Holiday Rants & Raves

It’s a holiday reprise of the always popular Rants & Raves, where SJI’s contributors set the agenda, determine the topic and reel off the spiel of their choice. What’s on your mind?


  1. We both want to wish the Metro staff, SJI posters, and readers a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! May you all rejoice in the reason for the season. God bless and enjoy!

    To our Police, Fire, and military personel:
    I know many of you won’t be home celebrating the holidays with your families, you’ll be out there protecting us from harm. Thank You for your service to us, Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year to all of you. Be safe out there, and may God watch over you and yours!

  2. San Jose Mercury News: The decrepit signage which appears on the campus along I-880 near Brokaw tells me the newsgroup is not just decaying on the inside, but also seems to have no concern that its blight is being projected outward as well.

    It doesn’t seem like it should cost very much to clean/update/restore parts of the sign that are wearing decades worth of corrosion and pollution.

      • I think the sign is fine until a new anchor tenant steps up wanting their name on the building.  It can spark an interesting conversation about the nature of publicly traded media companies and the how a minority investor group forced them to break up and sell their assets for a greater return on investment akin to raiding pension funds and then shutting down the factory in the looter mentality that dominates big business in America.

  3. Food stamps and unemployment insurance has become a part of the middle class in America.
      When those hard working Mexicans have been sent home. The middle class will then be able to work the fields of America.
      Buying Chinese wear and toys is becomming a luxury at Walmart and Target.
      And for God’s sake, Bring our boys home, we have lost so many brave sons and daughters and We have spent our way into Hell over there.
      Aside from that, those that have not given up on our communities politics, reach out to others around you. If you don’t have family, start one by being a friend to some one. Love knows no boundaries!
    Allow no one to force you into insecurity. The straw that broke the Camel’s back was placing a scanner at a Chuckie Cheese. When is enough? Enough!
      Does Santa Claus and Mrs Claus buy their toys from China? OF COURSE NOT!!
      “Santa Makes all of the toys he gives to us children,Right DAD?”  “Uhh ,sure Son!”

    Bah, Humbug

    • Let’s see, the city commits to putting money into the retirement fund to the tune of $8 to the employees $3 contribution.  However, back in the good times when funds were doing well, the retirement accounts were 100% funded.  Did the city recognize that sooner or later things would dip?  Did they now what even the average citizen knows that the markets are cyclical?  Did they plan as most businesses do for the rainy day?  No, they stopped putting in their portion and spent the money buying votes, aka other projects that were popular with their constituents.  Had the city over funded the retirement accounts by keeping their contributions coming, this would not even be a discussion. 

      If San Jose defaulted on its obligations, and the lawsuits came rolling in, I am sure the financial malfeasance committed by former politicians would finally come to light, including our current mayor.  The whole let’s blame the greedy city employees red herring tactics that were used to pass measures V and W will eventually be seen through, but not until it is too late.

  4. We should congratulate Nam Turk on successfully integrating smugness into the otherwise banal wish of “Happy Holidays.” I suppose it’s his way of signaling his disbelief in Christianity, dislike for Christmas, or perhaps merely his joy in annoying people who cherish their own beliefs and customs.

    Personally, I prefer to wish people a “Merry Christmas,” for the simple reason that in this culture, on our calendar, and in the hearts of the vast majority of Americans, Christmas is a real day, a real season, and a special time for family and friends. Wishing someone a “Merry Christmas” is neither a declaration of personal beliefs nor a validation of the beliefs of others, it is merely a reality-based expression of good will, no different than saying “enjoy the parade” to your Irish buddy on St. Patrick’s Day.

    Speaking of reality, how exactly can he wish for “Happy Holidays” without recognizing the existence of that one particular, unmentionable day? After all, New Year’s Day plus nothing cannot equal the plural “holidays,” so I can only presume Nam borrowed that extra “s” from where he often keeps his head, well up his as.

    • “Merry Christmas” isn’t offensive.  “May the peace of Christ be with you” is.  Keep your religion to yourself.

      • Christians who keep their religion to themselves aren’t being very good Christians.  People who are offended by publicly open adherence to Christianity would seem to be descended from people who made an error when they chose to come to a country inhabited primarily by Christians.

        • Ah, right.  America was founded on religious tolerance as long as that religion is Christianity.  I can always leave if I don’t like it.  Nice.  That’s mighty Christian of you.

          There’s another group that has similar beliefs, but the name slipped my mind.  It starts with a T… Tali-something… maybe you can remind me?

        • You anti-Christian hysteria is just silly.  Most normal Americans can’t relate to it.  You apparently hate or otherwise feel enormous distaste for Christianity, and yet chose to reside in a country filled with Christians.  When I quite rationally suggest you may have made an error in coming to such a country, you claim I am some sort of bigoted fanatic, and by implication further your claim that the Christian Americans (who, to put it a touch indelicately, WERE HERE BEFORE YOU) ought to change their cultural practices in order to accommodate your distaste for the pervasive religious customs of the land.  And I’m the bigoted fanatic, lol.

          If I showed up in Israel and demanded that people keep their Judaism to themselves, would that make me an asshole?  I’m pretty sure it would, and yet how is what you’re doing any different?

        • Exactly the response I was looking for.  Of course you think your religion is superior.  Just don’t act surprised when others are offended by your rubbing their faces in it.

          Boy do you make Christians look bad.  I’m glad you’re the exception, not the rule.

          It’s been fun riling you up, always a great way to expose fanaticism.  I hope you enjoyed our discussion as much as I did.

        • If a person doesn’t think their religion is superior to all other religions, then they are a fool for continuing to adhere to it.  If I thought Bhuddism or whatnot was superior to Christianity, I’d immediately convert.  Any Christian who doesn’t think Christianity is superior to other faiths is a jackass who’s basically denying Jesus, just like the Apostle Peter did three times before the cock crowed, on the day of the Crucifixtion.

          Why would any person adhere to a religion they didn’t think was superior to all others?!?

        • > Exactly the response I was looking for.  Of course you think your religion is superior.  Just don’t act surprised when others are offended by your rubbing their faces in it.

          You’re suggesting then, Mr. Chaim, that everying is morally equivalent to everything else?

          I gather that you believe that YOUR religious beliefs are NOT superior to, oh say, Aztec religous beliefs requiring gruesome human sacrifices.

        • “You’re suggesting then, Mr. Chaim, that everying is morally equivalent to everything else?

          I gather that you believe that YOUR religious beliefs are NOT superior to, oh say, Aztec religous beliefs requiring gruesome human sacrifices.”

          Fun.  Let’s go through all the major religions (try to stick to ones that still exist) and declare a winner.  Then we can all convert.  You start.

          Better yet, let’s stay on topic: what’s offensive and what isn’t.

          Try to keep up.

          This is getting rather dull.  Discuss amongst yourselves if you wish.  I’ve made my point.

        • Oh Gee!  A big, dense cloud of rhetorical smoke.

          I think we all recognize sophistry when we see it:  you make an invidious, demeaning judgement about someone else’s belief system, while trying to imply that YOU yourself are somehow exempt from such judgements.

          Lets not allow ourselves to be distracted from your lame snarkiness:

          > Chaim Mon, Dec 27, 2010 – 8:54 am .

          > It’s presumptuous.  It carries the implicit message “I think my religion is superior to yours.”

          So here you are, Mr. Sophistry, demeaning Christians for YOUR inference that they might believe their religions has redeeming values. 

          On what basis do YOU make the judgement that Christianity doesn’t have redeeming values?  Are you some kind of savant?

          It’s obvious that you think that your cleverness and big brain is somehow going to allow you to sidestep the key question that YOU implicitly raised and was put back in your face, but let’s give it another try:

          > You’re suggesting then, Mr. Chaim, that everying is morally equivalent to everything else?

          Answer the question, Mr. Chaim: is everything morally equivalent to everything else, or isn’t it?

          It’s a simple YES or NO question, and a person with a brain as large as yours should have no difficulty in identifying the correct answer and explaining it to lesser people like, oh say, Christians.

        • Exactly the response we all expect. Of course you think you’re superior.  Just don’t act surprised when others call you on it.

          Boy do you make Christian bashers look bad. Too bad you’re the rule and not the exception.

          It’s been fun riling you up, always a great way to expose knee-jerk not well thought out “thought”.  I hope you enjoyed our discussion as much as I did.

          Again may the Peace of Christ be with you. Take it or leave it.

    • Thanks for your amazing insensitivity. I’m glad most of the Christians I know are much more tolerant and inclusive than you.
      You should be ashamed but I doubt you are capable of feeling that way.
      Have a Happy Holiday in spite of your mean-spirit.

  5. I have a confession to make. I have a cell phone jammer. 

    I’ve been carrying it with me on my holiday shopping. If you are no farther than 30 feet from me, and on the phone, I turn it on…….Zap….  “hello, hello…hello?”. Then they look at their phone. It is hilarious!  It makes my shopping at the mall and Costco so much more fun!

  6. > “Santa Makes all of the toys he gives to us children,Right DAD?”  “Uhh ,sure Son!”

    Fix yourself a cup of hot cocoa, count your blessings and . . .

    get to work on your income tax.

  7. Merry Christmas & Happy New Year, everyone!

    I’ve been in the midst of reforming the VTA public transit advocacy & watchdog group I manage.  New website is – check it out today!

    Details on our first meeting in 2011 are below:

    WHEN: Thursday, January 27, 2011 @ 6pm
    WHERE: San Jose Peace & Justice Center, 49 S. 7th Street, San Jose (1 block from City Hall)
    GETTING THERE: It’s 5 blocks from the Santa Clara (Street) light rail station. Many VTA bus lines like the 22, 522 Rapid that serve downtown San Jose stop within walking distance.

    We’ll demonstrate a proven way to make your case on service improvements to VTA that GET RESULTS. Our meeting will also discuss the Caltrain Summit to take place in San Carlos on January 29.

    Follow us thru Twitter at or @svtransitusers. See you January 27.


  8. Dear Nam Turk,
    We wish you a pleasant interlude of indeterminate duration and unspecified significance commencing on or about the third week of December, reaching it’s apex on the 25th day of December, and terminating approximately in the latter portion of the first week in January.

  9. Oh, wow!

    Illegal immigrants aren’t the only ones lurking in the shadows.

    Something about Christmas really sets off the anti-Christian bigots, and they leap out of the shadows to flash “their antipathy for those who are not like them.”

    I suspect the only thing that makes them crazier than “Merry Christmas” is “No Merry Christmas for you”.  In their twisted little minds, it would prove to them how narrow-minded and intolerant Christians really are.

  10. Have you noticed in the San Jose area that there are panhandlers on corners in the most “Affluent” of communities? Usually in high traffic intersections. I guess it’s all about location. Anyhow, I have noticed an entirely new demographic emerging.

  11. Why does everything have to be an argument? Why can’t we all just respect the beauty of differing cultures, and their holidays whilst preserving our own? Tolerance and acceptance is a beautiful thing.

    • > Why does everything have to be an argument?

      Doesn’t have to be.

      Just agree with me all the time about everything.

      Why are you being so contentious and divisive?

  12. Kathleen asks: “Why does everything have to be an argument?”

    The answer to that question is simple: because some person or group perceives contention as a means to an end.

    The destruction of the American culture—a purposeful campaign not to be confused with a natural and healthy evolution, has been underway for sixty years, the product of a strategy of contention whose impact has increased exponentially with the opening of every new “liberation” front, the undertaking of each new “progressive” campaign, the coming of age of each new “enlightened” generation. And though this is not the proper forum for dissecting the various mechanisms used, the effects of those mechanisms show up on this site with frustrating regularity.

    Americans, who used to know how to cook, sew, construct, and repair, are today likely to be hyphenated and skilled primarily in how to take offense. Christmas, once just a warm holiday to be embraced or ignored, is now portrayed as the sinister, divisive tool of Christian xenophobes. American history, once a storehouse of political wisdom and source of national pride, is today taught on college campuses as a four-hundred year episode of violence and greed, where the only true heroes are victims. Today, every American who is neither white, Christian, or male is expected to have a historical grievance of some kind, and is thus obliged to be at the ready to take offense.

    Contention is the fuel of political correctness, the stifling force that has created a protected class of citizen skilled at pointing fingers, taking offense, and treating the American taxpayer as a cash cow. It is, in a free society filled with a well-meaning population, a powerfully effective strategy, especially when it penetrates the most influential institutions. Consider this: literally every challenge made against our culture in the last forty years has found its way—and its legitimacy—into the curriculum of our public schools and universities, the scripts of our movies and television shows, the reports and editorials of our newspapers and magazines. Small wonder our society has come to resemble a Warner Brothers cartoon, one in which reality is controlled by image makers, and where anyone can be a made out a demon, superhero, or even constitutional law professor.

    Chaim apparently feels free to take offense at the Christianity of even his well wishers. This is the mark of the person protected and empowered, of the particular type that has used contention to gain the right to pry commandments from courthouse walls, exorcise Christianity’s great influence on Western culture from the historical record, and keep the state free from the incursion of religious belief, unless, of course, the belief in question is diversity, multiculturalism, egalitarianism, or Zionism.

    • BS Monitor,

      Well stated as always.
      It’s ironic that as the “progressives” demand more “tolerance” from us, the narrower becomes the range of what we’re tolerated to say.

      • BS Monitor, and John Galt,

        You’re both right on target. I’m not sure who started the PC Police but it is really getting to be ridiculous.

        I feel strongly that all we have to do is respect differing cultures, and their beliefs, as long as they aren’t crazy! You know crazy like cross burning in someone’s yard, or flying planes into buildings!

        We are just as entitled to preserving our own beliefs, and traditions as others are, and I for one intend to keep doing so, regardless of naysayers.

        Happy New Year everyone!

      • It is fairly well written, but not particularly well stated.
        Everyone is free to practice their own religion and develop their own beliefs. I don’t believe those who feel “Merry Christmas” is offensive and non-inclusive are anti-Christian or anti-religion in spite of the attackers on this site.
        Enjoy your religion, just don’t assume I share the same beliefs. I will wish you “Happy Holidays” for the same reason—I don’t assume you share my religious beliefs.
        It’s no different than you wishing me “Merry Cadillac” because that’s what you drive—therefore you assume I drive the same kind of car?
        The lack of tolerance by those who see some kind of anti-Christian cabal among those who prefer “happy holidays” is disheartening. People all over the world have differing religious beliefs and are certainly entitled to them. But, why must Christians feel they have to “share” their beliefs with everyone regardless of whether they want them or not?
        Have a happy holiday whatever you believe and whatever you celebrate. Let us hope that 2011 brings a little more tolerance and understanding to SJI.

        • Pa Thetic,
          You know, you’re right, Pa. (Do you prefer Pa or Thetic?) I see what you mean.
          One of my best friends is Chinese and every January she says to me, “Gung hay fat choy!” And every year, like an idiot, I have good-naturedly replied to her, “Gung hay fat choy!” even though I’m white. And I know that she knows that I’m white. Can you believe that? Well this year her disrespectful treatment of me stops. Like you and all the progressive, enlightened liberals before you, I vow to take offense! How dare she disrespect my race by assuming that I am Chinese. Can’t she see how demeaning it is to go to all the trouble of uttering those four foreign words, thus acknowledging her race and her culture, thereby demonstrating my friendship and respect for her?
          Yes sir, I’m planning it out right now. She doesn’t know it yet but this time I’m going to shame her into changing her ways. I’m probably not the only victim of her bigotry. I’ll bet she goes around wishing lots of non-Chinese people a Happy Chinese New Year. So in the interest of promoting tolerance, this time I’m going to tell her, “Keep your ethnocentric hate speech to yourself, uninvited wildeyed prosyletizer. Furthermore, what gives you the right to assume that I wouldn’t prefer a Melancholy New Year?”
          Yeah, I’ll show her. She’ll think twice next time she’s tempted to share a bit of herself with others.

        • Nice spin on the topic. I know you need to engage in verbal gymnastics so you could somehow get your “progressive, enlightened liberals” line in. Of course, that has nothing to do with the discussion, but I am sure you feel better.
          The comments here dealt with those who love to make this discussion about “anti-Christian” and “anti-religion” sentiments. Your example does nothing to dispel this ongoing fallacy here on SJI.
          Nice try, but get back to me when you have a serious response about why it’s OK to be insensitive and non-inclusive.
          Have a Happy New Year, or not, if you prefer.

        • > The lack of tolerance by those who see some kind of anti-Christian cabal among those who prefer “happy holidays” is disheartening.

          OK, Mr. Thetic.  I’ll try to be more sensitive.

          Have a celebratory something or other, so long as it isn’t Merry or isn’t Christmas.

          There.  Do you feel unoffended now?

        • Pa Thetic,
          YOU didn’t like MY example? Well it may not have been perfect but it sure was better than your “Merry Cadillac” example.
          Anyway, if you’d prefer a direct discussion of this topic without the use of analogies or sarcasm I’m happy to do it that way too.
          I’ll start by saying that I do not believe that it is “insensitive and non-inclusive” to wish someone a “Merry Christmas”. There is no assumption that the person being addressed is a Christian. It is an expression of good will that, like any thoughtful gift, has within it a small piece of the person giving it. To deny a person the joy of giving a bit of him/herself by insisting on a generic “Happy Holidays” makes YOU the insensitive and intolerant one. (In my opinion) 
          OK. The ball’s in your court.

        • S. Ular- I think part of the reason I love other cultures so much is because they have so many differing beliefs that enrich my life. I believe in the Lord and I’m proud of it, but I still incorporate some of the beliefs I’ve learned about from other religions. While you may believe abolishing religion is a good thing, I don’t think that will ever happen.

          While I might agree that certain organized religions are not worth their salt, I strongly believe in the need for having a higher power in our lives. It seems to me that one reason our world has turned to greed, a sense of entitlement, and corruption is because people have no spiritual foundation to guide them. In the end at the end of the day, all religions teach us to be kind, and respectful of one another, and to help those in need, along with trying to be a better person.  I just don’t see how that can be a bad thing.

        • Pa Thetic- It would be helpful to me if I understood your position more clearly.

          I think John Galt did an excellent job of exemplifying how ridiculous our nation has become when it comes to tolerance and acceptance of other people’s beliefs.  To reduce Christmas and New Years to “Happy Holidays,” so others don’t feel “offended” rubs me the wrong way. It is like saying I’m not allowed to have my own belief or holiday to celebrate.

          On another note, but along the same lines, I was and remain completely disgusted that we were discouraged from proudly flying the American Flag during 911. I watched as cities forbid Fire and Police from displaying American flags, and the media bashed Americans for placing flags to display their pride in America, citing that it was “offensive” to others. I personally feel this quashing of American traditions and beliefs is BS, or should I say pathetic? I for one won’t stand for it. So love me or hate me, I love the Lord, and America both.

        • Mr. Galt, I applaud your support of the secularization of our national holidays.  It will be a great day indeed when Christmas is no more associated with religion than Chinese New Year.  I wish you a happy, religion free 2011!

        • This went off-track at some point. I am not opposed to “Merry Christmas”. I do think “Happy Holidays” is more inclusive but it’s not a big deal to me.
          What I thought I was addressing was those who were yelling about “Happy Holidays” somehow conveying anti-Christian or anti-religion sentiments. I also was pointing out that those who refused to acknowledge that others may celebrate differently from them were intolerant.
          Perhaps I didn’t make my point clearly. I will continue to use “Happy Holidays” (as I have long before this became a non-existent holy war) and you can use “Merry Christmas”. Just remember that not everyone celebrates the religious holiday and that in no way is disrespectful to you or anyone else.

        • I am Jewish and don’t have a problem wishing a Christian Merry Christmas.  The problem is that since I am Jewish, I like to acknowledge that there are other holidays at this time of year that are important in different cultures. 

          The holidays at the end of the year are wonderful, even for non-Christians.  But that isn’t because of the Christian holiday alone.  It’s a combination of everything we celebrate, from Hannukah to Christmas to New Year’s Day. 

          What upsets me is that when I wish people “Happy Holidays” in order to acknowledge the complete holiday season, some view me as “anti-Christian” or intolerant.  Just as you should by all means feel free to wish me a Merry Christmas based on your beliefs, should I not be able to with you Happy Holidays based on mine?

        • David,
          I think the point being made here is that we should ALL acknowledge one another’s holidays instead of making them one big generic, “Happy Holidays.” I for one feel very offended that people chose to take beautiful beliefs and turn them into PC BS. Your religion and culture matter to me, and I want to acknowledge them without putting a generic, one size fits all label on it.

          Most importantly David, rather than requiring us to jump into one big melding pot, saying Merry Christmas, or Happy Hanukah allows us to educate and learn about one another’s culture and beliefs.

        • David,
          I’m glad you kept the topic alive because it really does seem like we’re still talking past one another.

          I think it’s silly for anybody to get upset or to perceive any sort of disrespect by simply being told, “Happy Holidays”. People have been saying “Happy Holidays” ever since I can remember and it wasn’t until just the last few years that it became controversial.
          So we must ask ourselves, What happened to cause this change?” Well, it’s my recollection that in the last few years there began a deliberate campaign to “educate” us that it is insensitive to say “Merry Christmas” and that we should say “Happy Holidays” instead. So it’s not that anybody’s mad about hearing “Happy Holidays” per se. Rather, it’s more that some of us resent that people are so quick to cave in to the the unreasonable demands of interfering persons who have misrepresented the intent behind the innocent phrase, “Merry Christmas”. 
          When we hear “Happy Holidays” now it’s usually unclear whether it’s being said genuinely or as a concession to these “thought police”, so by default it’s just plain good manners to not read anything into it. (Unless it’s got some snarky undertones as in Nam Turk’s comment that kicked this whole discussion off in the first place.) No problem. But when we hear the phrase “holiday tree”, well that’s a dead giveaway that these freedom hating control freaks are successfully insinuating their way into the fabric of society. And yes. It’s infuriating.

          In a more general sense this controversy is representative of the battle between those who believe that the most important thing in personal discourse whether public or private, is what someone MEANS by their words, and those that believe that the most important thing is how someone might PERCEIVE those words. I am staunchly in the MEANING camp. I believe the onus is upon the hearer to do his/her best to understand the meaning behind the words they hear.

        • But how do you know what to wish me unless you know me well?  The use of the greeting Happy Holidays simply acknowledges that whatever your beliefs, I am hoping that you have a great time during the month of December and the Christmas/New Year season. 

          The suggestion seems to be that the default should be “Merry Christmas” until you learn otherwise.  If you say “Merry Christmas” to me, I will feel uncomfortable and say “thank you.”  How will that lead to your eventually wishing me a “Happy Hanukah?”

          If I know that you celebrate Christmas, I will wish you a “Merry Christmas.”  But if I don’t know, then I default to “Happy Holidays.”

        • David said, “The suggestion seems to be that the default should be “Merry Christmas” until you learn otherwise.  If you say “Merry Christmas” to me, I will feel uncomfortable and say “thank you.”  How will that lead to your eventually wishing me a “Happy Hanukah?”

          I have had a lot of people thank me after I wish them a Merry Christmas and then say but I am Jewish or I am … I then wish them a happy whatever their belief is. I don’t think it is improper to thank the well wisher and then educate them on your belief. How else will I get to know you if you quietly accept my well wish and you don’t take the opportunity to educate me about you?

          I agree with John Galt in that people who are pushing us to abandon our beliefs for some PC reason is ridiculous. America is a nation that was built on many different cultures. It is one of the things I love most about this country. 

          We are one of the very few nations that accept legal immigrants with open arms and up hold their freedom to believe what they want. Times seemed to have changed, and I for one resent being told I can’t fly my American flag, or say Merry Christmas, or Happy 4th of July because I’m offending someone. Further, it is outrageous to me that my American traditions are taking a back seat to those like Cinco de Mayo. (A holiday by the way that Mexico barely acknowledges!) We should be a nation that celebrates ALL of the diversities we are blessed to have!

          Finally, I’d really like to meet these unseen “Thought Police.” I have a few choice words for them. To demand and shame people into departing from their beliefs is not PC, or proper, it is Communism exemplified.

        • David,

          What about Kathleen’s description of her experience of people who turn out to be other than Christians simply responding graciously to the well-intentioned “Merry Christmas”, then making the mature adult decision of either leaving it alone if they wish, or taking the opportunity to engage the well wisher in a mutually informative dialogue? How hard is that?
          To extend your logic, nobody should ever expect anyone to be a grownup and deal forthrightly with the environment in which they live. It’s ultimate expression, since atheists’ feelings might be hurt by even “Happy Holidays”, the Thought Police will have us reduced to bleating “Have A Nice Day” by the end of the decade so as not to offend ANY one.

          As a Jew, David, you ARE different. Many people- more than you know- respect the religion and respect YOU for it. But there are challenges to being different. By facing challenges and dealing with them, people grow. You will be admired for courageously accepting the challenges that come with the choices that you make in life. However, by insisting that society change to accomodate you and your precious feelings, you avoid the challenges and the responsibility that always come with making the choice to be different. You risk forfeiting some of the respect that would otherwise be accorded you. And everybody loses. Is that what you want?

    • Now that the Warner Brothers have come up, I’d like to suggest that a discussion about working together and communicating from demographic group to demographic group be made a posting for comments.

      Without our voting on it, this has become a multicultural society and needs a kind of meta-language for cross-cultural communications.  Such a vocabulary exists but takes good faith and some serious study to understand and implement it.  This might be a good one-time topic to address here with San Jose applications.

  13. Heed Reza’s advice – post haste!

    “For those who do not submit to Allah their punishment is execution or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet, from the opposite sides, or exile from the land.”

    And in the words of the inimitable Nina Totenberg… Merry “forgive the expression” Christmas to all.

      • You despise Nina Totenberg too?

        But seriously… I know the year is still young but I’d like to take this opportunity to nominate Mr. Pot for SJI’s most moronic missive of 2011.


  14. Pa Thetic,

    You obviously subscribe to the adage, popularized by the alumni of America’s system of higher indoctrination, that “When in Rome do as you damn well please.” It’s an offshoot of the notion that there is no such thing as an American culture, and thus no convention, tradition, or set of values immune from doubt or disposal. Ostensibly a liberating perspective, in truth it is simply propaganda handy to those pushing their own self-interests and values; nonsense values sorely lacking the substance required to construct anything even approaching a workable state.

    Challenging the American culture piece by piece is regrettably easy, just as it would be, to someone whose doesn’t understand the workings of a race car engine, easy to challenge the need for its various components by referencing the power plant in a Prius. Thus, Christianity—the philosophical ground upon which Western Man took his first free steps, is dismissed as if it were merely one belief out of many, nothing more than a choice, like choosing electricity over gasoline for fuel; Heterosexual marriage—in reality biological fitness incorporated into a cultural standard, gets redefined as an option, a preference, even an outmoded idea; limited government—its well-founded restraints based on the lessons of history, gets spun into a horror story and winds up frightening all the poorly-educated children, leaving them no choice but to thrust themselves into the warm, comforting arms of big government.

    The truth is that without Christianity America would never have materialized; without heterosexual marriage America would have quickly fallen to a culture that was stronger because of it; without limitations on its government America would have bogged down the talented and vibrant free men who made the country strong. Without a culture, a distinctly tolerant, American culture, the liberal idiots who’ve poisoned the minds of our students would never have found a platform. Nations do not rise, prosper, and endure without a powerful culture, and America has certainly done all these. Nowhere in history is there evidence to contradict this truism, yet our young people emerge from their overpriced educations convinced of the primacy of their opinions and bereft of the wisdom of their nation’s founders, yet anxious to get out there and pass judgment, take offense, and deny the existence of the very culture that gave them the freedom to be fools.

    What is truly sad is that the majority of those so eagerly dismissing the existence and preeminence of the American culture—the dupes who’ve swallowed the egalitarian kool-aid, will never reap the spoils of its destruction, as they are, first and foremost, Americans, with no other homeland to flee to, no other allegiances to count on, and no chance of ever standing atop the steaming multicultural dung heap they are helping to create. It is they, and their children, who will become outsiders in their own land, tasked with learning to negotiate dangerous subcultures, to endure discrimination, to watch the familiar crumble. Sound delusional? Paranoid? Well, you needn’t guess about the future because the breakdown is already happening right here in California, with entire neighborhoods becoming Hispanic gang turf, their flags foreign, their schools surrendering standards, and their stable and productive residents (of every color) hoping to someday flee the carnage—to untouched neighborhoods and gated communities.

    Lastly, for Pa Thetic and S. Ular, be warned that there’ll be none of your anti-Christmas rhetoric tolerated in Barrio California of the future. Sensitive folks like you two will take their offense quietly or they’ll take a beating.

    • BS Monitor, you are truly fascinating and worthy of study.  The window into the mind of the marginalized, aging, white Christian American has never been clearer than through reading your posts.  Please, tell us more about yourself.  It will be invaluable for research.

      • >  The window into the mind of the marginalized, aging, white Christian American has never been clearer than through reading your posts.

        Been lurking in the anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-senior shadows, Mr. Fascinated?

        Does it make you feel good to open up your trench coat and flash your bigotry at white Christian old people?

        What do you have under your trench coat for children?

      • Fascinated- I don’t see why you need to bring this down to personal attacks on posters. Personal attacks discourage fruitful exchange of ideas and opinions. Why don’t you just state your position on the topic and allow us to have a healthy, respectful discussion about it?

    • There’s no chance I could add to these remarks with anything approaching your elegant style. Instead I’ll lean on Ann Coulter (God love her!) who wrote,

      “Liberals don’t care. Their approach is to rip out society’s foundations without asking if they serve any purpose.
      Why do we have immigration laws? What’s with these borders? Why do we have the institution of marriage anyway? What do we need standardized tests for? Hey, I like Keith Richards—why not make heroin legal? Let’s take a sledgehammer to all these loadbearing walls and just see what happens!”

    • I have to give you credit.  Your name reflects your subconscious mind.

      While your entire rant is amusing, and without merit, I have to admit this piece was interesting.

      “without heterosexual marriage America would have quickly fallen to a culture that was stronger because of it”

      You screwed up your own logic.  A culture that was stronger because it did not have heterosexual marriage?  Anyway, I was not aware there were cultures that banned heterosexual marriage.  Please provide data of cultures that ban heterosexual marriage.  Also, even if some cultures do ban heterosexual marriage, who cares?  The last time I checked there was no effort being expended to ban heterosexual marriage in the United States.  Perhaps this is occurring in some fantasy world.

      Also, this statement is incorrect.

      “The truth is that without Christianity America would never have materialized”

      If you feel it is correct please provide data proving America would not exist without Christianity.

      A correct statement would be: “America was built, and prospered, despite some citizens practicing Christianity.”

      Glad to clear up your confusion.  Happy New Year.

      • No BS – Just Confusion,

        To make this easy for you to understand, let’s substitute “a warrior mentality” for “heterosexual marriage” in the sentence in question.

        “… without a warrior mentality America would have quickly fallen to a culture that was stronger because of it.” In other words, a culture with it—the warrior mentality, would be “stronger” because of it and thus capable of causing America to “fall.”

        As for your rewording (“America was built, and prospered, despite some citizens practicing Christianity.”), your premise is simply ignorant. The creation of America (the political entity) was no different than was the creation of Barrack Obama: the sum of unique circumstances and distinct components. Without his white mother, there would be no Barrack Obama, no matter that millions prefer to see him only as a black man. Without Christianity, there would be no America, despite the fact that millions of misguided college graduates confuse our having a secular government with having a secular culture.

    • That’s impressive. 

      A single sentence that preaches “distinctly tolerant, American culture” while calling others “liberal idiots.”  Also included is praise of the “existence and preeminence” of American culture.  Sprinkled with comments suggesting superiority of heterosexuality and lamentation of “neighborhoods becoming Hispanic gang turf.” 

      All of our ancestors (except Native Americans) came here from other places, flying other flags when they arrived.  It is all of our assimilation into neighborhoods that makes for the wonderful “American culture” that makes me proud to live here.

      • Wow,

        Please don’t confuse my acknowledgment of America’s tolerant culture as a claim of tolerance on my part. Whatever miniscule supply of tolerance I once had evaporated rapidly amidst the searing stupidity of Baby Boomer liberalism.

        As for your NPR-quality misinterpretation of my words, when addressing the needs of a culture or state, the superiority of heterosexual marriage is undeniable. The emotional and economic commitment of a heterosexual couple—the ONLY union our ancestors chose to call marriage, translates into a tremendous asset to a culture, providing it a level of stability and efficiency otherwise unattainable. Children produced in such unions enjoy significant advantages, advantages of a type that prove beneficial to the culture. That said, if you don’t like this little tidbit of reality, why don’t you go dig up Charles Darwin and take it up with him?

        Oh, and if you really believe that living in the middle of Hispanic gang turf isn’t a lamentable predicament, I’ve got a rental just for you—one with bars on the windows, a loose pit bull in the driveway, and an old Chevy decomposing on the lawn.

        • “Children produced in such unions enjoy significant advantages, advantages of a type that prove beneficial to the culture.”

          Do you have scientific evidence, or is that your opinion?

          Speaking of Charles Darwin, homosexuality is a natural occurence in many species that have survived through millennia of natural selection.

        • > Speaking of Charles Darwin, homosexuality is a natural occurence in many species that have survived through millennia of natural selection.

          Self-validating psuedo science.

          Name three species where homosexuality is a “natural occurence”, which naturally occurring behaviour the species have “survived through millennia of natural selection”.

          Charles Darwin’s science is now recognized as being a bit sketchy.  Let’s see how good yours is.

        • Wow,

          What kind of evidence do you seek? Is a breakdown of the disproportionate rates of poverty, educational failure, teenage pregnancy, reduced earning potential, or incarceration related to the children of single parents what you want? If so, then I assure the evidence for the supremacy of heterosexual unions as the reproductive model is everywhere (except where feminists do the interpreting) and overwhelmingly convincing (except to those of the egalitarian faith).

          But since you revealed some familiarity with natural selection—a system based solely on advantage, then I will redirect the question to you and ask: If heterosexual unions do not provide significant advantage to the children of those unions (and the surrounding culture), how did it come to be an all but universally used solution to child rearing? Of course, I understand that it is now fashionable for politically-motivated sociologists to blame the spread of such inequitable horrors on their favorite boogeymen (dominant males, the clergy, etc.), but the truth is that when it comes to understanding any established human behavior, be it securing borders, maintaining a singular culture, or pairing off males and females into reproductive entities, the driving mechanism always turns out to be advantage (DBA natural selection). Any ancient populations that might have been a bit too lax about their borders, or didn’t conserve their own culture, or favored a child-raising system other than heterosexual unions, lost the contest for survival to their competitors and with it any chance to reign supreme on the genome.

          And that may be why, even here in crazed and confused California, the voters have consistently supported traditional marriage… that feeling of wrongness that troubles so many otherwise open-minded people about same sex marriage is heredity, not hate.

          As for homosexuality being a natural occurrence, that does not make it a naturally-selected condition. Any condition, no matter how politically correct it might be, that does not confer reproductive advantage to the individual is a condition that will not be selected. Neither homosexuality or asexuality have anything to do with natural selection, and not even Elton John, with all his money, can change that.

  15. Fascinated,

    As would be expected of today’s crop of smug, self-assured liberals, you didn’t even attempt to refute anything I stated, yet still, no doubt, felt your argumentum ad hominem constituted a meaningful retort. Your reaction was not surprising: boxing up one’s opponents and labeling them for storage (or disposal) is a favored political tactic for those with a preference for totalitarian solutions. Perhaps you should start a campaign to have aging, white Christian Americans sent off to someplace far enough to put them out of sight and out of mind, but close enough so that you and the rest of your multicultural gang can still tax them enough to provide psych meds for your liberated women, arithmetic lessons for your inept consumers, and food and housing for your children who can’t depend on their fathers.

    You were right about one thing, though, I do feel marginalized, as should anyone who values informed argument yet can’t help but notice its absence in what today passes for public discourse.

    How sad for you to conclude, based on nothing more than my acknowledgment of the preeminence of Christianity in American history and culture, that I am myself a Christian. I mourn for your impaired reasoning ability. The fact that I didn’t identify myself as a Christian or demonstrate any particular familiarity with its dogma didn’t cause you a moment’s pause, you had a conclusion at the ready and promptly jumped to it.

    But you missed your mark. I am not a Christian, never have been, don’t have a spiritual cell in my entire inventory. Nonetheless, I don’t need to believe in something to respect its importance, which I suspect is the big difference between you and me.

  16. Fascinated,

    As would be expected of today’s crop of smug, self-assured liberals, you didn’t even attempt to refute anything I stated, yet still, no doubt, felt your argumentum ad hominem was something to crow about. You’re right about one thing, though, I do feel marginalized, as does anyone who values informed argument yet can’t help but notice its absence in what today passes for public dialogue.

    How sad for you that you concluded, based on nothing more than my acknowledgment of the preeminence of Christianity in American history and culture, that I am myself a Christian. The fact that I didn’t identify myself as a Christian, or demonstrate any particular knowledge of Christian dogma, didn’t cause you a moment’s pause, you had a conclusion at the ready and promptly jumped to it.

    But you missed your mark. I am not a Christian, never have been. I don’t need to believe in something to respect its importance, which I suspect is the big difference between you and me.