?

Log in

No account? Create an account
spam subject: Shy Tranny Reveals Her 9-inch Secret dan! - here is where i live

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile
> <3

me!
contact info
writing/art journal
flickr
youtube
last.fm
social networking and potential boning
okcupid
myspace
facebook

November 10th, 2005


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
06:44 pm - spam subject: Shy Tranny Reveals Her 9-inch Secret dan!
i wonder how many people have secret dans..

from jennie:
http://www.walmartmovie.com/ a documentary about how walmart is the great satan, or something. i'm expecting fahrenheit 9/11-levels of bullshit, but it shoudl be interesting at any rate. and free!
November 16, 2005 07:00 PM
Union Center 1700 N. State Street
Bellingham, WA 98225
if this location is not to your liking, you can find another free screening over here. it's playing all over the place. but you should go to that one cuz i'll be there.

and here is the (amended) comment i left jennie about it--
i'm going, but cautiously. everyone likes to kick walmart, and i am all for that because the top dog should always be kicked, but i have never once heard a good reason why walmart is any more evil than 99% of the corporate universe. they're just better at the things that everybody else is doing too. so this amounts to attacking them, not for being evil, but for being successful. (which i just lent my support to in the 1st sentence, but shut up.)
example: if they paid people more and had better benefits, they would have to charge more for their junk, and then everybody who shops there would spend more to get their junk, and i suspect things would come out about even. it's not like there's a whole lot of rich folks kicking it at walmart, after all; i think most of thier customers are around the same bracket as their employees. if anything, america is being fucked by expensive healthcare, not walmart. but the only ways to fix that seem to be a) magically find cheaper ways to create health[1], or b) let people suffer and die. so i dunno.
further on that point, here is why i don't think universal healthcare will save the world: overall costs will rise, via more people having access to expensive procedures and more people driving up demand for the supply of healthcare stuffs. none of this added expense will be borne by the new people, seeing as if they could afford to pay their way they already would be. it won't be borne by the rich, because let's face it that would never pass congress. so it will be a new general distributed cost, driving up the price across the board, which will push more people across into not being able to pay, which will drive up the cost yet more. ultimately everyone would get some coverage, but it would take everyone paying a whole shitload more to run a huge and probably very broken system.

[1] like, ya know, exercise and eating right. but who does that?
thoughts? what did i overlook? because there's always something

on the slim chance that anyone pays attention to the tags, note that i consider politics to be a philosophy. or perhaps the other way around.
np: my chemical romance stuck in my head

(8 shots upside the head | en garde!)

Comments:


From:_jafa_
Date:November 11th, 2005 11:03 am (UTC)
(Link)

My SecretDan is only 8.5 inches :(


There are not-necessarily-low-income people pissed off about WalMart too, but for different reasons... WalMart interferes with the local economy of their communities, or blocks their scenic views, or whatever. I'm not saying these are good (or bad) arguments, just that it's not simply about how they treat their employees.

And I'm not entirely sure I'd classify WalMart as entirely successful. And successful at what? "Successful" in this context can refer to so many entirely different things, many of which are too subjective to give any sort of firm answer about. Overall, though, my impression is that WalMart is "successful" perhaps, in that it sells lots of stuff and makes money. It's important to consider, however, "at what cost" this "success" comes... again, there are no definite answers, but it makes me very reluctant to entirely consider WalMart to be "successful" on the whole.

Also, yes, expensive healthcare does seem like a ridiculous shittiness America gets to deal with. Doesn't Canada have much cheaper healhcare? How do they do it? Eventually, hopefully, perhaps, the system can be improved. Of course, though, this is a different topic than WalMart entirely.
From:_jafa_
Date:November 11th, 2005 11:04 am (UTC)
(Link)
BAH!! How do you get your "full text" (with comments) single-entry page to be formatted all pretty-like? I checked some box somewhere that sounded like it would do exactly this, but it didn't. Fuckers. I am jealous of you, Dan. :)
[User Picture]
From:crschmidt
Date:November 11th, 2005 12:47 pm (UTC)
(Link)
[User Picture]
From:kingnixon
Date:November 14th, 2005 09:28 am (UTC)
(Link)
you need to trade up to a better SecretDan. maybe that sextoy lady has a few

none of this is an argument against walmart though. you're arguing against corporate capitalism in general. their success IS selling stuff and making money

canada does have cheaper, universal healthcare. it's also slower and not as good.
[User Picture]
From:feste
Date:November 15th, 2005 03:49 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I don't know about the not as good. But if that is even true, it might be because the US has lured a lot of our doctors away with filthy lucre.
[User Picture]
From:crschmidt
Date:November 11th, 2005 01:07 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I know that I'm strongly against Wal-Mart for many reasons other than their treatment of workers: they have taken a tactic of specifically attempting to choose locations where they can push out other business in the area, repeatedly. This is a sound business practice, but Wal-Mart's business is basically to ensure that every mom and pop store in the country shuts down.

Now consider how they do this: They do their best to buy the cheapest products in the world. This is an admirable goal: buy low, sell slightly higher, but lower than everyone else. Great plan, except that again the way they do it is to avoid American labor (because employing Americans is too expensive). So, instead they buy all of their goods from China, where they can buy things cheaper. Again, smart business decision, but choosing to deliberately not support American labor is bad for PR.

The real core of the issue is not related to these practices, though but the health care/union busting practices. Although I'm not one for forced unions - I think that forcing employees to join a union when they're only working a temp job, for example, does more harm than good - I do believe that if a group of employees want to band together, they should not be immediately stopped by Wal-Mart. I think that campaigning for worker rights - more pay, better hours, better benefits - is one of the ways in which this country has achieved any workers rights at all.

The question for Wal-Mart isn't why they don't provide Health Care, but why every statistic related to the health care provided indicates that wal-mart performs much more poorly than every other large corporate entity. 6 month waiting periods after starting full time? Almost 50% of medical costs needing to be covered out of pocket, even once you're covered - compared to 16% in other large corps, and 0% for many grocery workers?

People who work for Wal-Mart, and don't get Health Care, fall back into welfare provided health services. These people don't pay out of pocket - they don't make enough money to, they almost universally qualify for the health care services provided by states. As a result, the money for their health care, instead of coming from their own pockets, is actually coming out of yours - something that has been happening more and more as years go by. We're already *paying* the cost. The question is -- who is better suited to pay it. You, or Wal-Mart, with 10 billion in pure profit last year?

The cost is already distributed. I'm not asking for National healthcare, I'm just asking for employees to take care of their workers. Either pay them so that they're not on welfare, or give them health services so that they're not on welfare. Forcing your employees to choose welfare because that's all they have is not right, not when you have the choice, and Wal-Mart does.
[User Picture]
From:tablemoonspoons
Date:November 11th, 2005 04:29 pm (UTC)
(Link)
i just found out i am going to see this movie on sunday morning at a UU church thing.

you are right, hate them all, not just one of them cause they are the best.

things are not expensive cause of employees wages or medical reasearch cost its cause people who manage that stuff think they deserve billions of dollars. and most every other 'western' nation has full healthcare for its citizens.
[User Picture]
From:thesnark
Date:November 11th, 2005 04:30 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I find myself more angry at a corporation like, say, Target, where their pharmacists are allowed by official company policy to deny women access to birth control and emergency contraception if it conflicts with their personal beliefs.

Let's face it. All corporations are soulless and evil and, you're right, Wal-Mart has merely set the bar. The horrible truth of it all is, if I stopped shopping at evil corporate stores and only shopped at locally owned shops, I wouldn't be able to pay rent with the leftovers.


> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com