DavidDexter's Blog

The question is not "WHY" ... but "WHY NOT?"

We have everything right here.  We have a Lake.  With a few modifications, we have most of the facilities and arenas that are required.  And unlike Beijing ... there's no thick clouds of polluted air hanging in our skies.  And compared to Chicago who has a bid in for 2016 (which they probably will not get) - I think we're a much more friendlier city to host such an International Event.

Imagine a revitalized Flats as an Olympic Village!

I wouldn't mind see the Olympic Flame burning above Browns Stadium.

Want to give this city hope?  Want to revitalize us?  Let us host the "World" and become known for something more than the "Mistake by the Lake which set a River on Fire" ... although a burning river Olympic logo may be kind of interesting.

In my former career I conducted business with a good number of reputable Fortune 500 companies in Northeastern Ohio. While developing business partnerships for economic development, there is this trend I watched (and continue to see even now) evolve over time when I met with various clients and suppliers that started to make me wonder about just how seriously these people took their business. How much pride did they have in their work and respective companies. And even more so ... how much quality did they put into their product?

People in Ohio businesses are beginning to look like rumpled, bed-headed slobs in the workplace.

Like they just crawled out of an overflowing back alley dumpster after an all night drinking binge.

And they don't seem to care about it. And not to be sexist, the women seem to be the worst culprits. They seem sloppier in their dress than men do.

I'm not referring to those who work on the manufacturing shop floors in our area. I know the difference between a hard hat/steel toed shoe press operator and a white shirt/tie office accountant. I'm talking about Corporate Officers, Office Managers, CEOs, CIOs, CFOs, Lawyers, Auditors, etc. The first faces of an organization that greets you in the corporate lobby. Those in power who sit down with you to hash out deals and partnerships.

Wrinkled loose dockers without belts, sweatpants, mini-skirts that reveal more than they cover, untucked shirts, flip-flops, sweaters with ripped holes in them, unbuttoned open collars, overweight women bulging out of spandex, thigh-high boots, beach sandals, frayed/worn out polo shirts with stains, jeans with holes in them, and the women whose dresses would be more appropriate if they were standing on a street corner. Then there's the greasy, unwashed hair and too-cool to shave off last night's stubble look.

The concept of Business Casual Friday has somehow lost it's meaning and has degenerated to "dress like you are going to mow the lawn and then wallow around in the pig slop any day of the work week."

Bermuda shorts, T-shirts, Beachwear, and Pajama Bottoms may have infiltrated the office environments of startup ventures during the Dot Com boom days ... but we all know what happened to those ventures.

I feel that when a person gets up in the morning to dress and groom themselves, they determine how people are going to interact with them that day. Although our appearance doesn't necessarily dictate the way we are or the quality of work we do, it's that first impression that sticks with people and appearance definitely plays a large part in how a person is judged. No matter how many people go "but it's the person inside that counts." Sorry ... if you normally look like derelict bum on the outside, I'm not sticking around to find out what the inside looks like. I'm going to find someone who takes some personal pride in themselves.

What happened to clothing that is clean and pressed? What happened to blouses and shirts that were tidy and tucked in? What about hair is brushed and neat (you can still be a guy with long hair and still have it look groomed). Has face washing, shaving, deodorant and tooth brushing become optional in Ohio?

Some people out there like to point out that business only has an emphasis is on outcome and not necessarily looks (of its employees). That when an individual dresses however comfortably they want ... it allows creative flow and avails the individual to express their individuality in the sterile cubicle farms of Corporate America.

I don't buy it. I don't believe the entire "the scummier I look, the better I work" idealism. The whole idea that this sub-casual, grunge culture lack of responsible dress has been good for the business sector is pathetic. I don't think this line of thinking even works with Seattle garage bands anymore.

If you have to define your creative business talent or personality by how trailer park trashy you can dress at work (what I've heard people term Hooker Casual) ... you don't have much creativity or personality to begin with. And how much baby fat your low riders show really doesn't reflect upon how business savvy you are. Just how big your middle is. And that maybe you should lay off the fast food.

Seriously, who wants to sit in a business meeting with a CEO that smells as rank as a dead skunk with a wrinkled suit and greasy hair? Yet this happened to me in Cleveland with a company you'd expect higher standards from because of the type of business they are in. In my case, their product/service may have been fantastic ... I just couldn't get past the body odor and cut my meeting short to get out of that office. Their competitor at least had the sense to bathe before the meeting.

Then there was the 40-something executive who dressed like a nightclub hopping 20-something in a tight low-cut high-hem black dress, knee boots, and fishnets who assured me that her company held our community's highest moral standards when it came to public events. I couldn't put my finger on it, but I wasn't very reassured by her and chose another company.

And these companies were definitely not some mom and pop back alley operation. (I don't know about you, but if my mother and father had a business, they wouldn't dress that bad even on their worst bad hair days.)

Okay, so I'm old-fashioned because I don't think boxer shorts should be hanging hanging out the back of the Company President's trousers in the board room (unless we're talking about Hanes or Fruit of the Loom). But this conscious lack of self appearance in the work place, this is probably another indication why our country is rapidly becoming less and less of a prime mover in the world.

Not that suddenly wearing a suit and tie is going to get us back to the position we once held in the world, but it begs the question - if you are sloppy in your dress and let your appearance slide, what else are you letting "slide" in your work and life?

It's a pretty poor commentary when the kids working at McDonald's flipping burgers dress better than a CEO in Tower City who is on the Fortune 500. Corporate Northeast Ohio, if you look sloppy ... you are sloppy. Get some better clothes, get rid of those worn out polo shirts, learn to tie a tie, polish your shoes, wear a blouse you don't flop out of and at the very least ... brush your teeth and comb your hair in the morning.

Before anyone jumps to any conclusions about me hating people on bikes ... for the record, I don't. I have a road bike myself, I love cycling through our wonderful metro park system, and the exercise leaves me feeling great. And also a little winded nowadays since I've not only added miles to my bike's odometer ... but years to myself as well. :^)

With gasoline and diesel prices at all times highs, I realize the two wheel form of weekend recreation has quickly transformed into a two wheel form of daily transportation. To work, to school, to civic events, etc. Great for exercise and great for the environment. :^)

But ... maybe not so great for those of us who still have to drive a four (or more) wheeled vehicle to work or places beyond the reasonable range of a bicycle.

I almost made roadkill out of a man and a woman riding side by side at an intersection with a traffic signal. She was busy with her cell phone, he had his head turned talking to her, neither were paying attention that they had a red light and cruised right out into traffic crossing a busy state route without stopping at full speed. The oncoming traffic being me, a charter bus, and a garbage truck ... all slammed on our brakes ... I missed the guy by inches.

No one was injured - just a bunch of mid-morning drivers had their nerves jarred.

But what got me, was I saw the woman turn back (still on her cell phone) ... and flip all of us off. I'm pretty sure I made out what she yelled back at us was a profane four letter word as well. Then they kept on going as if they had done nothing wrong.

They weren't kids. I'd say they had to be in their mid-40s. Old enough to know better.

As more and more people switch to peddle-power instead of fossil-fuel-power modes of transportation - I'm noticing a lot more cyclists blatantly ignoring safety and traffic laws. Riding on State Routes that have no berms, riding 4 and maybe 6 abreast (even left of center) on roads expecting cars and trucks to swerve out of their way, running stop signs and traffic lights, darting out into streets from between cars without looking, etc. I even saw one cyclist with a death wish riding along the side of I-90 by the curve during rush hour!?!?!? (I-90 is bad enough without a cyclist added to the mix ...) Again, most of the time these are not children or teenagers. These are adults. Who should know better.

Is it me, or is it when some people get on a bike they toss all safety and responsibility out the window? I've read blogs were cyclists complain drivers need to look out for them, that they have a right to the road as well, and it's drivers and not cyclists who cause the mounting number of bike/motor vehicle accidents and fatalities.

I believe both sides are responsible. Drivers need to be aware of their surroundings at all times because of their size, weight, and speed. But in that same token, cyclists also need to get it through their bike helmets that just because they're on two wheels they get no "special" treatment on the road and don't get to choose when or where they want to follow traffic laws.

Just like the Miller Brewing Company urges people to "Drink Responsibly" and the state highway patrol urges motorists to "Drive Carefully" ... maybe Trek/Giant/Schwinn need to urge cyclists to "Bike Safely." The burden of "Road Safety" doesn't rest squarely on the shoulders of motorists alone as some cyclists (I would have to say "arrogantly") think it should ... cyclists also have to share half of that burden as well.

Yet another aggrevation.

I don't know about the rest of you, but every spring when the snow thaws and the ice breaks and we turn on Cleveland news ... there's always some sobbing woman being interviewed, whining that either the Chagrin or Grand river flooded her house for the in "x" amount of years. And how all her furniture is ruined. And all her kids toys are covered in mud. And look at the mess. And where is she and her 10 kids going to live now because she's divorced and out of work. And then you get the angry guy wearing a Browns sweatshirt and an Indians ball cap ranting about how the city or county or state or Army Corps of Engineers need to do something to stop the river from flooding his home and wants the state to give him money to fix his flooded home. Then in the next breath, both say they wont move because they absolutely "love" the river running next to their backyard in the summer.

Okay - here is what I don't understand. These homeowners know the rivers always flood, yet they want to live right on top of them. Then they whine because their backyards and the first floors of their homes get inundated with a couple feet of water every spring ruining all their stuff. Then, they start demanding (on TV) the city, county, state, or federal government to give them money to clean up and rebuild ...

Why should these people get *any* compensation at all? It's like rewarding the village idiot for being ... well ... a village idiot.

I mean, they chose to live in a flood zone. They know they live in a flood zone. Yet, they stay there like lemmings. Because they absolutely "love" living next to the river.

The way I see it, they get the submerged basements and sunken living rooms they deserve ... and the total cost to cleanup and rebuild needs to come out of their own pockets. No more disaster area relief. No more local, state, or federal tax money assistance. No more low rate loans. No more blubbering on TV about "what am I going to do now?"

Move to higher ground or live on a houseboat dummy. :^) You chose to live next to a river, so don't complain about it flooding you out to us on TV and demanding flood damage compensation to rebuild in the same spot.

I have to admit, I was lured to wakeupwalmart.com after seeing the WalMart/Sam's Club attack ad broadcast on several local television stations.  More so, because the overall attack ad blatantly oozed so much negativity and generalities than the fact that WalMart/Sams Club was the target.  I was more interested in finding out who the true backer of the campaign was, that was disseminating this latest attack via the mass media.

It's our old friends, the United Food and Commercial Workers union, the largest union of retail workers in the nation.

I have nothing against unions - they have their place in certain situations.  But this immediately shot up a red flag that this was less about waking up WalMart to "public safety" and "human rights" concerns than it was an attempt to whine about WalMart because the UFCW is frustrated.  The UFCW is moaning again because its latest attempts to unionize WalMart (and fill UFCW coffers with all that untapped union due resource) have been about as successful as Quebec's attempts at seceding from Canada.

If "public safety" and "human rights" was truly the issue of the attack ad - then it should have also included other bulk retailers such as Costco and Target - which also have just as many Chinese or Forced Labor made products as WalMart does on its shelves.  Which were just as unsafe and lead-laden.  Which were sold to the public in bulk.  Which Costco and Target didn't do anything more or less than WalMart to protect its consumers.

But ... Costco is the darling of the UFCW.  And Target, often viewed as the "Anti-WalMart" even though the two retailers operate similar to one another, is only half-heartedly smacked around by United Food and Commercial Workers union because it is 6 times smaller than WalMart and doesn't create as big of headlines.  Plus the fact that "Target Dog" is a lot cuter and lovable than a Smiley Face that bounces around knocking prices onto the floor.

Plus .... wakeupwalmart-target-samsclub-bjs-costco-marcs-fleamark
ets-ebay-chineseguysellingrosesandstufffromtrunkofcar.c
om just  isn't as cool sounding as wakeupwalmart.

I'm not a big WalMart fan myself.  Many stores are dirty.  Customer service is ... well ... nothing like you see in their television ads.  Products are sometimes as cheaply made as their price.  And its annoying that to draw people into a new store, they'll carry name brand items like Kiwi Shoe Polish and a good price - then two weeks later, the Kiwi is pulled from the shelves and replaced with Uncle Somebodies' Black Shoe Wax and they never restock Kiwi again.  But I'm not stupid either.  And Costco can be just as dirty.  I do shop there for items, like any other person who has to squeeze as much out of every penny from my paycheck.  I'm not going to pay $40 for an item at a "UFCW" approved store, when the same item is available for $10 at WalMart.  In simple economics - I'm not throwing away $30 from my family's budget just to satisfy a union.  For a product, that itself, probably wasn't made in the United States in the first place.

