?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous | Next

Happy fuckin' holidays!


For those of you under the mistaken impression that there is some kind of war on Christmas, I present to you:

Fuck Christmas.

Quite enlightening.

Comments

darrelx
Dec. 15th, 2005 01:13 am (UTC)
Not just because he's a coward hiding behind internet anonymity... No.

I find that a lot of his rant is invalid for real reasons... such as claiming that no one was renaming their trees to "holiday trees"... and his ongoing rant against John Gibson, making him sound like some conspiracy nut when he included the way he characterizes This new report regarding the possible link between Timothy Mcveigh and Iraq (a very real possiblity, but not one that is popular). Or his claim that the "War on Christmas" is some kind of anti-jewish thing... If that were true, then why are Jewish organizations rallying against the war on Christmas, too?

No, although it is a very LONG rant... it is still a very weak one.
bovil
Dec. 15th, 2005 01:53 am (UTC)
Your "report" is an opinion piece. You could at least have linked to Jayna Davis' book.

It's not really news, though. The Wall Street Journal (not a particularly liberal paper) in an opinion piece three years ago, had this to say about it:
None of this is "hard evidence," let alone "conclusive evidence," that Saddam Hussein was complicit in Sept. 11 or any of the other domestic terrorist attacks. But there is quite a bit of smoke curling up from various routes to Baghdad, and it's not clear that anyone except Jayna Davis and Laurie Mylroie has looked very hard for fire.

Now either Jayna Davis is another crusader for truth against government cover-ups like Jim Garrison, or she's another crackpot conspiracy theorist like, well, Jim Garrison. Yeah, that's a specious argument, she could be right and Garrison could be wrong, but the opposite is also possible.

Speaking of specious arguments, presenting a Jewish organization that speaks out against anti-Christian bias doesn't in any way prove that there isn't anti-Jewish bias and scapegoating among some or even possibly many of the proponents who claim there is "War on Christmas."
esprix
Dec. 15th, 2005 03:26 am (UTC)
I particularly like the way he uses the fact that the ACLU has fought many, many times for religious freedom for Christians, and yet they're always lambasted as some kind of wacked out liberal nutbag organization. Civil liberties are civil liberties, no matter whose they are.
darrelx
Dec. 15th, 2005 05:32 pm (UTC)
It wasn't "my" report... it was linked to in the author's rant (see the 5th paragraph, the word "Iraq" is the link to the page I referred to)

As for the anti-jewish rant... it's the author's place to provide *some* evidence that there is *any* anti-jewish sentiment going on... not the other way around. Dismissing the War on Christmas as some anti-semite activity is pure speculation on his part, and I was providing evidence to the contrary.
bovil
Dec. 15th, 2005 06:54 pm (UTC)
You still haven't made a point.

Jayna Davis wrote a painstakingly researched book (the research might be crap, but it's definitely thorough). John Gibson extrapolates this book into a government conspiracy theory, claiming George W. Bush is some sort of valiant rebel who is using this information to drive his foreign policy while the rest of the government ignores and supresses it.

If you want to show that John Gibson isn't a crackpot, you have to analyze what he said, and the claims of Davis' book, not just link back to it. You'll also have to refute his statements that if Rove outed Plame he should be given a medal. I guess national security isn't national security sometimes.

As for the anti-Jewish rant? I don't think there's any global War on the Jewish War on Christmas anymore. Note I said "anymore." If you look back to previous "War on Christmas" episodes, the John Birch Society and Henry Ford each lead wars on the "War on Christmas" and these were strongly anti-semetic efforts.

This time, not so much. This time it's a war on secularism (strange, as "Christmas is a secular holiday" is so strong an argument in favor now), and Jews are just another facet in the grand secular conspiracy against Christmas.

Still, when Gibson, in his own words, says the wagers of the war on Christmas are not just Jewish people methinks I see some scapegoating going on. When O'Reilly tells a Jewish caller, calling in during a segment decrying the secularization of Christianity, talking about the parallels with the secularization of Judaism, but feeling that the Christmas machine is an attempt to convert him, if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel then, I see a bit of "good Jew, bad Jew."

The fact that there is a Jewish organization that has hopped on the bandwagon doesn't change what Gibson, O'Reilly and some of the other political and media figures banging the "War on Christmas" drum are saying. It just strikes me as "We're the good Jews, they're the bad Jews, and they're not talking about us"

If you want to make the point that Gibson and O'Reilly aren't making anti-Jewish statements, you have to show that all those radio recordings and video appearances where they make anti-Jewish statements are fake, not throw up a Jewish organization who supports them as a smoke-screen.
bovil
Dec. 15th, 2005 07:07 pm (UTC)
Oh...

Read this.

Click through on the "read for free" link and let the stupid ad play for a minute, and continue on to the article.

Charles Haynes, one of the heros of Gibson's War on Christmas book disagrees with Gibson's characterization that there is a War on Christmas.

A spokesman for the Alliance Defense Fund dismisses all of the cases where the ACLU stepped in to advocate for Christians and religious display. Even though there are cases where the ACLU has advocated for the distribution of Christmas cards by students, allowing students to bring bibles to school, and the placement of creches on public property.

No, you wouldn't want to read about that.
bovil
Dec. 15th, 2005 07:08 pm (UTC)
Oops... let's try a link to the first page
esprix
Dec. 15th, 2005 08:56 pm (UTC)
Why are you focusing on the anti-semitic aspect? He brought up a lot of other fairly valid points as well.
darrelx
Dec. 15th, 2005 10:28 pm (UTC)
Yes, he brought up a whole SLEW of points... validity, though, is in dispute.

However, I only replied to the ones I immediately recognized as being invalid points... I was not eager to nitpick through the rest of them, so I didn't.

Oh... BTW, this is the same guy apparently who put up the website fuckthesouth.com... His rant on that site is even less coherent, focusing obviously on the red-state/blue-state maps after the last election being compared to the civil war's North v. South states... which was quickly denounced first by the county-by-county maps, then the "shades of purple" maps that showed that the country is really much more diverse than North v. South.

In my opinion, this guy is just a hothead who loves to rant... facts be damned.
esprix
Dec. 15th, 2005 10:30 pm (UTC)
I haven't found any significant flaws in his arguments and facts, or at least anything significant enough to say he's 100% wrong.

It's obvious you disagree with him, but I still think his points are quite valid, regardless of whether you qualify it as a rant or not.
esprix
Dec. 15th, 2005 03:25 am (UTC)
Well, there's no doubt that Gibson is just a tad biased (as is O'Reilly and the rest). I can hardly take anything he says without a salt lick.

But, overall, I'd say he makes some excellent points.

Latest Month

August 2019
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner