Author: urizon

I'm a writer living in the Hudson Valley.

McDonald’s: You Want Lies With That? (w/ poll)

Certain members of the British establishment have a beef with the editors of the OED. Sir Digby Jones (not to be confused with Digby the Beneficent) and David Frost (not to be confused with the guy who asked Nixon all those softball questions) are upset because the current edition includes the word “McJob”:

LONDON (AFP) – Business chiefs and lawmakers criticised the use of the term McJob Thursday as fast food chain McDonald’s launched a campaign to get an influential dictionary to change its definition.

[. . .]

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), seen as the definitive guide to the English language, describes a McJob as “an unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, esp. one created by the expansion of the service sector.”

But Jones, Frost and 13 others said in a letter to the Financial Times that the dictionary should change this “to reflect a job that is stimulating, rewarding and offers genuine opportunities for career progression.”

Their letter coincided with a push by McDonald’s to get the OED to change the definition — it is launching Thursday a public petition in British restaurants and on the Internet.

The OED isn’t an arbiter of definitions, it’s a chronicler of word usage. If you read an OED entry you will see the entire etymological history of the word, all its usages and definitions, in chronological order. For example, if you want to know the multiple implications meant by Shakespeare when he uses a particular word in one of his sonnets, you turn to the OED to see how Elizabethans used it at that time.

The idea that the OED should change a definition to suit the whims of a corporation (and a thoroughly loathsome one at that) is nothing short of historical revisionism. You know, kind of like these guys. I’m a bit shocked that members of the British gentry would side with such a crass, uncouth (read: American) company.

I’m not shocked, however, that McDonald’s would pull such a stunt. This is, after all, the same company that threatened Clan Donald with a lawsuit over the ancient family’s use of its own name (they had opened a high-end eatery named McDonald’s Restaurant), so this kind of hubris is par for the course. In the case of Clan Donald, well, they fought back (via Lexis/Nexis):

NEWS that the chief of the clan MacDonald, Lord Godfrey Macdonald, is to challenge the claim by McDonald’s that it “owns” the prefix Mc, follows hard on the heels of threats by one Ronald McDonald, who is threatening to sue the world’s biggest fast food chain on behalf of all Scots. The retired teacher from Aberdeen alleges its use of his name for its clown mascot amounts to an insult to the Scottish clan system and says he is determined to make a stand.

[. . .]

Central to the issue is a threat of legal action made by McDonald’s against a sandwich shop in Buckinghamshire. The Scottish proprietor, not unnaturally, had assumed that adding a light-hearted Mc to the name Munchies would amuse customers rather than incur the wrath of a global empire with 18,700 branches worldwide. She was wrong. Despite the fact Mary Blair’s shop doesn’t even sell burgers or chips, McDonald’s insisted that the name McMunchies infringed its copyright and could confuse the public. It demanded she remove it within 14 days. She can take some consolation, however scant, that she is not the only victim; among the other targets of McDonald’s legal firepower (the McLibel Two notwithstanding) is a restaurant in Vilnius, Lithuania, whose owners had the audacity to call it McSmile. “They’re making themselves look ridiculous,” says Blair, who originally comes from Hamilton. “I have no idea why McDonald’s is picking on me. It never even occurred to me when I chose the name for my shop.

For it to say I’m trying to trade off its name is nonsense. How on earth can it say it owns ‘Mc’, when half the Scottish and Irish nations are called ‘Mc’? I can’t imagine how it even heard about me, the nearest McDonald’s is four miles away.”

Apparently, this dispute was settled out of court, which is too bad; Mcdonald’s, through its own stupidity, was made to look ridiculous.

In fact, they keep engaging in such self-destructive behavior. Remember the McLibel suit?:

The McLibel Trial is the infamous British court case between McDonald’s and a former postman & a gardener from London (Helen Steel and Dave Morris). It ran for two and a half years and became the longest ever English trial. The defendants were denied legal aid and their right to a jury, so the whole trial was heard by a single Judge, Mr Justice Bell. He delivered his verdict in June 1997.

The verdict was devastating for McDonald’s. The judge ruled that they ‘exploit children’ with their advertising, produce ‘misleading’ advertising, are ‘culpably responsible’ for cruelty to animals, are ‘antipathetic’ to unionisation and pay their workers low wages. But Helen and Dave failed to prove all the points and so the Judge ruled that they HAD libelled McDonald’s and should pay 60,000 pounds damages. They refused and McDonald’s knew better than to pursue it. In March 1999 the Court of Appeal made further rulings that it was fair comment to say that McDonald’s employees worldwide “do badly in terms of pay and conditions”, and true that “if one eats enough McDonald’s food, one’s diet may well become high in fat etc., with the very real risk of heart disease.”

McDonald’s may have won the McLibel skirmish, but they eventually lost the war.

The good news is that the likelihood of the OED changing this entry, to suit the interests of this arrogant, multi-national corporation, is virtually nil.

Still, it boggles my mind that McDonald’s would try.

Missile Accident on the Hutchinson River Pkwy

Just saw this story on WNBC.

Apparently, a truck carrying a Tomahawk test missile collided with another truck, causing the first to lose its delicate payload:

Friday, July 21, 2006 · Last updated 7:34 a.m. PT

Truck carrying Tomahawk missile overturns

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK — A tractor-trailer carrying a test missile collided with another truck during the morning rush hour Friday, sparking a call to the bomb squad before authorities determined the missile was inert.

No injuries were reported. Authorities said it was a Tomahawk test missile.

“It is considered to be technically a training/testing device,” said Joseph Green, spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Fortunately, this was a test missile (or so they tell us), which means no warhead was attached, nuclear or otherwise.

This does, however, bring up a larger issue, i.e., the transport of ordanance through populated areas. There was, in fact, an important story on this just a few days ago:

Road crash could set off nuclear blast

05 July 2006

Trident nuclear warheads damaged in a vehicle pile-up or a plane crash could partially detonate and deliver a lethal radiation dose, according to a newly declassified report from the UK Ministry of Defence obtained by New Scientist. The MoD has also revealed that an attack by terrorists on a nuclear weapons convoy could produce an even more disastrous outcome. “The consequences of such an incident are likely to be considerable loss of life,” says a senior MoD official.

[…]

But according to the report extreme accidents could result in a nuclear explosion. A serious vehicle collision or an aircraft crash combined with multiple failures of the MoD’s secret protective measures could mean that the weapon might not remain single-point safe. The report puts the overall yearly risk of an “inadvertent yield” in the UK at 2.4 in a billion, mainly due to the possibility of an aircraft crashing onto a convoy. Inadvertent yield suggests a partial nuclear explosion, also called fizzle yield, smaller than the full yield of up to 100 kilotons.

Well, as long as it’s only a “fizzle.” And what’s 100 kilotons, give or take a few? Merely eight times the size of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.

Feeling safer?

We’ve been lucky; the military, and others, routinely transport all kinds of nasty stuff through population centers. It’s only a matter of time before there is a catastrophic accident.

Fortuntately, this incident was relatively benign.

Cross-posted in Orange, and my own pathetic blog.

Ken Lay: Lynching Victim

Every week we are subjected to all kinds of neo-fascist blitherings from the Anne Coulters of the world. Every week the progressive blogosphere does what it can to counter these noxious remarks, thinking that maybe this time we’ll finally put these fascist assholes in their proper place, after having exposed them for the lying fucks they are  — until we start the whole the over again the next week.
Every once in a while, however, a remark comes along that is so repugnant that it simply boggles the mind. The “Reverend” William Lawson, pastor emeritus of the Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church, eulogizing on the passing of Ken Lay, had this to say:

Lawson likened Lay to James Byrd, a black man who was dragged to death in a racially motivated murder near Jasper eight years ago.

“Ken Lay was neither black nor poor, as James Byrd was, but I’m angry because Ken was the victim of a lynching,” said Lawson, who predicted that history will vindicate Lay.

His comments, met by hearty applause, referred to Lay’s recent federal trial on fraud and conspiracy charges stemming from Enron’s unraveling in 2001 and four charges of bank fraud. Lay had planned to appeal his conviction and was awaiting sentencing when he died.

Yes, you heard him correctly: Kenneth Lay, a man who defrauded tens-of-thousands of investors; who cheated tens-of thousands of employees out of their retirement savings; who conspired to rig the energy grid in California to maximize Enron profits, thereby defrauding million of people, many of whom are on a fixed income — yeah, that guy — is being compared to James Byrd, a black man who was brutally knifed and beaten, and then chained to the bumper of a pickup truck, and dragged around back country roads until his body disintegrated:

On June 7, 1998, Byrd, 49, accepted a ride from Berry, Brewer, and King. Instead of taking him home, however, the three men beat Byrd, tied him to a pickup truck with a chain, and dragged him about three miles. An autopsy suggested that Byrd was alive for much of the dragging and died only after his right arm and head were severed when his body hit a culvert.

King, Berry, and Brewer dumped their victim’s mutilated remains in the town’s segregated black cemetery, and then went to a barbeque.

State law enforcement officials and Jasper’s District Attorney determined that since King and Brewer were well-known white supremacists, the murder was a hate crime, and decided to bring in the FBI less than 24 hours after the discovery of Byrd’s brutalized remains. One of Byrd’s murderers, John King, had a tattoo depicting a black man hanging from a tree, and other tattoos such as Nazi symbols, the words “Aryan Pride,” and the patch for the Confederate Knights of America, a gang of white supremacist inmates. In a jailhouse letter to Brewer which was intercepted by jail officials, King expressed pride in the crime and said he realized he might have to die for committing it. “Regardless of the outcome of this, we have made history. Death before dishonor. Sieg Heil!”, King wrote.

Brewer and King were sentenced to death. Berry received life in prison.

Numerous aspects of the Byrd murder echo lynching traditions, including mutilation or decapitation, and revelry such as a barbeque or picnic during or after. These are documented by James Allen in his book, film and exhibit about lynching, Without Sanctuary, which consists of photographs taken from the 1800s through 1960 of white townspeople, including women and young children, picnicking and posing next to the corpses of lynching victims.

I am truly at a loss for words.

What I find even more baffling is that Lawson is black.

Malmedy Lie: Falafel Bill Steps on Joe McCarthy’s Dick

Falafel Bill’s reprehensible distortion of the events surrounding the Malmedy massacre apparently has deep roots in the proto-wingnutosphere. Today, the sharp-eyed Tristero over at Hullabaloo sheds some light as to the origin of this revisionist narrative. Turns out that it was none other than Tailgunner Joe McCarthy who first perpetuated this lie back in 1949.

From a negative WSJ review of Anne Coulter’s Treason:

Ms. Coulter’s work includes an admiring if brief biography of McCarthy’s political career. One that for some reason excludes the senator’s remarkable efforts on behalf of the members of the SS battle group who executed 86 American POWs in the Ardennes campaign in December 1944; otherwise known as the Malmedy Massacre. In his impassioned efforts on behalf of the accused–one never to be repeated in his investigative career–the senator charged that the U.S. Army had cruelly mistreated the former SS men.

The review is referring to the aftermath of Malmedy, when the Nazi perpetrators of the massacre were allegedly mistreated while in Allied custody in Landsberg Prison. If — and this is a big “if” — it turns out that Allied troops mistreated prisoners, then they should have been prosecuted. Period. We should never condone such behavior (it should be noted that the United States Senate conducted an investigation and found no such abuse).

Is any of this beginning to sound familiar? Doesn’t it sound an awful lot like what happened at Abu Ghraib? What O’Reilly thought he was drawing attention to was an Allied My Lai massacre, when in fact he was citing what (if it were true) may have instead been a prototype for the horrors of the new American gulag system. Falafel Boy thought he was helping to deflect criticism for Haditha, and instead ended up reinforcing the narrative that American troops have a history of torturing prisoners of war. So, not only is O’Reilly sullying the reputations of these WWII veterans, he’s also inadvertently helping reinforce the story of abuse at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and others, something over which the wingnuts have been purple-faced ever since Seymour Hersh broke the story several years ago.

Way to go, Bill! I wish we had ten more just like you.

Note: I have no wish to lend any credence to anything uttered by that human shit-stain, O’Reilly. I merely wish to point out that yet another stone has been added to the mighty edifice of unintentional irony the right has been constructing over the last few years.

WaPo’s Domenech Calls for Genocide of African-Americans

Others have done all the hard work on this, so I’ll skip the appetizers and go straight to the main course.

The Redstate blogger known as “Augustine” and Ben Domenech are apparently one in the same:

Later that p.m., a RedState post titled “We Need John Shadegg” was posted by “The Directors” — Krempasky, Ben “Augustine” Domenech, Erick Erickson and Clayton Wagar — urging in bright red oversized letters: “Call (202) 224-3121 and urge your congressman to support John Shadegg for Majority Leader. This matters.”

More after the flip . . . .
The folks at Your Logo Here put out a call for those who are interested to come up with an “Augustine’s Greatest Hits,” if you will, a highlight loop of the best of Domenech’s neo-fascist ramblings. They certainly came up with a few gems:

Perusing an old blog of Ben’s, here’s some wisdom from Ben Domenech, the college years:

Hopefully today’s military action will be the first of a long campaign, though I’ve always preferred drop teams to smart bombs.

Peace Through Superior Thermonuclear Capability.[10/7/01]

Never trust a male cheerleader. [12/12/01] (You know, Ben, Bush was a male cheerleader)

If I was two or three years younger, I would at this very moment be emerging from the warm smells of popcorn and ju-ju bees to the air outside, fresh from the glory of the first showing of The Lord of the Rings. [12/19/01]but wait, Ben, I thought “Red Dawn” was the greatest movie ever…)

Post-9/11 TV Host of the Year: Jon Stewart
Ugly Old Bat of the Year: Helen Thomas
Winner of the Year (uncontested): God [1/4/02]

“It never fails to amaze me how little respect they have for women’s capacity to understand what goes on in our bodies,” [NARAL President Kate] Michelman said. “I faced a crisis pregnancy after having three children, and I didn’t need anyone to show me a sonogram to inform me that my pregnancy would result in giving birth to a person.”

How about the fact that having an abortion would result in the death of a person, Kate? Did you need a sonogram to remember that? [2/2/02]

Al Gore can suck it. [2/4/02]

Antonin Scalia openly questioned the Catholic Church’s opposition to the death penalty today, proving once again that he is a man of deep spiritual intelligence, a modern St. Augustine of jurisprudence. [2/5/02]

I don’t know about you, but the more Colin Powell insults the French, the more I like him. [2/20/02]

On Protest: It’s totally different to protest against war before troops are sent somewhere and to protest against war after our boys are over there with guns in their hands and blood on the ground. The former, in my mind, is a totally legitimate act of political expression. The latter is horrendous and vile. [3/24/03]

I believe this war will take longer than the pundits were saying beforehand, but I also don’t think we’re going to be forced into a long door-by-door campaign in Baghdad. [3/30/03]

Al Qaeda is getting smoked out in Iraq — and anyone who thought there was no connection better line up for their serving of crow. [3/28/03]

And here is my absolute favorite find so far:

Claude Allen is as clearcut as a razor’s edge. He’s a stand-up, principled Virginian. [5/13/03]

Claude Allen, of course, was recently arrested for a felony theft scheme.

These quotes are pretty stupid, needless to say. Today, however, Steve Gilliard uncovers a whopper, in which Augustine appears to endorse the genocide of African-Americans:

People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them. Since we have, with little success, spent trillions of dollars over the past several decades trying to make poor blacks non-poor, it is time we recognize that there are more efficient means of eliminating the drag. Stated so bluntly, many readers might find that way of putting the matter morally problematic. The extermination of anti-social elements does, after all, have a somewhat controversial history. One thinks, perhaps inevitably, of the Holocaust, but it did not start or stop there. Six years ago, economist Steven Levitt and law professor John Donohue sparked a brouhaha with their claim that abortion is probably the greatest crime-prevention measure ever invented. Now that argument has received renewed currency in the bestselling book Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Levitt and his co-author Stephen Dubner. In recent years there has been a 30- to 50-percent drop in crime, and many explanations are offered: new policing methods, more than two million people behind bars, the drop-off in the use of crack, and on and on. But a careful analysis of the data, say Levitt and company, indicates that the biggest factor, far and away, is that the millions of young men most likely to commit crimes were killed early on. A refreshing note of candor in the current discussion is that nobody is denying that all those fetuses killed in the womb were really human beings. So it seems the question of when human life begins has been settled once and for all. The dramatic decline in crime began eighteen years after Roe v. Wade, and a few years earlier in those states that liberalized their abortion law. Of course, most of the commentaries steer away from a too-explicit reference to race, although everybody is aware of the astonishingly inordinate incidence of crimes committed by young male blacks and the equally inordinate incidence of abortions procured by black women. In one interview, Levitt said his findings had little or nothing to do with race; his research on the correlation between crime and unstable family situations was based on Scandinavian research. Well yes, but nobody to my knowledge has suggested that the problem of crime in the United States is significantly related to the problem of Swedish immigration. Levitt, like Donohue, is also careful to say that he is not a supporter of the unlimited abortion license. I notice that many other commentators make a point of saying that this discussion is not about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. It just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime. I do not question the research or logic of Levitt’s argument. If a specifiable group is inordinately responsible for a social problem, it follows that eliminating a large number of people belonging to that group will reduce the problem. It is hard to argue with that. What is morally odious is the cool and disinterested way in which the commentariat is discussing what might fairly be described as racial cleansing. It’s too bad about all those dead babies, but it is a kind of solution to the crime problem, if not a final solution. Meanwhile, those who style themselves black leaders, especially political leaders, are overwhelmingly in support of the unlimited abortion license, thus maintaining their distinction of being the only ethnic or racial leadership in history to actively collaborate in dramatically reducing the number of people they claim to lead. If they had been allowed to live, there would be about twenty million more blacks in America. White racists have reason to be grateful for what is sometimes still called the civil rights leadership. In another lifetime, before he succumbed to national ambitions, Jesse Jackson regularly declared that the war on poverty had been replaced by a war on the poor. There is more than a little to that. Having despaired of preparing young blacks to enter into the opportunities and responsibilities of American life, the society apparently decided to eliminate them before they had a chance to become a threat. The story of the Exodus plays a large and understandable part in black history: “Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, `When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him.’ But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live.” Today’s black leaders are more compliant, much to the satisfaction of those who think we would all be better off with fewer black people.

Click the link to Gilliard’s site and be sure to drink some Maalox before you do so. There’s much more.

So why the hell is the Washington Post hiring this person?  He has absolutely no experience which would warrant giving him such a position, and his demographic is a cross-section of some of the most virulently-racist right-wing nuts this country has to offer.

I don’t know about you guys, but I’m going to give L’il Debbie a piece of my mind.

Here’s the email address for those who wish to do the same: ombudsman@washpost.com

KBR Concentration Camps?

Okay, I admit to a touch of hyperbole in order to get your attention. However, I came across this very disturbing blog entry on the web site of the stalwart Mr. David Neiwert.
This article is from the Long Beach (CA) Press-Telegram:

Halliburton subsidiary nets contract amid suspicion

By Mason Stockstill, Staff writer

A Houston-based construction firm with ties to the White House has been awarded an open-ended contract to build immigration detention centers that could total $385 million a move some critics called questionable.

The contract calls for KBR, a subsidiary of oil engineering and construction giant Halliburton, to build temporary detention facilities in the event of an “immigration emergency,” according to U.S. officials.

“If, for example, there were some sort of upheaval in another country that would cause mass migration, that’s the type of situation that this contract would address,” said Jamie Zuieback of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“Essentially, this is a contingency contract.”

Under the contract, which was awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, KBR could also be tasked to operate one or more temporary detention facilities, and to develop a plan for responding to a natural disaster in which ICE personnel participate in relief efforts.

Do I still have your attention?

Neiwert then links to this column by Tom Hennessy:

This column is written with the distinct feeling that not many people will give a hoot about any or all of this. But as already noted, a news story about construction of government detention centers should give us all pause.

Considering what took place in Nazi Germany, as well as the shameful incarceration of Japanese-Americans in 1942, no detention camp should be built without the widest possible public scrutiny.

Bottom line: The contract cries out for greater attention. So far, the government’s expressed reason for building them is insufficient and ill-defined. And even if the camps do relate to illegal immigration, their purpose could be changed overnight.

This is an instance in which we could be well served by our representatives in Congress. They need to look at this and give constituents a better picture of what is going on.

Let’s not have it said, years from now, that no one ever questioned this.

Some may say this is tin-foil hat country. To which I would reply: How bad do things have to get before we begin to use the F-word?

So, as Hennessy suggests, it would behoove all of us to begin asking: Just what crisis of “mass immigration” does the government foresee as a possibility? And is it strong enough to warrant the actual construction of concentration camps?

And most of all: Why now?

Neiwert is no Chicken Little. He work is, in my opinion, right up there with the SPLC when it comes to monitoring and exposing the activites of the far Right, albeit on a smaller scale. In other words, if Neiwert yells “fire!” you better start looking for the exits. I strongly encourage every to bookmark his excellent blog.

Thoughts?

[editor’s note, by urizon]I added a few blockquotes in an effort to emphasise what I see as an important story needing wider exposure. My apologies for the somewhat sloppy original post.

Has Abramoff Been Flipped?

A quick FYI just in from the NYT:

Lobbyist Is Said to Discuss Plea and Testimony

By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
Published: December 21, 2005

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 – Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist under criminal investigation, has been discussing with prosecutors a deal that would grant him a reduced sentence in exchange for testimony against former political and business associates, people with detailed knowledge of the case say.

This part is pretty juicy:

What began as a limited inquiry into $82 million of Indian casino lobbying by Mr. Abramoff and his closest partner, Michael Scanlon, has broadened into a far-reaching corruption investigation of mainly Republican lawmakers and aides suspected of accepting favors in exchange for legislative work.

Prominent party officials, including the former House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, are under scrutiny involving trips and other gifts from Mr. Abramoff and his clients. The case has shaken the Republican establishment, with the threat of testimony from Mr. Abramoff, once a ubiquitous and well-connected Republican star, sowing anxiety throughout the party ranks.

And then it gets even juicier:

Although the Miami case is ostensibly separate from the Washington inquiry, the overlapping elements include occasions when Mr. Abramoff flexed his political muscle to enhance his business deal in Florida.

While he and a partner, Adam Kidan, were angling to buy the SunCruz boat fleet in 2000, Mr. Abramoff had Mr. Scanlon persuade Representative Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio, to insert negative comments about a business rival of Mr. Abramoff into The Congressional Record, under to a scheme outlined in documents filed in Mr. Scanlon’s criminal case.

The rival, Konstantinos Boulis, was murdered a short time later in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., a twist that heightened the profile of the Miami case.

Florida prosecutors are also investigating corruption in that case, focusing on Mr. Ney and his chief of staff at the time, Neil Volz, according to people involved in the case. Mr. Volz reportedly agreed to put negative remarks about Mr. Boulis in The Congressional Record, even though Mr. Ney had no obvious reason to comment on Mr. Boulis.

Mr. Volz went on to work for Mr. Abramoff as a lobbyist.

Mr. Ney has said he was tricked by Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Abramoff into participating, and no charges have been brought against him.

In his financial paperwork in the Miami deal, Mr. Abramoff listed Tony C. Rudy, a deputy chief of staff to Mr. DeLay at the time, as a reference.

He also listed Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, who has since defended the decision to support the lobbyist.

We might finally be seeing a “harmonic convergence” on these corruption cases, and nothing would make me happier than to see Dana “I’ve got a Secret” Rohrabacher get his just desserts.

Let us hope.

[Update] Typo fixed.

O’Reilly’s "War on Christmas" tied to Alito Nomination

There is a “war on Christmas” taking place. Evil Secular Humanists have spread out across the land to replace “Merry Christmas” with the bland “Happy Holidays;” the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree is to be called a “holiday tree;” kresh scenes are out of the question. Next they’ll try to kill Santa Clause, I tells ya.

Thank god for the stalwart defenders of Christmas. Lets start with John Gibson. Gibson, you may recall, recently penned this missive:

   
The War on Christmas
John Gibson – Author

Yes, Virginia, there is a war on Christmas. It’s the secularization of America’sfavorite holiday and the ever-stronger push toward a neutered “holiday” season so that non-Christians won’t be even the slightest bit offended.

Traditionalists get upset when they’re told–more and more these days–that celebrating Christmas in any public way is a violation of church and state separation. That is certainly not what the founders intended when they wrote, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

John Gibson, a popular anchor for the Fox News Channel, has been digging up evidence about the liberal activists, lawyers, politicians, educators, and media people who are leading the war on Christmas. And he reveals that the situation is worse than you can imagine. For instance:

  • In Illinois, state government workers were forbidden from saying the words “Merry Christmas” while at work
  • In Rhode Island, local officials banned Christians from participating in a public project to decorate the lawn of City Hall
  • A New Jersey school banned even instrumental versions of traditional Christmas carols
  • Arizona school officials ruled it unconstitutional for a student to make any reference to the religious history of Christmas in a class project

Millions of Americans are starting to fight back against the secularist forces and against local officials who would rather surrender than be seen as politically incorrect. Gibson shows readers how they can help save Christmas from being twisted beyond recognition, with even the slightest reference to Jesus completely disappearing.

The annual debate will be hotter than ever in 2005, and this book will be perfect for everyone who’s pro-Christmas.

Thank god we have such brave individuals to defend my right to insult others who don’t celebrate this holiday. Fuck ’em, I always say. What are they doing messing around with those silly religions, anyway?

Next up we have the great champion that is Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly, you may have heard, is almost single-handedly holding back the legions of granola-eating, patchouli-wearing demons who want to turn this holiday into a free-love fest. To wit, Mr. O’Reilly began this crusade:

O’Reilly: “War” on Christmas part of “secular progressive agenda” that includes “legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage”

In the latest instance of decrying the purported “war” on Christmas, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly claimed that “it’s all part of the secular progressive agenda … to get Christianity and spirituality and Judaism out of the public square.” He then added: “[B]ecause if you look at what happened in Western Europe and Canada, if you can get religion out, then you can pass secular progressive programs, like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage, because the objection to those things is religious-based, usually.” O’Reilly’s comments came during a November 18 discussion on his television show, The O’Reilly Factor, with guest and fellow Fox News host John Gibson about “which American stores are using ‘Christmas’ in advertising this Christmas season and which are not.” Gibson is the author of The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought (Sentinel, October 2005).

Folks, he’s putting his ass on the line, every day, so that you and I have the right to get sloppy drunk on grandma’s eggnog. I simply don’t want to live in the world these rationalists are attempting to create.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. You’re saying to yourself, “Gee, Bill, it surely takes the greatest amount of moral courage to defend so unpopular a holiday. How do you keep your fighting spirit up?” You also may ask, “Hey, John, how do you manage to stay focused in the face of such well-financed and ruthless an opposition?” Well, I certainly don’t want to put words in the mouths of these two great men. They’re out there, all alone, fighting ther good fight, every day.

But is help on the horizon? Is there no one who can relieve these tireless sentries?

Which brings me to the third wise man:

Ads Portray Nominee as Protector of Christmas

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: December 6, 2005

WASHINGTON, Dec. 5 – It is the time of year when bedtime stories and television specials often recall the plucky reindeer and the little girl of Whoville who managed to save Christmas. This year, some conservative groups are hoping to add a new name to that pantheon of heroes: Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., the Supreme Court nominee.

“Liberal groups like People for the American Way and the A.C.L.U. have opposed public Christmas and Hanukkah displays and even fought to keep Christmas carols out of school,” declares a radio commercial paid for by the conservative Committee for Justice beginning Monday in Colorado, Wisconsin and West Virginia, states whose senators are considered pivotal votes on Judge Alito.

 

My heart swelled with pride and hope when I read this
article. After all, there is no greater legal issue currently before the court than the issue of whether or not my niece be allowed to sing “Deck the Halls” during this year’s “holiday” pageant.

Now that I know soon-to-be-associate-justice Alito is on the case, I can sleep comfortably at night.

(If others have already figured this out, please forgive me for pointing out the obvious.)

Update: fixed formatting problem.