Archive for May, 2010

Why you should really go right on ahead and boycott Arizona Iced Tea

Saturday, May 1st, 2010

I see the Arizona brand Iced Tea fracus hasn’t been hashed out with venom on wikipedia.  But it is summarized reasonably well thusly:

After the passage of Arizona SB1070, a controversial anti-illegal immigration measure, many businesses associated with the state of Arizona faced protests and boycotts. A tongue-in-cheek post to Twitter calling Arizona Iced Tea “the drink of Fascists” fueled reports of a boycott of Arizona-brand beverages.[5][6][7] In reaction to this, the company posted to its Twitter account that “AriZona is and always has been a NY based company! (BORN IN BKLYN ’92)”[8]

All right and fantastic!

I’m not going to say anything particularly good about a “Boycott”, but I will say this against Arizona Tea.  You can’t get yourself off that easily, with a “BORN IN BKLYN” tweet.   (Hm?  REPRESENT!!!! ?)
You named your tea “Arizona”, because somehow or other the association would aid sales.  Something about a Southwestern mileu rolling into an image of iced tea.  But now that that’s done, you are going to have to take the bad with the good.

You didn’t name your tea “Brooklyn Tea”.

Hell.  Yes, horrible law and all that, but don’t Boycott the state of Arizona (incidentally, you know what Mexico does to undocumenteds who come in from south of its border?) , but do BOYCOTT ARIZONA TEA!!!!!  And do so until they finally relent and change their name to “Brooklyn Tea”.

Oil Politics and Your Stinker of the Moment.

Saturday, May 1st, 2010

Hey!  Remember this?  From about the time where we see the now ironic Obama quote about, you know, “It turns out off-shore drilling is safe”.  Here he found that nice little Centrist position, what with the Republicans having found the new right-wing position of  no concern “Drill, Baby, Drill“.

Remember how Mark Ambinder put it all, into political anaylsis, jump completely away from policy analysis?

It’s high-reward, low-risk; environmentalists will complain, but then again, environmentalists complain.  Aside from the substance, which is beyond our ken, the politics of this move is easy:

… The environmentalists complaining having mooted effect on policy coming, in some part, from everything being analyzed in this manner.

How does one define “low risk” anyway?

Also, why can’t we carve out something to tack to from our invented “right” that’d lead in a different direction — maybe somewhere around George W Bush warning that “America is addicted to Oil.”?
Then maybe some dead weight in the climage bill (wait a session) can be cleared out.