This "I don't shop at WalMart because they stock products not made in America by Americans" fantasy is ... ridiculous.  Every major store you shop in, every major online retailer carries a bulk of non-American products.  I had a good laugh once when a friend of mine commented that she'll never step into a WalMart to buy clothes because they aren't made in the Good Ol' USA.  I asked her to check the tag on her Columbia jacket that she bought at Dick's ... made and assembled in Malaysia.  So much for the I only buy USA thing with her ... I guess she won't be shopping at Dick's anymore either.  If you think this way, the next time you go to the grocery store, you better check really close to where your food came from as well.  That can of corn probably came from Argentina and was only canned in Iowa.   I guess you could dump the corn out and eat the can, but the can itself probably came from China or Taiwan.  So that leaves you with the label - made from a pulp and paper manufacturer in Canada.  So much for American Corn ...

Anyway ... wakeupwalmart.com is a farce.  Thinly disguised as a "Protect The People" website, it's just the same old United Food and Commercial Workers union rant that they can't unionize WalMart.  Only this time, they're using the same bait and switch tactic WalMart used with the KiWi shoe polish in my local WalMart.  Except, instead of shoe polish, they're using Chinese Lead and Forced Labor as the bait.

I think wakeupwalmart.com does more damage to the United Food and Commercial Workers union's image than WalMart ever could have done.  If the UFCW truly was concerned about Human Rights and Consumer Safety - they'd create a joint web reference site with Amnesty International and the Consumer Products Safety Commission/Underwriters Laboratories and address these issues that affect all retailers and consumers ... instead of wasting UFCW resources on a narrow-sighted attack ad.

Meanwhile ... Walmart enjoys free publicity that it didn't have to pay for, at the expense of UFCW members.  Once again, the WalMart Empire ... still wins.

This saddens me. I mean, REALLY, gives me a heavy heart.

And then it angers me to the point where I have to go outside and "walk it off" around the block.

We have poor. We have destitute. We have homeless. We have starving. We have entire lost generations of families living under bridges, in vacant abandoned buildings, out of their cars that they can't even afford to put gasoline in.

Yet - we send billions of aid overseas to help someone else's poor, destitute, homeless and starving.

Why is it - that we treat our own people as second class baggage while we send aid to feed the people in overseas countries whose own governments are hostile to us? Why did the elderly lady down the street from me have to eat cat food and cut her medication into quarters while some AK-47 toting rebel gets fed three meals a day while he pops off rounds at UN peace keeping troops? And its no secret most governments receiving our aid and/or their Armies steal the aid long before it reaches their own people.

It's unquestionable that it's all due to hidden agenda politics and a distorted belief that we have some omnipresent obligation that we must take care of other countries out of our own pockets ... even when we have the large number of starving, impoverished and needy people here in our own country. The reasons why celebrities do it is purely to keep their names in the headlines - I seriously doubt they do it "purely out of the goodness of their hearts" ... for there is no such thing as a "selfless act" ...

While I am in favor of helping others, I think we need to do it AFTER we are in good shape first ... and we haven't done that for a very long time. I want to see my tax money go to United States Citizens first ...

There are people out there who will go "We can't be selfish and only think of ourselves, it is our duty to give to others" and " we're the richest country in the world, it is our obligation to help save the world."

Why are we obligated to feed someone else when our own starve? Why is it our duty to provide a comfortable way of life for someone else while our own freeze to death in the winter?

Since we're the richest nation in the world, it appears that the rest of the world just "assumes" that all of our people are taken care of.   We all know ... this is not the case. The world now expects us to provide as much aid as is needed wherever it is needed regardless if it hurts our own people in the process. Our own people are not a concern to the rest of the world, the rest of the world doesn't care about the suffering of our own - so as long as they get what they demand.  When our own die of neglect - the rest of the world demands their shoes.

If a Hollywood celebrity wants to build schools and hospitals in other countries - that's fine if they pull it out of their own pocketbook and foot the bill entirely themselves. But I have a big problem when Hollywood celebrities lobby Congress to use MY tax dollars to build schools and hospitals in other countries in THEIR names when we need them right here! I am quite aware of what is happening in Darfur. But I also know what's happening in Cleveland homeless shelters as well.  And, as cold and callous as it may seem, I really need to feed and comfort those in the Cleveland homeless shelter first.

If there's one thing that I would say makes me frown some is when people, born and raised here in the United States, refer to themselves as "African-Americans", "German-Americans", "Chinese-Americans", "Cuban-Americans", etc.  (where American is implied as Citizen of the United States ...)

