Southbound I-495 bridge open, NB still closed



WDEL Blog: Allan Loudell

Obama's 2nd-term Cabinet looking less diverse than Bush II, Clinton

The 2nd Obama Administration's Cabinet is starting to look like the faces at an old boys' country club.

With President Obama's decision not to nominate Susan Rice for Secretary of State NOR Michele Flournoy for Secretary of Defense - and with the exit of Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis (Interior Secretary Ken Salazar would be the lone remaining Hispanic!) - the President's 2nd-term Cabinet looks strangely monochrome and male. Who would have predicted? A retro Cabinet for the nation's first African-American President!

(In fairness, former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius IS staying on as HHS Secretary. One presumes Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the former Arizona governor, and Small Business Administration administrator Karen Mills will stay too. Looks like the nation's first black Attorney-General, Eric Holder, will stay... although the very mention of Holder's name causes folks, Right & Left, to grimace, albeit for different reasons! Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki is Japanese-American.)

WASHINGTON POST columnist Ruth Marcus offers this take in an opinion piece hilariously entitled, "OBAMA NEEDS SOME BINDERS of WOMEN"...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-obamas-all-white-team-of-retros/2013/01/09/a8135bf0-5aaf-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html



Posted at 8:02am on January 10, 2013 by Allan Loudell

<- Back to all Allan Loudell posts



Comments on this post:

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 10:40am
Ruth Marcus said in the link Allan provided: "To make this personal: I believe that I bring something to the task of being an opinion columnist because I am a woman, but I do not think I was given the job for this reason. It would be hurtful — in the sense of injured feelings, but also of harmed reputation — if readers were to see a female byline at the top of this column and assume, she got this gig because she’s a woman."

That is exactly the issue. When folks like Ms. Marcus get all nervous in the service, because the white guys got the job instead of women and minorities, aren't they exactly saying what she fears?

Why is it when minorities and women get a promotion it's a wonderful thing, yet when a white guy gets a promotion it's the "ole boys club" again? Oh my gosh, we're backsliding, white males are the enemy!!

We, as a nation, have actively promoted and have been doing reverse discrimination for 40+ years. Today, minorities and women are filling colleges, outpacing white males. Granted many of these get in with lower SAT scores, lower grade point averages, etc. In industry, minorities and women are sweeping that arena too in large numbers. Quite often employers will even announce that they will be hiring x number of employees and all of those will be women and minorities (In other words. white guys need not apply). One of the fastest-growing economic groups in America is the Black middle class. Note how many TV shows, advertisements on TV and radio are aimed at that demo, it's because these folks have MONEY to spend.

So maybe it is time to go back to the best-qualified person gets the job, gets admitted to college, etc. That way, when a woman and minority get admitted to a college or get hired in a great job, no one will be saying, they got that job ONLY because they were a woman or minority. They'll have actually earned it, like the white guys have to do in today's America. It may be unfair to say that, but because of how the system now works, it is the conclusion many come to.

Now as to why President Obama has chosen to fill his cabinet in his second administration with a mostly white boys' club, could it be possible that of the people willing and available to serve, they were the best and brightest? So is it possibly that this Black President decided to use the best and the brightest folks available rather than being politically correct? If so, I say hats off to you Mr. President.

It will be interesting to see how white boys Rush/Beck/Hannity/Jensen spin this against Obama, because according to these folks, everything Obama does is wrong and is evil. So I'd expect them to be saying that he should be hiring more women and minorities.


kavips
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 2:20pm
I sort of back Mike up on this one... After consideration, I now think Kerry, as a former presidential candidate & Senate member of of the Foreign Service Committee, is the better candidate over Susan Rice, for the duties this office requires. Susan, I'm afraid, would have the distraction of "having to answer" to Republican misclaims. John Kerry will have to do so only when he is wrong; a wanton distraction and potential political disruption is adverted. Likewise, Hagel as Defense Secretary has more of the political astuteness required for being the civilian commander of the armed forces, than the lady Michele Flournoy....

Sure both women would make competent cabinet secretaries. No doubt. But, could they do a better job than those men they replaced? I don't think so, and I give Obama a nod for recognizing that. Quality over politics.

Martin Luther King once said all people should be judged not on the color of their skin but upon the content of their character. Selecting either of these two women over the males chosen would have violated that. They would both have been chosen for their gender, not in who could do the best job.

There is something unique in sitting down with a representative of the United States of America and thinking to yourself, "Wow, if the election results hadn't been shuffled to SmartTec.com, then back to Ohio, you could have been president". Likewise, to the military, .. "Wow, you gave up power and office, because you chose to say it like it was, knowing full well the consequences of not pretending it was as everyone wished to present it."

Both men bring a tremendous amount of credibility to the office; neither of their female contenders could match that.

To wish that such competence should be replaced by tokens of gender appreciation only hurts the United States of America in the long run.

From the gender question, the important part is that women were considered. That is where the lines of prejudice end.

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 3:07pm
Sorry to change the topic, but I just had to post the link to this, Bill Clinton has been named Father of the Year. Apparently, sleeping around is part of being a good father in today's world. Go figure. Clinton, is now the role model for being a good father, only in America.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2013/01/bill-clinton-named-father-of-the-year-153760.html

kavips
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 6:23pm
Sorry also to comment on the comment of the changed topic, but it is a good thing to have Bill Clinton as a Father of the Year. . The Father's Day Council is part of the American Diabetes Foundation. It is new, and just last year, Chris Coons, Harry Gravell, and Clint Walker were all elected from Delaware to be one.

http://www.delawaretoday.com/Delaware-Today/Calendar/index.php/name/Father-of-the-Year-Awards/event/11861/

The prime object is to raise money for the prevention of diabetes. With Clinton's connections, a lot of money is sure to be raised.

Of course, some may pull up his past. But in today's world, those who stay together despite the storms pulling both sides apart, deserve the title of good father or good mother. Today's true role-models are not the ones who coast through life with no conflict. Instead, we respect those who went through war, and came out better people for it.

People thinking marriage is still as in the 1950's are in denial.

The statistics are staggering. And I would venture that those probably extolling their religion the loudest, are the very ones doing so because the have the most to hide.

Eric Bodenweiser was well-known for making a scene by loudly praying in public, whether in church, at public assemblies, or in the chambers of Sussex County Council.

To make a snide remark that President Clinton is unfit to be father of the year because someone alleged infidelity against him in today's world is outdated.

If there is a Mother of the year, go ahead and give it to Hillary, but don't take the Father of the Year away from one who sinned, was forgiven, and bounced back...

In my book, (the Bible), he is a better Father than someone who hates his wife and kids, but hangs on to a loveless marriage, simply because .. "it is the right thing to do."

... and the problem is not... only in America... In fact, Americans are probably the biggest prudes on the planet when it comes to sex.... Other cultures are far more forgiving of peccadilloes than are we here.

http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1068444.html



Mike from Delaware
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 11:00pm
Kavips: So purity, faithfulness, fidelity, and honesty no longer count in today's marriages? I don't know if the Lord would agree, whether it's Bill Clinton, or any of those Christians you pointed out. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it.


What do you mean "alleged"? Monica didn't deny that she "serviced" Clinton. That doesn't mean Clinton shouldn't be forgiven by Hillary and God if he repented. My point is there are plenty of other famous fathers out there who too were tempted, but didn't take a bite from that apple, who also did great jobs of being a father. I'm sorry to have to disagree but, Bill Clinton isn't the best example of fatherhood in the nation, in my opinion. Clinton being given this award is like when Obama got the Peace prize and he hadn't yet done anything other than win an election. It makes the award meaningless.


kavips
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 11:49pm
Mike, at the thought of sounding heathen, I would say no... Purity .. that comes form Victorian England, and though they pretended to be high-minded, the were just as sexual as kids today.

Purity... really? Upon further consideration is that even a viable concept anymore? Go to kids in 1st grade and tell them they have to be pure? They'd ask you why? Why be pure if it costs you $500,000 over a lifetime? Why be pure if it gives you 60 years of unhappiness? Why be pure if it makes you the laughing stock of society? Why be pure if it drives you to suicide?

The next word: Faithfulness? I suppose you mean sexually? If you want to stay married, then you should keep monogamous out of respect to your spouse. In that way, it is grounded. " I'm faithful to you, because I know how I'd be hurt if you were unfaithful to me, so, I love you so much, I won't do that to you..". That is ok.

But to walk around hating yourself, your spouse, but loving the idea of your own faithfulness, is a crock. Faithfulness by itself is a fake thing, a made-up thing. Something to wrap around one's shoulders and say, "See how faithful I am, look, I hate my spouse, but I am still faithful. Save me the seat on the left up there, will you?"

What was the other one? Honesty. Ha, that is a crock! When politicians lie. When evangelical preachers lie. When priests lie. When Jerry Sandusky lies. When employers lie. When labor lies. When governors lie. When mayor's lie. All because they have to of course, not in a malicious way, but a protective way... And even in a relationship.. you have to lie. When your spouse asks you if she looks fat, do you say yes?

If so, I can guess you are no longer married....

Now if you were in love with your spouse, and you wanted not to hurt her so you were honest, you were faithful, you were... (I can't even say pure with a straight face).... but anyways, those things had to come from a love...

So love is the only trait that is important. If you love your spouse, you aren't going to hurt that person. If you don't love her, you need to get the heck out of the marriage and give them time to find somebody who does before they get too old...

Now honor, that's a different story. A man, or woman, is required by honor, not to keep his/her spouse in a relationship they know will go nowhere....

I understand that this may be hard for some to understand in you have lived in a monogamous marriage all your life. Half of America doesn't. To them, getting it right the second time, finding someone who loves them for what they are, and loving them for what they are, is their prime objective. For them, getting out of a marriage that isn't working is the best thing for all, so all parties have the opportunity to get into one that does... :)


mrpizza
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 6:51am
Kavips: For what it's worth, here's what Frank Sinatra had to say about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaPlnftmoRM

Mike from Delaware
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 8:41am
Kavips: It's one thing to discover that you and your spouse are like oil and water, and after trying to make it work, you end up deciding for both people's "mental health", etc., you'll end the marriage. That isn't what God intended, but the human condition being what it is ends up being what needs to be done for both people. People do make mistakes and can choose a mate that they just aren't compatible with.

However, that is far different from someone deciding they just can't or won't control their urges and goes and "sleeps around" while the little woman at home knows nothing of it, or the hubby at home knows nothing of it. That is being unfaithful, not living a pure life, not having fidelity in the marriage, nor is it honest. Laugh at the pure word, if you must, God calls his people to be pure in heart.

God's standards are much higher than ours, which is why we can not earn our salvation, it has to be a gift from God. Lutherans call it Law and Gospel. The Law shows us that we can not measure up to God's standard and never can be good enough (our righteousness are like filthy rags), but the Gospel, the good news of God's love and grace freely given to us is what gets us saved and made right with God. God does it all for us.

Bill Clinton is the poster boy for a person who didn't or wouldn't control his sexual urges and as such, who at least hasn't been faithful, didn't live a pure life, didn't have fidelity in his marriage, and certainly wasn't honest to his wife and his God.

Is it the unpardonable sin? No, but should he be given an award for being the Father of the Year? I think not.

But given our differences on this issue should help explain one reason why I'm NOT a Democrat, but am an Independent.

kavips
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 3:05pm
Mike. I know it gets said all the time in church. But, what really does "pure in heart" mean?

I would assume it meant no pacemaker, no valve-work.

Mike from Delaware
Sat, Jan 12, 2013 12:33am
Kavips: According to "Vine Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words": The word Pure comes from the Greek word Hagnos which means pure from defilement, not contaminated (from the same root as hagios, holy). It also refers you to the word Chaste, which is the same word in Greek Hagnos in this use means: signifies (a) pure from every fault, immaculate (b) pure from carnality, modest being free from defilement.

Or it can mean no pacemaker, no valve work - heh heh.

kavips
Sun, Jan 13, 2013 2:23pm
Going back to the original thread topic, I wonder how WWII would have ended if we, the U.S. had to fill vital general positions because of one's minority status?

Sorry, Patton. Wrong gender. Ike, you should have been Hispanic. Omar: Get some suntan and pretend you're an Arab.


Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.
Username:
Password:
Comment:
 










Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach