Newser had an article asserting the Eleanore Holmes Norton, elected Delegate from Washington, DC to Congress, may not seek re-election this year. She has held the post for 18 terms, and there is discussion of dementia. The Newser story and comments center on the question of should there be term limits, and mental and physical exam requirements. My view - it is the duty of the citizen voter to make the decision of whether a candidate is physically or mentally incapacitated. I admit, I think voters can make mistakes - not voting for the lively Trump and apparently choosing Giden instead. Below is my comment:
There should NOT be upper age limits on electing Congress folks. It is the duty of the voter to distinguish between a lively Trump and a Biden.
Norton did much to reduce the effectiveness of our government long before she was elected to represent DC. I think she was on the EEOC when she began her assault on exams related to work. Both govt., the armed services, and businesses used aptitude exams to find which applicants might best fit in what openings. Norton opposed these because she did not like the results regarding race (and perhaps gender). She totally opposed IQ tests that were very helpful in spotlighting those who did very well despite education in rather poor schools. Again, Norton disliked the results. In effect, she asserted any exam where whites did better than blacks was racist. The result was that to be consitered non racist, a test had to be easy enough so that almost all passed. Standards had to be lowered to achieve that result. The result for American society, many competent applicants were not hired, so the EEOC coud demand they hire by race and gender, afterall, they all did well on the exams. Better to hire dummies than have the civil rights division accuse your firm of racism. Norton paved the road to the disastrous DEI.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment