Okay, I agree wholeheartedly that "Down Syndrome" was a welcome and humane substitute for the cruel label of "Mongoloid Idiot" that preceded it, and I'm struggling to accept the hyphenation of certain American citizens, and I may even live long enough to personfully face the fact that gender specificity properly belongs only on restroom doors. But it seems to me that, in some instances, political correctness has gone 'round the bend and beyond the parameters of common sense and adult behavior.

I read recently, for example, that a clergyman (well, he WAS male in this instance) drew criticism for repeatedly saying "please stand" at various times during the service. It was strongly suggested that he show sensitivity toward those in the congregation who might be physically challenged (formerly handicapped) by substituting "all those able to stand, please do so." In my own experience on the lecture circuit, I was once fire-hosed by an indignant feminist for noting the achievements of certain "ladies" in the audience. They were, I was informed in no uncertain (but, in part, unladylike) terms that the only proper designation was "women," and the use of any other synonym marked me as a male chauvinist pig.

It was then that I began to discover the dark side of political correctness: what's sauce for certain geese is not necessarily sauce for certain ganders - "women" and "pigs" being cases in point at that time. The latest example of this selective correctness appeared last week in the Florida Keys section of the only daily news bladder in the Miami Metropolitan Area. Therein was reported, as straight news and under a bold headline, a stunning announcement by Professor Joseph Nelson, of the University of Alberta. He's Chairperson (although he, too, is a male) of the Committee on Names of Fishes. Said committee, which represents "two prestigious fish societies" decreed a new name for an endangered species that has had the same one for centuries.

As of this Fall, say they (and, apparently, they have the say in such matters), the familiar Jewfish will be called the Goliath Grouper. Explains Nelson: "We received petitions which lead us to strongly believe that the name - while not offensive to all Jews - is offensive to a great number." It is noteworthy that the by-lined author of the article was able to stir up no such resentment among spokespersons for the local Jewish community, although she was able to quote a University of Georgia ecology prof who said he didn't want his two kids "growing up and asking why there was a fish named after their religion."

One is tempted to paraphrase Tevye's comment in "Fiddler On The Roof" and observe that, while it's no great honor, it's no disgrace, either. Actually, as practitioners of the faith that was first organized under a working fisherman, and the followers of which for years chomped sea food almost exclusively on Fridays, my Catholic brethren (and sistren, I hasten to add) might well feel put down by the fact that we never HAD a fish named after us. The nearest thing I can recall to recognition of our contribution to that industry was the pejorative label of "mackerel snappers" laid upon us by Non-Harps (that was another one) in the Philadelphia of my boyhood. The committee, by the way, had acted similarly only once before - this being a half-century ago, when the Squawfish was renamed Pikeminnow, at the behest of Native Americans (formerly American Indians). Curiously, their objection had nothing to do with proper respect for their women; they were just pissed off at the Squawfish for scarfing up huge quantities of the Salmon on which West Coast squaws and their families depended for food.

Getting back to the Giant Goliath Formerly Known As Jewfish, an ichthyologist named James Atz spent three years tracing the history of the species and found a 1697 book in which was recorded as fact that it was so named because it was a favored kosher offering among the Jewish community in Jamaica. Somehow, though, Atz sides with those who regard it as an implied ethnic putdown. My personal research, more than somewhat less extensive than the individuals previously noted - actually amounting to conversations with a few Jewish friends - leads to the conclusion that, given the horrors of the Holocaust, centuries of persecution and volumes of mean-spirited jokes, a fish's name is likely to cause them less stress than a cold bowl of chicken soup. Their typical reaction was: "Nu?" (Loose translation: "So this is a big deal?")

On the other hand, there's a nifty bit of irony in renaming this nearly extinct species after a big, ugly anti-Semitic Old Testament bully who got his ass kicked by a little Jewish boy with a slingshot.