But now comes perhaps the more interesting part.  As the good Revs., Jesse and Al, start talking about the “next stage”, my thoughts turn to the question of “standards” of conduct.  While the remarks from Imus were clearly both racist and sexist in nature, the discussions of the issue that I’ve been listening to are far less clear about how one could apply what we’ve learned here to the future.  Consider the following:

1) Is the Imus issue about the 1st amendment?  No one seems to really question that even idiots have a right to express their opinion.  So, is the issue in this case that Imus made these comments on the public airwaves? 

2) Many suggest that Imus will simply move to satellite radio and join the likes of Howard Stern.  Many who think Imus wasn’t ok for “free” radio think it would be fine if he’s on XM or Sirius.  Why is that?  Of course you have to subscribe to satellite, but can’t you just turn the dial or shut off the AM/FM radio if you don’t like what’s playing?

3) Or was the Imus issue about WHO he said these things about?  Was it because it was very specific black, female college students?  Is there a minimum age to be called out on the radio?  What if Imus had said those things about WNBA players?  Perhaps it is the fact that Imus chose to pick on these young women, who really do seem to be positive role models, that incited so much anger.

4) Or was it the fact that the targets of Imus’ words were not politicians or high paid celebrities?  Does a person forfeit an expectation of civility when he or she takes public office, gets a tv show or makes a movie? 

5) Did “the market” fire Imus?  He didn’t get fired after his ratings went down.  The advertisers left within days and did so either to avoid the controversy or act on their own principles.  In some sense, it might have been more interesting to see what would have happened had he served his suspension and stayed on the air.

6) Was his language unacceptable because he is white man and he was talking to a team of black women?  What would have happened had this broadcast on a Snoop Dog radio show?  What if these had been lyrics in a rap song on a CD?  Does the source of insults amplify their impact?  I mean, a “ho” is a “ho”, whether its Snoop Dog or a creepy white guy in a cowboy hat calling a woman that.  Right?

 I pose all of these questions because, while I’m glad that perhaps a statement has been made that there really is a minimum standard of decency in this country, I’m not certain what happens next.  The line between comedy/satire and inappropriate speech will not always be so clear.  I enjoy listening to both Chris Rock and to Rush Limbaugh.  Does their speech cross a line?

Before anyone starts trying to manipulate this situation to their own advantage, political or otherwise, we need to define the terms of this public discourse.  For while it is clear to me that Don Imus’ words were inappropriate and crossed a line, I’m having a hard time figuring out exactly what that line is.

Well, here we are amid the headlines.  New York city is banning trans fats.  We have movements to eliminate all traces of soda and candy from our schools.  Film makers decide to go on an all McDonald’s diet for a month and then show us the results in a documentary.  Is anyone really surprised when the outcome is a fatter, less healthy person at the end of the film?

Now, don’t misunderstand.  I don’t like cigarette smoke.  I’m not a smoker.  I believe in eating in moderation and trying to strike a balance between eating things that I really like and eating things that are really good for me.  If discoveries are made that certain things in food, things like trans fats, are bad for me then I’ll look to change my habits.  But I believe we are on very a slippery slope here. 

Presumably, smoking bans are justified on the basis that eliminating smoking in public places is simply a matter of enforcing the rights of the non-smoker.  That makes some sense to me.  If a smoker has a right to his or her cigarettes then I have a right to my clean, healthy lungs.  My lack of tobacco and clean, healthy lungs cannot possibly make a smoker sick.  The reverse is not true.

But now, consider again trans fats and food in general.  Using the same arguments to justify banning foods or ingredients just doesn’t work.  I can eat like a total pig, stuff my face full of every known form of junk food, all of it laden with trans fats…and the only person I impact is myself.  My smoke might hurt you.  My rolls of fat can only disgust you.

Thus it would appear that this newest crusade is not a matter of using government to protect the rights of one group versus another.  Rather, it seems to be a clear attempt by governments to define for each of us what is “good” and what is “bad” to eat.  We can apparently not be trusted to weigh what tastes good against what is nutritious.  We surely cannot leave it to the consumers to vote with their dollars when new information about food becomes available.  No!  We must be protected from ourselves at all costs.

So, if we all “go with the flow” and watch idly while some (perhaps) well-intentioned souls begin to dictate our food choices “for the public good”, let’s not be surprised in another 10 years when we are told we must take yet another stand.  Perhaps it will be alcohol, saturated fats, chocolate, red meat or caffeine that is next in line for elimination.  Surely, there are many things besides trans fats that stand in the way of our collective health as a nation.

Finally…a diet that works.  Authoritarianism!

I don’t shop much at Walmart, but my wife buys groceries there sometimes and her sister works there part-time.  I don’t own any stock.  That is my disclosure statement.

I don’t really think Walmart is evil and I don’t think it is a threat to the civilized world, except for the fact that its critics may use it as a way to further erode our freedom.  I admire the company as a success story.  It has revolutionized supply chain management and it has brought lower prices and increased choice to consumers.

I want to keep this blog simple, so I’ll deliver simple messages.  Many people hate Walmart because it pays low wages and doesn’t have very good health plans.  Irrespective of the truth behind those reasons, there are easy answers for those people.  First, don’t work there.  Second, don’t shop there.

 This is America.  So in addition to choosing where to work and shop, you can despise anything you wish and exercise your freedom of speech.  You can take your case to the media.  You can buy your own ads and tell the world what you think.  You can find a place near a store to protest and picket until the end of time.  You can do all that to try to persuade your fellow citizens to join your cause.  If you can convince enough people of your position, Walmart will face the choice between changing their employment practices or going out of business.

 I have only one request.  Do not try to use the power of government to force Walmart to change.  That would be as much an abrogation of freedom as it would be to have the government tell you to be quiet.

Walmart should be free to pay what they want.  It should be free to offer whatever health plans it wants, or even no health plan at all.  No one is forced by the point of a gun to work there.  Each individual decides if what the company offers is sufficient to take the job.  Whenever a store opens, long lines of applicants appear.  Apparently, the jobs are better than the status quo for many.

 Similarly, the public gets to decide implicitly each day what is more important to them:  low prices or the “rights” of Walmart employees that the company haters say they are trying to protect.   I suspect a few Walmart customers might even be union members.  Could they possibly value low prices that much?

 So, Walmart haters, I won’t ask you to give up your fight.  I likely can’t convince you, at least not in this first post, that the employees of Walmart aren’t entitled to more than they are getting.  But do think about a government that determines for us how much a job is worth. 

 Hopefully your job is worth as much as you’re making now to the government regulator who will determine YOUR wage some day in the future.