Wal-Mart wins another one
A couple of weeks ago I mentioned an upcoming vote on unionizing a Loveland, Colorado Wal-Mart tire and lube department. Well, they voted against it... by 17-1. Wal-Mart trumpets the decision:

“The UFCW has tried to organize our associates for years,” said Terry Srsen, vice president of labor relations for Wal-Mart. "However, many of our associates are former union members -- they know better than anyone that the only guarantee a union can make is that it will cost the members money -- and that is why they continue to reject the UFCW."

Who knows; trouble is, the ones who voted against it aren't the same ones who asked for the vote last November. Nathan Newman ("Labor Blog") notes a local paper's estimate that as many as six of the 18 employees in the department are new since November, and comments:

With a third of the potential voters hand-picked by Wal-Mart since November with this vote in mind, it's a bit as if an incumbent politician could randomly import massive numbers of new voters of his choosing each election. No incumbent would ever lose office in such a system and it would be considered a democratic farce.

Yet that's our American union election system.*

Newman also makes the reasonable point that the recent decision by Wal-Mart to shut down a unionized Canadian outlet may have had a lot to do with today's result. Silver lining department: Ezra Klein notices, and takes the opportunity to mention he's going to be posting a lot more about labor issues; great! Maybe more people will notice what's going on.


=====
* As Texas Democrats can tell you -- and as Georgians may be learning soon -- that's uncomfortably close to what the American regular election system is becoming as well. posted by Thomas Nephew at 6:06:00 PM -- |    

 
Hey hey, ho ho, Social Security Democrats have got the mo
OK, that needs some work. But I think "publius" is on target about the College Republican fiasco at a Rick Santorum town hall meeting in Pennsylvania, where they chanted "Hey hey, ho ho, Social Security has got to go"*:

One thing that people don’t understand about the Red states is that Social Security is not a wedge issue there for the Dems. Quite the opposite in fact. Despite their social views and the opinions on national security, Red Staters love them some Social Security.

A side note: while Pennsylvania is technically "blue" -- thanks no doubt to my two weekend canvassing trips last fall -- the interior of the state between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia is not. Anyway, speaking about two congressmen from his home state of Kentucky, "publius" offers some advice:

If I were in charge, I wouldfind some socially conservative Democrat to run a single-issue campaign against them both. Social Security and nothing else – every day and at every town meeting. I would have the candidates call themselves “Social Security Democrats” – a new label that Red State Democrats could wear with pride, and could use to implicitly distance themselves from the national party in places where such connections are a political liability.

It would be great. Every question would be re-directed to Social Security. “Mrs. Candidate, what do you think about gay marriage.” Response - "I’m against it, but that’s not why we’re here. We’re to talk about Ed Whitfield’s support of a plan to remove one-third of Social Security’s funding, which would cause massive benefit cuts and force massive borrowing.” Removing one-third of funding. Massive benefit cuts. Massive borrowing. Removing one-third of funding. Massive benefit cuts. Massive borrowing. “Mrs. Candidate, do you support Ted Kennedy.” Response - “I don’t give a rat’s behind about Ted Kennedy, and I’ll oppose him when he stands against Kentucky. What I care about is Social Security. I’m a Social Security Democrat.” Removing one-third of funding. Massive benefit cuts. Massive borrowing. Say it with me everybody. Funding. Cuts. Borrowing. My. Opponent. Supports. Decreased funding. Massive cuts. Massive Borrowing. Over and over and over and over and over. Funding - Cuts - Borrowing. (emphases added)

I get a little ill over the "gay marriage? I'm against it" part, and I'm not sure that's necessary. But even if that was the candidate's position, (a) clearly the overriding main mandate for such a Democrat would be Social Security if he or she won, (b) he or she would help chip away at or even -- dream with me -- reverse the Republican majority in the House, with all that that entails, and (c) saying you're against something like gay marriage during a campaign that's focused elsewhere is different than leading the charge against it once you're elected (e.g., Santorum). Social Security Democrats would know not to waste their time on the culture wars, that would be the opposite of what got them elected.

