"Barack Hussein Obama" - there, I dared to say the "H-word"
By John Rohan Posted in 2008 — Comments (64) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
(Cross-posted from my weblog)
This nonsense is getting ridiculous.
The United States of America has become much too hypersensitive as a nation, and much too obsessed with the concept of race when it is considered a racial slur simply to call a man by his given name.
According to Michelle Obama, the name "Hussein" is a "fear bomb". Republicans have already run for cover and pledged not to use it anymore.
For years, it's been considered perfectly acceptable to call George W. Bush "Dubya" after his middle name. Why should Obama get special treatment?
Obama's parents gave him the name in the first place; does this mean they are racists and fear-mongers as well? Well, no. Apparently, it's ok for some (presumably the enlightened) to use it. Time has it on the money:
So who gets to say Hussein? At the Oscars, host Jon Stewart took innuendo about as far as it can go, saying that Barack Hussein Obama running today is like a 1940's candidate named Gaydolph Titler. But that reference, served up to a crowd that presumably swoons for Obama, got laughs. So maybe the H-word is more like the N-word: you can say it, but only if you are an initiate. Blacks can use the N-word; Obama supporters can use the H-word.
We don't need a new "N word" in our society. Just let people use his name. If there's nothing wrong with it (and there isn't), then it shouldn't bother you. Simple.
That's a good point. I don't recall Jindal making a big scene about that.
John, I notice that you didn't answer my question. It seems that for some reason you think it's not appropriate to call him Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, yet you don't want to admit it. I suspect that's because you'd have a difficult time distinguishing that tactic from calling attention to Obama's middle name.
So instead of answering my question, you point out that Jindal didn't make a big scene about it. If you're suggesting that a tactic is legitimate if the target doesn't object to it, then I disagree. It could have seemed petty and whiny for Jindal to object. His silence doesn't legitimate what his opponents did.
In short, I don't see anything at all wrong with saying "Piyush Jindal", unless he specifically said he doesn't like people to refer to him this way. Generally, you should call people what they call themselves. It would be rather rude to call Muhammad Ali "Cassius Clay", since he clearly doesn't prefer his birth name.
But this is different - Obama hasn't repudiated the name "Hussein" or asked people not to use it. Instead, he manufactures another fake "controversy" by sending out his surrogates to claim more persecution of their candidate.
website: The Shield of Achilles
Well, since Jindal took the name Bobby when he was four years old and has been known by that name for all of his adult life in public settings, then we should presume he prefers to be called Bobby rather than Piyush. He probably wouldn't overtly object to being called Piyush; I'm sure he's proud of his heritage and wouldn't want to appear to repudiate it. Still, like many people from a non-European ethnic background, particularly those with names that are difficult to pronounce or just sound a bit odd, he finds it easier to get along in public life by using a more common name.
I agree with your statement, "Generally, you should call people what they call themselves." That doesn't mean it's always improper to use Piyush. For example, there's no problem with an official biography that gives his full name as Piyush "Bobby" Jindal. But when his opponents made a point of using "Piyush" in campaign flyers, they were trying to call attention to his ethnicity in an improper way.
Similarly, I have no objection to a formal biography giving Obama's full name as Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., as, for example, his entry on Wikipedia does. That serves a neutral and valid service of giving information; there's no reason in that context not to include the middle name. Indeed it's expected. But it's entirely different when a political opponent uses "Hussein" in the kind of context that Cunningham did. It's not usual to use the middle names of politicians to refer to them in that type of advocacy. Cunningham had some special reason to do it; it wasn't just providing information like Wikipedia. What his reason was, I don't know for sure. I suspect it was to call attention to Barack's race, ethnicity, parentage, or childhood upbringing--or some combination of these--or to point out the (irrelevant) fact that Obama shares a name with a murderous, torturing, tyrannical dictator we've fought two wars against. These things don't have anything to do with whether Obama should be President. (It's conceivable that aspects of Obama's upbringing might be relevant, but if so using "Hussein" is a clumsy way to bring attention to that, because it carries so much other baggage as well.)
Now, although it's not usual to use politicians' middle names in the usual context of political speech, it does happen occasionally, and sometimes as a rhetorical device. Someone might say George Herbert Walker Bush to call attention to his blue-blood, silver-spoon background. That might be of questionable taste, but it's a far cry from calling attention to ethnicity. But the point is that Bush's opponents had a particularly rhetorical purpose in using his full name in that way. I have little doubt that Cunningham also had a rhetorical purpose, and I suspect it wasn't an honorable one.
But let's grant for the moment that in his heart of hearts, Cunningham was just trying to provide information like Wikipedia, and didn't harbor any improper purpose. Still, it's a highly imprudent thing to do because it reasonably gives the appearance of having an improper purpose. It's logically possible that Jindal's opponents who made the flyer in question didn't have any improper purpose. But that doesn't seem very likely, and we're entitled to consider it an illegitimate tactic.
So at the very least, Obama's opponents who use "Hussein" in political advocacy give the appearance to many people of engaging in the same type of tactic as Jindal's opponents did. These include centrist, independent voters who are considering McCain but might be put off by what they see as illegitimate tactics by his supporters. Thus, since there's so little informational value in reminding people of Obama's middle name in a neutral way in the context of political advocacy, it's simply not worth the cost of the appearance of hostility to Obama on racial or similar grounds.
I hate to argue "they do it too", but I haven't heard anyone seriously object to calling President Bush "Dubya". In fact, he is also called "Bushitler", "Shrub", "King George", etc. by many of the same people who are complaining about the use of Obama's name. Additionally, Hillary Clinton is often called "Hitlery" by her opponents, and I haven't heard anyone make a huge issue of it. Hypothetically, If John McCain's middle name was "Adolph", I guarantee you the Democrats would use his full name every time they spoke about him, or just call him "Adolph McCain" every chance they got.
I'm not suggesting that the RNC should stoop to name-calling, but Obama should not get special treatment on this issue just because he's black and has decided to play the race card here. He should just openly say "yes, my name is Hussein, and I'm proud of it. Say it all you want". That would defuse the issue immediately.
website: The Shield of Achilles
"They do it too" is a childish defense. Without more, it is defeated by the (equally simplistic) "Two wrongs don't make it right."
The goal here is civility in political discourse, and we have a responsibility to do our part no matter what our opponents are doing. We shouldn't stoop to the level of those who say "Bushitler." If we do, we'll end up as a conservative version of dailyKos.
If Obama said, "Yes, my name is Hussein, and I'm proud of it," that might defuse the issue. But it's not our place to demand that.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Like Mr. Obama;
Did you as a child complete the Bismillah?
The child will be taught to read the Koran at an early age so that it becomes second nature to read it in it's original language (Arabic). On the fourth birthday comes the Bismillah when the child learns the first lesson of the Qur'an by heart.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I should also point out that treating Obama with kid gloves here sets up a dangerous precedent for the campaign, if Obama wins the nomination. I'm afraid he has learned that he can play the race card to shield himself from any criticism, while McCain doesn't have such a defense. It would be best to nip this nonsense in the bud early on.
For better or worse, race is going to be an issue and something of a shield for Obama, and there's nothing in the world that can change that. We can't nip it in the bid or make it go away.
Indeed, strong criticism of Obama could be perceived as racist even if it has to do with matters such as experience or qualification. This political reality is all the more reason not to give further ammunition to our critics by unnecessarily using "Hussein."
It is imprudent to think we should not care about the appearance of race-based hostility. And when criticism of Obama abuts on matters of race (e.g. his church or his pastor's association with Farrakhan), going gingerly is the right thing. Kid gloves are indeed the right approach.
Cut the passive aggressive stuff and spit it out.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
In response to the OP, which apparently argues that appealing to prejudice* against the middle name "Hussein" should be as socially acceptable as it is for a comedian to make fun of such prejudice, Turin asks if it was similarly OK to use the same prejudicial tactic against Bobby Jindal's birth name.
I thought his somewhat sarcastic question had the very obvious implication that he disapproved, otherwise why bother asking. That rhetorical device seems pretty common and accepted here, applying the interlocutor's reasoning to a different example where the resulting conclusion seems obviously wrong.
Subsequently in his reply to John just above, he explicitly said he thinks the tactic was not "legitimate". I don't see any ambiguity in his position.
* Unless you think there's another plausible expanation for Cunningham's and the Tennessee Republican's gratuitous use of Obama's middle name; same applies to the gratuitous use of Jindal's birth name. So far I haven't seen anybody arguing that with a straight face, that they would have used Obama's middle name the same way if it was "Wilson".
Your arguing tactic goes from sensible to self-beclowning when you ask the question and answer it yourself. Give it up.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Asking questions may not be a normal debate tactic around here, but it's not evidence of the need to see a psychologist. It's a valid a way to make a point by analogy and at the same query whether there's a ground for distinction.
John, the author of the post and the addressee of my question, saw my point. I don't think I need to explain the analogy between using "Piyush" to refer to Jindal and using "Hussein" to refer to Obama.
If your whole argument rests on the behavior of the person you're arguing against, then it's incredibly weak I think.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
There's no ad hominem in my argument. My original question implied an argument by analogy:
(1) We all agree A is wrong.
(2) B is like A (in relevant respect
(3) Therefore, B is wrong.
I put the argument in question form in part so that I wouldn't need to spell out the exact similarity between A and B. The analogy is pretty easy to grasp intuitively, but (as with many analogies) it would take a fair amount of words to nail down precisely. A fully nuanced explanation would allow that A and B are slightly different and the motives for using A and B might vary to some extent. I'm quite confident that any minor differences between calling Jindal "Piyush" and calling Obama "Hussein" do not defeat my argument above, but I would be willing to consider someone's claim that they do. My question invited John and anyone who was reading to examine the appropriateness and fairness of referring to Obama as "Hussein" by considering a similar kind of tactic used against one of our own.
John could have directly questioned my claim in premise (1) that A is wrong, or questioned the claim of similarity between A and B in premise (2). Instead he seemed to grant at least part of my implied argument by saying "that's a good point" and changing the subject. His answer amounted to this (I'm characterizing his response here): "Well, the target of the alleged wrong-doing in A didn't object. So maybe A is not really wrong or not serious enough to bother." That in fact is a form of ad hominem: "If the conduct is so bad, then why didn't he complain?" That makes the argument turn on an individual's behavior.
My follow-up question resisted this move and pointed out the diversionary, ad hominem tactic. I claimed that personal, individual reactions to the conduct in question are not decisive. I then made my implied argument more explicit and challenged John to deny it. He hasn't done so. Now, if I were to claim victory because John has so far failed to respond to my follow-up question, that would be ad hominem. But I haven't done that. Instead I claimed that John's initial response actually seemed to grant my argument by acknowledging my point and changing the subject. I offered this as a reasonable interpretation of his response, and challenged him to deny it. He hasn't done so. But his failure to respond doesn't prove anything.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
As I mentioned in another thread - the reason not to go out of your way to use it has nothing to do with political correctness. The problem is that it's so obviously an attempt to play on prejudice that it's going to backfire. In other words, as a practical matter, if your goal is to turn off the independents then Hussein away, but if your goal is to get John McCain elected president, then tread lightly.
-exits
Would it be appropriate for someone to call Clarance Thomas Clarance "TOM" Us? (i.e. a thinly veiled illusion that he's an "Uncle Tom"?)
No.
This is the same thing.
Period.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
Uncle Tom *is* a racist slur, and a modification of the man's name. Hussein is neither.
Plus, there's the intent factor you're neglecting competely. I refuse to stand by while some in our party insist on buying the lefty storyline that we're catering to secret bigots, sorry.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Oh please, don't give me that crap. There is no way in hell anybody here would be interested in calling Barack Obama by his middle name if his middle name were "David" or "Joe" or "Edward". It is precisely because his middle name is clearly middle eastern that it's even an issue, other wise most people probably wouldn't even know what it was.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
I'm only going to start using it because it makes Obamanauts cry. It makes the right people hysterical, and it's harmless, so I like it.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
That's a preposterous statement. It's like saying "Well, I've got this black friend who likes watermelon, so I just call him the watermelon eater because it drives liberals nuts."
It may be true that your black friend likes watermelon. It is true that there is nothing wrong with liking watermelon. It may be equally true that you don't mean to invoke any racial stereotype by calling him a watermelon eater, which he in fact is. But it's still not OK because it clearly does stir up negative racial stereotypes among many people.
At best, you are merely saying "I'm not a racist, I'm just a jerk."
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
Obama's main concern is winning, so he's perfectly happy that opponents get their gratification squealing "Hussein!" because it helps him win. Sure his campaign complains about it, but only as a tactic to make sure more Americans are reminded what kind of people are opposing him.
Exactly. It plays right into their hands. It's an open invitation for them to say "Look! A bunch of racist xenophobes are opposing Obama! If you oppose him, you too are one of them!"
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
Only idiots think that saying Barack Hussein Obama makes you a racist. And the public won't buy it, either. "Isn't that his name?"
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Specifically drawing attention to his middle name, because it is what it is, is clearly a racist action, even if you don't intend it to be.
