Creep: Dallas Erickson
Congratulations to this week’s creep, Dallas Erickson! He’s managed to do something no other 4&20 blackbird creep has ever done! He’s a creep for two different reasons on the same issue!
Many of you are already no doubt familiar with this Stevensville resident and far-right fundamentalist Christian anti-gay activist. He was, after all, one of the sources behind Yellowstone Country’s recent voted-down obscenity ordinance, and has been working for years to eliminate pornography from the public sphere:
Erickson, of Stevensville, is the founder of Help Our Moral Environment, or HOME. The organization says it works to “significantly reduce sexual violence and the victimization of children, women, men and families by eliminating child pornography, regulating sexually oriented businesses and removing illegal pornography from the open market in Montana.”
[snip]
The Montana Human Rights Network has described Erickson as anti-gay, and his Web site formerly stated the organization’s opposition to “the homosexual agenda.”
Fine. So he’s a moral prude and crusader. For that alone, Erickson does not earn his 4&20 blackbirds “creep” label. I think he’s wrong, but I admit he has a right to pursue his agenda in our community. (An argument could be made to creepify him based on all the time and money Montana communities have spent on lawsuits overturning Ravalli County ordinances he spearheaded, but let’s let that slide for now.)
No, what has earned Erickson’s “creep” label is another matter entirely. And it has to do with Wal-Mart. You see, Ravalli County has passed a resolution limiting the size of big-box stores in their community (hurry! 154 may still pass!), ostensibly to keep Wal-Mart out, and Erickson doesn’t like it. In fact he started a “citizens’ group” to oppose it: “Citizens for Economic Opportunity.”
Why?
“…this is about free enterprise,” said Erickson….“This isn’t about Wal-Mart. It’s about the freedom to do business.”
I’ll let you digest that for a moment.
…
That’s right! Erickson is a free-market advocate! But only of business models he agrees with!
But before I say anything else, guess who Erickson’s biggest source of funding is? That’s right, Wal-Mart!
Citizens for Economic Opportunity, a group started by the conservative activist Dallas Erickson of Stevensville, collected $41,752.41 in its effort to defeat the resolution that would limit big-box stores to 60,000 square feet, documents show. Wal-Mart, which is seeking to build a supercenter in Hamilton, gave $41,000 of that amount in a check written in late May, just as the petition drive was getting under way.
Erickson said Wednesday that Wal-Mart had “contributed” to the drive to get 15 percent of Ravalli County voters to sign the petition – that drive succeeded – but he said he couldn’t be sure about the accuracy of the figure listed on the form filed with the state commissioner of political practices. The form was filed by Erickson’s group.
Erickson said his group used the company’s money to pay for several “major” mailings and to pay petitioners to gather signatures.
Don’t we already have enough big-money-sourced initiatives on our state ballots?
Yes, Erickson has hit a double creepdom. He’s a hypocrite of the worst sort and he’s a tool of a big out-of-state corporation looking to alter a Montana community in the name of a buck.
Double ugh.
-
1
Pingback on Apr 27th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
[…] Dallas Erickson. He keeps reminding Missoulians how morally bankrupt we are. He’s worried that perverts are lurking in our bathrooms. He’s also a big crusader for Wal-Mart. […]
-
2
Pingback on Mar 14th, 2011 at 2:23 am
[…] like Harris Hines and and Dallas Erickson never seemed to learn that, though. For reasons that perhaps only a trained psychiatrist could […]
-
3
Pingback on Mar 14th, 2011 at 8:34 am
[…] like Harris Hines and and Dallas Erickson never seemed to learn that, though. For reasons that perhaps only a trained psychiatrist could […]
-
4
Pingback on Jun 21st, 2013 at 3:19 pm
[…] gotten this far, you know who I think it is. Now, I can’t find proof, but given that the Horrible Bigot Dallas Erickson, of from Stevensville, which is just 20 miles down the road from Hamilton, one might guess that […]
Leave a reply to Frank Cancel reply
Recent Comments
Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A… Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att… JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
4&20 blackbirds 
September 8, 2006 at 2:16 pm
I cannot understand why liberals hate Wal-Mart.
The company provides lots of goods to low income families that they would probably not otherwise be able to afford. Low income people and families are what liberals proport to champion. Why the crusade against a store that allows them to stretch their dollars further??
The company also provides good jobs in retail. Check out the classifieds for retail jobs in Hamilton. Those local “mom and pops” are offering minimum or near minimum wage with no benefits and slim chances of advancement. Wal Mart offers several dollars above minimum plus benefits and many advancement opportunities. Again, a lot of these jobs will go to low income people who are currently working for “mom and pop”.
When the Wal Mart in Hamilton is built, I bet there will be hundreds and hundreds of applicants for the jobs offered there.
It is an opportunity to better people’s lives both from the customer’s and employment perspective.
September 8, 2006 at 2:43 pm
First, this isn’t necessarily an anti-Wal-Mart rant. But now that you’ve asked why liberals hate Wal Mart, I’ll direct you to Matt for answers. The quick answer is that the company keeps wages low, and unfairly manipulates the market, keeping wages low all across the country. While their prices are cheap, that doesn’t help lower- and middle-class families: the reason lower-income families need to “stretch their dollar” is because housing, health care, and gas prices have shot up, while real wages (thanks in large part to Wal-Mart) have shrunk. The same products at Wal-Mart are only marginally more expensive at other, more worker-friendly stores.
Still, this is a post about a man’s hypocracy. I have no problem with people debating the growth or look or composition of business in their community. That’s my point. This guy is for free enterprise for one business, but against it for another.
September 8, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Well, between Matt Singer and Touchstone here, it is easy to see one
thing. Liberals are more concerned about fighting walmart than
fighting terrorism. One reason walmart is so great: Walmart quickly
provided food, blankets, and medical supplies to hurricane katrina
victims FASTER than FEMA, as a matter of fact, the government
applauded them with saving THOUSANDS of lives.
Yes lets CUT AND RUN from Iraq, and CUT AND RUN from stores like
walmart that save lives. Wow, 1.2 million unborn children a year,
prevent stores from saving people in disaster, prevent fighting
terrorist on THERE turf not my backyard. Wow liberals, keep up the
“good” fighting” Give a good punch to walmart for me, I’m too busy
fighting the real bad guy
September 8, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Usually we can count on Coobs to drop by and spit the GOP talking points. Today apparently it’s Frank’s turn.
Frank’s post is all gibberish, of course, and not worth a d*mn, so I won’t respond to any of his allegations.
I will point out, however, that Bush’s war on terror isn’t working, that Americans still feel unsafe, that they blame the Iraq War for thier loss of security, and a majority want to “cut and run.” Meanwhile, why haven’t we caught Osama bin Laden? Could it be that Bush disbanded the CIA group responsible for hunting him down?
(There are some positive things about Wal-Mart. I’m glad they started an organic line of food: that’s good news for health and organic farmers.)
But Frank’s statements — an accurate reflection of the GOP leadership, I might add — shows a callous disregard for working- and middle-class Americans. That is, us.
Wages going down? Look, that taxi driver is a terrorist!
Health care costs spiralling out of control? Watch this scary video on terrorists!
Big business buying our government? Osama’s still out there– er, never mind that, er, bombs! New-clee-er bombs! Antrax! Scary dark people!
Yes, the GOP doesn’t give a damn about the majority of Americans. Most of the party — Burns and Rehberg in particular — is too busy swilling from the trough of big business to care either about national security or its constituency.
September 8, 2006 at 10:29 pm
I would be interested in your citation of real wage decline in Montana. I have yet to see evidence of this, but hear it quoted quite frequently. If you cannot provide the data, I would be happy to perform the analysis, but would prefer to see your efforts first.
September 9, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Well, Lutjic, to be honest I’ve only seen the national numbers, but real wages have been declining steadily since the 1970s. In recent years wages have grown, but less than inflation. Additionally, while inflation is growing at about 3 percent a year, housing, fuel, and health care prices are rising much faster than that…
September 9, 2006 at 9:42 pm
If this dude’s so enamored with free enterprise, maybe I should come up there and open a big box porno store complete with a 5 screen theater and live peep shows. If there’s free enterprise for Sprawl Mart, there should be free enterprise for my new Smut Depot right?
Notice to Dallas Erickson: You can’t legislate morality. It’s been proven time and time again, but people (especially right wing people) still try to anyway. You can’t make something go away simply by outlawing it, and you can’t force people to be moral. The problems that you see as being caused by pornography run far deeper than your shallow little brain can even comprehend, so do us all a favor and get out of the public policy business. Please take your ridiculous blue laws with you.
It never ceases to amaze me when ultra right wingers accuse the left of attacking their rights, then they come up with garbage like this. I guess it isn’t attacking someone’s rights as long as YOU agree with it. Self serving if I ever seen it.
March 19, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Hey silly. Don’t you know that every law legislates someone’s morality or lack thereof. I will give you an award if you can show me one law that does not legislate morality.
March 20, 2010 at 12:12 pm
procedural laws. see usc title 28 for about 1000 examples. what do I get?
September 10, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Actually Justin I would completely be open to a Smut Depot. Walmart succeeds because they have half a trillion dollars worth of business a year. They do not succeed by forcing us at gun point to buy their low priced grocery and house items. Between Albertsons, Safeway, K-Mart, Shopko, Target, etc I have plenty of choice in this FREE market. When market is not FREE, ie liberals wanting to get rid of a successful business because they are…successful. As where Porn is an extremely competitive business between internet and the already 5 porn shops in Missoula. I bet that if you added up total business and sales at all of the shops you could not justify and not lose your total investment. There is not enough tangible porn sales that would allow for the business of a Smut Depot. However there is enough food, toy, luxury items being sold to justify a store like Walmart offering the same thing but cheaper. If America doesn’t want Walmart they would not buy and work there. Right now America buys 87% of all there grocery items from Walmart. So PLEASE don’t force your better than me attitude. 87%…thats support!
September 10, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Frank, did I slam on Wal Mart? Did I? Please oh please, show me where I slammed on your beloved Wally World in that comment. I was slamming on self serving idiots that think enterprise should be free as long as they agree with the enterprise in question. If it’s free, that means it’s free for everyone, not just religious fundamentalist wackos and the stores that they like.
PS – “Liberals” don’t dislike Wal-Mart because it’s successful, “Liberals” dislike Wal-Mart because it’s successful at a huge cost to the people that can least afford it, both here in the U.S and in the sweatshops abroad where a majority of their products are manufactured. I use the term “Liberal” because that’s the only word right wing asshats understand when refering to someone that they/you don’t agree with. I assure you my friend, I’m a far cry from a “Liberal”.
They make record profits every year, yet pay their employees a mere pitance in return. Think Wal-Mart pays good? Try to live on $8.00 an hour some time, or even $10, I dare you. You might “survive”, but good luck having any spending money after your bills are payed if you even have enough to do that.
They buy only the lowest cost goods pushing suppliers to move their manufacturing to China, when they could likely buy the same products made here in America and providing jobs for Americans at only a nominally higher price. 87% you say? Getting mighty close to a monopoly if you ask me. What are we going to do when the powers that be at Wally World start deciding what we can and can’t eat? They already try to decide what we can and can’t read, watch, and listen to. How come Costco can afford to pay their people so much more, yet still make the profits that they do but Wal-Mart can’t?
I won’t even address my “better than me” attitude, because I don’t have one buddy, where you came up with that line I have no idea. Typical Republican tactic though, when you can’t back your ass up with facts, here comes the name calling. Companies like Wal-Mart are the reason why we have anti trust laws in this country. How much more control should we give them before somebody steps in?
Oh and one more thing, good luck fighting the “real” bad guys. You wouldn’t know the real bad guys if they came up and kicked you in the nuts but good luck fighting them just the same. Oh that’s right, you’re too busy fighting the bad guys that your king and his cronies set up for you to keep you distracted while they run the whole damn country into the toilet, I’m sorry, I forgot.
September 10, 2006 at 6:36 pm
“What are we going to do when the powers that be at Wally World start deciding what we can and can’t eat? They already try to decide what we can and can’t read, watch, and listen to.”
Well ol’ Justin boy, you must have skipped that day in Common Sense 101. If Walmart doesn’t sell Doritos for example…I go to Safeway to buy Doritos (and the rest of my grocery list now that I am out shopping). If they sell an edited CD, buy it for twice the price at the mall. Don’t be so freakin scared of a store. If Walmart doesn’t have something in stock, doesn’t carry your precious items that they “dictate”, go somewhere else. That’s easy! Walmart has no control over my life, your life, or anybody’s life! If you don’t like them, don’t shop there! If you feel your wage is low, don’t work there. The truth is, they provide TONS of jobs all around the world. If people don’t like the work, they can go elsewhere. My point earlier, millions of Americans everyday shop at Walmart. Not because they are an “evil monopoly”, not because they dictate where we can buy are groceries, but because its easy and cheaper to shop there. I prefer to shop there because I can buy everything in one place…it saves about 3 gallons of gas a week if not more. If you support Costco…so shop and work there! Another problem solved. I don’t like to shop at a certain shoe store because I felt I had bad service…doesn’t mean I should forcefully prevent other people from shopping there. Boycott products you don’t like, boycott stores you don’t like. Speak with your dollar. But…don’t prevent me from enjoying a store that provides me groceries, car supplies, and clothes for my family at a competitive price.
And on a side note, if you ever actually step in an advanced economics classroom, which I have my masters in, they teach one thing on the first day. Due to Walmart, inflation has been much lower because of steady prices for the average American. How evil!
September 10, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Well, first, I’m not the one with the “better than you” attitude, Mr. Graduate-school-of-economics. You enter as a guest on my blog and throw non-sequitor, ad hominem attacks on my noticing the hypocracy of a rabid right-wing extremist.
Um, Mr.-Graduate-school, isn’t applying pressure to a store through a boycott “forcefully preventing other people from shopping there”? If you drive a place to change through pressuring it economically, isn’t that changing it?
I don’t understand your point, Mr. Graduate school. Obviously with your graduate-school-of-economics degree you probably haven’t ever worked a service, minimum wage job. You ever try to get a job without any skills or college degrees? Oops, I guess not. What the f*ck do you know about everyday Americans?
Seriously, you’re picking the fight with the wrong dog. I’m not a huge anti-walmart fan. Go to Singer with your complaints, Mr. Graduate-school of economics. He’ll educate you on the topic.
As for me, I think the voters should have the right to zone their cities. If you don’t like that, China could probably use some recent graduates of advanced economics classes.
September 11, 2006 at 9:38 am
I am still waiting for a response on the wage inflation question I raised. You saying that wages have been declining since the 1970’s just doesn’t do it for me. I will be kind and direct you to a publication put out last year by the Montana Department of Labor and Industry. It has a graph of wages from 1969-2004 for MT and the US. I realize that this a one year out of date, but I think we can use it for now until you find better data.
As you can see wages have not been declining since the 1970s for the US and have been rising for MT since the mid 1990’s. No where do it show a steady decline in wages since the 1970s as you have claimed repeatedly.
I hope that this will end the discussion, but if you can provide alternative analysis I would be more than willing to listen and comment.
Click to access 930_Labor_Day_Pub_Web_corrected.pdf
(Page 11)
September 11, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Interesting. Well, the data you showed me has current MT real wage levels lower than 1970…
The data seems to be for all Montanans. Do you have a similar graph for middle- or working-class Montanans?
September 11, 2006 at 12:45 pm
I don’t disagree that MT is lower now than 1970, but it hasn’t been declining since 1970. The 1980s and early 1990s were bad for MT, but things have picked up and we are seeing consistent real wage growth.
As to middle or working class Montana data, there isn’t a strong source which tracks wage growth over that long a time period. Examining the Current Population Survey might show this statistic, but not for the 30 years you are looking for.
For a current examination of wage issues for individuals see the 2006 Labor Day Report, it has information on wage distributions, as well as wage inequality.
Click to access 1589_Labor_Day_Report_06_Web.pdf
September 11, 2006 at 1:07 pm
This “debate” is a perfect example of why I’ve been trying to stay out of politics lately. Sooner or later, in any political debate, the subject always seems to start involving statistics. This figure from the Department of Such and Such, this survey conducted by the blah blah blah. Does it strike anyone else funny that these figures and statistics most always seem to support the views of the group or individuals paying for the research? If I wanted to, and if I were willing to spend the time doing so, I could find statistics to counter or back up any statistics that you could tout, I assure you. Why don’t you just look around? Would that be less scientific?
