-
It’s Not About Abortion—Except It Is
April 15, 2013 | 148 comments
-
A Think Tank With Action
April 6, 2013 | 0 comments
-
I Know Victoria’s Secrets
March 29, 2013 | 17 comments
-
The New Feminism
March 25, 2013 | 49 comments
-
Rand’s Band of Brothers
March 8, 2013 | 41 comments
Another Perspective
Bullseye
Target realizes the bottom line is more important than being politically correct.
At first glance, it appears Target, that Minnesota-based company with the cute white dog and bullseye as marketing ploys (and sales that best any department store) waffles more than the middling Minnesotan, Senator Al Franken. But a closer look proves it’s really a greedy, narcissistic, free-market- loving business like any other with half the entrepreneurial spirit and twice the industrial brain.
A few weeks ago, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel surprised locals when he apologized to company leaders for making a $150,000 contribution to a conservative group, Minnesota Forward, which backs the Republican nominee for Governor, Tom Emmer. The apology was prompted by outcries of disgust and calls to boycott Target by LGBT groups, specifically the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest gay rights organization in the country; Emmer, of course, opposes gay rights. A Facebook group boycotting Target had grown to — gasp — 58,000 people. While local economists began to calculate how Target might recover from such a profit loss, the HRC also proposed a boycott to Best Buy, which gave $100,000 to MN Forward as well (but whose CEO didn’t publicly apologize for the gift).
Boycott notwithstanding, Steinhafel buckled under the pressure and the bucket-loads of criticism — but only momentarily. Time has proved he’s not completely without a spine, or a calculating brain.
Despite his apology, Target’s donation represents a deliberate business decision, not blatant bigotry. According to a Star Tribune article, “Target had tried for days to emphasize that the $150,000 donation to MN Forward, a pro-business group backing Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, was based solely on a tax and jobs platform. But because of Emmer’s stance against gay marriage, many perceived the donation as flying in the face of Target’s longstanding commitment to workplace equality.”
The HRC, in all its self-righteous vanity has been speaking with Target for the last couple weeks not only to discuss the company’s pert and discriminatory gift but to pressure it to give gay rights groups equal monetary-love. But alas, Target held its ground, to the chagrin of the HRC. Reports the Star Tribune: “After ‘two weeks of good-faith discussions, and two tentative agreements,’ Target decided not to contribute to groups supporting gay-rights candidates in Minnesota.” Quipped the HRC’s President Joe Solmonese: “All fair-minded Americans will now rightly question Target’s commitment to equality. If their initial contribution was a slap in the face, their refusal to make it right is a punch in the gut and that’s not something that we will soon forget.”
Target’s CEO should respond thusly: Likely, any clear-thinking American will now rightly applaud Target’s commitment to free-market principles. If we were more concerned with political correctness rather than contributing to retaining and creating jobs, we’d agree to give to groups which support candidates who support hiking taxes and regulating businesses, a slap in the face and punch in the gut for us for sure.
Unfortunately, he gave no such speech. Rather, Target responded with a ho-hum statement that while it wasn’t planning on giving money to gay advocacy groups, it sure does “remain committed” to them and to “inclusiveness.” That should placate them for five minutes.
It’s surprising — though I guess, it shouldn’t be — that in this economic climate, advocacy groups would pressure businesses for something as patently absurd as a “fair and balanced” contribution to them. As if for-profit companies belong to a Corporate Little League, where each player gets to play the same amount of time on the field, regardless of skill.
Even MoveOn.org has joined in the charade. It’s airing an ad that encourages people to boycott Target to stop it and other big box retailers from trying to “buy our elections.” The red and white ad which resembles those of the retailer shows a Target Bullseye man tossing aside both the GOP elephant and the Democrats’ donkey in favor of Lady Liberty. For all its own financial backing and on-the-spot ingenuity in ad buys, MoveOn.org has missed the point entirely — big surprise. Despite its mainstream media membership, MSNBC has not. It has refused to run the ad because it’s an attack on a specific business and therefore doesn’t “comply with NBC’s ‘Controversial Issue Advertising policy.’”
Either the HRC and other similar groups remains blind to the current economic phenomenon or they’re aware but indifferent. (The latter proves compelling.) They and MoveOn.org make this issue one of bigotry, a lack of empathy towards gay rights. Minnesota Forward ran television ads promoting Tom Emmer, the Republican running for governor, because he supports lower taxes, de-regulation, and small businesses. As politically correct as Target might like to be, if just to avoid the bad press and a “Boycott Target” Facebook page, its bottom line should be the only bottom line. To quote one of the best movie lines about business: “It’s not personal, it’s business.”
Even the Star Tribune concluded: “Target and Best Buy say their donations, which came directly from corporate coffers under a new Supreme Court ruling, were driven by business reasons.”
About the Author
Nicole Russell writes from Northern Virginia.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (48) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Nicole Russell
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/25/bullseye
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Peace in Our Times
- A President Loses His Power
- Her Unrequited Letter
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Aeronomer| 8.25.10 @ 6:49AM
Gee, a business choosing to back a candidate whose platform is good for...wait for it...business. If these activists had any brains, they'd realize that when Target flourishes, they will hire more workers. Many of which will no doubt be gay. I will never understand the animus toward free enterprise amongst the left. They are shooting themselves in the foot at every turn.
Darin| 8.25.10 @ 7:18AM
Leftist activists shooting themselves in the foot wouldn't really bother me if the bullet didn't richochet off the ground and hit me in the head.
Stuart Koehl| 8.25.10 @ 8:03AM
"Many of which will no doubt be gay."
Well, statistically speaking, and assuming a uniform distribution of employees by sexual preference, a store employing 100 workers would have perhaps 2.5 gay employees. But just as employment is not uniformly distributed by sex (51% of all welders are not women; 49% of all nurses are not men), so they are not uniformly distributed by sexual preference, so in reality, Target--a big box store catering to middle class families--is more likely to have a workforce only 1% gay, unless, of course, the store in question is located in an area that has a disproportionally high gay population--San Francisco, New York, Washington, DC.
In short, this isn't about workplace equality at all, its really about getting something beyond toleration for homosexuals; i.e., public approval for their practices and lifestyle.
Willis| 8.25.10 @ 8:51AM
Public approval for the practices and lifestyle of homosexuals is not going to happen. Those of us who are repulsed by such practices are barely able to manifest toleration, and that is only because leftists have practically made it a crime for us to express our true feelings.
Ace| 8.25.10 @ 10:30AM
Amen, Willis. There's even a few of us young people (I'm 22) who find homosexuality to be a repulsive perversion.
drybackinpi| 8.25.10 @ 12:44PM
Yeah, Gays Suck...Whoops, did I say that? :)
SeattleBruce| 8.25.10 @ 8:44PM
"There's even a few of us young people (I'm 22) who find homosexuality to be a repulsive perversion."
Good to know! And I'd say it's more than a few. The Bible makes it clear that the Creator hates sin, and homosexuality is a sin, like adultery and sex outside marriage - which God equally hates, btw.
The Bible also makes it clear that the Creator loves sinners and wishes for them salvation, "This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." 1Tim2:3, 4
So, classically, God hates sin, but loves the sinner.
Ned| 8.25.10 @ 10:47AM
You are right, of course, Stuart - this isn't about workplace equality at all. It's about gays establishing themselves as a poor abused minority so that they, too, can profit from the gushers of cash coming out of the federal government. I have friends and relatives who are gay, but quite frankly I am getting sick to death of having my face rubbed in their life-style choices. I do not want to know what you do after dark, kiddies, and I don't care if you wear boxers of briefs, or nothing at all - the so-called "discrimination" you wail about is a response to your vulgar behavior, not your gay-ness. Shut up about it, and you'll find people a lot more accepting.
Stuart Koehl| 8.25.10 @ 4:35PM
What Oscar Wilde called "the love that dare not speak its name" has truly become "the love that won't shut up". Noel Coward, towards the end of his life, had become repulsed by the flagrancy with which homosexuals were beginning to flaunt their deviance in the face of the general public. What began as a fight to be left alone has turned into fight to meddle in everyone else's life.
