I leave you with this reminder of ghosts of Xmas passed.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, December 21st, 2005 at 9:35 pm and is filed under Main.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:58 pm
I guess some are stupid enought to have their opinions influenced by liberal editorial cartoons. Do the Democrats release campaign materials to its voter base in the form of comic books, which is high level reading for them? I wouldn’t put it past the next cartoon to attempt to link Bush with Hitler.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:06 pm
P.S. If the title of the post means that it’s your last one before Christmas, have a Merry Christmas, Marc. To those of you too offended to mention Christmas, have a Happy (and meaningless) Holiday.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:59 pm
Have a Meaningless Holiday ? I know I’m a pain in the ass, but some folks really never know when to give it a rest…
With friends like Woody and “Mr Bluster” Bill O’Reilly, the Christmas season hasn’t been subjected to so much Humbuggery since Scrooge gave it up. Nothing is sacred…everything is up for grabs as a FOX talking point and ratings ploy. The whores are just doing their job…it’s the gullible tricks who buy into this bull who are truly sad.
December 22nd, 2005 at 5:36 am
The cartoon is poor because it is intellectually lazy by exaggerating the issue. Has anyone accused Bush of spying on his personal enemies? Not that I’ve seen. Also absent from much of the debate is this: if Bush is grabbing power unreasonably and unlawfully, as some argue, to what end is he driving? Personal gain? Again, noone seems to be making that argument either. In fact, you could argue that his actions related to Iraq and now the NSA are decidedly not in his personal interest. Some would offer that as proof of his stupidity (however evil he may be).
In closing I would offer this:
Merry Christmas to those of you who celebrate it, Happy Holidays to those of you that have some other religious or secular observance at this time of year, and a simple Good Day to the rest!
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:07 am
The cartoon draws distinct parallels with Nixon, but Bush goes Nixin several better. Instead of creating agencies like the EPA and improving things he’s stolen the country and given it to the bankers and oil companies, while gutting regulations meant to protect us. Robbing from the poor to pay the rich. This is Dicken’s at his best.
Humbuggery to all wingers. And may they get theirs in the end just like Nixon, who Woody no doubt thought was railroaded.
PS: Who mentioned Hitler? Match over.
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:09 am
PS; Meaning has to earned not invented for effect to absolve the aforementioned humbuggery.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:17 am
Alcohol was the theme of the last holiday thread. Anybody have a favorite Christmas song?
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:20 am
Never mind – there are three Christmas records by Johnny Cash. I believe one will be unanimous favorite.
http://tinyurl.com/7w84a
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:43 am
I can’t choose only one:
“Christmas for Cowboys” by John Denver on Rocky Mountain Christmas;
“Go Tell It On The Mountain” by Bruce Cockburn on Christmas.
And I’m NOT a religious guy.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:05 am
My favorite Christmas album this year is Dean Martin’s “Making Spirit’s Bright”…all time favorite is Phil Spector’s “Christmas Gift for You” for Darlene Love’s “Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)” if nothing else…but favorite Christmas song right now is Ella Fitzgerald’s “The Secret of Christmas”…
Look at the happy people
Christmas is in the air
Well I know the secret of Christmas
A secret I’m willing to share
It’s not the glow you feel
When snow appears
Yeah, it’s not the Christmas card
You’ve sent for years and years and years
Not the joyful sound
When sleigh bells ring
Or the merry songs
Children sing
Yeah the little gift you send
On your Christmas day
Will not bring back the friend
You’ve turned away
So may I suggest
The secret of Christmas
Is not the things you do at Christmas time
But the Christmas things you do
All year through
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:08 am
Note: Ella failed to mention Baby Jesus, but I think she captures his spirit better than Bill O’Reilly and his sour diatribes….
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:38 am
“Christmas for Cowboysâ€
“Go Tell It On The Mountainâ€
????????
Are you sure you didn’t pick up the soundtrack to a recently released film…
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:58 am
Too Many — “The cartoon is poor because it is intellectually lazy by exaggerating the issue. Has anyone accused Bush of spying on his personal enemies?”
Well, in fact, we don’t know, do we? But some indications are starting to see the light of day. And “personal enemies” lists can become quite extensive for someone whose approval by the public is well short of what he thinks is his God-given due.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:59 am
Check out Tom Lehrer’s Christmas songs, including “Hanukkah in Santa Monica.” Of course, some consider Lehrer subversive, and listening to the latter WOULD acknowledge that some non-Christians still, if only temporarily, retain their right not to celebrate whatever holiday Bill O’Reilly wants celebrated.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:09 pm
Isn’t it ironic that many of the people who take offense at “Holiday Greetings” and such are, themselves, Christian? You know, Peace, Love, Good Will toward Men?
Btw, in case you missed this, there is slightly more daylight today than yesterday (now that we’ve passed through the Winter Solstice).
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:14 pm
ROFL! That didn’t even occur to me Reg and is a complete coincidence (unless there is some latent thingy going on here, of which I am conciously unaware!).
Marc D.: I just haven’t seen that accusation, that’s all. In fact, I can’t recall a report that says Bush’s motives were other than national security. If you know of one I would like to read it. But, yes, we don’t know for sure.
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:01 pm
A very merry, joy and love-filled Christmas and Holidays to you all.
(Even though, Woody, you really ought toknow better than to call “Happy Holidays” meaningless. In doing so, you just said that everyone celebrating Chanukah or any other holiday simply doesn’t matter. Now com’on my friend, behave!)
Favorite Christmas album? Okay, this is weird, and it’s not really a Christmas album per se but I always play it on Christmas…. and it’s in fact, 1st on my list: the Missa Luba. ..
It’s a 1963 recording of the Catholic Mass sung Congolese style by Les Troubadours du roi baudouin. Directed by a Belgian priest, Father Guido Haazen. (There’s an updated version, but it pales next to this one.)
Studs Turkel writes about it better than I can.
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~pm9k/gifs/ZoForth/missaluba.html
I only have it on vinyl so that reminds me I need to get a new needle for my geriatric turntable.
More Christmas songs, people, I think this is a good suggestion. (The cartoon’s only going to take us so far.)
Favorite Christmas movie? “It’s A Wonderful Life†(How boring am I?)
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:11 pm
I’m gonna toss out some other great Christmas music (most of which I put on “A Fair & Balanced Christmas Album” I burned for friends this year:
Blue Christmas by the Meditation Singers (not the Elvis song, which is also good, but a timely reminder of the kids overseas who can’t be with their families to celebrate, recorded of course during the Vietnam era.)
Jubalani Noke by the Dark City Sisters, in some South African tongue I don’t understand, but it’s about as merry as anything I’ve ever heard.
Rebel Jesus by The Chieftans w/ Jackson Browne – Celtic pagan celebration of Pope O’Reilly’s beloved Sweet Baby J
Sister Rosetta Tharpe singing Oh Little Town of Bethlehem – only version that swings
and on the more wordly side of things, Dino doing Christmas Blues (Blooze ?) and Billie Holiday’s I’ve Got My Love To Keep Me Warm.
If you can find the Christmas In New Orleans album by the late gospel and soul singer Johnny Adams, it’s one of the best of the corny Christmas albums. Wonderfully cheesey arrangements, but less cloying than Aaron Nevilles’ Christmas album (although still plenty sappy, in a nice way.)
Weirdest Christmas song: Sonny Boy Williamson’s “Santa Claus”! Weirder than the stuff on James Brown’s Christmas album by far…
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:45 pm
Cool stuff, reg.
In fact, I just found the Chieftans/Jackson Browne thing on iTunes and downloaded it at your recommendation.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:07 pm
To all a Merry Christmas and happy holidays. Celebrate the return of the light!
Thanks to you, especially, reg, for the outstanding mix.
Here’s to a very happy new year.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:19 pm
rosedog, Happy (meaningless) Holidays is meant for those who really celebrate nothing and want a way to avoid saying Merry Christmas–usually for political correctness. It has nothing to do with Chanukah or any other celebration. Of course, we can talk about Kwanzaa, which is a good holiday to celebrate because it comes after Christmas and they can take advantage of all the after-Christmas sales for their gifts.
too many steves, it’s not the Christians who are intolerant about the Happy Holidays. It’s everyone else who wants to lessen the day celebrated by the overwhelming majority of people in this country and only objected to by 3% according to polls.
Regarding music, I think a meaningful Christmas song is from Handel’s Messiah–”For Unto Us a Child is Born”
Isaiah 9: 6
For unto Us a Child is born, unto Us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Go to No. 12 on this page and click on the either of the sound links for a sample: http://w3.rz-berlin.mpg.de/cmp/handel_messiah.html
Better yet, buy the CD. Handel had to be truly insprired by God when he wrote the Messiah.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:46 pm
The Messiah’s pretty fabulous. I sang it in a choir when I was in high school. (I have a decidedly crow-like voice, but the choir itself was good enought to occasionally won prizes at a state level.). It was like being part of an enormous pipe organ. A wildly wonderful experience.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:47 pm
make that “good enough to occassionall win..”
Geeze.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:51 pm
I’d say nobody celebrates nothing. Handel’s talent comes from within. He inherited it just as some inherit a basic lack of reasoning. Of course the irony in the wingerville Christmas theory is Holiday means holy day.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:57 pm
MD writes: “Well, in fact, we don’t know, do we?”
Precisely, but that doesn’t seem to stop anyone on the left from caterwauling about Bush breaking laws.
Tiresome!
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:09 pm
The holiday is not complete without at least one playing of Spike Jones’ Nutcracker Suite. I’m childish thatway.
Bruce Cockburn’s Christmas is my favorite Christmas record but I would love to hear “1963 recording of the Catholic Mass sung Congolese style by Les Troubadours du roi baudouin”. Too bad its only on vinyl.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:13 pm
We know he broke the law. Who is on his enemies list is known too if the FBI records are any indication. All of them aren’t known because they’re locked up as “Classified.”
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:26 pm
Woody, I think you’ve got it backwards. Millions of Americans — most of the world’s people — hold different beliefs. So let’s be clear; the precise thing you are offended by here is religious tolerance.
What’s most amusing in this campaign about insisting that the season be solely about Christmas is that it’s based on bogus theology.
Virtually all Christian scholars and historians — but for fundamentalists — acknowledge that the biblical accounts of the birth of Jesus have irreconcilable differences. And further, they document that those stories were created long after his death, and have little or no relationship to history or the facts known during his life. Even the date of this celebration is an arbitrary construct — chosen many centuries later — in response to competing holidays.
Perhaps no surprise then, that a growing number of devoutly Christian denominations – here and around the world – do not even recognize your “Christmas†as a holy day.
Of course, for those of you who do celebrate it (or anything else) this time of year, as always, I wish you joyous and meaningful holidays.
But to those who hide behind a fake veneer of religious belief in yet another cynical attack in the “culture wars,†may I offer you a sincere and deeply felt, merry and bright:
“Fuck You for Imposing Your Bullshit Made-up Christmas… and a Happy New Year!”
May the fat, red-suited, Madison Avenue-created symbol of the cynical, commercialized greedfest of December — that you insist everyone call Christmas — bring you a dusty lump of coal for your feeble attempt to piss on the rest of us.
And to all a good night.
December 22nd, 2005 at 5:01 pm
Re: the discussion that was going on in a previous thread about Bush’s claim that leaked info about bin Laden’s phone usage resulted in his avoiding capture, ex-NSA guy Wayne Madsen sheds some light on that claim today.
December 22nd, 2005 at 5:10 pm
As far as the “War on Christmas” goes read this post by James Wolcott, then this article by Christopher Manion. These two combined will answer all your who, why and how questions.
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:23 pm
I really do think Woody is the most offensive droid I’ve ever encountered online. He’ll stop at nothing to insult anyone he perceives isn’t exactly like him. How tolerant is that? Something to work on. Conservative=Intolerance. Not very Christmasy from my studies in Bible school.
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:42 pm
York: I really do think Woody is the most offensive droid I’ve ever encountered online. He’ll stop at nothing to insult anyone he perceives isn’t exactly like him.
In the OLD adage of the Pot calling the Kettle black, York is surely the Pot… in spades!
York, you are a fool, a malcontent and intolerant of anything/anyone who doesn’t parrot your drivel.
December 22nd, 2005 at 7:06 pm
The Wisdom of Chesty Puller, Lt. Gen. USMC :
“Our Country won’t go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won’t be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our
women and breed a hardier race!”
“All right, they’re on our left, they’re on our right, they’re in front of us, they’re behind us…they can’t get away this time”
“They are a damn site better than the U.S. Army, at least we know that they will be there in the morning.”
(when a journalist asked him about being surrounded by 22. enemy divisions)
“There are not enough chinamen in the world to stop a fully armed Marine regiment from going where ever they want to go”
HOOOOOHAAH!!!!!!!!
December 22nd, 2005 at 7:51 pm
It has nothing to do with Chanukah or any other celebration.
Sure it does. Some celebrate Christmas, some celebrate Chanukah and immediately thereafter, we all celebrate the New Year. That makes at least two holidays, hence the use of the plural.
Of course, another important holiday falls on December 29. One that has been celebrated on four continents: my birthday.
That’s why it’s called happy holidays, Woody.
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:17 pm
Mark Schubb, thanks for sharing your wisdom and knowledge with the rest of us. I suppose you believe that Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, and the entire faculty of Notre Dame have been real dopes to believe in Christ. Of course, the degredation of Christmas does represent a culture war, even if you won’t admit it or can’t perceive it.
———–
Happy upcoming Birthday, Randy! How many is that?
Your parents planned well to squeeze you in before year-end for a tax deduction.
(Do people who use other calendars get upset when we say Happy New Year on January 1st?)
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:44 pm
Woody,
Well the Jews, Chinese and Muslims I know don’t.
Now Woody, I didn’t ask you your age . . .
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:26 pm
If you’re born again, my rule is that you get to restart your age from the beginning. Because of my reaffirmation of faith, I’m three.
————
Marc, is the editorial cartoon the best Christmas message that you could find?
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:41 pm
Yeah, the entire faculty of Notre Dame….
Muslim scholar quits Notre Dame position
Christian Century, Jan 11, 2005
Tariq Ramadan, a Muslim scholar whose visa was revoked days before he was to begin teaching at the University of Notre Dame, has given up further attempts to enter the country.
Ramadan, who lives in Switzerland with his family, had shipped his furniture to the South Bend, Indiana, campus and was already, on the payroll of the university, where he was to teach about religion, conflict and peace-building, when his visa was suddenly revoked last August.
Ramadan is the author of Western Muslims and the Future of Islam (Oxford University Press) and has written and spoken widely on how Islam is compatible with secular European values.
December 23rd, 2005 at 12:08 am
rosedog, I’m with you. The Messiah is the best Christmas song by far. And I wasn’t that good at singing it either.
December 23rd, 2005 at 1:14 am
Chronicles magazine has a “Battle for Christmas” blog up that has some interesting stuff — mostly from a paleocon perspective.
December 23rd, 2005 at 1:46 am
Woody, when you suppose I believe people “have been real dopes to believe in Christ” are you intentionally misrepresenting my point? Or did you just not get it?
I’m pointing out that there are many people who hold differing beliefs and suggesting that we show more respect for people’s beliefs, not less. It’s called tolerance. And it was one of Jesus’s key talking points. Didn’t you get the memo?
December 23rd, 2005 at 6:02 am
No but there are certainly dopes who believe in Christ in that group. He’s taken away their brains. Did he teach you to be intolerant of those who don’t? Because that’s quite a large group and waht this culture war is all about. I precieve it to exist in Woody’s head and forced into the mainstream by his media. You know, the wingerville news.
December 23rd, 2005 at 6:55 am
Reg delivers quotes from Chesty Puller, Possibly from this site but neglects to add as did the author of that site: “I can’t guarantee that these Chesty Puller quotations are correct or true,
but I have tried to verify as many of the quotes from Chesty Puller as possible.” So, are they true or just legend? Who knows. However this can be verified:
December 23rd, 2005 at 7:30 am
Yes. Familiar tactic that casts doubt on the source. It would be easy to verify in the Puller biography and amazon search. This is called casting doubt sans evidence. What are we left with? Hagiographic myth.
December 23rd, 2005 at 8:08 am
Funny, I thought you were the one “delivering quotes from Chesty Puller”.
December 23rd, 2005 at 8:10 am
Mark Schuub wrote: “Woody, I think you’ve got it backwards. Millions of Americans — most of the world’s people — hold different beliefs. So let’s be clear; the precise thing you are offended by here is religious tolerance. What’s most amusing in this campaign about insisting that the season be solely about Christmas is that it’s based on bogus theology. …Your Bullshit Made-up Christmas…. ….Woody, when you suppose I believe people “have been real dopes to believe in Christ†are you intentionally misrepresenting my point? I’m pointing out that there are many people who hold differing beliefs and suggesting that we show more respect for people’s beliefs, not less. It’s called tolerance. And it was one of Jesus’s key talking points.”
Well, Mark Shubb, first the beliefs of most of the world’s people have no relevance in the discussion of the recognition and celebration of Christmas in the country, in which the vast majority recognize the day as a religious and holy day–and, also, recognize the stepped-up attacks on this celebration. Check the polls.
Many Americans (58 percent) say it seems that public displays of the Christian symbols of Christmas are more under attack this year than in the past, up from 51 percent who felt that way last year. …Virtually all Americans — 95 percent — say they celebrate Christmas, 4 percent celebrate Hanukkah and 3 percent Kwanzaa. A 57 percent majority considers Christmas a religious holiday, 14 percent see it as a cultural holiday and 27 percent see it as both. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177355,00.html
Are these people simply dopes or liars? They say that they believe in something that you claim is bogus–a “bullshit made-up Christmas.” Who is right–you or us?
Further, Mark Schuub, are you saying that God is an intolerant SOB for giving us the first commandment in the Ten Commandments? It is important that it is first, because that shows that it is the most important to Him.
Exodus 20
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
http://biblia.com/jesusbible/deut3.htm
No other gods…?!!! How intolerant of him!
Also, was Jesus simply being an intolerant jackass when he was angered by the money changers in the temple?
If you want to understand intolerance, consider this view point, which addresses religious intolerance in another government sector but applies to your arguments as well:
It is important to remember that true religious tolerance does not consist in the attitude, “Don’t you wear that cross (or Star of David or Om or lotus blossom, etc. etc.) in my presence; It offends me.†To the contrary, it consists precisely in NOT being offended by such things. True religious tolerance does not consist in being careful never to discuss one’s religious beliefs in the presence of those whose beliefs may differ. It consists in people with differing beliefs being able to discuss those differences freely and openly without being either vexatious or touchy.
The forces behind restrictions on military prayer are precisely those that have been attacking freedom of religion under the misconstrued notion of “separation of church and state†in every aspect of American life. Under the guise of religious “tolerance,†they seek “zero tolerance†for any public expression or manifestation of religious belief or heritage. Their desire is to make atheism, or at least secularism — “the rejection or exclusion of religion†— the official religion of the United States. http://www.perspicacityonline.com/Articles/2005/11/militaryprayer051113.htm
So, Mark Schuub, your points have not been mispresented. Your words are very clear. Perhaps you wanted to rephrase them to show false civility and supposed tolerance, but you have shown your bitter intolerance to and disdain for Christians across this land. There is an attack on Christmas and you want to be on the front line. It’s pretty sad for you that you reject and condemn the beliefs and values of the majority of people in this country. It’s apparent that what is missing and needed in your life is, perhaps, the very thing that you are fighting–which may explain a few things.
I hope you re-consider some of your comments and attacks and become a truly tolerant person of me and others who rejoice in our Savior’s birth at this time.
December 23rd, 2005 at 8:12 am
It is beyond sad to read the posts by Mark York. He attacks everyone (not their ideas) for not agreeing with him. He has a right to post, but he has polluted this blog and the blog is not the same. Accordingly, to avoid his nonsense, I simply wont visit this blog. A friend of mine refers to him as Mark I. A. Dork.
December 23rd, 2005 at 8:26 am
Woody, do God a favor and refrain from quoting the Bible and FOX News in the same post. Also, the reference to Jesus chasing the money changers from the temple is sheer irony. Get out of your fog and try to figure out who the money changers in the temple are these days ? “I’ve got a book for sale defending Baby Jesus against the liberals…go to our Holiday Gifts Website and purchase your copy today!” FOX News has NOTHING – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING – to do with the Holy Spirit. Gibson and O’Reilly would end up out in the street with Rev. Moon, Tom Delay, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Jack Abramoff and the boys from Haliburton if the scene you referred to were replayed today. Anyone who thinks that FOX is a friend of the guy who delivered the Sermon on the Mount is dancing around an electronic version of the golden calf.
December 23rd, 2005 at 8:41 am
A friend of mine forwarded me this email this morning. If true then it really doesn’t bode well at all for what remains of the Old Republic.
* * * * * *
IS GEORGE W. BUSH GOING BONKERS?
On Sunday, December 18th, a fidgety George W. Bush interrupted regular programming on U. S. television networks to deliver another obsessive tirade to the nation on his recent most fascinating subject, the quagmire in Iraq and how we have no choice but to press on, rather similar to that old Pete Seeger song from the Vietnam era about being “hip deep in the Big Muddy and the damned fool says to go on.”
During his impromptu address to the nation on Sunday, observers noted several aspects to the president’s behavior which struck them as frankly — well, odd. To begin with, Bush broke with the long television tradition of a president sitting in a dignified posture behind the Oval Office desk with hands folded. Instead, Bush writhed and fidgeted in his seat and waved his arms in the air like an Italian fishwife. More than one viewer reacted with, “Is he ON something?”
Bush’s eyes were glassy, his hands fluttered, and his fingers twitched spasmodically. His voice was even more thin and reedy than usual, and his discourse seemed to wander. At times he seemed to lose track of what he was saying, and he glanced nervously off camera as though looking for a prompter, which is strange, because by now he’s pretty much got the “stay the course” speech off by heart and even Karl Rove generally trusts him to deliver it on his own. “The President looked AWFUL!” said one inside the Beltway source who refused to be named. “He looked like he’d been embalmed…poorly.”
Bush’s lackluster and incoherent performance fueled speculation on what is becoming one of Washington, D.C.’s favorite new topics for conjecture — is George W. Bush finally losing his marbles?
There have been rumors for years about the president’s resumed alcoholism, his hysterical outbursts against any subordinate bringing him bad news, his inability to grasp and wrap his mind around even the simplest information or concept, his mysterious “accidents” where he keeps staging pratfalls like falling off his bicycle or slipping on staircases, his episodes of torpor where he simply stares into space for long periods of time. (His aides refer to this in whispers as “the thousand yard stare,” and according to one of them, they have learned not to go near the president when he is in this condition.) Whatever the problem is, it seems to be getting worse and more difficult to contain and sanitize now.
Bush’s disjointed speech and his curious hand gestures and fidgets as he sat behind his desk in the Oval Office on Sunday were part of a pattern of increasingly noticeable erratic and nervous behavior over the past few months, as it is finally brought home to Jug-Ears in ways that even he cannot fail to understand, that the American people doubt his leadership, doubt his basic intelligence, and do not believe what he says. Americans finally have begun to understand the costs in blood, money and freedoms that have resulted from transforming the United States into a modern-day empire led by a small clique of Zionists, born-again “Christians” seeking Armageddon, and oil company executives who claim the untrammeled right to strike at their perceived enemies abroad and crack down on their opponents at home.
A day earlier, on December 17th, Bush audibly lost his temper on his weekly radio address, lashing out at his critics in Congress to denounce as “irresponsible” senators who resorted to the filibuster to slow down renewal of the draconian and thoroughly un-American, terribly mis-named “Patriot Act.” Mini-Me also launched into a tirade against the media over disclosures of his three-year-old decision to circumvent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by personally approving warrantless electronic eavesdropping on international communications by people inside the United States.
“As a result (of the disclosure), our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk,” Bush said. “Revealing classified information is illegal.” (This from the man who apparently authorized the “outing” of CIA agent Valerie Plame, in violation of Federal law.) One listener described Bush’s radio performance as “bordering on babble.”
But the most shocking thing to many Washington insiders occurred during a meeting between the Republican leaders and the President just before Thanksgiving, wherein Bush was apparently quite drunk, and in a shouted tirade he referred to the Constitution as “nothing but a goddamned piece of paper.” Despite efforts to silence the incident, it leaked out into the (more or less) mainstream media and has been reported on the web if not yet on CNN, for example by the Capitol Hill Blue site at
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml
Bush has asserted that his “commander in chief” powers allow him to arrest American citizens and hold them indefinitely without charges; to authorize the torture of prisoners; to invade other countries without the necessity of congressional approval; and to ignore international law, including the U.N. Charter and other treaty obligations. The latest news revelations inform us that he also is claiming – as his constitutional right – the power to wiretap Americans without court review or the presentation of evidence to any impartial body. When Bush is challenged on these authorities, he asserts that he is following the law, although it is never clear exactly where he is getting these ideas. Only about three or four people, all staunch neo-cons, actually have any regular personal access to the president — Rove, Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, etc.
The possibility that Bush is insane or has undergone some kind of mental breakdown is not new; it was first bruited about Washington during the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 when there was a temporary delay in the drive on Baghdad due to sandstorms, equipment failure, and unexpectedly heavy Iraqi resistance. At that time Bush showed up at military briefings in an obvious state of intoxication, screamed obscenities and abuse at officers whom he claimed were “going too slow,” fired generals and gave bizarre orders which he then rescinded the next day when he sobered up, played Napoleon by arrows and doodles all over a map of Iraq and demanding that the Pentagon launch air strikes and ground assaults in compliance with his “brilliant strategy” regardless of whether or not they bore any relation whatsoever to reality, etc.
Is American really being ruled by a madman?
If so, in view of the essential madness of American life for the past two generations, how would we tell?
December 23rd, 2005 at 8:45 am
Woody…the crux of this thing is that you confuse your right to express your religion with using public space and public institutions to flaunt it. It’s a confusion and a shabby, whiny petulance that makes your religion, frankly, appear sham and lacking any real substance. Given the nature of the bogus, counter-factual, self-serving political arguments and accusations of perfidy against any “unbelievers” you constantly throw up here, this cheapening of your faith by trying to leverage it as part of a whiny “culture war” doesn’t really surprise me. I’m out of here until Marc decides to post his Brokeback Mountain review. Reading some of this garbage is starting to impinge on my Christmas cheer. And I love Christmas, the sacred music, the good cheer, the silly songs, the presents, traditions, etc. People who are upset because the Target and Walmart corporations aren’t shoving their seasonal sales pitches down our throats with sufficient references to the Baby Jesus relaly need to get back to “that old time religion” where believers didn’t need the hucksters, soap-salesmen, ad jingles and Faux Prophets (profits?) to bolster their faith. If Christianity suffers from anything in this culture, it’s not a war against it’s symbols but the inner rot that comes from pride, self-satisfaction, buddying up with Ceasar and raking in the Big Bucks. Overstuffed crybabies and hyperventilating hypocrites don’t qualify as martyrs. Sorry, kiddies.
December 23rd, 2005 at 8:59 am
I want to amend that word “public” in my first line above – since it’s the buggaboo of lots of this confusion. I object to overt and exclusive religious displays in government buildings and insitutions funded primarily by tax dollars. What private businesses do is…well…private…even though they have a public face. Arguing over what OTHER people should do to express your religious sentiments is unutterably stupid. The facts on the ground is that there’s plenty of Christmas to go around and if you think there’s not enough, make more. Selling right-wing talking points on television doesn’t count as celebrating Christmas. Again, sorry kiddies. Personally, I resolve to quit wasting my time with these ridiculous screeds until Christmas is officially over (not ’til Tuesday, according to the government decree) in favor of time with the family. Really, when you look at the history of Christianity – institutional and otherwise – and ponder the actual experiences of it’s martyrs as well as it’s flagrant hypocrites, it’s not too hard to figure out what we’re dealing with here.
December 23rd, 2005 at 9:02 am
It really comes down to the difference between tolerance and acceptance. We have a right to demand the former and the option to offer the latter.
December 23rd, 2005 at 9:11 am
Well John what a horrible loss that will be. It is exactly the ideas I counter and nothing else while I’m called a “wind-up toy.” The sad part is you and your ill-reasoned ilk don’t know the difference. The last resort of scoundrels in the form of the false martydom of an anonymous blogswarmer of which woody is one. Oh the horror. The tragedy of it is breathtaking as is the hypocrisy. There is no savior for that.
December 23rd, 2005 at 9:23 am
“And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”
Since Woody has turned this into a sermon no one named God said this. A writer writing a character in a story wrote it. Any reasonable person would conclude it’s metaphorical if anything, but zealots are not reasonable by nature. They are intolerant and resistent to the truth. They have their story and screw anyone else. They do it in a number of ways from economics to military to crimes against any preceived enemy.
The leader of the country is a reformed drunk would couldn’t hande liquor or power as we’ve seen. Legacy hires are bad news.
December 23rd, 2005 at 9:28 am
They have their story and screw anyone else.
Marky Mark I have to agree with the others you simply dont get it. In one sentence you say you attack ideas and then you attack all others who disagree with you. I hope you dont have a dog or cat because you would probably kick them. Hoping someday you get a life.
December 23rd, 2005 at 10:20 am
My two cents:
Express your religious sentiments as freely as you wish, but don’t make me pay for it or participate in it. Period!
December 23rd, 2005 at 11:15 am
Monty this what “they” are saying not I. You need help with reading comprehension it seems. Try again. Saying I kick my dog, which I don’t have, is an ad hominem on your end. Look in the mirror. There’s your problem.
December 23rd, 2005 at 12:30 pm
I’m three
That explains a lot
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:23 pm
“no one named God said this. A writer writing a character in a story wrote it. Any reasonable person would conclude it’s metaphorical if anything”
Who is being intolerant?
“The leader of the country is a reformed drunk would couldn’t hande liquor or power as we’ve seen. Legacy hires are bad news. ”
And what was that about ad hominems?
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:30 pm
“I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.†– - “Any reasonable person would conclude it’s metaphorical, if anything.”
met·a·phor: (mt-fôr, -fr) n.
A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles†or “All the world’s a stage†(Shakespeare).
One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol: “Hollywood has always been an irresistible, prefabricated metaphor for the crass, the materialistic, the shallow, and the craven†(Neal Gabler).
Out of curiosity York and since you frequently toss out words not having the slightest idea what they mean, only that they “sound” erudite. Can YOU explain the “metaphore,” since you think you are a reasonable person!
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:35 pm
“York, you are a fool, a malcontent”
Yes, what was that about ad hominems?
But back to actual worthwhile dialogue, there’ve been some great songs listed here. It’s a tough choice, but I’d have to go with two: one meditative (“The Little Drummer Boy”) and one light and frivolous (“Santa Bring My Baby back to Me”). Can’t have me a Xmas without a bit of Elvis.
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:54 pm
Yes I can Roper. It refers to a fictional Ultimate Narrator of the commandments. In reality human beings reasoned them from trial and error. No imaginary being dropped them from the sky unless one considers ideas formed in the human brain through biological function.
And Roper don’t pretned to tell me what do or don’t know. You certainly aren’t qualifed for that task as you’ve proven over and over again.
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:58 pm
“And what was that about ad hominems?” Those are unpleasant facts about “fearless leader.”
December 23rd, 2005 at 8:06 pm
Re: “The War on Christmas”
I have a few thoughts about this paranoid persecution complex that so many Christians carry around like a ball and chain for everyone to see.
Chain stores have driven down wages in this country for the last several decades, wiping out small town businesses by the millions and inflating health care premiums for every American exponentially. Not to speak of the damage caused to underdeveloped countries, where third world laborers suffer under awful miserable conditions and lousy wages to churn this stuff out.
Still, none of these things bother Evangelical “Christians” and AM Radio/Cable TV punditoids very much – not enough to join progressives like myself on the frontlines to fight against, anyway. No, they feel like America is the epicenter of Anti-Christian persecution because corporations are savvy enough to use “happy holidays” instead of “merry Christmas” to woo shoppers. Perhaps if some of them visited countries where Christianity is a crime punishable by beheading, they would persecution truly means.
To some extent, I agree that politically correct euphemisms have made this country somewhat less enjoyable. After all, politically correct euphamisms have destroyed movies, television, and radio for me since I was about five. So until I can watch the same unrated versions of Jet Li’s films that are released in Asia, don’t bawl to me about your problems. Until I can hear Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, Jim Hightower, or Naomi Klein on the public airwaves for even a fraction of the time that Rush Limbaugh is shoved down my throat, don’t talk to me about your silly complaints.
My question to you is: Did you really think that controlling freedom of speech in this country for so many years wouldn’t come back to you and bite you in the ass? Happy Holidays, everybody….and happy birthday, Jesus.
December 23rd, 2005 at 10:11 pm
And a Happy Festivus to all…
December 23rd, 2005 at 10:18 pm
I found this excerpt and thought it sounded pretty logical to me.
The recent energy expended over use of the terms “Happy holiday†vs. “Merry Christmas†would be comical if its effect weren’t so divisive to our society. For all those offended by use of the term “Happy holiday,†get out your dictionary and look up the word “holiday.†You’ll find that the derivation of the word comes from two words — holy day. Now all Christians will agree that Christmas is a holy day. Additionally, the term is inclusive and considerate of other faiths since they also have their holy days at this time of year. Let’s go a step further and look at the derivation of the word “Christmas.†Pretty clear again, the joining of two words — Christ Mass. It would behoove all those using the term “Merry Christmas†to be sure that they or the person that they are addressing will be attending a Christ Mass of their choosing on Christmas Day. This is not to be politically correct but rather grammatically correct in addition to avoiding the taint of hypocrisy. Surely, we Christians can celebrate the Prince of Peace without devolving into some militant argument over our expressions of season’s greetings. Merry Christmas, Happy holidays and a peaceful New Year to all.
p.s. How many millions have died and are still dying in the name of religion, i.e.; Shias vs. Sunnis; Israelis vs. Palestinians. The inculcation of religious ideologies creates a furor (Fuher) among people, so that they lose their ability to logically reason how divisive all of this stuff really is. In another words, we can’t see the forest for the trees. If you feel the urge to be righteous why not just follow two simple principles (you can’t go wrong with these): Love yourself; and then love others as you love yourself!
Have a Peaceful day!
December 23rd, 2005 at 10:27 pm
…on earth peace, good will towards men.
Not much peace in this thread, I’m afraid. But then again, there wasn’t much peace in Jesus’s time either.
How ironic it is that U.S. society is having a “war” (or at least some members of our society) over how to celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace. I perceive much displaced passion and anger from matters more critical to the future of our republic that are being channeled on this holiday. Perhaps it’s sort of a safety valve since (hopefully) no blood is going to get spilt over this. But it certainly does detract from contemplating the meaning of this day.
Oh well, soon this madness of the season will be past for another year, and we’ll have to go back to attending to more serious matters.
But in the meanwhile, Merry Christmas to all here in remembrance of God’s gift to us of His incarnate Son! — which came to pass in the absence of decorations, only one carol (exceeding any of our renditions), a child wrapped in rags and cradled in an animal feeding trough, the only “family” visitors being a band of lowly shepherds. It’s still a good time to reflect on and enjoy community — then and now.
December 24th, 2005 at 1:38 am
David Cummings,
There is hardly a “paranoid persecution complex.” Christians in the US feel under attack, because they are – in certain realms of society. The Catholic Church has been under serious attack by the left and especially the gay rights folks for a long time.
Most Christians (nobody can speak for all) recognize that these attacks are very different from persecution – in the sense that Christians aren’t being fed to lions any more. But it is still a widespread attack – a part of the KultureKampf that gained its power from the revolution of the ’60s.
As to the Happy Holidays controversy… I think it is a result of oversensitivity on the part of Christians, created by the continuous and frequent attacks on the expression of their religion over the last couple of decades. The controversy is more symbolic of the culture wars than any kind of important issue itself.
All you have to do is see the nasty treatment of the Boy Scouts (an important American institution if there ever was one) to recognize how those on one side of the culture war are ready to tear out entire culture apart (one which many of them consider inferior to every other culture on earth). The real Boy Scout issue, hidden unter the “separation of church and state” is the prohibition of homosexuals that the BSA enforces.
As to chain stores, etc… how can you speak for what the Evangelicals, as individuals, say about this? Do you know their reaction.
As a conservative, I consider people crying foul about chain stores as equivalent to buggy whip manufacturers lamenting the change to the automobile.
It is true that large stores (such as WalMart) often cause the destruction of small town retail businesses. But that destruction comes by the free choice of the customers – many of whom are poor and go for the lower prices that the highly efficient distribution operations such as WMT are able to provide. Certainly one must feel sympathy for the owners and employees of the retail stores, and indeed Christian charities are available for those in need -whether they are the poor customers of WalMart or the poor former employees of the formerly protected small retail outlets. But if you really care about the poor or the “working man,” then you support those operations that reduce the price while increasing the selection – i.e. the large outlets such as WalMart, Costco or Home Depot.
December 24th, 2005 at 6:57 am
Well homophobia is Moore’s latest Christmas cheer so as the youngest Eagle Scout in the country ever, to my knowledge, with a bronze palm above that I can say the so-called morals the Boy Scouts claim to have fall by the wayside. Science writer Rick Weiss gave his back over this “judgment.”
Moore, Woody and their ilk suffer from false piety. It’s a war indeed: against these intolerant idiots.
The metaphor of a poor child ruling the earth is a good one which is why it was created by poor shepherds in the face of brutal oppression. All cultures have this same archetype. It’s human.
“We are killing ourselves over metaphors.” Joseph Campbell
And Wal-Mart was successfully sued for $173 million for not allowing a lunch break for 100,000 plus workers. There is justice despite the right-wing opponents of that concept.
Joy to the world.
December 24th, 2005 at 7:24 am
Don’t you people ever get tired of these circle-jerk sessions?
Woody and John stumble over here from whatever blogs they call home, make some comments to stir things up, and everyone else takes the bait.
Where do you find the time?
December 24th, 2005 at 10:24 am
John, if any kind of serious “attack” on Christianity existed, the tax-exempt status of Christian churches in America would have been pulled a long time ago. Instead, quite the opposite has happened: Billions of dollars in tax revenue is given to “faith based” organizations to operate on. It is now taken for granted that if a person is poor and in need of help, they had better be a Christian, or he or she is not going to get any kind of relief help.
There is hardly any kind of an attack on Christianity from progressives. Quite the contrary: I doubt there is a single person on this bulletin board who would put down Christianity. In fact, I would bet most of us on here identify ourselves as Christians.
To the extent that Christianity is “under attack,” I would argue – as would others, perhaps – that most of these attacks are self-inflicted.
December 24th, 2005 at 1:45 pm
Alex… actually this is one of only a few of blogs I go to. I don’t make comments to stire things up, but to shed a different (albeit controversial – here) opinion on a number of subjects. Of course, that stires up controversy, but too often it fails to stir up any reasoned debate.
For example, I have given a lot of information and arguments on the NSA “spy scandal” which nobody has ever answered, preferring either to change the subject, continue to recite the already stated left positions, or just attack me with ad homina. Perhaps I am wasting my time here, given those responses. But I guess I’m just a masochist who loves being insulted. As for your comment, can you not tolerate dissenting opinions? Are you like the left at university campuses who routinely suppress opinions that are not PC?
David…
If the anti-Christians had their way, the tax exemptions would be long gone. As to tax money to faith based organizations, perhaps you have never seen them at work. None that I am aware of require the recipients of their assistance to be Christian. In Mexico City, 1985 (after the big earthquake) I watched the Southern Baptist Conference feeding poor people that the primary NGO’s ignored. They didn’t require them to be Baptist (in fact, I suspect most were Catholic). The same is true of every other faith based charity I am aware of.
I’ll give my money to St. Vincent De Paul or Cathlic Charities because they are less bureaucratic and more effective than many of the NGOs (although the local Red Cross operation I participated in after hurricane Katrina was pretty impressive).
But if you pay much attention at all, you would know that there are lots of attacks on Christianity, and the people doing them are all from the left (at least of the ones I am personally aware of). They aren’t attacks designed to destroy Christianity – merely attacks to remove it entirely from our public culture and to discredit (and make unspeakable in many places – especially the workplace and colleges) its teachings.
As to self inflicted attacks… what exactly do you mean?
December 24th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
Hogwash. No one is trying to pick on Christians but they certainly don’t care much for the views of others. And that’s a bad message: Hate thy neighbor or anyone that thinks differently. Call it PC and ridicule others endlessly. I guess I just don’t feel the love in that.
December 24th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
I’m a Christian and I don’t feel persecuted.
By the way, in Brazil, which is the largest predominantly Roman Catholic country in the world and largely Christian, (so much so the the point that when virtually anyone mentions that they hope to do or accomplish something, they follow it with the phrase “se Deus quiser” meaning “if God wants it to be so) at this time of year people routinely say “Boas Festas” which means Happy Holidays.
December 24th, 2005 at 8:32 pm
York: “so as the youngest Eagle Scout in the country ever, to my knowledge, with a bronze palm above that”
Hi Andy,
I’m trying to find out who the youngest Eagle Scout is, or was. Any chance you have some info on that? (W.B., Patriots’ Path Council, NJ)
I guess there may be no single Scout who can claim that distinction! If you use the “Google†search engine, you’ll find a half-dozen or more. They include Zac Bell in Gillette, WY and Brian Burns in Chicago, both of whom apparently earned their Eagle at the age of 12 years, 4 months. Others who were also 12, but no months specified, include Bill Martino, also of Chicago; Shawn Garner, of Halifax, NC; and Neal Fosseen, of Spokane, WA. Interesting to find a whole bunch of entries for L. Ron Hubbard, a science fiction writer and later the founder of Scientology, who has been claimed to be the youngest. He earned his Eagle rank at the age of 13, it says, so this makes him definitely not the youngest, anymore. But that was in 1924, when a boy had to be 12 to just be a Scout, so we know he did it in no more than two years. But we also know that, in 1924, all a Scout had to do was earn 21 merit badges after becoming First Class. So, the late Mr. Hubbard actually took about the same amount of time, it would seem, as those possibly younger Eagles who came later! And if any of my readers has more information on this fascinating topic, please write, and I’ll publish it in December.
Don’t See Mr. York’s name in the above list.
December 24th, 2005 at 9:26 pm
And as we all know, L. Ron Hubbard is so honest (cue: here is where you laugh). The official Scientology literature calls his military service distinctive, when actually he was pulled stateside because of alleged “cowardice.” Check his actual Navy records and you will find out what his actual record was like.
And then of course there are other examples of his stellar honesty. Like the time in which he stole a ship and embezzled thousands of dollars from Cal-Tech lab founder Jack Parsons (for which Hubbard was successfully sued).
Yeah, I’d believe anything that Hubbard had to say about his boy scout record.
P.S. I believe that the operative words in that person’s post was “to my knowledge.”
December 25th, 2005 at 6:03 am
Well I guess I fall back there with Hubbard at just 13. Oh those pesky youngsters have proven me wrong. Drat! I just located the records at my parents’ house and it appears I earned four more merit badges above the extra five for Bronze palm making 30. That and the God and Country award and the leadership training from Schiff in Mendam, NJ. It’s quite mark to set.
And yes I used the qualifier pointed out by Mr. Cummings. Reading comprehension is not your friend.
December 25th, 2005 at 8:10 am
“But since the Boy Scouts of America has never published the names or ages of their youngest Eagles, any such assertions are impossible to substantiate.”
They don’t even keep track of it.
December 25th, 2005 at 10:08 am
I’ve got no time or inclination for adding comments during the holidays but since this thread is in it’s last throes, here’s a Christmas Column for the edification, or more likely annoyance of the Yahoos and the amusement and enjoyment of more sentient beings. I’d just link it, but it’s sub only.
The New York Times
December 25, 2005
I Saw Jackie Mason Kissing Santa Claus
By FRANK RICH
THE good news today is that the great 2005 war on Christmas, the conflagration that launched a thousand op-ed pieces and nearly as many battles on Fox News, is now officially over. And yes, Virginia – Christmas won!
Secularists, Jews, mainline Protestants and all the other grinches failed utterly to take Kriss Kringle down. Except at those megachurches that canceled services today rather than impede their flocks’ giving and gorging, Christmas is alive and well everywhere in America. Last night NBC even rolled the dice and broadcast “It’s a Wonderful Life” in prime time. With courage reminiscent of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s defiance of Stalin, the network steadfastly refused to redub the final scene’s cries of “Merry Christmas!” with the godless “Happy holidays!”
As Michelle Goldberg wrote last month in her definitive debunking for Salon, there was in fact no war on Christmas, but rather “a burgeoning myth of a war on Christmas.” Most of the grievances cited by Christmas’s whiniest protectors – red and green banned from residents’ wardrobes in Michigan, “Silent Night” censored in Wisconsin – were either anomalous idiocies or suburban legends. The calls for boycotts against chain stores with heathen holiday trees lost their zing when it turned out that even George and Laura Bush’s Christmas card had called for a happy “holiday season.”
But like every other chapter of irrational hysteria in America’s cultural history, from the burning of “witches” in colonial Salem to the panic induced by Orson Welles’s radio broadcast of the fictional “War of the Worlds” on the eve of World War II, the fake war on Christmas was not without its hidden meanings. Or not so hidden. If you worked at Fox News, wouldn’t you want to change the subject from the war in Iraq to a war in which victory is a slam-dunk?
Rabble-rousing paranoia about a supposed assault on Christmas also has a strong anti-Semitic and far-right pedigree. In Salon, Ms. Goldberg noted that fulmination about supposed Jewish opposition to Christmas dates to Henry Ford’s infamous “The International Jew” of 1921. That chord is sounded in the very first anecdote in the book by the Fox News anchor John Gibson, “The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought”: a devastated father discovers that his 4-year-old son has brought home preschool artwork showing a Hanukkah menorah and Kwanzaa candles, rather than a Christmas tree. But Mr. Gibson goes on to add ecumenically that “not just Jewish people” are out to kill Christmas. As he elucidated on Christian radio, all non-Christians are “following the wrong religion,” though he reassures us that they will be tolerated “as long as they’re civil and behave.”
Even so, much of this manufactured war was more banal than malicious. Like Christmas itself, an anti-Christmas scare is an ideal means for moving merchandise. The first Fox News segment warning darkly of a war on Christmas occurred on Oct. 20 – coincidentally the very day that Mr. Gibson’s book hit the nation’s bookstores. Many of the five dozen ensuing Fox segments contained lavish plugs for the book or for the Christmas baubles hawked by Bill O’Reilly on his Web site – no yuletide loofahs, alas. (His wares were initially listed as “holiday” gifts until a Web exposé forced a frantic rebranding.) Even Fox News’s obligatory show Jew – Jackie Mason, ostensibly representing an organization called Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation – seized the mercantile opportunity, using the “war on Christmas” to plug a stand-up booking on Long Island.