There are basically no more factories in the United States. Nothing is made here anymore, it’s all brought in from overseas. The few factories that are still here are under enormous pressure to outsource in order to remain competitive, but the “statistics” all support that as a good thing because we can buy things for a dollar or two cheaper. Meanwhile people continue to make less and less because all of the good jobs went to China and all that’s left is flipping burgers. Yeah I know, the “statistics” say that isn’t so, but once again look around instead of blindly believing what your statistics tell you.
Let’s say in 1970 a new car cost 10,000 dollars, now a similarily equipped car costs 20,000 dollars. In 1970 a person could get a job as a mechanic or a truck driver for around $10.00 an hour, and now the same person can get a similar job for $14.00 an hour. The cost of a car doubled, but the wage? Not even close. It’s the same scenario with groceries, household goods, gas, electricity, practically everything except for maybe electronics. You can believe your statistics forever for all I care. This is what I’ve seen with my own eyes. My dad lived it back then, I’m living it now.
A wise man once said that there’s two kinds of untruths in the world, outright lies and statistics. When statistics and figures come up exactly counter to what I’ve seen with my own eyes, I tend to believe him.
September 11, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Just as a bit of information, the statistics that you are damning come from businesses in MT, which are required to submit the wages paid to each of their workers. This is government data, not some political research firm intent on proving a point. The intent of government supported data is to remove the potential for bias in the numbers. Both sides of almost all issues believe in this data. It is true that numbers can be twisted and manipulated, but the most important thing to consider is the source. Government data is set up to be accurate and neutral.
I also fail to see how your example holds any relevance to the discussion. Aren’t you committing the very same sin you rail against earlier. Where did your numbers come from, why are they important. Given the choice of what you see with your own eyes or statistics from a reputable government source, I will choose the government every time.
September 11, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Well…I would question data from the Bush administration, since they’re known to cook the books for political reasons, but other than that.
Another thing: I assume the real wages you showed are based on using the CPI for inflation: now I’m no economist, but I recall those numbers excluding house and health costs, for example. Aren’t those the costs — along with gas — that are growing the fastest?
That’s one of the argument about the cheap prices at Walmart — that they affect goods that are a small proportion of an individual’s budget.
September 11, 2006 at 2:24 pm
This is a link to what the CPI covers.
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm#Question_7
I cannot speak to the proportion of a budget that goods account for, though I beleive that there are good numbers to answer this question with.
It is true that Walmart goods grow slower in price than gas or health care. But be careful, you may be arguing against yourself. There are reasons that prices stay low for these goods and Walmart is a contributor to that effect.
September 11, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Oh, yes, I’ve heard this argument before. But it’s also true that by keeping prices so low, the store might have kept wages low. (And yes, I also recognize the circular nature of that argument.)
But the point is, is that those prices are less important than house, health, and fuel. Buying a lighter for two dollars is significantly more expensive than buying one for forty cents, but the difference has little impact on paying rent.
Still — and again I’m getting these arguments from Singer — there’s evidence that shows Wal-Mart can still pay its employees more and keep its prices down…
September 11, 2006 at 4:09 pm
BTW, at this point I am retracting my statements about real wages sinking, tho’ I reserve the right to reverse my retraction if I find future data that support my initial impression.
Certainly my feeling is that I’m getting squeezed more than, say, my father. Housing seems harder to buy, health care more expensive and difficult to get. I grew up in a one-income family. Right now, my household is a two-income family, but I live in a smaller house than where I grew up and our insurance is a much larger percentage of my take-home than my pop’s was.
The evidence seems to contradict this feeling, though. Have you got an explanation for the growing sense that the middle class is slipping?
September 11, 2006 at 4:11 pm
I don’t think that the argument was over Walmarts wages, though I have forgotten where we started. I don’t disagree that they are less important. We were discussing the CPI composition and the CPI accounts for all of them.
As for the store keeping wages low, so what. I realize that is a cruel statement, but if they can pay low wages they will. This is the reality of business. They only way they will increase wages is if they are short of workers, which doesn’t appear to be the case. You cannot force or legislate increases, they will find a way around it or they will remove themselve from the market. I know this might sound like a good thing, but remember, the market has more participants than just those that think and act like you.
