I bought them with a clear intention of making directly better the life of someone dear to me.

This. I bought gifts for people when I knew exactly what I wanted to get them before hand and when I had an exact reason to get them that thing. If I didn't have those feelings about someone, that person didn't get anything. Of course, that meant that there were a lot of people in my life that didn't get anything. I don't mind, either.

I don't really like the Christmas holidays either. The whole season is so shallow and... mechanized. I won't complain about getting gifts, but it bothers me that we're expected to get each other stuff. Even when the person we're buying for doesn't "need" anything, we still buy him stuff because that's just what we're expected to do (Why buy people gifts for Christmas anyway? For Jesus?). So yeah, definitely the consumerism.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with Christmas (Why not buy loved ones gifts for Christmas?), but everyone going on autopilot spoils the whole season.

Actually, I wholeheartedly agree. I am curious, though, what you mean when you say it would matter procedurally. Do you mean when it comes to getting approval and support for fighting them, or when it comes to actually fighting them?

I think we're missing the point. ISIS and ISIL are both wrong. ISIS/ISIL was a group of people trying to establish an Islamist caliphate. They have successfully been running a country for the past few months, with their own courts, their own "police," and their own funding. I think they succeeded in that goal (at least for now), so they are no longer just a group of people trying to establish a caliphate. It's more correct to call them the Islamic State. They're not just the terrorist group ISIS/ISIL anymore.

Not that this really even matters much. Edit: I take that back. What we call "our" enemy actually matters a lot. It's just that when media figures refuse to use the term "Islamic State," or when they say "so-called" Islamic State, it really exemplifies how in denial they are that their precious war wasn't successful.

Have you ever read the article Lockheed Stock and Two Smoking Barrels? I suggest everyone read it. It's a classic.

Prior to joining Lockheed, [Bruce] Jackson had served as executive director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the think tank whose principles included Dick Cheney. PNAC served as the Bush administration's blueprint for preemptive war and authored a 1998 open letter to President Bill Clinton calling for military force to oust Saddam Hussein.

So basically, if Lockheed wants to empty its stock, we launch a war.

I'm trying to remember a lot of details about the plot and character development; I can't remember much. I don't remember the details, so I don't know if I'm talking about a corporate or governmental interest, but I do remember the display of how far people were willing to go to advance their power in some way (read: genocide fo' $$$). Even if I don't remember anything about the characters or plot details, this was still a really great thing about the film.