November 26, 2005

Must be related to Michael Newdow ...

... in that they have no lives: Sisters get arrested for "Nothing" is a headline in today's Wilmington (DE) News Journal.

Amid the hustle and bustle of Black Friday shoppers at Christiana Mall, Santa Claus got himself handcuffed and arrested for trespassing Friday afternoon.

So did the three White sisters -- anti-commercialism activists who were arrested at the mall a year ago for promoting "Buy Nothing Day." Three other supporters also were arrested.

The sisters have been touting Buy Nothing Day at Christiana Mall on Black Friday for the past five years. They were arrested for the first time last year.

"We're not against shoppers; we are against the advertising culture that insists we have to buy merchandise at Christmas to show people you care," she said.

WTF ...?? What a friggin' hoot, I tell 'ya. Here's what I'm against -- a culture that gets so taken in with itself that it enables people to have the free time to "protest" against companies and people that are merely advertising their wares.

And how does the "advertising culture" INSIST one must buy things "to show that you care?" ("You are all under our influence you brainless consumers ... you must buy ten X-Boxes to show what a good capitalist you are ... that you 'care'...") Sheesh.

And good 'ol Alan Muller of Green Delaware was among those arrested. Surprise there, too.

Anna White, like too many other misguided lefties, complained that her free speech "rights" were violated: "We got the word out," she said. "It's unfortunate that we got arrested for exercising our free speech, but where do you go when you want to exercise your free speech?

"All we want for Christmas is free speech, but I guess we can't get it at the mall."

That's right, you can't, Anna. Because the mall is private property and as such gets to establish its own rules regarding conduct. And one of those rules is an anti-solicitation policy, as mall marketing director Christina Steinbrenner stated earlier in the article.

Now, aren't there much more pressing matters to protest against, people? Aren't there things to complain about other than how companies advertise for Christmas, and how/what people buy this time of year?

Ironically, their very "protest" indicates just how American affluence has affected our culture -- getting out there to protest nothing.

UPDATE (9:47pm): PolitaKid has more, including a name that looked familiar to me but I didn't include in my post -- that of Michael Berg, one of the protestors at the mall. He's the father of Nick Berg, who was beheaded in Iraq and who is planning a run against Mike Castle for the US House.

Posted by Hube at November 26, 2005 10:03 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Now, aren't there much more pressing matters to protest against, people?

1. Indeed. These folks misplace their anger. They gripe about the companies, when the true problem is corporate welfare, and the democracy-corrupting influence big business has on politicians both Democratic and Republican. That's what people should be out there protesting. Not my wonderful opportunities to buy gadgets!

2. And how does the "advertising culture" INSIST one must buy things "to show that you care?" ("You are all under our influence you brainless consumers ... you must buy ten X-Boxes to show what a good capitalist you are

Tweak this rant a bit, and I could have a nice post for myself about righties when it comes to pop culture. It's the same brilliant mentality they employ when they could just turn off their TV and stop their absurd whining about how breasts and other liberal evil inventions are ruining society. In fact, you should send a letter to Brent Bozell, since that mentality offends you. :)

Posted by: dan at November 26, 2005 01:25 PM

Don't have much to argue about w/you here, dan! ;-)

Posted by: Hube at November 26, 2005 04:04 PM

"...the democracy-corrupting influence big business has..."
So many fools, so little energy.
Big Business (read successful) of course is the very engine of the American economy that provides for most of our benefits, including the social safety net. But liberals believe that such an essential part of America should have no voice, no influence in the very decisions that govern its success and failure. It is like saying that blacks should have no voice in deciding issues that effect blacks because of course they seek their self interest. It's not foolishness, it's deliberate monkey wrenching for aged leftists who still whine for the good old days of an ascendant socialism that would make them leaders of the world as unelected speakers for the masses. It is just tiring and I accuse Dan of Thanksgiving laziness for even hitting such a tired leftist talking point.
And I'll leave it up to our resident liberal propagandists to explain how a parent complaining about nudity on prime time TV is comparable to anti-capitalists protesting their exclusion from private property. Are anti-pornography protesters allowed to enter private property to protest?
Lastly, can't liberals just enjoy public or private nudity in a setting that does not force itself on parents and their children?

Posted by: mikem at November 26, 2005 04:42 PM

I always love people who complain about their lack of free speech...in a friggin' newspaper.

Posted by: The Unabrewer at November 26, 2005 09:38 PM

Mike, you're a piece of work. Aside from wanting to make me a crazy angry moonbat even when I'm just agreeing with Hube... you badly misread my analogy.

to explain how a parent complaining about nudity on prime time TV is comparable to anti-capitalists protesting their exclusion from private property.

That's not the comparison I was making. Note the part excerpted from Hube's post. I said people complaining about having things on TV "forced" on them (when they can just not watch it) are comparable to those complaining about being "forced" into consumerism (when they can just not buy stuff).

Posted by: dan at November 27, 2005 02:22 AM

The main thrust of my remarks was about your decidedly "moonbat" statement regarding Big Business.
And Dan, you are the one who chose nudity on TV as the comparison point, not me, not Hube. Take responsibility.
Your's is no more valid a comparison than would mine be if I compared parents complaining about nudity with Jews complaining about Holocaust revisionist theme shows. (They can just change the channel!) There's a difference. I can see it. I'm betting you do also, intellectually, in both cases, but the first fits into your tiring plodding strategy of painting every complaint that conservatives have as the pot calling the kettle black. So you refuse to admit the difference.
It's not as if you have some claim to a moderate viewpoint, Dan. I know from your frequent complaints that you want to be seen that way, but you are not. What you are is someone intelligent enough to see that many of the tactics and strategies of the neoliberalist (once called a leftist) are not publicly defensible. And so you consistently claim that regardless of how bad they appear, they are no worse than what the "enemy" does.
Not coincidently, that is how a terrorist praising Michael Moore ends up seated next to President Carter at the DNC. Because someone who deliberately targets children in line to pick up dolls and presents is no worse than an American soldier who accidentally kills a child.
The Democratic Party has much to be ashamed of, and their uncritical supporters even more so.

Posted by: mikem at November 27, 2005 03:55 AM

It's not a moonbat statement to say that corporations have undue influence over the democratic process. You're just plain wrong, and I won't back down from it. Since there's no point in getting into a broader discussion, I'll at least see if you'll cede the point that the American people overwhelmingly agree with the notion.

Byron York's column in 2002: 63% think corporations have too much influence over BushCo; 64% think they have too much influence over the Congressional Democrats.

Also from 2002: 67% say big business has too much influence on GOP; 49% too much influence on Dems. And how about more recent numbers? Harris poll from 2004: a whopping 83% say big companies have too much power and influence in Washington. I guess they're all just moonbats too. Or the questions were "liberal." Or.....yeah.

You still completely misunderstood my analogy or are intentionally ignoring it because it was a rather benign statement that had nothing to do with the sisters themselves -- but rather (again) the excerpted part from Hube's post that I put in italics! But just to clarify: you think that comparing:

* people who complain about TV to people who complain about being forced into buying things

is as poor an analogy as comparing

* people who complain about nudity on TV to those who complain about Holocaust revision themed shows?

Why didn't Hube find my analogy so offensive? And after all, it's him that I'm talking to, and (quite frankly) his response that I'm interested in if what I'm saying is offensive.

Posted by: dan at November 27, 2005 11:59 AM

It's not about how people view Big Business, Dan. There has always been a large percentage of Americans who view it with distrust, just as there has always been a large percentage of Americans who view Big Government with even greater distrust. (You liberals call that paranoia.) It's your ridiculous tired leftist platitude that its influence corrupts democracy that I addressed. (As in " ...the democracy-corrupting influence big business has...") I even expanded on that specific point. Lobbying by Big Business is no more "democracy corrupting" than lobbying by racialist groups like the NAACP and employee groups like the NEA, both of which are widely seen as having greater influence with Democratic administrations than Republican. Would you agree that those are "democracy corrupting"? No, of course not. Only private enterprise and conservative lobbying is seen as corrupting within the liberal/leftist community.
I will not bother to address the “breast” remark again. Nothing you say that I address will stand still and you will not be honest. Certainly your "absurd whining about how breasts and other liberal evil inventions are ruining society" comment was NOT meant to be confrontational. Heaven forbid that Solomon Dan would be seen as taking sides or making sneering remarks. It's just the hypersensitive readers who try make it seem so.
"And after all, it's [Hube] that I'm talking to, and (quite frankly) his response that I'm interested in if what I'm saying is offensive."
Well said. Who am I to respond to trolling (albeit mild) from a liberal commenter at an arguably conservative blog? What nerve.
In the future I will treat your comments here as private email between you and Hube.

Posted by: mikem at November 27, 2005 04:44 PM

I'm sorry I seem to piss you off so much. But I must say, if you view my original comment as even mild "trolling," I'm utterly dumbfounded.

Posted by: dan at November 27, 2005 05:16 PM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?