Mrpaige, You're totally right. I was just being a smarty pants. But for Freak to make a blanket statement like "It's so refreshing to see someone in Washington do something to achieve diversity, rather than simply pay it lip service" is just a bit ridiculous don't you think? I guess no one wants to remember that Clinton was the first president to appoint a woman sec. of state. But oh no! We've now got a president that is so diverse. Please... ------------------ 'Deeds, not words, shall speak me.'
Before anyone here is led to believe that Horowitz is an unbiased source, here's a little background info: David Horowitz is a former 60s left-wing radical who became disenchanted with all things liberal. He dropped out of sight for a while and re-emerged as a staunch conservative. He is the editor of "Frontpage Magazine" which keeps its readers up to date on our cuntry's ongoing crises "from multiculturalism to the Clinton presidency." In addition, he's authored and contributed to numerous books with racial and anti-affirmative action themes such as "The Race Card: White Guilt, Black Resentment and the Assault on Truth and Justice" and "Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes." This is what he had to say about African Americans in a 1997 interview with radio host Chuck Baldwin: "I was on a radio show yesterday talking about another book that Peter and I have done. One of the callers was a black caller - I was talking about the affirmative action in the universities. Nobody in his right mind thinks that our liberal colleges are systemically keeping blacks out, so why do we need affirmative action policies? The answer is, because blacks don't score well on the tests. And instead of saying,'There's a real problem in the black community of educating its children, let's blame whitie.' So this guys explanation was slavery. You know, come on, how long are we going to blame slavery for all the problems in the black community? It would be like every time a Jew did something wrong it's because of the Holocaust, 2,000 years of persecution. It doesn't seem to apply to the Vietnamese who come here into an alien culture where they don't speak the language. I don't see very many Vietnamese protesting about the cultural bias of college admission exams. Yet, blacks have been here for 350 years, they're complaining that there's a cultural bias in the tests. And nobody will say, this is nuts, this is whining, this is just the old excuse game." Maybe guys like this are the reason more African Americans don't vote Republican. Just a thought ... ------------------ [This message has been edited by rascal (edited December 18, 2000).]
Well, I think Mr. Bush is actually trying to promote diversity rather than pay it lip service, but I would phrase it as it's refreshing to see a Republican actually trying to promote diversity rather than just paying it lip service. Mr. Clinton was very conscious about diversity in his cabinet and appointments. It has been rare that a Republican does it, though. The Republican Party has been very deficient in promoting diversity (of course, they also don't get credit when they do try, so maybe that turns a lot of Republicans off), and I'm glad to see that changing. I'm just happy that the possibility of a Paige in the administration is high since Dr. Rod Paige (the HISD superintendent) is the apparent favorite for the Secretary of Education post. I'm not related to the guy, but it would still be a positive step for all Paigekind. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Jeff: Actually, Lincoln was part of the Republican party. Back then, the Republicans were considered the more liberal of the two parties. By the time blacks could vote, the democrats were the liberals, so I'm guessing it was over who gave them the right to vote; not who fought for their freedom. As far as I'm concerned, I used to be entirely Republican and conservative, mostly through my upbringing. But as I grew older, my feelings changed, somewhat. I am still a Republican on the national level. But I vote democratic locally, with the philosophy that as long as I'm paying taxes, I'd like to see the results in my own backyard. With that preface, I can say that both Sylvester Turner and Mayor Brown were good people with solid visions of a better future for Houston. I like both of their attitudes, and think they make Houston a better place. That being said, Sheila Jackson Lee is an absolute cancer for this city. I have watched several interviews and read several articles from her and she looks out for no-one but herself, and her own personal agenda. I detest people like her, and feel truly sorry for anyone from any culture believing she is trying to do anything beneficial for this community. Case in point: "The Houston Press"; an admittedly liberal newspaper, had an article on her back in the summer of '98. Simply read that article and their portrayal of her and her business tactics if you still have any doubts. ------------------ I got nothing.
I don't presume to know how most African Americans think, but I think it's just simple political beliefs. If you're going to appoint someone to "promote diversity", then the African American community is going to want someone who they feel represents them. If 90% are liberal, and the appointee is conservative, then they are not going to feel that he represents them. I think it's very simple why the community would tend to reject conservative African Americans. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
That being said, Sheila Jackson Lee is an absolute cancer for this city. I cannot disagree with you on this one. I, personally, do not like her though I know many who do. My favorite quote about Ms. Jackson Lee is: "The most dangerous place in this world to be is between Sheliah Jackson Lee and a television camera." ------------------ The way to use life is to do nothing through acting, The way to use life is to do everything through being. - Lao-Tzu
The point is, it is dangerous, in my view, to label a person's ideology by his skin color...and unfortunately that is what people do when they say that any black who is conservative is an uncle tom. I would like to think that what is important is the mind of the individual, not the race. I would hope people would make conclusions on what is best for them as individuals...not as a group. But I guess that's the very nature of the difference between liberals and conservatives. I also can't believe anyone would think that Bush is appointing Powell and Rice for any reason other than the obvious...there are few people more qualified for each position (and more respected) as Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell. Hell, if Powell ran for president he'd win in a landslide. Everyone loves this guy and he's immensely and uniquely qualified when it comes to foreign affairs. Again..hate to see good people disparaged because other's perceptions of their thoughts don't match with their skin color. That's not the America I'm hoping for. ------------------
I pose this question...Why is it that Bush's decision is one of diversity at all? Maybe he is the best person for the job? Did he say that I'm going out and find me the best ethnic person I can? I don't know, but I would like to think that Powell is best suited for the position, regardless of race. ------------------ In the end there will be no judges...only witnesses to my greatness.
I also can't believe anyone would think that Bush is appointing Powell and Rice for any reason other than the obvious...there are few people more qualified for each position (and more respected) as Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that -- it's actually a good thing. Diversity at the cost of qualification isn't a good thing, in my opinion. However, if the Bush administration is going to use these appointments to show that they are encouraging diversity, then the people supposedly being represented have every right to speak out if they don't feel the people involved actually do represent their needs and interests. The point of encouraging diversity isn't to put someone who is Black in a position of power. It's to put someone in power who can represent the interests and needs of the African American community. The Clinton administration specifically said that their appointments were to encourage diversity and get a wider range of views in the administration. In that respect, I think the Clinton appointments did a reasonably good job. To give Bush credit, I haven't yet heard him use these appointments to show his interest in diversity. If he comes out and says that's one of his goals, I don't think he did a good job with it (regarding Powell -- I don't know much about Rice). If he comes out and says I picked these people simply because they were the best qualified, I'd be much happier w/ his reasoning. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
