I was sitting around this weekend watching all the Sunday morning talk shows, as the hot topic continued to be Sarah Palin and her injection of reality into this election, when I turned to one of the cable networks, one that doesn't really subscribe to the "fair and balanced" method of reporting, to find this exchange: Cable Anchor: What three foreign policy areas are really the most important to the upcoming election? Employee of Washington Newspaper of High Regard: Iraq, the war on terror* and global warming. Then my head exploded.
There are several things wrong with this answer and I bet you can guess one right off the bat, but the anchor never challenged this so-called logic. Allow me to help you out there are right answers to questions and there are wrong answers to questions. For example the correct answer to this question using the same guys' ideals would be: The War on Terror, National Security and Energy independence. But this guy thinks that the war on terror is only being fought in Afghanistan, I think there are soldiers all over the world that would disagree. The idea that Iraq is just one theatre in the international war against Radical Islamic terrorists is apparently too vivid a reality for them to confront. Yet I never hear anyone correctly explaining after a leftist makes a claim about the War in Iraq, that in fact we are at war in Iraq, standing side by side with Iraqis who are fighting Al-Queda terrorists who are trying to take over their homeland. These Al-Queda in Iraq are also known to the media as "Insurgents". They are not insurgents, they are terrorists and who are we benefiting by not calling them what they really are? The terrorists?
So just for the record his answer by my count is still only two things, one of which is Global Warming. This term has worn out it's welcome in my life. I have found that when liberals come up with a concept too ridiculous to sell on it's merits they invent a term, something "catchy" that can devolve complex ideals into a repeatable chant. "Stop Global Warming!" is easy to say, but what does it mean? And can we really do anything to stop it? Then won't we have to "Stop Global Cooling!" as they suggested we needed to do in the 1970's. It all gets a bit confusing...since the further explanation that although the temperature of the earth has indeed increased just around .007 of a degree in the last 100 years, it has not been determined what caused the increase in temperature and more to the point, should we even be concerned about it? The reality is that climate changes, and is cyclical. With 50% of the published studies in 2007 debunking the "global warming" myth why is it that Liberals still throw it around like it's fact? Remember that denying "global warming" is like denying the holocaust, except for It's NOTHING LIKE THAT. The correct non-partisan response should have been Energy Independence. I don't think there is an American drawing breathe that would disagree that it's time for America to develop a plan that leads us away from dependency on foreign oil while creating clean energy opportunities to flourish and grow our economy.
The problem is we have allowed them to control the language , as the hero of the left, Marx suggests they then have the upper hand. We need to insert reality into our conversations by disallowing the use of "Liberalspeak" politically correct but useless terms that do nothing but frame the debate for them. I pledge from this moment forward, I will not use Liberal Speak nor will I allow it in my conversations, I am taking back the issues, by debating them on merit not on catch phrases!