Reflections From a Murky Pond

How many times have each of heard some variation of, “that’s offensive” or “racist” or “sexist” or “misogynous” or “classist” or…? But is whatever any of us have said or written actually and objectively offensive? Can there even be an objective standard for offensiveness or any other of the mode of expression – and thought – that are deemed to be antisocial?

Who gets to decide what is offensive? The speaker or writer? The listener or reader? Society in general?

I find this to be more than slight bit of a quandary. Determining who gets to decide what is offensive expression strikes me a very perplexing and fundamental problem in any form of communication or societal interaction. It affects almost everything since whoever gets the power to decide what is or isn’t offensive in some way gets the power to shutdown arguments and whole schools of thought.

This isn’t – or shouldn’t be – deep or profound thought. It’s really quite prosaic if you think about it. It just doesn’t seem to be something that people ask themselves or each other.

If the speaker or writer is to be the final arbiter of what is offensive then we have setup a situation where one can say or write anything that they wish to and then deny the validity of anyone’s claims that it is offensive in some manner. That would seem to lead to an abusive environment. In point of fact, it has led to such abusive climates in the past as exemplified by previous decade’s failure to deal with legitimate claims of harassment of various special interest groups.

If the listener or reader is to be the final arbiter of what is offensive then we have setup a situation in which one can claim that anything that one disagrees with is offensive in some manner. That would seem to lead to an equally abusive environment and one that is tyrannical in nature. In point of fact, America is currently in that situation as exemplified by the incessant claims of racism levied against any dissent to President Obama and/or the agenda he has for America.

If society as a whole is to be the final arbiter of what is offensive then we have setup a situation in which whatever are currently the dominant groups within that society will determine what is or isn’t offensive and enforce those opinions with legislation. This invariably leads to government tyranny – the Nanny State – since the goal becomes to placate the vocal protesters, even at the expense of personal liberties. This can be seen in the forms of what sexual harassment laws have devolved into, and the Hate Speech and Hate Crimes laws.

It’s quite the debacle insofar as I am able see, and not one that I can formulate a workable solution for. Anyone else have any ideas or thought?

It seems that Several Hispanic groups – most likely groups favoring a reconquista of large swaths of America and a rebuilding of Aztlan – have formally complained to Target Corp. and other American retailers about their selling an “illegal alien” hallowing costume on its website. Target, fearing various forms of reprisal, has surrendered and pulled the costume from it’s holiday offerings.

He Didn’t  Just Cross a Border, He Crossed a Galaxy

Some days I don’t know which is worse, the obsidian knives and rampant human sacrifice of their not-too-distant ancestors or the PACs, paper terrorism, and complicit media of the current generation of Hispanics who seek to supplant America and its vibrant culture with their own way of existence. Either  way though, it’s a crime against America, Liberty, and Humanity as a whole to ever give in to such creatures.

The only ones who’d have reason to be bothered are criminals and people who harbor and/or support them. They should all be treated as such by the law or by the People if the law fails.

For anyone interested in supporting America and free enterprise – or just sticking it to these Latino “hate groups” – by buying the costume, it is still on sale at buycostumes.com and buyseasons.com.

It should be really quite simple. Stay where you came from and try to fix the problems you and your kind created for yourselves or immigrate to America legally. If you choose to criminally come here, be ready to accept the consequences and earn the piece of America you so richly deserve – a prison cell or a shallow grave.

Yarr, Maties! In the olden days every pirate worth his powder and shot had but a single dream to keep him plying the seven seas in search of plunder and booty…

Every Pirate’s greatest Dream – A Sunken Chest

Alas and Alack, M’Hardies, some few us found it. Be a mite careful o’ what you dream of, you swabs; it just might come true. 😉

In April, 2009, President Obama’s Defense Secretary, Robert M. Gates, drafted the proposed 2010 Defense Budget. It was definitely both a wartime budget and one that placed an emphasis on projecting and supporting troops in foreign theaters and fighting the asymmetrical wars that the US is currently engaged in prosecuting. Since it took both the changing face of warfare and America’s current financial situation into account, it was both painful to some and highly pragmatic.

Then it was submitted to Congress…

The US Capitol: Largest Pork Processing Plant In America

Senators, in a frankly treasonous orgy of earmarks, diverted $2.6 billion in funds from the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill into various various pet projects. Most of the monies diverted were stolen from the US military’s Operation and Maintenance accounts (O&M).

The O&M accounts are not for projects or new technologies; those are the accounts that pay for for: troop training, repairs, spares & supplies for vehicles, weapons, ammunition, ships and planes, food and fuel – the day-to-day operating expenses that are needed to maintain the operational efficiency and survivability of our servicemen and women.

From the Washington Times:

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, “in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year,” said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

— Shaun Waterman
The Washington Times

Mr. Winslow Wheeler, Senior Fellow at the Center for Defense Information, described the US Senate’s ransacking of Defense Appropriations bill as amounting to “rancid gluttony.”  Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) called the looting, “a disgrace.” I call it what it is truly is – Treason.

Read the rest of this entry »

Branding, or naming something and giving it a distinctive look, is critical in the marketing world. It’s far more important to brand something – or someone – with a catchy name than to give an honest description it the product, service, or celebrity.

Because Boozedumpster Doesn’t Have
Quite The Same Ring To It

On the other hand, it seems probable to me that society as a whole is more interested in watching the performance of Amy Winehouse’s self-destruction than they are in her musical abilities – such as what are left of them now are.