By Marc Jampole
With the great American holiday of Black Friday in
two short days, I wanted to suggest some gifts that my cherished readers can
get for American society to celebrate the holiday season. Note that I wrote
“get,” and not “buy,” since these gifts do not involve commercial transactions.
Gift Idea #1: Boycott Wal-Mart until it stops its
anti-union activity, and email the company to tell it that you’re not shopping
at Wal-Mart until its store and warehouse employees are covered by certified
unions. If enough people boycott Wal-Mart, it will be forced to unionize, just
as grape farmers were forced to accept a union for farm workers after the
successful boycott of grapes led by Cesar Chavez in the 1970’s.
You may be wondering how unionizing Wal-Mart will
help our society. It’s simple: The more unionized workers there are, the higher
the wages of everyone else. Wal-Mart is the largest private employer in the
country, one known for giving very low salaries to their employees (except the
executives!). If Wal-Mart were
unionized, wages would increase across the board across the country.
If history can serve as a guide, with higher wages
will come some increase is prices, but employers will have to swallow a good
part of their increased costs. Those that don’t adjust will lose market share
to the entrepreneurs and innovators who are willing to take a lower profit
The net effect of unionizing Wal-Mart will
therefore be to rebalance the distribution of wealth, with less income and
wealth in the hands of those on top and more in the hands of the middle class
and the poor. One of the lessons of economic history is that nations with a
relatively equitable distribution of wealth thrive; examples include the United
States in the 50’s and 60’s and Europe in the 14th century after the Black
Plague drove up the cost of labor. And yes, nations in which the distribution
of wealth becomes increasingly less equitable suffer precipitous economic
declines; examples include the Roman Empire after about 200 CE, Spain in the
16th century, several of the Chinese dynasties and the contemporary United
Right now the U.S. government
provides billions of dollars of subsidies to Wal-Mart because so many of its
employees qualify for food stamps. Another effect of unionizing Wal-Mart will be
to make a big dent in the costs of the food stamp program, thus lowering
Those who want to give the precious
gift of a just society and a growing economy to the United States can email
Wal-Mart about your boycott at https://corporate.walmart.com/contact-us/store-corporate-feedback, check the “Financial Information” box, click “Next” and
then leave your message on the page that appears. And instead of buying at
Wal-Mart, go to your local merchants and to national companies that treat their
workers with the dignity of a fair wage.
Gift Idea #2: Write your Republican
Senators and Congressmen and tell them that you will not vote for them if they
take the Norquist Pledge not to raise taxes or do not recant the pledge if they
have taken it in the past. The pledge,
first proposed years ago by right-wing political operative Grover Norquist, has
become part of contemporary Republican ideology. Before the most recent
election, 238 of 242 Republican Congressional representatives and
41 out of 47 Republican Senators had signed Norquist’s pledge, promising to “oppose
any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals
and business; and to oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and
credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.”
The problem is that the federal government has been
starved for revenues since the Bush II temporary tax cuts went into effect
about 10 years ago, during which time we have fought two purposeless wars that
have drained the federal treasury. We have to pay our debts, but just as
importantly, we have to have the funds to keep investing in the economy by
rebuilding our infrastructure. And we need money to respond to natural
disasters like Sandy and man-made ones like the bursting of the real estate
bubble that sent the country into an economic nosedive in 2007 and 2008.
But since they control the House of Representatives, the
Republicans stand in the way of raising taxes. (In my heart, I believe that
they would be delighted to raise taxes on anyone making less than $1.0 million
or so a year. I base this belief on the Republican tax policies of the last 30
some-odd years, which have shifted the burden of paying for everything the
government does from the wealthy to the middle class.)
Right now the Republicans are particularly vulnerable to
reason, as they see that they have lost the election and surveys show that most
Americans want to raise taxes on the wealthy. Telling Republican
Representatives and Senators that getting your vote depends on their voting “Yea”
on tax increases could prove to be particularly effective at the current
moment, when President Obama is negotiating with Congress about new taxes.
So give some gifts that can keep on giving for years. Tell
Wal-Mart and the Republicans that we won’t put up with their policies that are
creating a nation of rich and poor.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
By Marc Jampole
When I look back in fond nostalgia to childhood foods, I often remember the Syrian and Eastern European delicacies that my mother made for us at holidays. I can often almost taste the sweet fresh corn on the cob in the summer and the tangy mussels that would come in a bucket. I sometimes conjure steaming images of oversized potato knishes and hot pastrami sandwiches we used to get at the neighborhood deli. Perhaps my most sentimental memories are reserved for the turkey, stuffing and sweet potatoes we had at Thanksgiving.
My food nostalgia never includes packaged baked goods like Twinkies, Ho Hos, Ding Dongs and Wonder Bread: They never were very good, and certainly not as good as the corn rye we got at the bakery or the various cakes and cookies my mother would make, sometimes without a package mix, or we would occasionally buy in the bakery. I stopped eating Hostess-type packaged junk sometime in my teens and never returned to them.
When I’m reminiscing about childhood foods with friends and family, no one ever mentions these Hostess products either, even though, regardless of their age, almost everyone I know ate them at one time or another.
Nevertheless, it didn’t surprise me that the news that Hostess may close down and that these baked concoctions of white flower, sugar or corn syrup, food coloring and lots of preservatives instigated collective moaning and hand-wringing by the mass media. Reporter after reporter have mourned the loss of these products (and they are more product than food) as if we had suddenly lost a part of our collective cultural heritage, akin to all the monuments in Washington crumbling or misplacing all the episodes of “The Andy Griffin Show” and “You Bet Your Life.”
Writer after writer has come forward with his or her own defense of Twinkies and dirge for their possible demise. Here are some examples:
“Except that Twinkies aren’t merely a snack cake, nor just junk food. They are iconic in ways that transcend how Americans typically fetishize food. But ultimately, they fell victim to the very fervor that created them.” (Associated Press)
“When news broke Monday that beloved treat-maker Hostess would not be forced to shut down after all, Americans breathed a joint sigh of relief .” (Business Insider)
“If my insides are particularly well-preserved, it’s not because of the steamed broccoli crowding my dinner plate. No, it was the Twinkies. My longtime habit of consuming the famously imperishable cakes — with a preservative no doubt passed down from King Tut’s mummifiers — surely must have infused me with their elixir….Perhaps, it’s for the best that I wouldn’t have one last bite. They couldn’t live up to my gauzy memories of them. And maybe the Twinkie hoarders will pass them down like heirlooms to their children.” (Chicago Tribune)
“I don’t want to live in a world without Twinkies… The Austrians have their Strudel, the Italians their tiramisu, the French created crepes. But the Twinkie is an American original.” (Fox News)
“A world without Twinkies! How can it be?! I haven’t eaten a Twinkie since the third grade. But, when the demise of Hostess was announced last Friday, I, along with most of America, got swept up in Twinkiestalgia. Watching the six o’clock news, it dawned on me that my kids had never had and might never have a Twinkie in their young lives. What kind of life is that? What kind of mother would I be if one of those infinite-shelf-life treats never passed their lips?!” (The “Today Show” website)
“The Twinkie is an institution and a distinctly American one at that. It was the dessert that Edith packed in Archie’s lunchbox. It became part of legal nomenclature (the “Twinkies defense”). And its supposedly eternal shelf life only added to its stature as a pop-culture icon…No one, it seemed, had eaten a Twinkie (or Sno Ball) in years. Their affection for the brand was largely an exercise in nostalgia. The Twinkie took them back to their childhood – and knowing it was still there (and could be had at any time) meant there was always a comfortable (and cheap) portal to a time when life was safer, simpler and more innocent. It’s the Twinkie as, yes, Proust’s madeleine.” (The Wall Street Journal)
“Consider the Zen of the moment when you take a bite, that taste of something so simple yet decadent, Godiva for the everyman, and, for many, the savory hint of childhood and innocence. Can that small pleasure be had any longer without fear of diet-busting self-loathing?” (Baltimore Sun)
The common themes running through the commentaries are 1) nostalgia for what are imagined were simpler, better times and 2) defiance of what the reporters postulate are the food police who want to take away our every culinary pleasure and replace them with good food.
The nostalgia aspect is just weird: there are so many good things we can remember about the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and every other decade of the last century that it seems absurd for pundits to give bad-tasting food that was also bad for you a second thought. We all have individual memories and we also share in collective memories, both happy and sad. For example, people my age can reminisce about where we were when the first men landed on the moon (I am proud to write that I watched the first moon walk sitting next to my uncle, who led the team that engineered the fuel that propelled the rockets) or about the first time we heard the Beatles. But Twinkies?
When the mass media tries to create a collective memory for all of us, there is usually some ideological or business reason behind it, and that brings us to the second common theme in the encomiums to Twinkies: the assertion that there is a dichotomy between food that tastes good and food that’s good for you. The mass media often asserts this dichotomy: when discussing fast food, balanced diets, foods you can buy at state fairs, what to make at holidays or for Superbowl parties and what to feed your children. It’s a false dichotomy, but every time a writer makes it or assumes it, it helps to sell more of the crap. It also undercuts efforts to address our growing epidemic of unhealthy lifestyles.
I can see why someone might grab a package of Twinkies from the food vending machine for a late afternoon snack, even though I wouldn’t do it. And I can understand why parents might find it easy to slip a package of Ding Dongs into their kids’ lunch bag, although I never did. And certainly there are a number of people around who can’t distinguish between a Twinkie and a piece of fruit, some home-made cookies or even cinnamon and sugar sprinkled on a piece of buttered whole wheat toast.
But these instances do not make a case for elevating Twinkies, Ho Ho’s and the other edible dreck from Hostess into the pantheon of American culture. The very fact that these brands are threatened by poor sales suggests that they brands do not hold any special place in our collective hearts, at least not until the mass media starts to brainwash us with phrases about “pop-culture icons” and “savory hints of childhood innocence and innocence.”
Monday, November 19, 2012
By Marc Jampole
The news media is still wringing its hands in torment over the loss of their military darling, General David Petraeus, to the vagaries of carnal affection. While some have wondered why an affair should force a resignation since it’s a private matter, most editors, writers and pundits have bereaved the inevitability of resignation.
The thought process that leads to automatic resignation starts with the idea that a CIA Director could be blackmailed into acting in the worst interest of the country to avoid being found out. Few seem to remember that Petraeus is an old hand at doing what’s not right for the country. He was, after all, architect of the “surge strategy” in the Iraq War that postponed the inevitable withdrawal of U.S. troops from the morass of anarchy created by the U.S. invasion. The surge did give the U.S. a flimsy justification for claiming success, so in a sense, Petraeus constructed one of the most costly fig leaves in recorded history, the cost unfortunately computed in both human lives and wasted money.
Petraeus probably “cooked the books” in reporting progress during the Iraq War surge, as reported by MoveOn, most notoriously in a 2007 full-page ad in the New York Times. The same mainstream media that are now surgically investigating the Petraeus affair raised a collective voice back then to defend Petraeus and condemn MoveOn for its clever headline, Petraeus betray us.” Funny, isn’t it: The mainstream media pretty much accepted the Bush II Administrations lies about weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi support of Al Qaida, torture as a mere aberration in the lower ranks and the success of the surge. Yet they are digging deep to uncover every tawdry nugget of the Petraeus scandal.
In other words, the mass media that botched the investigation of an important public issue show a great deal of competence and professionalism going after all the details of an extramarital affair.
My own view is that Petraeus should never have been given the job of CIA Director. Once confirmed, however, engaging in extramarital sexual congress should not have warranted dismissal. Now if Petraeus was in some way going to benefit from any deals that ”family friend” Jill Kelley was trying to broker for exorbitant sums, then he should not have been given the face-saving option to resign, but instead been summarily dismissed. (Petraeus’ paramour instigated the investigation that “caught” Petraeus when she suspected that the general was servicing Kelley and so sent her, imagined or real, rival some threatening emails, which the well-connected Kelly turned over to an FBI friend).
Petraeus’ private affairs should never have become front page news. Not so for Tennessee Republican Congressman Scott DesJarlais, formerly a physician. Unsealing his divorce records of a decade ago has revealed that DesJarlais’ former wife had two abortions on his advice and that he urged a patient whom he had impregnated to get an abortion.
Certainly DesJarlais behaved unethically to sleep with a patient, although they were both consenting adults. But as far as the abortions go, who cares? Abortion was legal then and is legal now.
Except that DesJarlais says he’s pro-life. It’s the hypocrisy of wanting to prevent other people from doing what you yourself have recommended multiple times that makes DesJarlais’ private matters fair game for the media.