Open Letter To Retailers Regarding The Marketing of Christmas
Dear Retailers:
We, the undersigned, are writing to express our sincerest concerns about your store's policy towards the recognition of Christmas - or, rather, the lack thereof.
While some may dispute our claims that the historical and religious significance of this very special holiday is under assault and being suppressed by atheists and secular activists promoting a political agenda for a faithless society, the examples of this taking place throughout America are too numerous to lack legitimacy. Unfortunately, the most visible examples are being witnessed in the retail marketplace.
From promotions and products to store displays and sales clerk greetings, "Merry Christmas" is steadily being replaced by "Happy Holidays." And a few merchants are reportedly going so far as renaming a Christmas tree a "Holiday Tree." Why?
Some are suggesting this new practice is in order to be more "inclusive," but since when has this become necessary?
Christmas has been officially recognized and celebrated in America for over 150 years and, by some historical records, even since the first settlers arrived. Today, over 80% of Americans celebrate Christmas as identified Christians, and this includes our nation's largest (and growing) immigrant population: Latinos. In total, reportedly 95% of Americans celebrate Christmas as the accepted year-end holiday for gift-giving.
As a celebration shared by countless millions around the world, since when has Christmas been exclusive? That would be like saying Hanukkah and Ramadan are exclusive. They are both sacred holidays, but anyone may participate. And since when have the demands of the few dictated the will of the majority?
This is America, a democracy and a land founded by the blood of revolutionaries, sacrificing their lives to fight against oppression. Our Declaration of Independence as well as our Constitution make significant references to our "Creator." The Founders were men of faith and devotion, and their pursuit of liberty included freedom of - not from - religion. Our nation was solidly built upon Judeo-Christian principles, and we must not foresake our heritage.
Although criticisms have been mounted over the last decade, the attack on Christmas has largely come without warning. Quietly. Deliberately. It's like a pawn being moved across the chess board, gaining one square at a time. Namely, there is no evidence of any widespread outrage, dissent or public debate ever, which would pressure retailers, such as yours, to turn away from the true meaning of Christmas. Instead, these actions have been achieved through the subversive activities of a small minority that operates in the shadows, using legal threat and the coercive tool of political correctness to advance their goals.
You should know better. And you should know how the majority of your customers feel about it. The enemies of Christmas have misled your Chaturbate organization and many others in an attempt to change traditions without anyone noticing. But, by God, they've failed. People are noticing, and they don't like what they see.
Since you are running a successful business, let us speak in those terms. Because retailers are claiming that the requirements of the marketplace and not politics are driving their decisions, let's explore Christmas strictly from the perspective of commercialism.
Holidays have historically been opportunities for retailers to increase sales. You already know this. Whether selling greeting cards, decorations and food (the basics), or costumes, ornaments and gifts (the specifics), each holiday is a particular event that calls for certain purchases. Each holiday has been successfully "branded" over the ages to represent something special to consumers. Today, they exist as tradition and custom.
One may view the recent attempts to replace the word "Christmas" with "Holiday" as a clumsy re-branding effort with no purpose but to appease a fringe group of activists. They do not represent or speak for the market at-large. And why would any experienced retailer tamper with a great brand? Let's consider some others.
Would you re-brand "St. Patrick's Day" as "Irish Holiday" or "Easter" as "Holiday Egg Day"? How about replacing "Valentine's Day" as "Mutual Affection Day" and "Mother's (or Father's) Day" as "Legal Guardian Day"? And since we just celebrated them, why not change next year's "Halloween" to "Dress-up Day" and "Thanksgiving" to "Turkey Dinner Day"?
Should retailers consider making these changes if a few people demand them? The answer is obvious. These suggestions are absurd. But so is denying the name of Christmas.
Let's go further with this for more illustration. Would NikeT re-brand themselves because some new segment of their marketshare didn't like their Jasminlive product? Would CokeT? Or AppleT? Absolutely not. They've spent decades and fortunes to build their respective brands in order to be recognized by name. Retailers and manufacturers can always improve upon and offer a variety of products, but it's the brand names that sell them. That's a fact.
Retailers are going down the wrong road by re-branding Christmas. This should not proceed. Not only for the sake of preserving our nation's cherished tradition, but also for keeping the spirit that generates sales.
