Militant Christmas

I do not know if what I am about to talk about is a new phenomenon or has just started lately. So, if this is older than I am and you already know about it, I apologize.

I have noticed lately that the "loving spirit of Christmas" (defined by Hollywood as that time to feel good about yourself and others, e.g. IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET, ELF, WHITE CHRISTMAS, any CHRISTMAS CAROL, etc.) is only a thin veneer on the surface. People love to put up the trees, spread "good cheer", give presents and do good for (at the most) a month, from Thanksgiving until Boxing Day (the day after Christmas). People dress up in their finest attire to attend church and/or parties, smile at their neighbor, etc. It is viewed at THE holy of holidays, since it celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ. Pretty innocuous, eh?

But let's dig a little deeper into this charade. Some of the same individuals that celebrate this "joyous holiday" hold onto their beliefs with a fanatical militancy (How do the phrases "joyous holiday" and "fanatical militancy" go together? It boggles the mind).

Here are two examples:

1. A rabbi wanted the Seattle-Tacoma (SEA-TAC) airport to display a menorah near their Christmas tree (not an unreasonable request, since Chanukah is around the same time and a large portion of our population is Jewish. Oh, by the way, in case anyone has missed this, Jesus was also Jewish). SEA-TAC chose to remove the trees. Jewish organizations got hate mail (remember this happy holiday? Love? Good cheer? Birth of our saviour?) over this. If Christ were here today, would he be sending hate mail? I don't think so.
2. I have chosen to display, as my Christmas display, a sign that I created in MS Word that says "Christmas Free Zone" with a display of a "no tree", "no santa" and "no presents" around the words. Nothing obscene, threatening or malicious about it. However, I have had several comments about it. The simplest was that I am a "Grinch" (the person was able to smile and make a friendly joke about it ). Another person called me a Scrooge (less friendly, but still a friendly discussion). The worst one was the person that got snotty about it and told me that I needed to go to church to understand the "spirit of Christmas". This is the attitude of the typical American when they do not understand something. All of this from a simple little sign. Go figure.

Let's not forget the presents. As I stated before in this blog, I don't like presents. But, in this "spirit of Christmas" (whatever defines that), some people insist on giving them to me. The way that it was explained to me by one of the offenders "You must remember the spirit of the person that is giving it to you" (or something along that line). I wonder if that person would try to have a Jewish person eat pork or feed a vegetarian a Big Mac. Someone else expressed the thought "I wonder what is driving that?". There is a strong unwillingness to respect a strong belief structure. I am asked to enable their behaviour by accepting the present and saying nothing. Turns out that this present giving thing seems to be nothing about "it is better to give than to receive" and all about selfishness. If people truly felt a loving spirit, the desire to forego receiving presents would be honored by all parties.

What all of these people fail to realize are several things:

1. The Christmas holiday as it is celebrated today has very little to do with Christ's birth (at least not in this day and age). But your average person doesn't realize that. In order to educate the teeming masses, here are some links about the history of Christmas:

The History Channel - The History of Christmas
Wikipedia - Christmas
History.co.uk - The History of Christmas - Fact or Fiction
Catholic Encyclopedia - Christmas
Worldbook - The History of Christmas
New Life Community Church (Stafford Virginia) - A History of the Celebration of Christmas

2. Part of the Christmas celebration is showing love to everyone. One way to show this love is to understand that not everyone enjoys Christmas. Some people have lost loved ones during this season. Some people don't have family for celebratory parties. Some people suffer from depression. And some people refuse to be brainwashed and sucked into the monetary vortex of inane and nonsensical present buying. This doesn't make them Scrooges or Grinches. This makes them loving and caring people who need to be appreciated, whether you carry the same belief structure or not. And, for the record, this isn't about being politically correct. This is about the true spirit of love.

