A guest editorial in today's P-I complains "Nation's newsrooms preach but don't practice diversity":
When is [the American Society of Newspaper Editors] going to come clean with the Hispanic community -- as well as the black, Asian and American Indian communities -- about its 1,415-member newspapers' commitment to creating newsroom staffs that reflect the country's racial and ethnic composition?Please. Who outside a handful of ethnic pimp organizations really cares about their newspaper's racial profile, or whether an article about the new 520 bridge is written by a Vietnamese-, Viennese- or Venezuelan-American?
But diversity of opinion and experience could make a difference in a newsroom. For example, Seattle votes 20% Republican and King County votes 40% Republican. How many of the P-I's reporters vote Republican? How many have sufficient education in, say, science, engineering, economics or finance to really understand what they write about? Not all that many, I gather.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 10, 2007 09:29 AM | Email ThisPeople who look different but think alike.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 10, 2007 10:00 AMRaising American Taliban
BY ALICIA COLON
April 10, 2007
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/52112
"On my way to meet Myrna Blyth, author of "Spin Sisters," I glanced across the aisle of the subway car at a fellow passenger's newspaper and read, "American Taliban seeks reduced sentence." I was set to interview Ms. Blyth about her new book, "How to Raise an American," and wondered: If John Walker Lindh's parents had followed the advice in this valuable book, perhaps their son might not be sitting in a prison cell because he helped the Taliban fight American soldiers.
Sadly, my generation has spawned self-loathing Americans who actually believe that this country is evil. They have neither respect nor love for this nation. Rather they are being taught by today's academic community that America and its institutions should be held in contempt...."
Even the current flap over Imus and his comments has not been fully reported. He was wrong, wrong and deserved to have his a$$ets kicked. But, the reason why a guy who is on at 3 a.m. and is 14th in his type of shlock behind Howard Stern is front and center is because he, I theorize refused to pay tribute to Sharpton/Jackson.
DO THE NEWSPAPERS point out that you do not see
Sharpton/Jackson picketing purveyors of hip hop and rap, many of whom are backed by "legitimate" major corps? Many of whom pay them tribute. If I had to design a method of ethnic genocide, it would be hip hop. Do they picket rap artists or others who use the N-word like it was confetti if they happen to be Black? Do the papers report that many fortified alcohol beverage makers which cater to low-income communities pay tribute to Sharpton/Jackson? Right now, Philly is the murder capital of the US and LA is engaged in gang warfare. Do the newspapers report that Sharpton/Jackson don't take their fat a$$ets into these war zones and ask twelve year olds to give up their semi-automatic weapons? Guess I missed that reporting. Imus is a sanctimonous jerk who deserves to have his a$$ets kicked, but there is a bigger elephant in the room.
I don't know much about Mike Adams, but he is a conservative Christian professor who is suing the University of North Carolina because conservative Christians need not apply at that bastion of free speech.
The newsroom is just one place where diversity doesn't happen.
Posted by: WVH on April 10, 2007 10:29 AM5. Just another example of how "equality of opportunity" really means "equality of results". Since you can't measure opportunity, everything to do with equality degenerates into measuring results, and ensuring the correct results occur. For example, affirmative action is a program to ensure correct results.
Posted by c at April 10, 2007 10:10 AM
This is a stupid and racist comment. People of mixed heritage and inter-racial couples I have met are across the spectrum in terms of ideology.
I am a Black woman and I know many people of color that sure as heck are not secular progressives. Do you know what you are talking about?
Equality is the Great Moral Cause of liberalism. As long as there are different races, different ethnic groups, equality will never happen. Witness how liberals love multiculti and mixed-marriages. It promotes a total homegenization--their equality.
Posted by Torquemada at April 10, 2007 10:13 AM
ability & hard work is a harsh eliminator, much to the chagrin of liberals. diversity is an easy club to wield without expecting results or abilities.
and remember--how many REALLY good, even-handed investigative journalists or editoralists out there can you name? most MSM people just parrot things from the wires, assuming it's the ultimate oracle & tested for even facts. in short, laziness spouted to those who dont care to think.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on April 10, 2007 10:51 AMI posted the wrong portion of Torqueda's comments first, but your comments lead to other thoughts. Part of the reason that affirmative action is so contentious is the source of the problem leads directly to schools, once again and also to the lack of capital formation in low-income and communities of color. Marva Collins' school, Westside prep has been the model for many other schools and this blog highlighted a woman that was recently visiting. Achievement is what moves ethnic groups. Many Asian Indians have darker skin than me, but if one looks at the achievements of Indians at places like Microsoft, it is not skin color. Still, because of tribal preference, even after people have qualifications, how are doors opened? This is not quite a color blind society and there are problems of access. The problem is how to get access without alienating huge segments. It is a work in progress.
Posted by: WVH on April 10, 2007 10:52 AMWhat I am getting at is that the average American is not only partially educated they are taught to embrace "consensus opinion" as though it is scientifically verified fact.
This is dangerous for any society and it came straight out of John Dewey's proposed radical take over of this country's primary education system and led us to the point we are at today whereby "nothing is true and everything is permitted."
Thanks to the embrace of relativism at all levels of education what we have to deal with today is a rising number of people who are convinced that they are right based upon how they "feel" not based upon where the evidence leads.
We have a shining example of the intellectual bankruptcy of this in David Mathews. A poster boy for all the intellectual chimpanzees masquerading as analytical thinkers who make decisions based upon their feelings or give credence to a scientific theory based upon consensus opinion is only going to increase.
Thanks for the clarification. I agree Torq's #6 post is harsher than #5. I can still see it as a more benign comment than you seem to, but I understand why you would feel that way, and perhaps your interpretation is correct.
Still, the question arises, is the "mixing" of the races, ethnicities, creeds, etc., a thing to be hoped for. Is it a goal of secular progresives to eliminate differences in skin tone, belief, accents, etc.? I believe this is one of their major goals. It is even possible that this is a road to "peace," whereby we can eliminate the causes of jealously and strife by eliminating all differences amongst us. But that thought kind of sickens me. Here I am, a conservative, one who often stands accused of racism, authoritarianism, bigotry, etc., and I find myself protesting against liberals who seem to be on a crusade to eliminate all vestiges of true diversity. How weird is that?
I don't know if this is the point Torq @ 6 was trying to make, but his comments and your response made me think of it. What are your thoughts?
1. I believe that Dr. King was correct, that one
should be judged by the content of their
character.
2. I want an achievement oriented scociety which
is why I am an education nag. Oprah, Rice,
and Powell may have moments of discrimination,
but the more people of color who have
achievement there is critical mass in
achievement. There is then a better perception
of people of color, the better for society.
3. I do not want a color blind society, I want
a society where achievement is not limited
by the color of skin. I bless my Asian
Indian brothers and sisters for demonstrating
that.
I am still torqued by torque.
Posted by: WVH on April 10, 2007 11:42 AMPart of the reason that affirmative action is so contentious is the source of the problem leads directly to schools, once again and also to the lack of capital formation in low-income and communities of color.
I would argue that poor schools and resource poor communities are not sources of the problem, but are offshoots of liberal attempts to solve the source problems. The sources of the problem are enslavement, emancipation, Jim Crow, and diaspora. Each of these events further eroded the morale and spirit of American blacks. Unmotivated people do not build robust societies. Older generations of white Americans might share much of the blame for what happened to people of color in the past, but the solution to the problems must spring from within those diverse communities as they exist today. The solution cannot be extracted from the whites. Playing the race card, particularly in public forums, can only make things worse. I think most of us are agreed it is time to move beyond race.
This is not quite a color blind society and there are problems of access. The problem is how to get access without alienating huge segments. It is a work in progress.
I agree that we in America are not yet a color blind society. But both EO and AA shine a million watt spot light onto people of color, and that hardly seems a wise course to pursue if you want to make a race blind society. Racial prejudice is a societal problem that must be solved slowly and deliberately by community leaders, over generations, and it cannot be eliminated by government diktat. It is dangerous to put that power into the hands of government, no matter how just the cause might appear.
Posted by: huckleberry on April 10, 2007 12:06 PMDo you agree with Dr. King that people should be judged?
I understand how Torq torqued you, and I am grateful that you and I seem to be having a more pleasant discussion of what is a very contentious issue. I think we both agree that diversity is a good thing, as long as we both feel secure in the sactity of our particular ways of life. When we feel that our words are being threatened by "the other," then we get defensive and start behaving poorly toward one another. Conservatives have felt for a long time that their cherished way of life has been under attack by secular progressives, and that people of color have been a staunch ally in that attack. Perhaps it is just paranoia.
Don't let whites, or Asians, or even African-born blacks show you the way. You know the way. Just follow it, and encourage your loved ones to follow. That is the only way.
Best of luck to you WVH. I best move on now because this third rail below my feet is looking awfully tempting...
"One Blood: The Biblical Answer to Racism"
Authors: Ham, Wieland, Batten
From the ICR website:
http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2447
Synopsis
==========================================
More than half a century has passed since the horrors of the Nazi racial extermination camps were revealed to a disbelieving world. Yet the battle of ethnic hate and violence remains one of the burning issues of our time.
Billions of dollars are spent fighting it. Oprah devotes entire programs to it. Presidents consult civic and religious leaders; everyone seems to be wrestling with the problems of racial prejudice, yet solutions evade us.
But what does "race" really mean? Are there really multiple races of humans, and where did this concept originate? The Bible says in Acts 17:26 that God has "made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth." So, is there really such a thing as "the white race", or "black race"? You will be astounded at the easy-to-understand scientific facts, and how they line up with the often-overlooked simplicity of God's Word.
In this ground-breaking book, you will read, perhaps for the first time, about racism's evolutionary connections, and the powerful answer from Genesis.
For a real solution to ethnic hatred, read this copy of One Blood. You'll see this explosive debate in a whole new, startling light.
==========================================
The bible speaks of nations (i.e. culture), but never "races".
I don't remember the exact figure from the DVD, but when you analyze the genetics behind differences in skin color in humans, these skin color differences account for something like 0.2% of the genetic variation found in humans.
We have used the DVD at our youth camp, in our church, and in prison ministry. Very thought provoking, even for those who are not Christians.
Posted by: Marty on April 10, 2007 12:19 PMThank you.
Marty: You are trying to wish away the race debate by arguing there is no such thing as race. Whether you call it enthnicity, culture, creed, or country of origin, we are all members of groups who exhibit biological and cultural differences measurable at the group level. Saying that there is no such thing as race is intellectually dishonest, and sounds almost Clintonesque to me. Please celebrate diversity by acknowleding that diverse means different, and our goal should not be pretending we are all the same, but instead should be learning to not kill each other because we are different.
Posted by: huckleberry on April 10, 2007 02:05 PMYou are welcome.
From the high dungeon,
Best Wishes,
WVH
Posted by: WVH on April 10, 2007 09:36 PMWell thanks for the link and the number, "45%"...
Why not have some of the media cater to them?
I mean look at how the media panders to the clueless, barking moonbats who believe in the pseudo science of human induced global warming...
Posted by: juandos on April 11, 2007 07:31 AMI think you may have misunderstood the intent of my post.
Question: Did you read the book, or watch the video?
First of all, I am not trying to "wish away" the race debate. As is the case in many debates on social issues, definitions of words are key.
My intent is to focus on the definition of "race", primarily from the negative standpoint, and therefore to examine the bias that emerges as the concept of race is employed in society. Being of mixed descent, I am well aware of cultural differences that exist among humans. I have no problem with cultural differences. Further, having experienced a "racial" slur at one point in my life, I can assure you that the concept of race in the negative sense is alive and well.
The whole point of my argument is that race, in the negative sense, and as some people understand and employ it, lumps genetic variation in along with cultural differences. Further, racial emphasis can focus on one specific genetic characteristic (i.e., skin color, eye shape), and can cause all kinds of problems. The crux of the argument is with respect to skin color, and how it is employed in the use of race in the negative sense. When you consider that skin color only accounts for 0.2% of the genetic variation, the argument is that it's illogical to use skin color as a delineating factor.
"Whether you call it enthnicity, culture, creed, or country of origin, we are all members of groups who exhibit biological and cultural differences measurable at the group level."
Of course this is true; anyone with eyes and ears can draw that conclusion. Just travel from the west coast to the east coast for an example of some rather striking cultural differences, all without leaving the US.
"Saying that there is no such thing as race is intellectually dishonest, and sounds almost Clintonesque to me."
Why is it intellectually dishonest? It's a matter of definitions. Race is a creation of man, period. There is no scientific evidence to backup the existence of "races". Cultures and nations, yes. Differences yes. Races - no, and not especially in the manner used to discriminate based on outer, genetic physical characteristics that an individual has no control over. And yes, people can be singled out because of their culture (like the Jewish were by the nazis).
"Please celebrate diversity by acknowleding that diverse means different,..."
I never made any statements against "diversity". The issue is with the word race, and it's definition, and how it's been misused. You have chosen to use your definition of race, and assume that just be cause I don't share your viewpoint with respect to the meaning of the word race, that I am opposed to cultural "differences", or diversity. You make a lot of assumptions. Did you read the book or watch the video?
And, while you are celebrating diversity, can you celebrate my diverse viewpoint and tolerate my different ideas?
"...our goal should not be pretending we are all the same,..."
I agree.
I think we are in agreement that it is very difficult to nail down a set of traits that would consitute "racial markers". I wouldn't even want to try. At the same time, when the government puts a "race" checkbox on the application form, people seem to have no trouble deciding which race they belong to. I think we are agreed that governments should get rid of the checkbox. I hope we are agreed that people should not get so up tight over cultural and genetic variation. But I also think people should not get up tight over the concept of race.
Race means what you want it to mean, for good or bad. Here is a question for you? Is there such a thing as genocide? If so, what is genocide?
Posted by: huckleberry on April 12, 2007 03:56 PM