Recommended Reading

I was recently loaned the latest issue of Mother Jones magazine. Although it is a publication that swings pretty far to the left on most occasions, this issue gives a very fair, very frightening look at the views and goals of the leaders of the Christian Right movement. Especially troubling is the story about the Christian Reconstructionists that are gaining popularity among evangelicals, especially in the south. Their goal is nothing less than total Christian theocracy, complete with public stonings and Christian affirmation for citizenship. Just a fringe movement you say? George Bush had a Christian Reconstructionist lead prayer at his second inaugeration, and Tom Delay has been quoted using phraseology that originated in Reconstructionist teachings. The authors needed to do little to spin their stories; the quotes from the Christian Right leaders they interviewed speak loudly enough on their own. It is a chilling example of why we have to fight this dangerous sect of pseudoChristians now.

I highly recommend reading this issue, and looking into some of the books and pamphlets from the movement mentioned in the stories. Iraq isn't the only place these people are fighting a war. We're the enemy too.

Ho Chi Murtha

To the Editor:

John Murtha is a combat soldier like I was. We learned mostly about kill-or-be-killed. He did not go to war college or West Point to learn how to plan a war.

John Murtha is only talking politics. How many lives would be lost if we just got out? All the troops want to stay and finish the job. But Murtha wants to retreat and give up. I'm glad you all were not around for World War II or we would be goose stepping.

I do honor John Murtha for his service to our great country. Let's get behind President Bush and finish World War III!

V.

Now this pisses me off. V., I in no way question your bravery or dedication to your country. I do question your allowing partisan politics to cloud your perception of motives. If anyone should know better than to buy into the "Murtha wants to cut and run" bullshit, it should be a fellow veteran. Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld are political hacks, who never served themselves and therefore have no issue using the military as a form of political currency. You, on the other hand, should have more respect than that.

First of all, the issue at hand here is one of history, sociology, and the human sciences, not military strategy. Murtha isn't saying the war is being poorly handled, he's saying the war is not worth fighting. That's a completely different, issue, coming from a totally different perspective. You don't have to agree with it, but at least be honest about the man's credentials and how they apply to the situation. How many years have you been a hawkish member of the United States legislative branch, V? None? Well, then the fact that you both started as combat soldiers doesn't really matter, does it?

Moving on, a statement like "All the troops want to stay and finish the job" is a completely irresponsible thing for you to claim as fact. First of all, it's just plain off-the-charts wrong. I'm not going to make any claims about numbers or percentages, but the assertion that ALL the troops support our efforts on a philosophical scale is completely inaccurate and asinine. Here's just one link to prove you wrong, V. And that's just on an organizational scale. Your having been a soldier once doesn't put you in a position to make blanket statements for military members any more than my having been in 11th grade twelve years ago makes me the national spokesperson for high school students across America.

The spin coming from the far-right is that Murtha and those of a like mind want to "cut and run", or as V. put it, "retreat and give up." This is complete pap, and I'm surprised that so many people are willing to believe that any American public servant would think that way. It goes a long way toward showing just how much you've allowed batshit rhetoric to cloud your judgment. You want to read Ann Coulter's "How To Set Fire To A Liberal's Children" and Bill O'Reilley's "The Left-Is Raping Our Pets", that's fine, but you've forgotten your grain of salt. You've let them convince you that America is no longer a team effort. You, with help from them, have become the real problem, V.

The truth is that John Murtha is a patriot, and you should be able to think critically enough to ponder how it is that his opinion differs from yours without falling back on anti-American brainpiss. Patriotism is loving your country, V. It is similar to loving your children. Of course you love your children, and you wish the best for them. That doesn't mean that you enable them when they go through a self-destructive phase, or that you ignore their wrongdoings. In the hope of guiding your children to future greatness, you hold them accountable for their decisions and reprimand them when they misbehave. That's how we, as patriots, feel about the war in Iraq, V. We don't want to move to Canada or topple the government. We want to lovingly but forcefully return America as a bastion of light and goodness in the world. Ask around, V. We are no longer that. The world looks at us as the bully on the block to be avoided. I wouldn't let my child act as such, and I won't stand by idly as my nation does either.

