Ohio Democrats Say Gov. John Kasich Ignoring Blacks in Cabinet Hires

I KNOW THAT NO ONE IS SURPRISED BY THIS RIGHT? COME ON NOW...

After further consideration, I too am offended by Governor Kasich's Cabinet appointments--ot one red-haired person! How in the world is this group of Blond, Brown, Black, and Gray-Haired folks going to represent the Gingers of this nation? Were there ANY Gingers on Senator Turner's list? We represent about 4% of the population, so I am going to DEMAND that the Governor include 4% (1/25) Gingers on his Cabinet. I don't care how liberal they are, just so they have red hair.

I am frustrated, not by Senator Turner's initial expression of concern about the diversity of Governor Kasich's cabinet, but by her other actions, which I believe are at least in part politically motivated.
a) In speaking of diversity, Senator Turner focuses only on race, i.e., the color of one's skin. "...if you are African American, you need not apply," ignoring the fact that two Blacks were appointed to positions but refused to take them. (By the way, do people apply for Cabinet positions?).
b) I believe that Senator Turner is playing the race card in an attempt to gain political (Left v. Right) advantage. In her statement printed above, and on a radio interview I heard yesterday, Sen. Turner insinuates that Gov. Kasich "might have" meant Blacks by "your people," despite the facts that she (and some White Democrats) met with Gov. Kasich as members of the Democratic Caucus and that Gov Kasich said that he meant Democrats. The Governor was elected, because of his stated beliefs and goals, to carry out what he believes is best for the People of Ohio. In order to do that, he must appoint people who share his vision of Ohio's future, as well as the strategies by which this vision can be attained. If Senator Turner simply wanted more Blacks in office, she should have voted for Kenneth Blackwell (she didn't, by her own admission).
c) Senator Turner gave Governor Kasich a list of "qualified" prospects for the positions. Were these people who share Governor Kasich's conservative ideology? Did these people represent diverse perspectives and experiences, or was their skin simply darker?
Finally, why did this article even mention the mistake regarding MLK Jr. Day and March 17th. Does this, too, mean that Governor Kasich is racist, or "doesn't care" about diversity?

It's unsuprising that the one-solution spend-left also only seems to have one defense, the race card. Which they wore out about 2-years ago.

The first consideration for selection of employees in publicly-funded positions of administrative authority should be their qualifications and history of integrity and trustworthiness in public matters. In a perfect world, that would result in a roughly representative mix of ethnic and racial backgrounds.
Melanin levels should have zero to do with the decision, pro or con.
Faced with a choice between Hank Paulson, Charlie Rangell, Tim Geithner, Michael Steele, and Maxine Waters for such a post, I'd prefer to choose a random person off the street than trust any of them.

There were many Johnsons and Stuarts; but on the other hand there were conspicuous cases of Southerners to whom defeat seemed unbearable. General Early first betook himself to Mexico; then he went to Canada; after that he sought unsuccessfully to promote the emigration of ex-Confederates to New Zealand. The scientist Matthew Fontaine Maury sought after the war to bring about a similar colonization of former Confederates in Mexico; J. P. Benjamin, escaping through Florida and the Bahamas, made his way to England, where he became Queens counsel and practiced law with distinction. Breckinridge departed to Europe via the Florida Keys and Cuba. Edmund Ruffin, bequeathing unmitigated hatred of Yankees to Southerners yet unborn, ended his life by a pistol shot.
Source: "The Civil War and Reconstruction" by J.G. Randall and David Herbert Donald

A Louisiana citizen told a United States senator of a postwar visit to sugar plantations on the Bayou Teche -- the "garden spot of Louisiana." In prewar days, he said, with the "Devil of Slavery" in the land, this region presented a picture of fully cultivated fields, neatly whitewashed cabins for the hands, and sugar houses of the best construction, making the whole scene a "paradise to the eye." Now, with the devil of slavery gone, sugar houses had been destroyed, fences burned, weeds and brush were taking possession, and not a plantation was in decent order. Planters were without money or credit, could not borrow, and had no means of hiring or maintaining hands. A Louisiana planter who in 1861 had a sugar crop worth $125,000 was brushing his own shoes and dispensing with house service in postwar days. From High Shoals, North Carolina, came an eye-witness account of conditions in that state: "almost thorough starvation from the failure of the last years crop"; "ten beggars here to one in Washington"; "whole families ... coming in from South Carolina to seek food and obtain employment"; "agriculturists . . . entirely stripped by the Confederacy and . . . forced into the ranks to return to their poor wives and children destitute and unable to get any work." Summing up the situation, this writer said: "A more completely crushed country I have seldom witnessed." "The great majority," he added, "are as loyal to the Union as I could wish to see them."

