Chron Bloggers Step in It

The Houston Chronicle has recently started promoting some in-house bloggers. Today over lunch, I decided to check 'em out and found two entries in particular that provide examples of something I discussed here yesterday.

In discussing the BBC's Orwellian decision to revise its news coverage of the recent London atrocities, I noted that part of its rationale for choosing to use the term "bomber" in the stead of "terrorist" impugned the civilized portion of its audience.

The news story goes on to say, "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding." This is a slap in the face to those in the audience who were rightly appalled by what happened in London. What the hell is there to "understand" that the word "terrorist" gets in the way of? The only relevant fact about terrorists is that their own minds are "barriers to understanding" and that they want to kill or enslave everyone else. If anything, not calling them "terrorists" hides this vital fact.

In choosing multiculturalism over objectivity, the BBC implied that the civilized victims of the terrorist attacks were somehow more dangerous than its Islamofascist perpetrators.

Indeed, others have noted that the multiculturalist movement is really just a thinly-disguised attack on Western civilization. So what might the logical result be for those who get into the habit of assuming that Westerners are intolerant bigots? Let's let the mavens of political correctness at the Cron's blogospheric outposts demonstrate shall we?

One consequence might be needless self-castigation over a word that may have once been a slur, but which has lost such implications over time.

Even when it's not the intent, some words do offend. Such was the case recently when a caller reminded us that "gypped" is a pejorative word that has no place in the newspaper.

Another consequence is that some, who implicitly accept this blanket damnation of their own culture (or at least what they regard as its unenlightened members), feel that such solicitousness goes for everyone except the West. More specifically, this writer obviously feels free to declare open season on the home town of her employer and the bulk of her customers. (This is just a taste of what this obvious blue-stater thinks of Houston.)

You moved to Houston a while ago. How do you know you've settled in? Here are the telltale signs:

1. Your house of worship has more than 5,000 members or fewer than 100.

2. You've gone to a check-cashing place. Extra point if they know your first name at the check-cashing place.

3. You've given away a litter of something. Extra point if it wasn't puppies or kittens.

4. Your other car is in the impound lot.

5. In your house, Dr Pepper is now a breakfast drink

My initial response to this is, "Speak for yourself, Kyrie." (But you do get points for not making a crack about indoor plumbing or outhouses. You may not have a feel for your adopted home town, but you do show some imagination. Next time: To aim for friendly ribbing of the "King of the Hill" variety, use stereotypes that bear some resemblance to your target audience. This way they laugh, rather than scratch their heads and start wondering why you see them this way.)

But I digress....

I, too, am a transplant, but hail from Mississippi, a place far more accustomed to being the butt of such jokes. I also score a big fat zero on these five questions. For starters, I have no house of worship. Hell, I've even been here breaking the Sabbath regularly for over a decade and haven't been lynched yet! Imagine that, what with this being a "red state" in the heart of "Jesusland" and all.

Slavish, dogmatic adherence to multiculturalism is easy. But it is no substitute for judging others as individuals, which is much harder. Someone who claims to get offended by the word "gypped" is either just picking a fight or needs something else to worry about. And the South has come quite a ways since the Jim Crow era.

These blogs are free, but this Houstonian feels gypped nevertheless.

-- CAV