Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Israel chooses to make a bad situation worse the worse situation worst

I don't blog on Israel too much, the reason for this is two-fold:
  1. I'm severely conflicted where Israel and her actions as a sovereign nation are concerned
  2. Discussions about Israel leave me with a huge headache that comes with bashing one's head against a brick wall
Outside of Israel, the only support the country gets is from a mixture of Jews who are so acutely aware of antisemitism they see it everywhere to the point their support of Israel is a knee-jerk reaction and moderate Jews (like myself) who have a bit of a love:hate relationship with the country, and Evangelical Christians who will use their "support of Israel" for political gain (see: GOP) but really just want control of Jerusalem to fulfill their religious prophecy. The rest of the world is pretty much stacked against Israel - Israel (and Jews who support her in any way) are the biggest unifying force between the extremes of the left and right in the US. I do not look for antisemitism everywhere, nor do I believe every accusation of antisemitism but the truth remains that a lot of the world's stance against Israel has a core of institutionalized antisemitism. Human Rights groups & the UN are quick to jump all over Israel as an affront to civilized nations on the human rights front while often, but not always, ignoring similar or worse infractions of other countries - especially Arab ones (especially when those infractions and acts of terrorism are against Jews). Israel, like all countries, should be taken to task for actual human/civil rights violations - I just worry when one country (which is not as bad as so many others) is held out more in what appears to be motivated as much by politics as it is by any concern for human rights. Groups, such as British Academics, are quick to [attempt to] take punitive action against Israeli academics to protest complicity with Israel's actions (it's not without irony that British Academics take offense to any sort of occupation) when the same organizations have never even considered taking similar actions against private citizens of countries that support terrorism of any kind. It's all very one-sided and saying something shouldn't be construed as antisemitic doesn't mean that antisemitism is in play.

In truth, Israel is held to a higher standard than any other country. When Israel is attacked, she alone must show restraint. When she loses her temper and responds in kind, she alone is criticized - when that is pointed out, those criticizing her accuse the country of acting like an immature child pointing out that someone else started it. Let's get it straight here folks, this isn't two toddlers fighting over toys or a little pushing between siblings, this is a case of terrorists supported by Israel's neighbors (and Hamas, the terrorist organization cum political party, which stands as the elected rulers of the Palestinians) targeting Israeli citizens with guns, bombs, etc. Turning the other cheek to show some "moral superiority" has gotten Israel nothing - she's still routinely and unilaterally condemned, she still has to let terrorists out of jail en masse and, unlike other countries, she will still have to return land won in war and, for this, her people understandably don't have any reasonable expectation of any peace or good will towards them.

In the face of this, Israel's choice to go bat-guano crazy on Hamas's proverbial arse was far from wise. It is, in fact, probably the single-most ill-advised & self-destructive thing she has ever done. The whole world needs to take both sides to task for this constant war and, if necessary, come together to mandate a resolution upon them that must be honored as any cross-border act of aggression (including those acts by proxies) will serve to allow one side to respond in kind with the full support of the world.

UPDATE: I meant to include the Link to JStreet's petition for the US to take action to stop the violence in Gaza now

tags:; ; ; ;

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, December 25, 2008

The War On Christmas: The War Within

Every year at Christmastime which, sometimes, starts as early as Halloween, I start what seems to be a tradition of posts on the so-called "War on Christmas." The now annual battles start with Christianity's biggest loudest, most obnoxious and, by default, morally superior defenders throwing down the gauntlet to challenge anyone who shows lack of respect for one of the most holy Christian holidays for the heinous and heretical transgressions of holding "holiday" parties, "holiday" sales, sending "holiday" cards and, in the case of retailers, having staff use a "happy holidays" greeting. The complaints of the Christmas Warriors (Fox News, American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Bill Donahue, et al.) is that these people/corporations are blaspheming the holiday by rendering their commercialization and mass marketing too generic. In short, these offenders are not bastardizing Christmas enough for the taste of the holiday defenders.

The common meme of my posts tends to focus on that particular point and the logical conclusion that, if the goal really is to protect and preserve a religious holiday, the Christmas Warriors should actually be lauding the actions they fight and turn their fiery rhetoric against excessive use of their holiday to worship at the church of the almighty buck.

The truth is, though, that there is a bit of war on Christianity in this country. Ironically, it's a war coming from within the ranks of the diverse Christian community itself (including the Christmas Warriors) and the heart of that war is Christmas. The Puritans, the people from which the current crop of fundamentalists grew, didn't celebrate Christmas. As a matter of fact they tried to suppress it in the colonies by outlawing and fining celebration of the holiday. Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans continued to consider Christmas to be a holy day of obligation but the rest of post Protestant reformation Christianity didn't, exactly, join in the celebrations. It wasn't until mass German immigration to the US that Christmas celebrations boomed here and it became an American holiday as opposed to a religious one
Only with the arrival of German immigrants after the Civil War did it emerge as the major American feast. With the revolution in retailing--marked by the rise of department stores and advertising--celebrations focused on throwing parties, buying and giving gifts, and sending greeting cards (first sold in 1874, they became a million dollar business within a few years). The Coca-Cola Co. adopted as its logo a jolly bearded man in a red and white suit, and Santa bypassed Jesus as Christmas' main icon. Slate
The holiday has even become less religious as more and more Protestant (including those on the front of the religious-culture wars) churches close on Christmas Day
But however they spend Christmas Day — "the feast of Christmas" on the Christian liturgical calendar — one way most Americans don't celebrate it is by going to church. While demand for Christmas Eve celebrations is so high that some churches hold as many as five or six different services on the 24th of December, most Protestant churches are closed on the actual religious holiday. For most Christians, Christmas is a day for family, not faith.

If that sounds like the triumph of culture over religion, it is. By the middle of the 20th century, Americans had embraced a civil religion that among other things elevated the ideal of family to a sacrosanct level. The Norman Rockwell image of family gathered around the tree became a Christmas icon that rivaled the baby Jesus. And Christmas Eve services — with their pageantry and familiar traditions — became just one part of the celebration, after the family dinner and before the opening of presents. Time

So while the Christmas Warriors maintain an easily shattered facade that they are trying to reclaim Christmas as a religious holiday, what they are really doing is reinforcing the holiday as any but religious by continuing to conflate a very narrow view of Christianity with Americana. Why would they do this if the ultimate goal is to protect religion and religious tradition? They do it for all the obvious reasons illuminated above - in making Christmas a patriotic American Mall holiday and then tying it to religion on the back end, they tie Christianity in as a core tenet of US citizenship. There is a war going on, but it isn't about protecting a religious holiday from Atheists and "Sssssssssecularists" (uppity folks of other religions and people who claim to be Christian despite the fact their own politics of tolerance makes them anything but that in the eyes of "real" Christians), this is a war waged by Christian Nationalists against anyone and everyone who does not support the cause of the strictest of Christian Bibles supplanting the Constitution in the determination of civil law. This war on Christmas is nothing more than a way for Christian Nationalists and their supporters to take a figurative wiz on the whole country like an animal marking it's territory.

Happy Christmas!


Tags: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, December 21, 2008

An Uncovered Front in the War on Christmas

David Hiltebrand's article about all the films opening on Christmas Day and how a treck to the movies is the "new" way to celebrate the holiday was one I pretty much ignored in today's Inky. While I have had the fleeting thought that something was amiss when hearing a movie is opening Christmas Day, the thoughts pretty much flew out of my head as quickly as they popped into it. The timing of the movie openings were completely and utterly inconsequential, at least that's what I thought until I read Steven Reynold's commentary in All Spin Zone [emphasis added]:
But it is a fact that going out to the movies has been a Jewish thing to do for some time on Christmas Day. Gentiles have been catching up with this tradition for the last many years, admittedly, but just forty years ago you wouldn’t have seen any Christians at the movies on Christmas Day. Heck, back in the day movie theaters weren’t even open.
At first I thought, "oh yeah, Jews have had the movie Chinese food as Christmas Day tradition for my whole life. . . what's new about this?" and then I re-read the sentence I bolded above and immediately thought why the heck aren't these people in church (or at least honoring Jesus with their families and friends at home)??!? My second thought was, why the hell isn't this front on the war on Christmas being protected by the defenders of all things sacred like Daddy Dobson, Don Wildmon, the gang at Fox and Bill Donohue?

Why is it that Christians are flocking to turn Hollywood schlock into blockbusters on Christmas Day? Is it because many of the biggest of churches are closed on the day they should be jam-packed? My guess is that those great defenders of Jesus are actually a big part of the reason there's little, if any, Christ left in Christmas at all. They are so focused on the marketing and mass merchandising of this holiday that their idea of "keeping Christ in Christmas" amounts to nothing more than crass consumerism and shining examples of false prophesying.

While I don't think Jesus spent his birthdays in shul and am absolutely positive he didn't celebrate at his local cineplex, I'm also pretty darn sure that he didn't preach the importance of showy Christmas sales, the need to make everyone sing his praise as publicly as possible or how to best bastardize his name & story to show your alleged moral superiority to nonbelievers. If those supposed defenders of Christmas actually spent some time reading the teachings of Jesus in their bibles, maybe they'd finally put a little Christ in Christmas themselves and allow everyone to celebrate this season with some dignity.

Happy Chanukah!


Tags: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

Sphere: Related Content

A perverted sense of justice

About 42 years ago, Bill Barnes committed a crime - a nasty, heinous crime that left a young man critically wounded. Walter Barclay, a 23-year old rookie in the Philly police department, was paralyzed after being sprayed with gunfire from Barnes' weapon during an armed robbery.

As a result of the crimes he committed, Barnes was tried and convicted of attempted murder and related crimes. He received a sentence of 10 - 20 years; there are various and inconsistent reports of how long Barnes actually served, it seems as though he spent at least 12 years in jail for this crime. A career criminal, Barnes spent most of his adult life in jail but eventually got a real job and started speaking to various groups about the many mistakes he made in his life.

Barclay spent most of the year after the shooting in rehab. His condition improved over time and he eventually regained some use of his legs that enabled him to walk a little with the use of leg braces and ride a stationary bike for a bit. Barclay's goal was to gain some sense of normalcy and independence

"The main thing for my brother after he got shot was to be independent," said his sister, Rosalyn Harrison. "He did everything for himself: He cooked, he cleaned, he shopped. None of us were allowed to do anything."

He was thrilled when buddies outfitted his car with special hand controls so he could drive.

"That was his freedom," his sister said. USA Today

That freedom came with it's own complications as Barclay reinjured his spine in 2 car accidents

“The guy started spraying bullets around, and I caught two of them in the back,” Mr. Barclay said in a 1978 interview about the night he was shot. “I got over that pretty much, but then I had a car accident and hurt my back again. Then I had another and hurt my back some more.” NYT

As he aged, Barclay's health deteriorated. At some point in time, he developed hepatitis. By the time he was in his 50s he was bedridden and eventually needed a feeding tube for nutrition. He also had a foley catheter inserted to collect urine. Like many people fitted with a foley, Barclay developed a urinary tract infection (UTI) complications of which resulted in his death a mere 40 years after the shooting.

The Medical Examiner initially ruled the cause of death was natural causes, after prodding to reexamine the case, he ruled it a homicide. Despite having already been tried, convicted and served his sentence for the attempted murder of Barclay, Barnes was charged with the murder of Barclay in 2007. He has not been tried for the murder and has remained in jail since his arrest for that charge. According to a letter in this morning's Inky, Barnes was told he'd be tried last Fall and yet no trial date has been set.

This is not justice. The murder charge & Barnes' continued incarceration are nothing but retribution. There are so many mitigating factors, significant ones which are iatrogenic in nature, in the decline of Barclay's health that calling his death by UTI a homicide is nothing but a sick joke. The chain of events that DA Lynne Abraham uses to justify the charge is so long that no rational human being can rightly say it serves any legitimate purpose, let alone the cost to taxpayers. The case would be considered a stretch even if Mr. Barnes had not already faced trial and served time for this shooting under a different/lesser charge of attempted murder.

There is no statute of limitations on murder. If this were truly a case where it was necessary and appropriate to charge Mr. Barnes with murder, the DA's office should have waited patiently for Barclay to die so they could try Barnes on the more serious charge at a later date. Justice would not have been served by waiting 40+ years to charge him with murder, just as it is not served in charging him now. Based on the facts of the case, one can only surmise that the reason Mr. Barnes sits in jail now, waiting for trial, is because the DA's office is acutely aware they are unlikely to get a conviction in this case and they just want to be able to exact revenge because the person he shot was a police officer. I understand the desire of Mr. Barclay's friends and family to further punish Barnes, but the Lynne Abraham's actions in the matter are illogical, petty, vindictive and downright unjust.


Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, December 20, 2008

The only thing that's attractive about Ne-Yo is his bank account

and in this economy, maybe we can hope that Ne-Yo's ode to High Yellow hits his biggest asset. Ne-Yo recently made the following comments to a couple of radio DJs during an interview
All the prettiest kids is light skinned anyway . . . Essence (and a bunch of other sources too)
The video of the interview in which Ne-Yo decided to reinforce the asinine intra-racial bigotry has been removed from youtube but it was there long enough for people to see Ne-Yo's true colors. This is an ugly little secret within the black community that isn't often seen by the lightest of kids, but the pecking order has carried over since slave days when the lighter-skinned slaves got the house (domestic) jobs and the "darkies" were sent to the fields.

He's not the first black person to make derisive comments about darker skinned people. Sadly, the separation of colors is also seen in many of the music videos made by black (male) rappers who insist on casting only pretty light skinned women.

I guarantee you that the grand pooh-bah of jackassery (that'd be you Ne-Yo) would be pitching a hissy-fit were a public figure to say that all the pretty people are white (or something along the lines that any shade of brown or black was unattractive). All I can say is that Ne-Yo didn't show us that light skinned people are more atractive, he just proved that he is just plain ugly.


Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Good for Civil Rights is Evil for Evangelicals

Like many logical thinking people and organizations who think nobody should be permitted to use their right to freedom of religion to deny rights to others, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has found something reassuring in the statements of former NAE lobbyist, Rev. Richard Cizik
"This week the National Association of Evangelicals lost a good man but even worse it lost credibility as a religious organization that professes to teach the Gospel. Our faith traditions call on us to celebrate, not denounce, our most sacred loving relationships," stated Harry Knox, director of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s Religion and Faith Program. “Jesus calls on us first and foremost to love God and love our neighbor. We are encouraged by the growing number of religious leaders such as Rev. Richard Cizik who are looking with fresh eyes at Scripture’s requirement and wrestling with what justice for their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender neighbors means.HRC
Cizik, if you recall, noted he had shifted in his beliefs and now thinks that civil unions should be permitted [for gays] and that the fundamentalist focus on how to attack teh gay menace that they've lost sight on the biggest threat to the institution of marriage: the challenges of heterosexual marriage.

In response to the heinous support by HRC, Pete LaBarbera - a man disturbingly obsessed with homosexuality, has noted that praise from any organization that thinks homosexuals should be considered human beings with the same rights as all other human beings is a very bad thing
"When you've got HRC praising your theology from a gay perspective, that's a very bad sign. Obviously, Human Rights Campaign wants to redefine the Bible. They don't want homosexuality to be a sin anymore, and they're looking for anybody, especially well-known Christians, to start changing the biblical view of homosexuality," he contends. "That's what Cizik did. He was wrong to do it. He had no biblical basis for doing it." OneNewsNow
Funny that, couldn't the Pope make similar comments about how the Protestant Reformation and resultant doctrinal changes?


Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Where is the Catholic League's Outrage?

Honestly, Bill Donahue (aka the Catholic League) protests everything he considers to to be disrespectful to Catholicism, so why have I not heard a peep about the following tasty bit of blasphemy?

a candy rosary?

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Wingnuttery goes mainstream: The ABCs of lapel pin politics

For those of you who wonder how the wingnuts get regular, generally rational, mainstream/moderate people to support their crazy-assed antics, the percolating new cause célèbre provides us with an inside look. This morning, I received an email from my dad's cousin who (I think) is relatively moderate. The subject line was "Fwd: No Flag pins"
This is true and even though I will have little effect on ABC News revenue I do plan on being careful to not view any program that is on ABC and boycott, if at all possible, the sponsors of ABC. Barbara Walters said that this was going to hurt ABC bad. As you know she works for ABC.

This should make your blood boil...it DOES mine!






This email reminds me of the ones my former Admin, an absolutely bat-guano crazy fundamentalist who slathers herself in Wingnut butter™, forwards to me about secular threats to the US, threats to Christianity, Israel, Messianic Judaism, etc. Oddly, I don't even think the former Admin would jump on this bandwagon, let alone forward it to me and yet, my dad's cousin did. She doesn't know me well, she is after all my father's cousin and one I don't see often. She reached out to me while my mother was dying and I find the fact that she has forwarded a couple of emails regarding political issues as a weird little compliment. I have been more polite when disagreeing with her than I am with Uncle Completely-off-his-rocker (he was off the charts bonkers before the Alzheimer's and the disease has made our sparring partnership significantly less fulfilling for me despite the fact it has not diminished his masochistic‡ enjoyment of it). She was also part of the family thread regarding BHO's impact on Israel, so she has some idea that I am absolutely compelled to interject some rational thought when someone comes at me with an emotional argument.

