Thursday, June 28, 2007

Living in a Bubble

BrightLightSearch wrote an incredible piece today, using the New York Times' Style section as her muse. It brought to mind a bunch of thoughts that had been running through my head this week, and so I will republish my comment [slightly edited] (and which may not make much sense without reading her post, so read it!). Let me know what you think.
I was just thinking yet again today how people - particularly in areas such as NYC - live in such a one-dimensional world. I watched a short and cute video on YouTube by the New York Times' David Pogue (on the iPhone), and couldn't help but note that every single person they grabbed from the liberal and open-minded Times newsroom were similar in one way: They were all white, mostly in their 30's.

I couldn't help but notice a couple of days ago that the people who generally get up in arms about Walmart are people who live in such places as New York City... where there are no Walmarts... and yet they decry the negative impact on "subsets" who seem perfectly happy to have the jobs and savings Walmarts bring.

I couldn't help but note that the class of teens waiting for a train this morning from Midtown Manhattan [in the "most diverse city in the world"] was made up of almost all white kids, save one tall, lighter-skinned black kid, and I recalled that NYC is made up of neighborhoods of ethnicities - not what one would call a true melting pot. I wondered to myself if the average classroom in places such as Kansas, Kentucky, Texas, and Alabama have a higher percentage of minorities than the average classroom in an upscale NYC neighborhood.

And then I was reminded that the only places I seem to see a true mix of diverse backgrounds are places like the company I work in - a Midwest-owned large corporation, the kind that is constantly whined about by liberal "elites".

And I was yet again reminded why hypocrisy is one of the worst qualities of all.

1 comment:

  1. Ezzie, THANK YOU so much for your kind words about my post, and for your excellent comment. I'm thinking of using that post as part of a book I'm writing about the centrality of man and woman as the basis of marriage...don't you think that the NYTimes' treating gay "commitments" with the same respect as traditional marriages furthers the gay agenda of legitimizing their lifestyle by re-defining the institution of marriage to include their--ahem--unusual "connubial" practices?