Here's another little twig on the tree of my frustration. About two months ago there was a report of a Texas official filing a complaint about a Dallas county official using the term "black hole." To what was he referring? The county's collection office (yes, I was also surprised to read that a government economic entity is an inescapable matter-sucking void). The official went on to complain about "devil's/angel's food cake" and "black sheep," too. So there's a taboo trio to add to the list of things I can't say now. Then last week there was the infamous "swine cosmetics" comment. "Putting lipstick on a pig" is a rhetorical expression that is, not only vividly illustrative, but one of my personal favorites for its imagery and accuracy. Without sounding like an Obamaniac, Barack is innocent of the "travesty" of calling Sarah Palin a pig because he was referring to policies... and they weren't even her policies! I actually quite agree with the statement, although it is the very picture of irony since both campaigns exude the heady aroma of the sty. But that's a whole different branch (my sarcastic apologies to all arborists and dendrophiliacs). The ultimate basket I'm driving toward is that sparing each other's feelings will eventually get everyone hurt. Again, I'm not a monster and I personally try to be respectful of others, especially the innocent or naive. But to be so prone to offense that common and unrelated terms have the power to "offend" can only logically be inferred as a result of insecurity. Enter the constant battle for the freedom of speech. Noam Chomsky stated that "if you believe in freedom of speech then you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like...you are in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise - otherwise you're not in favour of freedom of speech." I subscribe to that whole-heartedly. Everyone has the right to say insulting things just as much as those in a position to be offended have the right to express their offense (and the provoker really shouldn't be all that surprised). We should celebrate the fact that both the strong and weak can express their respective views. Complaints of resentment are little more than the gripings of the vulnerable, however. The fuzzy logic of the day dictates that we just eliminate hurtful speech altogether and thereby feed (almost to the level of gluttoning) the weak-willed's unnecessary insecurities. Being PC is the slang of censorship. On a governmental scale this is a soft step toward fascism. Luckily we're not there because in a "government by the people" there are still people who demand the right to expression. There are volumes more to say on the subject, but I fear this post has already drowned out my main point. That point is that acting appalled by discourteousness and taking it personally speaks as much for the insecurity of the receiver as it does for the ignorance of the aggressor.

If you want some nerve-wracking entertainment, check out the Muzzle Awards given out by the Thomas Jefferson Center for violations of free speech.