Condolezza Rice disappointingly invoked skin color as a reason to be hired when she recently addressed the Black Colleges and Universities conference.....Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday it was "unacceptable" that there were so few black people like herself in the US diplomatic corps.
"I want to see a Foreign Service that looks as if black Americans are part of this great country," Rice told a gathering of black colleges and universities in Washington.
"I have lamented that I can go into a meeting at the Department of State," said Rice, the second black person to become secretary of state after her predecessor Colin Powell.
"And, as a matter of fact, I can go into a whole day of meetings at the Department of State and actually rarely see somebody who looks like me, and that's just not acceptable," she added.
Perhaps the black community should start by trying to curb it's youth drug-addiction, gang associations, illegitimate parenthood, shocking high-school drop-out rates, and the absurd idea that any black who speaks a language other than ebonics is trying to be "white". Moreover, how many blacks are enrolled in foreign studies schools to become diplomats? Is "diplomat" really something blacks aspire to become? If Condi is to be believed, there are vast numbers of qualified blacks waiting to become diplomats or serve otherwise in the foreign service but, white administrations refuse to hire them because they're black.
Condi diminishes her own impressive accomplishments by invoking race as a job qualification. And she casts doubts on the qualifications of blacks who DO get hired for their experience, education, and knowledge and not their skin color.
26 comments:
What happened to the most qualified person for the job? I am sorry if I offend anyone here, but I am only speaking the truth. The most qualified person for the job should get the job, and a black applies and isn't as qualified as the white man, why would a company want to hire the black man? Unfortunately, blacks aren't as qualified as other people. I don't say that in a racist tone either. Look at the statistics before you bombard me or Ed with racist arguments. It is sad, but it is true.
The problem Kevin is that it has never been about the most qualified person for the job. Never will be either. Hirings will always be based on perception and public appeasement. I can never openly advertise a job opening in my company, or I will get hundreds of applicants ( qualified and unqualified) and someone will pursue me in court 'cause they either didn't get the job or didn't get an interview. Don't throw out racial statements and then try to hide behind statistics. Numbers can always be adjusted to make an argument. Why did you lump Ed in with your racial reply? He doesn't deserve that! His take was sound and without racial bias. You state that "Blacks aren't as qualified as other people". Which other people?
As I see it, people of all colors and races have varying degrees of ability. So your statement is partially true, but it still is a racist point. No need to make it. Ed attacked the raising of children by the black community stating issues of drugs, illegitimate births, gangs, etc. All are true, snd while disturbing, one cannot argue their existence. This world, however, is still run by close-minded closet racists such as yourself. I have read your comments enough to know that you will tell me that you have "black" friends, well they need to examine who they hang around with, because it appears to me that you like to play both sides of this fence. Pick a side and stand on it. Condi is a great example for all people to look up to, forget race and sex. She has accomplished quite alot and should be commended,however, when she openly sticks her foot in her mouth, she also deserves to be taken to task. All she did by voicing these thoughts is to keep the current wedge where it is. We will not get along or get better until color no longer matters, just judgement based on the character and soul of a man.
..blacks aren't as qualified as other people.
pretty strong statement kevin. care to back that up?
Black Panther, I have said in the past that I have black friends. I stand by that statement as I do have black friends. Why would you say that they need to examine who they hang out with? Because they hang around white people? Do they need to start "acting black"? Seriously, the more qualified man for the job usually gets it. If you are a smart business man, color means nothing to you. The first question I asked was "What happened to the most qualified person for the job?" That statement can be ambiguous, and it was meant to be. If a black man is more qualified than a white man, then why shouldn't he get the job? Go look at any successful business, and see that the most qualified man for the job was hired. Everyone wants to be a colorless, genderless society. Well Condi's comments are one way that that won't happen. People assume that there is this racist undertone in every decision, when there isn't. What I was saying earlier, I was only backing up what Ed had said in his article, that the black community should work to rid its youth of drug addiction, gangs, unmarried couples having children, and should work on graduating its youth. The keys to becoming successful in life:
1. Graduate high school, probably attend college.
---Also, for those who will say money will be a tying factor here, make a 30 on the ACT, Auburn will pay for your tuition.
2. Stay sober.
3. Don't have children before you get a nice job with a comfortable salary.
This really isn't that difficult. If this is seriously asking too much on today's youth, then the generations of the future have a serious problem.
kevin, you said that blacks were not as qualified as whites for jobs. you didn't say that uneducated blacks were less qualified than whites, or that addicted blacks were less qualified than whites, or that single, black parents with illegitimate children were less qualified than whites. You categorically stated that blacks were less qualified than whites. the only difference between the two in your sentence was skin color. do you still stand behind that statement?
Generally speaking, yes I do stand behind it. Also, if you are going to pick apart my paragraph word for word, you should note that I didn't say blacks are less qualified, I specifically said blacks are less qualified than other people. You and I both know that meant in terms of education. I was simply stating that a much large percentage of black people don't graduate, and have children illegitimately, and do drugs, and all sorts of other things that prevent them from getting jobs. What is despicable is that you can look at the statistics and not agree with me. You are actually willing to defend (if you would call it that, all you are really trying to do is call me a racist), instead of working to fix the problem. Not enough black people graduate high school, so lets fix that problem. Teach them about the consequences of drug use, and gang violence. Stop calling them the victim, and accusing me of being something I am not.
kevin, you have to qualify your blanket statements or they might get misunderstood. it was not obvious that you meant unqualified in terms of education. and when you said "other people", do you really think we didn't know that to mean whites? who else is there since we're talking about race? maybe you're not a closet racist. if that's so then you should be careful to precisely phrase your statements to say exactly what you mean so that misinterpretation by readers who don't know you is unlikely.
Anon, is the world only black and white to you? There are Indians, Native American Indians, Oriental ( or Asian if you prefer), Mexican, etc... If I meant white people, I would have put white people, thats the single reason I put other people. Seriously now, stop attacking me. If you find the high rate of unqualified blacks in this country alarming, start doing something about it.
I am not alarmed by the number of blacks who are unqualified for the diplomatic corps. I am alarmed by your blanket statement that blacks are unqualified in general. without modifying words like drug-addicted or uneducated, one can only presume you meant because of skin color. with your inadvertent, perhaps even subconscious racism, you reveal what many whites probably believe, but would never admit, that black unqualified-ness is connected to nature rather than nurture.
"many whites probably believe, but would never admit, that black unqualified-ness is connected to nature rather than nurture."
I doubt that is anywhere near true. Actually, I think most whites get irritated because blacks (among others including other whites) are quite capable of succeeding and they choose not to.
Kevin: Sorry I missed the fray today. You are up to your neck in allegations, that as I see them, they are accurate. You stated what you feel. Anon and me are questioning your intentions. You tried to pass it off with mentioning the other minorities, but that still assumes a racial bias. It is okay for you to be racist, many people are. I just hope that you will be man enough to admit it.
When I challenged your "black" friends hanging around with you, I meant it. I think that you sell one version of yourself to them and another to the readers of this blog. I would be interested to hear their views. I showed your comment to the theread to my college nephew. He is a football player at a D1 southern school. He was appauled at your comments and asked how to call you out. I told him to lave this argument alone, but to check out the site and maybe throw around his 2 cents a time or 2. We will see about that.
You and I do agree about upbringing. It is not where, it is how. One can be socio-economically challenged and still be a decent moral person. One can be from the "hood" and be a druggie. illegitimate parent, etc. Those things happen everywhere,however, including your mostly white suburban birthplace (assumed). How many of your friends parents cheat on their spouse, how many do drugs, drink to excess, beat their spouse and/or kids. I'll bet there are quite a few, even if you don't know about them.
We should all work on bettering ourselves and leave the belittling of others to the moronic press, at least they are skilled at that.
"many whites probably believe, but would never admit, that black unqualified-ness is connected to nature rather than nurture."
This statement has racist written all over it.
As for my words, I am sorry if everyone thinks I am a racist. I am not. I have black friends, and I act the same around them as I do around anyone else. I am sorry if my words confused anyone, or if I spoke in too general of a form. I will make my statements clear next time.
Also, I think Tracie said it best, is that I get annoyed and irritated by people (this includes all other races) who have the ability to succeed at something and choose not to.
So now you throw Tracie under the bus to deflect the argument.
I don't think that Tracies statement is racial at all. I do think that yours are. If everyone thinks you are a racist, then it is probably true, regardless of what you think. My biggest question from your last post is why do you get annoyed and irritated by people who have the ability to suceed and choose not to? As I see it that is none of your concern. Your low college income isn't affected one iota by a couple hundred thousand more welfare recipients. The system needs to be fixed, but we cannot get annoyed at people until we completely understand their circumstances. And have tried to help - directly.
Actually, welfare recipients affect all of us. I accept that there will always be a certain amount of people in any large, diverse population who require help, for a variety of reasons. But, that number is miniscule when compared to the number of people who game the system in order to get a handout. Kevin's point about choices is dead on. We are all simply the sum-total of our choices. Bad circumstances because of bad choices does not necessarily equal need. That said, it is choices which ultimately make us unqualified for jobs and it is unfair to categorize a race as being unqualified because a large number of that race has made bad choices.
I never threw Tracie under the bus.
Anon at 12:09 said
"many whites probably believe, but would never admit, that black unqualified-ness is connected to nature rather than nurture."
not Tracie.
Black Panther, it is my concern when they take welfare, which isn't yet, as I am still in college, but will one day be my money. It is annoying to see this country not fulfilling its highest potential. It is irritating seeing how much people can be, but choose not to be because our government hands out so much for being plain lazy. Want to know why we are in a recession? The middle class, the class that drives our economy is disappearing. It is much more appealing now to sit back and have everything handed to you.
Young Padwan, you miss the boat. I still don't see why you are so critical of other peoples choices. You say it is irritating to see how much people can be, but choose not to be - isn't that their choice? My parents wanted me to be an astronaut after the army. I opted for a different route. I sure hope that they aren't irritated with me for said choice. Also, circumstances often change plans. What if you mistakenly became a father while in college. Are you not staring dropping out squarely in the face to support your growing family unit. With a limited skill set, what kind of job can you attain? Are you now a drag on society because of a good choice? I challenge you to expand and explore new and open your mind to possibilities, they do exist and sometimes people are stuck when a poor choice was made.
The middle class has never driven the economy. It has always been a large component, but without the other 2 classes, nothing works. If you eliminate any nof the 3 the balance fail, that is the true problem. We are exporting our lower end jobs to foreign soil, because ignorant people feel they deserve to be a middle class person without the effort. It requires effort to climb the ladder. We all must start somewhere, and we will always need a labor force- sadly it now resides primarily in the Far East.
Black Panther, I understand your point. I am sure you are still successful yes? What occupation you choose is up to you, but not trying and accepting welfare checks and having lots of kids and working minimum wage jobs cannot be the top of anyone's list. And yes, it does take all three classes to have a society, which is precisely why I said that we will be in a recession. It is more appealing to have things handed to you than to actually work for it. I think we are on the same page here BP, or am I missing something?
Black Panther - it doesn't matter if you chose to be a school teacher (or whatever you are) rather than an astronaut. We are talking about are things like welfare (as Ed mentioned), drugs, crime, violence, etc. It irriates us because it does have a negative impact on the rest of society.
It's annoying when people constantly blame everyone for their own failures when they need to look at their own lack of ambition and quit making excuses.
It doesn't help that we have people like Barack Obama convince poor people and minorities that there are no opportunities for them here in America, and that they are helpless unless they elect him as president so he can save them.
On the topic of best man gets the job, it seems as though both black panther and kevin are right in ways. Sometimes the best man for the job is based on race as Black Panther said hiring is sometimes about public appeasement. If race makes your company more successful, then race is obviously having an impact but at the same time that person is the best man for the job.
Now about not trying, of course people are irritated and annoyed when someone of any race no matter it be black from the hood, white trash from the country, or even portugese from beverly hills for all I care, have the ability to make above the poverty line easily, but instead refuse to get a better job, or refuse to get married so they don't have a joint income, just to keep those welfare checks coming in.
