[Vision2020] RE: Unstable, Doomed, Missed Points

[Melynda Huskey]

Jeff writes:
> *I agree with you that a perplexing part of the dialogue is the divide 
> between the quantitative and the qualitative. But I do not agree that 
> methodology is our chasm - but ideology.  I do not accept the notion 
> that it is appropriate for a small group of people to impose or define 
> the standards of living and quality of life for me or anyone else. 
> Just as this approach has always failed to achieve an optimal much 
> less a satisficing state, it shall continue to fail. 
> *
So, Jeff, you would certainly take issue with Walmart's decision not to 
provide the "morning-after" contraceptive pill to any of its customers?  
Even after several states adopted specific legislation to require it to 
do so, Walmart resisted making this legal, safe, and cheap 
pharmaceutical birth control choice available to customers when 
prescribed by a doctor--and it still permits, even encourages, 
individual pharmacists to refuse to fill the prescription, even when 
patients have no other pharmacy available to them (as in small towns 
where other drug stores have been driven out of business by Walmart).

Similarly, some years ago, Walmart pulled teeshirts depicting a cartoon 
character saying "Some day a girl will be President," from all its 
stores, stating in a press release that the shirts were in conflict with 
the corporation's "family values."  Presumably those are the same values 
that keep women from advancing within the company.

Are these not two examples of a small group of people, Walmart's policy 
makers, imposing or defining standards of living and quality of life on 
others?  And since the corporation has disproportionate power in the 
marketplace--think of those women who don't have access to another 
pharmacy--their decisions have considerably greater impact on the 
limitation of other people's choices than anything I might say or do to 
try to persuade others that our town doesn't need another Walmart.

> *As to ethics, were you aware of the ethical standards program that 
> WalMart adopted?  If not, here is a brief description [snip]
> **Granted, this "global policy" is a relatively new version, built 
> from their earlier ethics program.  And it will be interesting to see 
> how it plays out over time.  It is being imposed on all suppliers.  Of 
> course, the skeptical will simply argue that WM is just creating a 
> false front.  That may be true, but if it turns out to be a spurious 
> effort, I have every confidence that such effort will be exposed.
> *
Well, you might say it already has been, here in the U.S.:  the 
employment of undocumented workers, the routine discrimination against 
women, the consistent and well-documented practice of requiring 
"associates" to work off the clock, the union-busting, the dependence on 
tax-payers to provide health care for employees, so as to maximize 
corporate profits . . . Policy statements are, of course, a fine thing:  
but as a political scientist friend used to tell me in the 80s, "Hell, 
Argentina's got a great constitution--maybe better than ours.  They just 
don't use it very often."

In fact, I'm taking some umbrage at the notion that by expressing my 
opposition to another Walmart in our town--or to the business practices 
of Walmart--that I am limiting people's choices in some meaningful way.  
There's a Walmart in Moscow.  There's going to be another Walmart in 
Pullman.  Can choice only be exercised if there's a Super Walmart every 
6 miles?

I'd also oppose a Super-Casino-and-Brothel or a 
Super-Pig-Farm-and-Abbatoir, even though each of those businesses might 
represent "economic growth" for our town, and even though my shopping 
choices might be limited by the lack of such outlets, because for me the 
costs of the business offset the benefits.  There's not much middle 
ground here, since my failure to shop at the Super Casino and Brothel 
doesn't insulate me from the negative overall consequences of its 
existence. 

There's no Tiffany's in Moscow, either, and yet I don't feel injured by 
the failure of the corporation to provide me with a shopping choice for 
place settings of my favorite sterling (Kirk Steiff Repousse, in case 
anybody's wondering) right here in Moscow.  I can't have every single 
possible choice.  Why shouldn't we, as a community, try to exercise 
responsibly the functionally limited choices we have?

Melynda Huskey