American Renaissance
Previous Story       Next Story       View Comments       Send This Page       Date Archives       Category Archives

The Unbearable Whiteness of Being Maureen Dowd

More news stories on Racial Sensitivity

Jeffrey Lord, American Spectator, July 21, 2009

{snip}

You know all those fevered editorials they churn out over there at the New York Times editorial board? Like, for instance, the hot fury published on June 30 wonderfully titled “Firefighters and Race.”

In this jewel the Times editorial board makes its displeasure plain in the very first sentence, huffing that the Supreme Court decision in favor of the New Haven firemen has “dealt a blow to diversity in the American workplace.” This was followed by a July 14th column by Times columnist Dowd titled “White Man’s Last Stand,” to which we will return shortly.

But first, let’s get the meat into the stew. You can just smell that sizzling hypocrisy, can’t you?

It seems the “American workplace” (to use the Times description) that is the New Haven fire department has a higher percentage of minorities than the American workplace that is . . . yes indeed . . . the New York Times editorial board its very self. To be quite specific:

o The New Haven fire department, according to press accounts, is 43% black and Latino. Or, if you prefer the term of art, 43% of the fire department is “minority.”

o The New York Times editorial board, according to the information provided by The New York Times, is—wait for it—12% black and Latino. Or, again, 12 % “minority” if you prefer the term.

o The New York Times Op-Ed page team of columnists, an elite group of which Ms. Dowd is a star, is 19% black and, again according to the Times listing of its Op-Ed page columnists, 0% Latino.

That’s right. At the core of the beating intellectual heart of the left-wing establishment where such things are studied with the detail of Talmudic scholars, the New Haven fire department is doing more than three times better on race than the very liberal elites who have set themselves up as its sniffy critics. Perhaps instead of seething about “Firefighters and Race” the Times would have been better served by pondering “Editorial Writers and Race.” Or perhaps: “Too Black to Write; New York Times Column Writing and Race.”

According to the New York Times, its editorial board has 17 members. Of those 17, fifteen—say again, 15 of the 17—are whiter than white on rice. This includes the very white Andrew Rosenthal who runs it, carrying the title of “Editorial Page Editor.”

That’s roughly an 88% white hiring record for Rosenthal. Frank Ricci and his fellow white New Haven firemen would have had a better shot writing editorials for the Times than fighting fires for the dwindling number of Times readers in New Haven. After all, the percentage of whites at the New Haven fire department is just 57%.

But don’t worry—tokenism is alive and well at the Times. “White Rosie,” as we’ll call Mr. Rosenthal here with deference to a Dowd-like racial sensibility, has managed to make room for one Mexican and the inevitable token black to fill the other two seats in the Times version of “diversity in the American workplace.” Amazingly enough, that one black on the Times editorial board matches exactly the number of blacks in the ranks of New Haven’s 21 fire captains. One. There might still be a Latino captain in New Haven to match up with the Times’ Mexican—but only thanks to the Supreme Court and the hard-studying candidate himself, Lieutenant Ben Vargas. The Times rooted to keep Vargas out.

{snip}

OK then. Point taken. The Dowd standard—and that of the Times—is to judge people by race. Got it. Will do.

So how does the Times stable of Op-Ed columnists stack up against the standards “White Mo” Dowd sets for the rest of us? You know, one’s race being critical in order “to bring a fresh perspective” and avoid the “disgrace” of being “stocked with white men.”

Of the eleven columnists the Times advertises as its team of Op-Ed page writers, nine are whites. Of those nine, seven are—ouch!—the disgracefully whitest of white men! Which is another way of saying 81% of the Times Op-Ed columnists are white (White Mo included) and 77% of the columnist team is, to use White Mo’s phrase about the Supreme Court, “stocked with white men”—guys like Frankly White Rich who are as white as sheets. If one is obsessed with viewing everyone and everything in America through the prism of race, then the 88% white New York Times editorial board and the white paper’s stable of 81% white columnists clearly don’t read their own editorials. No wonder Black Bob Herbert is so cranky all the time. One of the two black tokens on the Op-Ed page, Black Bob is forced to work with more white guys than David Duke. Black Bob would actually see more black faces if his white bosses let him take the company limo and its black driver over to New Haven to catch the next five-alarm. As for a wise Latina or Latino on the page? Nada.

{snip} She somehow must hope the rest of us have forgotten that neither White Mo nor the whiteys writing those Times editorials with White Rosie wanted the only black man now sitting on the US Supreme Court to be there at all. Justice Clarence Thomas’s very nomination, the Times foamed at the time in language worthy of The Birth of a Nation, was designed to “incite.” {snip}

So too did White Mo’s white editorialist sheet mates burn an editorial cross or two to denigrate Miguel Estrada, the Bush choice for the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia. Fearing the Harvard-educated legal star and Latino Mr. Estrada would get to the point that Sonia Sotomayor is at today—the Times demanded that it was both “compelling” and “necessary” to defeat a Hispanic man. Their unsurprising sentiments were the same as those of their white male Democratic allies on the Senate Judiciary Committee. In an internal Senate Democratic memo, Mr. Estrada was described as “dangerous” because he was “Latino.” {snip}

{snip}

It is remarkable when you think of it. To get Dowdy about it, White Mo’s social life has occasionally made the New York Post’s Page Six gossip column over the years. Why? Because she was linked to—yes—white guys. These stories never tie her to, say, the rakish and black Marion Barry. No Black Diddy for White Mo. It was white Barbara Walters who did the deed with the first black Senator of the 20th century—a Republican to boot. White Mo just always popped into the gossip columns displaying this thing for white guys. There was the white actor Michael Douglas episode. Douglas, the son and grandson of white Russians, is now said to be married, interestingly enough, to a white Welsh woman. There was time with the white male Aaron Sorkin, creator of The West Wing. The Great White Sork at least wrote a part for a black person, albeit as the president’s body guy, not the president.

Then there were the stories about White Mo and Times white guy, the now Ex-Executive Editor Howell Raines, he of the Blair Niche Project.

For those readers who came in late, White Raines hired a young writer of African-American descent named Jayson Blair not because of his writing skills but because, in typical left-wing fashion dating back to slavery, White Raines judged people by skin color. A fellow white Timesman allowed that race was indeed “the decisive factor” in White Raines’s decision to hire Black Blair. The niche the Black Blair was discovered to have filled was plagiarism flavored with fabrication, and the resulting scandal cost White Mo’s white male friend White Raines his job.

{snip}

What’s a white girl to do with all this whiteness in her life? What else? Party with white people!

According to the news reports of the Obama inaugural period, the guest list for White Mo’s Georgetown house party had more white guys standing obediently in line to get in the door than are still active on the Ku Klux Klan’s roster. The White Man’s real last stand, it seems, was at White Mo’s. The line included whiteys Tom Hanks, Tom Brokaw, Larry David, David Geffen, Rahm Emanuel, Andrew Sullivan (the latter accompanied by someone appropriately named Tone) and . . . well, you get the idea. There were surely some blacks or Latinos there in a capacity other than serving the canapés, even if they didn’t get their names in the press. {snip}

{snip}

Perhaps White Mo takes the time to ponder these problems while secluded in the upscale white enclave of a city that the last census figures reported was 61% black. White Mo’s white Georgetown precincts, according to census data from 2000, were a Klavernesque 3.8% black. Heaven forbid that she’d have her house parties in the ‘hood over in Anacostia (97% black) or even Capitol Hill, which was 46% black in the same year all those hated Bushies began flooding the neighborhoods to get down with the even more despised Reaganites still there from the 1980s. Reaganites living side-by-side with African-Americans? Stop the white liberal presses! Call the stereotype police!

In fairness it really isn’t fair to single out White Mo on matters racial, even though she has led us there. White Mo’s white woes are in fact emblematic of the mainstream media in general, a place where judging people by skin color is a cherished value as long as it’s New Haven firemen under the microscope. But not so much—actually not much at all—if it’s their white media job, their white paper, their white television network or their white Internet site that is to be subjected to this scrutiny.

{snip}

Here’s a test. Think of these faces as promoted on the liberal cable networks MSNBC and CNN: Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Dylan Ratigan, Joe Scarbrough, Mika Brzezinski, Chris Matthews, Anderson Cooper, Larry King. Wolf Blitzer. John King. Lou Dobbs. Think of the faces reading you the news on the broadcast networks—Charlie Gibson at ABC, Katie Couric at CBS and Brian Williams at NBC. A PBS fan? That would be the estimable Jim Lehrer. Sunday news shows? George Stephanopoulos at ABC, Bob Schieffer at CBS and David Gregory at NBC. Quick: what color are the faces attached to these names?

{snip}

Seventeen mainstream media news shows—hosted by eighteen very white faces. To do the percentages, that’s 100% of these shows being hosted by whites. For that matter , the next time you catch a live feed of the white White House press secretary’s daily briefing, count the non-white faces in the White House press corps staring back at the white man on the podium. You have one hand, don’t you? Fox is not included in this line-up because of the obvious: as its liberal enemies love to point out, Fox is not liberal. Whether you believe Fox to be “conservative” or “fair and balanced”—in either case, racial quotas are neither. Fox is the place where Latino Geraldo Rivera stars in his own prime time show. Shockingly there are lots of people out there in the Fox audience who think of Geraldo as—brace yourselves—Geraldo. Just Geraldo. Not Geraldo Hispanic. Not Geraldo Latino. Just Geraldo Rivera, journalist. Imagine that.

{snip}

Why, this white boy wonders, is this very white woman still writing this very white column for the very white Times in the first place? Why isn’t her column given to some hot young aspiring-to-be-wise and very liberal Latina instead of White Mo? Why do white guy columnists get most of the column inches at the white run Times? Why not replace all of them—maybe all but one, just to be quota-ish—with black guys and dolls, Latinas/Latinos and an Asian or two to liven things up for poor Black Bob? If the Times were really up to its own imaginary standards, it would hire a gay black or Latina/Latino to replace the Frankly White Rich, he who tries hiding his whiteness by writing volumes on gays. {snip}

Why is the idea of ceding her column to a young Latina presumably a “no go” with White Mo? {snip}

White Mo will be staying at the New York Times because there is not the slightest intention to quota her out of her job in the same way White Mo and her white buds at the Times wanted to quota white fireman Frank Ricci and his white colleagues out of theirs. If one is to adopt White Mo’s standard of judging by race, there is at the Times precisely what White Mo professes to see elsewhere but curiously not in her own work place: a white “code” and a white “club.” The white guy owning the paper will hold on because his white family, the white heirs and heiresses of Adolph the White, want it that way. The white guy running the white editorial board will not be running a less than majority white board, the list of columnists will never be all non-white, and the blindingly white Bill Keller and Jill Abramson will still be two things: white and in charge. {snip}

{snip}

[Editor’s Note: Maureen Dowd’s column “White Man’s Last Stand” can be read here. The New York Times’s June 30 editorial “Firefighters and Race” is available here.]

Original article

(Posted on July 21, 2009)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment     Send This Page      Search

Comments

1 — Anon wrote at 6:10 PM on July 21:

I think it’s this, more than anything else, that annoys me about whites who screech racism. They never live or associate with blacks, certainly not average blacks. In law school when a couple of my professors would screech about gated community insulation or affirmative action or whatever I’d look up where they live and then look at the demographics of that zip code.

QUITE TELLING!

2 — Question Diversity wrote at 6:14 PM on July 21:

Maureen Dowd wants the New Haven FD to be more diverse. How about she makes the New York Times more diverse? Quit, so the Times can rehire Jayson Blair in her space.

So what if he lied through his teeth? The Times wants us to put every other black crime “in context” to whatever socio-bunk nonsense they’re peddling this week. Why can’t they consider that slavery made Jayson Blair do it?

3 — Sam wrote at 6:20 PM on July 21:

It is extremely important to call people like Dowd RACISTS. “Liberal” is far too weak of a term. Who cares if she’s white? I engage similarly vicious, bigoted white-hating liberals online regularly. Nothing confuses and angers them more than to call them exactly what they are: racists.

4 — GetBackJack wrote at 6:21 PM on July 21:

The problem with Marxists like Dowd, Rosenthal, and their ilk is that they believe themselves superior to minorities. They aren’t threatened by them. They treat them like children and keep the victimhood industry alive and well, which in turn, keeps them at the forefront of “progressive” culture earning the prestige of celebrity status and celebrity salaries. Sooner or later, reality will bowl them down.

5 — q wrote at 6:28 PM on July 21:

I’ve began reading three or four columns by Maureen Dowd over the course of a couple of years, but broke off each time and don’t bother to even see what she has to say anymore. She’s just too silly, as are so many of the rainbow mafia.

Their lies and exaggerations are amazing, but the most remarkable thing about them is that they just can’t seem to see what is so obvious to a large portion of general public.

6 — guilty of being white. wrote at 7:00 PM on July 21:

Excellent article. These statistics will be useful when deconstructing liberal arguments for Affirmative Action; not that it is difficult to begin with.

7 — True Resistance wrote at 7:04 PM on July 21:

Like so many White diversity praisers, the New York Times praises diversity either from a great distance or in small, easy to control doses.

If any White diversity praisers were to have to live in a majority non-White society for the rest of their lives, the truth would not be so easy to ignore. They would see their “equals” not as the controlled media describes them, but as humans with many more flaws than the White people they rail against.

Let them practice what they preach and show us “ignorant” Whites all the benefits of what really is just a get revenge on the White man scheme.

8 — Wayne Engle wrote at 7:05 PM on July 21:

Jeffrey Lord has written, here, one of the cleverest, funniest, most stinging pieces of satire I’ve ever read. It points up the hypocrisy of White liberals while providing us all about a week’s worth of belly-laughs.

It’s crafted so intricately, with such clever leads from one part into another, all of it holding together beautifully and with a perfect climax, that I wonder as a professional writer for many years myself, just how long it took Mr. Lord to knock this out. A week? Two weeks? Or is Jeffrey Lord just a pluperfect genius, sure enough? No matter; I’ll just say, GOD, I wish I’d written this piece!

9 — danjack wrote at 7:36 PM on July 21:

finally someone is saying it. expose the hypocrisy of these liberal news people. this guy jeffrey is brilliant, this article should go all over the inter net.

10 — Schoolteacher wrote at 8:33 PM on July 21:

Liberals are aristocrats in their vile hearts. One law for the masses, another law for themselves. They have no claim, in my book, on the protection of the Constitution, since they have so conspicuously placed themselves above it.

11 — Anonymous wrote at 9:32 PM on July 21:

I, too, am sick of the hypocrisy with self-righteous, smug white liberals. They preach “equality” and “tolerance” and being “open-minded” yet they don’t practice these virtues themselves.

12 — SKIP wrote at 10:16 PM on July 21:

finally someone is saying it. expose the hypocrisy of these liberal news people. this guy jeffrey is brilliant, this article should go all over the inter net.

I’m sure such a fine article will be all over the internet shortly. Unfortunately, cockroaches run when the light is turned on them, BUT! they remain just out of sight and STILL ARE COCKROACHES

13 — Jane wrote at 11:31 PM on July 21:

Maybe we should all start embracing the liberal philosophy of “open mindedness,” “diversity,” and “tolerance.” This country would be whiter than a polar bear rolling around in snow.

What is interesting about the liberal “diversity” agenda is that in needs to keep most minority groups in America, such as blacks and Latinos, in poverty and in the downtrodden victim position to continue to be successful. This is the epitome of racism, but I guess all you have to do is talk the talk about how you and your cause are the champion of the po’ minorities in America, despite being quite the opposite, and people will eat that stuff right up.

14 — Just Say NO To Liberalism! wrote at 12:48 AM on July 22:

I always knew that liberals never actually believed in equality and this alone proves it!

15 — J Erie wrote at 2:09 AM on July 22:

I’m not as happy about this article as some of the other posters. Certainly liberals are hypocrites on race and always have been but simply criticizing them for not living up their own standards, standards which Lord apparently agrees with, isn’t much help. If Lord were of the American Renaissance mindset he could chide liberals for their hypocrisy but highlight the real lesson one should take from this: that almost all white people, regardless of politics, prefer the company of others of their own race and that there is nothing wrong with that.

This is why nearly all of the mainstream Conservative movement is useless. They have no conscious understanding of the realities of race and are always trying to beat the left at their own equalitarian game by attracting as many black and Hispanic votes as they can, a fruitless endeavor if ever there was one.

16 — elitist wrote at 4:06 AM on July 22:

I posted this at the NYT : it was censored of course.

Hi there Maureen, time out for fact and logic:

How can race quotas (with lowered requirements) for certain minorities (blacks and Hispanics) but not others (Jews and Asians) possibly be constitutional??

How can a hate crimes bill be constitutional which criminalizes hate SPEECH - excuse me “hate facts” (example: blacks are on average less intelligent than whites - which is WHY WE HAVE RACE QUOTAS FOR BLACKS WITH LOWERED REQUIREMENTS) but fails to protect certain other races – like, say Europeans?????

This openly gay, socialist, cosmopolitan, Ivy League educated American expat says:
I am proud of my European & Jewish heritage, and I am not defensive about stating flatly that Europeans have specific racial interest that conflict with those of other races:

for ex.:

finding places to live in the US where houses cost less than ca 1 mil but that are not being overrun by feral black and hispanic gangs which exterminate whites for sport.

maintaining our ancestral lands like any other indigenous peoples (why exactly should a few hundred thousand Icelanders yield their ancestral lands to the overflow from, say, the 1.5 billions of the Indian subcontinent??)

History has already overtaken you, and the era of white self-effacement is over.

Now begins the era of desperate white survival attempts in a world where we are ca 10% & shrinking rapidly.

OK, all done, now we can go back to the usual jabberblabber about how those nasty haters are on the way out, and we are all one happy human family.

17 — tall one wrote at 5:24 AM on July 22:

The one constant of the upper echelon of liberals is: never live as a liberal, completely disregard the liberal agenda, never practice what you preach. If by chanc you do follow the liberal mantra, you will be considered insane, you won’t have money, gave it to less fortunate, you have a houseful of homeless blacks and mexicans living w/you and you’re wearing a double thick aluminum foil hat to keep global warming from frying your brain.

18 — Jupiter wrote at 8:08 AM on July 22:

I am going to make a resonsable guess:Maureen Dowd has no husband and has no White sons. She has made the decision to commit gene-line suicide. She is a loser.

19 — Bon, Tax Slave of the NWO wrote at 8:56 AM on July 22:

“…The White Man’s real last stand…. The line included whiteys Tom Hanks, Tom Brokaw, Larry David, David Geffen, Rahm Emanuel, Andrew Sullivan…”

To paraphrase another recent poster (QD?): A number of those ‘Whites’ M. Lloyd mentions in his article do not align themselves with Whites but rather with a much richer, more influential, smaller ethnic group that has better inside connections—one that is able to back up its members via powerful, well-funded organizations by any means necessary.

Bon

20 — Sardonicus wrote at 9:32 AM on July 22:

Maureen Dowd is an overly emotional, stuck-up, Limousine Liberal. I remember one column she wrote complaining that Powerful men were marrying their young secretaries rather than aging bluestockings like her. She’s totally out-of-touch with the reality of everyday men and women and believes New York City’s Manhattan should be the model for the rest of the United States.

21 — feller wrote at 9:59 AM on July 22:

If for a moment, you consider Jews to be nonwhite, (and I do consider European descended Jews to be white), it would be interesting to see how many Jews are in key editorial and publishing(the business end) posts at the NYTIMES.

Indeed, does the percentage of Jews compared with white Gentiles(like Dowd) far exceed the percent of Jews(now only 1%) of the general population of the US?

Discrimination against white non-Jews let alone against African Americans?

22 — Anonymous wrote at 11:05 AM on July 22:

A great book came out a year or two ago, with a title something like “Do As I Say, Not As I Do”, which made the central point that whenever liberals act against their publicly espoused principles, they profit thereby; but whenever conservatives (for lack of a better word) act against their publicly espoused principles, they suffer thereby.

23 — Anonymous wrote at 11:49 AM on July 22:

Dowd recently wrote a column last ween in the NY times where during the entire column she pretended to be Sarah Palin. Kind of like a nasty version of Saturday Night Live. Frankly, these folks are so far over the edge you have to wonder if they are writing for the other side. Perhaps it’s the only way the NY Times can provide a legitimate alternative viewpoint, going so far over the edge you work against yourself.

24 — Schoolteacher wrote at 1:08 PM on July 22:

Except for the young who have yet to experience the facts of race, fanatics filled with self-hatred, and those poor White women who have saddled themselves with Mulatto children, all liberals are total hypocrites on race, and can be shut up with a few questions.

Why do you rent in an all-White area instead of buying in a more diverse neighborhood?

Why did you send your daughter to a private high school?

Why don’t you give up your job instead of insisting that other Whites be denied jobs?

Why did you just lock your car doors?

The gap between liberal talk and liberal action is so wide, so obvious, so common, and so ignored, that slicing these people up verbally is child’s play. Press the issue, ask for explanations, watch the panicked eyes, listen to them stutter and grope for answers. It’s cruel sport, and great fun.

Because these are the rudest questions possible in a racially dishonest society, you won’t win many friends, but you will influence people, particularly other listeners who are not on the hot seat themselves. The only honest answer to these questions is, “I don’t like, trust, or care to be around those people”. That’s all we need to know.

25 — WR the elder wrote at 10:32 PM on July 22:

Sardonicus wrote: Maureen Dowd is an overly emotional, stuck-up, Limousine Liberal. I remember one column she wrote complaining that powerful men were marrying their young secretaries rather than aging bluestockings like her. She’s totally out-of-touch with the reality of everyday men and women and believes New York City’s Manhattan should be the model for the rest of the United States.

Given that Dowd loves to bash on white men, who can blame any man for preferring his secretary over her? Would you want to marry a women who would like your hard work to get promoted be nullified because you are of the wrong race?


26 — john wrote at 12:14 PM on July 23:

I’ve never observed any woman more obsessed with desperately searching for Mr. Right than that pathetic, neurotic, dried-up, shrill old prune Maureen Dodd.

She’s forever mewling and whining about what’s wrong with American men and transparently wondering why she can’t seem to connect with one.

But enough of her good points….

27 — Historama wrote at 11:20 AM on July 24:

I’ve never understood why people here perpetuate the meaningless ‘conversative vs. liberal’ split. IMO, conservatives are probably even stupider than liberals; obviously, the liberal agenda is offensive and totally incompatible with reality, but at least the proponents of liberalism are keenly aware of what they want and they pursue their goals aggressively.

Conservatives, on the other hand, for the most part are not ‘pro-active’ at all, but rather are ‘reactive’, and for this simple reason alone they will never succeed. In any political competition, a purely defensive, reactionary strategy will ALWAYS lose against a strategy based on taking the initiative. The very nature of conservatism makes victory an impossibility in this sort of contest. While conservatives are busy sitting on their hands talking about ‘tradition’, ‘heritage’, etc. the liberals are busy shifting the language in their favor, distributing leaflets, writing commentaries, and basically pushing their beliefs onto everyone else. This might strike certain people as being ‘invasive’ or whatever, but look what it has accomplished! The radical liberals transformed American society in a single generation, all with the power of the pen. The conservatives didn’t stand a chance, simply because of their backwards strategy.

When will ‘conservative types’ (or really, just types who understand the degenerate nature of liberalism) realize that a sophisticated, discursive approach will always win over a strategy based on mindless conformity to ‘traditional values’?

28 — Cindy wrote at 7:14 PM on July 24:

This is nothing new. Do the Kennedys, Clintons, Gores, and Kerrys live up to their beliefs?

29 — Bobby wrote at 7:57 PM on July 25:

Such a scathingly beautiful article. Talk about turning the spotlight on hypocrits. It won’t matter though. These leftists will go on with their duplicitous behavior,and continue to blissfully write their hypocritical tripe. They know they have the power in this nation precisely because those whom they denigrate, on a daily basis, will not rise up and put a stop to it all. Not an easy job at this point in time, because European Americans have let it go on far too long. They have no collective voice, the only effective kind there is in politicis. We sure as hell can’t ever depend on the Republican Party. They are a lost cause, and not even a finger should be lifted to help them.

30 — private wrote at 1:24 PM on July 27:

I see it all the time with girls that have children with black men.most end up single parents.Then what do they do? They move back to their lilly white neighborhoods.They should stay in those fine areas where they found their baby daddy.I think we should start fazing out white men that are running our nuclear plants. Every wonder what’s going to happen when we aren’t around to take care of them?


Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Send This Page      Search