As IF Times

link Analysis: Sarah Palins use of blood libel sparks new controversy.

This time, the culprit is The Washington Post, another liberal source of cheap fish wrap masquerading as a newspaper driving the “words do hurt” wagon while the NY Times and Paul Krugmann go for a smoke break.   The left’s favorite target, Sarah Palin is once again taken to task for her “hateful words and violent imagery”.

How did we allow society to fall under the tyranny of a small group of politically correct weasels?  Hardly anything we say these days is not subject to the banal  filter of sensitivity and correctness which somehow has come to be accepted as ‘civilized’ discourse.  What are we, 5 years old?  Over the past few generations, it appears that people can no longer treat people as adults, instead having to interact in sanitized gibberish bordering on infantspeak.   We risk losing all color and depth to the English language if everything that’s said has to pass through the fine mesh of what’s acceptable. 

Recently, there was a proposal by the U.S. State Department to replace the categories of Mother and Father on passport applications, to be replaced with the designations of  Parent 1 and Parent 2.  !!!  Surely this couldn’t have been in response to some massive outcry from the public.  Have the labels of Father and Mother become too confusing for people?  At weddings, when the minister asks, ” who gives this woman to be wed to this man?”, would someone rather pipe up and say, ” I, Parent 1 do”?  No doubt the initiative was spawned inside the smaller than normal sized head of some bureaucrat who wanted to extend the PC line to include test tube babies, gay parents and those who think it better reflects a secular society.  Even so, why do other 98% of the general population have to ride along in their wack-wagon?  Mercifully, in short order, this policy was reversed and the proper Mother and Father labels were re-instated.   However, this is an apt illustration of the harm that only one moron can cause if they’re allowed to get away with it.  Imagine if the cause was taken up by the media….or Oprah.   Shiver.

In strict communist regimes, they are fond of de-humanizing their population as a means of maintaining order.  Far easier to execute some unsavory action upon a populace if they’re a a collection of abstract numbers rather than real people with real names.  As most know, the common moniker for people in those regimes are brother/sister, or comrade, implying equality, but really enforcing servility.  In the case of western societies, which should know better, governments are also actively in the word sanitation business.   Despite the liberal protestations of the imagery, the term War On Terror was an explicit and clear depiction of what the stakes were in the ongoing battle with terrorist campaigns against the U.S.   The revision by the present administration  to the catchy “Man Caused Disaster” is laughably meaningless and could apply to anything including the invention of turkey fryers.   There was recently a push to scrub the colloquial term for a black person from the book, Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain.  This is changing history folks.  They are trying to change the way things were characterized during a period in America’s history.

We’ve reached the point in society that small molehills are built into great mountains based on someones interpretation of what’s offensive and perhaps hurtful.  Perhaps many of these people were test tube babies and lived inside some bubble world until they were old enough to be sent to the brainwash academies, I mean universities.  As most people of my generation know, when we grew up as kids, you were exposed to all kinds of idiots.  You called them names, they called you names.  Few of us went on to develop deep seated emotional scars to be manifest later on in life via anti social and violent behavior.  Ok, well some did become lawyers, but for the most part, name calling was just name calling.   It was the sticks and stones part that was hurtful.

Today, you have to have a jargon handbook available  just to figure out what they’re trying to say in the news.  A crook is now a morally or ethically challenged person,  a bunch of hooligans burning cars and breaking store windows during a riot are student demonstrators.   A famous professor found to be cheating at school was academically dishonest.  A drug addict is chemically challenged.  Urban=black.  On the other hand, the label  for hunter is now changed to animal assassin.   One of the more amusing ones I’ve heard is the expression for panhandler; unaffiliated applicant for private sector funding.  

How about we just call a spade a spade? How about we just call idiots, idiots instead of liberal journalists?

link Heroic Giffords Intern Could Be Asked For Papers Under Arizona Immigration Law.

Apologies in advance for referring to a Huffington Post article, but the inanity of this piece was just too glaring to ignore.  Yes, that Huffington Post, where the truth is merely an inconvenience.  Even before the smoke clears on the shooting rampage in Arizona, this writer of the linked article feels compelled to spin the story with a political angle. 

One of the heros in the aftermath of the shooting was congresswoman Giffords’  aide, Daniel Hernandez,  who heroically stemmed the bleeding from the congresswoman after she had been shot.  Now, the insightful writer muses that Mr. Hernandez may be required to prove he is not an illegal immigrant in accordance with a proposed Arizona law. 

So what? If you buy booze in a liquor store, you have to prove that you are of age. If you want to go to country club and have drinks there, you are expected to provide  proof of membership.  If you want to drive a car, you need a license. If you want to be a resident of the state of Arizona, you need to have proof of citizenship.  But in none of the above cases would exclusion from those groups prevent someone from acting as any humane person would in an emergency situation such as the one that transpired in Tuscon. 

That is a question of morality, not of legality.  Is the author implying that illegal immigrants would be less likely to save people from a burning building because their immigration status may be at stake?  While this is possible, I think this implies a cynicism on  the morality of the people who may find themselves in that predicament bordering on insulting. Only the rabid left would be thinking of political ramifications in a life and death circumstance.  Would someone like Hernandez be less inclined to help because he owed back taxes? Or was tardy in child support payments?  Most rational people are not concerned with left or right politics in making day to day life decisions.  That prism of life is left to the underemployed nutbars who pose as journalists and pundits. 

There’s an old joke in the financial business that goes; what’s the difference between a bond and a bond trader?  Answer, a bond matures.  I wouldn’t bet that on Huffington Post scribes.  Heaven help people like this writer if the world actually operated as cynicially as she depicts.  Imagine if she were ever to be wheeled into a “conservative” hospital during an emergency and the doctors asked, ” okay, who was the republican vice presidential candidate in 1963, we only need initials?”.   That’ll learn her.