My fellow Democrats, a website to live by

Remove all ads!

Well, there's always Barnes and Noble...

 

Now that we're totally off-topic, I'll throw in that I work at a small, independent bookstore, and Amazon is our worst enemy (apart from television, video games and general inertia). I do love SP dearly, and may even buy something from Amazon, someday, through this website, to prove it. (Too bad they're out of Planescape:Torment.)

 

The problem is that most large companies do not do things better, while Amazon maybe an exception, I hardly think McDonalds does hamburgers better than most small independant American eateries with their own unique recipies, and not some factory produced 'meal' with no personality, taste nor health benefits.

I bet mcdonalds is 'red' ha!

 

OK, I went to the trouble of checking into the website. Seems like they base ALL of their records on political contributions.
And who told you they seem to accept bribes?
http://www.buyblue.org/detail.php?corpId=69
Nothing there, they have not been rated AT ALL, and they are 100% blue. Their explanation is just as silly. If a company is out there to do business, it's capitalist, 100% red, you might say.

Now, let me just analyse their system:
===
Business Ethics
---
Community Involvement - any company can get itself involved with the community. This is a role of a responsible company, not necessarily blue or red. Oh, and I assume that blue companies involve themselves with the community and red do not? The stupidest thing I have seen today, even though I've seen a stupid pamphlet attacking the current mayor of my city.
---
Ethics - again, a matter of responsibility. Ergo, a blue company is ethical, and red is not. Otherwise, they wouldn't have put this up in a ranking. Or maybe it's blue ethics and red ethics? Sheesh.
---
Legal Disputes - explain that, perhaps? Everyone has right to dispute over what is legally theirs, don't they? Or maybe it's the red/blue that aggressively fight for what's rightfully theirs, and blue/red timidly give it up? Which side is better?
---
Predatory Lending - now this thing is stupid. Maybe it serves to some point, but I see it as such: Jews are decidedly leftist in almost every country (except in Israel). Jews are the ones that owned moneylending companies since the middle ages, and have always charged high percentage (as opposed to what Church condoned, ie. small fee and as low percentage as possible, but needed to keep in business). So should predatory lending be considered a blue thing or a red thing?
===
Distribution of Profits
---
Charitable Giving - they've struck something so idiotic here, I should not comment it. Charity has always been the domain of the right wing. This political outlook had been that charity should be a private thing, not founded by the state. Left wing was opposite -- charity should not be there, but people should rather receive help from the state. Or maybe it is that they support charities founded either by Republican or Democratic party? What's wrong with funding either, if 'the other side' doesn't offer it??? Personal reasons? Retaliation?
---
Executive Compensation - well, duh. It's absolutely normal for effective executives to be compensated for their stressful job. They make money for the company, so effectively they make money for every worker in the company. Yes, it is the man at the bottom that matters the most, but he himself would not be able to make money without combined efforts and without well-organised market.
---
Political Contributions - Ok, that I can understand.
===
Workers' Issues
---
Child Labor - this is a manner of legal issues, not being red or blue. In fact, you could name companies on either side that are employing children. How about paper boys/girls? There are both leftist and rightist papers employing them. Does it make them any more/less red/blue??? Think about it.
---
Discrimination - again, a matter of legislation and responsibility. And in what matter does it influence whether the company is red or blue? I can't see it. I'd consider myself 'red,' as in 'conservative,' but I would never discriminate as an employer. On the other hand, I see very strong leftist employers that give jobs to handicapped people only because it leads to benefits for them, as they have tax deductions. Does it make them blue (they don't discriminate) or red (they don't discriminate because it gives them profit)?
---
Diversity - again, matter of responsibility and approach. It wouldn't matter to me of which skin colour is the person. If they are qualified to do the job better than the other person, I would hire. One of the workers is more resourceful than others? Promote him, I don't care whether he's white, black, yellow, or blue or green for that matter.
---
Health and Safety - how's that for a cliche? "Blue companies are healthy and safe, and red are not." Again -- a matter of responsibility, not of political views. Besides, I would be inclined to believe that a RED company is healthier and safer, providing medical coverage as part of the package, and BLUE companies would put that on the state, as the state is bound to do so.
---
Human Rights - EXCUSE ME??? HUMAN RIGHTS??? If a company goes against them, this doesn't mean they are red or blue! If it goes against them, they are CRIMINALS, and that is what matters. And I'm sure you'll find fine examples on either side of the fence.
---
Sweatshop Labor - another thing which you'll find is a matter of responsibility. I wouldn't have anything against a little sweat from my workers -- that means that they are working and that they are willing to work. Not overwork them, but job is not for leisure. Unless you want to say that blue companies=failed companies.
---
Unionization - this is another silly argument. Some sectors of industry have no unions, regardless of whether the company is blue or red. Some are unionised completely, also regardless of the company. Furthermore, in modern politics (as opposed to 18th-19th century), in rightist countries workers' unions have political freedom to voice and act. In leftist countries, workers' unions take reins of power over. In extreme leftist cases (Communist states in the Soviet Bloc), workers' unions are made illegal. Did that make these companies blue or red, if they supported socialism?
---
Worker Benefits - again, a matter of responsibility. And how can you expect a company to give benefits to row workers that make $2,000 profit monthly, and are paid $1,800 monthly (after deducting social security, etc.)? What benefits would you give them for that $200?
---
Workforce Reduction - would you rather be fired and see the company afloat, or remain hired, and be fired three months later, without any pay, after the company had to file for bankrupcy? A rather extreme case, but it's sometimes better to do what is considered negative than try to keep a company afloat in spite of consequences.
===
Sustainability Practices
---
Energy Consumption - strange it is that all the industry in the Eastern Bloc produced far less income than the value of environment it had been destroying. And these were NOT capitalist industries. As opposed to that, the more privately-owned the industries were in other countries, the less energy consumption there was. And I doubt it's a matter of being blue or red. Maybe it's because my fiancee is on environmental studies and conservation university course, but maybe not -- I've always been against degradation of the environment.
---
Packaging - see above. Furthermore, I do not wish to see what I buy packaged in easily breaking materials, regardless of their 'organic' origins. I'd rather buy my apples clean, not ones that were brought in mud or dung because their packagin broke. BTW, PE, PET, LD/HDPE packaging is environmentally friendly. You just need good incineration facilities. All these substances burn very easily and completely, releasing only carbon dioxide and water into the atmosphere, whilst producing a high amount of heat.
---
Recycling - again, a matter of responsibility.
---
Waste Reduction - see above.
===
Environmental Issues
---
Chemical Spills/Accidents - see above
---
Environmentally-friendly Initiatives - see above
---
Greenhouse Gas Emissions - see above
---
Nuclear Energy - see above. Furthermore, nuclear energy is still one of the cleanest, safest and most viable solutions in current times if such power plants are well maintained. Oh, and I can bring up an example of a completely 'blue' company -- Entergy -- who supported Kerry, but run their Indian Point power station completely unmaintained and likely to break at any point.
---
Superfund Sites - see above
---
Toxic Emissions Discharged - see above
===
Animal Rights Issues
---
Animal Testing - I am all against prevention of any cruelty to animals. If animals are required for some tests, make them as painless as possible. Would you rather see some tests, like for new medicines, being done on animals or on humans? Also, what I vehemently detest, are unnecessary tests -- on animals or otherwise.
---
Animal Welfare - see above
===

To summarise it, these are not the eighties, and this is not "Captain Planet." In that cartoon, the rich owners were always breaking each and every of the above laws. This is no longer the personal agenda of Mr. Turner, or of anyone else, for that matter. This is more a matter of responsibility, and I would much rather welcome a site that would comment on all those issues, and name themselves: "Buy responsibly," and best abstain from any political rooting.

How does being responsible count towards being blue or red? It's beyond me. It's blatantly stupid and completely detached from any view of reality. It's like saying: "We're Blue, we're not responsible for mistreated workers/mistreated animals/polluted environment/evil business ethics. The Red are responsible for that, since if we're Blue, we don't do any of those disgusting things." Could anyone explain this rhetoric to me?

A question: would you rather buy Blue, from companies that support democrats, whilst at the same time breaking the mentioned issues, or buy Red, but from companies that are worker/environment friendly? Think about it.

[ February 01, 2005, 12:55: Message edited by: toughluck ]

 

Toughluck: The POINT of the post is where the political contributions go. Don't work it so hard.

Predatory Lending: I've noticed, in my unsolicited mail, that the credit card offerings now carry a default rate of 29% (it used to be 22%). Last week I received one that offered a monthly percentage rate of 29%, default 35%. How many Jews were involved I don't know.

Charitable giving: I trust you have some statistics to support your assertion that "Charity is the domain of the right wing". Sounds like special pleading to me.

Child Labor: Paper boys? Give me a break! Or are you still reading Horatio Alger stories?

Worker Benefits: $2000 monthly? And $1800 take home? I don't think you've gotten a paycheck lately. Try $1100-$1200 take home and re-compute. (Assuming your generous employer is paying you $2000.)

Many of the other points you make are vulnerable, and I hope others will contribute.

 

Why would one say that? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here.

 

The point I was making with:
Charity -- there are no statistics, and there's no point. However the solution that charity should be prevalent over state funding is a right wing one.

Child Labor -- there were two points I was making: 1) The amount of child labour had fallen very considerably. It's considered a crime now, and I doubt any company would risk it. 2) I doubt it is a domain of either political outlook to hire children.

Worker benefits -- it was more to show the scale. I doubt companies make much more than 10-20% margin over what they give a row worker -- in developed countries. This doesn't leave them with too much money to give reasonable worker benefits. Then again, I might be wrong. Besides that, worker benefits would serve any company, regardless of its political agenda.

About the other points -- the major point I was making was that none of the points apply to political views. You can have a predatory, extortionate, polluting, blue-donating business, and you can have a benevolent red-donating one. Unless you think of all right wing supporters as evil war mongers with murder on their mind...

Chandos -- it seemed reasonable at that time. I still think the system is flawed. Give one buck to the Republicans, and your company is 0% blue...

 

I think we can both agree that because a company donates to the republicans that it is not 0 percent blue; or that it should be unworthy of consideration by those who voted "blue" in the last two elections. I think people of conscience are looking for patterns of unethical behavior by certain companies.

But IMO this is largely a consquence of the Bushies. Let's say John McCain is the choice for Repuclicans in the next election. Certainly no one has been more outspoken of abuses by companies that donate large amounts of cash, hoping to get favorable legislation from the current government. Let's just say, for the sake of argument for a moment, that many of the same companies that donate to Shrub decided NOT to support McCain because of his stand on contributions. Would they still be red, even though they refused to back a conservative Republican? I think you will see much of this disappear once Shrub is gone, and America returns to "normal" again. IMO, companies should not be judged purely on donations to one party or another, but how they try to influence the civic responsibilty of the people's government.

 

Anyone that thinks this is un-democratic or un-american should look up the word 'embargo' in their early American history.

 

Chandos -- you're right with that. But what if there was a company that tried to influence a Democratic government for favourable legislation over their own mistakes? Would they be 'red' or 'blue'? Would 'red' be considered good then, and 'blue' -- bad? Or would it be something completely different?
That's why I would advocate something a lot different -- buy responsibly, ie. from companies that do not break the law, regardless of whom they support. As a Democrat, at which company would you buy if you were faced with a choice between:
-- a completely fair, legal, worker-, animal-, and environment-friendly company whose board of directors are fiercely pro-Republican and pump a huge portion of their profits to that party; or:
-- an unfair, illegal, extortionate, cruel and polluting moloch, but whose board of directors support Democrats with all their hearts and money?