Monday, September 19, 2011
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.
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.
" 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.
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.