Thursday, July 07, 2005



Bill Adair , writing in the St. Petersburg Times, also sees a squeeze, but a different one. Yes, it's conservative Christian groups on the one side. But on the other, he writes: "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants Bush to nominate someone who is pro-business. Democrats want him to pick a middle-of-the-road justice like Sandra Day O'Connor, the Reagan nominee who announced her resignation Friday."

This rant is not about the Supreme Court, but instead:

I'm tired of the phrase "pro-business." I'm tired of it because it is vague to the point of having little meaning.

If you are pro-business, are you also pro-Enron? How about pro-Adelphia, pro-HealthSouth? Does being pro-business mean that all actions by all businesses are to be supported and excused?

If you are pro-business, are you also for predatory actions by behemoth chains, the Hollywoods and Blockbusters putting independent video rental stores out of business, the WalMarts driving the Mom-and-Pops into the dirt? Shouldn't you have to make a distinction between being pro-world-corporation-sized-business and pro-hey-I-know-the-guy-who-runs-this-place-business? Surely, there should be some distinction there, and just pro-business doesn't cut it.

If you are pro-business, are you also pro-polluting-energy-companies, the kind that shows concern only for their expenses and nothing for the air that I breathe? How about unions and labor? If you are pro-business, does that mean you are for anti-union actions?

This phrase gets spewed out a lot, and frequently by politicians who want to keep the gravy train a-rollin'. I want some goddamned specificity here. Which businesses are you for, and how much is worth to you to be for that business? Is that business an actual constituent, meaning actually located in your area of representation, or did that business simply write you a check?

Also, fuck the Chamber of Commerce and their anti-Social Security plank.


Post a Comment

<< Home