For this assignment we were supposed to bid on an item on the auction site, Ebay. Ebay as it turns out, is a very true to life example of how capitalism in America works. On Ebay, just like in real life, a rise in demand causes prices to increase on a given item. The more interesting part of Ebay, is its significance as a free market where the sellers compete to have the lowest price in order to sell their item more successfully than their competition. Often times Ebay was not realistic because people would pay more for an item that they thought might be a safer bet when making a purchase on the Internet. An example of this, would be sneakers. Auctions that had more photos and information posted about the item generally would have a higher starting price and final cost to the highest bidder. The reason that this is not realistic, is because the same exact item can be priced differently simply because the seller chose to put it at a higher price, but the item is no better or no worse. The catch with Ebay being a free market auction site, is that the lowest price does not always mean that you get the same item. Items that may have been selling for $350 with one person, brand new, may be sold by another for $70, brand new. The catch, is that the item for $70 may be a knock off of the original and not of the same quality.
The item that I bid on was a pair of Jordan "Grape" V sneakers. When I found the auction their was one day left and it was priced at $175, plus $15 for shipping ($190 total). The problem that i had, was that I was working the next day and would not be around a computer to bid before the auction was up. In order to be able to purchase the sneakers, I used the program J- Bid Watcher which bid on the item for me a few seconds before the auction ended. Although nobody had bid on the item, I put my maximum bid amount at 190 just in case of a last minute bid. When i returned home from work late that night, i found that i had won the item at the price I had last seen, $175, $190 total. To pay for it, I used my paypal account which had my chase credit/debit card registered for quick purchasing. Pay- pal is what I always use and always will use on Ebay, because it makes fraud and being cheated out of money nearly impossible, which to me is why I don't have real worries when I am bidding on Ebay.
If you are bidding on Ebay, it is important to know what to look for on an auction page. On an item such as sneakers, look to see if the seller writes, explicitly that the item is 100% authentic. If the auction looks a bit sketchy, look at the sellers feedback to see if people are content with purchasing from this seller. Any negative feedback should make you question the authenticity of the seller, and maybe reconsidering buying an item from this seller would be a good option.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Constitution Assignment: Part C
What does Amendment 11 indicate about the relative power of the federal government versus state governments (a question which 65 years later led to the US Civil War)?
The eleventh amendment was designed to prevent residents of a state from taking another state to federal court. This amendment on "Judicial Limits" was ratified in 1795, 65 years before the civil war began. It has significance as distinguishing the difference in how state courts can interact with another, and how federal courts can interact with state courts. Due to this amendment, state courts cannot hear lawsuits against their state brought on by residents of another. It went further to prevent residents of a state from bringing charges against their own state to the federal court. Since the civil war was about succession, that would mean one state suing another for independence from the rest. I think that the eleventh amendment was put in place in order to prevent this sort of thing from happening, where states would sue one another, using a person to file charges and circumvent the amendment. I can see how this would have deeply impacted the issue of slavery at this time. While the country was deeply divided between those for slavery, and abolitionists, the eleventh amendment had never been more significant. Slaves who escaped the south, and in free states sued for their freedom would find that they could not, as a parson could not sue the state in federal court. Even whites, who challenged the laws of slave states and free states, found that the same laws applied to them, and the eleventh amendment made it impossible for say, Virginia to challenge Massachusetts (or vice versa).
Does the 14th amendment combine with the earlier "no religious test" clause to guarantee a vision of a diverse and equitable society with no government discrimination?
The 14th amendment is interesting, because part of it describes what article one says about how representation in the congress is distributed. If we look at that, it is done in a way which ensures a diverse congress, through every state being represented in it. This doesn't guarantee ethnic diversity, due to whites being the vast majority of the united states at this time, but political and intellectual diversity were. As well, it added that, those guilty of treason are ineligible to hold public office, and the debt for the civil war is to be paid for the union, but not the confederates. I do not think that this amendment represents diversity, unity, or opposition of discrimination, for a few reasons. For one, this is an amendment which added insult to injury for the south after the civil war. What this meant for those involved with the confederacy, was that they were now under the constitution, guilty of treason, and the aggressor of the war. Also, the debt from the civil war was voided for the union, and all debts were to be paid by the Confederate states. This did nothing to unite the country, but descriminate against, and enrage half of the country.
Describe the amendment from the rest of the list (16-27) that you find most significant and make an argument for why we should consider it especially important.
