Reader P.E. comments on the British Broadcasting Corp.’s brief return to its senses right after the 7/7 attacks in London, when the BBC decided to call the terrorists by their proper name “terrorists” instead of the politically correct “militants” (famous BBC justification: “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”). Both Andrew Sullivan and a CNS news correspondent archived on Free Republic had noted the switch (see my “Andrew Sullivan, Brit Patriot,” July 8).

But now, the BBC has switched back to its old ways, Michelle Malkin reports.  The terrorists are now “bombers.” And let?s do have them over for a spot of tea.

Writes P.E.:

“I don’t want to stop using the word ‘terrorist’ for…politically correct reasons, but rather because it doesn’t seem to do justice to Londoners to call those people who attached them ‘terrorists’ when their targets have quite simply refused to be terrorized. In that sense, July 7 was actually a significant victory in the War against Terror. As for alternative terms for the perpetrators, the best I have come up with so far is ‘evil, cowardly mass-murderers,’ but I admit it doesn’t have much of ring to it.”

I think it’s got a great ring to it, P.E. And let’s again offer our hopes, prayers, and best wishes for the brave Britons who never, never will be slaves.

G.B. comments on my mockery of the New Yorker for adding a politically correct accent mark to the spelling of Guantanamo, the U.S. military base in Cuba. Just as Nicaragua was “Nee-ka-rrrawa” on oh-so-correct National Public Radio, Guantanamo is “Guant’namo” on the pages of the New Yorker. (And don’t miss the New Yorker?s online Q&A with staff writer Jane Mayer, who went to Guantanamo (or “Guant’namo”) and shed huge tears because the suspected-terrorist detainees down there can’t cross examine witnesses or hire Mark Geragos as their lawyer.) See my Guantana-Hype Fest, July 8.)

G.B. says Guantanamo is “leased, not owned, so I was incorrect in referring to it as “U.S. territory.” Sorry, but I don’t see how that makes any difference, G.B.

Regular Inky correspondent L.M. comments on this remark by Mayer, who?s also horrified that Navy personnel are trained in interrogation techniques (imagine!):

“The Navy?s course actually has included a form of physical torture, waterboarding, while most of the courses mostly use less brutal psychological methods, such as sleep deprivation, hunger, hooding, exposure to temperature extremes, noxious noise, and gambits involving religion, flags, and sex.”

Says L.M.: Sounds like Lollapalooza. I guess they had to revive it somewhere.

How true! And I was only thinking of Cristina Aguilar!

And here?s fellow blogster Bookworm:

“My question, and maybe one you can answer, is: Who is Jane Mayer? She?s all over the New Yorker lately with articles about the evil that is the American military, especially when it brings its weight to bear against those poor, suffering Middle Eastern ?militants.? But who is she? Where did she come from? What?s her background?”

I don?t know much. Years ago Jane Mayer was a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, hard as it may be to believe. She rose to fame in the Mainstream Media when she co-wrote, with Jill Abrams, “Strange Justice,” a strange trash-job on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. At some point she became ensconced at the New Yorker, where, like so many writers and cartoonists there, she?s churned out one anti-Bush screed after another. Jane just never stops.

Now for our running debate over whether it?s a good thing or a bad thing that today?s flight attendants, unlike the glamorous and courteous air hostesses of old, are often surly battleaxes in baggy uniforms. (See my “Why Are Airline ?Flight Attendants? So Awful–and So Ugly?,” June 27, and the Mailbags for July 5, July 6, and July 7.) But the subject of the debate has changed: It used to be stewardesses, but now it?s badminton. That?s because L.M. (see above) pointed out that there are plenty of ugly, bad-dressing men out there, especially the guys who don slovenly athletic attire even when they?re playing nothing more vigorous than “badminton.”

That reference to shuttlecocks was a mistake, says badmintonite reader G.H:

“I hope someone points out to ?regular Inky correspondent L.M.? that badminton is, indeed, a quite vigorous sport.”

You are absolutely right, G.H. And if you click here, you?ll see that badminton pros, at any rate, are buff guys and gals who dress in natty tennis-style attire. Nonetheless, this site points out: “Competitive badminton is vastly different from the game played by many Americans with friends and relatives in the backyard.”