What is it about Wal-Mart that both upsets and attracts people so? In my city of Burlington Ontario, Wal-Mart spent ten years fighting a battle through various levels of government to be allowed to open a store on the fringes of town. People angrily protested, saying it would destroy local business, ruin the view, and cause wild dogs to roam the streets. :P Yet as soon as Wal-Mart opened, it prospered, and continues to prosper to such an extent that now they are gearing up for a battle to open another store, this one close to our downtown core. Dreadful heavens! The end of the world as we know it is near, to hear the protesters talk. We all know, however, that as soon as this store opens, it too will be filled with shoppers, and will rake in obscene profits. Surely not all those shoppers were never involved in the protests.
So my question for these protesters is: if you hate Wal-Mart so much, why do you shop there? If you really want to keep Wal-Mart from doing business in your town, put your money where your mouth is, as the saying goes, and stay away. It’s that simple.
Showing posts with label corporations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporations. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Telemarketers
Everyday it seems I get a call from someone trying to sell me windows and doors. Either the market for windows and doors is very competitive, or it’s just one aggressive guy. I don’t listen long enough to register the company name.
I’m actually thinking of replacing a set of patio doors and a couple of windows this year or next. I mentioned to my family that I’m going to start recording the names of these companies that call, make sure I get the spelling right, and then inform them that I’m planning to buy new windows soon, but not from their company, because I don’t appreciate telemarketers. And I will make sure not to buy from any of those companies.
My kids thought that might be unfair. After all, they said, telemarketing is a legitimate form of advertising. Was I also going to make a list of everyone who tries to sell windows on TV?
I thought about this for a moment, and that’s when I realized why I find telemarketing so offensive, besides the fact they always call during dinner hour, or when I’ve just settled down with a good bock and a nice cup of tea. It’s not even because I can choose whether or not to turn on my radio, or TV, or to buy a magazine or not, or to look a bill board or not, yet I can’t stop my phone from ringing, although these are all strong arguments.
It’s because telemarketing is not a legitimate form of advertising, similar to a TV commercial. I receive free TV shows in exchange for putting up with advertising. Ditto free radio programming. And my magazine subscription prices are greatly reduced due to the sponsors. Even this website is available to me for free because advertisers support it. For all I know, the volume of flyers that passes though my mailbox lowers the cost of stamps for snail mail.
My point is, I benefit from all of the above forms of advertising by receiving free or cost-reduced services. Does my telephone bill go down because telemarketers call me? No. If I start receiving telephone service for free because it’s subsidized by telemarketing, then I’ll quit whining and listen to them. Maybe even buy their products.
How about it, door and window guys, ready to pony up?
I’m actually thinking of replacing a set of patio doors and a couple of windows this year or next. I mentioned to my family that I’m going to start recording the names of these companies that call, make sure I get the spelling right, and then inform them that I’m planning to buy new windows soon, but not from their company, because I don’t appreciate telemarketers. And I will make sure not to buy from any of those companies.
My kids thought that might be unfair. After all, they said, telemarketing is a legitimate form of advertising. Was I also going to make a list of everyone who tries to sell windows on TV?
I thought about this for a moment, and that’s when I realized why I find telemarketing so offensive, besides the fact they always call during dinner hour, or when I’ve just settled down with a good bock and a nice cup of tea. It’s not even because I can choose whether or not to turn on my radio, or TV, or to buy a magazine or not, or to look a bill board or not, yet I can’t stop my phone from ringing, although these are all strong arguments.
It’s because telemarketing is not a legitimate form of advertising, similar to a TV commercial. I receive free TV shows in exchange for putting up with advertising. Ditto free radio programming. And my magazine subscription prices are greatly reduced due to the sponsors. Even this website is available to me for free because advertisers support it. For all I know, the volume of flyers that passes though my mailbox lowers the cost of stamps for snail mail.
My point is, I benefit from all of the above forms of advertising by receiving free or cost-reduced services. Does my telephone bill go down because telemarketers call me? No. If I start receiving telephone service for free because it’s subsidized by telemarketing, then I’ll quit whining and listen to them. Maybe even buy their products.
How about it, door and window guys, ready to pony up?
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Survivor Scares Me
I try to avoid reality shows. Not easy to do, because they suck you in with their crazy gimmicks, and it’s hard not to feel for those poor contestants. After all, there but for the Grace of God . . . and well maybe but for some common sense and a bit of dignity. Also, I like fast-paced game shows like Jeopardy, and enjoy a good documentary, and a reality show does have some elements of both formats.
But the content of many of them scares me. I fear that our society is gradually becoming more Dickensian, not in the sense of being like the good Charles’s ideals, but in the sense of becoming like the Victorian horrors of his day. Dog fights, bull fights, half-naked women beating each other half to death for a pittance of money, men engaging in deadly bare-knuckle boxing for same. Reality shows have that same element of playing the lower classes for fools for a sucker’s chest of coins, while the promoters get wealthy and laugh over how far people will sink for a dime.
