Just in case there’s any doubt, I myself would never think of telling the political faction that advocates social and political conservativism, school prayer, and federal aid for religious groups and schools to go to hell.
Rather, I think they should piss up a rope.
Anyone with half a brain should not have a moment’s difficulty comprehending this. The left does show vastly greater tolerance… for different people, different cultures, different lifestyles. We have no tolerance for bullshit behavior and hate mongering, and hopefully we will continue to express this at every turn. It’s what people want from us.
Try to understand - tolerance does not equal “put up with all your bullshit.”
By the way, care to come back to the thread about whether the press should cowboy up and challenge Bush? I’m curious how you are going to backpedal on your “read” of the situation knowing that you were operating out of ignorance.
And here I thought Josh Gibson died in 1947.
Wow. I watched the clip and came away with a different impression. While Gibson did get quite angry, his reaction may be quite justified, as Boston had called him a liar. From the clip, it appears that Boston was wrong, as Gibson claimed that he did NOT make the claim (children wearing red and green in Plano) that Boston attributed to him. It seems that if Gibson is right and that his book doesn’t make that claim, then Boston was wrong and, in fact, lying. Or, at the very least, mistaken.
Regarding the story about the kids in a Plano school not being able to wear red and green over the holiday, I’ve heard that quite a few times, does anyone know if it is true or not?
This explains much; for the last few weeks I’ve noticed a number of co-workers making weird remarks that seemed to be vague attempts at witticism. I offer a sample exchange:
CO-WORKER: Merry Christmas–OPPS! I guess we’re not supposed to say that to each other these days.
ME: (BAFFLED) We’re not?
CO-WORKER: Yeah, we’re supposed to say “Happy Holidays” or something instead.
ME: Since when? Who says this?
CO-WORKER: (VAGUE HAND-WAVING) Oh, it’s the same old stuff, trying to keep people from celebrating Christmas-- because it’s not “PC,” you know. There’s just a lot more of it in the news this year.
So now I know where this free-floating notion has been emanating from… although I probably could have guessed without too much trouble if anyone had asked me.
Why, on account of the “Fox Nwes?” I thought you were just taking a subtle jab at them: *“Fox Nwes: it looks and sounds sort of like ‘news,’ without actually being news.” * In any case, I thought it was funny and I’m going to steal it.
Well, according to one of the articles linked in the OP, it’s not:
In other words, the source of this rumor is an earlier dispute about distributing religious-themed gifts at a school party, and it was already a non-issue by the time it got any publicity. Rumor, stupidity, and aggrieved vicitimization managed to turn it into a wholly illusory ban on red and green clothing. (And no offense, but if you’d looked over the OP’s links more carefully before participating in the thread, you wouldn’t have needed to ask.)
I hear a lot of stupid things from the far right and far left, but turning “happy holidays” into a “war on Christmas” is pretty near the top of the imbecile list.
It seems so obvious that it’s simply said because one’s audience may not celebrate Christmas, yet it still includes Christmas. Or even simply shorthand for including both Christmas and the New Year.
Has there ever been an actual argument to support the notion that people who say that are “warring” against Christmas? Or does the simple inclusion of possible references to other holidays mean you are declaring war against it? Was includng women in the workplace a “war against men”?
Do these pundits actually believe this “war” shit, or are they just using it to trigger that “we’re being discriminated against!” response that people seem to love to feel?
Oh give us a damn break. How long do you expect people to have “happy thoughts” for these assholes?
As far as Gibson goes, well he’s a damn pussy. If he wants to be a rough tough bad ass, well shit. Tell us ALL on the network “news” exactly WHAT BAR you are daring us to come to. Put up or shut up Gibson. Of course that will never happen. He’s just a little bitch, just like the rest of the Fox crew.
I’m guessing the parent company probably published the book.
It didn’t really sound to me like he was DARING Boston to come into the bar. After all, he reportedly said:
I bet if Boston did visit a bar when Gibson was there, Gibson would do something really mean like order a round for the house, and then point to Boston and say to the bartender, “Except THAT guy, right there!”
That would probably hurt Mr. Boston’s feelings, real bad. Poor Mr. Boston.
:rolleyes: The amount of offense you intended—your claim to the contrary aside—was received and processed. FYI: I did read the links. I was wondering if there was a more unbiased site for the debunking.
I don’t think anybody except the shrillest of the right-wing offenderati is seriously referring to this issue as any kind of “war”. There are some disputes and disagreements about the proper balance between Christmas themes and more inclusive/secular “winter” or “holiday” motifs for year-end (how’s that for a nice neutral term, eh?) parties at places like public schools. Check here for a more realistic discussion of the Plano TX flap. Yes, people don’t always agree about what kind of celebrations are suitable, but most people are far too sane to describe their disagreements as a “war”.
The silver lining here, it seems to me, is that when O’Reilly or Gibson singles out a heavily majority-Christian Middle American town like Plano or Saginaw as a hotbed of anti-Christmas activity, the resulting publicity lets the average Americans there see what this right-wing offenderati mindset is really like. Earnest churchgoing PTA members who were doing their best to figure out a pleasant and inclusive holiday celebration that could be enjoyed by everybody are suddenly confronted with hate mail from distant strangers who consider their tolerance treasonous and offensive. And in the long run, that can’t be doing Gibson and O’Reilly’s crusade any good.
I don’t watch Fox, so I don’t know if this is an isolated example, but I liked Shephard Smith’s reporting during Katrina. Of course, they may just keep him around to justify called it “fair and balanced”…
We know we’re going to hell. That’s where all the cool kids are going.
Not only were O’Reilly’s (and Gibson’s) claims outright lies, they were recycled lies. They tried to use the same story on Saginaw Township in Michigan.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512130006
“O’REILLY: In Plano, Texas, just north of Dallas, the school told students they couldn’t wear red and green because they were Christmas colors. That’s flat-out fascism. If I were a student in Plano, I’d be a walking Christmas tree after that order. Have a little thing on my head.”
“The school district does not restrict students or staff from wearing certain color clothes during holiday times or any other school days,” noted Dr. Otto, who said that the school district’s attorney has requested that Mr. O’Reilly retract the statement."
http://www.wnem.com/Global/story.asp?S=4235657
'(TV5) – A Mid-Michigan Township makes national news but there’s a problem, local officials say the whole thing was made up.
Bill O’Reilly is making the claim that Saginaw Township officials banned residents from wearing red and green during the holiday season. Local officials say he’s dead wrong.
Syndicated controversial talk show host Bill O’Reilly said on his radio show:
“In Saginaw , Michigan , the township opposes red and green clothing…on Anyone, In Saginaw Township they basically said anybody, we don’t want you wearing red or green. I would dress up from head to toe in red to green if I were in Saginaw Michigan .” "
Further, even that was just a rehash of an old John Birch Society fantasy from 1959. I can’t believe we are still “discussing” the truth or falsehood of these things.
Then you should have asked that. What you asked was, “does anyone know if this is true or not?”, and the OP’s links (and the links within them) were quite definite that it isn’t.
Sorry to snark at you with the “no offense” comment, though. In any case, the Dallas Morning News link in my most recent post, plus this link to the Plano Star Courier, should satisfy your request for a “more unbiased site”.
That’s not how I read it. Everywhere I’ve been, everyone I’ve know, when someone says something like this, when they say “don’t you come around here”, the underlying message is “if I see you I’m gonna kick your ass”. If it had only been “I ain’t buyin’ you any drinks” then he could have said that.
RE: The War on Christmas
I recently read an essay by a Muslim who remarked that the tighty righty outrage resembles Dr. Seuss’ The Grinch. Like The Grinch, these people seem to think removing the trappings of Christmas destroys the sentiment, too. 'Tis a pity that their joy and spirit are so shallow. It’s sad their Peace on Earth and Goodwill Towards Men means less than fighting for a crèche on public property.
That was my thoughts. Someone wrote an entire book on this? An editorial, maybe, but a BOOK???
The reason you notice a difference is probably because Shep’s program is News, and O’Reilly and Hannity/Colmes are analysis (editorials). I don’t usually watch much of Shep’s program, but I did see a bit during Katrina, it was very good.
If you untangle the mess, it boils down to this:
A school in Plano was going to have a “Winter break party.”
Some fundamentalist parents wanted their wee son to distribute candy cane pens, with a laminated copy of the “Candy Cane Story” text attached:
They made their intentions known to the organizers well in advance (which seems to suggest to me that they were spoiling for a fight) and there were some concerns about the school running afoul of the Establishment Clause by allowing organized prosyletizing during a school function, and they were told that couldn’t happen. So the parents went to the principal to ask what was going on, within the context of parents specifically trying to push their religion into a school function. This is how their lawyers themselves characterized the “Red and Green” controversy:
No “You can’t use that colour!” forthcoming, and the context isn’t just the use of colour, it’s the use of colour with specific notation: “Red is Blood of Christ!” “White is the Purity of Christ!” Green is the, uh… Giftiness of Christ!"
Here’s where the “ban” of the colours comes in-- later, the school sent out a note to volunteer parents saying asking for stuff to bring to the party. Talk of “limitations” does not appear in quotes in the complaint – that language is supplied by the plaintiffs’ lawyers.
Shock, horror! Anyway, by their own evidence, all of those items symbolize the PURITY OF CHRIST!!!111!! and they’re just sore that the BLOOD OF CHRIST!!!11!! and the GIFTINESS OF CHRIST!!!1!! aren’t all over the dessert table. “Help! We’re being oppressed!”
The whole thing was resolved before it went through court anyway, and the parents were allowed to distribute their witnessing gifties at a designated area for community-related material (ie; not supplied by the school) within the school.
When you look at it, it’s really about fundamentalist parents getting litigious in order to witness to other parents’ children, with the sanction of the school district. Mr. “War on Christmas” latched on to the mere allegation of a ban on red and green, based on the presence of a white cake and plates – in the context of aggressive people who were actively trying to make the party a Let’s-make-sure-the-kids-know-about-Jesus fest. It was never really, “Oh no! We aren’t allowed festive colours,” it’s “Oh, no, we can’t serve everybody’s kids cake on paper plates printed with ‘Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for you – do this in remembrance of me. Your sweetest friend, Jesus,’ around the rim.”
There was never any demonstration that red and green were verboten at the party – just that they wanted white plates and napkins.
Gibson himself has characterized the whole debate as the total ban of “festive” seasonal colours: “Well, what we reveal in this book, The War on Christmas, is, we all know the nativity scene is a religious symbol and there’s arguments about whether that should be in schools and public places, but we are talking about secular symbols. We are talking about banning Christmas trees, the colors red and green.” (On the O’Reilly Factor, October 20th.)
I haven’t read his book, but that’s how he’s representing it’s contents, or at least how he was.
He is in absolutely no position to go apoplectic when people call him a liar – because, well-- he is a liar.
Talk of “limitations” does not appear in quotes in the note to volunteer parents, that is. :smack: