>>If we're treating everyone equally, then the person most >>qualified and suitable for the cabinet post should get the >>post.
I agree. But then why should this rule be bought to bear in DC - but in the `real world` why have I heard complaints that there is an inverted discrimination going against those who are most qualified (sometimes `white folk`)? Why is it that in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas - there's been such a slant of equity, that a lot of favour to fall to the hispanic community over and above everyone else. If I go for a modest `office job` down there, fully qualified, I'll probably not get it because I can't speak Spannish?
(Then - mother of all ironies - I crossover to Mexico with my wife for the day, buy some souvenirs and the shop owner make his trainee assistant speak English to us! If she comes to visit America though, she can speak Spanish and if anyone has the nerve to deny her that `right` they're obviously racist.)
>>Instead, "ethnic" folks are often given preference in >>order to get the cabinet to look better. As if having a >>Hispanic Secretary of Agriculture is going to help the >>Hispanic community.
You make a fair point about how the racial make-up of a cabinet doesn't really mean that much in the wider scheme of things, but why are Irish-Americans still inspired by the fact that JFK (of Irish Catholic stock) got to be president 30-some years ago? Whatever we think of John Ashcroft, surely the people who would support him are inspired that he might get into office because love-em or hate-em they now have a voice.
Now for 75% of the lives of Hispanics (for arguments sake), it wouldn't matter to them who was in government. But the times that does effect them, the fact that they have their `own people` in office must send a positive message to them in the same way JFK did to the Irish. Would you rather know that someone from your background was in DC so he/she possibly knew the kinds of things you're up against in your life? Or would you not mind that every group but your own was represented, and they were getting all the help - and `your people` were getting nothing?
Or could the real crux of the issue be found in a quote of the Chicago DJ Mancow Muller? He said that the "apostrophe will kill our country". The argument being is there's no such thing as `Italian-American`, `Irish-American`, `German- American` etc etc etc. Everyone is `American`. Once people get away from the ghetto mentality, throw PC out the window and realise we're all in this together then the idea of `affirmative action` will be dead. The issue of whether you have a certain skin-colour, surname or attitude will be irrelevent - the best people will get the jobs.
>>Instead of basing the cabinet on these cosmetic features, >>we would be better off only giving preference to >>minorities if the position deals with minority issues.
To what end? Or are you playing devil's advocate! Surely it would make more sense to shuffle the deck? Send Colin Powell to the next event with Pat Robertson, give Marc Raicoit the brief that takes him into the inner-city. Surely the aim is to tear walls down so the country knows it's one, not sending minorities to speak to minorities and white folk to speak with white folk?
>>Otherwise, to promote equality, we should just give the >>positions to the best people, and if they happen to be >>minorities, then that's just dandy. Okay, that didn't come >>out as clearly as I intended, but do you get the >>contradiction in your argument that I'm pointing out?
There is a contradiction, but then there's a contradiction in day to day life that allows it. Do you remember the 2nd presidential debate when GWB and Al Gore squared off on the issue of `affirmative action` or `quota filling`? I got the impression that Al Gore was driving at the fact he too was up for `quota filling`. There's no attempt to understand what's really at work here, but just give "ethnic folk" the jobs they want so we can placate ourselves with the `fact` that we aren't racist.
I'm all for giving all people a fair shake in life, but just because "A.N Other" ethnic group can do Job A and not Job B, what sense does it make shifting a few across to Job B so the employers feel like they're good people? (Or am I contradicting the contradiction!)
>>Clinton was good with the black community because of >>policy, and so what if that policy was worked out by white >>folks?
Fair enough, I'll leave the judgement call to history. But it has to be a good continum when the representatives of the `black community` will be in high ranking government office (Gen. Powell, Condy Rice) and not only on C-Span's divisive `Hating Whitey Fests` featuring Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton. Imagine the outcry if Bob Jones tried to march a million white men to Washington...
If people allow that kind of thing to take place, if only in the name of balance, you'll keep seeing people like Ashcroft and Bob Jones III still playing a part on the politics of the right - but that's another debate.
Does that answer the question???
