Saturday, December 17, 2005

Chrismahanukwanzakah...Another Liberal Creation

As an avid Bill O'Reilly watcher, I have a feeling I will be seeing this tv ad in a segment soon, as I believe it exposes yet another battle in the culture war. Virgin Mobile has launched, in my opinion, the most disgusting television advertising ever. The new ads, targeted on such tv stations as MTV, and VH1 all come under the banner "Chrismahanukwanzakah"...a made up Virgin Mobile holiday...Created from Christmas, Hanukkah, and Kwanza(still don't know what that is). The ads poke fun...by such things as...a flaming gay elf, a Hindu Santa, and Jews who sing about their Dreidel being made out of meat. The lyrics from one song sung by the "Hindu Santa" are as follows: Silent Chrismahanukwanzakah night Holy Chrismahanukwanzakah night Chrismahanukwanzakah is calm Chrismahanukwanzakah is bright My new phone vibrate and tickle me Holy guacamole it play MP3 Can I have some chutney please? Can I have some chutney please? Virgin Mobiles official site for "Chrismahanukwanzakah" can be found here , with more songs sung by Jewish people, and Angels. Here is another commercial. I think perhaps the most disgusting part of this ordeal, is their information line. The phone number is 1-888-ELF-POOP, and four choices are given...1)A Jew 2)Hindu Santa 3)Gay Elf 4)Kwanzaa Guy The Gay Elf Choice is stereotypical, but also very , very, very crude. He mentions certain body parts, as well as talks about his sexuality at length. Am I the only one who finds this advertising campaign inappropriate?

53 Comments:

At 12/18/2005 12:26:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

Did you leave your sense of humor in pre-school?

 
At 12/18/2005 12:41:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

I lost it with discussion of a Hindu Santa, and Gay Elf.

 
At 12/18/2005 01:12:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

Whats wrong with hindu Santas or gay elves??

Is there a law that says there can't be santas of other faiths, or elves of other sexual orientations??

 
At 12/18/2005 04:41:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

Also, given the news of recent days, this is an incredibly stupid thing to focus on.

 
At 12/18/2005 10:54:00 AM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Yes, I agree, inappropriate and disgusting. Mocking anyone's religion is never funny. I think there are some things reserved from the joke bag.

I have heard the "Chrismahanukwanzakah" term used among my adult children and their friends but not in this way. They use it as a way to jab at the current politically-correct crowd that admonishes the use of "Merry Christmas". It's their attempt at saying "are ya' happy now?” Of course, the answer is no!

If you don't believe in it, don't celebrate it... Just like any other holiday. Go to work and get in a little overtime or better yet, just spend the day with your own family.

Willis,

Why is it stupid? Being able to freely worship is an incredibly important thing to those of us who are religious. I see things like this as an attempt to erode the freedom to worship. What news of recent days is more important than that?

 
At 12/18/2005 11:21:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

It's stupid because the commercials are clearly mocking the political correctness most stores employ regarding the holidays.

So not only is inclusiveness bad, but mocking this very inclusiveness is bad too??

 
At 12/18/2005 11:33:00 AM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

I didn't view those as "clearly mocking the political correctness most stores employ regarding the holidays". From my experience, the stores that are trying to be politically correct are using "Happy Holidays". Either way, it's too far. Couldn't they just have a cute reindeer song or something? Why'd they have to go there?

Whatever happened to the days when Miller & Rhodes and Thalhimers had that wonderful Santa breakfast? Is Santa a religious symbol? Seems like I heard he was actually a pagan theme... Hmmmm...

 
At 12/18/2005 12:45:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Well it seems extremely clear to me that they are mocking political correctness.

It's very interesting, and sad, really, that you folks care more about this Chrismahanukawanzica crap than Bush authorizing the NSA to spy on Americans illegally.

It's a microcosm of the neo-con movement.

 
At 12/18/2005 05:02:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Illegally? I'm not convinced of that.

We could argue all day long about which law he broke or which law he and his legal team say allowed him to do it. I'm sure the Dems and the newspapers will investigate it to the very end of the presidency. That's probably better in another blog but as far as I'm concerned:

Did what he had to do. Had authority to do it. Saved a lot of lives. Mine was probably one of them since I like to visit NYC. The end.

 
At 12/18/2005 05:17:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only group advocating politically correct phrases, and turning blue in the face when other people don't use the proper language... is Bill O"Reily and his ilk.

 
At 12/18/2005 05:31:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

I don't know about that. I actually heard an employee last week admonish a cafeteria worker for telling him Merry Christmas. He told her "it is not politically correct to wish someone Merry Christmas in a state office building". Imagine that! Not only was she upset but most of the people in the line, including me, were shocked. I made sure to wish her Merry Christmas and so did everyone else that overheard. There was one guy that said "Happy Hanukah".

I like Bill O'Reilly and I usually agree with his arguments. Did I miss the show where he said we shouldn't say Christmas?

 
At 12/18/2005 06:29:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

I agree-

When groups such as the ACLU sue when dead men are buried with crosses...

we have troubles.

 
At 12/18/2005 08:19:00 PM, Blogger Elle said...

honestly, i don't know what to make of it. a spoof undoubtedly, but a pretty tasteless one and definitely in the range of offensive.
TC, since you still don't know what "that" is (appended in a vaguely disturbing tone), why don't you look up kwanzaa? it won't hurt; you won't automatically become a supporter of multiculturalism or anything.

 
At 12/18/2005 09:02:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

I have to admit, the only information I knew about Kwanzaa was from my daughter's "holiday" worksheets from school and, of course, TV. Shame on me for not taking the time to learn more.

Since I don't know of anyone who celebrates Kwanzaa, I looked it up Here and several other web sites. It appears that Kwanzaa is not so much a religious holiday but a celebration of African-American heritage and life. This sounds good - a celebration of family, beliefs, heritage, etc. And it is not an alternative to Christian holidays but can be celebrated by all African Americans regardless of their religious beliefs. I don't mean to minimize the meaning of Kwanzaa at all. I'm sure there are many more facets that I'm missing.

Elle,
Am I misinterpreting?

 
At 12/18/2005 09:11:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

--First off TC, the ACLU isn't suing BECAUSE men were buried with crosses. They are suing because the county illegally used taxpayer funds to construct those crosses. I guess you don't respect the law.

--Lucy Jones: it should be obvious Bush broke the law. The law states that, to wiretap a private citizen, the courts must be used. In states of emergency, wiretaps can be used without court permission, but only for 72 hours. That is the law.

The law was not followed, and Americans were spied on illegally by the NSA, under Bush's authorization.

And you think he did what he had to do?? Why, because that's what he says??

Bush says he is protecting our way of life, protecting our freedom. Right?? But apparently, to "protect our freedom", he has to break the law to spy on us, and infringe upon our freedom!!!

I don't honestly know how neocons such as yourself can rationalize the "taking away our freedom to protect our freedom" bit.

My guess is you don't rationalize at all, you just take it like a spoon-fed baby.

 
At 12/18/2005 10:09:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Willis-

I am called a moderate by people...and in turn..i am going to call you a "secular progressive"

Tax-payer dollars to construct crosses for DEAD PEOPLE. where does it say we cant do that?

 
At 12/18/2005 10:37:00 PM, Blogger J.Sarge said...

Look, I don't want to get particularly involved in this burial crosses debate, and I have not read any of the supporting material.

That being said, hte argument doesn't hinge on the dead over which the crosses are buried. Establishment Clause jurisprudence allows taxpayers to sue governmental entities for violations. Generally, taxpayers don't have a general right to sue over the governmental use of their taxes. Establishment Clause violations are different because there the government is violating the constitution itself, not engaging in an act over which it might be argued that it has discretion.

Again, I'm assuming that that is the argument of the ACLU. It sounds silly to me. I would think that there are more important battles to fight in the name of civil liberties. Like the NSA spying on Americans, for instance...

 
At 12/18/2005 10:42:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

What sarge said.

 
At 12/18/2005 10:54:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Willis,

I am a Mom, a Sister, a Daughter, a Christian, a State Employee as well as many other things. I feel very well qualified for all of those positions. On the other hand, I am NOT a lawyer and I am NOT the President. I am not qualified to be either, nor am I privy to the same information that the President uses to perform his duties. That's why we elect presidents and hire lawyers. Call it spoon fed if you must. I consider it well-placed trust.

I don't know what you do for a living but I'll assume it's not a lawyer for now. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. So, when you get your law degree and can prove it was illegal, let us (or the NYT) know. When you get elected to run this country (which I would bet never happens), run it the way you were elected to run it.

From what the experts are saying, I think you can look up additional legal explanations in the FISA laws and the Patriot Act if you care to further your education on the legality of wiretapping in the USA.

Funny, you should label me a neocon when you don't even know me. Can you point me to the legal description of that please?

 
At 12/18/2005 10:56:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

neocon is short for neo-conservative, or new-conservative.

Let me ask you one question: is it okay for the president to break the law??

Yes or no.

 
At 12/18/2005 11:27:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

I know what neocon stands for.... Just wondering if you have another precise "legal" explanation for your label.

No, it is not right for anyone, including the President, to break the law.

The only problem is that laws are slippery fish. The same laws can be interpreted differently by every person that reads them. That's why I would never be a lawyer. Too many x's in the equations.

 
At 12/18/2005 11:32:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Well, I can tell you, for certain, that Bush broke the law. He basically admitted as much in his radio address this past week.

The law sates that for the government to wiretap an American citizen, a court order must be issued. There are special secretive courts for precisely this purpose, and according to insiders, around 95% of the wiretap requests are ok'ed by the court.

There is an additional provision that states that in an emergency, emergency wiretaps can be issued while the court order is pending. This is limited to only 48 or 72 hours though (I'm not sure which).

That is the law, it's not debateable. And Bush broke it, allowing the NSA to spy on American citizens without any court approval.

This should bother you alot, certainly more than whatever slogan Virgin mobile uses for its holiday commercials.

By your comments here, I assumed you thought that its ok for the Bush administration to break the law. That is the only way you can defend his actions, because, clearly, they were unlawful.

 
At 12/19/2005 12:06:00 AM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Nope, still don't agree. He didn't say it was illegal. You can review the transcript here.

Which part of the address do you consider an admission of guilt?

 
At 12/19/2005 12:12:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

"In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency...to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al-Qaida and related terrorist organizations."

I got rid of the part where he says that his order was consistent with the constitution, because thats just complete hogwash.

He goes on to claim that "Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks."

Except, his orders were to bypass the courts!! The courts are designed to determine whether clear information exists, and he decided to bypass them.

The fourth amendment of the constitution reads as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Where did Bush take an oath?? where did he issue an affirmation?? Where was probable cause decided?? In his mind??

 
At 12/19/2005 12:17:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

Not to mention, Lucy, that a secret Pentagon database has been unearthed, in which the Pentagon was tracking and keeping records of anti-war protesters.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316

Could it be that this NSA authorization wasn't used to spy on Americans with links to al-qaeda, but to spy on nasty liberals protesting the war???

Think about it.

 
At 12/19/2005 02:52:00 AM, Blogger AWCheney said...

Willis, two words...PATRIOT ACT. You obviously haven't read it. I don't agree with it but there you are, we're stuck with it until Congress allows it to sunset. We'll REALLY be stuck with it if they make it permanent.

Now Willis, two more words...EXECUTIVE ORDERS. These give broad powers to the Executive (President) under states of emergency. You obviously haven't read any of those either. Some really fascinating ones on the books from back in the Kennedy Administration, most likely a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

OK Willis, one more word...PSYCHIATRIST. Look in the Yellow Pages.

 
At 12/19/2005 03:48:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

An unrelated attack on the messenger....typical.

If his executive power gives him control to order unreasonable search and seizure at his whim, why don't we just call him King Bush???

I see you don't believe in checks and balances. For now, of course, you'll believe in them again when you are out of power.

 
At 12/19/2005 04:53:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"too conservative" people consider you a moderate. Who? Hitler?

"Lucy Jones" there is no *legal* description of an abstract grouping. How about this for a *definition*: an anit-tolerance movement lacking the traditional fiscal conservativism present in people like Eugene McCarthy.

Look, this ad slogan was a joke, a hilarious joke. To mock everyone simultaneously and yet seem above the over-PC crap was awesome.

Back to Bush. Of course he didn't say "I broke the law". Are you retarded? Start thinking. People who support the president always, whether Dem or Repub, are morons. 205 (see jibjab) was a terrible year for this country mostly thanks to a combination of mother nature and Republicans.

It is true, some laws are ridiculously vague and leads to strange interpretations (see the Ohio defense of marriage law). VISA isn't one of those laws. The law states no one can get wire taps on American citizens without a warrant (there's other parts to it, but that's the jist). The US PARIOT Act (The "US" part is required, the whole thing is a stupid acronymn) doesn't allow the King...I mean president to do absolutely anything. There are limits. The weird part is Bush could have gotten this wire tap authority from congress without any problem but chose not to. Why? I'm not sure. What I do know is that 70% of the population is pretty appalled with this. Perhaps some of you should ask why that is.
As for the ALCU, they'd come to your defense if someone threatened our right to celebrate Christmas, pray, be buried with crosses...but no one has done that. I know it is difficult for us Christians being in the vast majority to exist in this country but we must try to manage.

Willis, gay elves are great but let's face it, 30% of this country will never pay attention to facts because they think Bush is some sort of messenger from God. In 10 years when neocons are a distant McCarthy-esque memory we'll sit back enjoy a Happy Merry Chrismahanukwanzakah and laugh.

 
At 12/19/2005 07:41:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

To respond to anon- Good post first of all, and yes I am an insomniac (and I'm also sick right now).

It is true that this order by Bush, given to the NSA, seems a bit unnecessary. Given that 95% of wiretap requests are approved (according to people in the know), and given that his Congress is directly behind him in the "woar on terah", if he needed more direct authority over possible wiretaps on people involved with al-qaeda, no doubt he could have gotten it. Liberals would have protested some, but he would have gotten it.

I think the real reason he didn't pursue this is because this authorization wasn't meant to spy on people with al-qaeda ties; it was meant to spy on people like me who are anti-bush.

Bush is out to squash opposition; protests are broken up before they even begin, many protestors are jailed immediately(remember the 2004 republican convention?), and by spying on protesters, he can break things up more quickly.

That's what I think is happening, and that makes this all the more scary.

 
At 12/19/2005 07:55:00 AM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

TC,

Would you point me in the direction to learn more about the ACLU and the crosses? I looked on their site and all I could find was a statement saying they didn't have any problems with family paid headstones. I also found several places on the net where veterans were speaking out but I can't find the case. My genealogy buddies and I are in the process of trying to get official headstones on the graves of our civil war ancestors. I hate to see this.

 
At 12/19/2005 08:13:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

Lucy, the argument is simple.

The government paid for crosses to be places on the side of the road (I believe) where people died in car accidents.

Unless you want to argue that the cross is a secular symbol, that violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.

There is nothing "evil" or wrong, or even out of line, with the ACLU suing the government over this.

 
At 12/19/2005 12:42:00 PM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis? You really DO have "Diff'rent Strokes"....

 
At 12/19/2005 01:38:00 PM, Blogger Elle said...

hey, only know about the cross debate from this post--but i promise i'm going to look up more. i'm an unashamed liberal, and willis, i usually agree with the underlying message of your posts even if i don't agree with or know about the examples you use. but are you telling me that the ACLU is suing because of crosses erected in people's memory?

that's a bit much, even for me--though i'll admit my being a Christian makes it hard for me to see the problem. let me say that i do agree with people who say true diversity means embracing a variety of cultures and belief systems--which means affording Christianity the same respect as other religions (that might not be the best word, sorry!).

And, while I won't disrespect my own beliefs by even attempting to say that the cross is a secular symbol, i will point out that Christians are not the only ones who revere the cross. aside from its very clear meaning to us, many indigeneous religions in Africa see it as a symbol of a turning point, a crossroads-so to speak, with the "living world" in one direction and the "other world" in another. either way, it is a religious symbol, i'll admit, and i see how the ACLU could get involved, but this attack is not in the right spirit.

 
At 12/19/2005 04:18:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

I've seen the Star of David on the side of the road so, apparently, the state is honoring the beliefs of the accident victims. Insofar as the placement of anything at the site of a vehicular accident, I should imagine it is done to reinforce the information provided on road signs...and the possible consequences if it's not. I don't know about the rest of you, but I think it's an excellent means of bringing home a message.

 
At 12/19/2005 04:26:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

I agree. It definitely makes you think!

 
At 12/19/2005 06:14:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

So, if I died, you are telling me the state would be fine with placing a pentagram at the side of the road??

Not that I'm a Satanist, but if I was, would that be ok with you guys??

 
At 12/19/2005 06:22:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Willis,

I'm still not sure that's the beef. I haven't been able to find anything on either putting crosses on the roadside or on soldier's graves. Where's the info?

 
At 12/19/2005 06:24:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Oops, hit the button too quick.

I know when our neighbor's child was killed on his bicycle, WE put up a marker. The county or state did not. It was the same when our friend, a fallen Police officer, was killed. WE put up the marker and he was a county employee so I'm not sure the county or the state does this...

 
At 12/19/2005 06:40:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Most counties/states don't do this. The ACLU is suing a particular county for doing it. The ACLU has stated that they don't have a problem with friends/family members erecting religious memorials at the side of the road.

The problem is that the state is espousing christianity, not that the state is memorializing the dead.

 
At 12/19/2005 08:17:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Where is it?

 
At 12/19/2005 08:21:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

I don't remember, unfortunately, and I'm too lazy to look it up.

Somewhere in the south.

 
At 12/19/2005 09:04:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Fighting crosses in the bible belt...

 
At 12/19/2005 09:04:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

We aren't a theocracy. Sorry, TC.

Bush and O'Reilly are trying their hardest to make it one, though.

 
At 12/19/2005 09:14:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Ahhh Willis,
How did I know I would find it at American Atheists...

Seems it's not the ACLU, it's the American Atheists, Inc..

...Nearly 200 people rallied in Salt Lake City, Utah on Saturday to protest a lawsuit calling for the removal of 12-foot-high Christian crosses erected on public property to memorialize state troopers killed in the line of duty...

...The crosses were erected by the Utah Highway Patrol Association, a private, not-for-profit Utah Corporation which has, among its goals, supporting state law enforcement officers "and acknowledging those troopers' service to the people of the State of Utah...

...The 12-foot-high crosses include the names and badge number of a fallen trooper, and are erected "near the location where a trooper has died in the line of duty....

 
At 12/19/2005 09:18:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Well, I'm not sure but there still might be a similar issue argued by the ACLU, or maybe not. I'm not sure.

If it is a private organization, they have the right to espouse any religion they choose, but there is still the issue of public property.

It isn't as big a deal, though, than if the state were funding the cross-building itself.

Unfortunately, there is so much crime in government, particularly regarding our civil liberties, that something like this seems kinda petty and unimportant in comparison.

 
At 12/19/2005 09:22:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Petty and unimportant? Are you saying that it is petty and unimportant to fight to take down the crosses or keep them up?

 
At 12/19/2005 09:25:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

I think, compared to the numerous other assaults on our civil liberties in our country today, that the fight about these crosses seems petty and unimportant in comparison.

It really isn't petty at all, and it is important, but there are just so many battles to be fought nowadays.

 
At 12/19/2005 09:29:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

I'd much rather fight for the crosses than worrying about the President listening to phone calls or taking down names of protestors. Religion is SO much more important to me. Family and religion. That's all that matters in the end!

 
At 12/19/2005 09:34:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Take it to the new thread

 
At 12/19/2005 09:41:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

So, you want to live in a theocracy, then?? I'm not surprised.

DEFEND THE CROSSES!!!

 
At 12/19/2005 10:41:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Sorry, TC. Didn't mean to get things off course.

Promised myself it wouldn't happen, couldn't restrain myself.

 
At 12/19/2005 11:36:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Nah I was the one who mentioned the crosses...

Willis' arguements make me sharper, as I do research to counter him.

 
At 12/20/2005 12:21:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

Good, glad to be of service.

Arguments do sharpen the mind, and if your position is well thought out and consistent, I can respect your disagreement.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home