U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chats with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as leaders gathered to deliver a joint statement on Middle East Peace talks in the East Room of the White House in Washington September 1, 2010. [Reuters Pictures]
Chapter one introduced us to our hero, Noah Gardner. Chapter gave him a sidekick, Molly Ross. With chapter three comes our story's villain.
Arthur Isaiah Gardner: World's greatest PR man, head of Doyle & Merchant (the world's greatest PR firm, duh), Noah's father, atheist, mastermind behind the new order of things: The Great and Powerful Oz.
Like Noah, Arthur isn't described physically. We are again to presume he's white, since that's assuredly the default for Beck. He's seventy-four and silvery voiced and has a "taste for blood." Figuratively speaking, of course. Or not. Thanks to Joe Mande, Arthur Gardner is cemented in my mind as being portrayed by Jon Voight. (See image below.) So every time he speaks, and he speaks a lot, it's like watching Anaconda, or National Treasure 2: The Legend of Curly's Gold, but not as cleverly written.
I haven't quite got my head wrapped around Arthur Gardner. He spends the bulk of chapter three pontificating and speechifying. Part of what he espouses is Beck brand neocon nonsense: hatred of: Social Security, government debt, corporate bailouts. But Gardner's solution is to replace the U.S. government with his own system: "a new framework that will survive when the decaying remains of the failed United States have been washed away in the coming storm." And while Beck hates Social Security, government debt, corporate bailouts, his solution is "Restoring Honor."
Chapter three opens with Arthur Gardner reading a classified memo titled "Constitutionalists, Extremism, the Militia Movement, and the Growing Threat of Domestic Terrorism." The memo lists groups of fringe elements that the government needs to keep an eye on. Mostly Beck's target audience: "Militant anti-abortion or 'pro-life' organizers, anti-immigration, border defenders, 'Tea Parties', third-party political campaigns, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, tax resisters, 'End the Fed' proponents, gun rights activists." Then some more ... frightening ... elements are thrown in. "Christian Identity, White Nationalists, American Nazi Party, Holocaust denier, hate radio/TV/Web/print."
It's almost clever. See what's he's done here? He's lumped in his own audience with the more dangerous elements on the right and tied it all in with "hate radio." It is designed to appeal to Beck's audience's sense of persecution. The government is out to get them, as they see it, and this plays right into their paranoia: Those in charge hate the right, from the "pro-lifer" to the Nazi, they're all the same. That's probably the most insidious part. It's that sameness in the minds of the cons that normalizes and mainstreams those dangerous elements. If the government hates them all the same, then maybe the American Nazi Party is no more dangerous than the average "pro-lifer."
There follows a bit on the "detention / rendition / interrogation / prosecution" of these elements:
With U.S. citizens suddenly in the news in the place of al-Qaeda terrorists, some level of psychological resistance must be anticipated and then defused when it arises. It is the opinion of the committee that such a reflexive populist reaction would prove to be a major obstacle to progress. In fact, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event (on the order of a Pearl Harbor / 9/11 attack), there is a potential that the government's reasonable actions in this critical area may be met with significant public outrage and even active sympathy and misguided support for these treasonous/seditious elements and their hate-based objectives.
Gardner throws the report aside and addresses his newest client. A government stooge named Purcell, who's hired Doyle & Merchant to fix the PR nightmare that is the leaked memo, due to hit the front page of tomorrow's Washington Post.
Much to Purcell's surprise, Noah's already got the memo blamed on an "overzealous local bureaucracy." Like Molly said, PR people just lie.
All of this leads to ten-odd pages of Gardner addressing the guests in his conference room. It's far too long, but kind of fun to imagine Jon Voight delivering it on-screen. I mean, that beats just reading it straight. (How long until ABC puts The Overton Window miniseries into production, you think?) Gardner tells how the 2004 tsunami ruined his Sri Lankan vacation, all if which he use as analogy for the destruction of the U.S. He also tells of how he was the guy who invented bottled water. His greatest PR scheme, conning folks into buying water in plastic bottles instead of drinking it relatively free of charge from the tap. All the while he rails on about the ills of the U.S. government's overspending. Highlights below:
Bear Stearns, a cornerstone firm of Wall Street founded when my father was a young man, a company whose stock had quite recently been selling at a hundred and sixty dollars a share, was bailed out by the Federal Reserve and J.P. Morgan at two dollars per share. That was the beginning, my friends.
We are in the midst of what will become the most devastating financial calamity in the history of Western civilization, and just this week—please do correct me if my figures are wrong—the Congress and the administration have committed to funnel almost eight trillion dollars to the very institutions that engineered the crisis.
Over the last century you've saddled your hapless citizens with a hundred thousand billion dollars in unsecured debt, money they'll be paying back for fifty generations if there are still any jobs to be had by then. Meanwhile you're up to your necks in misguided, escalating wars on two unforgiving fronts with no sign of the end. That's trillions more in unpayable IOUs.
For heaven's sake, you nationalized General Motors just to get your union friends off the hook. As you know, those union pensions you just took over are severely underfunded, adding another seventeen billion dollars to your tab. Seventeen billion, I might add, that you don't have.
Just to stay afloat the government is borrowing five billion dollars every day at ever-rising interest rates from our fair-weather friends in Asia. Sooner or later the truth will be undeniable, that these massive debts can never be repaid, and there'll be a panic, a worldwide run against the dollar, and through your actions you've ensured that the results will be fatal and irreversible.
And all this will lead to the collapse of the U.S.
But that's okay. Gardner has a plan. He also has a Powerpoint presentation. And some hand-outs. (Which I guess is what Churchill got his hands on in the prologue.)
"Because we must, we will finally complete what they envisioned: a new framework that will survive when the decaying remains of the failed United States have been washed away in the coming storm. Within this framework the nation will reemerge from the rubble, reborn to finally take its rightful, humble place within the world community. And you," he said, looking around the table, "will all be there to lead it."
A hand went up on the far side, a question from the senior member of the party, who'd so far only listened in silence.
"Mr. Gardner," the man said. "What about the public?"
"What about them? The public has lost their courage to believe. They've given up their ability to think. They can no longer even form opinions, they absorb their opinions, sitting slack-jawed in front of their televisions. Their thoughts are manufactured by people like me. What about the public? There's a double-edged sword by which the public can be sold anything, from a three-dollar bottle of tap water to a full-scale war."
And not only does Gardner have a plan, it's gonna be easy to implement:
"The misguided resistance that still exists will be put down in one swift blow. There'll be no revolution, only a brief, if somewhat shocking, leap forward in social evolution. We'll restore the natural order of things, and then there will be only peace and acceptance among the masses." He smiled. "Before we're done they'll be lining up to gladly pay a tax on the very air that they breathe."
Kind of scary, huh? No, not Gardner's plan, but Beck's audience, who believe this. This reads less like a cautionary tale, and more like a call to arms. "The misguided resistance that still exists will be put down in one swift blow." I fear, the only solution, in the eyes of Beck, is a preemptive strike.
[Note: I'll be in Baltimore all next week, so no Overton updates until I get back, mid-September or thereabouts. Enjoy your time off, Shakers!]
[Trigger warning for discussion of body image.]
Many Americans Don't Even Know They're Fat.
Of course we don't. Because the DEATHFAT! has mememtoed our memories and shrunk the stuffin' in our brainpans!
You really expect my critically addled fatbrain to be able to remember that I'm a fatsronaut once I walk away from the scale or the mirror the closest stranger calling me a fat cunt when the DEATHFATZ ARE EATIN MY BRAINZZZ?!
For the record: I know I'm fat.
[H/T to Shaker Julie.]
The president's bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, tasked with "identifying policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run" and proposing "recommendations designed to balance the budget [and] meaningfully improve the long-run fiscal outlook, including changes to address the growth of entitlement spending and the gap between the projected revenues and expenditures of the Federal Government" is comprised of 18 people profiled here by TPM.
The president's bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform is very white, very male, and very terrifying.
I just bipartisaned in my pants.
This deserves a much more serious post, but I am too depressed to write it.
Ugh.
[H/T to Shaker Carol.]
So there's this principled men's rights activist douchey anti-feminist fame-chasing self-promoter who, among pursuing other important legal issues involving feminists ruining the world for men, has been on this asinine crusade to challenge the constitutionality of ladies' nights at bars. But, sadly, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected his argument.
