In the Seattle neighborhood of Wallingford, Lori and Ryan Pacchiano run a high-end pet products business, catering to rich people who want to put their dog in goofy outfits.
I'm all for dumb people being separated from their money, but I draw the line at pet costumes. But that's not why I'm writing. I'm writing because the name of the store has caused a great deal of controversy: High Maintenance Bitch.
As you can imagine, all sorts of people are getting completely bent out of shape over this. They're complaining about how they walk down that street every day and have to look at that, or having to explain the meaning of that sign to their children. Before you know it, those people are going to ring up the ACLU and campaign to get the sign taken down.
If we live our lives based on not offending the most fragile, easily offended and sensitive out of our population, we'd be living a reenactment of Harrison Bergeron. That's exactly what's happening. Everyone has to walk on eggshells lest something they say is taken out of context or misunderstood (When is the last time you ever said "What a gyp!" and meant to slander a gypsy? That's what I thought.) Political correctness has run amok, and I've had enough. Until we stop kowtowing to those who are choosing to be offended by every little thing, we're going to spend all of our time focusing on this sort of issue, rather than things that are actually important. I want to say that again, beccause it's worth reiterating: we are giving publicity to people who are choosing to be offended by things that are not offensive.
This whole thing wouldn't be an issue if people didn't decide to corrupt the word for a female dog to mean a contemptible woman. Personally, I think it's a great pun, and wish the business good luck. Though I think they'd have more success if they were to open up a side business dealing with garden equipment. Then it could be called "Bitches and Hoes".
Why yes, I'd like an aisle seat and the chicken dinner on my Express Trip to Hell.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Lt. Watada's court martial began down at Fort Lewis yesterday; supporters and opponents came out to demonstrate on both sides, though in admittedly small numbers in either case.
Watada's defense attorney was doing his best to try and make the trial an issue of whether the war was legal or not, but the judge did the right thing and kept that argument out. After all, the legality, or indeed morality of the war are not the question at hand.
The issue at hand for those who don't know: Lt. Watada signed up to join the military in 2003, but when he was assigned to combat in Iraq, chose not to deploy with his unit; declaring he believed the war to be illegal, even though Congress authorized it, and Saddam Hussein repeatedly violated terms of that were codified as part of their unconditional surrender in the first Persian Gulf War.
If every officer decided on his own whether orders were moral or legal, we would have anarchy. Military officers give up that right when they sign on the dotted line. The problem is that those who believe the war is immoral are using a logical fallacy when they try to convince rational thinkers of their position.
I am very confident that this trial will be over quickly, because the Lieutenant doesn't have a leg to stand on, logically or legally. I hope he gets a long stretch in the brig to think about how big of a wuss he is to be a traitor to his country while there are actual heroes on the front line fighting his battle.
Watada's defense attorney was doing his best to try and make the trial an issue of whether the war was legal or not, but the judge did the right thing and kept that argument out. After all, the legality, or indeed morality of the war are not the question at hand.
The issue at hand for those who don't know: Lt. Watada signed up to join the military in 2003, but when he was assigned to combat in Iraq, chose not to deploy with his unit; declaring he believed the war to be illegal, even though Congress authorized it, and Saddam Hussein repeatedly violated terms of that were codified as part of their unconditional surrender in the first Persian Gulf War.
If every officer decided on his own whether orders were moral or legal, we would have anarchy. Military officers give up that right when they sign on the dotted line. The problem is that those who believe the war is immoral are using a logical fallacy when they try to convince rational thinkers of their position.
I am very confident that this trial will be over quickly, because the Lieutenant doesn't have a leg to stand on, logically or legally. I hope he gets a long stretch in the brig to think about how big of a wuss he is to be a traitor to his country while there are actual heroes on the front line fighting his battle.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Not Leaving on a Jet Plane
I've made it fairly clear that I have zero intent to ever get on an airplane again if I have to travel in the United States, but this story must be told. (And I apologize to my fair readers who have gone without a PolitBlog update for the last two weeks)
On a recent AirTrans flight, a three year old passenger was causing more than a little disturbance. Elly was generally carrying on at the top of her lungs and more importantly, not in her seat. Her parents did not put young Elly in her seat, and the end result is that a late flight takes off without Elly and her two parents.
Fast forward a bit: the family flies home the next day. AirTrans gives the family of three a reimbursement of nearly $600 for missing the flight. In addition, the airline offered the family three round-trip tickets anywhere in the sphere of AirTrans flight.
Am I the only one who reads the nutshell and scratches my head? A young girl causes a flight to be late, possibly ruining the day of 112 passengers, and instead of standing by the FAA rules, AirTrans caves and gives the family three free plane tickets? When the airline did nothing wrong?
I knew that America is gradually becoming a large-scale Bizarro World, but this is ridiculous. The people who should have been reimbursed were the 112 passengers who possibly missed connecting flights, or made their family members worry. But instead, the trouble-makers are paid off for creating a problem, when they should have been told 1) where to go and 2) how fast to get there.
On a recent AirTrans flight, a three year old passenger was causing more than a little disturbance. Elly was generally carrying on at the top of her lungs and more importantly, not in her seat. Her parents did not put young Elly in her seat, and the end result is that a late flight takes off without Elly and her two parents.
Fast forward a bit: the family flies home the next day. AirTrans gives the family of three a reimbursement of nearly $600 for missing the flight. In addition, the airline offered the family three round-trip tickets anywhere in the sphere of AirTrans flight.
Am I the only one who reads the nutshell and scratches my head? A young girl causes a flight to be late, possibly ruining the day of 112 passengers, and instead of standing by the FAA rules, AirTrans caves and gives the family three free plane tickets? When the airline did nothing wrong?
I knew that America is gradually becoming a large-scale Bizarro World, but this is ridiculous. The people who should have been reimbursed were the 112 passengers who possibly missed connecting flights, or made their family members worry. But instead, the trouble-makers are paid off for creating a problem, when they should have been told 1) where to go and 2) how fast to get there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)