13 April 2009; Morning.

Workout notes Rest.

Social: the Legal Satyricon has an interesting post on the nature of the word “retard”.

The same goes for the “developmentally disabled.” As long as it doesn’t get Orwellian (I’m never using “handi-capable”), they can be whatever they want. In fact, I think it is sort of uncool to lump all “handicapped” people under one label. I think it is far more respectful to refer to the actual individual condition that affects the person (if it is relevant at all to the conversation), and that’s why I agree that referring to someone who is “developmentally disabled” as “retarded” is disrespectful and uncool.

So we agree, don’t call anyone with Down’s a “retard.”

But, that doesn’t mean that we need to cleanse the language of all uses of the word. I love the word “retard.” “Retard” is a completely accurate way to describe Marion Barry, Rhonda Storms, George W. Bush, Gail Dines, Larry Craig, Andrea Dworkin, and Kevin Federline. It is not the right thing to call Corky. Allow me to demonstrate where the line is drawn:

Sarah Palin’s son, Trig, is retarded: Formerly correct, now incorrect
Sarah Palin’s son, Trig, is a retard: Incorrect
Trig Palin has Down’s sydrome: Correct
Sarah Palin is a fucking retard: Correct

I’m sick of P.C. police trying to strip the language of words that are, well, colorful — even if they can be nasty and mean if used that way.

Bravo!! This says more skillfully what I’ve always felt.

Politics Nate Silver talks about Barack Obama and bipartisanship:

Note that, in Schmitt’s explication of Obama’s “bipartisanship”, we are operating somewhat in the conditional tense. We start by assuming that one’s opponents are acting in good faith, extending an olive branch to them and therefore pressing the reset button on the ongoing game of tit-for-tat. If the opponent demonstrates that they are not acting in good faith, however, all bets are off and we are back in the partisan game.

Have the Republicans in Congress been behaving in good faith? It is easy to argue that they have not been:

Surf to the blog to see the list of issues and analysis.

Political Boxing:

Pat Buchanan gets is wrong and gets schooled. Hat tip: Conservation Report.

Basically, he takes Buchanan to task for objecting to President Obama going to Notre Dame and his being ok with George W. Bush speaking there (the latter supports the death penalty, which the Catholic Church is agains).

April 13, 2009 - Posted by | Barack Obama, free speech, obama, politics, politics/social, religion, republicans


  1. There will always be the control freaks who wish to direct our words, actions and even our thoughts. Unfortunately they have managed to homogenize the majority into quiet puppets in brown paper attire. I, for one, believe that some people should be insulted for their insulting behavior.

    Comment by Michael | April 13, 2009 | Reply

  2. Your social comment has me in stitches. Well said!

    Comment by Lance | April 14, 2009 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: