Went to Ariel’s school concert last night. Unlike other school systems where specifics of the season are being meticulously expunged, here they actually sing Christmas songs (along with, of all things, a medley from “Fiddler.”) I find that preferable. I think inclusive is always preferable to exclusive. What kind of message are schools sending kids if they effectively stick their heads in the sand and try to ignore all signs of the holidays.
Also, as a Jew, I have to say I don’t understand how it’s possible for the “true meaning” of Christmas to be lost. Yesterday, as I went to the post office to buy a $5 money order and encountered fifteen people on line, each juggling half a dozen packages…or when a local strip mall where I buy groceries had no parking places because it was choked with holiday buyers…or when street after street, normally easy driving, was clogged with traffic…in short, when even the simplest errand took forever, I cannot tell you the number of times I shouted, “Jeeeeesus Chriiiiist.”
PAD
• 
I can’t help but find it rather interesting that people who seem to consider themselves as “protectors of free speech” are telling other Americans to “shut up” and “stop whining” because they disagree with them.
Maybe you would find it interesting, but I never said anything of the kind.
Apparently, the First amendment only applies to non-Christians.
Never said that either.
Umm… how many have run?
That’s exactly my point. There is a basic assumption that nobody gets elected to high office unless they make a show of their religious faith.
The question isn’t how many are dropping religious school productions, or store clerks aren’t saying “Merry Christmas”, but why are they doing it? And yeah, if the reason given most often is to stave off a lawsuit, then sounds to me like persecution using the government Courts.
I have yet to hear of one case of somebody threatening to sue a dpeartment store over not saying “Merry Christmas.”
I’ll note that you choose to ignore the part of my post where I said the real problem is hypersensitivity on both sides of the issue.
I guess that didn’t fit in with your preconceived notion of me being a godless heathen. 🙂
Well actually that last one just never made sense to me. I mean, do you guys get upset if someone wishes you a Happy New Year as well?
I don’t get upset over anything except people who try to put words into my mouth. Say whatever the hëll you want. It’s still at least technically a free country.
Just because less non christians (athiests and other people with other religious affiliations) have run doesn’t change the political reality that until recently it would have been inconcievable for a jew or athiest to be president. There barely have been any catholic presidents.
There was one. And ironically, he had to appease the fundamentalist sect by pledging not to allow his religion to dictate his policies.
The reality is if a jew or muslim or hindu, buddist, or athiest, or any one not white and christian (mostly protastant I think) had no chance of winning a presindential election until most recently, and it still hasn’t happened.
I would argue that we still haven’t reached the point anyone but a white male Christian could get elected president.
Apparently, the First amendment only applies to non-Christians.
Apparently it needs to, since it’s the Christians trying to force their religion upon everybody else.
Your right to exercise your religion freely doesn’t include trying to make me part of your religion.
That is the distinction many Christians, include nitwits like Roy Moore, fail to recognize. It is why separate of church (any church) and state (all of our government) is so important.
Craig,
RE: First Amendment Only Applying To Non-Christians
“Apparently it needs to, since it’s the Christians trying to force their religion upon everybody else.”
So you would be in favor of the First Amendment only applying to non-Christians? Interesting. And “the Christians”? Some Christians, maybe. I mean, really, Craig. Do you use such Franken-esque generalizations when you talk about “the Blacks”, “the Jews”, “the Chinese”, “the Muslims”, etc? Consider how you would view those who did (racist rednecks, anti-Semitic, etc.) and then realize what such statements made by you sound like to others.
RE: “Holiday Of Lights”
“I haven’t looked for a lot of articles about this, but I live in Denver and, for one, it’s the Parade of Lights:)”
“As a side note, I could give a rat’s ášš about this Parade.”
That’s a shame, I’ve always heard denver was a nice city and the parade sounds like fun.
“I avoid downtown Denver as much as possible now, because for all the money they’ve dumped into it, it’s becoming a dump again.”
Which is another shining example that throwing money at a problem does not solve anything if it is not spent wisely or for the right reasons.
Of course, part of the problem may also be that people such as yourself go out of your way to avoid it.
“Stores are leaving and the influx of homeless and stupid kids contnues to grow.”
So rather than avoiding it, what are you doing about it? How would you control this “influx” of people you consider undesirable or uneducated?
“Maybe with the convention center, some money can be used to clean up downtown again”
Maybe. And maybe it can be wasted like the money you already say has been “poured” into it.
Honestly, the only way you “clean up” a city is by making tough decisions for the common good. Giuliani outraged a lot of people with his style, but there is no doubt New York is a much better place to live than it was before him.
So you would be in favor of the First Amendment only applying to non-Christians? Interesting.
If that’s your interpretation of it, so be it. I’m not going to bother trying to change your mind about how you view others, because, quite frankly, it’s a waste of time.
You apparently think it’s ok for Christians to demand that kids say “under god” in the pledge, whether they believe in god (any god) or not, or that everybody should have the Ten Commandments hanging over their heads.
Or that Bush should keep telling everybody which countries god tells him to invade.
PAD sits here and tells us what it’s like to be a Jew. He doesn’t sit here and say “If you’re not Jewish, you’re going to hëll”.
Christians on the other hand…
I mean, really, Craig.
Get over it. You have your “moral values”. Keep ’em to yourself.
That’s a shame, I’ve always heard denver was a nice city and the parade sounds like fun.
I’m not much of a holiday person – the commercialization is sickening. So is the BS about how we can’t have Christian-float this, or Christmas tree that.
I realize that the Bush slander machine got a lot of mileage spreading rumors around the south that Kerry was planning on having the Bible outlawed, but let’s be realistic here.
Actually, this is the first time I’ve heard anything about it, and I’m in the south.
Do you live in Arkansas or Wes Virginia? Those were the states in which the mailings were used.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/24/politics/main645393.shtml
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F2061EF63A5D0C778EDDA00894DC404482
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=76170&ran=122783
Hey, I just saw South Park’s The Passion of the Jew last night. And if you get over Mel Gibson’s defacation, it wasn’t all that bad, for a South Park. Except, they didn’t kill Kenny…Don’t they do that anymore?
Point being, at the end of the episode, where Cartman’s band of Christian zealots are storming through the streets shouting “we must kill the jews” in german, and Kyle’s contigent of jews are storming the theater showing Gibson’s Passion, Stan makes the rather obvious statement that, instead of fighting over the death of Jesus, doesn’t it make more sense to focus on his life, the teachings he gave us, and try to get along and love one another as He asked?
Honestly, can’t you just see Jesus sitting next to God, watching all this “Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays” spat and just tearing Their divine hair out? Because, people? Totally missing the message.
In 200 years, when little Peruvian (just a randomly picked nation) children are studying the history of the early 21st century world, there’s going to be a little paragraph about the Late American Religious wars, which no one understands how it happened, but around 2000AD, some factions in what used to be called the United States split over a key religious doctrine, and started a war of genocide and erradication that lasted decades. Which of course allowed the Peruvian nation to develop clean, cold fusion, providing an unlimited source of power, and propelled Peru into a golden age of enlightenment and prosperity (oh, and by the way, fused North America into a glass parking lot because those people were crazy).
Little will those future kids know that we all went to war over the ability to say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays.
Hey, I just saw South Park’s The Passion of the Jew last night.
I don’t think many people realize how great a show South Park is – especially at a time when few want to actually tackle the issues of the day (which is something that the Trek shows have fail to do enough anymore as well).
A great friend of mine from college is the son of a pastor (some Christian denomination, I don’t remember which), but even though he had a pretty open mind, he wouldn’t watch South Park due to the violence and language.
Ok, I can understand that, but I think if you can get past that, you can enjoy the show for what it is: a great satire of our society that shows how really fubar’ed we are. 🙂
I think I watched the first 2 seasons of South Park pretty closely, but drifted off. Missed Baseketball, loved the South Park Movie. With Team America (South Park movie aside) I think 30 minutes of Trey and Matt are all I can take.
That being said, they do pretty much rip on everyone, and usually the point is “get over yourself.”
As an aside, the only really entertaining thing I took away from Team America was “giving the sign.” I recommend using it as a tension breaker often. I’ll not say it’s worth seeing the whole movie, but it is worth a sit through is one of your friends has Netflix and offers to let you watch with them.
Maybe you would find it interesting, but I never said anything of the kind.
I’m sorry, did I say you had?
There is a basic assumption that nobody gets elected to high office unless they make a show of their religious faith.
Asumptions can be wrong. In fact, At least the first five presidents were elected based on other than religious faith. Washington certainly was. Jefferson as well.
You know, there’s a basic assumption that only married men can be elected to office, yet we’ve had at least one bachelor president. I really wonder whether that would play today, considering the role that the First Lady tends to play. But the point is, one ran, he won.
I’ll note that you choose to ignore the part of my post where I said the real problem is hypersensitivity on both sides of the issue.
I guess that didn’t fit in with your preconceived notion of me being a godless heathen. 🙂
Hey, I don’t consider you godless. 8^)
Actually, I didn’t mention it because I don’t disagree with your assessment. We are talking about perceptions here. I think it’s mostly media driven. But at the same time, I hold people who feel that the FCC is a threat to free speech because they hold radio and tv stations to rules that they agreed to in order to get their licenses in the first place to the same standard as the ACLU suing to enforce their particular interpretation of the First Amendment.
Man, eclark, where were you back when I was trying to explain the FCC’s ability to regulate public airwaves? All I had were theory and argument. A simple “you need to be licensed to broadcast over public airwaves” would have ended the whole free speech aspect of public broadcasting right quick.
I’m sorry, did I say you had?
We can go around and around on this, but you implied it by putting that comment directly after mine.
Asumptions can be wrong. In fact, At least the first five presidents were elected based on other than religious faith. Washington certainly was. Jefferson as well.
You’ll note I confined my initial comments to the past 100 years. Things changes and despite all the hype that the fundamentalists give to the idea that our founding fathers wanted to create “a Christian nation,” many in fact were more open to spirital beliefs such as Deism that rejected the more dogmatic aspects of Christianity.
Today, things are very different. Even though Kerry made a show of his own religious views, that didn’t stop the Bush Slander Machine from spreading the rumor that under him, the Bible would be outlawed.
Actually, I didn’t mention it because I don’t disagree with your assessment. We are talking about perceptions here. I think it’s mostly media driven. But at the same time, I hold people who feel that the FCC is a threat to free speech because they hold radio and tv stations to rules that they agreed to in order to get their licenses in the first place to the same standard as the ACLU suing to enforce their particular interpretation of the First Amendment.
The ACLU has the right to advance their interpretation every bit as much as the Parents Television Council does. The problem I have with the FCC (besides the fact that their authority is blatantly unconstitutional) is that their rules aren’t clear. As I said before, there is no legal definition of indecency. Even the Supreme Court threw up their hands and came back with the lame “community standards” test, which is virtually enforceable on a national level. What that means is that whoever is sitting on the FCC panel of judges basically makes a judgment call on whether something should be fined or not. Therefore, what is considered “indecent” changes with each new appointment.
The folks on the right who really believe that Christmas and Christians are under attack and in any kind of danger are as out of touch as their opposites on the left who go on network TV and announce to millions that it’s become impossible to disagree with the government because of the “climate of fear” that has stifled all voices of dissent (Except, one must suppose, theirs. Bless you, Alec Baldwin, bless you!)
I’d laugh at the lot of you but since I believe that ther is at least a slim chance that one day the dead will rise from their graves to seek out and devour the living who the hëll am I to judge?
Meanwhile, in Canada, the Supreme Court is being asked to determine if “kemosabe” is a rascist term to Indians.
Since it was TONTO who always used the word, I don’t see how any Indian could be upset. If it means, as Gary larson speculated “Horse’s rear end” in Soiux, well, that puts an unfortunate spin on the Ranger/Tonto friendship but I don’t see anything worth a friggin Supreme Court Case.
But it was said with warmth and all affection…
“Since it was TONTO who always used the word, I don’t see how any Indian could be upset.”
Pssssst! Tonto was a fictional character! Pass it on!
As for the whole “Merry Christmas”/”Happy Holidays” thing, the way I figure it, if a private business wants to pick one and not the other, that’s their right — just as you have the right to not patronize them for whatever they choose. As long as the government (and, by extension, public entities) aren’t endorsing or excluding any one particular religion over others, then there isn’t a civil rights issue involved.
Folks like eclark are miffed just because the government and many private businesses have come to the same conclusion — it’s simply friendlier/safer/more courteous to be non-denominational and all-inclusive than to go against the spirit of the nation and promote one faith over others.
“Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that it should read ‘a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion’ the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it’s protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and the infidel of every denomination.”
–Thomas Jefferson, January 6, 1821
–R.J.
Funny, and I was told that Thomas Jefferson’s opinion was “irrelevant.” 🙂
Oh, and people who are upset about “kemosabe” should know that “Tonto” means “foolish” in Spanish.
Folks like eclark are miffed just because the government and many private businesses have come to the same conclusion — it’s simply friendlier/safer/more courteous to be non-denominational and all-inclusive than to go against the spirit of the nation and promote one faith over others.
Exactly! No one is threatening to sue private businesses over the words “Merry Christmas.” It’s just that from a business standard, it pays to make their holiday greetings as generic as possible so that they can attract the maximum number of customers.
Just FYI, for anyone interested:
The term Kemo Sabe comes from a boys camp called
“Since it was TONTO who always used the word, I don’t see how any Indian could be upset.”
“Pssssst! Tonto was a fictional character! Pass it on!”
I’m not sure that would make a difference to the people suing. I mean, a fictional character can be as offensive as a real one.
Unless you were pointing out to me that Tonto was fictional, in which case thanks so much for the insight…
Folks like eclark are miffed just because the government and many private businesses have come to the same conclusion — it’s simply friendlier/safer/more courteous to be non-denominational and all-inclusive than to go against the spirit of the nation and promote one faith over others.
Folks like eclark… considering you wouldn’t know me if I tripped over folks like your mama, that’s a might wide brush you’re painting with.
Furthermore, I’m a capitalist. I have no problems with a store saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”. Something “folk like you” would have known if you had simply asked “folk like me”. I also don’t have a problem if people who ARE miffed at a store for saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas take their business elsewhere and convince others to do the same, OR if they stay and try to change that store’s position on the matter.
And while Den may know what’s on court dockets around the country, I don’t. As some one pointed out, you can sue anybody for just about anything in this country, even stupid stuff. A lot of it just gets dismissed. It doesn’t mean that it’s not a hassle for businesses to have to deal with though. I can go downtown tomorrow and file a suit against you alleging you owe me money and if you don’t take time to answer it, I could get a judgement against you for the money.
And Den doesn’t bother mentioning that the government isn’t becoming more inclusive toward religion. It’s getting less.
I would argue that we still haven’t reached the point anyone but a white male Christian could get elected president.
Den,
I believe you are describing the symptoms, not the reason. I am certain a black woman who shared the conservative values of many in America could also be elected. The “white” and “male” obviously don’t hurt, but I think it comes down to the actual beliefs of the candidate.
I did know about that the overwhelming majority in this country believe in the virgin birth. Virtually the same percentage oppose gay marriage. Yet it is very possible that gay marriage could be a reality in the next few years if current and threatened court cases go in its favor. So it is not idle hype to suggest that a minority *could* be a threat to the free celebration of Christmas. I did not say most agree, and I also said that it was not likely. I simply stated that if a few groups have their way, then it could happen.
Jim in Iowa
In 200 years, when little Peruvian (just a randomly picked nation) children are studying the history of the early 21st century world, there’s going to be a little paragraph about the Late American Religious wars, which no one understands how it happened, but around 2000AD, some factions in what used to be called the United States split over a key religious doctrine, and started a war of genocide and erradication that lasted decades. Which of course allowed the Peruvian nation to develop clean, cold fusion, providing an unlimited source of power, and propelled Peru into a golden age of enlightenment and prosperity (oh, and by the way, fused North America into a glass parking lot because those people were crazy).
Frankly, I find “predictions” like this both patronizing and ridiculous. We are not even close to actually launching into religious wars. Have you even been in another country where this is actually taking place? While I may disagree strongly with many on this site, it NEVER enters my head to go get a gun and force my opinion or to end your opposition. I have attended conservative churches for all of my life. Except for literally 1 or 2 individuals who were on drugs for serious mental issues, NO ONE I have known has ever thought of doing so.
There is a war of words, but not of actual weapons. You have a nation with a very strong pro-life (anti-abortion) segment. Yet the overwhelming majority do not blow up clinics, shoot abortionists, or even harrass those entering a clinic. If the overwhleming majority (99% or more) of the religious right is able to handle even a life or death issue by following the rule of law in this country, then we are not going to go to war over gay rights, the pledge of allegiance, creation vs. evolution, or the removal of Christmas from schools. The only reason we would go to war is if the “secular” or “anti-Christian” side were to choose to go to war with us.
Sorry for the harsh response, but the “predicition” given is just over the top. This country has managed for over 200 years to find a balance between a wide variety of religious and political views. I am confident it will continue to do so, even if on a given issue I don’t get “my way.”
Jim in Iowa
And Den doesn’t bother mentioning that the government isn’t becoming more inclusive toward religion. It’s getting less.
Yeah, it’s too bad that dem dámņ liberals killed Bush’s faith based initiatives.
Oh, wait.
I believe you are describing the symptoms, not the reason. I am certain a black woman who shared the conservative values of many in America could also be elected.
On that point, we’ll have to disagree.
I did know about that the overwhelming majority in this country believe in the virgin birth. Virtually the same percentage oppose gay marriage. Yet it is very possible that gay marriage could be a reality in the next few years if current and threatened court cases go in its favor.
It may in a few blue states, but nationwide? Please. Not in the next few years. Bush’ll make sure his SC nominees are against it.
So it is not idle hype to suggest that a minority *could* be a threat to the free celebration of Christmas.
Two separate issues. One is about whether a basic right should be redefined to include a group that isn’t included. The other involves attempting to upend a major aspect of western culture. The idea that any has even a slightest chance of outlawing Christmas in this culture is ludicrous. There would be marching in the streets.
I did not say most agree, and I also said that it was not likely. I simply stated that if a few groups have their way, then it could happen.
Not going to happen. We’ll continue to have debates over whether it’s appropriate to put manger scenes in public squares or sing songs with religious themes in school, but that’s fine. A healthy debate is what makes our country great.
But outlaw Christmas? Bunk.
I am certain a black woman who shared the conservative values of many in America could also be elected. The “white” and “male” obviously don’t hurt, but I think it comes down to the actual beliefs of the candidate.
And this, of course, is why Alan Keyes won the Republican nomination for President in 2000.
What? He didn’t? You mean the party that even mentions the word “Republic” in their name, preferred nominating their last president’s son, whose greatest distinguishing marks were a refusal to ever pardon a condemned criminal while Governor and a tendency to run businesses into the ground, rather than a black man who embodies everything the party claims to believe in?
Say it ain’t so, Joe!
I went to the American Pavilon at EPCOT, where at Christmastime Disney usually has different faith displays for Chanukah, Kwanza and the like. This time, for a little show that they put on before they seat people in the attraction, they had a woman in a shawl stand in the middle of the rotunda.
She gave a slow, agonizing explanation of the meaning of Chanukah (which people who wanted to, could read off the sign in the display of menorahs). I felt so sorry for her, surrounded by bored, uncomfortable goyim who probably didn’t care but who stood there and listened because they didn’t want to look rude. So, I lead the applause at the end. Frankly, I think she deserved a glass of white wine and a backrub, but try getting that out of Eisner.
Alan Keyes was an “unknown”. While I agree that it is much easier for a white man to get the nomination, with the proper set up (yes, a discriminatory warm-up period for a black person to be assessed and eye-balled) a black person could get the nomination.
I think Condi Rice is being handled just this way.
Wouldn’t that be an interesting race: C. Rice vs H. Clinton. America would be so conflicted, but what a wake up call (as long as Condi wins; it would be a death knell if HC won….)
“And this, of course, is why Alan Keyes won the Republican nomination for President in 2000.
What? He didn’t? You mean the party that even mentions the word “Republic” in their name, preferred nominating their last president’s son, whose greatest distinguishing marks were a refusal to ever pardon a condemned criminal while Governor and a tendency to run businesses into the ground, rather than a black man who embodies everything the party claims to believe in?
Say it ain’t so, Joe!”
I realize that to many Democrats the following observation will not in any way contradict your claim that Keyes embodies everything the party claims to believe in, but here goes:
Keyes is a nut.
Thank you.
One could just as easily make the claim that since Al Sharpton is a great speaker, was the life of the debates, and pretty much toes the line on the big issues in the Democratic Party, they must have been deeply bigoted not to nominate him.
Of course, Al is as big a nut as Keyes. Oh, and evil.
Colin Powell could have run in 2000 or 1996 and would have stood an excellent chance of winning. Rice vs Hillary would be an amazing campaign but I suspect that Condi is being groomed for the number 2 spot (and I, in general, don’t like to see a person’s FIRST attempt at elected office be the top spot, so I would approve of this approach).
Conservatives should not only dismiss Hillary at their peril, they should also take a wait and see attitude to which Hillary decides to run. She is already staking out a position on illegal immigration that is far to the right of Bush (“I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants” she told a radio host. I assume she meant to say “illegal immigration”, This slip of the tongue got little press. What liberal media?).
Such a position may cost her some Hispanic votes but it could regain a lot more white votes, sorry to say. Her call for a national ID card, opposition to gay marriage, and use of high tech spy devices on the borders would normally alarm most liberals but I think that many will dust off their Clinton blinders and excuse any and all transgressions.
Pundits say she would go down in flames. I say they are nuts. If the Republicans don’t nominate someone very very smart and very very charismatic they may be crushed.
(EDITOR’S NOTE- Bill has been predicting politics for more than 3 decades now and has, far more often than not, gotten it wrong each and every time.)
just my opinion, don’t wnat to start anything, but as far as I’m concerned, goerge bush is just as big as a nut as keyes is, but again, as a liberal from massachusetts, i’m very biased.
And I’m glad government is becoming les inclusive of religions. I don’t want religion, whether it’s mine or someone eles’s (especially if it’s someone else’s) to be involved in any way with the government. For a government to not be involved with a religion is not prejuidce, rather it’s a tolerance for all relgions, not giving one precidence over another, regardless as to the majority of the nation.
Bill,
This particular liberal thinks Hillary has been a massive disappointment, and would be seriously on the fence about supporting her. Just as a data point. (Had I been in NY, I’d certainly have supported her Senate run … but now, I really don’t know.)
Frankly, I’m sick of the DLC-backed “Republican, but with 20% fewer calories!” candidates, and that includes both Clintons. The day the party has the balls to nominate someone who says flat-out, “why yes, I *am* a liberal, and here’s why you should be too” is the day I start thinking there’s hope for the country again. This “oh, let’s tack right in the hopes of peeling off twenty-seven voters in this precinct” strategy is hopeless.
(Of course, I’m also looking at all the instances of vote fraud in Ohio and wishing we had a party that would, oh, actually POINT THIS STUFF OUT and let the chips fall as they may.)
TWL
Tim,
I’m not shocked that you might not support Hillary. I think many liberals would feel the sameif they could get past her image as the scourge of Republican values. While there is no doubt that she is the one candidate that most Republicans would LEAST like to see as president, that alone is a piss poor reason for a Democrat to support her.
