First, some background.

In our town, we have a Meijer and a Super Walmart in direct competition with each other. Several years ago, I got fed up with the promotion of violence and gore in the grocery aisles at Meijer, strategically placed in locations unavoidable by young children shopping with their parents (and axe buried in a bloody skull, displayed at the customer service desk next to teletubby products??). After discussing this over a couple of years with the store manager and receiving virtually zero responsiveness to my concerns, I informed them that my family, and anyone who I could get to join me, was switching my business to the Super Walmart. Sure, I’m only one person, but maybe I could make a difference.

(We also discussed this with the Walmart store manager, who assured us that it was their policy to keep the Halloween decorations in the aisle dedicated to this, rather than in the more unavoidable areas of the store. They stuck with the more “fall” themed items for seasonal display enhancers).

I then wrote a very detailed letter to several of the Meijer big-wigs (and sent a copy to the local Walmart manager). Impressively, shortly thereafter, I received an early morning call from a Vice President of Marketing at Meijer’s headquarters in Michigan. He informed me that the had ordered samples of the products I had mentioned and that he would get back to me within a month. True to his word, he called me back a month later, stated that he agreed with me that these products should not be promoted by Meijer, and he said he had instructed his buyers for next year’s Halloween merchandise to be more discretionary. The following year, there was a major improvement, though I had already become a Walmart devotee by that time.

And now, we have come full circle.

Yesterday I went to both Walmart and Meijer to do some grocery shopping. Meijer has completely overhauled their store and it appears that they are trying for a more upscale look, but they certainly did not have any Halloween decorations in the grocery side of the store that were in poor taste and inappropriate for young children.

Walmart, on the other hand, has made a point to glamorize death. In front of the store, glowing evil in the night, is a nine foot inflatable Grim Reaper. This same marketing and promotion of the personification of death is boldly displayed inside as well, in two sections of the grocery side of the store. You have to walk past it to get milk and eggs. You have to walk under it to get snacks, chips and pretzels. The murderous predatory eyes glow, the scythe’s blade of death stands in ready.

The customer service manager who was on duty last night at Walmart was very receptive to our concerns and she said she would ask the store manager to call us today. I am also going to be calling the regional manager shortly to obtain his perspective, and will post his response here.

Am I the only one who is outraged by the fact that Walmart, the place of family values and American made products, is promoting and glamorizing death and violence to impressionable young children?

UPDATE: The district manager referred me to media relations, since I informed him that I would be posting his response on my blog. Media relations would not talk to me because I was not a “real media” representative and they referred me to 1-800-WALMART where I navigated the menu to raise issues about a particular store.

There, I spoke with Emily, who was very sympathetic, possibly even shocked “Oh my!” at what I described, and she will be following up with her upper management to attempt to “rectify the situation” and will be calling me back within “several business days.”

UPDATE 2: After a discussion with the local management yesterday, and a call to corporate headquarters today, the local Walmart has agreed to remove the inflatable Grim Reapers from their prominent displays. I must say that I was extremely impressed by their responsiveness to my concerns. They basically said that they are “not out to offend anyone,” and appreciated the fact that I voiced concern, as they may have offended others and not known it. They had “not even considered that it might be offensive” or inappropriate.

Jeff Jarvis has some interesting thoughts on the new “paramedia.”

President Bush has selected Harriet Miers (age 60) to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court of the United States. This post summarizes reactions, commentary and analysis from the blogosphere and beyond.

The AP says that Harry Reid had urged Bush to pick Miers (audio interview, via Ann Althouse).

Miers has never been a judge, bringing “walk of life” diversity to the bench, and she’s being called in some circles, the “Texas Pitbull.”

Blogs for Bush has a bio up. (Via GOP Bloggers)

Irish Pennants thinks SCOTUS nominees should have judicial experience. (Though the WH is pointing out that 10 of the last 34 Justices appointed have not had judicial experience)

Weapons of Mass Distraction mockes the non-judicial pick and wonders if maybe she is a sacrificial lamb.

John Hawkins of Right Wing News has harsh words: “To merely describe Miers as a terrible pick is to underestimate her sheer awfulness as a selection. ”

Conservative Outpost thinks she’s too old, and wishes we knew more. Outside the Beltway also wonders about the age factor: “Her resume is impressive enough but it is unclear why Bush would nominate someone this old to the Court.”

Captain Ed wonders if she is a political ploy.

Miers does answer two big criticisms of John Roberts raised by the Democrats during his confirmation hearings. Miers has extensive trial litigation experience, and she also has held public office, although she limited her political career to the Dallas City Council. Her work on cleaning up the Texas Lottery Commission will look good in terms of real-world experience, and her connections at the American Bar Association will also smooth some rough sailing.

All that being said, I find this pick mystifying. Miers just turned 60 years old, not exactly ready to retire but potentially giving up at least a decade for the Bush legacy on the Supreme Court. Other women with judicial experience and/or a stronger track record of conservatism could have been found. She didn’t graduate from a top-drawer legal school (SMU), and she didn’t clerk for a highly influential jurist (US District Judge Joe Estes).

Not only does Harriet Miers not look like the best candidate for the job, she doesn’t even look like the best female candidate for the job. If judicial experience is a liability, why not Maureen Mahoney, who is younger, has argued cases at the Supreme Court, and worked within the Deputy Solicitor’s Office after clerking for William Rehnquist? Better yet, why not nominate J. Michael Luttig or Michael McConnell, with their brilliant and scholarly approaches to the law and undeniable qualifications through years of judicial experience? Why not Edith Hollan Jones, if Bush wanted to avoid the confrontation that Janice Rogers Brown would have created?

Miers may make a great stealth candidate, but right now she looks more like a political ploy. Color me disappointed in the first blush.

TacJammer is glad it’s not Gonzalez.

JunkYard Blog says it smacks of cronyism.

Wizbang points out that Bush is asking us to trust him: “Bush is asking us to trust him on this, big-time. I and many others wish we had much more than that to go on. ”

John Hinderaker is disappointed: “the bottom line is that he had a number of great candidates to choose from, and instead of picking one of them–Luttig, McConnell, Brown, or a number of others–he nominated someone whose only obvious qualification is her relationship with him.”

Sister Toldjah is not thrilled.

Working Families Party Man sees as positive the fact that so many of these more conservative bloggers are hesitant, or, as he puts it: “she has no judicial record. But she’s not the talk of the christo fascist zombie brigade right wing blogosphere. The neo cons and theo cons are very unhappy right now.”

The MahaBlog doesn’t see her lack of judicial experience as a good Democrat talking point, referencing Earl Warren.

Confirm Them says Bush has some explaining to do and links to a list of her campaign contributions.

The Moquol and others are hoping that this gives the Democrats an opportunity to drag Bush’s National Guard service through the mud again.

Law Dork clarifies Bush’s “Exodus Ministries” reference.

Confederate Yankee is unimpressed, but wonders if maybe she is filibuster bait. Kevan at Volokh Conspiracy doesn’t like the fact that she’s another well connected insider and wonders if maybe Bush is looking for justices who are more likely to uphold executive branch positions on the War on Terror due to their experience in that world.

Cold Hearted Truth is pretty convinced that she will be a conservative.

Baseball Crank is less than thrilled, despite the fact that she apparently is pro-life.

Michelle Malkin uses a Julie Myers simile. (She must not have gotten the “10 of 34″ talking points.)

Mark Levin: “Miers was chosen for two reasons and two reasons alone: 1. she’s a she; 2. she’s a long-time Bush friend.”

Hugh Hewitt is much more positive than most this morning. He points out, as others have, the big question is whether you trust Bush. He does.

Watchman’s Words thought Bush was against affirmative action.

SCOTUS Blog predicts rejection by the Senate.

Lots of people seem to be saying “Harriet Who?” One of these is the Llama Butchers, who wonders if there is a hidden piece we haven’t seen yet.

Oblogatory Anecdotes thinks this begs the question of whether a Republican president will ever be able to nominate a non-stealth candidate again.

Betsy thinks Bush has bowed to pressure.

Daly Thoughts is on stage 2.

Uncorrelated points out the interesting politics around this nomination.

Point Five satirizes derisively.

The Club for Growth finds it disturbing that she supported No Child Left Behind. (Via The Agitator)

Kellino reiterates “big disappointment” but is withholding judgment.

Lots of people are also pointing out that she appears to have been a Democrat in the 80’s. Paul at Powerline is not convinced that Bush’s “trust me” is enough.

Paul Deignan makes the case against Harriet Miers.

Harriet Miers is many things, but she is not a Constitutional scholar, well-seasoned in elective office, or someone who has made many public speeches or presentations on the workings of government. She is an unknown and unproven functionary whose chief virtue is the one virtue that we must reject–a strong tie to a particular chief executive.

Glenn Reynolds thinks it may be the perfect storm.

Democrats will still want to beat him on Miers, because they always want to beat him. Republicans may be happy to see her go down, too. So who, exactly, is going to get her confirmed? Harry Reid?

Jay Sekulow’s ACLJ is supporting Miers. The Public Advocate opposes.

Scott Ferguson, of PunditDrome, makes an interesting comment on The Moderate Voice:

He does NOT want to present Democrats with opportunities to vote as a bloc, but rather, he wants to drive a wedge between the moderates and the ideologues. The Roberts - Miers nominations are one-two body blows to Democrat unity.

For Bush, politics is a blood sport. As always, Democrats misunderestimate him at their own peril.

Daily Bubble’s David Edelman is scratching his head: “Bush nominates someone that the Democrats like and the far right loathes. Maybe this is some kind of elaborate prank?”

Daily Kos’ Georgia10 thinks this is pure political gold, an opportunity to re-air all the Bush scandals at the hearing.

Bill Kristol says Bush flinched. WND says she has been preapproved by the Democrats.

Pat Buchanan: “Handed a once-in-a-generation opportunity to return the Supreme Court to constitutionalism, George W. Bush passed over a dozen of the finest jurists of his day — to name his personal lawyer.”

Everyone wants to know where Karl Rove is in all of this. I have to say, it sure seems to me that this must be a sucker punch. I’m not quite sure where the punch line is, but Bush and Rove are better politicians than the way this appears on the surface. There is something deeper going on, and it’s either political chess so good that no one seems to be able to anticipate the next move, or it’s a true principled decision that is a huge gamble. Either Bush genuinely believes she was the best person for the job, one who will judge as those he promised to appoint, and he’s willing to gamble with her lack of record and trust his judgment of her, or there is some major stunt going on here. My gut says it’s the former. He is doing what he believes is right. I sure hope he is right.

It turns out that Demosophist, of the Jawa Report, has a personal connection to Ms. Miers!

Jeff Goldenstein thinks Miers might withdraw. Say Uncle says no way.