The Fake, Annual, War on Christmas

I've written on this subject many times in the seven holiday seasons I've been blogging. And I'll continue to, considering how it keeps cropping up as though it's a legitimate "problem." In reality, the "War on Christmas" is a manufactured outrage, a complete nonsense story that has been an unlikely success story for Bill O'Reilly, FOX "News," Sarah Palin, and others in Right Wing World.

Contrary to the claims, there is no organized effort to shunt Christmas to the sidelines, and if there were it would likely be a) by Christians, offended by the crass commercialization of the holiday, and b) considered a complete failure by now. With the backward creep of "Black Friday," and the appearance of Christmas trimmings starting to appear in August in some places, Christmas is more visible than it ever has been.

In my opinion, the success of this faux crisis came about in a perfect storm of a number of elements:
- Conservative outrage over challenges to religious displays on public property.
- Conservative paranoia toward the ACLU, atheism, "secularism," and diversity.
- Conservative antipathy toward anything deemed to be more "inclusive" or sensitive to other beliefs.
- Occasional overboard actions or reactions by individual school administrators or jurisdictions. A declaration that the word "Christmas" be struck or replaced from a musical program, and the like. Outliers depicted as a trend, in other words.
- The tendency of conservatives to feel like a victimized minority, even though they're statistically part of the majority (read: heavily white and Christian).
- A strange confluence between the "Put the Christ back in Christmas/reason-for-the-season" sort, and the prosperity gospel, "greed-is-good" modern-day conservative base, resulting in an orgy of consumerism that must be labeled CHRISTmas!
- A populace with a limited memory, and the difficult-to-pin-down origins of the perennial "Seasons' Greetings" and "Happy Holidays" phrases.

O'Reilly claims that those two phrases were a plot, in the last 10 years or so, to supplant the word, the concept, the holiday of Christmas. This is of course, preposterous. I'm 47, and have a good memory. I know for certain that both phrases were being used in the early 70s. I'm positive they go further back. Back then, the only controversial wording was "X-Mas," and even that is misunderstood (the "X" is actually a cross, folks). So right off the bat, we know that O'Reilly is blowing smoke: the phrases have been on greeting cards and in ads for decades now. I have a program from our school winter musical, in festive, snow-capped letters, reading: "1978 Winter Holiday Concert!" That's 35 years, Bill, and it included Hava Nagila.  [Story continues below]



So, we should be able to conclude that there is no conspiracy, and if there were, it isn't working. But let's flip it, shall we? Why should we take O'Reilly's side, and be forced to say "Merry Christmas" from late November until (presumably) New Year's? Why "merry" and not "happy," "festive," "joyous" or "groovy?" Why does the Christmas holiday--one day, incidentally--get to override every other holiday (and holiday party, and gift exchange, and work gathering, and Thanksgiving and Hanukkah, and Kwanzaa and New Year's Eve), with the insistence that "Merry Christmas" is the only proper and legitimate greeting? It's preposterous, as well as a little too precise when you want to wish someone a happy holiday season, rather than just the one day.

I'm no longer Christian, but I was raised one. I still celebrate Christmas, and when I can, take off the whole week. I'm not offended by the phrase "Merry Christmas," and believe me, most people aren't. Not even Jewish, Muslim or atheist people. People taking offense are almost entirely fabricated, part of this phony-baloney "war." You might find a nutty activist, trying to ban the word in some Podunk school system in Backwater, Pennsyltucky.  But not a movement. FOX "News" is fighting a straw man. . .snow man?


 

Rand Paul's Plagiarism Charges Continue

Most of the responses I've seen from the right on Sen. Rand Paul's numerous plagiarism charges have been either attempts to shrug them off as "nothing," or they have been to attack the messenger. The messenger in this case was Rachel Maddow, and right-wing attacks on her usually amount to plays on her name ("Mad Cow"), and homophobic slurs. They're just so clever.

But plagiarism is not a frivolous, "nothing" charge. And this wasn't one speech, or even a series of them. It's cropping up in Paul's writings in many, many places.

 

Sign Lawrence O'Donnell's Petition to Restore IRS "Exclusivity" 501(c)(4) Language

I'm on board with this. No way, no how should the IRS in 1959 have decided to interpret a Congressional law saying "exclusively" as "primarily." Of course, no way, no how should "primarily" be so difficult to figure out. Tea Party groups are primarily political, not primarily public welfare organizations. Full stop. Same with "Occupy"-type groups of course. But there would be no ambiguity whatsoever if the "exclusive" language was restored, or rather just followed.

[Excerpt]

Lawrence O’Donnell urges viewers to sign IRS petition on White House website

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A new report on the handling of applications for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status rewrites presumptions made by House Speaker John Boehner and Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa on the so-called IRS “scandal.” In recent weeks, both had suggested there was criminal activity involved in the targeting of Tea Party groups, possibly extending all the way to the White House. . .

Read more at: The Last Word

Rush Limbaugh Lied to His Listeners About Election

Every sentient human who has ever listened to Rush Limbaugh knows that he is a dishonest man. You know it every time he says "Democrat Party." Rush says it like that--without the "ic" in "Democratic"--not because he doesn't know the proper wording. He says it because he knows it plays well with his audience. A small, but constant lie. But Rush tells much larger lies. And they are lies. Unlike a Sean Hannity, who I'm convinced is a dolt, and that he might actually believe what Mark Levin gives him to say, Rush knows better. He's a political showman. And he's an expert at knowing just how to play his audience, and what blend of truth, fiction, scare tactics, humor and warm fuzzies to feed his audience.

Occasionally, Rush will come right out and tell you he's lying. But even when he's lying, it's layered. He lies to cover a lie, and the contradiction reveals the lie. You follow me? Okay, to have it layed out for you (are you from Rio Linda?), watch this. You may start to see how Rush plays his audience

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Lawrence O'Donnell Shreds Rudy Giuliani

Rarely do you see the brutal honesty displayed by Lawrence O'Donnell from Tuesday's Last Word. With the 10th anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001 coming up, there are a lot of memories being stirred up. There are also a lot of whitewashed stories being told, most recently by George W. Bush and his Vice President, Dick Cheney.  Oddly--though most of us can remember many details of our lives that day--Bush's and Cheney's stories don't quite match.

But those guys aren't the only ones known for the parts they played that day. Rudolph Giuliani, then the Mayor of New York City, made his name on 9/11. He parlayed it into a failed run for the Presidency in 2008, and a rumored possible attempt for 2012. And all along the way, he never lets us forget that he was the "Mayor of 9/11." But what did he really do to make that a good thing anyway? Listen to Lawrence, and find out.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy