War on Christmas

The Nightmare That Was Christmas (Death Never Dies)

gregladen — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 09:51:42 +0000

The Nightmare That Was Christmas (Death Never Dies)

I remember it as clearly as if it was yesterday, even though it happened years ago, even before you were born. I screamed silently, pinned on my back by the massive weight of a cotton blanket, legs frozen, the dark lights flickering as the human-like form approached, its arms raised in front like The Mummy or Frankenstein's Monster, hands ready to grab, closing in. A strange net-like pattern covered the featureless humanoid shape, moving around on its surface like Saint Elmo's fire dancing on Jacob's Ladder, undulating, letting off light, disintegrating and reforming and making a crackling noise as it did so.

rum pum ... rum pum ... rum pum ...

The ever-repeating chant that was once barely audible, then louder, then deafening, is now pounding terribly in my ears and once again, I scream, but it is once again a silent scream and the cotton cloth that covers me once again grows heavy and pins me down.

rum pum ... rum pum ... rum pum ... RUM PUM

Finally, the creature's hands come down around my neck and take hold, it's head, faceless, now pressed against mine and I think it may be growling, but since it has finally grabbed me, and only now, because those are the rules in this particular nightmare, my scream of terror can break loose so it does breaks loose and I cry out ...

THE RUM PUMS ARE HERE ... THE RUM PUMS ARE GOING TO GET ME!!!!

And I sit up with a start, drenched in the sweat of night terror, panting heavily, and I can hear adults heading for my room in response to my horrific screams and uncontrolled sobbing.

DAMN YOU BING CROSBY!!!

It took years for me to figure it out. Every year at Christmas time, there were all these things we would do. We would:

Make Christmas tree ornaments
Go out in the woods and cut down a tree, bring it home
Set up the train set under the tree
Hang Santa's boots inside the fake fire place as though he was stuck up there
Watch as dad hangs precariously off the side of the ladder, perched on grandma's porch's roof (she lived upstairs) as he attaches the Life Size Santa, Sled and Reindeer ornament to the gable of the house
Wrap the extra fruit cakes to have handy in case an unexpected or forgotten guest shows up
Go to the Spencer Gift Store at the newly constructed mall with 12 dollars to buy one present for each person who would be coming for Christmas
Listen to Christmas Music
Have nightmares, several nightmares about the Rum Pums.

And in there, in that list, was a link I never understood until I was much older and thought back on it all. Only then did I understand the origin of the Rum Pums which haunted me at any time of the year they felt so moved, but always, and especially, around Christmas. I would hear them in the distance and I'd move away.

rum pum ... rum pum ... rum pum ...

But they always knew which way to turn to come closer, ever closer. I'd use every trick I knew, climbing over Mr. Wilson's garage, using the alley way behind the diner, ducking into the side entrance of the apartment building, even hiding in the forbidden furnace room with the hand drawn sign on the huge metal fire door that said "Stay Out This Means You" on it.

rum pum ... rum pum ... rum pum ...

I'd crawl through the secret flap in the fence beneath the grape vines, climb over the maple in the corner and drop into Billy's yard, crawl through the secret flap in his fence, work my way across the street and down the other ally behind Ye Olde Tavern which we were always told to stay away from, back around the corner and into the basement where that guy died that one time, and eventually under the hedge in Mr. Distoll's yard even risking the thorns on the rose bushes he surrounded his property with to keep the kids off his perfect lawn.

rum pum ... rum pum ... rum pum ...

But no matter what tricks I used, the Rum Pums would grow steadily nearer, adjusting their course even from blocks away (I could see them doing this in my mind's eye) as I made changes in my path that they could not possibly have seen or predicted. And the distance would close no matter how steady and plodding their pace, and no matter how swift my terror-driven stumbling run.

rum pum ... rum pum ... rum pum ...

The last place I would always run would be the upstairs bedroom, the bedroom in my Grandmother's flat, where I only rarely ever slept but always had nightmares. Somehow I knew that the Rum Pums were the body of my dead Grandfather, the body that was laid out in the living room only a few feet from this bedroom, the body that I was brought to as a toddler, and shown, Irish style, during the wake.

"That's your grandfather. Kiss Papa good bye."

I said "Light ... Light ... Light ...." as a two year old does, pointing to each candle set around his corpse. Then, looking at Grandpa's lifeless form, "Shhhhh... Papa's sleeping"

But now his lifeless body is not sleeping. His lifeless body is relentlessly hunting me down.

rum pum ... rum pum ... rum pum ...

It is reanimated, faceless, clothing-less yet not naked, possessed, moving ever closer to me, and as always I am in what was once his bedroom hiding under the covers in what was once his bed, and the door opens and the Rum Pum is there, and it closes in, and it takes me by the neck and once again, my scream becomes audible only because the terror pushes me into a wakeful state.

The Nightmare That Was Christmas is ever present just below the surface. And not just for me, but for you as well, my friend.

Observe, listen. Listen through to the end to understand:

Yes, the stuff of nightmares.

Perhaps if my family had this version instead, my nightmares would not have been as bad:

I don't know. That's kinda nightmarish but in a totally different way. No, I think there's only one Christmas Drumming Song that I can listen to right now to wipe out the nightmares.

Whole different kind of sitting up in bed in a sweat.

Finally, having said all that, I do recognize the importance of tradition. And thus, the new tradition in our household:

What horrors have I wrought do you suppose, little one? What horrors!?!?

Forgive me Huxley.

gregladen Sat, 12/22/2012 - 04:51

Tags

War on Christmas

Christmas

night terror

nightmare

The Little Drummer Boy

My grandson just turned 2 and dances to all kinds of silly stuff. The movies are the stuff of blackmail in the future. I promised to do my best to get rid of the evidence. You will too. Have a great holiday with the little one!

So, you are The Master?

Tradition!!!!

gregladen — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 22:43:29 +0000

Tradition!!!!

Tradition. Not just a song from Fiddler on the Roof.

You know the refrain: "The Papa, the Papa! Tradition." It's a great play but it is firmly rooted in the patriarchy, as "tradition" often is.

There are many ways to define "tradition" and we can look it up somewhere and have a flameware over dictionary meanings if you want. But instead I'll tell you what I think the word means, roughly, generally, and subject to revision.

First, "tradition" is a feature of culture that simply refers to practices that are habitual. A subset of "traditions" are formalized or regularized, like holidays in many cultures (not all cultures have holidays or annual traditions). "Tradition" also refers to some sort of time depth ... something can be thought of as traditional if it is something that has "always" been done a certain way. More to the point, however, is that the way something IS done (or is planned) is a certain way by reference to prior practice. We will put the Christmas Tree in that corner of the room because we've always put it in that corner of the room. And in this context, some traditions are quite labile while others are not. You can actually move the Christmas Tree around all you want in most Tree-using households, but perhaps you would have a much harder time not putting one up at all. Or, perhaps you can change up the exact way you cook the food for the annual feast, but the Papa still gets to decide whom his daughter marries. "The Papa, the Papa! Tradition."

The time depth aspect of "tradition" is well understood in the context of archaeology. Many archaeologists use words like "horizon" for a thing they see across a large space but not with a lot of time depth. Things that are maintained through long periods of time ... certain pottery decorative motifs, certain kinds of stone tools ... may be called "traditions."

I have three small personal observations to make about traditions that serve to expose some important aspects of them.

When I was planning to work with the Efe (Pygmies) in the Ituri Forest some years back, I read everything written about them (there is actually not that much compared to, say, The Maya or Justin Beiber or something). One of the things that was recorded by several different ethnographic observers (anthropologists, missionaries, etc.) was how they bury their dead. In many societies, including many (more or less) Western societies, how you bury your dead is pretty strictly determined, and highly "traditional" as you know. And, if you ask any group of Efe, you might infer that their "tradition" is also fairly strict, and you might assume that they have been burying their dead the same way for a long time.

However, among the half dozen or so historical accounts and the three or four modern accounts (including my own) of how an Efe Pygmy is buried, in three different areas of the Ituri Forest covering almost a century of time, no two accounts were the same. At all. It would appear that Efe burial practices vary considerably across time and space, while in other cultures, burial is quite "traditional" in the sense of prescribed, determined, and time-deep.

Conclusion: The KINDS of things one may think of as typically traditional (marriage, burial, life-stage transitions, etc. etc.) may actually not be across cultures. It is not safe to extend one's own view of how things are done outside one's own culture without actually looking at other cultures.

(As an aside, I'll mention that attention to the dead in both severity and regularity among Native American groups in the US shifted to be much more homogeneous when cultural patrimony became a powerful political tool. I believe something similar happened in Australia as well. I suspect those two cases are not isolated in the history of humanity.)

My second observation is less about cross cultural aspects of tradition, but rather, on how the heck traditions emerge to begin with. When I graduated with my PhD from a small eastern college, I noticed that the people up on the stage ... the official people, like the President and the major Deans ... were decked out in Edwardian Garb including top hats and so on. The college itself was over 300 years old, so this was not the dress of the earliest days of the school (though the graduate school's graduation suit was Renaissance style). I wondered ... did they decide during the Edwaradian period to update the stage dress, then forget to keep it updated? Or did they decide during the 1960s or some other later time period to go retro, and happen to like top hats in a foreshadowing of Steampunk Fashion? The point is that this was an obvious case, because of the time-trip nature of it all, of manufactured tradition rather than tradition just happening because you do something long enough.

Which leads to my third observation: With a new child in the house, Amanda and I are staring to talk about "traditions" we'd like to start. I've always thought that the best, most ancient, and reliable traditions are the ones you just thought up and pretend you've always been doing. Easier to keep the story straight, at least in the beginning. When Julia was little, she did not like cake (still doesn't) so the tradition emerged to have pie instead for her birthday. With Huxley, we are hoping to completely eliminate both pie and cake and have him enjoy something healthier, such as a pineapple. You can stick a candle in a pineapple, right? The interesting thing about this is the push back we may (or may not) receive from others. If we are really going to have birthday-cake free parties for him on his birthday, we're basically going to have to not ever invite anyone (except Julia) in order to avoid all the crap we'll have to take for not providing Huxley with an opportunity to smear frosting all over his head.

The reason I point out this observation is that it is a fairly mild but still instructive example of the conflict that can occur around tradition. We will be starting, any day now, The War on Christmas, during which Atheists such as myself are accused of being Nazis because we prefer to say "happy holidays" ... thus being more inclusive ... over some other greeting. There will be conflict over this. I will have to decide in a couple of weeks if I'd like to go on the local FOX news station and debate this as I've done before (I'm thinking of suggesting someone else to do this ... I'm growing tired of manufactured arguments like this one.) Large and seemingly influential non-profit churchy groups have held major corporations hostage over this issue. Fights over tradition can get quite nasty.

Tradition is probably a good thing when it tells you what to do and how to do it in a good way. Tradition tells us to not eat the paint, but instead, the pancakes. It reminds us of certain obligations that are probably important. And so on. But tradition can also be uncritical and misleading, facilitating some rather dumb behavior. But at its worst, it can be, and often is, a tool of those in power used to keep control over important aspects of life: which person, or which kind of person, to love or marry; whom to treat as a superior; who gets to kneel on a carpet and who does not while being beheaded. Well, maybe not that last one so much anymore (except metaphorically, of course).

Tradition. "The Papa, the Papa! Tradition."

_____________________
The next edition of Skeptically Speaking will consist of a panel of individuals led by Desiree Schell talking about tradition. I hope you can join us! And if you missed it, you can certainly catch the podcast.

gregladen Fri, 11/18/2011 - 17:43

Tags

Greg,
The tradition thing you are planning for Huxley (good luck with that) is more akin to programming or an experiment. I applaud the effort but expect mixed results at best. Many shifts in tradition would certainly result from changes in external conditions. Like burning bodies rather than burial if conditions got too wet or firewood became scarce.

The war on christmas is a joke so I understand the inertia WRT yet another debate. I laugh at the 'Reason for the Season' campaigns. The reason for the season is a retail one, not a religious one. Happy holidays is respectful, inclusive, and celebratory. Perfect.

I believe I know where the picture you included at the top of the post was taken. It appears to be the train room at the Franklin Institute. We used to have sleepovers there with the cub scouts.

@MikeMa

"The reason for the season is a retail one, not a religious one."

Perhaps the cry of "Happy shopping!" or "Happy Xmas shopping" should replace "Happy Holidays"?

MikeMa: It is the Franklin Institute.

I guess I disagree with you somewhat. What I'm saying here, in part, is that a) the strength of some traditions is actually much lower than we might expect, and others at a higher level than we might expect. (Or sometimes, what we expect/know, but the point is, variable.)

I'm pretty sure, for instance, that some of my inlawas will be much more annoyed that there will not be a cake at the 2yr old's birthday than they would be if, say, I refused to wear a Yamaka at a sader (sp?).

In the case of the burial practices, the Pygmies a) have a practice and b) could care less. That's fairly counter-intuitive for a Westerner. It would't not take much of a change in conditions.

Greg,
My experience is that the strength of the tradition is in almost direct proportion to the amount of their life a person experienced it and it matters much less what happened before they were aware of it (ancient history). So if you make a tradition for your family, they will accept is as such without much reference to its age. We had many such traditions and modified them frequently to meet circumstances so, yes they are easily changed to meet many conditions, mostly convenience. Saying, "That's how we always did it" in my work (IT) is usually a warning that means it is time to look for a new tradition.

I think it is spelled Seder and yarmulke. At least according to my memory and the spellchecker isn't arguing:)

@jrkrideau,
I have heard "Happy shopping" often. Pragmatism prevails!

Good on you for changing cake to something healthier (you do realize you could pull a Congress move though and proclaim cake is a vegetable). It is interesting to see the kind of push-back you get from changing relatively unimportant traditions--it is a litmus test that reveals what kind of person you are dealing with.

I constantly not only break with traditions, but in many cases just don't have any. I would get all sorts of flak from my wife for not having a Christmas evening tradition, an opening presents tradition, a visiting relatives tradition, etc. Why? If I want to give presents, I'll give them during the year. If I want a present, I'll buy it for myself (that way I get what I want and don't have a bunch of crap given to me that I give away to the local Thrift Shop or SallyAnn).

If I want to visit relatives, I'll visit them then. Why wait till one select day to give presents, go visiting--how you going to feel if you're holding out for a couple of months and they die on you? You'll have a closet of presents and you'll wish you'd gone to visit.

To me, it makes perfect sense. I explain this and the only consistent response is, "It makes sense to you, but you're you're not like other people" (if I'd have been born in the 90s, I'd have been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder--or sociopathic tendencies according to some disgruntled relatives).

So for me, a war on Christmas isn't about what greeting to give to people--I just don't care about that. The war is why do we have Christmas in the first place? Peace on earth, goodwill to man, give out presents, receive presents, visit family, laugh--those all sound like worthwhile things to pursue all year. Besides, the crass commercialism and naked greed of the season turns me right off, and I feel tainted participating in it.

Just my two cents...but I'm "special" (so one of my morbidly obese diabetic neurotic relatives tells people behind my back). Hmm, maybe I'm more annoyed that I'm expected to visit some in-laws than I am about the other traditions of Christmas. Who wants to be around a person who has lifestyle-induced diabetes and other health problems and still eats far too much--like watching a slow suicide, and I ache for my nephews who are going to lose a parent far too early. And she has fed my once very athletic brother this crap too and he's now teetering between being overweight and obese (so the kids may be orphans before they get married).

I think this year I'm going to ask them both why they want to die, and why are they so selfish* (then I'll rub salt into the wound and tell them the earth is older than 6000 years and dinosaurs actually existed).

*I did tell my brother once he wasn't thinking about his family and that he was selfish by not taking care of himself. His response was, "I am not selfish, how dare you suggest that, and it doesn't matter if I die because I know where I'm going". sigh. Not a trace of irony. Who cares about what happens to those left behind when I die because I know where I'm going. Like I said, selfish, so much so he's completely unaware of it.

Sorry for ranting on your blog. It's that time of year.

MikeMa,

My involvement in Jewish culture is broad and deep via marriage, association, school, etc. (though almost entirely atheistic Jews) and in New York the term was generally Yamaka, though I now see that Wikipedia prefers Kippah, which is how we pronounce that particular fish in Boston. It is also Kippa or Kipa, or Yarmulke according to Teh Wiki.

If you look up Yamaka in Wikipeda you don't get the hat, and Yamaka is not mentioned in the Kippa entry at all. I wonder why that is the case. There isn't even a disambiguation. According to sources outside of Wikipedia, and therefore not part of our modern tradition of knowledge, "Yamaka" is a mispronounciation of "yarmulke" Yarmulke is, probably, also derived, possibly from Polih (jarmulka, or "hat").

I'll try saying "pass the kippah" next holiday and see if I get a hat or a fish!

It was "sader" I was checking the spelling on and I think I got that right. You never know if there is an extra "h" floating around

Daniel,

you could pull a Congress move though and proclaim cake is a vegetable

Actually, we may take that idea and revise it slightly, and declare that a pineapple on a plate with a bunch of other fruit is a cake!

In fact, now that I think about it, I may just go and make a thing that looks exactly like a cake but has no cake in it.

"It makes sense to you, but you're you're not like other people"

Hmmmm... possible facebook status. Possible bumper sticker. Maybe even a coffee cup slogan...

Translations or, more precisely, transliterations from Yiddish do tend to be less rigid in both spelling and pronunciation. Regional effects are highly pronounced and conserved as well. You might get fish if you ask for kippa or you might not. I ask for kippered salmon so that there are no mistakes in something so delicious.

Memories of a cafe in Paris; My friend ordered a "Croque-monsieur" (a form of ham sandwich) from the waiter, and got a "Coke" becuase the waiter thought she said "A Coke, Monsieur"

Several soda's later and a shift change, and we finally got our grilled cheese and ham sandwiches.

Our tradition for Christmas for the last 5 years is to start playing all the H P Lovecraft Historical Society solstice carols: Tentacles!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2csnVNai-o

The axial tilt is the reason for the season!

More generally, I am an avid breaker of traditions. I find tradition offensive because often it flies in the face of logic.

Here is another example of a changing tradition: Chinese weddings. It used to be standard for the bride to wear a red dress, since red symbolizes happiness in Chinese culture. But in recent years many Chinese brides (even in China, not just expats) have adopted the Western custom of wearing white. I encountered a wedding party when I was in Beijing a few years ago (the reception was at the hotel where I was staying), and not only was the bride wearing white, but the signs in the lobby indicated the way to the reception by showing a couple in Western wedding garb.

I am flexible with traditions: I will go along when it is convenient to do so and break them when it is more convenient for me to do so. I do Christmas because I get holiday/vacation time around then anyway whether or not I try to get together with family. But I have not had Thanksgiving with my family in many years: I have no immediate family close to where I live, and it is an inconvenient time of year for me to travel. (I generally see the family at Christmas anyway, which is only a month later.)

Today's Bible Lesson...

gregladen — Sun, 26 Dec 2010 10:35:59 +0000

Today's Bible Lesson...

... will focus on Christmas.

Actually, he's wrong in comparing his ability, or yours or mine, to trace back a genealogy with Luke and his buddies. Back in those days, and in that culture, people did indeed walk around with pretty deep genealogies attached to them (though the extensive and intensive study of genealogies in anthropology tells us that those genealogies are not expected to be accurate).

(Sorry, I meant for this to come out yesterday but forget to hit the "publish" button)

gregladen Sun, 12/26/2010 - 05:35

Tags

religion

War on Christmas

As an atheist I have no more problems with Christmas than I do with Wednesdays

Love that one!

Greg - typo - "antrhopology" :)

Back in those days, and in that culture, people did indeed walk around with pretty deep genealogies attached to them (though the extensive and intensive study of genealogies in antrhopology tells us that those genealogies are not expected to be accurate).

Oh, they were expected to be 'accurate', I think (social anthropologist here). It's just that there weren't many ways in which one could test the accuracy of a genealogy in the absence of written records going back to Adam (ha!) and genetic tests. Something as important as genealogy would not have been taken lightly - it certainly isn't in the places I've studied and done fieldwork. There's a certain leeway, but (a) genealogies are still expected to be generally accurate and (b) some traditional genealogies from around the world actually are accurate. Jim Fox, formerly of Harvard, Oxford, and Australian National University, wrote a great article based on his fieldwork on the Indonesian island of Roti, showing overlaps between Dutch archives and Rotinese oral genealogy (1971, "A Rotinese dynastic genealogy: structure and event", IIRC). That's just one example that comes to mind.

It's like the Tea Partiers - I expect they believe that their warped view of history with which they justify their current political programme is accurate. Just because it isn't doesn't mean that they don't expect it to be so.

Anyway, Merry Yule to you.

They http://computer.howstuffworks.com/firewire1.htm be accurate and the were treated as though they were, if the people were living in a middle range patrilineal (or at least lineal) society similar to those studied from more recent times. But, the importance of the genealogy also meant that it could be manipulated. A person's marriage history (from the past) could be changed retrospectively to change the lineal membership of living people in order to allow for, or disallow, a marriage that a powerful individual was trying to arrange/avoid, for instance. That's what I meant by not accurate.

I have never looked into these two alleged genealogies of Jesus from this perspective. I'll have to do that.

I find this piece interesting in a perspctive point of view. You're right Greg, he does use his own experiences/comprehension of family history as a cultural tare. I have personally found this to be not uncommon among White Men especially. Not only did people back then know long family histories, there are MANY other examples in history across cultures that "keep" very long oral histories. I am reminded of the Griot tradition in many African cultures.

Plus, his personal distance from spiritual culture also affects him. Whether one identifies as Christian or something else, I have become particularly keen to discern atheist/agnostic individuals who just don't "get it" the cultural connections to spiritually that exisits in many cultures. These traditions, whether mainstream or not, still hold some special signficance to the pracitioners. And when I hear someone denigrate traditions as merely fabricated histories/mythologies or practices, I realize they still miss one important part of the tradition...that is special & personally meaningful in a way that cannot be easily articulated - esoteric even.

So if this failure to articulate, or the complexity of the events, isn't for someone or they just don't get it or not interested....then that is absolutely fine. But I find it unpalatable when I hear anyone (& I do mean anyone, including Christians, Muslims, etc) speak with such authority about the mindset, poltical purpose, and organizational precepts of a group of people or culture they are not personally apart of, a member or or have personal connection to.

D: It is very interesting that you chose to make these comments on this particular post.

I like the basic thrust of this video and the key point that there is probably some funny business with the post-hoc story telling is interesting, but this post and a couple of comments I've come across just now (on Facebook, etc) did make me cringe as an anthropologist and as a person very interested in racism. I so often hear phrases that could easily be interpreted as ignorant/racist from a run of the mill white traditional racist person ... not a hood wearing KKK nutbag, but just a middle class educated but insensitive economist or lawyer or whatever ... about people living in a traditional society (about their inferiority), only coming from skeptics who would be shocked to find that they are saying something that is really rather stupid.

There is, indeed, a blog post brewing on this. I'm going to start collecting examples.

Love it!I will have to remember the 'Wednesday' remark!

Bringing the War on Christmas Into your Very Living Room

gregladen — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 19:04:43 +0000

Bringing the War on Christmas Into your Very Living Room

I did a little (very little, very short) newsroom debate on Fox 9 with a guy named Tom who appears to represent conservative Christians regarding the question of "Does Christmas have place in schools?" I quickly add that even though that was the planned focus of the discussion, it was quickly revised to be "Oh, no, not just Christmas, but Kwanza and Hanuka and stuff too." That particular bit of backpedaling is, of course, ingenuous and annoying, because nobody from Hanuka or Kwanza is trying to force their religious holidays into public schools, only the conservative Christians. So if we were to have an ecumenical touchy-feelie "all the religions are equal" thing in the schools, you know it would consist mainly of Christmas, a nod to Hanuka, and a few snarky remarks about Kwanza. And it would probably not address in a valid way the 30 million Americans who are basically religon-free. You know this because that is how it always turns out.

Anyway, I have the following thoughts on the issue which run far beyond what Tom and I had time to talk about, and here they are.

1) It's probably illegal to "put" Christmas in public schools. It is a religious holiday, and we have this thing called the United States Constitution. Listen. You can have my guns, but only if you pry them from my cold dead hands.¹ Similarly, you can have my First Amendment Establishment Clause too, but only when you pry it from the Cold Dead Hands of the United States Courts and a number of organizations dedicated to protecting the Constitution. The whole idea of "putting" Christmas in the schools is simply undo-able, and efforts to force the situation are only going to cost the victims (the school systems targeted) in legal fees, and they don't have the spare change for that.

2) Yes, yes, I get it: Christmas is a part of culture, lots of people who are not religious celebrate it, even the famous atheist Richard Dawkins goes carolling, bla bla bla. Yeah, I know that. I was in on that way back when. In my family, growing up (a Catholic family) we had people over for Christmas who were not Christians, In fact, they were Jewish, and often Gay. We had Gay Jews opening presents left for them under the Christmas tree, and using our bathroom, and everything. The people at my Catholic Church and Catholic school were rather antisemitic, as were others in my orbit, and totally anti-gay, but my household certainly was not, and in this sense, Christmas was a cultural tradition more than a religious holidays.

So, does this mean that when the American Family Values Association or the Catholic League force some hapless school district to "celebrate" a cultural version of Christmas that there will be no religious connotations? You might think that. And, if you do think that, send me your email. I want to talk to you about some swampland in Florida and a bridge I'm selling.

In truth, it is already possible to have Christmassy stuff in schools, but it is tricky. There was a court fight about this nearly ten years ago out east, when a school put up a Christmas tree and some elves and a Creche. In the end, they had to get rid of the Creche because it was a clear religious icon, but they could keep the elf.

I call this the Creche-Elf line. The paganistic or non-Christian aspects of Christmas vs. the very serious religious iconography. The thing is, it is hard to know where the Creche-Elf line really is, and it can be crossed in subtle ways that may not be predicted. Do conservative Christians really want to force school administrators to walk the Creche-Elf line and risk law suits? Well, yes, they do, because they want this to be a fight. So when the Christians come to your door shopping their allegedly cultural version of Christmas, ask them to leave, check your wallet, and lock the door behind them.

3) They don't have time. Putting aside the question of legality and ethics, the last thing our troubled, underfunded, overworked, highly stressed school system needs is powerful special interest groups showing up and telling them about more stuff to teach. They already have too much stuff to teach. Leave them alone.

4) Enough is enough. Right now, the Christmas season is starting. It's exciting. It's fun. We're working on our Christmas lists and checking them twice. Relatives are coming into town to visit. We're going to get presents!!! Yay!!!

But try this on for size: Go around on, say December 23rd and ask people if they've had enough. Ask them if there was enough Christmas stuff out there for them this year. Ask them if the music coming out of trees on the streets and the bells ringing at the grocery stores and the TV shows and specials and movies and all the decorations and other Christmas-focused stuff in the stores was insufficient. Ask them if they need more. Ask them if they would like more Christmas smeared all over the walls, ceiling and floors of places it currently does not have a large presence. Go ahead. Ask them. They'll probably slap you. Enough is enough.

5) The War on Christmas is not real. My buddy Tom, who in the green room claimed to have never heard of the "War on Christmas" (ahem) noted that by keeping Christmas out of schools and making people say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" we were creating a hostile message for children, who would then get the wrong message. Or whatever. (Tom did land one very good punch in our discussion when he said that "The Grinch is now the Overly PC School Administrator." I love that. That "overly PC school administrators" is saving the school from law suits and following the law,and being a good American. If that's the Grinch, we need more Grinches. But I digress.)

Anyway, the Conservative Christians, led (by the nose, it would seem) by Bill O'Reilly, have declared that there is a war on Christmas because people say "Happy Holidays."

And they've bee busy. Here's a short list cribbed from Teh Wiki that summarizes how this particular issue has played out in ways that you can verify at the mall next time you go shopping:

[in 2005], After threats of boycotting, the Sears Holdings Corporation ... altered their marketing policies from using the term "holiday" to using the term "Christmas." The change of policy included the distribution of "Merry Christmas" signs to stores nationwide, and the changing of all instances of the term "holiday" to "Christmas" on their website and in stores.

Kmart [owned by Sears and thus under the same pressure] opened the 2006 Christmas season with their slogan "Where Christmas comes together", and several commercials acknowledging Christmas, including one with the tune to "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing".

In 2005, Wal-Mart was criticized by the Catholic League for avoiding the word "Christmas" in any of their marketing efforts. ... This caused some backlash among the public, prompting some groups to pass around petitions and threaten boycotts against the company, as well as several other prominent retailers ... in response to the public outcry, Wal-Mart announced that they were amending their policy and would be using "Christmas" rather than "holiday". Among the changes, they noted that the former "Holiday Shop" would become the "Christmas Shop", and that there would be a "countin' down the days to Christmas" feature.

In 2005, Target Corporation was criticized by the American Family Association for their decision not to use the term "Christmas" in any of their in-store, online, or print advertising. The AFA initiated a nation-wide boycott of the Target Corporation, resulting in over 700,000 petition signatures, all of which were individually sent to Target customer service. Within a week of initiating the boycott, the AFA received an official letter from Target which indicated that they would begin incorporating the term "Christmas" in their advertising: "Over the course of the next few weeks, our advertising, marketing and merchandising will become more specific to the holiday that is approaching - referring directly to holidays like Christmas and Hanukkah. For example, you will see reference to Christmas in select television commercials, circulars and in-store signage." In a 2007 interview with Chief Executive Magazine, the CEO of Target, Bob Ulrich, stated that Target's usage of "holiday" instead of "Christmas" was a mistake. "Frankly, we screwed up", he said.

When it was revealed in November 2006 that Wal-Mart would be using the term "Christmas" in their advertising campaign, an article about the issue initiated by USA Today pointed out that Best Buy Corporation would be among the retailers that would not be using "Christmas" at all in their advertising that year. Dawn Bryant, a Best Buy spokeswoman, stated: "We are going to continue to use the term holiday because there are several holidays throughout that time period, and we certainly need to be respectful of all of them." The American Family Association launched a campaign against Best Buy's policy. In reaction to the same policy, the Catholic League placed Best Buy on its 2006 Christmas Watch List.

Around the same time that Best Buy Corporation was noted for having avoided using "Christmas" in their 2006 advertising, Gap, Inc. (which owns Gap, Old Navy, and Banana Republic) was also criticized for avoiding use of the term. An unnamed Old Navy manager was quoted as saying: "We have a lot of Christmas gifts in our stores, but the word Christmas is not used here. Everything is holiday." After mounting criticism about the issue, Gap, Inc. set up an option within their corporate telephone answering line that was specific to "holiday advertising questions".

In late October 2008, US hardware retailer The Home Depot was criticized by the American Family Association for using terms such as "holiday" and "Hanukkah" on their website, but avoiding the term "Christmas". The retailer responded by saying they will be adjusting their website to make references to Christmas more prominent. It was later claimed by Snopes.com that the AFA's characterization of Home Depot's advertising was false, as the retailer's advertising had initially included several references to the word "Christmas".

On November 11, 2009, the American Family Association called for a "limited two-month boycott" of Gap, Inc over what they claimed was the "company's censorship of the word Christmas." In an advertising campaign launched by Gap on November 12, the term "Christmas" was both spoken and printed on their website at least once, and was part of a television ad campaign sung as: "Go Christmas, Go Hanukkah, Go Kwanzaa, Go solstice... go Christmas, go Hanukkah, go whatever holiday you Wannakuh". On November 17, AFA responded to this campaign by condemning the ads for references to the "pagan holiday" of solstice, and declined to call off the boycott.² On November 24, Gap responded to AFA's initial boycott, stating that they will launch a new television commercial on Thanksgiving weekend that will have a "very strong Christmas theme", featuring its Supermodelquins using the greeting "Merry Christmas". The AFA then ended their boycott of Gap.

This ... the holiday greeting problem ... is actually their main point, the raison d'Ãªtre for pushing Christmas into schools (to regain the respect it has lost because of The War and all). I mean, really, the AFA appears to be a bunch of thought police with rather thuggie tactics. Makes me want to avoid shopping at the stores that caved so easily.

I may be utterly unique in this world, but I learned to say "Happy Holidays" not to disrespect Christians, but to avoid disrespecting Jews, Atheists, etc. When I see my Sister in Law, for instance, I'll say "Merry Christmas." When I see my Mother in Law, for instance, I'll say "Happy Hanuka." When I see my wife, I'll say "Hey, wait a minute, were you picking up Huxley at daycare or was I supposed to do that!!!??!!" (Oh, sorry, digressing again.) And, when I see a mixed group of people, I'll say "Happy Holidays."

Hot off the presses:

FOX 9
___________________________________

¹If I had guns. See this.

²Thus demonstrating that the "Oh, we'll do Hanuka and Kwanza and all the other holidays and stuff too" argument is a lie.

gregladen Tue, 12/07/2010 - 14:04

Tags

Pearl Harbor and the War on Christmas

gregladen — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 18:16:03 +0000

Pearl Harbor and the War on Christmas

Yes, there is a connection ...

The Imperial Japanese of World War II and the Nazi Germans of the same era held one thing in common: You were with them or you were nothing. Non-Japanese prisoners were treated very poorly. The lives of non Japanese who did not swear allegiance to the emperor were not valued at all. For instance, when the Japanese exited Manila near the end of the war, they killed hundreds of thousands of Philippine people. The Nazi's slaughtered millions of Russian prisoners, those they considered "unfit" or otherwise different from them, and of course, attempted to totally exterminate the Jews, killing six million of them. These two nations together with other minor "axis" powers caused a war that makes more recent wars pale in comparison. No matter how bad the situation in Iraq may have ever seemed, there are numerous individuals battles that happened during World War II with higher military and civilian death tolls than incurred during that entire conflict, plus Afghanistan. It was truly horrendous, and it was ultimately caused by a set of socio-political ideologies that fed opportunistically on bad economic times, ignorance, and fear .

I mention this for two reasons. One is that today is the anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which is the historical moment that brought the US into the war. I also mention it because we are approaching Christmas season and the War on Christmas is presumably in full swing right now.

Let me be clear on this: The "War on Christmas" is a falsehood. It is a construct of the right wing, in particular, promoted by Bill O'Reilly of Fox News. It is a way that certain political factions (mainly these days known as teabaggers) can play the victim when others suggest that we respect the United States Constitution by keeping religious observance out of public institutions. One of the great sub-falsehoods of the War on Christmas is that saying something like "Happy Holidays" is an affront of some sort. That is certainly not how I remember it. When I was a kid, I learned that "Happy Holidays" was a convenient way of shortening "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year." Later, I learned that Happy Holidays was a convenient way of including Hanuka, which was celebrated by lots of people in my New Yorkish social circle, and eventually, my in laws. But now, Bill O'Reilly is telling us that "Happy Holidays" is a political statement meant to annoy Christians.

Well Bill, it isn't. But if I somehow annoy you by accident, I'll take that as a freebie.

But that is actually a digression. The point I want to make is more specific. Part of the argument that Christmas should be insinuated into the activities of public institutions, such as public schools, is that Christmas is really a "cultural phenomenon" and we are pretty much a "Christian Culture" anyway. I have even heard it said that "Christianity is the dominant culture" ... so we should just accept that and participate in it .... it's not a religious thing, its a cultural thing.

Well, to some extent that's true, but I must say that I cringe when I hear a term like "Dominant Culture." Dominant? In that if I have a difference with a member of the Dominant Christian Culture over something, that I have to back off and just go along because I'm subdominiant? Meaning that when various factions come to the table over some important issue, the Christians get more votes? Meaning that the fact that Christmas is already everywhere all the time since before Thanksgiving every year that we have to find places that are relatively Christmas free, like public school classrooms, and smear it all over the walls and ceilings there too?

The parents of my generation suffered through that great war, the one that involved the attack on Pearl Harbor, because two groups of people decided that they were the Dominant Culture. I don't mean to Godwin the War on Christmas or anything, but really, isn't the current ubiquity of Christmas enough? Isn't it enough that when Julia and I went to Macy's the other day to get a Hanuka present, and asked the people who worked in the "Holiday" gift section where the Hanuka stuff was, we were met with either blank stares or twisted smirks, but no indication as to where the Hanuka stuff was (which, apparently, wasn't)? Does it not matter that a Facebook friend of mine has a friend who actually thinks that "Happy Hanuka" is Yiddish for "Merry Christmas"? Does it not matter that it is considered normal to pipe religious songs that are only viewed as valid by part of our society into every non-governmental public space in the country, including out on the street? Is it not enough that Christmas, a religious day of observance, is a federally recognized holiday? Is it not enough that it is considered routine to spend taxpayers' dollars on erecting giant dead trees with large carbon footprints owing to the lights in the public town squares? Is it not enough that those green and red sweaters with the reindeer and snow flakes actually exit in real life and not just in movies like Bridget Jones Diary?

As we remember Pearl Harbor and World War II, let's also recognize that when enough time passes since the horrors of one or another "Dominant Culture" coming to power, it is easier for it to happen again. There are people, forces, groups, organizations that want to dominate this culture, racially, religiously, value-wise, or in some other way. Christmas season, culturally speaking, is often a time of hope. This year, let's hope that our fellow citizens increasingly recognize the dangers this presents, and shun those individuals and organizations.

Merry Christmas to All and to All a Good Fight!

gregladen Tue, 12/07/2010 - 13:16

Tags

War on Christmas

Loved it, and I can relate to a lot of that! Jewish in-laws and all. Thanks again!

I had vague recollections of an old song called "Happy Holidays", and sure enough, Google tells me that there was such a song, written by Irving Berlin and first performed by Bing Crosby in the movie Holiday Inn (1942). (Several other artists have recorded the song as well; the version I remember might have been by Perry Como.) Berlin and Crosby were the same people behind "White Christmas" (also used in Holiday Inn). So the next time somebody objects to the phrase "Happy Holidays", ask them what they have against these two icons of 1940s American music and the generation that fought WWII.

You know, now that you mention it, Hanukkah decorations etc used to be more common around here, until Billo started screeching about the mythical 'War on Christmas'. It is like the stores quietly stopped carrying them..especially in the more conservative areas around here. In the Democratic areas, I can still find cards, dreidels and other things to complete a Jewish celebration. For some reason though, it is okay to have gefilte fish 365 days a year, but in the 'Jewish' section of the grocery.

I was at the local Hennepin County service center a few weeks ago and very religious music was being played. If I closed my eyes I could have thought I was in a church with hymns being sung. So it's not just in non-governmental public space.

Maybe we should start a "Secularists for Christmas" movement and complain when stores don't use the term Christmas because we want it to increase the secular nature of Christmas time by having all these stores cheapen it with their merchandising that starts before Halloween.

It just struck me that it's interesting that Christians don't want gay people to be able to use the term 'marriage' because they want to reserve that for themselves, while they want everyone to use the term Christmas, even when it's for activities that have nothing to do with the religious (Christian) origins of Christmas.

Rape, Deer Hunting and the War on Christmas

gregladen — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 09:32:08 +0000

Rape, Deer Hunting and the War on Christmas

Is this thing on? Hello? Hello? ....

Ah, thats better. Comcast, which every day seems to do something to piss me off, had a major sub-regional outage for the last several hours, it would seem. So, we've been floating free of the Internet and a few things have accumulated.

First, this: Remember the rape charges brought against WikiLeak's Julian Assange? It would seem that with the latest Wikileaks leaks, the nature of and the stakes related to these accusations are taking on a new form, and we are starting to see conspiracy theories with a misogynist slant emerging to excuse Mr. Assange of his legal responsibilities in this case. Interesting. Read this post to get oriented then check out the links therein, where you will see the breathless conspiracy theories.

Well, shotgun deer season has started in Minnesota, and we've already had one serious accident, as yet not fully explained. The whole point of shoguns is that when you miss the deer, the projectile becomes less deadly quicker and falls to the ground in a shorter distance, so when you accidentally shoot at someone's house, perhaps you merely dent it rather than kill an occupant as might be more likely to happen with a rifle. Interestingly, unlike the opening of rifle season, we seem to have far fewer accidents. I wonder why?

We are totally losing the War on Christmas. Yesterday we stopped at Macy's to pick up a Chanuka present to bring to our combined Huxley Birthday Party and Chanuka dinner at the relatives. Standing in the middle of the Macy's Christmas Present Section and asking people who worked there "Where is the Chanuka section" and recieving blank stare after blank stare seriously amused Julia and I. Well, whatever. Chanuka is all about not having enough oil anyway. It's hard to signify that with a present.

gregladen Mon, 12/06/2010 - 04:32

Tags

I was in that regional Comcast outage too.

If you want to kill someone just take 'em hunting.
"I thought it was a deer" is usually an adequate excuse.

I don't think one need be paranoid to imagine a conspiracy against Julian Assange, what with big-name politicians and pundits calling openly for his death.

Nemo, who is saying anything about paranoia?

I'm not familiar with the case against Assange, but given that manufactured charges, of a sort likely to discredit if not outright demonize, are entirely consistent with the way US intelligence services have dealt with opponents for the entirety of living memory and the way the US in general has dealt with critics since at least the Bush years, how exactly has this explanation been ruled out?

Azkyroth, who's saying anything about ruling out a conspiracy?

Guys, if you want to argue with my point, or Greg's points which are dependent on mine, perhaps you should read my post?

@Bill: As usual, Tom Lehrer has been there:

People ask me how I do it,
And I say, "There's nothin' to it,
You just stand there lookin' cute,
And when something moves, you shoot!"

It seems more like "sex by surprise", which just might mean he said he would use a condom but didn't, or it dropped off, or whatever.
If the woman showed unwillingness at any time that is one thing. But rape charges have to be substantiated by some sort of evidence, and if it is a question of a condom (wear/didn't wear it) how the hell do you get that unless the victim preserved some fluids. It seems the Swedish legal system might have got to the point of political correctness you had better not piss off your girl friend or she can find some reason to bring charges.
Given Assange's exceptionally high profile, and the juicy publicity that is bound to follow such a charge and possible help from the CIA or whatever, I would not put too much reliance on a "he said she said" situation involving the wearing of a condom.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978761324

sailor, you're saying it's mere political correctness to follow up on rape charges with no physical evidence?

Well, whatever. Chanuka is all about not having enough oil anyway. It's hard to signify that with a present.

Empty bottles?

Please remember that these rape charges happened way before the recent "wikirelease" which is way, way bigger than the earlier releases. I think that matters. at least a little.

Don't forget that his rape charges were already dropped once, but the case was reopened in another town, which is highly unusual. You must be very naive to think that there's no political pressure behind it.

Dunkleosteus, you are suggesting that someone (though I'm not sure) is naive to think that there is no political pressure related to these charges. But I'm looking and I'm not finding who said that.

Not a Comcast customer, but have a friend who is. He told me that the problem has been with the Comcast DNS. He programmed Google's public DNS addresses (8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4) into his router and bypassed the "outage".

sailor, you're saying it's mere political correctness to follow up on rape charges with no physical evidence?

I (without comment on its merit) interpret his comment as suggesting that there's a reason winning or even trying a criminal case usually requires physical evidence, and as second-guessing what he perceives as an argument in favor of an exception to this principle.

The media reporting of the Assange rape accusations has been fairly inaccurate. I'm sorry to sound pedantic but Assange has not been charged with rape. He is wanted for questioning in relation to accusations of rape, but has not been formally charged for any crime relating to these issues. The media uses the words "accused" and "charged" interchangeably, but "charge" has specific legal meaning, and when they talk about "rape charges" they are wrong - there are none at this stage in this case.

Jeremy, who cares? Assange is the master of the extra-legal accusation. Consider the comparison people make between the cables and the Nixon tapes. What they forget it that the Nixon tapes were revealed as part of a legal process, and the diplomatic cables were revealed as a form of public masturbation by an out of control egomaniac. Sure, it is great to have the information out there in many cases, but Assange is in no position to be defended over the technical use of terms like accuse and charge. If the charges or accusations are fully made up, that is bad, but if there is something to that, don't bother with the violins, it is offensive.

I think Mr Assange's aggravations have just begun. The CIA, and at least a half dozen other national intelligence services, will be looking for any opportunity they can find to make his life miserable. I can't say I have a lot of sympathy; the wholesale release of diplomatic cables seems more like vandalism than courageous reporting to me.

@Christopher

I'm not defending Assange, or trying to suggest that he's guilty or innocent. I'm just saying that he hasn't been officially charged with any offences, criminal or otherwise, at least in this matter.

On an issue like this where there is so much uncertainty, it seems foolish to make any judgements. A quick perusal of the "blogosphere" shows crazy conspiracy theories, more realistic conspiracy theories, statements of absolute guilt and innocence, claims that the charges (there are none remember) are about to be thrown out, claims that the girls have not made any accusation of rape, claims that one of the alleged victims wrote a book about how to convict cheating lovers of rape, claims of pretty much everything.

We have so little information about what actually happened, no genuine evidence for us (as in us personally, we don't know what the prosecution has) to look at, a possibly complicated foreign legal system and a lot of people with biased opinions for or against Assange. Defending or attacking him at this point is speculative and meaningless.

I am not saying you are defending him. I am pointing out the irony of asking that he be held to normal legal and social standards.

@ Christopher

I don't know about Mr. Assange being held up to different social standards, but surely he should be held to the same legal standards as everybody else. That's the whole idea behind the rule of law, if I am not mistaken

@Christopher: While you're correct that the Watergate tapes were released as part of a legal process, it isn't as if there's a process for that anymore. Thanks to the nonsensical War on Terror anything the government wants to stay secret stays secret. Even from the courts.

