55 posts tagged “politics”

Roger Simon wrote a piece dripping with sarcasm for Politico today.  And I love it.

Focusing on the outcry over the media coverage Sarah Palin has been receiving since the announcement about her taking the Republican VP slot last week, Simon perfectly enunciates what I never could in my severely limited attempts at voicing my opinions:

…On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.   We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.  We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

…We should stop making with all the questions already. She gave a really good speech. And why go beyond that? As we all know, speeches cannot be written by others and rehearsed for days. They are true windows to the soul.  Unless they are delivered by Barack Obama, that is. In which case, as Palin said Wednesday, speeches are just a “cloud of rhetoric.”

…Sarah Palin wanted the media to report on her teenage son, Track, who enlisted in the Army on Sept. 11, 2007, and soon will deploy to Iraq.  Sarah Palin did not want the media to report on her teenage daughter, Bristol, who is pregnant and unmarried.  Sarah Palin thinks that one is good for her campaign and one is not, and that the media should report only on what is good for her campaign. That is our job, and that is our duty. If that is not actually in the Constitution, it should be. (And someday may be.)

On the other hand, I think that a portion of the coverage Palin has received is unfair.  And, apparently, some of Hillary Clinton’s aides agree with me:

Georgetown University professor Deborah Tannen, who has written best-selling books on gender differences, said she agrees with complaints that Palin skeptics — including prominent voices in the news media — have crossed a line by speculating about whether the Alaska governor is neglecting her family in pursuit of national office.

“What we’re dealing with now, there’s nothing subtle about it,” said Tannen. “We’re dealing with the assumption that child-rearing is the job of women and not men. Is it sexist? Yes.”

“There’s no way those questions would be asked of a male candidate,” said Howard Wolfson a former top strategist for Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Ultimately, I like Palin.  A lot.

But there’s still no way in hell that I’d ever attached my vote to a McCain campaign.  The fact that they managed to find someone to run in the VP position who would do much better headlining the ticket doesn’t change the fact that McCain is a slimeball with nothing better to do than sell Americans out at the domestic level while playing up his foreign policy credentials.  If we’re going to have four more years of mismanaged policy at home, why not put it all in the lap of someone as easy to write-off as Barack Obama?

Barring the possibility of McCain dropping out of the race in the next two months for age-related reasons, I will continue to throw my vote in for a post-Obamalyptic dystopian future where Americans are finally shaken back to reality.

Yeah, it sounds bad, but we have a nasty tendency of finding order only after chaos.  Just look at Carter and his inspiration for Reagan.

Dear America,
I don't claim to be an expert in economics, but I'm certainly impressed by the generic understanding of supply and demand that you have exhibited as you've watched the gas prices rise over the last couple years.  According to the Federal Highway Administration, you are driving less these days - presumably because you're fed up with paying high prices for gas.  Given this reality, it's likely that this has led to more stability when it comes to the price of crude oil on the market.  This, I assume, has contributed to the gradually dropping prices that we are paying at the pump.

The joy of a (relatively) free economy, like the one you are currently a part of, is that the consumer always has the final say in whether the economy fails or succeeds.  If you don't like the price of something, you simply stop purchasing it or, in this case, limit your purchasing.  This will force the producers to limit the prices that they apply to their products and, ultimately, both parties will benefit from a competitive market in which reasonable prices for quality products becomes the standard.

However, this slight deviation from your normal ignorance of the inner workings of our economy appears to have faltered in the realm of politics.

Currently, John McCain is desperately pushing his plan to expand drilling for oil off of the American coastlines.  Inherently, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a potential future where we produce more of our gasoline locally.  That, though, won't do much to alter gas prices - especially in the near future.  According to just about everyone who seems to understand the gasoline-production process, any expansion in our local drilling would take several years to impact us directly, if at all.  McCain's attempt to impress you with his deep understanding of your day-to-day struggle to fill up your gas tank at a reasonable price is certainly an attempt to pander to you for your vote.  Please don't encourage this sort of thing, as you appear to know better than that - remember, supply and demand is the name of the game.

McCain, though, isn't the only politician trying to pull the wool over your eyes.  His opponent, Barack Obama, is now pushing his plan to institute something called a 'windfall profits' tax on the oil companies.  Now, being the good economists that you've demonstrated yourselves to be, you obviously know the difference between regular 'profits' and something called a 'profit margin.'  You are also aware, of course, of the fact that the profit margins for our major oil companies remains at a steady 8% - 10% rate.

This means that our oil companies, who are the only producers available to us for gasoline, would be staring down the barrel of a serious cut into that significantly light profit margin rate in order to pay for Obama's attempt to pander to you.

Now, I'm not trying to tell you who you should vote for because, frankly, I'm not impressed with either plan.  But I did want to address the fact that you are apparently aware (or should be) that the best way to deal with high gas prices is through limiting your use of it.  Congratulations.  Perhaps soon you'll come around to the fact that income taxes are the ultimate in modern techniques of federal enslavement.

Best of luck in November,
W.

Watching Barak Obama's climb from nameless state senator to Democratic frontrunner has been an interesting one.
Watching his gradual slide from the liberal end of the spectrum to something more moderate, though, has been thoroughly entertaining.

For the life of me, I can't figure out how someone who runs as the candidate of hope can possibly expect to run successfully through November when he appears to be nothing more than a maneuvering politician as it comes time to face the general voting population in America - a population that remains historically more conservative than all the hope in the world could change.

My good friend Greg over at the Office of the Independent Blogger linked to a piece from the Wall Street Journal focusing on the growing similarities between Obama's campaign posturing and Bush's own posturing.  Granted, these similarities are slight, but they should be troubling to the true-believers out there who might've been holding out for this guy to remain true to his roots.

Of course, the other side of the coin is John McCain's absolute inability to sell himself as anything but an angry old man.

I'm a registered independent in the state of California - which means that I'm unable to vote for the Republican primary nominee, but I am allowed to vote for the Democratic nominee.  As this is the case, I figured it would make some sense for me to do my third candidate analysis on John Edwards, a current contender for the Democratic nomination.

Interesting fact about John Edwards (if not a well-known fact): he ran as the Vice Presidential candidate in 2004 alongside John Kerry for the Democratic party.  Another interesting fact: they are no longer speaking to each other.  Of course, when you'd have to deal with a wife like Teresa Kerry, I don't think I'd want to be stuck hanging around with John after the party is over, either.

Getting right down to brass tacks, the three most important issues facing a potential John Edwards candidacy (besides establishing a national budget for his haircuts) are as follows:

1. Illegal Immigration
2. War in Iraq (War on Terror)
3. Shrinking the Federal Government

As I mentioned in my Fred Thompson post, it's imperative that America reign in the spending of the federal government in order to reign in the ever-growing habit of creating intrusive domestic policy.  John Edwards and I apparently disagree.  This guy has run his entire campaign on the idea that there exists 'two Americas.'  One is privileged and wealthy while the other lives 'from paycheck to paycheck.'  Curiously, it appears that John is under the impression that the latter America, although already supported by the heavy taxation of the prior, needs the federal government to help them change.  Or, to paraphrase, redistribute the wealth.  If you've been reading here long enough, then you are aware of my attitude about the current tax system in America.  Electing someone like John Edwards is only going to exacerbate the problem.  His approach involves 'college for everyone' programs that create scholarships for anyone heading off to college, forcing businesses to supply healthcare to employees, and rolling back tax cuts that happen to be some of the few things that Bush has actually done right in his time in office.
To be honest, Edwards is a complete failure on this point - he appears to be under the impression that the answer to all our ills is to strengthen the federal government and its involvement in your life.  Personal responsibility is a thing of the past.

Next, there's the War in Iraq.
Edwards is the epitome, on this issue, of the type of politician that we absolutely don't need in Washington pulling the strings.  Using Iraq as a platform on which to run with John Kerry back in 2004, likely to prove their support of the military, Edwards made statements like this next one:  "It was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein...I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and that's why [John Kerry and I] stand behind our vote on the resolution."  However, upon seeing the negative polls when it came to our work in Iraq, he immediately changed his mind on the matter.  He now, according to his website, wants to have our troops pulled out completely within the ten months of being elected.  Sadly, putting a war into motion isn't exactly something that you can stop on a dime with.  His plan to withdraw troops so completely and so quickly would lead to a total power vacuum in the region - something that we definitely don't want to return to when it comes to cleaning it up.

