"The language of our culture no longer describes real life and, pretty soon, something's gonna blow."
--Jean Shepherd
So. Not only are so-called progressives upset with President –Elect Barack Obama’s picks for his cabinet positions, now, too, the National Organization for Women is upset that Mr. Obama didn’t regard gender as the sole reason for making his decisions.
From CNN.com:
No matter than out of 20 positions on the cabinet, five have gone to women. No matter that these numbers are comparable to the number of female cabinet members under the Bush and Clinton administrations. NOW did not get what it wanted, which was more, lots of it, right now Barack because we all voted for you dammit so now ya gotta whore for us all.
And this:
No matter that Obama’s picks might have possibly been based on, oh, something stupid like finding the best person for the job, looking at credentials and credibility over race and gender. The Bosom Quota has not been met.
I applaud efforts to include individuals of different genders and races in government. But I deplore that such choices should be made on race or gender over ability and credibility.
CNN’s article on the matter is also deplorable.
About two-thirds of the way through the article, we get this sentence:
So I anticipate either new ire other than what I’ve written about before on this blog, or new ire over some new choices for “key positions.” Instead, the rest of the article is more liberal whining over Obama asking the Pastor Rick Warren to give a prayer at the inauguration. A prayer. At the inauguration. If this is a key position, then the Civil Service of the United States has gone on a hiring spree in the last few years. Never knew there was a position of Prayer-Offerer in Chief. A key position? Really.
Then there’s this:
The libs, by the way, especially those of the gay/lesbian variety, look to the coming generations for hope in getting their lfiestyles into the mainstream. That may be well and true. But the norm for the upcoming generation is that they can cheat on tests and plagiarize papers but still consider themselves normal, upstanding, good people. And so it goes. I think Jean Shepherd is right. Something’s gonna blow.
--Jean Shepherd
So. Not only are so-called progressives upset with President –Elect Barack Obama’s picks for his cabinet positions, now, too, the National Organization for Women is upset that Mr. Obama didn’t regard gender as the sole reason for making his decisions.
From CNN.com:
“When you are looking at a Cabinet and you have such a small number of women in
the room when the big decisions are being made, there need to be a lot more
women's voices in this administration," said Kim Gandy, president of the
National Organization for Women.
No matter than out of 20 positions on the cabinet, five have gone to women. No matter that these numbers are comparable to the number of female cabinet members under the Bush and Clinton administrations. NOW did not get what it wanted, which was more, lots of it, right now Barack because we all voted for you dammit so now ya gotta whore for us all.
And this:
"In this case, we have seen Obama emphasize credentials," said Anne Kornblut of
The Washington Post. "I think they obviously knew they would get a lot of bang
for their buck, so to speak, in appointing Clinton, but at the end of the day,
the numbers really aren't any more impressive than any previous president."
No matter that Obama’s picks might have possibly been based on, oh, something stupid like finding the best person for the job, looking at credentials and credibility over race and gender. The Bosom Quota has not been met.
I applaud efforts to include individuals of different genders and races in government. But I deplore that such choices should be made on race or gender over ability and credibility.
CNN’s article on the matter is also deplorable.
About two-thirds of the way through the article, we get this sentence:
Some progressives, meanwhile, are also disappointed that Obama has tapped
moderates for key positions.
So I anticipate either new ire other than what I’ve written about before on this blog, or new ire over some new choices for “key positions.” Instead, the rest of the article is more liberal whining over Obama asking the Pastor Rick Warren to give a prayer at the inauguration. A prayer. At the inauguration. If this is a key position, then the Civil Service of the United States has gone on a hiring spree in the last few years. Never knew there was a position of Prayer-Offerer in Chief. A key position? Really.
Then there’s this:
People for the American Way President Kathryn Kolbert told CNN that she isAllow me a cruel chuckle, Hiss, because whenever I hear anyone talk about “consistent mainstream American values,” I automatically know it’s code for “consistent mainstream American values with which I or my interest group happen to believe in.” Certain facets of society, mainstream or not, may not agree with Warren and his views on homosexuality (that it’s wrong), but to insist that these certain facets of society have mainstream American values is ludicrous because what is “mainstream,” what is “American” and, indeed, what are “values” changes with the blowing wind and the rushing tide. My mainstream is not your mainstream. And if you want mainstream values, you can’t go to the polls to figure them out. A sample is not going to give you the mainstream, no matter what the folks at Gallup say.
"deeply disappointed" about the choice of Warren and said the powerful platform
at the inauguration should instead have been given to someone who has
"consistent mainstream American values."
The libs, by the way, especially those of the gay/lesbian variety, look to the coming generations for hope in getting their lfiestyles into the mainstream. That may be well and true. But the norm for the upcoming generation is that they can cheat on tests and plagiarize papers but still consider themselves normal, upstanding, good people. And so it goes. I think Jean Shepherd is right. Something’s gonna blow.
No comments:
Post a Comment