I think that the most interesting amendment, is the 22nd amendment. This is what set a presidential term limit 6 years after the death of FDR, the first and only president to exceed the two term limit in American history. The amendment was pushed for by the Republicans, after the democrat Roosevelt had been elected four times (died about a month into his fourth term). I think that the idea behind it is interesting. Their had never before been a president that was elected for more than two terms before Roosevelt was, and that was because the people had felt that he should be president for those years. It is interesting that an amendment would be made to limit how long a person can be president. A lack of a term limit does not go against the constitution in any way, and cannot be manipulated. An example of this is George Bush, he was [elected] twice, but because of how bad a president he has been, he would not be elected to a third term. On the other hand, Franklin D. Roosevelt was an excelent president, elected four times, who took america through a depression, WWII, and implemented the "new deal" social reforms. In my opinion the 22nd amendment simply limits something which should not be limited. It was done for highly political reasons, and does not have a benificial impact on the country.
The eleventh amendment was designed to prevent residents of a state from taking another state to federal court. This amendment on "Judicial Limits" was ratified in 1795, 65 years before the civil war began. It has significance as distinguishing the difference in how state courts can interact with another, and how federal courts can interact with state courts. Due to this amendment, state courts cannot hear lawsuits against their state brought on by residents of another. It went further to prevent residents of a state from bringing charges against their own state to the federal court. Since the civil war was about succession, that would mean one state suing another for independence from the rest. I think that the eleventh amendment was put in place in order to prevent this sort of thing from happening, where states would sue one another, using a person to file charges and circumvent the amendment. I can see how this would have deeply impacted the issue of slavery at this time. While the country was deeply divided between those for slavery, and abolitionists, the eleventh amendment had never been more significant. Slaves who escaped the south, and in free states sued for their freedom would find that they could not, as a parson could not sue the state in federal court. Even whites, who challenged the laws of slave states and free states, found that the same laws applied to them, and the eleventh amendment made it impossible for say, Virginia to challenge Massachusetts (or vice versa).
Does the 14th amendment combine with the earlier "no religious test" clause to guarantee a vision of a diverse and equitable society with no government discrimination?
The 14th amendment is interesting, because part of it describes what article one says about how representation in the congress is distributed. If we look at that, it is done in a way which ensures a diverse congress, through every state being represented in it. This doesn't guarantee ethnic diversity, due to whites being the vast majority of the united states at this time, but political and intellectual diversity were. As well, it added that, those guilty of treason are ineligible to hold public office, and the debt for the civil war is to be paid for the union, but not the confederates. I do not think that this amendment represents diversity, unity, or opposition of discrimination, for a few reasons. For one, this is an amendment which added insult to injury for the south after the civil war. What this meant for those involved with the confederacy, was that they were now under the constitution, guilty of treason, and the aggressor of the war. Also, the debt from the civil war was voided for the union, and all debts were to be paid by the Confederate states. This did nothing to unite the country, but descriminate against, and enrage half of the country.
Describe the amendment from the rest of the list (16-27) that you find most significant and make an argument for why we should consider it especially important.
I think that the most interesting amendment, is the 22nd amendment. This is what set a presidential term limit 6 years after the death of FDR, the first and only president to exceed the two term limit in American history. The amendment was pushed for by the Republicans, after the democrat Roosevelt had been elected four times (died about a month into his fourth term). I think that the idea behind it is interesting. Their had never before been a president that was elected for more than two terms before Roosevelt was, and that was because the people had felt that he should be president for those years. It is interesting that an amendment would be made to limit how long a person can be president. A lack of a term limit does not go against the constitution in any way, and cannot be manipulated. An example of this is George Bush, he was [elected] twice, but because of how bad a president he has been, he would not be elected to a third term. On the other hand, Franklin D. Roosevelt was an excelent president, elected four times, who took america through a depression, WWII, and implemented the "new deal" social reforms. In my opinion the 22nd amendment simply limits something which should not be limited. It was done for highly political reasons, and does not have a benificial impact on the country.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Constitution Assignment: Part B
What does the "Full faith and credit" provision, from article 4, mean for Gay Marriage?
The fourth article of the constitution, in section one, starts with the idea that full faith and credit will be given to every state by one another. This was put in, I would assume, in order to formerly say that decisions and laws passed on a state level should not be questioned, and cannot be legally challenged by another state. Therefor, the national issue of Gay Marriage, is not a national issue to be decided on a national level, but a state decision, to be made on a state level. In terms of what it means for the argument the answer is; not much. Most states that have had proposed laws in favor have not been successful, because even state to state, gay marriage is highly unpopular. One thing that it does mean, is that more liberal states, who have the support to pass such a proposal, will be able to ensure the right for gay couples to be married. What this means, is same- sex marriage on a state level is recognized as a union between two people regardless of sexual orientation, but on a federal level it is not. The "Defense of Marriage Act" is a federal law, which was passed in 1996, concerning where and under what conditions these unions are recognized. Legally, no one state is obligated to recognize a union between a same sex couple if they so choose, but can if that state passes law recognizing it. The Federal government, according to the act, will not recognize any union other than between a man and a woman.
What is the Supreme Law of the Land? What is the significance, of the “No religious test” clause.
According to article 6 of the constitution, the supreme law of the land is the constitution, and any amendments, treaties, and state laws, which follow the legality of the constitution. This group of laws are what all judges in every state are by oath, obligated to recognize in courts of law. The no religious test clause, in article six, says that religion should have no bearing on a persons qualification to be elected to office. This is significant, because it is evidence that America is a land of religious freedom, and it would be unconstitutional for any individual to declare a religious allegiance or affiliation in order to assume any public office. The wording of the clause, in my opinion means that you must be loyal to America and its constitution, and religious loyalty cannot be placed above American loyalty. Religion has no place in the oath which binds elected officials to follow American law, because affiliation is a decision you are free to make, not be identified by. This seems to me, a clause which the founders used to promote the idea of American identity above all else, and unity under one nation and one flag.
Does the 2nd Amendment seem to allow “well-organized militias” to have guns, or to allow all people to have guns?
The second amendment concerns the right to bear arms in America. As the text reads, it would be interpreted as the unconditional right as American citizens to bear and posses arms. What many arguments over this amendment are about, is over what you are allowed to do, where and with what arms are legally allowed. That is not what this is about, what dictates who, what, when, where and why of arms, is left up to state and federal laws, but not constitutional amendments. What the second amendment is more about, is the right for an individual to own a gun, and nothing more. I think that the exact wording of this amendment is what you need to look at when deciding what it means. The way I see it, the writing of the second amendment is structured in this basic sentence; to ensure certain freedoms set in place for the people, a regulated militia, of the people, is necessary. To ensure that their can be a functioning, regulated militia, the right for the people to bear arms is vital. As a member of a militia is not defined as anything beyond a civilian who participates in military activities (which are also vaguely defined), virtually anyone can claim to be part of a militia and because of that I believe that the second amendment allows all people to bear arms.
Does “lethal injection” and/or the “electric chair” contradict the 8th amendment?
The 8th amendment is what makes cruel and unusual punishment unconstitutional. Capital punishment is a legal sentencing to death through methods such as, lethal injection, electrocution, and lethal gas. The eighth amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, which essentially would be any punishment that caused excessive pain and suffering (mental or physical), or is conducted in an nontraditional manner. The method of lethal injection is an injection of a dose of a lethal substance, that has no physically painful effects. Death by gas is also a painless procedure where a lethal gas is released in a chamber and causes the persons system to fail, with no physical pain being experienced. Electrocution is where the person is strapped into an "electric chair" and receives a high lethal flow of electricity directly into the body, causing an immense amount of pain. If we look at these forms of capital punishment, lethal injection and gas would not be considered physically cruel and unusual, but mentally can cause an excessive amount of mental suffering. The electric chair without question is, because it causes a very high amount of physical pain, and carries the same mental pain as the other methods. Obviously all forms of death sentences and its methods, cause massive amounts of mental suffering, which makes capital punishment at its core, cruel and unusual.
The fourth article of the constitution, in section one, starts with the idea that full faith and credit will be given to every state by one another. This was put in, I would assume, in order to formerly say that decisions and laws passed on a state level should not be questioned, and cannot be legally challenged by another state. Therefor, the national issue of Gay Marriage, is not a national issue to be decided on a national level, but a state decision, to be made on a state level. In terms of what it means for the argument the answer is; not much. Most states that have had proposed laws in favor have not been successful, because even state to state, gay marriage is highly unpopular. One thing that it does mean, is that more liberal states, who have the support to pass such a proposal, will be able to ensure the right for gay couples to be married. What this means, is same- sex marriage on a state level is recognized as a union between two people regardless of sexual orientation, but on a federal level it is not. The "Defense of Marriage Act" is a federal law, which was passed in 1996, concerning where and under what conditions these unions are recognized. Legally, no one state is obligated to recognize a union between a same sex couple if they so choose, but can if that state passes law recognizing it. The Federal government, according to the act, will not recognize any union other than between a man and a woman.
