God. The crap I find myself finding.

Anyway, I went over to Andrew Sullivan because I read at Instapundit that Andrew Sullivan thinks that "If gun rights are civil rights, why would anyone feel the need to hide the fact that they own one"?

Well, gee...

If being gay is a civil right, why would anyone feel the need to hide the fact that they're gay?

If blogs are a civil right, why would anyone feel the need to hide the fact that they write one?

Lots of reasons, and frankly it isn't anyone's effing business what those reasons might be. The First and Second Amendments tell the government to butt out of it. Plus the right to privacy. (These strike me as pretty obvious things.)

Anyway, I went over to read the Sullivan post for myself, and then I found that Donald Sensing (who happens to be a Methodist minister as well as a fine blogger) is being accused by Andrew Sullivan of "the usual sensitivity crap" for the crime of not liking some of the atheistic witticisms on Starbucks coffee cups and for saying that he didn't feel like patronizing the place anymore.

So, even though I have no way at present to roast my own coffee, I won't buy Starbucks any more. I know there's no way that this international megacorporation will miss my patronage, which at best accounts for 0.00000000001% of its revenue. But doggone it, they'd throw me out on my ear if I went into a store and started handing out Gideon Bibles, so the pittance of money I give to them will be given no more. A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

You know what? I don't want to be annoyed with witty sayings, atheist quotes, religious quotes (whether polytheistic or monotheistic), political quotes, or any other quotes on my coffee cup, so I don't blame you for being annoyed. As to who is guilty of "the usual sensitivity crap," I'd say it's the people who are annoyed by the fact that someone is annoyed and says so. For Pete's sake, it's not as if you've teamed up with the American Family Association to drive Starbucks out of business. I'm a Starbucks regular, and I can't stand the smarmy music they play in those stores either! Am I guilty of "the usual sensitivity crap" for not liking their stupid music?

Where I draw the line, though, is with your statement that "on the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia." I have to live here, and on the whole, I'd rather be linked by Andrew Sullivan (pain in the butt that that might be).

uh oh... you know what I mean.

The usual sensitivity crap.

I am fed up with sensitivity crap. If you can't be annoyed in your own blog, for your own readers, then where can you be annoyed? Isn't it annoying enough to merely be annoyed without the fact of your being annoyed being considered insensitive?

But life is unfair, isn't it?

I just want to drink my damned coffee in a plain cup, OK? I write this blog every day, and there are plenty of other blogs, and if I want to be annoyed there are plenty of blogs to annoy me, but if Starbucks is going to annoy me on their coffee cups, well, I might not want to go back for more. (Personally, I do go back, because I systematically ignore the sayings on my cup. But I can't stay for long, because I cannot ignore that sickeningly smarmy music!)

It's a little bit like not going back to a blog that annoyed me, but with a difference. If I go to a blog, I expect that there's a good chance I will be annoyed. For many blogs, that's the whole purpose, so I go to such blogs prepared to be annoyed. But being annoying is not the purpose of Starbucks (at least it's not supposed to be). Sure, they have a First Amendment right to do it, just as they have every right to play their stupid music. But I don't think it's "sensitivity crap" to say you've had enough of either. (Not everyone is able to systematically ignore the cups, either.)

I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that if Sensing had complained about the music, Sullivan would have left him alone. Why is that? Might it be that he's not happy with criticism of atheistic messages?

The thing is, I defended Starbucks when they were attacked for promoting the "gay agenda" on their coffee cups, but that's because I don't believe in boycotts, and I make up my own mind. But certainly, anyone has a right to be annoyed, and if a company puts words that people disagree with on its product, the company can expect that the people who disagree might not come back for more.

I'm a Starbucks regular, and as I say, the way I deal with their stupid cup messages is by not reading them. That way, I don't have to get annoyed at all, and I can bypass the sensitivity crap.

But alas! No such cup-message-bypassing today -- not after getting this far into sensitivity issues.

For, reading about the Sullivan Sensing sensitivity struggle reminded me that (in what I'm sure was just another coincidence) I had gone to Starbucks this morning and bought my usual -- a "medium house coffee." (No, I will not utter the words "grande" and I don't want frothy frappe to go with my sensitivity crappe either!)

I completely forgot about the cup, and of course I had never given it a glance to read the message. The little cardboard heat protector was still around it, so I unpeeled it (it had been glued on from sugary coffee spilled in the car) and took a photo of it:

Here's the text -- from the Starbucks website:

The Way I See It #242

Children are born with such a sense of fairness that they will accept no less than equal treatment for all. I know - I have three. I hope that as they grow, they keep that sense of justice and learn to challenge the old adage that life's not fair. It should be, in so far as we have control of it.

-- Beth Vanden Hoek
Starbucks assistant manager in St. Louis, Missouri.

"Life is unfair!"

There is no slogan I hate more than that!

But the problem is, there is no slogan more true than that! To not tell children that is to fail to educate them about the way of the world.

Which means I disagree rather vehemently with the sentiment expressed by Starbucks Assistant Manager Beth Vanden Hoek, and I'm not sure I would want to be around her children. Her contention that children are possessed of a sense of fairness is simply not borne out by reality. I saw in my childhood that children are completely selfish beings, and the concept of fairness is learned from their parents. They run it as a racket. I did, and I'm sure most children do. But I don't have any kids, and I'm not about to ditch my Starbucks coffee over this rather idiotic idea by a Starbucks manager.

Anyway, it annoyed the hell out of me, and reminded me of why I don't read Starbucks' Stupid Sayings.

Call it sensitivity crap if you will (actually I think Ms. Vanden Hoek's statement could just as easily be called "sensitivity crap" as my reaction to it), but I don't think it goes well with morning coffee.

I guess I should be glad I didn't read my sensitivity crappe until latte in the day.

MORE: It seems I'm not the only blogger to take issue with Ms. Vanden Hoek. Laddical elaborates on "what occupies my time as I allow the taste of "not-White Chocolate Mocha, whatever they scribbled on the side" to roll over my tongue":

Lady, children are inately monsters. They do not understand fair. Why do you think sharing is such a bitch to teach? What you are describing as a "sense of fairness" is the inherent seflishness that, if it can't have it all, at least no one else can have more.

Honestly. I love my girls, but please. Humanity is learned, not birthed.

More on natural children here.

MORE: While I was driving around trying to avoid spilling my frappe in my lappe this morning, Ann Althouse was having a sensitivity encounter session with unusually photogenic crappie. (And if you liked that, don't miss her bird's eye view of ants.) Both via Glenn Reynolds.