One-dimensional musings

On the cusp of another snowstorm (that's four inches of snow down here in Canonsburg - I know you Erie folks are giggling about it, as do I, but there really is a lot of snow here that they don't know where to put because of the mountainous hills), I've realized that it's been a month since I last blogged.  That's breaking the cardinal rule of blogging:  Blog on a regular basis.  Keeping it up.  Keeping it fresh.

Yet every time I think about it, I think the media has burned me out.  I've been constantly listening to family, friends and the media complain about the state of this country, why Republicans are crazy, why Democrats are socialist nutjobs, and quite frankly, I've become tired of it.  Maybe not tired:  It's a word that my younger readers would appreciate, and that is "meh."  I like me a good drama in the news, but ever since Obama was elected, the shouting on both sides of the American political spectrum is louder than ever, and no one seems interested in getting anything done except firmly planting the blame of the state of the American economy on the shoulders of either political party.

With full disclosure, both my husband and I are independents.  We made that decision after moving back from the West Coast, with me doubting every potential Presidential candidate who stepped up to a podium in front of the media.  We are finding that both left and right "ideals" are often contradictory, selfish, and downright unhealthy for a decent political debate.  We often had the best debates about politics with a dear friend of ours, who is Canadian and knows truly what socialism is, after he'd been traveling the globe.  Disenchanted with Cheney and Big Oil, angry with manipulative unions, watching the debt ceiling raised higher than ever, and pretty faces (Palin) blurring partisan shortcomings, I threw my hands up in the air and suggested to Spence that we leave both parties and let them figure out how to get our votes.  It was the only way I could think of to demonstrate my displeasure with the Left and Right political discourses.

As it is, American politics are sorely one-dimensional:  Do you swing left or right?  Blue or red?  Conservative or liberal?  To which I started asking back:  Are politics only meant for swinging between two points, one single line?  I really don't care that the Independents don't have many promising candidates:  Running on an Independent platform is what I like to call slippery dipping:  You can pick and choose your values, and yet in putting together your political agenda, leaving yourself to the mercy of a media who likes to paint you "more conservative" or "more liberal," perhaps to translate your oddities to an American public who only know the way forward is to go left or right.

Does it seem like a political dead end?  Does it seem too much for a person who wants to step outside The Line, to explain to others that it's okay to be pro-life and demand equal pay for women in similar job positions?  Is it okay to be a member of the NRA and endorse affordable health care?  Can rich people endorse welfare?  Can poor people endorse lower taxes for the businesses?

If rich people understood that there are people in society who truly need the help of the village, as it were, to survive, then they'd be more amenable to paying more taxes into a welfare system that helps the elderly, disabled and hungry, while at the same time finds the freeloaders and stops supporting them.

If poor people understood that businesses create jobs, they would understand that lower taxes for businesses will help their businesses grow and keep more jobs in the United States.

If women and men understood that fertility is an equal responsibility between them, then it would be easier for men and women to support equal pay for equal work.

If understanding that the reason we are not physically invaded by a country is because, on average, every man and woman in this country has at least one firearm in their home, then we understand that basic health care is a right, not a privilege:  Basic rights of self-defense of our country should include basic rights of self-defense of our bodies, whether we have chronic or acute conditions.  (Whether you endorse a public option or shopping across state lines for health insurance is a completely different conversation, however.)

And that, dear readers, is only a few of the many reasons why I can't read a newspaper, online or otherwise, without my eyes crossing and my soul delving into a deep state of indifference.  Politicians are afraid of "reaching across the aisle" without thinking about their competitors accusing them of waffling in the next election, so they hold fast to a single line between two points.  The dominant parties are in a state of turmoil, what with Obama's favorable ratings plummeting to Earth and the loss of Mr. Kennedy's Lion Seat to a Republican, and with Palin a Presidential hopeful in 2012 while endorsing a Tea Party with no clear agenda and fractured factions.  Less voters are asking important questions about how the government as a whole will help them, and instead asking for their piece of the pie, and perhaps it is in this way we are led to a government stuffed and obese with pork and special interests.

Perhaps - and this is a theory - it is not so much the politicians' fault for trying to grab federal funds, but our own.  Perhaps our indifference to letting the same people try to steer this country is the reason why no one can agree on Capitol Hill.  Perhaps it is us, the People, the voters, who need to find their voices again and appoint better people to find that middle ground that could make this country even greater.  Politics don't have to be complicated, you know.  Don't let anyone tell you that you're committing heresy by changing your party affiliation as much as you like.  In fact, the idea that anyone would accuse me of a grave religious sin based on my party affiliation is insulting:  I should be able to move freely between political parties, because my God doesn't swing left or right.  Voicing your political distaste doesn't have to start and end with your vote, as I have so aptly learned:  the Independent vote is just starting to become a bigger slice of the pie, and I'm willing to let the politicians figure out just how to earn that vote.

