Yesterday my wife and I went "looking". Looking is when you do not actually buy anything, you consider buying. You come up with ideas. You, in a manner of speaking, are in big stores as they are rather museums of the moment.

We had been to a large store looking at clothes. Finding nothing that we liked, we left and strolled towards our final destination: Home Depot. Before getting there, we went into Pet Smart. This is a very big store and my wife often gets cat food for our three.

We had no sooner got inside the door and along came a woman and her three sons. They ranged in age from late twenties to about 16. The middle son, who was quite obese, was wearing a t-shirt that proclaimed: "I may be fat, but I have a big C**K."

My bride of many years, asked this cretin if it was his intention to assault her with the words on his shirt. His response was unintelligeable. She asked louder. He walked away. My wife followed, asking even louder. The man/boy, went to his family (no father in evidence). My wife asked the mother why she allowed her son to wear such a shirt in public. The mother, and I use the word pretty loosely here, stated that he was an adult and could wear what he chose.

The oldest son, oddly wearing a large, heavy cross around his neck (since when did Christian symbols become insignia for bullys? No references to the Crusades please. These folk have never heard of the Crusades), stated that we should mind our own business.

My wife, bless her heart, just kept raising her voice louder and louder. Now, most of the people knew something was going on.

Was the boy/man shamed? I doubt it. Will he continue to do anti-social, anti-women acts? Probably. Did his mother suffer any shame? Again, I doubt it.

It seems to me that what passes for civility in a society that allows free speech and free expression, is in danger when the citizenry tolerate really awful behavior...as a matter of routinue.

A huge well-lighted pet store who caters to families, including small children is not a place for that kind of "attire".

I hear about tolerance alot. Am I and my wife "intolerant" of the freedoms of a fellow citizen? As we get older and older must we become housebound because we cannot not longer go to public places without being insulted by signs and sounds? I don't think I should have to tolerate this. Do you?

Note: Why does the National Organization of Women seem to spend all their time in promoting abortion and NEVER saying a word about all sorts of "music" that is violently anti-woman? What message to boys and young men get when all 'round they see signs and hear words that encourage base conduct?

I often feel like a stranger in my own land. I might add that I pay plenty in property and other taxes. I feel this a good thing if positive things result therefrom. However, the reverse seems true. Thus, my wife and I are underwriting conduct that very well is not in either our own best interest or the society in which we live.

Finally, I work at a local college. Twice each and every academic year I must listen to the sexual harrassment speech AND sign my name to a longish document that informs me that if I ever do, say, imply or even get close to any degree of impropriety, I will instantly lose my job and most likely face criminal charges. Who, indeed, needs the "training"?

I await your comments.

Posted by Tad at February 26, 2006 09:50 AM

Tad, as you know, the ability to reason has long since left academia and the left. Tell your wife I'm quite proud of her, long may she shine.

Keep up the good work by the way.

Posted by GM Roper at February 26, 2006 10:08 AM

Wow. Parents should be a role model for thier kids and not allow this. The mother here obviously doesn't have any control over her son and if he is old enough to his own person, she should still have influence over him.

Posted by Raven at February 26, 2006 11:01 AM

Tad,

Good for your wife. That shows self respect. Kids (of any age) who do stuff like that are shoving it down everybody's throat. They know they can count on people to avoid conflict by acting like it ain't there or didn't happen. It is a form of bullying, in the moral sphere of action. Imagine what life in that family must be like with such psychological abuse a constant occurance.

And it is an insult to every women he sees. And I wish I knew where the feminists are. It seems like most or all of these special interest groups are corrupted and pursuing some hidden agenda -- mainly to keep their leaders in power and influence and raise money on their Websites by raising a stink with scare tactics about abortion being totally outlawed or the environment being ruined -- when nothing of the sort is really happening.

People like that kid are always surprised when somebody doesn't accept the insult. Just like every bully, the moment he was confronted, he became little, Mr. Meek and Mild.

We do the same thing in dummying up for the outrageous whoppers Arab leaders (and some politicians) lay on us. Their lies are insults to the intelligence. Yet everybody dummies up and acts like they deserve credence instead of mockery in return for such mockery.

And I think you're right: we do legitimize such conduct when we insult ourselves by accepting it.

Posted by Kathy - At the Zoo at February 26, 2006 01:21 PM

my wife and I are underwriting conduct that very well is not in either our own best interest or the society in which we live.

So if you could regulate everyones behavior then you'd be quite happy to pay your taxes? You know, you aren't the only person paying taxes, right? You do realize that people who don't pay as much in taxes as you do have rights as well. Yeah, even the right to be oboxious... and you have the right to tell them they are obnoxious. Free speech is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

Posted by E. Nonee Moose at February 26, 2006 03:34 PM

E. Nonee Moose,

Free speech ISN'T...free, that is. I have walked far too many military cemetaries and seen far too many lads who were cut down in their youth to believe that.

However, they (and I) supported/support the Constitution of the United States. The right to offer opinions that are not popular is clearly stated.

Having said that, when does sexual harrassment become just "obnoxious" and (if ever) does it enter the realm of conduct that just isn't to be tolerated by anyone?

Are there NO standards to which others must conform? I submit that there are.

As for me paying taxes and other paying them, I have noted quite closely where I reside that some go to all sorts of stratagems to avoid paying anything if they can. To add insult to injury, they send their children to school (73% of property taxes go to public schools) where they do not do the work that school once entailed. They are bullies in school and are now policed by.....waitt for it....

POLICE. Yep, we pay to have uniformed, gun-toting police in high schools to keep the "kids" (read the bullies) from doing too much damage to others. All the students, real and not, are passed from grade to grade and then receive their high school diplomas (if they haven't been caught commiting felonies first).

Next, they march on to community colleges where they are greeted with an open-door policy. Now, things start to tighten up some. As the lay-abouts (not all community college students, I must emphasize) cannot pass basic reading, writing or math, they must take "developmental" courses. These are free (to the "students" who have no money as they can get, and do, federal financial aid). This is like the "free" speech deal. It isn't really free as the taxpayers must now pay AGAIN for the skills they failed to master in K-12.

I submit that this is fraud. They, and their inattentive parent(s), failed to do what others provided for them. In lots and lots of other countries, I've seen kids that would give quite a lot to even have schools. This is, truly, an awful story.

So, I am not advocating that everyone must follow the standards that I think are right, but I do believe that there are some standards.

Note: If you were living next door to me and armed with a baseball bat, you were viciously beating your own small child (note you're on your own property), what do think I'd do?

It sure wouldn't be the "it's none of your business" deal that I hear. This would be the Kitty Genovese story all over again. I would ask my wife to call the police and I would be out the door with my 12 gauge shotgun...immediately. I would fire once in the air and jack another round into the chamber. Now the ball, as they say, is in your court.

WOW, that sounds pretty harsh. NO. What is harsh is someone beating to death a small child. I would not stand by and wring my hands and say that since I called the police, that is all I can do.

I would guess that clarifies my position, wouldn't you say?

Semper Fidelis

Posted by Tad at February 26, 2006 06:05 PM

E. Nonee Moose, consider yourself well and truly bloodied by a real gentleman. One that has the guts, by the bye, to sign his real name and leave me (at least) his real e-mail address.

Posted by GM Roper at February 26, 2006 07:07 PM

Whoa GO Tad. You tell him.

Posted by Raven at February 27, 2006 06:48 AM

Free speech ISN'T...free, that is. I have walked far too many military cemetaries and seen far too many lads who were cut down in their youth to believe that.

Why do you feel the need to make this point? I've NEVER made any derogatory comments against the military on this blog, except maybe for the Abu Ghraib types. My father is a WWII veteran. Several of my old high school friends, neighbors and friends of the family have served in the Middle East post 9/11... I've loved and supported every one of them.

Having said that, when does sexual harrassment become just "obnoxious" and (if ever) does it enter the realm of conduct that just isn't to be tolerated by anyone?

Does an oboxious T-shirt qualify as sexual harrassment? I'll submit that it doesn't. The young man did not approach your wife, did not directly speak with her (until spoken to) and made no attempt to physically contact her, either. His shirt was certainly offensive but he was not breaking the law. This was not sexual harrassment.

Are there NO standards to which others must conform? I submit that there are.

But how should those standards be defined and who should define them? Is 'natural law' really natural or is it an artifact, a construction? That's really the question we're dealing with here.

As for me paying taxes and other paying them, I have noted quite closely where I reside that some go to all sorts of stratagems to avoid paying anything if they can.

You live on Wall Street?!?

To add insult to injury, they send their children to school (73% of property taxes go to public schools) where they do not do the work that school once entailed. They are bullies in school and are now policed by.....waitt for it....

POLICE.

The schools are a mess and it's not just the inner-city schools, either. That doesn't mean they aren't necessary institutions but changes in the system do need to be made. I've gone on record here before saying I'd support a voucher program if it were done properly but even with a voucher program, you'd still have to pay property taxes. There will always be some kind of government activity paid for by your taxes that you don't support. Part of my taxes no doubt goes to support things that you approve of but I don't. That's inevitable.

If you were living next door to me and armed with a baseball bat, you were viciously beating your own small child (note you're on your own property), what do think I'd do?

It sure wouldn't be the "it's none of your business" deal that I hear.

What you are talking about here has nothing to with free speech or taxes but rather this is an actual crime. Aside from calling the police, if the child's life is in danger then any decent person would intervene if they could.

Posted by E. Nonee Moose at February 27, 2006 07:13 AM

One that has the guts, by the bye, to sign his real name and leave me (at least) his real e-mail address.

GM, I'm 'free' to comment anonymously here as long as you are willing to allow it. You can IP ban me at anytime and you know it.

Posted by E. Nonee Moose at February 27, 2006 07:17 AM

E. Nonee Moose... I don't ban people unless they are rude, obnoxious, curse a lot or are obviously trolls. Your comments are pithy and to the point though I disagree with them strenuously. You can feel free to comment without fear of being banned, but you should also know that I wonder why you hide behind a pseudonym. It really isn't necessary you know.

Posted by GM Roper at February 27, 2006 08:00 AM

G.M., I previously made the point to E. Nonee Moose that his failure to provide a real e-mail address, in accordance with the rules for posting and the administration of this site, shows disrespect for you and others who follow the rules. His conduct is not unlike those who insult others and ignore acceptable norms, such as the kid with the offending t-shirt.

Disrespect for others is a character weakness and prominent with low class people and the left--who are often one and the same.

Note this exchange that E. Nonee Moose and I had on February 13th when you were out:

Posted by Woody at February 27, 2006 08:53 AM

I wonder why you hide behind a pseudonym. It really isn't necessary you know.

I personally have no desire to communicate with any of you by e-mail and whatever correspondence we have, I wish to keep it in an open forum. I'm not putting myself above anyone else by doing this and do not intend it as a sign of disrespect but if I am going to actively participate in this forum then I will do so as anonymously as I can. If I can't do it anonymously, then I will not participate.

Frankly, I think a big deal is being made of this only because I am a dissenting voice. If I were merely echoing the popular consensus of the users here then I'm willing to bet no one (especially Woody) would make an issue of my anonymity.

Posted by E. Nonee Moose at February 27, 2006 11:40 AM

E Noone, you've stated your reasons for anonymity, and GM has stated the content conditions for making comments, to which you thus far have adhered. It's time for everyone to disarm and to stop casting aspersions of each other's character or motives. Can we all have a cease fire from this point on?

Incidentally, just in case you're not aware of it, I did want to tell you, at least from my personal experience, that one's e-mail address is not published on this site when you make a comment. (However, GM as the blog owner does the e-mail address.)

As one of the regular readers here, I thus far have generally appreciated your willingness to comment here and the tone in which you have expressed them.

Posted by civil truth at February 27, 2006 12:40 PM

Moose, you're incorrect. Your views have nothing to do with my views. It's your actions, and those actions would receive the same response from me whether one is from the left or from the right. There is an incredible lack of courtesy and decency in public and on the internet today. I didn't want this site, as others have, to sink into a show of a classless lack of manners.

I appreciate dissenting views and encourage them as long as the commenter remains polite and respectful. As long as no disrespect is intended by you (and I take you at your word,) as long as your purpose is to avoid public exposure of your identity (which I can appreciate) and as long as G.M. has no problem, then I have no problem with your circumventing the established protocol and I encourage you to express your views--contrary or not.

Posted by Woody at February 27, 2006 12:50 PM

I posted the following comment on Kathy's article on her blog:

Kathy...Your thoughtful post evoked a distinction regarding pacifism that I hadn't thought of before.

The Gospel passages that first come to mind regarding pacificsm (e.g. Matthew 5:38-42; 26:52) regard making a decision about how we respond to attacks against ourselves alone. Although I am not much of a pacifist, I think such a principled position (as opposed to cowardice) is worthy of respect. In any case, we do need to consider how eagerly and aggressively we should defend our personal "rights".

The point you raise regards our responsibility to defend others who are being bullied. The conclusion I draw is that whereas nonresistence to personal affront may be noble, there is no nobility in failing to confront and oppose those who bully others. Indeed, pacifism is not adequate grounds for noninvolvement; force is naughty is a misguided (and perhaps cowardly) cop-out of the necessity of being "our brother's keeper" (hence your apt reference to Cain) by confronting evil.

Moreover, the Old and New Testaments are replete with commands to defend the weak. Choosing not to resist violations of our rights does not relieve us of our responsibility to stand up for others.

Definitely something to think about...

Posted by civil truth at February 27, 2006 01:24 PM

My name is Taffy and I am Tad's wife. I would like to respond to E. Nonee Moose and anyone else who read my husband's account of my run-in with Vulgar T-Shirt Boy and came to the conclusion that he didn't talk to me and therefore I really shouldn't have talked (SHOUTED) at him.

You are right. Vulgar T-Shirt Boy (VTSB) didn't approach me. He didn't address me directly. He didn't make any effort to contact me physically. And perhaps he has a legal right to wear the shirt. (Although that is iffy, as a call to the local police dept. turned up the information that if they had been called they would have cited him for disorderly conduct.)

Let's say you are right about all of that. You couldn't be more right and still have drawn a more wrong conclusion.

He didn't address me directly. Well, duh! Of course he didn't. His intentions were to insult me on the run. In no way did he want me to answer him. This was not meant to be a clean exchange of ideas. This was a passive aggressive sneak attack, designed to give him the opportunity to foist his ideas on passers-by, to shock, upset, embarrass, anger, sexually harass, and I will even say sexually molest, whomever came within reading distance of him and leave them with no recourse but to suck it up. That is unless they chose to step outside of the norm, put themselves on the spot, and take him on.

Naturally, just like in any truly passive-aggressive technique, VTSB's plan was to wriggle out of any confrontation by saying, "I wasn't talking to you", or "Mind your own business", or "I have a right to wear this T-shirt".

E. Nonee Moose and others bought into this passive-aggressive ploy and decided that I should have just walked on by because he wasn't talking to me.

Who was he talking to, I would like to know? If a person puts a message, I don't care if it is "Have a nice day", or "Bloom where you are planted", or "I may be fat but I have a big c**k", or "If you can read this I am eating your P***y" written upside down and sideways (another shirt I recently saw) on a billboard, a bill cap, a bumper sticker, a sign, or a T-shirt, they are putting it there because they want EVERYONE to get their message.

What? Am I supposed to believe that VTSB was trying to keep this unreliable information to himself? I am not that stupid or gullible. He wasn't talking directly to me but I had no choice but to get the message. He was standing less than three feet from me and I can read English words of one syllable or less. (I can also read French and Spanish, but that's another subject.) My brain processed that message and my emotional reaction was fury long before my rational mind had time to realize that I had been molested.

And yes, I said molested. You think that is too strong a word? What if he had walked up to me and said those words to my face? Would you call that being molested? But we have already covered this. He wouldn't do that because he is a coward, and he doesn't have to say the words aloud because the result is the same.

I wasn't the only person in that store. There were children who I would like to keep innocent for a while longer. But what is our hope of that if we allow filth like that to walk right past us and on to accost and insult the next person? How can we hope to keep our children unsexualized until puberty does the job for them? Do we have to let perverts like VTSB shove this kind of thing down their throats when they have no protection. How is a little girl going to protect herself from that kind of coarseness? Especially if no adults present have the guts to stand up and say, "I don't care if it is legal to wear the T-Shirt, in my opinion he has no right".

Believe me, he will not walk past me and accomplish his ambush. He may not be talking to me directly but I am going to be talking directly to him. I care about myself, others, and my society in general.

How about you?

Posted by Tad at February 28, 2006 08:25 PM

Taffy, what an awesome post. You have said it as well as it can be said by anyone, anywhere.

Posted by GM Roper at February 28, 2006 08:31 PM