The War on Christmas

I suppose you think that I'm posting this to take the "Merry Christmas" side of the debate and to tear the "Happy Holidays" side a new one. Only sort of, but not really. Although I prefer saying "Merry Christmas" as that is really the day most people and businesses mean when they say "Happy Holidays", the whole War on Christmas is for fools. Both sides of the debate are objectionable on their own merits and demerits.

For the "Merry Christmas" side, those who push so hard for this seriously makes me wonder how much of a religious agenda they have in this and whether this is another heavy-handed effort to push religion on others. They complain about a War on Christmas yet they enthusiastically participate in the commercialization of the holiday that has led to its semi-secular status, making it de facto "Merry Capitalism". No objection to capitalism in that sentence, by the way. I haven't turned on my almost if not entirely non-existent readers.

For the "Happy Holidays" side, there's something disgustingly politically correct about opting for Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. The reason businesses opt for saying "Happy Holidays" is so they don't lose any customers who don't celebrate Christmas. The purpose of saying "Happy Holidays" is to please those who might take offense to Christmas, but then you're displeasing those who cherish Christmas. One man's cherished tradition is another's source of antagonism. I feel as if this is a debate society doesn't need to have, especially since we have better things to debate about, such as what to do about the US careening to bankruptcy. But that's not a subject for Christmas, and sorry if that dampened your delight. Christmas is a time for giving, getting, joy and good cheer, for even if you don't celebrate religious Christmas, you sure as hell celebrate presents.

Merry Christmas!

The Government Regulates the Internet and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal

Today the FCC voted 3-2 to adopt net neutrality rules, although on a more moderate scale than initially proposed. More moderate means big cable and DSL providers will be prohibited from slowing or blocking websites, and prohibited from engaging in "unreasonable" discrimination of online traffic. Wireless networks, on the other hand, have more of a free hand on discriminating content. This is yet another government interference in commerce and will likely result in a bevy of "unintended consequences" and some bad judgments on what is "unreasonable". Yes, I know a lot of technically savvy young people support this concept, but it limits potential new innovations. Whether this FCC ruling will be overturned by Congress has yet to be seen. However, prospects are hopeful: On June 8, 2006, Congress rejected an amendment that mandated net neutrality on a 152-269 vote, which included 58 Democrats siding with Republicans, and a lot of these were not the stereotypical Blue Dogs either. A lot of the opposition came from members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Only 11 Republicans supported net neutrality. Whether the 2006 proposal is similar enough to this decision to get the same Democrats to vote to overturn the ruling is the mystery here, and whether Obama will bother to veto Congress's rejection is yet another mystery.

Oh and by the way, in another turn of events Congress voted to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy last week on a 250-175 vote. This is actually a liberal policy I support. Frankly the evidence is slim that the impact of ditching "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will be disastrous and all the policy did was force a personal decision in the name of others' comfort. I think enough people in the military are comfortable with people going out of the closet provided it doesn't cause a disruption in the functionality and efficiency of the military. For those who might have reservations about this, think of it this way: What if the military's best general was gay? Would you end his military career and let that talent go to waste? This is what can happen with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

I'm back! And what a year.

I have returned and much has happened during the year, personally and politically. As I thought, this year was fun. The 2010 election yielded a net gain of 63 seats for the Republicans in the House, well over what they needed to take the House. The last time any party made a net gain that high was 1948. In the Senate, Democrats were relieved at their loss of six seats. Most observers believed it would be more. This year Sarah Palin established herself as a force to be reckoned with, albeit an unstable and possibly a destructive one for the GOP in the future. This year, the Tea Party proved it was not a joke: First to the GOP by defeating a number of incumbents in the primaries, and then the Democrats by snatching the House. Some of the most delightful victories this year were Mark Kirk taking Obama's seat for the Republicans, Marco Rubio winning his Senate race in Florida, Rand Paul winning his Senate race in Kentucky, political opportunist Arlen Specter finally meeting defeat, liberal firebrand Alan Grayson losing reelection in a center-right district, and the sweep of the Midwest and South. Even in the East Coast the GOP did well, but were limited in gains in New England.

What's ahead for the Republicans now? I honestly can't be sure. But if they really want to win the White House in 2012, they will have to pick one of the following candidates:

Gov. Rick Perry

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee

Sen. John Thune

Soon-to-be former Gov. Tim Pawlenty

Gov. Mitch Daniels

Former Gov. Mitt Romney

I discount both Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. Gingrich because if he couldn't keep his party together and chart a course for them as Speaker of the House, how's he going to do it as President? And Palin is still inexperienced and will be the oval office gaffe machine. Moreover, she can't win. Her appeal is limited to the choir.

Now for the Democrats, in spite of the GOP takeover of the House, it is unlikely they will be able to play offense credibly or effectively in 2012. Think of it this way: Is the public going to seriously focus on just one of the Houses in a Presidential race? I think not. I wouldn't discount the possibility of an effective offense so easily had the Democrats lost the Senate as well, as the legislative branch would be more unified against Obama. Obama's got an uphill battle in 2012, as he will have to win back some important states like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, which turned against him this year. Even in his home state of Illinois, the House delegation only has one Democrat from a district that is not in Chicago-Cook County. For at least two years, the future for the GOP looks good. However, this is no time for the GOP to get secure. Remember, two years changed a lot for Obama and it can change a lot for the GOP too.