Paul| 8.25.10 @ 12:13PM
Free enterprise and the position against homosexuality are both founded in Scripture. You can mark it down - the left will either reject Scripture or twist it to support their anti-God agenda.
Alan Brooks| 8.25.10 @ 1:39PM
The bottom line in Northern Virginia and everywhere else is also more important than Jesus Christ.
You may have noticed it, Nicole.
Alan Brooks| 8.25.10 @ 6:21PM
And you, Paul:
Jesus does not shop at Target.
And if you want to get to Heaven, you can't fly there by purchasing tickets from Continental.
Greyhound schedules do not list 'Heaven' as the last stop.
SeattleBruce| 8.25.10 @ 8:50PM
God owns the cattle on a thousand hills...'the earth is the Lord's and all it contains. The world and all who dwell in it' (Ps. 24:1)...'Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.; (Galatians 6:7)
Appleby| 8.25.10 @ 7:11AM
I have a New Yorker cartoon from aeons ago of a typical New Yorker matron asking at a bookstore, *How long will it be until sex goes out of fashion?*
Tiger Woods and his $$Millions Wee Wee Boo Boo notwithstanding, the Make Love Not War Generation continues to focus solely on the National Sex Organ Registry and who is, you should pardon the expression, in and out.
The world is coming to an end around them and they swarm like flies around Atlas, demanding he drop the world and pick up his penis.
Oy Vey.
PS: Go Chip Ganassi.
Alan Brooks| 8.25.10 @ 6:17PM
BTW, what is the Target dog's name?
Spuds McKenzie?
erp| 8.25.10 @ 7:13AM
All of the above plus moonbat elites don't shop at Target, but millions of average American who don't think SSM is the most important issue of the day, do and if we decide to boycott Target, they'll go under.
Corporations should avoid politics and stick to their knitting.
CharlieEcho| 8.25.10 @ 11:25AM
"Corporations should avoid politics and stick to their knitting."
They should try to avoid politics, yet politics will not avoid them. They do after all have to sell their knitting. Making a donation to one who has the interest of the "people" in mind is good. We after all are the ones who must make a living in order to buy the knitting.
If the Gay Community finds it repulsive let them boycott. They are I'm sure in a minority. "They" can only go forward with the consent of a majority that will tolerate such a contemptible, in my belief "life style". They can only go forward with the consent and backing of politicians that will bend to their will. I believe in right and wrong. The line of which sometimes becomes a little less pronounced. Therefore I must trust in my beliefs. I know which side I am on.
Stuart Koehl| 8.25.10 @ 4:36PM
If one wants to keep business out of politics, then one should keep politics out of business.
Corollary: if you want to take the money out of politics, get the politics out of money.
Alice Moore| 8.25.10 @ 7:36AM
I always had the the impression that Target was a sort of Blue State lite alternative to WalMart.
A few years ago they had Che T Shirts and even a sweat suit with a Hammer and Sickle emblem. I jokingly asked a Target Team Member(employee to you and I) whether a swastika and a Warholesque T shirt of Hitler was in the offing. I don't see many such shirts anymore.
I have never had the illusion that Big Business is a conservative entity. In the private sector it is smaller business that is at least operationally conservative. Whether it's WalMart or a hot dog stand, the owners look upon Republicans and Democrats as the Bloods and the Crips. If they're making a contribution, it's for protection.
The huge corporate animal, like Microsoft, wants their position consolidated and protected. This is why these companies back Democrats much of the time. Bill Gates would want to squash a younger version of himself like a bug.
FakeEagle| 8.25.10 @ 8:01AM
Alice Moore 2012! Good, sensible observations, methinks.
Stuart Koehl| 8.25.10 @ 4:37PM
"A few years ago they had Che T Shirts and even a sweat suit with a Hammer and Sickle emblem. "
Been shopping at Target for ages, and don't remember that. In any case, I've got my KGB coffee mug in front of me--though given my record, in my case it is an obvious example of irony.