I have a hunch that in matter military, Hillary might make GW Bush look like GS McGovern. Not that this would need be a bad thing…
You would think that after the last election the idea of going for the guy deemed “more electable” (at the cost of principles) would have been discredited. Instead I hear talk about how the party has to make pro-lifers and such feel more welcome. This strategy requires that the republicans screw up big time. While this is a distinct possibility, it’s a pretty sorry hope to hang one’s hat on.
Hey, how’s the babe doing? Does your house look like a one-family effort to keep Toys R Us solvent for the next year?
Oh, fer cryin’…
I posted an earlier quote from Mystery Science Theater 3000. On Christmas Eve, here’s another, more appropriate one:
So let’s have peace on earth and cut out all the bull,
Let’s have a holiday season that’s multi-cul-tur-al,
If there’s one point we’d like to make
With this festive holiday song
It’s that Christmas comes
Just once a year
So for a few days
For crying out loud!
Can we all just get along?!?
TOM SERVO: It’s quiet in the cold of our own little orbit, starless and Bible black. And as I look down on the big blue bead we would call home, I think it’s so near, yet… Oh, I wish on that star and I hope that in a little snow-covered house with a warm hearth and a loving family, maybe some kid is looking up tonight and wishing upon us. Oh, and how I hope sweet Santa will fly by tonight because if he does I’m gonna reach right out and hug that big guy. Oh, for the sound of hooves against the steel hull of the ship. Oh, to see the rosy face of Santa in the portal offering me a Coke and a smile…[starts to lose it] Of course, his face WOULD be rosy because its a vacuum out there! I mean, Santa’s heart would explode! But he wouldn’t feel it because the capillaries in his brain would pop like little firecrackers due to the blood boiling away in his face like a pudding in a copper–OH THE HUMANITY! And his jolly old belly would start bubbling like a roasted marshmallow, eyes bulging and popping out… AND THE REINDEER! OH, THE REINDEER keep floating like holiday floats, in their turn exploding like a hail of blood and entrails! Prancer–BOOM! Dancer–BOOM–!
JOEL: HEY!
CROW: Tom!
JOEL: Tom, take it easy, Santa’s gonna be okay, buddy.
TOM: Are ya sure?
JOEL: Yeah, give him a little credit, okay?
TOM: What a relief!
It may in a few blue states, but nationwide? Please. Not in the next few years. Bush’ll make sure his SC nominees are against it.
Den, I am not convinced. Even with the current Supreme Court, I am not sure DOMA would withstand a challenge, especially if a large state like California or New York were to begin granting liscenses for gay marriage. There are just way too many legal difficulties that would be created when the couple decides to move to another state. (Not trying to restart the debate about gay marriage, just noting that it would be a mess if it was legal in 10 states and illegal in 40.)
But have Merry Christmas anyways. 😉
Jim in Iowa
And this, of course, is why Alan Keyes won the Republican nomination for President in 2000.
Bill said it better than I could. Alan Keyes is in his own world. He did not get the nomination because of his views, not because of his skin color. There are plenty of black Republicans I would vote for. However, most of them do not want to jump through the hoops that would be required. (This is not an issue of race but of the compromises required to get to the top for a candidate for either party. Which is why I fully supported Bush but have no illusions he is perfect. You have to “play the game” with both parties in order to get the nomination.)
I can’t think of his name right now, but there was a black Republican congressman from Oklahoma who I would glady support. He went back to private business a few years ago.
I know this was not Den’s point, but if there is a race issue (and I am not sure there is), then it is true of both parties. I have not seen a black Democratic nominee either.
Jim in Iowa
Jim,
[Keyes] did not get the nomination because of his views, not because of his skin color
Forgive me if this seems like an offensive observation, Jim … but frankly, given the views you’ve posted here I’m not seeing an awful lot of daylight between your opinions and his. Keyes’ are phrased in much more inflammatory fashion, granted — but in terms of concrete ideas, I’m not sure I’m seeing much.
Could you elaborate as to places where you think Keyes’ views are far afield from mainstream conservatism?
TWL
Which is why I fully supported Bush but have no illusions he is perfect.
You know someone who would be “perfect”?
I can’t think of his name right now, but there was a black Republican congressman from Oklahoma who I would glady support. He went back to private business a few years ago.
His name is J.C. Watts.
Bill,
I’m not shocked that you might not support Hillary. I think many liberals would feel the sameif they could get past her image as the scourge of Republican values. While there is no doubt that she is the one candidate that most Republicans would LEAST like to see as president, that alone is a piss poor reason for a Democrat to support her.
If it were because of her views, I’m not sure that’d be a lousy reason at this point, given how far to the right most active-in-the-public-realm most Republicans have swung this days. On the other hand, I don’t think HIllary’s views are nearly as antithetical to a lot of Republican views as most GOP’ers tend to think. She’s a symbol for them, not an actual foe — and for that reason I think she’s not a great choice of candidate.
(I also think she has little chance of winning, but if I agreed with her completely that might be a moot point.)
You would think that after the last election the idea of going for the guy deemed “more electable” (at the cost of principles) would have been discredited. Instead I hear talk about how the party has to make pro-lifers and such feel more welcome.
Yeah, I’ve seen that as well, and it frankly makes me ill. The Democratic party is supposed to stand for something, and this is a hëll of a way of showing it…
On happier notes…
Hey, how’s the babe doing?
Generally well, thanks. She’s lived through her first illness (a mild cold) and come through unscathed — the parents are a bit worse for wear, of course. (The big challenge for her is sleeping — she sleeps well, but won’t GO to sleep on her own yet, and naps are so far a strictly on-a-parent’s-lap affair. She’ll get there, but it’s a little crazed at times.)
Does your house look like a one-family effort to keep Toys R Us solvent for the next year?
A week ago, I wouldn’t have said so. Now with gifts arriving from family members, just possibly…
TWL
Tim,
The worst for me was when the girls got ear infections. It happened so often we just kept a supply of powdered amoxcillian around.
My oldest just turned 15 2 days ago. It’s a cliche but like many it’s also true–it just seems like yesterday I saw her for the first time, as perfect a moment as I have ever or likely will ever have.
Incidentally, while I’ve always been told that Dec 25th was chosen to be the day we celebrate Jesus’ birth because it would supplant a pagan holiday, there is at least some evidence that the exact opposite is true:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/12/23/special_reports/religion/21_50_1412_22_04.txt
Eventually I think everything we know to be true will be proven wrong. And then right once again. And then the asteroid hits on April 13, 2029.
> Which Macy’s and its parent company, Federated Department, Inc, have denied was ever the case. In fact, I paid a visit to their official website: http://www.macys.com, and low and behold, what’s this near the bottom? Why it’s the words “Macy’s wishes you a Merry Christmas and a Happy Holidays.”
AAAARRRRGGGHHHH. You cannot have “a Happy Holidays”. You can have “Happy Holidays,” or “a Happy Holiday,” but… ngh…
“Merry Christmas” if you celebrate.
“I hope your day doesn’t suck” if you don’t.
eclark:
>”Merry Christmas” if you celebrate.
>”I hope your day doesn’t suck” if you don’t.
Wait a minute!!!! Are you implying that we if don’t celebrate a Christian holiday than God will smite us and our chances for having a sucky day are vastly increased?!?!?!?
….. kidding. 😉
Have a great holiday everyone.
Fred
Wait a minute!!!! Are you implying that we if don’t celebrate a Christian holiday than God will smite us and our chances for having a sucky day are vastly increased?!?!?!?
Well, I obviously didn’t say that , so yeah, I must be implying it somehow. 8^)
Den: I realize that the Bush slander machine got a lot of mileage spreading rumors around the south that Kerry was planning on having the Bible outlawed, but let’s be realistic here.
Really? I live in North Carolina and I never heard that rumor. I did hear one rumor, though, that the Democratic slander machine was putting words in the mouths of Republicans, but I didn’t believe that rumor. It’s too far-fetched and I’m trying to be realistic.
Do you live in Arkansas or Wes Virginia? Those were the states in which the mailings were used.
No, I don’t. Did you read the news stories you cited? That’s not what the fliers stated, either, judging by the CBS article (the op-ed piece was not helpful with regard to the facts, and I didn’t spring for the $3 to read the NYT article). The ads were tasteless enough on your own, you don’t really need to misquote them. (There was apparently an illustration of the Bible with the word banned over it, but the actual accusation was of removing “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. I assume they compromised on that image because it’s hard to draw God.)
Jim in Iowa: I can’t think of his name right now, but there was a black Republican congressman from Oklahoma who I would glady support. He went back to private business a few years ago.
J.C. Watts.
Den (comparing gay marriage and banning Christmas): Two separate issues. One is about whether a basic right should be redefined to include a group that isn’t included. The other involves attempting to upend a major aspect of western culture. The idea that any has even a slightest chance of outlawing Christmas in this culture is ludicrous. There would be marching in the streets.