Walmart provides a service that is used and demanded by a large portion of society. Stop shopping there or find alternative work at higher wages for workers. This is the only way to solve the problem you have outlined
September 11, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Well, I certainly never advocated legislating increases other than a boost to federal and state minimum wages. I certainly realize Wal-Mart can pay whatever wages they want; that doesn’t make their policy ethical. I realize not all businesses (most?) consider ethics when making decisions, I’m not a complete idealist.
And I don’t shop or work at Wal-Mart.
But I do have the right to write about Wal-Mart, point out their unethical (IMHO) wage policies, and I can work to pressure them to change.
And don’t forget WalMart can’t remove itself from the market. We’re not talking call centers or building cars. They’re primarily a service business and must sell their products in the communities their customers live in.
(BTW, this post had nothing to do with Wal-Mart’s ethics or wages or anything. It had to do with an activist’s market hypocracy and the presence of out-of-state corporate dollars buying intiatives…)
September 11, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Middle class wages may be slipping, but not the way you are probably aluding to. We are redefining the middle class, relative to the 1950-1980’s. The union, blue collar workers that comprised this class are fading. In their place we are seeing the you professionals who comprise the lower management and IT jobs that have made up a large portion of the growth in the US economy.
The manufacturing jobs which provided a large number of the jobs in past decades are gone and they won’t come back. Economies change, which is a hard reality for everyone involved. People will get hurt and jobs will be lost. Some people will slip through the cracks. There is no joy in this, it is just the way economies work.
When examining the middle class of today, ask yourself what it looked like 100 years ago. What type of jobs did they hold, where did they live, what were their demographics. What would have happened if this hadn’t changed. What would the US economy look like with the workforce and jobs of 1900. Things have to change inorder for opportunities to increase.
September 11, 2006 at 4:36 pm
They won’t remove themselve from the national market, but they can remove themselves from local markets. Consider Chicago and their ordinance relating to wages for businesses above a certain size. Walmart can and may move outside of the effected area.
Who does this help. What benefits are accrued by Walmart leaving.
September 11, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Take the Bitterroot area, though. If Ravalli decides to ban big-box stores, folks can still go to Missoula’s two stores. If Montana raises the minium wage to $6.50, it’s doubtful Wal-Mart leaves the area in either case. And I’d argue that both conditions set by Montanans are completely reasonable.
Chicago is, I suspect, an extreme example, and I certainly don’t advocate a city-wide ban.
But in the Bitterroot? People are already overburdening the space and water there. The place is a mess, development-wise. Smart growth benefits everyone, even big box stores, I’d argue…
Well, you’ve certainly had interesting things to say. As you no doubt know, I am no economist. Thanks for giving me some ideas to mull over.
February 19, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Mallwart and its ill-causing effects on the local merchs is devasting. I say if you want Walmart go to one of the thousands of stores already built and ready to supply you with a job. I understand the concept of building community and working for a living–all this is not disputed. The fact remains the local merchs can’t stand a chance when the big chain moves in. The jobs offered at Walmart take away jobs from the local merches who now have to close down because they can’t compete. I can’t stand mallwart and i think they’re a downright despicable business and just one of many things tarnishing the corporate greed of America. Although let’s not get into organizational structure. let us save that for other forums.
March 27, 2008 at 2:08 pm
This “debate” is a perfect example of why I’ve been trying to stay out of politics lately. Sooner or later, in any political debate, the subject always seems to start involving statistics. This figure from the Department of Such and Such, this survey conducted by the blah blah blah.
Why, facts scare you? Conflict with your emotions? You’re a fucking idiot, Justin.
March 20, 2010 at 12:33 pm
As an internet fight rages, the probability that someone will make a Hitler jab approaches 1.
In a sense I actually agree with the Wal-Mart advocates that there’s dishonesty in the opposition’s approach. Personally, I hate Wal-Mart with a passion because:
I like clean, busy downtowns with plenty of mixed use development;
I hate box stores architecturally and the leap frog development they foster; and
I’m just not a fan of the clientèle. All those god damn fat people walking around with dead looks on their faces. Depressing.
I suspect most haters have similar reasoning. Let’s be honest at least.