No Place for Diversity
December 10th, 2007 by Bill ColleyThe weekend filled with church, football and concerts seemed long. Funny that when I’ve little to do on some weekends the time does appear to fly but when my dance card is full I reach Monday and work is so far in the rear view mirror.
A number of thoughts these past few days between the various events passing the time and first let me address some recent links I’ve posted.
Â
It amazes me the reaction to the link about the Iraqi war. Someone replied with amazement one of the General’s would support pressing on to victory in Iraq. Is the writer suggesting the Washington Post is lying? How come other papers and the major networks haven’t called the bluff? Where is the General issuing denial? The anti-war crowd believes any military officer suggesting a change in strategy is somehow a fellow traveler. Oh, the heartbreak! Winning the war is something these people just can’t accept. Victory would mean parades and pride and respect for the flag and all hopes for the Marxist revolt will be dashed. When I was a kid there was a saying about the unwashed left and it always sounded a little too trite. Now, with age and maturity, I see it more clearly. “America, love it or leave itâ€, is a lovely tune. There is nothing this country or its fighting men and women can do that will satisfy these people save for one thing. The complete collapse of the western way of life would put a smile on the faces of the soap free left.Â
Â
Note to all of them, fifth columnist Nancy Pelosi and her evil minions have known about interrogation techniques for several years. Nary had a peep until a whiff of political opportunity flowed beneath Ms. Pelosi’s nose.
Â
A second link posted over the weekend offers some insight into the pernicious efforts at social engineering at college campuses. Diversity is the buzzword with the only exception being political persuasion. There is a concerted effort to erase all moderate to right-of-center political thought from campuses. The far left insists its views are self-evident truth. Hey, it did wonders for Eastern Europe and the old Soviet Union, right?Â
Â
Last summer I interviewed for a very important job with the Mississippi State Radio Network. Public radio devoted to local news and controlled by the state university system. Despite a resume filled with star-studded references all sharing that I’m among the most talented storytellers in the business the “search committee†blanched at hiring anyone not feeding at the granola trough. It must have so upset them that I’ve received two rejection letters mailed more than one month apart. It was my second rejection in just over a year from the socialist broadcasting side of the equation. Last fall a radio station operated by a private university even told me I had some “interesting†ideas but that I wasn’t a good “fitâ€.Â
Â
My friends, I worked in radio and television as a news broadcaster for 17 years. Then I launched a talk show. Months later I encountered an old boss and he told me he didn’t realize I was a conservative. Yeah, no kidding, news people aren’t supposed to wear politics on their sleeves, however. Let me say it was always evident during those 17 years who were the newsroom liberals. These people also held great sway over coverage decisions. The conservatives, working for objectivity, for the most part were silent. When they opened their mouths on rare moments to interject into a coverage debate they were ostracized.Â
Â
If public radio truly represents the public as a whole then public radio would strive for political diversity when staffing. In the news business diversity usually means we have to fill an Asian slot, a Latino slot, an African-American slot… You get the idea. No one asks about the credentials of most of these candidates. It isn’t much better in commercial broadcasting than in the “public†realm but commercial broadcasters aren’t picking your pockets for tax dollars for broadcast expenses. If you’re looking for the root cause of the discrimination examine the ties public broadcasters share with the academic world.Â
Â
Orwell’s “groupthink†has arrived.Â
December 10th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Hmmm…well, what amazes me is that old tune’s implications from most of those who insists upon singing it. “America…love it or leave it”…the majority of those who love this song (and sing it frequently) require everyone else to just follow blindly where a few may lead and damn any consequences. Then again, let me use a similar analogy for those of us who love this country and it’s people, it’s customs/traditions but certainly not always it’s ideology…and this will be very familiar to those for whom
“America…love it or leave it” is their anthem. “Love the sinner but not the sin(s)”. Probably for more years than you’ve been associated professionally with the media, Mr. Bill, I’ve heard both “tunes” and, as often as not, had them tossed at me in very smug voices. Curious that both are generally proffered by the same choirs. In the manner of loving the sinner but not the sins, I…as a multitude of others…love this country but I don’t have to like, love or agree with everything done in her name and when I don’t, can only laugh at those who would suggest I then “leave”. No different to the manner in which you respond to those who do not always agree with your opinions or philosophies.
Yes, maybe the groupthink has arrived but on two fronts…those who sing the tune you love so much and expect everyone else to fall in step or get out of the way…and those who believe there is a better song to be sung so refuse to still their voices or pack their bags. Perhaps the only thing we may have in common is that the collapse of the “Western way of life” is neither wanted or sought but some need to bear in mind that nor is the Western way of life desired…or sought…by others and NEITHER have the right to force either on the others.
Let’s put in the language of childhood…which surely anyone can understand: “You’re not the boss of me!” There is nothing written or agreed to…anywhere, not even in Scripture…says that the rest of the world belongs to US…and you can read that as us or as U.S. nor must must we ensure it will. And I do have to wonder…why is it that tune…”America…love it or leave it” always comes from those who want to run everyone’s life, business or thought process? I’ve yet to hear or read of anyone telling them to “love it or leave it” and frankly, we are the only people I’ve heard sing that song. No different than raising any family…you don’t always like or approve of things they do or say and you don’t always even like them but no matter what, love is not in question.
How about another song? Maybe “Let There Be Peace on Earth and let it begin with me”?
December 10th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Dear Nancy, I hold no elective office and I write no laws. It does strike me that if you don’t like the party you can always go. The freedom is there. I’ve got more than my share of complaints about the current government but I’ve no desire to see the Republic shattered in favor of some controlled environment where my freedom of choice is eliminated. This is the highway the left is driving down. It’s filled with the promise of “good feeling” but no rational examination. How strange as well that so many claiming so much personal intelligence are willing to surrender to an Alice in Wonderland future.
