Americans are being terrorized into not celebrating Xmas

[tackattack]

Isn't Xmas just a secularization? A way of saying Christmas without having to name the savior? Some one told me something about it once, and I forget what they said.

In that case, if it is a modern piece of "political correctness", than is Xmas modern Christmas?

As I like to say (and not in a way that mocks the real Christians) modern Christmas is the biggest holiday of the cult that worships the MoneyGod. Cashmas? I could care less about other peoples traditions, but it is the consumerist aspect that makes me not celebrate this modern Xmas.

Ugh.

-Pip

But walmart has some really good deals on electronics if you don't get trampled to death.

[Pippy]

My line about Walmart is as follows.
It's basic economics.
Anyone who shops at Walmart only deserves 20 hours of employment a week.

[littlegrimlin1]

But yeah, definitely, I've terrorized SOO many people into not celebrating Xmas, yeahhhh.....lol

[theVOID]

My line about Walmart is as follows.
It's basic economics.
Anyone who shops at Walmart only deserves 20 hours of employment a week.

Oh really - because that really offsets the thousands of people who need Walmart jobs just to feed their children? or how about the $1000+ per year that the average family saved shopping at walmart? Were'nt they one of the single largest private contributors to Katrina? Such evil bastards huh?

[Pippy]

We can go back at it if you like. The people that "need their Walmart jobs to feed their children"also needed the full-time job they could have had before the Walmart came to town. The 1000$ a year they save is a trick, because they lose a lot more than that in local economy. You can try to paint those guys any way you want, but the Walmart economic principles are flawed, unfair, fraudulent and stupid.

If you really want to save 10 cents on toilet paper from china, then you obviously don't understand the implications of local economy vs. global economy, and fully deserve a 20-hour-a-week minimum wage job, and you are welcome to use the parking lot to live out of your car.

But yeah, feel free to defend the Walton family, they need to stay in Forbes top 5.

The,
-Pip

[theVOID]

We can go back at it if you like. The people that "need their Walmart jobs to feed their children"also needed the full-time job they could have had before the Walmart came to town. The 1000$ a year they save is a trick, because they lose a lot more than that in local economy. You can try to paint those guys any way you want, but the Walmart economic principles are flawed, unfair, fraudulent and stupid.

They also employ a lot of people in areas where small business have failed on their own. Yeah they're big business and there is always a downside, i just don't think it's as one sided as you.

If you really want to save 10 cents on toilet paper from china, then you obviously don't understand the implications of local economy vs. global economy, and fully deserve a 20-hour-a-week minimum wage job, and you are welcome to use the parking lot to live out of your car.

Someone's a little bitter i sense - have a personal problem with a corporation Pippy?

I think global economy is a far more powerful force for good than the local economy. Trade ties established between corporations and countries forge mutually beneficial situations which in tern lead to interdependency and make conflict too costly, local economies by contrast maintain divisions and economic interdependence. Both are essential but ultimately the global economy is more beneficial for both peace and innovation.

But yeah, feel free to defend the Walton family, they need to stay in Forbes top 5.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet also populate that list, yet they are the easily amongst biggest individual philanthropists the world has seen. They've done more for the species than the equivalent net worth of local business owners combined while providing an equal, if not greater amount of jobs.

[Edwardo Piet]

@ the OP,

I see nothing wrong with the sign (the one you linked, Leo), but on the other hand I think... is it really such a big deal to put up such a sign anyway? I'm all for free speech... but a 'controversial' sign over the - I think petty - matter of Xmas? Isn't it obvious that Christmas can be celebrated without God if you want? If hysteria comes about but with good reason, fine. But if it's kind of unnecessary and pointless ... is it really required? ... does it really matter? (Despite the fact that I do think that there's obviously absolutely nothing wrong with the sign other than, like I said "... why exactly is it up?".

I agree with the principle the sign in essence of course, but the practicalities of the matter, I'm not sure of the point really.

EvF

[Tiberius]

Xmas isn't a secularisation of Christmas, it's a common misunderstanding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas

[leo-rcc]

@ the OP,

I see nothing wrong with the sign (the one you linked, Leo), but on the other hand I think... is it really such a big deal to put up such a sign anyway? I'm all for free speech... but a 'controversial' sign over the - I think petty - matter of Xmas?

Can you point out the controversial part of that sign for me? Because I don't see it.

Isn't it obvious that Christmas can be celebrated without God if you want?

Judging by the comments on the sign, I'd say it's not obvious at all.

like I said "... why exactly is it up?".

Because not everyone lives in an area where it is "okay" not to believe in God. That you and me happen to live in areas where not believing in gods is not an issue does not mean that that is the case everywhere.

[Pippy]

Hey,
If I may...

They also employ a lot of people in areas where small business have failed on their own. Yeah they're big business and there is always a downside, i just don't think it's as one sided as you.

All I said, and I feel it still very valid, is that people who shop at walmart do not deserve full-time employment. This is because if supporting walmart, you have to support them as a whole. Walmart is not a close friend of yours offering savings because they really and truly care about your quality of life. If you decide that the most important bottom line is the cheapest products possible, than you have to live with that choice, and all its implications. If you prioritize saving a few cents over supporting any kind of reasonable economy, then you are choosing a walmart world of minimum wage work, never enough hours, no proper benefits. And the next level, with 90% of the products being imported you are choosing to support the manufacturing industry that is 1000's of miles removed from you. You are also choosing not to have employee unions. You are stating that you don't want anything of any quality, but everything as cheap and disposable as possible. And every cheap, disposable object has to be shipped overseas for a short involvement in your life before you throw it out and do it again. We are also now edging onto the pollution issue, because this very economic model is about as inefficient as possible.

So you can shop at walmart, no one said you can't. But not only do I reserve my right to never step foot in one, but also to mock people stupid enough to do so. To defend them against complaint is even worse than if you just shopped there meekly.

Someone's a little bitter i sense - have a personal problem with a corporation Pippy?

But it's recognized as a living (but never dying) entity with it's own rights.
With that comes my right to have a "personal problem" with this living co-operations actions that affect my life. You make it sound so petty, but am I really expected to have no negative feelings towards the actions I have seen the Walmart group doing for many years?

I think global economy is a far more powerful force for good than the local economy.

Give me an example of how the global economic model is a "far more powerful force for good" than local economy, if you could. I can go on and on about the issues it has created. It was decentralized control and the outsourcing of dangerous work that led to the Bhopal incident. Look at pre-NAFTA Mexico City, and post-NAFTA. How many products made in China were recalled last year? Were the recalls effective? If you see the global economy as a force for good, you must really be ignoring or missing a lot of the information, including basic economic principles.

lead to interdependency and make conflict too costly

Or more likely, if the interdependency becomes one-sided or unfair. Trust me, there are much better motivators for avoiding conflict that we should try first.

Both are essential but ultimately the global economy is more beneficial for both peace and innovation.

I can only see that being possibly true if you were talking in an ideological sense. The perfect, functioning and well-maintained global economy, in theory, could potentially be "Better for peace and innovation". But the global economy as it stands today, and also where it appears to be going, are the exact opposite of such. Peace and innovation? We are in the middle of a perpetual war against an emotion that is part of an economic "protection racket" and are driving the same cars we had 100 years ago. Do you see peace and innovation? Please be kind enough to point that out, as it pertains to global economy. And don't say the stupid Gates foundation, or some flaky pseudo-philanthropy, because problems pretending to be solved by the ultra-rich that were in their own right caused by the global economic models flaws (that made them ultra-rich) do not count.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet also populate that list, yet they are the easily amongst biggest individual philanthropists the world has seen. They've done more for the species than the equivalent net worth of local business owners combined while providing an equal, if not greater amount of jobs.

You're kidding right? You're just pulling my leg? You are gonna stand there and defend Bill Gates and Warren fucking Buffet as heros? Judging from our prior disagreements, I am gonna assume you are a multi-millionaire. That is the only reason I can think that you would get any sense that the world you want to live in is in any way coherent to the world they want to live in. Bill gates and Warren Buffet. God damn. If they did more for us as a species... I can't even begin to express how silly that is. What does the statement that "they did more for the species than the equivalent net worth of local business owners combined while providing an equal if not greater amount of jobs" even mean? That there are actually more jobs in you local community, and more money to go around after all the private business has been replaced by a international corporate entity? Where do those more jobs and monies come from? Isn't in the corps best interest to have as little overhead as possible? Dosn't add up (literally).

When I lived on an island in the States, we had a law. No franchised corp was allowed to build on the island. They fought tooth and nail, they tried to put a Subway, a McDonalds... It did not matter that the locals did not want one, so they were forced to legislate. Why would they do that? Because even one franchised corp would ship that much money out of the local economy, and replace peoples self employment with a far less accommodating work. That is an example of local economy, as it was surrounded by 30 miles of water it was easier to understand.

Bottom line, if the global economic model was one that functioned, we would have already seen so. The IMF, the WTO, the specter of "free-trade" (I am running out of stream, but ask me about free trade, soft-wood lumber, and Metclad Inc. one day, that's a good rant too) have done nothing but worsen many problems. World hunger is worse than ever, pollution hotspots and sweatshop style labour have increased. Product quality has decreased, health concerns about these products abound. We have a much smaller manufacturing base. We have let them outsource everything, and where is the profit that they realized? Kept at the top of the ladder, so economically we (the normal people) are up shit creek.

So that , in all its glory, is what I mean by:
If you choose to shop at Walmart, you don't deserve full-time employment.
Makes perfect sense.

thanks,
-Pip