The only reason I'd get behind Bush is that I don't trust him enough to walk in front of him. He just a few days ago admitted that the war was anchored on bad intelligence and that the responsibility was his; this has been the claim of his critics for YEARS. Yet through all those years, the anti-war movement was labeled as a bunch of traitorous America haters, for asserting exactly what the president finally fessed up to. People like you refuse to take him to task because he makes you feel good. He's like morphine... the nation may be ailing, but as long as you're high on his rhetoric, you don't have to worry about it. Well, morphine never healed a wound or cured an ailment. It's time we got off the painkillers and dealt with the real issues.

This isn't World War III, V., and comparing the two is almost blasphemous. We were attacked by a sovereign nation and entered World War II to defend ourselves and our allies, our soldiers joining a steadfast coalition of our staunchest allies while Americans at home made sacrifices for the cause. This time, we reacted to an attack by criminals by attacking a foreign nation that was completely uninvolved in the criminal act, our allies barely able to support us, if at all, due to the horrified reaction of people around the world, while at home we are asked to sacrifice nothing and are given tax breaks that favor those who could afford to sacrifice the most. This is no World War III. It is American imperialism, hubris, and vanity, and believe me, V., pride cometh before the fall.

Do These Pants Make Me Look Heartless?

To the Editor:

The death penalty should be abolished in the United States. An eye for an eye? Sure it worked in Hammurabi's time, so why not now? In my opinion, no, it should not be an option.

When choosing the death penalty for a punishment, can you honestly be 100 percent sure that the accused are guilty? Then what if, years later, improved research shows that they were in fact innocent? Oops? Sorry we made a mistake? That doesn't quite cut it.

And what about making one more family grieve the loss of a loved one? If someone is sentenced to death row, chances are he/she did it for killing a number of people.

So by killing that one person everything is suddenly better? These people who are committing such crimes would probably gladly die to escape it all.

By putting these people in the correct facilities, they would be better off dead. By keeping them alive, they have to live with what they did every day. We should not reward them with death, letting them escape everything and leave what they did behind, but make them pay for what they did and who they hurt.

Amanda

Okay, I'm sure this is the entry that will lose me some of my friends on the left side of moderation. The thing is, this isn't a topic I get angry and indignant about, unlike the War on Christmas in America and our War on Self-Rule in Iraq. Reading this blog on a regular basis would probably lead one to believe I'm reliably liberal, but it just isn't the case. I'm a moderate, and one of the places I veer right is on the death penalty issue.

Why do I disagree with Amanda? Because her argument is flawed. Do I like the concept of an eye for an eye and a life for a life? No, that's not it. Is it a sense of vengeance, or that I feel it is a fitting punishment? Nope. I've heard these arguments from the anti-death penalty camp, and honestly, I completely understand them. I am uncomfortable with the concept of state-sponsored killings, and the extreme pro-death crowd always have a disturbing gleam of vengeance in their eyes that makes me think what they really want is some sort of institutionalized mob rule, a legislated lynching. Rednecks with gunracks and a barely-disguised bloodlust are not appealing to me in the least. I find them frightening and dangerous. But despite my discomfort with it, I do support capital punishment in certain cases. Why? For the same reason I support a woman's right to choose, despite my discomfort with the concept of abortion: because ultimately, it is in the spirit of justice for everyone and not imposing unfair subsidizing onto the public.

Much like asking society to raise an unwanted child is unfair to everyone, it is even more unfair to ask society to provide for a person who has, through their actions, turned against society. There are children in this country who attend schools that are grossly under funded. There are people in poverty who are critically ill, and we do not make sure they get the medical attention they require. We cannot do enough for the poor, hungry, and sick in this nation. How, then, can we ignore these responsibilities and yet spend more than $10,000 a year to keep one murderer alive for one year? How can you look a sick, hungry child in the eye and justify the expenditure we will accept for someone who has committed an atrocity? I, for one, could not.

Capital punishment is not something that should be used lightly. But can you ever be 100% sure that someone is guilty? Yes, Amanda, you can. I'll relate a local example that received extensive coverage a number of years back. A Syracuse man, in an attempt to kill his wife, doused her with undiluted acid. Although she did not die, she was horribly scarred and in constant pain. She stayed for months in the hospital, drugged and stupefied in an attempt to relieve the pain. Her stay was cut short when her husband entered the hospital, snuck into her room, and strangled her to death. He was caught on tape; he was seen leaving her room. He was guilty. There is no question of his guilt, and there is no justification for imposing on society the cost of his continued education, cable television, and three daily meals that are nicer than what would be served by volunteers in a soup kitchen.

Life in prison is not the punishment you might think it is. Like any hardship, prison eventually becomes a routine. When it's all one knows, it loses its edge. I'm not arguing that it becomes fun, but over time, when memories of freedom die, it becomes more and more tolerable. Regardless, an argument like this sounds like it has its roots in vengeance, something that capital punishment opponents claim should not be a consideration. I agree. It's not a matter of finding the worst punishment we can impose. Society does not choose to have to deal with the situation, but it is imposed on us by the criminal. The criminal is then responsible for his own fate, and people do need to be held responsible for their choices. It is not pleasant when someone kills themselves by driving while intoxicated, or overdoses on drugs, but the person responsible is the person who made the choice to engage in that activity, and it is not wrong to feel that, in a sense, the person got what was coming to them, even though we feel sorry for their death. Should we revel in the death of murderers? Certainly not. However, we also needn't relieve them of responsibility for their own situation.

I guess this might make me sound a bit cold, and maybe regarding this issue, I am a little rigid. I admit that the decision to take the life of a human being should never be taken lightly, in any circumstance. I do believe in the sanctity of life, but I believe there must be lines drawn. Justice is equally sacred to me... not justice in the sense of vengeance, but justice in the sense of fairness. For a man to take the life of another in cold blood is theft from society; Theft of person, theft of security, and theft of honor. To then allow that person to leech off the same society he has already wounded is like allowing a second crime, that being a lifetime of extortion.

It is not a matter of making everything better, Amanda. It is a matter of social justice. Until we can fully support those who are not responsible for their own misfortunes, we can not justify supporting those who are.

A Very Corny Christmas: The Mallard Fillmore Holiday Special

(Ed. Note: The comic referenced in this letter is not currently available online, due to an error on the cartoonist's website. If this error is fixed, the comic should be available here. To summarize, the main character of the strip, Mallard Fillmore, refuses to shop at Wal-Mart because the greeters say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Chrsitmas". The medium of the comic strip does not, for the record, make this stance any less inane.)

To the Editor:

I applaud the creators of the comic strip "Mallard Fillmore" for their conviction in the Monday, Dec. 12, strip. I was in Wal-Mart this past week and I walked out just as Fillmore did when I heard the "piped-in" music being played. Any traditional music mentioning Christ or his birth was turned so low you had to strain to hear it. However, you had no difficulty hearing the secular tunes.

Where do these opponents of Christ in Christmas think the Holyday (not holiday) originated? Hurray for Mallard Fillmore!

