CNN bans the “C” word. No, not the increasingly-controversial term Christian or even Christmas. The latest word to give the PC crowd the willies is “crosshairs.” So controversial has this word become that CNN, the network that brought us Crossfire (which, BTW, used crosshairs in its logo) issued an on-air apology when a guest let the word slip out during a discussion about the Chicago mayoral race.
 

Here’s anchor John King dealing with the sensitive matter: “Before we go to break, I want to make a quick point. We
were having a discussion about the Chicago mayoral race. My friend Andy Shaw
used the term ‘in the crosshairs’ in talking about the candidates. We’re trying,
we’re trying to get away from that language. Andy is a good friend, he’s covered
politics for a long time, but we’re trying to get away from that kind of
language.”

Let’s hope CNN never pairs this Andy Shaw loose cannon with Kathy Griffin for their New Year’s Eve show. She’ll curse at Republicans and he’ll say words like “crosshairs.” Together they just may bring down civilization.

Anyway, this wasn’t a Saturday Night Live sketch. We’re all supposed to believe now that “crosshairs” is nearly up there with the “N” word in the pantheon of words not to uttered in a civil society.

While the “N” word is, in fact, a hurtful one that decent people should reject, I’m finding it hard to muster the same outrage over the metaphorical use of the term “crosshairs” during a political discussion.

Obviously, this new-found sensitivity to the word stems from Sarah Palin’s usage of “crosshairs” imagery over congressional districts that where alleged to have played a role in the tragic shooting in Tucson that killed six people and wounded several others — including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) who, thank God, appears to be experiencing a recovery that even her doctors call “miraculous.”

The truth is I actually do think the better part of wisdom would have been for Palin not to have used the crosshairs imagery but things are starting to spin into the realm of the ridiculous.

Never mind that the Tucson shooter was actually a 9/11 truther (subscribing to a theory more often associated with the far left than the Tea Party), the liberal media continues to subtly (and not so subtly) push the discredited notion that Palin somehow set the tone in which the killer acted.

So even though Palin’s “crosshairs” imagery played absolutely no role in the shooting, we’re all still supposed get to the vapors at the very use of the term.

Of course, few people actually are offended by the word “crosshairs.” A lot of people are offended by Sarah Palin. So, now we can’t say “crosshairs.”

And, because Sarah Palin used the term “blood libel” in a video defending herself and other conservatives unfairly linked to the murders, we’re now suppose to consider the use of that term (which has become a common way of describing vicious smears) to be anti-Semitic.

So, even though “blood libel” has been used by gays, blacks and virtually every other group (including, yes, Democrats) to describe vicious, unfair and slanderous allegations, when Sarah Palin says it, it’s time to be offended.

Stephen Colbert, not quite upholding the new supposedly civil tone of public discourse, suggested that Palin should just “shut up for ten f….g minutes.” Actually, I suspect he (and others on the left) would like her to shut up for much longer than that. But I find myself almost agreeing with him. Because the more words she uses, the fewer words the left will decide will be left for rest of us to use while still retaining our rankings as civilized human beings.

Of course, deciding what words are appropriate in public forums would be a lot easier were we simply to apply common sense principles of decency and respect for others. When what’s acceptable to say depends almost entirely on who used what word, the whole issue becomes a moving target.

Can you still say “moving target”?