Richard
i'm glad *you* bought this up!
R
richard
(view)
>>If we're treating everyone equally, then the person most >>qualified and suitable for the cabinet post should get the >>post.
I agree. But then why should this rule be bought to bear in DC - but in the `real world` why have I heard complaints that there is an inverted discrimination going against those who are most qualified (sometimes `white folk`)? Why is it that in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas - there's been such a slant of equity, that a lot of favour to fall to the hispanic community over and above everyone else. If I go for a modest `office job` down there, fully qualified, I'll probably not get it because I can't speak Spannish?
(Then - mother of all ironies - I crossover to Mexico with my wife for the day, buy some souvenirs and the shop owner make his trainee assistant speak English to us! If she comes to visit America though, she can speak Spanish and if anyone has the nerve to deny her that `right` they're obviously racist.)
>>Instead, "ethnic" folks are often given preference in >>order to get the cabinet to look better. As if having a >>Hispanic Secretary of Agriculture is going to help the >>Hispanic community.
You make a fair point about how the racial make-up of a cabinet doesn't really mean that much in the wider scheme of things, but why are Irish-Americans still inspired by the fact that JFK (of Irish Catholic stock) got to be president 30-some years ago? Whatever we think of John Ashcroft, surely the people who would support him are inspired that he might get into office because love-em or hate-em they now have a voice.
Now for 75% of the lives of Hispanics (for arguments sake), it wouldn't matter to them who was in government. But the times that does effect them, the fact that they have their `own people` in office must send a positive message to them in the same way JFK did to the Irish. Would you rather know that someone from your background was in DC so he/she possibly knew the kinds of things you're up against in your life? Or would you not mind that every group but your own was represented, and they were getting all the help - and `your people` were getting nothing?
Or could the real crux of the issue be found in a quote of the Chicago DJ Mancow Muller? He said that the "apostrophe will kill our country". The argument being is there's no such thing as `Italian-American`, `Irish-American`, `German- American` etc etc etc. Everyone is `American`. Once people get away from the ghetto mentality, throw PC out the window and realise we're all in this together then the idea of `affirmative action` will be dead. The issue of whether you have a certain skin-colour, surname or attitude will be irrelevent - the best people will get the jobs.
>>Instead of basing the cabinet on these cosmetic features, >>we would be better off only giving preference to >>minorities if the position deals with minority issues.
To what end? Or are you playing devil's advocate! Surely it would make more sense to shuffle the deck? Send Colin Powell to the next event with Pat Robertson, give Marc Raicoit the brief that takes him into the inner-city. Surely the aim is to tear walls down so the country knows it's one, not sending minorities to speak to minorities and white folk to speak with white folk?
>>Otherwise, to promote equality, we should just give the >>positions to the best people, and if they happen to be >>minorities, then that's just dandy. Okay, that didn't come >>out as clearly as I intended, but do you get the >>contradiction in your argument that I'm pointing out?
There is a contradiction, but then there's a contradiction in day to day life that allows it. Do you remember the 2nd presidential debate when GWB and Al Gore squared off on the issue of `affirmative action` or `quota filling`? I got the impression that Al Gore was driving at the fact he too was up for `quota filling`. There's no attempt to understand what's really at work here, but just give "ethnic folk" the jobs they want so we can placate ourselves with the `fact` that we aren't racist.
I'm all for giving all people a fair shake in life, but just because "A.N Other" ethnic group can do Job A and not Job B, what sense does it make shifting a few across to Job B so the employers feel like they're good people? (Or am I contradicting the contradiction!)
>>Clinton was good with the black community because of >>policy, and so what if that policy was worked out by white >>folks?
Fair enough, I'll leave the judgement call to history. But it has to be a good continum when the representatives of the `black community` will be in high ranking government office (Gen. Powell, Condy Rice) and not only on C-Span's divisive `Hating Whitey Fests` featuring Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton. Imagine the outcry if Bob Jones tried to march a million white men to Washington...
If people allow that kind of thing to take place, if only in the name of balance, you'll keep seeing people like Ashcroft and Bob Jones III still playing a part on the politics of the right - but that's another debate.
Does that answer the question???
Richard
I agree. But then why should this rule be bought to bear in DC - but in the `real world` why have I heard complaints that there is an inverted discrimination going against those who are most qualified (sometimes `white folk`)? Why is it that in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas - there's been such a slant of equity, that a lot of favour to fall to the hispanic community over and above everyone else. If I go for a modest `office job` down there, fully qualified, I'll probably not get it because I can't speak Spannish?
(Then - mother of all ironies - I crossover to Mexico with my wife for the day, buy some souvenirs and the shop owner make his trainee assistant speak English to us! If she comes to visit America though, she can speak Spanish and if anyone has the nerve to deny her that `right` they're obviously racist.)
>>Instead, "ethnic" folks are often given preference in >>order to get the cabinet to look better. As if having a >>Hispanic Secretary of Agriculture is going to help the >>Hispanic community.
You make a fair point about how the racial make-up of a cabinet doesn't really mean that much in the wider scheme of things, but why are Irish-Americans still inspired by the fact that JFK (of Irish Catholic stock) got to be president 30-some years ago? Whatever we think of John Ashcroft, surely the people who would support him are inspired that he might get into office because love-em or hate-em they now have a voice.
Now for 75% of the lives of Hispanics (for arguments sake), it wouldn't matter to them who was in government. But the times that does effect them, the fact that they have their `own people` in office must send a positive message to them in the same way JFK did to the Irish. Would you rather know that someone from your background was in DC so he/she possibly knew the kinds of things you're up against in your life? Or would you not mind that every group but your own was represented, and they were getting all the help - and `your people` were getting nothing?
Or could the real crux of the issue be found in a quote of the Chicago DJ Mancow Muller? He said that the "apostrophe will kill our country". The argument being is there's no such thing as `Italian-American`, `Irish-American`, `German- American` etc etc etc. Everyone is `American`. Once people get away from the ghetto mentality, throw PC out the window and realise we're all in this together then the idea of `affirmative action` will be dead. The issue of whether you have a certain skin-colour, surname or attitude will be irrelevent - the best people will get the jobs.
>>Instead of basing the cabinet on these cosmetic features, >>we would be better off only giving preference to >>minorities if the position deals with minority issues.
To what end? Or are you playing devil's advocate! Surely it would make more sense to shuffle the deck? Send Colin Powell to the next event with Pat Robertson, give Marc Raicoit the brief that takes him into the inner-city. Surely the aim is to tear walls down so the country knows it's one, not sending minorities to speak to minorities and white folk to speak with white folk?
>>Otherwise, to promote equality, we should just give the >>positions to the best people, and if they happen to be >>minorities, then that's just dandy. Okay, that didn't come >>out as clearly as I intended, but do you get the >>contradiction in your argument that I'm pointing out?
There is a contradiction, but then there's a contradiction in day to day life that allows it. Do you remember the 2nd presidential debate when GWB and Al Gore squared off on the issue of `affirmative action` or `quota filling`? I got the impression that Al Gore was driving at the fact he too was up for `quota filling`. There's no attempt to understand what's really at work here, but just give "ethnic folk" the jobs they want so we can placate ourselves with the `fact` that we aren't racist.
I'm all for giving all people a fair shake in life, but just because "A.N Other" ethnic group can do Job A and not Job B, what sense does it make shifting a few across to Job B so the employers feel like they're good people? (Or am I contradicting the contradiction!)
>>Clinton was good with the black community because of >>policy, and so what if that policy was worked out by white >>folks?
Fair enough, I'll leave the judgement call to history. But it has to be a good continum when the representatives of the `black community` will be in high ranking government office (Gen. Powell, Condy Rice) and not only on C-Span's divisive `Hating Whitey Fests` featuring Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton. Imagine the outcry if Bob Jones tried to march a million white men to Washington...
If people allow that kind of thing to take place, if only in the name of balance, you'll keep seeing people like Ashcroft and Bob Jones III still playing a part on the politics of the right - but that's another debate.
Does that answer the question???
Richard