If someone finds something wrong with this comment please criticise me so I may reform my standing on the matter.
Well stated Tracie.
BP, in your example of a guy mistakenly becoming a father in college, that is a perfect example of a bad choice....the choice to have unprotected sex. Moving forward, his choices now include dropping out to get a minimum wage job to support his new family, marrying the mother, finishing school, ignoring his responsibility and forcing the mother to go on public assistance, or some combination of the above. What he and she choose from here determines their level of drain on, or contribution to, society.
I think what Kevin is saying is that people who make bad choices shouldn't have the right to use the power of the federal government to take money that somebody else earned....earned by virtue of their good choices. When democrats talk about "the less fortunate among us" or "folks who're struggling to make ends meet", they generally are referring to people who've made a series of poor decisions and are now having to live with the consequences of those decisions.
It is axiomatic, when you reward with money, bad choices, you get more bad choices. And conversely, when you punish achievement, success, and hard work with high taxes and income redistribution, you get less of it.
Answer this question: When the achievers and the hard workers finally ask themselves, "Why should I work so hard when my money gets taken away and given to some shiftless slacker? Maybe I'll become a slacker too. It's much easier to have things given to me rather than earn them.", who'll provide the goody bags for all the slackers then?
Ed, as you know, the answer to your question is that the hard workers will continue to work hard because it is what they do. If we all sit idly aside then we are in the toilet and there is no free pass.
Kevin assumed that race and bad socioeconomic plight go hand in hand with poor choices. He continues to push on the minimum wage, lots of kids, drugs, etc. All are factual, but not restricted by race. The point of minimum wage was to mitigate the owners opportunity to "slave work" laborers for little or no pay, thereby restricting them from feeding their families. I started out as a minimum wage earner and was happy for the paycheck. As I continued to work, my pay rose because I continued to accept work challenges and to accomplish them. I changed jobs and climbed the ladder. No one handed me anyhing I didn't earn, until I had an idea to start a company. It then took a man with equal vision to mine and the financial resources to parlay my company into a successful business. I bought him out and now, it truly is my compnay, but without his assistance, it never would have happened. Sometimes we all need help. Kevin espouses that the poor are a drain because all they want is a handout. Many just want a helping hand. Sometimes if we listen, and remember what we are taught by Jesus, reaching out to help doesn't always result in free money. Sometimes we need to teach a man how to grow food to feed his family, but in the interim it may require us to also help with food short term.
Ed I enjoy your blog. You and your post mate do a good job poking and prodding and asking us to think. That is all I am doing here-- trying to make Kevin(and us all) think!
BP, the workers will work up until the point at which they throw up their hands, being tired of having their earnings appropriated at the point of a gun, only to be given to some poor, unworthy slob who chooses not to work.
You said about your co-investor, ..but without his assistance, it never would have happened.
He didn't assist you. By investing in you, he acted in his own self-interest by pursuing profit without a single thought to anybody but himself and his family. He didn't invest in your company out of the goodness of his heart. He saw that it had value and that it promised a return. This is how it works. Men, working solely in their own self-interest, manage to provide jobs and create wealth for others....without ANY government intrusion or direction, far more efficiently than the government could do by redistributing wealth.
I agree completely with you on taxpayer-funded, short-term assistance. I have no problem with that whatsoever.
And thank you for your, unique contribution to our lively debate, and perspective on the issues of the day here at TRR. The blogging game is like the talk-radio game, lots of listeners(readers) a few of which call(write) in. But that's OK, our readers seem to be well informed and opinionated and that's exactly what we want.
"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all - security, comfort and freedom. When the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."
Sir Edward Gibbon
Right you are, Tracie, that's what makes liberalism in the hands of American democrats so insidious. It's fundamental, but never stated, goal is to make as many people as possible free of basic responsibility for themselves. The democrats want to install socialized health-care and seize control of 1/8th of the American economy, absolving every American of responsibility for his own health. That's what at stake in this election.
Post a Comment