Christmas is a Farce.

In Japanese, 'Arigato(u)' is actually an apology of sorts. To Americans, it is a corollary to 'thank you' but in Japanese it doubles as 'sorry to have caused you trouble'. As a culture, the Japanese acknowledge the dificulty related to incurring personal debt to someone by giving an unsolicited favor.

It turns out that my idea of favors and the uncomfortable debt they incur is very much like the Japanese.

This Holiday season, I would rather not have people giving me gifts when I am in no position to return the favor, and it's the same reason I demand people not buy me birthday gifts.

At Christmas, since most people I know are cultural Christmas-revelers, I am placed in the unsavory situation of spending money I'd rather not spend on an equally-valued gift, or not returning a gift and sitting there, like a stooge, collecting gifts when I have nothing to give or would rather not participate in the exchange. This is even worse if I have specifically stated that I am not participating in gift-exchange, like I did for 2009 as someone struggling to find work in this bad economy.

However, nobody ever asks others to opt-in or out! There is no list, like a football pool, of who actually wants to participate in this exchange.

People simply include you if they feel like it, and often, you're left surprised and ashamed when some peripheral person you didn't anticipate Ninja-gifts® you with nothing to give in return. Even if people act like they don't care, those who buy gifts generally expect to get them back, right?

People need to realize that not everyone is in good financial standing at this time of year (or any time of year depending on your situation). Insisting on gift-giving puts a burden on others, and people need the option to opt-out of the Christmas or any gift-swapping holiday as needed. Better yet, assume everyone is opting out unless they opt-in.

My philosophy is similar to the philosophy of leaving others alone rather than doing something to them and expecting the same in return; 'Do *not* unto others as you would have them *not* do unto you'. This bit of non-invasive philosophy predates the common Christian 'Golden Rule' which is, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you', as it espouses leaving others alone rather than foisting your sensibilites on them. If my neighbors love deep-tissue massage at 5am after a 10 mile run, leave me the Hell out of it! I like to sleep in, and find massage rather annoying (especially if I don't know the person).

Last Christmas, I was faced with a huge property tax bill, slow work, potential employers who don't respond because they're on holiday vacations and the same bills as usual. The last thing I want to do is participate in a farce where essentially, I have to buy stuff for other people but am spending generally equal amounts of money knowing what others insist on spending on me every year. Add to this the fact that most of us don't really know what the other needs. If I need my electric bill paid, I certainly cannot put this on a Christmas list! Instead, I'll be forced to give a list of items I don't really need, when in reality I often need cold, hard cash at the end of the year, especially when I am unemployed.

I would much prefer a situation where people buy *themselves* something with as much or as little value as they choose. Then, everyone can meet up for family-friend time, do a show and tell with the actual item, pictures, video, etc. and have a stress free holiday season. Why on Earth do people partake in the massive lemming-fest that is holiday shopping? Why would people choose, willingly, to do a ton of shopping for people when everyone else is doing the same thing, guaranteeing maximum headaches, crowds, annoyance and stress? It's kind of how people all go to work at the same time, clogging the freeways and spending the maximum time possible in traffic.

If people just bought themselves something of as little or much value as they're comfortable, we'd still get time with family/friends but we'd avoid the uncomfortable shopping, wrapping, gift-exchange, the feigned happiness and stress.

We'd avoid the hassle of shopping or getting the wrong gift, clothing the wrong color, style, size, etc. as well as the ever-uncomfortable store-return situation where a receipt is needed. If people simply bought themselves something, they could order it online or shop at their leisure and simply discuss it over dinner with enthusiasm, or even share it with others if it's something that can be brought to a dinner-gathering. This would also be a time people would know they can buy themselves something nice, and it might be a goal which could help people focus and save money the rest of the year.

The only exception I would make to this rule are for kids. Get the kids something (if you can), since they often have no money of their own. I don't wanna be a Scrooge, but I'd like 'opt-out' as the default for adults at least.

The general idea is, if you're in a particularly bad financial spot, buy very little for yourself and nothing for others apart from your time, company and good-cheer, knowing your electric will be on when you get home. If you're doing great, buy yourself something awesome, or even buy someone else something knowing that nothing is expected in return.

Gift-giving should never be considered mutual and should always be an opt-in. The default should be, opt-out, with the understanding that you should never expect anything, but buy something for someone with the clear idea that you shouldn't expect anything in return.

Isn't that what giving is all about?

I opted out of Christmas for 2009, and yes, some people *still* got me gifts. But, I had put others on notice that I was too cash-poor to participate in this exchange, nor do I want to be obligated in years hence. If I am making boatloads of cash, it might be different. Until the next holiday, I will close with this;

'Arigato'. Sorry to have caused you trouble. ;)


-dB-

President Obama Was Raised by an Atheist

Despite the claims that Barack Obama is a radical Muslim, he claims to be a Christian and we should take him at his word, unless Christians around the world want to be called 'radical Muslims' too even if they insist on being Christians. By definition, a Christian merely needs to accept the divinity of Christ to qualify, but we know how difficult it is to get two Christians to agree on anything, right?

The more interesting fact here is that Obama's mother, who chiefly raised him during the absence of his father, is an atheist. According to Obama's book where he speaks about his mother's view on religion, she took an anthropological view...exposing him to many different religions such as Buddhism, Christianity and even the Bhagavad Gita, but remained herself a non-believer. Apparently, his father was a non-practicing Muslim as well and possibly an atheist, but it's clear to see the influence Obama's non-believing mother had on him with regard to his wider view on religion and the makeup of American voters.

Why do I say this? Obama is the first president in my 41-year living memory who actually acknowledges non-believers, and more than once. While I never heard him mention our significant majority in his presidential campaign, he did mention 'non-believers' in his inaugural speech, after he was elected. I can understand why he'd be a bit coy about mentioning his support for us until he had won the election, considering he also wanted to attract moderate-Christian voters and atheists are still a hated/misunderstood minority in America.

I am sure President Obama has to know that while non-believers are the fastest growing group among all the religious people in the U.S. We are a compelling audience which most-likely supports Obama among other socially-progressive candidates, and are not likely to be Bush or McCain/Palin supporters.

Obama recognized non-believers in the recent Ft.Hood, Texas tragedy in a recent weekly radio address, "They are Christians and Muslims, Hews and Hindus and nonbelievers."

Yes, we're here and Obama knows it. At last count, conservative estimates place atheists around 16% of the American population, which includes those who self-identify as non-religious or agnostic according to the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). This sizeable minority outnumbers Catholics, gay, black and Jewish voters. It's a population that a savvy president should not ignore, and it seems Obama is one of the more savvy.

This is a big change from Bush Sr., who had this to say when questioned by atheist radio personality, Rob Sherman;

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

Well actually, Bush is wrong (surprise). This is not one nation under god. That national motto and relgious vandalism on our currency was a recent development, only appearing on paper money in 1957, though it was on coins earlier. Before this divisive religious slogan, our money read, 'E Pluribus Unem' which means, 'From Many, One'. This is a much more inclusive slogan for *all* Americans.

In 2012, I suspect that the atheist population will be even bigger, maybe around 18% of Americans or more, especially since today's youth are leaving religion in droves are aren't sufficiently inculcated in the first-place. When nutters like Sarah Palin try to run in 2012 with their Draconian ideas about birth-control and sex-education and lack of science-understanding (evolution) it's not going to go over well.

By 2012, Obama should be able to more-freely support his atheist constituents as he's starting to do now and you can bet they will be voting for him in droves, assuming things go well.

An atheist alone does not a president make, but it sure helps not to have an anti-science fundagelical Crusader like Bush Jr. in office who thinks he's instrumental in Armaggeddon to attain the end-goal of his spiritual fairytale....something which doesn't bode well for any of us.

Thank you, President Obama, for recognizing the fastest-growing segment of the population...atheists (and for putting a science advisor back in the White House). This atheist just asks that you stay on track. It's a good sign that the new Universal Healthcare bill removed coverage for religions woo-woo like faith-healing or other religious 'treatment', but we need to shut down that Stupak Amendment, allowing abortion services to be covered. Abortion is a legal medical procedure and it's not the business of religion. Until religious people actually prove there actually IS a god, they have nothing to say about the real world, since they can't prove any of their claims. That said, abortion is the choice of the female, and it's between her and her doctor, and nobody else.

Let's hope that Palin runs in 2012...it'll be another sure victory for Obama and maybe we can fix some of the issues related to eight years of Bush.