Bah, Humbug

Every Christmas at least one person says "Bah, Humbug" to me   I wanted to think more about that phrase.

So much of Christmas is about pretending.  Pretending to like the ugly sweater your aunt gave you.  Pretending that a carpenter who lived 2,000 years ago is the savior of man.  And so on.

So to me, Bah Humbug means "c'mon, pretend with us."  Fair enough.  I have no problem with that.  We all like to pretend. I believe, however, that you are only allotted so much pretending during the year.  Go over your allotment and someone will call you delusional and throw you in the kook house.  Given that allotment, I have to be careful about which things I pretend about, and when.  I simply choose to allocate my fantasies to other things during other times of the year.

Yet someone who says Bah, Humbug doesn't mean simply "c'mon, pretend with us."  The subtext is "you are threatening to introduce some reality into my fantasy, so stop it."  I like that.  I think it's funny.  I also think it is justified, because who wants their fantasies mucked up by someone who doesn't buy into them?

The phrase Bah, Humbug is of course Dickensian from A Christmas Carol (a fine story).  Although people today say it to someone they think is being Scrooge-like, in the story* it is Scrooge's catchphrase.  These days, Scrooge has morphed into a character who is primarily about disliking Christmas.  That's not a complete picture.  Scrooge is a rich old man, ungenerous to a fault, who does not care about other people.  One would have trouble imagining Scrooge making a charitable donation.  (Of course, they didn't have tax deductions for charitable contributions back then.)  These sorry traits come to a head around Christmas time in the novel, but he isn't just anti-Christmas.  He's anti-social and a miserable human being.  Or duck.

The Ghost of Christmas Future (technically the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come) is not showing Scrooge simply how unpleasant a future Christmas will be.  In fact, the guests at the party are having a good time.  The Ghost is showing him how others reflect on Scrooge's desolate life, arising from being miserly and shunning people who might otherwise care about you.  That is the moral of the novel.  He will be forgotten.  Or worse, laughed at because "Old Scratch has got his own at last, hey?"

I'm not totally anti-Christmas; it's hard to hate something that people you care about seem to love.  Nor am I any more anti-social than the rest of you.  I'm not miserly (or rich, for that matter).  And I'm not a miserable human being who doesn't care about other people.  So, "Bah, Humbug" doesn't really apply to me! 

I get your point, though.  Christmas is about "cheer" in one way or another.  As Dickens wrote in the frontispiece to A Christmas Carol:  "My purpose was, in a whimsical kind of masque which the good humor of the season justified, to awaken some living and forbearing thoughts, never out of season in a Christian land."  Theoretically, anyway.

I do think it is interesting that no one says Bah, Humbug to Jewish people -- at least not intentionally.  There's a certain respect there.  I'm curious why the same courtesy is not given to the anti-religious (or pantheists, which to me is the same thing).

____

*Many people think "A Christmas Carol" is a novel, but it is far shorter than 100 pages and the character development is not typical of a novel.  In fact, A Christmas Carol is just one of five Christmas stories that Dickens wrote.  The others are "The Chimes," "The Cricket On the Hearth," "The Battle of Life" and "The Haunted Man."  In some volumes they are together known as the "Christmas Books."

The Chimes is subtitled "A Goblin Story."  The Cricket on the Hearth is subtitled "A Fairy Tale of Home."  Maybe I'll read that one tonight.  The Battle of Life is subtitled "A Love Story."   And The Haunted Man has a subtitle that seems to continue the title: "And the Ghost's Bargain."

Put "Christ" Back in Christmas

I'm hearing this refrain a lot, moreso this year than in previous years.  Perhaps it is because Obama got elected and evangelists still think he's Muslim. 

But I whole-heartedly agree.  Christmas should have Christ in it.  Otherwise, it's just December 25 and an excuse to give presents.  Nevermind that Christ wasn't born on December 25.  We do the same thing with President's birthdays.  Fifty years from now you can celebrate Obama's national holiday on the first Monday in August, where it will be more convenient for employers than August 4 would be.

I would prefer Christmas if it retained even a modicum of integrity as a religious holiday.  Instead, most Christians choose it as one of the two days a year they will go to church, and they put up all kinds of religious imagery (like nativity scenes) without giving a thought to their religion.  In that sense, it's no different than every other day of their lives, where they claim belief and have no idea what any of it means. 

So if you are Christian, celebrate Christmas for what it is supposed to be.  Perhaps -- and I know this is going to sound crazy to most of you -- you should consider reading the Bible.  Not just the passages that you think support marriage as one man and one woman, but the whole damned thing.  It is, after all, what you claim to believe in. You can still do all the fun stuff too, but mayhap you should consider it more significant than an excuse to turn around the fortunes of the nation's retailers. 

I have only one question.  If I support putting Christ back into Christmas, can we take Christ out of the other 364.25 days of the year?

Christmas Presents

I've had enough with Christmas giving from parents, siblings and similar relations, and I mean that in two ways.

A:  I have received enough Christmas presents in the last (roughly) 40 years to last me a lifetime.  I don't need any more.

B:  In particular, I don't need a gift if you have no idea what to get me and are just buying it because you think you are supposed to.  If you think of something really interesting that I haven't thought of and I can't afford, bring it on.  Otherwise, let's not do it just to do it.

Something happens when you reach a certain age.  I'm not sure what age that is...somewhere in the late 30s.  You become so independent of your family that they have no idea what to buy you anymore, so they buy you the things you might have liked (maybe) 10 years ago.  Or they realize they don't know what to get you, and they ask you what you want.  Well, what's the point of buying me a present if I'm telling you what to buy me?  Then it's just a question of who is doing the shopping and who is spending the money. 

Why don't we just buy ourselves gifts instead of telling other people what we want and having them buy it? 

Now, I recognize an exception if the people you are asking have a lot more money than you and are willing to spend it on gifts.  Then you should ask.  And don't be shy.

However, many of us (if not most) will be more succesful than our parents, so what can we ask them for?  Everything they can afford is something we would have already bought for ourselves at some point during the year.  And what we really want is often something they cannot afford or would not know how to buy (e.g., anything involving technology).

Gift certificates are almost always nice, because they may prompt us to buy a luxury item, even if the gift certificate does not cover the entire cost.  If you get a $40 gift certificate to Best Buy and buy a camera, it's like getting a $40 discount.  That's a good gift.

Unfortunately family members, especially parents, are stubborn about gift certificates.  They don't like them because they want to buy you something "special."  This is delusional, because they no longer no what would be special.  And what's weird is, they know it!  They are just guessing, and hoping.  Or they ask you, which of course takes anything "special" out of the equation.

I think it's because they want to see your little face light up the way it did when you were 6 and got every toy you begged for during the year.  Hate me for it, but them days are gone daddy gone.

None of this means you cannot enjoy the holidays with your family.

If you must buy gifts for a parent, sibling, child (or similar), do what I do.  Pay attention during the year to what they want.  Keep a little list.  Then you don't have to ask what they want.  And unless it is fad-related and the fad has ended, they will be surprised that you bought them something they really want.  That's what makes people feel special.  If you wait until December, forget it and get a gift card. Otherwise, you are just faking it.

A post for another time, but I'm trying to decide which I like less:  Christmas shopping or buying people gifts for weddings I'm invited to but cannot attend.  I haven't done a proper analysis, but my money's on the latter.

Talking Thumbs

I never really thought about it until a couple of minutes ago, when I saw a Samsung commercial, but talking thumbs freak me out.

I'm not sure if it is because of the way the faces are morphed, with no chins (or endless chins), or that they look slightly insane, or if I just don't like to think about thumbs.  For some reason, I'm less disturbed by the black thumbs in the video.  I don't know what that means.

Also, this could really happen.  In the future.

I guess I should thank my lucky stars that they aren't big toes.

Special Sauce

Looking for the perfect Christmas gift?  Burger King to the rescue.

BK has introduced a scent -- "Flame" -- for sale at a New York City retailer.  It's in the form of a body spray and is described thusly: "The WHOPPER® sandwich is America’s Favorite burger. FLAME™ by BK® captures the essence of that love and gives it to you. Behold the scent of seduction, with a hint of flame-broiled meat."

Yum.  Go to www.firemeetsdesire.com to see the BK marketing materials.  There's seductive music, complete with love talk from a Barry White-like voice, and depictions of various romantic settings in which you may find the product useful.

Don't be afraid to visit Rickys NYC's site either.  There are some "choice cuts" in the comments.  For instance, Tit-Wank writes: "...after using just all 5ml of this tiny tube I became irresistable[sic] to the plumper women in the area.  They flocked to me ripping off there[sic] clothes, rippling as they did so."

Or Mile High Club, who writes about his international flight:  "I had a seat next to a very hot foreign woman who spoke english as a second language. She asked me 'Excuse me? Can You move to a different seat? I cannot control my lust for your scent and need you to relocate before I do things to you that are illegal in my my country.'"

Rickys site even has the naked Burger King (with his frightening plastic head) on a bear skin rug.  Strangely, he's much less scary in this scenario than in commercials when he is lurking outside windows of houses.

The product retails for $3.99, but Rickys says it is sold out.

Jesus is Like a Pork Rind

Ewwwww. I think I liked him better when he was made of crackers and grape juice.  I wonder if the minister here also runs a barbecue restaurant.