But to fully parse the war-on-Christmas myth, it helps to examine it in the larger context of what “The Daily Show” would call This Year in God. Though religion has always been a fulcrum of culture wars in America, its debased role in that debate has fallen to new lows of lunacy since Election Day 2004. That’s when a single vague exit poll found that 22 percent of Americans considered undefined “moral values” in casting their ballots. Ever since, politicians of both parties, Fox News anchors and any other huckster eager to sell goods, an agenda or an image have increased the decibel level of their pandering to “people of faith.”
An ersatz war on Christmas fits all too snugly into a year that began with the religious right’s (unsuccessful) efforts to destroy the box office and Oscar prospects of Clint Eastwood’s “Million Dollar Baby” and “save” Terri Schiavo and that ended with a federal judge banishing intelligent design from high school biology classes. In his sweeping 139-page opinion, that judge, John Jones III, put his finger on the hypocrisy of many of those most ostentatiously defending faith from its alleged assailants in America. Referring to the fundamentalists on the Dover, Pa., school board, he wrote that it was “ironic” that those who “so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the intelligent design policy.” That passage fits much of the dishonesty and cynicism perpetrated in the name of religion in America over the past 12 months.
This was the year that two C.E.O.’s charged with wholesale corporate fraud, Bernard Ebbers of WorldCom and Richard Scrushy of HealthSouth, both made a show of public prayer to ward off legal culpability. In Mr. Scrushy’s case, the strategy worked. Faced with the prospect of life in prison and the forfeiture of $279 million, he quit his suburban Birmingham, Ala., church to join a largely blue-collar African-American congregation more in keeping with his potential jury pool, secured his own ordination as a nondenominational minister, and bought local TV time for a prayer show featuring himself, his third wife and various members of the clergy. The jury acquitted him on all 36 felony counts.
“God is good,” he proclaimed after his victory news conference. To which one can only add: amen.
A no less unctuous spectacle was provided this year by Bill Frist, the Senate’s majority leader and self-infatuated doctor-in-residence. Mr. Frist played God on national television by giving a quack diagnosis of Ms. Schiavo’s condition based on a videotape, and then endorsed a so-called Justice Sunday megachurch rally demonizing “activist” judges – including, no doubt, any who may yet pass on the legality of his brilliantly timed stock sales. Though the senator’s farcical behavior is worthy of Molière, he is hardly unique among his peers with presidential aspirations. Chastened by a perceived “moral values” deficit that might haunt her in 2008, Hillary Clinton now wears her history as “a praying person” on her sleeve. In June John Kerry told a gathering that he “went back and read the New Testament the other day” – which presumably will prevent him from erroneously citing Job as his favorite New Testament text, as Howard Dean did in 2004.
Liberals have a lot to learn about the God racket, however. The right is masterly at exploiting religion and religious (or quasi-religious) leaders for its own fun and profit. Just look at how a few phone calls from Karl Rove flimflammed Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family into serving as a useful idiot in support of the Harriet Miers nomination long after most other conservative leaders had bailed out.
THE more we learned about the scandals enveloping Tom DeLay and his favorite lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, this year, the more we learned of how Mr. Abramoff, the founder of a now defunct Washington yeshiva and two defunct kosher restaurants, manipulated a trinity of Billy Sundays to do his bidding: the Christian Coalition’s former executive director, Ralph Reed, the Traditional Values Coalition’s Rev. Louis Sheldon (dubbed “Lucky Louie” by Mr. Abramoff) and Dr. Dobson. Though all three are vocal opponents of gambling, they were each recruited for stealth campaigns for the lobbyist’s casino and lottery clients. The campaigns were disguised as “anti-gambling” crusades (often because they were in opposition to casinos competing with Abramoff clients), and these pious gentlemen, Lucky Louie included, have denied any knowledge that they were trafficking in the wages of sin. If they’re actually telling the truth, they are even bigger dupes than Mr. Abramoff took them for.
To those who fear the worst from a born-again president whose base is typified by these holy rollers and the Christmas demagogues of Fox News, a fundamentalist theocracy seems as imminent in America as it does in the “democracy” we’ve been building in Iraq. Only last week did Ted Haggard, an evangelical preacher much favored by the White House, fan those fears by insisting to a Jewish television interviewer, Barbara Walters, that anyone who worshiped a different God from Jesus Christ would “unfortunately” be consigned to hell.
But it’s also possible that 2005 may turn out to be the year the God card was so wildly overplayed in politics and commerce alike that it began to lose its clout with Americans who are overdosing on the strict speech and belief codes of Christian political correctness. That the judge who ruled so decisively in Pennsylvania’s revival of the Scopes trial is a Republican appointed by President Bush is almost enough to make the bah-humbug crowd believe in Santa Claus.
December 25th, 2005 at 11:50 am
That judge has my support. Thanks reg.
December 25th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
John,
As for the chain stores wiping out small businesses (like, in your words, “the buggy whip manufacturers” upset by automobile makers…I didn’t know that horses had to be whipped by people going from one place to another), you have it all wrong: Chain stores don’t have any real legitimacy under classic free market philosophy. Chain stores, national corporations, and multi-national corporations are what Noam Chomsky accurately refers to as “illegitimate tyrannies”
When corporations came into being in the 19th century, they had to acquire a charter of incorporation from an individual state, and could not move their operations out of that state. This meant that there were more companies (per capita) in the U.S. that sold goods and services for people to choose from and buy. THIS is the original conservative model: No big companies controlling an industry, and people would thus enjoy cheap prices AND competative wages from a broad range of competing companies.
Due to an awful court decision, though, rendered in the early twentieth century by a Supreme Court that was stacked with judges handpicked by the robber barons; corporations were given the same constitutional rights as living, breathing human beings.
To make matters worse, companies that you love, John (like Wal-Mart and Costco) are and have been enabled to prosper through the political cronyism of politicians. Wal-Mart has been aided through cheap loans, tax loopholes, and the strong arm of the government to the tune of billions of dollars in free money.
In short, nothing about Wal-Mart is “free market.” Well, excuse me. Chains like Wal Mart are free market in that they are “free to control the market,” courtesy to their friends in power.
December 25th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
a good source to find out about Wal-Mart’s practices, in case anyone is interested, is the new film “Wal-Mart: the high cost of low price,” and Featherstone’s stories about Wal-Mart in the Nation magazine, which have been appearing periodically over the last year or so (there was a cover story some time back that was a huge source of interesting info, including the damningly high percentage of Wal-Mart employees who have to depend on federal goverment assistance since Wal-Mart doesn’t provide hardly any health insurance or decent wages to its employees).
December 25th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
Costco pays their people really well according to the 60 Minutes profile. That’s not the case with Wal-mart where apparently you can’t even take lunch but work just emough under 40hrs on the books not to get benefits.
December 25th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
Nothing said above refutes my argument that, by bringing low costs to communities, WalMart provides an important service, especially to the poor. That WalMart is not perfect is hardly surprising – big corporations or indiviuals are. Remember, people are not forced to shop at WalMart – they choose to do so.
As far as government aid to WalMart, there are many, many cases of government obstruction of WalMart. Many WalMart stores (such as the one near Prescott, AZ) are outside the city limits because the town tried to protect its small retailers (who are no more likely to provide high wages or medical insurance).
There was a court decision in the 50s, I think, that ended the ludicrous “fair trade” laws which required all outfits to sell at manufacturer-set prices. That repeal is what allowed discount outfits. I remember when discounting didn’t exist – to the detriment of any competition.
The idea that corporations were only supposed to be local is a novel one, but not realistic. Can you imagine an Intel only able to do business in California? To this day, corporations get a charter in one state. If all states required those corporations to only do business in that state, then big corporations would simply get charters in all states. Any attempt to keep those corporation associations from working together would fall afoul of the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause. Capital groups would simply invest in the equivalent corporation in every state, adding a layer of inefficiency to the equity markets but not providing any beneift, as the result would be the same megacorporations as before.
By the way, WalMart hardly operates without competition. It has competition from other discount stores (such as Costco) and from specialty stores. It is simply the modern equivalent of the department store.
WalMart wins primarily by being extremelhy innovative and efficient in logistics. It led the way in the use of automation to optimize its supply chain. Today, some other companies do the same thing. A company *has to be large* to bring these savings, since the savings are based on the efficiency of the purchasing and distribution.
As for Wal-Mart employees who have to depend on Federal Government assistance… the same applies to members of the military who are defending us. We could argue all week about the definitioni of “decent wages,” but I would say that “decent wages” are what the market will bear (as long as illegals are not providing competition in the market). Should the government set the wages at WalMart?
As far as health insurance, I am well to the left of many conserrvatives on this. I think we need universal coverage, that the market has failed to do so, and the government needs to do *something* to improve that situation. Tying health insurance to wages was a result of government foolishness (wage controls during WW-II) and the demand of unions for increases in benefits during that war. There is nothing at all natural about health benefits being tied to employment. I think it would be beneficial to *outlaw* employer provided health insurance (except that such interference in private contracts is offensive to me). Certainly it would be better to move tax breaks for insurance payments to the employee, rather than the employer.
Just remember that when a company like WalMart pays low wages, someone is around to take the jobs. Nobody is forcing them to do so. If they stay on public assistance, they can in fact get health care (Medicade, or in Arizona, ACCESS).
Finally, one needs to recognize that the bulk of stock in almost all publicly traded companies is held by pension funds – especially public worker pension funds such as CALPERS. Hurt WalMart and you hurt retired California school teachers.
A bit of irony.
Corporations do not have the same rights as humans, but they do have many of them. Without those rights, they wouldn’t be able to provide the incredible benefits they have bestowed on Americans (especially) in the last 100 years – from pharamaceuticals to WalMart’s low prices and wide selection.
December 25th, 2005 at 5:50 pm
Anyone who earns a union pension deserves it. Why would any capitalist begrudge a worker that? It’s beyond me. The only times I’ve ever had healthcare was as a union member and it’s damn hard to qualify in both instances. In any given year you won’t get enough work to qualify. That’s the reality of America.
Costco is from Seattle. Wal-mart, Arkansas. There’s your difference: slave business model versus progressive capitalist. We can easily see which one works better for the worker.
“As far as health insurance, I am well to the left of many conserrvatives on this. I think we need universal coverage, that the market has failed to do so, and the government needs to do *something* to improve that situation.”
We agree on that.
December 25th, 2005 at 7:31 pm
Geeze. Hey guys, go hug a family member or something. If yours are unavailable (or you don’t find them terribly huggable) go hug SOMEBODY, for chrissake sake..
Merry freaking Christmas!
PS: OT to reg: I’m happy to report that a wise and wonderful person saw fit to give me the Springsteen 30th Anniversary “Born to Run” CD DVD thang for Christmas. (I put it on my wish list and your suggestion.) I haven’t watched the DVD yet as I’ve been cooking etc. all day. But my inner adolescent is entirely ecstatic.
PPS: Two Many Steves… I’d never heard of Bruce Cockburn, but now—because of you, and through the miracle of iTunes—I’ve acquired his versions of both “Go Tell it on the Mountain†and “Oh Little Town of Bethlehem.†Lovely stuff.
PPPS: “Jingle Bells†by Crash Test Dummies is a total must have. It’s guaranteed to terrify all young children and most household pets.
December 25th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
John Moore: To paraphrase an old James Brown song, “You doin’ a lotta talkin’, and sayin nothin.”
You said that “Corporations do not have the same rights as human beings”?
If you do not know that in 1886 that the U.S. Supreme Court established “personhood” in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad (a decision summarized by the justices in a few sentences, basically…with no reasoning), then your grip on facts or history is less than I thought.
In a 1978 case that unsuccessfully challenged this ruling (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotis), the late Chief Justice Rehnquist angrily wrote the dissent in this 5-4 case: “This court decided at an earlier date, with neither argument nor discussion, that a business corporation is a ‘person’ entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.” Rehnquist – a genuine conservative – did not agree at all with either the 1886 or 1978 decision (although it is likely that G.W. Bush’s latest picks for the high court do).
You said that corportations “could get around” things by getting charters in all 50 states. Well, corporations in the early part of American History were only allowed to incorporate in one state. However, since corporations now are spread out everywhere, I would love to see Wal-Mart and other corporations pay 50 sets of taxes to the Federal Government as 50 separate corporations, if that is what you wish.
You are correct to some extent when you say that there are people willing to work at Wal Mart, and in a lot of instances (but not all), it is undocumented illegal aliens. On October 23, 2003, Federal agents raided 61 stores around the country and detained 250 illegal aliens working as night janitors at Wal Mart. How much were they getting, according to a great many of those questioned? 325 dollars per 60 (yes, 60) hour weeks, with no (I repeat, no) opportunity to earn overtime pay. Wal Mart was fined 11 million dollars for this…slap on the wrist. Additional raids in 1998 and 2001 rounded up hundreds of other undocumented workers….and, just last month in November of 2005, 125 illegals were detained. No action has been brought against Wal Mart as of yet for this.
John, I am not saying that corporations (like Intel) should not be allowed to make big profits. I have juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis, and I have had it since I was 12. From the time that I was 14 until I was 26, I felt like I had broken glass in my entire body, with my cartilage, muscles, and bones deteriating. Now, I feel great because of a miracle pharmaceutical drug, and I know that without the profit motive and the big corporation, I would be in a wheelchair like I was at 26. In fact, there is a small part of me that doesn’t mind that lots of tax payer money goes to the corporations, via the National Institute of Health, for research and development if it is predicated on Americans being able to have affordable access to those drugs.
But on the other hand, if it weren’t for my teachers union helping to negotiate my health care expenditures, I wouldn’t be able to afford the 1700 dollars a month that it takes to be on that one drug in the first place.
People in this country are hurting, and there needs to be a balance of power. Unfortunately, the scales have not been tipping in the favor of working people for many many years. This needs to change. Many corporations need to clean up their act, and if they don’t have the decency to do this, then it is our duty – in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson’s words – to clean their act up for them.
December 25th, 2005 at 9:05 pm
What were Thomas Jefferson’s words concerning corporations? In 1788, he said this: “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporation which dare challenge our government, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
December 26th, 2005 at 4:22 am
War on Christmas, for real…
http://tinyurl.com/7bvyb
December 26th, 2005 at 6:11 am
David, well-said.
December 27th, 2005 at 11:00 pm
Finally, somethings to put this long thread — and the role of Christ today — into perspective:
http://www.jesusdressup.com
May 21st, 2006 at 3:40 pm
orlando hotel…
suspend venomous indoctrinating abet perish inconspicuous los angeles hotels http://los-angeles-hotels.hotels-beaches.com/ …
September 27th, 2006 at 10:43 am
…
[...] extinguishers [...]
…
October 11th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
…
big east…
October 14th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
…
clavinova…
January 24th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Homeowners Insurence…
screwing somber!tremor persuasion shuffled horns.Home Insurance [url=http://www.homeinsuranceme.com/#]Home Insurance[/url] http://www.homeinsuranceme.com/# …
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Carol Bouquet Actress…
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Muslim Minds…
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….
April 27th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
who killed kennedy?…
trackbacking your entry…..
July 31st, 2007 at 10:27 am
…
[..]…
August 15th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Eric…
you have a very nice blog and very informative article…
November 3rd, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Can someone suggest the best video editor software maker? I have been looking at sony vegas and I like the feel of them, but it’s just kinda out of my price range.
December 1st, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Superb design I have been looking for something like this, very good Playstation work chaps.