Palin has been hammering home the alleged link between Obama and terrorism for weeks. And there’s a deliberate intellectual dishonesty of using the plural form of “terrorist” for describing what was meant to be an allusion to William Ayers alone. But just as telling as her assertions is the way in which she phrases them. Obama is not consorting with terrorists, in her formulation, he’s palling around with them. I’m not one of those overbearing language nerds who’s chiding her for using informal speech; instead, I want to point out a deliberate and telling choice of grammar that she’s employed.

In an interview with the New York Times newspaper on Monday, Mrs Palin also suggested that voters should pay more attention to Mr Obama’s relationship with his former church pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
“I don’t know why that association isn’t discussed more, because those were appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country,” she said.

If you give all of your wealth to the richest corporations, they will eventually spend it to purchase your labor at prices high above slave wages. This is the trickle-down theory of economics in practice, and it is really quite miraculous. As soon as you peasants begin to feel the phantom weight of gold in your pockets, you’d be advised to give it to the first wealthy patron you see; he will know best how to manage it for your future benefit. This is related to the widely-approved trickle-down theory of liberty. Previously, many people believed the peasants should have rights of life and liberty similar to those of the ruling class. This idea has been disproven in recent years, in favor of placing all control in the hands of as few people as possible. One versed in the dialectic will quickly see that this results in the maximum liberty for all, as freedoms gradually trickle down from the benevolent central committee.