My. Opponent. Supports. Decreased funding. Massive cuts. Massive Borrowing. Over and over and over and over and over.


=====
* Via Chuck Pennacchio for U.S. Senate 2006 (via Atrios). Quicktime version here. posted by Thomas Nephew at 5:50:00 PM -- |    

 
Facing South
...is the name of interesting new blog focusing on politics in the South. In the first post on February 10, co-author Chris Kromm explains:

We are launching this blog with the hope that we inform, entertain, learn, and -- most importantly -- provide a space for Southerners and South-watchers to better understand the South, and kick-start the debate about prospects for progressive change in this fascinating region we call home.

Via Southknoxbubba, who draws attention in a separate post to a good essay by Kromm about the progressive tradition in the South. I touched on this once myself in the final part of a discussion of a Eugene Genovese article. But it's easy to say there is such a tradition; these guys seem to be more directly connected to it. I welcome the basic message: "forgetting the South isn't an option." Kromm continues this thought:

So the real question is, what kind of politics can win in the South? This is a longer discussion, and one we'll be returning to frequently, but two brief points are in order.

First, the reality is that the centrist strategy that has been largely adopted by Democrats in the South for the past 15 years hasn't exactly been a stunning success. [...]

Second, there's a disturbing tendency to see Southern political and social attitudes -- especially conservative attitudes -- as being carved in stone.

Read the rest, see what you think. I also like another item posted there today discussing Thomas Frank's book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" even if I don't entirely agree with the author, Gary Ashwill, since I think he misreads Frank's main point a little. Which wasn't so much that Republicans are completely "faking" success with cultural issues as that they achieve tiny, salami-slice successes on those issues while Democrats all too often concede class, economic, and political reform issues that could and should outweigh them. (Or maybe that's what Frank's argument should be, and I'm the one doing the misreading.)

"Facing South" is published on the web site of the Institute for Southern Studies, located in Durham, North Carolina. I think this will be a blog worth watching, and I hope it can build something with its readers. posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:45:00 PM -- |    

 
Georgia Power Grab
NewDonkey.com, a Democratic Leadership Council blog, sounds an alert about a looming redistricting power grab in Georgia, directing readers to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution report by Tom Baxter and Sonji Jacobs:

Putting aside their reluctance to draw new political districts, Republicans in the House and Senate rolled out competing versions of a new congressional map Tuesday.

"We want to begin the process of making it easier for Georgians to know who represents them in Congress," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Stephens (R-Canton), who last week characterized the remap as low on the Legislature's list of priorities.

The GOP also hopes to increase its share in the state's 13-member congressional delegation, which currently includes seven Republicans.

NewDonkey says that the result may arguably be even worse than what happened in Texas last year -- and may have a point:

In Texas, the fig-leaf justifications for the Power Grab were that (a) the Dem majority in the House delegation did not reflect recent partisan results in statewide elections, and (b) the map they were throwing out was drawn by judges, not legislators. In Georgia, (a) the current 7-6 GOP advantage in House districts is a pretty fair reflection of recent election results, and (b) the map they are throwing out was duly drawn by the legislature, signed by the Governor, pre-cleared by the Bush Justice Department, and upheld by the courts.

I wonder what Georgians -- especially independents like Reid Stott -- will think of this. posted by Thomas Nephew at 9:04:00 PM -- |    

 
What foul, foul people we face
Let us never forget this foul, foul ad for the foul, foul shill group USA Next -- a spawn of Richard Viguerie's mind now led by one Charlie Jarvis, whose quote at the end of this article -- "It's an honor to be equated with the Swift boat guys" -- tells you everything you need to know about him, his group, and its empty husk of a spokesman, former "entertainer" Art Linkletter.

Steve Soto is right: the AARP, Dean, Pelosi, and Reid should begin a drumbeat of news conferences demanding that Rove repudiate the ad, that Bush disavow it, that the RNC is ashamed of it, and other unlikely events. I only disagree with the scheduling: there's no need to do it all on the same day, this should last for at least a week. What with the inevitable "who, me?" denials, this can and should be spun out in to the teachable moment it is: Bush and his cronies have nothing but smear campaigns to sell their stupid Social Security privatization plans with.

Other "Real AARP agenda" smear resources:

• Rox Populi lists conservatoid bylines on the USA Next web site.
• Josh Marshall notes that Jarvis is a creature of radical cleric James Dobson, and provided additional background on the Swift Boat connection (Chris LaCivita) before the image above became known.
• An AARP article by Bill Hogan points out that that "USA Next," far from being some kind of popular alternative to AARP, is actually kept on life support with huge donations from the pharmaceutical industry. Thanks a lot, Pfizer! I had no idea you were into gay-bashing, too.
  

=====
* My question is, what if gay soldiers want to marry? If we don't let them, do we hate freedom? If we do let them, do we hate America? -- comment left at Norbizness. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:40:00 AM -- |    

 
Interview with German interior minister Schily
The career of Otto Schily has been a long, strange trip from attorney for Red Army Fraction criminals to the head of Germany's interior ministry, where his responsibilities are similar to those of the United States Attorney General. Schily's attitudes are characterized in Germany -- using the English phrase -- as "law and order", a politically iconoclastic stance among Germany's center-left. After 9/11, Schily supported measures allowing increased police surveillance; while his proposal to drop probable cause requirements ("Anfangsverdacht")* was abandoned by the SPD/Green coalition, the packages he supported were largely adopted.

Not surprisingly, Schily is often about as likely to find support among voters for conservative opposition parties as he is among within his own coalition. (That story is probably complicated by his withdrawal from the Green Party in 1989 and subsequent entry into Schroeder's Social Democratic Party.) German newsweekly DIE ZEIT editors interviewed Schily in mid-January, discussing the topics of immigration, terrorism, and assimilation among others.

It even reminds one of Guantanamo

ZEIT: ... You want to "put people in jail for a while" who can't be extradited. But doesn't that collide with a dozen liberal constitutional laws, above all the right to due process, habeas corpus, etcetera. It even reminds one of Guantanamo.

SCHILY: I have to really object to that. That has nothing to do with Guantanamo. First off we don't have a majority for that. So for now it's an academic discussion. But there are people of whom we know that they're dangerous, who've been in Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. We say to them, they should leave the country, there's a judicial finding. But we can't execute this decision, because the country of origin says something against it, says it doesn't know the people, it won't take them, whatever. What do we do in this case? Do we let them run around loose? There might be milder forms of security. House arrest would be a little stronger, but that too is a so-called milder method. But in a very dangerous situation, in which we said we really can't put up with that, one would have to ask the question if preventive detention [Sicherungshaft] could be ordered. In contrast to Guantanamo that would of course be judicially reviewable. And very importantly: people who were incarcerated in this way would always have the right to leave the country of their own volition. It's not true that this is completely foreign to jurisprudence. [Under the law]* we have the option to have someone committed, when someone endangers himself or a third party because of a psychological defect. And criminal law also provides the option of protective custody when someone poses a threat to society over and above the legal penalty. If we assume for example that a sexual criminal has no self-control, then the safety of children and other possible victims take precedence over the principle of resocialization...

Re the "preventive detention" idea: at least it beats "extraordinary rendition." I'm not passing judgment on Schily or his foes on this one; Schily seems to have a narrowly valid point, and the principal of review by the judiciary branch makes this a less arbitrary, corrupt process than the military tribunal, Guantanamo, and extraordinary rendition dodges the Bush administration has concocted and/or expanded beyond all recognition.

And note that it's come to this: the word "Guantanamo" has become the consensus shorthand in Germany for how not to do things, whether it's dispensing justice or conducting anti-terror campaigns.

Andalusia

ZEIT: You've often said, that terrorism begins in the souls. You demand this famous philosophical confrontation. With whom do you wish to contend?

SCHILY: We must ask, how the the potential [to action] of Islamist perpetrators is brought about. We know that conflict zones aren't necessarily the source of such attitudes, but are suited as recruiting zones. But impoverished areas also provide recruits. And that is our responsibility. What became clear after the tsunami catastrophe was that a planetary responsibility, a sappy word, should be expanded. We can not allow ourselves to have a neighboring continent like Africa, that is sinking in poverty. Beyond all moral responsibility, which shouldn't be given short shrift, one must know that this is also a political situation that can't be endured in the long run, with immigration pressures, but also with terrorism. There's a very good description by Gilles Kepel, who speaks in his book "The new crusades" of a new Andalusia, which amalgamates the accomplishments of Western civilization with Islamic religion. One must not forget the great civilization that Islam had at first, so that any condescension to Islam is completely uncalled for. At the time of Charlemagne and Harun al Raschid the great astronomers were there, the great physicists, the great mathematicians, Charlemagne himself was all but illiterate, so we have no grounds for believing ourselves superior. And in the old Andalusia there were these wonderful mixtures, as one can still see in Seville for example. A new Andalusia is thus an interesting notion. [...]

Schily's comments reflect that the problem of radical Islam can often be closer to home for Germans than it is for Americans. Immigrants to the United States don't hail from Muslim countries like Turkey, Algeria or Morocco in the same proportions that German and European ones do. Last year Schily succeeded (FAZ) in creating an immigration bill that on the one hand simplified the process of immigration, and on the other also simplified the process of kicking out undesirable immigrants, based on hate speech or belonging to organizations showing "hostility to the constitution" (verfassungsfeindliche Organisationen). Schily failed to get SPD/Green approval for the (perhaps roughly translated) "preventive detention" measures he mentioned earlier in the interview.

Assimilation

ZEIT: This utopia of Andalusia is so interesting because it's not designed by a leading Muslim. We will surely have to wait a while for such a book by a Muslim. We have a problem with our minorities. The classic green multicultural project seems to have foundered. This is one of the reasons you plead for assimilation. What does assimilation mean, anyway?

SCHILY: I don't plead for assimilation, but have said that assimilation is one of the most successful forms of integration. I know that from my own experience. I was born in Bochum and know that Polish immigrants assimilated there. They kept their names and can still sing some Polish songs, they've also contributed to German soccer. That's no compulsory assimilation, I've never said that. But assimilation is allowed. And integration can happen in the most different forms. We'll experience that there are different forms of it, because people in today's globalized world can be at home in many worlds. But I am against, and we must be on our guard, that parallel structures are formed that aren't connected to society. Many an illusion about multiculturalism has been rightly criticized on that ground. And there are things that hurt one to hear about. Forced marriages, for instance, can't be squared with our legal system. I'm an absolutist about this, I'll give no quarter about this. If someone believes he can proceed to practice such things under the aegis of other cultural origins or attitudes, he doesn't belong in our country. We must stop that.

The whole reference to Polish immigration was fairly off-key and patronizing -- as if bringing fresh blood to German soccer was what little point he could see to the story, so long as they didn't bring too many of their Polish ways along as well. I wonder if he puts his foot in his mouth like this often.

Be that as it may, the issue and goal of "assimilation"was key to the eventual shape of the immigration law of last year. Conservative parties swung behind Schily's bill after adding provisions requiring German language classes for residents if these residents "seemed to be especially in need of integration" -- Schily's description in the FAZ article -- and didn't want to lose 10% of their welfare support, or even their residency permit. (The conservative parties also made sure the federal government footed the bill.)

A case in point: head scarves on the job
Cultural assimilation is an increasingly fraught issue in Germany. For example, the case of Fereshta Ludin (an Afghan-German in the state of Baden Wuertemberg) continues to make waves, because she insists on wearing a head scarf in keeping with her Muslim beliefs, and that state insists she may not then become a teacher. The state argument was that "the objective effect of cultural segregation ["Desintegration"] connected with the head scarf could not be squared with the constitutional requirement of state neutrality in questions of religion." The German Supreme Court struck down the state administrative ruling, but noted that a state law against such attire might be constitutional; to further complicate the picture, the state finally drafted a law which arguably failed to be as narrow as required, since it was more frankly protective of "Christian and Occidental traditions." **

On the other hand, as Brett Marston has mentioned, German courts have upheld the right of Muslims to wear head covering on a private sector job, suggesting that individual freedoms in Germany are strong enough to prevent attempts to utterly homogenize immigrants with different customs and traditions.

Gender-based grounds for asylum
One of the provisions of the 2004 immigration law that Schily was justly proud of was expanding grounds for asylum to cases of gender-specific persecution. While some criticized the law for not acknowledging other forms of "non-state" oppression worthy of asylum, this seems a pretty large and wide open door to me.

Schily the politician's insistence that some customs perpetuating gender oppression -- such as forced marriages and worse -- can't cross the German border seems entirely reasonable to me. His somewhat blinkered views of wider issues of multiculturalism, integration, and/or assimilation -- musings about "Andalusia" notwithstanding -- are probably in step with those of many his countrymen and women. They have in any event found little seriously objectionable expression in new German law, at least as far as I can tell.

So what
I think this interview was interesting for two reasons. Obviously, it's mainly a look at a major personality and player in German politics. I think it's also interesting how a discussion of terrorism seems more likely to segue into a discussion of immigration policy in Germany, and a discussion of foreign policy in the United States. The two countries face different pressures and risks, of course, as they decide how to protect themselves against the relative handfuls of violent Islamists among the silent majorities of decent Muslims. But the United States could do worse than to study German methods and laws dealing with both undesirable immigrants and visitors and those deserving asylum. I hope Bush et al are willing to learn something from Germans during the upcoming visit, and not just lecture or make demands.


=====
* TRANSLATION NOTES: All legal terms translated above should be read with a grain of salt, both because of my lack of expertise and because of inherent difficulties in translating legal concepts from one system to another. The literal translation of "Anfangsverdacht" is "initial suspicion." "Under the law" finesses "Unterbringungsgesetze," literally "placement laws." Judging from the context of Schily's remarks, these appear to be laws describing when someone may be committed to an asylum or the like; in any case, I don't know the corresponding legal term in English.
** Summary drawn from the German wikipedia entry about the "head scarf controversy" (Kopftuchstreit).

EDITS, 2/23: "A case in point" and "Gender-based" subheadings added, final paragraph of that section split; "both... and those deserving asylum" added to next-to-last sentence. posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:35:00 PM -- |    

 
Now THAT'S an endorsement
Charles Krauthammer on John Negroponte:

This guy has a lot of experience as a Foreign Service officer. And for instance, he was the ambassador in Honduras during the Contra war. So he clearly knows how to deal with clandestine operations. That was a pretty clandestine one for several years. And he didn't end up in jail, which is a pretty good attribute for him. A lot of others practically did.

Via Media Matters, which points out that the activities were clandestine because they were illegal, Congress had outlawed such support in 1982-83. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:23:00 AM -- |    

 
Wal-Mart child labor deal scrutinized
As mentioned in a Saturday update to last Friday's post, the Department of Labor (DOL) sweetheart deal with child labor abuser Wal-Mart is under investigation. Steven Greenhouse reports in the New York Times:

The inspector general of the Labor Department has decided to investigate its agreement to give Wal-Mart Stores 15 days' notice before investigating any stores facing complaints of child labor violations, according to department officials.

Why all the fuss? In case it isn't obvious:

...The Child Labor Coalition and the United Food and Commercial Workers union called on the department to rescind the settlement, saying the advance notice might enable Wal-Mart to intimidate or retaliate against complaining workers before an investigation was conducted.

Think that's far-fetched? The company shut down an entire store in Quebec a couple of weeks ago when union negotiations were unsatisfactory. Why would it hesitate to fire a lone complaining worker?

Some Democrats with clout and cojones -- a rare and welcome combination -- aren't afraid to take on the retail giant. New York State attorney general Eliot Spitzer has invited New Yorkers to come forward if they have complaints of this nature against the company. Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal wasn't pleased with the deal, either, and

has urged state officials across the country to join him in investigating child labor accusations against Wal-Mart. Of the 24 stores involved in the settlement, 20 were in Connecticut. 'The amount of the fine is an embarrassing pittance for a company that just announced $3.2 billion in profits in the last quarter alone,' Mr. Blumenthal said.

Blumenthal points out the other grating aspect of the DOL deal: it not only gave Wal-Mart the 15-day advance notice, but also peddled the value of the safety of childrens' flesh awfully low: at $135,540 for complaints involving 85 youths, that works out to $1594.59 per violation. Compare that to these figures from Wal-Mart's 2004 annual report:

Total Company net sales increased 11.6% from fiscal 2003 to $256.3 billion, and income from continuing operations increased 13.3% to $8.9 billion.

I think a company like that wouldn't be deterred by a $135,540 fine. At 0.001523% of annual income, it's more likely they'd frame it and hang it over the urinal in the board of directors men's room as a joke. Meanwhile, DOL lawyers are busy squirting ink clouds to for the department to hide behind:

Howard M. Radzely, the Labor Department's top lawyer, said the advance notice would help ensure that Wal-Mart moved quickly to correct child labor violations.

He voiced confidence about the inspector general's investigation. 'The department is confident that once the I.G. looks at the agreement, he will conclude it was a standard agreement, entered into by career professionals, to further the mission of protecting youth employment,' Mr. Radzely said. [...]

As Congressman George Miller and his staff have pointed out, the agreement is actually very different from the Clinton administration agreements with Sears and Footlocker, where certain stores were required to conduct self-audits to be shared with the DOL, and were given advance notice only in cases where a "self-audit was scheduled but not soon enough before the DOL received a charge to investigate." Not that those were necessarily superb agreements either, but they were substantially different from the "who cares?" attitude that is apparently prevalent among DOL leadership. What a shameful travesty that department has become.

=====
UPDATE, 2/22: text of the DOL-Wal-Mart Agreement, via American Jobs Blog.


Join the Purple Ocean
The SEIU (Service Employees' International Union) is starting a public membership network of people concerned about labor issues, including Wal-Mart, called "Purple Ocean." The site explains:

Last week, Wal-Mart launched a million-dollar advertising campaign in an attempt to silence its critics. The company bought hundreds of television ads, newspaper ads, and more to tell you what to think.

Rather than fight back with more slick advertising and giant ad budgets, we think there’s a better way to get the real facts out about Wal-Mart— a grassroots way that depends on you for success... (link added)

Join the network, and invite your friends! posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:30:00 PM -- |    

 
Être et avoir
I wonder if I even ought to try to describe the movie "Être et avoir" -- "To be and to have." I want you to see the movie, but I wonder if telling you what it's about will make that more likely.

Nevertheless: "To be and to have" is a French documentary about a teacher and thirteen pupils in a one-room schoolhouse in the rural French region of Auvergne. The kids are of all ages between kindergarten and about 5th grade, I'd guess. Over time you get to know the teacher and the children. You see the countryside they live in. That's it.

But it is one of the most wonderful things I've seen in a long time. The teacher, a Mr. Lopez, is someone seemingly perfectly designed for his vocation: incredibly patient, not given to flights of pedagogic fancy other than maybe a devotion to calm discipline, just someone who seems to inspire trust and devotion from his pupils.

And the children are fantastic, as children are wont to be. Julien, a husky tough kid, smirks through a lecture about a fight at recess. In the next scene, the ten year old is driving a tractor and mucking out the barn. Soon after, he's struggling with his arithmetic homework, prompted with a "two times six slaps make how many?" by his mom. (It's just another chore to be completed briskly.) Another pupil, the impish Jojo, struggles with discipline but so plainly adores Mr. Lopez you know there's hope.

There are shadows great and small: Lopez is retiring soon. A father is gravely ill. Two of the older boys and one girl are going to be promoted to middle school the following year. The girl suffers from a shyness that is somewhere between painful and utterly hamstrung. In a wrenching final scene, Lopez conducts a one-sided conversation with her that manages to give the quietly sobbing Nathalie a lifeline: an offer to have her visit after school and hear her reports about the world beyond.

My wife saw this movie first a year ago or so, and couldn't stop talking about it for days afterward. Now I see why. You may not believe it yet, but you actually will enjoy seeing a humane, loving portrait of children growing under the guidance of a good teacher. And this is it. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:35:00 AM -- |