Comments on: Target the Salvation Army

By: Clod

Clod — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:40:06 +0000

The real issue is really quite simple: If Target allows SA to solicit donations on their property, and that’s codified in policy, they eventually end up in court after the Holy Aryan Werewolf Brotherhood in Jebus, and every other wingnut with a tin can, tries to solicit on their property. They can’t afford the risk, the end.

By: marklatham

marklatham — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:12:08 +0000

Salvation army all gone barmy all gone to heaven in a petrol can petrol can began to smell they all fell out and went to hell.

By: marklatham

marklatham — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:07:39 +0000

On ya target. The salvos are john howard stooges,I find them politically incorrect. Fuck em!

By: marklatham

marklatham — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:07:12 +0000

On ya target. The salvos are john howard stooges,I find them politically incorrect. Fuck em!

By: marklatham

marklatham — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:06:23 +0000

On ya target. The salvos are john howard stooges,I find them politically incorrect. Fuck em!

By: a different chris

a different chris — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:49:55 +0000

Oh, and limberwulf- totally unconvincing. That money used to purchase the property would be US dollars, no? The ones that have the signature of the Treasury Secretary on them? However, your post was not a total waste – that “goverment sucks” rant at the end pretty much helps make my point to washerdreyer – as long as some charity exists people like limberwulf can always be counted upon to blather about how it has to be better than anything the government could possibly do.

By: a different chris

a different chris — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:35:47 +0000

>Please elaborate on this theory. Er, I don’t have much clarification beyond that I typed. In truth, I threw it out in hopes the bright brains around here would kick it around some. It’s one of those things I find myself feeling strongly about, but don’t exactly know how I got there. That is, it’s a belief not a researched position. Being reality-based doesn’t mean you can not have beliefs, it just means that you want to see if they stand the test of reality. Alas, nobody has come forward to help me but you. So, let’s take your objection, which I think can be stated “Charities are better than nothing at all.” Well, are you an American citizen? If you are, I think you’d grant me that it’s a fair observation that the existence of an inefficient system can be used by entrenched interests to block the creation of a better one? That’s why the SA so revels in it’s Godliness – in America, if you are visibly pious you gain a great deal of immunity to criticism. “How can the SA, being touched by the hand of Jeebus himself, not do a better job than government bureaucrats?” seems to be a killer argument in the US today. Therefore, the existence of the SA becomes a counter-argument to hiring some real professionals. Not too long after Bush took office, an Op-ed by Larry Lindsley (sp??? the guy who got fired for saying the Iraq misadventure would cost >200 billion) (dis)graced the Post-Gazette. Apparently he had served some time in an American Embassy in an Eastern European country – let’s say it was Bulgaria – right after the USSR dissolved. His stupid op-ed told a story of a financially-distressed family living close to the embassy. The Americans chipped in and helped these people. But the Bulgarians thought it was ridiculous to do that, they expressed their feelings in no uncertain terms that the government was responsible and should get off it’s ass. Well, Lindsley, being an idiot, thought that was a great parable about the superiority of the American Way – he triumphantly concluded (paraphrasing) “Americans believe in getting together an doing it themselves, while other (apparently lesser beings) always look to government to help.” I’m sitting there thinking how the fuck does he expect everybody in Bulgaria to find a way to live next to the American Embassy.

By: Mr.C

Mr.C — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:12:30 +0000

I’m new to this forum. Can someone tell me, in less than one hundred words, what is bad about Wall Mart?

By: vernaculo

vernaculo — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:43:10 +0000

Regardless of the Salvation Army’s discriminatory policies, the fact that they link their re-distribution of essential services to metaphysical teachings is Pavlovian coercion, or an attempt at it. Much the same process was used to “Christianize” the California natives, after the Spanish had forcibly disrupted their local means of livelihood. Starving? Bell tone. Here’s some food! Bell tone. And a place to sleep! Let us pray… – Regardless of Target’s semi-enlightened policies vis. gays and sweatshop labor they still represent the neighborhood absence of the dozens of metabolized mom-and-pop stores their much cheaper and far more prodigious shelves have subsumed. Though there’s still nothing permanent about what they are or the trend they represent. Centralization’s real terminus is the insect hive, or the base PX. Or Wal-Mart’s next iteration. It’s great to see recognition of human rights from anyone, especially a corporate entity, but it’s just more self-delusion to think that a gleaming parking lot filled with hundreds of automobiles – with or without the presence of an iron pot filled with spare change and the sound of a hand bell ringing – indicates anything but another stage in a process that has taken us from the little shop around the corner to the inhuman aisles of the mega-store in less than a hundred years. Humbug! Bah!

By: paul

paul — Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:09:29 +0000

“Oh, that I should be found warthy of bein’ spit on for the Lord’s sake!” PNH is on the money. Good for Target.

By: Mr.C

Mr.C — Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:40:37 +0000

It amazes me how many oppinions there are on how people, groups of people, or businesses should handle their affairs. It’s none of your business people. Put the blog down and back away slowly. It’s sunny and beautiful outside. Memories are waiting to be made.

By: raj

raj — Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:25:28 +0000

dsquared · November 10, 2004 12:45 AM Whenever I see someone making this claim, I always want to see how consistent a libertarian they are… I have not been discussing anything from either a personal or a philosophical standpoint. My discussion has been from a legal standpoint. Did the proprietors of lunch counters in the 1960s, in your view, have the right to declare that some of their seats were for “whites only”? Certainly not following passage of the 1964 “civil rights” act http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002000—-a000-.html I don’t believe the prior civil rights acts (1957 and 1960) contained similar anti-discrimination provisions directed to individuals.

By: Bethka

Bethka — Wed, 10 Nov 2004 04:31:39 +0000

SA doesn’t only discriminate against gays and lesbians. It has draconian policies that ensure men are paid larger amounts than women for the same work, and, IIRC, they refuse to cover married women for health insurance. I can’t remember more specifics but I read about them on Atrios’ site a while back and they were horrible. Horrible.

By: Bethka

Bethka — Wed, 10 Nov 2004 04:30:31 +0000

By: Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Patrick Nielsen Hayden — Wed, 10 Nov 2004 04:28:26 +0000

Good job, Harry, supporting the gay-hating bullies against one of the most constructively charitable retail corporations on the landscape. A reminder, I guess, that the academic credentials that Crooked Timber makes so much of aren’t proof against being hoodwinked by sentimental bullshit. Evidently Fred Phelps’ only mistake is that he neglected to construct a nice Frank Capra narrative about himself so you could comfortably take his side, the way you’ve done for the despicable “Salvation Army.”