Do rational people really think that removing gun metaphors from idiomatic speech will stop random acts violence by the Jared Loughners of this world?

If anyone truly believes this then in the interest of public safety let’s commit fully and wholeheartedly to remove these phrases from our language:

Henceforth…

No longer can a person be chewed out by their boss for something and then say, “She let me have it with both barrels”!
No longer can we have a civil dispute where the first side to get a lawyer is often referred to as “bringing out the big guns”.
No one is allowed to “go off  half cocked”!
You can no longer commit fully to something “lock stock and barrel”.
No more firing off a letter.
No more outlines with bullet points
Women can not be described as “hot as a $2 pistol”.
…or, as a “pistol-packing mama”. (I’m sure women are heart-broken about THAT!)
it is now off limits to “use a shotgun approach” (as to cover all bases).
Concluding a deal can no longer be referred to as “pulling the trigger”.
And poor old Roy Rodgers would have had to rename his horse AND dog!
The makers of Colt 45 Malt Liquor will be adversely affected.
Henceforth nothing streamlined will be described as “bullet-shaped”
(They’ll have to do something about that high-speed train in Japan)
Being drunk or high can no longer have the synonym “loaded”
Basketball players will have to come up with some other way of trying to make a basket since they will no longer be able to “shoot” the ball.
No one can stand “ramrod straight”
No one who speaks plainly and truthfully can be a “straight shooter”
Being accurate is no longer being “on target”
getting very angry is no longer “going ballistic”.
“Shooting from the hip” can no longer explain someone speaking extemporaneously.
“He’s just a flash in the pan” cannot be someone of temporary fame or importance
You may not “bite the bullet”.
you may not “jump the gun”.
Superman will have to describe his speed in terms of something other than being “faster than a speeding bullet”.
You cannot be “gun shy”
You had better not get caught “gunning your engine”.
…or “rifling through drawers”
no more “shotgun weddings”.
no more operations that result in “shooting blanks”.
No more job candidates described as “high caliber”
No more developed biceps described as “guns”
(And no more sleeveless shirts, apparently.)
You can no longer be “under the gun”.
…or “In the crosshairs” (thank you, CNN)
You cannot “drop the hammer”
..or look for “the smoking gun”.
You may not “ride shotgun” in a car
..or hazard a guess with “a shot in the dark”.
You cannot spend all your money and then complain “you shot your wad”.
You most certainly cannot describe the attitude of determined preparation as “locked and loaded”.
No one will encourage you to refrain from getting upset by telling you to “keep your powder dry”
You won’t be in any danger of “being out gunned”
And you won’t explain your preparation to tackle a difficult task by being “loaded for bear”.
Nobody will ever be a “loose cannon” again.
You’ll never be in danger of being “out-gunned”.
..or by having anyone “taking shots” at you.
(I wonder if this will adversely affect Tequila drinkers…)
There are no easy cures and no longer any other way to say it like, “there’s no silver bullet”.
There are no more “warning shots”
…or “a shot across the bows”
You cannot be “shot down”.
or “shot down in flames”, no matter how badly you lose an argument.
And you can’t “shoot yourself in the foot” ever again
You cannot be a “son of a gun”
You don’t have to take any “flak”.
And no one will criticize you in a malicious, underhanded manner by “sniping” at you.

That’s all there is to it.  Just see to it that these and other gun metaphors are forever banished from our language, then sit back and watch the world become a safer place!

I Still Hate You, Sarah Palin

One of the most terrifying moments of my political life came last summer at the Republican convention in St. Paul. No, I don’t mean seeing John McCain careering around the Xcel Energy Center like Eyegore in Young Frankenstein, his face frozen in a Lon Chaney Sr. rictus grin as he reached across the aisle to his erstwhile friends in the media and got his hand bitten off. Rather, I’m referring to the aftermath of Sarah Palin’s outrageous acceptance speech, which whipped up the Rotary Club delegates into a frenzy of white-boy fury that not even heckling by a brave Code Pink embed could deter. Truly a fascist classic and one that sent shivers down our collectivist spines.

Even worse was the glaze of horror on the phizzes of the assembled heroes of the Mainstream Media. Andrea Mitchell — yes, the very same Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, whose employer saw no conflict of interest at all when she married then Fed pooh-bah Alan Greenspan — stood there gaping like a frog while the rest of the assembled Finemans and Matthewses and Olbermanns scurried around like roaches when the light gets turned on: What the hell just hit us? For one horrible moment, it looked as if the carefully crafted plans of David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, George Soros, and the Second Chief Directorate, first department, of the old KGB were about to gang agley.

Really, read the whole thing at the link above. Then start planning something. Anything.

Don’t you know, it’s always profound journalism to attack anyone from the Right.   The simplest way to get professional recognition in academia and journalism is simply to be very left.  Advocate for the, uh, “right” stuff, and you’re a cinch to receive some award from somebody for something.

So you thought Katie Couric did the tough job of revealing “the real Sarah Palin” by demonstrating that she doesn’t read, and is incoherent?

In Media Malpractice, John Ziegler tells the truth about Katie Couric’s deliberate hit-job on Sarah Palin, proving with complete interview excerpts that:

1)  A widely circulated “incoherent answer” from Palin was actually her attempt to answer an incoherent question from Couric, which was always conveniently removed from the replay that “went viral”.  When you see the question, suddenly Palin’s answer makes sense, though everyone from CNN to SNL focused only on the answer without providing the context of what the question was.

2)  Palin’s refusal to list the exact things she reads for Couric,  which was nothing more than Palin’s refusal to be a good little schoolgirl and recite for the schoolmarm, was widely and deceitfully used by Couric and others to imply that Palin doesn’t read anything.

3)  Couric deliberately phrased questions to attempt to remove the best answers from the table before Palin could reply.  “Other than trying to reform Fannie and Freddie, what’s the most important thing John McCain has done to improve regulation?”  That’s about like asking, “Other than Social Security, what’s the most important thing FDR did for old people?”    And then, insanely, when Palin answered that fixing Fannie and Freddie WAS the most important thing McCain had tried to do in the regulation arena, other reporters (like Major Garrett, still impersonating an officer) said she hadn’t even given THAT answer, to Couric’s great joy, of course.  Garrett appears not even to have the grace to be embarrassed about it.

Sure, I wish Palin had mentioned something else just to show she knew McCain’s record, like campaign finance reform, but maybe she thought (justifiably) that “campaign finance reform” was actually a bad idea, and didn’t want to put a positive spin on it.  In any case, the entire episode was among the LEAST revealing bits of journalism around, other than showing very clearly the agenda that motivates let’s-pretend-journalism at CBS.

Media Malpractice has much more, including all the real gaffes committed by Joe Biden when he was interviewed by Couric, which were conveniently downplayed, or totally deepsixed, and to which no follow up questions were asked.

For example, Ed Morrisey reports here:

I guess the USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center never saw Katie’s crack journalistic work with Joe Biden. CBS crabbed at YouTube and got the video taken down, but the flavor remains:

Joe Biden’s denunciation of his own campaign’s ad to Katie Couric got so much attention last night that another odd note in the interview slipped by.

He was speaking about the role of the White House in a financial crisis.

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed,” Biden told Couric. “He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’”

FDR wasn’t President when the stock market crashed, and he didn’t get on TV until a decade later — but Couric never seems to notice either gaffe. Why? She wasn’t out to get Joe Biden.

And that’s pretty much about the size of it for most of what passes as journalism these days. When the Left flubs, it isn’t even news, but creating news by misrepresenting the Right is always fair game.

The schadenfreud of watching CBS News’ ratings in free-fall is delicious.  Keep up the great work, Katie.  I’m sure you can land a nice sinecure teaching journalism somewhere to wide-eyed graduate students who want nothing more than to learn how “the pros” do it.  On the other hand, cheer up:  maybe the clowns you helped elect will send a nice bailout to CBS.

Palin herself initiated a separate investigation by the Alaska State Personnel Board and said she would abide by it instead. This investigation found there was no probable cause to believe Palin or any other state official violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act. [emphasis mine]

The fact that the state legislature found a few witnesses “in contempt” because they failed to appear when subpoenaed but later gave written statements instead, following advice on their options from the state attorney general (who was busy challenging the subpoenas in court), hardly seems worth a comment even from the AP, but of course the media can’t resist any opportunity to throw mud at Palin, however miniscule that opportunity actually is, and regardless of the thin gruel making up the mud.

Let’s not kid around.  The Alaska legislature had all kinds of options if it wanted to take the matter seriously, none of which it took, because the whole thing was a witch-hunt from the get-go.

“Media Malpractice:  How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted” is going to tell the whole story on the media in the last election cycle, coming out soon.

the most important part of my visit to the Palin house is that there is a big difference between thinking that something is true and knowing for sure that it is. I now know that Sarah Palin is who I thought she was.

I also know now, with moral certitude, that the media assassination of her, her character and her family was one of the greatest public injustices of our time and I am totally justified in devoting my life to correcting the historical record in my forthcoming film “Media Malpractice…How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Smeared”

I’ll keep linking to developments on this, but I think this is going to be a gangbuster’s film, with so much content in making its case that no one, no matter how avid a media consumer, has seen it all, and many people are going to be surprised at the strength of the case Ziegler makes.

Stay tuned.

UPDATE:  Early rumblings in the main-stream media about the Palin interview are here, including Palin pointing out the obvious disparity in the treatment of Caroline Kennedy’s candidacy for the Senate as opposed to Palin’s for the veep slot, even though Kennedy is angling for an appointment and won’t even be vetted by the voters til 2010, while Palin would at least have to have been elected to start with.

UPDATE:  Of course, in the coverage linked here, John Ziegler is a “conservative film maker,” not merely a “documentary film maker.”  I wonder if the makers of anti-Bush films in the last 8 years are usually referred to as “liberal film makers”?   How about all the anti-war stinkeroos that have died in the box office in the last few years?  In the reviews, are their writers, producers and directors referred to as “liberal filmmakers”?  The double standards here are so obvious that pointing them out is like shooting fish in a barrel with a howitzer…  but I suspect Ziegler is going to be the target of a great deal of ad hominem attack and attempts to label him out of relevance.

Journalists continue to ask, “What was John McCain thinking in selecting the gaffe-prone Gov. Sarah Palin?”

In what has now become a disturbing pattern, the Alaska governor seems either unable or unwilling to avoid embarrassing statements that are often as untrue as they are outrageous. Recently, for example, in an exclusive interview with news anchor Katie Couric, Palin gushed, “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’ ” Apparently the former Alaskan beauty queen failed to realize that in 1929 there was neither widespread television nor was Franklin Roosevelt even President.

Holy moley… EVERYBODY knows FDR wasn’t president yet in 1929, and there was no broadcast TV yet. That Sarah…. she’s just a country bumpkin, definitely not ready for prime time.

The main stream media makes no objection to the selection of the moderator, knowing that Hugh Hewitt is a professional journalist who can put aside his own self-interest in selling books, and his own obvious political commitments, for the sake of journalistic objectivity in moderating the debate.

(suddenly jerking awake)

Man, that WAS a pipe dream. 

My dictionary defines “moderator” as “the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting.” On Thursday, PBS anchor Gwen Ifill will serve as moderator for the first and only vice presidential debate. The stakes are high. The Commission on Presidential Debates, with the assent of the two campaigns, decided not to impose any guidelines on her duties or questions.

But there is nothing “moderate” about where Ifill stands on Barack Obama. She’s so far in the tank for the Democratic presidential candidate, her oxygen delivery line is running out.

In an imaginary world where liberal journalists are held to the same standards as everyone else, Ifill would be required to make a full disclosure at the start of the debate. She would be required to turn to the cameras and tell the national audience that she has a book coming out on Jan. 20, 2009 — a date that just happens to coincide with the inauguration of the next president of the United States.

The title of Ifill’s book? “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.” Nonpartisan my foot.

….

Like Obama, Ifill, who is black, is quick to play the race card at the first sign of criticism. In an interview with the Washington Post a few weeks ago, she carped: “[N]o one’s ever assumed a white reporter can’t cover a white candidate.”

It’s not the color of your skin, sweetie. It’s the color of your politics. Perhaps Ifill will be able to conceal it this week. But if the “stunning” “Breakthrough” she’s rooting for comes to pass on Jan. 20, 2009, nobody will be fooled.

As I think about it, even Rush Limbaugh is LESS in the tank for McCain than Ifill is for Obama, as anyone who actually LISTENS to Rush knows. And there is not a chance he will ever be chosen to moderate a vice presidential debate, but the double standard of the media is so enormous that the Left simply can’t see around it.  And to George Will, my apologies for suggesting he’d be as unbalanced as Ifill is likely to be.  And Hugh Hewitt would be scrupulously fair.  But surely the Left would react violently to any of the three as the sole moderator of an important debate, while we’re supposed to accept Ifill as the arbiter of fairness.

What does this mean for Palin? If she merely breaks vaguely even with Biden, it’s a major win, on the order of managing a tie in a boxing match when the ref is obviously against you, and lets your opponent do head-butts without calling them.

Read all of Malkin’s article to get a flavor for how many Obama tattoos Ifill has.

If you needed any more evidence as to how frightened liberals are of Sarah Palin, you got it during Friday’s “Real Time” on HBO.

Now they’re accusing Palin of making rape victims pay for their own rape kit.

At the link above, you can read all about it, and about what was omitted from the USA Today story that made the charge.

The USA Today story continues the pattern of the NYTimes, of quoting Palin enemies in Alaska, without counterbalancing perspectives, and leaving out essential facts.

Of course, it’s possible to make any person in public life look like a cretin, if you quote only their accusers, don’t directly verify facts, don’t present exculpatory evidence, and never ask the opinion of people who disagree with the accusations.

The money quote seems to be this:

<blockquote>“In the past, we’ve charged the cost of exams to victim’s insurance companies when possible,” former chief Charlie Fannon told the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman in 2000 as then-Democratic Governor Tony Knowles was signing legislation to make local police branches cover the costs of the kits.</blockquote>

What’s missing here is that Fannon has no kind feelings for Palin, because he ran a fake campaign ad implying Palin was supporting him for Mayor of Wasilla, and she called him on it publicly, and supported his opponent.  It might have been good for USA Today to mention this bit of possible motivation on Fannon’s part.

In any case, saying that victims were “charged” may be an overstatement.  Even Fannon said they tried to get insurace to pay “when possible”.  That isn’t quite the same thing as demanding payment in full from the victim, is it?

Then USA Today opines:

In cases when insurance companies are billed, the victims pay a deductible.

Of course, this totally depends on the particular insurance plan of the victim.  In any case, deductibles are not paid to insurance companies, they are paid to medical service providers. USA Today provided no evidence that Wasilla had ever actually tried to collect a deductible from any victim.

Here is a telling bit:<blockquote>Fannon, who is no longer police chief, could not be reached for comment Wednesday; his home phone number has been disconnected.</blockquote>What can this mean, except that USA Today ran this story without talking directly to the person whose newspaper quotation they simply requoted?  That means USA asked no corroboration questions, asked no follow ups, asked no questions about Fannon’s relationship with Palin, etc.  Why did they publish without this?  It’s pretty simple:  the media is in a headlong rush to be first with the latest Palin scandal, and isn’t too choosy about sources and confirmation.

Now the really damning admission from USA Today, that proves what a rush they were to get it into print:

<blockquote>It is not known how many rape victims in Wasilla were required to pay for some or all of the medical exams, but a legislative staffer who worked on the bill for Croft said it happened. “It was more than a couple of cases, and it was standard practice in Wasilla,” Peggy Wilcox said, who now works for the Alaska Public Employees Association. “If you were raped in Wasilla, this was going to happen to you.”</blockquote>

In other words, USA Today has the word of political opponents of Palin that victims actually paid, but has no actual proof that it occured, paperwork from the city of Wasilla, or a statement from any rape victim, etc.  It would be easy enough for the Wasilla business office to confirm collection of fees without giving names and endangering the privacy of victims.

And now, the proof of USA Today’s rush to be first:

<blockquote>After calling Wasilla Mayor Dianne Keller for comment Tuesday, USA TODAY was instructed to submit a public records request, under which the city has 10 days to respond. As of Wednesday, the city had not responded to a request for records reflecting Wasilla’s prior policy, including when it took effect and the cost to sexual assault victims.</blockquote>

In other words, there isn’t really a story yet, unless that fact that Palin’s enemies and political opponents are willing to make wild accusations counts as a story.

If all that comes of this is that Wasilla tried to get insurance companies to pay when possible, but did not actually collect money from victims, there is no “there” there.

But it’s so boring to wait to publish until you actually know something, when you know the NYTimes will publish any accusation of anything at first mention.  Why should the gray lady have all the fun?