This is old news for many, but some may have missed it in the blanket election coverage. Target has decided not to allow the Sally Army to collect outside its doors this winter. I have no particular affection for the Salvation Army, but I shop with my kids a lot, and I like them to see people colecting for charity in the midst of the commercial horrors of Christmas. Since I raise them in an atheist household I also believe that I have an obligation to ensure that they are exposed to a wide range of non-atheist viewpoints and practices, and welcome them seeing positive images of religious life. I also resent the power that large corporations like Target have over the public space. Some critics of this decision suggest lobbying Target to include the SA among its charitable partners; I don’t, because I see no reason to filter individual charity through corporate entities. Instead, I fired off an email, expressing disappointment, to Guest.Relations@target.com. I invite you to do the same, and perhaps to encourage others. The text of my email is below the fold: please modify according to your situation.
Sir/Madam
I have recently heard about your change in policy concerning the Salvation Army; refusing to allow them to collect outside your stores over the holiday season. Wow. Better that no-one be able to collect for charity than for you to have to deal with multiple requests? I have no particular affiliation with the SA, and rarely give them money (I usually give to Oxfam). But I believe it is important for us to respect the diversity of faiths and beliefs in the world. When I bring my children shopping over the holiday season I want them to see that it is not all about spending and corporate profit; I want other people’s children to see that too.
I shall avoid shopping at Target over the coming holiday season (my guess is that I spend about $1000 a year at the local Target) and am soured to the idea of shopping there altogether, until I hear that you have changed you policy to a more welcoming, less selfish, one. I shall also encourage my friends and neighbours to do likewise.
{ 51 comments }
nofundy 11.09.04 at 2:48 pm
As long as the Salvation Army openly discriminates against fellow believers due to sexual orientation, then I personally applaud the actions Target has taken and these hypocritical so-called christians can bugger off. I mean, its not like they aren’t getting “faith-based” money from Dubya or anything.
Anita Hendersen 11.09.04 at 3:03 pm
I gave some money to Oxfam earlier this year, and now they hound me regularly with junk mail asking for more.
At least with the Salvation Army you can put some cash in the pot anonymously. They don’t come after you for more.
I’ve always liked those SA bell ringers for sentimental reasons. They’re part of the holiday landscape, and something extra for the season.
Russell Arben Fox 11.09.04 at 3:09 pm
Thank you for posting this Harry, and thanks even more for your various generous reaction. We don’t belong to the Salvation Army, but my family and I support them in their good work regularly throughout the year, and doing so during the holiday season is particularly important. Target’s decision, while arguably sensible from an economic standpoint, simply shows the degree to which bottom-line thinking can become a handy excuse for corporate entities to further remove their resources, spaces, and functions in a community from public participation: charity means what we give, not whatever giving may happen to take place around or through us.
It should also be noted that Wal-Mart, so often (and rightly) cast as the bad guy in struggles with corporate power, came up with a much better solution to this dilemma: simply parcel out the times in which various charities can make use of Wal-Mart’s space, and make sure Salvation Army gets its fair allotment. Chalk one up for Sam Walton’s heirs.
Jason G. Williscroft 11.09.04 at 3:57 pm
Er??? Since when is a parking lot bought and paid for by Target Inc. a “public space”? It’s private property.
How would you like your neighbors to force you to install a Salvation Army Santa on your doorstep?
Mr.c 11.09.04 at 4:45 pm
This is awesome. Do yourself a favor. Take care of yourself. Establish some personal goals that don’t have anything to do with living other people’s lives for them. Helping is one thing. But, the people who run Target are all grown up. If you truly gave a rats ass about the SA and their good deeds at Christmas time, you would be out there ringing the bell instead of bitching about where they can and can’t solicit contributions. The thing you libs don’t seem to realize what makes America so great is individual freedom and personal responsibility rule the day. Oh yea, get off of W. He won the election fair and square. For the second time.
harry 11.09.04 at 5:01 pm
Thanks Russell; I’ve been finding your various reactions extremely helpful in these dire times.
Mr.C. and jason, I was going to respond to nofundy that I doubted that Target’s decision had much to do with supporting homsequal members of the SA, and that it was all about corporate control of public space. But you got in first.
Jason, if I built a huge parking lot in front of my house, and spent a fortune advertising for strangers to come and traipse through my living room, I don’t think I’d have the nerve to complain if some perfectly decent people decided to stand outside my house asking people to contribute to charity.
catfish 11.09.04 at 5:05 pm
Harry did not suggest that the government force Target to allow the Salvation Army to collect on their property. Instead he threatened to withdraw his holiday patronage from the store and suggested that others do likewise. There are no violations of property rights proposed. Instead, indiviuals are deciding to use their buying power to influnece the actions of retailers. Why then, the rightwind furuor over this idea? Is it a knee jerk need to defend corporations or simply a disdain for liberals?
Kevin 11.09.04 at 5:23 pm
Target’s stated purpose is that they’ve always had a no solicitation policy but made an exception. That exception has become increasingly difficult to support… no doubt other charitable groups want in on it, too. So, they got rid of the exception. It makes sense to me.
Frankly, I’m fine with it. I give to various charities each year (not SA), and that’s my choice. Ought Target not to have that same choice?
none 11.09.04 at 5:31 pm
Way to go, Harry. Punish Target for daring to try to treat all charities equally rather than give SA a special, privileged position that is unavailable to any other charity, secular or relgious. That’ll show them not to be fair and even-handed! We don’t corporations doing that, now do we?
Sarcasm aside, I intend to do *more* shopping at Target precisely because of this – and I’ve told them so as well. It’s about time to see someone decide that SA doesn’t deserve to be treated better than Catholic Charities or the United Way simply because “that’s the way we’ve always done things.”
Jason 11.09.04 at 5:43 pm
I have to side with none and say that I’m likely to do more shopping at Target as a result of their actions (no where near $1000 worth however). I don’t know if there are more people annoyed by the SA and general demands for charity or less. Target is gambling on more.
Maybe in the future there will be some sort of market segmentation, companies that serve those who like being accosted, and ones that serve the rest.
neil 11.09.04 at 5:49 pm
Since I received more than one solicitation for charity over the holiday season, and since I can’t afford to give money to all of them, I have decided to treat them all equally and give them all nothing. Who will applaud me for my equinamity and broad-mindedness?
Drew 11.09.04 at 5:52 pm
Target is often at the top of Forbes magazine’s list of ‘most philanthropic companies,’ according to Snopes.com. I’m not sure this is a company that deserves your ire.
raj 11.09.04 at 6:10 pm
On a personal basis, I agree with nofundy, but, if the company does not allow charitable collections on its property by any charity, what is the issue? Is Target supposed to give the Slavation Army a special dispensation?
BTW, you might do well to give “reports” by newspaper “columists” a bit of skepticism. They usually have one or more of a set of axes to grind.
harry 11.09.04 at 6:17 pm
Target could have chosen a different policy — eg, rotating several charities. That would be fine. Or using a lottery to assign sidewalk space to charities. Again, this would be fine.
I’m sorry people dislike being solicited for charity. I don’t like being constantly bombarded with solictations that I spend money at stores; I can only avoid these by keeping my eyes on the sidewalk. Maybe that’s the same sort of thing.
M. Gordon 11.09.04 at 6:22 pm
Since I raise them in an atheist household I also believe that I have an obligation to ensure that they are exposed to a wide range of non-atheist viewpoints and practices, and welcome them seeing positive images of religious life.
Exsqueeze me? This is possibly the most bizarre thing I’ve ever heard. Target’s decision deprives you of the opportunity to show positive religious images to your critters? “Look, kids, look at the cute Xtians! Wave hi to Mr. Jesuslover!”
Seriously, take them to a church social, take them to a Shabbat dinner, or a Bahai temple, jeez, take them to a seance, but for jiminy’s sake, don’t take them to the strip mall for their religious edumacation. If getting rid of the bell ringers out front of Target is really cutting into their religious education, you’re not putting much work into it.
harry 11.09.04 at 6:37 pm
m. gordon,
yes, I do a lot more, and the sentence is excessive, isn’t it? You get the piint though, no? I did say ‘welcome’ not ‘need’: the point is that I think these spaces should be used to serve certain public purposes beyond the purposes of the corporations; and one of these is the display and interaction of ideas. I avoid malls, etc, as far as is compatible with living a relatively normal life. When I was growing up being taken shopping was an opportunity to interact with a wider world. I think its fine to want that for my children.
donna 11.09.04 at 6:56 pm
I wrote my letter two weeks ago, they wrote back that they didn’t care. Oh well. Target usually has more sense than this, so I guess a few more letters might give them the idea people don’t like this. I already told them I was doing my Christmas shopping elsewhere, although since I loathe WalMart as well I’ve no idea where to get my cheap crap. Fortunately, the neighborhood kids already loaded me up with wrapping paper from the sales they have to do just to make sure the schools have any decent playground equipment.
Yeah, America… all wars, no education. All corporate profit, no bellringers.
lokisdad 11.09.04 at 7:04 pm
Hurrah for Target. The SA is still a bigoted discriminating charity. As long as they treat gays as non-worthy human beings, they deserve no special treatment by corporations. The SA has the right to choose who they want to help and or hire, and I have a choice to not donate to them for those reasons. As long as Target allowed such a charity to solicit on their property, they in essence condoned such behavior. No wonder Wal-Mart sets aside a place for these bigots. This isn’t a slam against the hard-working bell ringers, but as long as the charity they work for chooses to discriminate against gays, they shouldn’t expect any money from me.
raj 11.09.04 at 7:10 pm
>Target could have chosen a different policy — eg, rotating several charities. That would be fine. Or using a lottery to assign sidewalk space to charities. Again, this would be fine.
Oh, really, Harry? Query what reaction Target might get from so-called “Christian fam’ly” groups if they allowed a gay organization to try to collect on their property? You know as well as I do what the Christian fam’ly groups would do. Give me a break.
It’s their property. Why don’t you respect it? Otherwise stated, why should they apportion their property to satisfy you?
Jason G. Williscroft 11.09.04 at 8:11 pm
Whoa, Catfish! Furor? Why does it have to be either one?
Personally I’m all for Harry protesting Target’s decision in precisely this way, if it’s his inclination to do so. I think, as forms of protest go, it’s the optimal one.
Having said that, I also think he’s being a little hard on Target, who after all owns the darned parking lot… so I told him so.
Was my tone disdainful? It was a little tongue in cheek, sure, but…
I have an idea! Let’s ask the guy who actually has a stake in the matter!
Harry: I agree with you in principle… if I owned a big parking lot, nice people would be welcome to solicit contributions, at least until they became a nuisance. But I’m not Target, and as long as they keep it clean I don’t care what they do with their own parking lot.
Now do I owe you an apology?
rvman 11.09.04 at 8:12 pm
It is, indeed, their property. And my dollar is my property, until I spend it. Free Association says Target can allow, or disallow charities on their premises. Free Association also says I am allowed to patronize, or not, Target at my option. Until and unless someone starts proposing that Target be required to allow the Army to use their property, all of this is perfectly liberal, perfectly free, even, dare I say, libertarian.
In other words “Why should they apportion their property to satisfy you?” is answered “Because they want me to buy their stuff.” some Christians avoid gas stations that sell porn, some Jews avoid Volkswagon because of the details of that firm’s founding, charity advocates can avoid retailers that make charity more difficult. It is all fair.
catfish 11.09.04 at 8:18 pm
How is Harry not “respecting” Target’s property? He is not claiming that anyone has the right to force Target to allow the SA. Instead, he is using his admittedly small power as a consumer. There is no trampling on property rights. Why can’t people understand this? This is the kind of protest that libertarians should like.
Martin Wisse 11.09.04 at 9:00 pm
Why is it alright for big coompanies to do with their property as they see fit, but not so for their consumers?
emjaybee 11.09.04 at 9:12 pm
Hmm. Most of what I wanted to say has been covered here. But it interests me that while I initially was saddened by Target’s decision, the more I read, the more I thought ‘”Huh. Why *do* they get special treatment as a charity? Does Target really owe them that privilege?” And I decided it didn’t bother me.
I have seen what I think of as enfringements on public spaces by corporations (especially in NY, where it’s often hard to tell a public lounging area from a cafe’s al fresco section) but I don’t think this qualifies.
David 11.09.04 at 9:29 pm
Since the SA not long ago got an enormous donation from Joan Kroc’s estate (on the order of $1.5 billion, I believe), there’s little need to worry about SA’s prospects. Given this change in SA’s fortunes, Target’s action may give everyone an opportunity to do a little charity portfolio rebalancing (by intention or otherwise). As for me, there’s a Safeway affiliated store near me here in surburban Philadelphia, so I can continue using SA buckets as part of my holiday object lessons for my son, although he’s near to outgrowing such things. He still asks to contribute to the collectors, but it’s not clear to me that he feels that he should do so for some ethical reason, or that he just likes putting money in the slot.
raj 11.09.04 at 9:32 pm
Actually, no. Harry is not respecting Target’s property. Read what he wrote and what I copied. He said
>Target could have chosen a different policy — eg, rotating several charities. That would be fine. Or using a lottery to assign sidewalk space to charities. Again, this would be fine.
Well, why is it fine–with Harry–if Target chose a policy of rotating several “charities.” Or using a “lottery” to assign sidewalk space to “charities.” As opposed to not providing space–on their property–for any solicitations whatsoever. That’s ridiculous. The reason that Target declined to allow Salvation Army to solicit on its property–which is what is what it is doing, soliciting–is to avoid getting embroiled in a “pissing match” over which groups can solicit on their properties. And how they are to be selected. Could you just imagine, for example, how Target customers down in Arizona (the newspaper of Harry’s link) might react if, for example, a gay group were to try to solicit at a Tempe Target store? Or how a Tempe Target store might react if a gay group were to even ask to solicit there? So much for “rotating several charities. So much for “assigning sidewalk space to charities.” The reason that retail outlets don’t want to give over space to soliciting like that is because they don’t want the headache of figuring out things like that.
On the other hand, I really do believe that you don’t understand what the Salvation Army is doing by targeting–no pun intended–Target. Why do you think that SA got the piece in the Arizona newspaper placed there? Usually, pieces like this don’t just plop themselves down in the newspaper: they get there because someone wants to raise the issue to the public. Someone at SA contacted a reporter at the Arizona newspaper and got a piece inserted. This is a quite usual practice, by the way. What SA was trying to do by getting the piece placed in the paper was to get customers and potential customers of Target to try to mau-mau them into allowing SA to solicit. Which is exactly what Harry did by sending off his email to Target.
From what he also wrote in the original post:
>I also resent the power that large corporations like Target have over the public space.
I am frankly appalled that Harry actually believes that private property such as that occupied by Target stores is public space. Unless Target stores are on public (i.e., government-owned) lands–which, in most cases, they are probably not–it strikes me that they are on private space, not public space.
>Since I raise them in an atheist household I also believe that I have an obligation to ensure that they are exposed to a wide range of non-atheist viewpoints and practices, and welcome them seeing positive images of religious life.
Sorry, this makes no sense whatsoever. Begging for money, which is what your children would see SA doing, is a “positive image() of religious life”? Homeless people beg for money too. I doubt that you would call that a “positive image of homeless life.”
I apologize for the rant. It is indeed Harry’s money. But it strikes me that he really hasn’t thought out what is really going on with SA, Target, and the story in the AZ newspaper.
Observer 11.09.04 at 10:07 pm
I could see Target revisiting the decision along the lines of Walmart.
However, in the grander scheme of things I consistently patronize Target and CostCo and NOT Walmart or Sam’s Club because Target and CostCo a) treat their employees well, b) give a hell of a lot back to the community, and c) don’t enforce puritanical censoring rules. Target and CostCo still buy a lot of goods from suspect factories in China, but relatively speaking they are the anti-Walmarts.
bronze 11.09.04 at 10:17 pm
Actually David, the Kroc donation puts increased pressure on SA because no portion of the gift may be used for any existing programs, services or administrative costs. It must be used to build only new community centers, all through the US. Even though the endowment will likely cover a reasonable portion of the new centers’ operational expenses, it is not expected they will cover everything. So, SA losing out on Target’s revenue will likely have a depressing effect on funds for SA. Personally, I like the bell ringers, and will probably shop at Wal-Mart now.
harry 11.09.04 at 10:18 pm
bq. I am frankly appalled that Harry actually believes that private property such as that occupied by Target stores is public space
I think this is the core of the interesting disagreement here. Some people think that private corporations are entitled to use the space they have bought for whatever purposes they want. Other people think they should observe certain norms, and bear certain costs. My actual behaviour, of course, completely respects their right to do whatever the hell they like. But raj is correct that at a fundamental level I don’t think they have that right. I think it is ludicrous to think that they do. But that would get us into a long discussion of the justification and character of private property which I thought might seem a bit…eccentric to whatever person (if any) at Target reads my letter. And I’m not willing to engage in it here because…I have too much else to do right now!
catfish 11.09.04 at 10:24 pm
Ok, I guess I have a different definition of “respecting others property.” To me, respect does not mean refraining from criticizing how others make use of their property. The issue of public space is a little different, and it is clear that there will be debates between right and left over what constitutes public space. I’m not sure about this, but haven’t courts ruled that retail stores are at least semi-public? Otherwise, a store owner could ban black people from entering his store the way he can keep blacks out of his home. I’m not arguing that there is a state role in this particular instance. I’m not sure I even agree with Harry, it’s just that I think that his proposed method of persuasion is appropriate given his views.
one laura 11.09.04 at 10:50 pm
I want to second what observer said about Target being, relatively speaking, the anti-Wal-Mart. I have a friend who owns a sock finishing plant. Wal-Mart squeezes him for every penny in a way that certainly encourages sweatshop conditions. Target doesn’t do that, and requires very clear signage talking about safety conditions and decent treatment for the workers. I don’t confuse requiring signage with surprise inspections designed to catch and punish offenders or anything like that, but even the signage is a rare step toward decent treatment of workers for a major retailer to be making.
a different chris 11.09.04 at 11:27 pm
>Who will applaud me for my equinamity and broad-mindedness?
