Seeing Hillary's ad today pissed me off.  On its face, the ad was very effective.  It struck the right chord and pushed all the right buttons and had the perfect tone for a just-out-of-the-gate ad.  Her voice was great and she looked wonderful in it.  Overall, an A+ ad...until.  Until you consider, which I later did, that it had NO diversity in it.  I liked the ad all day long and then watched it again and then it hit me.  The ad made the world in which Hillary campaigns look like no black, no Asian, nor Hispanic people live there.  Here we are in the year 2007 and we have the frontrunning candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination run her very very first ad and paid absolutely ZERO attention to diversity.  How ironic that the campaign named this ad, "Invisibles", because, as a Hispanic, I feel like I'm invisible in Hillary's world.
Here's the ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3xepwid_ sY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs%2Eusatoda y%2Ecom%2Fonpolitics%2F2007%2F08%2Fregis ter%2Dclinto%2Ehtml

Bill Bishop responded to my last post about diversity and mobility, both in the comments and by email. Part of my argument in that last post stemmed from a disagreement with his statement that, "Stong social networks repel people who now vote Democratic." From his response in the comments:

1. Democrats aren't (sic) attracted to places with weak social ties. A few years ago, we ran the numbers using Robert Putnam's data on social connections. High tech places (i.e., Democratic) scored lower than Republican places. See: http://www.statesman.com/specialreports/ content/specialreports/citiesofideas/042 8socialcapital.html

2. Tight ties are WORSE for economic well being than loose tie places. This has been known for some time. Loose ties allow ideas to bubble up, for new kinds of economic activity to be tried. Tight ties squelch innovation, restrict the movement of new ideas. See: Granovetter, Mark S. "The Strength of Weak Ties." American Journal of Sociology, V. 78, Issue 6 (May, 1973): 1360-1380.

3. This isn't a matter of one way of life being better than another. It is a matter of society segregating into different ways of life that have political consequences. In 1980, high tech cities voted much like other places. Ditto with rural areas. By 2004, Bush lost high tech America (loose tie places) by three or four million votes; he won the election in low-tech, tight tie places.

Those are fair points. (And I want to say thanks for that link to the Statesman article, because I read about the correlation between gay populations and economic productivity back when that study came out, but have had a hard time finding even a vague reference.) I feel like they still don't get at what I was talking about.

Well, it looks like diversity is not only scary, it makes people unhappy. Erm, right.

I wrote about what I think is a major hidden variable in the low social capital of modern, urban populations last year when I came back from two months in a small, Costa Rican farming community. Essentially, it seems to me a problem of comparing ad hoc social networks with traditional family or geography-based social networks. It takes a long time to get to know and trust people, which is a lot harder when the population you're looking at is more likely to move house frequently and to live farther from easy proximity to family members.

But also, people's tastes in social activities are changing, which reminds me of a comment and discussion at the rural issues panel at last weekend's Yearly Kos. Bill Bishop, of the The Daily Yonder, said that Republicans had been so successful in spite of their unpopular stances because they'd adopted a social network model that was reminiscent of churches. "Stong social networks repel people who now vote Democratic," he said.

That really ticked me off (I know, not hard, whatever.)

    After having read all the reasons why the recent decision of the Supreme Court concerning school desegregation was wrong, I have come to the conclusion that we have all missed the boat. The purpose of integration was not to make black kids smarter by sitting them next to white kids. If you judge the process based on that criteria, it has been a failure. If you talk to the people who were on the front lines of bringing this issue to the forefront or read their stories, it was never for that reason.

    The purpose of integrating the two separate systems was two-fold. First of all, it would bring badly needed funding to the black schools which were in such bad shape; it was a wonder anyone could learn how to tie their shoe, let alone reading, writing, and arithmetic. And the second was to give each child a chance to actually see and meet someone from a different place, diversity. An opportunity to talk, play and argue with someone who was not like themselves. It put a face and a life to "those people" that we didn't talk about or for that matter even see. It made the invisible, visible. It allowed kids that were willing to see, that we were not so different after all, that a lot of those stories and stereotypes were just not true. If gauged in that light it was a great success.

If you've been dropping by MyDD on Fridays recently, you've probably seen this progressive blogosphere diversity series before.  If you haven't, here's the rundown.  Every Friday, I post an entry encouraging MyDD readers to follow, comment on, link to, blogroll, and otherwise support blogs written by women and/or minority bloggers.  I also solicit recommendations from MyDD readers for the next week's round.  I'm not keeping count, but I think we've hit something like 50 blogs in the time I've been doing this.  Way to go, readers!

Last week's request for women and/or minority labor bloggers didn't yield a lot of responses (I'm saving the one response I got, Working Californians, for next week); so I'm holding the response period open a little longer.  If you've got a favorite female/minority labor blogger you'd like to see promoted, drop a link in the comments.

And now, on with the show!  Follow me over the jump...

This week, my series on progressive blogosphere diversity continues.  For those who haven't seen it yet, the idea is fairly simple: every week, I ask MyDD readers to suggest blogs written by women and/or minorities.  Every week, I review the submissions and write up brief reviews of each blog from the previous week.

Why am I doing this?  Aside from the fact that I have too much time on my hands, apparently?  It's simple.  I am doing this to encourage MyDD readers to read, link to, comment on, and otherwise shower blogosphere love on blogs written by women and minorities.  I think that if we all do that, the progressive blogosphere as a whole will be more powerful and more capable of effecting change.

This week I'm going to try something new: I'm going to solicit blogs that follow a specific theme.  In particular, this week I'm asking for blogs written by women and/or minorities which focus on unions and the labor movement.  Bonus points for any blogs which are not the official blog of a particular union or local.  In the next few weeks I'm going to revise my personal blogreader list, and I'm going to try to include as many of these blogs as possible (my blogreader feeds have been in need of overhaul for a while anyway.)  Over time, I think the blogs listed here will seep into my other posts.

And now, on with the show!  Follow me over the flip for some good blog reading...

And let us not grow weary while doing good,
for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart
Galatians 6:9

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected diversity plans in two major school districts that take race into account in assigning students but left the door open for using race in limited circumstances.

The decision in cases affecting schools in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle could imperil similar plans in hundreds of districts nationwide, and it further restricts how public school systems may attain racial diversity.

The court split, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the court's judgment. The court's four liberal justices dissented. Federal appeals courts had upheld both plans after some parents sued. The Bush administration the parents' side, arguing that racial diversity is a noble goal but can be sought only through race-neutral means.

With its latest decision on school desegregation the Supreme Court has once again rejected the concept of diversity in public education. We are steadily reviving the concept of separate, but equal. Despite the Supreme Court's ruling and the opinion of many White Americans, we have yet to overcome discrimination in this country. If we agree that there is still discrimination and yet we choose to do nothing about it, what does that say about how we really feel about discrimination?

Cross posted at The State of Opportunity - a blog about human rights and the American Dream.  Written by Robert Watts.

The decision today should not prevent school districts from continuing the important work of bringing together students of different racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds -- Justice Anthony Kennedy

The good news is that five members of the U.S. Supreme Court have affirmed that there is a compelling government interest in creating diverse public schools.  It's now up to parents, community leaders, members of Congress and supporters of diversity to figure out how to redesign, rethink and tweak programs aimed at creating diverse classes and schools.

Today's Supreme Court decision striking down integration plans in Seattle, Washington and Louisville, Kentucky was surely disappointing.  But the ruling does not close the door to diversity or considerations of race.