Destor on Ordering a Pizza Conservatively in Texas
Ramona: Hatred in a Lovely Church
Gallup: Obama 46, Romney 46
|
Destor on Ordering a Pizza Conservatively in Texas Ramona: Hatred in a Lovely Church Gallup: Obama 46, Romney 46 |
Read |
I'm offended. So, naturally, that places me amongst the majority of people living in the world today.
First off, it feels good to have outed myself as one of you. After all, the present condition of the "national dialogue" begins to make one feel rather left out when one is merely an observer of completely unrestrained outrage. Now that I've made my position known, I feel a lot better.
The thing is, I'm not offended about all of the same stuff that offends all of you. Of course, this isn't all that surprising given the tremendous variety of outrage percolating these days. Sure, I could be offended about any of the typical stuff - bad words on television, violence in media, nip slips or crypto-Muslim leaders of the free world. But that's not what's got my goat.
No, what has me bothered is closer to the very notion of being offended itself. It's tempting here to say that it is actually the act of taking offense that offends me, but this doesn't really get at the problem. No, I fully expect people to be offended by things. After all, we all move around this planet with a bunch of cherished notions and precious sensibilities, so we're bound to bump up against things that rub our pet notions the wrong way from time to time. Additionally, I'm claiming to be taking offense myself, which would create a trouble paradox were that very act the prime thorn in my paw. In all likelihood, my head would have already exploded. Though this has nearly happened on a number of occasions, I am happy to report that I see little danger of that outcome in this case.
It's also not the expression of offense that has me bothered. What significance would the hallowed act of taking offense really have if it manifested only in silent suffering? Very little, I say. No, it is paramount that we express our outrage. We must say it. Impose on our friends, family and co-workers with our outrage. Blog it. Tweet it. Scrawl it on poster-board with little regard for grammar or even, in some cases, syntax. That is how we make known to the world the fact that our sensibilities have been harmed.
All of this is well and good. The problem seems to arise when we arrive at the intersection of outrage and rights. People, we have to get together on how we resolve the apparent conflicts between these two precious American commodities: Our outrage and our rights.
I am pleased to inform you that you have the right to be offended. This is, in fact, one of the least abridged rights you will enjoy as an American. You can literally be offended about anything that you like - that party your neighbors threw last week, the jerk who cut you off during the morning commute, those kids on Jersey Shore, those yoga pants that say "Juicy" on the ass, bagels served with butter instead of cream cheese, modern country music, music in general, liberals, conservatives, the way that guy from Arcade Fire gets his hair cut or even truck nuts. The possibilities are literally endless. So, by all means, take offense!
You also have the right to report the fact that you have been offended! This marvelous state of affairs is brought to you by the First Amendment, but it also seems to be where the confusion is introduced. The First Amendment is the one that, among other things, gives you the right to say stuff, including that you feel offended. The problem is that the First Amendment also provides for other rights, like that whole freedom of (and from) religion thing and the dreaded implication that other people can say stuff about the stuff you said. They can even quote you, so be careful!
One might be inclined to think that it is the implied rights of the U.S. Constitution that are the most opaque. Hardly! Enumerated rights are super tricky! So, pay attention to these handy guidelines:
See, it's at this last step where we seem to run into trouble. More and more these days, people seem to keep confusing their right be offended and to loudly express that condition with the right to tell other people what they should do and how they should do it. That's not how we do things. No, you can't be too explicit about imposing on other people because you could get roped into a "discussion" about rights or, worse, facts. No, the correct way to go about things is to keep proclaiming your outrage despite the rights of others. For a helpful example of how things do not work, let's look at the recent case of Dr. Laura Sclehlsisnsigner.
Dr. Laura hosts a call in radio show that absolutely thrives on the first two principles in our three-part model. Dr. Laura has a lot of sensibilities and people call her so that she can tell them how they are horrible people with no moral fiber and that they have offended her. This is good! Dr. Laura and her fans are freely participating in a patriotic display of their rights. Some of the people who call her might even listen to what she says and do it, but this is okay because they don't have to and probably don't anyway.
Recently, Dr. Laura received a call from a nice black lady who had a question about whether some of her family and friends might be saying things that were racially offensive. What a cautious American! She could have jumped right into being offended, but wanted a second opinion. Dr. Laura naturally responded by telling her that she was probably being hyper-sensitive and also nigger nigger nigger. Dr. Laura's actions are notable here for those of you who lack the imagination for new and interesting ways to be offended. Here, Dr. Laura was able to take offense at the mere idea that another person might be wondering about whether or not she should be offended.
Everything Dr. Laura had done up to this point was exemplary. She was fully exercising her Americanness by being offended and making that offense known. However, she failed to fully understand the machinery of offended sensibilities in the modern era. Soon, it was made known that the people who pay her salary found her choice of language offensive! It's so classic. She really should have seen this coming.
How did this seasoned pro respond? In the worst way possible, that's how. She started talking about how her rights had been violated. Oh brother. No one talks about rights except for losers! People don't care about rights, they care about sensibilities. Take it from me: If you feel the need to assert your rights, you don't have any.
Talking about your rights is always a real loser. You need to talk about how offended you are (and you know you are!). Where is Dr. Laura now? Well, she's out of a job and apparently out of rights, since she's talking about them. That's nowhere to be! She should have stayed in the game by talking about how offended she is!
Another instructive example is that of the 9/11 Mosque. Now, we all know that the First Amendment gives Muslims the right to build a mosque on 9/11. But that's not nearly as important as our right to be offended by them doing so! This is why the proper way to deal with the situation is not to try to argue that the proposed project shouldn't go forward on some rational basis with facts and stuff. Facts are just like rights in that they are no longer relevant once you have to declare them. Boo facts!
The right way to handle the situation is to let the other side assert their rights, in which case they become meaningless, and keep talking about how offensive it is! Statements that begin with, "Well, clearly they have the right..." are an absolute power-house in this situation because it places the opposition on the side of rights while you can claim the mantle of outrage! This is the correct strategy and proved effective time and again, like when Al Gore's wife got stickers put on offensive albums because they're offensive even though people have a right to make them. See - rights are for chumps and outrage wins the day!
Just remember - be offended loudly and often. And don't bother with flimsy rights and facts because they disappear like fog in the morning sun. Stay offended, stay loud and you'll get your way!
The issue of sexual assaults on American Indian women has become one of the major sources of discord in the current debate between the White House and the House of Representatives over the latest reauthorization of the landmark Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
.......
“We should never have a woman come into the office saying, ‘I need to learn more about Plan B for when my daughter gets raped,’ ” said Charon Asetoyer, a women’s health advocate on the Yankton Sioux Reservation in South Dakota, referring to the morning-after pill. “That’s what’s so frightening — that it’s more expected than unexpected. It has become a norm for young women.”
The difficulties facing American Indian women who have been raped are myriad, and include a shortage of sexual assault kits at Indian Health Service hospitals, where there is also a lack of access to birth control and sexually transmitted disease testing. There are also too few nurses trained to perform rape examinations, which are generally necessary to bring cases to trial.
By Ismail Kahn, New York Times, May 23/24, 2012
PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A Pakistani doctor who helped the Central Intelligence Agency pin down Osama bin Laden's location under cover of a vaccination drive was convicted on Wednesday of treason and sentenced to 33 years in prison, a senior official in Pakistan said.
A tribal court here in northwestern Pakistan found the doctor, Shakil Afridi, guilty of acting against the state, said Mutahir Zeb Khan, the administrator for the Khyber tribal region [....]
By Sergei L. Loiko, Los Angeles Times, May 23, 2012
MOSCOW — Stiff new penalties aimed at opposition protesters were given preliminary approval Tuesday by Russian lawmakers loyal to President Vladimir Putin, the target of mass rallies and demonstrations before his March election victory.
The bill, which opposition parliament members termed draconian and protested by threatening to file out of a legislative session, calls for fines of up to $50,000 and up to 200 hours of community service for organizers of rallies and demonstrations that grow violent or exceed the approved number of participants.
The sanctions were approved on first reading by parliament's lower house, which is controlled by Putin's United Russia party. They mark a return by the Kremlin to a tough stance against critics after concessions during the recent election campaign [...]
Also see:
Russians back Putin, strong leadership
Washington Post, May 22, 2012
A Pew survey of 1,000 Russians found that President Vladimir Putin is well-liked by more than 70 percent of citizens, especially older adults.
Associated Press, May 21, 2012
HAVANA — It was all sunshine, smiles and celebratory speeches as officials marked the arrival of an undersea fiber-optic cable they promised would end Cuba's Internet isolation and boost web capacity 3,000-fold. Even a retired Fidel Castro had hailed the dawn of a new cyber-age on the island.
More than a year after the February 2011 ceremony on Siboney Beach in eastern Cuba, and 10 months after the system was supposed to have gone online, the government never mentions the cable anymore, and Internet here remains the slowest in the hemisphere. People talk quietly about embezzlement torpedoing the project and the arrest of more than a half-dozen senior telecom officials.
Perhaps most maddening, nobody has explained what happened to the much-ballyhooed $70 million project....
By Tamasin Ford in Monrovia, Guardian.co.uk, May 22, 2012
Husbands, not strangers or men with guns, are now the biggest threat to women in post-conflict west Africa, according to a report by the International Rescue Committee (IRC) released on Tuesday.
The IRC report, Let Me Not Die Before My Time: Domestic Violence in West Africa, based on data collected over 10 years by the IRC in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Ivory Coast, said domestic violence is the "most urgent, pervasive and significant protection issue for women in west Africa" [.....]
Alas, it's not just offense. Conservatives have developed a consistent refrain according to which they conflate any challenge with a denial of their first amendment rights. It's all part of their persecution complex. I'm reminded of an O'Reilly segment in which he invited a lawyer onto his show to debate his contention that critics were libeling him and suppressing his freedom of speech. The lawyer patiently explained that criticism is neither libel nor a free speech violation, to which O'Reilly responded, "It doesn't matter - I don't care about the law. My rights were violated here because they tried to punish me for my speech. It's happening all over the place."
O'Reilly was right...in a way. It's happening all over the place.
insanityum... way of thinking... and emerge safely?Who says that I emerged safely?