Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus – and so much more

Opinion

Santa Claus holding an American flag
inhauscreative/Getty Images

Lockard writes regularly for The Courier and has published several short stories and poetry.

In history’s most reprinted newspaper editorial, 8-year-old Virginia O’Hanlon wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Sun in 1897, asking for a definitive answer as to whether there is a Santa Claus. While Virginia’s letter questioned the existence of a mythical figure, it showed more political acumen than a thousand politicians and analysts could spew out. It has to do with the spirit of humanity and, when applied to our country, the spirit of our nation.

So let me offer a modified response: “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. And yes, Virginia – and our other 49 states –there is a United States of America.”


Of course, there are ample issues for disagreement and dissension in the United States, often intensified by a political system embracing extremes. Human rights issues, racial equality, gun legislation or the lack thereof, abortion, how our children are taught, even how we define an individual – all fodder for argument. Families not speaking, friends on the outs, right’s violations and accusations, injustice. Not to mention controversial or bungled alarms raising more questions about our country’s leadership role in the world. The left going further to the left, the right veering further right. And every person absolutely believing he or she, or they, are right! We have all been affected by the “skepticism of a skeptical age.” (To quote from the Sun’s response to Virginia.)

Santa Claus and the United States have much more in common than at first glance. That “jolly old elf” and our nation both started as a dream, the embodiment of an idea. And both are sustained by that dream. They may have morphed into skinny mall Santa or been corrupted by contentious claims of “this land is my land and only mine,” but both exist through belief. As Virginia wondered about Santa over a century ago, this holiday season many are wondering about our country. But the core of the United States is much more intangible than its Constitution and laws. Its strength is the underlying belief in it, and that requires defending.

We all love stories. It is the real “story behind the story” when we immerse ourselves in the power of belief. So, who brings the gifts?

Is it not more important to recognize them? And not just our own gifts, but the whole array our families and communities possess through our citizenship? How much better to abide by that most old-fashioned of sentiments and believe we are “blessed” to live in this country.

Santa Claus and our nation have also this in common:. No matter how many letters we send to the North Pole or how many expletives we spew about what is wrong with the country, neither will act as “Amazon’s Wish Fulfillment Center” on steroids. Getting everything we want under the tree is impossible, as impossible as pleasing all of the people all of the time in our vast and diverse country.

Francis Pharcellus Church, the veteran newsman at the “Sun” who answered Virginia’s letter, wrote: “[T]here is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man ... could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance ... push aside that curtain ... to the beauty and glory beyond.”

Don’t we all love patriotic anthems and holiday carols for their hopeful message of belief in something bigger, whether it is our country or Santa Claus or God? The strength of our nation is not embodied in its headlines and “breaking news.” It is in the hearts of its people. Which is exactly what Church wrote, assuring Virginia of the truth of her belief: “In all this world there is nothing else so real and abiding.”

What’s wrong with the United States? Plenty.

But what’s right with it? Plenty more.

Read More

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Leaders Fear Accountability — Why?
Protesters hold signs outside a government building.
Photo by Leo_Visions on Unsplash

Leaders Fear Accountability — Why?

America is being damaged not by strong leaders abusing power, but by weak leaders avoiding responsibility. Their refusal to be accountable has become a threat to democracy itself. We are now governed by individuals who hold power but lack the character, courage, and integrity required to use it responsibly. And while everyday Americans are expected to follow rules, honor commitments, and face consequences, we have a Congress and a President who are shielded by privilege and immunity. We have leaders in Congress who lie, point fingers, and break ethics rules because they can get away with it. There is no accountability. Too many of our leaders operate as if ethics were optional.

Internal fighting among members of Congress has only deepened the dysfunction. Instead of holding one another accountable, lawmakers spend their energy attacking colleagues, blocking legislation, and protecting party leaders. Infighting reveals a failure to check themselves, leaving citizens with a government paralyzed by disputes rather than focused on solutions. When leaders cannot even enforce accountability within their own ranks, the entire system falters.

Keep ReadingShow less