The War on Christmas

In 1960, while my mother was pregnant with me, her minister (Baptist, I think) announced one Sunday morning that since John F. Kennedy was Catholic, voting for him was a sin. My mom, bless her, not normally one to make any kind of a scene, rose from her pew that moment, left the church and never went back. Though she remained personally religious for the rest of her life, my brother and I were raised in a completely secular manner, though we did spend a couple weeks in Bible School one summer; the sum total of what I recall from it being a little ditty called "Choo-Choo, the Bible Train is Coming Down the Track." (That's also approximately 70 percent of the lyrics.)

Nonetheless, we, like everyone else I knew, celebrated Christmas every year, in the typical suburban American manner: getting up early Christmas morning, examining the loot left by Santa and sent by relatives, seeking out neighborhood friends to deliver the traditional greeting -- "What'd you get?" -- and later eating the second of two annual Turkey dinners, having devoured the last of the Thanksgiving leftovers scant days before.

So when I hear from conservative commentators out there, upset that businesses and governmental bodies are saying "Happy Holidays!" instead of "Merry Christmas!" and implying that doing so is somehow an attack on Christianity -- I get confused. My instinct is to wonder what they think the current celebration of Christmas has to do with Christianity, anyway.

Oh, sure, supposedly we're celebrating the birth of Jesus -- even though no one thinks he was actually born on December 25th, or even close to it. Sure, many of the traditional carols tell the story of the Nativity, and we're all familiar with such icons as the Star of Bethleham and the Three Wise Men. But we're also celebrating the New Year, and a tradition of a festival of the winter solstice that long predates the rise of Christianity -- not to mention a gift-giving frenzy without which our retail economy would probably collapse.

So what difference does the terminology make? I called the holiday Christmas, wished people a Merry Christmas, found my presents under a Christmas tree, liked looking at Christmas lights, sang Christmas carols and ate Christmas cookies -- but none of that made me a Christian. Frankly, given the main use to which our culture puts the season -- to urge consumers to an orgy of spending, most of it on non-necessities -- I would think the devout would be happy to see businesses moving away from associating such activities with Jesus Christ.

No, that's not what's going on here. This is nothing more than some conservative activists once again attempting to build an us-versus-them, godly-versus-secular, good-versus-evil mentality amongst the genuinely faithful. They've taken a few legitimate concerns about seperation of church and state (say, government-sponsored Nativity scenes) and talked it up into an all-out "War on Christmas" -- meaning, of course, a war on Christianity. Come on. Do they really think the board of directors of Wal-Mart, deciding to put "Happy Holidays" in their ads, is doing so to alienate Christians?

Frankly, I think if the Christians really want to keep the meaning of their holiday about Jesus and His message, the best thing they could do would be to move Christmas to another part of the year, away from the New Year/Solstice/Gift-giving and general revelry festival. Pick another day to represent the birth of the Lord, and make that the day to go to church and reflect on one's faith. And let the current "holiday season" stay the generic time of peace on earth, goodwill toward men...and "What'd you get?"

A prediction.

I've been neglecting the blog lately, but I wanted to sneak in today to record a long-term political prediction:

Remember the name of Nathaniel Fick. Someday you're going to be hearing it again.

OK, It's Official: I Really Hate George W. Bush

OK. I've never been a fan of George W. Bush.

I have disagreed with the Bush administration on most of its policies. I have been disgusted at its willingness to put the interests of the richest Americans ahead of the long-term national welfare. I have been outraged at the lies and dissembling it has offered as explanations for many of its actions. I have been appalled at the incompetence it has applied to such tasks as rebuilding Iraq or responding to this hurricane. I have shaken my head and sighed at the way it values loyalty and cronyism over competence and integrity.

But starting today, I really, actively hate the man.

Here's why. Ever hear of the Davis-Beacon Act of 1931?

"The Davis-Bacon Act, as amended, requires that each contract over $2,000 to which the United States or the District of Columbia is a party for the construction, alteration, or repair of public buildings or public works shall contain a clause setting forth the minimum wages to be paid to various classes of laborers and mechanics employed under the contract. Under the provisions of the Act, contractors or their subcontractors are to pay workers employed directly upon the site of the work no less than the locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits paid on projects of a similar character."
(From: http://www.dol.gov/esa/programs/dbra/whatdbra.htm)

On Thursday, by executive order, Bush suspended the Act with regards to reconstruction contracts in the areas stricken by Hurricane Katrina.

The White House isn't exactly trumpeting this action. I'm sure if asked, they would maintain that it will help keep the costs of reconstruction under control and speed up the recovery process.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Here we have a situation where hundreds of thousands of people have lost their homes and practically everything they have. So many businesses were damaged or destroyed that unemployment is certain to surge in the short term. This hurricane hit mainly in areas that were already among the poorest in the nation, and now untold thousands have no idea what the future may hold.

The one possible cause for optimism is that clearly the clean-up and rebuilding of the stricken areas is something that's going to require thousands of people, of all levels of skill: from professional engineers and architects, to skilled carpenters, bricklayers, equipment operators, and so forth, down to entry-level unskilled labor.

Now the President is going to let the companies our government is hiring with our money pay these people -- meaning the ones at the low end, of course; I'm not so worried that the engineers will be starving -- poverty-level wages as they strive to re-create infrastructure and housing in the area of the worst natural disaster in the nation's history. (The "prevailing wage" in the area has been cited as around $9/hour for these kinds of entry-level construction jobs -- hardly an inflated wage.)

How much is that worth to you, Mr. President? How much is Haliburton going to kick into the Republican coffers for this favor? How much are their profits going to go up next year? Or do you expect that they'll pass those labor savings on to the taxpayers? Oh, please!

Never mind that wages for workers and the middle class have declined in real terms over the past few years, while wages in the upper brackets have skyrocketed (and their taxes have declined). Never mind that the purchasing power of the minimum wage is the second-lowest it's been since 1955, and the lowest against the average wage paid non-supervisory workers since 1949. Never mind that while gas prices soar to $3 a gallon and more, and we are continually warned of shortages in refining capacities and future price increases, the major oil companies are continuing to rake in record profits every quarter. I don't expect this administration to give a damn about any of that.

But this is just over the freaking top. First the administration completely screws up the reaction to the disaster; now they're preparing to directly screw the workers yet again. Did it even occur to him that well-paid recovery workers would be able to spend the money and create even more jobs in the stricken area? Did it maybe occur to him that it would just be the fair thing to do, rather than using the disaster as an excuse to take advantage of an already desperate populace?

Fuck you, Mr. President. I've held off saying that up to now out of respect for your office. But you don't deserve that respect. You have no compassion and no conscience. You are a liar, and a poor one. There may be little I can do about it but to vent about how I feel; thank God you haven't managed to take that right away yet.

I expect to see you in Hell, Mr. President. And I expect you to try to convince me you're surprised to be there. Because you haven't got an honest cell in your brain or body

Signs I'm Getting Old

(1) Greying at the temples (been going on for a couple of years now).

(2) New glasses: progressive vision (i.e., gradual bifocals).

(3) I actually want one of the new Mustangs...

With reference to number 3, you have to understand: I've never wanted a sports car before, of any description. Sure, I've wanted nice cars, cars I couldn't afford, etc. But if I could pick any car? Probably some nice, mid-size luxury sedan, with good zip and handling, sure, but also a nice ride and plenty of comforts. Cars I actually buy? I tend to prefer smaller cars with nice sharp turning. If I ever had wanted a sports car, I would probably have been much more attracted to something like an MR2 or a Porsche. A big, "muscle car" type? Never. Went to high school in the late 1970's and never once wanted a Trans-Am. The Mustang isn't quite in that category, but it's not really in the small-zippy one either.

But...the new Mustangs are so cool...true to the classic Mustang spirit from the 1960's, but up-to-date, too. (And deliberately softened a bit for us middle-age types who are probably actually buying most of them.)

Yep...definitely getting old. *sigh* Mind you, if I had the money, I probably still would talk myself out of buying one, on the grounds of fuel economy alone. But...well, maybe if I had a real short commute anyway....

Summer Reading, Part 1

No Island of Sanity: Paula Jones v. Bill Clinton: The Supreme Court on Trial
Vincent Bugliosi

In the past six months or so, I've rediscovered a joy of childhood: the public library. Oh, I've always gone to libraries now and then, for a little research, or to look for some older, more obscure book that would be difficult or expensive to purchase. But for most of my recreational reading, I prefer to buy my books, since I have a long-established habit of re-reading. Lately though, due to a combination of budget constraints and a large number of titles I've wanted to sample (but am unsure I want to own), I suddenly thought "Hey! Y'know, I don't have to buy books to read 'em..." Most of these titles have been in the social/political arena. So from time to time, I'll be presenting brief (or sometimes not-so-brief) reviews here.

No Island of Sanity by Vincent Bugliosi is not one I set out to find, but the idea intrigued me and the book is fairly short (132 pages of text, plus another dozen or so of footnotes). Bugliosi, of course, is best remembered as the man who succesfully prosecuted Charles Manson and family for the Tate/LaBianca murders, and for Helter Skelter, the book he wrote (with Curt Gentry) about same. Anyone who's familiar with that case can't help but have a certain respect for the man, his determination and integrity, as well as a certain amount of legal prowess. So I was curious to see what he might have to say on the subject of the Supreme Court and its ruling in the Jones v. Clinton case.

To refresh everyone's memory, the case did not consider the merits of the Paula Jones lawsuit against President Clinton for alleged sexual harassment, nor did it directly pertain to the Whitewater investigation, Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, or the eventual impeachment proceedings. In fact, Bugliosi wrote this book in 1998, before the matters that would lead to the impeachment came to light. Nor does Bugliosi himself take up the question of whether Jones' allegations had substance (apart from noting, mainly in the footnotes, some contradictory information). Rather, he focuses on the question of whether it makes any kind of sense for a sitting President to be forced to defend himself against a civil suit while still in office, particularly when the suit is pertaining to alleged conduct that occurred before he took office.

Bugliosi makes a pretty convincing case that the unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court that the suit could proceed was dead wrong; that the court failed to weigh, as it must, the competing interest of the people of the United States in having an undistracted President, against the need of Ms. Jones for speedy relief. It should be noted that Clinton never claimed to be immune from the suit altogether; rather he simply wanted the matter delayed till after his term of office. Bugliosi also notes that the constitutional right to a speedy trial only applies to criminal, not civil, cases, and that courts routinely grant long continuances over matters of public interest. In fact, had Clinton been a private soldier being deployed overseas, he would have been entitled by statute to have the matter delayed until his return; is it reasonable to deny the same to the Commander-In-Chief?

Intermixed with Bugliosi's argument (which is fairly simple, and can actually be summed up in just a few pages) are some of his own alarm at the direction of society. Some of this is certainly worthwhile reading, as he takes to task everyone from the media (which mostly applauded the court's decision) to those who would see the country suffer for political gain. My personal favorite quote:

"The ultraconservative wing of the Republican Party, if they had a patriotic bone in their body, which they do not, would want the president, even though he is a Democrat, to do well. Why? Because if he does well, so does the country. But since these beady-eyed, narrow-minded people, at bottom, really don't care how the country does -- they only want the country to do well if one of their people is president -- they wish, encourage, and promote all kinds of harm on the president, even on his wife, Hillary. Not only would they actually be very happy if the president, whose time is extremely precious, was tied up for months on the Paula Jones case, to the detriment of the country, they'd also love nothing better than to see him humiliated, even though this humiliation would automatically and necessarily be humiliating to the entire country in the eyes of the world. This is the crowd that can frequently be heard to say, 'He's not my president.' The same people whose generational predecessors, particularly in the South, celebrated when President Kennedy and Martin Luther King were assassinated. What does it say about a group of vile, mean-spirited, and indecent people like this when the best defense for their attitude and behavior, if there is one, is that they are cretinous?"

I think I whooped out loud when I read this one, though for the sake of objectivity, I'd point out that you might be able to make the same charged against liberals for not supporting President Bush more fully in national security matters. (The different, to my mind, being that the main reason I don't more fully support him is that I feel he's making serious policy mistakes that may well be making us less safe, not more...more on this a couple of reviews from now.)

However, some of the symptoms Bugliosi cites as signs of our society's decline are a bit harder to take -- things like women wearing pants, boys wearing earrings, and rap music. There are those sections where he comes off sounding more like someone's grumpy old great-grandpa than a legal scholar of any sort.

Still, I enjoyed the book as a polemic, even though I have to wonder at its legal analysis. Bugliosi acknowledges that people might find it hard to take his opinion (admitting he's not any kind of expect in constitutional law) over an, after all, unanimous decision by the Supreme Court. Yet he doesn't let that stop him from expressing it eloquently and forcefully. I do have to kind of admire that.

...And right into the gender issues

I'm not really an "activist" on transgender issues. Although I've been an occasional crossdresser for decades, it's largely a private matter for me. Still, I feel strongly that transgendered persons deserve at least some legal protections.

Hence the case of Diane Schroer caught my attention. Diane is a transsexual in the process of transitioning to womanhood. She also had applied for a position at the Library of Congress, one for which she was eminently well qualified, and had been all-but officially hired. Apparently, however, she had done this still in her male identity of David Schroer. She explained to her prospective boss that she would be making the transition while in her early months of employment, and that it would probably be easier for everyone to adjust if she presented as female from the beginning. The boss made no immediate comment, but the next day, Diane was informed that the job offer was being withdrawn.

David Schroer, by the way, was an Army Colonel, a 25-year veteran, had been in the Special Forces and made over 450 parachute jumps before retiring in 2004.

I personally think it's shameful that someone who has put their life at risk for their country for decades should recieve this kind of treatment. There just seems no rational reason for it.

Even more disturbing to me was the 2002 case of Peter Boiler, an employee of a Winn-Dixie supermarket in Louisiana. Mr. Boiler was fired after his managers learned that he sometimes dressed as a woman, even though he did not do so at work and it had no impact whatsoever on his job performance. Managers argued that customers who might see Boiler so dressed might associate him with the store and might decide to shop elsehwere. Assisted by the ACLU, Boiler sued under federal sex discrimination laws, but the suit was dismissed. I hope that Ms. Schroer has better luck.

Welcome to my blog...

Good evening, and welcome to The Whole Echinodermata. Allow me to introduce your host, the internationally unreknowned writer, commentator, concerned onlooker, snopester, raconteur, also contains lanolin -- E. Q. Taft!

Thank you, thank you. No, really, you're too kind. Thank you.

This is just going to be a place to collect my thoughts now and then, and jot them down, in the hope that others might find them interesting, informative, persuasive, or entertaining -- not necessarily in that order. It's semi-anonymous (no, Echinodermata is not my real name...) so that I can speak a bit more freely and occasionally get personal.

Most of the postings will probably be more-or-less political; I consider myself a moderate by inclination, a progressive/liberal/Democrat by conviction, but (hopefully) never a knee-jerk or extremist of any persuasion. I will also probably touch on some cultural and personal issues, from film reviews to rants about bad drivers to good new jokes to stuff about my gender identity issues.

I'm new to blogging, if not to writing essays and spouting off in general, so it's possible this will eventually evolve in directions I'm not expecting. If so, I hope you hang on and enjoy the ride!