Ever since the minute I was born, I've been asking questions. Why doesn't anybody talk about why Aunt Janet has a man's haircut and a girlfriend? How come we can afford sherry for Mom but I'm stuck with Kool-Aid? And why don't newspapers, so prone to blathering on and on about meaningless things, cut to the chase with words that everybody uses, like "fink" or "creep" or "asshole"?

As for the latter, at least, I'm still wondering. I mean, all these words are in the dictionary, so technically they qualify for print. They have concrete definitions, so their use isn't subjective. Really, there's nothing much that separates them from words like "dictator" or "accountant" or "fry cook," and those are words newspapers use every day.

It actually seems like a conspiracy. Journalists drone on and on, using all the words in a definition, when they could save time by jumping ahead and using the actual word. You don't see this in the food section. "Dice an edible member of the lily family and saute in the yellowish fat obtained by churning cream." You don't see this in the automotive section: "For sale: 1994 Ford Compensated Part-Time Companion, runs good."

They're not dodging these words out of politeness. They don't hesitate to label "dictator" or "puppet" or "terrorist," as long as it's foreigners they're talking about. They attack Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro, when frankly I'd pick at least two of these dudes for my government before anybody in George W's unlabeled cabinet.

But where are the harsh words for Rush Limbaugh? James Dobson? Dick Cheney? They're clearly logic-challenged, hate-mongering liars, yet from the absence of any strong descriptors in their press coverage they frequently come across like Kurt Cobain without the guitar.

Is it xenophobic cowardice? "All the News That Won't Offend"?

Nowhere is this dodge more obvious than in the coverage of the recent elections. We've always claimed to have equal rights in America, yet voters in Maine created a distinct lower class for gays. Instantly the word "hypocrite" comes to mind. They divided their state into the entitled and the unentitled. If some girl in your high school did this with birthday party invites, the word "bitch" would have been used.

And how about the recent news that two gay men were arrested in Salt Lake City for kissing on a downtown plaza? Turns out the city officials sold the plaza to the Mormon church -- a group renowned for their bigotry -- so they can do whatever they want with it. They can literally confront everyone on the plaza and decide who's suitable. "Hetero? Go ahead. Homo? Find yourself another sidewalk."

And nobody cares.

Gays get arrested for trespassing -- refusing to tolerate second-class citizenship -- and nobody cares.

Now, if the city government had sold this plaza to Satanists, and the Satanists sat outside in lawn chairs and said, "Declare your allegiance to Beezlebub or you shall not pass!" I'm thinking something would be done.

So, we've got a government that does something discriminatory and stupid. We've got a population that doesn't complain. It's like seeing a sign that says "NO BLACKS ALLOWED," then glancing down at your pale skin and thinking, "Whew! Thank God I'm cool."

Clearly, harsh words are deserved.

They say print is dying, and I'm thinking this cowardice is a reason why. I'm more likely to read The Onion than the New York Times, partly because The Onion doesn't mince words. "HOLY SHIT! MAN WALKS ON FUCKING MOON!" is one of their classic headlines, and I'm thinking regular newspapers would do well to capture some of that truth.

"MOST PEOPLE IN UTAH ARE ASSHOLES!" and "MAINE VOTERS DECLARE: YEAH, WE'RE BITCHES!" would have been a good place to start.