<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Consumerism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/consumerism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 13:20:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Is it ethical to drive stick?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/is_it_ethical_to_drive_stick/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/is_it_ethical_to_drive_stick/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 15:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumerism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12920113</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[More drivers are buying manual transmissions -- a boon for auto sentimentalists but bad news for the environment]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ever since I first watched my dad drive his chocolate brown Datsun 280 ZX back in the early 1980s, I've been inculcated to believe that driving -- true driving -- can only be performed with a stick shift. From that childhood experience, I came to see the manual transmission as a birthright passed down from my grandfather, to my father, and eventually to me via a series of tense, stall-filled lessons when I turned 16. In my case, after ripping apart the transmission one too many times, my dad went barking drill sergeant on me, eventually teaching me that a stick requires a special kind of focus, and that I needed to ease up more slowly on the clutch in order to get into first gear on those damn inclines. Through the experience, I learned to consider my stick-shifting skill a special talent with transcendent value.</p><p>Yes, of course, in the intervening years I've had the chance to drive an automatic transmission. But that has always felt a bit like playing a post-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konami_Code">Konami Code</a> game of Contra -- a bit too easy, a bit too idiot proof, a bit too, shall we say, inauthentic. On top of that, the automatic always seemed like a wasteful luxury because it always was more expensive and less fuel-efficient. That difference consequently added an ascetic populism to the inherent machismo of the engine-revving manual transmission.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/is_it_ethical_to_drive_stick/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/is_it_ethical_to_drive_stick/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>137</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can beer save America?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/can_beer_save_america/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/can_beer_save_america/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2012 15:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumerism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12915998</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The redemption of the economy may start with the type of brew you keep in your fridge]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The grand unifying theory of the American consumer has been that we are, first and foremost, low price fetishists. There’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Cheap-High-Cost-Discount-Culture/dp/159420215X">ample evidence</a> supporting this view: From Wal-Mart’s prominence to the fast food industry’s ongoing success, vast swaths of the economy are indeed built on the premise that buyers will prioritize discounts and quantity over premium prices and quality.</p><p>But ever so quietly, we are starting to see the rise and success of a competing vision, one that turns the old assumption on its head. In the technology arena, for instance, Apple is successfully challenging the PC world with a business model that convinces consumers to pay higher prices in exchange for better reliability, durability, efficiency and customer service. Likewise in the transportation world, more and more consumers are willing to pay higher prices upfront for hybrid and electric vehicles in exchange for the promise of lower long-term energy costs. This has encouraged companies like Philips to introduce <a href="http://www.slashgear.com/you-can-buy-a-20-year-light-bulb-for-as-low-as-25-22224061/">more expensive light bulbs</a>, in hopes that consumers will pay more for illumination that promises to use less electricity and last 20 years.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/can_beer_save_america/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/can_beer_save_america/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>61</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are all mega-chains the same?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/18/are_all_mega_chains_the_same/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/18/are_all_mega_chains_the_same/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumerism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12882361</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why an ethical consumer can trust Trader Joe's over Target]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two bursts of recent headlines here in Colorado had me feeling more than a wee bit conflicted. First came the news that the much-celebrated <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19768633">Trader Joe's is coming to our state</a>. Then came word that the Denver City Council had been <a href="http://kdvr.com/2012/02/29/target-wants-5-million-from-denver-or-it-will-abandon-tamarac-square-project/">threatened</a> into ponying up <a href="http://kdvr.com/2012/03/20/58663/">$5 million</a> in public funds to bring yet another Target to the Front Range.</p><p>Between my exuberant reaction to the first story and my disgust at hearing the second story, I wondered: Why did I feel psyched about one mega-chain coming to my area but disgusted at the news of another coming to the same locale? As someone aspiring to be an "ethical consumer" who cares about my community (if that's not, unto itself, an oxymoron), aren't I supposed to hate both bits of news? Or is it possible that not all national chains are created equal? Is it possible, in fact, that some are better than others?</p><p>Upon some hearty investigation, I think the answer is yes, some are better than others -- and I'm not saying that (only) because it helps me avoid feeling like a complete sellout to the corporate machine.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/18/are_all_mega_chains_the_same/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/18/are_all_mega_chains_the_same/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>93</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lego tries to get less sexist</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/17/lego_tries_to_get_less_sexist/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/17/lego_tries_to_get_less_sexist/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumerism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gender Roles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12879491</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The toy maker's female-centric "Lego Friends" send a bad message for girls. But now there's hope for change]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I was a kid, you know what we called Legos for girls? Legos. When my own young daughters were small, you know what they called them? Legos. They came in blue and red and green and yellow. But lately Legos, like damn near every other object in the toy aisle, have felt the need to assert their gender.</p><p>It started when the company began <a>aggressively marketing to boys</a> back in 2005, offering up what BusinessWeek recently described as "spaceships and laser cannons … martial arts and supernatural powers," a world in which <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/lego-sit-activists-angry-sexist-line-made-girls-article-1.1062430">"80 percent of the characters are boys."</a> But the extreme genderfication of Legos put the company in a self-imposed bind. How to respond to the demands of consumers who want a more daughter-friendly Lego? There was only one thing to do next – make some girly Legos!</p><p>Just in time for the holidays, the Danish brand rolled out a pink-themed line of Lego Friends last December, featuring curvaceous, pretty girls who play in pastel-themed, gently constructed cafes, beauty shops, puppy houses and their own little stages. That's the life of a girl for you  – looking pretty, "decorating your house" and eating cupcakes.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/17/lego_tries_to_get_less_sexist/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/17/lego_tries_to_get_less_sexist/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>57</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ellen stands up to One Million Moms</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/ellen_stands_up_to_one_million_moms/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/ellen_stands_up_to_one_million_moms/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumerism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ellen Degeneres]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LGBT]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12321231</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A conservative group calls for her removal from a JC Penney campaign, but the host responds with humor and heart]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The conservative Christian group One Million Moms is angry. Angry like <a href="http://youtu.be/uI42p6j4yNA">just-missed-an-awesome-sale</a> angry. Sure, the down-home-sounding offshoot of the reliably right-wing American Family Association exists in a perpetual state of twisted knickers. It's whipped itself into a frenzy of indignation at the not-quite-exclusionary-enough tactics of Macy's, Levi's, Jenny Craig and Oreos in just the past few months. But its outrage at JC Penney, the jeans supplier to at least 800,000 of those million moms, is especially intense of late.</p><p>At issue is the group's contention that by hiring Ellen DeGeneres for a new campaign, the department store is "jumping on the pro-gay bandwagon" and turning away from <a href="http://www.onemillionmoms.com/IssueDetail.asp?id=436">"traditional families."</a> The organization warns darkly that "Unless JC Penney decides to be neutral in the culture war then their brand transformation will be unsuccessful." There is so much to love in that sentence alone. Culture war! Brand transformation! Fearless disregard for the rules of comma usage after a subordinate clause! "The majority of JC Penney shoppers will be offended," they continue, "and choose to no longer shop there."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/ellen_stands_up_to_one_million_moms/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/ellen_stands_up_to_one_million_moms/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>77</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How the vultures took Jason Wu for Target</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/07/how_the_vultures_took_jason_wu_for_target/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/07/how_the_vultures_took_jason_wu_for_target/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumerism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fashion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Target]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12313201</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Target's new line by the beloved designer brought out bloody instincts in consumers. And I was there to witness it]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you thought the End of Days was going to resemble <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/06/super_bowl_ads_the_good_the_bad_and_the_80s/singleton/%20">a Chevy ad</a>, you must not have been near a Target on Sunday. <a href="http://life.salon.com/2011/09/14/missoni_disaster/">September's Missonigeddon</a> might have been intense, but it turned out to be small taters compared to the Jason Wupocalypse. This is how civilization ends. Not with a nuclear missile strike but with a run on kitty cat-festooned tote bags.</p><p>Jason Wu is the young, impeccably elegant designer whose career went into the stratosphere when high-profile Michelle Obama chose his dreamy, one-shouldered creation for her husband's inaugural ball in 2009. His preppy-with-an-edge ready-to-wear designs retail at high-end stores like Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom for upward of a thousand bucks a pop. So from the moment Target – which has in the past done wildly successful collaborations with the likes of <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2009/01/mcqueen_for_target.html#">Alexander McQueen</a>, <a href="http://www.fabsugar.com/Jean-Paul-Gaultier-Target-Looks-2010-02-10-110637-7346336?slide=1 ">Jean Paul Gaultier</a> and Rodarte -- announced that it was teaming up with Wu for a February launch, the slavering began. And when Target released a preview teaser of zippy little navy and cream ensembles, we all pretty much knew: There would be blood.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/07/how_the_vultures_took_jason_wu_for_target/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/07/how_the_vultures_took_jason_wu_for_target/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>30</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Coke&#8217;s new can infuriated the Internet</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/02/why_cokes_new_can_infuriated_the_internet/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/02/why_cokes_new_can_infuriated_the_internet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 21:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coca-Cola]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumerism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10282415</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Regular Coke in a white can? Someone forgot the lesson of New Coke -- don't mess with our soda]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The misleading package has long been a go-to marketing move for off-brands. Who among us has not inadvertently picked up a bottle of John Adams beer in her time, or a big box of Special J cereal? Usually, it's a clever – and quite deliberate -- exploitation of our expectations. Corporations know that it's the design that sells, that our eyes beeline for the familiar. But what happens when the original messes with our heads? Customers know that a green circle means Starbucks coffee, the golden arches mean McDonald's. A red can is a Coke. Well, not so fast...</p><p>Just in time for the holidays, the cola titan recently rolled out a festive new can design -- an homage to its seasonally iconic polar bear cans, and a reminder of Coke's relationship with the <a href="http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/partners/corporate/Coke/">World Wildlife Fund</a>. As the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204012004577070521211375302.html">"the company has frequently rung in the holiday with special can designs"</a> in the past. But this time was different. This time all hell broke loose. So let's just get a few things straight so we never have to go through anything like this again: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM6xVQwIOYQ ">You don't win friends with salad.</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ENNA0cBHm8 ">Stop trying to make "fetch" happen. </a>And regular Coke does not belong in a white can. How are we supposed to distinguish regular and diet?</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/02/why_cokes_new_can_infuriated_the_internet/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/02/why_cokes_new_can_infuriated_the_internet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>71</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The argument against thrift</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/the_argument_against_thrift/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/the_argument_against_thrift/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 01:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumerism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Economy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10275864</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[During economic hardship, we need to save less and spend more -- and rethink our relationship to consumer culture]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We’re the most affluent people on the planet, us Americans — our choices among foods, ideas, clothes, schools, and destinations are almost without limit — and we love to shop. But we also know that consumer culture is bad for us. How come? In a word: excess. We’re afraid that we consume too many resources, that we save too little of our incomes, and that meanwhile we produce almost nothing of real value. We’re afraid that we can’t observe any limits on our consumption of goods, so that every substance, even food, begins to feel addictive, and every urge, even sex, begins to feel compulsive. When armed with credit cards, it seems, we’re unwilling to defer the immediate gratification of our desires, and we’re thus unable to “save for a rainy day.” We’re also afraid that we’re mere cattle — herded by corporations and “branded” by their admen. We’re especially afraid that consumer culture is making us fat.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/the_argument_against_thrift/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/the_argument_against_thrift/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>76</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The new age of consumer activism</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/18/the_new_age_of_consumer_activism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/18/the_new_age_of_consumer_activism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumerism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10231336</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Our understandable rage at corporations is behind customer-driven like Bank Transfer Day]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As we all know, America is angry. Really angry. To put it in pop culture terms, we've moved from the vaguely inspiring agita of Peter Finch in "Network" to the wild-eyed, primal-scream rage of Sam Kinison in "Back to School."</p><p>When we pay attention to politics, we get peeved at Congress and the presidential candidates. When we tune into sports, we're annoyed with squabbling players and owners. When we turn on the news, we fume at the smug pundits. And when it comes to the economy, we're in a tizzy at big corporations.</p><p>Most of this indignation is nothing new; it is atavistic fury expressed in the modern vernacular. Yet, one strand of our anger -- the kind directed at big business -- may be truly novel, as our chagrin is no longer just that ancient animosity toward excessive corporate power. Instead, it has also become a personal disdain toward firms we deal with on a daily basis.</p><p>This is the key finding of the latest report from the Center for Services Leadership at Arizona State University. Its findings show that after years of rising anger, consumer rage has reached an all-time high.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/18/the_new_age_of_consumer_activism/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/18/the_new_age_of_consumer_activism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Barbie gets a tattoo makeover</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/19/barbie_gets_a_tattoo_makeover/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/19/barbie_gets_a_tattoo_makeover/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumerism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parenting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10127477</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Barbie's inked-up and rocking a pink bob. Is this the 53-year-old's midlife crisis? Either way, it's a step forward]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The world is full of middle-aged women eager to youthfully reinvent themselves. And towering above the Real Housewives, standing tippy-toe taller than even Madonna, there is, always, Barbie. But though the blond icon has been a cashier, a model, a United States president and a <a href="http://www.barbie.com/videogirl/">cyborg-like half-human, half video camera</a>, is the world ready for America's sweetheart to be a tattooed bad-ass?</p><p>In a partnership that could only evolve from teaming up with an Italian-created, Japanese-inspired and Los Angeles-based company, Mattel has partnered with <a href="http://tokidoki.it/">the cult brand Tokidoki</a> to create a limited-edition Barbie with a Harajuku twist. This "cutting edge" Barbie rocks a pink bob, a slouchy crossbones top -- and a swath of retro-themed ink that climbs across her shoulders and up her neck. She's so popular that she's on back order till the end of the month. Jesse James, we've found your next girlfriend.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/19/barbie_gets_a_tattoo_makeover/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/19/barbie_gets_a_tattoo_makeover/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>47</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>My iPhone foreclosure</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/14/my_iphone_foreclosure/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/14/my_iphone_foreclosure/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumerism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPhone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life stories]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10113298</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As the world clamors for the latest upgrade, I finally resolve to surrender mine. If only it were that simple]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last Saturday night at 10 p.m., I parked my car in the driveway, hustled myself inside as it began to rain, and locked the door behind me when I realized: I did not have my iPhone.</p><p>So weird. I'd just had it, like, 10 minutes ago, when I checked my voicemail at a friend's place. I started to call her to ask if it was lying around, which is when I realized: Not having an iPhone means you <em>can't actually use</em> your iPhone.</p><p>That night, even as rain pelted the windows, my home felt eerily silent. Like so many people, I do not have a separate landline, and I do not have cable TV. Without that small and all-powerful device within arm's reach, I was in exile. Typing emails on my laptop (because I still had wireless) seemed a bit like scribbling on parchment in the amber glow of an oil lantern. I would send the emails and receive nothing in response. <em>Gah, is this thing even on???</em></p><p>The next morning, I walked out to the car to head to my friend's house when I discovered where my iPhone had been all night -- lying face-up on the driveway, inches from the driver-side door of my car, water still pooled on its black screen.</p><p>An iPhone suicide.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/14/my_iphone_foreclosure/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/14/my_iphone_foreclosure/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>46</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Netflix&#8217;s folly and the imperial consumer</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/netflixs_folly_and_the_imperial_consumer/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/netflixs_folly_and_the_imperial_consumer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumerism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10106882</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In an era when saying no has never been easier, there is only one golden rule: Don't annoy your customers]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A week ago I cancelled Netflix streaming. After the price hike that went into effect in September it seemed the economically prudent thing to do. I had to make a choice between access to the huge catalog of movies and television shows available on DVD, or the smaller variety of options available to watch on my laptop. I wasn't happy at the thought of being a subscriber to a service with the Neolithic branding image suggested by "Qwikster" -- Netflix's new DVD-by-mail subscription service -- but the choice was still obvious.</p><p>The amazing thing about the whole process was just how easy it was to stop paying $7.99 a month to Netflix. Just as Netflix made the experience of ordering movies delivered by mail or streamed to my computer deliciously simple, Netflix also made the process of changing the details of my account a piece of cake. I had expected to jump through hoops, to be thwarted by various strategies aimed at keeping my cash flowing to the company uninterruptedly. But no -- I clicked a few buttons and I was done.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/netflixs_folly_and_the_imperial_consumer/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/netflixs_folly_and_the_imperial_consumer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The class war over a $39,000 backpack</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/07/olsen_twins_39_000_backpacks/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/07/olsen_twins_39_000_backpacks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2011 18:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumerism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wonder how the other half lives? The Olsen twins sell out their alligator bags]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you wanted to sum up what people mean when they toss around phrases like "class war" and <a href="http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/">"the 99 percent"</a>&#160; and "WTF," you might put it all down to this: $39,000 backpacks. Sold out.</p><p>It's been four years since the entrepreneurial Olsen sisters, Mary-Kate and Ashley, launched their luxury fashion line, the Row, and three months since they debuted <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2011/07/15/2011-07-15_olsen_twins_line_the_row_debuts_39000_crocodile_backpack_barneys_to_stock_pricy_.html">their stylish and exorbitantly priced black crocodile bag</a>. But it was the news this week that at the Paris launch of the handbag line, Ashley Olsen bragged that the backpack "was the first thing that sold off the shelf" that really took the let-them-eat-cake. Olsen added that luxury brands do well in hard times, noting that "During our last economic crisis in the U.S., the only thing that went up was Herm&#232;s," before, in the words of Women's Wear Daily, "returning to sip Champagne with guests including Michelle Harper and Christian Louboutin." As a commenter on CNN observed of this news, "This is what's wrong with America. The income inequality in this country is outrageous, we are well on our way to becoming a 3rd world country." Or, as another more aptly expressed it, <a href="http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/06/39000-olsen-twins-backpack-sells-out/">"That's cray cray."</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/07/olsen_twins_39_000_backpacks/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/07/olsen_twins_39_000_backpacks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>100</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>I survived Target&#8217;s Missoni disaster</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/14/missoni_disaster/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/14/missoni_disaster/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumerism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//feature/2011/09/14/missoni_disaster</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When the retailer launched its new line, all hell broke loose at stores across the nation. I know -- I was there]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Like approximately 356 of my Facebook friends, I spent Tuesday morning driving from Target to Target looking for Missoni. Missoni! Missoni! Are you sick of hearing the word yet? In the last day, various media outlets have been going mad about Target's Missoni disaster. When the megastore chain announced it would be selling the beloved brand's clothes, fans went crazy -- a little too crazy. Buyers crashed the Target website, and there were reports of stampedes, and assorted other frenzies. And I should know, because I witnessed Missoni Madness firsthand.</p><p>I'm not even a particular fan of the Missoni aesthetic, but Target has been running the <a hef="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngXrRCqQVTA" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngXrRCqQVTA">groovy spy-woman commercial</a> for it so incessantly that I'd become practically hypnotized into thinking I really needed some new bath towels and a sweater (autumn is almost here!). I'd be helping the economy, after all -- God Bless America, blah blah blah. Also: Target sells those movie-theater-boxes of candy and I was completely out of Lemonheads.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/14/missoni_disaster/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/14/missoni_disaster/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>59</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why ironic T-shirts push real buttons</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/02/controversial_shirts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/02/controversial_shirts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumerism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fashion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Teenagers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/entertainment/feature/2011/09/02/controversial_shirts</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The sincere anger against JCPenney and American Apparel T-shirts proves some gender issues are too real to laugh at]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>JCPenney became the latest retailer to make itself the target of <a href="http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/08/jc_penneys_too.php">protests</a> this week when it offered a T-shirt, aimed at preteen and teenage girls, emblazoned with the words "I'm too pretty to do homework so my brother does it for me." As has happened with similar offerings over the last decade, protests fell swiftly into shape. A <a href="http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-jcpenney-to-stop-promoting-sexist-messaging-to-girls">Change.org petition</a> denouncing the shirt garnered thousands of signatures, bloggers like those at Gawker Media's Jezebel&#160; turned the tacky offering into a <a href="http://jezebel.com/5836173/jcpenney-will-destroy-your-daughters-self-esteem-for-just-999">national story,</a> and inevitably, JCPenney announced that it was <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/01/earlyshow/living/parenting/main20100427.shtml">pulling the shirt from its back-to-school collection.</a></p><p>Besides the fact that the slogan doesn't really make much sense -- not that we want girls to use their looks instead of their heads, but shouldn't they woo peers and not siblings? -- the predictable flap illustrates a larger truth. If you're trying to make money by getting people to plaster ridiculous sayings across their chests, it's better to go surreal or silly than stereotypical.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/02/controversial_shirts/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/02/controversial_shirts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>67</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Mona Lisa in plastic</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/30/museum_collection_barbie/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/30/museum_collection_barbie/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumerism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/entertainment/feature/2011/06/30/museum_collection_barbie</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The line of collector toys are modeled after works by Da Vinci, Van Gogh and Klimt]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Designers of collector Barbie dolls have hardly been deterred from unlikely projects in the past. There's a <a href="http://www.barbiecollector.com/shop/doll/sinatra-barbie-doll-t7908">Frank Sinatra Barbie</a>, despite the fact that Frank Sinatra was a man. There's a <a href="http://www.barbiecollector.com/shop/doll/sydney-opera-house-barbiereg-doll">Sydney Opera House Barbie</a>, despite the fact that the Sydney Opera House is a building.</p><p>Starting tomorrow, Barbie enthusiasts can also get their hands on dolls inspired by classic paintings -- namely <a href="http://www.barbiecollector.com/shop/doll/barbie-doll-inspired-leonardo-da-vinci-v0444">The Mona Lisa</a>, <a href="http://www.barbiecollector.com/shop/doll/barbie-doll-inspired-gustav-klimt-v0443">Gustav Klimt's "Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I,"</a> and&#160; <a href="http://www.barbiecollector.com/shop/doll/barbie-doll-inspired-vincent-van-gogh-v0445">Van Gogh's "Starry Night"</a> (never mind that there aren't actually any people in that last one).</p><p>Randy Kennedy at <a href="http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/barbie-as-a-gustav-klimt-model/#more-210561">The New York Times</a> points out that the dolls, however ridiculous, are certainly more affordable than the paintings that inspired them:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/06/30/museum_collection_barbie/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/30/museum_collection_barbie/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Target employees tell gay youths, &#8220;It Gets Better&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/23/target_it_gets_better/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/23/target_it_gets_better/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumerism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LGBT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Teenagers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Television]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/feature/2011/06/23/target_it_gets_better</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Joining the likes of Google and Old Navy, the retail chain promises a better future for gay teens]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After <a href="http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/feature/2011/05/04/google_chrome_it_gets_better">Google Chrome</a> premiered an ad for Dan Savage's "It Gets Better" campaign on Fox, other companies have been coming out with their own commercials to show how queer-tolerant they are. The most recent example is Target, which believes everyone should be given the chance to not unionize.</p><p>
    <iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1ZpzHuTUL1Y" width="425"></iframe>
  </p><p>While this is a great cause, Target might need to tweak the slogan a little bit for its use: "It Gets Better ... <a href="http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/06/23/anti-union-life-at-target/">As Long As You Don't Want Benefits.</a>" Because no matter your sexuality preference, everyone should be treated as equals: equals with low wages and no healthcare. Equals who receive constant threats from their bosses should they demand better treatment. Equals.</p><p>Just like our forefathers intended.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/06/23/target_it_gets_better/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/23/target_it_gets_better/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The forgotten treasures of Gen-X childhood</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/18/pudding_pops_slide_show_ext/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/18/pudding_pops_slide_show_ext/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jun 2011 21:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumerism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Slide Shows]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//feature/2011/06/18/pudding_pops_slide_show_ext</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Slide show: From Malibu Barbie to unsafe playground equipment, the toys and trends that defined the 1970s and '80s]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A lot of people our age hate the label "Generation X," preferring to call themselves children of the 1970s and 1980s. Those are goofy decades to embrace, with their avocado refrigerators and wood-paneled rec rooms, their leg warmers and shoulder pads. But if you loved your childhood home even though it wasn&#8217;t the most glamorous place on the block, you likely have fond memories of the years in which you grew up -- no matter how goofy, no matter how clumsy. In a way, these two are decades only a native could take to heart.</p><p>It's not really the things that we loved; it&#8217;s our memories of those things and how they &#64257;t into our lives. The orange-and-red shag carpeting in your bedroom isn't as important as the hours you spent trying to make your Lincoln Logs stand up on it. Malibu Barbie isn&#8217;t necessarily the world's best doll, but if when you think of her you picture your cousin and remember how hard you laughed when her baby brother bit Barbie in the boob, then to you she is the best doll, now and for eternity.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/06/18/pudding_pops_slide_show_ext/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/18/pudding_pops_slide_show_ext/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>71</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Could the Happy Meal become extinct?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/04/20/mcdonalds_happy_meal_ban/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/04/20/mcdonalds_happy_meal_ban/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumerism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life//feature/2011/04/20/mcdonalds_happy_meal_ban</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A California mom's lawsuit wants to take away the toys -- and she's right]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Could <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42664996/ns/business-consumer_news/">one of the largest toy distributors</a> in the world be run out of business by a California mom? In a lawsuit that McDonald's filed to have dismissed this week, mother of two Monet Parham has charged that the chain's Happy Meals violate California consumer protection laws, and looked to stop them from containing those kid-enticing toys. Think it's crazy that Zoobles and Batman figures couldn't ever go the way of Joe Camel? Think again -- San Francisco <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-09/us/california.fast.food.ban_1_meal-combinations-apple-dippers-yale-university-s-rudd-center?_s=PM:US">banned Happy Meals</a> with toys last year, prohibiting them in meals that exceed certain levels of fat, calories and sodium. And New York is now readying for <a href="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/nutrition-standards-urged-for-meals-with-toys/?partner=rss&amp;emc=rss">a similar proposal.</a> Mayor McCheese could not be reached for comment.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/04/20/mcdonalds_happy_meal_ban/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/04/20/mcdonalds_happy_meal_ban/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>158</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why are parents defending a kids&#8217; push-up bra?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/03/30/abercrombie_fitch_pushup_bikinis_for_children/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/03/30/abercrombie_fitch_pushup_bikinis_for_children/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumerism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Television]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/feature/2011/03/30/abercrombie_fitch_pushup_bikinis_for_children</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Abercrombie's idiotic new product causes controversy -- and finds surprising fans]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Abercrombie &amp; Fitch has long been famed for its seductive wares and provocative campaigns. But this month, just in time for spring break, the company provoked a torrent of parental outrage when it unleashed a sexy bikini -- for children.</p><p>As Sociological Images pointed out two weeks ago in a post on <a href="http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/03/19/push-up-bikini-tops-at-abercrombie-kids/">"another example of the sexualization of young girls,"</a> the "Ashley" triangle top from Abercrombie Kids was branded as a "push up triangle," an odd choice for kids of an age where there's still usually not a whole lot to push up. And this assumed need for enhancement has been a long source of shopping frustration to parents -- and potential embarrassment for kids. "We go into the little girl section and there&#8217;s nothing for her," an exasperated mother <a href="http://beaconnews.suntimes.com/4561684-417/af-controversy-over-the-bikini-top.html">told the Chicago Sun-Times</a> last week. And a mother of two young daughters <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/features/fashion/118818774.html">told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel</a>, "I think it's truly sad we spend all this time telling our children they're beautiful just the way they are and then we provide a product that tells them they're not."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/03/30/abercrombie_fitch_pushup_bikinis_for_children/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/03/30/abercrombie_fitch_pushup_bikinis_for_children/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>39</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