I realize that  a naturalized citizen that was born and raised in Italy ... then moved to the United States ... may refer to themselves  as an "Italian American."  Because they are Italian.  Born there, raised there, lived there for years, then moved here and became a US Citizen.  Originally, they were Italian and then became a naturalized American.  I'm fine with that.  Because it's true.

What I do not understand are current people who were born and bred here in Cleveland, whose only connection to the "old country" was an ancestor who arrived in the last century by steamship, stand up and proclaim that they're Hungarian-Americans ... "Hungarian First, and then American Second."  Why do they want to be something that they really are not?  You're not a Citizen of Hungary.  You're a Citizen of the United States with Hungarian ancestry.

They're no more Hungarian than the illegal Mexican family that just jumped across our southern border.  (In respect to illegal Mexicans - they just consider themselves Mexicans and forget about the American part.)  Granted, they may have Hungarian-born parents who immigrated here/naturalized the legal way and have a strong Hungarian heritage and may live in a close-knit Hungarian neighborhood - but if you were born in West Park, Ohio - as far as the country of Hungary is concerned - you're an American.  Not Hungarian.

I believe you should be proud of your heritage.  But if you were first born here and live here, you're American and if you want to call yourself something ... it should be "American-African", "American-German", "American-Greek", etc.

I only say this because I was watching a family friend fill out a Financial Aid form for school and she marked herself as a Ukrainian-American - even though it was her grandparents who immigrated here and she and her parents were born here (and to my knowledge have never visited the "old country").  She considers herself Ukrainian who was only born in the United States and should be given financial aid.

I've always felt that history, in and of itself, is something for us to learn how to prevent ourselves from making the same tragic mistakes over and over again.

But I never thought history should be carried as a personalized burden and convenient excuse for the promotion of personal agendas - which many people (regardless of race or background) seem to like to do.

Having said that, I've once again started to hear the old worn out whine "you did this to me, you owe it to me" from members of the black community as they attempt to identify the root cause of all of their problems as the white and now (surprisingly enough) emerging Hispanic communities.  

Blaming it all on the white community and "slavery" is nothing new.  Same old song and dance routine.  But now also blaming Hispanics?  That was a new twist for me to hear ... and a real stretch in my opinion.  

If anything, I would have thought descendants of the indigenous South American natives would be leading that charge.  I don't remember Cortes hanging up a "Whites Only - Colored Entrance In Rear" sign anywhere in Mexico, but he did destroy and enslave the Aztecs.  The only explanation I can come up with is that with so much illegal immigration from south of the United States border, social services that the black community once considered strictly for their own benefit are now being sucked dry by the influx of *new* minorities.  And they don't like anyone encroaching upon their free meal tickets.

What I seem to be missing from the black community on a large scale is wholesale acknowledgment of their OWN HAND in the problems that are plaguing their communities today.

It's easier to blame some long dead white plantation owner and claim that what happened to enslaved blacks 100 years ago in the cotton fields of the deep south has caused your current Methamphetamine drug addiction which resulted in the shooting incident of your girlfriend because she wore a $2.97 knock-off LeBron James thong to bed - of whom you consider is a mouthpiece puppet for "The Man."

What happened before the Civil War, shouldn't be a focus to excuse the attitudes of so many current self-proclaimed "under-achieved black people" ... but it seems the black community uses this as a measuring stick.  When the going gets tough ... instead of rising up to the challenge, they buckle and blame "The White Man" for all of their woes.  Instead of giving it their best shot, they simply give up and perpetuate the "pity me and give me money because YOU OWE IT TO ME because because my great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather on my mother's uncle's father's grandmother's half-nephew's quarter-sister's side was a slave in Mississippi" cycle.

Personally, I've been lucky to have had parents who were legal immigrants to the United States who themselves were once oppressed and know what true oppression is (I have a feeling that most people who whine about being oppressed in the United States haven't a clue of what true oppression is) ... but still had the sense to instill in my siblings and I the power of an education, the strength of knowing what history has taught us, and most importantly - the life ethic that only YOU are responsible for what YOUR life becomes.  YOU choose to allow yourself to be oppressed.  You choose to allow others to trample and defeat you.  You choose the life you lead and whether or not you live in the past or present.  For me to blame a long since defunct fascist regime that oppressed my parents in the last century for my current cellphone bill would be stupid.  I could do it, but Verizon couldn't care less - I used the phone, I racked up the charges ... not the tyrant of the oppressive regime.  I could demand that the descendants of that oppressive regime PAY ME for their oppression of my parents so I could pay my cell phone bill ... but technically, if such people could be found, they didn't oppress ME so what claim do I have to anything?  My parents who were oppressed, yes.  Me - no.

The "you did this to me, you owe it to me" rhetoric I'm starting to hear again from members of our black community, to me, translates to: "I don't want to be responsible for my own life and don't want to work to make it worth living, give me money for something that didn't even happen to me in my lifetime so I can continue not to be responsible."

Neither myself nor the current Hispanic or White communities owe you anything ...

All the whining about "can't afford it" and "i don't like the look" aside ... it's about time for this.  There was a time when people knew how to dress and didn't beat someone unconscious because they weren't wearing the "socially acceptable brand name" tennis shoes or their starter jacket just happened to be the same one worn by a rival gang to an M13 clique ... take a look at kids nowadays.  They look more like back alley vagrants and prostitutes in some schools.  Why does an 11 year old need to wear thigh boots and a skirt that's hiked up nearly to her belly?  They claim "it's an expression of their individuality" - it really looks like they just rolled out of a Waste Management dumpster.  I been to my share of third world nations, and even the most destitute of the poor in those countries torn by war and strife still have enough dignity left not to degrade themselves to what I see walking the halls of our schools today.  And some Educators are not much better either.  There are going to be many more times in your life that you're going to be forced to do things that you don't want to do  ... buck up and get used to it.  Someone remarked that the dress code was "ruining the best years of their life" ... if a dress code is all that it takes to ruin the "best years of someone's life" ... that's a pretty shallow life.  I had to go to a Catholic School all of my early years with an extreme "ruler-across-the-knuckles-if-you-didn't-follow-it" dress code and my parents were as poor as church mice ... and my buddies and I still had a blast.  No dress code got in the way of having the best years of my life.

I just sat down with a nephew to watch some cartoons - this stuff is absolute garbage!  What happened to Bugs Bunny, Speed Racer, Wiley Coyote, the Roadrunner, Casper the Friendly Ghost, the original Scooby Doo, Jose and the Pussycats, ABC Afterschool Specials or Johnny Quest?  Heck, even the Smurfs were good.  Where did all the truly fun and good cartoons go?  No wonder our kids are so messed up today, shooting up schools and attempting to kill their parents ... watching *cartoons* with evil satanic looking creatures trying to kill people or hideously gross monsters that would make even Freddy Krugger run and hide.  Who thinks up this garbage?  I switched over the channel because I'm a responsible person ... it just makes me sad that somewhere, some sick freak thinks these kind of cartoons are funny for kids.

Sigh.

Somehow, I definitely think our society is decisively now on the downhill slide.   The party's almost over ... and we're just letting it fall apart like ancient Rome did.  History repeats itself.

 

 

It's Merry Christmas. We go through a lot of motions to respect the "Religion of Peace" but the Christians have to be "unoffensive" to everyone else?

I feel, if you don't like the holiday don't celebrate it. Mind your own business if somebody else does celebrate it as a Christian.

In this world of political correctness everything is now the wimpy "happy holidays" or sterile "season's greetings."   I believe we should still say MERRY CHRISTMAS if we are talking about Christmas. But there are bleeding hearts out there who don't want to "offend" other religions ... I think it is outrageous.  We should be free to enjoy our holiday without restrictions that a few minority fringe groups want to impose upon us.   Do you think in non-Christian countries they say "Happy Holidays" instead of Ramadan or whatever to avoid "offending" others ? I don't think so ...

Supposedly we have freedom of religion in this country ... unless it seems if you're a Christian and it's Christmas time. 

Where's the logic in celebrating a Christian holiday but trying to remove the Christianity from it?  Just so you can receive presents?  If that's it ... celebrate "Winter Solstice" then and pass gifts around for that.

Saying Merry XMas doesn't cut it either - substuting the X for CHRIST to get the Christianity out of the greeting.  It may be that the phrase "Merry XMas" makes you feel more *included* if you're not Christian ... but it certainly makes you feel less than comfortable and less "included" if you are a Christian.   If Christians make you feel uncomfortable or you're atheist ... don't pretend to be one by pretending to celebrate Christmas, and don't impose your narrow thinking on the rest of us.

 The greeting is MERRY CHRISTMAS (and "Merry Christmas" translated into every language).  Period.  Take Political Correctness and burn it with the Yule Log!  :^)