And the Obama administration has shown they're perfectly happy to keep absolutely everything as secret as possible. "Transparency" must mean something different to him than it does to the rest of us.

"sailor, you're saying it's mere political correctness to follow up on rape charges with no physical evidence?"

No Stephanie, I agree with you a man should never go against a woman's will, and sure the police should check these things out. However women are not angels. There has been more than one man sent to jail for rape where the woman later recanted. I would not want to have a legal system where the woman's testimony is held to be truer than the man's as several bloggers claim happens in Sweden (or the other way around.) If someone is going to jail there should be evidence involved. In this particular case in which the sex was agreed to be mutually agreeable, and the dispute may about whether the condom was worn (and surely a woman can keep her eyes open long enough to make sure it goes on)I am suspicious, especially given the fame of the person concerned, and the fact operatives of the most powerful country in the world are out to get him.

Greg, the rape investigation did precede this latest release, but he had already released documents and was quite famous, which may have been one of his attractions for women. And as others point out he has not been charged or even accused, he is wanted for questioning.

@Christopher

I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not saying that the legal system is mistreating him, I'm saying that the people, such as the New York Times, Greg Laden and Stephanie Zvan and others, who claim that Assange has been charged with rape are wrong - he hasn't been charged with anything. It has no bearing on whether he's found guilty or not or how he's treated or should be treated. It's just a mistake in talking about the facts of the case. There are no rape charges. There was one made initially, but it was issued before either of the alleged victims had given a formal statement and so was correctly withdrawn.

Jeremy, there are specific charges. From the Metropolitan Police:

The spokesman said that Assange voluntarily came to the London police station, where he was arrested on a European Arrest Warrant from Swedish authorities for "one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape, all alleged to have been committed in August 2010."

Those are charges. How the timing of filing them works in Sweden, I don't know, but they are charges.

I'm saying that the people, such as the New York Times, Greg Laden and Stephanie Zvan and others, who claim that Assange has been charged with rape are wrong

You presume my dogmatisicm. Though I used the word rape in the post, I stand corrected on the technical matter. Right now, to quote Barbara Drescher, ICBS everywhere. Broken condoms are regulated by law, yes followed by no is not sexual abuse or rape of some kind, and a bizarre law called "surprise sex" I do not know if this is a charge or accusation of rape or something else.

he hasn't been charged with anything.

Seriously? He's been arrested on "sex crime" charges. Perhaps being arrested is not the same as being charged, but really, at this point this is just a semantic game. Yawn.

He is now in trouble possibly about to be tried for treason.

AFAIK he--a citizen of Australia--has not broken any Australian laws. How can he be tried for treason?

I don't know if he can be tried for treason or not. I would think not, in a US court, because treason is a special thing where you probably need to be a citizen (and thus there is a presumed loyalty). On the other hand, maybe the Aussies are mad at him too...

But the actual discussion on this is not about treason, but rather, about espionage. Treason aside, a citizen of any country can be accused, tried, convicted, etc. of a US crime in a US court, potentially. Unless he declares Wikileaks a separate country and goes for diplomatic immunity ...

Greg, to the best of my understand "surprise sex" is "It's not really rape because she let me get that close and besides it has a different name. See? That can't be rape, so I'm not a rapist because rapists are really bad, evil people and I'm not evil, so it can't be rape." Or something like that.

sailor, read the fucking post Greg links to.

We need George Carlin to explain this in his own special way.

So, is this actually a case of people trying to scrub the rape charges to avoid besmirching a hero?

Or going after the powerless women pressing rape charges with extra viciousness in the place of doing the work to confront the governments directly threatening Wikileaks?

The UK charges were issued after they received the correct warrant from Sweden. They are not charges from Sweden, they are the reason why the UK police had authority to take him into custody, but he will never be tried on those specific charges - they are a UK thing, not a Sweden thing. At this stage the likely scenario is that he'll be extradited to Sweden where he will be questioned, and then either formally charged or released.

Jeremy, source for your information?

Whether or not he's been formally charged is more than a semantic game. Assange's lawyers claim that the prosecution has confirmed that both women agree that the sex was consensual and there the only crime is that he made an excuse to have sex without a condom and the girls agreed in both cases, then talked to each other and thought that his excuses not to use a condom in both cases were more than coincidence, and amounted to coercion. If he has been charged of rape in Sweden this makes the lawyer's story almost certainly false. If he hasn't been charged in Sweden then it's likely that the story is at least partially true and the matter is complicated enough that how Assange responds to questioning will determine whether he's charged and with what.

@Stephanie - what kind of source do you want? Specifically whether Assange has been charged in Sweden or not, or whether the extradition charges in the UK amount to formal charges that he'll be tried for or not?

Whether or no Julian has been charged in Sweden;

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/03/3083458.htm

"Assange has not been charged and he denies the allegations."

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/08/wikileaks-what-you-missed-overnight/

"11:37pm: No clear news on whether Swedes have formally charged Assange #wikileaks" etc.

Jeremy, Assange's attorney's are saying the accusations are that consensual sex occurred without a condom. The accusations are that the sex stopped being consensual when Assange was told to stop and did not. Given that, why are you giving them any credibility whatsoever?

What I'm looking for in a source is something stating that the quote from the Metropolitan police that I gave in comment 26 describes not what it actually says it does--the Swedish charges--but some "UK thing." You seem to think you're very clear on what's going on, but you haven't said why, or why those tiny distinctions are so much important to you than the fact that mysogynistic rape myths are being freely flung about.

Jeremy, that second link still doesn't say that those charges are UK charges rather than a statement by the UK court of the Swedish charges, which is how other media outlets are representing them. What makes you so sure?

then talked to each other and thought that his excuses not to use a condom in both cases were more than coincidence, and amounted to coercion.

Hahahahaha!!!! That is making me ROFL. Secret, private information got leaked and these women put two and two together and discovered that there was a conspiracy.

Hahahahaahah!!!!!111!! That is really the best thing I've read all day.

I mean, Wikileaks is great and all, but the poetry here is outstanding.

A UK court can't charge a person on behalf of a court in another country. That's not how the legal system works. My only source for that comment is law text books, lectures and professors. The UK charges should be seen as just a statement that: "These are the grounds on which you're being arrested to be extradited to Sweden."

I wonder if you mind me asking what your European Law legal qualifications are?

I wonder if you mind me asking what your European Law legal qualifications are?

Oh man, you're in trouble now.

Jeremy, I don't need European legal qualifications to recognize someone who's just making assertions with no backup. It does tend to make me curious, though.

It takes just a very quick search to discover that the extradition is being done under EU law, using something called a European arrest warrant. If you're interested, you can now read up on that and find out how it works.

Or you can just keep talking without knowing what you're talking about.

Oh, it also doesn't take much looking to discover that the prosecutor in the case was representing Sweden. Of course, it helps if you know enough about international law that you can do a search on the specific charges that were "read out" to Assange. And are willing to look.

From your link;

"The WikiLeaks founder was remanded in custody in London on Tuesday after being arrested under a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system for his extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning about allegations of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion."

"Khawar Qureshi, a Queen's Counsel and international law specialist, said that under European agreements, British courts are not entitled to look at evidence against Assange in making their decision to extradite him.

Instead their role is to simply check that paperwork is in order."

Note that there's no mention of being "charged" with anything, but instead he is "wanted for questioning."

Here is the UK Extradition Act 2003;

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=820518

Again not that it says nothing about "charging" people with anything (apart from procedure if they're also being charged with crimes within the UK).

Here's one of the numerous links about the arrest warrant;

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/swedens-new-arrest-warran…

"The Stockholm district court had ordered on November 18 an arrest warrant for Assange for questioning on suspicions of "rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion" in Sweden in August."

Note the language - "for questioning." This is not a formal charge.

Here's an article explaining the events;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/julian-assange-arrest-extra…

Note this sentence:

"Swedish criminal law experts said this morning that little was known about the allegations Assange is facing in the country, in line with legal requirements to protect anonymity and preserve confidentiality for sex crimes.

The activation of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) by UK police suggests Assange has been formally charged by Swedish prosecutors and could face a period of detention upon his return."

Note that it's saying that they don't know whether Sweden has issued formal charges yet or not (but think that it suggests that they have). Note too that it makes no other mention of any charges.

So, he was being charged in a British court with a Swedish charge?

This is more complicated than the Minnesota Recount.

From your link;

"The Magistrates court has 21 days to start an extradition hearing, which will decide if Assange will be sent off to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning on rape charges.:

Note that it says he's "wanted for questioning." Being wanted for questioning is different to being charged.

Here's a (rather poor, but good enough) legal definition of "charged"

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/charge

"charge n. 1) in a criminal case, the specific statement of what crime the party is accused (charged with) contained in the indictment or criminal complaint."

And for the record "Indictment," Criminal Complaint" and "extradition"

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/indictment

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/criminal+complaint

Note that an extradition is neither a indictment nor a criminal complaint. Note that in the Extradition Act 2003 that the first hearing is just to identify the person. Note that the extradition hearing will not view the evidence for extradition.

Note this comment from his lawyer reported on Monday;

http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-7513066/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5uZXdzMjQuY29tL1…

""Julian Assange has not been charged with anything," Mark Stephens told BBC television."

His lawyer doesn't think he's been charged with anything, but you with all your legal knowledge know that the legal authority working directly on the case is wrong?

That's the EU.

That's what I figured.

Jeremy, fuck you and the hobby horse you rode in on. I haven't claimed any particular knowledge of law, simply a willingness to dig into this that you've not demonstrated except when you're trying to explain why charges aren't really charges.

In fact, you've worked so hard at this that you don't even remember what you're arguing against. Neither Greg nor I ever even said that Sweden had charged Assange. We both referred to the charges against Assange. Period. Those charges were read out in a British court today. Go get a fucking life and something more worthy to consume your time.

I was complaining about ignorance and misreporting of the legal system in the media and it being repeated throughout the "blogosphere" uncritically.

So now you're saying that nobody has been charged, but the charges exist? Did you read the legal definition of "charge" that I posted? There are no charges, at least as far as has been made public. I'm sorry that you blindly believe the media on issues that you're ignorant about and start your blog posts by saying "I don't know whether the rape charges against Julian Assange are valid. I do know, however, that they are rape charges," when they're actually are no rape charges. That must be embarrassing for you.

Jeremy, would you like to explain what charges were read out in a British court today if there are no charges? Wait. Do you know what reading out charges means in Britain? No, I'm guessing you don't, given that you referred me to a dictionary of American law on a matter of Swedish, British, and EU law. It means formally informing the accused of the charges against them. Charges against them.

Whether those charges have been filed is an entirely separate question from whether those charges exist and are generally known. Also, I told you that hours ago, on my blog, where you posted the same cocksure, uninformed bullshit.

"The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, has been arrested by London police on behalf of Swedish authorities on suspicion of rape."

source: http://xrl.in/6s1i

Mr Laden, the link in post no 54 goes here: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/12/bringing_the_war_on_christmas…

This is your post headlined "Bringing the War on Christmas Into your Very Living Room", which is interesting but has nought to do with Mr Assange.

Re the guy in question, he went to the Metropolitan Police voluntarily. He has been refused bail(as a presumed flight risk), and is in detention. The charges stem from Swedish law which aparrently make consensual sex without a condom a criminal offense(this needs clarification, and my swedish is non-existent). The Magistrates' Court has to decide whether he has to first of all be extradited. If arrested on foot of the European Arrest Warrant, providing no bars exist(none evident so far), he will be extradited within 90 days after the hearing.

There does appear to be an element of "star fucking" in the whole sorry mess. The two women both state that the sex was consenual, and at least one boasted about it on social media(and later tried to delete it). Then one informed the other, and they both cooperated with police and prosecutors in the subsequent investigations.

Looking at all that has come out so far, I would say that the chances of the charges being thrown out of court in sweden are quite high, while he still has not been informed if he wil be extradited from Britain yet.

The man has yet to be formally charged in the court which claims jurisdiction. He still has the presumption of innocence.

MacTurk, you're repeating misinformation about the charges and refusing to provide the same presumption of innocence to Assange's accusers that you're providing to him. Stop that.

The charges against Assange, as read out in the British courts yesterday:

She said the first complainant, Miss A, said she was victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of 14 August in Stockholm.

The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.

The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on 18 August "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".

The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

Would you like to explain what's consensual about that?

"sailor, read the fucking post Greg links to."

I did read it. It is hard to judge Assange with the little information at hand. But given his notoriety at this stage he does not have to be paranoid to think people are against him.

Let us consider:
He became the number 1 most wanted man by Interpol for a crime that did not involve any violence, and would probably not be a crime in any country except Sweden. (I am not passing judgment here on whether it should be a crime, it probably should, but evidence for certainty of guilt would be very hard).
The Swedish charges against him are dropped then reissued later.
His defense account in Switzerland is frozen.
All around the same time.
He may be innocent he may be guilty but people are sure out to get him.

Oh yes and I forgot the credit card companies won't let people make contributions to him using their cards, also Paypal I think

It seems he has some supporters however:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/mastercard-down-hacked-wikilea…

sailor, no one around here is arguing that Assange is definitely guilty. The reason I told you to read that post is that you somehow seem to think this "surprise sex" thing isn't rape or that sex that doesn't meet that violates the terms under which consent was given isn't rape. You needed a reminder of what rape actually is.

MacTurk: Here is the link I was going for:

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikileaks-founder-arre…

Hunter story accurate:
The hunter being shot happened in Iowa.
It was the first day of their "shotgun season", which is their big firearms season - it just happens that you don't get to use rifles there (some exceptions).
In Michigan's most southern counties you also aren't allowed to use rifles (except muzzleloaders), mostly for safety reasons. I haven't studied Minnesota regs.
There are even less humans shot by arrows - in fact we used to claim that would be "inconceivable", but some idiot falsified that a few years back, combining stalking with your hunting partner with ethanol, darkness, and a large dose of stupid and perhaps other substances. It's not easy.

Stephanie and Greg both apparently overlook the fact that false rape charges aren't that uncommon.

http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2010/12/assange-rape-duke-lacrosse-s…

Duke lacross team, need I say? Tawana Brawley?

And, in both those cases, the original false rape charge was exploited for political reasons. And, false rape charges are not that uncommon, especially among younger women. Don't know Ardin's age, but one close friend of hers is 26.

Knowing more about both Greg and Stephanie from my own experience, and further insight from an online friend, I don't doubt I'll get attack-dogged.

No problem. Considering Greg still hasn't pulled in his horns on NASA fluffery (I guess your motive is promoting shoddy science, and see-through PR?) I'll not worry about that.

SocraticGadfly, go adjust your meds.

Gadfly, you do understand that the link you posted to claim false allegations of rape makes no distinctions between domestic abuse cases (in which real victims are well-known to recant rather than see their partner prosecuted), mistaken identity cases (in which real victims make a mistake in identifying their attackers), victims who "recant" because they can't deal with the trauma from the criminal justice system and others continuing to pry into their lives, cases which prosecutors decline to take on because some kinds of rape leave no physical evidence, and actual false allegations, yes? But thanks for joining the party of those who give Assange a greater right to be considered innocent than they're willing to give women.

Several other points:
1. Greg, to call you out on timing ... the original charge, before the latest WikiLeaks dump, was dropped for lack of evidence. Forgot that?
2. He cannot be tried for treason because he's not a U.S. citizen. Geez, are you not smart enough to know the definition of treason?
3. Good thing you're NOT a lawyer, if these differences in words is just a "semantic game." Then, "yawn." WTF? I'm sure folks like Obama and Bush like that idea in their chipping away at civil liberties. Jeremy is spot on, and if this is really a "yawn" for you, no wonder you don't believe the idea that the U.S. government could be after him.
4. To Stephanie ... "nice" response to Jeremy. No wonder you team up with Greg to be his pit bull or whatever.

===

MacTurk, given that the U.S. government can indict people "under seal," I'm MUCH less optimistic than you. Given Sweden's involvement with Bush-era CIA extraordinary rendition, and other stuff, it's got motive to accept a U.S. extradition request.

===

Finally: Greg, thanks for giving me "ammo" for a blog post. Does ScienceBlogs have a Peter Principle?

1. Greg, to call you out on timing ... the original charge, before the latest WikiLeaks dump, was dropped for lack of evidence. Forgot that?

You do not have permission to ever use the phrase "call you out" in reference to me on my blog. In any event, I made no comment on this charge, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

2. He cannot be tried for treason because he's not a U.S. citizen. Geez, are you not smart enough to know the definition of treason?

You can get help with your inability to read, you know. Maybe at the YMCA or something. I did in fact say that he could not be tried for treason.

3. Good thing you're NOT a lawyer, if these differences in words is just a "semantic game." Then, "yawn." WTF? I'm sure folks like Obama and Bush like that idea in their chipping away at civil liberties. Jeremy is spot on, and if this is really a "yawn" for you, no wonder you don't believe the idea that the U.S. government could be after him.

Where did I say that I didn't think the US gov is after him? It is utterly obvious they are after him. Why are you so confused? Is this part of your mental illness? That would be OK if it is, just let us know.

You are now on very strict probation. You are not allowed to leave a link back to your blog on my site, and you need to stop your irrelevant and distracting paranoid rantings. Comments that indicate that you have not read the original text you are critiquing will be summarily deleted, and personal insults initiated by you will not be tolerated. Personal insults OF you will be tolerated, of course, becasue you're certainly are asking for it.

Failure to adhere to these rules may lead to your permanent banning from this blog, and if you don't adhere to that, you will be banned from the entire internet.

Quoting Stephanie Z's quotes
"She said the first complainant, Miss A, said she was victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of 14 August in Stockholm.

The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.

The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on 18 August "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".

The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home"

The first, she said, then he said.
The second, ditto.
The third, I have no idea, but it is a wonderful catch-all.
The fourth would seem to be another issue of "he said, she said".

And the issue of "star fucking" would still apply in this sorry mess.

With regard to the statement that I am somehow "refusing to provide the same presumption of innocence to Assange's accusers that you're providing to him. Stop that". What are you blathering about?

How in the name of Dog does "presumption of innocence" apply to alleged victims? They have not been charged, nor are they going to be on trial. They do not fall into the qualifying category for "presumption of innocence".

There is an American tradition that assumes that a woman that is raped b someone other than a stranger (including a man she met that day as a non-stranger) was in some way complicit in that rape. I think (but she can correct me if I'm wrong) that Stephanie was referring to the idea that we should not make that presumption of the alleged victim. (That the victim is partly "guilty" of the act.)

Separate from the issue of molestation, rape, or surprising lack of a condom, etc. , as I watch the behavior of people on the Internet (their attitudes and some actions) I do have to think that J.A. has become something of a cult figure.

A careful reading of the charges, as quoted by Stephanie Z, and reported here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/julian-assange-refused-bail…
would cause some people to conclude that, with the exception of the last, this is an argument about contraceptive methods during a one-night stand which has now achieved an international judicial dimension.

The last, if it occurred, would be rape.

Mr Assange is apparently planning to fight extradition. He has very little chance. Basically, there are five bars to extradition. These are:
A) The arrested person has already been convicted or acquitted of the same offence or an offence relating to the same facts as those described in the EAW.
b) Extraneous considerations (e.g. a risk that the person will be prosecuted or prejudiced at trial due to race, religion or political opinions).
c) Passage of time (extradition would be unjust or oppressive given the time elapsed).
d) The personâs age is below the legal age of criminal responsibility.
e) The physical or mental condition of the person makes it unjust or oppressive to extradite.

From what is known, none of the above apply, and in that case, the judge is OBLIGED to order extradition. There is provision for an appeal against that order, but given the terms of the EAW agreement, that will be unlikely to achieve much. He will probably be on a flight to Stockholm within four months.

MacTurk, you want to smear the victims in public because they haven't been charged with anything? Go ahead. Understand, however, that it's really not hard to see that this legal principle is applied far more broadly than in the courts. It's become a de facto social principle as well. Unless you want to see people going around telling the world what a despicable human being Assange is because he committed rape, it's time to wake up to the fact that you're applying a double-standard.

MacTurk, if consent is dependent on use of a particular type of contraception, and that contraception is not used, there is no consent. Care to explain why that's not rape?

Mr Laden, is it you, PZ Meyers or Mr Ed Brayton who has the comic interest in WorldNewsDaily(better known as WingNutDaily)?

Just they have two articles about DADT which might be considered to be against the cultural flow.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=236681

Here, MacTurk, a little blog post ("joke" included!) just for you.

Those two articles are very, very similar. I suspect a conspiracy.

For that collection of loons, two dogs sniffing each others' bottoms is a satanic conspiracy. Everything else is a bigger conspiracy.

My apologies for diverging from subject. It was Mr Brayton, I believe.

"sailor, "you somehow seem to think this "surprise sex" thing isn't rape or that sex that doesn't meet that violates the terms under which consent was given isn't rape. You needed a reminder of what rape actually is".
That is not the case, however, in the case of the condom thing it is very hard to prove - a he said/ she said thing. My point is that no one should be convicted on someone else's word, unless they agree that word is true or there is other evidence. Otherwise every time some guy leaves a girl and she gets pissed enough she can put him in jail.
This becomes particularly true when the accused has some fame, as it gives an increased motivation for someone to bring false charges.

sailor, legal disputes are settled all the time by judges and juries weighing the words of two individuals. That includes criminal matters, particularly in cases of fraud. Should no one ever be charged with those crimes? Because no one ever jumps up and down screaming that people lie about fraud. What makes rape so special?

And what makes you so sure that there's no evidence in this case? Very few details have been released, but you're comfortable coming to conclusions.

Stephanie, there is nothing special a about rape in what I am saying. Yes there may be evidence in the Assange case, we have no idea. As for judges making judgments about people telling the truth, yes they do it all the time, but they also get it wrong a lot. We have had a huge number of people convicted of murder that have not done it. I heard an interesting radio special on NPR a while ago, unfortunately I have no link to give you, but the gist of it was police interrogations are so powerful that some 40% of convicted people, later proved completely innocent by such means as DNA, had actually signed confessions!
In as much as things have been weighted against women over a long period of time, to a point where women would probably not even say "stop" if they wanted things to stop (especially in a casual situation where they are not that confident), laws that clearly spell out their rights are good if they give them that confidence. But once we get to the point of judges deciding he said she said cases with no other evidence, I am sure a lot of innocent people will end up in prison and a lot of guilty people will get off.
One of the scenarios that has been reported in this case (which may or may not be accurate) is that it was a broken condom. In this case a charge does not make much sense to me, unless it was deliberately sabotaged, maybe it does to you.
You are looking at things from a rape perspective, fair enough in as much as this guy has been charged with that. But the context means something - there are a lot of people out to get him. The main accuser is reported to have spend considerable time working with an anti-Castro group with links to the CIA. (you can check this on Google).
This may be a normal rape case, but given the man and the power of those who want to crush him, it may equally not be.
In all your posts you are making the assumption this is a normal rape case. Who really knows? You certainly cannot be sure it is, and I have no idea whether it is, but I am willing to considier other possibilities given his notoriety.

Yeah, cause when the condom breaks and he holds her down because she wants to stop, that's totally not a rape case.

Quote from Stephanie Z "MacTurk, you want to smear the victims in public because they haven't been charged with anything? Go ahead" I smeared no-one. I repeat, the alleged victims of the alleged crime are not in any category which requires them to need the presumption of innocence. I have not at any time attempted to smear anyone. It could be, and is being, argued that Mr Assange is being smeared.

"..Unless you want to see people going around telling the world what a despicable human being Assange is because he committed rape". Eh no, I never expressed that wish either.

"..it's time to wake up to the fact that you're applying a double-standard". Do supply some proof, please.

The events from which this case of alleged rape arose are as follows;

A prominent/famous/notorious male human goes on a lecture tour in Sweden. This begins on August 11th(Wednesday), when he arrived. In Stockholm, by agreement, he stayed in the apartment of one of the two alleged victims(as yet no court case). She was absent, planning to return to attend his seminar on Saturday(August 14th).

In the event, she came back one day early(Friday, August 13th), and she arrived home to find him there. According to police reports, which were leaked to various media, they spoke, agreed he could stay, and went out to dinner. Subsequently, sex happened, and a condom broke at some point. Neither party disputes this. On Saturday, she hosted a party for him at her appartment.

The seminar happened on Saturday, at the headquarters of the Swedish Trade Union movement. This is where Mr Assange met the second alleged victim. After the seminar, Mr Assange and the 2nd alleged victim went off to lunch, then to the cinema. They agreed to meet later, as Mr Assange had to go back to the first alleged victim's apartment to attend the party she was hosting for him. It was also at the seminar that the two alleged victims met each other for the first time.

Mr Assange and the 2nd alleged victim met in Stockholm on (Monday, August 16th), and agreed to go to her town(Enkoping), which is some 78km from Stockholm. she bought the train tickets for both of them, as Mr Assange apparently feared being tracked by the CIA and/or other security agencies if he used a credit card. They went to her appartment, and had sex there. A condom was used. On Tuesday morning(August 17th), they had sex again; he refused to use a condom on this occasion. He went out with the alleged 2nd victim for breakfast, then she paid for his ticket back to Stockholm.

The 2nd alleged victim then contacted the 1st alleged victim, and mentioned that she had had unprotected sex with the 1st alleged victim's house guest. At this point, the 1st alleged victim is reported to have demanded that Mr Assange leave her place. He disputes this.

On August 20th(Friday), the two alleged victims went to the police. After several interviews, the duty prosecuting attorney, a Ms Maria ÂKjellstrand, decided to go after Mr Assange on rape charges. When this came to the attention of the senior prosecutor for Stockholm(Ms Eva FinnÃ©), the case was dismissed(http://www.thelocal.se/28534/20100823/).

At this stage things got messy. There are reports that approaches were made to tabloid newspapers. There are reports about politicians becoming involved( lack of Swedish means I cannot confirm this). What is true is that the case was revived by a prosecutor in Goteborg(Gothenburg), which is clear over on the west coast of Sweden.

From then on, it is in the legal systems of Europe.

It is clear that the Swedish legal system has not been very efficient. It is a bit embarrassing to have to resubmit a European Arrest Warrant, because your people did not fill out the forms properly in November.

It also clear that one of the alleged victims has attempted to remove some postings on social media. Whether this will be viewed as prejudicial by the court(s) remains to be seen.

Stephanie Z, your strident self-righteousness is boring. Your automatic default to personal attack, when someone has the temerity to disagree with your views, is both predictable and tedious.

"Yeah, cause when the condom breaks and he holds her down because she wants to stop, that's totally not a rape case."
Stephanie, your sarcasm is not exactly helpful, though if it makes you feel good that is fine with me.
Clearly if he held her down against her will that would be rape.
This is the closest I can get to the case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1307137/Supporters-di…

He should take an STD test for sure. He is a jerk, maybe it takes a jerk to run wikileaks. The women might want to reflect on their decisions too.

@Stephanie - No "charges" were read out at the British Court. The British Court has no power to charge somebody for Swedish crimes. The Swedish prosecution made the case for why he should be extradited, which involved listing the alleged crimes he is wanted for questioning over. The media called these "charges," but they're not.

Look, here's his lawyer speaking last night claiming that he still hasn't been charged. Assange's lawyer still knows less about the case than you do?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/12/15/3093387.htm

Quote; "There are no formal charges against him." - Jennifer Robinson.

Here's a good article on the fiasco despite making the same mistake about "charges."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/jaccuse-sweden-britain-an_b_79…

Jeremy, I'm not sure what your point is. "Formal Charges" would be what happens at an arraignment or equivalent. That would require being in a courtroom in the country making the charges, but at this point he seems to have left the "scene of the crime" as it were. But it is not as though some legal thing that some people might call "charges" or something else, but that constitutes the first step or two in the legal process, is not extant with more steps pending. I've seen this a zillion times. A higher level police official, prosecutor, or government attorney stands there on TV and says "We're charging this person with X, Y and Z. As soon as we get him."

Nobody, say in the press, describes such an event as "There are no formal charges against this person at this time" but rather "This person is being sought on charges of X Y and Z." (Well, the lawyers often point out about the charges, but that's a "watch the monkey" thing more than anything else.)

In other words, your insistence that he is not formally charged is silly. Of course he isn't. He's being extradited from one country to another to stand certain charges because the latter country is charging him on those charges, for which he'll be formally charged when he gets there.

sailor, why the "if"? I quoted the charges and gave you a link to the source. That makes this a case of rape.

MacTurk, your running away when presented with evidence only to come back later to what some would consider a dead thread could be viewed as prejudicial by the readers of this blog. But, you know, that's totally not a smear.

Running away? Where to? I do not generally do anything internet related on weekends. That is family time. "...viewed as prejudicial."? To what or whom? Facts are facts.

I did mention your reflex tendency to head for the personal abuse earlier, did I not?

Dead thread? I posted last on December 10th. Your accusation was posted on December 14th

Re your constant harping about Mr Assange being charged, you might care to read this from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652

Could I draw your attention in particular to the section under the heading "Questions to answer"?

It reads, in part; "The case may turn on if or when consensual sex turned into non-consensual sex - is a male decision not to use a condom a case of that, for example?

Under Swedish law, Mr Assange has not been formally charged. He has merely been accused and told he has questions to answer.

The process is for the prosecutor to question him to see if a formal criminal accusation should then be laid before a court.

There would then be a hearing in front of some lay people to see if that formal charge should go to a formal trial".

I do try to know what I am speaking about. I try not to impose my knowledge of my county's legal system on to other states' systems.

MacTurk, if you don't like "viewed as prejudicial," don't use it to talk about the women and then insist you're not smearing them. I simply used your language but aimed at your head.

And yes, of course the entire case is about consent. No shit. Did you read the blog post Greg linked to that started this thread? This case isn't about whether the women talked to each other. It isn't about how they were dressed when they met Assange. It isn't about whether they had stars in their eyes when they gave their conditional consent. It isn't about whether they're nice people or acted as though nothing had happened after whatever happened happened. It is entirely about whether they consented to what was done to them. If they did not, it is rape, whether Assange can be convicted or not.

