Don't forget CNN's old TV show... Crossfire.

Or Buckley's great old show: Firing Line.

I think that's plenty polite.

The counter is that it's ordinary literary theory.

The extreme of something is the natural metaphor to bring out an aspect.

Killing is the extreme of resolution of sometehing.

So violence always represents change in some form, something going one way rather than another, where formerly both alternatives existed.

Hence all the violence language in campaigns; most of it dead metaphors by now, but that's how they got there.

Rothke's advice to academia that didn't get it: my advice is avoid all language.

HT to Instapundit Instapundit
BYRON YORK: Before banning 'crosshairs,' CNN used it to refer to Palin, Bachmann. Here is an excerpt from Byron York's article:

A look at transcripts of CNN programs in the month leading up to the shootings shows that the network was filled with references to "crosshairs" -- and once even used the term to suggest the targeting of Palin herself. Some examples:
"Palin's moose-hunting episode on her reality show enraged People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and now, she's square in the crosshairs of big time Hollywood producer, Aaron Sorkin," reported A.J. Hammer of CNN's Headline News on December 8.
"Companies like MasterCard are in the crosshairs for cutting ties with WikiLeaks," said CNN Kiran Chetry in a December 9 report.
"Thousands of people living in areas that are in the crosshairs have been told to evacuate," Chetry said in a December 21 report on flooding in California.
"He's in their crosshairs," said a guest in a December 21 CNN discussion of suspects in a missing-person case.
"This will be the first time your food will be actually in the crosshairs of the FDA," business reporter Christine Romans said on December 22.
"The U.S. commander in the East has Haqqani in his crosshairs," CNN's Barbara Starr reported on December 28, referring to an Afghan warlord.
"We know that health care reform is in the crosshairs again," CNN's Joe Johns reported on January 3....
.......It would be impossible, at least for any reasonable person, to argue that the network's use of "crosshairs" in any of the various contexts it was used, was an incitement to violence by anyone, anywhere.But by announcing that "we're trying to get away" from "crosshairs" and other allegedly incendiary language, CNN is aligning itself with those who blame "rhetoric" for the killings. And by doing that -- plus inviting the public to "hold us accountable" -- CNN could open itself up to an examination of its own uses of the word and accusations that it helped create an environment that led to violence. Does that make any sense at all?

HT to Instapundit Instapundit
BYRON YORK: Before banning 'crosshairs,' CNN used it to refer to Palin, Bachmann. Here is an excerpt from Byron York's article:

A look at transcripts of CNN programs in the month leading up to the shootings shows that the network was filled with references to "crosshairs" -- and once even used the term to suggest the targeting of Palin herself. Some examples:
"Palin's moose-hunting episode on her reality show enraged People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and now, she's square in the crosshairs of big time Hollywood producer, Aaron Sorkin," reported A.J. Hammer of CNN's Headline News on December 8.
"Companies like MasterCard are in the crosshairs for cutting ties with WikiLeaks," said CNN Kiran Chetry in a December 9 report.
"Thousands of people living in areas that are in the crosshairs have been told to evacuate," Chetry said in a December 21 report on flooding in California.
"He's in their crosshairs," said a guest in a December 21 CNN discussion of suspects in a missing-person case.
"This will be the first time your food will be actually in the crosshairs of the FDA," business reporter Christine Romans said on December 22.
"The U.S. commander in the East has Haqqani in his crosshairs," CNN's Barbara Starr reported on December 28, referring to an Afghan warlord.
"We know that health care reform is in the crosshairs again," CNN's Joe Johns reported on January 3....
.......It would be impossible, at least for any reasonable person, to argue that the network's use of "crosshairs" in any of the various contexts it was used, was an incitement to violence by anyone, anywhere.But by announcing that "we're trying to get away" from "crosshairs" and other allegedly incendiary language, CNN is aligning itself with those who blame "rhetoric" for the killings. And by doing that -- plus inviting the public to "hold us accountable" -- CNN could open itself up to an examination of its own uses of the word and accusations that it helped create an environment that led to violence. Does that make any sense at all?