Friday, April 04, 2008

Don't Drink Absolut

absolut

Question: can a foreign vodka be sold to Americans using an ad that insults America? For this ad is a multiculturalist slap at America. The idea that American land should be returned to Mexico is a fantasy of MEChA, a leftist organization of "Chicanos."

Don't give me the "Hey, lighten up -- it's a joke" line. It might be a joke (though not a terribly funny one), but it is a dishonest joke that uses humor to smuggle in a bad idea. The use of humor is not an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.

Born Again Redneck urges a boycott of Pernod, the company that owns Absolut. I'm with him, although I don't drink much anyway.

11 comments:

C. August said...

Based on the text at the bottom left, it looks like this must be a scan from a "latino" magazine. I guess even a group of "edgy" marketers wouldn't decide to print that in a US magazine... maybe.

It's weird that the main text -- "In An Absolut World" -- is English.

Either way, this really ticks me off. I don't like Vodka much, and avoid Absolut anyway because it isn't any good (Svedka is a great substitute for Grey Goose if you want to spend 1/3 the price) but my rambling point is that I can't effectively boycott something I never buy.

But I would if I could.

Looking at the map again, just imagine if the collectivists of Mexico ran everything up to Washington state. What an unbelievable waste of property. Does anyone think that a city like LA or San Francisco would exist in Mexican lands? It would be a wasteland of little dives, with a couple of sprawling hellholes on the coast, soaking up US tourism dollars while producing nothing.

I know this isn't the point, but it's an interesting thought experiment to wonder what a different society might (or might not) do with the same natural resources.

Patrick Joubert Conlon said...

As the old saw goes: "Many a truth is spoken in jest." This "joke" shows how fashionable anti-Americanism is. It's disgusting. Give me old-time real communists any day over these corporate opportunists who suck up to the pothead hippie commies to make money.

david said...

And the idiots at Absolut aren't even being honest -- if they REALLY wanted to indulge their anti-American, anti-freedom bias, they would have painted the continent in the pre-colonization mode -- nothing but "Native Americans" living in "absolut" peace and harmony, at one with Mother Nature, etc.

Galileo Blogs said...

I never did drink Absolut. Now I know I never will. For a few years, after the fall of Communism I used to drink Stoli, which I like, but I won't drink that any more now that Vladimir "Stalin-lite" Putin has turned Russia into an enemy of America.

I am not a big vodka drinker, but I do like it. Where does that leave me? Any suggestions? I am looking for an Objectivist politically-correct vodka. No joke, I am serious. I will consider vodka from any country or firm that is not overtly hostile to our country or the values it stands for. But, it's got to be good vodka!

Anonymous said...

Auster has commented on this as well:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010301.html
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010305.html
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010304.html

Of course all the qualifiers with a Christian conservative like Auster apply but there is some interesting info about the ad buried in the comments to his site. Interesting note here is that the conservatives are going to see this through their anti-immigrant, anti-latino filters.

John Kim

Grant Jones said...

This is interesting in the context of ARI's view that the United States should erase its borders due to our moral obligation to import the entire third-world. A hostile foreign government is consciously engaged in a form of warfare (demographic) in order to deprive the United States of its sovereignty over large tracts of territory.

Ayn Rand was an immigrant. She also respected and abided by American law and acquired citizenship legally. I don't know of her ever stating that American immigration laws were a violation of her rights. In the final analysis this issue is NOT about economics.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5138

Anonymous said...

"This is interesting in the context of ARI's view that the United States should erase its borders due to our moral obligation to import the entire third-world."

That's not ARI's argument. The better Objectivists are open-immigration but not open-borders. There is a role for government to play in screening immigrants and in conjunction with a rational foreign policy, temporary restriction of Muslims would also be allowed. But ARI and Binswanger (who I think you were referring to) deal with the fundamental pro-immigration arguments based on the rights of man (not on simple economics). They have not gotten in to all the details involved. Also, in today's context, multi-culturalism and socialism make a rational immigration policy impossible. But ARI is not dealing with advocating stop-gap measures for a mixed economy. They are in the business of advocating for the ideal, for the *ought* not the *is* which makes it appropriate for them to argue for open immigration as an ideal to strive for. So your characterization of them as altruists is grossly unjust.

John Kim

Jim May said...

Ayn Rand was an immigrant. She also respected and abided by American law and acquired citizenship legally.

She certainly paid her taxes as well -- so are you going to tell us that she was really a supporter of government theft?

Grant Jones said...

Jim can you provide a quote from Rand stating that American immigration laws are a violation of the rights of foreign nationals to cross international frontiers whenever and wherever they want?

Anonymous, I am also in favor of "liberal" immigration laws. Objectivism doesn't support ideal versus real dichotomy. As I understand Biddle's argument, ARI is in favor of erasing the border now, not in some distance future when it may make sense (which I doubt will ever occur). In order for such a policy to make any sense, the U.S. would first have to eradicate the welfare state and more importantly completely repudiate multiculturalism. During the 19th century all immigrants were expected to assimilate into the American culture. David Hackett Fisher in "Albion's Seed" notes that the success of massive immigration was predicated on the immigrants (including African slaves) assimilating into one of four English "folkways." Unless that happens the U.S. will Balkanize into hostile tribes and go down the tubes. Jim might check out "Global Balkanization" on that score.

Anonymous said...

Grant,

Craig Biddle addressed your argument which essentially is "I believe in freedom but just not now." All the problems which you attribute to immigrants are actually caused by statism and multiculturalism. So why attack immigrants for the pathologies of the West? Why not attack those pathologies?

The Conservative arguments against immigration are all flawed. They use socialist protectionist arguments saying "Immigrants are taking our jobs" which has been refuted hundreds of times going back two centuries. They use racialist arguments saying that non-European, non-Asian immigrants are "low IQ" peoples with no or limited "civilizational capabilities." They use socialist arguments to blame corporations for pursuing "cheap labor" instead of attacking gov't regulation. They say Mexican immigrants are violent criminals instead of attacking the victimless crime laws which cause all the crime. They fear Islamic immigrants and want to turn America into a sealed up fortress instead of wanting to wage ruthless "non-Christian" war against hostile Islamic states.

So exactly which of the Conservative arguments are you impressed by? And why attack ARI and call them "altruistic" which is beyond absurd?

John Kim

Jim May said...

Why do you need a quote from Rand? The argument against immigration laws is clearly laid out by Binswanger -- outside of securing the rights of those already within the borders, immigration law contradicts the principle of individual rights..

As far as whether the immigration laws should be phased out instead of simply dropped immediately, I'm open to arguments on that score. (In certain cases of bad law, such as repealing taxation, abolishing the welfare state, and the privatization of government property, we have no choice but to phase them out over time). I am inclined to question how we could keep out or quarantine sick people at the borders if there weren't some kind of checkpoint there.

But the grounds for making that case do not lie in asking whether Ayn Rand said something about the specific case of immigration law (AFAIK she didn't). She laid out the principles that invalidate them -- it's up to us to make the application.