Giant, a prominent Washington DC area supermarket chain, has curtailed the number of days that the Salvation Army will be permitted to solicit donations this Christmas season outside of the grocery retailer’s locations.
In a number of media reports, it was claimed that the bells were offensive and irritating to a number of shoppers.
So what about those food solicitation campaigns where the grocery chain doesn't simply set out a receptacle for those wanting to contribute food items to charity but instead gets broadcast news outlets involved?
Spokesmen from both institutions not only smooch their own rearends in letting the public know just how progressive both the media outlet and food distribution corporations are in bringing awareness to the plight of the supposedly malnourished but also castigate the viewing consumer if they do not comply with the demand for a contribution.
Why isn’t this deemed offensive?
Or how about the recipients of such charity who are not really starving per say but rather simply not receiving the quality of food they think that they otherwise deserve but are unwilling to work for in order to acquire?
Isn’t it offensive to be lectured to by such types or rather their benefactors?
But perhaps the greatest outrage of all occurs when the price for food the average consumer is forced to pay is jacked up with the goods not being sold often simply being tossed into the dumpster.
by Frederick Meekins