And if you don't see that, I pity how little you understand about the world outside your own little bubble.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
If someone says "Barack Hussein Obama" in the same circumstances where they would say "Ronald Wilson Reagan", i.e. in a context where a lot of formality is expected, then it's not appealing to racism. If they say "Barack Hussein Obama" in a context where you would say simply "Ronald Reagan", then they most clearly are appealing to racism, or at least the gratification of irritating those who object to the racism.
Do you really expect us to believe all the "Hussein" yappers would be using Obama's middle name if it was "Wilson"?
1968 is why it took us so long to win congress and why we lost it.
Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
What's your answer to:
Do you really expect us to believe all the "Hussein" yappers would be using Obama's middle name if it was "Wilson"?
Wilson. whoever they are
I was watching Hardball last night, and Chris and all his guests used the Hussein name freely as they disparaged those that "obviously" used it to appeal to that inherent racism in republican/conservative Americans. So the libs can use the name since they are obviously pure of heart. Like they get to use all kinds of words and tell all kinds of jokes for the same "obvious" reason.
My grandmother used to use my middle name when scolding me. Some people would use it to make fun of me, much as people did Nixon, Bush41, Pierre DuPont, etc.
The libs think most Americans are rubes and they project their own racism.
One thing my knowledge of Obama has convinced me of: I would now say that this Gamecock Baptist would gladly vote for the muslim, Mansoor Ijaz
over this black nationalist church attending avowed Christian.
What I will never do is let the msm lib pc police tell me I can't say a word because others use it for evil reasons that libs read in their hearts.
People that preach hate should be called out a case by case basis. I saw none in Cunningham.
Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Hussein?!?!?!
As in Barack Hussein Obama?
As in Barack "my middle name is Hussein" Obama???
As in Barack "my parents named me Barack Hussein Obama" Hussein Obama??????
Hehehe! Okay I'm done.
*cough* Hussein *cough*
Hussein.
Hussein's regime in 2002. Let's ask Mrs. Obama if she and hubby were proud of America when we liberated Kuwait from his namesake in 1991.
Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
it...take it up with his parents..oh my we are so gentile these days...suck it up! Thanks Neil for being a voice of reason on this ridiculous subject.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
how Democrats seriously believe a great deal of Americans are racist.
Their suggestion that saying "Hussein" would negatively affect Obama is tantamount to accusing many Americans (enough to effect elections) of being so stupid, ignorant, and bigoted that they automatically would be less willing to vote for Obama because his middle name is Hussein.
Sounds about right for Democrats.
I mean, do we agree that some conservatives are using it in situations when they wouldn't if his middle name were, for example, charles? And if so, why are they doing it? I mean, there must be some reason.
-exits
He might not have. I have no idea.
What I do know is that if he did, he would be implicitly asserting that large portions of America are racist.
And I also know that the Democrat overreaction is also an implicit declaration they believe vast swaths of the voting population are ignorant, small-minded racists.
I can remember a lot of Conservatives, and liberals saying William Jefferson Clinton in the 1990's. What does that mean? It is his name, sometimes people use a persons full name, and sometimes you use a shortened version. Recently, the PC police have decided that one candidate's middle name is a slur, and in consequence a lot of anti-PC people started to use this very same candidates name a lot more often in order to display the absurdity of the PC position.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
I'll never forget the Willie Horton ad and how libs said 41 did it to scare white americans. The more the conversation went on, the more it was obvious that liberals considered blacks with big lips and big afros to scare THEM. Yes, they were white...LIBERALS!
Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
vast right wing conspiracy.
The "W" in George Bush's name is to separate him from his father. I don't think that's a good example at all. Lets use John McCain for example. Are those using Obama's name also calling the Republican candidate John Sidney McCain? My guess is probably not.
It comes down to why you're using the name, not the name itself. If you're using it out of respect, and using it with all the candidates, then there is no reason to be mad. If you're using it to stir up xenophobia over the candidate, then it's wrong in my book.
And the GOP coming out against using it is just smart politics. McCain is a stronger candidate, you want to make this race about issues and experience. The minute it turns into his name, the media will run that story into the ground. And you can bet that the media will play it out as the "old white man" picking on the "young black man". It's just not a storyline you want and it will hurt McCain badly among independents in many of the swing states.
The "W" in George Bush's name is to separate him from his father.
Yet, the Herbert Walker in his father's name was commonly used by the 1980's, and probably before.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
His middle name was used by Democrats trying to portray him as a wealthy aristocrat that was out of touch with the common man.
During the election in 1992, there were a lot of people upset with Democrats over using his full middle name in every press release that was sent out.
The whole thing is just silly. You have a decorated military officer with a long, successful run as a United States Senator, a reputation for being a political leader going against a young, inexperienced first term Senator that without a Jeri Ryan divorce would be still be in the Illinois Senate. Is his middle name that he has zero control over the issue that you want to be at the front of the campaign?
"Is his middle name that he has zero control over the issue that you want to be at the front of the campaign."
No. I am not sure where that came from. I think that this whole you cannot use a person's full name thing to be truly asinine. It is not a campaign issue. It is just PC BS form BHO supporters in the MSM.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
We had FDR, HST, JFK (Kennedy and Kerry), RFK, LBJ, RMN, GWB all readily identifiable initials. The only two-inital politician I can think of was TR. (Jimmy Carter certainly wasn't JC.)
Will this cat be BHO? How about BO, any better?
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
1) when presenting him with an award or a diploma
2) when he's next in line at the DMV
3) when he takes an oath of office
4) when he's in big trouble and you're calling him to give him a spanking
Otherwise, we probaby should stick with his first and/or last name.
But I enjoy pointing out how (on both sides) making this a big deal is basically telling the American public "A lot of you are racist... so... yea..."
So in other words, there are only certain specified times when it's acceptable to use it. Only one problem: who decides when it's acceptable? If you decide to play that game, then we're going to waste months over the next campaign year over whether is was "acceptable" or not, every time his middle name is used.
The funny thing is, Obama could end this fake controversy right now if he wanted to. For example, you can't smear certain politicians, like Barney Frank, by calling him "gay". Why? Because he is openly gay, he fully embraces it, and the smear has nowhere to go. If Obama would just publicly come out and say he's proud of his middle name and people should be free to use it, the issue would end right there. But he won't. You know why? Because he it's to his advantage to play victim, and Americans play right into it, because they are scared to death of being accused of racism.
website: The Shield of Achilles
And I think the general guideline is very simple: Some of the moderators get very uncomfortable if you start manipulating his name. Don't just call him by his middle name, or initial his first name and spell out his middle name, or change the spelling of his name to match a terrorist's name.
But just spelling out his full name is harmless.
Something similar goes for homosexuality. If you call him 'gay' with clear hostility, making it clear you mean it in a derogatory way, you're gone.
The meaning as a whole counts. We ban certain kinds of communications, not certain words.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
In YOUR opinion, do you believe that the majority of times Obama opponents have said his middle name, they would have said it if it had instead been "Wilson"?
I see nothing wrong with stating his name its his name.
I find it very hypocritical that those now find it atrocious and mean spirited to call Obama his full name yet many of those have been attacking this President and using his last name in very vulgar way (I am sure you have seen the signs for NOW about Bush last name). So did the Dems ever (and no they have not) said those are wrong when in fact many of them have been pictured with these folks over the years (including Obama) and continue to accept donations from them?
I guess you can call President a term relating grossly to female body and yet Obama can't be said his full name?
I had a conversation with someone who I know well--someone who is highly educated, politically active, and generally well informed. He asked me two questions about Obama:
Did you know his middle name is Hussein?
Did you know that he won't say who has bankrolled his campaign?
Then he went on to tell me that nobody knows the truth about Obama's religious upbringing.
This is fear-mongering, plain and simple.
...this is a stupid issue, it's his name. But at the same time, mindlessly using "Barack Hussein Obama" over and over again without having a real reason why -- save that you won't cave to political correctness and "should" be able to use it -- will help Democrats out immeasurably.
Why? If you watched any CNN yesterday Dee Dee Myers (not known for good debating) and Bay Buchanan got into an argument about the usage of Barack's middle name. Bay got creamed because all Dee Dee had to do was say, "why did Cunningham use it?" and Bay, of course, couldn't answer. She could only say, "why can't he use it?" which turned out to be a poor talk show defense.
But, like I said, it's a stupid issue. It is his name. But using it will backfire every single time. "Dare" to use it. If you all want to keep pushing for its use and giving exasperated "common sense" rationales for why you should be able to use it, be our guests, because we'll just ask "but why?" and win.
political correctness is going to get us all killed
New Orleans......Proud to Swim Home!
Do you think it was appropriate for Bobby Jindal's opponents to refer to him as Piyush "Bobby" Jindal in campaign advertising, emphasizing his birth name rather than the name by which he was commonly known?