Here here, old chap!! (claps hands furiously).
Seriously, though, charities are a crock. The state fails to effectively help the needy so people with buckets show up and provide some haphazard at best completely random at worst redistribution that helps some lucky individuals that happen to be in the right place at the right time, but overall changes nothing.
Bah, Humbug. It didn’t work in the “Golden Age” and it doesn’t now.
As for the “private parking lot” crapola, let me join with the crowd forming behind raj. As a corporation is solely an invention of the government, so it’s a little rich to give it “private” rights above the concerns of the people who give legitimacy to that government, people who in fact finance the legal and law-enforcement structure that protects that corporation’s very existence.
Oddly, that doesn’t mean I don’t think Target made a good decision. I just think that said decision is not beyond the censure/approval of the masses, whether they spend money there or not.
washerdreyer 11.09.04 at 11:44 pm
A different Chris-
I’m sure you expected a response to your, “charities are a crock comment.” You seem to be saying that because giving to charity doesn’t create perfect outcomes, they therefore don’t cause any improvement at all. Please elaborate on this theory.
limberwulf 11.10.04 at 12:16 am
I tend to agree with catfish that Harry’s method of protest is quite reasonable. That applies whether his argument is reasonable or not. I think Target has the right to do what it is doing, and I further think that customers have the right to react as they see fit. There are certain non-discriminatory provisions in the law preventing “private property” arguments from being used for racism and other biggotry. This does not, however, take away the fact that the property is still considered private from a usage standpoint. There are also certain restrictions based on zoning and surrounding property associations that can be enforced. None of these affect the legality of Target’s decision, merely the impact of that decision on Target’s customers.
As for corporations being governmenet created entities, and therefore are not “private”, that is a ridiculous assertion. The capital used to purchase the land was not government property, therefore the property is not government owned, and as such is not public. Government granting an identity to a person or group of persons for the sake of business operations is no different than government granting a social security number to an individual for tax and benefit purposes. To assume that corporations are somehow part of the government would mean that most businesses in this country would be owned by the state. They tried that in Russia, it didnt work out so well.
As for charities, they may be somewhat innefective, biggoted, innefficient, and corrupt, but the level of these imperfections pale in comparison to the waste and corruption at the government level. The government’s failure to “take care of people” in spite of its considerable resources is proof that it is a piss-poor system of taking care of people.
dsquared 11.10.04 at 12:45 am
I am frankly appalled that Harry actually believes that private property such as that occupied by Target stores is public space
Whenever I see someone making this claim, I always want to see how consistent a libertarian they are, so if you’d perhaps humour me by answering this question:
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”?
Jason G. Williscroft 11.10.04 at 1:38 am
I’ll answer that, dsquared: I absolutely think that owners of lunch counters should be free to filter their clientele based on race, religion, mode of dress, or the color of their aura.
Should be… but aren’t. Unlike night clubs in Tokyo, strangely enough, which are quite regularly off-limits to people who aren’t either (a) ethnically Japanese or (b) hot, female, and under 25.
And, of course, the local citizenry should have the right to refuse to eat there. Does have, in fact.
Another example of how “freedom” can be sort of a one-way street.
Now ask me if I think this “one-way street” is a problem. My answer might surprise you.
Patrick Nielsen Hayden 11.10.04 at 4:28 am
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.”
Bethka 11.10.04 at 4:30 am
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.
Bethka 11.10.04 at 4:31 am
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.
raj 11.10.04 at 12:25 pm
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.
Mr.C 11.10.04 at 7:40 pm
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.
paul 11.10.04 at 9:09 pm
“Oh, that I should be found warthy of bein’ spit on for the Lord’s sake!”
PNH is on the money. Good for Target.
vernaculo 11.11.04 at 9:43 am
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!
Mr.C 11.11.04 at 1:12 pm
I’m new to this forum. Can someone tell me, in less than one hundred words, what is bad about Wall Mart?
a different chris 11.11.04 at 3:35 pm
>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.
a different chris 11.11.04 at 3:49 pm
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.
marklatham 11.11.04 at 4:06 pm
On ya target.
The salvos are john howard stooges,I find them politically incorrect.
Fuck em!
marklatham 11.11.04 at 4:07 pm
On ya target.
The salvos are john howard stooges,I find them politically incorrect.
Fuck em!
marklatham 11.11.04 at 4:07 pm
On ya target.
The salvos are john howard stooges,I find them politically incorrect.
Fuck em!
marklatham 11.11.04 at 4:12 pm
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.
Clod 11.12.04 at 6:40 am
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.
Comments on this entry are closed.