It was amusing reading Tim Spangler’s sit-in for Bob Dunning. Aside from the obvious humor is a buried point…
It’s simple really. Do a soul-check. You want a Target. You need a Target. Even the vocal and expectorating minority want a Target deep down inside. Unless the anti-Target crowd is also the anti-wearing underwear and socks crowd, they need it just as much as the rest of us unenlightened consumers.
On the surface it’s a simple point that everyone can understand–and that makes it all the more dangerous. We all need a target because we all wear underwear and socks. (Actually I very rarely wear socks even in the dead of winter, but that’s another point entirely).
Now this begs the question–if we need Target to get our socks and underwear, are there huge masses of Davisites walking around without socks and underwear? Isn’t this the un-said assumption here–that we are missing something. Now I’m not into checking people drawers, but I’m going with a big ‘no’ here. There does not appear to be a shortage of either apparel in our fair city.
I’ll go even a step further–I have never in my life bought either socks or underwear at Target. I know this is a shocking revelation, but it’s true. In fact, I wonder how many others in this city have never bought either socks or underwear at Target?
Now I’ve lived in Davis for over ten years, and it’s just never been an issue of not having socks and underwear.
And if socks and underwear are the key election issue, perhaps Mayor Greenwald would be so kind as to make a counter-proposal. What if we instead of building a huge megastore to cover two very basic commodies, we brought in a small store that sells only socks and underwear. Heck if it’s price, we could bring in a discount sock and underwear store. In fact, I’m sure some local developer or business person might be willing if given the permission to (gasp) open such a store.
Somehow I’m guessing that’s not what Saylor, Souza, and Asmundson are looking for. They don’t want us to have a discount sock and underwear store, they want us to have a huge big-box retailer in Davis. This is not about socks and underwear. This is about having a store where you can get your socks and underwear while you get your food, liquor, and drugs–all in one fell swoop.
So Mr. Spangler is absolutely correct–we are not anti-socks and underwear. But I think he knew that to begin with, even if he does a nice job of bait-and-switch.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Doug… I didn’t find Spangler’s article that amusing.. I guess he was trying for a Dunning stand-in with a hefty dose of ridicule, sacrasm and distain for thoughtfulness along with glorification of self-interest above all. Rather than feeling like I needed to go out and buy socks and underwear after reading Spangler’s piece, I felt like a needed a wash.. feeling somewhat soiled by Spangler’s arguments.
Doug… I didn’t find Spangler’s article that amusing.. I guess he was trying for a Dunning stand-in with a hefty dose of ridicule, sacrasm and distain for thoughtfulness along with glorification of self-interest above all. Rather than feeling like I needed to go out and buy socks and underwear after reading Spangler’s piece, I felt like a needed a wash.. feeling somewhat soiled by Spangler’s arguments.
Doug… I didn’t find Spangler’s article that amusing.. I guess he was trying for a Dunning stand-in with a hefty dose of ridicule, sacrasm and distain for thoughtfulness along with glorification of self-interest above all. Rather than feeling like I needed to go out and buy socks and underwear after reading Spangler’s piece, I felt like a needed a wash.. feeling somewhat soiled by Spangler’s arguments.
Doug… I didn’t find Spangler’s article that amusing.. I guess he was trying for a Dunning stand-in with a hefty dose of ridicule, sacrasm and distain for thoughtfulness along with glorification of self-interest above all. Rather than feeling like I needed to go out and buy socks and underwear after reading Spangler’s piece, I felt like a needed a wash.. feeling somewhat soiled by Spangler’s arguments.
I can’t argue with that. My choice of “amusing” was meant in an ironic sense that somehow that was the best he could come up with–rather than any kind of real notion of humor or entertainment. To me it showed the bankruptsy of the yes on Target argument. I’ve never found the lack of Target (among all things) to be an impediment to the good life.
I can’t argue with that. My choice of “amusing” was meant in an ironic sense that somehow that was the best he could come up with–rather than any kind of real notion of humor or entertainment. To me it showed the bankruptsy of the yes on Target argument. I’ve never found the lack of Target (among all things) to be an impediment to the good life.
I can’t argue with that. My choice of “amusing” was meant in an ironic sense that somehow that was the best he could come up with–rather than any kind of real notion of humor or entertainment. To me it showed the bankruptsy of the yes on Target argument. I’ve never found the lack of Target (among all things) to be an impediment to the good life.
I can’t argue with that. My choice of “amusing” was meant in an ironic sense that somehow that was the best he could come up with–rather than any kind of real notion of humor or entertainment. To me it showed the bankruptsy of the yes on Target argument. I’ve never found the lack of Target (among all things) to be an impediment to the good life.