Curly Smith| 8.25.10 @ 8:13AM
The HRC and other advocacy groups learned that the Shake Down Industry isn't recession proof. When companies are awash in cash then they can pay you to go away, when they don't have the cash they just send a card. One positive aspect of the Obama Depression is that it has exposed a number of parasites.
Dan Hirsch| 8.25.10 @ 8:31AM
And exactly where does the group "Human Rights Coalition" get the idea that no one will ever notice them wrapping themselves in the mantle of "human rights" to promote their own, non-procreative, personal pleasures?
Uh, and before you spam all over this, "gay" is clearly non-procreative; and if it ain't personal and it ain't pleasure, what the hell are you doing it for, and why are you promoting it? Just keeping up appearances?
Clinton nee Publius| 8.25.10 @ 9:38AM
The Regime is on notice and we are taking the necessary actions to rid ourselves of companies that do not support world socialism and the gaying of America. We are working on our takeover plan and don't worry about all the jobs you are going to lose.
By the way, boycotting Target was a great idea. Walmart has really been suffering and needed the shot in the arm.
Boycott the HRC| 8.25.10 @ 10:04AM
The HRC is the most useless organization in DC. Why anybody is scared of a bunch of sissies with too much money and too much time on their hands and nothing better to do than throw cocktail parties makes them bigger pansies than Joe Solmonese.
dcd| 8.25.10 @ 10:57AM
What's surprising about an advocay pressuring for donations. I get all kinds of advocacy groups using any hook they can conceive to wheedle a bit more cash. It would be more surprising if the group didn't ask for money.
Politicians, clubs, churches, and charities; they're all the same using guilt or coercian to grab a few more dollars.
Darragh| 8.25.10 @ 11:15AM
I'm going to Target today!
SeattleBruce| 8.25.10 @ 8:51PM
"I'm going to Target today!"
Hear, hear!!
David March| 8.25.10 @ 11:18AM
So let me get this straight. A company gives money to a candidate. A group opposed to that candidate organizes a boycott of said company, but then says to the company, that it will drop the boycott, if the company gives them an equal amount of money.
Around here, we call that extortion, and I thought you had some RICO laws to prevent that kind of thing.
MPH| 8.25.10 @ 11:38AM
What I find odd is the concept of "workplace equality" What does that mean in reference to gayness? How do personal relationships relate to your work? Does workplace equality mean you have a right to act "gay" at work? That is just plain old lack of professionalism. Target is there to sell stuff - and that is all they should do. I am not interested in the personal lives of its employees; nor should the owners of Target be interested, either.
SeattleBruce| 8.25.10 @ 8:57PM
"What does that mean in reference to gayness?"
We've all seen what workplace equality means to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton - but I suppose we can measure - to some degree, if a person is African American (what if they're African though - immigrants, etc., and what if they're half black or less, do they count to in the 'inequality' measurements?)
And then coming to the issue of equality in the workplace for gays - first we'd need to know how many 'gay' people there are in society - we say 2% and they say 10% - uh, so we've got an immediate problem. Then, we'd have to believe in the Jackson and Sharpton approach of the HRC to extort jobs or money out of an entity like Target.
Wouldn't it be much easier if people just demanded no discrimination - but somehow for these activists - that's just not enough.
Well enough is ENOUGH. And we've had enough of these idiotic activist campaigns!
pete66| 8.25.10 @ 12:34PM
I live here in Minnesota...all this was , was a fund raising opportunity for the LGBT and some pro immigration groups, and a platform for labor unions to do some public crying. Our news paper...The RED Star & Tribune was ordered to get out the word, they obeyed as usual, the children whined....outside of the Lakes & Uptown areas of Mpls....nobody cared.
Charles Stephens | 8.25.10 @ 12:44PM
Thanks for the info, Target is now on the top of my Christmas shopping destination!
DAM| 8.25.10 @ 1:41PM
Maybe it's just me, but instead of LGBT, I always preferred the acronym GLBT (gay, lettuce bacon and tomato).
SeattleBruce| 8.25.10 @ 8:58PM
And I preferred when gay meant happy!
Texas Mom| 8.25.10 @ 3:34PM
May have to go to Target this week. I haven't been in our Target since they banned the Salvation Army red buckets at Christmas time. I do not purchase Christmas presents at stores that have 'Winter Holiday' sales either... Maybe I won't go...
Mr 78| 8.28.10 @ 12:44PM
I have attempted to stop shopping stores that put spanish "subtitles" in every aisle of their stores. It's becoming more and more difficult to find stores without them.
Sheila| 8.25.10 @ 4:01PM
I'm a Texas mom, too, Texas Mom, and I prefer stores that don't have Salvation Army buckets - because the Salvation Army gives lots of money to illegal immigrants, and they're not on my Christmas list. Like you, however, I do not do Christmas shopping at stores with Winter Holiday sales. I go to Target when it's convenient and financially favorable for me to do so. I'm glad they didn't buckle to the gay crowd, but I'm disinclined to support a Minnesota-nice-liberal store on general principles. Decline and fall.
Alice Moore| 8.25.10 @ 6:52PM
Thank you, Sheila, for reminding me of this. I too, will give my Christmas business to stores that celebrate Christmas and not Winter Holidays.
As for the Salvation Army, I didn't know. So now I guess it will be Goodwill and St. Vincent DePaul(and me a Lutheran!!).
joli| 8.26.10 @ 1:00AM
I shop wherever I feel like it (although I don't feel like shopping at the porn peddler Abercrombie and Fitch)... and joyously wish them a "Merry Christ-mas" in response to their inane "Happy Holidays". Often I receive a brilliant smile and a "Merry Christmas" in return.
ddn| 8.25.10 @ 4:47PM
If Target hires a bunch of gays it will hurt them. Just as gays choose partners of the same sex, I choose where I will shop. When the gays show up, I will shop elsewhere. And yes, I consider their chosen perversions immoral.
Michele San Pietro| 8.25.10 @ 5:37PM
To me, it's the least important thing in the world to be "politically correct".
Philip Gabbard| 8.26.10 @ 9:10AM
Bravo, those with backbones. Those who remain true to their core beliefs without SEEKING to demean or insult. Case in point: Chick-fil-A (I am not an employee or associated with them in any way). Founders were Christian and from the beginning refused to open for business on Sunday. They overtly support one man / one woman marriage and sponsor Marriage Seminar-type 'camps'. As a result of their unwaivering commitment to Christian ideals, the restaurant we visit has a line of customers out the door every day, and two packed drive-thru lines. Their customer base is very loyal and kicks the butt of ANY of their competition in our Texas town. Bravo backbones, indeed.
John Galt | 8.26.10 @ 3:14PM
Re: "It's surprising -- though I guess, it shouldn't be -- that in this economic climate, advocacy groups would pressure businesses for something as patently absurd as a "fair and balanced" contribution to them. As if for-profit companies belong to a Corporate Little League, where each player gets to play the same amount of time on the field, regardless of skill."
Once again (and over and over), it has all been foretold by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged. The notion of the "corporate Little League" is embodied in the book's government's enactment of laws like “Equalization of Opportunity Bill” where production for some of the more profitable manufacturers was severely limited by the government so that others working less have a chance to be competitive. Other fictional (and destructive) laws from Atlas Shrugged included the “Preservation of Livelihood Law”, “The Fair Share Law”, the “Public Stability Law”, and “Directive #10-289” (Google it).
It's all there, in Atlas Shrugged. The foretelling of an America where the do-gooders, moochers, and looters control the government, attempt to re-distribute wealth, enact laws that restrict markets, take over both the capital (banks) and means (heavy manufacturing, like GM) of wealth creation ... all for the "public good" ... and in the process, destroy America. Ayn Rand's Objectivism needs to be added to a strict adherence to the Founding Fathers' Constitutional principles in the thinking and voting of right-thinking Americans.
Adult toys | 7.4.11 @ 3:37AM
To me, it's the least important thing in the world to be "politically correct".l like the space.support.
thank you.