To say 'Merry Christmas' in public is not politically correct because of the apparent Christian meaning. Apparently, 'Happy Holidays' is better, despite the word 'holy' in this phrase. Freedom of religion as well as the separation of religion and politics is very important in the United States of America. Funny then, that most political analysts are certain that George W. Bush won his second term as the President due to his Christian believes and values. After all, 75% of all Americans are Christian.
I just think it's funny that Bush was voted as President because of his prayers for the American people but that he can't wish everyone a 'Merry Christmas'. Instead, he wished everyone 'Happy Holidays' in his year-end press conference.
Happy New Year! (I wonder if that is politically correct considering that some cultures use a different calendar.)
Saturday, December 25, 2004
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Scott Peterson and the Media
The jury already found him guilty for double murder. The question now is: Life sentence or death penalty. Although I have a clear opinion on that question, it is not the main topic of this blog entry.
It is fascinating, if not shocking, how big of a role the media played in the trial so far. Since it was clear that Scott Peterson had an affair, the public was sure that he must have killed his wife Laci and their unborn son on Christmas two years ago. The popular media had no choice than to follow the masses - the public would boycott a neutral TV station or newspaper. During the trial, it was more important to analyze the facial expressions of the accused and the jury during testimonies than to analyze the evidence. Maybe because there was no evidence.
However, this has been and continues to be an almost exclusively emotional trial. Apparently, the thought that he might have killed his beautiful pregnant wife (who was a nice person as described by her family and friends) on Christmas is so bad that no hard evidence is needed. I'm not saying that he is innocent, I'm just wondering how everyone is so sure that he is guilty. Just because he didn't cry during the testimony of Laci's mother?
It is fascinating, if not shocking, how big of a role the media played in the trial so far. Since it was clear that Scott Peterson had an affair, the public was sure that he must have killed his wife Laci and their unborn son on Christmas two years ago. The popular media had no choice than to follow the masses - the public would boycott a neutral TV station or newspaper. During the trial, it was more important to analyze the facial expressions of the accused and the jury during testimonies than to analyze the evidence. Maybe because there was no evidence.
However, this has been and continues to be an almost exclusively emotional trial. Apparently, the thought that he might have killed his beautiful pregnant wife (who was a nice person as described by her family and friends) on Christmas is so bad that no hard evidence is needed. I'm not saying that he is innocent, I'm just wondering how everyone is so sure that he is guilty. Just because he didn't cry during the testimony of Laci's mother?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