What is the Supreme Law of the Land? What is the significance, of the “No religious test” clause.
According to article 6 of the constitution, the supreme law of the land is the constitution, and any amendments, treaties, and state laws, which follow the legality of the constitution. This group of laws are what all judges in every state are by oath, obligated to recognize in courts of law. The no religious test clause, in article six, says that religion should have no bearing on a persons qualification to be elected to office. This is significant, because it is evidence that America is a land of religious freedom, and it would be unconstitutional for any individual to declare a religious allegiance or affiliation in order to assume any public office. The wording of the clause, in my opinion means that you must be loyal to America and its constitution, and religious loyalty cannot be placed above American loyalty. Religion has no place in the oath which binds elected officials to follow American law, because affiliation is a decision you are free to make, not be identified by. This seems to me, a clause which the founders used to promote the idea of American identity above all else, and unity under one nation and one flag.
Does the 2nd Amendment seem to allow “well-organized militias” to have guns, or to allow all people to have guns?
The second amendment concerns the right to bear arms in America. As the text reads, it would be interpreted as the unconditional right as American citizens to bear and posses arms. What many arguments over this amendment are about, is over what you are allowed to do, where and with what arms are legally allowed. That is not what this is about, what dictates who, what, when, where and why of arms, is left up to state and federal laws, but not constitutional amendments. What the second amendment is more about, is the right for an individual to own a gun, and nothing more. I think that the exact wording of this amendment is what you need to look at when deciding what it means. The way I see it, the writing of the second amendment is structured in this basic sentence; to ensure certain freedoms set in place for the people, a regulated militia, of the people, is necessary. To ensure that their can be a functioning, regulated militia, the right for the people to bear arms is vital. As a member of a militia is not defined as anything beyond a civilian who participates in military activities (which are also vaguely defined), virtually anyone can claim to be part of a militia and because of that I believe that the second amendment allows all people to bear arms.
Does “lethal injection” and/or the “electric chair” contradict the 8th amendment?
The 8th amendment is what makes cruel and unusual punishment unconstitutional. Capital punishment is a legal sentencing to death through methods such as, lethal injection, electrocution, and lethal gas. The eighth amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, which essentially would be any punishment that caused excessive pain and suffering (mental or physical), or is conducted in an nontraditional manner. The method of lethal injection is an injection of a dose of a lethal substance, that has no physically painful effects. Death by gas is also a painless procedure where a lethal gas is released in a chamber and causes the persons system to fail, with no physical pain being experienced. Electrocution is where the person is strapped into an "electric chair" and receives a high lethal flow of electricity directly into the body, causing an immense amount of pain. If we look at these forms of capital punishment, lethal injection and gas would not be considered physically cruel and unusual, but mentally can cause an excessive amount of mental suffering. The electric chair without question is, because it causes a very high amount of physical pain, and carries the same mental pain as the other methods. Obviously all forms of death sentences and its methods, cause massive amounts of mental suffering, which makes capital punishment at its core, cruel and unusual.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Constitution Assignment: Part A
Preamble
To ensure the retention and preservation of the ideals on which America was founded, an absolute document of National laws is needed to properly do so. The following is what we the founders have laid out as an legal outline for American life, governmental duties and regulations as well as civic duty as an American. The goal of this being to guarantee a unified nation, and a peaceful nation.
Legislative Branch
- A Congress makes up branch, which consists of both a House of Representatives and a Senate.
- The number of members for each state that are in the House, is decided by the population. More people, more representation
- The ratio of one representative per 30,000 people must not be exceeded
- Qualifications for House member: 25 years old, and an American citizen of 7 years
- Qualifications for Senate member: 30 years old, and an American citizen of 9 years
- Vice- President is president of the senate, but only holds a vote in the event a vote is a tie
- Senate seating is equal in every state despite population, two senators each state, who hold one vote each in the senate
- Terms for House are 2 years, and Senate terms are 6 years.
