Merry Christmas, Dammit!

Back in the glory days of Saturday Night Live, when Jim Belushi was a bumble bee and Steve Martin was wild and crazy, one of my favorite skit characters was Eddie Murphy's Gumby. These skits would crack me up, because the catch phrases Gumby would use were always something so out of character for a lovable clay figure. The first time I saw it, I so unexpected Gumby to let loose an "I'm gumby, dammit," that I couldn't stop laughing. My mom eventually came in and made me turn it off, because she didn't think SNL was something a 12 year old should be watching. She was probably right.

One of my favorite Gumby skits was the Gumby Christmas Special, "Merry Christmas, dammit," and this morning as I was browsing the online news, a came across an article by Lou Dobbs that made me reminisce about this skit and how applicable this phrase could be today. The article describes a situation where a Rabbi threatens to sue an airport because their holiday decor did not include minorahs. Last year, several retailers elected to use the politically correct "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" in their advertising and decorating campaigns. And every year, somebody in the city of Ontario tries to get the city to remove their Nativity story displays from the boulevard of Euclid Ave. This year, I've seen a lot of talking heads insisting that we need to get religion out of Christmas. And now it's time for me to chime in.

If you've been reading my blogs of recent, you know that I've done some research into the history of Christmas. If it needed to be summarized into one thing, it would be this - Jesus probably was NOT born on December 25th. We really don't know when he was born (Read the Bible if you don't believe me). Sometime in the history of the Church, it was decided that this day would be when we CELEBRATE the birth of Christ, something that I personally think should be celebrated with wild abandon. The fact that thousands of year of prophesy of a coming savior for all mankind came true that night, whenever it was, is cause for celebration that far outweighs any other reason. And since this time of the year already included so many celebrations, most centered around pagan traditions and the winter solstice, why not? And if the main reason for your personal celebration is the birth of Christ, then why not use "Merry Christmas" as your greeting of choice? There is no reason anybody should be offended by it. Just like any Christian should not be offended by "Happy Hanukkah," "Happy Holidays," or "Seasons Greetings." Unfortunately, "Merry Christmas" is under attack, and I felt the need to defend it. Understand that I am not in any way advocating that we go around telling each other "Merry Christmas, dammit," although I imagine after a few loaded egg nogs this could certainly happen, but we should be free enough in this country to use "Merry Christmas" without fear of being sued. So if you see me on the street, then know that I will probably greet you with "Merry Christmas," because this is why I'm happy and joyous this time of year. And even if you return a "Bah, humbug," I will try to not be offended, and find some comfort that at least your greeting is seasonally appropriate.

Merry Christmas

A link to Lou Dobb's article is below.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/12/Dobbs.Dec13/

The Cosmos

Let me start off by stating that this post may be offensive to some. After reading it, you may want to label me a racist. If your criteria for using that label are so indiscriminate, so be it, but you would be wrong in more ways than one. I have never, do not currently, and never will judge any person by the color of their skin, nor by their ethnicity. I believe that God created all people, and I love them all. So there.

Anybody who keeps up on current event knows that Michael Richards, the actor/comedian best known for his role as Cosmo Kramer on the show Seinfeld, suffered a serious lack of control and judgment when he unleashed a string of insults that included several uses of the "n-word." The media hype surrounding this episode has focused on the word more than any other part of the story, and I read today that the "Rev" Jesse Jackson is now on a campaign to end the use of the word completely in all media. I support the effort, even though, like many of the crusades on which R. Jesse has embarked, I expect sometime in the near future he will clarify that that only applies to non African-Americans, who apparently can use that word, and other words like "honkey", "cracker," and "white bread," without consequence. But before I distract from my mission, I want to bring up some other parts of the story that are being glanced over at best.

1) The video that broke the story - How is that this recording ever came to be, except that somebody blatantly violated copyright law and used a recording device during a live show? I've been to a comedy club or two, and distinctly remember signs, and print on the back of the ticket, explicitly prohibiting the use of any recording device during the show. In the US, copyright infringement can result in punishment including 5 years in prison and $250,000 in fines. But nobody seems to want to bring this up. The recording is illegal, and the person responsible for making it is a criminal and should be prosecuted. And don't give me any crap about the person wanting to capture the episode for the media - the camera was rolling well before he went nuts!

2) Dictionary.com defines "racists" as the following:

1. A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. A policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. Hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Each of these seem to require a PATTERN that demonstrates these qualities. I have not seen this pattern in either Michael Richards or Mel Gibson, both of whom have been branded with this label recently. I think the media is quick to use that label, and they are quick to quote any un-educated joe blow off the street who uses it because they know that it will generate hype. Get off it. Save the label for people like Chris Rock and anybody involved with the Klan.

3) One of the "protests" is that people are advocating boycotting "Seinfeld," including not buying the 7th season DVD set that was recently released. What the (insert profanity) is that supposed to prove? The way I see it, it only shows that people are too stupid to differentiate the actions of one individual from something that happened years before. It also punishes Jerry Seinfeld, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Jason Alexander, and everybody else who profits from the sale for something they had nothing to do with. I don't get it. If you need to protest something, don't go see Michael Richards.

4) The R. Jackson has stated publicly that the "n-word" is not protected under the 1st amendment. WRONG! If somebody chooses to use that word, they are protected...but there are obvious consequences. Personally, I choose to not use the word, and I am in no way advocating it. My point is that the R. Jackson doesn't seem to understand what freedom of speech really means.

Vote for Pedro

If you've ever seen the movie Nepolian Dynamite, you saw Pedro's campaign to run for student office. One of the elements of the campaign was a shirt that said "Vote for Pedro." I think we should make a law that the only campaign propoganda allowed are shirts like this.



Every Novemeber, our city turns into a deposit for all manner of florescent sign, each rudely blaring a message on who I should vote for. My first problem is that these signs are an eyesore. Seriously! Do you need to put 15 of the same sign on a street corner to get you message across? My second issues is that the city seems to turn a blind eye to the laws about sinage. A couple of years ago, our church was advertising an Easter musical. Part of our advertising strategy was to use lawn signs, not unlike the campaign signs that are littering our city this month. Our signs were black and white and they had an image of Jesus and the productions web site. The day after our signs hit the streets, the City Hall called us and told us to take our signs down. The only reason they gave was "there is just something about that man." They could just as easily quoted us chapter and verse from the city ordinacen regarding signage, because in beautiful Rancho Cucamonga, lawn signs are not permitted on public property, or in any area considers "public space," like street corners. Yet this month, I can't drive 2 block without seeing hundreds of these ugly signs. Lastly, I seriously think putting these signs up is envirnmentally irrespinsible. When the campaigns are over, these signs all end up in the trash. I mean can you really reuse one of these for anything except a distress signal or flagging down passing space ships? In addition, the wind starts blowing in our city usually sometime in October, and lets up in about January. So a lot of these signs just end up blown all over the place. Let's start a movement to rid our country of these things. They suck! Let the candidates go house to house, so at least we have the option of slamming the door in their faces.

Cedar Glen

My friend Brent and I hiked to Cedar Glen on friday. Cedar Glen is a trail camp along the Chapman Trail in the San Gabriel mountains, that is accessed through Ice House Canyon near Mt. Baldy. The purpose was to check out the camp to see if it would be a candidate for family oriented over nite backpacking trips.

Starting at the Ice House Canyon trail head, you head north along the stream for about 3/4 of a mile. Eventually, you will get to a point where two signs are posted, one for the Ice House canyon trail that leads to Ice House Saddle (2.6 miles) and another on the west (left) side of the trail that marks the trial head for the Chapman trail. Chapman trail was named after John "Johnny Appleseed" Champan. This trail also gets to Ice House Saddle, but adds 1.7 miles to that trip. Approximately 1.8 miles up that trail is Cedar Glen Trail camp.


The trail was relatively easy, although I was sick when I did it so it seemed harder that it really was. Most of the trail is through sparcely vegitated forest of mostly sugar pines and chaparrel. Occassionally you will see a cedar or white fir. Not too far up the trail you will come to the 1 mile marker, at which you will find a curious open space that could easily be used for a group trail camp. Between the 1 and 2 mile markers, there is a small stretch, less than 1/4 mile, of exposed south facing trail. This part can be hot in the sun, so bring protection. After the 2 mile marker, you will encounter a lot of greenary, vines and berries, and some poison oak. You will come to a small brook, which is the only source of water on the trail. If you are staying overnight at the camp, then stop here and filter some water. Continuing up the trail you will get to a sharp right turn marked by a sign at the apex. This is the entry to the well protected and comfortably located Cedar Glen trail camp. The camp itself is nothing special. There is no water, no facilites, and no campfires allowed, although we did find a fire ring that was large enough to roast a wild pig. From the camp, you can continue up the trail toward the saddle, but you will need a wilderness permit for any part of the trail after the camp, as the camp sits just outside the wilderness boundary.


Comments welcome.

My New Blog

Okay, so this is my blog. This is where I put my stuff. My family stuff is at rcpikes.blogspot.com, so if you're looking for pictures of this kiddos, look there.

I like blogging. I feel like it gives me the "out" I need to vent my frustrations, and tell the world how I feel about things. Not all bad. I put good stuff up here, too. But since I had melded my "out" blog and my family blog, I don't want my extended family to complain about having to wade through pictures of the trashy political campaign signs to get to the kidos. So I'll put that stuff here.

That's it. Stay tuned to be entertained, offended, and stimulated (in the intellectual sense, nothing perverted.)