Friday, November 20, 2009

Coulter on Diversity

Of Course, Ann Coulter is right once again.



November 18, 2009

It cannot be said often enough that the chief of staff of the United States Army, Gen. George Casey, responded to a massacre of 13 Americans in which the suspect is a Muslim by saying: "Our diversity ... is a strength."

As long as the general has brought it up: Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.

Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare -- I mean the beautiful mosaics -- in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.

"Diversity" is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: "Cancer is a strength!" "Pollution is our greatest asset!"

By contrast, the canard "diversity is a strength" has now replaced "at the end of the day," "skin in the game," "blood and treasure," "jumped the shark," "boots on the ground," "horrific" (whatever happened to the perfectly good word "horrible"?), "not so much," "I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here," and "that went well," as America's most irritating cliche.

We should start making up other nonsense mantras along the lines of "diversity is a strength" and mindlessly repeating them until they catch on, too.


See also:
What Diversity Really Means
The Diversity Shibboleth
Diversity in Education
Why the culture war matters


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Conservative Second said...


I guess it is okay to support Ann Coulter, an individual who proudly uses ethnic slurs. You'd think by that same standard they'd be willing to accept any insult. Roger you should remember that they live by a highly unique standard: the double-standard.

Anonymous said...

How many more times will the College Republicans complain about political correctness while censoring criticism they might find vulgar or politically incorrect? For the WMU Republicans, it is okay to support someone who regularly makes racist statements, but talking about ingesting panty cream is unacceptable.

What has Ann Coulter, the darling of the WMU GOP had to say? Have a look:

I say we use Ann Coulter's favorite mantras:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

September 13, 2001. "This Is War". National Review.


"I think our motto should be, post-9-11: raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences."

Kurtz, Howard (February 14, 2006). "Monumental Misfire". Washington Post.

Or, referring to widows of the 9/11 attack:

“I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.”

And this all goes well of course with her opinion of herself:

"Christianity fuels everything I write. Being a Christian means that I am called upon to do battle against lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy."

De Pasquale, Lisa (May 6, 2009). "Being Ann".

Conservative First said...

This blog is private property. There is no right to use somebody else's property. Follow the rules of basic decency or get lost.

Posting vulgarity is simply an admission that you're wrong. Changing the topic is an admission you can't refute what was actually written.

Of course leftists think it's 'racist' to support fighting back against terrorists. They would have been complaining about 'racist' names while we fought the Germans and Japanese in World War II.