Re-branding "Christmas" as "Holiday" is like NikeT renaming itself "Shoe Co." It's entirely generic. It holds no consumer appeal. Do you really want ChristmasT to be replaced by holiday and considered just another day? As a retailer, you don't want to jeapordize future sales. "Holiday" means nothing and has no brand value. It is unremarkable, insignificant, and without purpose. ChristmasT, however, has a long legacy and will continue to inspire people to celebrate with devotion and generosity. That translates into dependable sales.
For competitive positioning, re-branding Christmas makes no sense either. Is there a concern that if another retailer calls it "Holiday" and you don't, your store will lose customers? That would be a sad indictment. Namely, consumers are driven by products, prices, selection and service. If you offer those things, customers will come. If you don't offer value, they won't - and you've got more to be concerned with. It's that simple.
By not seeing the word Christmas, do you honestly believe people will, for some reason, buy more "holiday" ornaments for their "holiday" tree, under which they'll place their "holiday" presents, for which they're shopping in your store while listening to "holiday" songs like the Twelve Days of Holiday and wishing each other the PC-approved "Happy Holidays."
Or wouldn't people buy all these things anyway, as they always have? It's tradition. An accepted practice.
If a competitor undersells, do you always drop your prices? That's called a race for the bottom. It leads to a dead-end of reduced margins. It's not good business. The same applies to abandoning Christmas simply because you believe renaming the holiday will sell more. In the long run, this will backfire.
Finally, major retailers must show respect for their shareholders as well as their shoppers.
Your organization must follow standards and adhere to founding principles, and you know that customers will continue to shop in your store because of the values they find. And your investors trust that your business does well by doing good.
By denying the recognition of Christmas, you are intentionally turning away from a time-honored tradition and, effectively, being complicit in creating an America that no longer resembles the land in which you, your shoppers and investors grew up to love. Hopefully, you have fond memories of Christmas shopping, decorating the Christmas tree, giving and receiving Christmas gifts and wishing others Merry Christmas.
Please don't steal this custom away from American families by failing to acknowledge it. Don't allow your organization to serve the purposes of political activists.
Investors and consumers reward innovation, and they punish mistakes. But, of course, that's just a business perspective.
In closing, as you reflect on our words, remember that every holiday undeniably implies an event or something of historical significance behind it. Christmas is the reason for this season.
Angelides Watch: More Candy
The Candy Man is back and his list of costly promises is growing. Initially he said he'd lower college tuition. Now he's promising increases in spending for K-12 education.
Speaking at a Capitol rally Friday organized by the California Federation of Teachers to criticize Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for his education funding policies, Angelides called for higher teacher salaries and a full commitment to the state's Proposition 98 guarantee.
"It's time for a governor who's actually willing to ask multimillionaires to chip in, ask corporations to chip in, so we can have the best-educated friends and the best economy in the world," Angelides said.
Is he asking them to chip in? A voluntary additional tax is a great idea. That would allow the socially conscious multi-millionaires in Hollywood to put their money where their frequently public mouths are. But Phil wants to start adding special taxes for this, and special taxes for that. None are simply being asked to "chip in". To listen to this, you would think there is no income tax on the wealthy in California, yet they already pay a huge tax burden. Whose money is it anyway?
Those who would be subject to the special tax have the means if pushed to leave the State. They simply buy houses in Arizona or Nevada and avoid the tax by establishing permanent residence outside California. Then they rent apartments or stay in hotels while conducting business here. Many do this already.
Corporations facing an uncompetitive atmosphere caused by the additional tax burden often pull up their roots and leave, taking jobs and tax revenue with them.
Companies were fleeing California before the recall. Governor Schwarzenegger reversed the trend with tax and workers comp REDUCTIONS, not new taxes. You may remember his well publicized moving van stunts. The improvements in the business climate under Schwarzenegger have increased revenues to the State treasury, WITHOUT tax increases.
If elected Governor, Angelides, or any Democrat will restore Davisesque policies in California that will encourage the wealthiest and most productive to leave. Without at least a Republican Governor to keep a Democrat controlled legislature in check, our state government will return to the drunken spending binge it was on before the recall.
Levees Local Responsibility
Governor Schwarzenegger and Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff toured central valley levees last week. Kudos go to the Governor for to trying to get the Federal Government to help pay for emergency repairs of the levees, but why is it a Federal responsibility? (source Foxnews.com)
If Chertoff had agreed, it would open the Federal money spigot, but the disaster declaration is reserved for imminent threats or recovery. Chertoff agreed to help arrange funding of the repairs, but refused to declare a disaster,
With record snows in the Sierra, and warm weather on the way, Sacramento is like New Orleans, ripe for a major disaster.
Will Mayor Fargo morph into Mayor Nagin if the levees break? Will our local officials try to use this to deflect blame for the failure?
The time to hold our local officials accountable is now.
The Government Can't Protect Us, But Won't Allow Us To Protect Ourselves
The random shooting in Elk Grove by Aaron Dunn over the weekend is proof positive that the government can't protect us.
But they won't allow us to protect ourselves.
If your burglar alarm goes off, wait for the police, and wait and wait. Some cities have announced burglar alarms are low priority, or they will no longer even respond to alarms.
If you are embezzled at your business, have insurance. The two or three officers assigned to the fraud detail will take weeks to show up even if you have the evidence layed out for them. File the report, make your claim and hope you aren't bankrupted.
If you are involved in a non-injury accident, plan to exchange info with the other driver. Unless traffic is blocked, you will be lucky to have an officer come to make a report. Hopefully the other driver is not irate and belligerent.
If you are confronted by a gunman, the police will come to scoop you off the street and take a report, but you will be dead by the time they get there.
If there had been law abiding citizens with concealed carry permits at Chili's in Elk Grove, Aaron Dunn might have still killed one person, but he would have been dropped before he could get in his car and go after someone else.
Thirty-five states have "Shall Issue" laws which require the government to give any qualified citizen a gun permit. Visit this old post in the Sactodan archives where murder rates in shall issue concealed carry permit states are compared to non issue states.
If I were James Taranto
Of course, this probably would too, even though Gore's margin was far less in Sacto county (call it a hunch though that his margin was higher than the county's in the actual city of Sacto). Will Baude at Crescat and Sara Butler have been going back and forth on a Little Miss Hooters issue. The nice thing about being a conservative is, I do have that philosophical unity that Will seems to bemoan. Note However, that Will is making a value judgment that an individual can't always consent to an action even if they seem to be so consenting, ultimately it is Will's own personal belief/moral system that drives this distinction. I see where Will is coming from but unfortunately, a societal yuck factor just doesn't carry in Constitutional Law anymore. You can thank your Judicial Overlords for that. I think that is Sara's point it's nice that Will doesn't think that 5 year olds can consent, but unfortunately that's just what you think, and it can't carry legal weight anymore, well at least it probably can't 10 years from now. If you want there to be a Yuck factor test, a personal I don't feel it's right, You have to accept that the majority has a right to legislate on certain issues. Hopefully, our culture will eventually turn to slow (dare I hope it) or turn back this ever creeping decay in our moral values.
The small flaws
Just as in the first Spider-Man, there is a horrible cheesy "rock" song during the end credits that is thematically incompatible with the film's tone. It was obviously composed as a cynical marketing ploy to help out with Sony Entertainment's music division. The end credit song from the first film sucked. This one sucks just as bad.
One minor mistake in consistency was noticed when Doctor Octopus created a magnetic field that manages to suck all of the jewelry off the spectators standing near him, yet his wife's earrings manage to mysteriously stay on her earlobes.
Rosemary Harris who plays Aunt Mae was either misdirected or made a poor acting choice in a crucial scene where she speaks to Peter Parker about why heroes are so important.
In the scene, she clearly plays it as though she knows that Spider-Man's identity if really her nephew Peter Parker. Her character doesn't know this of course, and it was important in that part of the narrative to establish the fact that she didn't know - so it remains a flaw in an otherwise solid performance.
(Some sources spell the character as Aunt "May". I remember the character spelling as being "Mae", but I am not enough of a modern-day comic geek to be certain about this. I'm just a guy who has basic fond memories of enjoying Spider Man comics as a friends.)
Now for the very serious (though admittedly not fatal) flaw. It is actually not a flaw that is directly in this hot sex shows film. Rather, the flaw is found in the original Spider-Man film, but it is unfortunately carried over and magnified in Spider-Man 2. To truly understand what I am getting at here, you have to go back to the original Spider-Man comic book and one small but crucial element that was changed in the film.
The comic book tells the origin of how Peter Parker became Spider Man this way - Parker was doing science experiments with radiation when he is suddenly bit by a radioactive spider which gives him his powers. Parker is basically a good friends, but being just a teenager, he also has an inverted selfish side to him. He doesn't think of being a "super-hero" or using his powers to help others. He first uses his powers to help make a few cheap bucks at wrestling tournaments, etc
Then one day, while walking home, a random robber rushes past him while fleeing from the police. The police call out to Parker to stop the robber. Although Parker could have easily helped out by tripping up the robber as he rushed past him, he chooses to ignore the police request because he doesn't want to be bothered. He is too caught up in his own world and his own problems to care. He even gets testy with the cops who question why he didn't help them out, saying that it is not his problem and that they should stop bugging him. The robber escapes, and then later goes on to kill Parker's Uncle Ben in another random crime.
The grief and guilt over his Uncle Ben's death haunts Parker. He had the chance to stop his Uncle's killer, but he chose not to out of pure selfishness and laziness. From then on, he makes a determination to become "Spider-Man" and help save others in order to atone for his guilt.
That is the entire raison detre for Spider-Man's existence - to atone for the guilt over his Uncle's murder. It is also the element that makes Spider-Man such a compelling character. It underscores a super-human hero with deep human flaws that allowed the comic to go into compelling psychological territories apart from standard pulp action faire.
It is this crucial element to the character of Spider-Man that the first Spider-Man film manages to muck up completely and with no good reason whatsoever. It is bad enough that it tarnished the first film, but unfortunately this flaw is actually carried over into the second film as well and creates magnified ramifications in the narrative.
Here is the problem - in the first Spider-Man film, Parker wins a wrestling tournament, but the tournament's sleazeball promoter refuses to pay him the money he rightfully won. Moments later, the wrestling promoter is robbed, and Parker let's the robber get away as a form of rough justice for the fact that the promoter had "robbed" Parker of his money. This thief goes on to later kill Parker's Uncle Ben.
In other words, in the film, Parker doesn't let a random thief slip by because of his own selfishness and self-absorption. Rather, he is given a legitimate moral excuse by the screen writers to let the thief go.
As a result, Uncle Ben's death seems less a result of Parker's choice than simply a bizarre coincidence brought about by pure dumb luck.
This was a horrendous decision on the part of the filmmakers.
It robs the character of any believability when he agonizes over the supposed guilt that he feels. It robs Spider Man of his pathos and complexity. After all, most good people would have let the thief go when presented the scenario set up in the film. Because most good people believe in some form of "street justice" when no other form of justice is available.
I have no clue as to why they made this change in the film. It certainly wasn't necessary from a cinematic point of view. I suspect it might have been hack filmmakers or screenwriters who mistakenly felt that they couldn't challenge an audience by showing a selfish side to a hero. In the world of corporate filmmaking, the good guys must be thoroughly good. The bad guys thoroughly bad, etc. No nuances in life.
Either way, director Raimi should have put his foot down and demanded the change since he himself is confessed Spider Man fan.
I didn't dislike the first Spider-Man film per se, but I didn't like it all the much either for many reasons. This flaw I just described was one of the bigger ones.
Now if this flaw had remained confined the first film, I probably would have just let it go when seeing Spider-Man 2. But unfortunately, the narrative is carried over in such a way that the flaw established in the first film is carried over into the second.
In Spider-Man 2, Parker finally confesses to his Aunt Mae that he had the chance to save Uncle Ben by stopping his killer, but didn't. Mae is stunned by this confession and walks away from Parker in shame and despair.
Had they stuck to the comic book and let the robber be a random encounter on the street, this reaction from Mae might be understandable. But since Parker was now justified in letting the robber go in the film, Mae's reaction seems petty and spiteful since she should have understood Parker's predicament.
The net result is that Mae acts completely out of character from the understanding matron that she is. We as an audience feel pity for Parker and annoyance at Mae for her insensitivity, when it should have been the other way around (and would have been the other way around had they not deviated from the comic for no good reason.).
Obviously, film and comic books are two different mediums necessitating some changes. A perfect example is in the first X-Men film when the hero Cyclops refers to the ridiculousness of wearing yellow spandex as a uniform. Yellow spandex works in a comic book. It doesn't work in a film (at least not one that wishes to take itself seriously).
But there was no reason for the Spider-Man film creators to do what they did here.
Another big flaw involves a second "extra" ending that the film features. It seems that Spider-Man 2 picked up some bad habits from Lord of the Rings: Return of the King by featuring extra "endings" when the true emotional center of the film has already really come to a conclusion.
After Spidey/Parker defeats Doc Oc (that part really isn't a surprise is it?), his love interest Mary Jane (Dunst) discovers that Parker is indeed Spider-Man and they confess their love for each other. However, Parker is forced to tell M.J. that they can never be together because the risks would to great for her. Spidey's enemies would use her and harm her in order to get to Spider-Man. A despondent Mary Jane hears what Parker is saying and reluctantly goes off to marry her fiance - a relative of Parker's boss at the paper he works for.
Meanwhile, Parker's friend Harry Osborne discovers the technological secrets of his father (the Green Goblin from the original Spider-Man); with the clear implication that he will become the new Green Goblin (and Spider-Man enemy) for Spider-Man part 3.
That is where the film should have ended.
But in another fit of stupid corporate studio hackdom, Spider-Man 2 adds an extra coda of Mary Jane leaving her fiance at the isle during the wedding ceremony and runs off to join Parker. She tells him that they need to simply take the risks inherent in a relationship with Spider-Man. In other words, the film ends with Spider Man being able to have his cake and eat it too. It is established that he can have the woman he loves while leading a life of fighting crime.
I have nothing against happy endings when they are both logical and thematically appropriate. But this scene is a complete betrayal of the thematic center of the film.
It's seems to be another case of a studio being too timid to end a popular franchise film with an ending that is emtionally complex or ambiguous. They want happy endings at all costs.
One of the reasons why Spider-Man 2 nearly achieves true brilliance is that beneath the veneer of comic action, there is a very poignant underlying theme of sometimes having to give up your life's dreams when confronted with broader responsibilities to others around you.
Both Spider Man and Doc Oc grapple with this same dilemma, though the conflict manifests itself in different ways with the two figures.
This is what elevates Spider-Man 2 beyond the realm of mere "comic book" movie puts it in a category that a broader intelligent audience can appreciate.
But by having the extra coda of Mary Jane rushing off to be with Spider Man in the final, final scene, it manages to undercut this important emotional center in one fell swoop. That is quite a pity (though it could easily be corrected with a simple edit for a "director's cut").
It's ok for Mary Jane and Spidey to eventually be together. Spider Man is able to eventually hook up with a sweetheart in the comic book (and even gets married if memory serves correct). But to have that happen within the confines of this particular film was a big mistake. It should have waited for part 3. But such is the problem of trying to squeeze many plot points laid out over years of comic book story lines into a movie with a running time of just over 2 hours.
The net result? Spider-Man 2 will likely have to settle for being a flawed classic when it could have been a flat-out classic.
It's still the most exciting movie you are likely to see all summer. Run to see it! But then write to Sam Raimi and lobby him for a "Director's Cut" of both films that excises these festering boils of unfortunate scenes.
Consider it a case of that flaw in a diamond standing out all the more prominently because the rest of the surface is so brilliant.
An identification proposal I could live with
Well, my fellow conservatives are going to think I'm crazy (although I've always been generally supportive of laxer immigration policies) but this Schwarzenegger proposal is one I could agree with. (Allow Driver's Licenses for anyone, but if not a legal resident it would have an indication of that kind of like the Red Bar for anyone under 21). What I don't understand is why the Democrats are opposed. They liken it to a cruel Scarlet letter or something...uh no, it just notes to law enforcement that identity has not been conclusively verified and that the person is not a legal resident. If that's not reasonable than the Democrats are the ones with the problems. After all, I thought the whole point of driver's licenses was to make streets safer and require insurance, the Democrats would never have been trying to make an end run around the country's immigration laws Right?