Well, I watched Sarah Palin's historic acceptance speech last night and was moderately impressed. She proved that, despite her relative inexperience and apparently nonexistent vetting process, she is just as capable of toeing the party line, stretching the facts and playing the same petty, partisan politics that a certain presidential candidate has beseeched us to change. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I didn't expect the RNC to descend to the lowest common denominator of political publicity. I just hadn't expected Palin would come off like such a pro at it.
I didn't hear anything that I haven't heard the broken-record Republicans spout every time an election comes around. "The opponent is a tax and spend liberal!" "The opponent is inexperienced (either politically or militarily or both)!" "The opponent is the anti-Christ, just look at how much people love him!" Blah, blah, blah. You know, when Obama started shooting barbs at his opponents during his acceptance speech, I thought, "Yeah, you get'em!" Now I realize, with the benefit of hindsight, he may as well have been singing their praise. His campaign's reasonable, accurate criticisms of the "McPalin" ticket pale in comparison to the outright warping of the facts and tainting of American perceptions that the Republicans have shown they will employ throughout this election cycle.
A little research will show that Obama's tax plans will actually leave the majority of American families with more income, rather than less. That coupled with the strong economy that has historically coincided with a democrat in office will mean that most come out on top. The only people who won't come out on top are the minority who already sit at the top. I know that those of you Republicans who make $250,000+ a year have to stretch yourselves to survive, but you'll somehow have to muddle through for the greater good of the American people that you so desperately wish to serve.
One of the things in Palin's speech that really tickled every incredulous bone in my body was when she said, "Though both Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, 'fighting for you,' let us face the matter squarely. There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you." I think my reaction hovered somewhere between hilariously bemused and disbelievingly outraged.
Look, don't misunderstand me. I completely realize that those who choose to serve our country in the military and who protect our rights and way of life from external threats are deserving of our highest respect for their sacrifices. However, to suggest that the people who fight to protect us from internal threats to the same are somehow comparatively less qualified is preposterous to the extreme. There are plenty of politicians who have not served (Palin, for one), and there have been several presidents who did not serve either (12, to be exact). Of those who did serve, six did not see action (including George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan). There is no doubt that there is a lot of potential to learn about leadership from the military, but that isn't the only source. If it were, we'd probably be a society of shiftless vagrants waiting for officers to retire or be discharged and whip us into shape. In case you weren't sure, that's not the case.
The point is, such rhetoric only appeals to the knee-jerk fears that our commander-in-chief won't be ready to make the necessary decisions should a military conflict arise. But let us remember, for a moment, that a president is not an island. Though some may buck the desires of a congress elected by the American people and make decisions that hurt our reputation, economy and the American families who have to subsequently make sacrifices, others serve as president always with the will and well-being of the people driving them and with the help and counsel of the many experienced and similarly elected public servants around them. Let's make sure that's the kind of leader our next president is.
Obama 2008: Change We Can Believe In
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Vote or...Regret Not Having Voted
Okay America, I'm not going to threaten you with death if you don't go to the polls for any of your states' primaries or for the general election in the fall. I will say, though, that it has never been clearer in the history of our "democracy" (really a republic) that your vote does count, and with so many elections in the past several years being won, or even stolen, by such small margins, it is crucial that everyone who is concerned with the state of our government or our future as a country gets out and votes.
I definitely understand that the system can be frustrating sometimes, and I know how hard working up the motivation to participate can be. Trust me; I was there. It's the age old reasoning of, "I'm just one person in a country of 300 million. How does my vote even count?" Well, I'm here to tell you, it friggin' counts. If everyone in the country had this philosophy, we'd have to revamp the entire system so that people in power get to decide who the torch gets passed to, if it gets passed at all. There are many examples throughout history of governments set up that way. How many of them have been successful? How many of the people living under those types of rule have been happy?
Okay, so it's unlikely that it would ever happen that no one in the country went to the polls during an election, but let's look at something more realistic. Do you know what kind of people consistently head to the polls without fail? It is people who are passionate about the issues. And while the breakdown of voters registered as either Republican, Democrat or Other is pretty even, people who lean far left or far right on the issues are more likely to be passionate about the issues than someone who is more toward the center.