The court, with evident amusement, said it must rule against [Manhattan lawyer Roy Den Hollander] even though "without action on our part, (he) paints a picture of a bleak future, where 'none other than what's left of the Wall Street moguls' will be able to afford to attend nightclubs."Good luck with all that, Roy.
…"The guys are paying for girls to party. I don't think that's fair," Den Hollander said. "It's a transfer of money fom the wallets of guys to the pocketbooks of girls."
He vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court.
(TW for discussion of depression)
I went to the doctor last Friday (I went to see a couple of my doctors, actually, but this post concerns my visit with my internist). She recently replaced another doctor who had been part of that practice for several decades, and had been the only internist I had seen more than once as an adult. This new one, Dr. L., has had the unenviable task of taking on a lot of patients who were very attached to the previous physician, and earning their trust.
I went to see her a couple of months ago for the first time, to request a blood glucose test. My paternal grandmother, whom I never knew but from whom I seem to have inherited some unfortunate tendencies, had Type II diabetes, an illness which my "lifestyle" is quite conducive to. By "lifestyle" I mean that I suffer from great fatigue, difficulty focusing on tasks, and a lack of motivation.
"Lack of motivation" is a generally misunderstood symptom of depression. It does not mean that I sit around thinking, "Oh, I'm so depressed; why bother to do shit I don't want to do anyway." It means not that I lack discipline, but that there is a mental disconnect between my conscious mind, which says I want or need to do X, and the part of my brain which actually initiates activity. It prevents me from doing things I would very much like to do, as well as things I need to do, rather than indicating simply a lack of interest in doing things which are not immediately rewarding.
If you want or need to go somewhere, whether somewhere you're eagerly looking forward to going, or somewhere routine, or to the dentist for a root canal which you may be much averse to but have nevertheless decided will leave you better off in the long run, and you get in your car, turn the key in the ignition repeatedly, yet the engine sputters but does not engage, this is not an indication that you don't really want to go anywhere. It's an indication that something is wrong with the equipment you need to transport you there.
I am fully capable of sitting for hours, thinking periodically, "I need to pee," then, "I really need to pee," and eventually, "Damn, I need to pee," before being able to jump start the part of my brain which engages with the task of getting up and walking the ten feet to the bathroom, and initiates the movement which allows me to do that.
The more complex the task, the harder it can be, because a more complex sequence of actions must be, in some sense, imagined and targeted before the actions necessary to bring them about can be initiated. Most people are unaware that this process even takes place, because in a healthy brain, it occurs swiftly and automatically. In my brain, it does not.
I also have difficulty disengaging from tasks. Physical tasks are self-limiting, because my normal state is one of fatigue, and it escalates rapidly with any exertion. I can get sort of "stuck", though, doing fairly simple things on the computer, because the fatigue factor is low and it can require more energy to disengage, or mentally change gears to engage another task, than it does to just keep doing what I'm doing.
One result of these and other symptoms of my depression is that I get no exercise and my diet is terrible. Much of what I eat is dragged out of the freezer and shoved in the microwave. Many days I eat pretzels, cheese and my staple diet cola for breakfast, because it's what I can manage. For a "healthier" breakfast, I'll have a piece of fruit with that — when I have any, which is only a few days a month.
I cook occasionally, simple things, and occasionally make a salad, but even chopping vegetables is often beyond me. Since I have no car and have been unable for some time to manage grocery shopping by a combination of walking and buses, I order my groceries on the net and have them delivered. Because of the expense, I do this only every 2.5 to 3 weeks, which is therefore how often I get fresh produce, and only as much as I am likely to be able to prepare and eat within a few days. So my diet, as I mentioned, is monumentally crappy.
I spent a lot of years fighting my limitations. That accomplished nothing of lasting value, and actually endangered my survival. So I've learned to do the best I can to work with them. It does not create a healthy "lifestyle" but it permits me to survive. This is why the scare quotes around "lifestyle". That word is generally used to refer to something seen as chosen, preferred, as if selected from a menu of possibilities (you know, like being gay. You know you just love it 'cause it's naughty!).
I did not choose to live this way. I generally refrain from speaking for others, but I can say with bone-deep confidence that no one would choose to live this way. Whatever minor advantages it may seem to have to someone who never has lived this way, are far outweighed by the disadvantages, and no, I and others are not too stupid or childish to figure that out. It is also not the result of weakness. No one who has lived it could doubt the tenacity and power of endurance necessary to do so.
