[CanadianJeff]

It depends on the band. Some lasted longer then others but most reserves were formed in the Mid to late 1800s most along 1860 and 1870s.

[Alfred909]

Most cultures did that. The Aztecs forced people to join in there traditions. The Rus forced much of Russia to speak russian, even if they were Mongols.

The most intelligent Navajo I have met can not speak his language. He understands it, can even read it, but because of English school, he can't speak. When he spoke navajo he would be beaten.

It is an ancient device. Destroying the culture by turning it into something else. Every culture around today has done it.

[Tiler]

I had some thoughts about this whole ordeal a bit more last night. I forgot some along my merry way, but at least I managed to salvage one out of the dark pit of my mind.

Which is that the situations between Turkey and China are fundamentally different.

By meeting with the Dalai Llamma, we are pissing off the Chinese because we're not doing what they say. We're just meeting with a person, and all in all, it's China's fault that they're mad at us, in a sense. While messages are being sent, they're not direct and deliberately antagonistic. Meeting with the leader of Tibet and giving him a medal is not the same as throwing metaphorical stones at another nation, which is what we're doing with Turkey. We are going out of our way to make a resolution, and Turkey is upset because we are pointing out something about itself that it doesn't really want to talk about.

Well, it sounded good in my head at least.

Don't throw stones in glass houses, and let he who has not sinned cast the first stone, etc. etc.

[Psudo]

If you're lazy, just read the bold print.

CanadianJeff wrote:

Seriously though he's right you really shouldn't shop at wal-mart. They do use child labour and they do shut down smaller american busniesses that can't afford to keep up with their cheap prices by using such cheap labour tricks.

See the documentary "The high cost of low prices" if you want a bit more info. It's slighly left leaning but it does bring up many good real situations.

"The High Cost of Low Prices" was a slander piece, comparable to the documentary "Bush's Brain" (bashing Karl Rove) or the book "High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton" by Ann Coulter. It gathers only facts that seem to support it's case and fill in the gaps where necessary to make the target look criminal. Wal-Mart has plenty of enemies, but that doesn't make all their claims true.

Do you have another source for your child labor claims? There was a semi-famous New York Times article that made some serious claims of labor law violations based on an internal audit of 128 Wal-Mart stores. However, these claims suffer from three weaknesses: 1) That's 128 stores out of 3,500+ (<3.7%, <2% if you include international stores) with no attempt to make it a representative sample Wal-Mart stores. Thus, even if the results are exactly true, it's not Wal-Mart as a whole that is wrong but specific Wal-Mart stores (and, probably, specific managers at those stores) 2) the audit only attempted to show whether lunches or breaks were missed, not why. I work at a 24 hour Wal-Mart store; I sometimes skip breaks (which are paid and on-the-clock, and not legally mandatory in my state, by the way) on purpose because I need to catch up a little. Other times I forget to clock out for lunch. My cases and those like it would show up in the audit but would be neither forcible nor illegal nor Wal-Mart's fault. 3) The audit suffered from methodology problems as described in the same article, making it speculative whether even it's claim of breaks missed for any reason was accurate.

So it's an inaccurate count of potential problems in a tiny proportion of stores as detected by Wal-Mart itself. Hardly a basis for characterization of Wal-Mart as a company.

Wal-Mart does have cheap prices and does well against competition. I'll give you that, but that's not bad. They have a lot of cheap imports, and they also have a lot of Made In America products. The shoppers pick what sells, and Wal-Mart provides what sells (outside a few moral and environmental restrictions).

Also, my currently understaffed store currently has a policy of sending people home once they've reached 40 hours for the week, thus ensuring people aren't working the kinds of putative overtime claimed in the article. Frankly, I'd be glad for some overtime. I used to work the occasional 12-hour shift when I needed money at a previous job for a local chain. Before that, I used to work alongside my dad during 12, 14, even 16 hour days doing concrete construction, often in 100+°F weather. Maybe I'm a rare breed, but I find Wal-Mart's strict labor rules to be limiting rather than empowering. I could do a better job if they'd just let me.

The article did find "several current and former Wal-Mart employees" confirming violations of the rules. Several among the 25,000 audited or the 1.2 million employed, even if all true, demonstrate nothing about the company at large. (I won't criticize the individual complainants. Individual cases probably do occur; I can't imagine 1.2 million people all following the rules consistently.)

There. Now you have the other side of the story.

[Lunchbox]

The genocide bill seems to have two different roles attached to it:

1. Retaliate against Turkey's meddling in northern Iraq

2. Serve as a way of cutting off supplies to force a withdrawal from Iraq.

[Alfred909]

The bill might have had been done for other reasons. Recently Turkey's government has said that it will shoot down any Kurdish terrorists. This might not make sense, but perhaps the bill is to remind Turkey that we are watching it.

[BartSimpson]

Lunchbox wrote:

The genocide bill seems to have two different roles attached to it:

1. Retaliate against Turkey's meddling in northern Iraq

2. Serve as a way of cutting off supplies to force a withdrawal from Iraq.

Very astute of you! I hadn't considered this, but you're quite right. This explains why the Democrats took on an issue that is dear to the traditionally Republican Armenian-Americans.

[CanadianJeff]

Psudo wrote:

If you're lazy, just read the bold print.

CanadianJeff wrote:

Seriously though he's right you really shouldn't shop at wal-mart. They do use child labour and they do shut down smaller american busniesses that can't afford to keep up with their cheap prices by using such cheap labour tricks.

See the documentary "The high cost of low prices" if you want a bit more info. It's slighly left leaning but it does bring up many good real situations.

"The High Cost of Low Prices" was a slander piece, comparable to the documentary "Bush's Brain" (bashing Karl Rove) or the book "High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton" by Ann Coulter. It gathers only facts that seem to support it's case and fill in the gaps where necessary to make the target look criminal. Wal-Mart has plenty of enemies, but that doesn't make all their claims true.

Do you have another source for your child labor claims? There was a semi-famous New York Times article that made some serious claims of labor law violations based on an internal audit of 128 Wal-Mart stores. However, these claims suffer from three weaknesses: 1) That's 128 stores out of 3,500+ (<3.7%, <2% if you include international stores) with no attempt to make it a representative sample Wal-Mart stores. Thus, even if the results are exactly true, it's not Wal-Mart as a whole that is wrong but specific Wal-Mart stores (and, probably, specific managers at those stores) 2) the audit only attempted to show whether lunches or breaks were missed, not why. I work at a 24 hour Wal-Mart store; I sometimes skip breaks (which are paid and on-the-clock, and not legally mandatory in my state, by the way) on purpose because I need to catch up a little. Other times I forget to clock out for lunch. My cases and those like it would show up in the audit but would be neither forcible nor illegal nor Wal-Mart's fault. 3) The audit suffered from methodology problems as described in the same article, making it speculative whether even it's claim of breaks missed for any reason was accurate.

So it's an inaccurate count of potential problems in a tiny proportion of stores as detected by Wal-Mart itself. Hardly a basis for characterization of Wal-Mart as a company.

Wal-Mart does have cheap prices and does well against competition. I'll give you that, but that's not bad. They have a lot of cheap imports, and they also have a lot of Made In America products. The shoppers pick what sells, and Wal-Mart provides what sells (outside a few moral and environmental restrictions).

Also, my currently understaffed store currently has a policy of sending people home once they've reached 40 hours for the week, thus ensuring people aren't working the kinds of putative overtime claimed in the article. Frankly, I'd be glad for some overtime. I used to work the occasional 12-hour shift when I needed money at a previous job for a local chain. Before that, I used to work alongside my dad during 12, 14, even 16 hour days doing concrete construction, often in 100+°F weather. Maybe I'm a rare breed, but I find Wal-Mart's strict labor rules to be limiting rather than empowering. I could do a better job if they'd just let me.

The article did find "several current and former Wal-Mart employees" confirming violations of the rules. Several among the 25,000 audited or the 1.2 million employed, even if all true, demonstrate nothing about the company at large. (I won't criticize the individual complainants. Individual cases probably do occur; I can't imagine 1.2 million people all following the rules consistently.)

There. Now you have the other side of the story.

And I thank you for it but I will repeat that I did find the documentary a bit left learning (aka biast) so I do recognize that not all Wal-Mart stores are follwing these patterns.

However it's also clear at least to me that a company HAS to take responsibility for ALL it's stores NO MATTER how large it gets. As well I have very very clear evidence here in my own city that Wal-Mart does hire on people to "advice" the mayor on urban devolopment. It caused a HUGE scandal here on the mayor elections. Needless to say any company that tries to play in City building and any mayor that allows that are both on my list of corrupt people.

That's why I so easily don't dismiss most of the claims against Wal-Mart. Frankly if your capable of that much...

edit: Lack of sleep does stupid things to people. My appologies I live in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan I should have added such. The mayor accused of the actions was mayor Donald Atchetson

[Psudo]

The subsets of both the left and right are biased against Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart Corporate enacts policies for their entire workforce and tries to enforce them. However, as with all enforcement of rules, it's inevitably going to be imperfect. Blaming Wal-Mart Corporate for the actions of individual managers or stores acting against corporate policy is akin to blaming the FBI for the actions of individual citizens under their jurisdiction. Yes, it's their duty to stop corruption, but they're not going to be able to prevent every corruption. There's no evidence Wal-Mart Corporate is incompetent or corrupt, or that any large proportion of stores/associates are either.

[CanadianJeff]

It's a little diffrent with a business as you chose to open up that one more store or not to open it up.

You chose how much responsibility and how big your range of enforcement has to be.

To put that into words for me I was born with a taller and light body. For Karate I have to try and maintain more control over my longer limbs to get the most power and speed out of my techniques moreso then someone shorter who once in range does not have to put as much control into their techniques to get maximum height due to shorter limbs and more weight to stablize their base and core to strike from. For me starting out I had a much harder time controling my kicks then most others due to my longer legs. I was able to kick higher and harder eventually but it took a LOT of work compared to those with shorter legs.

Wal-mart gets to chose the size of it's body. Likewise they have to understand the level of control they need to make sure everything is executed properly and in working order. If you can't control that extra few stores with a ground and stable base then you don't open those stores. They chose the size they wanted to be. They are therfore responsible to control the size they chose. If they can't it was their choice to open those stores no one else's thus they are liable.

Does that make sense? Sorry I know the comparison may be a little jaring but having felt the sensation with my body it's the thing I most personally understand and feel can put forward regarding control.

[Psudo]

You're saying their size makes them unwieldy, and since they control their growth it's their fault when they're increasingly awkward. Right?

At least that metaphor removes any sense of malice or intent from Wal-Mart.

Even now, with all your training, I assume you're still awkward from time to time. (I'm tall, too, and I know I'm awkward often enough.) Just as with the law enforcement analogy, a certain amount of failure is inevitable. There are no signs that Wal-Mart is slipping up more often than is reasonable.

Wal-Mart does get more negative publicity than is reasonable, for various reasons. Because they're the largest private employer. Because they're the largest company (or were, rather). Because (in 2003 and 2004, according to Forbes Magazine) they were the world's most respected company.

A large, respected, union-free, multi-national retailer offends anti-corporate, anti-globalization, and anti-capitalist activists as well as unions. (Wal-Mart also annoys those wary of China, but I couldn't figure out how to fit that in smoothly.) So they start mudslinging campaigns against that company. Even if there was nothing to complain about, they'd invent something. It's in their best interest to do so. And it seems to me to be what happened.

[sasquatch2]

Perhaps the root cause of all this is the simple fact that the US has yet to mature much beyond the amateur mentality of Woodrow Wilson and FDR which to a great extent created this mess in the first place.