From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Date: 26 Jan 93 03:30:57 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Distribution: usa
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <1993Jan24.235334.29232@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard) writes:
>In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan24151436@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) write
>s:
>>In article <1993Jan22.054522.21869@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.ed
>u (Ted Frank) writes:
>>
>><   Clinton never had a quota.  He had a goal of diversity.  Diversity by
>><   ethnic group, geography, and ideology has been common since the beginning
>><   of democracy in making appointments.  What Clinton proposed to do is
>><   expand this diversity beyond white males by including qualified women
>><   and minorities in the process.
>>
>>    Yes, we've noticed all the Asian-Americans in the Clinton
>>    cabinet.....
>
>Come on folks, Mr. Frank cannot win here.  If Mr. Clinton started appointing 
>Asians as well, and he should, then we need only wait for the "quota" attacks 
>to get louder.

	I have to ask the question you're begging. WHY "should" Clinton
appoint ANY Asian Americans ? Is there some deserving Asian American who 
was unfairly passed over by the Clinton Transition Team's "process" ?
You know, I can think of a good many Japanese Americans (who, for some reason,
seem to be prominent in Democratic, not Republican ranks), such as Pat Saeki
and Bob Matsui who seem to be good middle class folks who have paid their
dues. (Inouye, OTH, has been tarnished by sexual harrassment charges, making
his nomination to any office highly unlikely.)  But is any of that a compelling
reason to put them in the CABINET ? In a Democrat Administration ?

	The point here is that the Democrats play the diversity card just as
crudely as the Republicans allegedly "play the race card" in the South and
blue collar suburbia. Ron Brown is not seen as just a smart Washington
lawyer who did a good job for his party and got his just reward. No - his
achievement is cited as a victory for black interest groups in the ethnic
spoils system that has accompanied the banishment of the Republicans from
power. Likewise with the "bean count" over the number of women in the
Administration.

	Now I did my own "bean count" the other day:

	By my count the cabinet has 6 "white males" - about half
	of the total. You've already heard my opinion of some of
	the material that Clinton used to make up the Cabinet. If the
	Democrats had some hot to trot minority or female talent to take the 
	place of Mr. Christopher - that's the kind of diversity I can
	deal with. (But, as a Georgetown alumnus - of the Jean Kirpatrick
	days, I gotta tell you that I do NOT think former Dukakis advisor
	Madeleine Albright is up to the job - UN ambassador was about 
	her speed, and she was a better choice for that particular 
	quota nook than Ron Brown, who at least has an honest job now.)
	We of the Hoya persuasion are still trying to determine whether,
	as rumored four years back, MSFS Program Director and former
	Vietnam peace talks negotiator Alan Goodman will ever get to
	be the Director of the CIA. My vote is no - the "Georgetown
	connection" just doesn't seem to be as vibrant as it was for
	the Reagan neoconservatives. But you can expect the Bushites
	to swarm the halls of Hoyadom for the next four years, teaching
	"Strategy and Tactics of the Reagan Doctrine", "Conservative
	Culture in the Shakespearean Tradition" and "Advanced
	Supply Side Economics" to aspiring politicos-to-be.

	I'm counting 2 black males - or is it 3 ? Well in my arithmetic
	(12 cabinet seats ?), two is about 16%. As it stands, Mike Espy,
	(who I failed to mention earlier) seems to have the farmer's
	interest in an uninterupted pork supply well on the top of his
	agenda - doesn't make him a bad guy. The question is, do you really
	WANT a GOOD GUY at Agriculture ? As for Commerce, Ron Brown's record 
	speaks for itself.

	Clinton's female nominations have been less than stellar, but my
	intelligence sources tell me that we conservatives should really be
	happy with the women he picked for cabinet jobs. Really, I do NOT
	care if the Secretary of Energy or the Director of the EPA is
	male or female, if that person has a brain and understands the 
	his/her department's capabilities and limitations. If deserving
	white males are shoved aside by equally deserving females (or minority
	males), what is that to me ? The Democrats have been living off this 
	kind of ethnic/social coalition politics, and it matters not
	to me whether the cabinet is diverse or narrow, as long as they DO
	THE JOB. 

	Moreover, if lingering sexism (or racism !!) serves as a brake 
	against rampant liberalism, resulting in the nomination of "diverse 
	moderates" to the cabinet, we conservatives would be fools to quibble 
	over the results when the  Administration sends up persons to our 
	liking for fear of the consequences if they don't. IF liberals do go 
	up, we can always put on our best Jesse Helms snarls and show 
	ourselves up for the malefactors that we *are*.

>
>I fail to understand the situation where because a qualified minority gets a 
>position some must assume that (1) a quota system is in place, and (2) some 
>more deserving white male should have gotten the position.  Interesting 
>that I have had this pointed out to me by an acquaintance of mine, who 
>finds problems with quotas both not with hiring "friends of friends."

	It is worth giving Bill Clinton his dues - he knows just WHO put 
him into office, and how to pay off his political debts. That is, except
for his neoconservative supporters, who I understand have been rewarded
with the US INFORMATION AGENCY for their vital role in the 1992 campaign.
It is also likely that Bill Clinton will find some suitable *reward* for
those retired generals and admirals who so patriotically came out on his
behalf last fall. Too many establishment white males in THAT crowd, but 
patience - I'm sure something will come up whereby the talents of these men
can be suitably applied.

>
>I believe that Prof. Bell had something to say about this in "And We Are Not 
>Saved."


Bill R.

--

"When up a dangerous faction starts,         "My opinions do not represent
With wrath and vengeance in their hearts;     those of my employer or
By solemn League and Cov'nant bound,          any government agency."
To ruin, slaughter, and confound;             - Bill Riggs (1992)
To turn religion to a fable,
And turn the Government to a Babel;
Pervert the law, disgrace the gown,
Corrupt the senate, rob the crown;
To sacrifice old England's glory,
And make her infamous in story.
When such a tempest shook the land,
How could unguarded virtue stand ?"
- Jonathan Swift (1732)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69777 alt.activism:21347