Charles Dickens is one of my favorite authors, so you know I’m a fan of “A Christmas Carol.” 
There have been many great versions of it, and recently I asked my friends on Facebook what their favorite version was.
I have a feeling that for many people, it’s the version they first saw. It’s the only way to explain “Scrooged,” a film that makes me cringe.
So now here’s your chance to vote. The list below is in order based on the results of the informal Facebook poll, and I’ve added a few others just to fill out the list.
Links to read about each entry:
Scrooged (1988)
Mr. Magoo’s Christmas Carol (1962)
A Christmas Carol (1938)
A Christmas Carol (1951)
A Christmas Carol (1999)
A Christmas Carol (1984)
The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)
Rich Little’s Christmas Carol (1978)
A Christmas Carol (1971)
A Christmas Carol (2009)
Scrooge (1970)
It’s been a great year for states joining the 21st century. We’ve added Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Hawaii, and New Mexico.
And now Utah!
Talk about karma. The citizens of Utah (Mormons mostly) spent millions of dollars fighting gay marriage, and were the driving force behind California’s ban (which was later overturned by the courts).
Utah is still the state with the largest percentage of people who are against gay marriage.
A federal judge has now ruled that Utah’s law banning gay marriage violates the 14th amendment which prohibits discrimination. This is a great decision, and hopefully it will not be overturned. This will set a precedent for other federal courts to find that such provisions are unconstitutional.
Judge Robert Shelby didn’t mince words, either:
The State’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demeans the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason. Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional.
He also hit hard against the bigots who say marriage is for procreation, thus making my 31-year marriage invalid in their opinion:
The court does not find the State’s argument compelling because, however persuasive the ability to procreate might be in the context of a particular religious perspective, it is not a defining characteristic of conjugal relationships from a legal and constitutional point of view. The State’s position demeans the dignity not just of same-sex couples, but of the many opposite- sex couples who are unable to reproduce or who choose not to have children. Under the State’s reasoning, a post-menopausal woman or infertile man does not have a fundamental right to marry because she or he does not have the capacity to procreate.
Of course, conservatives who love it when courts take proactive roles in striking down campaign finance reform laws or deciding Presidential elections are all shouting about “judicial activism” (which, as defined by conservatives, means “deciding in ways we don’t like.”).
Screw them. As Judge Shelby points out, this is not just a simple lawsuit. This is about basic fundamental rights:
The Constitution guarantees that all citizens have certain fundamental rights. These rights vest in every person over whom the Constitution has authority and, because they are so important, an individual’s fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
Absolutely correct. Rights are not subject to opinion polls or votes.
Nobody’s First Amendment’s rights are being violated here. Anyone who tells you otherwise just doesn’t know what they’re talking about. 
Mr. Duck Dynasty Guy has every right in the world to say whatever hateful things he wants to and there is nothing the government can do about it.
He doesn’t have the right to his own TV show.
If you work for someone, they can regulate your behavior when it relates to your job. If your words or actions can make the company look bad, they can do something about it, and for many big-paying jobs (such as TV star), that’s even in your contract.
The First Amendment prohibits the government from infringing on your speech. It doesn’t protect you against all consequences of your speech.
But conservatives are up in arms over this issue. These are the same people who cheered when liberal commentators Alec Baldwin and Martin Bashir were removed from MSNBC for things they said. They happily approved of radio stations removing the Dixie Chicks from their airwaves because of an interview they did. And they loved it when Bill Maher lost his TV show for his comments.
This is different, though. It must be. I’m sure. I mean, otherwise, these people would be gigantic hypocrites, right?
“But all he did was confirm his conservative Christian beliefs,” they counter. (Personally, I can’t recall the part of the Bible where Jesus talked about how happy blacks were living under Jim Crow segregation laws.) Nothing he said insulted these conservatives.
But is that the standard? “As long as you don’t say anything to upset people who already think exactly like you, you’re fine”?
What if he had said “I think we should kill all gays and worship Hitler”? Would they have objected to him being removed then?
This is just a matter of degree, and the conservatives who are complaining weren’t personally upset by this so can’t understand how others could be. (This helps to support to the whole “conservatives can’t feel empathy” theme — “It doesn’t affect or bother me personally so therefore it isn’t a problem.”)
This was a business decision. A&E knew advertisers would start boycotting the show and they made a financial decision to take action. That’s their decision to dodge the Duck.
And the First Amendment has nothing to do with it.
New Mexico is the latest state to stop discriminating against gay couples. 
There’s been a lot of progress this year as more and more states recognize the inequality of it all. The sad news is that almost all of the states left are Republican states and many of them have Constitutional amendments the specifically prohibit gay marriage. Those will take either another amendment to repeal it or a decision from federal courts stating that these amendments are unconstitutional.
And then there is my home state of Pennsylvania again, the only state in the northeast behind the times. It’s also the only state in the northeast with a Tea Party governor and a legislature dominated by Republicans (thanks to gerrymandering, since more people voted for Democrats). Despite the fact that a majority of Pennsylvania citizens support gay marriage, it’s not going to happen until we get rid of the politicians who do not represent us.
Gay marriage (or as we like to call it “marriage”) will happen over the United States eventually. It’s inevitable. Deal with it.
Here we go again. People are still debating whether a make-believe character can be a color other than their own.
Many conservatives cannot stand the idea of Santa possibly being black. Why, the idea of such a thing! Ronald Reagan would have never stood for it. 
(Here, of course, is where I insert a picture of Mr. T performing as Santa at the White House in the Reagan administration. Come on, you all knew that was coming.)
But it’s not just Santa. I’ve seen science fiction geeks get all crazy when someone suggests that Superman could be black. “But he’s not!” they scream.
Well why not? Geez, he’s not even from earth. He could be green with yellow polka dots. Why would that distract from truth, justice, and the American way? (OK, well, admittedly it would make it harder to pose as mild-mannered Clark Kent…)
There are indeed instances where the race or gender or sexual orientation of a fictional character is important to the story — but if it’s not, who cares? Why does it matter one bit what race Santa is?
That’s what I can’t quite figure out.
ventrellaquest.com 