For Bitcoins to really succeed as something actually used, stuff like the Heron store needs to be marginalized at best. I don't mind the anonymous transactions being involved here, but the emphasis ought to be put on freedom and legitimate otherwise legal transactions. I would like to work to get Bitcoins eventually recognized by an organization like Wal-Mart. I don't think you could stop the anarchists if you tried, so I wouldn't spend engineering development effort to kick that kind of thing off the network, but it shouldn't be a dominant feature. I would think that even those groups who want to engage in to more subversive acts wouldn't mind their traffic being drowned out by "legitimate" transactions.
As has been suggested by earlier posts, Wal-Mart isn't really an early adopter, so perhaps it would be better to go more for some companies that are more "hip" and into a network culture. The trick is to try and identify what companies might be willing to go that route.
When you say "Heron", I'm going to assume that you are referencing the "heroin" thought experiment that someone was using in another thread. Kind of a significant spelling error, although I would totally buy into a service that delivered Great Blue Herons through the mail.

I'm having a hard time understanding the rest of your post, but I feel like you're complaining that the "anarchists" will ruin things and you want to try to remove anonymity from the network, is that accurate? As far as the "anarchists"(lets not get into your use of a straw man here) go, you may as well complain that they are bad for all of the freedoms that we enjoy. I think that there's a productive critique in your post about ubiquity of BTC, but it's hidden by the complaints about what the bitcoin network is capable of.