Edited at 10:08 p.m.: CNN is reporting that yet "another" centrist Democrat will not seek re-election due to his disgruntlement with Congress, left bloggers and partisanship. There are five open seats for Dems and six open seats for Republicans for the upcoming November elections.

Edited at 10:15 p.m.:  Just noticed the homepage title of the above-quoted article reads thusly:  "Too tough for a centrist?  Bayh retiring".  You betcha.  Instead of being favorably described as bipartisan or compromising, centrists are frequently viewed as weak, waffling and/or floaters in the unforgiving political arena.  The most liberal and conservative wings of each party should tread lightly - if this kind of walk-out continues, what will the fractioning of the two dominant parties do to American politics?

Red, Blue, Purple, It's All the Same

You know those ads for "Divided We Fail," with the purple donkeyphant (Elenkey? Delephant? Whatever it is)? It's a great concept. There's nothing better than to reach across the aisle and shake hands with an opponent and to figure out what's best for this country, not bickering about who's conservatively liberal or liberally conservative. Too liberal, too Neocon, religious freaks, baby killers, too female, not black enough, on and on and ON. (What's with the labeling, people?)

In essence, while it's great to have a team to be on and use to identify yourself politically, the game centers around one thing: elections. The Super Bowel* (*hah! True typo there! I shall leave it) or World Series of Washington DC. No matter what elected officials do in office, they do it so they can stay there. And in the USA, elections come down to two teams: Republicans and Democrats, the Reds and Blues. Hence the reason why Divided We Fail asks the two teams to compromise for the sake of the people, to stop playing the game once it's over, and to make some stinkin' progress on issues that mean most (stinkin' progress being my own words).

But Divided We Fail, while a noteworthy cause, also is endorsed by a certain organization that the Reds and Blues would court for reelection, sickeningly, over and over, because they include a huge percentage of the American voting bloc that may very well spell trouble without their support: the AARP. Interestingly enough, the website states this on its front page:

We believe that health care and financial security are the most pressing domestic issues facing our nation.

Considering the baby boomer generation is approaching AARP membership, this statement is not at all surprising. I think of how our health care infrastructure might cripple beneath the declining health of the baby boomers, notwithstanding the fact that most of this country is terribly overweight. Financial security? Just put it into a $75 tank of gas in a rental minivan on a trip to Missouri this past weekend. That's only for one tank of gas. (I'll keep my beat-up 2002 lil ol' Sunfire, thanks.) My IRA rollover is holding surprisingly well, considering I made back about 5% of what I had lost over the past year.

The problem is, the aging generations need these things, but what about the rest of us? I doubt the implied "United We Stand" slogan will happen soon. We like the game too much. We like to sit around the water coolers and argue about who will get to the White House this year. We groan and complain about talking heads on CNN following candidates' every move. But you know what? We like it. Either we like the game or we like to complain about it - either way, we all want a seat in the stadium to watch, to cheer, to boo.

Thusly, both my husband and I have decided that we don't want to belong to either party. We live in an Independent household now. I don't want to be the religious freak or the Neocon (as I've heard pro-life folks tend to be labeled). Nor do I want my environmental activism, freedom of speech and my right to privacy to label me liberal or tree-hugger. I am not either - not even both. Hi, my name's Becky! That's who I am.

Perhaps my aversion to being defined by my political affiliation is testament to the fact that I don't like being tied down to one thing all the time (save my poor husband) - I like trying new things, seeing new places, trying new foods. Then again, I'm also sick of seeing a game that never really quite finds a winner, teams who bicker back and forth constantly in the off-season, and the pressure on me to wear the team colors. Maybe being Independent gives me some other kind of label, but blissfully, I am unaware for now.

Repeat After Us

When I first changed the name of this blog to rumi∞nation, I knew that the niche I wanted to settle my writing self in - one that will constantly be populated by new information and one, ironically, populated also by me, the media - was going to be a journey I'd started long ago, sitting in a college classroom in Erie, PA, exploring what we call language.