This, by the way, is a tremendous argument in favor of the Holy Spirit in the "most popular of the trinity" contest.  At least the Holy Spirit is never anthropomorphic.  In fact, most people don't know what the hell it is, and that's a lot more consistent with rational thinking. 

Beast of Burden

Indeed. Fortunately it is 1/6th lighter than a full-fledged grudge.

Other things that are heavy things to carry:

dumbel
law boks
bull masiff
wide scren tv

Burdns all!

Most Offensive Album Covers, Pt. 5

There's a theme in this post.  First, we have The Black Crowe's album...the one with "Shake Your Money Maker."  Apropos.

Fortunately this flag is flying at half staff, but c'mon, you couldn't trim up for the photog?

And...has there ever been a less attractive famous couple that insisted on posing nude all the time?  This one was taken before either had visited Brazil.  

 

 Look at the upside.  At least there are no bloody decapitated babies in this one.

Most Offensive Album Covers, Pt. 4

This is The Rolling Stones "Sticky Fingers" album cover.  It's one of their best albums, but perhaps not the best choice of album covers.  You probably can't tell in this small photo, but there's an armadillo in his trousers.

I remember my friend's dad (across the street) was a Stones fan.  he had this album with a slightly different jacket.  There was an actual working zipper on his copy that you could move up and down.  I'm not sure why you'd want to do that.

Most Offensive Album Covers, Pt. 3

Blind Faith.  Sure it's another naked pre-pubescent girl, but this one's okay because she wants to be a pilot!

Gummy Brains

Yum!

The Book of Phil

Two Days Only

And no, they are NOT on sale.

Financial Advice From Jesus

Jesus, CFA, CFP, CPA

You've Got Two Choices...

...God, or Australia.

Attention Obama Administration

And if that doesn't work, try a surge.

Nutritional Advice from Jesus

Get it?

Most Offensive Album Covers, Pt. 2

I pretty much gave away the best stuff in part 1, but I think this one is shocking in a completely different way:

 

Two reasons this is horrifying.  The first needs no explanation.  There are assorted baby parts, including decapitated baby heads, covered in blood, strewn about the photo.  Second, it's the freakin' Beatles!  The loveable lads from Liverpool.  So charming and sweet.

What in holy hell were they thinking with this cover?  According to Wiki, this was John's doing and the album was immediately recalled after being on sale for only a day. John thought it was no worse than Vietnam, but then, Vietnam was not an album cover.

Some of the recalled albums were trashed.  Others had a new cover stickered over this horrifying mess.

This album was released in June 1966, and it made me wonder if any of them were parents at this time.  The answer?  Yes!  Julian Lennon was born in 1963.  Of course, John really wanted nothing to do with Julian.  He went on vacation three days after Julian was born, without having even seen the boy.  Julian has said there are more pictures of Julian playing with Paul McCartney than Julian playing with his da.

McCartney did not have a child until 1968, but in 1962, long before this album was released, his fiancee had a miscarriage.

Ringo just had his first child 8 months before this cover was released.

Weird.

Most Offensive Album Covers, Pt. 1

A Facebook friend posted a status message that was a quote from The Scorpions "Rock You Like A Hurricane."  I remember seeing The Scorpions in concert in 1985 (maybe), so I was poking around on the Web seeing what they've been up to.  I happened to run across a couple of their album covers from the late '70s and the '80s, and I was pretty shocked by what they got away with.

I remember the "Love At First Sting" cover, with the man lifting the woman's leg and practically doing her standing up.  But her clothes were on and it was mostly implied.  Check out this one, though:

 

The Lovedrive cover from 1979. I think that's supposed to be bubblegum, or taffy, but it looks like something more solid and suggestive when viewed at this tiny size.  Either way, it's pretty disgusting.

In the tamer but more degrading category we have:

Animal Magnetism, circa 1980.  I don't know for sure, but I think this may be the inspiration for the album cover suggested in Rob Reiner's comedy This is Spinal Tap.

In the movie, the album is called "Smell the Glove." The record exec (Bobbi Fleckman, played by Fran Drescher long before The Nanny) describes the cover as "You put a greased naked woman on all fours, with a dog collar around her neck, and a leash, and a man's arm extended out, holding onto the leash and pushing a black glove in her face to sniff it."

When informed that K-Mart would not carry the album because of the sexist cover, Nigel says "What's wrong with sexy?" Upon learning there's a difference between "sexist" and "sexy", the boys deliver the famous line: "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever."

But The Scorpions were much naughtier than this.  We didn't get to see this next one in America (for a reason that's about to become obvious), but the original "Virgin Killer" LP had this cover:

 

Yep.  That's a pre-pubescent girl, completely naked, in a provocative pose, with a strategically placed graphic star twinkle.  And the album is called "Virgin Killer." This is just post #1 of the Most Offensive Album Cover posts, but honestly, I can't believe I'm going to find anything worse than this.