American Daughter - Multimedia journalism with articles,pictures and graphics, podcast audio and video,slide presentations, live-blogging of events, and webcasting
California Chronicle - Published daily The California Chronicle brings you the top news and commentary of the day throughout the Central Coast, the State and the Nation.
Real Clear Politics - One of America’s premier independent political web sites. Updated every morning and throughout the day, RCP culls and publishes the best commentary, news, polling data, and links to important resources from all points of the political compass and coveri
TownHall - Townhall.com is designed to amplify conservative voices in America’s political debates just as the 2006 and 2008 election cycles begin to heat up.
Working Senior - The National Association of Working Seniors
It appears that we have become so politically correct (PC) that we are beginning to let the few dictate the way the majority of Americans can now celebrate their holidays. For example, why is it that many individuals and businesses are opting to advertise sales or send Christmas greeting cards or invitations that no longer refer to Christmas, labeling such occasions instead as “Holiday” greetings, parties or sales?
Bah, Humbug! I say, “Keep your cotton-pickin’ hands off my Christmas!”
Those who know I don’t celebrate Christmas (for personal reasons) may think this is a strange reaction. I’m not a Christian, but I do care about our American traditions. And, one of the most revered in our society has always been CHRISTMAS. I also don’t believe it’s necessary to be a Christian to appreciate and support Christian values, which are an integral part of the foundation on which America was built.
Why on earth are we letting people who are anti-religion, such as atheists and the ACLU, dictate or attempt to dictate what our national values should be? That’s what they are, aren’t they? That is, people who are anti-religion? And, who made them the politically-correct police, anyway?
What Is The “Holiday”?
Just what is the “Holiday” if not Christmas? The very use of the term “Holiday” is shorthand for Christmas, isn’t it? When someone offers “Seasons Greetings” or “Happy Holidays” to us, doesn’t everyone understand that the person offering the salutation is talking about Christmas? Surely, they’re not talking in a vacuum, and they don’t mean “Merry Vacation” or “Merry Shopping.” They mean Merry Christmas, don’t they?
Even as a non-Christian, Christmas has always been a part of my life. I grew up during the depression, and I can still remember the importance of the Christmas season at a time when most people had very little. And, I can’t say that growing up and living in a Christian society has ever been a significant obstacle for me. As a Jew, I suppose I’ve experienced my share of prejudice along the way, but I don’t believe the fact that I’m not a Christian has ever prevented me from taking advantage of the boundless opportunities that America has made and continues to make available, regardless of our individual religious beliefs.
So why, I wonder, is Christmas such a problem for non-believers? What’s their game? Are they just perverse, or is there some larger purpose underlying their opposition to any recognition of religion in the life of our society, even Christmas?
Excessive Commercialization of Christmas
Part of the reason, I think, is the excessive commercialization of Christmas, which has turned the occasion away from its roots and converted it into a giant shopping event. One of the most troubling aspects of this is the way in which the forces of merchandizing, pursuing an impossible goal of offending no one, are now causing many businesses to adopt the PC language of the non-believers by referring to Christmas as the “Holiday,” while they promote the celebration of other “Holidays,” such as Kwanzaa, which incidentally does not even mark a religious occasion, but was created by a single individual to celebrate African-American culture. Are Easter and Chanukah the next traditional religious celebrations that will be renamed “Holidays” to satisfy the PC crowd? Or, perhaps Ramadan?
Holiday Events in Lieu of Christmas
This brings me back to the fact that I’ve noticed a growing number of businesses that no longer invite people to Christmas sales or parties, but to “Holiday” events.
Question: Is it possible to avoid offending anyone by discontinuing all references to Christmas in favor of “Holiday”?
I think not! I, for one, even as a non-Christian, am offended by this effort to take Christmas out of the Christmas celebration. My guess is that for every person who is placated by references to the “Holiday” in lieu of “Christmas,” there is at least one person like me, who is troubled or offended by the obvious ploy of omitting any reference to Christmas in favor of “Holiday.”
Perhaps Ben Stein said it best when he recently commented, “I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can’t find it in the Constitution and I don’t like it being shoved down my throat.”
The very firms that succumb to the PC version of the “Holiday” may well find that many of their customers will eventually see the situation as I do and take their business elsewhere - to a store or firm that acknowledges that Christmas is Christmas, Christ included.
Led by the ACLU, America’s culture war is being driven from the “left,” which is attempting to remove God from almost every aspect of our national life, from our currency to Christmas, including any mention of God or display of Christian belief, such as crèches, in our schools, courts, municipal buildings and on public property, even “Seasons Greetings” in stores, literally just about everywhere and anywhere in American society.
Their argument is predicated on the notion that it is offensive to people who do not believe in GOD, no matter how few or how many complainants there are. Sometimes “people” means only one person, who may object to what they perceive as religious indoctrination where none exists.
For the record, I am not a Christian and I do not attend any church, and I cannot recall a single instance in my life (of 79 years) when I was offended or harmed in any way by public expressions of Christian religious belief or simply an acknowledgement of God.
I have never had any problem maintaining a moment of silence when prayers are said in my presence. I recall that prayer was always an integral part of graduation exercises and various assemblies when I was in high school during the 1940s. Never, even for a fleeting instant, did I have a sense that I was being proselytized or criticized for my own beliefs at the time, and I still feel the same way. Today, whenever I attend a gathering where prayers are offered, such as a memorial service or a meeting of some group, I have no problem accepting prayers as the honest expression of the beliefs of others by joining them in a moment of silence during the observance of their faith.
What’s the big deal? Have we now reached the point where anti-religious expression has become the very thing that the opponents of religion claim they are trying to prevent – that is, forcing or pressuring people to believe as they do, which in this instance is not believing in anything. So, from the fear of pressuring people to accept religion, have we now moved to the strange position of trying to pressure or force them to believe in nothing?
In the opinion of at least this one non-Christian, the entire effort to remove all expressions of religious belief from the public square is just another form of prejudice. I say, “Get a life.” This is more than just political correctness run amuck. It is utter nonsense, pure B.S.
The question is, “Why do we tolerate it?” Fifty or 60 years ago, such complaints would have been rejected out of hand. And, attempts by non-believers to force others to accept their ideas and to prevent the overwhelming majority of the population from publicly expressing their values or recognizing them in our institutions would not have been tolerated. Not only would they have been tuned out, they would have been shut down by both the general population and the courts. Today, around 85% of Americans believe in God, yet they are strangely unable or unwilling to stand up to the vocal minority that is trying to undermine the very beliefs and values of the overwhelming majority.
For example, how is it possible to remove “Christmas” from the Christmas Holiday (vacation) in the schools? The idea that it should renamed “Winter Break” to avoid offending even a single person defies all logic. Were it not for Christmas, there would be no Christmas vacation, and therefore there would be no Winter Break.
As for the courts, the underlying foundation of our laws is the Ten Commandments, which cannot be removed from our courts and all public life without undermining our entire judicial system. One does not have to be a Christian to know that without the presence of any religious values and the teaching of right and wrong in our schools, we have substantially abandoned our young people to the lure of license without responsibility. We could do a lot worse than introducing a little active involvement of God back into our classrooms, even for those of us who are not Christians.
Many of those parents who disagree with the current policies of liberal indoctrination that pervade our schools today feel they are being forced to home school their children in order to instill the values they consider important. But, perhaps they should be standing up to educators and school boards and putting the vocal minority in the position of having to home school their own children instead. A little poetic justice might go a long way to help heal the rift that is currently being caused by the minority constantly attacking the majority’s beliefs and values.
The proliferation of ethics courses currently being required by the professions, such as accounting and law, gives testimony to the fact that too many of our young people are now reaching their majority without the moral foundation that schools helped teach in the past, which was historically based on religious values. I’ll take the teachings of education with God involved rather than the lack of ethics and morality that pervade our schools today without God, notwithstanding the fact that I am not a Christian.
There are those who argue that even the slightest amount of religious expression in the schools is tantamount to opening the door to religious indoctrination and persecution of those who don’t agree with the values of the majority. Can it be that, all of a sudden, Christian and Judeo values have become a threat to the rest of American society?
The very idea that some people are free to publicly make even the most dishonest, vicious and hurtful statements about others in any venue, including the schools, by claiming the protection of the First Amendment, while at the same time attempting to deprive the majority of their right to speak openly about their own beliefs in the same venues, is not only illogical, but is the height of hypocrisy. It’s no wonder we are so confused.
Dating back to 1791, the 8th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees protection against “cruel and unusual” punishment and further provides “that excessive bail ought not be required, nor excessive fines imposed…” (albany.edu, Chapter 9).
Capital Punishment
The death penalty in the U.S. has evolved from a form of punishment that was not initially considered “cruel and unusual” to the point where it is now viewed as “cruel and unusual” by many people. In the U.S., the manner of execution has moved from hanging and the firing squad to the electric chair, the gas chamber and ultimately, in many states, to lethal injection.“…The U.S. public still favors the death penalty by a 65 percent-to-30 percent margin, according to USA Today/Gallup polls of the last three years, but that is down from 80 percent that supported capital punishment in 1994…Since capital punishment was reinstated three decades ago, nearly 900 of the 1,056 executions carried out through 2006 were by lethal injection. It is the primary or exclusive form of execution in 37 of the 38 states with capital punishment (Nebraska uses the electric chair).” (stateline.org, Jan 17, 2007).
Lethal Injection
A USA Today report noted, “A federal judge ruled…that Tennessee’s new lethal injection procedures are cruel and unusual punishment, interrupting plans to execute a killer…” who beat an elderly woman to death during a burglary in 1983. “The protocol ‘presents a substantial risk of unnecessary pain’ and violates death row…inmate’s constitutional protections…The new protocol, released in April, does not ensure that inmates are properly anesthetized before the lethal injection is administered…which could ‘result in a terrifying, excruciating death.” (usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-19-tenn-lethal-injection)
Justice Delayed
The oft quoted adage, “Justice delayed is justice denied” (William E. Gladstone, British statesman and Prime Minister, 1868-1894), now pretty much applies to our entire system of capital punishment - with death row inmates languishing in prisons for years on end while the legal process takes its ponderous course - in spite of the fact that the public continues to favor the death penalty by a margin of better than two-to-one. (en.wikipedia.org)
Abolishing The Death Penalty
“Many countries have abolished the death penalty, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, almost all of Europe and much of Latin America…111 countries either do not have or do not use the death penalty. Many other states retain it, especially in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, the Caribbean and the United States…In most countries that have capital punishment, it is used to punish only murder and/or for war-related crimes. In some countries, like the People’s Republic of China, even non-violent crimes, like drug and business related crimes, are punished with capital punishment.” (en.wikipedia.org)
Splitting Hairs
However, the arguments for and against capital punishment notwithstanding, splitting hairs about whether the condemned should or do suffer any pain whatsoever are irrational in my view. It’s a position that I believe is taken for purely tactical reasons, that is, merely to make the death penalty unenforceable by defining it as “cruel and unusual.
”Dead is dead, whether by a bullet to the back of the head, the guillotine or lethal injection. No one can say for certain just how much pain or suffering may be experienced at the moment of death, and I suspect that most if not all of the 65% of Americans who favor capital punishment do not particularly care how it is carried out. Arguing about which method is least painful seems nonsensical to me – especially when the individual involved is someone like Ted Bundy, the BTK killer, Jeffrey Dahmer or any of the many other serial killers who murder innocent people without giving any thought to the pain and suffering they caused in the process.
In the final analysis, belief in capital punishment seems to be more an article of faith than it is a matter of facts. Both sides tend to give credence to the specific arguments that support their respective views. A leading news analyst often says that he is against capital punishment but that those who are convicted of “capital crimes” should be sentenced life in prison at hard labor, as in breaking rocks. For my part, I’m with the 65%.
The short answer to the question, “Does dissent make us weaker?” is no. But, the issue is far more complex than the short answer implies.
For one thing, just how far should Americans be able to go in exercising their right to dissent? That is, just where do their rights stop? Or do they? A popular saying holds that they stop at the end of the next person’s nose. And, judging from the never ending stream of demands that assault us every day, it appears that everything on our personal or collective wish lists has now become a right, without limit, including the right to say almost anything we want, to anyone, at any time.
Limiting Dissent
That we have a right to dissent and that doing so does not make us (America) weaker seems obvious, but does it also mean that we have a right to say and do anything we want or to force our opinions or beliefs on others (as in Christian, Muslim, atheist, hedonist, or environmentalist)?Dissent may be part and parcel of the right to the freedom of speech that’s enshrined in our Constitution, but there are or should be limits.If our rights stop at the end of the next person’s nose, does that include their pocketbook? Stealing may be illegal and immoral, but whether or not it is acceptable seems to depend on who does it and why, and sometimes how. For example, some people may consider it acceptable to steal food to feed one’s family but unacceptable to steal money to keep from losing their home in foreclosure?
And, although taking money from others by force or at gunpoint, or by embezzling it from one’s employer, may be a crime, how many people condone appropriating someone else’s dollars through taxation? Probably everyone, to some degree. But, isn’t that the problem? That is, the degree?
Too often, in matters of taxation, right and wrong depend on who has the power to tax or whose ox is being gored. So, if we feel our tax laws are unfair and confiscatory, should our right to dissent include refusing to pay them?
Political Correctness vs Dissent
When did we move from the freedom of speech guaranteed by our Constitution to freedom of speech only if it’s politically correct according to some particular group, such as African-Americans, Hispanics, women, gays, liberals, conservatives, Christians, Muslims, Jews…..you name it? Our treasured freedom of speech seems to be acceptable only so long as it conforms to some special interest group’s interpretation of what they consider “correct.”
Dissent or Treason
Dissent may be a good thing, but when does it become more than simply expressing one’s point of view and morph into “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” or worse yet, treason, in time of war?Consider the case of Lynne Stewart, a lawyer who represented a blind Egyptian Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, convicted in 1996 of plotting terrorist attacks in the U.S., for which he received a “life” sentence. Ms. Stewart was herself convicted of conspiracy and sentenced to 28 months in prison for providing material support to terrorists by participating in passing messages between the Sheikh and his terrorist followers on the outside, while serving as one of his attorneys. Her actions have been described as dissent from U.S. policies in the conduct of the War on Terror.
Another aspect of the question, “Does dissent make us weaker?” is the matter of where and when we have the right to dissent. Although our cherished right of “free speech” may guarantee us the right to speak out about issues, that doesn’t guarantee the right to do so everywhere and anywhere. There appears to be a lot of confusion about this. Many Americans seem to have the idea that their right to dissent obligates others to provide them with a forum for expressing their views, such as on radio and TV broadcasts. In fact, you may have the right to dissent, but you normally have to provide your own soapbox.
Right To Dissent
There always seem to be good and sufficient reasons for imposing our individual or collective will on others. Both sides of the political spectrum find plenty of justification for pressing their values on everyone else. Abortion is about a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body or it’s murder, depending on one’s personal beliefs. Those on the left say the Boy Scouts are wrong to prevent gays from being scout leaders, notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution guarantees their right to make such a determination. But, that hasn’t stopped the ACLU and others who oppose the Boy Scouts’ policies from attempting to force communities around the nation to punish them in various ways, such as pressuring donors, including local governments, to stop giving them money or to cancel long standing privileges to use certain community facilities, such as parks and school grounds.
Dissent In The Schools
Schools have always defined the types of organizations that are permitted to organize or hold meetings on their premises. But now, under the guise of keeping church and state separated, they go to such extremes as permitting clubs to organize celebrations like Kwanzaa or Voodoo rituals while preventing Christian students from protesting such policies on school property.
Do students have an unrestricted right to use vile language toward others, including teachers, on school grounds? Our confusion about whether there can or should be any limits on the right to dissent is vividly demonstrated by the fact that vulgar language is acceptable in some settings, such as the movies and on TV, but is unacceptable in churches and public meetings. And, although our right to dissent may include being able to curse teachers in school, prayer is considered unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the right to dissent goes beyond words. It is also interpreted as including such things as how people dress and look or such actions as burning the American flag. Some is acceptable, some not.
Dissent vs License
All rights, including the right to dissent, can be measured on a continuum, ranging from not having any rights to absolute, unrestricted and uncontrolled rights to do or say anything to anyone, anytime, anywhere. But, unlimited rights eventually reach the point where they become license, that is, the unrestricted freedom to say or do anything we please, regardless of whose “nose’ gets in the way. Is that what we want?
In the final analysis, the right to dissent is really more about self-control than it is about laws or regulation or the Constitution. You may have, or think you have, the right to say or do whatever you please, but that doesn’t always mean you should, law or no law.Dissent is an important and necessary escape valve for society, but that doesn’t mean the right to do so should be unrestricted. And, although dissent in general may not make us weaker, unbridled dissent can, especially in times of war.
The problem is recognizing when it becomes treasonous or actionable (i.e., lawsuit). As with pornography, we may not be able to define dissent, but we generally know it when we see it. Dissent may not make us weaker, and sometimes it’s a little like taking medicine: we may hate the taste, but it’s good for us - however, that doesn’t mean it should be unlimited.
Campaign finance has been a problem in American politics for 140 years, dating back to the Naval Appropriations Bill in 1867.
In the 1800s, people who wanted a position in government could openly donate to a politician running for office with the understanding that if the candidate won, they would be rewarded with a job. If you think about it, people still contribute their services in the hopes of getting a job in the administration of the candidate they support. So, what’s changed?
Since 1867, fifteen federal laws have been adopted in an effort to regulate the flow of money from private interests to politicians and presumably to level the playing field for candidates (Source: campaignfinancesite.org):
1867: The Naval Appropriations Bill “prohibited officers and employees of the government from soliciting money from naval yardworkers.”
1883: The Civil Service Reform Act “extended the above rule to all federal civil service workers – Previously government workers were expected to make campaign contributions in order to keep their jobs.”
1905: Teddy Roosevelt’s Message to Congress, in which he proposed that “(a)ll contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law.”
1907: The Tillman Act “prohibited corporations and nationally chartered (interstate) banks from making direct financial contributions to federal candidates.”
1910: The Federal Corrupt Practices Act “established disclosure requirements for U.S. House candidates. Legislation in 1911 extended requirements to cover U.S. Senate candidates and established expenditure limits…”
1925: The Federal Corrupt Practices Act (Revised) “codified and revised previous campaign reform legislation regarding expenditure limits and disclosure,,,”
1940: Hatch Act Amendments “set limits if $5,000 per year on individual contributions to a federal candidate or political committee…”
1943: The Smith-Connally Act “extended to unions the prohibition on contributions to federal candidates from corporations and interstate banks…”
1944: The “first political action committee (PAC) was formed by Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO)…to raise money for re-election of” FDR.
1947: The Taft-Hartley Act “made permanent the ban on contributions to federal candidates from unions, corporations, and interstate banks…”
1967: House Campaign Financial Reports (were) Collected for (the) First Time.
1971: The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) “repealed (the) Corrupt Practices Act and created (a) comprehensive framework for regulation of federal campaign financing of primaries, runoffs, general elections, and conventions.”
1971: The Revenue Act “created public campaign fund for eligible presidential candidates…through provision of voluntary one-dollar check-off on federal income tax returns.
1974: FECA Amendments (Post-Watergate) “provided option of full public financing for presidential general elections, matching funds for presidential primaries, and public funds for presidential nominating conventions – Set spending limits for presidential primaries and general elections, and for House and Senate primaries.”
1976: Buckley v. Aleo challenged restrictions in FECA as unconstitutional violations of free speech…Court struck down, as infringement on free speech, limits on candidate expenditures (unless candidate accepts public financing)” and certain other limits on spending.
1979 : FECA Amendments “increased amount volunteers could contribute in-kind (use of home, food, vehicle) from $500 to $1,000 – Raised threshold for reporting contributions from $100 to $200,” and “Allowed state and local parties to promote federal candidates by spending unlimited amounts on campaign materials,” etc.
2002: The most recent effort to reform campaign finance is the McCain-Feingold bill, named for “its primary sponsors, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russell Feingold (D-WI),” which bans soft money – “unlimited contributions to the national political parties for ‘party-building’ activities.” (opensecrets.org, What’s The Issue?, 1/19/05).
Other provisions of the bill ban “ads within 60 days of a general election that are paid for by outside groups and identify a particular candidate. Additionally, the legislation requires groups spending more than $10,000 a year on TV ads to disclose who paid for them.”
“Campaign financial reform groups including Common Cause, Democracy 21, Public Citizen, and the Brennan Center for Justice feel that the McCain-Feingold bill was necessary to salvage a political system in which the concerns of voters have been usurped by the money and influence of powerful industries and interest groups.” (opensecrets.org, What’s The Issue? - 1/19/05).
Subsequent to its passage in 2002, McCain-Feingold was challenged in the courts, and “in December 2003, the Supreme Court upheld all of the law’s major provisions.” So, once again we appear to be stuck with an imperfect law that many people feel abridges the right of free speech. (opensecrets.org, What’s The Issue? - 1/19/05).
Campaign Finance Legislation
It seems obvious that the failure to regulate campaign finance certainly is not for lack of trying. The theory generally seems to have been that if we could just get money out of the equation, the political process would somehow eliminate corruption and favoritism. But, I submit that’s just wishful thinking. Primarily, because it’s counter to human nature. People invariably look for loopholes in such laws, which are generally circumvented almost as fast as they are put on the books.
Regulating Campaign Finance
But, with all the legislation that has been passed over the years to reform or regulate campaign finance, the problem persists - because, in my opinion, perfection simply can’t be achieved, even by our politicians and bureaucrats, or various “public interest” groups.
Government Financing
Dating back to Teddy Roosevelt, the most popular response to the inherent weaknesses in campaign finance legislation has been the notion that the process should be financed by the federal government.However, I don’t see how that would be much different than the present situation. The administration of a government financed system would undoubtedly become as convoluted and ineffective as the one we have now, the primary difference being who would be in control. With the government financing and running things, it’s bound to become more bureaucratic, but would still be subject to political influence, just with different players.One alternative proposal is to simply require that all political contributions be immediately disclosed to the public on the Internet, including the sources of the money, so everyone could see who is supporting and financing the various candidates.
As usual, when it comes to regulating behavior, there are no easy answers.
usa online gambling? Play Online Blackjack For Money Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Australia Gambling online blackjack in usa
play online casino!
usa online gambling? Roulette Software Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Gambling In Michigan online blackjack in usa
play online casino! Playtech Bingo
