Tag: seaworthy

My lifetime partner might think so.   Here are a few articles that have come to my attention in the recent past that may (or may not) support his/her view:

• Beyoncé Slammed for Sampling Shuttle Tragedy on New Album
  To see the Note click here.To hide the Note click here.
  For putting a six-second audio clip of an official mentioning the Challenger disaster at the beginning of her song, “XO”, twenty-seven years after the incident, Beyonce is considered extremely insensitive for mocking the crew’s sacrifice and opening “fresh wounds”. Really?


• JetBlue just made the ultimate faux pas on Twitter
  To see the Note click here.To hide the Note click here.
  JetBlue is forced to apologize for tweeting three words that reminded people of the Hindenburg disaster, which occurred seventy-seven years earlier. The life expectancy in the United States is currently 78.74 years. What is the normal mourning period (especially for someone who was less than two years old at the time of the tragedy)?  Looking at this from a different perspective, the article notes that 36 people died in the tragedy.   I’m willing to bet that over a million times that number have died tragically since then.   How long will you be able to devote to grieving over each one of these people?   Are some really more worthy than others?


• Coke pulls Fanta ad over Nazi controversy
  To see the Note click here.To hide the Note click here.
  Apparently, it is now considered completely thoughtless to reminisce about the Good Old Days if there was strife anywhere in the world during that time period. In how many years during the last century would such recollections still be possible?


• Under Armour pulls controversial ‘Band of Ballers’ T-shirt
  To see the Note click here.To hide the Note click here.
  
  The T-shirt was deliberately made to resemble the photograph of the raising of the American flag at the battle of Iwo Jima that “promptly became an indelible icon — of that battle, of the Pacific War, and of the Marine Corps itself^A“. The article notes that “more than 6,800 American troops died in that battle”. Not mentioned, by the way, is the fact that the United States actually won that battle and thousands of old geezers still take great pride in their part in defending our American way of life. The T-shirt, on the other hand, is about basketball. Lighten up!


• Senate candidate apologises for Native American ‘war cry’ in California
  To see the Note click here.To hide the Note click here.
  In the video clip, this lady is making fun of herself, not any minority group, for her own misunderstanding of the term “Indian American”. The “offensive” gesture lasted maybe two seconds, during which time all five fingers were extended (as opposed to just the longest, as would be displayed in a gesture that I have become much more familiar with).   The event clearly shows her ignorance, not her animosity.   I’m inclined to think “no blood, no foul”. It’s clear that the offended parties take themselves much more seriously than she takes herself. Probably too seriously.
  

I’m sure there are many other examples, but you get the idea. I know, I know – you have to take these stories with a grain of salt; there are some in the media who know they can sell more ads by fanning the flames of controversy regardless of how small those flames really are, and the outrage in at least one of the stories may be politically motivated. Still, I’m beginning to see a trend, and it’s not a good one.

Here are a couple of seemingly unrelated situations that may metaphorically give hints as to where I’m going with this.

• FCC Part 15, which applies to many consumer electronic devices, says that the equipment must meet two requirements: (1) The device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) the device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation. To me this just makes sense.   Radio interference degrades the ability to communicate.   First, in consideration of others one should create as little interference as possible.   Second, since there will always be some interference, if your equipment can’t accept interference it may be worthless.


• When operating a boat, “the vessel’s wake must not be excessive nor create a hazard to other vessels” (see the last item under “Vessel Speed Restrictions” on Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Boating Regulations page). (See also the Coast Guard’s Navigation Rules FAQ.)  That sounds entirely reasonable to me.  On the other hand, any vessel that cannot handle the ocean’s waves would not be considered seaworthy, so while a ship is responsible for any damages caused by its wake, those damages would be harder to prove and collect when they occur in the open ocean.

It has been reported that “real men” don’t cry.   Even though that is erroneous, I can assure you that real men do not go looking for things to cry about. And while, contrary to popular belief, real men are not defined by what they wear or what they do or don’t eat, it is entirely fair and reasonable to judge a man by how they behave.

A real man needs to be able to take more #$@! than s/he can dish out.

It grieves me to see people racing to find new ways to be offended. These are clearly haters and wannabes instead of problem solvers, and should not be taken seriously.   For example, the first four of the above examples involved alleged insensitivity to the tragedies of others.  We have all lost loved ones.   Those who claim to be hurt and offended that long after the catastrophe, in my book, are either faking it (in some sports they would be called floppers) or they need serious professional help.

Now that you know how I feel, what is the answer to the title question? Is it me or “them”? I think everyone needs to continually ask themselves this question. You should always allow for the possibility that you are wrong as a first step in reducing your own error rate.   Although being politically correct is obviously not one of my objectives, I do actually believe in considering the needs, rights, and points of view of others in my decision making process. It seems to me that following the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) should be sufficient.   But then again, if one actually were an insensitive bastard that wasn’t easily offended, treating others in the same callous manner that one finds tolerable toward oneself just might not be enough.   Unfortunately, we are all burdened by our own biases, so finding the answer to this question is not easy, and may not even be possible without the help of friends.   That’s why I’m turning this discussion over to you.   Thanks in advance for your help.