Sam Club, which has no problem pumping out conservative books, including those written by Bill O'Reilly, has a problem with an employee who dared to wear a shirt bearing the likeness of the current President of the United States, Barack Obama. The problem was that Obama's image was potentially offensive to customers.
Most of us seek a mutual exchange of ideas in our conversations, but not all of us. Most of us are open to the possibility of intellectual change, but not all of us. We get many comments at this site, most of them thoughtful, many of them really challenging to my pre-conceived beliefs. I revel in those challenging comments. In the past few months, though, I have struggled with how much leash to give to several visitors to this blog even though they tried to A) monopolize the conversation, B) preach, C) impose their favorite two issues upon every post, and D) ignore clearly-stated bona fide points made by others. In addition to using these ignorant and aggressive tactics many of these comments clearly have their facts wrong (some claimed that Obama is a terrorist; others claimed that God Himself wrote the Bible in King James English). When these sorts of people join in-person real-time conversations, almost all of us employ similar strategies. We extricate ourselves from those conversations so that we can join some other conversation. We also take steps to avoid spending time in the same room with those sorts of people on future occasions. A blog is not exactly a conversation, but it is a lot LIKE a conversation. What, then, should a moderator do when conversation-killers attempt to roost at a blog? For many months, I've struggled with this question.
The obsession the Right has had for lo these many years with people's sexuality has received a final "gift" from the Bush Administration. This is like grade school stuff. It's classic "If we don't tell them about it, they won't want it" thinking. Many on the Right feel everyone should have the freedom to own weapons. They think, implicitly, everyone is capable of proper usage of guns and that just because a certain number of individuals clearly intend to use them to the detriment of others, that that is no excuse to keep them out of the hands of everyone else. They are supportive of education in proper use of firearms. So why the different attitude toward sex? I expect this question never to be answered in such a way as to be persuasive to those who think sex is something that ought to be left in the gutter and in the closet, who think that teenagers ought not be told about it in the vain hope that they won't use it, but I am so utterly and profoundly tired of this infantile crap.
While walking to the Missouri State Court of Appeals today, I thought I saw a nipple.
Then I got closer . . . I DID! I DID see a nipple!There it was, prominently displayed in a building housing a prestigious courthouse, a court run by the government of the "Show Me" state of Missouri!!
Now, that’s odd … A prominent agency of my federal government (the FCC) is spending huge sums of money trying to punish a TV network for displaying a part of a nipple of Janet Jackson. My state government is simultaneously and shamelessly displaying that same forbidden body part.
Facebook apparently used its no-pornography policy to justify removing a photo from a woman’s page - of her breastfeeding her infant daughter. She crossed the line, according to the Facebook spokesperson, for allowing the tiniest peek of her areola to show next to the baby’s mouth. According to the spokesperson, they don’t…