Diversity is the Watchword

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell gave a speech at the Media Institute in Washington this past Wednesday, expanding the current debate of the Fairness Doctrine and addressing fears that it may be reimposed under the Obama administration.

Most notably he pointed out that those who seek to reinstate the doctrine would adapt their strategy to their recent vocal opposition, namely by rebranding it, as dictated by elementary marketing rules. He warned the Doctrine might be presented with a different name in an attempt to sneak it throughm like a school budget, and provided a few possibilities; localism, network neutrality, and diversity.

Long has it been that 'diversity' was used as a blanket liberal issue, a sweeping and emotional appeal for equality and an end to racism. However, as is often the case with liberal language, it embodies the racism that so-called progressives seem hellbent against leaving behind.

The fact that colleges and universities across the country, over the past 30 years, have been increasingly focused on creating 'diverse' student bodies is physical proof of racism. What else can you call a priority initiative whose sole purpose is to make the human landscape of a campus more multi-ethnic? To prove to visitors and photographers that, yes, we have a large amount of black kids in attendance. And when criticized that there are not enough black kids yet enrolled, scholarships are formed, student loans are reworked, and budgets are increased so that the students with GPAs and test scores that got accepted on merit alone must pay larger tuition and carry the weight (poverty is also a diverse, minority group apparently.)

Neutrality is another misleading premise. Under the lovely guise of avoiding conflict and welcoming all points of view, forced neutrality forbids dissent, which President Obama said was "the wrong side of history." Somehow adversity, which breeds discussion and compromise and creativity, has become a thing of fear, hyped up to such an anti-American status (bashing Limbaugh) that it could likely be punished by the full extent of the law....once the current government has written a few new laws that work for their party.

The fact that some debate occurs at all regarding these issues is reassuring, but it also remains true that under the guise of Democracy liberals reach out to victims and aspiring-victims alike, and directly seek to victimize others, parroting the language of tyranny to suppress those they disagree with.

Among all the tenets and systems of our government that Democrats are currently seeking to alter, the issue of free speech is the most important. Having defined our nation by it since our inception, we remain one of the few strongholds of freedom of expression in the world, as once-enlightened European nations crumble under the threat of racism accusations. The press, the government, the sweeping cult-like agreement that 'being nice' and accepting all viewpoints so long as they are focused on peace and charity no matter the cost, these things spell our doom if they are left unchecked.

So keep an eye out for their language, for their bombs of silence and proportional outrage, because Washington Republicans are fighting several battles at the moment, finally banding together but still often oblivious to the machinations of the majority, and it might be up to us in the end. Mark Steyn, Geert Wilders, Oriana Fallaci--these people spoke when they wanted about what they deemed necessary, and democratic law was used to pursue and punish them. Who will they go after next?