rkj@ihtnt.UUCP (09/30/83)
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
crose@mhuxt.UUCP (Crose) (09/30/83)
I think the liberals have said nothing becuase they are glad to have him. He is there "ace" in the hole so to speak. When he makes a mistake, it makes the Republicans look awfully bad. Who'd want that sort of influence to stop. I believe that's why no Democrats called for his resignation.
sr@u1100a.UUCP (Steven Radtke) (09/30/83)
Rick Janka thinks Watt speaks openly of what many liberals want. Boy, you missed the point in what you have said about Watt! Rather than hire people because they are qualified, the practice too often used is to hire people *like the bosses* ( white males ) who are qualified. Instead of interpreting the AA laws and regulations to expand the horizons to include non-(white male) types, Watt has made the interpretation that we need cripples, so let's get some cripples and any question of their abilities is beside the point. It is repugnant because it is a reduction of a principled effort to a superficial pre-selection on the basis of irrelevant characteristics.
sef@druxu.UUCP (10/03/83)
Quite interesting, the liberals (those people who are against double barrel shotguns, etc.) have double barrel mouths. Scott Farleigh AT&TIS Denver
preece@uicsl.UUCP (10/11/83)
#R:ihtnt:-189500:uicsl:5400031:000:1834 uicsl!preece Oct 4 07:57:00 1983 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. ---------- Quite interesting, the liberals (those people who are against double barrel shotguns, etc.) have double barrel mouths. ---------- We (he said, assuming the mantle of liberaldom) would like to see the staffing of Federal commissions balanced. We would like an administration that saw nothing strange or remarkable about that balance. We would like an administration that did not use insensitive language to descibe classes of people. We would like an administration that did not say "Look how noble I am: I let a woman, a black, etc., onto one of my commissions." As to the second author, he's strining for a snappy line. Liberals as a group, and even gun control advocates, for the most part, have nothing against double barrel shotguns (or even single barrel shotguns), unless they've been sawed off to become handguns. We'd prefer to see them registered and kept out of the hands of felons and the mentally incompetent, but I don't think many of us ask for elimination of reasonable sporting guns. I know people who hunt for a significant portion of their annual meat consumption; I have no objection to that, as long as they obey the rules on what they may take and when they may take it. As to liberals' mouths, we have generally tended to be a more softly spoken, less obnoxious group than the opposition for whom the second author, presumably, speaks. Referring to mouhts was, at the very least, a foolish strategem when Mr. Watt's is once again full of his foot. scott preece pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (10/16/83)
This message is empty.