Posted on 08/15/2007 6:53:21 AM PDT by theothercheek
In an article headlined, "White Police Chief Could Upset a Balance in Newark," The New York Times reports that Newark Mayor Cory A. Booker "removed the word ‘acting’ from the title of his police chief, Anthony Campos, a Portuguese-American who, along with Police Director Garry F. McCarthy, leads the city’s 1,300-member police force."
The Times worries that, "In a city like Newark, where the majority of the population is black and race issues bubble just below the surface, the decision to place two white men at the helm of the city’s Police Department could threaten the good will and unity that Mr. Booker has been enjoying of late."
The Stiletto cannot even imagine The Times running an article with the hed, "Black Police Chief Could Upset a Balance in New York," and fretting that "In a city like New York, where the majority of the population is white and race issues bubble just below the surface, the decision to place two black men at the helm of the city’s Police Department could threaten the good will and unity that Mayor Bloomberg has been enjoying of late."
Perhaps the never-ending miasma of violence that plagues Newark can be explained by not placing great value on getting the best man for the job, but placing "great value on symbolism … a tradition, decades old, that split the jobs of police director and police chief along racial lines." Instead of second-guessing Booker, The Times should applaud him for creating a new tradition of doing what’s best for the black – and white – citizens of Newark by placing competence over all other calculations.
Racism is racism...”reverse” being a term used as a modifier is unnecessary... similar to “hate” crime...or “factless” liberal...
The New York Times is less trustworthy than your average blogger.
The editors at the New Yawk Times are bigots, plain and simple.
"White Qualified Police Chief Could Upset a Balance in Newark"
So is the NYT justifying riots from the populace because those cops are white?
Do you think the point is substantively true? Will a non-black official alienate enough of the people of Newark?
No -they seem to be suggesting that riots will occur because the two top cops are white. Left unspoken is the fact that the old way of doing thing brought the city to where it is today.
Of course you’re right - but libs and the MSM can’t think clearly enough on race to see the illogic that you point out.
Why - just by being white!
Well, not for being white, but for not being black.
Not reverse anything. It’s racism.
This piece of human slime who should have been off the streets, and out of the country, because of his immigration status, and that is "irrelevant"? Of course, the New York Times would not touch that part of the story with an 11-foot barge pole, because the Times favors the invasion of the US through our, ad hoc, open borders policy.
Congressman Billybob
Imagine if were the reverse? The NYT would be screaming about lynches and all that.
Same difference, as far as I am concerned. It’s racist.
So much for picking the best man for the job. Unless he IS the best man they could get. Oh, dear!
Yup, you got it.
"Enough"? If he tries really hard, yes.
But seriously, I don't think it will be a problem as the Non-Acting Chief is also a hypenated American, so he's in the clear.
delusion thy name is New York Times.
I didn’t ask if it was racist. I asked if it was substantively valid.
There’s no such thing as “reverse-racism”. The term implies that “real” racism can only be white racism. Racism is racism.
Campos is not white. He is a proud Portuguese-American man who is a pillar of the Ironbound neighborhood. He also has the backing of the only group of businessmen and investors in the community who are Newark residents, this point can not be understated.
Wait- Portuguese people aren’t white? Since when?
It’s valid only if it’s OK for black people to object to a white police chief but not OK for white people to object to a black police chief. Since neither scenario is OK, then the premise is invalid.
I know that and you know that. But to libs and race-baiters, only whites can be racist. RIght-thinking people, however, know that racism can cut both ways and that it’s wrong no matter who the target is.
I didn’t ask if its OK or not. I asked if the point was valid. I’m inclined to think the article does convey a basic truth, even if I don’t like it.
So you - and the NYT - are saying that just having a white police chief is enough to incite riots in Newark? Regardless of how he treats the black community and whether he is effective. Riot first, ask questions later? What does that say about what the NYT thinks of the black residents of Newark? You don’t see the inherent racism here?
Being white is a crime don’t you know?
I think you can look at the situation on the ground in Newark and come to the conclusion the NY Times came to, without being a bigot. It has nothing to do with inciting riots. Just calling it like it is - the folks in Newark prefer a racial minority official over a white official, who for various reasons (legitimate, illegitimate, rational, irrational) they don’t trust as much.
Of course I don’t think this justifies a riot.
Do you think the point is substantively true? Will a non-black official alienate enough of the people of Newark?
I sincerely doubt that the type of people it would be likely to alienate know what color he is, or what color his predecessor was, or what color the guy before that was. They will most likely never meet the man or know who he is if they do.
Most of the people of Newark who would be informed enough to know what color he is wouldn’t be the type to really care much, as their interaction with the police is probably minimal.
The exceptions would be the race baiting “activists” who desperately want his skin color to be an issue, including those who work for the NY Times.
I don’t think so.
I see they have picked a very important topic to try to divert attention from the real crisis they have. Last night Greta, Napolitano, and Pirro were whomping on the tapes of bail hearings and the judge’s failings.
In the aftermath of three (almost four) promising students being murdered by a gang of thugs - one or more of whom are illegal aliens - sane, rational people interested in their own self preservation should “trust” the person who has the smarts to improve things, regardless of his skin color. If that happens to be a white man, or an Asian or a Native American, so be it. If trust is based solely on skin color then it is misplaced, especially in Newark.
Agreed. It’s sanctuary cities and granting bail (at any level, much less the ridiculously low levels this POS was given after raping a little girl repeatedly) to illegal aliens. You’re absolutely right - this is a red herring.
While everything you write makes sense, that doesn’t necessarily make it true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.