TubeNet

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:41 am**

On another forum of this list another member posted the following:

Just a side note...

Since Target was bought out by a French corporation, they now longer support the Marines "Toys for Tots" program, any veterans charities, or the Salvation Army. In their own statements they have stated that veterans groups don't qualify for their attention. They also refused to allow families to continue health benifits if an employee was deployed in Iraq.

I make no political statement with this, but rather point out that this company is raking in American dollars and contributes very little to it's communities.

As this is more political than musical, I've made an attempt to move it here.

I had heard the same information that the poster refers to, but also was able to check out Target's web site.

The following link the company lists its community giving program, why it does not allow solicitation of any sort and what specifically it has been/is doing with the Salvation Army and in support of the vets and reservists that work for the corporation.

http://target.com/target_group/communit ... ndex.jhtml

In the following link Target specifically states it is not foreign owned.

http://target.com/target_group/communit ... FMCEACU1IX

I have no opinion on Target's pricing, product mix, or ownership. I DO have an opinion of disparaging comments lack anything factual information getting passed around as an urban myth.

For those of you who have alledged French ownership of the company, please name the french corporation or legal entity that owns the Target chain. For those who alledge homosexuality on their corporate board as the reason for not allowing Salvation Army kettles outside Target's doors, be specific as to the officers involved.

Finally, if you hear such stories, please take the time to verify them before spreading the rumor.

TruthorFiction.Com
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/r/redkettle.htm

Snopes.Com
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/charity/sallyann.asp

Randy Beschorner

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:52 am**

Check out the Target rumors here:

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

I receive lots of email forwards and NEVER pay much attention to them until I check them out. There is a lot of irresponsible stuff floating around out there!

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:18 pm**

Randy Beschorner wrote:Finally, if you hear such stories, please take the time to verify them before spreading the rumor.

Better yet, don't spread rumors at all.

Rick "who abhors gossip and recognizes its seductive power" Denney

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:21 pm**

IowegianStar wrote:I'm sure all the employees of the "Target Corporation" in downtown Minneapolis would be a little shocked.

Minneapolis? MINNEAPOLIS?! Target is owned by Minnesotans?

Time to man the barricades!

Rick "Yaah!" Denney

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:34 pm**

Yeah, they don't call them the "twin cities" for nothing...

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:56 pm**

Rick Denney wrote:
IowegianStar wrote:I'm sure all the employees of the "Target Corporation" in downtown Minneapolis would be a little shocked.
Minneapolis? MINNEAPOLIS?! Target is owned by Minnesotans?

Time to man the barricades!

Rick "Yaah!" Denney

Yep, now you know they are subversive, just look here:

http://www.blacktable.com/postlee040722.htm

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:47 pm**

LV wrote:
...
I think this was well put...

I am friends with a very highly placed officer in the Salvation Army.

The Target thing is about politics and morality.

...

The Salvation Army has an aggressive, outspoken policy against homosexuality. The new Target Board of Directors has several seats currently held by very outspoken homosexuals. Both groups are rather extreme in their views and the result was that those nice missionaries that ring bells at the red kettles have been banned from any Target location. The position of the Salvationists, officially, is one of sadness at having lost an excellent venue for fundraising as well as an opportunity to spread their message to many people. However (unofficially), my friend says that many highly placed SA officers now see how Target is to be run and are pretty happy to be out of what could only be, at best, a very strained relationship.

It is very sad that these French owners are going to play this way. I can only believe that the situation with Toys for Tots must have similar reasoning behind it.

The "punishment" of our veterans and family members of people stationed in Iraq is one of total hypocrisy on the part of the French. They (along with the Germans) were in flagrant violation of sanctions put in place by the UN and were making tons of money feeding Saddam while he butchered so many Kurds and Iraqis. They are now acting like spoiled children because they no longer can make this money selling arms to this guy. Since we are the villain in their eyes, they will now take every opportunity to "get" us. Target is just one more of these opportunities for them to express their displeasure with US foreign policy.

...

So shop elsewhere if this bothers you. I know that I will.

I am not talking about some extremist boycott. I just will get my stuff at other places, since Target is trying to manipulate my opinion rather than sell me stuff. I will go spend my cash where crass commercialism reigns and my opinions will be unmolested.

I really liked Target, too. What a great store.

Stupid Frenchmen.

Oh well . . . they own the place. But my money will not flow through it anymore.

This is not an attempt to start some sort of political debate; rather, it is merely a statement of facts and opinions held by someone that was very close to the negotiations between Target and the SA, as well as some facts as reported by the major media. Again, my only viewpoint in this that I am willing to even mention in passing is that I will no longer shop at Target.

It may be well put, but it is wrong, at least as regarding the French ownership. Target Corporation, formerly Dayton Hudson is still registered as a US owned coporation with no French ownership mentioned anywhere in their SEC filings. They would have to mention it in their filings if it were true. Look here for more information:

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar ... 0000027419

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:14 am**

Rick Denney wrote:Better yet, don't spread rumors at all.

Ditto here.

I think everybody has an ethical obligation (if they are to forward warnings and what not) to follow through and double check the validity of them first.

I've seen all sorts of rumours spread online from toxic tampons to pet killing swiffer wipes...most of them are complete rubbish...once one can be bothered to look them up.

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:19 am**

And for today's tidbit of trivia: Team Electronics, which in the 1970's was (I think) 2nd only to Radio Shack as a retailer of electronics in the US, and was (I think) the largest chain of "Hi-Fi" stores in the US, was a Dayton-Hudson store. That was back when Hi-Fi stuff was way cool. There were three competing shops within a one-mile radius of our store. The competition was vicious requiring good sales people. A fact that a change in upper management of the chain didn't understand, resulting in the demise of the chain within about two or three years after the change. By interesting (to me, anyway) coincidence, there is now a Circuit City in the mall space where my old Team Electronics was.

Ah, the old sound room. A gadget lover's paradise.

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:29 am**

Oh, and no politics here!

Stupid Frenchmen.

This is not an attempt to start some sort of political debate; rather, it is merely a statement of facts

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:39 am**

Actually, Target is a publicly traded company and is accountable to its shareholders first. It can't do whatever it wants. It is limited to doing what will make the most money for its shareholders and they risk a lawsuit if they do anything but that. There really is no such thing as corporate philanthropy or corporate ethics. The only time that a corporation can "give" to a cause is when it can be justified economically, usually as a subtle form of advertising. Likewise, if they beleive that the Salvation Army bell ringers are doing more harm then good to their bottom line, they have to go. I don't agree with this, but that's the way things work.

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:47 pm**

LV wrote:... in Saltillo, Mexico by a German company

Good. That keeps another few thousand residents of that country from showing up in day-labor lines in Houston.

And Damler-Benz would not have bought Chrysler had it not been for sale.

Rick "all for Mexican economic success" Denney

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:06 pm**

LV wrote:SEC filings and board control are two different things. I think this where people haven't fully understood or been clear regarding Target, I'm guessing.

Well, yes, you are guessing. Here is Target's Board of Directors (from the Corporate Governance page on their web site):

Target's website wrote:
Roxanne S. Austin
Former Executive Vice President, Hughes Electronics Corporation and Former Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of its subsidiary, DIRECTV, Inc.

Calvin Darden
Retired Senior Vice President, US Operations, United Parcel Service of America, Inc.

James A. Johnson
Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC

Richard M. Kovacevich
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Wells Fargo & Co.

Mary E. Minnick
Executive Vice President of Marketing, Strategy and Innovation, The Coca-Cola Company

Anne M. Mulcahy
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Xerox Corporation

Stephen W. Sanger
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, General Mills, Inc.

Warren R. Staley
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Cargill, Inc.

