What does it say about me? Perhaps that I have common sense.
Actually, as you may have heard, it is generally thought there is a shortage of 1) women, and 2) non-whites ("minorities") in executive positions. Organizations like to have some of each because, among other things, it helps them avoid lawsuits. So some people get jobs, or are considered for jobs, not just due to their ability (while they may well be qualified, generally a lot of people are), but also because they help fill an imagined "diversity" quota. In this sense, it is not unreasonable to suspect that the AJC hit the jackpot with Tucker, because she is both a woman and a minority. And, just speaking for myself personally, because I see her writing as cliche-ridden and not anything special, I wonder if she was really the best available person for her job, i.e. if she did not get hired, at least in part, because, as one could say, she helps the AJC kill two diversity birds with one stone.
This practice is AKA "reverse discrimination", or affirmative action.
Calling them "otherwise law abiding" diminishes the fact that (1) they are criminals; and (2) citizenship and the rule of law mean nothing.
She has poor word choice too: "Let's face it: Some of the backlash grows out of simple jingoism, a resentment of those who look and sound different."
Jingoism is more like "my nation/party/leader, right or wrong." I think she is referring to xenophobia, not jingoism.
She is lame. The Tancredo quote just reaffirms my agreement with him, so her article has the opposite effect of what such rhetoric is supposed to accomplish. What a jackass.
It's about what you'd expect, i.e. her own version of the 'They're here, it's not practical to get rid of them, so face reality and give 'em documents' argument. (Which will, IMO, eventually be what happens.) With the usual (in the past, totally empty) promises of future enforcement.
"idiot"
I would say she is more of an ideologue: it would not matter what facts you might present, or what counterarguments you would make, about the adverse effects of illegal immigration, she would not change her views. In that way, she's like most libertarians on immigration (and just about everything else, for that matter): almost anything is acceptable as long as the government does not interfere.
"claptrap", "nativist"
However, some would say this stuff places her firmly in the 'hate America' camp.
Overall, I find her writing childish, so much so I wondered how she got her job. But then I googled for a foto, and it appears she is black (and a woman, obviously), which explains something (perhaps a lot). Anyway, since she is "editorial page editor" of the AJC (and you're not, I might point out again), I also wonder why her views are published elsewhere, e.g. here in the Baltimore Sun; is she syndicated too?
Comments
eh (not verified)
Tue, 01/31/2006 - 06:04
Permalink
"This comment says more about you..."
What does it say about me? Perhaps that I have common sense.
Actually, as you may have heard, it is generally thought there is a shortage of 1) women, and 2) non-whites ("minorities") in executive positions. Organizations like to have some of each because, among other things, it helps them avoid lawsuits. So some people get jobs, or are considered for jobs, not just due to their ability (while they may well be qualified, generally a lot of people are), but also because they help fill an imagined "diversity" quota. In this sense, it is not unreasonable to suspect that the AJC hit the jackpot with Tucker, because she is both a woman and a minority. And, just speaking for myself personally, because I see her writing as cliche-ridden and not anything special, I wonder if she was really the best available person for her job, i.e. if she did not get hired, at least in part, because, as one could say, she helps the AJC kill two diversity birds with one stone.
This practice is AKA "reverse discrimination", or affirmative action.
Got it?
This book goes into this subject more generally.
Ralph (not verified)
Tue, 01/31/2006 - 01:02
Permalink
"it appears she is black (and a woman, obviously), which explains something (perhaps a lot)."
This comment says more about you than being black says about Tucker.
Jake Jacobsen (not verified)
Mon, 01/30/2006 - 17:18
Permalink
Oh golly, turns out I'm a nativist, whatever shall I do?
Unbelieveable that someone would receive a paycheck for what amounts to a bad emotional appeal to a fallacious argument.
petty bourgeois (not verified)
Mon, 01/30/2006 - 15:33
Permalink
Calling them "otherwise law abiding" diminishes the fact that (1) they are criminals; and (2) citizenship and the rule of law mean nothing.
She has poor word choice too: "Let's face it: Some of the backlash grows out of simple jingoism, a resentment of those who look and sound different."
Jingoism is more like "my nation/party/leader, right or wrong." I think she is referring to xenophobia, not jingoism.
She is lame. The Tancredo quote just reaffirms my agreement with him, so her article has the opposite effect of what such rhetoric is supposed to accomplish. What a jackass.
eh (not verified)
Mon, 01/30/2006 - 05:22
Permalink
It's about what you'd expect, i.e. her own version of the 'They're here, it's not practical to get rid of them, so face reality and give 'em documents' argument. (Which will, IMO, eventually be what happens.) With the usual (in the past, totally empty) promises of future enforcement.
"idiot"
I would say she is more of an ideologue: it would not matter what facts you might present, or what counterarguments you would make, about the adverse effects of illegal immigration, she would not change her views. In that way, she's like most libertarians on immigration (and just about everything else, for that matter): almost anything is acceptable as long as the government does not interfere.
"claptrap", "nativist"
However, some would say this stuff places her firmly in the 'hate America' camp.
Overall, I find her writing childish, so much so I wondered how she got her job. But then I googled for a foto, and it appears she is black (and a woman, obviously), which explains something (perhaps a lot). Anyway, since she is "editorial page editor" of the AJC (and you're not, I might point out again), I also wonder why her views are published elsewhere, e.g. here in the Baltimore Sun; is she syndicated too?