As IF Times

link The End for Rangel Appears Greatly Exaggerated – NYTimes.com.

The old cliche goes, people elect who they deserve.  Mr. Rangel, under clouds of  ethical suspicion that would have made those over then president Bill Clinton seem like rainbows, is looking likely to hang on to his congressional seat if his supporters have their way according to this article.  The 79 year old congressman who has presided over his Harlem district for forty years  is looking to extend for one more term his tenure to preserve his legacy.  !!!

Really?  In all that time, no one else has emerged to possibly be  more capable  to represent the constituency that he oversees? Think of all that has happened in the world since Mr. Rangel came to office just after the Nixon administration.  The Vietnam war aftermath, the seventies, Jimmy Carter and the Iran hostage crisis, massive interest rate hikes, Reaganomics, the Clinton era, O.J., the twin towers bombing, 9-11, the Iraq war, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, real estate collapse, Obama, banking collapse and  the currency crisis  just to name a few events.  This guy is like Forest Gump, throughout all the changes that America lived through, Charlie Rangel was the only constant. 

Meanwhile, Harlem has evolved from an enclave of poor blacks to a somewhat gentrified and cosmopolitan area of yuppie housing and mainstream living.  Even the Clinton library is there now.  The whole Harlem experience has moved essentially to other cities including Detroit and south Chicago.  The fact is, poor people can’t afford to live in New York without massive subsidies.

For whatever lapses of ethics Mr. Rangel may be accused of during his 40 year tenure, obviously, he must have delivered the goods to his district.  As noted, the poor black neighborhoods he originally represented doesn’t really exist any more.  How then is he able to hang onto his seat?  Accusations, yet to be proven of course, that he engaged in graft, took advantage of rent control programs intended for the poor, tax  and asset amnesia would sink any other politician in today’s tabloid style political climate.  Yet, somehow, Rangel seems to command the loyalty of those that would like to see him finish out his career on “his own terms”.  From what I can see, he’s pretty much had a career on his own terms for 40 years.

There is no logical explanation for this but we see elements of this in all political dynasties and that is this:  It doesn’t matter what your guy does, as long as it’s YOUR guy.  If politics was about putting the most capable people in office, the nation would be run by the Coca Cola people.  Politics is a popularity contest supported by payola and quid pro quo activities.  As long as the candidate is not found to be hiding dismembered corpses in his basement, chances are good that he will be supported especially if he happens to identify with his constituents in the simplest of ways.  People are tribal.  Blacks will elect blacks, Asians will elect Asians and Latinos will elect Latinos.  Liberals and Conservatives will pull for their man even if it happens to be Al Franken or Arnold Schwarzennegger respectively, regardless of  how unqualified they may happen to be.   In the case of Arnold, to be fair, he may have conned some liberals to vote for him based on the hollywood pedigree. We are seeing some changes to this in some ways on the conservative side with the rise of the Tea Party movement, but generally, capability and integrity are not job requirements for office.

In the early 90’s, the mayor of Washington DC, Marion Barry was arrested, convicted and went to prison for crack cocaine use and possession.  Amazingly, the voters put him back into that office in 1994.  Think of that.  Of all the possible candidates the voters could have put into the mayor’s office, the people decided that a convicted drug felon was the best choice.   Earlier this year, Ted Kennedy passed away after battling cancer.  Long worshipped by the American left, but especially in Massachusetts, he died as a hero to his peeps.  Somehow the events at Chappaquiddick were ignored in the deification of uncle Ted.

It’s no wonder that so many people try to get into office.  Once you get in, it’s practically a life entitlement as long as you keep your peeps happy.  So I would tend to agree with the premise of the linked article.  Don’t count Charlie out.

link Debrahlee Lorenzana sues Citibank saying she was fired from Citibank for being too hot – NYPOST.com.

In the interest of maintaining a fair and balanced society, if we allow Miss Lorenzana to be dismissed for being too hot, should we also then be allowed to fire people for being too  unsightly? If that were to happen, I can think of at least three daytime and one evening talk show that would immediately cease to exist.  Given that possibility, Miss Lorenzana’s sacrifice may be well worth it for the rest of us.

For decades, we’ve been urged to look beyond the surface aesthetics of people to view their inner qualities.  For the most part, these sentiments are sound.   This allows society to filter out the vapid and the vain from serious consideration as partners, spouses, employees or other important life role players.

But this recent event is a signal that this pendulum has swung too far in one direction and political correctness has been grossly hijacked .  It’s one thing to tolerate unsightliness, it’s another to ban pleasantness.  Like much of what has happened to society, the well intentioned strive for equality has created inequality in the opposite direction.  This of course, is unsustainable.  Sure we may pretend to treat people all the same, but seriously, would you rather watch Melissa Theuriau read the news or watch Rosie O’ Donnell?  Most would agree Ms. Theriau in a burlap dress and a moustache hands down, doubly so if you factor in sound.   Maybe companies can consider what the Chinese communists did for years, mandate that everyone dress in the drab grey Mao suits so representative of uniformity and compliance.  Are people actually trying to reduce the workplace environment to essentially an ant colony?

People are drawn to pleasant things, whether they be sounds, tastes, experiences and most definitely, sights.  If this were not the case, we’d all be moles.  In the case of Miss Lorenzana, it’s clear that attire alone was not the determinant in the  ousting from her job since other women were similarly dressed:

“…But her supervisors shot back that those women didn’t have to worry about turning them on “as their general unattractiveness rendered moot their sartorial choices, unlike plaintiff,” the papers say…”

Boy does that sound like an advertisement for an attractive workplace or what?  Can you imagine an advert for a job at this place? 

“Office staff needed at busy downtown bank.  Good pay and working conditions.  Must be generally unattractive.  Apply with resume, picture must be enclosed.”

 Looks to me like the wives are upset.  My bet is that some daring company will hire Miss Lorenzana and take the chance that people will enjoy working with her.  But that’s just a guess.