Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« This Weekend In Local Hiphop | Today in Stranger Suggests »

Friday, December 1, 2006

Spanking WalMart for its sodomy sins

posted by on December 1 at 16:57 PM

Last week I slogged about Evangelical group Operation Save America’s campaign to defend WalMart from the slings and arrows of heathen liberals: namely, the gay conspiracy which forced WalMart to join the Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. The group’s plan to protest 300 WalMart locations on the day after Thanksgiving with sodomized-smiley posters apparently didn’t go too well, because for the last few weeks their mailing list has received exactly zero announcements.

Until today! An email that doesn’t mention the protest at all put instead the sodomy smiley to shame.

In a statement to the American Family Association yesterday, Wal-Mart agreed that they, “…will not make corporate contributions to support or oppose highly controversial issues unless they directly relate to our ability to serve our customers”. To this we say, “NUTS!”

“Wal-Mart is running scared! It fears the power of the Church of Jesus Christ to move in people’s hearts and change them - to change even where they shop.” Wal-Mart needs to fear the God of Sam Walton!”
“Every executive at Wal-Mart that allowed this to happen needs a good old fashioned spanking” said Flip Benham, Director of Operation Save America, creators of the website. “What Wal-Mart has done is sin! It is a betrayal our Lord Jesus, of Sam Walton’s Christian legacy, and Christian families everywhere. Wal-Mart must bear the fruit of repentance.”

See what repressed sexuality will do to a man? It starts leaking out between the cracks.

RSS icon Comments


I blame not the executives, but their icy wives.

Posted by rev driscoll | December 1, 2006 5:16 PM

They come off as real world trolls. Is this shit some kind of culture jamming? It's just hilarious.

Posted by Wow | December 1, 2006 5:25 PM

Wal-Mart can cater to the christians all they want. Nothing is going to make me ever shop there.

Posted by monkey | December 1, 2006 5:27 PM

Monkey - we understand, a log way down from Tiffany and Barney's

God forbid you should ever have to count every penny and there was a Wal-Mart in easy commute

my niece works at a Mart, loves it and she has had several much better paying jobs

good thing we have choices

Posted by JACKIE | December 1, 2006 5:54 PM

Counting pennies is fine, but Wal-Mart destroys communities. It's a great business for shoppers who want nothing but the lowest prices. But an upstanding citizen should not buy goods made in sweatshops and sold by a company that denies its employees healthcare and the right to unionize. Unless, of course, the employees give out free spankings. Then it's okay.

Posted by him | December 1, 2006 6:14 PM


Please. Do you honestly think people who don't patronize Wal Mart for moral/ethical/social reasons are really shopping at Tiffany's and Barney's? Are you that brainwashed?

I'm honestly so tired of the "elite" cry-baby claim from people like you - anyone who thinks something you like might be morally questionable must be an "elite" - which is apparently a bad thing.

Just to be clear, I'm with Monkey - I haven't patronized Wal-Mart in years, and won't do so again. I met Sam Walton once and found him to be a wonderful man, but the company he left behind does things that I can't stomach morally. Since you're now thinking I'm "elite", moralizing from my ivory tower, let me introduce you to my situation: I live in a trailer park. I haven't finished a month in the black in nearly three years, and hold onto my house, such as it is, by the skin of my teeth. I count EVERY. FUCKING. PENNY.

But I'll trade a bit of comfort for me in exchange for not supporting a company that goes out of its way to create more people in my situation everywhere it builds a store.

I'm thrilled for your niece - she's found a job she likes in a declining economy, and that's super. And knowing Wal-Mart, I have little doubt she's had many MUCH better paying jobs.

But make no mistake about it, while you're damn right it's a good thing we have choices, you should never forget that if Wal-Mart had it's way, we wouldn't.

In closing, I refer you heah. Enjoy.

Posted by switzerblog | December 1, 2006 6:42 PM

Fuck Wal Mart for real. Fuck China and fuck shitty employer practices.

Still, don't make the mistake of thinking that Wal Mart is the problem. They're a symptom of the problem. They're in business because America exports raw materials to countries with nearly slave labor and imports manufactured goods from them. Something we would never have done in the past because we don't manufacture shit anymore as all of the home grown corporations founded here have gone global and sought cheaper places to operate so their Board can cut enough corners to vote themselves another million dollar raise.

Wal Mart exists because there are people actually poor enough to fucking need shit that cheap and I'm not just talking about $27 microwaves and $40 big screens (I know, TVs yuck, right? You try living in a rural area with no cultural arts and little if any entertainment options and it's the only form of entertainment you can afford as a single woman working two jobs to support your family of four. I'm not celebrating that path in life, just acknowledging that it exists and is not a crime.) I'm talking Wal-Mart will put a winter jacket on your little shitstains that might last 2 winters and it will be a big deal that affording it's not going to send you to the payday loansharks at Check n' Go or whatever.

It doesn't take any fucking brains at all to point out how shitty Wal Mart is. I wanna know how do we eliminate Wal Mart? How do we convince people with very fucking limited resources that they have the luxury of being conscious consumers.

Posted by I'm Just Sayin' Though | December 1, 2006 6:46 PM

I wonder what kind of fruit you can get for repentance? Maybe a tangerine? Those are good.

Posted by Sachi | December 1, 2006 7:15 PM

All this hate for Wal-Mart, but none for K-Mart, who were doing all the same things forty years ago?

Posted by Fnarf | December 1, 2006 7:15 PM

Fnarf, The only similarity between K-Mart and Wal-Mart are dirty stores and tacky names.

Kresge was an offspring of the Krege dime stores - a suburban version, if you will. While they don't exactly welcome union reprentation, they don't play the hardball tactics Wal-Mart does, and have learned to negotiate with their employees. To fight off the unions, they offer/offered basic benefits to their employees that Wal-Mart doesn't.

Their pricing and marketing has never been predatory, and they have not gone out of their way to establish and promote Asian sweatshops. That's not to say that they wouldn't have - it just wasn't an option during the years of their power.

A more apt comparison might be Sears one hundred years ago - but at least Sears served a purpose by letting the small town and farmer class sidestep the local, often predatory small businesses to get basic commodities. Sort of like the agricultural co-op movements that swept the upper midwest at the turn of the 19th century.

And Jackie, I know poor. I've been very very poor. I've been so poor that I maxed out my gas credit card to buy eggs, milk, Pepsi and ramen, since that's what the Amoco on the corner sold.

But I was never stupid enough to shop at a Wal-Mart. I bought good clothes, furnishings and housewares at the thrift stores, and I made do that way until I made more money.

And I really wasn't stupid enough to take a job without at least basic benefits - even if it meant (as it frequently did) that my take home pay was less than it would be at the non-benefit jobs. So spare me your sanctimonious stories about your simple-minded niece.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | December 1, 2006 9:49 PM

don't be surprised someday to learn that much money has been spent to vilify Wal-Mart by its competition - as in Cosco or Target

there is no Mart near me, I shop little, but if I were as poor as the poster above, and had wheels, i would save every dime i could

let the bourgeoise play all these political games with discount spending

Posted by Jack | December 1, 2006 9:50 PM

"my simple minded niece"

how fucking crass - your own words condemn you - you are simple minded and foul to the core

this has been an interesting posting - but then one cannot disagree with some snooty bitchy mouth with the phony name

i smell good old Seattle pc to the max

Posted by Jackie | December 1, 2006 9:57 PM

Crass, My darling Jackie, is defined as:

1. without refinement, delicacy, or sensitivity; gross; obtuse; stupid: crass commercialism; a crass misrepresentation of the facts.

2.Archaic. thick; coarse.

You're the one who bought "fucking" into the discourse, so I think you are the one with the "crassness" issue.

And someone who goes by the name "Jackie" shouldn't be harshing about made-up names. You ain't no Madonna or Cher - if you were, your simple-minded niece wouldn't be slaving her dumb ass off at some Wal-Mart. Unless you're a cheap bitch of an aunt.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | December 1, 2006 10:04 PM

But Kresge's were downtown, and K-Mart was out in the suburbs. K-Mart ran the shoppers out to the parking lots in the suburbs and out of downtown in exactly the same way Wal-Mart is attacked for doing. And yes, they did price predatorily; pricing that way is not a function of evil intent but of bulk purchasing. K-Mart may not be as bad as Wal-Mart but it is a difference of degree, not of kind. Ditto Target and even lovable old Fred Meyer. There's a reason they're popular.

Plus, today, Wal-Mart is the THE place to go to find the eighteen-year-old girls with four kids already, and who could possibly be against that?

Posted by Fnarf | December 1, 2006 10:05 PM

In urban areas at least, Wal-Mart isn't your best choice for counting pennies.

Clothing: cheaper at Goodwill

Furniture: cheaper on Craigslist

Food: I don't really know; maybe Wal-Mart does have the lowest price per Calorie for substances technically defined as food, or even organic. This would take some research to determine. I think you might do better at a small Asian grocery, though.

Electronics: are these really necessary?

Other consumables, toilet paper, scotch tape: unless you're living alone, you'd probably do better at Cosco

Wal-Mart does make things easy; but, there's always a trade-off between counting pennies and counting seconds.

Posted by Noink | December 1, 2006 10:26 PM


Snooty: Adj.: Snobbishly aloof, haughty.

Haughty: Adj.: Disainfully proud, scornfully arrogant.

Who's being snooty now? People have legitimate reasons to oppose Wal-Mart; you've provided no legitimate reason to support them. What you have done, conversely, is attack the people in this thread for their opinion as though they've done something to you.

You've suggested that someone who refuses to patronize Wal-Mart because of their employment practices shops at "Tiffany and Barney's". You've used the phrase "good old Seattle pc", as though the belief that Wal-Mart could be less destructive in their employment practices is a character flaw. You've suggested, with no evidence beyond "don't be surprised", that Wal-Mart's opponents are behind its vilification (despite significant evidence of their harmful practices) - hence intimating that all us poor elite rich saps are being played for fools. You've said "let the bourgeoise play all these political games with discount spending", which I'm not even sure what that last bit is supposed to mean, but again...bourgeoise?? Please.

You've made it clear, repeatedly, that you consider yourself better, smarter, and, well...nicer than the other folks in the thread - and that, my friend, is the sign of a bourgeoise elite. It's also tremendously snooty...and bitchy. You disagree with folks' assessment of Wal-Mart, that's fine, but you went down the road of attacking people personally when you responded to Monkey, so don't be surprised when you and your niece get dragged back into it.

Posted by switzerblog | December 1, 2006 10:37 PM

Noink, you nailed it. Except for the food bit - Wal-Mart's per calorie price is actually much worse. They tend to sell high-calorie, high-fat food because it's the cheapest. This is the unfortunate problem with the old "why are so many poor people fat" saw - the food you can afford when you're poor is high in fat, sodium and calories. (think Ramen, mac & cheese, generic colas, etc.) Healthy food is expensive - quite a catch-22! There are ways to eat cheaply and healthy, but it takes some work, and yeah, an asian grocery is a good start.

Posted by switzerblog | December 1, 2006 10:44 PM

Fnarf, It's not that K-Mart is a saint, by any stretch of the imagination. It's just that when they were the hot new thing (store-wise) they couldn't get away with the stuff that Wal-Mart does. Companies were more afraid of union representation, so that they didn't dare mess with their employees to the extent Wal-Mart does. Most of our goods were still produced in the US, by union labor, so they couldn't extert the pressure on the vendors that Wal-Mart does.

As far as their big-box nature, that's more a result of housing policies promoted by the Feds, than anything else. If it were profitable to stay downtown, Kresges would have stayed Kresge's, and stayed downtown.

I don't begrudge Wal-Mart their success, or even their profit - and I'm not intending to paint unions as the savior of the middle-class (although they were an important check against out-of-control corporate profit) it's just that Wal-Mart's success has been so much at the expense of others, and to the detriment of society as a whole.

Yet, as someone noted, they are but a symptom of a bigger problem.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | December 1, 2006 10:48 PM

All the major chains are profit driven, import vast parts of their stock, and cheat both labot and customers.

So what is new?

Shopping at the Goodwill? It has been there for 40 years, selling Seattlite junk/junque to new owners.

I have never spent a penny at the Bon, Tiffanys or Wal-Mart.

But I don't not feel any superior sense of my life vs. those that do.

The economic model worlwide as cities grow into mega centers and rural shrinks- that model is liken to 50,000 more Wal-Marts, tailed for each culture.

Sorry to deflate any bubbles, but ma and pa marketing was strongest in the last century, and earlier.

Big populations, cheap merchandise from global sourcing, mass transit equals giant chains.

Posted by sam | December 2, 2006 12:12 AM

Let the straights keep their walmart. I mean fat,working class, men and their fat wives deserve to have a store to call their own. I mean, honestly, what self respecting gay guy would be caught dead wearing a pair of $10 walmart jeans. I hate going to walmart. It's like getting caught in a hippo stampede.

Posted by s | December 2, 2006 9:26 PM

yeah, everybody knows that gays have more disposable income than straights so why the hell would we want to go shop for cheap crap at walmart when we can buy better quality items. walmart is for working class families who live in squallor and have 5 kids and a drunk uncle all living with them. I don't personally want to shop in the same place with THOSE people. So let walmart shun the gays and cater to their dirty customer base. who cares

Posted by elitist fruit | December 2, 2006 9:32 PM

damn right. screw the walrusmart. I went their one time and their were two dirty trashy people actually fighting in the parking lot. a husband and wife. "Ah told you.....I ain't want you to be tellin whut to do in public!" then the husband (or gorilla) said "why ain't choo just get a deevorce from me then!" it went on and on. gross

Posted by s | December 2, 2006 9:38 PM

I know huh? they are like "we don't like them gays, but we do support our stoopid bloo coller fat workin class families." "we at the save walmart don't want to support them gays because they is cleen and well groomed."" we only like them peeple who ain't clean ya'll.""we like factory workers and smelly trash and their ugly little kids." piss off...keep your dirty little store.

Posted by omar | December 2, 2006 9:44 PM

I don't know what makes you all think it's cheaper to purchase old clothing at Goodwill when you can buy new stuff at Wal-Mart for cheaper or the same price.

I can buy half decent George brand full outfits and suits on clearance for much less than what I can for something fairly fashionable at Goodwill.

At least St. Vincent DePaul's doesn't price themselves out of a customer (me) like Goodwill does.

Do I like Wal-mart? Hell no. I hate what they do to our economy, their employees and to small towns, and I try to shop there as infrequently as possible. But the poorer people in smaller towns really truly can't afford to shop elsewhere.

It's much better in large cities where you have a choice in thrift shops and used furniture stores. In fact, perhaps some of you should go and travel to rural America.

You might come to the realization that Wal-Mart is all they have and it's not because they ran other shops out of town, it's because the areas didn't have anything much until Wal-Marts built there.

Posted by Sha | December 3, 2006 3:03 AM

Hot Horny Heathens!

I need me some popcorn, this is great reading.

Why does Wal-Mart attract the Springer-esque out in all of us?

Posted by lilly | December 3, 2006 2:42 PM


Posted by jonny845 | December 12, 2006 10:28 PM


Posted by jonny791 | December 12, 2006 10:28 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).