12
Jul
2005
In your review of Conversations with Cathy & Karl (see "Local Progressive Talk Show Debuts in Quad Cities," River Cities' Reader Issue 535, June 29-July 5, 2005), QC Progressive Radio's new Saturday-morning show, you indicated that they made typical unsubstantiated claims against Wal-mart without any facts to back them up (paraphrasing). Cathy Bolkom made reference to an Iowa State University study with regard to the number of jobs lost just in the first decade (the 1990s) since Wal-mart came to Iowa. She did not mention the source of the study, but the information she relayed was 100-percent accurate. Karl also made reference to the number of Wal-mart employees in Iowa who are on the state Medicaid program - this according to the most recent study by the Iowa Department of Human Services, October 2004. My point is that all of the information they relayed was factually correct, so I am wondering why it is that you dismissed these claims?
Wal-mart, now the largest corporation in the world, is responsible for many negative trends affecting our communities and our workforce. I find it to be completely disingenuous that a corporation that earned $10 billion in profits last year can't afford to provide its employees with affordable health-care benefits, consequently shifting their health-care costs onto American taxpayers. Wal-mart is contributing to America's health-care crisis! This is just one of many issues with regard to Wal-mart.
Currently, 85 percent of the company's product line is imported, and they pay the average worker overseas (China, Indonesia) an average of 23 cents per hour, often under horrendous working conditions. That is how they are able to offer the prices that they do. Source: (http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html). (Review chart of overseas factories at bottom of page.)
Wal-mart systematically drives down wages in our economy, exploits the work of immigrants, discriminates against women, violates child-labor laws, breaks up small businesses and their communities, and denies workers their legal right to organize. Wal-mart's practices and the policies it supports divide the world's workers against each other and drive working conditions down in wealthier countries rather than lifting them up in poorer ones!
Due to their many unethical business practices, Wal-mart is now countering all of the negative publicity they've received with a $100-million PR blitz in order to save their public image, but they'll need to do more than fill our airwaves with feel-good commercials of employee testimonials. People may not be paying much attention, but they aren't stupid, and once an individual begins to realize the detrimental cause and effect of only looking at the "bottom dollar," anyone in good conscience will find it difficult to maintain any aspect of consumer allegiance to Wal-mart or any other corporations that manipulate and denigrate our standard of living.
Let us not forget the sacrifices of many of our Americans brothers and sisters, after the turn of the last century, who gave their very lives in order to ensure safe working conditions, and a decent living wage for all Americans. Companies went as far as hiring thugs with tommy guns to "mow down" workers who chose to strike. Class warfare is upon us once again. Corporate America, today's American aristocracy, is systematically forcing the American worker to lower their standards of living in order to compete in a global marketplace. The long-term effect can only have a negative impact on our society. We now find ourselves in this socioeconomic dilemma due to rampant greed and the blind pursuit of the almighty dollar ... this is what the bible refers to as "worshipping mammon."
Other sources for your reference: (http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/research), (http://www.walmartwatch.com), (http://www.purpleocean.org) (Iowa State University study).
Caroline Vernon
Davenport
Excess Military Capacity Necessary for Future Conflicts
I recently responded to an article in the Defense News that indicated that the BRAC should not listen to local people who have economic consideration for their local economy, and that it was a good thing to close the "old depots" of the Army. He believed that we could rely on private industry for our needs.
Having been a contracting officer with substantial experience, I must respectfully disagree with the article. Our government has made a needed investment in the arsenals, ammunition plants, and depots primarily for quick response and mobilization. Some of the facilities were sized to meet the demands of past wars that have happened. This capacity is always considered excess in times of peace, but is always needed when we are threatened in war or national emergencies.
Some politicians and their supporters have tried to eliminate this mobilization capability, gambling that the private sector could respond to emergencies by their switching from consumer production to war-material production. A review of the production buildup for World War II and even Korea will demonstrate the folly in this thought process. For example, in May 1952, 23 months after North Korea invaded South Korea, the chief of staff of the Army notified Congress that the Army was rationing ammunition in Korea. Why? Because production had not reached the levels necessary to replace consumption, and almost the entire World War II inventory of certain types of ammunition had been depleted.
During the Vietnam War, many things were modified in the field to better suit the actual need, and the design sent back to the arsenals to quickly make drawings and an adequate inventory. Thank God for the arsenals and their responsiveness to field demands and quick turn-around time, for this saved many lives of troops in combat.
