For example.  When is the last time you heard anyone suggest that women should be playing in the NBA?  Or the NFL.  Why not?  Well the truthful answer would be that they can’t compete against much larger and faster men.  Technically that would make them incompetent (not qualified or suited for a particular purpose).  Everyone knows it and everyone accepts it – in sports competition.  What do you suppose the comments would be toward someone who suggested that because certain West Africans were genetically better-suited to long distance running that they should be in a separate class of runners.  Don’t they have an unfair advantage contained in their genes?  An unfair advantage is the basis in forbidding performance-enhancing drug users isn’t it?

To me, the best system is one where the best person for the job gets it.  Race, gender, height, weight, sexual proclivities, religion and other such characteristics should not be considered.  Just give me the best person for the job.  How does being homosexual have any relevance to an accountant?  Yet if a homosexual were running for the office of State Controller it would almost certainly be a factor as far as the opposition was concerned.

Really, you shouldn’t have it both ways – if you want equality based upon equal representation then apply the standard everywhere – in sports, politics, religion, business, government, universities, etc.

In my view that would be as stupid as requiring MIT or Stanford to educate the mentally challenged and give up places in programs which could be occupied by those who could really put that learning to use for our nation.  Or requiring the NBA to have equal representation among all races and genders – that would lead to some pretty dull games I think.  Not to mention bringing down the high-standard for playing to a much lower standard.

How would you like to find out that your surgeon was graduated from med school because she matched a particular “equality” requirement and not necessarily because she met the same standards as all the other graduates?  Wouldn’t you rather have the person who was the best at their specialty regardless of race or gender?  If you were in a serious car wreck would you want to be attended to by the first EMS person who could get there?  Or would you rather wait for the one who matched your diversity criteria? It is interesting to me that those who demand equal representation in business, government and politics  based solely on race or gender don’t seem to have the same attitude when it comes to other areas.

When Republicans were waving copies of their healthcare proposals in the air, he should have stopped his speech, pointed at one of them and asked the congressman to bring it up and give it to him.  Or, he could have sent someone to fetch it.  In either case he would have been seen literally asking for the plan.  If it had turned out to be a prop he could have exposed it right there.  If it was an actual plan he could have promised to read it and incorporate any good ideas.

He blew his chance because the thought of reading proposals from Republicans never occurred to him. He’s not really interested in what Republicans or Conservatives have to say.  He’s not really interested in the specifics of a healthcare bill.  He is only interested in passing something identified as healthcare reform with his name on it.  That’s it.

He has gotten himself to a critical juncture in his career and is now scrambling to have any credibility at all.  He has hyped this issue to the max and cannot let it go away – if it does, so does his presidency.  So his only solution is to get something called Healthcare Reform passed by an increasingly contentious and polarized congress.  They could label a McDonald’s menu as The Healthcare Reform Bill and as long as it is called Healthcare Reform he will be happy.  He can spout all he wants to about what he’ll sign or not, but my money is on his signature no matter what is contained in the bill.