From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:22:05 GMT

> = john@anasazi.com writes:
>] = Steve Novak writes:
>]> = john@anasazi.com writes:

[...]
>]>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.

You have your opinion, John.  I saw it in an entirely different light: a
cynical move by a far-right-pandering president with absolutely NO
INTEREST in bettering race relations.  Instead, the Bushies quite smugly
got the best of both worlds: a new arch-conservative on the Supreme
Court, and a black to replace Marshall Thurgood to throw a wrench in
liberals' *and* moderates' works.  It worked.  Congratulations.

But Thomas deserved to be "Borked".  Several women *were not allowed* to
testify in those Senate hearings.  They would've testified to similar
incidents as was reported by Anita Hill.  And, boy - would THAT have
eliminated the ol' "his word against hers" that Thomas defenders like to
throw around.

Also, I have not heard more pathetic, and dishonest, whining than Thomas
accusing the confirming process of being biased against him because he's
black - with a BLACK WOMAN the one holding up his confirmation.

>]>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?

No.  I'm saying that America is sick of the good ol' white boy network
and, unless you're arguing there ARE no qualified minorities or women,
Clinton decided it is time to GET highly qualified people from as many
races, and both genders, as is possible.  Even if you disagree with some
of his selections, you must be aware of this effort of his.

In other words, I don't consider any of his choices to be wanting in
expertise that was available from a different, say white male,
selection.

>]You're the hypocrite.

>Right!

Withdrawn.

>]>>	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.

Hardly discrimination, John.  There ARE eight white males out of sixteen
slots.  If anything, considering percentage of population, that sounds
almost perfect.  There are also several (two?) white women.  

>]>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?

Thomas isn't in the administration.  (Is Powell?)

I thought we were talking minority cabinet selections.  As you say, "the
answer is...What's-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?

It couldn't hurt to get some balance.  And as I stated above, just in
white *males*, there is no discrimination evident to me.  Just an
attempt to involve more of America.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19894 alt.politics.elections:24785 alt.politics.libertarian:3213 talk.politics.misc:66752