What is language, exactly? In the most basest of terms, it is merely an organized uttering of sounds from our vocal cords, or a series of dots and lines bent on the page. But then throw in culture, birthplace, geographical location, accent, and several other variables, and we find that these uttered sounds are both a constant and variable in themselves, the way our parents teach us how to understand those sounds and what they mean, even attaching the visual cue of language with those dots and lines, and making it a cohesive way of understanding, and communicating with, other humans. Yet while language is what binds the human race together, so it also forces us apart, in ways such that the utterances of Arabic are vastly different from those of Mandarin or, if you're from the part of the world I hail from, you'd know that language used by folks in Erie and Pittsburgh set themselves apart from the rest of the Northeast US.

(I understand that there are many other ways of communication with other humans, including nonvisual cues and sign languages, secret handshakes and even Morse code, but my interest is in that of what American media uses, chiefly written and spoken language, that I would like to address here today. As you can see, the concept of language is incredibly complicated, and one that I have only started to explore on my own beginning with my college years. This will not be the last time I return to this subject, so please bear with me as we scratch the surface together.)

The American media, as you have all seen, has used a curious way of manipulating language. I truly believe that, with a First Amendment-protected media, one must not take it all at face value, and understanding that what constitutes "news" in my parents' generation is not the same as it is today. It's a curious phenomenon when I visit my in-laws, when we all sit down and watch the 6 o'clock news in the evening. I realized that since I got married, I didn't watch the news anymore; I went online to get it. I subscribed to the local paper just to get the comics and the movie listings, one of those "just in case" situations, and even then I only got the Sunday paper. With the newspapers and news anchors giving me the information, I found that their choice of language (and, therefore, the news) was not something I was fond of.

My nitpicking of this not only found me to start looking at other sources of news other than the American media, but to also realize that I didn't like a news anchor choosing the words for me. Although I worked for the school newspaper in college, I realized that I was given the utterly huge responsibility of choosing the words to tell a story to the rest of the campus, and that their words to describe it were probably vastly different from mine (notwithstanding the fact that I was bound to AP-type rules and a relatively airtight filter of words I was not allowed to use, as well as keeping the reading to a 5th-grade level.)

Coming from this angle, of one person who has both experienced the media language from outside and within, I took much exception with this blog entry by a certain Mr. Jack Cafferty of CNN, who seemed quite on the offensive when he found out that Senator Clinton had thrown a swipe at the media, even accusing her of "whining" about the questions delivered on some of her more recent debates. He says: "It's a tactic as old as politics: things aren't going well, blame the media."

Oh, Jack. If only you knew the influence your words have on some people in this country. Sir, you seem to come from a line of thought that you are reporting "just the facts, ma'am." I beg to differ. While the American media is perhaps not directly responsible for Clinton's seemingly downward spiral in this election, you fail to recognize that too many people take your word as unerring fact, even when you willingly write a blog entry that is not based in cold, hard, number-calculating fact. I heartily disagree with your quickness to separate yourself from the huge influence, good or not, on anyone's campaign. What do you and your media cronies choose to report about Senator Clinton? Let's see: CNN has been quick to report any time Clinton sheds a tear or lashes an angry word. Do you wonder if you or your superiors are making this news because, alas, she is merely a woman and her emotions are fair game to the media? Ah, but now look what words I have put into your mouth!

Let's try a different angle, readers: How many of you have taken a gander at the English language version of al Jazeera online? How many of you just gasped right now for me publishing that in this blog? Al Jazeera is not the enemy, folks; you should check it out sometime. BBC is a pretty interesting read, but there's nothing like reading some of the things that our Muslim counterparts are checking out on their own media outlets.

I will admit that I do not publish much from non-American news outlets, but then again, my reading audience is interested in popular media, and a good percentage of them are American. But the byline of this blog states what I am trying to do by calling attention and shedding a much less favorable light on American media: an attempt to discover common sense we lost by exploring popular media. I believe that most of the general American public has lost some of their common sense by swallowing a lot of what is fed to us through the media outlets without so much as a morsel of a question mark with it. I'm not attacking when we report on the number of casualties abroad, for instance; it's folks like Jack Cafferty that, while he does echo some of my sentiments about a broad range of subjects, also perpetrate the myth that the American media indemnifies itself from the influence it has on those constantly in its spotlight. This is the language we are trained to understand, but truly, it's not the only one that we have the capability to understand; there are more out there. Many, many more.

So, Mr. Cafferty, you have more influence than you realize, but this is not wholly a compliment to you or your American media chums. While your contribution is most intriguing, understand that if CNN were ignored during Super Tuesday, I predict there would have been a struggle, albeit a successful one, to figure out the language on our own. After all, if this is truly a free media, that means we have the power to create, write, and speak our own media, correct? Could it be that the media is only what we, the American people, can make it? I believe it has the potential to be much more malleable that you or I realize.