Theresa

First of all, just to say this up front, "Mallard Fillmore" isn't funny. I mean, I get why it's there on the comics page. The paper wants to present some sort of balance, and the humorless right feels that truly funny comics like "The Boondocks" and "Non-Sequitur" give the left a voice where, without Mallard, the right would have none. The difference is obvious, though. "The Boondocks" is about the humorous mix of cultures when black urban youths move into a predominantly white suburb. "Non-Sequitur" is an absurdity/irony piece, and though lacking in solid storylines, draws humor from quite varied situations. Even "Doonsebury" intermixes political rhetoric with storylines about children of divorce, returning vets, and college freshmen. "Mallard Fillmore" serves no purpose but to poke fun at moderates and liberals, and to advance the misinformation of the neo-con party line. This is inherently an unfunny goal, but as the example above shows, it's not even carried out with any sense of humor at all. It's as if Tinsley believes that pompous indignation is inherently funny. Mostly, it just feels like he's trying too hard, and I end up feeling embarrassed for him.

Now, that said, the real reason I'm using this issue again is because in this particular case, I'm somewhat happy to hear about it. Oh, don't get me wrong. The undercurrent of vanity and self-righteousness is obvious, and it makes Theresa here look like just another martyr-wannabe. By the way, how sad is it that these people feel persecuted against because of the music they listen to while doing their Christmas shopping? The gassing of millions of Jews? Persecution. The bombing of Christian churches by radical Muslims in the Middle East? Persecution. The burning of Pagans at the stake? Persecution. You having to strain to hear "O Holy Night" while buying the latest Mandy Moore CD for little Tiffany? Not persecution. Granted, it's possible to use music as a form of torture (here I'm thinking specifically of Eminem), but it just doesn't cut it as a form of persecution. I'm not sure whether this complaint says more about the crass egotism of pseudoChristians or the overblown importance of commercialism in our culture, but either way, it makes me want a Paxil.

No, I'm happy to hear about this only because it means one less customer for Wal-Mart. Of course, Theresa, being the savvy consumer that she could very well be, might have driven next door to Sam's Club to finish her shopping there. That'll show those anti-Christian jerks at Wal-Mart! But anything that drives customers out of Wal-Mart is a good thing. I don't care if you're a liberal concerned about worker's rights or a conservative pissed off about the funneling of money out of the local economy, you have some reason to dislike Wal-Mart. A little more than a year after banning Jon Stewart's "America" for content that might offend conservatives, it's funny to see Wal-Mart find out just how loyal a horse they've backed. Sure worked out well for you, eh Wal-Mart? Oh, wait, they can't hear me. Their offices are insulated and soundproofed with rolls of thousand-dollar bills.

That aside, I know the neo-cons have spent years attempting to rewrite the constitution and the bible, but what the hell is with trying to rewrite Webster's Dictionary? Holiday is an English word, Theresa. It is defined as "1. a day fixed by law or custom on which ordinary business is suspended in commemoration of some event or in honor of some person. 2. any day of exemption from work. 3. a period of exemption from burden. 4. a religious festival; holy day.". In case you are unfamiliar with the usage of a dictionary, Theresa, the word can mean any one of those things, and doesn't necessarily need to conform to all of them. The word 'holiday' derives from 'holy day', but then the entire English language is derived predominantly from Germanic languages with a heavy influence from the Romantic languages. Unless you plan to start picking up German, don't pretend to be some sort of lingual originalist. Wal-Mart recognizes the holiday of Christmas, but as they do not cater solely to Christians, it would be bad business for them to marginalize their non-Christian customers, especially since so many non-Christians celebrate Christmas as a secular holiday (not Holyday). Just as you don't care that your Christmas tree began as a Pagan symbol of hope and renewal, secular Christmas revelers don't really care where the name of the holiday originated. Once again, you want to be catered to AT THE EXPENSE of everyone else. Why is it too much trouble to wait until you get home to listen to your Christmas CDs, Theresa? Why is your musical preference more important than anyone else's? It seems to me that it's probably because, as a Christian in America, you're used to getting your way and getting the preferential treatment that comes with being a member of the most prevalent religion. Of course, admitting this would mean admitting you're not being persecuted, and that would mean you can't play martyr, and that would mean you might have to develop a sense of empathy and social responsibility. Better just keep reading Mallard Fillmore and writing stupid letters to the editor.

Hark, the Harried Bigots Whine!

Oh Christmas tree, oh holiday tree . . .

As I glanced through Thursday's paper, I came across an ad for "holiday trees" for sale. I chuckled and thought, what holiday are they referring to - the Fourth of July? Easter? Labor Day?

All holidays should be called by their proper names. I have always called a Christmas tree a Christmas tree, not a holiday tree. The same prefix should apply to wrapping paper, cards, shopping, cookies, decorations and so on.

It seems certain advertisers are taking the true meaning of Christmas out of their advertising medium. Perhaps next year we can listen to Bing Crosby sing, "White Holiday."

Merry Christmas - to all who believe.

John

Labor Day Tree???? Hahahahahaha! John, you truly are a weaver of comical absurdity in the fashion of Ogden Nash.

What is this crap? Are people really this desperate to feel persecuted? What happens after the new year, when the War on Christmas issue won't whip up the self-righteous, undereducated masses anymore? What core American value will the manipulative right claim is under attack? Capitalism? Budweiser? Television?

I mean, this advertisement affected John so much that he felt compelled to write the paper about it. First of all, it's an advertisement. It has absolutely no substance or emotion behind it. It is a soulless, impersonal line of copy meant to convince you to exchange money for the item being advertised. An advertisement for a "holiday tree" is no more indicative of a cultural war on Christmas than an Ovaltine ad is indicative of a cultural war on Nesquik.

Second, John, why do you care what somebody else calls Christmas? Why is it so important to you? The concept of thought control doesn't seem to invoke any fear anymore... this is really what people want. Not only do you want the right to call the season Christmas, but you want to be the only person with the right to name the season for yourself. Why can't someone call it the "Holidays"? Is it inaccurate? No, there are many holy days of various religions that fall close to each other. Does it affect your celebration of Christmas? Certainly not directly... how someone else celebrates doesn't affect you at all. So what is your problem? Why do you feel the need to control the semantics used by others? What kind of bullshit, neurotic power trip are you on?

I don't know about Bing Crosby's "White Holiday", but right now I'm listening to those anti-Christian communist rabble-rousers, the Carpenters, sing their foul classic "Happy Holidays." How they can get away with playing this trash is beyond me. Let's all grab torches and pitchforks and head on down to the radio station. We're not going to take this anymore.

"Merry Christmas -- to all who believe." What about the folks who don't 'believe', John? Do you wish them ill? Do you wish a pox on every Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, and atheist on earth? What's wrong with saying "Merry Christmas to my fellow Christians, and Happy Holidays to all"? Doesn't that exemplify the spirit of peace on earth and goodwill toward men better than your self-important, egotistical version?

Look, if I know someone is Christian, I will happily wish them a Merry Christmas. If I don't know, then I will wish them Happy Holidays. What I am saying is, "Regardless of the holiday preferred by your chosen spirituality, or lack there of, I wish well for you." That the Christian Right is opposed to this sentiment says something very telling. They do not wish well on those whose beliefs differ from theirs. Perhaps this is a good reason to stop voting them into public service.

Bonus! Happy Fun Link!

Sometimes I come across things I just have to share.

Now, I'm a nerd. I'll freely admit it, and I've long since stopped worrying about it. Being a nerd, I try not to engage in inter-nerdal nerd bashing. Just because Star Trek isn't my thing, doesn't make Trekkers inherently more nerdy than Mystery Science Theater 3000 makes me.

That aside, I'm certain many of you, much like myself, have spent countless nights awake, wondering what the lovechild of Star Trek and batshit neo-con rhetoric would look like. My friends, I beg you wonder no more. Feast your eyes on:

Hard Starboard

Laugh all you want, but remember, these people won the last election.

Remember the Maine!

To the Editor:

I was amazed and exasperated by the deluge of news media coverage given to the anniversary of John Lennon's death, while one day earlier, the anniversary of Japan's dastardly attack on Pearl Harbor during which over 1,700 American servicemen lost their lives, hardly a mention was made by The Post Standard and television networks.

If only I could subscribe to just the sports section.

Sherwin

Alright. Look, I'm not out to piss anybody off here. World War II was a noble cause. I have nothing but respect for the armed men who fought the war, as well as for American citizens who made sacrifices for the war effort. It was the last war we fought where you could really say that our freedom might be in danger, a concept that is now thrown around far too casually in reference to small, barely-modernized, sandy nations. Certainly, Pearl Harbor was a day of infamy. America was blindsided in a rather cowardly (if ultimately ineffectual) attack designed to keep the United States from entering the war.

Regardless, we need to simply accept the fact that the importance of the date will fade with time. We don't recognize the date of the burning of Washington D.C. in 1812, or the sabotage of the U.S.S. Maine, which set off the Spanish American war. (Granted, it turns out that last one was hawkish propaganda, but I count it anyway since hawkish propaganda with no basis in truth isn't something that appears to deter the American public these days.) Eventually, the same thing will happen to Pearl Harbor. That change doesn't make it less important as a historical event, but it becomes difficult to encourage people to remember Pearl Harbor when very few people are still alive who were born in time to remember Pearl Harbor.

Now, to some extent, I understand the frustration when you compare the Lennon coverage to the Pearl Harbor coverage. Try to think about it with a little detachment, though. It's not a matter of importance, but a matter of relevance. Plenty of Americans remember Lennon's death, so it has resonance with people in a way that a historical date does not. I frankly don't have a lot of perspective for either event, so neither one holds very much nostalgic interest for me. It's all about perspective. It's kind of pointless to display petulant indignation because something that has emotional meaning for you doesn't have emotional meaning for others. If YOU remember Pearl Harbor, you certainly don't need the paper to remind you of it.

Of course, to be honest, the Post-Standard piece about John Lennon wasn't really about John Lennon's death. It was more a Syracuse Pride piece, centered around John Lennon's visit to Syracuse for one of Yoko's art shows a few years before his death. I personally wish the paper wouldn't run these pieces. It's just a reminder of how, well, lame Syracuse is that we put so much stock in one visit from a dead celebrity more than 25 years ago. That's the kind of thing they might remember in West Cornhole, South Dakota, but can't we at least pretend that Syracuse is a little more sophisticated than that?

Anyway, it's Sherman's closing statement that really makes this letter stand out. He takes the time to write the paper about not giving enough space to important issues, and then wonders aloud why he can't just get the sports section. Can you get any more unimportant than the sports section? The sports section is the best example of the principles that pissed him off in the first place. The paper runs what people are interested in, not that which passes some universal litmus test for importance. Let's face it, there is almost nothing that will have less of an impact on your life than men you don't know playing games for a living. The fact that the newspaper devotes an entire section to sports is not a testament to the importance of professional athletes, but a nod to the fact that sports is the fantasy-world-of-choice for a large percentage of the population. You think it's bad that the paper ran a huge article about something you don't think is important? There's an entire section of the paper EVERY DAY devoted to a topic that bores me to tears. Do I write to the paper to bitch about it? No, I bitch about it in my blog instead. But only because you provoked me, Sherman.

Somebody Nudge the Record Player

I write this letter to publicly call for our complete victory in Iraq and to again thank all coalition forces for their continued sacrifices and noble efforts there. I strongly agree with President Bush that we must keep assisting the new democracy in Iraq until total victory there has been achieved.

Opponents of the war effort in Iraq continually undermine our troops in the field with their defeatist and self-serving calls for an early or declared withdrawal. Many of these same folks repeatedly accuse our president of having lied about weapons of mass destruction so as to get us into war, forgetting that even President Clinton attacked Iraq for this same reason in 1998.

Kyle

I write this response to publicly call for the televised executions of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter. The difference between our demands, Kyle, is that while mine is highly unlikely to ever happen, it's technically possible.

This "complete victory" crap has worn pretty thin. You might as well write to the paper that you're an ethnocentric American who is completely uninformed about the culture of the nation we are occupying. Since that is how your letter translates, you might as well just say it up front and get it out of the way, instead of beating around the bush.

A quick lesson in Democracy, Kyle. Democracy comes from the Greek words for "people" and "rule". The idea, of course, is that the governed rule themselves. Since eighty percent of Iraqis want to see a timetable for America's exit strategy, if we were supporting democracy, we would respect the wishes of the majority. Of course, we're not supporting a democracy, we're occupying a country by force. You can't get much more undemocratic than that, can you?

Before this war began, Iraq was a nation of three opposing groups held together by totalitarianism. I'm certainly not defending Saddam Hussein... he was a viscous asshole. The responsibility for overthrowing his rule, however, fell on the people he was oppressing. Such a struggle against a mutual enemy could have formed a bond between the people that could have translated into a stable government. Since they never had to undergo this struggle for themselves, however, those bonds don't exist. There is little doubt that were American forces to pull out of Iraq right now, civil war would be inevitable. The problem is, there's not much American forces can do to repair the damage now that it's done. At some point we will need to pull out, and when we do, whatever veneer of democracy we've propped up will fall. This is the fate we've doomed an entire nation of people to. I hope you feel safer, Kyle, because a lot of Iraqi children can't.

Now, on a more personal note, I'd like to know exactly how opposing this war is in any way self-serving. You can say I'm misinformed, or that I don't understand foreign policy, or that I'm a shithead. You're wrong (with the possible exception of the last point, which I'm willing to entertain the possibility of), but you can at least defend those positions. I assure you, the only thing I've gotten out of the stress and irritation is about 35 pounds, a case of insomnia, and a developing ulcer. Yours is the path of least resistance, Kyle, not mine.

Our president did lie about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, as well as numerous other things. This administration is regarded as one of the most secretive America has ever had, and when things leak out that they don't want leaked, or when public opinion demands answers, they lie to maintain their secrecy. You can support what they're doing, Kyle, but you'd have to be certifiable to claim that this administration has been up-front and forthcoming with the American people. From nursery-rhyme patronization like "The terrorists hate our freedom" to bald-faced lies regarding policy like "A vote for war is a vote for peace," this administration has treated the American public like children, and those of us who relish our roles as governors in this democracy are pretty sick of it. The ends do not justify the means, Kyle. Claiming that they do doesn't make you a patriotic supporter of our troops. It makes you lazy.

Finally, I don't give a rat's ass what Bill Clinton did, and neither should you. For a group that claims to hate the Clinton legacy with a passion, you Limbaugh puppets use him as a yardstick for measuring acceptable policy far too often. The buck stops at the President's desk, not at an ex-president's policy. If you want to support current policy, go ahead and sound like a dipshit. Just try to refrain from making statements defending Bush's actions with the actions of Clinton.

Driving the U-Haul

SOB has moved! We're now at http://www.syracuseopinionsbite.com

The site at Blogspot will no longer be updating.

'Tis the Season to Be Jingoistic

To the Editor:

Recently inspired by the new book, "The War on Christmas," by John Gibson of Fox News, I felt the need to share my feelings with my local newspaper.

Since Christmas in America has always been considered to be a family holiday whose roots are the birth of the Christ Child and not the "pagan" background described recently by a spokesperson from Walmart, I believe that this "politically correct" movement to saying Happy Holidays in place of " Merry Christmas" has more to do with the continued attack on America and it's values than a specific attack against Christianity.

I for one will "go out of my way" to say "Merry Christmas" to all I meet this holiday season . . . oops! Christmas season, I mean . . . I mean.

David

This whole "Attack on Christmas" ranks among the most pathetic attempts to stir up the masses as I've ever seen. You have got to have really lost your grip on reality to believe that Christmas is in any danger here in the good ol' U.S.A. Here's an experiment to try: walk through your nearest mall, and using a separate sheet of paper for each, count the number of times each of the following is used: Christmas iconography, Hanukkah iconography, Winter Solstice iconography, and Kwanzaa iconography. All done? Now look at your lists. You most likely have one very long list (did you have to continue on the back? If not, you weren't looking hard enough!). You probably also found a few Hanukkah displays, but my guess is you have two pristine, empty sheets of paper you can use to pen an angry letter about how Christmas is under attack.

Oh, but see, Christmas in America has "always been considered to be a family holiday whose roots are the birth of the Christ Child..." Well, yeah, maybe to you and me, jackass, because we're Christians. But much as the Solstice doesn't mean squat to you, non-Christians don't really care much about the birth of the founder of a religion they don't subscribe to. In this land of free religion, that's their right, and in no way implies an attack against your beliefs. Why does this intimidate you so much? Are the Pagans tearing the Christmas lights off your home? Are gangs of Jewish teenagers painting Stars of David on your holiday lawn statuary? No? Then shut the fuck up and stop whining about an attack that isn't happening.

People use "Happy Holidays" because it's inclusive, you ignorant prick, not as an offense to you. And as a Christian, you should have enough humility to accept the goodwill of others graciously, not bitch and moan because they don't offer you warm wishes in exactly the way you'd prefer. It's kind of like you moved into a new neighborhood, and your new neighbors bring you a green bean casserole to welcome you, and you slap it to the pavement and berate them for not baking you a chocolate cake. Why should anyone have to guess that you're a Christian, and therefore assume "Merry Christmas" is the correct greeting for you? I've always been told that Christians show their faith by their actions, but I don't remember the scripture where Christ instructed his disciples to be sniveling, paranoid, self-righteous pricks. Frankly, as a Christian, it is your duty to be an advocate for Christ by displaying a demeanor that inspires and attracts non-believers. Do you think you are doing that by accusing them of "attacking" you in a nation where you outnumber them many times over, simply for trying to retain their own traditions?

Of course, the real fault can't be placed on mindless sheep like you, Davey. You're just doing what you're told. John Gibson and the gang at Fox News should be strung up for many, many, many reasons, and this certainly ranks among them. They, like everyone else who is pursuing this tactic, are simply using inflammatory rhetoric to stir up morons like you. Anyone with a teaspoon of neurons in their skull hears a statement like "Christmas is under attack in America" and wonders just how many tequila shooters it took to come up with something so hallucinatory. But you, a privileged white male at the top of the cultural food chain, in your constant attempts to avoid feeling guilty about not doing more for people who have less influence, need to believe that your lifestyle is in imminent danger. The "politically correct" movement, which is really just an attempt to validate the right of everyone to some modicum of the respect that you take for granted, is a threat to you because it implies that you might not be more put upon by society than a poor black gay woman. So along come your knights in armor polished with hundred dollar bills, ready to convince you that you are under attack and that your best chance for survival lies in watching their programs, buying their products, voting for their candidates, and basically making them very wealthy, very powerful white men. It's a good thing they're being so selfless and valiant, isn't it Davey?

The final outcome of this is obvious. People use Happy Holidays because it is non-offensive to everyone. It includes, and doesn't exclude. But pricks like you are now offended by people who don't exclude everyone but yourselves. Well, asshole, they're not going to start saying "Merry Christmas". They're just going to stop wishing people holiday greetings of any sort. It has already started, as employers are telling their employees to avoid using any holiday wishes to avoid the controversy. The obvious answer is to just keep saying "Have a nice day" and leave it at that. So thanks for that, Dave. Thanks for killing another part of the holiday season by being selfish and self-important. Goodwill towards men, Dave. Goodwill towards men.