Nicole’s post on the “Red” campaign reminded me of an important holiday that’s just around the corner. Nope, not Hallowe’en, but Buy Nothing Day (November 23rd).

Celebrated on the day after American Thanksgiving (one of the busiest shopping days of the year in the US), Buy Nothing Day is a “concentrated display of consumer power”, demonstrated by not consuming. It is loosely structured around the idea that the “First World” is far too shopping-centric, and that we could stand to take (at least) one day off to consider the implications and alternatives to that way of life.

Buy Nothing Day is a Canadian concoction (that’s right you proud Canucks, hug that moose and say something in French). It is the brainchild of Vancouver artist Ted Dave and has been carried on and promoted by Adbusters magazine.

One of the best parts of Buy Nothing Day (BND) is that you can (and are encouraged) to fill-in-the-blanks for yourself. If you’re on board with the basic premise (overconsumption = bad), you can define how and what you want to do about it — and share your ideas with others (BND is celebrated in Canada and internationally).

It can be surprisingly hard to observe Buy Nothing Day. The less “seeing-the-world-the-way-it-could-be” among us may give you a hard time, or you might surprise yourself with how unconscious your consuming can be. This will be my third year of marking Buy Nothing Day, and I’ve been surprised each year with the resistance to the concept (from others, and from me). This has mostly taken the form of people nitpicking the “rules” of Buy Nothing Day, as in: “So if I have to buy groceries, does that mean I didn’t observe Buy Nothing Day?”; “What if I get a coffee?”; “You take the TTC to work, that means you bought something…”. But it has also been me sabotaging myself with the false urgency of shopping (“if I don’t get it today, they’ll be out of it by tomorrow!”). Or finding myself at an online store with that book I’ve been wanting in my basket, mouse hovering over the “Complete Checkout!” button before my brain can return and kick me for forgetting the BND occasion…

One of the ways to head that off is planning in advance, and participating even more explicitly. Get a group of friends together who are going to mark this with you. Volunteer to hook up with a group already doing something in your area. Adbusters hosts a web campaign headquarters to encourage the submission and coordination on your ideas for how to celebrate/mark/rabble rouse. They’re ramping up for 2006 now, and you can drop them an email at bnd@adbusters.org and let them know what you’re going to do (plans, posters, photos). There is also a newsletter you can sign up for which will help you stay informed on what’s going on in your area.

You can check out the ideas and successes of last year’s events at Adbuster’s 2005 BND page. For further inspiration, here’s a link to one of Adbuster’s Buy Nothing Day ads on YouTube. And finally, the international BND site tagline sums up the whole idea rather nicely:
“The one day a year we turn off the economy and talk about it.”

I am still trying decide what to make of this new “Red” campaign launched by Bono this week, in which major retailers like the Gap, Apple and Armani are selling red-coloured T-shirts, iPods and sunglasses and donating a portion of the proceeds to The Global Fund to Fight AIDS. News media have been gushing with details of Oprah and Bono’s shopping trip down the Magnificent Mile in Chicago, picking up Red items and feeling amazing about saving the world.

I have a few issues with this kind of “activism,” mainly that shopping can hardly affect any sort of radical change, and if these corps care so much, why don’t they just donate a large chunk of cash directly to the Fund, rather than Apple donating $10 of a $200 iPod? The reasons are obvious, which is why this type of activism is so heavily promoted by corporations (see: any pink item marketed to raise money for breast cancer).

On the other hand, while raising money this way is problematic for the way in which it frames political, social and economic issues like AIDS as a matter of consumption, what’s wrong with people who are going to buy these expensive items anyway sending some money to an important place? Even though this is a good cause, so to speak, the whole thing makes me feel uncomfortable. The Nation‘s Richard Kim has a very well-put position on this, take a look.

Ive always been skeptical of American Apparel, the L.A.-based chain that sells plain clothes that claim to be sweatshop free, marketed to hipsters through often creepy, sexed-up photos of supposed real people, sold in stores that claim to be community galleries.

Before opening actual stores, AA sold blank T-shirts in bulk to bands who, concerned about selling merch made in sweatshops, could print their logo/image/photos on them to sell at shows. When stores proper started opening, a big deal was made about the companys political mandate: cool (overpriced) clothes with a conscious. However, it quickly became apparent that the politics of AAs notorious, obnoxious owner, Dov Charney, were disingenuous.

While its true that AAs clothes are manufactured in downtown L.A., where employees earn about $12 an hour on average (as opposed to most of the U.S.s clothing, which is manufactured in countries where labour can be exploited for much lower wages), AA is hostile to employees organizing for job security and against the speed of work and layoffs. When employees tried to form a union, the company unleashed an intimidation campaign that mirrored the aggressive union-busting techniques of other major manufacturers (this may not be surprising considering that Charney got his first real job when he crossed a picket line to work during a postal workers strike.)

And then there are Charneys sexist antics, which have been widely reported. This includes the companys exclusive hiring practices in its stores, Charney masturbating in front of a reporter interviewing him for Jane magazine, and three sexual harassment suits filed against him by former female employees.

Theres more, and some of these issues and contradictions about AA are covered in a great spread in Clamor magazine.

As you may have heard recently, the Conservative government has done some major damage to groups working for women’s rights and social justice in Canada.

Stephen Harper and Beverley Oda, Minister of Heritage and Status of Women, slashed 40 percent ($5 million) of Status of Women Canada’s administrative budget, removed references to “equality” from its mandate and have made it so that groups that lobby or do advocay work (hello? that’s a major part of feminist activism) don’t get federal funds.

This will have a terrible impact on groups across the country working on important issues: “These actions represent a serious attack on the sole federal department engaged in monitoring and promoting women’s equality and women’s rights in Canada, and the organizations it supports,” say Audra Williams and Pam Kapoor, who have set up Statusreport.ca, a site dedicated to raising awareness of SWC and related issues.

What I like about the site is the “What to do” section, which has concrete steps you can take on the ground and online to do something — it quells the slight feeling of helplessness (and naseau) this news induces.

Theres an interesting article (more inside…)

Hopefully you’ve all seen this story: a new study found that women who have implants have a higher chance of committing suicide (but a lower chance of getting cancer) compared to women who havent had breast augmentation (or whatever euphemism you want to use).

You can find other news stories in other publications, but most stories that I saw on the net failed to explain how breast implants could actually lead to a lower rate of deaths from cancer. This article is careful to add:

According to the researchers, this lower mortality rate is not the result of breast augmentation, but rather of bias in the type of women electing to have surgery. “First, a woman must be in relatively good health to undergo breast implant surgery…Also, women who receive breast implants tend to be of higher-than-average socioeconomic status. Thus, women who undergo breast augmentation surgery are more likely to be in better health than the general population.”

The fact that women with breast implants have higher rates of suicide may not be due to the effects of the implants themselves. It may be because women who want to have their bodies carved and sculpted by surgeons are more unhappy with themselves and with life in general.

But if you arent intuitively suspicious that stuffing bags of liquid plastic under your nipples isnt a good idea, you should be aware of the health risks as well as the advertising and public relations campaigns that have tried to make breast implants more appealing to the public.

Emily Schultz, former Broken Pencil editor and Joyland author, has a fantastic and innovative new writing project on the go, in collaboration with Toronto’s AGYU. The endeavor confesses that writers are indeed thieves, but rather than admitting this tactic as fault it instead fully embraces the fine art of stealing. Via the internet, Schultz asks the public to donate their undocumented moments for her own final creative product.

Here’s how she describes it on the Pledge Me site:

“Writer? Or thief? I steal from just about everyone who crosses my path. But my fear is that someone, someday, will recognize a very familiar description, moment, or trait that has cropped up in my work. To avoid a fingering from those who don’t wish to be stolen from I’ve created this website. I’m asking YOU to Pledge Me: stories you’re not using, moments gathering dust, or obsessions that don’t fit anymore. What you don’t need will help someone in need.

Your anonymous donation will be incorporated into a brand new work of fiction along with the memories and stories of other donors. The final product created from these donations will be published on the AGYU site for all to enjoy. Pledge now, and help keep fiction alive.”

The web launch of Pledge Me happened at AGYU on the 30th of September and was AGYU’s contribution to Scotiabank Nuit Blanche, but Schultz’s site continues to accept pledges for what I assume is an ongoing project. The resulting story is due to appear on the AGYU site.

Later this year visit the AGYU’s Curatorial Wing for Schultz’s second commissioned web project Watering the dark: A Curated Novel.

Sorry, I meant to post this a couple of weeks ago and it totally slipped through the cracks. At a fashion show in Spain two weeks ago a number of models were rejected for being too thin. Finally.

What do you guys think of this? An Australian study has found that a woman with post-secondary education is slightly more likely to orgasm regularly. Do you buy it? If it is true, care to offer any explanations as to why?