Re: Larry Niven: Terrorize Latinos to Solve Health Care Crisis

David DeLaney wrote:
> Mariano Chouza <mchouza@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On May 6, 2:12 am, John Schilling <schil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> The Times seems to want money from non-subscribers for the full
>>> text, but the abstract should suffice.
>>
>> The complete version is here:
>>
>> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-green1-2008may
>  01,0,7219456.story
>
> Sorry about the delay - was getting a burnt-out power supply fixed 
> on
> my PC so I could get back to glorious high-speed internet. (Dialup,
> where I'm typing faster than the phone line can cope with, is ...
> suboptimal ... in comparison, especially if I'm gonna do even a tad
> of research on a story.)
>
> Okay, I do see the 'politically correct' there, describing the food.
> Let me refresh myself on what the point was ... <google google> 
> Okay,
> in the LA Times, check; not Rush Limbaugh, check; seems quite
> sympathetic to the liberal cause du jour he (she?) was writing 
> about,
> not as immediately obvious, but on rereading a few times I think, on
> the whole, Whitney is probably at least a little on the sympathetic
> side. (There's various comments in there that could be interpreted
> going either way; the whole gives the impression Whitney is trying 
> to
> remain at least partly unbiased, to me.)
>
> So this does show that there are those who are not "Limbaugh et al."
> who are using the term, and in a non-parody/non-snarky manner too
> ("healthier and more politically correct food", with some 
> description
> later in the article
> as higher-quality too). This should expand Mike S.'s horizons some;
> thank you for providing the link, John! It was an interesting 
> article
> to read.
>
> (I don't know how far this goes towards showing 'common' use, but
> John running into it not three hours after posting does point 
> towards
> "not uncommon". And now I can add "healthy; of slightly higher
> quality" to my mental impression of 'politically correct'... but 
> this
> also doesn't seem quite like the usage John was referring to way 
> back
> last week, either, "even if it isn't actually true".)
>
> I am sorry if the immediate requests for the article made you think
> Mike (or I) were trying to insult you with said requests. I admit to
> seeing your responses that kept not providing it in a bad light - 
> but
> now that it's there it's an interesting addition to the discussion.

All in all, I agree with David.  I think the "PC" in the artricle is a 
bit tin-eared, but it's no worse than that.