Boycotting Target stores for (allegedly) not supporting veterans?

Below is another mass email I received, followed by my response below that:

---------------------- the original mass email:

Look who owns Target!

Wasn't it last Christmas that Target refused to let the Salvation Army ring their bells in front of their stores?

Dick Forrey of the Vietnam Veterans Association wrote."Recently we asked the local TARGET store to be a proud sponsor of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall during ourspring recognition event. We received the following reply from the local TARGET management:
"Veterans do not meet our area of giving. We only donate to the arts, social action groups, gay & lesbian causes, and education." So I'm thinking, if the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall and veterans in general, do not meet their donation criteria, then something is really wrong at this TARGET store. We were not asking for thousands of dollars, not even hundreds, just a small sponsorship for a memorial remembrance.

As a follow-up, I e-mailed the TARGET U.S. Corporate Headquarters and their response was the same. That's their national policy. Then I looked into the company further. They will not allow the Marines to collect for 'Toys for Tots' at any of their stores. And during the recent Iraq deployment, they wouldnot allow families of employees who were called up for active duty to continue their insurance coverage while they were on military service.

Then as I dig further, TARGET is a French-owned corporation. Now, I'm thinking again. If TARGET cannot support AmericanVeterans, then why should my family and I support theirstores by spending our hard earned American dollars! And, have their profits sent to France. Without the American Vets, where would France be today? "They, most likely would be speaking German and trading in Deutsch Marks"

Sincerely,
Dick Forrey
Veterans Helping Veterans

Please send this on to everyone you know let Target know we don't need them either!

------------------- my response to the above mass email:

Almost all of the information provided in the original email about Target is false. Click here. Or here.
The Target Corporation does not contribute to veterans' causes: False.
The Target Corporation is French-owned: False.
The Target Corporation provides corporate grants only for 'gay and lesbian causes': False.
The Target Corporation does not contribute to the U.S. Marines 'Toys for Tots' program: False. The Target Corporation does not allow reservists called to active duty to continue their health benefits: False.
The Target Corporation does not allow Salvation Army bell ringers to solicit contributions in front of its stores: True

Dick Forrey, a member of the Indiana-based Howard County Vietnam Veterans organization, rashly penned the email message in March 2002 after failing to secure a $100 sponsorship for a travelling Vietnam Veterans' Memorial Wall exhibit from his local Target store. Mr. Forrey was rebuffed, because Target does not give out cash donations through local stores; they donate money only at the corporate level, and only through grants to organizations falling within their defined general areas of giving. Mr. Forrey has since apologized for his mistake and issued a retraction:"I made a mistake on this one, and I've learned a hard lesson — that's for sure. What started out as a message for the members in our organization has turned into a hate-type thing. I never wanted to start any national boycott. I just wish it would all stop. Some people have used my words and perpetuated lies. It's sad that some of these people would use veterans as a way to push their own political views. I've sent out a retraction, and no one pays any attention."

Now the other issue: on so many levels, shopping at ANY "box box retailer" is bad for you, your family, your town, America and the people they also exploit elsewhere around the world. WalMart deservedly gets the most grief, but Target isn't much better.

Here is what WalMart (and the other giant retailers) do to America and the world:

• Devastating effect on local communities and other businesses
• Devasting effect on the American economy (net jobs losses and eroding local tax bases)
• Main contributor to our burdgeoning trade deficit with China
• Poverty wages for their workers (usually 40% less than from traditional retailers)
• Poor working conditions, including many violations from Dept. of Labor and U.S. Justice Dept.
• Encourage and purchase from overseas "sweat shops"

Don't believe me? Check these out:
http://www.walmartwatch.com
http://www.sprawl-busters.com
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/walmart/walmart_2.cfm
http://vfp92.org/walmart.html
http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A17618
You can watch the PBS documentary "Is Wal-Mart Good for America?" here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/view/
Here's an informative PowerPoint presentation: http://walmartwatch.com/img/documents/battlemart_docs/WhatHappensWhenWalMartComesToTown.ppt
And a great video called Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices http://www.walmartmovie.com/
For a entertaining parable explaining how WalMart affects towns and people, try this: http://leavestevepeeved.blogspot.com/2006/10/sprawl-mart-vs.html

So what are the alternatives to shopping at WalMart and other harmful big box retailers? http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/action_guides/localfirst_qa.pdfhttp://www.vermontwalmartwatch.org/box_store_alternatives.html
And what about CostCo? http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2004/02/16/editorial3.html

Now, the final issue: Does Wal-Mart REALLY have the lowest prices?
Not really. Read on:
From the PBS program Frontline, an interview titled Is Wal-Mart Good For America? with former Wal-Mart store manager Jon Lehman:

What is the opening price point? Why is it so key to Wal-Mart's strategy?

OK, it's lawn-and-garden time. Your grass is getting high. Your lawn mower is broken from last year, or you need a new lawn mower. You're going to go to Wal-Mart. So you go to Wal-Mart, and you're looking for a lawn mower, and to your delight, you walk in, and you see this $99 lawn mower. You may not want a cheap, basic lawn mower, but you see that price point on an end cap or a big display stack base, and you say, "Wow, what a great price." And it draws you in. It lures you into the department, and you form the perception immediately that "Hey, Wal-Mart's got the lowest prices in town. Look at this item right here. How could they sell it for $99?" ...But as you walk into the department and look for that $269 power-drive lawn mower that you really are after, they're not losing money on that item. And it may not be the lowest price in town. Wal-Mart used to advertise "Always the low price." They don't do that anymore.

Because?

They got in trouble. Some of the other competitors sued them, tried to go after them and say, "You can't say 'Always the low price,' because you're not always the low price." They did a study -- a very critical study, very thorough study -- and found that Wal-Mart was not always the low price. And Target and Kmart got a little miffed, and some other competitors that [said], "How can Wal-Mart advertise this and it's not true?"

So what you're saying is Wal-Mart, when it says, "Always low prices," it's not always the lowest price on every lawn mower or every microwave oven or every vacuum cleaner or every TV set.

Absolutely not.

So what does the opening price point mean?

The opening price point is ... to get you in. You look at that, and you think, "Wow, what a great price." ... And usually, more times than not, those items are imports. They're not domestically made; they're from other countries.

Why?

Well, the price of labor is so cheap. In China, Malaysia, Bangladesh, you can make stuff for a fraction of the cost that you can domestically, so that price is the rock-bottom price.

So are you saying that the opening price is the lowest price and actually will beat the competition, but maybe other items in the same category aren't necessarily the lowest price?

Oh, absolutely not. It's just like fishing: You want to entice that fish to that lure. ... Once you walk past that opening price point, they've got you, because you've already formed the perception that everything in that department is the lowest price in town.

And maybe it's not.

No, it's not. No, I can tell you it's not. I can tell you from experience it's not.

How central is [the opening price point] to Wal-Mart's marketing strategy?

It's the heart of Wal-Mart's pricing strategy. Wal-Mart puts [a] tremendous amount of planning, organization and thinking into what their opening price points are going to be, based on last year's sales, based on customer requests, what's in demand this year, what's the newest, hottest item on the market.

A challenge to Republicans: Can you answer these questions?

1) Can you name any program or law enacted by the GOP that was both intended to and has concretely improved the quality of life of NON-WEALTHY Americans (actual human beings, not fetuses or other collections of cells--see below *)? If so, please show viable statistics from respected, non-biased sources (for example, NOT the Heritage Foundation) to back it up your assertion. Democrats, for all of their failings, can easily identify a plethora of their health, education, safety and anti-poverty programs that have been statistically shown to have noticeably improved the lives of ordinary Americans (or at least were intended to) for decades. What about you guys?

2) Can you identify a group of NON-WEALTHY Americans that the GOP has consistently supported not just with lip service but through their actions (again, fetuses and other cellular structures don't count*)? Dems can point to their concrete support for unions (and working people in general), educators, farmers, children in poor families, single mothers, etc.. Can the GOP point to anyone they have helped other than the already rich & powerful (such as CEOs and other rich people who either obtained their wealth through other channels besides HARD WORK [like through inheritance or unethically, like Halliburton, Bechtel, Enron, defense contractors or through their manipulation of financial systems obtained more than their fair share of available money and other desirable resources, like CEOs])?

3) Can you identify a group of NON-POLITICALLY POWERFUL Americans that the GOP has consistently supported not just with lip service but through their actions (again, leave fetuses and other groups of cells out of the equation*)? Dems can point to long-term support of classes of citizens who require protection from the ravages of runaway capitalism, bigotry and discrimination, such as racial & religious minorities, women, children, older Americans, people with disabilities, gays & lesbians, workers in hazardous workplaces, even the environment. Who or what specifically does the GOP protect besides those who DO NOT NEED protection because they already benefit disproportionately and unfairly from the current system?

4) If you have been unable to adequately answer the above three questions (and I KNOW you haven't!), are you willing to admit that:
a) the primary purpose of the GOP is to, as conservatives, "conserve" and even enhance the current misallocation of wealth and other resources that benefit the WEALTHY? Conversely, are you willing to admit that the GOP also fights any attempts to "level the playing field," such as instituting a "living wage" (or at least increasing the minimum wage), preserving Social Security, creating a progressive, fair tax code, affirmative action, etc.
b) all of the usual right-wing political rhetoric has only one purpose: to psychologically manipulate (i.e., through the use of wedge issues and Orwellian language) just enough NON-WEALTHY Americans to vote for and work against their own self-interests so that the GOP can pull off constantly helping only the WEALTHY? If you disagree with the assumption underlying that question, refute it by identifying language and tactics similarly used by Dems to manipulate Americans. Can you identify Democratic Party counterparts to Karl Rove and Frank Luntz? If you think the GOP doesn't use mass psychological manipulation on Americans, can you explain why people like Rove and Luntz are employed by the GOP? Why does the GOP need them? What other and legitimate purpose could they possibly serve?

By the way, these questions were composed by someone who is NOT a Democrat, thinks the Democratic Party has failed to adequately serve the needs of Americans, but believes that the GOP has not only failed at an exponentially greater extent than the Democrats, but has willfully tried to harm the general welfare of NON-WEALTHY Americans.

* - Note: the reason I have removed fetuses from this debate is because the abortion issue is clearly another GOP manipulation. The GOP realizes that no sane populace is going to willingly vote for and support candidates who work against their own interests. This forces the GOP to trick certain groups into supporting them. They normally do this through divisive Rovian tactics such as phony patriotism & rabid nationalism, hatred of homosexuals & gay marriage and creating misperceptions that poor & middle-class white people are somehow being cheated by minorities and immigrants. You know, the old "wedge issues" trick. This has gained them the support of entire groups of white people. Some have given these voter demographics names such as "Reagan Democrats," "Office Park Dads," "NASCAR Dads," or single-issue voters such as "The Gun Nuts." After observing their lack of critical thinking skills, their simplistic world view and how easily they have been suckered, I've given them a different name: "stupid people."
On the other hand, the GOP has gained the support of evangelical Christians through a different tactic: by pretending to agree with them on so-called "moral issues" such as abortion. However, as we've seen with evangelical leaders such as Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, W.V. Grant, Benny Hinn, Kent Hovind, Peter Popoff, Robert Tilton, Jim Whittington and, more recently, freakin' Ted Haggard, these guys don't walk the walk. Take this challenge: sit through one service at a "mega church" and listen to how they distort the teachings of Jesus (such as having the accumulation of wealth as your primary spiritual goal), and you'll get another glaring example of how these guys no longer even bother to "talk the talk."
And earlier this year, David Kuo (former head of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and author of the best-seller "A Loss of Faith") finally revealed what most smart people have known for decades: the GOP does not agree or even respect evangelical Christians--and, in fact, privately mocks them. Any evangelical Christian who still thinks GOP leaders and even their own religious leaders are moral people or somehow represent their values--I again refer you to the voter demographic group I created: "stupid people."
The arguments the GOP have used to support their "pro life" stance can be boiled down to two assertions: 1) a fetus, regardless of its developmental stage, is a human life (I won't address that issue or if abortion is "right" or "wrong") 2) it is a defenseless person that needs protection. But because the GOP has consistently shown that it has no interest in protecting actual human beings who NEED protection (see above), their contention that they want to uncharacteristically protect a fetus rings hollow and can be very easily dismissed. It's obvious that it is politically expedient to be anti-abortion. But after years of the GOP refusing to support programs that benefit living, breathing children (like a quality education for even poor children, Head Start and other preschool programs, school lunches, immunizations, etc.) anyone who honestly believes that the GOP gives a rat's ass about a fetus also belongs to my voter demographic creation, the "stupid people."
-----------------------------------------------
By the way, if you're worried that you may fall into my newly created voter demographic group, don't sweat it. Every politician in the world caters to you. Every major media outlet views you as a highly priced demographic. So, then, do almost all of their advertisers. In fact, the whole freaking world caters to you. Relax, breathe easy and know that you're right at home here in 2007 America!

Pass this on instead of another "chain email"

I just received another "chain email" (second one down the page) asking me to forward it to five friends in the next hour and that, if I do that, something good will happen to me at 11:11 (didn't specify a.m. or p.m.). I replied with this:

Now, here's a true story..., honestly. I had a grandma who really thought she was psychic. She proudly declared that at every family gathering and during just about every phone call. One time about 20 years ago she called us in the middle of the night very upset. She said that she had just had a terrible dream that ended with an image of a huge number 11 looming over her. She admitted that she didn't know exactly what that meant but she was certain that something bad would happen on the 11th day or the 11th month. Because it was early November, she told us not to leave the house on November 11th. She called us (and the rest of her friends and relatives) on November 10th to warn all of us, in her usual dramatic & frantic tone, to not leave the house the next day.

As far as I knew, we all ignored her warning because not a single one of her dozens of previous warnings, premonitions, prognostications and other claims of being psychic EVER panned out. So all of us left our houses and otherwise went about our business on November 11th anyway--but of course some of us were a bit wary and walked around with a slight sense of dread for the whole day. She called us (and presumably a lot of other people) a few times during the day to see if anything had happened. The day ended with nothing noticeably bad happening to any of us (with the exception of me losing my favorite pen at school. Kidding).

I remember her calling the next day and telling my mom, since she acknowledged that nothing seriously bad happened on November 11th, that maybe the "Big 11" she saw in the dream meant 11:11am or 11:11pm on an unknown day. So she warned us all to be real careful at those two times for the next several days. Well, you can imagine how we were all trembling at that warning. Again, nothing noticeably bad happened at all, much less at those specific times over the next several days. Or weeks. Or ever.

In fact, it has become a running joke in my extended family. For years afterward we called each other every November 10th and jokingly (or maybe with only half-jokingly) reminded ourselves about grandma's warning. When something bad (such as a car accident) happens to any of us, we break the tension by asking, "Um, I hate to ask this, but did you notice what time it happened? Was it..., (dramatic pause) 11:11????"

Gotcha! While the above story is true and my grandma really did all that, I'll bet you were disappointed that her warning wasn't accurate. Admit it: You were rooting for my grandma to be vindicated--even if that meant that something bad to happen to me or someone I cared about, that was of secondary concern. I'll tell you that all of us were pleased that nothing bad happened to us. As someone in the field of psychology, I'm interested to know why we WANT things like that to happen. What I want to know is, why would people WISH that my grandma's warning came to pass? Why is it important to some of us that there be psychics, prophets, angels, miracles, extraterrestrials, even when there is a complete absence of evidence? Isn't life itself interesting enough?

Now--if forward that story to five people in the next 20 minutes, you will have something kind of nice happen in the next month. Or two. It might not be anything miraculous. It might just be a friend buying you a cup of coffee. Or you might drop something and, to your surprise, it won't break into a million pieces. That will be the spirit of my deceased grandma holding it together so it doesn't break. BUT ONLY IF YOU PASS THIS EMAIL ALONG.

Comparing a blizzard to Katrina? Or is it white vs. black?

Here is the original email sent to me, followed by my response below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: This is good and an excellent example of what people can do w/o the government

The following was written by a county emergency manager located in central Colorado after last week's blizzard: WEATHER BULLETINUp here, in the Northern Plains, we just recovered from a Historic event--- may I even say a "Weather Event" of "Biblical Proportions" ---with a historic blizzard of up to 44" inches of snow and winds to 90MPH that broke trees in half, knocked down utility poles, stranded hundreds of motorists in lethal snow banks, closed ALL roads, isolated scores of communities and cut power to 10's of thousands.
FYI:
George Bush did not come.
FEMA did nothing.
No one howled for the government.
No one blamed the government.
No one even uttered an expletive on TV.
Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton did not visit.
Our Mayor did not blame Bush or anyone else.
Our Governor did not blame Bush or anyone else, either.
Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards.
No one asked for a FEMA Trailer House.
No one looted.
Nobody - I mean Nobody demanded the government do something.
Nobody expected the government to do anything, either.
No Larry King, No Bill O'Rielly, No Oprah, No Chris Mathews and No Geraldo Rivera. No Shaun Penn, No Barbara Striesand, No Hollywood types to be found.

Nope, we just melted the snow for water.
Sent out caravans of SUV's to pluck people out of snow engulfed cars.
The truck drivers pulled people out of snow banks and didn't ask for a penny.
Local restaurants made food and the police and fire departments delivered it to the snowbound families.
Families took in the stranded people - total strangers.
We fired up wood stoves, broke out coal oil lanterns or Coleman lanterns.
We put on extra layers of clothes because up here it is "Work orDie".
We did not wait for some affirmative action government to get us out of a mess created by being immobilized by a welfare program that trades votes for 'sittin at home' checks.
Even though a Category "5" blizzard of this scale has never fallen this early, we know it can happen and how to deal with it ourselves. Maybe some people will get the message. The world does NOT owe you a living.

--------------- My response to the person who sent me the above email:

Sorry to be a spoil sport, but just about everything in this email is false. It was actually written about a snowstorm that occurred in 2005 in the North Plain states (Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas) and it was filled with falsehoods about that storm, too. And now some yokel just changed the setting to Colorado and the time to 2006. And the South Dakotans did in fact "howl for the government" after that 2005 blizzard--click here. The governor formally requested federal assistance and 25 counties were declared FEDERAL disaster areas (eligible for those damned government handouts that white people supposedly don't get) and, yes, Virginia, FEMA was there, too. Additionally, National Guard troops were dispatched on the same day in North Dakota to deal with that disaster. The Louisana National Guard was also able to respond to the far more severe disaster called Katrina--but two days AFTER Katrina's landfall and with 40% of its troops unable to help (they were stuck in Iraq fighting King George's unnecessary war).

Most importantly, read between the lines. What is this email REALLY trying to say? It implies that two natural disasters occurred and that one group responded by wallowing in helplessness and self-pity while the other group admirably rose to the challenge, pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps and selflessly performed acts of heroism (what a bunch of horse feathers!). Plus, we have to admit, many Americans reading this will equate the sturdy, hard-working, self-reliant people portrayed in the blizzard as white, while they will envision the whiny, lazy, dependent people with a huge sense of entitlement affected by Hurricane Katrina as black.

Not sure if that's true? Read the email again and see how many references you can spot that are supposed to get you to think about and have no respect for the black people affected by Katrina. I found more than a typical "Where's Waldo?" I found these: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the person who "uttered an expletive on TV" (referring to Kanye West, a black hip-hop artist), the people waiting for "some affirmative action government," the mayor who blamed Bush (a reference to New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin, who is African-American), and the so-called looting (the racist media planted this idea. In fact, white people only saw Kanye West say "George Bush doesn't care about black people." But the same media didn't report him saying: "I hate the way they portray us in the media. You see a black family, it says they're looting. You see a white family, it says they're looking for food."). The author of the email didn't come right out and contrast what he or she believes were white vs. black people's responses, but it is STRONGLY implied. This fits right into the stereotype of African-Americans who supposedly don't work as hard as whites yet demand handouts from the government.

This email is already too long, but if you want to see how most government handouts go to non-poor, mostly white, mostly Republican folks, click here, scroll about halfway down and start reading the paragraph that starts "Here are quotes from a book written by John Sperling (an entrepreneur and the founder of the University of Phoenix)". It's blog page I wrote in which I debunk yet another silly, racist email. In fact, according to the Census Bureau, South Dakota (and all its white folks) gets $1.49 in federal expenditures for each tax dollar they pay into the Federal treasury. Louisiana (with all its black folks) gets slightly LESS ($1.47 from the Feds for each $1 paid to the Feds in taxes).

Click here and scroll down to Table 5 if you want to see for yourself. And to compare a blizzard in the Northern Plains to the worst natural disaster in our nation's history is also inappropriate. As Mark Woods (a columnist for the Florida Times-Union) wrote:
People on the Gulf Coast didn't lose power. They lost homes, jobs, hospitals, churches, grocery stores, cities.
I've been to New Orleans three times since Katrina. And each time I have been struck by the misconceptions still swirling. One is that Katrina affected poor blacks. Another is that people are waiting for government to get them back on their feet.
Katrina, of course, did affect poor blacks. But it didn't discriminate. It destroyed poor neighborhoods, rich neighborhoods, middle-class neighborhoods. It killed people of all races. And while I'm sure some of the survivors are waiting for others to solve their problems, I haven't met them.
I have met people -- rich, poor, black, white, young, old -- who are working incredibly hard to rebuild their houses, their businesses, their city.

Man, if I had survived Katrina, had been working to rebuild my home and the rest of my life, and then read this email--I'd be hoppin' mad!

What amazes me about emails like this is how one ignorant individual can fabricate a story like this with clear racist overtones--and almost NO ONE BOTHERS TO CHALLENGE IT!!! Most readers will mindlessly soak it up like a sponge because it merely reinforces their prejudices. It makes them feel good about their race and who (they believe) they are. Just imagine how many thousands of people will get this in their Inbox, not bother to check out the veracity but instead nod their heads in agreement. Look how many web pages have regurgitated this email and are presenting it as fact. And round and round the world this and other harmful emails continue to roll. To quote the old Negro spiritual, "Will The Circle Be Unbroken?"

So people can either strive to learn the truth or they can believe lies that make them feel good about themselves. Maybe instead of wanting to know the truth, most people would prefer to simply feel good--knowing that they're not like "those people" we all saw on TV in New Orleans during the aftermath of Katrina.