The conservative attacks on the excesses of political correctness are not wholly without merit. For instance, it's certainly ridiculous to strive for a world where there are no labels, or where the invocation of any bit of identifying information with any potential social or cultural value attached to it is verboten. I think these things are utterly ridiculous, and, at all costs, we should support the conservative movement where they seek to stamp out this foolishness.

I propose starting with PowerLine and Michael Barone. Talking about Pimp and Pimpette, the virtuous slayers of ACORN, Barone complains about the Washington Post's coverage...because they identify the young woman involved.

The Post's Thursday news story (headlined "ACORN to review incidents") helpfully identifies Giles as "the eldest daughter of a conservative Christian minister in Miami." (Questions for the reporter: Does it make any difference that she's the eldest rather than, say, the second eldest? On what basis do you characterize the minister as conservative, and why is that relevant? You characterize the minister as "Christian," but aren't all ministers in the U.S. Christian, or are you just trying to distinguish him from a cabinet minister?).

And why did you even mention Miami? Are we to think of her as some harlot strutting on the beach, her firm breasts jutting out for the whole world to see but not touch?

So, under these rules, we are not allowed to mention:

1.) The age of someone relative to their siblings.

2.) That someone is Christian.

3.) That someone is a member of the clergy of a church or a denomination.

4.) Someone's political affiliations.

I mean, sure, if we're going to wipe all mention of age and religious affiliation from discourse lest it actually identify someone, that's fine, but we're really going to have to edit Franklin Graham's Wikipedia page. You have to appreciate this degree of crazy, though - if you give any sort of identifying information about a conservative, you have to prove that every single factoid you give is not only absolutely ironclad, but lacks any sort of judgment or potential for judgment altogether. In other news, if you weren't aware who George W. Bush is, he is a human being who...wait, no, can't say he "owns" a puppy, because some people might not like "own", plus I don't have the papers...can't say "has kids", because he didn't "have" them and it might be wrong to call adult women kids.

Okay, the new Conservapedia bio for George W. Bush: he is a person. Later details to be filled in as they don't offend anyone.

Scotty 2 Hotty, the author of the original post, also heavily disputes that the ACORN Pimp had any racial motivations in this incident:

If O'Keefe had said something incendiary about a racial motivation for undertaking his investigation of ACORN, one can be sure that the Post reporters would have quoted it instead of simply larding the context with an imputation of racism. The Post certainly provides no supporting quote.

Certainly, nobody could ever intimate that a man who ran a racist affirmative action bake sale and protested Lucky Charms because they were offensive to Irish Americans is somehow motivated by race.

That's almost as ridiculous as pointing out that someone is the oldest sibling in their family.