Category Archives: Commentary

Merry Holidaze

An article in the globe (link,) and the persistent chattering of O’Reilly, has got me to take a closer look into the supposed assault on Christmas. But before I present outside material, let me give you my opinion. I am not a Christian, and therefore have no great fondness for Christmas. However, I realize that it is one of the most important holidays for Christians. From what I gather, the idea of Christmas is to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, and thus the beginning of the faith. Therefore, the holiday is celebrated to mark a serious moment in Christianity. Additionally, because this is a joyous holiday, one celebrating birth and beginnings, to express that joy, people exchange gifts with each other. Therefore the holiday is effective in being both a tangible event and a teaching tool.

But then at some point, and I’m hard pressed to say when, the former notion of the holiday (as a tangible event) took precedence over its spiritual value. Instead of commemorating the birth of Christ and exchanging gifts to celebrate that moment, the holiday became one where the gift giving was the sole purpose. Instead of being a joyous and honest celebration, it morphed into an event whereby people became obligated to buy things for others. Thus the obligatory notion of participating in this gift exchange diluted the real meaning of the holiday.

Given that as my ideological background, I find it quite curious that a group, “Committee to Save Merry Christmas” (link) finds fault with businesses lack of willingness to use the word Christmas in its advertisements. Indeed right on the group’s front page, it states:

The festive atmosphere of the past that surrounded the Christmas season in department stores which energized shoppers, supported their culture and tradition, and excited them to select just the right gift for friends and family for the Christmas celebration has been severely diminished. For many, the atmosphere has become offensive and devoid of any meaning.

Although the organization’s goal is to “preserve the culture and tradition of the vast majority of Americans that celebrate and honor Christmas,” the only way it sees fit to do so it to demand that corporations further commercialize Christmas. Specifically, this group is calling for a boycott of the Federated Department Stores (Macy’s, Bloomingdales.) What they are upset with is the fact that these corporations are saying “Happy Holidays” in their advertisements while most of their profits are indeed coming from Christmas (rather than Hanukkah) shoppers.

This raises two interesting points. First, let’s take a sympathetic look at the Committee. If you will recall an earlier post (Dangerous Media) I commented on the hypocrisy surrounding gay-themed TV programming within the corporate media. The problem was that NBC and CBS would not show an ad calling for the inclusion of gays in faith based communities, calling it too controversial, while airing shows like Queer Eye and Boy Meets Boy on their subsidiary channels. It was the hypocrisy of pandering to everyone and reaping maximum profits; a perfect example of having ones cake and eating it too. Now, if I attempt to place myself in the shoes of these people, I have to figure that Christmas is something truly meaningful to me, which I don’t want to see co-opted or diluted. In this case, then perhaps I can see the anger of not being addressed truthfully. That is, Federated and all other “Happy Holidays” stores assume that Christmas shoppers will continue to patronize them even though they no longer explicitly advertise to Christmas shoppers.

If to me the far right was guilty of obstructionism in refusing to air the gay-friendly commercial, then perhaps the far left is guilty of denying observant Christians of their right to be addressed as what they are. This of course leads to what I believe is the underlying root of this crusade, which is the anti-Political Correctness mission. I’m willing to admit that this country is majority Christian, and that during this month, most people will have trees, not menorahs. Therefore, I see no harm in wishing people Merry Christmas. It is not offensive to me because I am not Christian. Perhaps this mirrors my unease with the notion of Heterosexism, as taught by the Corbers of this world. Heterosexism is a trait people are guilty of when inquiring of, say, a male co-worker, as to whether he has a girlfriend or is married. Because the question did not specifically leave room for the possibility that this person might be gay, or some other flavor of sexuality other than straight, the asker is biased. This is simply too much for me to swallow. The truth is, a question like that is simply the stuff of conversations. If we are to sensor such basic chit chat, then talking to our acquaintances and co-workers becomes way to dangerous, and we become more isolated as individuals.

By asking a single man whether he has a girlfriend or wishing a co-worker Merry Christmas, no disrespect is being done to gays, and no slights are being offered to Jews. Instead, when a network refuses to air a decent advertisement with a clearly financed message, or if a store initiates a “no-Hanukkah shopping allowed” policy, then there is a problem. It is a misunderstanding, probably among hyper sensitive, focus group type ad execs that misconstrues this vital difference.

Well we’ve covered more than two interesting points, or so I hope, but I did want to come back to my original second point and take a less sympathetic look at the Committee. Given what I’ve already said, it is interesting to see how this battle is being fought. That is, to honor what is a sacred holiday, the Committee is begging corporations to use this holy day as fodder for advertisements. Instead of calling for a greater revival of, say, church attendance, or community events, such a caroling or pot luck suppers, it has decided that good Christians should have the right to be advertised upon so that they can be proper consumers. Needless to say, this is a troubling concept.

Remember the Committee’s stated goal to, “preserve the culture and tradition of the vast majority of Americans that celebrate and honor Christmas,”? Well if the culture and tradition can be summed up in TV ads from Macys, then perhaps it is the culture and tradition of this vast majority of Americans who celebrate and honor Christmas that should be examined. Simply, exploitative advertising seems the furthest thing from honest cultural affirmations. Perhaps if individuals who compromise the Committee believe that the far left has gone too far in removing explicit religious references from the public square (as perhaps it has,) it should fight for what it truly sees as lost, not others’ bottom line.

PSA

I’m working now as a waiter, so sometimes my shift doesn’t start until 4:00. So on days like these I indulge in my guilty TV pleasure: Court Shows. My two favorite are Judge Judy (classic – can’t be beat) and The People’s Court (a close 2nd.) Although these shows themselves could probably be the source of plenty of commentary, I’ll refrain for now.

What gets me more is the advertising that is shown during the commercial breaks. Most of it, predictably is cheezy… “Bank turned you down for a loan??? CALL US!” “Need a car??? CALL US!!” “Need phone service?? CALL US!!!” Then there are the career focused commercials. Most of us can probably recall Sally Struthers quickly reading the list of home degree programs including such professions as TV/VCR Repair and Refrigeration. Although that classic is not to be seen anymore these days, it has been replaced by what I’d like to call the 2nd generation cheezy job ads. The most popular career advertised is as a medical assistant. You know those annoying people that stand between you and your doctor with hundreds of forms? Yeah, those people. This I have been used to for a while. The other top category is as some sort of minor level creative professional… i.e. graphic design. But I’ve recently seen commercials for a different job.

Aircraft engine maintenance.

Yep. So I guess that the demographic which needs the “Local Phone Company” and career options as massage therapists is the same from which individuals who service the engines of the aircraft we fly are drawn. Now, don’t get me wrong. Jobs as medical billing specialists are honest jobs, and it is good to have a country of workers, not public assistance recipients. However, when it comes to maintaining aircraft engines, be they Pratt and Whitneys in Cessnas or Rolls Royces in Boeings, I’d rather the mechanics not be drawn from the daytime TV crowd.

But, perhaps I’m being a little harsh. After all, with the way the economy has been for manufacturing jobs, there are probably plenty of former workers whose jobs have been shipped off to China or Mexico watching Judge Judy tell it like it is to minor scumbags. I am, after all, haunted by Michael Moore’s Roger and Me. So whether this is just a scary fact or an indication of a larger sobering reality, I’m not ready to say. But as soon as I see Homeland Defense on the big list, then perhaps I’ll duck, and cover.

First Amendment TV

I’d like to recommend something on TV. It’s called “The First Amendment Project” and being shown on Sundance and CourtTV. Tonight was the first night (Wed will have same programming on CourtTV,) and featured two short documentaries. The first was a look at Fox v. Franken. That flap was over Al Franken’s book, Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them, and the fact that it used the term “fair and balanced” in it’s subheading. Fox News claimed that the term “fair and balanced” was their trademark… and took Franken to federal court. Of course, the real reason this suit was prompted was because Franken throughly discredited O’Reilly in book and O’Reilly was pissed off. In the end Franken won. The documentary is a funny, pithy look into the case and the issues surrounding it.

The second documentary was about the Amiri Baraka scandal. Although I had not heard about this story previously, it turned out to be really interesting. Basically, Baraka, a controversial poet, was named by NJ as the state poet laureate. After 9/11, Baraka wrote a long poem about 9/11, which could be summed up as a, “who’s really the bad guy here?” type piece. In it, he hinted that perhaps the state of Israel knew about the attacks. This, of course, got the people at the ADL furious. Since NJ could not revoke Baraka’s title as poet laureate, and he refused to abscond, the NJ senate decided to abolish the position of state poet laureate… a roundabout way of firing him for what he wrote. The film uses this story to outline the importance of art as political speech, and examine to what extent, if any, art can be regulated when financed with public funds.

Lurking in the back of both stories, and explicitly touched upon in the latter was the idea of culture wars. Sure there are the Fox News’ and Franken’s of the world, but what of the many lesser battles that play out daily in the streets, courts, art galleries and schools? The question in my mind becomes, “Does the current administration, because it is so indebted to the religious right, stifle first amendment privileges in the name of decency, morality, national security, or what have you?” Although you all probably know my answer, it’s certainly not a question to be treated lightly.

To reel in this topic for some discussion (which I’m glad to see happening here) I’ll bring it to the specific instance of government funded art. If the government supports an individual artist, through a grant program or any other means of financial assistance, does it have the right to censor what that individual creates? Does the piper have to play to the tune of his benefactor, or should the first amendment supersede such patronage?

Link: First Amendment Project – Sundance Channel.

The Purpose of SUVs

So I’ve finally figured it out. It’s all about the Christmas tree. Today on the way home from work, I passed no less than 5 giant SUV’s with Christmas trees on top of them. And I’m not talking the little wannabe SUVs, I’m taking the big time suburban fuck you where’s my gas SUVs. And when I thought about it, it makes perfect sense. What better a way to prove one’s MASCULINITY than to tie a DEAD TREE to the top of one’s SUV. No embarrassing driving with the tree sticking out of an open trunk. No, with the mega SUV, you OWN Nature. So BOOYAH!

Dangerous Media

Today we have a disturbing entry. Let me introduce you to the United Church of Christ. The UCC is really a grouping of churches, ranging from the very liberal to the modestly conservative. The idea of the the UCC is to articulate church, and Christ, as a place welcoming to all people. What “all people” really means is, gays, minorities, women, etc. So, since churches can tend to be rather stick in the mud places regarding social trends, the UCC seeks to embrace the results of the civil rights movements while keeping space for faith. The church ordained the first openly gay Christian minister back in 1972.

I find that the UCC is a brilliant example of a “uniting, not dividing” institution. And of course, this goal, uniting a deeply divided country has been all the talk of all the politicians – even W himself. Therefore one would assume that the UCC’s mission would be welcome on the public airwaves in the form of a commercial.

Not so.
Continue reading