Finally it's time the Left to get its head out of its collective ass when it comes to WalMart, and realize 1/2 the reason you hate it is due to "it being common, lacking in status" and very little to do with better quality or where they make their stuff.

Um, NO. And what the fuck do you know about "the left" or anything other than idiotic right wing Christo-conservatives down in Central Texas? Did you have fun laughing at all the hippies last time you went to Austin?

Meet many people from "the left" who brag about shopping at Target instead? Nah. You'd rather knock down straw men.

I don't shop at Wally World because I don't have to. I wasn't stupid enough to have 19 kids without a college degree or not to get good at what I do even without post secondary education. I shop at farmers markets, buy used online and at places like Savers, and try to always buy local.

You just keep railing on and on at your fictitious "left" there, tough guy.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

http://www.walmartmovie.com/

http://www.traditionalconservative.com/Levis.htm

http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/

Yeah. Must be all those liberal left wingers carrying out a complicated conspiracy to shut the largest company in the world down because they just aren't "cool" or "exclusive"!

Oh. The "But everyone else is doing it!" argument.

Seriously, I am 99% sure that Wal Mart ENABLES the types of economy that's bad for the working class (and poor) in the long run. I've lived in several small towns, notably Fredricksburg, TX where lots of mom and pop stores had to switch over to the tourist industry (luckily that town happened to already be funded by that prior to Wally World) or relocate to the outskirts of Austin or San Antonio.

But in that sense, Wal Mart is just a symptom of the larger problem. People want to live beyond their means. Wal Mart makes it possible by muscling mom and pop stores out of business and bullying their suppliers into meeting break-even pricing and insane just-in-time logistics criteria. The fact it, if you don't sell to or buy from Wal Mart, you're losing out. And it's all about the money, right?

What I find sad is that the people here defending Wal Mart because it's the only thing that keeps unrealistic living standards afloat don't see the big picture causal relationship. I'll gladly suffer (if you call avoiding large pushy crowds suffering) and take my hard earned money to local businesses and buy used as much as possible. The Wal Mart culture encourages the throw away mentality and the bizarre tendency of converts to rationalize their own previous way of life out of existence.

I've used Ikea furniture, not because I love its design, or am sold on its slick advertising, but because I don't want to shell out the big bucks for heirloom furniture when I don't know what city I will have to move to next. Not that I have disposed of my furniture willy-nilly, I've taken some cross-country and it has survived quite well. But now that I need new dressers, I have to wonder whether I should buy a heavy, all wood item and then have to pay to move it too or sell it off when I move again.

Wal Mart routinely demands that artists censor their work in order to sell it there. They have like 12% of the national CD market:

http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3_2.html

Last week I was in a Maine town that advertises itself as the place in the USA where the sun shines first. (There are a few competitors but never mind). I was anxious to check out a restaurant I'd read about which caters to well-heeled tourists (the locals couldn't afford it). After looking at the menu in the window I went elsewhere. It featured NZ lamb chops and Alaskan salmon. While they are no doubt both tasty, I want to try local fare and help the Atlantic salmon industry upon which so many local jobs depend.

Once I got across the border there were no shortage of restaurants serving meals made from local Canadian inputs (both fish and vegetable). Yet this letter in the Globe and Mail indicates that, as consumers demand point of origin labels, there is plenty of room for obfuscation:

In Gerry Ritz’s letter to the editor (Product of Canada - July 7), our Minister of Agriculture writes “consumers expect that products claiming to be ‘Product of Canada’ are all or virtually all Canadian content.”

How does Mr. Ritz define “virtually all”? Why should products “Made in Canada from domestic and imported ingredients” be excluded from the requirement to list the origin of those “imported” ingredients? As a Canadian consumer, I heartily agree the geographic origin of my food should be clearly detailed. What I don’t expect is to deal with either absent or ambiguous information. Last week, for example, I purchased lamb that was labelled both “New Zealand lamb chops” and “Product of Canada.” Is that what “virtually” Canadian is about?

You got me. Incidentally, what does "made in" now mean? Does slapping a label on a pre-packaged lamb loin of foreign origin now mean it was even partially "made in" Canada?

Been seeing lots of Australian and Kiwi lamb around here too, btw. They advertise it as "grass fed" and "antibiotic-free" but there are no government seals on the packaging to indicate that this is true. How is it even economically viable to import beef from Australia to Texas? Texas? Beef?

I see lots of Aussie grass-fed, free-range beef too. And unless it's on sale they want $14.99/lb. Yeah right.

Years ago( 1960s-70s), I used to take home old TVs, AM radios and phonographs and dismantle them for the tubes and parts. (A lot of the parts I rescued are still working, 40+ years later).

That takes me back...I remember working around a few TV repairmen in the 90's, they repaired analog TVs. They made GOOD money, and some even travelled throughout the country for jobs in shops because of their reputations.

It's sad, now everything is so "digital" and black-boxed, nobody can repair anything themselves anymore.