[MD] Ham unlike you I will not create false idols

[Platt Holden]

> [Arlo]
> MSNBC ran the story "Is Wal-Mart Good or Bad? It's Still a Mystery"
> (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9925824/), which concluded... "'The evidence is, on
> balance, more consistent with the claims of critics of Wal-Mart, although
> questions remain', the researchers concluded."

MSNBC isn't biased, of course.

> Of course, I expected your "academic" response in denying the validity of any
> article that disagrees with your worldview.

You mean like you deny any voice that disagrees with yours?

> However, far too many studies have
> concluded that Wal-Mart has an overall negative impact on local wages, reduction
> in poverty rates, and other economic indicators to simply ignore it in favor of
> blind faith to ideology. 

How many studies are "far too many" and who sponsored the negative ones?
 
> [Platt]
> I'm surprised that an avowed academic would have such a narrow focus. But on
> second thought, I'm not surprised.
> 
> [Arlo]
> I'm surprised that someone bemoaning conservativism's lack of acceptance in the
> academy would begin his inquiries with the belief, "everything that agrees with
> what I already think is right, everything that disagrees with what I already
> think is wrong". On second thought, I'm not surprised. 

Pot calling in the kettle . . .

> [Platt]
> Walmart  has put other stores out of business thanks to economies of scale
> passed on to consumers. That's how capitalism and the free market work. In a
> free market, companies that offer the best value for the dollar win. Your
> anti-Walmart position reveals your anti-capitalist bias, reflecting the
> prevalent view of the liberal professorial class.   
> 
> [Arlo]
> Obviously, you didn't even bother to read the articles. But again, I'm not
> surprised, this just reveals your anti-academic bias, reflecting the prevalent
> view of the conservative radio commentators.

Like you always read articles that present an opposite view? Pardon my laugh.. 

> [Platt]
> Conservative views get shot down by falsely attributing their basis to talk
> radio and other "suspect" conservative media, as you have so amply demonstrated
> in these posts.
> 
> [Arlo]
> "Falsely"? Ha ha. Funny. I know several who make cogent arguments for
> conservative views, as I try to do for support of gun rights and arguing
> against eminemnt domain expansion. But, when all one has to offer is deceptive
> rhetoric and fear and distortion, and argues for an unquestioning, blind
> adherence to an ideology, where everything is support of that ideology is
> pre-selected as "right", and any and all criticisms are simply dismissed as
> "liberal bias", well, I listen to enough Limbaugh and Hannity every day to know
> where that comes from. But you just try that "duck and run". It works from
> Limbaugh, maybe it'll work for you here.

Another pot calling the kettle . . .

> [Platt]
> Focusing "our cultural light?" You mean propaganda from the lectern, right? No
> different from propaganda from the pulpit if you ask me. But, always glad to
> hear you defend the free market and pledge to stay out of the way of Walmart.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Interesting response. I'd say Pirsig focused our cultural light on a new way of
> thinking about values. Do you consider that "propaganda"?

No, but I don't see Pirsig going around thumping his views from college 
lecterns to captured audiences at every opportunity.

> As for "staying out of
> the way of Walmart", nonsense. While I won't advocated government shutting it
> down, I remain vocal and active in getting the facts out about Walmart.

Why? So you can get government to prevent Walmart from opening a store in a 
particular locality?  You call that "staying out of the way?"

Platt