Saying You're Sorry

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/26/mccain-apologizes-for-radio-hosts-obama-comments-at-rally/

A political situation occurred on Tuesday once again for John McCain as Radio talk show host Bill Cunnigham oversteps his boundaries at a McCain Rally.
Cunnigham’s comments seem to be directly against the Obama camp, as maybe no he or John McCain see Hillary out of the race already. Cunningham delivered his speech of one-sided ignorance by saying “Barack Hussein Obame” about three times over his whole speech. Cunnigham is obviously inferring to Sadam Hussein, the former Iraqi leader who only stirs up anxiousness and hate in the minds and hearts of American people. This was intentional rhetoric that was used in order to illicit a bad taste in the mouth of Americans over Barack Obama. He says: “Obama just came back from meeting Ahmadinejad; he’s got a meeting the next week with Kim Jong Il of North Korea. Then he’s going to saddle up next to Hezbollah; they’re going to have a little cookie-and-cream party. All’s going to be right with the world.” This is a completely inappropriate way of dealing with an opponent, and I believe if anything John McCain has lost even more credibility by having such an ignorant supporter on his trail. Although McCain apologizes, this still gives Americans a sour taste in their mouths. Instead of his famous supporters backing up and citing all of the wonderful things McCain has done, an approach they take instead is just to attack the other side, making their rhetoric look scared and threatened. On another note in this article, it is cited that McCain was in a situation where he did not repudiate a voter for calling Clinton a “bitch” until a few minutes later after he was done chuckling, managed to not apologize about this comment, he just said that he respected her. I think as this dialogic exchange of Candidates and supporters shows that regardless of if the words came out of the candidates or supporters mouth, it is the responsibility of the candidate to take complete credit for it, almost as if they had said it themselves.

Clinton Mocks Obama

Hillary has recently chosen to go negative to halt Obama's momentum, it may have the opposite effect on potential voters. at a While at a campaign rally in Providence, Rhode Island, she mocked Obama and his message of hope and change in a very theatrical, over-the-top manner.

See for yourself:





While her jabs at Obama were met with rousing applause from a live audience, internet onlookers have not shared the reaction. Comments on various websites that have posted the above video include things like "Hillary is flat out desperate..." "she is just looking mean spirited" "Hillary's campaign just proves how cynical we have gotten in America" and last but not least "what a b*tch."

In Hillary’s defense the media hasn’t been easy on her. It seems like everyone from the Today Show anchors to Saturday Night Live writers are taking pot shots at her.

Still it seems like Hillary could have picked something other than his support of hopes and dreams to parody and poke fun at. This only exaggerates her persona as a domineering and heartless being. To be honest, I had a very clear analogy in my head as I watched this clip. I couldn’t help but think of Maleficent from Walt Disney’s 1959 adaptation of Sleeping Beauty.

But not right now

The Baltimore Sun reports:

In New Orleans earlier, Clinton offered her regrets for any hard feelings stemming from husband Bill Clinton's comments comparing Obama to the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Yet, when asked about that, all the senator would say is: “I’ll have more to say about that some day, but not right now."

Does she really mean: "I'll have more to say about that when my advisors tell me what to say"?

Scientology Silliness

An online group known only as Anonymous has been hacking away at Scientology for a few weeks now. They even arranged protests outside Scientology churches.


The green masks and the word XENU partially visible on the far right poster are a reference to the figure in the Scientology religion who supposedly was a dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy," brought billions to Earth in an airplane-like spacecraft 75 million years ago, and killed them, leaving their souls to haunt people today and cause us spiritual harm.

From a rhetorical standpoint, I find it interesting the mere word XENU has become an argument. The word singlehandedly evokes laughter in many. "What? They believe in some alien named XENU? XENU???" Scientologists attempt to keep the Xenu story secret--I believe it became public through some documents entered into evidence in court--but protestors bring up the word as a way of ridiculing Scientology. Even one of the most prominent websites attacking Scientology, Operation Clambake, took xenu as its domain name ( www.xenu.net ).

Obama on Pakistan

Obama made an interesting statement last August:

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

Controversy followed. Is Obama too strong on terrorism, too weak, or like the fabled porridge, just right?

The statement itself struck me as almost tautological. (A tautology, if I'm not mistaken, is a statement where the predicate means the same as the subject; for instance, "a bachelor is an unmarried male.") You can interpret Obama's statement as: "If we have intelligence worthy of action, we will act." Well, no kidding! The key part, of course, is about acting regardless of Pakistani president Musharraf's position. But I still think Obama got himself into a trap with the tangle of words he used.

McCain vs. Obama - that is, Cindy McCain vs. Michelle Obama

Here's something you don't always see in a presidential race - the wives going at it! Well, sort of. Last Tuesday, Cindy McCain introduced her husband at a campaign event, saying, "I am proud of my country. I don't know about you, if you heard those words earlier - I am very proud of my country."

This is being viewed as a blatant response to a comment Michelle Obama made the day before, saying, "For the first time in my life, I am really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback... not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

What interests me more so than the comments themselves is the reaction that followed. Apparently this has become something of a "controversy," and both Cindy and Michelle have made statements to the effect of saying that they didn't mean what it sounded like they said.

On Monday, Obama's spokesperson covered Michelle's tracks, saying, "Of course Michelle is proud of her country, which is why she and Barack talk constantly about how their story wouldn't be possible anywhere on Earth."

I see this is a very bad rhetorical strategy. First off, Michelle herself isn't commenting, making it seem like someone else realized this was a bad political move and scrambled to correct it for her. Second, the fact remains that she said she was proud of America "for the first time in her life." If you're going to say something like that, stick behind it at least, and don't have a spokesperson correct it - I think it makes Obama seem just a little catty, not to mention either incapable or unwilling to address her own mistakes.

McCain isn't much better - she showed her own claws when she responded to Obama's in he first place. In an interview, she denied this, saying, "I just wanted to make the statement that I  have and always will be proud of my country." At least she commented on the issue herself - still, its obvious that she was responding to Obama, and would not have said this had Obama not made her remark.

All in all I think this snippy little exchange is totally unnecessary and unrelated to the election at hand. The race is between the candidates, and snippy little comments from the wives aren't going to strengthen anybody's case - all they're going to do is make the wives in question look like a couple of high school girls. The men are taking low blows already - the wives could at least be civil about the whole thing. I think this did absolutely no good rhetorically. Neither McCain nor Obama cited a relevant social issue - save Obama's regurgitation of that whole "change" thing - and McCain's snapping back was completely unnecessary. I appreciate the support for their husbands, but come on, let's make women look reputable and educated, not catty and childish.

A Wise Choice for Romney

(So apparently my post didn't go through last week... sorry... here we go again)

I've been pondering Mitt Romney's withdrawal from the presidential race since his exit after disappointing Super Tuesday defeats. I thought Romney was a decent candidate - he was experienced, which for me counts for a lot, and supported true conservative values. I was extremely confused and disappointed when he resigned, or in my opinion, gave up, after stating that he would be persevering throughout the race. That sure didn't last long, did it?

After thinking about Romney's decision, however, I think his strategy was a wise one. Although he may not have thought either of the other Republican candidates ideal, they supported Republican values. Romney would rather see his party win than see himself win, and so by resigning, the votes that would have gone to him will now go to one of the other GOP candidates, possibly swaying the election against Obama or Clinton.

Honestly, I don't think the guy had a chance, anyway. It's a shame, but I think his religion had a lot to do with it. I'm familiar with the Mormon religion, and many Christians do not take kindly to it. Whether their views are valid is another debate entirely, but I think it's a bit sad that a man's religion - Christian religion - could actually lose an election for him. Now, the religion wasn't entirely to blame, but it did play a role.

Bloggers seem to be pretty happy with Romney's resignation. I've seen some pretty nasty things - people calling him a shell of a candidate or simply a slick, attractive exterior. I don't agree with this, but I do agree that Romney probably didn't have a chance. And with a good part of America feeling dissatisfied with the Republican party, Romney made the right choice in securing more votes for one of his Republican running mates, hopefully.

McDonalds McDonalds!

http://www.adbusters.org/abtv/archives.php

Too often in society we see others become persuaded by social influence, we become victims to it, and watch our friends and loved ones get sucked in. However, how far is too far when it comes to national food chains influencing our children from the age as early as three.

The song goes something like: Taco Bell and Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Pizza Hut with a chorus of McDonalds McDonalds! There are arm movements that serve as descriptions from each Kentucky Fried Chicken= flapping arms, Pizza Hut= one circle and McDonalds=a Big M with the arms.

This advertisement found on adbusters is a classic. I will have to preface this by saying, this is not a new technique formulated by fast food chains in an attempt to brainwash young minds. This is a very intentional dive into the parents consumerism now, and the children’s consumerism to come. I remember singing this song at preschool as a young girl, and apparently this is still a song that has been solid in being rehearsed for over 20 years.

It goes without saying, the United States is a society that is highly influenced by advisements and nothing from our childhood could really be that bad, that is why when I hear McDonalds or Burger King I do not attribute these words with a negative connotation. These are words I have heard in a positive light all of my life, Ronald McDonald was at my fourth birthday party, I used to have a Burger King Crown I would wear when I ate my chicken nuggets. It is a genius move for advertisers to instill these names and ideas in the minds of children, things learned at a young age stick, it is proven in the learning of new languages as an adult, and it is also true of life habits, it is also a fact that where you would like to go eat has something to do with remembering as a child loving the beef and cheese burrito at Taco Bell.

Health critics and Doctors can say what they will say. Sometimes, people do not choose to go to a restaurant or fast food chain because it tastes good, sometimes it is as simple as the place being familiar, always being there and always maintaining the same look or flavor. Our childhood memories have a lot to do with the way we react to anything; certain people, men or women, different languages, dogs, dances, sports, literally anything.

The Propaganda Remix Project

If You're Not a Terrorist... Then Stop Asking Questions! is described by amazon.com as "the hilarious follow-up to Micah Wright's hit debut, You Back The Attack! We'll Bomb Who We Want! Wright creates a stellar send-up of the Administration's War at Home, combining "remixed" full-color World War-era propaganda posters with critical political commentary to deliver a scabrous take on the State of the Union. Taking aim at corporate corruption, the Bush White House, Ashcroftian legislation, embedded reporters, the 2004 presidential elections and super-patriotism, this is a must for art collectors and rabble-rousers both."

His website has a veriety of "remixed" posters from the World War-era. The most recent posters attack the issues of privacy that have come to the attention of America with the implementation of the Patriot Act. With it the National Security Agency has secretly amassed call records of tens of millions of Americans obtained from AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth. It also gave way to the expanded use of "National Security Letters," which allow the FBI to search telephone, email and financial records without a court order. Many Americans are torn by feelings of betrayl by their government while wanting to do what is "best for the country."

On Wright's website he has a section for "hate mail" in which he has a public discourse with readers on the internet who disagree with his position. This creates an interesting dialogue that at times seems like little more than a pissing contest. So often people are looking for something to bad mouth or fight against simply to have something to fight against. While personally I find Wright's posters slightly unsettling, I can certainly appreciate the sarcasm and dark humor behind them.

Appeals to Black Parishioners

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/10/bill-clinton-appeals-to-black-parishioners-to-pick-a-female-candidate/

There have been several news reports focusing on presidential candidates: fact. I have also tuned into several news reports of the former President Clinton speaking at rallies, debates, churches, schools, big cities and small towns on behalf of his other half, Hillary Rodham. As the Democratic campaign seems to be getting more intense between Hillary and Obama, I believe many Democrats are torn. However, a determining factor in this election that The Clinton’s appear to be cognizant of is the difference between black and white.
I never thought that in my lifetime the election would more or less come down to a woman and a black man. I think it is about time, change is the only constant and the United States needs it more than ever, in a time of confusion, conflict, and war. I do not claim to be politically savvy by any means, but the direction and change we have come to encounter is a negative one. I think a fresh vision from a fresh gender or color might cleanse out this system that has been tainted by personal agenda’s, or the “good ole boy system.”
I think it is safe to say President Clinton’s run in the office was one of great stride, one that was appreciated and commended by citizens, without touching on the personal side of it.
Just as Black citizens have suffered through their hardships, I think it proves a good case that women have and still do face their own set of hardships in a “man’s world.” This, I think will be one of the most persuasive reasons black citizens will vote for Hillary, as a woman she has faced her “male dominated world” of the “glass ceiling effect”, low respect from her male counterparts, etc.
Bill Clinton has been favorable among black citizens of the United States ever since his presidency. He was successful enough in his education endeavors and housing plans to where he proves to have credibility with several minority groups. He understands as this race comes closer and closer the black vote will be so important, this could make or break Hillary’s presidency.
I believe this is such a good rhetorical move on the former President Clinton’s part. He has created a situation for black voters creating urgency to elect his wife because of her fabulous initiatives of housing, education, and health care.
He does touch on the fact that this decision for the black community is a “God-given dilemma.” I think that Clinton is effective in his presentation to the black community especially going to their churches, where he can have an effect on the pathos of his audience. At the end I think it is even greater that he encourages this audience to think and pray about their choice, using God terms is always an effective form of persuasion.

War on "Terror" / Obama on Faith

Many construe the laws allowing warrantless wiretapping, sneak and peek searches, and the like as "temporary measures" to win the "War on Terror" -- hence the need to renew and renew the laws.

Regardless of whether the laws are appropriate, they can't be temporary measures to win a war on terror. Such a war is by definition unwinnable. How can you defeat "terror"? There's always going to be terror.

The phrase "War on Terror" reminds me of "The Book" from 1984. In the novel the protagonist Winston reads a secret book, "The Book." It details the Inner Party's administration's conviction that the war they wage must never be won in order for them to maintain control over society.

/

In 2006 Obama gave a keynote address addressing the role of faith in politics -- specifically, the role of his faith in making decisions as a government official. He said his faith underpins his morals, and morals necessarily underpin law; therefore, he considers his faith when making decisions. This appeals to (many) conservatives. At the same time, he says any morals underpinning laws need to suit everyone's values, from atheist to believer. In other words, it doesn't matter that he brings his faith to his position. That appeals to (many) progressives.

Clever way to appease both sides.

Hilary Lends Major $$ to Her Own Campaign

The New York Times reports that Hilary Clinton is considering funding her campaign from her own pocket - again. Apparently the democratic hopeful already shelled out a cool $5 mil to her campaign, and after the draining primary elections that have taken place recently, she's decided to fund her campaign further.

I may not be the most politically informed, but I wasn't entirely sure candidates could do this. I thought campaigns were funded solely by donors. Apparently not. Furthermore, I wasn't aware the the Clintons were multi-millionaires of such stature, although that doesn't really surprise me. Still, it makes me wonder where Clinton actually got the money. At her news conference this afternoon, Clinton stated "I loaned the campaign $5 million from my money. That's where I got the money..." So what's happening with the money from the donors? Are they expected to loan the money back to her? That seems a little underhanded.

Still, I'm not here to bash Hilary - I suppose if she's really got $5 million lying around she can do with it what she pleases. I find all of this interesting in light of the recent democratic obsession with this idea of "change." Change the country, change the war, change the dominant political party, if that's all it really means... They want change. But from what I see, racing to have the most expensive campaign isn't really helping America socially, or enacting any sort of change at all.

We're looking at an economic recession, yet politicians decide to throw $5 million into their own campaigns - and then consider more? I'm hearing a lot of rhetoric regarding change and not really seeing much to back it up. Obama has stirring speeches and the backing of America's youth, and Hilary consistently addresses the nation's issues and offers promises for change, but I'm just not seeing a lot of in it action. Perhaps I would be more swayed if I saw such immense sums of money going somewhere more useful than Hilary's campaign - which should already be funded.

As a political moderate, I'd like hear something come out of the Democrats' mouths besides "Change, change, change." Like I said, I may not be the most informed, but the fact that I've only heard the same argument has to mean something. Yes, this is America, yes, we like change. But if I'm going to cast my vote on the hope of change, I want to see some evidence of it first. It's easy to say you're going to do something - the actual doing is a whole different matter entirely.

Mayor Newsom creates a rhetorical situation

It is always interesting the night before “Super Tuesday” that people of power, those that have a voice in society and can mandate change, put themselves in the media spotlight in order to “take sides.” Mayor Gavin Newsom, the Mayor of San Francisco stands as the rhetor in this situation, creating and translating a text that he claims occurred between him and Obama, generating a situation that elicits a general response from the American public (namely the voters), as well as a negative response from the gay and lesbian community. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/05/BAM5US1B5.DTL

This whole controversy started as members of the gay community have been supporting Obama for years, at fund raisers and such, to then be “shunned”, coincidently refusing to take pictures with the gay Mayor Newsom after an event the gay supporters of San Francisco had worked very hard on. Not once, but twice.

There is an argument provided by the former Senator of San Francisco Willie Brown stating Obama told him “He would really appreciate if he didn’t get his photo taken with my mayor, with mayor Gavin.”

There is such a sense of resentment in this article, a feeling that Obama not only deserted them, but shunned them as a part of society that was no profitable to him, therefore a seemingly worthless effort.

It is also very suspicious on the part of the Mayor of San Francisco to come out with this discontentment of Obama the day leading into Super Tuesday, a day in which most voters understand to be ground breaking in politics as far as the Republican and Democratic nominees are concerned.
Mayor Gavin Newsom is acting towards the support of a gay audience, trying to influence their vote of Obama, making him sound like a fake and one whom is unsupportive of the entire gay community. The argument here is that Obama does not support gay rights, and what the public sees of any positive gay stance is all fake. Mayor Newsom states "I believe in his leadership qualities, and I look forward to voting for him," "In eight years."

The supporting reasons are held the texts exchanged back and forth from Obama and Gavin, as well as from the former Mayor of San Francisco, Mr. Willie Brown.

There is a clear strategy from the Hillary supporters on cable and satellite t.v. as well as the gay community that has sided with her. Mayor Newsom has even intentionally changed his vote to Hillary, shortly after this dialogue occurred. This snub looks to be the whole reason why Mayor Newsom has flipped to the Hillary side, and through Newsom’s discourse and rhetoric, it is clear that old wounds take time to heal. I do not believe Newsom has taken allegiance with Hillary Clinton as a “case of repayment of political favors.” This is a typical case of someone still holding pent-up resentment for a candidate’s personal “snub.” If the gay community sees this as well, he may not be as effective as he was trying to be. Who is to judge if this comment was personal or not, as is stated within the story, “Obama takes pictures with gay people all of the time.”

Hillary gets Emotional

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/02/04/sot.clinton.personal.cnn?iref=videosearch


Hillary Clinton visited Yale University Monday, and experienced a moment quite similar to her very popular visit in the New Hampshire Primary. She became emotional and became teary eyed again, showing her human side, a side that is much debated of the media and every political figure in this race. Clinton was introduced by a lawyer that worked with her back in her college days at Yale.

It must be really hard for a woman in the presidential candidacy with all of these men everywhere. Hillary has kept her composure modestly. She is debating and defending herself and her beliefs day in and day out. This is the first time a woman has come into her skin and really given America and her competition a run for their money.

We see this video and hear Penn Rhodeen, her mentor says "Here is the abiding truth we know — you have always been a champion for children. Welcome home, dear friend. We are so proud of you."

Clinton’s eyes reflected red and became watery as she said "Well, I said I would not tear up; already we're not exactly on the path." Hillary Clinton has had the hardest time in the candidacy as far as I am concerned. If America is questioning her candidacy I would wonder why, because it could not be her resilience, courage, strength, or knowledge. After finally hearing praise for her efforts and works, she showed her human “womanly” self, I think this is important to see; it shows she is real, feels real things and understands them.

After all of the criticism Hillary has been undergoing for years, even while Mr. Clinton was in office, do you blame her?

From President Bush’s current approval rating, I believe it is safe to say the country wants something different. He hardly gets emotional, usually just has a smirk and a deep look in the eyes. However the media chooses to frame this, which will be in mostly negative ways, I believe through the expression of her emotions, Hillary is offering a discontent America something very different for a president in 2009.

Misshapen Union 2008

While President Bush’s address to the nation on January 28 was informative and inspiring a recent google search has left me a little skeptical of our nations condition. In hoping to find the transcript for the 2008 State of the Union Address the first site that came up was “The State of the Union Address Drinking Game 2008.” Aside from the fact that the official website for the State of the Union Address was third on the list, I find it interesting how many of my classmates admitted to not even being aware that it had taken place. For those of you who fall into this category you can read the transcript here.

Nevertheless the rhetorical practices were at work the night of the 28th. It was an uplifting speech that spent time justifying the war in Iraq while putting a positive spin on the future of our economy as well as criticizing the congress for things the public loathes like tax hikes and loading up bills that will help Americans. Framing arguments for the war by using terminology like war on terror and describing Iraqis as jubilant and courageous due no doubt to our presence there.

In reading popular blogs I found that most people were unimpressed by President Bush’s Address while simultaneously agreeing that the state of our nation is relatively strong. While it is impossible to ignore the fact that someday the USA will no longer be the super-nation of the world it seems hard to see it on the horizon. College students often have a reputation for making intellectual complaints about politicians and the state of our nation while doing nothing to help enact change. My hope is that young people will seriously research the candidates for the upcoming election and make informed decisions when going to the polls.

The Persuaders

The PBS Documentary "The Persuaders" revealed the inner workings of the advertising business, bringing to light a very strange and illogical world. This documentary made me realize the absurdity of America's consumer culture. We live in a world where we are defined by the products we buy. Associations regarding the status and worth of individuals are made by observing the commodities said individuals consume. For this, I blame the advertising industry and their ridiculous obsession with creating a "deep connection" between consumers and the products these advertisers are trying to sell. It is an illogical connection that shouldn't hold true, but it does.

I felt a tiny pang of guilt when I saw the motley crew of Apple customers sitting around the table discussing their affinity towards their product. I could completely see myself there, praising this ridiculous corporation that appeals to me only because they've marketed their computers and ipods and other technologies for the hip, creative crowd - much more me than those ponderous old PC's. I am an example of marketing success, feeling tied to a certain brand for no reason other than good advertising. Now, I won't be giving up my Mac anytime soon, but it got me thinking.

How often does this person-to-brand bond thing actually take place? I used to own a Volkswagen Beetle, before the stupid thing broke down and got turned into scrap metal. I didn't buy this car because of the horsepower or the fuel efficiency or any of that - I bought it for the look, to be the happy little girl driving the happy little car. Apparently I wasn't alone. They had entire Beetle conventions, where people who drove these bugs converged like Trekkies to talk about their cars. (For the record, I never went to one - I saw an internet article and happened to look at it out of sheer curiosity, promise.) The people who went to these conventions weren't brought together through any intellectual connection. Friendships forged there were made of nothing of substance. All that brought these consumers together was the fact that they had fallen for the same marketing scheme. Suckers, all. And none of us are any better.

The idea of the "reptilian brain" seems a little far fetched. I'd like to think that humans have advanced past the point of needing to have the biggest cave or the nicest rock to feel powerful (I'm trying to allude to cavemen here, bear with me), but our cave and rock have become our Hummer and Louis Vuitton. Everyone who can have the best, wants it, because everyone wants to be in the position of power. Advertisers have outsmarted all of us, tapping into our most basic nature, reducing us down to animals. The sad part is, these tactics worked - they've outsmarted all of us, and in doing so, have reduced us down to being nothing more than labels.

In the end of "The Producers," it was said that "noise" was no longer an issue - this abundance of advertising simply blends with everything else in our life, becoming an innate part of it. This film had made me wonder where we would be if advertisers hadn't so successfully woven commodities into our very definitions of self worth. What would be bond over? What food or music or cars or games would we talk about when meeting new people? There would be nothing. We would lose the very means by which we define ourselves and others. America embraces a consumer culture in every sense. We are nothing if not the products that we buy.

The Persuaders

The PBS documentary The Persuaders criticized advertisers for deceptive and destructive practices. For example, one of its experts argued "once a culture becomes entirely advertising-friendly, it ceases to be a culture at all."

Well, I find consumerism and commercials as obnoxious as the next person -- probably more; I don't watch TV -- but this expert's quote seems more catchy than helpful. I suppose once a culture becomes entirely friendly to anything, it loses some culture since dissenting voices disappear. But that's obvious enough; so, what the expert really seems to be saying is something like: "The more friendly to advertising a culture becomes, the less of a culture it is."

That doesn't seem true to me. Isn't advertising just part of particular cultures? I hate to assume I know what the expert "really" means, but taking the entire documentary as context, it seems what the guy really wanted to get across was that advertising, at least enough of it, is bad.

I think advertising's "bad," too. I wish advertisers would spend more time articulating why their particular product is better than others instead of trying to make the consumer feel a spiritual bond with their product. I wish advertising wasn't everywhere (the documentary mentioned ads placed inside golf holes) so I could look at more interesting things and not feel bombarded by other people's messages. But I don't think -- as the documentary seemed to want me to -- that advertising sinks hooks into my subconscious that it uses to pull me to inevitably do certain things. I'm sure advertising influences me to some degree, and I definitely think the emphasis on consumption in the United States takes our attention away from more important things, but why place all the blame on the advertisers? They wouldn't have the means to advertise if it weren't for the people buying their products.