December 10th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Nancy: You Go Girlfriend.
December 10th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I was listening to Mr. Bill recently and of course he was whining about the bloggers that do not agree with him and I guess that means “you and me”. I can only assume when you have the feeling that you are always correct, it is difficult to accept anyone else’s opinion. Maybe he should try to “make nice” with the folks in Mississippi once again.
December 10th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Make up your mind, Bill…”if you don’t like the party you can always go. The freedom is there.” Really? Then why, are you all so ready to suggest…if not insist those of the other ilk to leave when you don’t like our tune? Apparently the freedom of which you speak apply’s only to sheep. You said it yourself…”…I’ve no desire to see the Republic shattered in favor of some controlled environment where my freedom of choice is eliminated.”…yet you would wish to see such as myself leave thus eliminating my freedom to devoutly express a different opinion(s) should I choose to live in the “controlled environment” of your choosing. Personally, I don’t care about the left or the right but I do care about each and every one of us living our lives and using them to enhance rather than to obliterate…be it life, ethnicity, culture, religious/sacred preferences or lifestyles. Got nothing at all to do with a “good feeling” but of simply a decent way to live the lives with which we’ve been blessed and leaving others to do likewise. You are the one goes to church…perhaps taking another look at, AND much thought about, the Golden Rule would serve you and many others well.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
I’m glad we have the Facist point of view in the afternoon at WGMD to balance out the socialist point of view of public radio. We are not at war with Iraq. Our military did a great job of invading Iraq, but our 4 year OCCUPATION of Iraq has been a display of corporatism run wild. (Mussolini himself noted that “Facism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”). If you believe that we should win the war in Iraq that is not a war then you should be begging Cheney to run for president because it was his insane ideas on foreign policy that is now our foreign policy. The fact is we have more “contractors” in Iraq than we do regular troops. The contractors do what the military used to do. What if you said there were 340,000 troops in Iraq instead of 160,000? Should corporations take over our military all together? Isn’t it nice that we call it privatization instead of corporatism? Should we support the contractors? And you Mr. Colley have the nerve to invoke Orwell?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Mussolini made the trains run on time. Sure would like to see some government efficiency at home. You know, this contractor thing, my brother-in-law had a better bid than Haliburton but after he put the rolled roofing in the bed of his Ford 150 he couldn’t make it float. Seems it’s a requisite of doing business overseas. When are you folks going to telephone the show? Do you have telephones or do they increase your carbon footprint? I love my country. I’ve got none for Iraq, Syria or Saudi Arabia. It’s my guess you women share the revulsion.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Can’t speak for all women but, just to be clear, this is one who does not share your revulsion. And yes, I’m perfectly aware there could be an uproar of “Don’t you know how they treat women in the Middle East?” Yes, I am. Don’t like it but I’m not a Muslim and I don’t live in any of those countries…which is not to say (or assume) I don’t care. Of course I do…but they’re lives are dictated to by their religious beliefs and aren’t they the only ones who could change that? Because of how I live and with whom I share my life, I’m reminded that this life would not be worth a plug nickel under Muslim law. Wasn’t so long ago that it would have been the same case under our own laws and, in some areas of this country, still questionable. We…a ‘civilised Western country’ are still working on that with still a ways to go. Which makes us just slightly ahead of “less civilised”. But as much as this country would never permit any outsider the right or force to dictate our laws or religious beliefs, it’s not for us to do so to them. Change comes from within…not with-out.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
No only confined to the Middle East…
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071211175557.p3d3kaah&show_article=1
December 11th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
No, it’s not and since it happened in a Western society it is governed by the laws of the nation in which they live whether that be North America, Europe, UK (or NZ and AU)…as any crime or percieved crime would be irrespective of cultural or religious beliefs…and rightly so. In their native country no doubt no law of the land would have been broken or crime committed so while that doesn’t it make it better it makes it none of our business to force our laws on them. In fact, doesn’t your article cite a good example of how we would not…will not…brook interference from this family’s native country were they to demand we all allegations and or charges be dropped because, according to their law, the father and brother did no wrong? I could see how well that would go over here……
December 12th, 2007 at 7:41 am
“In their native country no doubt no law of the land would have been broken or crime committed so while that doesn’t it make it better it makes it none of our business to force our laws on them.”
I guess we’ll have to disagree on this. Regardless of any cultural, religious, geographical, or any other differences, a father brutally murdering his daughter is wrong on any level. In any moral or civilized society, it would/should be a natural reaction to prevent it.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Realist, I do feel it best not to belabour the point and yet have to ask…whose morals? See, there are on-going arguments about the morals and morality of this country, mostly pertaining to the fact that being a Christian country our morals are based on those beliefs which then make our laws appropriate. Wouldn’t that premise…whether we approve, like it or not…be just as viable in a country where their morals are based on religious law…which is also the law of their land? Of course we see it as wrong, heinous, but there it’s none of our business unless we happen to be living there. Then, the best we can do is recognise and adhere to their laws. We all know what happens if we don’t but we really don’t have a merciful or legal leg to stand on. Yet think about this…when it’s one of “us”…such as the woman with the teddy bear of a week ago…we protest and fight to have the ‘offender’ released and returned to home of origin. I don’t think I recall any Mid-East country clamouring for the release of such as this father because in their eyes, he was doing as his beliefs called for. We both know that, here, we would not succumb to such pressures when it’s our laws which have been broken. It may never be “right” or “just” or even humane for us to accept their laws but we don’t have a right to change them or make them do so.