I have also been on every class of anti-depressant, anti-psychotic, mood stabilizer and anti-seizure medication in existence, have been through cognitive therapy and several courses of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), commonly known as electroshock. Only a couple of the drugs and the ECT provided any benefit, and it was short-lived. All of the preceding is meant to make clear that my "lifestyle" is not going to change.
I went to have my blood sugar tested because I like to see what's coming, even if I can't do anything about it. I prefer knowing what I'm dealing with. Not only was my blood glucose elevated (I'm "pre-diabetic"), my cholesterol and blood pressure are climbing as well. My doctor had briefly given me the usual recommendations about diet and exercise, which I listened to in silence, knowing she was obligated to provide me with that information, and after my follow-up visit two months later to check the progression of my various elevated numbers, (because this was the first time any of them had been elevated), had emailed me saying that medication was a possibility if lifestyle changes alone were insufficient.
Well, I gave that some thought. Dr. L. had engaged in no fat-shaming, no blaming of any kind, and seemed like someone with whom a patient could have a mutually respectful conversation. Also, Shakesville.
I spent the first three decades of my life hearing that all my problems, as well as those of the people close to me, were All My Fault. I saw, throughout my teen years, a series of therapists who were no help at all, who did not even provide me with a diagnosis, and generally treated me as if I were simply a rebellious teenager who wasn't smart enough to see that the person whose life was being destroyed by my inability to function was my own.
I only returned to mental health treatment in my thirties when it was clear that I would not live much longer without help. It was that which made me desperate enough to ask for the help I had always been told I did not deserve. I didn't find treatment which worked, but I did find a psychiatrist who treated me like a person with an illness who deserved whatever he could do to help, and that was enough to allow me to survive, although it has been touch-and-go at times. This doctor has been extraordinary, in my experience. I have had to deal with other mental health care providers as well, over the years since he became my doctor, which has only confirmed that view.
So I don't expect a lot, from anyone, including health care professionals. I learned somewhere along the way to say to people, "I won't accept that." I'm not sure I ever learned to say, "I expect this," or even just, "Would this be possible?" But I think the view insistently expressed at Shakesville that fat people are entitled to the health care they need, not only that which they earn by meeting the expectations of others, including health care providers, also influenced my decision to have a conversation with my new internist about whether medical treatment would be appropriate, given my unchanging "lifestyle".
So I went to see my doctor again. (She is aware of my history of depression, because I get all my health care from various departments of the physician's practice within my HMO, and they all have access to my complete medical record.) I told her that my diet is terrible and I get no exercise at all. I further told her that I have lived as I do for many years, well aware of the likely health effects, especially given my family history. (That diabetic grandmother? Also bipolar*. Thanks**, unknown Granny, for all the diseases!).
I told Dr. L. that realistically, none of that is going to change. I asked her if, given that reality, there was any value to my taking either of the medications she had suggested might be possible "if lifestyle changes were insufficient." She said matter-of-factly, "Well, medication is appropriate when lifestyle changes have been maximized." I said, "So there's no point in my taking any." She said, "Oh, no, I meant that if your lifestyle changes have been maxed out, and the condition remains, then medication is appropriate." So we discussed the nature of the medications she had in mind, and I left with two prescriptions. Deathfatz was not mentioned.
She knows how much I weigh. I was weighed each time I went, without fuss, and the result duly noted on my chart. Also, she can see me. I am "morbidly obese". But then, I'm generally pretty morbid. (Ha-ha! Little depressed person humor there! Yes, we have our own jokes, too. I will spare you them.) At no time did I get any fat-shaming, lifestyle-blaming, or air of disapproval from her. Most importantly to me, when I told her that I can't change the way I live, she took me at my word.
My allergist had previously tried to convince me how simple changes to my diet would be, based on how when he was divorced he used to just throw some stuff on the grill on the days when he had his kids. He's a nice man, really. His manner wasn't patronizing, and I actually appreciate his willingness to take the time to talk to me about something outside his own direct responsibility but which was intended to better my health, given that many people have doctors who rush in and out with barely a chance to discuss anything with them. But, doc, I'm not a divorced man who never learned to cook because a woman had always done it for him. I'm chronically ill. No, really. They are not similar conditions.
So telling a doctor that this is how I live, and that my own assessment based on the knowledge accumulated in living my particular life tells me that it's the best I can do under the conditions of my life, and having her accept my judgment on that point, and matter-of-factly go on to discuss what can be done, was . . . startling.
I have read the horror stories here at Shakesville and throughout the fatosphere, about health care professionals who appear to believe that fat people don't deserve to be healthy, and are by jiminy not going to get any help from them in becoming as healthy as they can be until they earn it by losing weight. I know I am really lucky to have the doctor that I do. Hell, I'm lucky to have the broad access to health care that I do, which is provided by a combination of Medicare and MediCal that I am very fortunate to have, and I don't forget that.
But having access to a building where health care is provided and a staff who provide it to those they feel are deserving (the right weight, the right gender, the right gender presentation, the right sexual orientation, the right religious beliefs, the right sexual habits — being the right kind of person, i.e., like me, the provider) is one thing, and having access to health care you can use, provided by professionals who respect the autonomy and judgment of the patient, is a whole other dimension. I have both, and I know that, in this respect, I am very fortunate.
*My depression is unipolar; unipolar depression is quite often also found in families where bipolar disorder is present.
**I couldn't resist the sarcasm, but obviously no one is responsible for the genes they have, much less who among their children and grandchildren inherit them, and given that these conditions certainly caused her suffering as well, unknown Granny merits only sympathy from me.
H/T to CaitieCat and eastsidekate, who jump-started my motor to write this post. :)
"The nonsense about President Obama being a Muslim has got to stop. I rise to defend him from this absurd accusation by pointing out that he is obviously an atheist. ... The only evidence for Obama's Christianity is that he faithfully attended the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years."—Ann Coulter.
Ann, sweetie, you've got to dial back the hyperbole. I know your readership will always treat as earnest anything you write, no matter how absurd, but the rest of us are starting to cotton on that this is just sustained performance art, designed to expose the profundity of ignorance among the American Rightwing.
[Related Reading: On "Real" Christians and Christian Privilege.]
. . . that my personal spammers started getting a little more creative with their names. I am so over m#rwzna;eodnf.
This morning I got a very important communication by electronic mail from Mrs. Rhoda Kammel. Ok, it's not exactly Wildean wit, but it beats m#rwzna;eodnf all to hell.
[Trigger warning for violence.]
Yesterday afternoon, as you've no doubt heard, a 43-year-old man named James J. Lee entered the Discovery Communications building in Silver Spring, MD, took hostages, and, after a four-hour standoff, was shot and killed by police.
Lee, who identified as an environmental activist, though his activism seems largely to have consisted of protesting the Discovery Channel, said he was inspired to action by "An Inconvenient Truth."
Thus has the meme that Lee was a leftwing terrorist begun.
But, of course, it's not quite that simple. Lee's manifesto is indeed leftwing insomuch as environmental protection has become associated with the left since conservatives haven't been particularly interested in conservation since Nixon started the EPA. Lee's eliminationist views on immigration, however, are closely aligned with several prominent rightwing anti-immigration groups, and his position on human population control ("NO MORE BABIES!") is, suffice it to say, profoundly anti-choice.
Like most of the other domestic terrorists who have struck recently, there's not a totally cohesive ideology underlying his actions. He is certainly more left-leaning than, say, Joseph Stack, but, like Stack, it's a mixed bag of grievances.
I don't have much to say about the situation other than that note of my typical "shades of gray" stuff.
[Commenting Guidelines: This thread is not an invitation to wax ponderous about Lee's psychological health.]
What's your favorite holiday destination?
I am a vacationer of extremes: I either like to be in the center of a big, bustling city (London, New York, etc.) or in a small, quiet place along some body of water big enough in which to swim, even if it's the time of year where swimming isn't advised.
The Indiana Dunes, L.A., Nova Scotia, Siesta Key, Door County, Leith...I don't care. Just get me next to the water, and I'm happy.
President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama’s hands rest on the railing of a boat during their tour of St. Andrews Bay in Panama City Beach, Fla., Sunday, Aug. 15, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
Michael Joseph Gross for Vanity Fair: "Sarah Palin the Sound and the Fury."
It's terrible for a couple of reasons. One, because Sarah Palin is the worst. Except, and two, she's the worst for reasons that aren't even in this article.
No, she's not the worst because she's a bad tipper and reportedly has the unmitigated temerity to have loud fights with her husband. And she's not the worst just because she politicks with the mendacious, aw-shucks, insufferably affected demeanor that's been a central part of conservative identity politics since Ronald Reagan's carefully blushed cheeks. She's not even the worst because she, like pretty much every other politician who's angling for the presidency (not that that makes it right), consorts with political operatives who do shady things like set up questionable payment schemes for her speaking engagements.
She's the worst because she's an anti-choice, pro-abstinence, anti-socialized healthcare, anti-social safety net, pro-social Darwinism conservative asshole, just another self-proclaimed bootstrapper who belittles feminists and their advocacy for the programs and policies that help marginalized women and girls, who trades on being a rightwing token while demeaning the very activism that has afforded her the public platform on which she brazenly basks in the luxury of her disdain.
Gross' article, however, amounts to very little but "Sarah Palin is the worst because she's in politics...and is A WOMAN."
Sure, it's covert sexism. Gross doesn't talk about her boobs or use identifiable misogynist epithets to describe her, but it's sexism nevertheless, as the (frequently dislikable) habits of many major politicians, of both parties, are used to build the case that Palin is remarkably awful. But there is nothing particularly remarkable about a politician who requires family members get permission to grant interviews. Nor about a politician who ambitiously trades favors and ruthlessly gets people fired who cross hir. Nor about a politician who acts like an entitled ass.
What makes this article the worst thing I've read all day is the fact that most of what's in it is the sort of shit that is considered (rightly or wrongly) the mundane business of doing politics, and yet is somehow ZOMG SHOCKING when done by Sarah Palin.
Monika Bauerlein, the co-editor of Mother Jones, tweeted: "I didn't think anything could make me rear up in Sarah Palin's defense, but this VF profile is close."
It's a sentiment I share.
I remain constantly infuriated at the number of pieces written about Sarah Palin that compel feminist/womanist women to come to her defense, or, at minimum, point out the absurdity of the coverage. (Bauerlein also tweeted: "'Sarah, these aides say, seemed comforted by having the children around, and she seemed lonely when they were gone.' Truly a monster.") To have feminist writers mock the paucity of legitimate criticisms in a hit piece on Palin can't have been the point.
And yet here we are again.
I will continue to defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because I endorse her or her politics, but because that's how feminism works.
But I'd prefer not to be obliged in the first place.
[Related Reading: Same Boat; Grab a Paddle, Sarah Palin Sexism Watch, Part 28, On Choice, Parity for Palin.]
CNN: Go shopping; change the world.
Basically, there's this new cell phone application (CauseWorld) that sends you advertisements in exchange for which corporations make tiny donations to [mostly] non-controversial charities. [Edit: Although see the comments concerning the very problematic Autism Speaks, one of the 29 charities CauseWorld lists on its website here.] You open the app and it tells you what stores are nearby. In the process, you earn "karmas" (I know, I know), enough of which will allow you to funnel money to pay to plant a tree, feed a chimp, support the Red Cross, or any other number of things that are good.
I'm going to go on record as being mostly in favor of [mostly] non-controversial charities (my slight hesitation comes from my concern that they may detract support from controversial groups that do important work, often with less money going to administrative salaries).
But yes, I like chimps and trees and Haitians and dislike cancer, earthquakes, and hunger.
I have a couple of problems with this story, though.
"Changing the world" strikes me as a bit overblown. Actually, Citibank (one of the app's sponsors) has done more world changing than I'd have preferred. You know, if large corporations did want to change the world, they could start by changing their own practices. That would actually be much more direct than paying folks to plant trees.
Second, I object to the headline, "Go shopping; change the world". It's a bit misleading, in that one accumulates "karmas" merely by viewing advertisements. I'm also not anti-shopping by any stretch of the imagination, but I'd hardly consider shopping in-and-of itself world-changing. The global economy is complicated, but there are plenty of purchases that neither change the status quo nor improve the world.
So sure, huzzah for charity. But let's call CauseWorld what it is, a cost-effective way for companies to increase advertising exposure while making relatively small contributions to carefully selected, corporate-friendly charities. This isn't a bad thing, but it's certainly not revolutionary.
