Those who travel through the parenting territories of the Blog-O-Sphere know that there are a number of hot button topics, which when brought up tend to lead to discussions bearing an uncanny, almost eerie resemblance to the one depicted here. Absolutism, in case you haven't noticed, is the bread-and-butter of many a parenting blog, and Evil can be found everywhere, from parents who (gasp!) give their babies formula to a certain cadre of happy-go-lucky Australian entertainers who extoll the virtues of fruit salad and New York firefighters.

One big (big, as in "makes more money than most of the nations on Earth" big) target of derision is Wal-Mart. Full disclosure: I rarely shop there, for a number of reasons (chief among these - the greeters, with their empty smiles and lifeless eyes...black eyes, like a doll's eyes...when they come at you, they don't seem to be living...), and I don't really have an opinion of Wal-Mart (other than "the greeters, they ain't right") either way. But a lot of parents choose not to shop there, for reasons that are decent ones: the company has a reputation as a low-paying, small business-crushing behemoth that's made its fortune on the backs of sweatshop slaves. Thus we have the argument over Wal-Mart - whether or not it's morally right to shop there. So is Wal-Mart really evil?

Perhaps not, suggests Jeremy Siegel in this article. Siegel brings up some good points: Wal-Mart's average salary hovers at the $10 an hour level, higher than the Federal minimum wage and that of most states; the company is moving to offer a variety of health care plans; and (this is his weakest argument, and in no way excuses the often horrific conditions found in many overseas factories, but he does have a point) the inclusion of overseas manufacturing provides for jobs and growth in developing nations. But perhaps the most compelling reason why Wal-Mart isn't all bad: the fact that it enables a sizable percentage of people to buy products - stuff as basic as groceries to "luxury items" like PC's - that they might not otherwise be able to afford.

I'm pretty happy that I can pop on down to Whole Foods or Bristol Farms for a six pack of Saison Dupont and a pound of lox flown in from New York the night before. I'm also pretty goddamn lucky that, financially speaking, Wal-Mart's just one of my many shopping options. So does this mean that Sam Walton should be put on the fast track to beatification? Probably not - the monster he spawned still has a way to go before it becomes a model company - but it's interesting to consider the other side of the Wal-Mart argument. It is an argument. Yes it is. It is. Is!