I ran across a fascinating Gallup poll the other day. Why more politicians aren't talking about this poll is beyond me. Why more regular people aren't talking about this poll is also beyond me. Even if you disregard the poll topic, the sheer fact that almost EVERYONE in the poll agreed on one thing is astonishing. You can't get almost everyone to agree on anything. Why isn't that news? Because the media sucks, that's why. I mean, based on the results of this poll, certain things should be reported in completely different ways. But alas, they are not. I can only assume it is because they're morons.
with controlling U.S. borders to halt flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S." Your choices are: Extremely important, very important, moderately important or not that important. To me, extremely and very are pretty close in meaning. I wish they'd go with things like Super-Duper vs. Very or something like that. I am pleased to not see "hella important" as a choice, however. Ready for how people answered? The result will shock you. (No, they won't. They won't shock anyone who is intellectually honest AND who has a pulse. It has to be two out of two or else it doesn't count.)
"53% say the need for government action this year to halt the flow of illegal immigrants at the borders is "extremely important". Huh. Over half. Not much over half, but over half none the less. That's something. But wait! There's more! Those who thought that it was "very important" (which, essentially, sounds pretty much the same) totaled 29 percent. Huh. 29 percent. That's almost a third. But there's still more! Those who thought that it was "moderately important"? That would be 12 percent. Only seven percent said that it is "not that important". There's no telling what's wrong with those seven percent.
But back to the other percentages. So, with 59 percent in the "extremely important" camp, 29 percent are going with "very important" (both of which sound awfully similar, probably because they are) and another 12 percent bringing up the still important category of "moderately important". I'll do the math for you and tell you that adds up to a whopping ninety three percent. You do realize that's damn near everyone, don't you? Yeah, it is.
So if almost everyone feels this way, why is there so much tip-toeing around it in the media? Why are these permanent visitors to our fine land referred to as "immigrants" or "undocumented workers" or other pansy ass terms that leave out the term "illegal"? Seriously, the next person who says to me that a person can't be illegal? Yeah, they're going to get stabbed. The next person who says to me that we're all immigrants or that we're a nation of immigrants? Yeah, that's a stabbin', too. Clearly, by the results of this poll, we are all perfectly OK with calling this what it is AND, more importantly, with some politician standing up and saying something and doing something about it! What are they afraid of? With ninety three percent of people behind the idea, it's not like it's going to be a political downfall to endorse something like this!
their head up their arse. For only being seven percent, they sure have been able to manipulate the media into only covering their point of view and also getting the media to portray this issue from their angle of "it's not important". I mean, if you're part of the 93 percent (and if you're reading this blog, I have no reason to believe that you would not be), are you going to be entirely comfortable using the terminology "illegal alien" (which is the correct term, by the way) or "illegal immigrant" or simply just "illegal"? Heck no, you're not. That's because the only point of view that seems to get any (hot) air time is that of the seven percent. And they try to make their point by calling the other ninety three percent racist if they bring it up. It's ridiculous.
Now that we know that ninety three percent of Americans think that something needs to be done about this ridiculous illegal flow of people largely from a specific foreign land, I wonder how long it will be before a politician grows a pair big enough to do something about it. Even if they just mentioned this poll and put their support behind the issue of trying to do something about illegal immigration, that would be good enough for me. (Yes, I intentionally set the bar quite low in instances like these. I'm tired of being disappointed by setting a reasonable bar.) But considering that the results of this poll were released six days ago and I haven't heard word one about it, I'm not holding my breath.
The politically correct Nazi task force is at it again. This time, in their idiotic quest to make an issue out of anything that doesn't need to have an issue made out of it, they are attacking Easter. That's right. It's a war on Easter. And if these morons get their way, no longer will there be mention of 'Easter eggs'. No, instead we're going to be calling them 'spring spheres'. Uh, wait. We're what? Correct. Spring spheres. Let's go over to mynorthwest.com and learn about the experience that a sixteen year old girl named Jessica had when she volunteered for a third grade class at a school in the Seattle area. 
long community service project. A fine, fine idea. Jessica decided to volunteer in this particular third grade class. Now, at the end of the week, Jessica said that she "...had an idea to fill little plastic eggs with treats and jelly beans and other candy, but I was kind of unsure how the teacher would feel about that". See, she was unsure because the school has something called "abstract behavior rules." I had not idea what in the world "abstract behavior rules" were, but I came to learn that they were just what they sound like. Stupid and unnecessary. "She said that I could do it as long as I called this treat 'spring spheres.' I couldn't call them Easter eggs." Oh, my God. 
Spring spheres?! That is the most ludicrous thing that I have ever heard. First of all, I'm just going to point out that an egg...IS NOT A SPHERE!! A sphere is perfectly round. A ping-pong ball is a freaking sphere! An EGG is NOT a sphere! Second of all, is anyone really going to be offended at the term 'Easter eggs'? OK, let me rephrase that. Is anyone besides asshats going to be offended? No? OK, then. So, why are we doing this? 
According to Jessica, "When I took them out of the bag, the teacher said, 'Oh look, spring spheres' and all the kids were like 'Wow, Easter eggs.' So they knew." See?! They're not spheres! They're Easter eggs. Freaking, fracking Easter eggs. Why we even entertain these notions at all is beyond me. People just deal to deal with stuff. No, wait. People just need to stop accommodating people who want to complain that they can't deal with stuff. They're not spring spheres. They're certainly not spheres at all. They're Easter eggs. Deal with it. 
You politically correct types are going to be the end of me. I swear. I know you're going win in the end, but I'm going to try and fight it as long as I can. And while I've got a lot of fight left in me, this sort of stuff really tires my ass out. 
and giving you more, yes, more choices for how to describe whatever your relationship status might currently be! How enlightened of them! Apparently, "Facebook has added two new relationship status options users can include in their online profiles: "in a civil union" and "in a domestic partnership." OK. So, why does this bother me? Well, you know I'm going to tell you, so what say you just calm down a minute there, Sparky? (Sorry. I'm a little cranky. Stuff like this just gives me a full head of steam.) 
Before all of the enlightening, the choices were "limited" to: Single, In a relationship, Engaged, Married, It's complicated, In an open relationship, Widowed, Separated, and Divorced. OK. That's all fine and good. Are you seeing my problem with including "in a civil union" and in a domestic partnership", yet? The answer is: It seems unnecessary to me.
whole gay marriage debate was going on in California) that the civil union and the domestic partnership options would have been frowned upon by gay marriage proponents. Good Lord, that's all we heard about was how nothing less than a marriage would do! I mean, I guess if folks who it applies to are OK with it and everything, then I suppose it's fine. Maybe I'm just irritated that I never know what's fine and what's not with these things! It's always changing! And it's NEVER the same. Folks were absolutely militant in California about civil unions and domestic partnerships being soooo not good enough. Second-class compared to being married is what I heard a lot of. (I also heard a lot of the opposite of that. "What's next? People marrying dogs?") Which one is it?! 
How come "polygamist" isn't an option? Is it because it's illegal and, therefore, doesn't have a legal status? (I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why polygamy is illegal, by the way. Two consenting adults? Seems like that's their business. I wouldn't do it, but if they're not hurting anyone and I'm not supporting their lifestyle in any sort of financial way, then why would I care? Why would anyone care?) What about "swinger"? That's a choice without a legal status, just like "In an open relationship" is a choice without legal status, right? How come "swinger" isn't on there? 
love". "Will screw for food." I really don't know. If you're perfectly OK with a civil union or a domestic partnership tag, well grand. I just don't know that they were needed. And I've just re-read this entire thing and it's entirely possible that I'm either overreacting (not a shocker) or wrong (not a shocker, either). But it does kind of bother me for the reasons stated and probably for a couple more that I'm not quite sure about just yet. When I figure those out, I'll let you know. Just don't hold your breath. I don't plan on devoting a whole lot of time to thinking about this ridiculousness. 
It's happened again. You'd think that by this point, we'd be past this sort of thing. But apparently we're not. Well, we are. They are not. And by 'they' I mean those who are self appointed members of the Politically Correct Word Police. 'Pinheads' would be another acceptable term.
ut things that 'might' happen. Now, there are lots of things that 'might' happen. That does not mean anything as far as how likely they are to actually happen. For example, monkeys might fly out of my arse. That does not mean it's going to happen. But it might! (In case you're wondering, I'm guessing it would have to involve some sort of a mishap with some Sea Monkeys, but that's all I've got.) 
hat a bunch of "taxpayer funded organizations" are concerned that might happen is that some folks may be offended by words or terms or sayings that have the potential to offend. Now, I'm not real big on the notion of 'potential'. (Obviously!) And especially when it comes to banning speech due to the "potential" for "offense". From what I can tell, there are very few things that actually offend others. There are people who like to claim that they're offended, but they're really just being a pain in the ass under the guise of offense. That's why I'd like to recommend that before folks run off and start creating this mythical Utopian society that they have in mind, they really stop and think about what it is that they're suggesting happen.
They claim that "...certain words carry with them a “hierarchical valuation of skin colour”." The term "black day" is one of those words? Allegedly? Why, yees! And..."The commission even urges employees to be mindful of the term “ethnic minority” because it can imply “something smaller and less important”. " Um, what now?
Terms believed to be offensive to those over at The National Gallery in London include “gentleman’s agreement” (potentially offensive to women) and “right-hand man” (again, potentially offensive to women). Those softheads suggest replacing the potentially offensive terms (that may not have offended anyone ever since the beginning of time) with “unwritten agreement” or “an agreement based on trust” for the former and “second in command” being deemed more suitable for the latter. :::: sigh :::: 
ave any connection to any sort of slavery. For example, the Learning and Skills Council "...wants staff to “perfect” their brief rather than “master” it." Right. Because that would be offensive to....who? Slaves? I don't think there are any slaves these days. If to "master ones brief" was to be offensive, it would have to denote that the person was making the brief itself do the work. Actually, it's the other way around. It's the anti-master is what it is! What about the game Master Mind? Are we supposed to change that to "Perfect Mind"? I don't think we are. I know I'm not!
West Regional Development Agency, they are able to admit that the terms that are "potentially offensive" have nothing to do with the part that would be offensive (if anyone were actually offended by it, which I doubt they are). They say “Terms such as ‘black sheep of the family’, ‘black looks’ and ‘black mark’ have no direct link to skin colour but potentially serve to reinforce a negative view of all things black." So what should we use in their place? Dark? The dark sheep of the family? Dark mark? (Oh, please. No politically correct rhyming or I might just have to hang myself.) 
singled out the phrase “master bedroom” as being problematic." ::: blink::: :::: blink :::: That is the perfect example of someone just out to be an ass. And doing a fine job of it as well, might I add. 
Over there at AOL News in an article on the same subject, a one Anthony Horowitz tries to talk some sense into people by explaining, "...our modern language is based on traditions which have now gone but it would be silly — and extremely inconvenient — to replace them all. We know what these phrases mean....Banning them is just unnecessary." Yes! It would be silly to replace them all! Who can argue with that?! Anyone?! Oh, crap. This chick can. And does.
tives to these troublesome phrases." And I agree with that. But I don't agree that the phrase "gentleman's agreement" is troublesome in the least bit! This woman is the author of something called 'The Dictionary of Bias-Free Usage' and 'The Nonsexist Word Finder,' just in case you were wondering where she was coming from. Her identity is the Word Police! She says "A 'fireman' could be a guy on a train. 'Firefighter' tells you -- it's an action verb. ... It tells you what they do. A mail carrier carries mail. A firefighter fights fires." What now? 
A fireman could be a guy on a train? What the heck is that supposed to mean? Does it mean he's any less of a firefighter? Or is she talking about the guy on the train being literally on fire? Man, this chick must be a blast at parties! Are you kidding me?! But wait! She's not going to tell you what you should be saying. She claims that, "People can use whatever words they choose, but there's no reason to fall back on ones that carry "unintended baggage." Like what? Bellhop? 
