Outrage over Gov. Romney's birther joke

The Obama campaign is beside itself with indignation that Gov. Romney dared to make a joke today about birth certificates, harrumphing

...Governor Romney’s decision to directly enlist himself in the birther movement should give pause to any rational voter across America.

Pause, indeed. Gov. Romney's comments are beyond the pale. The President's U.S. nationality has been firmly established, and jokes about the President's origins have no place--no place whatsoever--in our political discourse.

As it turns out, the joke was captured on video, so everyone can see how mean-spirited and divisive it was.



Oops, I meant this mean-spirited and divisive joke.



Harrumph!

Republicans' phony, bogus, and artificial outrage

The list of Republicans pompously bellowing for Missouri Rep. Todd Akin to withdraw from his state's U.S. senate race keeps growing and growing, with NC Senator Richard Burr joining the list.

You can tell that these Republicans are really, really serious because they don't just use one adjective to condemn Rep. Akins remarks, but three!

Sen. Brown: "I found Todd Akin’s comments about women and rape outrageous, inappropriate, and wrong."

Gov. Romney: "Congressman’s Akin comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable, and, frankly, wrong."

Sen. Cornyn: "Congressman Akin's statements were wrong, offensive, and indefensible."

Sen. Burr: "Congressman Akin’s comments about rape were outrageous, offensive, and, simply put, wrong."

In the weird math of Republican politics, three adjectives appear to equal one category-5 shit-storm.

The Republicans seem to be saying that Rep. Akin, by his remarks, is unfit, unsuited, and ill-equipped for public office (hey, I can read a thesaurus too).

However, if they are actually concerned with Rep. Akin's fitness to serve, why aren't any of them calling on him to immediately resign his House seat?

BTW, double bonus points for phony outrage go to Sen. Claire McCaskill for her complaint that national Republicans were trying to "dictate" to Missouri's primary voters.

Read more here: http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/burr_calls_for_akin_to_exit_race#storylink=cpy

McCain to Obama: Don't Politicize National Security Like I Did

The Obama re-election team has released a video contrasting the President's decision to launch the successful raid on the Bin Laden compound with former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney's pitiful hedging.



Now that video has drawn the outrage of Sen. John McCain. The Hill reports

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) rebuked President Obama on Friday for using the anniversary of Obama bin Laden's death to score political points, calling it a "shameless end-zone dance."

"Shame on Barack Obama for diminishing the memory of September 11th and the killing of Osama bin Laden by turning it into a cheap political attack ad," McCain said in a statement circulated by the Republican National Committee.

Shameless?

Where was Sen. McCain's shame in politicizing votes to support the troop surge in Iraq and vows to kill Bin Laden during his run for the White House?

People with better memories than the doddering Sen. McCain might think back a mere four years ago when his campaign released this shameless end-zone dance from a surrogate with respect to the Gov. Romney.

The next President of the United States must be a leader of courage, not a weather vane who shifts in the wind. John McCain will not waver in the face of the enemy. He's been tested under fire in war and did not wilt on Iraq when the polls went south and the drumbeat for withdrawal grew louder. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Governor Romney. When it came to unequivocally advocating and supporting the successful surge in Iraq, John McCain was rock solid while Governor Romney sought political cover by indicating his support for secret withdrawal timetables. At a critical moment, John McCain proved that he was ready to be Commander in Chief. Unfortunately, Governor Romney didn't. Governor Romney failed the test of leadership on the most crucial national security issue facing the United States with American combat forces in the field; he wilted. John McCain stood tall.

Or when Sen. McCain danced thusly (and shamelessly) with reference to his Democratic opponent

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told "Good Morning America" that he was glad Obama was in Iraq and insisted the trip will give his Democratic rival an opportunity to see the success of the surge strategy. "He'll be able to have the opportunity to see the success of the surge. It is a success. This is the same strategy that he voted against, railed against," McCain told ABC News' Diane Sawyer. "He should admit he was wrong about the surge," McCain later added.

Or when Sen. McCain also danced.

Let me conclude by reminding you in wartime, judgment and experience matter. In a time of war, the commander-in-chief doesn’t get a learning curve. If I have that privilege, I will bring to the job many years of military and political experience; experience that gave me the judgment necessary to make the right call in Iraq a year and half ago.

Or when Sen. McCain shamelessly promised.

I want to assure you I have complete confidence I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

Thank goodness we have a fine senator who is above this sort of shamelessness.

