Harsh Indeed.

I love the newest "politically correct" language to come out of Washington, even as I hate the term political correctness. I saw it today in the N.Y. Times in a story reporting the decision by the U.S. Senate Democratic Majority to follow President Obama's marching orders and not investigate the use of torture...oops...I mean "harsh interrogation techniques"...by the Bush Administration. And I though PC was reserved for the left to use and for the right to ridicule. Harsh indeed. Like waterbording a suspect three times a day for a month, not stopping even when it should have been clear that ---if nothing else--- it wasn't working? The Times' Krugman makes it clear he's in favor of investigations into all that harshness in a column titled "Reclaiming America's Soul." I don't know if I favor that or not, but I do think its time to reclaim the clarity of language we need to move forward. Or I am being too harsh?

[UPDATE: Read Frank Rich's column of Sunday 4/26 in which he writes: President Obama can talk all he wants about not looking back, but this grotesque past is bigger than even he is. It won’t vanish into a memory hole any more than Andersonville, World War II internment camps or My Lai.]

[UPDATE 2: Apparently the language {"Harsh"} in the Times was the subject of extended conversation by editors. Here's the story.]