3. Let me put forth a theoretical supposition: Jesus is still in physical form. How do you think that he would celebrate his own birth? Would he support the ritual that has formed through the years with the browbeating and the militancy regarding this celebration (remember how he admonished the Pharisees for their vacant ritualistic behaviors. The same applies here). Or, is it possible that he would tell us that our celebration/ritual is not the important part, but the condition of our soul (the part that only you and God know about. No one else can possibly know). What good of a superficial celebration for a few days (at the most) if we are headed to hell for eternity because of the condition of our soul? Just something to make you go HMMMMM?!

So, think about adopting a new attitude toward this holiday. Try to show true love to everyone (year around instead of a few days a year) and respect their feelings toward this season (not because of political correctness, as some ignorant people would assert, but because you care).

Philly Cheesesteaks & English

There is a sign that has been placed in one of the landmark eateries (Geno's) of South Philly. It reads: "THIS IS AMERICA. PLEASE SPEAK ENGLISH". It symbolizes a debate that has been going on in this country lately on forcing immigrants to learn English.

The only positive part of Joe Vento's (owner of Geno's) sign is that he has the right to put it up. The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, no matter how mean-spirited, foul, racist, xenophobic and ignorant it may be (which is the spirit of this sign, contrary to Mr. Vento's assertions). I will defend his right to put up the sign, but my support clearly ends there.

First and foremost, Geno's is NOT known for their hospitable and friendly atmosphere. Truth be known, if you want a taste of the bad side of Philadelphia, go to Geno's. This famous eatery specializes in rude and arrogant behaviour. Their cheesesteaks are more like gutbombs than sandwiches (best tasted at 2 A.M. when a drunk wants some munchies and nothing else is open for service). On top of that, Mr. Vento is not a rocket scientist (after you have heard him speak, you will understand what I mean). Fortunately, I have met a lot of good people from South Philly. I know that Mr. Vento is an anomaly. But people like him still give Americans and Philadelphians a very bad name. They use their "patriotism" as a billy club and a bully pulpit.

The debate over making immigrants learn English is not debatable for people who have a clear view of history. It is true that previous generations have learned English and assimilated into our culture. However, what most Americans fail to realize is that it took at least a generation or two (in some cases) before previous immigrants learned the language. My family came to America in July of 1838. As late as the mid 20th century, they could still speak some German. Not everyone is blessed with the ability to become fluent in a language that isn't native to them.
In fact, some of the "Speak English" people have that problem. They can't learn another language. That is part of the reason that they are unwilling to allow immigrants to speak in their native tongue.

Also, I have been told by some people that the immigrants "refusing" to speak English is a threat to our way of life. This is poppycock! America is a melting pot and always has been. Our way of life, as we know it, has come from many different cultures. In fact, our country was founded on some people who immigrated from another country (Britain). So how can a melded culture be threatened by more change? It can't.

I believe that this debate is rooted in racism. The "Euro-Americans" are afraid that the Latinos/Africans/Asians/Arab/(name a non-white ethnicity) are taking over and going to ruin
our country (what will be ruined is never explained). But the FACT of the matter is that this is FAR FROM THE TRUTH! These people will add more color to America, just as our ancestors did when they emigrated.

Last, but not least, I had the privilege of living in two countries where I did not speak the language (Italy - four and a half months, Germany - two months/twice). It was hard enough to get around and try to learn the language. I didn't have the barrier of trying to support a family in that country (in some cases, holding down two or three jobs). I didn't have the barrier of a hostile population (yes, Americans can be a hostile group). I also didn't have the barrier of being in a totally foreign atmosphere (I was deployed to a NATO base where English was the primary language and I could fall back to, as necessary).

To sum this up, there are NO immigrants not trying to learn English. There is a group of people who came to a country thinking that this was the "land of the free". Free to live a life free of persecution. Free to worship and free to live your life. Even to go so far as to be free to learn English or not learn English. I guess that was their mistake. Maybe this country isn't as free as we once thought it was.

Dubai Port Deal

I stood on the fence regarding the port deal for far too long. I didn't know enough about it. Now that it has been cancelled, I now fully understand that which I did not before. Here is where it all lies:

1. The forces against the Dubai company purchasing the ports deal were mostly driven by "Arab-phobia". Our culture is one that fears Arabs, even pre-911/pre-WTC bombing/pre-Lebanon(1982). Look at the movies that come out of Hollywood. Arabs are usually portrayed as an ignorant evil people. For an example, name one major Hollywood movie that shows a sympathetic view of Arabs. I can't think of one. Examples of poor portrayals of Arabs: Air Force One and The Sheik .

2. There was an impression that the Dubai company would have presented a threat to our national security. I don't know how to break this to anyone, but 9/11 occurred when WE were in charge of our airport security. The first World Trade Center bombing occurred when we had the watch. So on and so forth. Now we will have our ports back (at least the six that were going to be outsourced). Hopefully, we can do the job right this time. The next time that something happens, we won't be able to blame the Arabs (not that we ever could). It will have happened on our watch.

Clueless Schools?

I am going to give you a list of places and see if you know what they have in common:

Moses Lake WA, Bethel AK, Pearl MI, West Paducah KY, Jonesboro AR, Edinboro PA, Pomona CA, Fayetteville TN, Houston TX, Onalaska WA, Springfield OR, Richmond VA, Littleton CO, Conyers GA, Williamsport PA

If you haven't already figured out the answer, let me clue you in. These places have experienced school shootings since 1997. Our schools have become dangerous places. Students are killing other students on a regular basis. But that is not the scariest part. I found out through conversations with a principal in WA state and some faculty in PA that the staff is clueless. I am starting to realize that a lot of educators don't believe that it can happen in their school. They go through the drills and show token concern. But, in the one incident (post-Paducah, pre-Columbine) the principal was not going to notify us that our child's life had been threatened.
She was shocked when I showed up to confront her about the event. In the other incident (relatively recent), one of the teachers was going to publish a list of Special Ed students' names, addresses, phone numbers and Email addresses. This teacher felt that a 16 year old Special Ed student should be responsible to know what to give out and what not to give out (with a total disregard for the parents/guardian's legal obligations, which generally mandates a permission slip).

The problem is that school personnel have been led to believe that they have a God-like role. This means that these people feel that everything they say is gospel truth and truly believe it (even when they are placing our children in VERY REAL danger). The fact is that our educational system is broken, placing our kids in a very precarious position.

The lion's share of this problem is the average American parent. They do not listen to their children when they come home. They are not willing to show up at the school and confront the school staff when they catch wind of something wrong. In fact, some parents use the school system as a surrogate parent (This teacher informed me that one parent asked to have the teacher talk to the child, since she would listen to the teacher and not the parent). This is SO wrong as to be a BOZO NONO. Any parent that would let a teacher usurp her parental authority needs to be turned in to the appropriate governmental agency for child neglect.

What it breaks down to is this: As parents, GET EDUCATED AND GET INVOLVED! Chances are that your local school district does not hold you in high regard (I'm at that same end of the spectrum but for a different reason. I WILL confront problems as they occur. Now I doubt that I will win a popularity at my child's school, but I'm not worried about it because of one factor: I'M RIGHT!). They feel that you aren't aware of how things work. The sad part is that they are not wrong. So change it! Talk with your children about school and, if you hear something that doesn't sound right, confront the school. Schedule meetings. Talk with teachers and principals. Go to school board meetings.

If you are not willing to do any of that, then you deserve the school you have and you are a profound part of the problem with the broken American educational system.

Ted Kennedy

I am not going to go into a long discussion on this topic, but a some questions came to mind during the Judge (now Justice) Alito hearings. I watched Senator Ted Kennedy try to act like a moral arbiter. Ted Kennedy. The same man who was a drunk driver who, in 1969, allowed a young lady to die because he was trying to save his own career. Now, here is the question:

Why is he still being elected to the Senate from Massachusetts? Even though I know that the U.S. Congress has been filled with cads of various sorts for over 200 years, why is he still warming a seat in the "hallowed" chambers? Shouldn't he have been drummed out of the Senate and held over for a criminal trial? Or did I miss something in the past 37 years that would have caused that not to happen?

Just things that make you go HMMMMM!

Bigot

Before I go into today's discourse, let's look up the definition of a word. The word is "bigot". As defined by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, it is defined as:

Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French: hypocrite, bigot
; a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own prejudices or opinions.

If I were to use the word bigot, what comes to mind? Cross-burnings? KKK? Racial incidents? Bigotry goes much deeper and appears in many more topics than that. Let me give you an example.

I was "blessed" to have heard the opinion today that all women in prison are there because of men or something that men told them to do. When challenged, this person took the natural position of a bigot and told me that I felt threatened (Blatent stupidity overtly astounds me and causes me to feel pity for the person. The only way that I might feel threatened is that there is a possibility that there might be more uneducated people like this one. No, actually that scares me, not threatens).

Now for the facts on why this was a bigoted statement.

1. This line of thinking gives men a power over the female race that we have never had. No one ever told me that, as a male, I am able to control the destiny of a woman. I have never met a man that is THAT good. A lot of men I have met and share my gender with aren't that good. Now I find out that there is someone who believes that men have a power we have never been vested with.
2. This line of thinking degrades women also. This individual would have us believe that women are so stupid that they can be controlled by a male. I don't know about anyone
   else, but I have always marvelled at the intricacies and complexities of the female gender. After almost twenty years of marriage, I have yet to find a way to outsmart my beloved bride. She is usually one step ahead of me. On top of that, American women have spent MANY MANY years fighting for rights that belonged to them from birth, but were stolen by men. This person would have us believe that the fight has been for naught because women can be controlled by men. Scary concept, eh?
3. There was NO statistics or numbers offered to prove this opinion. But bigoted statements never have proof. Just reaches and grabs to attempt to make an
   inherently ignorant statement seem believable.
4. Last, but never least, this person was unwilling to defend their "opinion" in a rational manner. All they could do was walk off sputtering their bile with a lame and weak "It's a fact and you're threatened". Again, the true sign of a bigot.
   

The form of bigotry this person was using is known as misandry. Wikipedia has this blurb on misandry:

There are different forms of misandry. In its most overt expression, a misandrist will openly hate all men simply because they are men. Other forms of misandry may be more subtle. Some misandrists may hold all men under suspicion or may hate men or who do not fall into one or more acceptable categories. Entire cultures can be said to be misandrist if they treat men in ways that can be said to be hurtful.

Also, let's make one thing perfectly clear: do not think that I am saying that a misandrist is a homosexual. Neither homosexuality or misandry/misogyny (a person who hates or distrusts women) have anything to do with the other. In fact, I know male misandrists and female misogynists.

Let's hope that everyone can work together to eliminate all forms of bigotry (including misogyny and misandry). The injustices done by both genders to the opposite one can never be corrected without it.

Old Movie Recommendations

I know that there are a lot of people who don't enjoy old movies. But, in a spirit of turning people on to old movies and (heaven forbid) to silent movies, here are some recommendations that even people who won't watch movies from the 20th century will enjoy:

1. Stalag 17 - 1953 (William Holden/Otto Preminger)

The subject is a group of American POW's in a German camp. In Barracks 4, there is a stool pigeon (and no one knows who it is). The movie is fantastic and highly recommended to everyone. The same premise was used for a hit '60's TV series (Hogan's Heroes) and an Academy Award winning movie (La Vita e' Bella/Life is Beautiful). Even if you can't stand B&W movies, try sitting through this one. You will love it. But be warned. While it is a wonderful movie, it is not a cheerful movie.

2. His Girl Friday - 1940 (Cary Grant/Rosalind Russell)

This was a remake of the movie The Front Page/1931. It is a rare time where a remake is better than the original. Cary Grant stands out with his screwball antics and Rosalind Russell is a "doll" (to use a politically incorrect euphemism) and a terrific actress. It has also dated well and can still be enjoyed by anyone. Again, ignore the B&W. You will be treated to some true artists who created a wonderful piece of work.

3. City Lights/Modern Times/The Great Dictator (Charlie Chaplin)

I wouldn't recommend jumping into a silent movie cold turkey. Try any one of these three movies. A lot of the work Charlie Chaplin did is still being imitated today. Both City Lights and Modern Times are silent movies that aren't silent movies (they have synchronized music with minimal sound effects). I challenge anyone to watch these movies and not have a desire to see more Chaplin.

4. Casablanca - 1942 (Humphrey Bogart/Ingrid Bergman)

Roger Ebert once said that Casablanca is a movie that even people who don't like old B&W movies will enjoy. Try it once. Snuggle up with a date or your beloved and watch it. You can't go wrong.

5. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington - 1939 (Jimmy Stewart/Jean Arthur)

Any movie with Jimmy Stewart is good, but this would be the best one to start with. With all of the shenanigans going on in Washington today, this movie stands as true today as it did in 1939. Frank Capra (the director) had a keen eye for things like that. His movies were known (oft-times) as Capra-corn, because they always ended up cheerful. The ending may seem corny now, but watch this movie and then pick up a newspaper or go online and read the news out of D.C. You might find the same thing going on 66 years later.

Try any of these out and let me know what you think. I hope that you will be pleasantly surprised.

Martin Luther King Jr. 2006

I reread last year's blog about Martin Luther King. It still stands true. But I have come to realize that Martin Luther King was only at the head of a great movement. He put a face to ideals that a lot of people put their lives on the line for and, in some cases, died for.

Up until I heard a National Public Radio (NPR) presentation last week, I had only minimal knowledge of the 1961 Freedom Riders. For those who haven't heard of that group, they were a mixed racial group that rode busses into the Deep South to protest segregation (segregation had just been declared unconstitutional for interstate travel by the U.S. Supreme Court). The trips started in Washington D.C. and were to end in New Orleans LA.

The whites would ride in the back and the blacks would ride in the front (reverse of the law of some southern states). Some of these courageous people ended up being murdered by radical elements of all levels of some state governments (Alabama was known to be the worst). The group never made it through Alabama. Busses were firebombed, people were gravely beaten and many more people arrested.

When I read the history of that group, along with MLK Jr., Malcolm X, Robert Kennedy, and many, many others (too numerous to mention), I realize that how much a lot of people have given in the fight against racism, yet how prevalent racism STILL is in all societies today. I am astounded at how deeply rooted it can be. But the problem is that it is coming from all directions. Some people feel that it is just white on black. Others feel that the African-Americans have been given so much and then ask what it is that those people really want. Still others don't see a problem at all. All three sides miss the point. This is a fight that will never end. I'm not sure that there is a solution, since this problem is programmed into our beings at a very fundamental level. I have my idea of what utopia would be (everyone living together and getting along). But no society has achieved that. People tend to look down on people who are different (Sunnis and Shiites, White and Black, etc.). But I will still fight for that belief as long as I draw breath.

Take a small amount of time on Martin Luther King day (and every day after that) and do two things:
1. Pray a heartfelt prayer that you never fall into the ignorant trap of clumping people into stereotypical groups based on race, religion, creed, sexual preference, political affiliation or any other group that really doesn't matter.
2. Be willing to step out of your comfort zone and smile at people and offer them a good morning. If you try this, you will receive a blessing beyond belief. In Philly, I have seen so many facades shatter when I do this. People have smiled and talked with me after I have done that. They lose the Philly attitude almost immediately.