Finally, on the most important topic that he'd be facing as president, Edwards, again, fails miserably.  According to his campaign website, we need to immediately adopt 'comprehensive immigration reform.'  "It is unrealistic to think that we can deport more than 12 million people. Edwards believes we need to give people here the opportunity to pay a fine and learn English to earn American citizenship."  What's so brilliant about this statement is his pushing of the argument that the only other option would to be deport millions of people.  This makes him either ignorant of the reality of the situation or a liar.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and merely call him ignorant on this point.  As I've mentioned previously, nobody needs to deport anyone.  Illegal aliens who can't get jobs will deport themselves - enforcing laws having to do with who hires who is more important than teaching anyone english or paying a fine.  Adopting the poverty of Central and South America won't help America in the slightest.

John Edwards is obviously unaware of the most important issues facing the next person to sit at the helm of the American machine.  He's not winning my vote, and I certainly hope he's not going to be picking up yours.

I've made an update to the first of my 2008 presidential candidate reviews, the post about Ron Paul.  I was reading through it, boring as it was, and realized that I'd not gone back to update it at all regarding the controversy that has started to come to light in recent weeks regarding his newsletters.  If you're at all interested, it's about three quarters of the way through the post.

The next requested candidate that I'm analyzing is Fred Thompson.  I'll be crossing over into Democratic side of the aisle in the next review post, I promise.  In the meantime, if you've got any input on the content that you find here on this candidate, please speak up in the comments.  The update listed above was actually made in part because of a comment that was made on that post - and I even credited the commenter!  Now wouldn't you just love to have that kind of political power?

As far as interesting facts on Fred Thompson: he has worked not only as an attorney, lobbyist, and senator, but also as a character actor.  Most notably (to me, that is) was his work on 'Law & Order.'  I didn't necessarily watch the show, but I still recognized his face the first time I saw it when it was suggested that he might be running in 2008.  As a matter of fact, it's been speculated that his May 30, 2007 departure from filming was to begin working on his presidential bid.

For those of you who haven't been paying attention, the three most important issues facing Americas next president are as follows:

1. Illegal Immigration
2. War in Iraq (War on Terror)
3. Shrinking the Federal Government

When I refer to 'shrinking the federal government' I mean both in policy and financially.  In all honesty, I think that shrinking the federal government economically should be a higher priority than the current policy structure that involves the slow evolution of a government nosing into every aspect of a citizen's life.  That being said, Thompson doesn't seem to disagree that the current financial growth-capacity of the federal government is getting too advanced.  In an interview on Fox News back in June, he stated that "we have a tax code that's hopelessly out of date and out of step for our times now, punishes the things that we say that we want more of and makes us less competitive in the world."  He went even further with his commentary two months earlier at Lincoln Club Dinner.  "Taxes are also a burden on production, because they discourage people from investing & taking risks. Some economists have calculated that today each additional $1 collected by the government, by raising income-tax rates, makes the private sector as much as $2 worse off. To me this means one simple thing: tax rates should be as low as possible."  Few people seem to realize that higher taxes on those 'evil' corporations that haunt every San Francisco nightmare scenario are actually crippling our nation as a whole.  Want to complain about outsourcing?  Talk to our elected representatives about their tax policies.  If you were looking at higher profits by something so simple as moving your headquarters offshore, wouldn't you make the jump?  I know I would.  Thompson seems to understand that.

Thompson and I share more in common than just a penchant for cutting taxes and the spending that inspires them - he also seems pretty dead-set on finishing the job that's been started in Iraq.  During a debate back in October 2007, he pointed out, correctly, that "clearly...we didn't go in with enough troops and we didn't know what to expect when we got there. But now we're showing signs of progress. I think we got to take advantage of the opportunities that we have there, to turn around and us to stabilize that place and not to have to leave with our tail between our legs. If we did that, it would make for a more dangerous USA."

I don't want to sound like I'm falling over myself trying to come up with reasons not to pledge my vote for this guy, but I kind of am.  He sounds reasonable and responsible, two things that are definitely needed in Washington at the moment.  But what about illegal immigration?  Good question.  In researching this guy, I found conflicting statements.  On the one hand, he appears to be supportive of securing the borders and ending illegal immigration through that means (which, lets have a reality check here, certainly won't end all illegal immigration).  However, he doesn't appear to address the possibility of pushing employers to stop hiring illegal aliens and, instead, just offers vague conclusions that involve self-deportation with little details.  While he opposed the McCain-Kennedy immigration fiasco from this past summer, he does suggest that "you’re going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship, but not make it so easy that it’s unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law."
On this issue, in particular, I think he's headed in the right direction, but I fear that he's not there yet.

When it comes to controversies attached to Thompson, there was something of an uproar over his role as a pro-choice lobbyist for a short stint back in the 90s.  Personally, I don't see this as a massive problem and really couldn't dig up anything more.

Ultimately, I think that Fred Thompson has a lot of potential.  His stance on other issues, mostly domestic, I have a generally positive feeling about, but nothing concrete.  The portrayal of him as a lazy politician seems to be damaging him slightly, as the people who supported him originally are slowly starting to lose faith in him following his poor performances in both Iowa and New Hampshire.  I definitely like the guy, but he'll have to make it to nomination before I'd ever been convinced to vote for him.

Oh well.

As per the only request garnered from all three of my readers out there, I'm going to be analyzing Ron Paul as a potential candidate for my vote during the 2008 election.  If anyone out there that thinks this guy deserves my vote, please feel free to comment on it and fill in any gaps you may find with what you read below.
And, as always, you are more than welcome to comment with your suggestion on who I should consider next.

First, an interesting fact about Ron Paul: he refused to allow his children to accept federal student loans to pay for their college tuition, nor does he currently accept his congressional pension plan, as both of these are taxpayer-funded.
Now that is someone who sticks to their principles.

As pointed out in my post yesterday, the three main issues that will lend true credibility to the next president of the United States of America are as follows:

1. Illegal Immigration
2. War in Iraq (War on Terror)
3. Shrinking the Federal Government

Anyone who is willing to turn down student loans for their children, let alone a congressional pension plan, based on the burden that the taxpayers of America face is more than likely to fit the bill on the third item on that list.

One of the problems with our ever-expanding federal government is the fact that it is spending us into the poorhouse.  Most politicians cite this as something that needs to be immediately addressed - but rarely do you hear any of them speak as frankly on this matter as Paul appears to.  "When the federal government spends more each year than it collects in tax revenues, it has three choices: It can raise taxes, print money, or borrow money. While these actions may benefit politicians, all three options are bad for average Americans."  How, then, are we supposed to make up for the money that we're spending if we can't tax it, print it, or borrow it?  Cut out the spending, of course.  "We need to understand that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost. Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget should exist at all."
Amen, brother!

If the 2008 election was only about reversing our current trend of growing our government to massive proportions, Ron Paul would have earned this vote in just two quotes.  Unfortunately for him, that's just not the case.

In the past, Ron Paul has stated that he would withdraw our military from Iraq (indeed, from everywhere) as quickly as possible, were he to be elected.  This, of course, only jives with those Americans out there who share his overwhelmingly non-interventionist perspective on foreign policy.  However, leaving Iraq completely isn't going to change the status quo.  In fact, it will lead to further problems.

Of course, most Americans believe the nightmare in Iraq simply cannot get much worse. Wrong-it most certainly could. Advocates of a "phased" withdrawal of our troops must reckon with the certainty of a serial disaster: a full-blown civil war spreading a contagion of violence across the region, with Iran virtually uncontainable. Our enemies, as the president said, would emerge with new safe havens, new recruits, and new resources. The head of the CIA, Michael Hayden, put it starkly: "An al Qaeda victory in Iraq would mean a fundamentalist state that shelters jihadists and serves as a launching pad for terrorist operations throughout the region and against our own homeland." A premature pullout would condemn Iraq and the region to unbelievable horrors. It would be a historic victory for our Islamic enemies. If America is defeated in Iraq, a victory in the broader war on terror will be impossible. And unlike what happened after Vietnam, the enemy will undoubtedly follow America home.

I've pointed it out previously, as well - we can't just pack up and go home.  We need to see this thing through whether it was the best choice in the first place or not.  On this, the second most important issue facing the next President, Ron Paul most certainly fails to face the music.

The single most important issue facing our next elected leader, however, is going to be Illegal Immigration.  Whether the American public, our representatives in the legislative branch, or our bordering nations want to recognize it or not, illegal immigration is threatening the very infrastructure upon which America currently rests.  And what is Ron Paul planning to do about it?  "I see the immigration problem as a consequence of our welfare state. We encourage people not to work here, but the welfare we offer the people who come--they get free medical care. They get free education. They bankrupt our hospitals. Our hospitals are closing. And it shouldn't be rewarded. That means you don't give them citizenship. You can't solve this problem until you get rid of the welfare state, because in a healthy economy, immigrants wouldn't be a threat to us."  Again, Ron Paul takes the cake on this issue.

(Update 1/14/08: I don't know why I didn't do this originally, but I think that I should probably consider the controversies attached to candidates as well as their stands on important issues.  The following paragraph has been added to fill that gap.)

Two out of three really isn't that bad when it comes to the political atmosphere that America has thrust itself into.  However, if a politician doesn't have any controversies dragging their name through the mud, then they really aren't a politician, are they?  Ron Paul is no different.  As mentioned by Urban Lenny in a comment to this post, Paul has a series of political newsletters that posed something of a problem for him back in the 90s.  Written under his name with no bylines provided, these editorials were curious insofar as they were written in the first person - leaving one to assume that they had been published under Paul's watchful eye.  James Kirchick over at The New Republic, a publication that I don't normally pay much attention to, did an extensive review of the content of these letters:

In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration..."
Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, "Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little..."

I would encourage you to take a look at the article.  I can't vouch for the accuracy of the Kirchick piece, but, unlike Paul and his newsletters, it wasn't originally published under my name.

Now, I haven't really delved too deep into other issues that are less damaging to America as a whole, but from what I gather, I don't have much to disagree with the guy about.  Really, I'd love to hand him my vote, but my apprehension over how he is likely to endanger millions and millions of people following a massive pull-out from Iraq is something truly striking to consider.  Beyond that, the guy doesn't stand a chance of winning the Republican nomination.  If he runs, he'll have to run as either a third party contender or an independent.  Historically speaking, neither of these options will give him any feasible chance at taking the Presidency.  However, if he does choose to run in that capacity, I believe that he certainly could put a Ross Perot shaped dent into the electorate.  I just happen to think that the majority of those votes would be likely Democratic voters, not Republicans.

Ultimately, Ron Paul fails to capture my imagination, despite his principled and logical stands on most of the issues that will define the upcoming presidency.  Too bad.

As New Hampshire ends its primary election counts this evening, I remain completely uncertain about who I'm going to end up supporting in the 2008 election.  Call me indecisive, but the whole lot of the current candidates don't strike me as anything special.  Nor do they inspire me to much more than a general fear about the future of American politics and policy.

To that end, I think I'm going to start analyzing those that I see as the main candidates facing party nominations on a one-by-one basis until I can come up with some kind of decision.  Lucky for me, I don't think that the nominations are going to be that clear until after the February 5th 'Super Tuesday' election coming up.  That seems like plenty of time to start weeding out the politicians that I don't like.

First, a brief introduction to the three most important issues facing America, in this order:

1. Illegal Immigration
2. War in Iraq (War on Terror)
3. Shrinking the Federal Government
   

Illegal immigration gets the top-spot in the list because it poses a threat to America on just about ever level - education, the deficit, taxes, security, the penal system, etc.  I don't have anything against hispanic people or hispanic culture, either.  My problem is mostly with employers who are willing exploit anyone and anything as a means to an ends in their profit margin.  My problem is burdening my children and their children with the responsibility of making right the poverty of our neighboring countries.  If it's not put to a stop, this slow slide that America is seeing is only going to get worse.  And fast.

Then there's the War in Iraq (and the War on Terror, as a whole).  Whether you like it or not, we're in Iraq right now.  Pulling out all of our troops tomorrow doesn't do anyone any good, and just about everyone in their right mind knows it.  So what to do about it?  Start setting deadlines on the Iraqi government when it comes to American financial support and slowly start settling in as a long-term military force.  If the Iraqi government fails to meet their deadlines, the money may dry up, but we need to remain there.  Let the country go to hell on its own if they can't lead themselves, but an American military presence there, acting as a deterrent for potential Husseins in the future, is essential.  End of story.

Originally, I thought about including civil liberties and whatnot into the third portion of the list, but then settled on shrinking the federal government, instead.  The reason for this is because all of the people running around and screaming about their precious civil liberties don't seem to realize that the slow constriction of civil liberties is inevitable when you have trained your government to grow at an exceptional rate.  A government that's been handed control over things like retirement planning and health care likely won't see a reason why it shouldn't begin meddling in how/when you get on a plane to fly.  The American public has been conditioning our government to spend more and more money while taking over more and more control for far too long.  It's time that we started to shrink the beast down to a more manageable size.

So, there you have it - the three most important topics up for grabs when it comes to my selection for president.  It's not that I don't care about things like abortion and gay rights, but these three things are obviously far more important.  If you disagree with me, please, feel free to post some commentary.

In the meantime, I'm going to be trying out my first candidate tomorrow.  Any suggestions as to whom I should be looking into first will be gladly considered.

With the recent jailing of the British teacher (and threats of death) in Sudan after having named a teddy bear Muhammad, am I the only person who's left wondering what happened to that old can-do British attitude?

When some American colonists dressed up like Indians and dumped tea into the Boston harbor, did the British stand by wringing their hands while offering to send in a delegation to discuss possible peaceful outcomes?  No, they didn't.  They instituted a pretty nasty series of legislative acts known as the Intolerable Acts - eventually aiding in the instigation of the Revolutionary War.

When Guy Fawkes (and his conspiratory friends) were caught up in a failed attempt to assassinate several members of the aristocracy, including the King, did the British let it play out in the media, hoping that a positive outcome would make itself present?  No, they didn't.  They tortured Fawkes until he gave up the names of a couple of his friends and hunted them down like dogs.  They even turned one of them into an attractive and long-lasting book binding.

What about when London was being bombed to dust by German pilots during the Blitz in World War II?  Did the public sit back silently, keeping their fingers crossed that things would resolve themselves?  Nope again.  They didn't.  The citizens of Great Britain immediately took to joining the Air Raid Precautions Service, or the Home Guard.  They also went on to see the defeat of not only the Germans who had destroyed their homes, but also the German allies in Japan.

You'd think, then, that this same country, after centuries of dealing out swift (and oftentimes overkill) retribution for their enemies, would be a fearsome foe to take up arms against.  The possibility of angering a population of hardy warriors, such as the one in the UK, should be something altogether terrifying and overwhelming for anyone - particularly the brutish types you find running around with knives and clubs in the streets calling for the execution of a British citizen for something that doesn't even make sense to anyone in the outside world.

Then again, why should anyone be afraid of what a country like Britain will do for a civilian volunteer in a foreign country when they can't even be bothered to make a show of force to save their own military personnel?  It's probably better to wait for tyrants and despots to make the call on how, and when, the British people can defend themselves and live their lives, don't you think?

(242)

While attempting to sleep off the haze of a long day of spimante, board games, and turkey, I was pulled from my dreams this morning to the sound of my phone buzzing in a received text message at about 6:30AM.  Who could be text messaging me that early in the morning?  It must have been some kind of emergency, for sure.  I reached for the phone only to discover the following message from my good friend, Tahj:

Celebrate Buy Nothing Day!  Today, on the busiest shopping day of the year, take a break from our consumerist society and think about its global impact.  It's easy to participate, just DON'T BUY ANYTHING today.  Find out more at adbusters.com and forward this message!

After having vacated the warm embrace of my bed, standing there in my underwear in the cold of a late-autumn California morning, I almost contemplated flushing the blasted cellphone down the toilet.  Thankfully, the W-shaped indentation on my mattress proved more inviting than an anger-laced visit to the restroom to unload my screeching phone.  I quickly shut it off and tried to go back to sleep.
Sleep was elusive after that, of course, and I can now be found sitting at my computer typing furiously into my Vox.

'Buy Nothing Day' was originally started by some guy named Ted Dave back in 1992 (thank you, Wikipedia).  Since then, the anti-every-business-but-our-own types working at Adbusters (it's adbusters.org, by the way) have taken the lead in promoting this anti-holiday.  The basic concept behind BND, as stated so clearly in the text message that woke me up this morning, is that we live in a culture that leaves us awash in commercial activity and wasteful consumerism.  In order to stave off this cultural drive, the most active purchasing day in the United States (Black Friday - the day after Thanksgiving) is targeted as a day to do exactly the opposite by boycotting any purchasing at all.

I guess the most glaring problem with this model of activism is that anyone who is not purchasing anything for one day is merely putting off their consumption until a later date.  The net result being that, regardless of the day that they do it, everyone is a consumer and everyone is going to be making purchases in any economic environment - despite their social and political leanings.  Ironically, Adbusters themselves make this apparent in the closing of the subscription section of their website - the subscription store is closed for 24 hours on BND, meaning that I'll just have to come back tomorrow to do my purchasing.

After taking a look at their website and seeing several very blatant inconsistencies in both their philosophies and practices, I doubt that I'll be making my way back to purchase anything from them ever.
I guess that maybe this Buy Nothing Day has something to it, after all.

For that matter, does no one consider it odd that Adbusters has their own line of shoes that sell for nearly $100 a pair?  Or the fact that their magazine subscription runs about $100 annually for those readers that actually buy into the tripe that Adbusters is peddling as political activism?  I guess that even a political activist group has to realize sometime that without consumers, production halts.  And when production halts, employment drops.  And when employment drops, there are more hungry families out there who need the good karma of a political activist group to save them from a certain destruction at the hands of a facist-capitalist system with no regard for human dignity or compassion.

'Wait just a second, W,' you're thinking.  'Adbusters is just trying to make a point about our culture - surely they are aware that people who don't buy anything on Black Friday are just going to put off their purchases until later, but at least they're drawing attention to the problem of hyper-consumerism!'  Sadly, you are incorrect.  As demonstrated above, Adbusters only cares about fighting against consumerism when the consumers aren't buying from them directly.  Tonight at midnight, the Adbusters online store will open again and people will, again, be invited in to spend their hard-earned cash there instead of somewhere else.

I'm not of the mind that putting a freeze on my bank account for one day is going to make me feel any better about consumerism in America.  I don't need the pat-on-the-back mentality that these sorts of things offer you.  As I pointed out last year, if you really want to fight off the damage of a high-consumption society, why not try an activist campaign centered more around smart purchasing decisions instead of no purchasing decisions?

Damned hippies, when will you people just go away?  Maybe we could look into offering voluntary sterilization services as a way to end consumerism too, eh?  I'm all for it, as long as fervent Adbusters readers are at the front of the line.  You can reduce your lifelong consumption levels as well as rid the rest of us of having to deal with your brainwashed children, to boot!

(241)

Anyone else out there familiar with what happened on 'Real Time with Bill Maher' this week?  Apparently a couple 9/11 Truthtards showed up and began to heckle him because they took exception to some of his comments regarding the outlandish conspiracy theories that are being toted around as explanation for what happened on September 11, 2001:

“How big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV, igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours, and then think ‘Well, if you believe that was the cause…’ Stop asking me to raise this ridiculous topic on the show and start asking your doctor if Paxil is right for you.” - Bill Maher, September 14, 2007

Joyously, Maher threw the heckling crazies out of the studio.  Now that's good television.
(233)