There is a famous scene in "A Guide for the Married Man" in which Joey Bishop, caught in bed with another woman by his wife, gets up, gets dressed, straightens up the room, and sends the other woman on her way--all the while responding to his wife's escalating outrage with protestations of "What bed? What girl?"  Once the last of the evidence has been removed, the wife's umbrage dissolves into bewilderment and Joey lives to (um) do whatever, another day.

This illustration, while hardly a teaching moment in morality, is nonetheless a perfect analog for the political/social climate in which we find ourselves.  We are repeatedly told words and actions don't mean what we clearly know them to mean, while the deniers play for time with an audience not exactly renowned for its long attention span. 

A current case in point of course is Sonia Sotomayor.  Much has been made of the fact that Rush Limbaugh and others have labeled certain of her remarks racist.  The remarks in question, delivered at University of California, Berkeley in 2001 were as follows:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." 

If we define racism as the ascription of superiority of one race over another, by what objective standard does the foregoing quote not apply?  If, as some have suggested, this was taken out of context, what possible context (apart from "I don't agree with my Aunt Matilda who once said ... " or "ha ha kidding, got you there didn't I") would materially change the meaning?

It is similarly considered almost gauche in some circles (including moderate Republicans) to describe President Obama or any of his minions as socialist in any way.  Again, the proper question (in the spirit of "if it walks like a duck...") is what is the term commonly understood to mean and does it apply?  Merriam-Webster defines it as:

"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

Let's see:  de facto nationalization of the auto industry, impending takeovers of the banking and energy industries (the latter through Cap and Trade), universal health care on the order paper ... seems to me you could make the case.  It is, in fact, ridiculous to even debate this.  In terms of where Obama and the Congress are taking this country, "socialism" is probably a mile-marker in the rear view mirror.

It is pointless, and often disingenuous, to reject the use of any descriptor on the basis that it might be misunderstood, or might be offensive or inflammatory, or might deflect debate from the core issues.  If the descriptors are valid and true, they are valid and true (and typically at least part of the core issue).  If they are not, let's hear the arguments.

Just stop telling me there is no girl and no bed.  Like many others, I am showing up with a camera and a private eye these days.