- Responsibilities of elected Congress members include:
1. Maintaining and arming a militia through passing legislation that would do so
2. Borrowing money from foreign governments on United States credit, when necessary
3. Taxation collection and implementation of tax laws
4. Oversight of impeachment trials
5. Declarations of war
- Congress cannot suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus, except in the case of rebellion or invasion
Executive Branch
- Head of executive branch is the President
- Made up of over three million people
- Has control over whether or not legislation from congress becomes law
- President has Veto power
- Qualifications for President: 35 years old, a natural born U.S. citizen, and lived in America for 14 years
- President can only be removed through impeachment on substantiated accusations of treason, bribery, and any other high crime and misdemeanors.
- President has power to absolve, or pardon anyone he chooses for any crime, convicted, pending or potential, with the exception of an impeachment.
- President takes oath to uphold and abide by the Constitution of the United States
- Commander and Chief of United States Army, Navy and any Militias
Judicial Branch
- Made up of the supreme court
- Court consists of 9 justices
- No qualification of any kind needed for appointment to court
- President has the power to nominate justices, but can only be appointed through the consent of the senate
- Justices are elected for life
The main thought that I had about the constitution was about the context in which it was written. What I think is most remarkable, is that the founding fathers were able to construct a document, using wording which was entirely intentional and could be used as the main source on American law. On top of that, they wrote in in such a way that over the 200 years since its completion, only a handful of amendments have been made to modernize and alter it. What is written provided what was necessary for our nation to function in the 18th century, and still provides that in the 21st century. The massive exception to this, is the civil war. In the preamble, it says that the constitution was written to ensure domestic peace and a united state of the union, but only a century later, in the 19th century, a civil war broke out, that literally turned this nation into two nations in a war against each-other.
What could have been put into the constitution that may have set a foundation for preventing the civil war, and the events leading up to it from happening?
People are always talking about how the founders were terrible, slave owning racists, but i really cannot find any evidence of intentional racist commentary
The preamble mentions our duty to America as citizens, but does not talk about our duty as citizens of the world outside of America
Securing the "blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity" is what is said in the preamble, meaning that we are supposed to ensure the AWOL for our children, and their children. So aren't things like national debt, war, and an energy crisis (which are problems that my generation and our children will have to take care of) technically un-american and unconstitutional?
I wonder how closely we follow the constitution today in America, because I don't think that in the past we have had many presidents and politicians who have operated completely "by the book" and fulfilled their constitutional obligations to the American people.
To ensure the retention and preservation of the ideals on which America was founded, an absolute document of National laws is needed to properly do so. The following is what we the founders have laid out as an legal outline for American life, governmental duties and regulations as well as civic duty as an American. The goal of this being to guarantee a unified nation, and a peaceful nation.
Legislative Branch
- A Congress makes up branch, which consists of both a House of Representatives and a Senate.
- The number of members for each state that are in the House, is decided by the population. More people, more representation
- The ratio of one representative per 30,000 people must not be exceeded
- Qualifications for House member: 25 years old, and an American citizen of 7 years
- Qualifications for Senate member: 30 years old, and an American citizen of 9 years
- Vice- President is president of the senate, but only holds a vote in the event a vote is a tie
- Senate seating is equal in every state despite population, two senators each state, who hold one vote each in the senate
- Terms for House are 2 years, and Senate terms are 6 years.
- Responsibilities of elected Congress members include:
1. Maintaining and arming a militia through passing legislation that would do so
2. Borrowing money from foreign governments on United States credit, when necessary
3. Taxation collection and implementation of tax laws
4. Oversight of impeachment trials
5. Declarations of war
- Congress cannot suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus, except in the case of rebellion or invasion
Executive Branch
- Head of executive branch is the President
- Made up of over three million people
- Has control over whether or not legislation from congress becomes law
- President has Veto power
- Qualifications for President: 35 years old, a natural born U.S. citizen, and lived in America for 14 years
- President can only be removed through impeachment on substantiated accusations of treason, bribery, and any other high crime and misdemeanors.
- President has power to absolve, or pardon anyone he chooses for any crime, convicted, pending or potential, with the exception of an impeachment.
- President takes oath to uphold and abide by the Constitution of the United States
- Commander and Chief of United States Army, Navy and any Militias
Judicial Branch
- Made up of the supreme court
- Court consists of 9 justices
- No qualification of any kind needed for appointment to court
- President has the power to nominate justices, but can only be appointed through the consent of the senate
- Justices are elected for life
The main thought that I had about the constitution was about the context in which it was written. What I think is most remarkable, is that the founding fathers were able to construct a document, using wording which was entirely intentional and could be used as the main source on American law. On top of that, they wrote in in such a way that over the 200 years since its completion, only a handful of amendments have been made to modernize and alter it. What is written provided what was necessary for our nation to function in the 18th century, and still provides that in the 21st century. The massive exception to this, is the civil war. In the preamble, it says that the constitution was written to ensure domestic peace and a united state of the union, but only a century later, in the 19th century, a civil war broke out, that literally turned this nation into two nations in a war against each-other.
What could have been put into the constitution that may have set a foundation for preventing the civil war, and the events leading up to it from happening?
People are always talking about how the founders were terrible, slave owning racists, but i really cannot find any evidence of intentional racist commentary
The preamble mentions our duty to America as citizens, but does not talk about our duty as citizens of the world outside of America
Securing the "blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity" is what is said in the preamble, meaning that we are supposed to ensure the AWOL for our children, and their children. So aren't things like national debt, war, and an energy crisis (which are problems that my generation and our children will have to take care of) technically un-american and unconstitutional?
I wonder how closely we follow the constitution today in America, because I don't think that in the past we have had many presidents and politicians who have operated completely "by the book" and fulfilled their constitutional obligations to the American people.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Thanksgiving and Black Friday
On wednesday night, the eve of the next day...celebratory meal, and friday shopping spree, I was out with friends and it seemed to me that people overall were confused as to what the holiday was about. I passed countless corner stores with cutout turkeys (wearing pilgrim outfits and holding muskets) scotch taped to the window. Fall colors and leaves fallen from trees were also used to show or convey the idea of being patriotic or otherwise involved in the holiday spirit. The true spirit and basis that lies behind thanksgiving, i do not believe to be the celebration of murdering Indian's (although that is what happened), but i know that it is definitly not dead leaves, and a gun touting, clothed Turkey. I think that although we have commercially skewed the message of thanksgiving, the idea remains that the holiday is about giving. Without the Indians to provide the Pilgrims with food, they wouldn't have survived to give the Indians smallpox blankets.
The day after thanksgiving, was black friday. As I am currently without cash flow, black friday was not significant for myself. I did however see a massive amount of people heading in and out of virtually every store I passed, which indicated that the economy must have gotten a severely needed boost from that day alone. When I was with my friend in union square, their were people dressed up as elves and a man screaming in a preacher style about consumerism. The whole idea of the show was right inline with that of the "buy nothing day" that Andy told us about in class. It was relatively hard to take these people who were dressed up to seriously, but because I knew what their idea was and a little bit from what I learned in class, I followed along and understood their message fully. I dont think I really belive that consuming a large amount of goods is a bad thing, and everyone does it, but when its phrased as consumer-ism, it becomes this bad thing, that everyone is against. I think that a better message is to be a conservative consumer, who consumes, with caution, or with a mindset not to make purchases to the point of excessiveness.
A footnote from the holiday. The massive crowds and animalistic shoppers at a Wal-Mart on long island this black friday stormed the doors, trampling and killing an employee. Not a single shopper stopped to help, not a single shopper checked to see if the man was alright. If their is a problem that lies in consumerism, than this is it.
RIP Jdimytai Damour
The day after thanksgiving, was black friday. As I am currently without cash flow, black friday was not significant for myself. I did however see a massive amount of people heading in and out of virtually every store I passed, which indicated that the economy must have gotten a severely needed boost from that day alone. When I was with my friend in union square, their were people dressed up as elves and a man screaming in a preacher style about consumerism. The whole idea of the show was right inline with that of the "buy nothing day" that Andy told us about in class. It was relatively hard to take these people who were dressed up to seriously, but because I knew what their idea was and a little bit from what I learned in class, I followed along and understood their message fully. I dont think I really belive that consuming a large amount of goods is a bad thing, and everyone does it, but when its phrased as consumer-ism, it becomes this bad thing, that everyone is against. I think that a better message is to be a conservative consumer, who consumes, with caution, or with a mindset not to make purchases to the point of excessiveness.
A footnote from the holiday. The massive crowds and animalistic shoppers at a Wal-Mart on long island this black friday stormed the doors, trampling and killing an employee. Not a single shopper stopped to help, not a single shopper checked to see if the man was alright. If their is a problem that lies in consumerism, than this is it.
RIP Jdimytai Damour
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)