Before I continue, let me just say that the above statement is merely an observation from my own experience. I do not have any hard research to back this up, but aside from anecdotal evidence, there is a dynamic in this country's politics that seems to support it. Look at how polarized politics have become. Of course, there have been some pretty important issues to get people on both sides of "the aisle" worked up, but it has only helped to solidify and exacerbate a system of opposition that has been building for decades. The rhetoric out of Washington almost forces us to choose a side all the way. There's almost no middle ground any more.
But if you want my opinion, our country by its very nature is not "far left" or "far right". When I talk to people casually on the issues, there is usually a gray area. People who say, for example, that they agree with the war but not how we went about it, or that they don't agree with it but that now that we're in, we just can't leave. Sure, there are those Bush-is-right-always-has-been-and-always-will-be people out there, just as there are those on the opposite side, but there aren't as many as the current state of politics and the media would have us believe. The problem is that the people on the outer extremes of the scale have the loudest, and often most obnoxious voices.
I say let the voices in the middle rise up and drown out the fanatics who want to turn our country into either a left wing Utopia or a right wing Paradise. Because either case would be neither Utopia nor Paradise. Be passionate about the issues without being extreme. Vote always to help make our government more effective instead of more factional. And you do have the right to bitch, even if you don't vote, but realize that if you didn't contribute, it's your own damn fault.
Obama'08: Change We Can Believe In.
I definitely understand that the system can be frustrating sometimes, and I know how hard working up the motivation to participate can be. Trust me; I was there. It's the age old reasoning of, "I'm just one person in a country of 300 million. How does my vote even count?" Well, I'm here to tell you, it friggin' counts. If everyone in the country had this philosophy, we'd have to revamp the entire system so that people in power get to decide who the torch gets passed to, if it gets passed at all. There are many examples throughout history of governments set up that way. How many of them have been successful? How many of the people living under those types of rule have been happy?
Okay, so it's unlikely that it would ever happen that no one in the country went to the polls during an election, but let's look at something more realistic. Do you know what kind of people consistently head to the polls without fail? It is people who are passionate about the issues. And while the breakdown of voters registered as either Republican, Democrat or Other is pretty even, people who lean far left or far right on the issues are more likely to be passionate about the issues than someone who is more toward the center.
Before I continue, let me just say that the above statement is merely an observation from my own experience. I do not have any hard research to back this up, but aside from anecdotal evidence, there is a dynamic in this country's politics that seems to support it. Look at how polarized politics have become. Of course, there have been some pretty important issues to get people on both sides of "the aisle" worked up, but it has only helped to solidify and exacerbate a system of opposition that has been building for decades. The rhetoric out of Washington almost forces us to choose a side all the way. There's almost no middle ground any more.
But if you want my opinion, our country by its very nature is not "far left" or "far right". When I talk to people casually on the issues, there is usually a gray area. People who say, for example, that they agree with the war but not how we went about it, or that they don't agree with it but that now that we're in, we just can't leave. Sure, there are those Bush-is-right-always-has-been-and-always-will-be people out there, just as there are those on the opposite side, but there aren't as many as the current state of politics and the media would have us believe. The problem is that the people on the outer extremes of the scale have the loudest, and often most obnoxious voices.
I say let the voices in the middle rise up and drown out the fanatics who want to turn our country into either a left wing Utopia or a right wing Paradise. Because either case would be neither Utopia nor Paradise. Be passionate about the issues without being extreme. Vote always to help make our government more effective instead of more factional. And you do have the right to bitch, even if you don't vote, but realize that if you didn't contribute, it's your own damn fault.
Obama'08: Change We Can Believe In.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Sticks and Stones...
Poor Gen. Dave Petraeus. It must be difficult to be a man in his position. On one side he has the perpetrators of the biggest conflict of this generation putting him in charge of said conflict and asking him to give America a warm fuzzy about its progress. On the other side he has a wiser American public, weary and wary of the misinformation, propaganda and all-out deception of a war-hungry administration, futilely grasping at any defense of its poor decisions.
