i don't want to make much of it, especially since the list of those said to be considered isn't even officially admitted, yet. but my mind wanders and i'll forget, so let's just do this now and be done.

the list i'm referring to is the list of six names that obama is supposedly considering for the upcoming vacancy in the supreme court. [i've just read that he is considering more, but this is the unofficial list that has been reported.] if it is to be believed the list includes five women and one man. if these individuals are the best representatives, so be it. [of course, "best," here only means well-suited and very good candidates, nothing superlative or radically superior necessary.]

my problem is something noted in at least one report, that there is pressure to nominate a woman and/or a latino. while i have no problem with a particular person's race or sex or ethnic background, it seems rather backwards to put someone into power (let alone the supreme court) based on a united colors of benetton ad.

given the pressure it will make me second guess (well, third guess) his appointment if the person happens to be female or latino. as fucked up as that may be, i'll wonder if it's political pressure.

given the demographics, there probably should be four or five women, and more diversity of ethnic background. except this isn't a lottery, and it doesn't happen every year. it should be, find the best, choose from those. if it happens that 80%+ of those best happen to share a particular bit of demographic information, fine. case closed. i just don't see how attempting to artificially create equality by skewing the playing field is in the best interest of anyone.

and, yes, i am aware that it has long been skewed away from anyone other than white men, but do we really want to skew it at all? set the playing field at level (which means go level education and job opportunities and pay) and things like this will take care of itself.

voting rights needed action so that everyone could actually vote. civil rights needed action so that people were much closer to equal than not. but you cannot shoehorn equality into every office and position.

what it comes down to for me, is this. if i were on trial for something i didn't do, would i want the judge involved to be there on merit or because he or she filled a quota? this is bound to rub people the wrong way. vent away.



< << < : : >> > >
number 9.. .   .? andy andy andy, get your adverbs here

bring down the government