Clean up the corruption in Congress?

A friend forwarded an email from Vincent Latona <vlatona@cox.net> dated September 29, 2009. He started off

The entire Congress of the United States is corrupt. And
 I mean both Houses and I mean both major parties.

 I realize that a few Members of each House are trustworthy, but, as a  group
 they are absolutely the most corrupt bunch  to ever disgrace our Nation.
  

 He explained his plan: don't vote for any incumbent in the 2010 national elections. That would mean 435 new representatives, and 33 new senators. Then vote out another 1/3 of the senators in 2012, and the final third in 2014. He ended,

IF YOU LIKE THE WAY THINGS ARE GOING IN OUR COUNTRY, THEN DO NOTHING.........

 

 

My Response:

 

I'm certainly in favor of this, but "it ain't going to happen." The reason is that so few voters pay any attention to all these shenanigans. They just vote for whoseever name sounds familiar, or someone they voted for before. For example, Sen. Robert Byrd has been in for at least three decades, getting billions of dollars of Fed money -- our money -- for his constituents. They don't care that their Fed largesse is gotten from the hard-earned taxes of others, they just keep voting Byrd in again.
 

Moreover, the special interests have bought most of the congresscritters, so they're going to pay big money for ads touting their bought people. So the common people don't even hear about better choices -- or they do, because they've also been bought..
 

Thirdly, much of the business of Congress is done by bureaucrats and staff. New congresspeople hire the staff of the defeated congresspeople. The bureaucrats keep going as usual. And the special interests who have already made it possible for the congresspeople to get elected, become very cozy with them, writing the laws for them, etc.

Solutions?
1) Public money only for all candidates, whether from the two main parties, or any other.
2) Better education in schools of what to look for in deciding whom to vote for.
3) Complete exclusion of all special interests from working with congresspeople or their staffs. And so on.

Chances of the first and third becoming law? Close to zero -- because the bought congresspeople have to pass them! But you've got to keep trying, right?

A friend forwarded to me an email from Tim Waldmon of American Family Association. I wrote back to my friend my views on this. I have put my rejoinder below the first part of the AFA email:

One company says 'Yes' to Christmas, and one says 'No'

September 22, 2009

Dear Ann,

A few years ago American Family Association noticed a trend among major corporations (which profit from Christmas sales) not wanting to recognize Christmas. Since that time we have been making the public aware of these companies while applauding those companies which are not making the "politically correct" decision to censor the word "Christmas."

We are pleased to see the Sears company is already offering a "Christmas Club" on its website. You may recall, AFA asked our supporters to contact Sears three years ago when it too was avoiding the word and Sears responding positively. Thank Sears the next time you visit one of their stores.

Well known retailer The Gap, on the other hand, has clearly indicated it WILL NOT use the term "Christmas" in any of its promotional advertising again this year. AFA has repeatedly contacted The Gap and spokesmen say they "don't want to offend anyone" by using the word Christmas. The Gap also owns Old Navy and Banana Republic.

We want you to stand with us and other Christians in proclaiming that Christmas is special, not just any winter holiday. And the gift buying that Americans do for one another is because of Christmas.


My rejoinder: 

Let's think about this celebration of Christmas in the stores. A couple of centuries ago, most Christians did not celebrate Christmas, or certainly did not concern themselves with bought presents. These days, the stores routinely start touting Christmas or holiday sales at least by the time Halloween is over. Many people say they plan to spend almost a thousand dollars on presents, even if it takes them a year to pay off the credit cards. Is that wise?

This is all commercial, not having anything to do with the real value of Christmas. Don't you think Jesus would be appalled by the lack of spiritual values in all this celebration? Wouldn't you think that true Christians would shun such commerciality? Shouldn't Christians cut down considerably on this annual, months-long, gift-giving and partying spree? If they truly want to celebrate Jesus' birth, wouldn't they want to give to the poor, engage in charitable work, try harder to become more spiritual, etc?

And about the companies advertising "Christmas" vs. "holidays"? Millions of Americans are not Christian, but some enjoy the concept of Santa Claus, which isn't religious. Also, the Jews have a holiday, often celebrated during the same period. Why should the companies antagonize these millions of customers by focusing solely on Christmas? 

I would think that adherents of other religions (or none) would feel excluded, feel like they are second-class citizens, during a major activity of the country if the activity is exclusively called "Christmas sales." This would be particularly galling, since the majority of "Christians" limit their religious activities to, at most, a Christmas-eve service.