The arrest warrant is just for his questioning. It's perfectly legal to charge somebody in their absence and happens all the time. Assange didn't flee. As the interview I posted shows, his lawyers continually tried to contact Swedish officials both while he was still in Sweden and then later while he was in the UK. They received no responses or requests for him to come in for questioning until the arrest warrant was issued, which is almost a unique response from law enforcement, as was the fact that he was initially charged before the accusers had made any formal statements.

Christmas is Hell

gregladen — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:55:03 +0000

Christmas is Hell

People are very on edge today. More short and ill tempered than usual. I was walking along in Target and had that sense of tension and angst all around me, the feeling that everyone in the store would be happier if everyone else in the store was not there. As I was walking along I had the feeling that if I stopped walking the person behind me would just run into me.

So I stopped in my tracks next to an endcap.

Whump.

Just as I expected.

So for the rest of the day while I was doing errands I kept doing that. In Target a few more times. In the grocery store. In the parking lot. The parking lot was probably not a good place to do that. Don't worry, I'll be OK. I'm tough.

Things were so tense, when I was parking at the shopping mall, I heard someone beep their horn. It was pretty far away, maybe over on the highway, but I'm sure it was a car horn.

People don't beep their horns much in Minnesota. I'm pretty sure that if you disconnected every single horn in every single car in Minnesota, no one would notice for months. If you did it in Boston, people would notice right away. Some guy would show up at work:

First guy: "Hey, whaddayaknow, my horn broke this morning!"

Second guy: "Hey, mine too!"

Third guy: "What a coincidence, mine too!"

Fourth guy: "... wait a minute. Maybe this is not a coincidence!!!"

But if it happened in Minnesota, first of all, for several weeks no one would notice. Then one person would try to use the horn and it wouldn't work.

Ollie: "Hey, my horn didn't work this morning."

Knute: "You would know! Ollie, you're a bit hot headed, don't ya know."

Then, like five weeks later.

Myrtle: "Hey, Ollie, didn't your horn break a while back? Where'd ya get it fixed, anyway?"

Ollie: "Ya, sure, but my mechanic couldn't fix it. Says he's never done one of those jobs before didn't want to make it worse."

Myrtle: "Oh, sure, I thought I could ask you where you got it fixed. Mine's on the Fritz now too."

Then, two months later...

Fritz: "Hey, Myrtle, weren't you looking for a place to get a car horn fixed a few weeks back? Is it broken yet?"

Myrtle: "Yeah, Fritzie, It's still broken."

Fritz: "Too bad, I'd like to know where to get mine fixed..."

Ollie: ".... you know, I'm not so sure this is a coincidence...."

You know the tension is due to the holidays, and all that goes with them. I have a friend who lost two grandparents over the last few years at this time of year. Now that I think about it, the two elderly people I grew up with also died just this time of year, but that was a long time ago. Anyway, a lot of people die right about now. Death goes with the holidays. Then there's the family expectations and tensions and stuff. I'm lucky in that regard. Many years ago, each member of my family moved to a different state, as far away from each other as possible. I'm not sure why. But it certainly did eliminate any possibility of holiday related tension. But for most people, there's a lot of tension. Then there's the shopping. That is a whole different kind of pressure. Not the shopping itself. Picking out a few items to give to loved ones, and picking up a dozen fruit caked for everyone else is not hard. But since most other people are doing the same thing, there is chaos. The chaos is a bummer.

Chaos. Tension. Death. A horn blaring.

The war on Christmas must be won.

gregladen Mon, 12/21/2009 - 16:55

Tags

War on Christmas

I barely communicate with my relatives. I tend to avoid stores and the raving lunatic obligate consumers until January.

…the feeling that everyone in the store would be happier if everyone else in the store was not there.

Strange: I feel that way whenever I shop, no matter what time of year it is.

I kind of like weaving through the crowds in the stores, but I may also play too many video games.

A dispersed family can be a very good thing.

I laughed quite loudly a couple times reading this.

I'm taking a lot of burden off of my mom. I've done a majority of the Christmas shopping. She's so scatterbrained right now. Plus, my niece turns 8 next Monday, and who knows if we'll get to see her.

What the fuck is an endcap?

An endcap is the display at the end of the aisle, usually used to feature products the manufacturers have paid to have highlighted.

You mean in a fucking store?

Yes, Target is a store.

@ #8.

Not quite. You may be thinking of "Naughty but Nice"

You mean there are not Targets in Boca Raton? (Which is where I imagine Physioprof lives, in a second story walkup over a pawn shop)

If you're in a frivolous mood, you can call it TargÃ©. We suggested to the relatives that instead of guessing at presents for us, they should save their money and buy something they like for themselves or their children. So we're all opting out this year and just having a fine, nonreligious dinner together.

Has anyone else noticed that Snuggies can be hard to find? I checked two Targets, a CVS, and a Walgreens, only to find the kids version and the dog Snuggie left.

Dog... snoggies?

I had to pick up a few gifts at Home Depot yesterday, and it wasn't too bad; the local Target, even last week, was sturmunddrang-filled nightmare, however. I think some people are overwhelmed by consumerist inadequacies and loneliness during the holidays, and that cars, SUVs, and shopping carts are just convenient outlets for that despair and frustration. Performing psychosocial experiments at Target endcaps and in parking lots might be a bit dangerous this time of year, Greg. I'm just glad that I've made it through the gamut of holiday parties this year, and that none was as bad as I had dreaded.

A former colleague routinely sent his administrative assistant and technicians out shopping for him, particularly at the holidays. It wouldn't surprise me at all that some in academia have little or no practical experience with large chain stores like Target or Walmart. I could walk down the halls at work today, and find one or two easily (though they might deny it).

Around here we stock up on bulk supplies in October, so that barring perishables like milk we can avoid stores until after things settle down (not least because it lets us avoid the damned music.) I just got back from five days enjoying northern New Mexico (mountains and snow, gorgeous!) and tomorrow am heading up to the Arizona White Mountains for three days of emergency medical duty.

No shoppers, no music. Bliss.

I have to sit down often when I go shopping, I have moderate social anxiety, but this year it has been really bad. The tension that you speak of is everywhere here as well, and it makes me feel ill when I'm in the stores.
We've mostly opted out of christmas this year as well, save for a few small things for those closest to us.

Bjorn Watland #13: What really frosts my cookies about Snuggies is that I didn't think of them first. Take a cheap blanket, add some sleeves, sell for $10 to $15 dollars, and become a bazillionaire.

Same thing with Pillow Pets. Take a stuffed animal, modify its shape to have a square body, add velcro, sell for $20 to $25, and become a bazillionaire.

Why invent when you can modify?

Target is a fucking store? You learn something every day, and I'm a bit sorry that I've been missing the spectacle. I shall try to make it to the mall soon!

The bit about car horns is totally true. I used my horn every day when I lived in Philadelphia, and after living in Minnesota for a few years I noticed that I'd forgotten about it...and my horn was broken! It was all jammed up with dust and grime or something, and I had to pound on it pretty hard before I could get it to give and make a plaintive little beep. Which startled the driver of the one other car at the intersection immensely. I felt very guilty. Haven't used it since.

Are the holidays here already?

@18 Mandrake, If you want a snuggie just put your bath robe on backwards... No sewing!

I like to go to Target and people watch. Make up stories about them. Here in the Deep South I haven't noticed so much tension. Rarely hear horns around here either. Maybe it's the shirt sleeve weather, not so much bustling from the car to the store to get out of the cold. Maybe its just the slower culture. Anyway, enjoy the season, however you care to celebrate it!

LOL, Mr P. I always call the Snuggie "a product for people who haven't mastered the complexities of the bathrobe."

Simple observation: Notice that cats don't need snuggies, they just you as a snuggie. Everybody feels warm and happy. Skip the gimmicks and just get a cat!

I have totally experienced the "first time in a long time" phenomenon with Minnesota horns.

You press the horn and think there is nothing, but if you listen you can hear what sounds like a little motor or something running under the hood. Then you start to hear a noise that doesn't really sound like a horn but does sound obnoxious, but very variable in intensity and pitch. Then one or two times a horn like sound comes out, then it goes to full blast horn. Then your horn works, because the lemmings that were living in there until you pressed the button have fallen out. And are now pissed.

Never had lemmings in my horn, but I once had mice in my air filter. They had stored corn in their nest there.

Don't get pissed about the Snuggie, invent accessories! Make a Snuggie hoodie, snuggie mittens, an electric snuggie, the snuggie cloak so you can do your winter wizard work.

I drive like a complete ass after I get back from working out east. This is a generalization, but everyone drives as if the person in front of them is the devil himself and must be passed. Aggressive driving is the norm. I think I heard an explanation that the desire to pass up everyone in front of you was an example of modern territorial-ism, but I'm not sure why driving like an ass becomes the norm once you get into PA and east.

The great thing about people not using their horns here, is that when you do, it means something. Out East, it's just background noise.

The best thing about Christmas is that it occurs on a specific day and is therefore over if you can just hang on long enough. Well, unfortunately, that is not exatly true. There is unspecified time of deornamenting the house. Friend had the best solution, a spare room, decorated for Christmas and closed the rest of the year.

About driving,I have driven in Caracas, so I have no fear. My wife would refuse to ride with me for a couple of weeks each time I would come back from Venezuela.

food banks are seeing a HUGE increase in the number of people needing food.

ask your friends if they are all willing to give money to their local food banks instead of buying for each other. AND you can usually do it online, thus avoiding stores.

to me (an atheist), that would be putting the "christ" back in "christmas" - i.e. giving to the poor instead of to people who don't need things is much more "christ-like."

Bjorn Watland,

I don't get the feeling of having to pass people unless I'm on my bicycle. And then it's only other people on bicycles. Especially if they run a stop sign or a red light. The main problem is that I'm not in the same shape I was fifteen years ago so it's getting harder.

Anytime I see the Snuggie commercial, all I can think is: "Snuggie, it's for white people!" Not even a token minority in the "crowd" scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xZp-GLMMJ0

Almost immediately after I moved to Massachusetts I was forced to pay for a state-mandated horn-honking chip, at my first vehicle inspection. It is apparently something like the California emission standards. I don't even notice it any more.

When my wife came back from shopping she said people were acting crazy. Then I noticed she was acting crazy. I said "Relax, you're acting crazy". She looked right through me with that thousand yard stare. I don't think she heard me. There's something going on. I'm beginned to get kind of scared...

I avoided the rush by inviting a few fellow artisans over to sell stuff in my home. I made cookies and money all day Saturday. Wheee, fun.

Julia is alive right now only because of my quick reactions in the parking lot an hour ago. At the fucking orthodontist!

Yes, people are going a bit over the top today, and I think the impending Killer Storm from Hell is only adding to it all.

One of my favorite movie quotes of all time (from National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation): "Audrey, it's Christmas, and we're all in misery" My family watches it every year on Xmas eve, and we all wait for that line.

On the subject of car horns, I live in Kansas and in the 9 years I've owned my car I've honked the horn exactly once; on the day I bought it, so I would know what it sounds like. There's a lot to dislike about this state, but I love the fact that it's so laid back -- except for Fred Phelps and the hard core Jayhawk fans. They need valium.

Doug, you should go try your horn now and see if it works.

GL: "...alive right now only because of my quick reactions in the parking lot an hour ago."

Not surprising, if you drive the way you shop.

Lynn: We were in a parked car.

Deck the malls with plastic reindeer
Falalalalalalalala
Christmas can be such a pain, dear
Falalalalalalalala
Muzak carols on the speaker
Falala, Falala, Lalala
Make December even bleaker
Falalalalalalalala

"Black Prison" interrogation video leaked

gregladen — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:45:22 +0000

"Black Prison" interrogation video leaked

This is just un-believ-able

Hat tip: Rachel

gregladen Thu, 12/17/2009 - 15:45

Tags

War on Christmas

I'm just glad they locked that dangerous bastard up.

I'll bet one of the elves ratted him out. Never trust scab workers.

Finally, the Canadian border guards are giving jolly old white men what they deserve.

Finally, the Canadian border guards are giving jolly old white men what they deserve.

FTW!!11!

Well played.

Let the War on Christmas Begin. Atheist style.

gregladen — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:59:20 +0000

Let the War on Christmas Begin. Atheist style.

This week is Thanksgiving in the United States. This means that over the coming weekend many Americans will be putting up Christmas decorations in and outside their houses. Many children will be putting finishing touches on their letters to Santa. The shopping malls will start to fill and while economists examine and measure the retail sales bump for signs that the world will not end, we, as a nation, will come together to incrementally crank up the material contents stored in our homes and the corresponding mass of our public landfills.

But what do Atheists do on Christmas?

We declare war
!!!! War, I say!!!!

OH, and some of us put up Christmas and/or Hanukkah and/or Kwanza decorations, we go to the malls or on line and get presents for family and loved ones, engage in Secret Santa negotiations and some of us (and by "us" I mean "them" in this case) sing Christmas Carols.

And there is another pleasure we atheists get from Christmas. From our perspective of understanding that Christmas is a cultural event as much as, if not more than, a religious holiday, we enjoy, and even get giddy about, the reaction of people who are nervous about their own religion and who disdain us atheists to our very existence. The ten commandments displayed at the courthouse is an abomination. The city funded Christmas creche in the town square is inappropriate and obnoxious. The Christmas tree in front of the state house? Meh...

But what about Richard Dawkins singing christmas carols????

I wrote the following a couple of years ago, but most of you have not seen it. It applies nicely this time of year ...

The Bible-Thumping Grinch who Pissed on Christmas

I am amazed at the giddiness amongst Christian Fundamentalists that has fomented from the mere utterance of a holiday greeting by Richard Dawkins. The counter-insurgents in the War on Christmas ... the Red White and Blue, squeaky-faced smirking shits that call themselves commentators or preachers are creaming in their jeans. But they are also stepping over the line, and I'm calling them on it.

I do not really know or care what Richard Dawkins thinks, or said, about Christmas. I do know what I think and how my multi-canonical family celebrates the holidays, and I certainly know a sanctimonious bastard when I see one. And I'm seeing them everywhere on the Internet.

Here's how it is with me. My closest associate in life is probably my daughter, because she and I have known each other longer and more continuously and spent more time with each other over a number of years than anyone else. She and I have almost the same attitude about Christmas. It's cool because you get presents. Giving presents is fun too. Which is more fun depends. On the presents.

There are additional things beyond this that we each appreciate. We both like the family gatherings and the food. I don't care about the tree and the ornaments and the decorations. If it was traditional to put up model train sets I might care more because I have a Y-chromosome, and there's a train gene on there. But I don't care about the other stuff. My daughter likes that stuff more than I do.

I like the smell of air that is chilled by two day old snow, served up to my nose at a temperature between 21 and 34 F. This reproduces an olfactory experience that must match some earlier experiences that were pleasant. I don't think my daughter has those visceral reactions at her age.

Many things about Christmas I find utterly annoying.

So, Julia and I have recently married into a new family, Amanda's. Her family is part Christian and part Jewish, and of course Amanda and I (and Julia) share our particular "belief system." Amanda's extended (and I do mean extended) family is organized among a set of matriarchs. The celebrations of major holidays rotates among the homes of the matriarchs. Since only one of the matriarchs is Jewish, and that's Amanda's step mom, Jewish holidays are celebrated there, but the Christian holidays rotate through all the families, with the Jewish matriarch fully carrying out her Christian holiday duties.

There are certain traditions.

The Arrival of Santa. As long as there are proto-sentient offspring, some lucky designee dresses up as Santa and we all conspire to fool the little ones into believing that Santa is real. It's a lot better than just lying to them. The transition they will experience will not just be "oh, mom and dad made up this Santa thing" but rather, it will be more complex ... they will have vague, often olfactory and tactile, memories of each Christmas Santa event, each with a different relative wearing the Santa Suit. Moments after they realize Santa does not exist, it will also dawn on them that each of those Santa's must have been Somebody ... Grandma? Uncle Nate? Duane? That was YOU??? Holy crap! And so on. Trauma is good for the little ones.

The Bronx Swap. My new family does not call it a Bronx Swap (that's me, I'm from New York). Rather, they call it "The Gift Exchange" or something genteel like that. Everybody brings one gift, then you draw numbers out of a hat, and so on and so forth. You know the drill.

The food. Say no more.

As long as there is an elder who believes that a prayer should be uttered before every meal, there will be a prayer uttered before every meal. The atheists stand quietly and politely. The agnostics bow their heads half way ... it is probably less hypocritical for them to bow their heads than it would be for the atheists, which is probably, in the long run, why they call themselves agnostics. But I digress. The Jews who are atheists (yes, you can be both) bow their heads too. The fundies (there are a couple) squinch their eyes up when they bow their heads.

I imagine it was different back in the 60s and 70s, when the present matriarchs were either too young to be in charge or just coming to their own, but earlier matriarchs ruled. The Jews had not married into the family yet. There were, however, both Protestants and Catholics. Indeed, there were mixed marriages between Protestants and Catholics. Even more importantly, perhaps, there were Norwegians and Swedes mixing it up, interbreeding, getting along, and so on. The limit of tolerance is not known to this family! The whole thing would have had its own pattern different from, yet similar to, today.

Here is my point: There is a spectrum across which all these people, at these events, range. We have people who go to churches where their preacher tells them that gays are sinners, and we have gay people. We have people who worship Jesus and people who may think of Jesus as a somewhat misguided Jewish boy. We have people who are rabid atheists, people who are agnostics (an agnostic is an atheist caught in the headlamps of family matters, really) and Lutherans and Catholics and Promise Seekers. What holds everybody together is that they are related by blood or marriage (but never both!). Any one of these Christmas celebrations (and the same happens for Easter but on a slightly smaller scale) could be a wedding or a funeral, in terms of who shows up. They are just family gatherings, and other than the crazy guy in the red suit and the gift exchange, there is nothing ceremonial that marks the day.

But this is not OK with the right wing Red White and Blue God-boy Preachers and Talk Radio Yahoos. Oh no, not at all. An atheist, like Richard Dawkins or me or anyone else cannot participate in this ancient holiday tradition in a casual manner without Great Meaning being attributed!

When I look at guys like this:

staring at me from the Internet, and I read words like this ...

The thought of Richard Dawkins singing any carols with explicit Christian content is difficult to hold -- unless the Oxford professor intends to sing of a faith he does not profess.

and

We can only wonder which Christmas carols are Richard Dawkins' favorites. The sight of an avowed atheist joining in the Christmas chorus is a bit hard to imagine.

I get a little angry and a little annoyed.

The cultural celebrations in which my family engages are not really subject to review, criticism, or comment by sanctimonious bastards like this. We have the right to assemble, and we have the right to mix creeds and cultures and approaches in a way that this family has managed to work out over the years very nicely. We do not need to be judged or told that we must stay away from Christmas or do Christmas in a certain way. The right wing fundamentalists do not own this holiday.

There is a lot more wrong with Christmas than there is right with Christmas. A week ago, my wife stopped at a major bookstore to buy a book for a Jewish relative for Hanukkah. She needed it gift wrapped, but they only had Christmas paper. This was during Hanukkah. That was annoying and, frankly inappropriate. That was Borders Books. The carols are annoying. I find all public music annoying, but the Christian carols are an imposition in the public square. I don't care about Christian Christmas decorations going up in public space as long as the solstice rock (or whatever) and the Giant Inflated Dreidel can go up as well. I object to the spending of public money on any of this, but loaning a bit of public space for others to use is reasonable. It is public space.

The utterance of "Merry Christmas" and the widespread corporate and institutional exploitation of Christmas has never bothered me any more than any commercialism ... from fast food to "without life itself chemicals would be impossible" ... and not just because I'm used to it. Rather, I grew up in a liberal part of the country where no one really cared too much if you were an atheist or a Hasidim, and it was common to see diverse religious iconography displayed around at various holiday seasons. But this sort of thing has became an issue exactly because the right wing has attacked -- attacked the tolerant and the unconcerned, the cultural celebrators and the casual Christmas-doers --- from TV and talk radio, the pulpit, and even from state and national legislative bodies!

We are now expected to fall into line and behave as they do, or get out. I am supposed to become like Bill O'Reilly. I would cut my wrists first.

No, Mr. and Mrs Red White and Blue Pastie-Face Right Wing Yahoo, this holiday, or any others, is not yours. Christmas is just as much Richard Dawkins' .. and mine ... as it is anyone else's. This is what is meant by the term "cultural." The Cultural emerges from the actions and attitudes of the participants. What you are trying to do is dictate a narrow theocratically defined and litmus tested range of behaviors. Now, you are telling me what my attitude needs to be about a holiday in order to escape your disdain and ridicule. What will you be telling me to do next?

In fact, this holiday is more ours than yours, because ours is everyone's and yours is close minded, selfish, parsimonious and pompous. You are mean. Santa is jolly. We're with Santa, you cold hearted bastards!

I leave you with this:

Check out this series of posts about missionaries ....

gregladen Sun, 11/22/2009 - 03:59

Tags

Atheism

religion

War on Christmas

Merry Christnas to you to.

War is Over, if you let it.

Might want to change the title to "begin" instead of "being"...

I'm going to have to repost this. I've been telling my kids, if I can sing about Santa Claus, I can sing about Jesus.

Nice! I like it. A well-balanced approach. In a downtown Vancouver coffee-shop run by two Sikh brothers and their family, I had several interesting conversations with them. After I knew them well enough I asked what they thought of Christmas. The one with a wife and children said that he loves it, and he gets into all the trappings and gift-giving and they talk about peace and goodness on earth, and our part in trying to make it happen. The non-married brother liked it, but would like it more if he had a wife.

Just because something has religious overtones does not mean you can't enjoy the experience in your own way if you don't share that religion. It is part of our culture. Even people with other strong religious beliefs enjoy participating in this holiday. There will always be uptight wingnuts on both sides trying to create controversy. Fine, but don't expect us to come running to join you. We'll be too busy celebrating Christmas in our own way.

Incidentally, when I lived in Vancouver I'd participate in other religious holidays. My Asian and East Indian coworkers and friends were always inviting me (dragging me in a couple of cases) and I had good times at various parades or meals.

Pat: Thanks. I saw that error (and a couple of others, also fixed) just before my internet connection crashed.

Let the War on Christmas *begin*, NOT "being." C'mon, Greg.

More often each year I think people say "Merry Christmas" to me with a smirk on their face because they are thinking of the War on Christmas and are expecting a come-back. Or at least that is what I think they are thinking.

Terry, I think we've been over that.

Humbug!

Christmas carols are sung in church, and church is, unfortunately, one of the last places where people can sing in a group without appearing a bit daft. To be sure, one can sing along to the radio or in the shower or go to a karaoke bar, but there's nothing quite like a choir. Besides, it's obvious why Dawkins might enjoy caroling; the music is beautiful and for him probably carries the memories of Christmases past, just as it does for almost anyone who spent a childhood around a Christmas tree.

Sorry, but I think there is a hypocracy to write a book like God Delusion and the sing about Christ the Savior. Pick a side, pick a stance, Mr. Dawkins.

Also notice that the great doctor stated that England is a Christian Nation. Since America is an offshoot of that, America is also a Christian Nation. So we can stop arguing now.

Brent, there are carol groups in my neighborhood who do not sing in church and do sing on the street. I think they a Buddhists.

Terrific post Greg.

Christmas is a cultural tradition. The mixture of Christian, pagan, commerical and pop culture all work together wonderfully.

Pass the egg nog.

Bob, is it also hypocrisy to sing Frosty the Snowman and Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer?

Poor Bob and his reading comprehension skills have been separated again. It's okay, Bob, we all love you around Christmas, and maybe Santa will bring them back to you.

I do have a couple of little points that you may have missed.
1. It's all in good fun to celebrate this Holiday season no matter what the name.
2. Atheists are not vampires, so Jesus is not scary. It's kind of cute the way you want to claim a mythology, but have at it. We'll celebrate Krismas right beside you.
3. The offshooting of the United States from Britain required a lot of shooting. You may want to bone up on history.

Amen!

I actually agree with O'Reilly in that this "let's not offend anyone by calling it Christmas" is silly. But then so it trying to exclude everyone else from this supposedly Christian good time. If you're going to co-opt someone else's good time, then you don't get to be exclusive about it.

I speak neither Italian or German yet Verdi and Wagner can both bring tears to my eyes ...

Bob @ 11
The UK is officially a Christian nation because the Queen is head of state and head of the Church of England. We do not have separation of church and state as in the USA. However despite this we are still probably the most secular nation, thank reason. Us rationalists can appreciate the Christmas music and why shouldn't we join in as it is a social occasion with our friends and families as much as a celebration of Christianity. Also remember the roots of all this predate Christ by some thousands of years.

As a biologist and an atheist I have no problem at all with participating in fun cultural traditions that may have religious significance to some people. I travel to the Amazon regularly and when I visit indigenous people and they invite me to participate in their ceremonies and dances I do so joyfully, even though I do not actually believe in the river gods. Although my cultural tradition is Jewish, my parents were atheists and we had a Christmas tree every year next to the menorah because they were fun! My wife is an atheist and she has been attending Messiah sings every year for decades. I see nothing hypocritical about that. Besides, many of the symbols and traditions of Christmas are actually of pagan origin.

I am an atheist so I have as much a problem with Pagan as Christian.

But yes the presents can be good.

I'm sending this link to all my relatives.

I sing songs about Frosty the Snowman and Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer with gusto. Am I being a hypocrite for not believing in such magical entities?

I've been lurking here for months, since dissenting comments either seem to ignite flame wars or are shunned as trolls. But because I surprisingly and passionately agree with this post, here goes.
I am Catholic and I love Christmas because it's so much more than a religious holiday. It's so annoying when I hear "Put Christ back into Christmas." Then the usual response, "Christmas was originally a Pagan festival." How much was it ever all that focused on Christ? Perhaps, the main reason the Church embraced the custom was to officially continue the celebration by declaring it "holy". Essentially, we are obliged to enjoy it. In the Northern hemisphere, mankind has an apparent need for a joyful event during the darkest time of the year. Assigning the birth of our Savior, not only permitted participation, it encouraged it.
Because everyone CAN and DOES share this wonderful time of year, it is just that more special. As much as it irks me that uttering "Merry Christmas" actually offends someone, the notion that Atheists should be excluded is far more abhorrent.
Dawkins once remarked he'd like a t-shirt that says, "Atheists for Jesus." Knowing he likes to sing Christmas carols, makes me like him even more. In the spirit of the holiday, I now excuse him for not objecting to Bill Maher's award.(like anyone cares what I think, LOL)
Merry Christmas to all! This year, let's live it up!

As a strong "Type-A" Atheist, I find that smiling and returning every "Merry Christmas " with a "F*&k You" is a real feel-good and teaching moment. Ha Ha Bob - Got you! I save that
Special Magic Moment and Greeting for Bob and his ilk.

Happy Holidays to everyone else!

http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/11/war-on-christmas-comes-ea…

Great post Greg. I was raised Catholic and later became an atheist, but I'll give up celebrating Christmas when I'm dead. I love the holiday season, and I love the decorations, and I love the carols (for about the first week). I also love the giving/getting presents and eating and spending time with family. All of it just creates a visceral joy in me and I think it always will.

With that said, I definitely prefer "Happy Holidays" because of the inherent inclusivity of the greeting. I hate how the religious right loons try to push "Merry Christmas" down our throats as if exclusion is virtue.

Bob, I think Adrian crushed your argument nicely. Many of the original colonists fled Europe due to religious persecution. Our founded were acutely aware of the inherent perils of mixing church and state, and thus the US was founded as a secular democracy.

If we atheists are not a factor, then why do these Xian wacko's insist on pressing the so-called "hypocrisy" of Professor Dawkins? If I were to go about every day, visiting churches and praying and singing praises to the invisible, impotent god of the Xian's, that still would not make religion any less crazy than it is now.

The tilt of the earth's axis is the Reason for the Season.

What have the godless got to do with the grinch? Every place where I'd seen christmas events renamed or trees taken down it was not because of the godless. It was always some other religious group seeking some recognition or whining about something. For example, some strange person telling the airport managers that they feel left out and could he and his friends please put up a giant candle holder? Rather than allow some strange people to put up a giant candle holder, the managers remove the tree and tell the public "It's them damn jews that killed the christmas spirit here". (I found the candle holder request very strange indeed - although Hannukah is meant to be a fun time, it's not really a religious celebration.) In other places the catholics set up a stable and some other jesus cult complains that (1) it's offensive because Mary was no virgin (yeah, Mary loved those donkeys) and (2) it's a fire hazard. Any playground excuse will do. Now for religious displays on government property - that's primarily challenged by the religious as well, not the godless (although there are godless people in organizations like AU), and it is challenged as a violation of the state's duty not to promote any religion.

Poor Bob - what version of US history did you read? The one in your cult's version of the bible?

Although many Americans belong to some jesus cult or other, the government and its laws are not based on any sect since it was realized that any such thing would only invite a war of the sects. So no particular jesus cult was given preference. In fact Thomas Jefferson wrote and explicitly stated that the USA was not a xian nation (and hence has no intention of bringing a religious war to Africa). So one of the big guys who had a huge part in establishing the nation says it's not xian; he should know, because he was there.

Greg
You got a shoutout from the Dawkins site. And on the lords day! Does that make it more of an honor?

As an atheist I really don't at all about Xmas and don't object to anything about it except for the fact that is is a Federal Holiday in the United States - Humbug on that!

@18, talking about the UK:
"we are still probably the most secular nation, thank reason"

You have *got* to be kidding - English government schools teach religious instruction: that is anything *but* secular.

If you want to see true secular, go to France. Germany does it pretty well, too.
But the UK? not on your nelly - aside the head of state/head of the Church thing, the particular brand of Christianity there is quite conservative and less progressive compared with Catholicism even.

Mind you, there's plenty of silliness in the UK - Christmas decorations including Christmas trees are progressively being phased out on account of an imaginary offense they give non-Christians.
I will never understand the thinking behind eliminating fun cultural customs (and there is nothing *Christian* about Christmas trees!) in order to pander to non-integrating immigrants. You'd be much better off getting rid of the non-integrating immigrants than the Christmas trees - save a bucket on welfare, reduce riots and terrorism, reduce crime and solve the housing shortage.

Hmph. My comment is hung up in moderation.

From the Cape of Good Hope to the Newfoundland islands,
The sands of Iran to the Panama isthmus;
From Outback Australia to Inverness Highlands
Itâs time to take arms in the War Against Christmas!

My weapons are mistletoe, Christmas trees, holly,
A yule-log, and caroling out in the snow;
Sleigh-rides and snowball-fights, eggnog and Jolly
Old Santa Claus, laughing his loud âHo! Ho! Ho!â

Weâll make them forget all the Truth of the seasonâ
The sacrifice planned by a god up aboveâ
And have them believing some bastardized reason
Like giving, or kindness, or caring or love!

Iâll cruelly and callously help out a stranger
Whoâs down on his luck or has suffered some loss,
I wonât even speak of the babe in the manger
Whom God sent to Earth to get nailed to a cross;

When the winds of December conspire to freeze us
Iâll help collect sweaters and coats for the poor,
Neglecting to make any mention of Jesus,
Whose torture is really what Christmas is for.

My hatred of Christmas will focus my labors
On weaving an atheist fabric of liesâ
For instance, Iâm giving to all of my neighbors
Gift baskets, cookies, and fruitcakes and pies!

Iâll say âMerry Christmas!â Iâll say âSeasonâs Greetings!â
Iâll say âHappy HolidaysâJoyous Noel!â
Intending of course, that with each of these meetings
The Truth About Christmas can just go to hell.

The truth is that Christmas is not about presents
Itâs no time for songs, Itâs not time to be nice
Itâs not time for feasting on turkeys or pheasantsâ
Itâs sin, and redemption by blood sacrifice.

No time to be jolly; no time to be merry
Itâs time to be solemn, and grim, and devout!
The heathens might find it depressing or scary
But that is what Christmas is truly about.

Yes, Jesus is really the ultimate reason
And Christmas is really redemption and sin;
The war against Christmas is early this seasonâ
For Godâs sake, letâs hope that the atheists win!

Frankly, I am surprised that the marxist miltant atheists/liberals/communists/socialist Godophobes haven't declared war on Thanksgiving too. After all, Thanksgiving is all about giving thanks to God for our blessings.

I agree that warhas been declared though. However, it is an unwinnable war that will result in gnashing of teeth. For now the evil marxists may be winning the battles here on earth, but one day Christ will return and abolish the evil of socialism, communism, atheism, and all other isms that have declared war on His glory and His people.

One day, those warriors against God will be thrown into a lake of fire by the warriors FOR God.

Go ahead and declare your pointless, pathetic attempt at war. History tells us that everyone who has gone against God has failed miserably. Even Satan, the once powerful and beautiful of all of the angels will burn in that same fire.

Go ahead and declare your war. We win in the end anyway. I hope you like HOT places becuase al of eternity is a long time to spend trying to put out a fire that is seven times hotter than the Sun. There you will be on fire, but not be consumes. You will suffer and scream, but no one can help. You will cry out but no one will care. You will be in misery, torment, pain, and agony, and no one will help you. There will be no escape and no ease from suffering. Darkness will surroind you and the creatures of hell will torment you day and night. You will not rest, not will you cease to be pain free for all eternity. What's worse is the fact that you will be able to see all of the followers of God in a place of complete tranquility and peace obtaining their reward for being faithful followers throught the persecution you put them through. While you suffer, they will be rewarded. Go ahead and make our lives miserable. The more you persecute us the bigger our reward and the bigger your punishment.

Merry Christmas !

@Laura #23: Well said. Please don't feel as if you are amongst enemies or will be attacked.

@Vince #32: Wow. Sounding pretty racist/nationalist toward the end there.

Tiny, you might want to read the post you're commenting on. I don't think you meant that to be that funny.

Vince, how long do those oppressed by British colonialism really have to be told that the British way is the only way? They made the empire run; they can live their own lives in what's left of it.

And Britain, in any way except officially, is indeed a very secular nation, particularly by comparison with the U.S. There are large numbers of nonbelievers, and they're mostly let alone.

@Tiny Tim #34:
I cant tell if youre serious or just making fun of the god botherers. Either way, very entertaining post. The funniest line was the one about the "evil of socialism, communism, atheism, and all other isms that have declared war on His glory and His people." LOL

Yes, I should have realized that Jesus was a capitalist, given all the biblical accounts of his obsession with the stock market, commodities trading, flipping real estate, and all those small businesses he opened. I may not believe he was divine, but I'll give it to the guy, he really knew how to work the markets.

I dont think Mohammad knew a short-term derivative from a hole in the ground.

I know you are alluding to Jesus beng a socialist. That alone is a statement of blashphemy. What Jesus did was encourage His followers tom ehlp the poor and sick by giving them food, water, money, and healing.

However, socialism does sort of the same thing. The difference is in how these things are done.

Jesus encouraged His followers to give to the poor and help the needy. Socialists force people through coercion of jailtime to give up their belongings and give it to a group of people who best benefit the socialist's political well being.

Forcing people to give up their money to a reckeless evil government and then letting that same government decide who gets the money is far different from me or your willingly of our own free will giving our neighbor some moeny becuase he lost his job.

See Jesus was not a socialist. He never forced anyone to give up anything. He allowed the to do it own their won free will.

Therefore, the term "Jesus was a socialist" is a blasphemous statement worthy of punishment.

Besides, people who do not believe in God should not be allowed to say anything negative about somethuing thye do not believe exists. That right is reserved for people who actually believe in what they are criticizing or uplifting.

Tiny Tim. Shut up. You are dead. (but not forgotten)

Uff da! Norwegians and Swedes intermarrying?!?!

I've read enough.

"See Jesus was not a socialist. He never forced anyone to give up anything. He allowed the to do it own their won free will."

Threats of hell don't count as force? The jail time you could get from not paying your taxes is a walk in the park compared to eternal fire.

I don't know who the smug guy in the suit is, but if he wants to see a whole church full of atheists singing christmas carols, all he has to do is pop in for midnight mass anywhere in the UK.

Tiny Tim,
I didnt say anything bad about jesus. I said (through sarcasm) that he is the opposite of his followers. Thats a complement. As far as we know, jesus never got married, never had kids, never made any attempt to build wealth, never showed any interest in technology, never said anything negative about gays, never showed any fondness for owning weapons, and never whined about paying taxes.. Perhaps some indigenous peoples are similar, but no christian Ive ever met is anything like him.

Seems to me you made an argument that jesus was a socialist. Is hell not a prison?

31
Greg
You got a shoutout from the Dawkins site. And on the lords day! Does that make it more of an honor?

Posted by: Gabby | November 22, 2009 4:52 PM

Linky?

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4643

Dawkins link here.

Thanks, phil & Stephanie Z!

Hi, Greg

I truly enjoyed making this set instead of nativity scene for the wonderful family in California:
http://www.etsy.com/view_transaction.php?transaction_id=21869735
Kids are lovely 3 and 5 year old and are very much into nature. A bit of fairy beings fit in, not in extreme way either. It was quite refreshing reading the request about having a set that is not religion based.

Cheers

Excellent post

I think one of the best examples about why atheists might celebrate, and embrace, certain religious holidays was examined in a short story by Shalom Auslander, in which a religious jew dies and goes to heaven. There he finds God is a giant Chicken. He then asks to go back to earth to warn his family that all their rituals and prayers are pointless...but then he changes his mind. The story was broadcast at the end of an episode of This American Life, which you can access here: http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=369

@ 51
I liked that too Zippy. Got a real laugh out of it until he changed his mind and decided not to tell his family.

It is a bit sad, isn't it, that tradition could keep people from speaking the truth. Do we have to sacrifice happiness for rationality? (In our families at least?)

wait wait... I thought sacrificing rationality for happiness was the whole point of .... oh never mind, never mind.

Can't we all just get along --rationally and happily???

By the way, Greg, I did enjoy your essay, it was great. I think I will pass it on.

Cuttlefish, I don't compliment you every time you post a poem, but DAMN, that was a terrific one. :)

I actually really enjoy many Christian hymns, even though it is probably sanctimonious for me to sing them. Then again, if I liked it, I'd sing a song about Aesop's Fables.

I think it's funny that you think Christmas is more for Atheists than for Christians. First off the Christmas Holiday was to Celebrate the Birth of Our Saviour. It was commercialized by people like you that want a day off work with pay and I'm sure you enjoy the gift giving and receiving but come on. It's gutless the world owes me something people like you that continue to complain that we as Christians are infringing on your rights by saying Merry Christmas and Posting the Ten Commandments in Government buildings because after all this country was built on Christian Values and Morals and Beliefs. Something that has held this country together from it's start. Now you start taking the foundation out from under it and it all starts falling apart ( Obama ) need I say more. I will NEVER force my beliefs on anyone, but now you are trying to take Christmas away from us and claim it as your own. You can't even be an original Atheist, you have to take something from someone else and twist it to make it what you think it should be. Let me leave you with this....... I will put you on my Church prayer list.

I agree. The preceding commenter evidently does not know that Jesus was actually not born on Christmas. The Church made that up to convert the pagan Yule and winter solstice holidays to Christianity. So in a way, they stole Yule from us.
I'm sure someone else has pointed out that it's "Promise Keepers," not "Promise Seekers." Ironically.

Actually, promise seekers exist as well.

Funny how the Puritans banned Christmas in both Old and New England, and Christmas wasn't a Federal holiday in America until 1870.

WOC Dispatch: Atheists Strike Hard in Illinois

gregladen — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:05:03 +0000

WOC Dispatch: Atheists Strike Hard in Illinois

Remember the Atheist Sign that ruined everything for everybody up in Washington State? Well, now those damn free thinkers are going to impose their freedom of speech on the god fearing (or should that be "atheist fearing") people of Illinois.

Here's the sign being provided by the Freedom from Religion Foundation:

And it will be placed in the Illinois City Hall in Springfield. Right down from Homer and Marge's place.

Hat tip: The Friendly Atheist.

gregladen Mon, 12/08/2008 - 15:05

Tags

Atheism

religion

War on Christmas

I just want to put up a completely blank sign, as the ultimate holiday Rorschach.

I'm not sure what to think about this. I agree that the message is accurate; I think that decades of attempting to appease Christians by being non-confrontational have proven to be folly; and I reject Matt Nisbet's claims that we should continue such appeasement. But is the plaque too much? Or do I underestimate the evangelical nature of the religious displays that Christians want incorporated into government (an incorporation which I reject as unconstitutional).

...just thinking out loud...

Scote -- I see the sign and its message as entirely appropriate and tasteful. More pertinantly, it offers an alternative point of view regarding religion without proseltizing for atheism. It seems to me that Christian groups need to realize that for the privilege of mounting religious Christmas (or Easter) displays and other symbols on public property comes with a price. In order for their displays to be constitutional, in my opinion, they must allow other viewpoints to be displayed (if desired by other groups) at the same time in the same general area.

I can't help but think a more successful sign might be something that says "During this holiday season, many non-believers will be joining in the celebrations. Others will choose to spend time in their own chosen way. We all wish you a joyous time with family and friends. That is, after all, the true meaning of the season." That's just a first attempt and it needs to be massaged a bit more, but it gives the idea. Be inclusive, play down the strident opposition while sending the message we want.

I co-sign Mike. I believe in God, so I find this sign shocking and too much. I'm not asking any athiest or agnostics to appease me, but being a believer in God is just as mysterious and faith-based as being a non-beleiver.

This god of whom you speak sure is touchy: he (and all monotheistic gods are males - you can tell by their bluster) can create the entire universe inside of an earth week, but any amount, ANY AT ALL, of criticism or doubt is just too much to bear. Sounds more like a human than a god.

@ Urban Scientist:

Speaking as an atheist, I agree the sign seems rather confrontational. But that's exactly the problem!

Here in the US, we are constantly exposed to explicit and implicit claims that God exists - "God bless you" when you sneeze, "God Is With You" on every church sign on every corner, "In God We Trust" on our money, God in our pledge.

Nobody even bats an eye at these incessant claims that God exists. I certainly don't. I'm happy to let you and others believe as you like, and publicly express your beliefs that God exists, and even try to convince me and others that we should believe in God, too.

So why is it shocking and offensive if an atheist group does exactly the same thing? Why is inappropriate to post one sign claiming there is no god, but perfectly fine to post tens of thousands claiming there is?

"So why is it shocking and offensive if an atheist group does exactly the same thing? Why is inappropriate to post one sign claiming there is no god, but perfectly fine to post tens of thousands claiming there is?"

Well, that is a good point. A sign that says there is no God should be no more controversial that one that says there is, especially since such sectarian signs generally are meant to be mutually exclusive implicit the contrary **and** deny all other gods as false.

I still wonder if the "harden hearts and enslave minds" part of the plaque might be too much, even though I do think it is true.

I can't see this sign having any positive affect other than the old "any publicity is good publicity". The tone is definitely combative and considering all the "war on Christmas" rhetoric this can only make us seem more threatening. I think it's important to remember atheism isn't based on denying god(s), that's just an incidental property of the universe. If we want to free people from religion we need to show them that when they give up their faith there will be something to their life besides shouting "there's no god!"

Why not something like

"Friends and family.
Remember what the holidays are really about"

To me that says, it says we don't believe in god without insulting anyone, and while coming across as nice people.

In addition how do you argue against it without attacking friends and family ;)

The people who are clutching their pearls and hogging all the fainting couches would have done so regardless of what the sign said. It's pointless to water down your message to try and appeal to them.

@ aaron

Again, why is it insulting to say God doesn't exist, but not insulting to say He does?

I agree the sign seems combative, but I argue it only seems that way because we've all been conditioned to accept "God exists" statements by theists. Meanwhile, a large fraction of theists work very hard to frame "No god exists" statements as combative, insulting, rude, etc.

@ Scote:

I think you make a very good point. Religion is indeed myth and superstition and it may well harden some hearts and enslave some minds, but it's incorrect and probably unproductive to portray it as only that. There are obviously positive aspects to religion as well.

Better would be to argue that we can achieve the benefits of religion without the false beliefs and without (or with fewer of) the negative effects.

How about "Axial Tilt is the reason for the season, regardless of what the Bronze-Age superstition you believe in tells you"? Or, we could go with Billo - "Christmas is the day that we celebrate the birth of that human philosopher Jesus (who apparently seems to have written the Constitution)" - despite there being absolutely no relation of this December date with the (supposed) birth of this guy. Up until the 1870s, this day wasn't a federal holiday, and in many cases wasn't a holiday period. Let it go back that way.

@qetzal

I think a lot of the problem is that christians don't see their display as pushing god, they see it as celebrating god. Putting up a sign like that specifically attacks religion. They perceive the narrative "we weren't saying anything bad about atheists, we were just trying to celebrate our god and then they put up a really mean sign about us!"

The narrative we want is "oh the atheists put up a nice sign, well it's nice that they seem to be happy during their short time on earth before falling into a pit for eternal damnation."

It doesn't matter if their narrative is wrong, they're still the audience and if your audience doesn't get the message than the onus is on you to fix the message.

aaron,

I agree part of the sign is excessive; specifically, the part that portrays religion as purely superstition with purely negative effects. As I said in my previous comment, I think that should have been omitted, and a more positive message put in its place.

However, I don't agree it's an attack for the sign to say "There is no God."

Also, I think you're wrong about the audience. I doubt anyone thinks such a sign will convert anyone who's already a strong believer (e.g. anyone who believes atheists are doomed to eternal damnation). Obviously, I can't speak for those who erected the sign, but I imagine their target audience is people who have doubts about God and organized religion. For that audience, the message may well be exactly on target.