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 Poll: Six in 10 say Sarah Palin would be ineffective as president – On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2010 Election – USATODAY.com.

Not that this is surprising given the source of the poll.  CBS and Vanity Fair are not normally known for their unbiased reportage.  Nevertheless, let’s take the poll at face value.  Let’s accept that 60% do not think that Palin would be an effective President.  We don’t know exactly what the qualifier of ‘effective’ means. 

Does the measure of effectiveness mean the ability to communicate with the people?  If so, this flies in the face of observed events since Palin commands large boisterous crowds wherever she speaks.  She still dominates headlines whenever she makes a policy statement and she’s not even holding elected office.  Her messages are widely popular as manifest by the election of candidates that she endorses.  More importantly, she connects with the people at an emotional level with her simple, unconfused messages about values which resonate with Americans.  Her messages are consistent and do not contradict each other depending on her audience.  In addition, she does this without the famous teleprompter of another famous politician so renowned for eloquence.

Does effective mean the ability to run and administer a government?  She actually HAS done that and by all accounts, very successfully.  While the affairs of a single state do not equate with the affairs of an entire country, there at least is a track record of success and experience. 

Does effective mean the ability to negotiate the U.S.’s position on the international stage?  This issue may be a leap of faith, but given the rhetoric offered by Palin over the past 2 years on the national stage, it’s a fair guess that she would not be as accommodating to nations that are openly hostile to American interests.  It’s a safe bet that the interests of Americans would take priority over the wants and bleatings of some belligerent nation states.   It’s unlikely that there would be equivocation on the position of America on major issues involving its security.

Does effective mean the ability to restore America’s employment picture and to revive old industries and stimulate new ones?  That’s iffy, but in fairness, that unknown is faced by every President.  From the perspective of how jobs are created and what has made the U.S. the dominant economy for the past 80 or 90 years however, Palin’s capitalist views are more likely to nurture confidence  than the socialist, redistributive policies pushed by the present incumbent. 

Does effective mean the ability to rally Americans and restore the pride and confidence of a nation rather than cowering in regret and apology?  Again, a leap of faith, but judging by the present circumstances however, the bar there is set pretty low. 

Finally, according to the left leaning Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/29/AR2010082903848.html  the President’s approval rating hovers somewhere between 34 and 40 percent, about the same or less than those that approve Palin.  So therefore, as many people think Palin is as qualified as the President!  This is after showing the goods for 2 years.  I’d say the poll should read, “Palin equally qualified as the President”.