The @AP, like liberals, are playing word games w/ the word “illegal immigrant”

Annoying but entirely predictable (hat tip):

The Associated Press, the largest news-gathering outlet in the world, will no longer use the term “illegal immigrant.”

The news came in the form of a blog entry authored by Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll on Tuesday afternoon, explaining that the decision is part of the company’s on-going attempt to rid their Stylebook of labels.

The company’s decision comes after years of controversy over the term. Fusion, the ABC-Univision joint venture, does not use “illegal immigrant” because we believe it dehumanizes those it describes and we find it to be linguistically inaccurate.

We wrote last year about how most of America’s top college newspapers and major TV networks, including ABC, NBC and CNN, have vowed to stop using the term. Nearly half of Latino voters polled last year in a Fox News Latino survey said that they find the term “illegal immigrant” offensive. A coalition of linguists also came together last year to pressure media companies to drop “illegal immigrant,” calling it “neither neutral nor accurate.” And some critics of the term, like journalist Maria Hinojosa, argue that those newsrooms that have continued to classify people as “illegal” lack diversity.

National Review’s Mark Krikorian quips:

As David Frum notes, AP refers to “illegal campaign donors” (here, for instance) — will they stop that too?

In fact, why not ban nominalized adjectives altogether? If using “illegals” as a noun is barred (AP hasn’t allowed that for a while), shouldn’t they also prohibit “the rich,” “the poor,” “the disabled,” “the blind,” “the good,” “the bad,” “the ugly”? After all, no person is “poor,” they are just experiencing a lack of money.

This whole exercise is doubleplusungood.

Yes.

MediaFor decades, liberals have been redefining words or shifting the focus off the words onto terms that oftentimes are not even RELATED to the words themselves (like the feminist use of the term “women’s health care” instead of “abortion”), and here they are, successful again, at getting major news organizations (as you can see from the above, it’s not just the AP) to stop using a CORRECT term and instead use politically correct terms which deliberately obfuscate the real issue.   I’d go so far to say that this planned, coordinated tactic of definition-shifting/word-eliminating – in conjunction with the related political correctness that goes along with it – has done more to cheapen, coursen, and “dumb down” the national debate on a whole host of issues than any other method out there.  Instead of frank and candid debates on stalemate issues, in order not to “hurt feelings” we sugar coat terms or strive to make them obsolete – and in the process, get absolutely no where.  Definitely not forward.

Ironically, the AP and other news orgs claim they implement rules like this so as to appear that they are “not taking sides” in any debate – but the reality is that, by them doing so, it shows they are indeed taking sides in the debate: the liberal side.

Shocking, I know …

Obamacare as the gateway to state-run single-payer healthcare? Colorado is the foot in the doorway.

**Posted by Phineas

One of the charges made by those oppose Obamacare is that it’s really a Trojan Horse for state-run single-payer system (1); that, in fact, the annoyances and fatal flaws within the PPACA –which are legion– are a feature, not a bug. The idea being that the problems will grow so great that people will demand a solution and then, by that time, the public will be open to a full-blown single payer nationalized system, the ultimate goal of the Left. In response, Obamacare supporters call that idea nonsense and dismiss critics as paranoid “see a Socialist under every bush” types.

Oh yeah? Phase Two has already begun:

State Sen. Irene Aguilar wants Coloradans to imagine a day when 80 percent of them see their health care costs drop.

She says the wildly different health care system she envisions can make that happen – largely by eliminating much of what health insurance companies do, and by purchasing everyone’s medications in bulk.

The Denver doctor and Democrat is proposing that Colorado throw out the impending reforms know as Obamacare – which is permitted if the state comes up with a better plan. This week Aguilar introduced a resolution to ask Colorado voters to create a universal health care system for the state.

(…)

Specifically, Aguilar’s bill would ask voters to create a statewide health insurance co-op, owned by all Coloradans, which would replace health insurance companies. It would offer one wide-ranging policy for all residents. It would be funded by a tax, which would replace the insurance premiums that companies and people now pay.

Emphasis added. So, if Senator Aguilar’s measure passes, we’d have a single-payer system in one state (2). What’s the problem, that’s Coloradans’ business, right?

Yes, they’re free to sink their ship any way they’d like, just as we in California are doing. But, consider this hypothetical scenario: As the years go by and Obamacare becomes more hated as its problems multiply, there will be pressure on more and more states to invoke the same bail-out provision of the PPACA that Aguilar’s bill does and opt out of Obamacare altogether, if it’s replaced with “something better.” (3)

If enough states do this, the pressure for a national single-payer system to smooth out the differences between the states will be tremendous, almost irresistible. And the enactment of that, my friends, would mark the completion of “Phase Three” and the Left’s victory.

I’ll leave the critique of the economics of the Colorado proposal to economists, though I suspect they’ll find it’s another case of “unicorns and rainbows.” And I don’t doubt that Senator Aguilar genuinely wants to help her constituents, though her method is wrong. But, politically, this plan fits right in with the Left’s strategy to follow parallel tracks at the state and federal levels to incrementally pursue a Social Democratic agenda, the underlying spirit of which is wealth redistribution.

These efforts aren’t in conflict with each other, they’re complementary. And we have to fight them on those same levels, too.

via Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt.

Footnotes:
(1) And I have no idea where anyone would get that notion from.
(2) Variations of which have been tried in Maine, Tennessee, and Massachusetts, all of which are failing. But this time we know it’ll be different, right?
(3) “Better,” in this case, would certainly be guaranteed universal coverage that goes beyond the PPACA, not a market-based system. Try to opt out of Obamacare and implement the latter, and just see how fast your state gets sued by the Obama administration.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Informal Poll: On what basis do we “move on” from a “losing issue”?

With the headway proponents of same-sex marriage have made over the last several years, and in particular the last year, and considering the inevitability of our SCOTUS ruling in favor of it later this year, the loud chorus I’m hearing from a majority of conservatives is that we have “lost” on this issue and that it is “time to move on” to issues where we can win.

Granted, my “evidence” of what I see as a “widespread sharing” of this opinion is purely anecdotal, but for purposes of discussion I’d like to find out what readers of this blog think of the idea of “moving on” from issues that are not just uphill battles, but ones we appear to be losing. This isn’t just confined to alternative forms of marriage, but ANY issue. Popular opinion appears to be against us on this issue, but what if it happened to also be against us on abortion? ObamaCare? Illegal immigration? Gun control? And consider this: I’ve read polling that suggests a majority of the American people think “the rich” should pay more in taxes than the rest of us. Is this a reason to give up and “move on”? I’ve always found this line of thinking as weak (unintentionally so) and fatalistic, a mindset that puts us on the path to essentially ceding so much ground to the left (something we’re already on the road to doing) on “losing issues” that the differences in the two major parties eventually becomes minute. After all, a quick perusing of pop culture shows a pretty significant tilt to the left, which makes any number of issues that much more difficult for us to win (like, for example, on student loans and mortgage lending).

Once upon a time, the polling was strongly against us on abortion. The tide has turned on that (thankfully) because pro-life forces did not give up – in fact, giving up was never even a serious option. And the pro-life movement is alive and well and fighting for the rights of the unborn to this day. The movement hasn’t completely “won” on the issue, but we’re winning.

But is there ever a time when the battles are so bruising, when the hill seems too high to climb, where we should just say “enough” and move forward to another issue in which we feel we have more solid ground? I suspect you can read between the lines as to my opinion on this, but I’m curious as to yours. I’m sincerely interested in where readers feel lines – if any – should be drawn on whether or not to continue to go forward on an issue or to just abandon it for “safer” ground.

Thoughts?