Actually, this is an interesting point of departure between the conservative and liberal positions. Many conservatives would argue that it’s the same issue, and that “redefining a basic right” IS “upending a major aspect of western culture.” That’s why they’re so upset. Conservatives tend to be fairly well-heeled so there’s comparatively little marching in the streets, but that’s essentially the level of discombobulation that many conservatives have reached. (I’m a little more conflicted– I’m not all that weirded out by the notion of gay marriage, but the lack of judicial restraint being exercised by the SJC of Massachusetts has pìššëd me off no end. Jim in Iowa is right– the Defense of Marriage Act should probably be struck down as unconstitutional. Which means that 4 judges in Massachusetts have redefined domestic relations law for nearly 300 million Americans. Thank you oh so much. I firmly believe that this šhìŧ-storm should only be caused by a democraticlaly elected legislature making a considered policy decision. In Den’s language, “redefining a basic right” generally should not be done by a court. Interpreting a right, yes. Redefining? I’m leery.)
Jim in Iowa is right– the Defense of Marriage Act should probably be struck down as unconstitutional.
You’ll have to explain that one to me, David as I really don’t see what could be unconstitutional about it.
It basically defines a marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Nor does it rescind the Full Faith and Credit clause, but allows an exception to certain acts, records and proceedings and their effects. In other words, North Carolina does not have to honor a law its legislature, people, representatives or courts had no part in making.
I also predict that if gay marriage looks like it will be legalized, that some state will legalize polygamy or at least threaten to legalize it, most likely, Utah.
David Bjorlin,
Do you know what the Mass. state constitution says? If not, then how do you know the justices are redefining it? They are interpreting the STATE laws, not defining them. Which just happens to be a judges job. The state of MA has the right to it’s own laws and traditions, as long as it does not conflict with federal law. At the time of the decision there was no conflict. As I do not believe an amendment will be passed by congress on this issue, there will be no conflict in the future. Judges do not make law. They interpret what is written by the legislature. If you have not read the state constitution AND if you are not a lawyer versed in the state laws of Mass., then I fail to see how you arived at the opinion that the judges are defining the law. The right can yell all they want about “activist” judges, but that does not maek it true. When judges agree with their positions, they are OK. If a judge happens to disagree, he or she is labeled activist. How fair and balanced is that?
I also predict that if gay marriage looks like it will be legalized, that some state will legalize polygamy or at least threaten to legalize it, most likely, Utah.
And Christians bìŧçh when generalizations are made about them.
Polygamy has been outlawed by the Mormon church for over 100 years. This argue is total bûllšhìŧ and you know it.
And Christians bìŧçh when generalizations are made about them.
Polygamy has been outlawed by the Mormon church for over 100 years. This argue is total bûllšhìŧ and you know it.
Not really. Utah, Arizona and Nevada are currently the only states where fundamentalist Mormons are known to practice polygamy. The states know about the unions, but don’t bother to enforce the laws unless it is concerned about an issue of child abuse.
Of those states, Utah residents have been the ones in the past to bring the issue before the courts, which is also understandable since Utah has the highest Mormon population in the country. so on the basis of those facts, and the law of probabilities, how is what I said “total bûllšhìŧ”?
BTW, the Mormon church did not just “outlaw” polygamy, it was beaten into submission by the United States government primarily through the use of something called the Edwards Act which makes the Defense of Marriage Act look like vows of love.
From the Utah. gov history webpage:
The Edmunds bill, introduced by Senator George F. Edmunds of Vermont, was an amendment to the anti-bigamy law of 1862 and it defined polygamy as a crime?every person who has a husband or wife living?who thereafter marries another, whether married or single, and any man who simultaneously, or on the same day, marries more than one woman?is guilty of polygamy. The penalty was set a $500 fine and five years in prison, or both. Edmunds’ amendment went further. It excluded polygamists or those engaging in unlawful cohabitation from jury duty and made it sufficient cause for challenge to any juror who believed in polygamy. Polygamists also were denied voting rights through an oath administered by registration officers; and denied the privilege of holding elected office.
True the Supreme Court over turned the act later, but that did not stop the tyranny…
You can read for yourself what happened here: http://historytogo.utah.gov/cc1015polg.html
but I’ll skip to the end for you, since I also find this interesting reading for people who think Christians don’t have anything to fear about being persecuted in a land dominated by Christians…
The anti-polygamy crusade was now entering its final, feverish venal stages. In February 1887 the Edmunds-Tucker Act was passed; it became law March
No, I don’t. Did you read the news stories you cited?
Yes, I did. obviously, you didn’t/
That’s not what the fliers stated, either, judging by the CBS article (the op-ed piece was not helpful with regard to the facts, and I didn’t spring for the $3 to read the NYT article).
You can read the NYT for free. I didn’t have to pay to read it.
The ads were tasteless enough on your own, you don’t really need to misquote them. (There was apparently an illustration of the Bible with the word banned over it, but the actual accusation was of removing “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. I assume they compromised on that image because it’s hard to draw God.)
I didn’t. The fliers clearly were intended to leave the impression that “liberals”, meaning
John Kerry, were planning on outlawing the Bible, using the words “Under God” as only the “first step” in this imaginary sinister plot.
Anyway, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year all!