Democrats' political theater isn't any better than Republicans'

By now, the sordid story of Montana Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull forwarding a racially-insensitive and derogatory e-mail about President Obama is widely known. After initially showing even more insensitivity in the way that he minimized the incident, Judge Cebull eventually apologized and requested that the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit court review the incident.

However, that apology and pending review aren't good enough for two House Democrats who, sensing an opportunity to further embarrass Republicans, want Judge Cebull hauled up for a Congressional hearing.

Two Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee want a hearing examining the conduct of the federal judge in Montana who emailed a racist joke implying that President Barack Obama’s mother had sex with a canine.

Reps. John Conyers and Steve Cohen wrote to Rep. Lamar Smith (R), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, urging an examination of the “full ramifications of Judge Cebull’s conduct on the integrity of the federal judiciary and to consider whether further action by the Committee is warranted.” Legislative action should be on the table, they wrote.

Let's be clear. Judge Cebull displayed remarkably poor judgement in the initial incident (an especially disturbing quality for a, well, judge). The judge's actions undermine trust in the fairness of his court, and his delayed and reluctant apology might not be enough to restore that trust.

However, that decision now rests with a panel that is specifically tasked with that type of investigation. The judicial review panel should be allowed to make its decision without interference from Democrats.

While hearings like the one proposed by Reps. Conyers and Cohen might provide Democrats with some modest short-term political gains, they will actually do more harm in the long-run. First, most reasonable people will immediately recognize this as pure political gamesmanship. Reps. Conyers and Cohen show remarkable bad judgement themselves for wasting valuable Congressional time and resources on a game.

Second, there is breath-taking hypocrisy in Rep. Conyers calling anyone else to examine the full ramifications of someone's conduct on an institution's integrity or to consider whether further actions are required when presented with evidence of despicable behavior. Rep. Conyers' past behavior doesn't give him much credibility here.

Third, the representatives are undermining the investigative process and general credibility of the judicial system itself. Judge Cebull's actions might be a one-off example of poor and tasteless judgement (heaven knows, Judge Cebull wouldn't be the first one to go in for a tasteless joke), or they might reveal something more deeply rooted. However, as familiar expression goes, there's an app for that--the Ninth Circuit review panel. When the representatives call for their own hearing, they are effectively saying that the review panel is incapable of carrying out its work.

Finally, the representatives are missing an opportunity to lead by example. The only way to end the gamemanship in Washington is for responsible people to stop playing the games.

Representatives Conyers and Cohen could act more responsibly, but we shouldn't hold our breath waiting, not when the game is afoot.

Twaddle

Conservative apologists for Rush Limbaugh, who recently vilified a Georgetown law student for her testimony before Congress, are besides themselves with outrage and indignation that liberals failed to call out Bill Maher for his tasteless comments last year about Sarah Palin.

“Did you hear this – Sarah Palin finally heard what happened in Japan and she’s demanding that we invade ‘Tsunami,’” Maher said. “I mean she said, ‘These ‘Tsunamians’ will not get away with this.’ Oh speaking of dumb twats, did you –.”

Ouch!

However, conservatives may have just scratched the surface of the great liberal misogynous conspiracy.

Consider one of the liberals' favorite programs--one that is trotted faithfully during PBS pledge weeks, never fails to deliver big contributions, and feeds liberal sniggering.



A careful and fair-minded viewer can't help but notice that the sign with the offending vulgarity appears on the right of the screen. At the same time, the sign is pointed squarely at that mainstay of capitalism, a small business. Viewers will also notice that names of the women with writing and acting credits appear suspiciously close to the sign, while name of the male is securely and safely elevated. I hear that liberals "in the know" refer to this as the "Georgia O'Keefe episode."

This clip is proof that liberals were already sowing the seeds for using a particular misogynous term to undermine conservatism (and women generally) as early as the 1970s.

Mechanical rape?

While conservatives are besides themselves about giving a free lunch to a four-year-old girl, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick reports that Virginia may be preparing to forcibly, mechanically penetrate most women who seek early-week abortions.

This week, the Virginia state Legislature passed a bill that would require women to have an ultrasound before they may have an abortion. Because the great majority of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks, that means most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced. Since a proposed amendment to the bill—a provision that would have had the patient consent to this bodily intrusion or allowed the physician to opt not to do the vaginal ultrasound—failed on 64-34 vote, the law provides that women seeking an abortion in Virginia will be forcibly penetrated for no medical reason. I am not the first person to note that under any other set of facts, that would constitute rape under state law.

Republicans countered in essence, "penetration, shmenetration, what's the big deal?" The Richmond-Times Dispatch reports

Del. Kathy J. Byron, R-Campbell, sponsored the bill and urged rejection of the amendment.

"If we want to talk about invasiveness, there's nothing more invasive than the procedure that she is about to have," Byron said.

In other words, they had it coming.

Tempest in a lunch box

Yesterday, the Pope-funded Carolina Journal misreported that

A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.

Meanwhile the Pope-funded Civitas Institute added, "A state inspector assessing the pre-K program at the school said the girl also needed a vegetable, so the inspector ordered a full school lunch tray for her."

One teensy-weensy problem though--the state employee made no such statement to the girl and ordered no such meal. It's doubtful that the state employee "inspected" the girl's lunch at all.

The Carolina Journal was forced to backtrack on the story, changing the paragraphs from above to

A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because the school told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

Funny, I didn't know that schools could talk.

The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the person who was inspecting all lunch boxes in the More at Four classroom that day.

The Carolina Journal explained that "The first two paragraphs of this story were updated. Neither DHHS nor school officials would identify the person who inspected the homemade lunches and decided they did not meet USDA guidelines." Thus, the CJ's initial statements, which were reported as facts (not "alleged" or according to the child or parent), were never confirmed with the school, DHHS, or the person involved.

Indeed, the CJ actually has the gall to now run a story about not being able to identify the person involved, saying that "the government officials involved have provided sketchy — and sometimes conflicting — details" about the person involved, and then lists contradictions from the Civitas story as part of the evidence.

A spokesperson for the school district later admitted that it was likely the school's mistake.

After investigating, the DHHS determined

...no employee of DHHS, nor the Division of Child Development and Early Education (DCDEE) or its contractors, instructed any child to replace or remove any meal items. Furthermore, it is not DHHS' policy to inspect, go through or question any child about food items brought from home. The facts we have gathered confirm that no DHHS employee or contractor did this.

The CJ has characterized the results of the DHHS investigation as one of the "sketchy" details.

Compounding the error, U.S. Representatives Larry Kissel and Renee Elmers sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Labor, complaining that "a school official denied a child the right to eat the lunch provided to her by her mother" and "at no point should a government official be allowed to deny a 4-year-old child access to a parent packed lunch or imply to a child that their lunch is wrong or there is a problem with the food provided to them by their mother or father." This despite the fact that none of the people involved has claimed that the little girl was denied access to her lunch.

However, the CJ is now also reporting on the overblown uproar caused by its own irresponsible and incorrect reporting.

Ultimately, what is the great mistake that was made? People who were concerned that a little girl did not have an adequate lunch appear to have put her in a cafeteria line with the intention of having her get an additional free item to go along with the lunch that her mother packed but mistakenly giving her a full, free school lunch instead.

Which all goes to show that the economists' old adage is true--there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Update and note (6:50 p.m., 2/16): This post summarizes and extends a conversation at Doug Clark's blog.

As part of that conversation, the publisher of the CJ, John Hood, wrote

CJ did not report that the person in question personally intervened to keep the girl from eating her packed lunch. Nor did we report that the packed lunch was confiscated.

...The only reason we changed a couple of words in our initial story is that other news media were misreading them and inventing events that did not happen — and that CJ never reported as happening — such as a government health inspector confiscating the kid's turkey sandwich. We noted that there is no doubt which institution dealt with the kid. It was the school, not the inspector.

That's funny, because besides contradicting the explanation that the CJ actually posted, the statement is belied by CJ's headline on its initial story "Preschooler’s Homemade Lunch Replaced with Cafeteria 'Nuggets:' State agent inspects sack lunches, forces preschoolers to purchase cafeteria food instead."

In addition to the economics free lunch adage, there is an even older adage that says "what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive."

Update #2 (8:00 p.m. 2/16): Covering its tracks, the CJ has sent the words "forces" and "to" from the article headline down the memory hole. No explanation given by CJ, and frankly, none expected.

People who tell the truth from the start never don't have to change their stories.

Onward Christmas Soldiers!

The holiday display on the courthouse lawn near (one of the places) where I grew up has become much more diverse than I remember.

For the better part of 50 years, a creche and a Christmas tree were the only holiday displays on the Loudoun County Courthouse grounds.

Then came the mannequin Luke Skywalker and signs celebrating the winter solstice. This month, a skeleton Santa Claus was mounted on a cross, intended by its creator to portray society’s obsession with consumerism. A pine stands adorned with tinsel — and atheist testimonials. (“I can be moral without religion,” one declares.)

Members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are scheduled to put up their contribution this weekend. It’s a banner portraying a Nativity-style scene, but Jesus is nowhere to be found. Instead, the Virgin Mary cradles a stalk-eyed noodle-and-meatball creature, and the manger is surrounded by pirates, a solemn gnome and barnyard animals. The message proclaims: “Touched by an Angelhair.”

It's heatwarming to see some new holiday traditions, although some older ones, like a Festivus pole, would have been nice too.

The War on Christmas (continued)

Maybe it's the unusually warm weather this December, but the "war on Christmas" letters to the local paper were late in arriving this year. One more thing to pin on global warming I suppose.

Finally, though this morning, they arrived, and Greensboro is bathed in the fresh scent of holly, mistletoe and intolerance.

One, lamenting that the Jaycees' parade held on December 5 was called a "Holiday Parade," asks "Why don’t we have a Christmas parade? ...What has happened to this country? The majority should rule."

I'm not quite sure how Christmas describes much of anything occurring on December 5. Calling it a Faunalia or St. Nicholas Eve parade would have more apt.

The other, writing about Greensboro's Community Tree Lighting, asks

It is really a shame that in order to be politically correct the word “Christmas” has been absent from most advertising promoting the event. What would be wrong with Community Christmas Tree Lighting?

A nice Christmas tree, just like Joseph set up in the manger?

The author might consider that the Community Tree putter-upper-namer-givers were actually being sensitive to more Biblically-minded Christians who remember that Jeremiah 10:2-4 instructs

This is what the LORD says: “Do not learn the ways of the nations or be terrified by signs in the heavens, though the nations are terrified by them.

For the practices of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.

They adorn it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter.

Happy Holidays!

I wonder what Dr. J will think of this

The New York Times reports on nurses fired for doing the right thing

It occurred to Anne Mitchell as she was writing the letter that she might lose her job, which is why she chose not to sign it. But it was beyond her conception that she would be indicted and threatened with 10 years in prison for doing what she knew a nurse must: inform state regulators that a doctor at her rural hospital was practicing bad medicine.

...But in what may be an unprecedented prosecution, Mrs. Mitchell is scheduled to stand trial in state court on Monday for “misuse of official information,” a third-degree felony in Texas.

The prosecutor said he would show that Mrs. Mitchell had a history of making "inflammatory" statements about Dr. Rolando G. Arafiles Jr. and intended to damage his reputation when she reported him last April to the Texas Medical Board, which licenses and disciplines doctors.

Mrs. Mitchell counters that as an administrative nurse, she had a professional obligation to protect patients from what she saw as a pattern of improper prescribing and surgical procedures — including a failed skin graft that Dr. Arafiles performed in the emergency room, without surgical privileges. He also sutured a rubber tip to a patient’s crushed finger for protection, an unconventional remedy that was later flagged as inappropriate by the Texas Department of State Health Services.

Commentary on this case seems like something tailor-made for North Carolina's Dr. J.

NC confirms double-dipping

The Program Evaluation Division (PED) of the NC General Assembly has now investigated the double-dipping in the NC wetland mitigation programs.

The PED describes in detail how credits for the same 46 acres of preserved land were purchased twice by the state--once as wetlands credits for the Department of Transportation and then later as nutrient offset credits for the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

The PED determined that of the $911,000 that the DENR spent on the "new" nutrient offset credits, $698,372 paid for credits on land that had already been preserved. The PED also determined that another 18 acres remains available for further double-dipping.

Besides the double-dipping itself, one of the most appalling items in the report was a statement by a DENR Assistant Secretary, who wrote that

Approval of the EBX buffer/nutrient offset bank did not impose additional costs on taxpayers. The ability to use nutrient offset credits from an established stream and wetland restoration site made those credits less expensive.

By such logic are dead parrots and the Brooklyn Bridge sold.

The Assistant Secretary seems not to realize that that expenditure bought absolutely no additional environmental benefits to the taxpayers of North Carolina. The money was completely wasted; it has evaporated; it protects nothing, and it can't be used to protect anything. The state would have been better off if the DENR had taken 698,372 dollar bills, shredded them, and then used resulting fluff to insulate its headquarters or to stuff the Assistant Secretary's empty head.

The only positive from the report was that the DENR has issued a moratorium on most future "double" transactions and has drafted rules to prohibit this in the future.

Money for Nothing

Mark Knopfler had it wrong. EBX didn't have to learn to play the guitar or learn to play them drums. All it had to do was write a proposal, and it got its "money for nothing."

The News Observer has a follow-up story this morning that suggests that there isn't much urgency in the state government to address the double-payments problem.

Officials with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources have characterized the payment as the result of a regulatory loophole that they now want to close. But they also acknowledge that they support double payments in some cases when a restoration project enhances streams and the land alongside them. These projects are built by the state and by private companies.

EBX officials say the company should be entitled to the $911,000 because the state has supported double payments on the other restoration projects...

Chrissy Pearson, Perdue's communications director, said that the governor has been aware of the double-dipping concerns and told her Budget Reform and Accountability Commission to tackle the issue earlier this year.

"She told me quite bluntly that this process doesn't make sense to her and she does want some answers as to whether the groups involved in this type of work are working as efficiently and effectively as possible," Pearson said.

We can speed this along for the governor. The answers are "no" and "no."

Pollution mitigation projects often yield benefits that extend beyond the affected site. Although intended to address one type of pollution, they can sometimes address several. Economists refer to these extra benefits as positive externalities, or spillovers (especially apt for projects to reduce stream pollution). The externalities make the project all the more valuable from a social perspective.

The presence of externalities could explain why the state might prioritize one project over another. It might also explain why the state might be willing to pay more initially.

However, the state's responsibility is to get these benefits at the lowest possible cost. It should drive the best bargain possible initially. And under no circumstances, should it pay a second (or third or fourth) time for work that has already been performed.

Any "regulatory loophole" that allows double payments should be closed. In the meantime, no new double-payments contracts should be written, and existing contracts should be reviewed to see if the state can terminate them.

Double the costs but with none of the benefits of the other leading brand

The Raleigh News Observer reports that the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources is paying a Maryland company, EBX, nearly $1 million for pollution mitigation work that the company had already done and for which it had already been paid $1.8 million.

This year, state environmental officials agreed to pay a Maryland company nearly $1 million for its work to help rid the Neuse River Basin of tons of nitrogen, which pollutes drinking water.

Here's the catch for North Carolina taxpayers: The state Department of Transportation paid $1.8 million for the same work several years ago. Yet the new deal appears to be legal.

The state Department of Environment and Natural Resources entered into a $911,000 contract with EBX to remove more than 100,000 pounds of nitrogen during the next 30 years from the Neuse basin, the water source for many communities in the region, and to restore a Neuse tributary.

EBX won the contract with a bid lower than its competitors. The other contractors soon realized why: EBX was claiming the nitrogen reductions from two sites created several years earlier in Johnston and Wayne counties. The two sites were part of $11 million in contracts from the N.C. Department of Transportation in 2000 and 2002 to replace wetlands and streams destroyed for road projects.

The $911,000 would not create a new wetland or a patch of vegetation to absorb nitrogen runoff, which has been linked to fish kills and algae blooms in one of the nation's most endangered rivers. EBX would collect the money for administrative work and for continued monitoring at its existing sites.

We should all be so lucky to get paid twice for the same work.

EBX might not quite be making double the money, but it is making a mint.

Maybe EBX can claim these swamps, er, I mean wetlands, as carbon offsets and collect even more money.

Sen. Franken rises to the challenge

Earlier this week, Doug Clark from the local News & Record used the appointment of newly-seated Sen. Al Franken to the Judiciary Committee to ridicule the Supreme Court confirmation process. Clark wrote

It's appropriate that Senate Democrats put Al Franken on the Judiciary Committee.

The Supreme Court confirmation hearing that begins this morning will be pure show business, with a comic edge. Franken, the comedian-turned-senator from Minnesota, ought to fit right in.

These proceedings have become a joke.

He concluded by sarcastically suggesting that Democrats appointed him to the committee so that he could provide "a laugh or two."

When Sen. Franken got his turn to ask questions, he did provide some comic relief. However, Sen. Franken also ended up asking one of the most insightful questions of the hearings regarding the judicial activism of the Roberts Court.

By a 5-4 decision in Gross v. FBL Financial, the Roberts Court changed the evidentiary standard in age discrimination cases, making it much more difficult for older workers to prevail in lawsuits.

Sen. Franken pointed out that when the Supreme Court decided to hear the case, it indicated that it would be considering a matter regarding whether plaintiffs in age discrimination suits needed to provide direct or indirect evidence of discrimination. In its hearing, the Court received briefs on these issues.

However, the majority's decision addressed an issue on which it had not been briefed--namely, how to weight mixed motives by employers in such cases. As Justice Stephens wrote in his dissent

...the Court is unconcerned that the question it chooses to answer has not been briefed by the parties or interested amici curiae. Its failure to consider the views of the United States, which represents the agency charged with administering the ADEA, is especially irresponsible. Unfortunately, the majority’s inattention to prudential Court practices is matched by its utter disregard of our precedent and Congress’ intent.

After describing the case, Sen. Franken asked Judge Sotomayor, "as an Appellate Court judge, how often have you decided a case on an argument or a question that the parties have not briefed?"

She answered that that was not the practice of her Court.

Sen. Franken's question shows the Roberts Court making important and wide-ranging decisions without giving the parties an opportunity to present facts and arguments. As with so many its other recent decisions, the Court showed a lot of empathy for business interests. You'd think that Sen. Sessions and other Republicans would be outraged by such activism, but you'd be wrong.

Kudos to Sen. Franken for making this point. The Democrats made the right call by seating him on the Committee, though not for the reasons that Doug Clark gave.

Sen. Grassley's suggestion for AIG executives

In a statement that showed how his deep respect for life was matched only by his equally deep respect for other cultures, Sen. Charles Grassley yesterday said that AIG executives should "follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide."

Sen. Grassley today backtracked from those comments but continued to offer keen insights into Japanese business practices. "Japanese CEOs either go out and commit suicide, and probably in most cases they don't, and when they don't they come before the public and bow very, very deeply, and express regret, and may resign or may stay on, but the point is they accept full responsibility."

Grassley may have gotten those insights from this deli owner.

Evolving standards of humor

I guess that I should be outraged by Wednesday's offensive editorial cartoon in the New York Post, depicting two policemen standing over the body of a chimp that they had just gunned down and saying, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

But I used up my outrage at President Bush being labeled as a "smirking chimp," President Clinton's voice being given to an animated gorilla, and this little gem to the right.

The holiday jeer comes earlier and earlier each year

Halloween was less than a week ago, and Thanksgiving, the traditional start of the holiday season, is still several weeks away. However, the first true sign of the holidays is here--the local News and Record has published its first "war against Christmas" letter. This first missive (more are sure to follow) is directed at retailers.

Some tidbits:

In the past few years retailers have been reluctant to acknowledge the reason for this shopping season -- Apparently, the whole sections of stores devoted to Christmas ornaments and decorations, Christmas cards, creches, etc.; the Christmas songs and carols blaring on the loud speakers, and the Christian churches every few blocks fail to get the message across.

Why shouldn't that employee say or hear the words "Merry Christmas?" It would be common courtesy -- Why shouldn't employees say "Happy Holidays," which would be a more common courtesy (i.e., a greeting appreciated by and applicable to everyone)?

The politically correct don't want Christ or God mentioned in promotions in or outside their stores -- Far from it, the politically correct are not reaching into homes and churches to stamp out Christian worship.

The letter and more generally the myth about the "war against Christmas" are really about one thing, putting some Christians' beliefs squarely in the face of others, regardless of how the recipients might feel. Rather than respect the many types of religious belief (and non-belief) that are present in our society, these busy-bodies would rather impose their particular beliefs on everyone.

The whole movement also reflects a sad and peculiar insecurity. After all, a person who was genuinely secure in his or her beliefs wouldn't need those beliefs acknowledged. And surely that person wouldn't need to demand extra acknowledgement beyond knowing that his/her belief was already shared by a majority of society, already fully protected in private worship, already enshrined in official holidays, and already reflected in the types of goods being offered in stores. A genuinely secure person wouldn't need more, right?

At one point the Romans threw Christians to the lions; now, merchants cater to their every shopping whim and wish them "Happy Holidays." The equivalence in persecution is pretty easy to see.

So a little earlier than usual and at some risk of giving offense, let me say "Happy Holidays" to all and "lighten up" to some.