutual irritation follows which will probably die down fairly soon, inasmuch as neither side has important interests (as opposed to values) tied up in the dispute. You can chalk the whole incident up as another small step in a learning process where each side gets to understand the other side’s feelings a little better, and hope that the end result will be a beneficial convergence.
Whoa! I hear you saying, do you really believe that values are not important? Well, the point I want to make is that while values are supremely important in the long run, differences in values should not be important factors in the management of daily relations between states. If we manage those affairs sensibly, looking for win-win solutions to problems, and finding them frequently, we can expect that over time there will be a convergence that narrows the gap between our different values, and hopefully eventually eliminates it. If our own values are as robust as we think they are, then the other party will be doing most of the converging, as was the case with the USSR. The world will end up with the kind of respect for individual rights that will lead to the world at peace we all aspire to–a world congenial to our values.
/1/ Boston Globe, December 18, 2010, “Human Rights are Absolute” by Rene Loth
/2/ My thesis when a student at the National War College, class of ’69.
/3/ Article by Dai Bingguo: “Persisting with Taking the Path of Peaceful Development” 12/6/10
Posted for Carl Coon
Originally posted  on his blog, Progressive Humanism  January 21, 2011