2006-12-05
christmas + consumer culture
I suppose Faux News commentator Bill O'Reilly would really hate the Christmas Resistance Movement though that would only give me more the reason for supporting it.
O'Reilly, together with his fellow dittoheads, fails, however, at getting all the facts correct. For if you read into the material at the site [developed and created by artist Nina Paley] it is the commercialism of Christmas that is protested, not the sharing of love and friendship.
And while I might agree with Ms. Paley's admonition to refrain from becoming a participant in the mindless consumerism that passes these days for Holiday Spirit, I can't say I agree with her entirely.
Rather I support the idea that we cut down on the spending on ourselves, but increase the outpouring of riches on others less fortunate than oneself. Each of us define this our own way.
Since I work with folks who are indigent, though provided food, clothing and shelter, then doing something to assure that those folks get something considered a luxury or even "unnecessary" but which can life the spirit.
For the folks who are scraping by on Social Security Disability, but managining, then invite some poor soul who lives in single room occupancy housing over for supper once in awhile ...and not just during the holiday season.
For the wealthy amongst us, well, I'm not even going to make the pitch to be generous. Fact of the matter is that those making 500,000 and more a year are [according to generic IRS tax records] less likely to share their abundance with others than the income group making between $50 and $75,000 per year. Big surprise, eh?
So I am not completely convinced that we should be donning the burlap sacks and chastising ourselves for being fortunate to have good enough credit to get the new high definition television.
Show some kindness to others this season, and, once you have done that, go about it during the rest of the year as well.
I suppose Faux News commentator Bill O'Reilly would really hate the Christmas Resistance Movement though that would only give me more the reason for supporting it. O'Reilly, together with his fellow dittoheads, fails, however, at getting all the facts correct. For if you read into the material at the site [developed and created by artist Nina Paley] it is the commercialism of Christmas that is protested, not the sharing of love and friendship.
And while I might agree with Ms. Paley's admonition to refrain from becoming a participant in the mindless consumerism that passes these days for Holiday Spirit, I can't say I agree with her entirely.
Rather I support the idea that we cut down on the spending on ourselves, but increase the outpouring of riches on others less fortunate than oneself. Each of us define this our own way.
Since I work with folks who are indigent, though provided food, clothing and shelter, then doing something to assure that those folks get something considered a luxury or even "unnecessary" but which can life the spirit.
For the folks who are scraping by on Social Security Disability, but managining, then invite some poor soul who lives in single room occupancy housing over for supper once in awhile ...and not just during the holiday season.
For the wealthy amongst us, well, I'm not even going to make the pitch to be generous. Fact of the matter is that those making 500,000 and more a year are [according to generic IRS tax records] less likely to share their abundance with others than the income group making between $50 and $75,000 per year. Big surprise, eh?
So I am not completely convinced that we should be donning the burlap sacks and chastising ourselves for being fortunate to have good enough credit to get the new high definition television.
Show some kindness to others this season, and, once you have done that, go about it during the rest of the year as well.
Labels: christmas, consumers, culture
¶ 22:02