The private sector will not out of patriotism build a production base with contingency capacity unless they are paid to keep that production base idle and available. Contractors will remain in the base only as long as they are provided sustaining contracts. Currently, when that is done on a minimum-sustaining rate, it inflates the cost of the products produced. CEOs must have a return on investment as they answer to shareholders and not to the public.
The arsenals, Army ammunition plants, and depots have standby capability that is needed in emergencies. We have seen this value during the current "war on terror," and in previous wars and emergencies. They have trained people who can begin work immediately without the need of contracts and time-consuming negotiations of cost and prices. The arsenals and depots of the Army do that under a law called the Arsenal Act.
During the Clinton Administration, there was extensive consolidation to quickly realize the peace dividend. Later, at a 2004 House Armed Services Committee's panel overseeing land forces, Richard Palaschak of the Munitions Industrial Base Task Force told Congress that the defense consolidation throughout the 1990s greatly diminished the U.S. industrial base capable of producing ammunition required by the military. Currently there is not enough capacity among American companies to meet the demand. U.S. companies would need financial incentives to make the investments in facilities and equipment to meet the military's needs, he told the committee. This is true not only of ammunition but of many items needed by our military for a conventional war.
The reduction and elimination of our arsenals, depots, and ammunition plants is false economy, as doing so will ultimately threaten our defense and survival as a republic. I believe it only leaves us at a point where we have to elevate to a nuclear response or concede defeat. Both of those extremes are unacceptable, as they provide no adequate response to the types of threats we face today. As a patriot of the republic, I urge people to contact their congressmen and senators and ask them: Why have we destroyed our ability to conventionally defend the United States in a major conflict?
George T. Nickolas
Davenport
My Verona Show Takes Welcome Risks
I am not a big theatre guy (I hate most musicals and stuff) but I thought this new show, Dingo Boogaloo 2: Taco's Revenge, from My Verona was terrific. Fresh and innovative, it was one of the coolest live shows in the area. And ... the conservative QCs may not be ready for it. But maybe that is the best thing!
These two guys - Sean Leary and Tristan Trapscott - have a hilarious show. The scripts are funny - and sometimes smart - and the performances were hysterical. From the goofy hick Cooter to a television evangelist (who is the dude who is on those Rock Island casino commercials) to Oprah to Joey Greco to Santa ... it's all good stuff.
Yeah, it pushes the envelope, but that is the neat thing about it. You know? You don't see stuff like that very often. Like director Robert Rodriguez, these guys seem to thrive on doing things that theatrical traditions say they can't. It's a bold vision ... and one hell of a risk for this area.
I would recommend checking it out ... but don't bring the kids! It's definitely not a kids' show.
Shaine Thomas
Bettendorf
Wal-mart, now the largest corporation in the world, is responsible for many negative trends affecting our communities and our workforce. I find it to be completely disingenuous that a corporation that earned $10 billion in profits last year can't afford to provide its employees with affordable health-care benefits, consequently shifting their health-care costs onto American taxpayers. Wal-mart is contributing to America's health-care crisis! This is just one of many issues with regard to Wal-mart.
Currently, 85 percent of the company's product line is imported, and they pay the average worker overseas (China, Indonesia) an average of 23 cents per hour, often under horrendous working conditions. That is how they are able to offer the prices that they do. Source: (http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html). (Review chart of overseas factories at bottom of page.)
Wal-mart systematically drives down wages in our economy, exploits the work of immigrants, discriminates against women, violates child-labor laws, breaks up small businesses and their communities, and denies workers their legal right to organize. Wal-mart's practices and the policies it supports divide the world's workers against each other and drive working conditions down in wealthier countries rather than lifting them up in poorer ones!
Due to their many unethical business practices, Wal-mart is now countering all of the negative publicity they've received with a $100-million PR blitz in order to save their public image, but they'll need to do more than fill our airwaves with feel-good commercials of employee testimonials. People may not be paying much attention, but they aren't stupid, and once an individual begins to realize the detrimental cause and effect of only looking at the "bottom dollar," anyone in good conscience will find it difficult to maintain any aspect of consumer allegiance to Wal-mart or any other corporations that manipulate and denigrate our standard of living.
Let us not forget the sacrifices of many of our Americans brothers and sisters, after the turn of the last century, who gave their very lives in order to ensure safe working conditions, and a decent living wage for all Americans. Companies went as far as hiring thugs with tommy guns to "mow down" workers who chose to strike. Class warfare is upon us once again. Corporate America, today's American aristocracy, is systematically forcing the American worker to lower their standards of living in order to compete in a global marketplace. The long-term effect can only have a negative impact on our society. We now find ourselves in this socioeconomic dilemma due to rampant greed and the blind pursuit of the almighty dollar ... this is what the bible refers to as "worshipping mammon."
Other sources for your reference: (http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/research), (http://www.walmartwatch.com), (http://www.purpleocean.org) (Iowa State University study).
Caroline Vernon
Davenport
Excess Military Capacity Necessary for Future Conflicts
I recently responded to an article in the Defense News that indicated that the BRAC should not listen to local people who have economic consideration for their local economy, and that it was a good thing to close the "old depots" of the Army. He believed that we could rely on private industry for our needs.
Having been a contracting officer with substantial experience, I must respectfully disagree with the article. Our government has made a needed investment in the arsenals, ammunition plants, and depots primarily for quick response and mobilization. Some of the facilities were sized to meet the demands of past wars that have happened. This capacity is always considered excess in times of peace, but is always needed when we are threatened in war or national emergencies.
Some politicians and their supporters have tried to eliminate this mobilization capability, gambling that the private sector could respond to emergencies by their switching from consumer production to war-material production. A review of the production buildup for World War II and even Korea will demonstrate the folly in this thought process. For example, in May 1952, 23 months after North Korea invaded South Korea, the chief of staff of the Army notified Congress that the Army was rationing ammunition in Korea. Why? Because production had not reached the levels necessary to replace consumption, and almost the entire World War II inventory of certain types of ammunition had been depleted.
During the Vietnam War, many things were modified in the field to better suit the actual need, and the design sent back to the arsenals to quickly make drawings and an adequate inventory. Thank God for the arsenals and their responsiveness to field demands and quick turn-around time, for this saved many lives of troops in combat.
The private sector will not out of patriotism build a production base with contingency capacity unless they are paid to keep that production base idle and available. Contractors will remain in the base only as long as they are provided sustaining contracts. Currently, when that is done on a minimum-sustaining rate, it inflates the cost of the products produced. CEOs must have a return on investment as they answer to shareholders and not to the public.
The arsenals, Army ammunition plants, and depots have standby capability that is needed in emergencies. We have seen this value during the current "war on terror," and in previous wars and emergencies. They have trained people who can begin work immediately without the need of contracts and time-consuming negotiations of cost and prices. The arsenals and depots of the Army do that under a law called the Arsenal Act.
During the Clinton Administration, there was extensive consolidation to quickly realize the peace dividend. Later, at a 2004 House Armed Services Committee's panel overseeing land forces, Richard Palaschak of the Munitions Industrial Base Task Force told Congress that the defense consolidation throughout the 1990s greatly diminished the U.S. industrial base capable of producing ammunition required by the military. Currently there is not enough capacity among American companies to meet the demand. U.S. companies would need financial incentives to make the investments in facilities and equipment to meet the military's needs, he told the committee. This is true not only of ammunition but of many items needed by our military for a conventional war.
The reduction and elimination of our arsenals, depots, and ammunition plants is false economy, as doing so will ultimately threaten our defense and survival as a republic. I believe it only leaves us at a point where we have to elevate to a nuclear response or concede defeat. Both of those extremes are unacceptable, as they provide no adequate response to the types of threats we face today. As a patriot of the republic, I urge people to contact their congressmen and senators and ask them: Why have we destroyed our ability to conventionally defend the United States in a major conflict?
George T. Nickolas
Davenport
My Verona Show Takes Welcome Risks
I am not a big theatre guy (I hate most musicals and stuff) but I thought this new show, Dingo Boogaloo 2: Taco's Revenge, from My Verona was terrific. Fresh and innovative, it was one of the coolest live shows in the area. And ... the conservative QCs may not be ready for it. But maybe that is the best thing!
These two guys - Sean Leary and Tristan Trapscott - have a hilarious show. The scripts are funny - and sometimes smart - and the performances were hysterical. From the goofy hick Cooter to a television evangelist (who is the dude who is on those Rock Island casino commercials) to Oprah to Joey Greco to Santa ... it's all good stuff.
Yeah, it pushes the envelope, but that is the neat thing about it. You know? You don't see stuff like that very often. Like director Robert Rodriguez, these guys seem to thrive on doing things that theatrical traditions say they can't. It's a bold vision ... and one hell of a risk for this area.
I would recommend checking it out ... but don't bring the kids! It's definitely not a kids' show.
Shaine Thomas
Bettendorf