And it’s not just the humiliation people are willing to endure. If a full-grown adult wants to debase him or herself in public for a buck, and other adults want to watch, fine. But lately the shows are adding an element of real danger that scares me. For instance, on Survivor, the people come back skeletally thin and covered in cuts and bruises. That can’t be healthy. Not to mention the more serious accidents that plague these shows. I also wonder about the environmental damage wreaked on the host country. People breaking off pieces of coral on the Great Barrier Reef? Are these locales ready to have a group of untrained klutzes traipsing around drecking for food?
This week I couldn’t help but notice the ad for nest week’s episode of Survivor. Since they air every ten minutes on all channels. The people are going to be forced to eat entire baby turtles, and something that looks like a monkey head and arm. Is this legal? Is this sanctified by any kind of board of health? Or committee for the status of endangered animals?
And should children be allowed to watch these shows? What does it say to our children if we consider watching people engage in these disgusting and exploitive behaviors entertainment? Not to mention the reality shows that include children. To me, putting children on a reality show, like Family Fear Factor, should be a violation of child labor laws. They’re not old to enough to consent to such ridicule themselves, and I don't think their parents should have the right to consent for them in such a matter. I think putting your child on a show like that constitutes a form of child abuse.
Where will all this lead? Are we finally going to sicken of it, or are we going to slide further downhill into bare-breasted bare-knuckle boxing and bear fights?
But the content of many of them scares me. I fear that our society is gradually becoming more Dickensian, not in the sense of being like the good Charles’s ideals, but in the sense of becoming like the Victorian horrors of his day. Dog fights, bull fights, half-naked women beating each other half to death for a pittance of money, men engaging in deadly bare-knuckle boxing for same. Reality shows have that same element of playing the lower classes for fools for a sucker’s chest of coins, while the promoters get wealthy and laugh over how far people will sink for a dime.
And it’s not just the humiliation people are willing to endure. If a full-grown adult wants to debase him or herself in public for a buck, and other adults want to watch, fine. But lately the shows are adding an element of real danger that scares me. For instance, on Survivor, the people come back skeletally thin and covered in cuts and bruises. That can’t be healthy. Not to mention the more serious accidents that plague these shows. I also wonder about the environmental damage wreaked on the host country. People breaking off pieces of coral on the Great Barrier Reef? Are these locales ready to have a group of untrained klutzes traipsing around drecking for food?
This week I couldn’t help but notice the ad for nest week’s episode of Survivor. Since they air every ten minutes on all channels. The people are going to be forced to eat entire baby turtles, and something that looks like a monkey head and arm. Is this legal? Is this sanctified by any kind of board of health? Or committee for the status of endangered animals?
And should children be allowed to watch these shows? What does it say to our children if we consider watching people engage in these disgusting and exploitive behaviors entertainment? Not to mention the reality shows that include children. To me, putting children on a reality show, like Family Fear Factor, should be a violation of child labor laws. They’re not old to enough to consent to such ridicule themselves, and I don't think their parents should have the right to consent for them in such a matter. I think putting your child on a show like that constitutes a form of child abuse.
Where will all this lead? Are we finally going to sicken of it, or are we going to slide further downhill into bare-breasted bare-knuckle boxing and bear fights?
Monday, October 15, 2007
Pharmacists and OHIP
I live in Ontario, Canada, where we have public health insurance through OHIP. During recent years, our government has cut back on the services covered by OHIP, claiming that the system is short of money. One of the cutbacks included visits to the optometrist. For someone whose entire family is nearsighted that was a big ouch.
However, it then turned out that our government had a surplus budget. What was one of the things they did with this largesse? Provided free half hour consultations with pharmacists, covered by OHIP. That's right. Now we can go to our local pharmacist, and talk to them for free.
I am aghast. I once trained to be pharmacist but quit when I discovered that the job is primarily one of shopkeeper. Around here pharmacists get paid upward of $12 per prescription filled. Plus the money they earn from their stores. And they need more? At taxpayer expense?
As it is, I find it hard to get out of the store with my anti-depressant medication without being assaulted by a chatty pharmacist, brimming with questions such as “Have you used this medication before?” I can’t imagine paying them extra for their time. Isn’t that what the $12 fee already covers, or is counting pills really that difficult?
We have a newly-elected government in Ontario now, and the first thing I’d like to see them do is remove this silliness from the OHIP program, and restore our eye care coverage.
However, it then turned out that our government had a surplus budget. What was one of the things they did with this largesse? Provided free half hour consultations with pharmacists, covered by OHIP. That's right. Now we can go to our local pharmacist, and talk to them for free.
I am aghast. I once trained to be pharmacist but quit when I discovered that the job is primarily one of shopkeeper. Around here pharmacists get paid upward of $12 per prescription filled. Plus the money they earn from their stores. And they need more? At taxpayer expense?
As it is, I find it hard to get out of the store with my anti-depressant medication without being assaulted by a chatty pharmacist, brimming with questions such as “Have you used this medication before?” I can’t imagine paying them extra for their time. Isn’t that what the $12 fee already covers, or is counting pills really that difficult?
We have a newly-elected government in Ontario now, and the first thing I’d like to see them do is remove this silliness from the OHIP program, and restore our eye care coverage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
