www.nationalview.org and Note From a Madman brought to you by
for your Information Technology needs
owned and operated by Noah "The Madman" Greenberg
This Is What Democracy Looks Like
www.NationalView.org's Note From a Madman
December 18, 2008
The Tip of the Iceberg?
Chrysler's closing its doors for at least a month brings more heartache to more
people nationally than just the 53,000 employees who now have to figure out a
way to pay for their kids' Christmas gifts this season. The closure effects
parts' manufacturers directly; their employees who will now see many in their
numbers laid off; and the families they lead along with the vendors which they
buy from.
Without cash in their pockets, those directly affected by Chrysler's closing
will include anyone who makes a living off of these now out-of-work employees.
But it's much worse than that. 3,600 Chrysler dealerships and their employees
nationwide will have to come up with their own plans to stave off the bad demons
this Holiday season as well. Salesmen and Sales Managers live off of their
commissions and without customers who: (A) Can't afford a new vehicle and; (B)
are less likely to purchase from a dealer they might not consider to be selling
a viable product, these employees will certainly have to find other means of
"contributing to our economy" in their near future.
Dealerships that I've shopped at and purchased from (I own 2 Chrysler cars today
and have owned others in the past) and worked for (as an assistant service
manager in the 1980's) also employ Service Managers and writers, car prep
people, after-sales personnel (F & I guys), front office personnel and others
who now will be wondering just what they're going to do in their near future as
well.
And still that's only the tip of the iceberg.
Many auto dealerships lie in the center of commercial areas. As such, the
surrounding businesses rely, in part, on the customers, would-be customers and
employees of these dealerships for much of their business. Certainly those
businesses will be affected without the Chrysler customers.
3,600 dealerships with around fifty employees each losing their livelihood are
problematic enough. Now add the rest of the Americans affected more indirectly
and try to guess how many people that includes.
Although allowing Big Finance to go on its merry with over a trillion dollars of
US taxpayer money without forcing their CEO's and other top dawgs to even think
about a pay cut, the auto industry is now "being considered" by President Bush
to be allowed to go under. The term he's using is "an orderly bankruptcy".
"Under normal circumstances, no question bankruptcy court is the best way to
work through credit and debt and restructuring,"
-Bush in a question-and-answer session at the American Enterprise Institute, a
NeoCon enclave
Unfortunately these appear to be "normal circumstances". The Bush administration
has presided over the worst job loss since the Great Depression. So what -
another new favorite term used by President Bush - if an additional 53,000
Chrysler employees lose their jobs? So what if auto part suppliers can't meet
payroll and have institute mass layoffs in order to stay in business? So what if
General Motors follows suit next month and Ford closes its doors by August? And
so what if all of newspapers who make huge profits from car dealerships and
those businesses that rely on their local car dealerships have to fire tens of
thousands of workers as well?
As long as it's "orderly", right?
Someone must have knocked on the Oval Office door when President Bush came back
from his farewell trip to Afghanistan and the Iraqi shoe emporium and told him
that restructuring is a great way to get rid of the United Auto Workers (UAW)
Labor Union. Why else would he have such a change of heart?
And why is it that Big Finance is allowed to go on their merry way with so much
of our taxpayer dollars while a real industry with real employees that makes a
real, tangible product is now open for an "orderly bankruptcy" and probably a
"less-than-orderly shutdown"?
We all know the reasons for that - money talks, labor walks, and this President
balks.
If President Bush decides that he wishes to see that "orderly bankruptcy" and
the destruction of the US auto industry, or at least the destruction of
organized labor in this country, then President-Elect Barack Obama and the
Democratic Congress must step in. First, the Congress must stop Treasury
Secretary Hank Paulson from doling out any more of that $700 billion, even the
$15 billion that remains. Next, they and PEOTUS Obama must promise that $15
billion to the US auto industry, publicly, as a bridge loan after he takes
office on January 20, 2009.
And, finally, Obama must re-think, with the help of his cabinet and advisors, of
course, what should really be done with the next $350 billion. After seeing what
Big Finance did with the first $335 billion (plus the money outside of the TARP
fund received by AIG and Citigroup, to name two), I'm not so sure they should
get another dime.
Hey, I have an idea... Let's see what an "orderly bankruptcy" does for the
Finance Industry. The jobs have already been lost, so what have we got to lose?
-Noah Greenberg
THERE IS NO WAR ON CHRISTMAS
by Victoria A. Brownworth
copyright c 2008 Journal-Register Newspapers, Inc.
Let me start with a disclaimer. I am a practicing Catholic. I love Christmas and
the entire Christmas season. My friends refer to me as Mrs. Claus once the
season begins in earnest (after Thanksgiving). A maternal relative wrote “The
Night Before Christmas.” I’ve worked at soup kitchens and shelters on Christmas
and never missed a midnight Mass.
I have solid Christmas credentials.
That said, I do not believe that there is a “war on Christmas” going on, despite
conservatives’ annual cries that Christmas is under attack. In fact if anything,
I think we might be having an overload of Christmas out there.
Back in October I went into Target and before my wondering eyes appeared
Halloween displays *and* Christmas displays. As Charlie Brown would say, “Augh!”
I like my holidays one at a time, please. In the liturgical calendar, All
Saint’s Day–the day after Halloween–precedes Christmas by seven weeks, including
the four of Advent. The commercial year should reflect that, particularly as we
celebrate the non-religious holiday of Thanksgiving at the end of November and
winter does not officially begin until Dec. 21.
One of the generalized complaints made by the war on Christmas contingent is
that people have forgotten that “Jesus Christ is the reason for the season.”
Jesus Christ is the reason for Christmas, which is the celebration of the birth
of Christ (even though historians and astronomers assert he was actually more
likely born in the summer), but not the reason for the “season.” Pagans and Jews
had been celebrating winter holidays for thousands of years before Christ came
on the scene.
Solstice celebrations in Northern climes by Pagan Norsemen, Teutons and Celts
preceded Christmas celebrations by millennia. Hanukkah was celebrated a good
2,000 years prior to Christ’s birth. So reason for the season? No. Reason for
the day.
Where did the idea that there is a war against Christmas originate? Conservative
talk show host and general bloviator, Bill O’Reilly, takes credit for the phrase
and the movement, but the original citation actually was coined by the
British-American paleo-conservative Peter Brimelow, former editor of the
National Review, who began writing about the issue in 1999. O’Reilly took up the
hue and cry a few years later.
In 2005, Fox News host, John Gibson wrote a book titled “The War on Christmas:
How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse than You
Thought.”
Gibson’s subtitle is exegetical of the conservative argument: there’s a liberal
“plot” to “ban” Christmas and it is being promulgated by “liberals.” Apparently
all conservatives are Christians and all liberals are God-less.
Where does this idea come from? According to Brimelow (who also refers to Jews
as non-whites and considers immigration the end of civilization as we know it,
even though he himself emigrated from Britain to the U.S.), O’Reilly and Gibson,
the American Civil Liberties Union is in cahoots with anti-Christian liberals
and together these groups are trying to take Christ out of Christmas.
I no doubt qualify as a liberal to this triumvirate, but I fail to see where
Christmas is being removed from the landscape. Since October I have seen nothing
but Christmas everywhere I go. Stores and streets have been decorate for months,
even though I didn’t get my Christmas tree until this week. Three radio stations
in Philadelphia play nothing but Christmas music 24 hours a day. There are
Christmas lights all along Chestnut Street and Broad Street, as well as a huge
Christmas tree in the courtyard of City Hall.
There is a nativity scene on Independence Mall a mere 100 yards from the
Constitution Center, cater-corner to the Liberty Bell and a block from
Independence Hall. (The mall also houses the world’s largest menorah, for anyone
who remembers that Jesus was born a Jew.)
Independence Mall is federal land and part of the federal park zone that is
Fairmount Park. How is there a war on Christmas if Mary, Joseph and the Baby
Jesus are ensconced on federal property? There may have been no room at the inn
for the Christian first family in Bethlehem, but there certainly seems to be
room on Independence Mall for them today.
Another salvo in the war on Christmas argument is that “Merry Christmas”
greetings are being replaced with “Season’s Greetings” or “Happy Holidays.”
This is simply silly. America is a majority Christian country. According to the
most recent U.S. Census report, 76 percent of Americans are members of a
Christian religion, with the largest group, 25 percent, being Catholic.
Fourteen percent of Americans identify as having no religious belief and the
remaining ten percent is divided among Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and
other religions. Go into any card shop and the display for Christmas is huge,
with a small section for Hanukkah. It is amidst the Christmas selection that one
finds the “Happy Holidays” or “Season’s Greetings” cards.
One in four Americans is not Christian. Half my family is Jewish. I know they
would be offended if I wished them “Merry Christmas” when they are not
Christian. Three of my closest friends, while having been raised Christian, are
not religious. They do not celebrate Christmas.
I don’t know the religious affiliations of all my co-workers nor of my students
(I teach college) nor of many acquaintances. If one in four Americans *isn’t*
Christian, why would I want to offend them by sending them a card that presumes
that their belief system is the same as mine simply because I am in the
majority? It’s one thing to give my priest a card that says “Merry Christmas,”
but it’s another altogether to give that same card to one of my closest friends
who is solidly an atheist–that would say I don’t care what her beliefs are (or
aren’t). And how can I expect someone to consider *my* beliefs and not
reciprocate?
Another argument in the war on Christmas arsenal is that groups like the ACLU
are trying to “ban” Christmas from public places. Again, there’s no actual
evidence of that, but even if there were, the Constitution–a document devised by
men who were for the most part quite religious (so religious, in fact, that it
would give some people pause in 2008)–is pretty specific about the separation of
Church and State.
Here’s the thing that the war on Christmas crowd doesn’t seem to comprehend: One
of the basic tenets of the founding of the United States of America was
religious freedom. Many of the original colonists fled here to escape religious
persecution because they lived in theocratic countries. In England, for example,
there were wars between Catholics and Protestants–both Christians, but different
perspectives. Lutheranism is itself a reformist sect of Catholicism and
Anglicanism is yet another off-shoot of Catholicism.
What we learned from the Founding Fathers is that theocracy is oppressive and
crippling. We have only to look at today’s theocracies, all of which are
currently Muslim as opposed to Christian as were the theocracies of the 17th and
18th centuries, to see the impact of a theocratic government on the populace.
The Spanish Inquisition put millions to death in the name of one religion. Today
suicide bombers kill unarmed civilians in the name of another religion. How can
we as a democratic nation and in good conscience want to foist our personal
religious beliefs on others?
Living in a democracy, as opposed to a theocracy, allows all of us to practice
whatever religion we want–or not. Freedom of religion also means freedom from
religion: we get to choose.
Personally, I find the forcefulness of the war on Christmas folks to be
oppressive and also anti-Christian. Jesus Christ didn’t run around oppressing
others. In the Sermon on the Mount he speaks directly to all people about the
need for love and succor of all people–he never says “my followers only.”
And Christ is explicit about one thing: The greatest thing is charity–love of
others and giving to others.
I would love to have all my closest family and friends attend midnight Mass with
me and sit through the Christmas vigil. I would love to have them witness what I
witness when I sit at Mass. But that is my belief system, not theirs. And while
I might feel a level of evangelical fervor at times, I quell it. Because I also
live in an era where I see the dangers of evangelizing and proselytizing and how
easily religious belief can crush others–literally. When my family was living in
Israel and suicide bombings were happening with grisly frequency, I was
terrified all the time that one of those bombings would one day claim the life
of my sister, my nieces and nephew, my brother-in-law.
Some will say these acts are political, and they are. But they are predicated on
religion–and how oppressive it can be when it subsumes governments. America’s
Founding Fathers were very smart when they delineated the differences between
Church and State. Many of them had lived through the reality of theocracy and
had fled that oppression.
I want to be able to celebrate Christmas with all the love I feel on that day. I
want to sit at Mass and feel the literal and metaphysical communion of saints.
And because I live in a country which allows me the freedom to do so, I am safe
in my church to do that. No governmental body will come and force me out or take
me to jail or torture me or put me to death for doing so.
There is no war on Christmas. Christmas is safe–and so is Hanukkah and Solstice
and December 25th as simply Thursday. The so-called war on Christmas is actually
a war on religious freedom. That is not what our Founding Fathers wanted for our
nation. Democracy gives us choices. It is actually those who declare that only
their religious beliefs are valid who wage war on Christmas because they are
waging war on what Christ himself said: Love others as I have loved you. That
means not forcing your beliefs down others’ throats either figuratively or
literally, because love means choices and so does freedom.
In response to what is being done about the banking situation, Denise writes:
Bush could have and should have already given the 14 billion dollar loan to the
Big Three, however, his hesitation is probably due to the Neocons on the Senate
side and the Neocons on the House side that immediately fired off a letter to
him against helping the American Auto Makers unless he concedes to their demands
of cutting the deal exactly the way the neocons in the senate were proposing.
Again the wait has been too long and a lot of innocent want to be workers will
experience a rough time during what should be a wonderful, generous time of
celebration. Again, January 20th seems so far away considering the damage that
is being done daily by this Administration and his callous followers. The
closing of the plants is also another sign of the unwillingness of the
wallstreet/bank bailout reapers to give credit to even the best of consumers
(which number is steadily decreasing daily). The inventory builds up. Yes, even
if the American auto industry offered big cuts there would still be no credit
available for purchases. It is truly sad when a small majority of Americans are
willing to let about the only last American product go under instead of
stressing the importance of buy American.
As far as the rate cuts to the banks, you are right - it is not going to filter
down to the ones who need it the most. As we read daily, executives are still
getting their obnoxious salaries, bonuses and money is used to pay dividends
while the rest of us are bleeding to death. Not only mortgage rates, but
interest rate increases and freezing of credit lines on credit cards to
consumers has also been taking place with no one willing to stop their greed and
abusive practices. Doesn't matter if you pay on time - seems everyone is getting
hit. Right when you think it can't get any worse it does.
In response to, "I guess everyone is aware that the $70 figure the union workers
are accused of extorting hourly includes all of the costs for retiree's pensions
and retiree's medical insurance. That $70 an hr. sure does shrink after all
those legacy costs are deducted. This is also about union busting. And how much
does the CEO make? How many millions, or hundred millions?" Ginger writes:
Thank you for setting that straight. The average figure I have seen, after all
the legacy costs are deducted, is $24 an hour for the current workers. That's
hardly going to break the CEO's banks. There's lots of blame to go around here,
but putting it on the workers? Just a cheap shot by some who would love to see
unions gone forever.
In response to Caroline Kennedy and the Iraqi Shoe-Thrower, Sheila Burleson
writes (respectively):
First, Carolina Kennedy would be a terrific choice to take over Hillary's seat
in the Senate. She may not have a lot of experience in the sleazy side of
politics but she's written books about the Constitution and no one else seems to
have READ it much less be able to discuss it. I like her for that Senate seat.
What qualifications do others have - rich relatives?
The Iraqi shoe thrower is my new hero. The papers report "In Iraq, the throwing
of shoes is a sign of complete disrespect." Ok in the USA it is a sign of great
respect. So everyone who can BE THERE when the Chimp walks to that helicopter
for his last ride from the White House in January, line up and throw your old
shoes at him. What a great sendoff - millions of old shoes thrown at the Chimp
to show him respect. Any old dirty socks available just sweeten the pot.
Send your comments to: NationalView@aol.com
-Noah Greenberg