Idiots in Our Midst

What blithering idiots:

For the past four years on Black Friday, three Newark sisters have been trekking to the Christiana Mall to celebrate a global anticonsumerism movement called “Buy Nothing Day.”

This year, they got arrested after police asked the women to leave.

Anna White, 30, said she and her sisters Laura, 28, and Rachel, 25, and their friend Terri Carter went to the mall about 11:30 a.m. Friday on their annual junket to not shop.

They were dressed in Santa hats and white T-shirts printed with the words “NOTHING – What you’ve been looking for.” The back of the shirts read: “Ask me about NOTHING.”

This is what modern idiot liberals look like:

113195.jpg

Notice the smug, self-satisfied grin.

They are against consumerism- which, in short, means they are against capitalism. And you know what happens when capitalism fails? We really screw up the environment. Prosperous, democratic, capitalist nations are the best stewards of the environment and always have been. Period. So stick that in your anti-consumerism pipe and smoke it, baby.

And before the flaming starts- I don’t know the exact 1st amendment specifics in thsi case, nor do I care. Anything that wipes that shit-eating grin of her face and causes a little difficulty for the flaming idiocy on display here, I will tolerate a little extra-constitutional behavior by the authorities.






34 replies
  1. 1
    None says:

    I will tolerate a little extra-constitutional behavior by the authorities.

    That about sums it up..

  2. 2
    John cole says:

    Yeah- it about sums up your utter inability to detect sarcasm.

  3. 3
    Mikey says:

    It’s the absolute self-righteousness that always gives me heartburn. “Look how noble I am! I bought nothing for one whole day!”
    Wow. What a struggle. Goody for you. A whole day.
    BTW, there actually is something in those jars and boxes. It’s called “AIR”, and it and its component gasses are actually commodities.
    Now the contents of their skulls, that’s a different matter.

  4. 4
    Kimmitt says:

    They are against consumerism- which, in short, means they are against capitalism.

    Er, no. Capitalism is an economic system which can work just fine under a set of social mores which encourages mass consumption or under a set of social mores which encourages moderate consumption.

    No one’s discussing the workers violently taking over the means of production. What they are discussing is living more lightly, on less. In a world with six billion people and a unique environment, there are worse messages.

    That said, yeah, they’re smug. So are most people when they’re doing something they consider clever.

  5. 5

    The foundation is “a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age,” according to the group’s Web site…

    “I like doing quirky things like this,” she said. “It seemed like a fun way to get people to think about alternative ideas.”

    Despite adding the emphasis above, I fully support them being arrested by five state troopers. (The video tape should be interesting, if they’re telling the truth.)

    BigMediaBlog.com: Comments for sites that don’t have comments.

  6. 6
    Terry says:

    “That said, yeah, they’re smug. So are most people when they’re doing something they consider clever.”

    As the saying goes, one person’s concept of cleverness may well be another person’s concept of pure idiocy.

  7. 7

    Kimmit,

    Why don’t you do us all a favor and cut out 90% of what you use so the rest of us can continue to live the same lifestyle we do now.

    Moderation is achieved by the amount of revenue a person has. If you can make more, buy more because that money goes to the people who make the goods.Would you rather make the poor poorer just for the sake of moderation?

  8. 8

    I’d venture to guess these different thinkers are outnumbered by at least 70 million or 80 million to one. So, what’s the big deal?

    It stands to reason that in a land of ravenous and conspicuous consumption, with consumer debt levels including a $600 billion annual trade deficit to prove it, that a few people will inevitably advocate going on a consumer diet. No way does that threaten our economy or way of life, nor should it particularly annoy anyone.

    Again, I ask you, exactly how is it these people qualify as liberals, or is that simply a label you merrily paste on anyone and everyone with whom you disagree about anything in any way?

    While there is a strain of environmentalists who advocate less-wasteful and excessive consumption, they’re not exactly a mainstream force among liberals. Not that I can tell, anyway.

    No offense, John, but sometimes I think that if you were a rifle, you’d need sighting-in.

  9. 9
    Kimmitt says:

    Why don’t you do us all a favor and cut out 90% of what you use so the rest of us can continue to live the same lifestyle we do now.

    That’s kind of their point — we really can’t continue to live the same lifestyle we do now, and small changes now can forestall large and sharp changes later.

  10. 10
    coba says:

    If we all just took less showers, think how much water we would save.

  11. 11
    Justin O. says:

    Dug the post John, classic

  12. 12
    Dean says:

    I’ll respect these people more if they’ll answer a few questions:

    -How many cars are in each of your driveways? (This to avoid the John Kerryesque, “None of them are mine, I just use them” formulation.) How often do you take mass transit?

    -How many TVs do you have in your house? How many DVD/CD/radios?

    -Who mows your lawn? Do you use a push-mower?

    -Do you use a clothes dryer, or do you use a clothes-line?

    -How many pairs of jeans, earrings, scrunchies (for the hair), shoes do you own?

    If you’re really are denying yourself stuff year-round, then I’ll respect your message. Otherwise, STFU.

  13. 13

    Kimmit, I can, and will continue to live my lifestyle. It will not change. Everyone will continue to consume more as more is made. If we start running out of something, pricing goes up and less will be consumed. I thought you were studying economics?

  14. 14
    Kimmitt says:

    I thought you were studying economics?

    Oh, believe me, I am, but an elementary background in logic is all that’s required for me to note that It will not change. and If we start running out of something, pricing goes up and less will be consumed. are inherently contradictory statements.

  15. 15
    Kimmitt says:

    -How many cars are in each of your driveways?

    My wife and I share one.

    How often do you take mass transit?

    My wife takes it daily; I’m fortunate enough to live close enough to work to be able to walk or bicycle there.

    -How many TVs do you have in your house? How many DVD/CD/radios?

    One, one, one, and a few.

    -Who mows your lawn? Do you use a push-mower?

    I live in a condo, so our association handles the details. We have a pretty big lawn out back, so they use a riding mower thingy.

    -Do you use a clothes dryer, or do you use a clothes-line?

    Sadly, clotheslines are not compatible with the condominium lifestyle.

    -How many pairs of jeans, earrings, scrunchies (for the hair), shoes do you own?

    Hey, you finally got us. We each have a closet full of clothes. I only own two pieces of jewelry, including the wedding ring, but she has a nice little collection.

    The trick isn’t to deny yourself everything, it’s to pick a few things and be sensible on the others.

  16. 16

    No, you misunderstood my statement. I will not change my lifestyle. As money permits me to buy more things, I will. As money decreases, I will purchase less. My lifestyle is to do whatever I can in my limits. I save what I feel is needed, I already have a college fund running for my daughter and will start another one as soon as the baby is here. So, I have no need whatsoever to cut out anything from my life that my finances don’t require me to. Not spending my money that isn’t invested does nothing for the poor.

  17. 17
    Kimmitt says:

    Well, since you’ve made clear that we had two different definitions of “lifestyle” in our posts, this particular conversation, as amusing as it was, is pretty much over.

  18. 18
    Chris Arndt says:

    They can be arrested for loitering.

    The First Amendment does not protect your right to take up space.

  19. 19
    Dman says:

    Purchasing the Santa Hats and T-shirts seems like frivolous capitalistic consumerism or did they just appear on their doorsteps.

  20. 20
    Kimmitt says:

    …or maybe they picked them up at Goodwill or garage sales or something.

    The First Amendment does not protect your right to take up space.

    Amendment I:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    HTH. HAND.

  21. 21
    Dman says:

    The 1st admendment does not provide the right to assemble on private property against the owners wishes.

  22. 22
    Alexander the Grate says:

    “Notice the smug, self-satisfied grin.”

    John, I understand, I do. I have to endure this everyday on T.V., from our president, with a blinking, vacant look, to boot, which it makes it even more enfuriating. We all have our crosses to bear, I guess.

  23. 23
    Kimmitt says:

    The 1st admendment does not provide the right to assemble on private property against the owners wishes.

    And malls have been ruled (sensibly) to have aspects of both private and public spaces.

  24. 24
    syn says:

    Dictating what an individual or community could or should buy and consume is considered Econ-imperialism, an extension of Religion of Eco-imperialism.

    The religion of Eco-imperialism has through it’s dictated regulations impoverished the poor and caused diseases to spread. Look at how Eco-imperialists have impoverished third-world countries into cultural churches of poverty, misery, and death. I shiver with the thought of plunging ourselves into the totalitarian realm of Econ-imperialism coupled with Eco-imperialism.

    Utopian Socialist Nothingness kills people, places and things.

    These women are not smug anti-comsumerist, they are smug anti-humanists.

  25. 25
    syn says:

    Another horrific result of Eco-Imperialist Religion is the manner in which the followers have forced the poor into moving further away from their place of work in order to accomodate their dictated environmental regulations so that their Gods and Goddesses, like Kennedy and Streisand, can enjoy the fruits of Utopian Socialist Nothingness.

    Think any of these smug Nothingnesses realise their religious zeal for Utopian Socialist Nothingness have any idea that their misguided fraud has done more to spread disease, cause poverty, and promote mass murder than any religion ever to exist in the history of modern man?

  26. 26

    Well, since you’ve made clear that we had two different definitions of “lifestyle” in our posts, this particular conversation, as amusing as it was, is pretty much over

    Great way to prove your point!
    The amusing part is that you study economics and don’t seem to have a clue as to why the more you buy and spend, the more you help others, not harm them.

  27. 27
    Andrew | BB says:

    >>If you’re really are denying yourself stuff year-round, then I’ll respect your message.

    No Dean , you won’t. You’ll laugh and call them idiots, too for denying themselves ANYTHING.

    Smug grin? WTF are you guys smoking? They are making a humorous point and can’t believe they were arrested over this.

    It’s a smile.

    And J.H.F.C. – but these guys are harmless and have you read how the police and mall cops overreacted to these people? It’s a crazy ass situation.

    Cole, if you really were being sarcastic as your first comment here indicated – it doesn’t show in the writing of this post and you haven’t repeated your statement, while the commentators here are agreeing with the non-sarcastic tone of your post.

    See sarcasm like this would work on my site, where I have never before said any of the things you mentioned. :)

    Now, let me continue my search for your anti-Juan Cole, pro-Juan Cole post.

  28. 28
    Dean says:

    Gee, Andrew, do you usually tell folks what they think?

    I would respect their consistency and still think they’re stupid. It’s like respecting the courage of protestors while disagreeing with their stance and message.

    Or supporting the troops while opposing the war. Evidently, that’s quite alien to you?

  29. 29
    Andrew | BB says:

    >>I would respect their consistency and still think they’re stupid

    Well I’m sure they’d be grateful, most humbly. Stupidity does not equal respect and your support the troops while opposing the war analogy has no place here.

    And no, not always, yours was a special – and slightly unwarranted – case. But I was right, wasn’t I? Your respect amounts to saying they’re stupid. Guess that explains why people voted for “stay the course” Bush. (Tongue in cheek – obviously there’s no real explanation out there except a willingness to embrace fear.)

  30. 30
    syn says:

    Stupid is thinking anti-capitalism is harmless.

  31. 31
    Loren says:

    Alexander, that was a good one. Have you seen the one about Bush’s IQ being a bit higher than Kerry’s?
    I wonder if Bush can spell infuriating?
    And talk about a mug. John Kerry is certainly no cherry.
    Anyway, the election’s over. Bush is our president once again.
    I think Bush may have a physical impairment when appearing before crowds. Unfortunate.
    I also seem to be in the minority in thinking he is brilliant. But what do I know?

  32. 32
    Kimmitt says:

    The amusing part is that you study economics and don’t seem to have a clue as to why the more you buy and spend, the more you help others, not harm them.

    And the amusing part is that you breathe air, drink water, and eat food, and don’t seem to have a clue as to why it might be a good idea to intelligently discuss how much we need to pollute in order to meet our needs.

  33. 33
    Nathan says:

    Dictating what an individual or community could or should buy and consume is considered Econ-imperialism, an extension of Religion of Eco-imperialism.

    Who is trying to dictate anything? These girls aren’t trying to impose their will on anyone–they’re just expressing their opinions. Whether or not they have the right to do so in the mall is a somewhat murky legal issue, but calling them imperialists is aboslute nonsense. Imperialists use coersion to achieve their goals. The ubiquitous onslaught of commercial advertising each of us faces every day comes much closer to coersion than a few girls with t-shirts and empty bottles.

    I think the obsessive persuit of luxury reflected-in/generated-by today’s consumer culture is a real problem. Government regulation is not the solution to this problem; the clueless economic and political principles of the anti-globalization movement would be disasterous if ever actually implimented. But continued indiference to the soul-numbing gluttany of our society is equally dangerous. Our lives should be defined by something more than how much stuff we can buy before we die. I, for one, want something in my eulogy besides “he was comfortable.”

  34. 34

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

Comments are closed.