George W. Tamke
Partner, Clayton, Dubilier & Rice

Solomon D. Trujillo
Chief Executive Officer, Telstra Corp.

Robert J. Ulrich
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Target

I don't see a French name anywhere on the list, except for the partner of the company that employs what I take to be the board lawyer. Certainly not a majority. I also don't see anybody with the likely title "Homosexual-at-large".

I suspect the policy was simply what Target says it is: They didn't have any basis for saying no to people they respected as much as the Salvation Army, so they put an end to the practice. I certainly saw quite a bit of SA stuff on their web page, and they have guaranteed a minimum of a million dollars to SA through that program (according to Wikipedia).

As to the hint from another person that corporate malfeasance is common just because of a few recent high-profile cases, I would say that even if it was true (and I don't think it was), it isn't any more. Sarbannes-Oxley has made it quite difficult to cook the books in any big way. I guarantee you that having to sign that personal certification has put the fear of God into CEO's (my own CEO, who has never cooked books that I can tell, took the new requirements VERY seriously). The consequences are severe enough to get their attention. Incompetence, perhaps, though that is certainly not the exclusive domain of corporations.

Rick "who wonders how such things gather steam" Denney

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:10 pm**

VoiceofReason wrote: Should we, the people, believe he has behaved otherwise, we have recourse (see: Constitution). The Congress has recourse, the people have recourse with their vote.

Oops. Except this one was not elected. And, do you not remember that the Imbecile In Chief recently shouted at a meeting to stop throwing the Constitution in his face, because it was only a piece of paper?

MA, who figures this wildly political post will bring this thread to a halt, as should be.

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:42 pm**

I'm very glad this subject has been taken away from the original topic it appeared in - dealing with practice mutes and Yamaha Silent Brass...

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:40 pm**

LV wrote: Is "Denney" an "American" name?

I know "Denny's" is, anyway

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:57 pm**

Hellooo Mishter Denny!

Well ... It's really Dennehy
And this is going back a ways.

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:32 pm**

LV wrote:This might have gathered stream by their own employees adding to the fire? Oui? And as far as a "French name", France is pretty cosmopolitan. Is "Denney" an "American" name?

I'm upper management in my corporation and I have no idea what goes on in the board room. And my company is small, infinitesmally so compared to Target. In fact, I don't want to know what happens in the board room because I don't want to go to jail if I decide to cash in my stock options.

Denney hasn't been French since about 1200 (and even then it was a French word for Danes--Denn'es, of the Danes), and it has been American since at least 1752 (Michael's branch may even be earlier). But we aren't talking about Denney. We're talking about Austin, Darden, Johnson, Kovacevich (there's a good French name), Minnick, Mulcahy, Sanger, Staley, Tamke, Trujillo, and Ulrich. It looks to more likely to be a German, British, or Polish conspiracy than a French conspiracy.

Of course, France is not the immigrant country that the U.S. is. I suspect that of any seven French people (a majority on this board), at least five and probably six will have French-sounding names.

But considering that all these people are also high functionaries of other (clearly) U.S.-based corporations, the notion that the board is controlled by a French anything is just nuts. Sorry if that offends you.

With all the valid things Christians and (separately) conservatives have to be concerned about, this one just doesn't rise to the level of reasonable.

Rick "still worried more about the Minnesota connection" Denney

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:39 pm**

LV wrote:I not guessing about the board or it's members, but rather the public's perception...

But, you knew that, didn't you...

Actually, I rather hoped your were guessing.

Rick "thinking there is FAR less than meets the eye here" Denney

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:43 pm**

SplatterTone wrote:Hellooo Mishter Denny!

Well ... It's really Dennehy
And this is going back a ways.

Yes, Frank-ly, it is (but some of us remember) ...

TubeNet

Target a target?

Target a target?

Re: Target a target?

Re: Target a target?

Re: Target a target?

Re: Target a target?