What was cut from the original:
You may have forgotten that I am the oldest of 7 children who's father died before I finished high school. I've been poor, both with my family and on my own. I've been out of work and broke. I've had to move in with my Mom and had to move out again when other family members with children needed her help more. I've slept in my car with no place to go. I have lived in what passes for a ghetto in Houston. Tell me something I don't know. <G> > >>> This, of course, means it's inevitable that it's >>> attacked by self-proclaimed advocates of the poor. >>> But, as Caitlin Flanagan brilliantly commented in a >>> discussion on Slate on this topic, those advocates may >>> complain about it, but when she talks to _actual poor >>> people_, "they love WalMart". Because, of course, it >>> gets them what they need at prices that they can >>> afford and, >> >> People also love WalMart because they are huge, and >> you can get almost >> anything you need. It is handy for >> one-stop-shopping. > > Yeah, but that's a lot more important when you're rich > than when you're poor (time value of money). Right, especially when WalMart builds their stores closer to affluence than to poverty. It may be different elsewhere, but here WalMart is a strictly outside-the-loop establishment. > >>> when you get down to it, that's the real >>> problem that people have with it. >>> It replaces all >>> those charming small stores that were only too >>> expensive for the poor to use. >> >> People are always nostalgic for the things that >> were. I remember the >> neighborhood drugstore/5&dime/malt shop. When I was >> a kid I would go >> there to hang out and read comic books, buy candy or >> milkshakes, and >> just generally hang out. I knew the owners and the >> employees well and >> they knew me just as they knew everyone in the hood. >> It was a safe place to spend part of a summer day or >> to visit after >> school. >> >> Think you can ascribe some sort of evil liberal >> agenda to my >> nostalgia? > > No. But your antipathy to WalMart that is driven by Halt! Hold it right there! I shop WalMart all the time. I am not what you would call an Anti-WalMart person actually. But I try to look at it realisticly. I think you are painting WalMart with slightly rosier colors than they deserve. > that nostalgia would, if it were enacted in > legislation, harm the poor more than almost any other > likely legislative change (the only thing that could > even come close is the onset of protectionism). I'm pretty sure this is true. > Nostalgia is something you can afford when you're > rich. Having been poor and having known many many people who were worse off than me, I can tell you with certainty that nostalgia is universal and even the poorest of people miss the corner store or market and the objects of their youth. I think I know what you mean though. Nostalgia is something only people with some degree of affluence (including the middle class of course) can afford to buy or pursue. That I would agree with. > When you're poor, you're worried about feeding > your family. Again, class issues drive politics and, > again, it's the (relatively) wealthy gaining a small > benefit for them (assuaging their nostalgia) on the > backs of the poor, whose food and clothing they make > more expensive. Alternately, the movement of manufacturing jobs out of the country while jobs-for-the-educated/trained have been created (over the last 3 decades) has virtually guaranteed the continuation of an impovershed class. I understand that 100% employment has its own set of problems, but I have to wonder if the "patriots" running the nations businesses give even the slightest care for the issues you and I are discussing. Or is it that these issues are too distant for them to comprehend on a personal level. > An evil liberal agenda? I don't know > about evil. I thank you for that, as one American to another. > But a selfish one, driven by snobbery and > economic ignorance? Absolutely. Economic ignorance will vary by individual. But snobbery? Jeez, the liberal set is mostly blue collar and poor by the numbers. (But then, so is the conservative set.) >> >> >>> But it didn't bother >>> those elites, so what does that matter? >> >> The problem with these kinds of top-down-view >> arguments is that they >> are all elitist. >> You totally miss the point by ascribing these views >> only to the >> affluent liberals when the same views are held by >> affluent >> conservatives, middle class and the poor. > > The conservatives have those views, but they don't > operationalize them to harm the poor. No, they just don't pay them enough in the first place. <G> > So what their > particular beliefs are is no skin off my nose. As for > the middle class and poor? If they held those > views...they wouldn't shop at WalMart. Some don't. I know that unions tend to be anti-globalist. (That's protectionist in nature) >> >> One can love shopping at WalMart and can still decry >> the loss of the >> corner/storefront shop at the same time. > > Yes, but when you try and retard WalMart because of > that loss, then you're saying that the expensive goods > that you want are more important than helping the poor > and lower middle class get what they need. If you > feel that way, then feel that way, but don't pretend > it's some sort of moral principle on behalf of the > poor. Hmmm.....Not sure what you are painting me as here. >> >> There is no binary choice involved. > > No, there really is. Well.....I disagree. I figure it is a conservative penchant for binary thinking to think that I cannot like shopping at WalMart and at my corner store, or that even poor people might feel similarly I often have mixed feelings about various aspects of various issues, but I don't see that as a sign of inconsistancy, just that nothing in life fullfils my expectations and desires 100%. > >> xponent >> Lets See What He Snips Maru >> rob > > Not a word. Except the Brin-L sig, I think. And I appreciate that! I've noticed people (not just you) lately snipping parts of messages that seemed to me to be important rebuttals. This has lead to drastic detours within some threads without resolution of previous points. I sit wondering sometimes if a person is conceeding a point or just being intellectually dishonest. I see no dishonor in saying "I'm gonna think about this a while" or "I'll get back to this later". So you do me honor by considering what I say to you point by point. I thank you for that. xponent Mondo Political Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
