... except in opinions.

Diversity of race? Check.
Diversity of gender? Check.
Diversity of ethnic origin? Check.
Diversity of sexual orientation? Check.
Diversity of political persuasion? Check.
Diversity of religious persuasion? Check.

Diversity of opinion? Get the fuck outta here!

It has been said that imperial cultures are always crusading monocultures. Seems we are having another demonstration of this principle.

Diversity of race? Check.

Diversity of gender? Check.

Diversity of ethnic origin? Check.

Diversity of sexual orientation? Check.

Diversity of political persuasion? Check.

Diversity of religious persuasion? Check

Where do you see all of this alleged diversity on the Post Op-Ed page?

A good question.

It's true I haven't done a survey of the particulars of the Posts contributors, but that wasn't really my point.

Irrespective of actual adherence to the dogma of the day, diversity of all those items IS the official dogma of the day. I'm not trying to pretend that the establishment is at all genuine about them - heh, I'd be pretty silly to try and convince YOU of that, right? - but it still publicly holds them as its official dogma.

As you well know, try questioning the line on "protecting our interests" and see where it gets you.

The way it seems to me is, these things can be overlooked if you toe the line. We have a gay Chair of the Financial Services Committee. We have a black President. We have a female Secretary of State.

What we do not have is any diversity on the one area that actually matters: opinion.

For all Obama's blackness, he seems quite prepared to screw the downtrodden in order to fatten the rich. For all Hillary's being a female, she seems quite willing to kill women and children if they have weddings in inconvenient places. For all Frank's gaiety and Jewishness, he doesn't seem too choked up about any of the above either.

That was my point. I was actually agreeing with you. That doesn't mean I believe the USA - or any other country - has become some angelic island of tolerance and diversity.

Indeed, if you read what I wrote carefully you may discern subtle hints of the opposing thought ...

I've stopped worrying about the neocon takeover of WaPo, because only the elite opinion makers read this stuff anyway. They take out each other's garbage. The average Joe wouldn't know Krautmeister if he changed his oil down at the garage. The powers that be are going to continue these policies, or rarely, change them, for reasons of their own. They might also start to consider the grassroots suspicion of military adventurism, which will grow no matter how many chicken hawks they stuff onto that page. Or, we'll run out of money.

On the other hand, GG does help me feel much better about the inevitable demise of WaPo and NYT.

Irrelevant observation: John Bell Hood, in 1864, ordered a series of attacks on the Union positions in Tennessee, and destroyed his confederate army, which simply disintegrated, one of the worst single instances of the handling of an army as can be imagined. Why is the base named after him?

Mind you, he sorta did help end that war.

I am really tired of everyone insisting the NYT is liberal..It is not, as far as I am concerned.

Why stop at newspapers? Looking at radio one could add NPR to the WaPo's diversity club. NPR's ombudsman recently "explained" her expressed wish to have "more conservative" voices (like Limbaugh and Beck) heard on NPR. I kid you not:

http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2009/11/glenn_beck_and_me.html

I just know it's going to be Fair&Balanced™. Everything from Frothing to Seething.

All the froth clouded my reading. :)

It probably takes seven neocons to one liberal to achieve balance in the number of coherent thoughts expressed per column.

PS: Dang, it looks like Glenn didn't put in an entry for WaPoo's "Next Great Pundit" contest. At least he's not among the finalists listed there. Of course if they published a GG column, they'd probably have to run 25 or 30 neocon columns to achieve balance in the number of coherent thoughts.

Particularly what he himself writes -- with the essential phrase in his recent rambling reflexive rationalization being "they consider." He requires no such qualifying balance-thumb on the other side his sliding scale.

Yet he remains comatose as to why that is.

---

It has been the Neocon Post for many years now.

NPR's ombudsman recently "explained" her expressed wish to have "more conservative" voices (like Limbaugh and Beck) heard on NPR. I kid you not:

http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2009/11/glenn_beck_and_me.html

-- Mytwords

No, that isn't what she said.

From your link:

"That quote does not indicate that I think Beck should be on NPR every day, nor do I think that sexism, racism or lying have a place on NPR. But if Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, Sarah Palin or any other prominent conservative firebrand is making headlines, NPR should report that as part of the news -- not to promote them but to include when putting news in context.--Alicia Shepard

http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2009/11/glenn_beck_and_me.html

Not really much different than what Glenn does, and, in fact has done just today by posting the string of misinformation being reported on msm and blogs about the Fort Hood story.

I love the BBC website. It has just the "right" air of seriousness, restraint, and authority, and yet it is so full of shit it would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

Today I spotted these headlines, and thought them worthy of note, for the different stories each one tells on its own, and the bigger, more serious yet completely unintentional story they tell together:

1. Brown warns Karzai on corruption.

2. Climate deal 'unlikely' this year.

3. US hits China pipes with tariffs.

4. Deal over Honduran crisis 'dead'.

5. Key pakistan Taleban town 'falls'.

6. Personal insolvency rises by 28%.

"I love a parade!"
Set This House In Order, by Matt Ruff.

At The Daily Howler, Bob Somerby is on a similar train of thought about the NYT. He calls it the NYT's "Acorn Rules":

THE ACORN RULES: Bill Keller runs the New York Times. After September’s semi-hysterical reaction to the prosty-and-pimp-visit-Acorn flap, Keller swore that the mighty Times would do better in the future on the kooky-con pander beat.

He didn’t phrase it exactly like that. At the end of September, Clark Hoyt, the Times’ public editor, quoted Keller and his semi-hysterical helpmate, Jill Abramson, as they made a perfervid vow:

[...]

In this way, a very famous non-newspaper newspaper dumbs the discourse way down. On the bright side, its editors get less hate mail from the right. They are thus able to get to the Hamptons a little bit earlier each Thursday. [...]

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh110409.shtml