MOVING TARGET

May 15, 2011Karl Zahn

MOVING TARGET

No…it’s not a hunting column. Well..maybe it is in a way, if you’re hunting for corporations that harbor an underlying anti-American sentiment. Cases have been made against many companies, but usually it has to do with what they sell and where it’s made. This one runs a little deeper than that, and it involves Target, the department store that we’ve all shopped in at one time or another.

I must be naive, I guess, because I’m constantly surprised by stuff that seems not to surprise other people. This is such a case. A friend brought to my attention that last Christmas, Target refused to allow Salvation Army bell-ringers in front of their stores. In and of itself, odd but not a deal-breaker for me. When it comes to folks who collect for different charities outside the entryway to major food or department stores, I admit I sometimes feel a little put out. It’s like the guy who jumps in front of your car to get the windshield, whether you want it washed or not, and then waits for his dollar. You feel like a jerk if you drive off, and feel “had’ if you donate. After all these years I still end up feeling “had”.

But the Target story runs deeper than bell-ringers. Dick Forrey of the Vietnam Veterans Association claims they recently asked the local Target to be a proud sponsor of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall during their spring recognition event. According to Forrey, he received the following response from Target: “Veterans do not meet our area of giving. We only donate to the arts, social action groups, gay and lesbian causes and education.” Hmmm…sounds fishy, right? Why would a store go out of their way to alienate veterans?

Forrey, no doubt inspired at this point, sent an e-mail to Target U.S. Corporate Headquarters. Their response was just as firm. It is their national policy not to donate to veterans groups. As it turns out, they also will not allow Marines to collect for “Toys for Tots”.

Forrey dug deeper. Target, it seems, also would not allow families of employees who were called up for active duty in the military to continue their insurance coverage while their loved one was at war. Nice. All of this considered, Forrey was not surprised, as I was, to learn that Target is a French-owned company. Interesting, because, is there a country on the face of the planet that owes more to the American soldier than France?

I don’t know about you, but after considering all of the above, and the obvious additional fact that tons of profit in American dollars spent at Target end up in France…I can safely say that the last time I shopped at Target, was the last time I’ll ever shop at Target.

Karl Zahn

Find out more about this author and their posts. →
Facebook Delicious Digg Email Bookmark

Like This Post?

Spread the Word!

9 Responses to “MOVING TARGET”

  1. Author

    “Forrey was not surprised, as I was, to learn that Target is a French-owned company. Interesting, because, is there a country on the face of the planet that owes more to the American soldier than France?”

    I was surprised to learn this too: Target is based in Minnesota and doesn’t have any French directors on its board. Its largest shareholder is the State Street Corporation which holds 9%: there are (apparently) no French institutions or individuals who hold even 0.5% of the shares.

  2. Author

    Perhaps Forrey is wrong. Why then, the shun of all things military and even the Salvation Army and Marines collecting Toys for Tots?

  3. Author

    Well, whatever their reason is, it’s not because they are French. You made an easily verifiable claim about Target which didn’t verify.

  4. Author

    Oh..I see…another fact checker not really interestedin commenting on the brunt of the article…WHY IS THERE A POLICY IN AN AMERICAN STORE THAT STRICTLY PROHIBITS ANY FUNCTION OR DONATION TOWARDS ANYTHING MILITARY? Please, Tim…don’t bother. I know you’re not interested in that part. I’m not a journalist nor do I pretend to be. You’re only inspiration in digging into Target history is to bust my balls..not comment on the point of the article. yes…I took the printed word of the head of the Vietnam Veterans Association..indeed…my money is still on him…

  5. Author

    Well, it is true that you attributed the claim about French ownership to Dick Forrey of the Vietname Veterans Association. You obviously feel that he is an authority. He made a dramatic and an easily verifiable claim which didn’t stand up to even the most trivial attempt at verification. That doesn’t just undermine HIS authority, Karl, it undermines YOURS. It casts doubt on your whole argument.

    Frankly, I haven’t looked into the rest of your facts any farther. So, I don’t even know if Target’s anti-military policy even exists. I am also wondering if Forrey was referred to Target’s foundation: the foundation is a separate corporation from the division(s) which operate(s) the stores. The foundation would have a policy about who they give grants to which might (almost certainly DOES) differs from the policy about who can come raise money on store property.

  6. Author

    Look..I’m already stunned at the time you invest fact-checking my columns, but more important, I don’t claim to be an “authority”. However, I’ve been writing a weekly column on everything from family stories to opinions on politics for about five years and they’re all archived at my website. I read an AP article about Forrey and the Target issue…and commented on it.

  7. Author

    I went back and did some more fact checking… I must have spent ALMOST 10 MINUTES in all! Target has several pages on its corporate web site about the stuff you & Forrey were fussing about it. This seems to be nothing new to them.

    Basically, this is not the first time they have been accused of being foreign-owned and anti-military. They make a concerted effort to refute both claims. They do give to some military-connected charities. They claim that they give 5% of their income to charities (in exchange for a generous tax writeoff, I am sure): some of their giving is done to local charities by local stores, some of the giving is done on a national scale by the Target Foundation.

    They do NOT allow fundraising, or any solicitation at the stores; nor do they allow their stores to be Toys for Tots dropoff points. (Toys for Tots is mentioned by name.) That may not be a wonderful policy, but they are well within their rights: they own the stores. (Wal-Mart actually uses local fundraising activities to build traffic.)

    I am not necessarily a big fan of Target: I am just passing on what they actually say about their stated policies.

  8. Author

    …Fair enough and I stand corrected although I do believe there is a coporate slant against the military and I, personally, would not trust what is on their public website regarding ownership. Ownership in compaines of those size can be pretty complicated, and one can be sure that if there is a French ownership or parent that they won’t be going out of their way to publicize it. There are, whether you want to accept it or not, large companies in America that profit greatly from the American consumer, and that have a decidedly political bent in their policies. Progressive Insurance comes to mind.

  9. Author

    Just the facts:

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp

    It appears as though Dick Forrey was scorned by being denied a $100 donation and launched a wreckless Jihad against Target.

    If one reads through the analysis even the VFW rebuffs such “rumor mongering” that Forrey appears to have engaged in here.

  10.  

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • About

    RedHampshire is a platform for New Hampshire Republicans to talk among themselves about politics and policy. The site believes in the marketplace of Republican ideas: that in conversations with diverse voices, the best ideas bubble to the top. To this… Read More

  • Blogroll

  • Candidates