If my business was competing in the market place to produce the best product for the least cost requiring optimum efficiency and customer service, laws prohibiting me from hiring the most qualified applicants would not help.
In the public sector, especially in the realm of public safety, what justifies limitations on hiring the most qualified people? Racial quotas? Social engineering? Absolutely not!
The public sector is the butt of constant complaints and jokes about laziness and inefficiencies. Is it a coincidence that that is where affirmative action and other efficiency and performance constraining policies are first and most aggressively applied?
One doesn't have to be a racist to see the negative shooting-yourself-in-the-foot outcome of eliminating "the best" to meet some racial, ethnic, or gender quota, or to meet some other social engineering expectation.
Darren Chapel of the San Francisco Examiner begins his article on the recent Supreme Court ruling on the New Haven, CT, firefighters case with some facts. Then, typical of experience-challenged leftward skewed commentators, he derails into opinion that shows his absence from the reality of running businesses and government services.
Here is where Darren loses it when he claims:
"But what's less fair is the playing field of American race relations. Anyone denying that fact needs to take a long look at the available information. What hasn't been discussed in the wake of this decision is the overwhelming income gap and stunning disparity in net worth that white Americans enjoy compared to their counterparts. If we are going to talk about fairness, this is the place to start. The rash of white people claiming discrimination in recent months needs to be noted, and I believe that in this case the firemen had a descent argument, but they're still wrong. They may have lost a promotion, but on average, they still are exponentially better off than their black co-workers."
The firemen are wrong? Because they "still are exponentially better off?" So, folks who are better off are wrong about issues of fairness, and justice, and skills, and merit, and hard work? This is the opposite of every sound principle of human success I have ever learned. So, let us forget about promotion, in school or at work, based on merit. Let's have it all based on quotas and making everyone feel good about themselves. Then we can have a lottery on how many years it will take for this nation to reach third world status.
Darren the Pollyanna continues:
"Justices may strive to make their rulings based on a "colorblind society," but that's not what exists in America. The romantic notion of racial harmony isn't realistic because the playing field isn't even. Living in a colorblind society means that each group is treated exactly the same in all aspects of life, including economics and social mobility. They aren't. To suggest so is pure ignorance. On average, blacks are less likely to go to college or finish high school. They also attend poorer funded public schools on average and are more prone to experience child abuse, substance abuse, neglect, divorce, teen pregnancy, health complications and about every other challenge available. They don't grow up next to country clubs. Most importantly, they are more likely to be poor, a fact that makes economic progress much more challenging."
Racial or any other kind of "harmony" does not require economic or social parity. Poor whites, poor Latinos and poor Asians face the same challenges. Whites, blacks, Latinos, and Asians who don't perform well on tests well-designed to identify the best canditates for the job should not be hired for these positions - despite the fact they are poor. It is neither logical nor prudent to hire a less qualified person over a qualified person because of race, gender, ethnicity, or economic status. We have a black President, black generals, (prior) black Secretary of State, black Attorney General and blacks in hundreds of other high positions in government, for crying out loud! Doesn't that count for something?
In the balance of his article, Darren simply reveals his hostility toward "class". He seeks not merely equality of opportunity, but equality of class, income, and wealth. I'm not sure whether to label this thinking Socialism or Communism. In our current political environment, I wouldn't be surprised if these labels were considered a compliment.
Darren and Sonia Sotomayor are both racists in their quest to carry affirmative action to its illogical and counter-productive extreme. The affirmative action pendulum has now swung past its point of equilibrium into the realm of screwing whites. The Supreme Court decision wisely slowed the momentum of that swing.
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Whatever Happened to No Discrimination...
...Based on Race, Gender, or National Origin?
Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor because of her race, gender, and national origin - and because her legal opinions will be based on the "unique sensitivities" such background brings to the court that no white male could bring. Wow!
For the past 4 decades it has been illegal to choose anyone for anything on that basis - not employees, not college students, not contractors, not tenants - no one.
Newt Gingrich correctly observed: “A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. A Latina woman racist should also withdraw.” Ironically, Janet Murguía, president of the National Council of La Raza ("La Raza" meaning "The Race", more specifically the race of people indigenous to Mexico) warned against judging Sotomayor "unfairly." Well, well, Ms. "non-racist" racist La Raza President, I'm pretty sure what your opinion of "unfair" will be. Pretty much the same as your Puerto Rican, non-gender neutral, non-race-neutral female hispanic pal, Sonya.
(Note to critics of my sexist, racist verbiage: I only mention these gender and racial qualities because they are central in importance to our President Obama and to his Supreme Court nominee - not because I'm racist or sexist as I would be called if not for the fact that it has apparently become popular and accepted to be so.)
As the Wall Street Journal pointed out: "In the President's now-famous word, judging should be shaped by "empathy" as much or more than by reason. In this sense, Judge Sotomayor would be a thoroughly modern Justice, one for whom the law is a voyage of personal identity."
In the interest of "change", Obama has nominated a self-declared racist to be on our Supreme Court. But what else could we expect from Obama, with his background steeped in racist rhetoric - 20 years of listening to "Not God Bless America; God damn America." And the company he keeps - yes - is there any doubt this is his natural course?
Will she be confirmed? A quick "Google" of "will Sotomayor be confirmed" indicated a solid consensus she will. I would hope for a resounding "ya gotta be kiddin'" rebuke of Obama from Congress. But in reality, the most likely "best case" is a long (and essential) confirmation debate.
In Sotomayor's Own Words
by Human Events
05/27/2009
President Obama on Tuesday nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be on the Supreme Court. Here are some provocative statements she has made in the past.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
"I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”
“I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate.”
“America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence.Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud… Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with differences.”
“I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”
“I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.”
“All of the Legal Defense Funds out there -- they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't ‘make law.’ ”
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor because of her race, gender, and national origin - and because her legal opinions will be based on the "unique sensitivities" such background brings to the court that no white male could bring. Wow!
For the past 4 decades it has been illegal to choose anyone for anything on that basis - not employees, not college students, not contractors, not tenants - no one.
Newt Gingrich correctly observed: “A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. A Latina woman racist should also withdraw.” Ironically, Janet Murguía, president of the National Council of La Raza ("La Raza" meaning "The Race", more specifically the race of people indigenous to Mexico) warned against judging Sotomayor "unfairly." Well, well, Ms. "non-racist" racist La Raza President, I'm pretty sure what your opinion of "unfair" will be. Pretty much the same as your Puerto Rican, non-gender neutral, non-race-neutral female hispanic pal, Sonya.
(Note to critics of my sexist, racist verbiage: I only mention these gender and racial qualities because they are central in importance to our President Obama and to his Supreme Court nominee - not because I'm racist or sexist as I would be called if not for the fact that it has apparently become popular and accepted to be so.)
As the Wall Street Journal pointed out: "In the President's now-famous word, judging should be shaped by "empathy" as much or more than by reason. In this sense, Judge Sotomayor would be a thoroughly modern Justice, one for whom the law is a voyage of personal identity."
In the interest of "change", Obama has nominated a self-declared racist to be on our Supreme Court. But what else could we expect from Obama, with his background steeped in racist rhetoric - 20 years of listening to "Not God Bless America; God damn America." And the company he keeps - yes - is there any doubt this is his natural course?
Will she be confirmed? A quick "Google" of "will Sotomayor be confirmed" indicated a solid consensus she will. I would hope for a resounding "ya gotta be kiddin'" rebuke of Obama from Congress. But in reality, the most likely "best case" is a long (and essential) confirmation debate.
In Sotomayor's Own Words
by Human Events
05/27/2009
President Obama on Tuesday nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be on the Supreme Court. Here are some provocative statements she has made in the past.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
"I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”
“I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate.”
“America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence.Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud… Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with differences.”
“I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”
“I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.”
“All of the Legal Defense Funds out there -- they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't ‘make law.’ ”
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)