Fighting Words

For Rick Perry, Ben Bernanki continuing to print dollars is "treasonous." And, if he continues doing it, should he come to Texas, he will be treated very "ugly." Wow. Treason -- isn't that a capital offense? And, treating someone "very ugly" -- doesn't that mean putting him against the wall and shooting him?

It depends on who you ask. Ask Democrats, and, of course, they will tell you that's exactly what those words mean. Ask Republicans and they'll explain, should you need an explanation, that by "treasonous," Perry meant something really, really bad; that neither Perry, nor anyone else, was suggesting that Bernanki be shot. And, when Perry said Bernanki would be treated "very ugly" it mean that Bernanki would be given something less than the red carpet treatment should he decide to visit Texas.

What this all comes down to is political correctness and the words more sensitive politicians have learned to avoid. You can call someone cheap, but you must never call them niggardly. This despite the fact that "niggardly" is totally unconnected to anything having to do with African-Americans.

Here's another case: Roger Cohen, who takes great pride in his Jewish identity, writes in the Op-Ed page of the New York Times, 8/21/11, that "(Jews) must be vociferous in their insistence that continued colonization of Palestinians in the West Bank will increase Israel's isolation and ultimately its vulnerability."

Really? Well, who cares if Mr. Cohen is Jewish, Muslim, or an atheist. The fact is that Israel neither has been, nor is currently, "colonizing" the West Bank. Israel would love for the West Bank to became a kind of Switzerland, or Singapore, or Lichtenstein. But, to date, the Arabs on the West Bank have shown none of the initiative or national fiscal honesty in their affairs to come anywhere close to any of those models. Israel would love to eliminate it's check points in the West Bank and it would love to find that the wall it has built at great cost to be truly redundant. But, of course, that's not where Israel finds itself.

As to settlements; these Israeli communities are on land that is disputed and that was never Palestinian to begin with. (It had previously been Jordanian and had been lost to Jordan in a war begun by the Jordanians.) While the question as to where the final border between the West Bank and Israel should be located (something to be decided through negotiation), the settlements in no way constitute colonization of Palestinians. But, hey, if Roger Cohen likes the word "colonization" who's going to stop him from using it?