Wal-Mart critics fall into many different groups. Which group do you fall into?
1. Honest, good hearted Americans who have been misinformed or misled.
2. Political critics and opportunistic trial lawyers who attack companies for being successful.
3. Labor leaders who want more money for their unions.
4. Snobbish elites (probably from away) who are self-appointed arbiters of taste and culture and who don’t appreciate Wal-Mart providing the great American middle class with countless cartloads of affordable goods..
5. Blame-America-first political radicals and environmental activists.
6. Journalists who make their living spreading doom-and-gloom economic reports.
7. People who see themselves as citizens first and consumers second.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
If you are a Wal-Mart critic you are probably not misinformed or mislead - I would have to say that the misinformed and misled are the Wal-Mart supporters. Most of their rhetoric is based something besides facts (I don't know what exactly, but certainly not facts) There are probably a certain number of #'s 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 out there but my guess is that most Wal-Mart critics are #7: citizens first and consumers second.
A little off the topic, but I'd like to make a few observations about the alleged rash of Yes W/M! sign stealings.
First, Don't think it beneath W/M's ethics to plant the notion of stolen signs--or to direct local talent to remove signs--in order to gin up moral indignation among their supporters.
Second, Comments on TotT claim it to be a freedom of speech issue. Hmmm, let's look at that, shall we? WalMart makes the signs (at low low prices) and distributes them for free. The only act that is being equated with free speech, then, is the act of pounding the sign into the lawn. In that case, isn't pulling the same sign out of the lawn an equivalent exercise of free speech?
Third, they are also suggesting this to be something of a criminal act. The signs don't have much property value (as they were free, have no sentimental value and are readily replaceable), so theft is a weak case. Vandalism? Is it defacing a lawn to remove a piece of cardboard from it? Their best argument for criminality may be trespassing.
Wal-Mart lawn signs should not be taken for any reason. As we both agree it only helps the Wal-Mart supporters.
As spokesperson for SAGA, I absolutely agree that the signs should be left in Wal-Mart supporters yards. The commentator above has made some arguments for taking the signs, however, as an American that feels very strongly about the integrity of the US Constitution, I would always rather lean on the side of the right to freedom of speech. I need to lean toward that "freedom of speech" side in this case. Arguments can very easily and substantively be made refuting all the arguments behind "Wal-Mart - YES" but "I will fight to my death" for their right to express that position, as misguided (and manipulated by Wal-Mart) as it is.
Mark Kurtz
Spokesperson
SAGA
I am proud to accept any slurs that anyone wants to heap on me for being anti-Walmart. A real American is one who asks independent questions and makes up their mind without recourse to the absurd jingoism of corporate advertisers and strategists. A real American supports community engagement over convenience, laziness, and apathy. Why? Because a real American knows that the phrase "freedom isn't free" is about the importance of participating and contributing to their community, not about fighting for US interests overseas.
Post a Comment