From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:54:59 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1993Jan8.221638.12860@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
]> = john@anasazi.com writes:
]>] = (Terrance Heath) writes:
]
]>]	Why is it that when the same-old-white men are picked for
]>]cabinet jobs, there is a lot less harping about "capabilities"? And I
]
]>Why is it that when a black CONSERVATIVE was nominated to the supreme
]>court, the same people who push quotas and affirmative action
]>and selection by race were the ones who screamed about capabilities.
]>Do I smell a whif of hypocrisy here?
]
]You've gotta be kidding.  It's as consistent as you can get.  "Quota"
]people should've LOVED Thomas' nomination without question.  THAT would
]be "hypocrisy".
]
]Recognizing his lack of experience and suspect attitude toward women is
]as responsible as you can get.
]
]Do you want to reword your comment?

Okay.... what I mean is that those who went after him considered his
conservative ideology to be so dangerous that it overrode their
quota mentality. Long before the Anita Hill comments came out,
prominent liberal groups claimed they were going to "Bork" Thomas.
There is nothing more threatening to the "minorities need our
help" crowd than an intelligent, successful, CONSERVATIVE black.

]
]>No, it is because a president who says from the start that gender
]>or race is more important than any other criteria is rightly subject
]>to such criticism. Note that Clinton ONLY interviewed women for some
]>jobs - for gender preference reasons.
]
]As has been asked before...why not outrage over the last 200+ years of
]nominating WHITE MALES?  Are you saying that wasn't the ultimate in race
]selection?
Well, there has already been plenty of outrage about it. So what?
Are you claiming that past selections have been on the basis
of color and sex, so this should be corrected by making selections
on the basis of color and sex?
]
]You're the hypocrite.
Right!
]
]>>	For some time now, the face of political power in this country
]>>has been white and male. We're used to it, so some of us are a lot
]>>less likely to question it I suppose.
]
]>Ah, this tired old argument.
]
]I notice no answer.  Don't be afraid.

Alright. Once again, the fact that the face of political power in this
country has been white and male (which I am not denying) does not
per se justify discriminating AGAINST whites and males. That is simply
replacing one evil by another. Far better would be to try to get
folks to select based simply on qualifications.
]
]>Hey, anyone who lives in a big city or watches national news is quite
]>used to seeing black, hispanic and female faces in position of considerable
]>responsibility.
]
]In presidential administrations?  Another non-answer.
Colin Powell? Justice Thomas? Whats-her-name Bush secretary of labor?

Still, assume there were NONE. Would that justify race based selection?
Isn't that a bit absurd - curing alleged race/sex based selection
with explicit race/sex based selection?


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - It is not enough to be right. One must also be effective! - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc