For two years, volunteer Frank Coyles has played Santa for chemotherapy patients at the Hollings Cancer Center in Charleston, S.C. This year, the center told him to stay away:
"Because of our state affiliation, we decided not to have a Santa presence this year," Hollings spokeswoman Vicky Agnew said. Hollings is a part of the Medical University of South Carolina.
Decorations will be "more secular and respectful to all beliefs," Agnew said. "We don't want to offend a volunteer with good intentions, but we need to think of the bigger picture. People who are Muslim or Jewish or have no religious beliefs come here for treatment," she said
That is just priceless. They want to get rid of Santa so they can be more secular. I do not think that word means what they think it means.
I probably shouldn't even comment since I'm agnostic on the whole Santa thing, which is why I refer to him as X Nick. Hey, makes him sound Muslim, which will please some people.
Comments
I'm guessing Swing is a pseudonym also, because of the lack of anything related on-line before October 2011. It's possible he's using a real name, but not probable.
Here's my asessment of his comments from some of what I have seen: He makes a few good points, but throws in a lot of stuff that has absolutely no merit, then says "Ha, I just proved you wrong."
Case in point: It is not accurate to refer to Officer White's comments as right-wing. This is based upon the mistaken conception that the Occupiers are left-wing. Many of them state this is not the case, and from what I've seen personally of the FW group that is not the case here. White actually made no comments about their political views, he simply gave a factual list of misbehavior done by many people associated with the groups. That's not bias. And as I said before, he likely never would have said a thing if it were not for the offensive comments made locally that implied a physical threat to the police.
You can't really complain about the cop hitting you with a baton after you threw rocks at him. And what happened here is the verbal equivalent of that.
The funny thing is that I have had a gut instict for a while about who "Chris Swing" might really be. And Tim's suspicions support this. A person who causes even those who agree with him on some issues to be repelled because of his style seems very much like the idiot on the bike who thinks the whole world should get out of HIS way.
"This is based upon the mistaken conception that the Occupiers are left-wing. "
Actually, since a lot of right-wing people are opposed to Occupy regardless of whether they believe they have an alignment or not, that's not really true.
And given his commentary at the end about the Tea party:
"The Tea Party Movement, involving rallies, protests and demonstrations, has been going on for THREE YEARS, and there hasn
Chris/Michael, or whatever your name is...
My main point of disagreement with you is how you change the subject, interjecting things that have little to do with the original post. That
The first screenshot you provided was truncated, and did not list the final comments that you refer to. That is what I was going by before. Looking at the second screenshot, I actually thought the closing comments were Dan
If the second link I listed above does not work, try this:
Sorry, I thought the dummy with the police cars comment was a given. Yeah, of course we're against that. The Turkette/White thing was more important so I concentrated on that.
And Tim is mighty silent on his double standard for "real names." All I've done is shown up and posted under my name. I don't have to prove to anyone who I am. Yet he totally laps up anything said by Dan Turkette, someone we KNOW lies about who he is. I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous.
I'm sorry you only looked at the first screencap at first, but I provided both the full caps in that very thread. I'm pretty sure he didn't add all the things after the FWPD cars part because he didn't agree with it. AWB certainly presented it as all being Everett's post, and there's really no reason to believe it's not.
And I think you should bear in mind, however reserved White is in his public commentary, this is something he posted apparently friends-only. Turkette screwed up when he put the attribution in.
As for Michaelk42... he's the first person I know here, what do you want? We're friends online. I'm sure I'll had more people as time goes by... I've already collected more followers on Twitter. I'll probably add more locals as time goes by. You don't build these things up overnight, after all. And I'll migrate people over from my less public accounts that are handles as time goes by... if they care about Fort Wayne stuff.
Though I'm surprised you haven't managed to find me on Google+. I mean, it IS Google.
Too busy trying to uncover 'Mark Shine' :)
The important thing is, I did uncover "Mark Shine." :D
Am I getting warm?
That's a terrible thing, and you should be ashamed of yourself for subjecting people to it.
Though I'm sure it's not as bad as what I would sound like if I actually did try to sing.
But sorry, no YouTube.
Hey, and hold on - one of your posts didn't show up because it had more than one link in it.
I didn't want to change the subject from Santa Claus:
# john b. kalb Says:
November 18th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Hey Swing, I don
If you're looking for old pages, even the folks at Google would tell you that Google is a very poor tool. They try very hard to deliver fresh results; their algorithm favors new pages over older ones.
I noticed a November 2011 Opening Arguments page on page 57 of Google's results for "Christopher Swing." How many pages back would you have to go to find a Christopher Swing post on some blog back in 1995?
A Google search on Tim Zank only yields 14 pages - and the stuff on page 14 has 2011 timestamps on the pages.
Honestly, I'm surprised Google+ posts aren't coming up for me, but maybe it's too beta still. I started on that pretty close to initial beta after I was invited.
So, as I'm the only Joel Klinepeter in America, as far as I have been able to tell, you should be able to check up on me pretty easily on google :p. However, a search in the white pages wouldn't turn up anything as I have no home phone.
Back to the original topic though. Santa Claus and most popular Christmas iconography is an amalgamation of pagan mythologies, a Christian saint, and Christian traditions from the middle ages. When Christianity was moving into northern and western Europe (through a combination of conquest and expansion), as part of an effort to convert the various pagan cultures there, they adopted many of the pagan traditions into their own. Through this we have the celebration of the birth of the Christian Deity on December 25th.
There was much debate in the Christian church as to whether or not to celebrate the birth of their deity as well as when to celebrate it during the first 3 centuries of the modern era. Eventually the decision was made for December 25th and Christianity Today explains why. "The eventual choice of December 25, made perhaps as early as 273, reflects a convergence of Origen's concern about pagan gods and the church's identification of God's son with the celestial sun. December 25 already hosted two other related festivals: natalis solis invicti (the Roman "birth of the unconquered sun"), and the birthday of Mithras, the Iranian "Sun of Righteousness" whose worship was popular with Roman soldiers. The winter solstice, another celebration of the sun, fell just a few days earlier. Seeing that pagans were already exalting deities with some parallels to the true deity, church leaders decided to commandeer the date and introduce a new festival." (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/news/2000/dec08.html) This decision was largely an effort to make converting the pagans to Christianity easier by allowing for parallels between the religions to be drawn.
The figure of Santa Claus was drawn from combining the historical figure of Saint Nickolas with the iconography associated with him in the figure of Sinterklaas, as this Saint came to be referred to in the low countries, along with other elements from various pagan traditions (again, in an effort by the Christian Church to better convert the European pagans). Parallels have been drawn to various 'gift-bringer' figures from a variety of midwinter celebrations and some have even been drawn to the Norse god Odin.
So ultimately, Santa Claus is a figure steeped in Christian mythology and the Christian Church's practice of marginalizing, converting, and often brutalizing adherents to other religions. The modern capitalistic marketing based usage of Santa Claus does little to delegitimize this history and as such is is not unreasonable to see Santa as a figure that still has religious significance.
To the original author and some of the commenters here, thanks for reinforcing the stereotype of the Christian persecution complex and I'm sure you'd be more upset if the hospital put up Ramadan decorations than the average Jew or Muslim would be about a Santa.
Looks like even Dan Turkette is smart enough to know when he's been defeated!
He removed the entire post now. Seems a bit cowardly, if you ask me. He also removed the link to my blog from his list in apparent retribution for my having pointed out some of his shortcomings. That seems petty and juvenile.
I think we've just witnessed the intellectual equivalent of the "If I can't win, I'll take my ball and leave" rant. Hopefully he'll stay off the playground for a while.
Interestingly, he seems to have forgotten to remove the original post from his own FB page. It even has Everett White's name still attached to it. - Whoops!
Better hustle, Danny Boy, if you want to clean this mess up good.
Phil, the link to your blog is still on Dan's site. (AWB)
Tim, believe it or not, I just discovered that myself - but thanks for the notification. Here's the comment I just left on the FB thread to correct the error. Hopefully, Dan will be forgiving of my mistake.
"I made a mistake. Dan Turkette did not remove my blog from his list. I'll be the first to admit that I can get caught up in the heat of the moment sometimes and make rash decisions. My insinuating Dan is a coward was one such action. I regret the mistake, and I apologize to Dan for it."
http://www.facebook.com/occupyfortwayne/posts/188851661200650
Hey Chrissy, after my personal Facebook account was banned from their "free speech" Facebook page for posting the obvious truth about OFW, I had to get another persona. 7 of them to be exact. 6 of them are now banned. Piss off.
Well Dan, you're at least consistent in your behavior, I see. I see where Tim Zank gets it now.
It's Occupy Fort Wayne's Facebook page. I think it's clear you weren't there to make any positive contribution, and the admins have every right to kick you out if your behavior is out of line. You have as much "free speech" in their forum as they do in yours, after all. "Free speech" doesn't mean you get to be a jerk in their forum.
The sad thing is you can't act like an adult and have a discussion with people you don't agree with. You have to act like an asshole and get yourself banned. Then, you come back again and again with fake identities, a strategy perfected by 15-year-olds on AOL years ago.
BTW, are you still on Fort Wayne Police Officer Everett White's friends list? Did he have second thoughts about including you in his posts given your itchy copypasta finger?
IRONY ALERT:
"I think it
A public park, is publicly owned. A downtown public place especially is a traditional public forum for speech.
A private facebook page isn't a public space.
It's simple if you're thinking about it.
The terms of service at Facebook say that you have to use your real identity on the site.
Not terms I particularly care for; if using a pseudonym suited Marion Morrison, Archibald Leach, and Norma Jean Baker, it's jake with me.
But it's their bat and their ball, so they get to decide what the rules are for their playground. They offer their services free of charge to those who play nice, but anyone who accidentallly creates accounts under seven different identities is not merely a jerk, he's a criminal.
Chris, although I support the occupy movement, there is an inconsistency that I feel worth mentioning.
The administrators of OFW-FB claim they allowed the "burn the cop cars" comment to remain not because they agreed with it, but because each individual should be allowed to say whatever was on his mind. Yet they blocked Dan because his comments were out of line with their goals.
This would seem to suggest that the previously mentioned comment (by virtue of it's being allowed) was actually in line with their goals. Just wondered what your thoughts are on that.
I think they should have at least nuked that post and told the guy to cut it out, if not booted him. Freedom of association means having the freedom to kick out people you don't want to associate with, and that's OK. I think Occupy people in general don't always get that, or are afraid to do it because they know they'll get attacked by people like Turkette for it. But I don't have the keys to the place.
On the other hand, if anyone's taking that post as an actionable threat and not jackass hyperbole, I have to wonder why the guy isn't at least being questioned by the cops. You'd think if Everett White genuinely thought it was anything more than hyperbole he himself would have investigated it instead of complaining about it in a friends-only post. I think that being all he actually did is telling.
As for Turkette, I can only imagine what his posts were like that got him booted apparently SEVEN times now, counting his real account and the admitted 6 of 7 booted fakes. "Mark Shine" deleted his own post and ran away when I exposed him, so at least that time he can't claim to have been silenced by anyone but himself.
As for Facebook's real name policy, it's just as flawed as Google+'s. It really just gets plausible-looking WASP names enforced more than anything. It won't take my real last name, but it's just fine with taking something similar.
But as you can see, it can't stop someone like Dan Turkette from intentionally created multiple fake accounts in order to bypass privacy and community controls on the site. I don't imagine Facebook would look too kindly on that.
Michael, you are hilarious. Typical OWS double standard, free speech for me but not for thee, eh?
You guys can't have it both ways (except in your own little minds of course).
Tim, who are you talking to? No one named Michael has posted in this thread that I can see.
The free speech provision of the constitution means the government can't censor your speech or compel you to speak. OFW is free to to moderate their page, just as Dan Turkette is free to moderate his page.
I'm pretty sure the government didn't kick Dan Turkette off any Facebook pages for using fake identities, so you've got nothing to complain about Tim.
Talkin to you Christopher (Michaelk42) Swing...your rants are hilarious and lacking in logic as always.
Ah, still on that. Typical ultra-conservative cognitive dissonance; your guy Dan Turkette has already admitted to using fake identities online, so now you have to accuse someone else of doing the same thing so it doesn't seem as bad.
It would be adorable if a small child tried to fool someone the way you just did. It's pretty sad when an adult tries it.
Speaking of Dan Turkette and his Seventh Cylon, how do we know the guy who posted about burning police cars wasn't Turkette, too? Maybe officer White should get with Facebook to see if he hasn't been had from the outset?
In any case, I have friends and a life. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
Go ride your bike Mike.
The guy who posted it, Andy Sanchez (Ashford Lawrence) is a real person from what I can tell, and has been on Facebook since September. Nice try.
I created yet another persona yesterday, I'm a OFW troll, get over it.
As for what I've posted? It's about the crime, drugs, open sex, violence, etc. in the OWS movement. It seems that reality is something that cannot be tolerated on OFW's Facebook page.