Racism and bigotry - Conservative style

We all know that Bush is chasing the minority and female vote when he promoted Condi "Mr. President is right" Rice, and then sledged it home when he elected an import to head the economics department, Carlos Gutierrez, and a woman to education, Margaret Spellings. In addition, he named another hispanic, Alberto Gonzales, to head the Justice Department. This isn't to reduce anything in their capacities, but they aren't exactly prime examples of their species. More like sycophants, with Bush playing the psychotic role of Oliver Stone in this strange and disturbing reality which plays out more like a film rolling before my eyes than reality setting in with normalcy and sanity.

Regardless of Gonzales' and Spellings' abhorable, yet obvious, states as Bush worshippers, Roger Clegg in National Review wrote on race and affirmative action (a more embarassing AA than Alky Anon) in the education and justice system. In this report, straight out of the fifties, Clegg writes,

It raises eyebrows, then, that two of the White House aides who are reported to have been behind the weakening of the Justice Department’s position in the Michigan cases are now slated to head the Justice and Education Departments: Alberto Gonzales and Margaret Spellings, respectively.

The Michigan cases which he writes about are the notorious University of Michigan Affirmative Action cases. I say notorious because the worst of the whites were clamoring against the worst of the minorities for the tail-end acceptances into a school which they will probably flunk out of anyways (It's sort of like if Badnarik fought bitterly with Nader for the Presidency). And, I do meant retarded. If you've seens ome of the mentally disabled people that come in to that school, and I am not just talking culturally insulated either. In these cases, both the law school graduate program and the LSA undergraduate program were targeted in separate cases with similar suits. The ruling came down that the law school was not justified in its use of race as an admissions factor, while the undergrads were.

Clegg wrote that Bush's view, as well as the view of the Republican Party, tates, "[B]ecause we are opposed to discrimination, we reject preferences, quotas, and set-asides based on skin color, ethnicity, or gender, which perpetuate divisions and can lead people to question the accomplishments of successful minorities and women.” Thus, he concludes that because Gonzales and Spellings recognized the potential for poor preparations (horrible school districts, terrible culture, etc) that a slight boost is needed for minorities who are the racial majority in desparate situations. That isn't to say that they are right, but that they saw something which many of the rich white folk with stupid children fail to see.

In actuality, Clegg is also reacting against the promotion of more women and minorities to the cabinet. Good bye Powell, hello Cuban? I can picture them saying, "goddamn spics, they better know where they're place is." Actually, Clegg writes it without the obvious vulgarities,

On the other hand, Gonzales and Spellings are both famous for being loyal soldiers, and one hopes that the White House will give them — and the rest of the administration — clear marching orders in the second term.

And, later,

It would be worthwhile, then, for senators to question Gonzales and Spellings during their confirmation hearings on these issues, and gain some reassurance that each will enforce the civil-rights laws in the same way for all Americans, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or sex. Conservatives should also insist that the civil-rights officials appointed under Gonzales and Spellings have a strong commitment to color-blind law.

Clegg is actually worrying about a minority and a female taking over. He suspecta that neither will actually be faithful to the party, but faithful to their race and their culture. Because, let's face it, women and minorities, in Republican terms, are just pawns meant to obey every word which comes out of their party's mouth, right?

Maybe I have been so naive that racism is veritably dead. Maybe I have been so naive that I would actually think that minorities were mainly judged on their actual merits. Though, since Spellings and Gonzales have already proven their loyalty (to a fault), why do we have this questioning?

Roger Clegg is a racist and general counsel for the Center of Equal Opportunity.

A tip to the wiseass

If you fucking beat this prick long enough, he'll tell you he started the goddamn Chicago fire, now that don't necessarily make it fucking so! - Reservoir Dogs

Top of the news: Information retrieved by torture is now admissible in courts of law. Prisoners who have been held in prison for three years (and still going strong) were held because of evidence given from prisoners in Guantanemo Bay, where "misconduct" happened. (Actually, depending on the woman, I wouldn't mind being the prisoner who got flashed for information).

While everybody knew that torture had to happen somewhere in the system for the protection of our country (hell, we're one of the most hated countries, its probably not that easy to get information against us), this is the first time its use in courts to imprison people is acceptable in about 70 years. Part of the reason they stopped allowing duressed evidence: unreliability (see above quote).

While I am definately for the use of extreme conditions to gain information regarding the safety of the nation, I am against it being used to imprison people. Why? Because, as somebody else put it, "giving up your freedom is the harshest punishment around." Taking away freedom indefinately on circumstantial evidence is a bit lacadaisical, in my opinion. In addition, while it is a crime to conspire to overthrow the government (which seems rather unpatriotic to me, given that our nation was founded by overthrowing a government *whistles*), it is much harder to convict people on conspiracy to commit a crime.

But, we're on our way to convictions of the 9-11 prisoners. Yay law!

--------------------------------------------

In other news: Tom Ridge, director of Homeland Security, has stepped down. Another one bites the dust (and another one's gone...Hey, he's gonna get you too). I wonder if all these people were hoping that Bush would not get re-elected.