Monday, September 19, 2011
More evidence the New York Times does not understand Texas
The New York Times, for all its agenda-setting "newspaper of record" pretension, is startlingly parochial, especially when it comes to the middle of the country. See, e.g., the drawing accompanying Gail Collins' Sunday column, which was all about how Rick Perry is not just a Texan, but an "über Texan." In addition to the thinly-veiled Nazi reference -- Texas über alles, anybody? -- the column reeks of condescension -- George W. Bush was more Texan than his father, per Collins, "but his parents sent W. off to boarding school to erase some of the evidence." Apparently, however, neither Collins nor any of her layers of editors and fact-checkers understand the first thing about botany:
The Saguaro cactus comes from the Sonoran Desert, and does not grow in Texas.
CWCID: A Texan.
8 Comments:
By 
Bomber Girl, at
Mon Sep 19, 08:27:00 PM:
It was not my impression that Texas (or Texans) ever wanted to be understood.
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Sep 19, 08:29:00 PM:
Oh, I don't think very many Texans care that the New York Times understands them. But the juxtaposition of such snottiness and such ignorance is at least a little amusing for the rest of us.
By 
, at
Mon Sep 19, 08:49:00 PM:
I think the use of uber doesn't head down the path that you suggest. It's just a good German word to convery 'very'.
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Sep 19, 08:56:00 PM:
I always understood it meant "over" or "above," as in "Deutschland Über Alles." And, yes, I know there are uses of the term in pop culture, and that many such uses are not tips of the hat to the Nazis. When the New York Times uses it in a column about a right-winger, though, it is hard to believe that the editor was not aware of the double meaning. However ignorant he or she may be about botany.
By , at
Mon Sep 19, 11:29:00 PM:
Maybe they meant "goober"?
(Just kidding)
By Gary Rosen, at
Tue Sep 20, 12:40:00 AM:
" it is hard to believe that the editor was not aware of the double meaning"
You may very well be right. However you must also take into account the fact that most of the people writing for the NYT are incredibly stupid.
By , at
Tue Sep 20, 03:57:00 PM:
The NYT is a waste of money and time. Their writing is slanted towards liberal, progressive agenda without regard to facts and if it sounds arrogant, it was meant as a putdown. They know exactly what they are writing and think the rest of us are sooooo dumb. Someday the joke will be on them and a sad excuse for a paper will die.
By Jim MIller, at
Tue Sep 20, 08:18:00 PM:
Great catch. (Which is why I linked to it)
And I think you are right about über.