So, what gives with this chocolate covered poo of a "controversy"? Is it actually something worthy of an action-item, boycott ABC email? Of course not, if Madonna had a financial stake in the network, I'd think she was giving them marketing advice to increase ratings for many of their shows that aren't doing too well (they all seem pretty lame to me, though people do actually watch some of their sillier shows in droves). So what gives to make ABC's decision so controversial that it appears to be the next "war on Christmas"? Like the fake war on Christmas, it creates an antagonist that is presented as taking an extreme action against something so mundane (and yet, so "important") that the action itself must be a sign of something truly sinister and threatening to the entire country. In other words, the ban seems extreme considering the banality of the act being banned and that is a dog whistle mainstreamers hear loudly enough to think something's amiss without seeming weird enough to cause them to wonder about the underlying rationale for the decision.

Truthfully, ABC's decision makes sense. The job of the reporter to is convey a story without bias or distraction. Lapel pins or other insignia can be a distraction because they are items worn with the sole purpose of making some sort of statement. Due to the idiocy of the flag pin focus of the election, which boiled these pins as a way to differentiate people as patriotic or not, the symbolism of the pin became empty at best due to the absolute Bachmannesque McCarthyesque nature of the focus on them.

This being said, my guess, based on the timing of this policy, is that it’s not to prevent anyone from showing their faux patriotism via flag pin, it’s really to prevent the questions and complaints that will come from reporters who may insist on being permitted to wear white knotted ribbons to show solidarity with the LGBT community fighting back against the passing of Prop 8 and similar “let’s use the Constitution as toilet paper “ type legislation and those will could chose to use their lapels to make other statements that take the focus away from what should be an unbiased news report.

‡ I've always suspected he actually agrees with me but is addicted to drama and wants someone else to smack him back to reality when it comes to Israel.


Sphere: Related Content

Confidence lost in Evangelical Reverend who voiced logic

In yet another stunning example of why Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians have a reputation of intolerant bullies who resort to legislative force when their testimony fails to convert you, Evangelical lobbyist Rev. Richard Cizik resigned after having the audacity to inject some common sense into the politics of personal lives. Said Rev. Czik to NPR [emphasis added]:
"I'm shifting, I have to admit. In other words, I would willingly say that I believe in civil unions. . . . We have become so absorbed in the question of gay rights and the rest that we fail to understand the challenges and threats to marriage itself -- heterosexual marriage. Maybe we need to reevaluate this and look at it a little differently." NPR
The National Association of Evangelicals has publicly noted they have lost confidence in Cizik because, in the face of facts, he thought logically and then spoke instead of continuing to echo the distorted view of the NAE and similar organizations that SSM is a direct threat to the institution of marriage in that it somehow mortally injures married heterosexuals and their families. While it's appropriate and understandable for an organization to expect their spokesperson to parrot that organization's views/policies (especially when speaking on behalf of that organization) this incident sheds a light on two different, but equally interesting, tidbits:
  1. There are those within the fundamentalist/evangelical movements who are starting to think critically (judicial) instead of critically (severely judgmental)
  2. The NAE has, as an organization, now (re)confirmed it's commitment to Christian Nationalism in which attesting to a belief in a need for strict, bible literal-when-convenient, adherence to fundamentalist doctrine is the sole definition of patriotism and dissent in word (or by action - but only when the action is done by a "non-Christian") is unpatriotic and, potentially, treasonous.
The latter of the two lifts any remaining veil from the NAE's previous assertion they're not trying to force conversion on non-adherents, just making sure those hell-bent sinners know Jesus's benevolence is matched only by his overbearing father's sure, swift and absolute [negative] judgment of them.

The former, however, gives hope for progressives and devout Christians alike. As clergy and members from the orthodoxy across faiths take a step back to view their faith, religion and politics with a clear head and some degree of objectivity, they may well see that the so-called religious right and their hijacking of the GOP (and, even, the political process) has not only sullied our government, it's intercalated into the fabric of their very religion itself. Will Rogers once said "mixing politics and religion is like mixing manure and ice cream. It doesn't do much to the manure but it surely does ruin the ice cream". Progressives recognize that those espousing that a civically rooted government and legislation (aka "Secularism") is the safest and wisest form of government for humanists and people of faith (regardless of religion, denomination, etc.), this is why it is embraced by progressives, liberals and moderates alike. We also recognize that the politics of morality damages religion itself in that it not only turns religion into a weapon instead a way of living and spiritual healing, but it also leads to the destruction of a sincere faith for some jaded as the sheer hypocrisy of leadership and its most vocal proponents is publically exposed.


Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

Don't worry Rod, you won't be "stuck at Governor" for long

Well it looks like Illinois Gov. Rob Blagojevich will be moving from a position in state government to one with the federal government, but I don't think it's the kind of move he thought he had in store. In an astounding example of arrogance and stupidity, it seems the Democrat thought he'd make some lifestyle improvements for his family by attempting to sell President-Elect Obama's seat in the US Senate. Needless to say, the putz is now with the federal government, being held as a guest on charges of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and a count of solicitation of bribery.

In a 76-page affidavit, federal authorities say wiretaps caught Blagojevich conspiring to sell or trade the vacant Senate seat in exchange for financial benefits for himself and his wife, Patti.

At times, he discussed obtaining a substantial salary for himself at a non-profit organization or an organization affiliated with labor unions, as well as placing his wife on paid corporate boards where she might make as much as $150,000 a year, the government said.

During one recorded conversation, Blagojevich said he needed to consider his family and said he was "financially" hurting, the affidavit said.

"I want to make money," Blagojevich said, according to the affidavit.

The governor also often weighed the option of appointing himself to the Senate seat, saying he was "stuck" at governor and might have access to more resources as a senator than as a governor, the affidavit says. A Senate seat could also help him remake his image ahead of a possible presidential run in 2016. "If ... they're not going to offer anything of any value, then I might just take it," he said in one conversation. CNN

The most disturbing part of the story is CNN legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, noting that it's not clear whether Blagojevich's current status will actually impede his ability to choose Obama's successor.

The greed, arrogance and stupidity of politicians never ceases to amaze me.


Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, December 07, 2008

This is what it means to be a student-athlete

Myron Rolle is an athlete worthy of any fan and, if you have any doubts, the following proves it


Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

ChristCo CostCo: Just Say No [to selling out Christmas]

Oh my goodness-gracious, yet another store is refusing to cater specifically to Christians who hate their religion so much, they've made shopping a critical part of one of their holiest holidays. This time it's CostCo, the bulk item superstore that directs advertising to members who pay to join their shopping club. CostCo told one of Don Wildmon's minions at the AFA that the store doesn't set up Christmas sales or have Christmas signs in the stores leading up to Christmas and that they *gasp* purposely use the word holidays in reference to the Sacred Sale Season™ between Thanksgiving Halloween and New Year.
Last week, a customer wrote to Costco and asked this direct question – "Does Costco use the word 'Christmas' in your store advertising or on any signs anywhere in your stores during the Christmas season? That's a pretty simple question, yes or no."

Kory Rosacrans, staff manager for Costco replied, "I guess the answer would be No."

Rosacrans said, "Costco does not advertise on television, on radio or in print like other retailers. We only advertise by mailings and e-mail messages sent directly to our members who have paid for the privilege of shopping with us."
I don’t know why a group of people who are supposedly devout would want to continue to focus on how to best continue the over commercialization of one of their holiest days when conventional wisdom would dictate that a devout person would actually be offended by companies diminishing the sacredness of a religious holiday as a sales ploy but then again, these are people who are actually against people being good for goodness' sake.

You can let CostCo know how you feel yourself:

James D. Sinegal, President
999 Lake Drive
Issaquah, WA 98027
Phone: 425-313-8100
Fax: 425-313-8114
E-Mail: James D. Sinegal


Tags: ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, December 01, 2008

Jeb Bush suggestion to promote the GOP

The former Florida governor told Newsmax correspondent Ashley Martella that Republicans should create "a shadow government" to challenge Democrats on policy grounds.

"In Washington we need to show humility and be the loyal opposition. I actually think we need to organize ourselves the form of a shadow government and make it based on policy and not on partisanship," he said. "People are sick and tired of the partisanship, just for partisan sake, but they aren't sick and tired of a loftier debate about policy. RawStory

Tags: ; ;

Sphere: Related Content