Letter to the editor: Op-ed offensive to both blacks, whites |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Op-ed offensive to both blacks, whites

Regarding Phil Koch’s op-ed “Arnold mayor’s comments a lesson for Westmoreland” (July 23, TribLIVE): This letter is mutually exclusive of the Karen Peconi issue, but the remainder addresses Koch’s unintelligible social engineering bent. He reveals his lack of understanding of demographics and population issues. It is also racist and offensive in claiming Westmoreland County is too white.

Demographics involve a myriad of variables that determine the makeup of a community’s population. To single out the white population’s alleged racism as the prime cause for population stagnation is absurd. How would Koch explain Detroit’s stagnation, Chicago’s murder rate or Baltimore’s unrest? Dare he say that black homogeneity is the cause for their sorry state? Neighboring Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, far more heterogeneous than Wesmoreland, are not setting any records for growth.

Koch and others persist in injecting race into every aspect of our society. This is inaccurate and unfair to blacks and whites. It reignites black resentment and ignores the greatest progress seen by any minority anywhere in the world. It also ignores white acknowledgement of the wrongdoings of earlier generations and the numerous and dramatic improvements for minorities supported by the majority white population.

Nature will take its natural course. The current drive for diversity is unnatural. The occurrence of diversity, to a lesser or greater degree, will evolve along with the natural progression of our community. If you are looking for perfection, you will not find it for “there are no absolutes in human affairs” (a quote I recall from my college years in the early ’60s).

Louis D’Emilio

Penn Township,
Westmoreland County

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.