Rachel Ray, the Terrorist?!

That's it, I've had enough of Fox News and their offensively blatant attempt to label non-terrorists as terrorists!

Why are they picking on poor, innocent, yet annoyingly excessively perky Rachel Ray:


When everyone knows that the real terrorist is that snotty, not so perky Martha Stewart:


Ugh.

I bet she is sleeping with Rupert Murdoch.

:p

Damn Yankees, You Owe Me!!!

Offended in:

You know, this article from the Metrowest Daily News about how the school committee in Natick, MA could be legally vulnerable if it decides to keep the Redmen sports nickname really made me realize that it is time that I gather the courage to do something about the atrocities being committed against me:

"It is not so much discrimination against an individual student, but accommodation in a public venue," Siegel said, citing a 1999 Harvard Law Review article titled, "A Public Accommodations Challenge to the Use of Indian Team Names and Mascots in Professional Sports."

Siegel noted that the name Redmen appears in a few places at the NHS football field, including on the scoreboard and the pressbox. If someone attending a game, whether a student, a resident or someone else, is offended by the use of the name that could be considered discrimination under Title II.

"It is not only about letting people in, but preventing people from participating fully in an event," Siegel said. "If people do not want to participate, if it dissuades them from attending, they may have basis for filing a federal lawsuit."

State law could also be the basis for a suit, Siegel said, for similar reasons as Title II. The statute guarantees not only access but enjoyment of an event at a public "accommodation," which includes a sporting event.

In a similar case in a neighboring state, a restaurant called Sambo's was sued by a group that believed the name was offensive.

"At a restaurant in Rhode Island the name was offensive to some African-Americans and the court agreed and they had to change the name," Siegel said. "The intent (of offending someone) is not important. If people are offended they are offended, it doesn't matter if people meant to offend them."

OK, I know what you're thinking, "Chelle B., I didn't know that YOU had Injun Indian Native American First People redman blood in you!! You should totally sue those bastards who are offending you!!"

Well, actually, I DO have a bit of Injun Indian Native American First People redman blood in me, but it's my white blood that is offended, dammit!!

I mean, now that I think of it, they are using images of my own ancestral enemies as mascots for sports teams across this country, and it really offends me!

For instance, these guys humiliated and picked on my lowland Scot ancestors:

And these guys raped and pillaged my Welsh ancestors more than a few times:

Although... if any of the women were like me, they probably protested but secretly didn't mind TOO much about being *ahem* pillaged repeatedly by those guys.

Hooyah!!

Hey, don't look at me like that! I can't help it if I have a thing for Vikings!!

Anyhoo... worst of all, these bastards completely and utterly defeated my southern relatives in the not so distant past:

Well, you know, technically I may or may not be distantly related to someone on the opposing team back in 1943 when they kicked the crap out of the St. Louis Cardinals, but still!

Hey, I still have a right to be bitter about it, dammit, and I demand that they change their name immediately!! Or at least issue a formal apology to me and give me free season passes and a signed baseball. Or better yet, just an hour alone with my video camera in the locker room after the game.

Hell, I'd settle for five minutes alone with a video camera and those damn Yankees.

I wonder if any of them have Viking blood running through their veins? That would make it even better!

:p

* ~ The True Meaning of Memorial Day ~ *

On A Serious Note...

Criminalizing speech on grounds that it is insulting might appease some people, but it violates the fundamental human right of free speech. The Saudi government uses these laws primarily to silence its critics.

Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch

Hey fellow offenders, no offense but I am hijacking my own blog today to bring attention to a very special cause; today is Bloggers Unite for Human Rights day.

There are so many human rights violations taking place out there, and it wasn't easy to choose just one to focus on, but because I simply can not stomach the idea that a fellow human could be put to death for "offending Allah", I decided to highlight the human rights abuses that are so prevalent within Islam.

It is almost unthinkable that in today's modern world, things like this are taking place and while doing some research at the website for Human Rights Watch, I found the the following article and it really struck a nerve with me and made me realize, yet again, just how thankful I am to be an American and how very determined I am to not allow ANYONE to silence me or put limitations my freedom to offend:

"(New York, May 13, 2008) – Courts in Jeddah should dismiss cases against a Saudi web critic and a Turkish barber charged with “insulting” Islam, an unequivocal violation of freedom of expression protected under international law, Human Rights Watch said today.

“Criminalizing speech on grounds that it is insulting might appease some people, but it violates the fundamental human right of free speech,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “The Saudi government uses these laws primarily to silence its critics.”

On May 5, the prosecution service in Jeddah charged Ra’if Badawi with “setting up an electronic site that insults Islam,” and referred the case to court, asking for a five-year prison sentence and a 3 million riyal (US$800,000) fine. Unknown persons have hacked Badawi’s website multiple times, and have published his phone numbers, work address, and a threat on the hacked site: “Oh you retard, you are in the land of Muhammad, peace be upon him. Underline ‘Muhammad’ with a thousand lines before a thousand swords are put above your neck!” Prosecutors have not investigated the hackers or the death threats against Badawi.

The prosecution service had detained Badawi in March 2008 for one day to interrogate him about his website, which he uses to detail abuses by the Saudi religious police and to question the predominant interpretation of Islam. After being threatened with arrest for his online activities and receiving personal threats of physical harm, Badawi fled Saudi Arabia two weeks ago.

“Saudi assertions of increased freedom of expression ring hollow in light of the systematic silencing of critics who dare to speak their minds publicly,” Whitson said.

In a second case, the Mekka appeals court on May 1 upheld Sabri Bogday’s death sentence issued on March 31, 2008 for “cursing the name of God.” Bogday, a Turkish national who had worked in Jeddah for 11 years as a barber, allegedly insulted God during an argument with a Saudi client and an Egyptian neighbor. Bogday, who did not have a lawyer in court, denied cursing God, but the three judges of the lower court regarded the testimony by the Saudi and the Egyptian witnesses as sufficient proof that Bogday had committed the crime of apostasy, or defection from Islam.

“The charges, conviction, and sentence against Bogday show the dangers of criminalizing speech on the grounds that it’s offensive,” Whitson said. “There’s no good reason to believe that criminal penalties for insulting God or religion either prevent such insults or restore the alleged damage done to the reputation of religion or God.”

Although the existence of blasphemy laws make some forms of insult to religion an offence, human rights bodies have called for their abolition, and as a minimum that they be narrowly defined so they are compatible with international human rights law on free speech. “Cursing God” does not meet this test and should not be a criminal offence, Human Rights Watch said.

Saudi Arabia does not have a penal code, and the crimes of “insulting Islam” or “cursing God” are not precisely defined. Prosecutors and judges in Saudi Arabia frequently attach a criminal charge to an act they consider criminal without citing the legal basis for such a charge. International human rights law requires that the law, in particular one establishing criminal offences, be sufficiently precise to enable an individual to regulate his conduct appropriately.

International human rights law also protects freedom of expression. The government may only ban limited types of speech such as that which immediately and directly incites violence, but the government may not impose criminal sanctions for the expression of thoughts or opinions, merely because they are deemed offensive."

Saudi Arabia frequently convicts persons for alleged insults to religion. Hadi al-Mutif, who belongs to the minority Isma’ili creed in Shia Islam, remains on death row for allegedly insulting the Prophet Muhammad with two words in 1993; a court convicted teacher Muhammad al-Suhaimi in 2004 of insulting religion for his unorthodox views expressed in a classroom; teacher Muhammad al-Harbi was found guilty of blasphemy in 2005; and a different court charged Rabah al-Quwai’i with apostasy for internet writings in 2005.

I hope that this gives you food for thought, as it did me, and I hope that you not only appreciate but resolve yourself to supporting and defending the rights we have been blessed with. The rights that allow us to speak freely without fear of offending.

The Universal Cry Baby Mascot

Offended in:

This excerpt from a letter to the editor of the Daily Astorian speaks volumes about the challenges we face as a society preoccupied with a never ending quest to eliminate all things that may offend:

I am an alumnus of Warrenton High School, and very proud of it. But no more proud of the mascot as the last full blood Clatsop Indian alive.

That's right. Diane Collier, whom I know well, and her family are proud WHS Warrior fans and alumni. She is not offended, and neither are 99-plus percent of the community.

Knuckling under to politically correct people with an ax to grind is like being controlled like lab rats in a science experiment. They are trying to see where it will all end. Well, I say end it now, or there will be no end. We are a proud community. Along with the Astoria Fishermen, Knappa Loggers, Seaside Seagulls, where does it end?

Do the Knappa Loggers have to change mascots because logging is offensive to environmental minorities? Or should Astoria change mascots because the fishing industry it was founded on is considered by many to be too controversial? Or are the seagulls going to be protected someday and we'll need not draw attention to them?

Personally, I think this should just be the mascot of all American schools from now on:


Not only does it aptly depict all of these (supposedly) offended people out there, but if you think about it, making them the universal mascot should appease them, right?

Right.

But, of course it wouldn't make them happy, because it is their nature to be miserable and find something else to be offended and cry foul over, which is exactly why we should use it!!

:)

Wake Up and Smell the Pork Rinds, America!!

Offended in:

I admit it, as an American I am really annoyed by the fact that I am continually being told that I must always be respectful of everyone else and avoid offending them at all costs.

Honestly, I can agree with mutual respect up to a certain point, but there are those out there who have no intention of reciprocating any respect I show them so why bother?

This sort of idealistic Utopian thinking is better left to vintage Coca-cola commercials and would only work in a perfect world, which, if you haven't noticed, isn't where you or I live.

The following is an excerpt from a most excellent article in Frontpage Magazine (bold print emphasis is mine):

The practice of political correctness may soon be tallying another casualty: the pig. Increasingly, as America and the rest of the Western world continue accommodating Muslim religious demands, pork food products are being singled out for removal from dining tables and pig-related trinkets banished from the desks of office workers.

If this continues, good ol’ American food, such as barbeque replete with hot dogs and ribs and the typical American breakfast of eggs, bacon and sausage, might be seen as the equivalent of political poison. Could outright censorship of pig depictions in drawings, pig references in literary works and pig portrayals in movies be far behind? Could the well-known, cartoon figure Porky Pig become a cultural embarrassment of our unenlightened past as we fear to utter the “P” word?

Though the notion may seem more appropriate for a comedy routine, an increasing number of pig-related incidents, accommodations and Muslim demands in recent years points to an uncertain future for our porcine friend and its place in our economy, culture and our culinary traditions.

In October of 2005, the United Kingdom, clearly further along on the road to dhimmitude due to its proportionally large and more radical Muslim population, banned piggybanks as promotional gifts from its banks. At about the same time, government social welfare offices called for the removal of all pig paraphernalia, including pig calendars, toys and accessories from employee desks. These new regulations were ostensibly implemented so as not to offend Muslim patrons.

Meanwhile, in the United States in 2007, several school districts removed pork products from their cafeteria offerings. Dearborn, Mich., schools banned pork completely to avoid the possibility that Muslims students might unknowingly eat it. The district later added special halal foods to its menu to cater to the demands of its Muslim population. An elementary school in San Diego that offers Arabic, single-gender classes and Muslim-only organized prayer, no longer offers pork to any of its students. And in Oak Lawn, Ill., where the administration is debating elimination of Christmas holiday celebrations, pork has already been banished from the school lunchroom.

Now, remember, one of the main reasons that our forefather's left Europe is because for some inexplicable reason, over there, they seem to almost enjoy allowing themselves to being dictated to in one form or another. Whether it is by a king or a dictator or church, history has proven this time and time again.

So with that in mind, we need to ask ourselves; do we as Americans really want these guys determining what we can (or can't) say, wear, eat or do:



I mean, isn't it enough that we have these guys working their asses off to do that to us already:


Exactly.

Wake up and smell the pork rinds, anyone?

:)

Unfairly Offended? Call Me!!

Offended in:

Hey, if this lawsuit in Manhattan pans out, I am getting myself a lawyer to sue each and every person out there who makes disparaging remarks about Idahoans, Americans, blondes, women, short people, and.... um, well whatever the hell else I can think of that applies to and potentially offends me:

HONG KONG (Reuters) - A Chinese primary school teacher and a beautician have filed a suit against CNN in New York over remarks they say insulted the Chinese people and are seeking $1.3 billion in compensation -- $1 per person in China, a Hong Kong newspaper reported.

The case against the Atlanta-based cable channel, its parent company Turner Broadcasting and Jack Cafferty, the offending commentator, comes after 14 lawyers launched a similar suit in Beijing alleging that Cafferty's remarks earlier this month violated the dignity and reputation of the Chinese people.

Cafferty said the United States imported Chinese-made "junk with the lead paint on them and the poisoned pet food" and added: "They're basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the last 50 years".

On second thought, I should just go to law school and specialize in suing on behalf of the easily offended, I bet I could make a killing:


;)