Ballot Power

War time is never a good time for any people. If you think back to World War II, there were very few good things about it - sure, the economy remained buoyant because of the working female class while their husbands fought against all sorts of Axis evil forces. But remember how thousands upon thousands died? Remember Pearl Harbor? You didn't have to be alive; strikes against U.S. soil have notoriously been swiftly returned with brute force. There's death, there's finger pointing, there's arguments and, most of all, plenty of anger.

This country is seeing a lot of anger right now: Anger about the war, anger about subprime mortgages, anger about the sinking economy, anger about gas prices. Yet when I read articles like this, I find that anger (when incorrectly used) becomes a dangerous motivator that will, essentially, bite you in the ass.

You know, I was never a fan of the California left, even when the Governator was elected and re-elected. He's a great governor, don't get me wrong; but there really is a thing as flying too far left for my own comfort. Here, in Berkeley, the City Council has taken it upon themselves to pass a measure urging the U.S. Marines office downtown to vacate their offices. They urge locals to nonviolently protest these offices of "uninvited and nonwelcome intruders." The protesters who took up City Council's invitation claim that the military has given fake promises to our youth promising money, education and jobs, and have not capitalized on that promise. Further, they allege that the military is merely recruiting people to go die in the senseless war in Iraq.

In Charlotte York's first husband's words: All righty. You want the military to leave your city? Then watch as the conservative right swings back: the Semper Fi Act of 2008 has been introduced, and if it passes, it stipulates that because of Berkeley City Council's measure, they will rescind more than $2 million from Berkeley and transfer it to the Marine Corps.

Of course, neither side is backing down. A spokesperson for the Corps recruiting branch issued a statement that there's no way they're leaving, especially when folks are merely exercising their First Amendment rights. The protesters argue they're not going to give up until they pack up and leave, and one goes as far to say "We are the civilian population; we control the military. We the people have to take back control of our military."

Ok, look. This is true; we would not be a free country if we did not have control over our military. But we don't tell our folks where to go in times of war - our President does. That's the way we control our military, by electing their Commander in Chief. We the people have control over a lot of things in our country, but it's only because WE ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE for those in office, not because we ourselves determine the law. We elect people to represent our feelings about these kinds of things; that's the only control we have. If they're so incensed with the war, they should be using their time to research which candidate they're electing to Pennsylvania Avenue in 2008. The ballot is the true power that the American people have. They should not be driving a small constituent of protesters asking the Marines to leave their city.

Further, I would like to see what would happen if someone voluntarily rescinded their right to military protection. I sleep in a warm bed at night because my government, no matter what dingbats we claim them to be, still protects our home land. I don't sleep, eat, walk, work or blog in fear because I wonder if my government will come take me away if I say something wrong against them. I can have as many or few babies I darn well please. I can leave my house with or without a head covering; it's my choice. I can choose to go to a church or mosque or not even believe in a God, because no government official is going to care what otherworldly things I do or do not believe in.

Yes. There are a lot of things I can and cannot do because of our elected officials; ergo, our military. That'll be the day if I ever dismiss that kind of protection.

Super Tuesday, Super Election

I know none of us can get away from the Presidential elections, but in all honesty, I have to pose this question: Has there been any election in the past decade (dare I say two decades?) that has garnered such coverage because we know that the Democratic party has made history by guaranteeing either a minority or female candidate in the final dash?

Let's face it, the election is starting to get somewhat exciting. There are candidates actively asking for my vote because I'm young (WASP-ish candidates never really cared for the young vote in times past - you always hear about the minority vote, the retired/elderly vote, and the female vote, even the working class vote, but no "youth vote.") As Super Tuesday approaches, and as I prepare to face the Republican poll machine, I'm already wrestling with this choice: How do I vote now if I decide to cross party lines in November?

I think this article in TIME shows that the primaries have changed, not only to make history for this country electing a minority or female President, but that there is someone in the election speaking specifically to the under-30 crowd. Someone who has Pennsylvania Ave. in their sights is telling me that my vote is important to them. No one's ever done that before. I feel so special!

All joking aside, though, I think this is also what Ron Paul had going for him on the Republican side, but he just doesn't have the star power that Obama does. He doesn't talk as smooth, either, but the man has appealed to youth by speaking with a fresh voice that doesn't use such politic-esque language, the same talking-head gibber-gabber that we've been accustomed to listening to since the discovery of newspaper, radio and television (and that's a freaking long time, dear readers.) Even when the words "gold standard" crept into references about Ron Paul, he was still able to raise startling amounts of money while clinging to the primaries, outlasting Rudy Giuliani and hoping to slough off some votes from the now-popular war hero McCain, smooth-coiffed Romney and conservative WASP-next-door Huckabee.

I remember in the 1980s my parents crossing party lines when they found out that Democrats were pro-choice, staunchly walking away from the liberal half and discovering that their once-liberal views weren't so liberal any more. I faced a similar decision once Bush was elected again and watched the body count tick higher and higher in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not because my once-conservative views weren't so conservative any more. Even after this election, I'm not so sure I want to be affiliated with either party.

But who did I have to choose from in the primaries since I was legally able to vote? Well, if I could have voted in 1996, I doubt I would have voted for Bob Dole, but that didn't matter, because there was the male Clinton, who was already in office when I turned 18, and was the sound favorite for reelection. After that, I've had the immense enjoyment of having to choose between Bush and, well, no one else in 2004; and McCain or Bush in 2000. To be honest, I have no clue who Alan Keyes was, and at 20 years of age, I had no interest in researching him, and so had crossed him off my list.

Perhaps this is why the youth vote has not been discovered until now. Presidential candidates and the under-30 crowd never were able to find a language they could speak together. If there was a campaign at a campus, they sure weren't at the one I was at, and I have an inkling that the only ones who cared were the ultra-conservative campus newspaper reporters and the college brass. But even I worked for the ultra-conservative newspaper and was more worried about securing pictures for the water polo match than figuring out who was getting my vote. But now, even if it's just a handful, there are Presidential hopefuls calling my name and telling me my vote is important to them - nay, that "we" are important and a crucial part of the election process. For Generation-Y, that's just the ego booster we need to begin caring about the elections.

Ron Paul's $6M surprise

As the holidays bear down on all of us, probably bringing all kinds of holiday cheer and stress, the last thing you probably want to read about is anything about the Presidential elections. Alas, the first primaries are coming so soon! There's less than a year until the United States chooses a new President, and there are plenty of options, so I suggest you start here.

One of the reasons Ron Paul is so newsworthy is partly because of three words: no income tax. He made quite a splash a few months ago with suggesting this and also pledging never to raise taxes (who says they would?), but that wasn't the least of it. According to Wikipedia:

Paul has been described as conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian.[2] He advocates an attenuated, non-interventionist foreign policy, having voted against actions such as the Iraq War Resolution, but in favor of force against terrorists in Afghanistan. He favors withdrawal from NATO and the United Nations. Having pledged never to raise taxes, he has long advocated ending the federal income tax and reducing government spending by abolishing most federal agencies; he favors hard money and opposes the Federal Reserve. He also opposes the Patriot Act, the federal War on Drugs, and gun control. Paul is strongly pro-life, advocates overturning Roe v. Wade; and affirms states' rights to determine the legality of abortion.[3]

I'm not sure about the whole NATO/United Nations thing; the one thing that this country needs is better foreign policy. But guys like him and Mike Huckabee are making a huge run and putting pressure on the other Repubs, notably Guilani and Romney. I have a feeling that this time around, America is going to be shouting for some "different" politicians than your average cookie-cutter pol in tailored suit and red or blue tie.

Well folks, it's off to the East Coast for me. I'll be blogging from a snowy location, don't worry, but I'll be out of action for the next couple days.

Sharp[ton]'s Container

CNN has reported that The Rev. Al Sharpton, one of the several Democratic Presidential hopefuls from 2004, is outraged that a federal probe is being opened to investigate that particular Presidential bid, including subpoenas to 10 of his associates for financial information from the bid, some of his for-profit businesses, and even personal financial information from Sharpton and his spouse. A hearing is set for the day after Christmas.

Sharpton, apparently, is angry about the whole thing, saying that it was "suspicious" that a probe was being opened so shortly before another Presidential campaign, and also because of his involvement in the Jena Six case, among others.

Can someone clear up when Sharpton hasn't been angry about this kind of thing? Anyone? The guy makes his living and his place in the spotlight by getting angry about all sorts of grave injustices, but this, I'm afraid, is quite a stretch, even for the Reverend. First: Since when has Al Sharpton not been involved in anything that includes a racially charged case or event? He's all over the news when blacks are at the injustice of the American system. He's on the news all the time. I doubt this is why the feds opened an investigation about him; the FBI and IRS are notoriously pokey about these kinds of things, and they've probably been tailing something suspicious since Sharpton abandoned his bid. It's not because you support the Jena Six, Reverend, I can tell you that much.

Second: You're not the only one who has been questioned about your Presidential bid, sir. Former VP Al Gore was grilled by Justice Department lawyer and released this transcript. Heck, even if Sharpton were elected President, the amount of federal probing going on should tell him that he is not being profiled - some of the most notorious investigations did indeed involve the Top Dude in the White House which, last time I checked, has always held someone white in color.

So, Rev. Sharpton, please don't flatter yourself too much. We all appreciate what you are doing to promote the equal treatment of blacks in this country, but blowing your top while promoting that agenda is unnecessary and, quite frankly, tiring and nearly cliche.

In possibly related news, I wonder if more black men took this kind of initiative to instead turn the finger inwards, just once in a while, to examine how they might help the civil rights agenda. (I'm not saying all black men are irresponsible babydaddys - take the tone of the article into consideration.) Everyone would do good to examine their conscience every once in a while, for sure, not just blacks. But the fact remains that there are going to be just as many people angered by Sharpton's outbursts as helped by it. Can we all find common, peaceful ground someday in which to start a discussion? Mudslinging never did anyone's campaign any good, Presidential or not.

Santa is a Double Entendre

So, you've probably heard it by now. Political correctness has reached into the folds of every religious, political, social and ethnic scenario, but it hits especially hard when the Christmastime standby for children, Santa Claus himself, is caught in the crossfire.

The Daily Telegraph reports that Westaff, a firm who recruits - well, among others - Santas, has instructed Australian Santas to replace "ho, ho, ho" with "ha, ha, ha," citing that the firm is fearful that the former term will scare kids and even imply a derogatory phrase to women. What is interesting to me is that news.com.au reports nothing about the derogatory undertones, and even the BBC has relegated this story to their children's version of their site, with no mention of women of ill repute.

Oh yes. But in America, dear readers, someone saw the words "derogatory" and "ho" in the same sentence and, while perusing CNN and FOX news, it seems that the fact that Westaff has mentioned its PC fears are being gobbled up greedily by our equality-crazed society.

The fact that I just wrote "equality-crazed society" makes me laugh, because not to mention the fact that no one has dared venture into the realm of a white guy saying "ho ho ho" was derogatory, or the fact that black rappers get away with it (and the women in their music videos seem to even like it!), we are indeed a long way off from everyone being "equal" here. But, there is a story for everything, so where does "ho, ho, ho" even come from?

From Wikipedia, a note about Santa Clause's American origins:

Later popularization was L. Frank Baum's The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus, a 1902 children's book. Much of Santa Claus's mythos was not set in stone at the time, leaving Baum to give his "Neclaus" (Necile's Little One) a wide variety of immortal support, a home in the Laughing Valley of Hohaho, and ten reindeer which could not fly, but leapt in enormous, flight-like bounds.

This probably doesn't explain the origin of ho, ho, ho, but I thought it interesting nonetheless. In fact, I haven't been able to find where the phrase comes from yet.

What is most interesting, however, is that Santa himself based on several different stories and figures, but primarily based on the Christian figure St. Nicholas. Earlier parallels of similar figures from German and Dutch folklore also can be seen in our modern-day Santa. Even according to the Dutch, we're pronouncing it wrong: It should be Sinterklass, which in turn is a further different pronunciation from Sint Nicolaas. (Reference)

The fact remains, then, that the term "ho, ho, ho" is likely very much a modern take on Santa Claus, something that has not been around for ages. In fact, Santa's elves, his reindeer and his handmade toys in his shop are very modern ideas. It's all part of the Santa evolution, so to speak.

I do want my kid to know about Santa, but I also want to learn where Santa really came from, his roots in history and not just learning about him from Christmas cartoons and commercials. Maybe that makes me a spoiler of the Christmas spirit... but I disagree. Who really knows the spirit of Christmas? I mean, how did Christmas become the secularized poster holiday of the year? Anyone look into the origins of Valentine's Day? How about St. Patrick's Day? Even Easter has been bitten by the consumerism bug.

Look, as much as it will pain people for me to say this, there are a lot of "secular" holidays that we celebrate that do not have secular roots. Before we jump into the huge debate pool about why we're stealing away "ho, ho, ho" from Santa Claus, maybe we should figure out everything else we've stolen away from him in the past first. And that's about, oh, two centuries' worth of origins and folklore to get through.

Get OUT of my home!

I often wonder what would happen to our country if we started surrendering many of our rights to the government to police for us. Like raising our kids. I bet the government can do it better than I can, for sure! (Please do note the sarcasm in these words.) I bet it would take care of the illegal immigration debate, for one - no one would want to come here if that were the case.

Yet here is a print article, and a video of the interview with the nurse who convinced a Massachusetts state representative to introduce the bill to ban corporal punishment - in other words, this bill includes spanking.

It was one thing for the Patriot Act to let the government come in and listen in on our phone calls. Even if you have nothing to hide, I don't live here in America so they can take away my privacy. But it's quite another when someone wants to decide what I can and cannot do with disciplining my child.

Spanking has been a controversy among parents for ages, so I'll state this: Spanking is rare but necessary. I choose a time-out (which she utterly hates) over spanking, and I've never used an instrument such as a belt or a paddle. But some days, they need that snap back to reality, a bit of a sting to get them back in the moment, not just to "sit and think about what they've done."

Rep. Jay Kaufman mentions in the video that "it's not about criminalizing behavior; it's a matter of changing our behavior." Ah, but you are suggesting to criminalize behavior, and using the money from the fines to build a public awareness program to educate the public. Doesn't that seem backwards to you, folks? Let the parents break the law first, make them pay, and THEN tell them how to discipline their kids the "right" way. Make the kids get a spanking first before we tell them what the parents did wrong!

But laws tend to suppress behavior which usually morphs into another. Tax law is probably a classic example. Everyone who knows tax law knows there are ways to build up your capital without paying taxes on it. There's all sorts of loopholes in those thousands of pages; it's just a matter of knowing how to get through them, and the smart ones manipulate the system to their advantage legally. I don't even want to know what kind of punishment some parents might come up with for their kids without touching them. Are they going to pass a law stating what we can and cannot say to our kids, too? How about only certain times when we can ground them or take away their Nintendo?

Yet the FOX news article says that Rep. Kaufman is not taking a stand on the issue. Well, Rep. Kaufman, if you're going to let your left hand do one thing while your right does another, then let me know when you sync up, and I'll listen to you.

The nurse who convinced the proposal of the bill, Kathleen Wolf, even asserts that a small "swat on the seat" is not abuse. But the bill bans all corporal punishment. Look, I know I just wrote about Riley and the horrors of abuse at the hands of her mother and her mother's boyfriend. The systems in place to protect kids from abuse is overburdened and the reports of abuse have apparently skyrocketed (no numbers provided by CNN). Public education is a good start, I suppose, but is no one listening to these people when a "crime" has to be committed FIRST before they bother to educate others? Who gets to be the poster child for this kind of bill? I feel sorry for the one who does.

What I'm interested in is if Massachusetts actually passes this bill into law. How will this be enforced? Will the police be given the right to enter a home without due process to inspect our children for bruises? What if my kid just fell down the stairs? Does that give DSS or the police the right to whisk away my kids at the slightest cry, even when I caught her doing something wrong? What will the judicial system have to say when a DA is ready to prosecute the first parent under this law, setting a precedent for all cases to follow it? That, to me, is even scarier than the bill passing into law. What will happen to parents who are rightfully, safely, disciplining their children and yet are put on the same pedestal as those who killed Riley?

These are the questions we need to ask before any law goes into effect. That's what the three branches of government are here fore, checks and balances. But I don't need Big Brother in my home making sure I raise a law-abiding American citizen who will obey tax law without a slap on the hand or on the butt.

Welcome to Politics, Kid

Poor girl. I'd almost think that this should be news, but in reality, who would be surprised? When public image is the only thing worth to Presidential hopefuls, I'm sure they don't want someone to pull another Kerry-esque risk and have another Tasering incident at their rallies. I'd bet my winter beater car that they all do this.

To wear or not to wear, Part Deux

Remember the whole flap about Sen. Obama taking off his American flag pin? Well, it looks like there are some people trying to catch him again in his "non-patriotic" self.

This is why things taken out of context run rabid in our free press, by the way.

There is a video/snapshot being circulated via email of Sen. Obama at a steak fry in September with Sen. Clinton and Gov. Bill Richardson. The picture shows Clinton and Richardson with their hands over their hearts, while Sen. Obama has his at his sides, appearing as though they are looking towards the American flag. Yet the email alleges that at this point in time, Sen. Obama "refused" to say the Pledge of Allegiance or place his hand over his heart.

