Debunker: Freedom means protest; why Wal-Mart sucks; and God and love
Miscellaneous debunkers
MYTH: Protest should be discouraged on college campuses in the United States.
But when another pie thrower lobbed his projectile at conservative activist David Horowitz last week at Butler University, the speaker took a moment to bring up a very serious point. "There's a wave of violence on college campuses, committed by what I'd call fascists opposing conservatives," he said. "It's one step from that to injury." (Editorial, "Pie Throwers and Goon Squads," The Washington Times, 4/11/05).
Consider the case of Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn. In 2002, he was on the verge of a general-election victory. About a month before the election, protesters had thrown two cream pies laced with urine in Mr. Fortuyn's face. The Dutch media dismissed this as non-violent protest. Mr. Fortuyn, however, began expressing fears for his safety. Just a week before the election he was shot to death (Editorial).
Opposition groups were holding signs and speaking out during Horowitz's speech on Wednesday, but when they were told to stop speaking, some took out noisemakers to mark their disapproval of the speaker. Three females and three males were arrested and then jailed under charges of disrupting a meeting or procession - a Class B misdemeanor. The subjects were not UT students. (
MYTH: Wal-Mart is a great and noble business enterprise.
Less visible to most consumers is the major restructuring now underway in the retail sector. Yes, they have noticed the Wal-Mart phenomenon--the relentless drive by this retailer to lower costs and therefore the prices of everything from t-shirts to trainers to television sets. That has forced competitors to respond either by meeting the lower prices, or upgrading their services, or departing the retail business, as it is rumored Toys 'R' Us might be about to do rather than go head-to-head with Wal-Mart for the children's toys market. And now the pressure of Wal-Mart's cost- and price-cutting is forcing a restructuring of the entire retail sector (Irwin M. Stelzer, "Merger Mania," The Weekly Standard, 2/8/2005).
Offering middle-class America the widest selection of goods at the lowest prices that market position and hard negotiating can achieve has become a form of oppression: That would seem to be the core of the hardening case against Wal-Mart. Who pleads that case? The United Food and Commercial Workers Union, backed by no-growthers and take-your-progress-and-shove-it types who want the chain's expansion halted (Bill Murchison, "The War on Wal-Mart," Town Hall, 4/12/05).
So with the union's inference that, even though 1.5 million people (worldwide) freely accept Wal-Mart's terms of employment, a little coercion by the union on wages and benefits would make their lives happier. Maybe. On the other hand, if the union's terms preclude profit levels that afford employment to 1.5 million people, employment is sure to shrink or slow down (Murchison).
REALITY
Wal-Mart is evil, but it does not have to be. Wal-Mart, as it exists today, is not a friend to anyone, not to its employees, the people who manufacture their products, or the communities that the stores move into. Wal-Mart forces other businesses, including small mom-and-pop local businesses, to try and compete with their low prices, which are a result of the enormous economies of scale it enjoys from its position as the largest retailer of goods in the world.
The more distressing trend, however, is the manner in which Wal-Mart treats both its employees and suppliers. Wal-Mart has been accused of employing illegal immigrants to clean its stores. One major claim of groups opposed to companies employing illegal immigrants is that such employment drive down wages for everyone else. The average retail wage in a small community is $12/hr. The average wage for a Wal-Mart employee is $8/hr. What happens to the retail establishments that on average pay their employees $12/hr but now have to compete, in terms of price levels, with a business that only pays its employees $8/hr. That $4/hr difference spread across all employees can add up to a huge cost-base difference. Wal-Mart also is notorious for not allowing the formation of unions in its stores or extending good heath care to its employees.
The other major concern with Wal-Mart is the relationship that it has with its suppliers. Or, to put it more bluntly, the age, composition, and working conditions of its suppliers. In a very public manner in 1996, it was revealed that Wal-Mart's Kathie Lee clothing line was predominantly manufactured in a sweatshop in Honduras that was staffed by 13-15 year old girls who worked 75 hours a week for $0.31/hr. In the almost 10 years since this realization, Wal-Mart has done little to change this labor practice.
Americans have the right to shop in any store they wish, but they should be aware of what they are supporting when they spend money at a certain retailer. An American shopping at Wal-Mart supports below-living wages and a lack of adequate health care for its employees, the employment of illegal immigrants, and the use of sweatshop labor to manufacture its products. If this is what Americans want to support, they should have the right to do it. But purchasing affordable consumer goods should not be based on exploitation and intimidation.
MYTH: Pope John Paul II's position on condom-use and AIDS in Africa was the correct path for the Catholic Church to take and has not resulted in Africans increasing their susceptibility or probability of contracting HIV.
Others, like Vanity Fair's Christopher Hitchens, went so far as to accuse the Pope of being the primary cause for the spread of Aids throughout Africa, the genocide in Rwanda, and the enslavement of millions across the Middle East.The no-condoms-equals-Aids charge suggests that an African male who goes through scores of sexual partners each year is somehow shamed into refraining from wearing a condom because of the Holy See's teachings.The argument is laughable (Joe Scarborough, "Pope John Paul II: God is Not Dead," MSNBC.com, 4/9/05).
The bloody hands? The result of the pope's refusal to endorse condoms as a way of preventing AIDs in Africa. Never mind that distributing cheap condoms is a great way to encourage the kind of behavior that leads to AIDs. To Eagleton, John Paul II's disinclination to ditch church teaching is tantamount to slaughter. "The Pope goes to his eternal reward with those deaths on his hands. He was one of the greatest disasters for the Christian church since Charles Darwin." Darwin? You'd think the pope had banned DDT or something. (Denis Boyles, "The Lives of the Saint," The National Review, 4/4/05).
Catholic leaders in Africa have pledged to step up their involvement in the fight against the AIDS pandemic, while continuing to reject the use of condoms to fight the disease. "The church says one must be faithful in marriage and save oneself for marriage," said Senegal Bishop Alexandre Mbengue. "We cannot cave in to the current trend." ("Church in Africa Continues AIDS Fight Without Condoms," Catholic News, 10/10/03).
REALITY
John Paul II's legacy of advancing freedom, helping to tear down the iron curtain, and speaking out against greed and poverty will be unfortunately blemished by his views on the use of condoms and other contraceptive methods in developing countries. Whatever ones moral or religious beliefs on human sexuality may be, the myth of abstinence as a viable alternative to condom use and birth control has most certainly had a demonstrably negative impact on AIDS and HIV rates in Africa. Much like the Bush administration's ABC (Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condoms) plan, the Catholic Church places too much emphasis on convincing people to either not have sex or to only have sex with their spouse or monogamous partner. At least the Bush administration, much to the dismay of the Christian right, includes condoms in its program. The Catholic Church does not even include them. A quick read of the speech given by Cardinal Hummes to the United Nations in 2003 gives an indication of the direction the Catholic Church thinks the battle to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS should go. Hummes stood by the Vatican's stance that Africans need to learn to exercise more responsible sexual behavior, mainly in the forms of abstinence and being faithful to your spouse. It is unfortunate that this type of midlevel view on sexuality has cost so many lives.
One of the main problems with Africa and its increasing proliferation of HIV/AIDS is that one can be faithful to one's spouse, but still contract the disease. Take the example of a young, newly married woman in Africa. Coming in to the marriage she was a virgin and after marriage only has sex with her husband. However, her husband is a long-haul truck driver, is often on the road, and has many affairs with many different women. If this man uses a condom when he cheats on his wife, the chances of his wife contracting HIV or another STD decreases dramatically. The more governments, international organizations, and religious bodies push the use of condoms, the greater the chance Africa has of fighting the spread of AIDS. The Catholic Church's adoption of an ABC approach for Africa would not increase the continent's instances of sex, or extramarital affairs, but it could make life safer for the faithful spouse.
The other population of Africans that would be made safer by the Catholic Church's support of the use of condoms is the children who are born to mothers whose partners and spouses were not faithful. An unfaithful spouse who does not use a condom with his extramarital partners increases the chance of HIV/AIDS contraction by his own faithful spouse. What happens when his spouse does contract HIV/AIDS and then becomes pregnant? What happens to the kids of HIV positive mothers? It is estimated that by 2010, Africa will have 40 million AIDS-orphaned kids and that 95% of these orphans will have the disease themselves. In fact, in 2002, 3.8 million of the 19 million people who died of AIDS were under the age of 15.
How can the Catholic Church sit by while its followers wither and die from HIV/AIDS, when it knows that endorsing the use of condoms for Catholics in Africa could have a significant impact on the disease's spread?
comments@polianna.com
