bush to everyone else: what civil rights?

so...you have a department charged with enforcing civil rights laws on our books. who'd you rather want enforcing it: someone who agrees with the law or someone who thinks the law is crap?

my favorite, totally insane, 'up is down' quote from the conservatives who think this makes total sense:

But Roger Clegg , who was a deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights during the Reagan administration, said that the change in career hiring is appropriate to bring some ``balance" to what he described as an overly liberal agency.

``I don't think there is anything sinister about any of this. . . . You are not morally required to support racial preferences just because you are working for the Civil Rights Division," Clegg said.

no, roger, you're right. you're not morally required to agree with civil rights legislation. you're just legally required to adhere to it.

since when does enforcing the law need balance? since when does making sure there is non-discrimination need balance? let's think about what 'balance' means in this context.

what balances enforcement? non-enforcement!
what balances non-discrimination? discrimination!
what balances civil rights? fuck your civil rights!

Civil rights hiring shifted in Bush era - The Boston Globe