Ah, the power of photos, right? They're worth a thousand words? But not a thousand sounds. Sen. Obama responded, rightfully frustrated, "During the Pledge of Allegiance you put your hand over your heart, during the National Anthem you sing." Yes, in that photo at that point in time, they were singing the National Anthem. And he's right. You see folks at the baseball games respectfully remove their hats during the Anthem, and some place their hand over their hearts, but usually they're just singing the lyrics off the Jumbo-Tron while a virtual flag flies in the background. But remember in kindergarten, every morning, you had to get up out of your seat and stare at the American flag posted front and center over the chalkboard, and hold your heart and say the Pledge?

Yes, it seems the most important things we learned were in kindergarten.

To wear or not to wear?

Lou Dobbs has written an editorial that defends the reason why he still wears his American flag lapel pin - full article is here.

He defines the controversy around why people are wearing these flag pins as pure "lunacy," and I agree with him on that. Yet again, the pols in this country are nitpicking everything apart to pieces, throwing mud while dodging it at the same time. It never ends, does it? And of course, it doesn't help that this kind of debate has been sparked in both wartime and election time in this country, especially when a Presidential hopeful has put away his lapel pin, and Dobbs has blasted this gentleman's choice and reasoning for doing so.

Sen. Barack Obama has put away his pin and reasons that his words will suffice as defining him as an American. Dobbs counters that this is "arrogant" and Obama is "horribly mistaken." Then there's Katie Couric, who takes exception when Americans use the flag to refer to us as "we," even though we are all Americans here and what singly does unite us is the soil we live on.

All right. Couric and Obama have their points, but I think Couric is ridiculous to say that we can't refer to ourselves as "we" when there is clearly something that unites us all in this country. Further, I believe Obama's quest for being an American versus wearing it on his sleeve is a very fine goal indeed. Show us how to be a patriot by doing and saying, and not by sticking a pin and saying "NOW I'm an American! Found the missing piece to the puzzle, finally!" It's as if by wearing these pins, the journalism and political communities are saying "Look at ME, DAMN IT, I'm a freaking AMERICAN! That's RIGHT! This is BETTER than my damn passport, beeyotches, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it!" I'd rather not that be the message conveyed.

Dobbs points out that he also disagrees with those journalists who say the absence of the pin indicates neutrality and utmost objectivity. I must agree on this point. To quote Lewis Black, take a globe and look at it - "See? Countries!" To bear an American flag is to assert your citizenship to one of the many on this globe, but not to wear it doesn't take away my citizenship, and certainly will not take an American's objectivity away. It's in our blood, in our money, in our homes. For Pete's sake, we're watching American news while eating our American dinners in our American homes and working in our American jobs while paying our American taxes. The absence of a pin isn't going to change where we were born and raised or our "American-ness."

Let's face it, guys, whether Obama wears his pin or not, he still an American citizen, for crying out loud. And so are the journalists who don't wear their pins on the air. Further, I find it laughable that our country is so mired in its own culture and not more attentive to others, that we could dare question someone's objectivity on the basis of a pin. How many Americans have truly bothered to research and truly understand Islam? How many know that Ramadan is about to come to a close this week? How many truly know about both the advantages and issues of socialized health care and bilingual countries? You only have to look north to our neighbors, and even then, our American eyes are so short-sighted that we can't get past our own TVs.

But here's my beef, and it includes Mr. Dobbs: This whole issue with the pin is the high school equivalent of who was and was not wearing their school colors on pep rally day. Those who were wearing neutral colors were cast aside and questioned, even though it didn't change the fact that they were still going to the high school. Wearing the American flag pin has turned into a popularity contest, the ultimate trend to be in on, the accessory one should never leave their house without. Again, let's reflect on what Lewis Black says about this war: Just because you are not for the war, it DOES NOT mean you are for the other side. Just because you don't wear your flag pin DOES NOT mean you're for the other side, Mr. Dobbs.

Now that Obama has been questioned as not being "black" enough, and Hillary has been questioned as not being "female" or "feminine" enough (whatever the HELL that means), now we're questioning our candidates and pols as being "American" enough. How many levels of femininity are there? Or blackness, or American-ness? Has anyone counted? Can we pay some scientists to look into this, please, and clear this up once and for all?

Perhaps it is time for us to look at the globe, then, and see that there is one single thing that unites us all - our species, our humanity. The very essence of what and who we are are the very things that make us all connected in some way, even when we set against each other in war. There are no levels of humanity, unfortunately. Even if you're born in America, there's no on stopping you from obtaining citizenship in Canada or elsewhere. But once a human, always a human.

And if you're not wearing a pin, I promise to keep my nose clean, and yours too, of course. Just because Obama isn't wearing his pin does not mean I may or may not withhold my vote from him. I'm more interested in seeing what he does and not what he wears.