rkj@ihtnt.UUCP (09/28/83)
While I am no fan of James "foot-in-the-mouth" Watt, I find it interesting that the liberals who argue in favor of affirmative action, reverse discrimination, quotas, and who criticize Reagan for not hiring enough women, blacks, etc., are now screaming for Watt's termination for openly acknowledging his efforts to meet some quota of minority staffing. Granted, he lacks sensitivity, but at least he shows the courage (stupidity) to publicly state what many want, but are too timid to openly admit. Rick Janka (waiting for the howls of indignation) ..ihnp4!ihtnt!rkj
preece@uicsl.UUCP (09/30/83)
#R:ihtnt:-189000:uicsl:16300018:000:1080 uicsl!preece Sep 29 11:07:00 1983 the liberals who argue in favor of affirmative action, reverse discrimination, quotas, and who criticize Reagan for not hiring enough women, blacks, etc., are now screaming for Watt's termination for openly acknowledging his efforts to meet some quota of minority staffing. ---------- Nobody is complaining about the composition of the commission or even about Watt's braggin about the composition of the committee. People are complaining about the words he used and the attitude he displayed in the way he used them. The man is obviously a totally insensitive idiot. People want committees to be well balanced but they'd rather the Secretary not act as though he had done some remarkable and exemplary thing by producing a balanced committee. The President seems to think Watt is an asset to his administration. I think that's indicative of the President's intelligence and sensitivity to the public mood. I do think the President is better tuned to the public than Watt, but you could say the same thing about a pingpong ball. scott preece pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece