'Slavery, Plain and Simple' (by Jordan Buckley)
Nothing has exposed the severe ethical troubles of the world´s second largest burger chain quite so lucidly as a slave break in Florida´s tomato country in November.
Burger King, under fire for turning a blind eye to the rampant human rights abuses in the fields where they buy their tomatoes, decided to react. But in lieu of taking responsibility for the conditions, like McDonald´s, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell have in recent years, Burger King opted to deny that farmworker enslavement and sub-poverty wages exist.
In mid-November, Burger King led a high profile press tour through Immokalee, Fla – the epicenter of our nation´s fresh tomato production and home to the award-winning farmworker group, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW).
The CIW has unearthed, investigated, and assisted federal officials in prosecuting five forced labor operations in Florida agriculture in the last decade alone – resulting in the liberation of more than 1,000 people. By working together with people of faith across the country, the CIW has persuaded a number of major fast food restaurants to sign on to codes of conduct that establish a zero-tolerance policy for modern-day slavery.
Yet on Nov. 20, a so-called independent auditor accompanying Burger King on its press junket through Immokalee was quoted in the Miami Herald dismissing the CIW´s accusations of widespread abuse, stating: "We have found no slave labor."
The very same day, Nov. 20, a report was filed with the Sheriff´s office in Immokalee by three men - all of them tomato pickers - who had broken through the ventilation hatch of a U-haul truck their employers had locked them in and escaped. Earlier this month, their employers were indicted in federal court on charges of indentured servitude and peonage.
U.S. Attorney Doug Molloy called the operation – which, interestingly, was situated just three blocks from where Burger King was hosting its press tour – "slavery, plain and simple."
Why does slavery still exist? Slavery flourishes in U.S. agriculture because the everyday reality of sweatshop conditions provides the fertile soil that enable it to sprout, time and time again.
Farmworkers are among the least paid workers in the nation; to make $50 in a day, a worker must pick nearly two tons of tomatoes one-by-one. The back-breaking work they perform – without any benefits whatsoever – beneath a brutal sun (and at times a brutal crewleader) makes possible the food that nourishes our families and ourselves.
Until we fix a system that allows exploitation to be the norm, we´d be amiss to assume that the most extreme forms of that exploitation – human enslavement – will just vanish.
As such, Burger King would do well to carefully examine James 5:4 :
Behold, the wages you withheld from the workers who harvested your fields are crying aloud, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord.
So too have these cries reached the ears of the Lord´s followers – accordingly, Burger King must and will be guided down the path toward justice.
Jordan Buckley works with Interfaith Action of Southwest Florida (interfaithact.org), animating people of faith to collaborate with farmworkers to eliminate modern-day slavery and sweatshop conditions in the U.S. agriculture industry.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Shouldn't the first comment of outrage be for the workers, their plight, or the culture that fosters this type of employment rather than libertarian rhetoric?
Posted by: Jackie | January 30, 2008 11:58 AM
Cheap shot from I and I.
What person defends slavery? The question becomes, however, how do we prevent it?
The laws against this type of practice are on the books, so I don't think we need more. But this is another area where immigration reform will actually help those that immigrate legally.
Blake
Posted by: Blake | January 30, 2008 12:02 PM
But this is another area where immigration reform will actually help those that immigrate legally.
But only if immigration reform provides a path that enables unskilled, undeducated workers to immigrate legally, something that is seriously limited by the current laws.
But we've been over this ground before.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 30, 2008 12:10 PM
I and I,
What's your point? That slavery is bad? Do you seriously think we haven't figured that out by now?
Sheesh...
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | January 30, 2008 12:10 PM
I hold up the comments of I and I, and soon to be others, as evidence of the hate and prejudice that comes from the mouths of liberals every time they find an opportunity.
Not a soul that I actually know condones slavery.
We all know that there are a few sub humans who will treat others with callous disregard for thier welfare, but those people are psychopaths or criminals, and their behavior is never tolerated by anyone with an ounce of moral fiber.
But to pre-judge any group - much less do so publicly - merely because of a burning desire for political gain and/or domination is simply beyond all bounds of decency and civility.
I get calls for banning me, because I say someone "sounds arrogant" for a condescending posting. Where are the instant deluge of demands for I and I's permanent ban for his or her utterly uncivil and extremely offensive insults?
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 12:29 PM
I think I and I's point is that laissez-faire economics and anti-goverrnment-regulation is so deeply imbedded in much conservative ideology that he wouldn't be surprised to find someone out there who might be willing to defend this.
Was it a cheap shot? Maybe. But isn't there a germ of truth to his concern, if I pegged it correctly?
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 30, 2008 12:31 PM
I think I and I's point is that laissez-faire economics and anti-goverrnment-regulation is so deeply imbedded in much conservative ideology that he wouldn't be surprised to find someone out there who might be willing to defend this.
That's because the poster pre-judges the character of others on totally irrelevant criteria, and thus, makes assumptions that are as offensive as any racial slur, for instance. Except liberals don't care. They defend such insane rot.
Was it a cheap shot? Maybe. But isn't there a germ of truth to his concern, if I pegged it correctly?
No, there is NO truth WHATSOEVER to that.
It is a bold, calculated, revealing lie, designed to make people hate someone else on a false basis.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 12:37 PM
That's because the poster pre-judges the character of others on totally irrelevant criteria, and thus, makes assumptions...
Not true. I'm not trying to defend I and I for how he worded his response. Only he (or she) can do that.
But the fact that much of the so-called 'right wing' in this country is rabidly anti-regulatory and pro-big-corporation is quite well documented. The only assumption he/she is making is how far some might be willing to take that attitude.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 30, 2008 12:42 PM
Don, please stop. I and I posted a comment implying that some here would defend slavery, and that's completely inappropriate.
I and I, I think an apology is probably appropriate.
Posted by: Blake | January 30, 2008 12:57 PM
Don,
Both you and I and I (I think my grammar checker just imploded) are confusing two different issues. One does not need to support unionization, a high minimum wage, or an extensive regulatory state to oppose slavery.
In fact, it is possible (though not common nowadays) for a person to support extensive legal protection for one group and condone slavery for another.
I and I seems to think that this situation puts libertarians, along with "knee-jerk regulars" and "naysayers" -- I guess us neocons are okay -- in an embarassing spot. For the life of me I don't see how.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | January 30, 2008 1:01 PM
The point is, the Burger Emperor has no clothes.
The BK management is trying to "have it their way" lying about the effect their unhealthy fast food business model has on our national corporate body, as long as it keeps management and shareholders fat and happy.
A responsibility and accountability to shareholders, in case no one's noticed, is no accounatbility at all, since the management and shareholders are the corporation, making the corporation accountable to no one other than itself.
The name Burger King is therefore apt, since the definition of a powerful entity that recognizes no responsibility for making decisions outside itself is the root in Greek of the word "tyrant."
Tyrants always seek slaves in one form or another.
But I guess some are going to think the problem moot by saying the slaves are guilty, responding to the injustice and self-righteously rectifying it by heaping retribution upon the tyrant's victims.
Such is justice again in the latter days of these United States, until there will be such cries for change that mercy flows through hearts long grown sclerotic with greed.
We need a latter day Edward R. Murrow to shame us off our feed, when we can be so full of ourselves as to say in effect, "These people are illegal, therefore there can be no illegality done to them."
God damn the hard hearted who have denied the Holy Spirit.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 30, 2008 1:02 PM
I already said I wasn't trying to defend I and I. I was just trying to fathom the rationale behind what I and I wrote. I could be wrong, though I suspect I'm not too far off the mark.
I am not confusing two issues. True, one can be anti-regulatory and anti-unionization and still oppose slavery. But if I understood I and I correctly, he's wondering whether there might be some who would be willing to defend this particular practice on the basis of their lassiaz faire, anti-regulatory position. I didn't say there were such. I only said there might be. Is that not at least theoretically possible?
But I and I should be allowed a chance to explain to all of us what he meant with his comment, thereby either verifying or refuting my speculation.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 30, 2008 1:09 PM
The notion that a rational judgement about the effectiveness and rational observation about the RESULTS of common federal "social" programs makes a person of evil character is absurd at its core. In reality, the logic is silly, but the motivation is real.
Many, such as I, have observed the results of the "safety net" firsthand, up close and personal. And then we turned our eyes outward and observed the effects it has on the vast majority, and made very well informed judgements about it.
To avoid having to answer the very much valid and true observations, most advocates of socialized (insert favorite cause here) have gone to extreme lengths to squelch all discussion of the proper role of governemnt in a rational and dispassionate manner, by declaring that anything you want government to do for is is a moral and spiritual mandate, and disagreement is a character flaw... Or just plain evil.
Such is not the case. It is perfectly valid to discuss whether or not federalizing health care is wise. That involves financial and other considerations, as well. Yet, it cannot be discussed.
The rhetoric has so poisoned the minds of so many people, that they, like I and I, will make horrendous judgements of others without ANY basis whatsoever, other than rational disagreement over what and how government should do things.
Many here have called for a discussion of "ideas". That's not a problem, and I would dearly love to do so, but it cannot be done when the only goal of 90% of the posters is to so completely villify anyone not hip on liberal orthodoxy, that no discussion will take place.
There are MANY ways in which a huge amount of good can be done, involving many of the hotbutton issues of the day, but they cannot be discussed, because the moment you try to talk about them, the screaming hordes descend, mocking, insulting, baiting, and then finally twisting, and outright misrepresenting, or even just grossly generalizing to the point that everyone just gives up in disgust and shuts up. Either you advocate for all liberal hotbutton issues, or you find yourself on the receiving end of villification and slander so vile you can't stand to even be in the presence of people so hate filled and venomous.
Which is what the screaming hordes want.
I say this because I started my online debates over politics before any of us knew what the "internet" was. I ran a bbs way back when people were still using TRS-80's, and names like Amiga and Commomdore and TI were still commonly in use.
Back then, it was much more civil. By the end of the 80's, Reagan Derangement Syndrome (where the mention of Reagan caused Democrats to explode in intemperate and mindless rage) had made civil debate impossible, and it has only gotten worse.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 1:12 PM
But the fact that much of the so-called 'right wing' in this country is rabidly anti-regulatory and pro-big-corporation is quite well documented. The only assumption he/she is making is how far some might be willing to take that attitude.
No, it is widely WRITTEN.
The fact it is nothing but a bold faced explosion of prejudicial ranting doesn't ever seem to be observed by you, does it?
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 1:14 PM
BK is responsible for the criminals on a farm in Florida?
What utter idiocy.
Produce is a commodity, bought by guys sitting in an office bidding on entries on a computer, and sold by sellers doing the the same.
That someone sells all thier tomatoes to BK does not make BK responsible to police thier farming or employee practices.
My GOD WE HAVE LAWS TO DO THAT! I don't want people who would hire illegals and lock them in a truck "boycotted by BK". I want them jailed, and every cent of thier ill gotten proceeds taken and never given back.
But to misplace our rage against BK... How stupid c an we get? Vent your rage against the criminals, and ensure they suffer hte consequences, not take it out on people who have no knowledge and no reason to believe they would support such a thing.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 1:19 PM
'Written' and 'documented' are synonymous, I believe.
not at all. Written merely means that someone committed their thoughts to a physical form. Be it a post on website, a document to download, a book, or an article in a magazine, it is 'written'.
"Documented" in the way you use it, implies observation and establishment of fact by careful record keeping of detail and facts.
You cannot "document" what does not exist. You can write anyting you want.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 1:27 PM
Sojourner Truth wrote:
But I guess some are going to think the problem moot by saying the slaves are guilty, responding to the injustice and self-righteously rectifying it by heaping retribution upon the tyrant's victims.
Uh, no. I'm glad they were able to escape. Assuming they can prove their case (and US attorneys are known for being real pros who rarely bring frivolous charges) I hope those responsible get sent away for a good long time.
As for Burger King, their burgers are okay but their fries are crappy and like most fast food joints you don't want to eat there very often if you have any interest in staying healthy. I've never held them up as an example of the highest values of American civilization.
I don't know where you got the idea that I have any particular interest in Burger King, let alone one that would have me condoning slavery.
Again, sheesh...
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | January 30, 2008 1:27 PM
Propert taxes and the inheritance tax are also slavery. Democrats push both.
Posted by: Donny | January 30, 2008 1:28 PM
But you are the one who is accusing people of lying for the purposes of generating hatred.
Did I accuse? No, I merely pointed out the FACT.
An accusation is just that. When you observe something in plain view to all and comment on it, it is not an accusation.
And yes, I make plenty of accusations. And why not? Every word here by a wide array of people consists solely of baseless accusations.
I can at least point out why I make them.
But then, you want to make this about ME, don't you? That way, you avoid the discussion about truth...
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 1:30 PM
You are splitting hairs, Mark. I am a professional technical writer and editor. I'm also a composition instructor. I think I know the meanings of words and how there are used.
And you don't think that the anti-regulatory, pro-big-corporation, laissez-faire nature of the American right wing hasn't been carfully and thorougly observed, detailed, written about, and, yes, documented? I could easily come up with lots of evidence right here from my Internet connection, and straight from the horses' mouths, for that matter.
And you know that.
D
Posted by: Don | January 30, 2008 1:31 PM
Trying to dialogue with utter irrationality is pretty useless, Don.
I'm beginning to get that idea, James.
;-)
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 30, 2008 1:34 PM
Sojourner Truth, what is your proposal for fixing the callous of large corporations like Burger King? Boycots? Gov't intervention? Please elaborate.
Thanks,
Blake
Posted by: Blake | January 30, 2008 1:34 PM
But I guess some are going to think the problem moot by saying the slaves are guilty, responding to the injustice and self-righteously rectifying it by heaping retribution upon the tyrant's victims. Sojourner Truth
No, you got it wrong. That applies to undocumented immigrants and dying babies under the Oklahoma anti-immigration law. They got it on overt slavery.
"Sheesh"
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 30, 2008 1:36 PM
Propert taxes and the inheritance tax are also slavery. Democrats push both.
That's strange. the inheritance tax was enacted during the presidency of, and with the strong support of, Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican.
Ah, history!
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 30, 2008 1:37 PM
In the article the author states:
"Why does slavery still exist? Slavery flourishes in U.S. agriculture because the everyday reality of sweatshop conditions provides the fertile soil that enable it to sprout, time and time again."
I don't follow this logic at all. Seriously, I don't see how one follows the other.
What I do know is this:
Human rights ARE being transgressed upon in a severe way and something must be done.
I believe that as individual consumers we must take into account the means by which our products reach us, and if they reach us in a way that transgresses our values, we should abstain from purchasing them. The power of the consumer over the producer is in the power of the purse!
HOWEVER
A deeply flawed economic system is the ROOT of the problem. I'm no expert on the tomato industry, but as a resident of IN, I know all to well the damage the federal government has done with corn.
1. The gov. subsidizes corn
2. Farmers can sell corn for less than it costs to produce
3. Because the cost to produce corn is artifically low the market is flooded with corn.
4. NAFTA (Which is NOT free trade with our Mexican brothers, but MANAGED trade by governments) allows U.S. corn farmers to dump HUGE excesses of cheap corn into the Mexican market, running thousands of landowning local corn farmers out of business.
5. The Mexican farmers become......drum roll please......MIGRANT FARM WORKERS IN THE U.S.
Seriously, WHY IS THE WHOPPER .99? Does that price really reflect the cost of all the ingredients? Or has the US government dished out so many beef, corn, dairy, and other subsidies to BK's suppliers that BK is now in the position it is in with the Florida workers?
My suggestion is:
1. Don't buy what you don't "value"
2. Call your senator and tell them to STOP SUPPORTING Gov. subsidies!!!
To say that the "free market" has caused this problem is simply not true. The market is NOT free, not in the slightest.
Posted by: Rob D. | January 30, 2008 1:44 PM
Mark is not in possession of the facts in this issue.
Or at worst he's ignoring them because they are inconvenient to his loyal defense of his King.
Other fast food purveyors had a change of conscience when confronted with the realities of how the food they sell was produced and agreed to increase the amount paid by a penny in order to bring up the wages paid to the actual workers crouched in the fields over the plants for 12 hours per day to a more livable level. They literally must pick tons to get a sub-minimum wage.
Burger King, alone, decided to buck this system. BK, by the way, is not even an American-owned corporation (which may help change the solicitous attitude towards it by some, I am sadly sure). In concert with the growers, invoking good capitaliust philosophy, they invoked the mantra that "no one tells me how to run MY business!" (unaccountability as a virtue?) And in a kind of self-contradiction of their putatively deepest principale then proceeded to announce that they would "fine" any grower who agreed to accept the one cent increase.
Wow, "free" enterprise at its best, wouldn't you say? It seems it's sometimes hard to pry the fingers of Adan Smith's "unseen hand" off your throat!
But don't worry Mark, these folk are definitely in no danger whatsoever of being "tyrannized" into any sort of left-wing conspiracy of subsidized health care, or for that matter, any at all.
BK will defend to their death their right to work for as little as they can get them to agree, or not, in this most socially backward area of one of the strongest "right to work" states in the old South. "Right to Work" means the legislative guarantee to BK that workers in the fields cannot have any right to organize for redress. They must rely entirely on revelation of the truth and touching the conscience of us all with the injustices, for they have no rights. There is no government oversight, just as in your utopia.
Again, people who harden their conscience to the Holy Spirit condemn themselves before God. You might kid yourself you can "win" this argument with me, and who knows, you and others might, simply by force, but it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 30, 2008 1:45 PM
Don has elaborated very well (albeit perhaps more diplomatically) the point I was trying to make vis-a-vis the author's view: "Until we fix a system that allows exploitation to be the norm, we´d be amiss to assume that the most extreme forms of that exploitation – human enslavement – will just vanish."
In that light, don't people think that slavery is in fact a logical result of the exploitive conditions we allow for farm workers? There are many other situations--sweatshops in the Marianna Islands and even in NY City, for example--that to some degree or another approach a mild form of slavery in that workers have no other choices but to work at jobs that underpay them and have oppressive conditions (sexual harassment, union-busting, ten hours without a bathroom break, etc.)
So...don't we need some government intervention to address this, or do we just boycott Burger King and hope things will get better? Do we depend on the free market (or divine intervention) to solve these problems? Is the system exploitive, or is this instance of brazen slavery a stark exception to a system that's working just fine?
(P.S. My goodness, Mark! You seem to think my first post was referring to you. Don't be so sensitive!)
Posted by: I and I | January 30, 2008 1:48 PM
Quotes from ST:
The point is, the Burger Emperor has no clothes.
BK has set themselves up as an authority on something? Since when? And what "authority" is that?
The BK management is trying to "have it their way" lying about the effect their unhealthy fast food business model has on our national corporate body, as long as it keeps management and shareholders fat and happy.
If thier business model for fast food is "unhealthy", then BK will be bankrupt and gone very soon. If you're saying BK sells unhealhty food, then by all means, let's educate people on what is healthy and how to make healthy choices about what to eat. Blaming BK for people's ignorance... Or making bad choices in spite of what they know, is just plain stupid.
A responsibility and accountability to shareholders, in case no one's noticed, is no accounatbility at all, since the management and shareholders are the corporation, making the corporation accountable to no one other than itself.
BK stock is owned by tens or hundreds of thousands of people, probably mostly buried inside common mutual funds, and most don't even know they have any interest at all in the company, at least as far as finances go. To insist that all these people are "unaccountable" is absurd.
The name Burger King is therefore apt, since the definition of a powerful entity that recognizes no responsibility for making decisions outside itself is the root in Greek of the word "tyrant."
Wow, now there we go. Those pernicious cretins, who buried thier tyrannical hidden intentions within the name of thier business, my, what shall we do with them? Off with thier heads!!!
BTW, thier names were James McLamore and David Edgerton, so now you can name the tyrants who were so bursting with evil, it even came out in the name they chose for the restaurant they started.
Tyrants always seek slaves in one form or another.
The slave owners were named above. Do you seek to take legal action against them?
But I guess some are going to think the problem moot by saying the slaves are guilty, responding to the injustice and self-righteously rectifying it by heaping retribution upon the tyrant's victims.
Yeah, nothing works like the old "soft" insult. you know, the kind where you use phrases like "I guess" and generalizations about whom you refer to, in an effort to escape precise criticism, and leave a door open so you can later re-interpret your words - claiming that the insult and villification you want people to generate in thier own minds is really the fault of someone else.
We had president who did this all the time. Are you copying him, or do you think this is just how everyone operates, with "plausible deniability" for thier words and intentions?
Wasn't it YOU complaining that BK and shareholders were "unaccountable"? What a load of hypocrisy...
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 1:53 PM
Someone asked whether BK should be held responsible for the exploitation/slavery that goes on in their suppliers' organizations. It was also asked whether BK should "police" their suppliers?
The answer is YES. It is not too much to expect. If BK gave a whit about the well-being of workers, they would have standards and enforce them. If they don't, then the government needs to.
Posted by: I and I | January 30, 2008 2:00 PM
Does the current lack of enforcement of immigration laws contribute to this problem?
I think criminals (or unethical exploiters)are filling the void left by the absence law enforcement? It's tomatoes in Florida, but in big cities it is forced prostitution.
This is an unintended consequence of soft or no enforcement.
P.S. Great article in this months National Geographic about immigration across Mexico's southern border. Check it out.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 30, 2008 2:03 PM
And you don't think that the anti-regulatory, pro-big-corporation, laissez-faire nature of the American right wing hasn't been carfully and thorougly observed, detailed, written about, and, yes, documented? I could easily come up with lots of evidence right here from my Internet connection, and straight from the horses' mouths, for that matter.
No, you can't.
You cannot make any point you wish to make, because any effort to do so will be nothing but a collection of irrational conclusions, vague generalizations, or use of the exception to prove the rule.
And you know that.
What I KNOW, is that you cannot. I've been watching people try for more than a decade. Unless you consider yourself able to change reality, your effort will be just as much an effort in futile propaganda.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 2:05 PM
Anti-bipolar disorder drugs may help.
I leave this as one more example of the depths to which lefty types will sink to avoid dealing with a simple matter of disagreement over the proper role of government.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 2:07 PM
I think that failing to redress injustices now, by what we can do in practical terms to ameliorate unjust circumstances, even if piecemeal and not holistic, would be itself a graver injustice.
That would be like the mistake of not taking any actions to lessen the incidence of abortion, such as improving education, extolling abstinence, providing health care for pregnant girls who haven't the resources, changing attitudes within communities, increasing adequate employment and wages, showing love in practice, etc., and instead allowing everything to fester until and unless a consitutional amendment prohibiting abortion passes many years in the future, if ever.
And instead of solving it, in the meantime use it as a continuing cudgel over political opponents to win elections.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 30, 2008 2:09 PM
No, you can't.
Squeaky, if you are reading this, what's the URL to the little green football site? Any anti-regulatory stuff on there?
D
Posted by: Don | January 30, 2008 2:10 PM
Someone asked whether BK should be held responsible for the exploitation/slavery that goes on in their suppliers' organizations. It was also asked whether BK should "police" their suppliers?
The answer is YES. It is not too much to expect. If BK gave a whit about the well-being of workers, they would have standards and enforce them. If they don't, then the government needs to.
What a pile of utter BS.
The PEOPLE WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME are responsible, not someone else.
But this effort is for a reason. It is called "establishing guilt by association" as a matter of normal thought.
It is used to bypass the normal intellectual judgements we're supposed to use, to reasonably establish guilt and culpability, so that we become susceptible to mob rule, rather than strict accountability.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 2:11 PM
The PEOPLE WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME are responsible, not someone else.
Ever hear the term 'accessory to the crime'? If Burger King is purchasing tomatoes from these criminals, they are participating in the crime and are just as guilty as the perpetrators themselves.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 30, 2008 2:13 PM
Guilt by association....
Well... everybody knows about mob bosses who somehow have their enemies "sleep with the fishes" without ever having to give any specific orders, because all their associates know just what they want.
Some politicians engaged in secret violations of constitutional limits use plausible deniability in just the same way, using code words to their political allies.
Dirty trick campaigns are fought in just this way, with supporters that the candidate disavows nevertheless working in his favor, doing for him what he wouldn't look good doing for himself directly.
Just think of Watergate, where everyone seemed to be sure of what the Boss wanted - and sought to keep him unaccountable for the actual dirty tricks.
It's an old adage that you can't stand in the mud, next to a muddy dog, without getting muddy.
Burger King ought to lose that dog Spot.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 30, 2008 2:24 PM
Here's just one article I found on the connection between anti-regulation and conservative politics, from a search of Google Scholar. There were many more, including documented evidence of corporate attemts to undermine environmental legislation.
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=artspapers
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 30, 2008 2:33 PM
Mark, wherever you are going, you will meet John C. Calhoun.
I'm not sure how you'll get along though, because there'll be no one else to argue with there with that doesn't think just the same, and we know how much y'all love to argue.
By the way, you can tell him that despite the damned Yankees and the deaths of 650,000, his side managed to keep the status quo another hundred years. You can tell him that though that might not seem like much in eternity, it sure as hell seemed like an eternity up here. And that irregardless, you can expect more company still.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | January 30, 2008 2:36 PM
If Burger King is purchasing tomatoes from these criminals, they are participating in the crime and are just as guilty as the perpetrators themselves.
Peace,
Posted by: Don |
Now the follow up question of course is what happens if you go to Burger King ? Are you as guilty ?
Reminds me a little of the writings Paul gave , but actually different because we know the source of the food is wrong , but is it only wrong if you know what Burger King is doing ? And of course how wrong are they ?
Sorry , having a slow day Don . I am off . Just had a nice conversation with a Jevoh witness at my door . They are sure are nice these days . Not the hell fire stereotypes of the past .
Posted by: Mick | January 30, 2008 2:53 PM
"I get calls for banning me, because I say someone "sounds arrogant" for a condescending posting. Where are the instant deluge of demands for I and I's permanent ban for his or her utterly uncivil and extremely offensive insults?" mark
That is a lie, you were simply asked to be more courteous and reminded of the rules of conduct for this blog. j
"There are MANY ways in which a huge amount of good can be done, involving many of the hotbutton issues of the day, but they cannot be discussed, because the moment you try to talk about them, the screaming hordes descend, mocking, insulting, baiting, and then finally twisting, and outright misrepresenting, or even just grossly generalizing to the point that everyone just gives up in disgust and shuts up. Either you advocate for all liberal hotbutton issues, or you find yourself on the receiving end of villification and slander so vile you can't stand to even be in the presence of people so hate filled and venomous.
Which is what the screaming hordes want. " mark
Aren't you exaggerating just a teency bit? j
Posted by: jonabark | January 30, 2008 2:57 PM
I get calls for banning me
That is a lie, you were simply asked to be more courteous and reminded of the rules of conduct for this blog.
Actually, it is not a lie. I did it on the "What Evangelicals Want" thread (Posted by: Don | January 28, 2008 7:55 AM), because of his incessant disregard of the rules of this forum.
I'm thinking of doing it again.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 30, 2008 3:03 PM
Even after literal "slavery" was abolished, the practice of indentured servitude continued.
Conditions among some sectors of society at home and abroad were so economically unjust that people willingly sold themselves into bondage for an agreed period here.
As long as labor laws remain unenforced that prohibit the ability to exploit labor illegally, or holes in the labor laws or its enforcement permit exploitation legally, both the more horrible conditions people find themselves in elsewhere as well as the less horrible magnet that these pseudo-"employers" and their customers offer, often completely or partially deceitfully, there will be migrations of people, regardless of the immigration law.
You cannot pass laws that completely ignore root causes and expect logical or effective results. All that will happen is escalated levels of desperation.
Contrarily, without adressing root causes either first or at the same time, immigration-side draconian enforcement only makes the exploited more exploitable - they are then so fearful and desperate that they are willing to work for even less under even worse conditions.
This distorts the labor market further, because they are more attractive economically, which further depresses wages in the entire labor market.
What drives the immigration debate, which heats up more in hard economic times - which we have been moving into, employment-wise, over the past several years - is the competition for jobs and fair wages among workers.
Naturally, citizens (and legal immigrants) don't feel good when they are displaced by someone that an employer finds much cheaper to employ because the labor laws aren't applied to them. Yet the employer will claim that he must be accountable to the bottom line - either of himself, or his shareholders, which in corporations is just the same thing - no outside accountability to anything other than profit. He is right that if the labor component of his product is greater than his competitors', that he will go out of business.
Fair labor law, even in globalization, is essential and urgent. Illegal immigrant labor is simply a facet of offshoring and outsourcing driving down worker wage levels in real financial terms, a kind of insourced offshoring.
What we are now seeing, I will add, is inflation added to the mix, to reduce real earnings on this continent while giving the illusion of maintaining static income, while prices are allowed to rise rapidly and benefits and pensions disappear.
This is how the financial elites are addressing the problem of how the American worker will become competitive globally.
As as been said, no accountability to anything other than the bottom line doesn't produce good despite all the allusions to Smith's "unseen hand" somehow producing the greatest good.
In contrast, we have God himself saying in no uncertain terms in scripture, "The love of money is the root of all evil."
Not money, a tool, but greed. And despite the caricature of Gekkonomics that has infected every economic insitution of late, and thus the hearts of those who run them, "Greed is NOT good."
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 30, 2008 3:06 PM
Actually, it is not a lie. I did it on the "What Evangelicals Want" thread (Posted by: Don | January 28, 2008 7:55 AM), because of his incessant disregard of the rules of this forum.
I'm thinking of doing it again. Peace,Posted by: Don
Sounds like a plan.
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 30, 2008 3:09 PM
"Now the follow up question of course is what happens if you go to Burger King? Are you as guilty?"
I think this is a very legitimate question. I can't speak to the BK issue regarding this instance of slavery because we don't know if they "condoned" it or not, but if one feels that BK is generally involved in the exploitation of workers (I'm not necessarily asserting that here)but continues to patronize their restaurants, I would say that person is guilty of helping perpetuate those wrong practices. Same with knowingly purchasing clothing made in sweatshops. Or purchasing pornography, which depends on sexual exploitation.
Posted by: I and I | January 30, 2008 3:11 PM
I'm starting to wonder exactly where this "accountability" is supposed to end?
Should I boycott WalMart because I disagree with thier politics? Or maybe I should boycott Ford for the same reason?
Maybe I should boycott ALL gasoline producers because gasoline pollutes?
And don't tell me the solution is "public transit", it runs on fuel too.
Back to it. Do we make an enemies list? Or how about a 'vetted food sources' list? How do we determine what "sins" are committed to stock the shelves at Safeway? What if one of the farmers that grows the produce is a conservative?
(hint, most of them are, you should all starve now)
Again, to what extent does "guilt" travel in the chain of commerce? Can someone define this, please? Because I really, REALLY want to know what the "rules" are and how those rules were created and who enforces them.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 3:13 PM
James, since you are a lawyer, could BK be considered an accessory to criminal violation of employment laws just by buying these growers' produce, whether or not they know of the illegal activity?
Or does BK have to know that growers they buy from are "employing" slaves and knowingly continue their business relationship?
D
Posted by: Don | January 30, 2008 3:16 PM
Mick, how dare you say that I'm not highly critical of countries' human rights records like Cuba, China, North Korea and Iran - and many more. I sure am!
You seem to believe that being critical of the sins in our own nation is tantamount to treason by making such a false accusation.
You might realise, though, if you got out more and were exposed to other people not in your own narrow culture, that all people of any culture are fully human and not demons, but fallen human beings like ourselves.
Fomenting division is not loving your enemy, or being a peacemaker, as Jesus called us to be.
Moreover, it is all too true, from my own corporate management experience, that as Lenin mocked, capitalists are often so greedy that they will sell the rope to hang themselves with.
So many corporations couldn't care less - some of our major defense contractors, even, who simply pay the fines and no one goes to jail and it's counted simply as a cost of doing business - and they sell anything and everything to those very countries you mention, in support of violation of human rights and democracy.
There are ways of engaging others, without demonizing them, and without colluding in their crimes, either, simply to make profit.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 30, 2008 3:21 PM
ugh...this conversation went off the cliff from the beginning.
Can we not all agree that there is no one who posts on this blog on the politican right or left that would try to defend people who lock workers in a vehicle? Seriously, if you can't assume that your Christian political opposites don't condone that behavior there's not really any point in having a reasonable discussion with you.
Posted by: Eric | January 30, 2008 3:25 PM
Don, I have to wonder if it matters.
ST didn't ask or ascertain the answer to that before condemning them. Nor did anyone else her, including the original reason why we're all commenting.
I asked why the chain of commerce matters, because that's the rationale used to be critical of BK. There was no other connection established, other than BK buying produce grown by them.
Someone argued that BK should police the people it buys from. Can you imagine that if tomorrow we find that McDonald's won't buy from any source until it has reviewed and investigated every employee, thier records, wages, taxes paid, hours worked, and thier personal financial situation of the prospective vendor, if we'd not here the same moralizing tone, but this would be about megacorporations invading our privacy and trampling on our rights...???
So, BK has a mandate to investigate the business of it's suppliers, but within only the limits set by the moralizing critics, would ultimately be the outcome of that exercise.
Or, maybe we could just accurately observe that the whole point of this is not to establish rules by which the buyer must control the seller and vice versa, but to opportunistically score political points using a time honored tactic called "demagoguery"?
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 3:30 PM
Can we not all agree that there is no one who posts on this blog on the politican right or left that would try to defend people who lock workers in a vehicle? Seriously, if you can't assume that your Christian political opposites don't condone that behavior there's not really any point in having a reasonable discussion with you.
Well said.
But everyone's trying to "defend" doing just that.
I mean, I responded similarly, and someone argued that wasn't there just a LITTLE truth to it?
It's apparently ok (sacred obligation, even) for POLITICALLY LIBERAL Christians to make such moral judgements about POLITICALLY CONSERVATIVE Christians, but objecting is beyond the bounds of civil behavior.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 3:35 PM
Mick: "I always wonder why the lefties seem to embrace the countries who invent human rights violations like Cuba , China , North Korea, Iran , and attack anything American which violates their inconsistent code of ethics."
Mick, please cite some _documented_ examples of leftists who have done such in the past 20 years.
Posted by: carl copas | January 30, 2008 3:35 PM
Friends,
I really think we have to contemplate the possibility of no longer responding to Mark. There is a ferocity of tone in his posts that frankly is scary. I would say the same if he was arguing from the center or the left.
I'd like to hear from others on this, of all political persuasions. Perhaps I'm being melodramatic.
Posted by: carl copas | January 30, 2008 3:38 PM
Not only is BK buying these tomatoes, they have refused to commit to a very slight raise for piece work which other fast food giants agreed to.
I discovered some of this about BK 6 months ago. BK was the only fast food place we occasioned. Maybe 10 times a year. I loved the Zesty Sauce. But when we discovered this information about BK's refusal to help exploited workers,, we stopped going and sent emails to the BK office. No reply.
If enough customers do this it will probably make a difference. More and more we find ourselves shopping at a local food coop which has local produce. We also steadily increase the food we grow at home. These kinds of decisions are part of our attempt to know that our spending is ethically responsible. We have not bought at WalMart for 5 years for ethical reasons. We do not have a large income and have to be frugal, but I really do think the spirit aids us when we make these kinds of decisions. There are so many things that we can't do much about as individuals , but this is one way that we can walk our talk, and there is a peace that lies in this path.
Posted by: jonabark | January 30, 2008 3:39 PM
"The grand aim of slavery, everywhere and always, is to reduce man to the level of a beast."
Frederick Douglass
To a chattel, a possession and without rights - in short, not human.
And when you reduce men to that level, you've made slaves of them.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 30, 2008 3:40 PM
There is a ferocity of tone in his posts that frankly is scary.
Carl:
That's why I made the request to the monitor earlier this week.
And BTW, Mick's comments re. the "left's" support of human rights violators smelled like a red herring to me. I almost made a comment about it, but decided not to.
Don
Posted by: Don | January 30, 2008 3:41 PM
Oh, I have "ferocity" in my "tone"?
Now THAT will definitely change the facts of reality around, won't it?
I'm sorry that I'm not a spineless, opinionless, convinctionless marshmallow. If that bothers you, go find some to talk to.
I can't imagine how that could be entertaining, or enlightening, or even challenging in any way at all.
I come to challenge myself. Liberals, throw you best shots. Make the best arguments you can.
I am sorely disappointed at the ferocity of the anger, and the utter lack of interest in putting beliefs on the line, laying the rhetoric bare, and letting them stand on thier own merit.
I have yet to see a single person here attempt to define or defend a single principle, from the left.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 3:43 PM
"Again, to what extent does "guilt" travel in the chain of commerce? Can someone define this, please? Because I really, REALLY want to know what the "rules" are and how those rules were created and who enforces them."
Mark, since you're talking nicely now, I'll respond in kind. I think it has less to do with "rules' and more to do with how much one cares about the issue, and how much sacrifice one is able and willing to make.
Do I hate the fact that cars pollute and use up fossil fuels, and that oil companies exert undue control over U.S. energy policy AND gouge their customers? Absolutely. Am I going to foreswear all use of an automobile? No, I won't do that to myself or my children. But I've decided to drive LESS, and try to car pool more, and to buy fuel-efficient cars as much as my salary allows.
On the other hand, while I am not a vegetarian, I don't eat veal becasue I believe its production involves an extreme amount of cruelty to the calf, more so than other kinds of meat production. Do I judge others who eat veal? No, but I might try to educate them about how it is produced. Final example: I've gotten by just fine not buying products from Upjohn, which manufactures pharmaceuticals used in the abortion procedure.
So it's not about rules, it is about being aware of where our money goes and prioritizing what sacrifices we wish to make. Unfortunately, it seems like most American consumers do not want to think about what is behind the products they are purchasing and how it might contribute to practices that they believe are wrong. If we can encourage people to see every purchase as a political act (which every purchase is, in fact), that would be a great start.
Signing off now, gotta pick up my daughters.
Posted by: I and I | January 30, 2008 3:44 PM
Not only is BK buying these tomatoes, they have refused to commit to a very slight raise for piece work which other fast food giants agreed to.
So, they are criminal for failing to do WHAT, again?
You talk in such mixed up topics and metaphors that you obscure your intended meaning.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 3:45 PM
Wow, I sent my last message and saw all the messages posted up since last I looked--things have gotten bad again. I guess I was overly optimistic.
Posted by: I and I | January 30, 2008 3:48 PM
Oh, I have "ferocity" in my "tone"?
Uh, yes.
I have yet to see a single person here attempt to define or defend a single principle, from the left.
And I have yet to see where you have really made any attempt to listen to what anyone other than yourself has been saying here.
You accuse us all of being "liberals" if you disagree with us. Yet we are quite a varied bunch in our beliefs. Some of us may hold "liberal" views on some things and very conservative views on others.
But you haven't been able to hear us because you have just been shouting at us.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 30, 2008 3:48 PM
Mark, since you're talking nicely now, I'll respond in kind. I think it has less to do with "rules' and more to do with how much one cares about the issue, and how much sacrifice one is able and willing to make.
your explanation reveals a lot.
No "rules". Just how you "care"?
So all of this is based on the emotions of the observer, and if you lack a "specific" emotion, you are morally defective? Or is a person morally defective because they don't just act on emotion, and instead use experience, common sense, principle, and educated understanding to guide what they do and how to choose what is and isn't rational?
I'm going to be judged here as "cold" because I refuse to let my emotions transfer "guilt" upon BK for buying tomatoes. I refuse to transfer guilt upon anyone who eats at BK. I might be more inclined to consider them to be less than wise about choosing where and what to eat, but "guilty" of a crime someone they don't know committed?
How can you maintain a solid grip on solid principles, if your judgement about right and wrong is based on "caring"?
My son failed to complete his schoolwork on time (yes, he goofed off) and it cost him his chance to go on his 8th grade class trip.
I probably could have gotten someone to let him go by intervention and a little badgering. The hurt on his face actually made me cry, but I kept that hidden from him. And I didn't prevent him from suffering the consequences of his foolish decisions.
I made sure he did.
That, is what a parent has to do, to REALLY "care". We have to not let our emotions carry our judgement. That's truly loving our children.
Do I "care" about slavery? You have no idea how it galls me to the depths of my soul. I hope God has a special version of hellfire that lasts a little longer and hurts a little more, for those people who have known it was wrong and engaged in it anyway - like the people mentioned in the story.
But can I transfer that guilt to someone who cannot possibly know the details of this, and bought their produce? Of course not. We don't know who all bought thier tomatoes.
It is a reasonable presumption that someone who offers thier stuff for sale, in a free country, that the ones offering it are not in hideous violation of law.
When you go the local farmer's market, or even a fruit stand, do you stand there and demand to know every detail of the employment aspects of all those who were employed to get to your hand?
I KNOW you do not.
But yet you demand it, and think it reasonable to demand of someone else.
If you think BK must investigate every provider, then YOU must investigate every provider.
Now drive down to the store and demand to know.
Good luck.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 4:01 PM
I get calls for banning me (m)
That is a lie, you were simply asked to be more courteous and reminded of the rules of conduct for this blog.(j)
Actually, it is not a lie. I did it on the "What Evangelicals Want" thread (Posted by: Don | January 28, 2008 7:55 AM), because of his incessant disregard of the rules of this forum.
I'm thinking of doing it again.
Peace, (d)
OOPs . Apologies to Mark , I missed that and assumed that because I also referred to the "sounds arrogant" statement, mark was referring to my post on that. I should have been more careful. I do, however, think that mark goes well beyond the bounds of the rules of conduct. I too hope for an active intervention to reinforce the rules. For me, It is hard to respond to certain kinds of writing without using what I would call the Molly Ivins approach. Some things seem to ask for satire and I have a smart aleck streak.
Posted by: jonabak | January 30, 2008 4:01 PM
You accuse us all of being "liberals" if you disagree with us. Yet we are quite a varied bunch in our beliefs. Some of us may hold "liberal" views on some things and very conservative views on others.
Hold on just a second.
YOU ARE ALL LIBERALS!
There, I shouted it for you, so nobody will miss it and will know what such an accusation looks and sounds like. Now, I've never said that before, actually, I'm sorry you missed that fact.
But, since it is patently obvious that the shouted statement isn't true, I said it only for it's... ummm... entertainment... value.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 4:06 PM
Just some facts for you folks that oppose slavery. (that's all of you)
There are more slaves on the planet now then there has ever been in human history. Slavery exists in the food industry.
1/3 of the world's chocolate is made from slave labor.
I could keep going but I think it best if you want to learn how to help and end this brutal reality then I suggest get started by learning more about this here.
www.freetheslaves.net
p
Posted by: payshun | January 30, 2008 4:14 PM
And Mark
I think I am one of the rare completely liberal folks here. Most of the other folks are mixed.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 30, 2008 4:17 PM
jonabak... Let me explain something... I grew up in a decidedly lower middle class family. I was the last child, of middle aged parents, so my parents were old.
Children who grow up that way are often out of place. My siblings were adults when I was little kid. I, then, grew up much like an only child. Life in grade school and high school wasn't easy. I was socially very different. I grew up isolated, living in the country most of my life.
Rest assured I now have the deepest gratitude for the parents who raised me and the difference I had from others in growing up.
But it also left me with a very deep sense of outrage when I see injustice and untruth heaped on others for what are very light and pointless purposes.
And I realy expect your best efforts at "psychoanalysis" here, because most people aren't genuine, they live in a world of trying to manipulate others to keep thier world comfortable.
That's ok. You can't hurt me. I've been through all there is to go through and came out strong and happy.
So, yes, lots of people invoke my indignation. It doesn't have to be about me. In fact, I dont' really care if you attack me personally. I can laugh it off, because I really DO know myself, and can and do live with it just fine.
So, get 'sarcastic' if you want. Your loss.
Why not just try challenging what I REALLY think?
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 4:19 PM
payshun: Why do you consider yourslf "completely liberal" and how do you determine that?
Just curious.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 4:21 PM
"But, since it is patently obvious that the shouted statement isn't true, I said it only for it's... ummm... entertainment... value."
Give it up man. We've figured you out: everything you say is for entertainment value. The only mystery left is whether you and Donny are the same person.
Or maybe kevin s in a whimsical mood? Nah, kevin's never whimsical.
wolverine? no, he wouldn't waste his time.
jesse? blake? moderatelad? Shoot, it'll keep me up tonite.
Posted by: carl copas | January 30, 2008 4:28 PM
jesse? blake? moderatelad? Shoot, it'll keep me up tonite.
How about the truth? I'm not any of those people.
I'm not a lib pretending to be anyone else.
Why do I have to be less than genuine?
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 4:31 PM
I think those slaves should be obedient to their masters and not try to leave the situation they are in--that is the absolute teaching of God's word. If you don't believe that, you're going to start thinking that we can't apply Paul's ancient situation to our modern one. You're going to suggest that Paul didn't speak God's work to all people in all times. And you know where that will lead--welcoming undocumented workers and gays.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 30, 2008 5:37 PM
I think those slaves should be obedient to their masters and not try to leave the situation they are in--that is the absolute teaching of God's word. If you don't believe that, you're going to start thinking that we can't apply Paul's ancient situation to our modern one. You're going to suggest that Paul didn't speak God's work to all people in all times. And you know where that will lead--welcoming undocumented workers and gays.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 30, 2008 5:38 PM
If they are obeying God by staying, then by the same standard we'd be violating God's law by breaking that bond and deporting them.
I can't presume myself to argue that it's God's will for them to either come here or go - my responsibility before God is to treat people equally and well as far as I am concerned.
Why not have them paid the prevailing legal wage that Americans would have to be paid?
The only genuine argument that creates resentment of them is that by virtue of being illegal and therefore no labor law protection, they depress wages.
Immigrants are always made scapegoats during tough economic times.
It's anecdotal, but still telling, that even some posters here are losing employment.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | January 30, 2008 5:47 PM
N.M.
If we paid them a fair wage then that would not be slavery. That would also disturb the billion dollar underground food, drug and terrorist industry that make millions of dollars off of their labor.
Mark,
I just am. I don't support abortion so that might be one way I am not completely liberal but everything else that the green party stands for I agree w/.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 30, 2008 6:13 PM
I really regret that it is so easy for people to get distracted from the subject of the blog--and focus their attention on each other instead. The reality is that if we treat all of life sacramentally, a gift of God, we are required to be mindful of what we eat and where it comes from (among many other things). Burger King has a policy of never reading emails, I've been told. So I wrote them a letter and sent a copy to all the members of the Board. I indicated that neither I nor my friends would eat at Burger King and I gave the same message to the Chair of Whole Foods, who sits on BK's board. I told him that I wouldn't shop at Whole Foods or at another local store which Whole Foods now owns. I also said that that local store is my absolute favorite--and I have not shopped there since I learned about this issue. They obviously don't care about one person, but I know lots of people who have written similar letters--and they in turn know others, and so each small step adds to all the other small steps.
These actions are important if we take seriously that we are all children of a loving God or "as you do to the least of these, you do to me". It has nothing to do with the citizenship of the worker, but rather the worker's humanity.
Some of us focus our attention on the workers who pick tomatoes; others will notice that the same slave conditions occur in sugar cane fields in Florida and in Haiti (all owned by the same Cuban Floridians). Our attention has prompted important changes (tho not enough) in the treatment of workers in the clothing industry and we hope that similar changes will now occur in the tomato and sugar industries because we are now shining light and attention on this horrible treatment of workers. If all else fails, we can remind them that this bad behaviour is bad for business.
I, too, recommend the website www.freetheslaves.net
Posted by: bren | January 30, 2008 6:30 PM
Ashpenaz,
I assume you are speaking of Paul's letter to Philemon?
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | January 30, 2008 6:41 PM
Even when hungry, our family has been bypassing Burger King ever since this issue came to our attention. Moreover, we inform others as the opportunity arises.
Posted by: N.M Rod | January 30, 2008 6:57 PM
And BTW, Mick's comments re. the "left's" support of human rights violators smelled like a red herring to me. I almost made a comment about it, but decided not to.
Don
Posted by: Don
Interesting you made a comment disregarding my retort to what I and I blantant insult to others who disagreed with his views to start off the discussion . . Interesting you are so concerned about one's red herrings except those that support yours . Kind of smells fishy to me .
"I would say that person is guilty of helping perpetuate those wrong practices. Same with knowingly purchasing clothing made in sweatshops. Or purchasing pornography, which depends on sexual exploitation."
Posted by: I and I
Which is exactly why I pointed out a country like Cuba , whose some leftist here in this country shout from the roof tops to embrace , and in some political circles consider a fine example for us to follow . Michael Moore comes to mind .
So do we attack only selected countries to boycott and selected businesses ? I support stocks that have pro envirnomental business practices. I also have other diverse savings plans at work to make sure my wife and I live out our years together if the Lord permits withourt being a burden to others . So I and I do you believe the United States should not take tax dollars from evil corporations who gain money from less then honorable methods ? Because the IRS has no high standards of whose money is good or bad .
Picking on Burger King , yes I understand , but why not Cuba , China , even here people always support we need to reach out to Muslim nations where Human Right Violations are a way of life for women , gays , and those who just have a different opinions in some countries . How about a boycott on Exxon ? To all SDaudia Arabian oil .
I am for independence from oil , but I am going to buy gas so i can get to work . So do we boycott a business that perhaps then hurts a person whose income is needed there to actually help out his families survival ? I can see not wanting to go to Burger King , however I do have a problem with condemning someone who does .
And the way we pick who gets boycotted and who does not .
I seldom follow boycotts myself . But drawing attention to this was an excellent service I thought , too bad it became right against left as usual . By the way , you started it . Not Mark .
Posted by: Micl | January 30, 2008 7:42 PM
Mick, please cite some _documented_ examples of leftists who have done such in the past 20 years.
Posted by: carl copas
Carl have you seen the Michael Moore video on Health Care ? One example that is obvious .
Also interesting the only illegal immigrint the left went out their way to support going back honme was the young kid who came here with his Mother from Cuba .
That is why Gore lost Florida by the way ,excuse the Red Herring .
If there was a Burger King in China , you think you see a Boycott supported for it here ? Capitalism gets many people ticked off , if you can't redistribute it equally , expect a more slanted call by the left for a boycott .
Capitalism did not kill 100 million Russians , Mao killed about 30 million of his citizens .
So Carl , why don't we boycott all nations who want to redistribute wealth ?
Actually , bringing attention to the Burger king deal was good idea . Unfortunately the messenger needs to be more consistent in who it finds fault with . Countries that are idealogically mutual to certain beliefs but violate Human rights are not examples to be used of how to care for our sick .
Unless you just want to sing to your own choir .
Posted by: Mick | January 30, 2008 8:08 PM
If we have to make a complete list of all the terrible situations in the country before we take steps on any one, we become paralyzed by the immensity of it all. One person who is most moved on the subject of China starts there--I've forgotten the title of the book but it emerged from one woman's decision to try to do without anything made in China for one year. She learned how hard it is to find products not made in China. She wrote about it, brought it to others' attention, and this led to a broader conversation.
Others are most moved by the very idea that there might be slavery in America in 2008. Sen. Sanders went to Immokalee two weeks ago to see for himself the working and living conditions of tomato workers. And he is talking about what he saw and learned. He's hoping that will result in a Senate Committee hearing.
Someone else might be moved by something else. We don't all have to agree on where to take action, when to speak. After all, God calls each of us in different ways.
Posted by: bren | January 30, 2008 8:16 PM
As you know Bren (assuming here forgive me) anti-slavery activists estimate there are 250,000 slaves living in the United States of America. That's a conservative number many think it could be much higher than that. The problem is we don't know how to spot it when we see it.
When we see businesses surrounded by barbed wire is that security measure designed to keep people in or keep them out? Check out many private owned acupuncture or other shops. Some are fronts for sex traffiking.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 30, 2008 9:56 PM
All this talk about Cuba is really pretty silly. Especially since there are many countries the US does not boycott with far worse human rights records, and who do not send doctors into poor communities in Africa and Latin America Did you know Cuba does this?. I despise dictatorship. Castro's, Musharaf's, Myanmar's, Putin's, The Saudi's, Uzbekistan. George bush on the other hand, supposedly a conservative, likes them as long as he gets to be the dictator(those are his words). But all that is just a distraction from the moral issue presented in this article.
I mean it seems like some are saying we shouldn't think about boycotting Burger King, we should think about boycotting Cuba. But we actually do boycott Cuba.
Still as long as we are getting distracted and Cuba is on the agenda why not add China. China is just as bad as Cuba for human and political rights. Actually a lot worse, but half of anything you can buy was made in China, a lot of it, not all, in real bad conditions. Hey I love my Ipod but this crazed addictive rush to get more and more for less and less, to maximize profits and "externalize costs" ( translation- let the taxpayers clean up the mess , let the workers work longer, give up safety, give up school, give up clean air and water) is not godly stewardship.
Posted by: jonabark | January 31, 2008 1:02 AM
I some times wonder if the old summary of a legal code of "an eye for and eye, tooth for tooth" is far more subtle and complex than the average Joe Blow would ever expect.
If we unpack this statement, it contains the concept of justice at the same level for all despite their social standing. The implications are some what staggering if we were to apply it in law.
Consider the case where the right to unionise has been suppressed by various means (yes this has happened in Australia too) so that the rights in law of the employees has been systematically suppressed in favour of the employer. ) In the situation as described above it would appear that the workers have no power to ensure that the basic rights apply let alone negotiate for better conditions.
In cases like this where a corporation can use bottomless pockets to manipulate the legal and political system to its own advantage, the chance of success in court would not be good. There needs to be some balancing counter force. One way would be to limit the total spend in court cases to the resources available by those who have the least.
It would be interesting to see a CEO or chairman of the board representing the company with no assistance in court, and the judge refusing to allow the use of or deposition of any documents not prepared by the hand of the CEO. Likewise the other side - tomato picker would also be limited. Sure there could be agreements to allow so many hours of assistance time if agreed. The Court may have to do a little bit more to make the case work.
A major problem with highly unionised workforces is that 'inefficient systems develop” (Infesting concept - inefficient for whom, workforce, corporation or community -plenty of PhD’s here). However this culture often develops from a very stratified “Big Management and Big Union" conflict.
For all of the problems from a reasonably active union / regulatory situation, those who were powerless at least had some counter balance.
Slavery / unequable exploitation particularly in a culture which has prided and promoted itself on equal opportunity and equality are a mockery of justice.
Posted by: John Holmes | January 31, 2008 8:24 AM
Mark:
"No "rules". Just how you "care"?
So all of this is based on the emotions of the observer, and if you lack a "specific" emotion, you are morally defective?"
No that's not what I said. In fact, I was making the opposite point.
"Or is a person morally defective because they don't just act on emotion, and instead use experience, common sense, principle, and educated understanding to guide what they do and how to choose what is and isn't rational?"
Uh, no, what I was doing was encouraging people to pretty much "use experience, common sense, principle, and educated understanding to guide what they do and how to choose what is and isn't rational?"
"I'm going to be judged here as "cold" because I refuse to let my emotions transfer "guilt" upon BK for buying tomatoes. I refuse to transfer guilt upon anyone who eats at BK."
I'm not judging you, nor transfering guilt. remember, I didn't set any rules. I thought that was what you objected to with my reply to you.
"How can you maintain a solid grip on solid principles, if your judgement about right and wrong is based on "caring"?"
Because I believe that if one has principles one should care about them. Don't you?
"Do I "care" about slavery? You have no idea how it galls me to the depths of my soul. I hope God has a special version of hellfire...for those people who have known it was wrong and engaged in it anyway...But can I transfer that guilt to someone who cannot possibly know the details of this, and bought their produce? Of course not. We don't know who all bought their tomatoes."
But Mark, you're finding disagreement where there doesn't seem to be any. I said people who *knowingly* purchase products that go against their principles. If you KNOW that something was produced in conditions that YOU believe are immoral (not necessarily that I believe are immoral--we may have different ideas about what constitutes immoral labor conditions), yet you buy it anyway knowing that you are violating your own standards, then that is something that somebody should be discussing with you.
"It is a reasonable presumption that someone who offers thier stuff for sale, in a free country, that the ones offering it are not in hideous violation of law."
Yes, I make that assumption, just like you.
"When you go the local farmer's market, or even a fruit stand, do you stand there and demand to know every detail of the employment aspects of all those who were employed to get to your hand? I KNOW you do not. But yet you demand it, and think it reasonable to demand of someone else."
Once again, no I didn't write that; I wrote pretty much the opposite. I took a bit of time to make a cordial and reasonable reply to you, and I have carefully read what you have wrote. If this is going to be a worthwhile dialogue--which is the point of this blog anyway--I hope you will do the same.
Posted by: I and I | January 31, 2008 10:16 AM
Mark, I want to say one more thing. There can be constructive dialoge among those who disagree with each other. You actually make reasonable points in some of your messages and probably can contribute a great deal to this blog. I encourage you to keep posting here, minus some of the "baggage" that obscures what you have to say. Most of us who are "liberal" on the blog welcome other points of view and are willing to engage in discussion--even uncomfortable discussion. As I learned myself yet again at the beginning of this thread, negative comments beget negative comments and positive beget positive (at least most of the time) and it seems best to try to stay positive. And if you screw up on that, like Lord knows I have done more than once, you can always start again on a new thread with new topic and people won't hold it against you.
Posted by: I and I | January 31, 2008 10:29 AM
I'm late to this thread, but I want to address this question asked by a few:
"Then you also morally indict everyone who eats at BK. "
I guess the question to ask yourself is, if you know a company is buying materials from businesses that are mistreating its employees and the company is NOT DOING ANYTHING TO CHANGE THAT, do you feel comfortable buying anything from that company, whether it be hamburgers, socks, or widgets, when you KNOW about their abusive business practices? And if yes, why?
We are responsible for each other, and ordering a meal (if you can call it that) from BK is participating in the mistreatment of these workers. I've heard many advocate that a free market should take care of stuff like that, but it only will if we as consumers take the responsibility to boycott those businesses that mistreat their workers--if we don't, we send no message, and we become collaborators whether we like it or not, especially if we KNOW what is going on. And so the market doesn't do its job, and the company feels no incentive to change. But we still get the .99 burger, so all is right with the world.
Is BK responsible? If they KNEW about the practices of the tomato growers, then they most certainly are responsible. They are a huge company, and I'm sure their contract with those growers is quite lucrative for the growers. It wouldn't be that difficult for them to insist that the growers change their practices, and the growers WOULD, but since they don't, the growers just go right on doing what they are doing.
I for one, will never eat there again. But then again, I rarely eat fast food, so it's not much of a sacrifice--it's not much of a sacrifice even if I did eat fast food. Blech. But it brings up a good point that consumers need to be far more aware of where their goods are coming from. I suspect we prefer the blind eye approach in part because we know that if we protest, the prices of these goods will increase...
Posted by: squeaky | January 31, 2008 11:39 AM
Was it a cheap shot? Maybe. But isn't there a germ of truth to his concern, if I pegged it correctly?
Peace,
Posted by: Don
Most cheap shots have a germ of truth in them , thats why they are called cheap shots . The good thing Is I believe "I and I" learned it hurt his ability to make more then just a cheap shot by using his ability to have an intellectual give and take with a person . Something that requires more thought , but obviously he shows he has that ability when he wants to . And causing others to listen and not just pick sides by only our pre conceived biases , , which you proved Don cheap shots cause .
Posted by: Mick | January 31, 2008 11:56 AM
"mean it seems like some are saying we shouldn't think about boycotting Burger King, we should think about boycotting Cuba. But we actually do boycott Cuba."
Maybe to you , but I find it quite interesting and compelling why say we treat countries doing human right violations differently . Liberal churches a few years back were protesting and boycotting giving to the Salvation Army because of their medical plan did not provide for domestic partnerships of their employees. Why they advocated boycotting the Salvation Army and not the Federal Government and many other employers made me want to change the subject also . Protesting Disney Land by the Baptists was a boycott too I always wondered about because of gay day at Disney . Boycott the Lion King ? Now thats unAmerican .
And you missed the point about Cuba , many people do not want to boycott cuba , they hold it up as an example of a government to follow .
I think some of the problems we have as a nation is our inconsistent foreign policy . We attack Iraq yet we trade with China . If that changes the meaning of the origninal boycott of Burger King , good that was my intent ..To consider why we blindly follow boycotts but ignore other human right violations . As if Sojouners has all right companies to boycott .
I think its important to question the logic , especially those who are requiring you to follow their lead . . Go to McDonalds , I don't go to either myself .
Posted by: Mick | January 31, 2008 12:11 PM
...
On their own axis as the planets run,
Yet make at once their circle round the sun;
So two consistent motions act the soul;
And one regards itself, and one the whole.
Thus God and Nature linked the general frame,
And bade self-love and social be the same.
–Alexander Pope, Essay on Man, epis iii, sec vi (1734)
Posted by: jonabark | January 31, 2008 12:55 PM
Mick: "...I find it quite interesting and compelling why say we treat countries doing human right violations differently."
Agreed. We went after Iraq when most of the 9/11 murderers were from Saudi Arabia, whose internal human rights violations are arguably worse than Iraq's and who are sponsors of terrorism. We trade with China but not with Cuba. And on and on.
However, what liberal churches boycotted Salvation Army? I did a web search and found nothing. I did find however that the NCC supported Salvation Army during the Target ban and informaed its members on how they could support the organization monetarily despite the absence of holiday season bellringers. See
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?50c20f74-6aa6-4c3c-90b0-8197b8496d02
Posted by: I and I | January 31, 2008 1:11 PM
And you missed the point about Cuba , many people do not want to boycott cuba , they hold it up as an example of a government to follow .
I don't want to boycott Cuba because we are hurting the people and the sanctions don't work. they have solved nothing. Those of us on the left that see some good in Cuba are aware of the fact that Cuba's medical system rivals ours. They send out more doctors to trouble spots than we do. So despite everything not everything about Cuba is bad. Castro needs to go but the people, the food, the music and even some of it's policies are good.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 31, 2008 3:16 PM
"Saudi Arabia, whose internal human rights violations are arguably worse than Iraq's and who are sponsors of terrorism. "
I guess we think a little differently about those nations that supply our oil. But wait, Iraq has a lot of oil, too....hmmm....what's going on here?
Posted by: squeaky | January 31, 2008 3:44 PM
Squeaky, I think it comes down to "Saudi Arabia does what we want and Iraq does not." We cozied up to Saddam for years in the 80's when he was gassing his own people, but we continued to boycott Cuba, who as Payshun points out have done quite a few things right.
Posted by: I and I | January 31, 2008 5:00 PM
It's beginning to feel that a number of posters are looking for reasons why they shouldn't get involved in this issue and I don't understand it. If you feel moved to become involved in issues around slavery in China, go for it! Others will become involved in issues around slavery in America and others still, in slavery in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. And if you're particularly concerned about sex trafficking/slavery in America while others focus on tomato pickers, that's fine, too. There is so much abuse of so many people around the world that there is enough work for all of us. But quite frankly, to say why pick on tomato pickers and not on Cuba is a cop-out. It is not an either/or situation.
Everyone on this site knows how to use the Internet. If you want a second or third opinion, or more details, about a particular form of slavery in America, Google it. But please don't complain because this or that slavery issue is not the one you would choose to work on if you were to choose to work to stop slavery.
American history teaches us that slavery ended in the U.S. It is therefore particularly SHAMEFUL that slavery in a different form continues in our collective backyard!
Posted by: bren | January 31, 2008 5:31 PM
"I think those slaves should be obedient to their masters and not try to leave the situation they are in--that is the absolute teaching of God's word."
They weren't slaves treated ethically by their masters. They were prisoners in a truck in a nation that does not allow slavery. There is no comparison.
I know where you are going, and I have a good idea where you have been. Are you interested in these questions, or has all of scripture become a ballast for your quest for self-acceptance? That is not what Christ is about. If he had "accepted his nature", he would have laid waste to humanity, as was well within his power (and I would carefully consider whether you wish to contend that it was not).
You are drawn to the scriptures for one of two reasons. Either you are compelled by God to obey them, and desperately wish not to give up that which is dear to you. In that case, I sympathize with your plight. This world will do so much to prop up a man for who he is. America, in particular, is prone to self-worship. It's a hard habit to break. I certainly have not done so.
Alternately, you are using scripture to promote your own religion. There are many who have used the Bible to do precisely this. Examine your motives, not so that you can convince me (you can't), but so that you know where you stand and can at least be authentic.
I suspect that you are in the former category. But it is time you made a decision as to which road you are following. If that sounded harsh, I'm sorry. But I assure you this isn't about you or me. Prayerfully consider what I just wrote. I leave it at that.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 1, 2008 1:56 AM
Here's the other thing about Paul and slavery. In his letter to Philemon we learn that Philemon's slave Onesimus had escaped, then met Paul and converted to Christianity. Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon, who apparently was a Christian himself. But in the letter he strongly urged Philemon to set Onesimus free:
Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to, yet I appeal to you on the basis of love. I then, as Paul -- an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus -- I appeal to you on behalf of my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains ... But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced. Perhaps the reason he was seperated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good -- no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother
Philemon v. 8-10, 14-15
I realize this doesn't directly address your point, but I mention it because it is important to note that Paul was not a consistent supporter of slavery.
Before you dismiss Paul as an apologist for slavery, you should look at the whole record and try to consider the position Paul was in. While Paul was a Roman citizen and had been influential in the past, he pretty much lost his influence once he converted from persecutor of Christians to Christian himself.
As the first theologian of a new faith that was already subject to intense persecution, it is understandable that Paul would want to pick his fights carefully. He was in no position to issue any emancipation proclamation, and hence he did not call for a slave revolt. But where he was in a position to help free Onesimus, he did what he could to have him permanently and legally freed.
Should Paul have done more? Maybe. But let's not dismiss Paul as an apologist for slavery. He wasn't.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 1, 2008 9:21 AM
kevin s, a brilliant post. I mean that in all Christian sincerity.
Posted by: carl copas | February 1, 2008 2:03 PM
Has anyone wondered why only 2 companies out of the thousands the buy tomatoes would work with the CIW? If they are so right and good howcome they have to attack companies for years and force them to do waht? Answer: The CIW is a pure self-serving attack organization and has no real workers or members and makes money off the conflict they creat (see their IRS for 990). They spread lies about woking conditions and companies and reap millions in cash from their actions. Burger King does not hire tomato pickers, or buy tomatoes directly from growers, has anyone questioned that fact? The CIW has been attacking restaurants one by one for 6 years and the workers in Immokalee have never seen a penny of the "penny a pound" money collected. On the other hand the CIW has collected millions from the people it has duped with its slick emotional internet stories. Go Burger King the only chain to stand up to these self serving extortionists who are the greatest abusers of the hard working tomato harvesters in Immokalee.
Posted by: Activist | February 18, 2008 6:24 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?