Many of the people had no homes. "From Winchester to Harrisonburg scarce a crop, fence, chicken, horse, cow, or pig was in sight. . . . Extreme destitution prevailed throughout the entire valley. All able-bodied negroes had left; only those unfit to work remained. The country between Washington and Richmond was . . . like a desert." Southerners were without adequate currency. They had put their wealth into Confederate bonds or had given their produce for such bonds; now these securities, together with Confederate money, were utterly worthless. Prominent men, including Confederate generals, were "asking what they could do to earn their bread." The city of Richmond may be taken as an example. A Federal relief commission was formed; the city was divided into thirty districts; and house-to-house visiting was instituted. By April 21, 1865, rations to the number of 128,000 had been issued; and it was estimated that 15,000 persons had been given relief. A report of the time stated that 35,000 persons in the region near Atlanta were dependent for subsistence upon the Federal government, and that in Atlanta itself there were 15,000 recipients. Many Confederate soldiers, just discharged from Northern prisons, were given rations. A Southern soldier remarked that "it must be a matter of gratitude as well as surprise, for our people to see a Government which was lately fighting us with fire, and sword, and shell, now generously feeding our poor and distressed. . . . There is much in this that takes away the bitter sting . . . of the past."
The war, as already noted, killed a quarter of a million soldiers of the South. The number of civilians that perished as a by-product of the struggle cannot be estimated. What had taken place was the collapse of a civilization. In one community in South Carolina, wrote a contemporary observer, "lived a gentleman whose income, when the war broke out, was rated at $150,000 a year. . . . Not a vestige of his whole vast property of millions remains today. Not far distant were the estates of a large proprietor and a well-known family, rich and distinguished for generations. The slaves are gone. The family is gone. A single scion of the house remains, and he peddles tea by the pound and molasses by the quart, on a corner of the old homestead, to the former slaves of the family, and thereby earns his livelihood."

READ:


The Post Civil War South

That the South in these postwar years desperately needed the best thought the country could give was only too apparent. The South had been broken by the war. Lands were devastated. Proud plantations were now mere wrecks. Billions of economic value in slaves had been wiped away by emancipation measures without that compensation which Lincoln himself had admitted to be equitable. Difficult social problems presented themselves in the sudden elevation of a servile race to the status of free laborers and enfranchised citizens. Accumulated capital had disappeared. Banks were shattered; factories were dismantled; the structure of business intercourse had crumbled. In Atlanta, Columbia, Mobile, Richmond, and many other places great havoc had been wrought by fire.
The interior of South Carolina, in the wake of Sherman's march, "looked for many miles like a broad black streak of ruin and desolation--the fences all gone; lonesome smoke stacks, surrounded by dark heaps of ashes and cinders, marking the spots where human habitations had stood; the fields along the road wildly overgrown by weeds, with here and there a sickly looking patch of cotton or corn cultivated by negro squatters. In the city of Columbia . . .a thin fringe of houses encircled a confused mass of charred ruins of dwellings and business buildings, which had been destroyed by a sweeping conflagration." The Tennessee valley, according to the account of an English traveler, "consists for the most part of plantations in a state of semi-ruin, and plantations of which the ruin is for the present total and complete. . . . The trail of war is visible throughout the valley in burnt up gin-houses, ruined bridges, mills, and factories, of which latter the gable walls only are left standing, and in large tracts of once cultivated land stripped of every vestige of fencing. . . . Borne down by losses, debts, and accumulating taxes, many who were once the richest among their fellows have disappeared from the scene, and few have yet risen to take their places."

We need to go to a quota system to keep all happy . Lets see all jobs including sports must have the same % of people as the % in the national population. so 15 % black 29% hispanic 9% asian 2% american indians and what ever white ect ect ect now that would be a hell of an NBA team. and the loss of a lot of talent