MoveOn.org purchased an ad in the New York Times featuring a large photo of the general and a headline that pondered, "General Petraeus, or General Betray Us?" It accuses Petraeus of "cooking the books" on the progress in the Iraq conflict. No doubt, things are not going as swimmingly as the general's report seemed to suggest (not that I'm saying he thinks it's going swimmingly). Time after time we hear word from the administration that progress is being made, only to have that word contradicted and dashed by the media, who continue to report the unabated deaths of Iraqis and Americans alike in this increasingly thickening "quagmire".
At this point, it's difficult to take any positive reports on the situation in Iraq seriously, and as responsible citizens, it is our duty to question our leadership for nothing less than the truth. As such, it's not surprising to see public outcries like MoveOn.org's in the New York Times. The wording of the ad was, perhaps, a bit harsh, and those of us who speak out should be sure to phrase our dissent in a way that doesn't give the opposition more ammunition to help redirect the focus of the issues at hand.
Case in point, Senate voted on a bill to "strongly condemn personal attacks" on the general and the US military. This resolution, proposed by Republican John Cornyn (R-TX), and subsequent overwhelming majority approval just shows how desperate defenders of the war are to...well, defend the war. With so many important issues the senate could be resolving right now, they actually took the time to vote on a resolution that brushes dangerously with the first amendment, not a first for our demonstrably capable (read with sarcasm) congress.
And before anyone pipes up about libel and slander, I urge you to look up those concepts and do your homework before you say something that tells all of us that you have no idea what you're talking about. Libel has to be falsifiable for it to be considered as such, and try all you like, there's nothing you can say to convince the American public in general that Petraeus and the administration isn't heavily sugar-coating the information. The MoveOn.org ad doesn't qualify, but Senate's actions come frighteningly close to censorship, and you all know how I feel about that!
My point is, in these emotionally and politically charged times, lots of words are flung around by all sides. It's easy to get caught up in the game of language when quippy headlines, powerful speeches, and mudslinging advertising are given so much attention, but we must remember that words are not actions. If they were, the current administration would be able to turn Iraq around by merely continuing to say that everything's okey-dokey. Neither "side" should be bothered by the other wielding words as weapons because words are only as powerful as we allow them to be, and Senate made MoveOn.org's words powerful indeed.
MoveOn.org purchased an ad in the New York Times featuring a large photo of the general and a headline that pondered, "General Petraeus, or General Betray Us?" It accuses Petraeus of "cooking the books" on the progress in the Iraq conflict. No doubt, things are not going as swimmingly as the general's report seemed to suggest (not that I'm saying he thinks it's going swimmingly). Time after time we hear word from the administration that progress is being made, only to have that word contradicted and dashed by the media, who continue to report the unabated deaths of Iraqis and Americans alike in this increasingly thickening "quagmire".
At this point, it's difficult to take any positive reports on the situation in Iraq seriously, and as responsible citizens, it is our duty to question our leadership for nothing less than the truth. As such, it's not surprising to see public outcries like MoveOn.org's in the New York Times. The wording of the ad was, perhaps, a bit harsh, and those of us who speak out should be sure to phrase our dissent in a way that doesn't give the opposition more ammunition to help redirect the focus of the issues at hand.
Case in point, Senate voted on a bill to "strongly condemn personal attacks" on the general and the US military. This resolution, proposed by Republican John Cornyn (R-TX), and subsequent overwhelming majority approval just shows how desperate defenders of the war are to...well, defend the war. With so many important issues the senate could be resolving right now, they actually took the time to vote on a resolution that brushes dangerously with the first amendment, not a first for our demonstrably capable (read with sarcasm) congress.
And before anyone pipes up about libel and slander, I urge you to look up those concepts and do your homework before you say something that tells all of us that you have no idea what you're talking about. Libel has to be falsifiable for it to be considered as such, and try all you like, there's nothing you can say to convince the American public in general that Petraeus and the administration isn't heavily sugar-coating the information. The MoveOn.org ad doesn't qualify, but Senate's actions come frighteningly close to censorship, and you all know how I feel about that!
My point is, in these emotionally and politically charged times, lots of words are flung around by all sides. It's easy to get caught up in the game of language when quippy headlines, powerful speeches, and mudslinging advertising are given so much attention, but we must remember that words are not actions. If they were, the current administration would be able to turn Iraq around by merely continuing to say that everything's okey-dokey. Neither "side" should be bothered by the other wielding words as weapons because words are only as powerful as we allow them to be, and Senate made MoveOn.org's words powerful indeed.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
"Suck it, Censorship!"
Well, well, it seems Kathy Griffin has won an Emmy for pointing out to the world how unsuccessful she is. I wonder if next season her show will be called My Life on the C-List: Movin' On Up! But titular ramifications aside, something else happened when the D-Lister stepped up to accept the award, and it was made into an even bigger deal than the fact that Kathy Griffin...WON A FRIKKEN EMMY!
Apparently, Ms. Griffin doesn't put much stock in Jesus’ role in her personal achievements, as evidenced by her telling Jesus to "suck it" in her acceptance speech. This, of course, has raised many a religious hackle and has prompted E! to edit the telecast of her speech in a manner found acceptable by our fundamentalist overlords, may God bless them forever. Most of these are the same people, mind you, who probably chuckled at the emails forwarded to them by their friends with attachments showing the Muhammad cartoons that got certain European countries in trouble in recent years.
Now listen, I'm not saying that people shouldn't be considerate of other people's sensitivities, but you can't criticize people for being PC (that's political correctness) Nazi's out of one side of your mouth and express outrage at people for singling you out in their political incorrectness out of the other. That makes you a hypocrite. It's irrational and catches you up in logic that makes you have to either stop making fun of other people or deal with it when you’re made fun of.
Have you ever stopped to wonder why it's called political correctness? Because it's for politicians. Most of the country would never vote for a candidate who stood up and made very public derogatory comments about someone's religion, race or gender... Well, maybe not never, but still. It's damaging to a politician to even be connected with statements that could be considered prejudiced in any way. It is helpful to their campaigns if they can be as inoffensive as possible. This is a dynamic they created, so I say let them have it, but don't mistake their self-imposed restrictions as commandments for the rest of us.
Comedians make their livings being offensive in some way. Maybe not all of them do, but they do by at least pointing out the offensive things in life. It is difficult nowadays for a really successful comedian to go very long without offending somebody, and it's usually the people who have the least reason to be offended that are. Comedians tell jokes. Grow a sense of humor. I can laugh at myself when my friends are poking fun, and I do it right back to them, but we all know it's not for real.
Maybe it's not the most well-formed argument, but there is clearly something wrong in this country if we have to censor a comedian for being funny. You know the old question of whether a tree falling in the forest makes a sound when no one's around to hear it? Well, it makes one wonder, is free speech really free when no one's allowed to hear it? Censorship sucks, and that's straight from the liberal, left-wing nut job's mouth.
Apparently, Ms. Griffin doesn't put much stock in Jesus’ role in her personal achievements, as evidenced by her telling Jesus to "suck it" in her acceptance speech. This, of course, has raised many a religious hackle and has prompted E! to edit the telecast of her speech in a manner found acceptable by our fundamentalist overlords, may God bless them forever. Most of these are the same people, mind you, who probably chuckled at the emails forwarded to them by their friends with attachments showing the Muhammad cartoons that got certain European countries in trouble in recent years.
Now listen, I'm not saying that people shouldn't be considerate of other people's sensitivities, but you can't criticize people for being PC (that's political correctness) Nazi's out of one side of your mouth and express outrage at people for singling you out in their political incorrectness out of the other. That makes you a hypocrite. It's irrational and catches you up in logic that makes you have to either stop making fun of other people or deal with it when you’re made fun of.
Have you ever stopped to wonder why it's called political correctness? Because it's for politicians. Most of the country would never vote for a candidate who stood up and made very public derogatory comments about someone's religion, race or gender... Well, maybe not never, but still. It's damaging to a politician to even be connected with statements that could be considered prejudiced in any way. It is helpful to their campaigns if they can be as inoffensive as possible. This is a dynamic they created, so I say let them have it, but don't mistake their self-imposed restrictions as commandments for the rest of us.
Comedians make their livings being offensive in some way. Maybe not all of them do, but they do by at least pointing out the offensive things in life. It is difficult nowadays for a really successful comedian to go very long without offending somebody, and it's usually the people who have the least reason to be offended that are. Comedians tell jokes. Grow a sense of humor. I can laugh at myself when my friends are poking fun, and I do it right back to them, but we all know it's not for real.
Maybe it's not the most well-formed argument, but there is clearly something wrong in this country if we have to censor a comedian for being funny. You know the old question of whether a tree falling in the forest makes a sound when no one's around to hear it? Well, it makes one wonder, is free speech really free when no one's allowed to hear it? Censorship sucks, and that's straight from the liberal, left-wing nut job's mouth.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Free Tibet!
And while we're at it, free China too. Here's the problem: an oppressive communist government. When I look at what's happening in the world today (and what has happened throughout much of 'modern' history), I can't help but wonder what the hell is taking us so long to wake up! Humanity as a whole needs to realize what it can accomplish...as a whole.
So, Google is censoring search results in China, preventing the people there from tracking down the injustices done to them and others who the government deems unworthy of basic human rights. Instead of finding links to sites about Tibet (and other topics of concern), Chinese citizens will be redirected to a friendly government page that tells them how they should think and feel (if in a subtle, roundabout way). This, ladies and gentlemen, is how you build a utopia of Orwellian proportions.
Look, I'm not a big proponent in meddling in the affairs of other nations. I don't take the GWB tack of bomb first, bomb again, bomb a little bit more, then try to sort it all out later...oh, and uh, drop another bomb if you have to. That's why I wish I could urge the Chinese people, and people in all places of such oppression, to bring their government to justice for their crimes against them. I really wish I could inspire them all to take matters into their own hands. Unfortunately, Google will probably filter my blog out of their search results.
Wake up!!!
So, Google is censoring search results in China, preventing the people there from tracking down the injustices done to them and others who the government deems unworthy of basic human rights. Instead of finding links to sites about Tibet (and other topics of concern), Chinese citizens will be redirected to a friendly government page that tells them how they should think and feel (if in a subtle, roundabout way). This, ladies and gentlemen, is how you build a utopia of Orwellian proportions.
Look, I'm not a big proponent in meddling in the affairs of other nations. I don't take the GWB tack of bomb first, bomb again, bomb a little bit more, then try to sort it all out later...oh, and uh, drop another bomb if you have to. That's why I wish I could urge the Chinese people, and people in all places of such oppression, to bring their government to justice for their crimes against them. I really wish I could inspire them all to take matters into their own hands. Unfortunately, Google will probably filter my blog out of their search results.
Wake up!!!
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Jihad for Christmas
Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb here. I have to say something because things have gotten to a level of ridiculousness that I simply cannot tolerate quietly. I had the displeasure of reading an article today on MSN about how Christian conservatives are up in arms over the White House holiday card and the genericizing of retail holiday promotions. Because I don't want to end up with dead links on the blog later, allow me to summarize the article:
Once again this year, President Bush sent out 1.4 million holiday cards to his close friends and supporters. The card wishes recipients a happy "holiday season", but for some, the friendly message rings hollow. In a time when the more equally applicable "happy holidays" replaces the previously common "merry Christmas", conservative Christians are crying out in defiance of consideration for a more diverse population.
This cry is being heard more and more every year as retailers abandon Christmas sales for holiday specials and public events such as tree lightings are given more "politically correct" titles. Conservative groups claim that there is a "war on Christmas" and have taken actions to boycott retailers and events that have given into the public trend and removed specifically Christian references from public scrutiny. They hope to put pressure on decision-makers and put the "Christ" back into Christmas.
Now, let me go over some specific things in this article that got me worked up.
~ This first one is actually kind of good. It's nice to see that some Christians understand. In this article, Rev. Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches is quoted as saying, "I think it's more important to put Christ back into our war planning than into our Christmas cards."
Touché
~ Next, Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss. said, "Sometimes it's hard to tell whether this is sinister -- it's the purging of Christ from Christmas -- or whether it's just political correctness run amok..."
Uh, sinister? Yeah, that's right. Satan lurks in the good intentions we have to not only refrain from offending those who don't celebrate Christmas, but also the friendly act of including them in the celebration of a holiday season that has been sacred for the majority of human beings since even before the supposed birth of Christ...
~ On the flipside, "It bothers me that the White House card leaves off any reference to Jesus, while we've got Ramadan celebrations in the White House," Wildmon said. "What's going on there?"
I reluctantly have to say that I agree. If the White House is not so eager to endorse Christmas, they should also keep away from other religions' holiday celebrations. Conversely, I wouldn't mind if the White House honored the diversity of our country and humanity in general by celebrating all kinds of holiday traditions, including Christmas.
~ William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, announced a boycott of the Lands' End catalogue when he received his White House holiday card. True, he said, the Bushes included a verse from Psalm 28, but Psalms are in the Old Testament and do not mention Jesus' birth.
Oh brother! What the hell is wrong with people? This one got me really steamed. I make it halfway through the article merely rolling my eyes, then I find out that there is actually a biblical verse on the card! How finely can we split hairs? Regardless if it is an Old Testament verse, it is still a Christian reference. Okay, so some Jews might dig the message...heaven forbid!
~ Donohue said that Wal-Mart, facing a threatened boycott, added a Christmas page to its Web site and fired a customer relations employee who wrote a letter linking Christmas to "Siberian shamanism."
If I were that employee...I would be dialing me a lawyer. Let's face it, folks, most Christmas traditions are taken from much older religious practices. For example, where in the Bible is the Christmas tree mentioned? Actually, where in the Bible does it even mention the time of year Christ was born? There are clues in the Bible that very strongly suggest it was much earlier in the year than December. If that's so, why do you think the church eventually settled on December 25th? Take a look at religions from around the world and research some ancient religions as well. I think you'll find compelling information about many significant dates at or around the winter solstice, usually around December 22nd.
~ "Ninety-six percent of Americans celebrate Christmas," Donohue said. "Spare me the diversity lecture."
Ah yes, statistics, because we all know how accurate they can be. What that beefed up 96% number doesn't say is how many of those people are conservative Christians who actually care that government, schools and retailers are being considerate to those of alternate or no faith. It also doesn't say how many of them celebrate it as the birth of Christ. Granted, it is probably still a majority, but that should not be the point. And no, Donahue, we will not spare the diversity lecture as long as ignorant, intolerant blowhards like you prefer to ignore the fact that there are other human beings on this planet.
~ And finally, "There's a verse from Scripture in it. I don't mind that at all, as long as we don't try to pretend we're not a nation under God," said the Rev. Jerry Falwell.
Ah yes, let us not forget words of wisdom from the infamous, intractable Rev. Falwell. Jerry's "nation under God" phrase is, of course, a reference to the pledge of allegiance, another hotbed of conservative contention. But what I bet the good reverend doesn't know is that the phrase was added to the pledge in the 1950's along with several other religious references in government in order to separate the U.S. culture from communism, whose adopters were typically atheists. Let us not forget that our forefathers had a preference towards deism and transcendentalism and that the original motto of the U.S. is not "In God We Trust", but the more appropriate, and I think poignant, "E Pluribus Unum", "One From Many".
Addendum posted Dec. 9, 2005:
As I look over the content of this post and receive feedback from visitors, I think a little bit of clarification might be in order. I want to make it understood that I am not one of these Political Correctness (PC) enforcers. To me, PC is akin to censorship, which is something I also generally disagree with. I do have a tendency to use some PC terms in my own speech and writing, but my use of them is inconsistent and is occasionally situation sensitive.
The point is, when somebody says "Merry Christmas" to me, I usually smile and wish them the same, or I at least wish them "Happy Holidays". I agree with Elgon in his comment; I do not draw back in horror or tell the well-wisher off. I don't see anything wrong with "Merry Christmas" appearing in holiday retail promotions either. If retailers want to give me a discount, I don't care if they call it the "Go to Hell, You White Honkey Bastard" sale. Just make sure my items ring up right, dammit.
This is my problem with the article, and the concept in general: Conservative Christians are asking us to be PC to the minutest possible detail. Now we can't just offer a generic holiday greeting to cover all of our bases. No, now we have to know exactly what sect of exactly which faith the recipients of our message will be and tailor each individual message accordingly. The Christians will get special promotional ads from retailers that say "Merry Christmas", while Jews will get ones that specify "Happy Chanukah", and Wiccans will get ones that say "Solstice Blessings", etc. Talk about ridiculous!
Ok, so retailers use generic holiday wishes to appeal to the widest demographic possible. They're businesses, that is what it is in their best interest to do. Get over it already. By boycotting them you're only making your holiday shopping more expensive! Wake up and start caring about things that really matter, like the fact that yet another holiday season is passing by, regardless of our faith, and we all still have loved ones risking their lives overseas for a cause that many of us either never believed in or are just starting to doubt. Why don't we worry about how to get George W. to bring our troops back home, rather than what he's putting on his friggin' Christmas cards!
And speaking of W., I just wanted to add this one last thing. He's a politician, so I think the generic holiday greeting is a good move. I know he's a Christian, and however he wants to celebrate the holiday season is fine, but politicians have to be careful about the message they send to the public. Politicians are the ones for whom political correctness is the most important. We must be wary of any message a politician sends to the people that even hints at the public endorsement of a particular faith. Regardless of what the majority of the people in this country believe spiritually, we must not become a religious state. Once religion officially starts meddling in politics, the door is open for the government to begin stripping us of our constitutional rights under the guise of divine reason.
*lays down two pennies*
Once again this year, President Bush sent out 1.4 million holiday cards to his close friends and supporters. The card wishes recipients a happy "holiday season", but for some, the friendly message rings hollow. In a time when the more equally applicable "happy holidays" replaces the previously common "merry Christmas", conservative Christians are crying out in defiance of consideration for a more diverse population.
This cry is being heard more and more every year as retailers abandon Christmas sales for holiday specials and public events such as tree lightings are given more "politically correct" titles. Conservative groups claim that there is a "war on Christmas" and have taken actions to boycott retailers and events that have given into the public trend and removed specifically Christian references from public scrutiny. They hope to put pressure on decision-makers and put the "Christ" back into Christmas.
Now, let me go over some specific things in this article that got me worked up.
~ This first one is actually kind of good. It's nice to see that some Christians understand. In this article, Rev. Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches is quoted as saying, "I think it's more important to put Christ back into our war planning than into our Christmas cards."
Touché
~ Next, Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss. said, "Sometimes it's hard to tell whether this is sinister -- it's the purging of Christ from Christmas -- or whether it's just political correctness run amok..."
Uh, sinister? Yeah, that's right. Satan lurks in the good intentions we have to not only refrain from offending those who don't celebrate Christmas, but also the friendly act of including them in the celebration of a holiday season that has been sacred for the majority of human beings since even before the supposed birth of Christ...
~ On the flipside, "It bothers me that the White House card leaves off any reference to Jesus, while we've got Ramadan celebrations in the White House," Wildmon said. "What's going on there?"
I reluctantly have to say that I agree. If the White House is not so eager to endorse Christmas, they should also keep away from other religions' holiday celebrations. Conversely, I wouldn't mind if the White House honored the diversity of our country and humanity in general by celebrating all kinds of holiday traditions, including Christmas.
~ William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, announced a boycott of the Lands' End catalogue when he received his White House holiday card. True, he said, the Bushes included a verse from Psalm 28, but Psalms are in the Old Testament and do not mention Jesus' birth.
Oh brother! What the hell is wrong with people? This one got me really steamed. I make it halfway through the article merely rolling my eyes, then I find out that there is actually a biblical verse on the card! How finely can we split hairs? Regardless if it is an Old Testament verse, it is still a Christian reference. Okay, so some Jews might dig the message...heaven forbid!
~ Donohue said that Wal-Mart, facing a threatened boycott, added a Christmas page to its Web site and fired a customer relations employee who wrote a letter linking Christmas to "Siberian shamanism."
If I were that employee...I would be dialing me a lawyer. Let's face it, folks, most Christmas traditions are taken from much older religious practices. For example, where in the Bible is the Christmas tree mentioned? Actually, where in the Bible does it even mention the time of year Christ was born? There are clues in the Bible that very strongly suggest it was much earlier in the year than December. If that's so, why do you think the church eventually settled on December 25th? Take a look at religions from around the world and research some ancient religions as well. I think you'll find compelling information about many significant dates at or around the winter solstice, usually around December 22nd.
~ "Ninety-six percent of Americans celebrate Christmas," Donohue said. "Spare me the diversity lecture."
Ah yes, statistics, because we all know how accurate they can be. What that beefed up 96% number doesn't say is how many of those people are conservative Christians who actually care that government, schools and retailers are being considerate to those of alternate or no faith. It also doesn't say how many of them celebrate it as the birth of Christ. Granted, it is probably still a majority, but that should not be the point. And no, Donahue, we will not spare the diversity lecture as long as ignorant, intolerant blowhards like you prefer to ignore the fact that there are other human beings on this planet.
~ And finally, "There's a verse from Scripture in it. I don't mind that at all, as long as we don't try to pretend we're not a nation under God," said the Rev. Jerry Falwell.
Ah yes, let us not forget words of wisdom from the infamous, intractable Rev. Falwell. Jerry's "nation under God" phrase is, of course, a reference to the pledge of allegiance, another hotbed of conservative contention. But what I bet the good reverend doesn't know is that the phrase was added to the pledge in the 1950's along with several other religious references in government in order to separate the U.S. culture from communism, whose adopters were typically atheists. Let us not forget that our forefathers had a preference towards deism and transcendentalism and that the original motto of the U.S. is not "In God We Trust", but the more appropriate, and I think poignant, "E Pluribus Unum", "One From Many".
Addendum posted Dec. 9, 2005:
As I look over the content of this post and receive feedback from visitors, I think a little bit of clarification might be in order. I want to make it understood that I am not one of these Political Correctness (PC) enforcers. To me, PC is akin to censorship, which is something I also generally disagree with. I do have a tendency to use some PC terms in my own speech and writing, but my use of them is inconsistent and is occasionally situation sensitive.
The point is, when somebody says "Merry Christmas" to me, I usually smile and wish them the same, or I at least wish them "Happy Holidays". I agree with Elgon in his comment; I do not draw back in horror or tell the well-wisher off. I don't see anything wrong with "Merry Christmas" appearing in holiday retail promotions either. If retailers want to give me a discount, I don't care if they call it the "Go to Hell, You White Honkey Bastard" sale. Just make sure my items ring up right, dammit.
This is my problem with the article, and the concept in general: Conservative Christians are asking us to be PC to the minutest possible detail. Now we can't just offer a generic holiday greeting to cover all of our bases. No, now we have to know exactly what sect of exactly which faith the recipients of our message will be and tailor each individual message accordingly. The Christians will get special promotional ads from retailers that say "Merry Christmas", while Jews will get ones that specify "Happy Chanukah", and Wiccans will get ones that say "Solstice Blessings", etc. Talk about ridiculous!
Ok, so retailers use generic holiday wishes to appeal to the widest demographic possible. They're businesses, that is what it is in their best interest to do. Get over it already. By boycotting them you're only making your holiday shopping more expensive! Wake up and start caring about things that really matter, like the fact that yet another holiday season is passing by, regardless of our faith, and we all still have loved ones risking their lives overseas for a cause that many of us either never believed in or are just starting to doubt. Why don't we worry about how to get George W. to bring our troops back home, rather than what he's putting on his friggin' Christmas cards!
And speaking of W., I just wanted to add this one last thing. He's a politician, so I think the generic holiday greeting is a good move. I know he's a Christian, and however he wants to celebrate the holiday season is fine, but politicians have to be careful about the message they send to the public. Politicians are the ones for whom political correctness is the most important. We must be wary of any message a politician sends to the people that even hints at the public endorsement of a particular faith. Regardless of what the majority of the people in this country believe spiritually, we must not become a religious state. Once religion officially starts meddling in politics, the door is open for the government to begin stripping us of our constitutional rights under the guise of divine reason.
*lays down two pennies*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)