hypocrisy annoys me

Bush Jr. has his share of problems and people should feel free to critique him for those things. However, some people illustrate their objections have more to do with his party than his actual politics. And while I myself despise both parties about equally, that I still find ridiculous. People are so busy hiding behind parties they forget to actually pay attention to what is going on.
For example, check out this joke, from a "Think you're funny comedy contest", 7 qualities Bush wants in a supreme court justice:"
4. Male and Pale
http://portland.craigslist.org/act/89629678.html

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but...for good or ill...Condoleeza Rice, appointed by Bush to one of the most powerful posts on earth, is neither white nor male. In fact, she is the first ever black National Security Advisor.
In fact, his record of appointing non-whites and females is rivaled only by one person...Bill Clinton. In many ways he has exceeded CLintons' record...check this link out...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-12-09-diverse-usat_x.htm
One of my favorite quotes ever is right here, from that article:
Bush did not go out and say, 'I'm going to create an administration that looks like America,' which is how Clinton led off," says Paul Light, a political scientist at New York University who has studied presidential appointments. "He has just gone about recruiting a diverse Cabinet as an ordinary act. That's remarkable in the sense it sends to future administrations: 'This is just the way we're going to do business.' "
In other words, cranking on Bush for only selecting white males is simply not accurate. 50% of his appointments do not fill that bill. Pointing to the supreme court and saying he only appoints them to unimportant positions ignores not only Rice but also says education is unimportant (Margaret Spellings for Education), commerce is unimportant (Carlos Gutierrez) and even the attorney general was Hispanic.
I find it interesting that anyone who is not white or male falls into the same set that anyone who wanted a piece of the power structure as opposed to wanting to change the power structure.
Rice is a modern "Uncle Tom" or "Uncle Tomahawk"...as are Gutierrez, Spellings, Clarence Thomas, J.C. Watts, and anyone else who is not "male and pale".
Okay, then...doesn't that mean that anyone who IS male and pale and is not Republican is, by definition, an Uncle Thomas? (Named for Thomas Jefferson, coined just this very moment.) How about a trade; everyone who is acting in their self-interest but not according to the established "American paradigm" pre-determined for their race, gender and age instantly switch sides.
Ironically, this is one of the very points Vine Deloria Jr. makes in several of his books. Any Native American who is not riding a horse, wearing war paint and buckskins, replete with bow, tomahawk, and Sioux war bonnet and living on the reservation is not "Indian enough".
The Native American who wears a business suit or is an athlete is not Indian enough. The Native American who has joined white society is not Indian enough. When the Makahs used modern weapons for their whale hunts, it was rejected for not being "Indian enough".
Get the picture? We establish a preconceived notion of who people are and what they believe...and if those people fail to meet our conceptions they are not "Indian enough", "black enough", "Asian enough", "womanly enough", "liberal enough", "conservative enough"...when what we REALLY mean, whethe consciously aware of it or not, is they aren't "matching my stereotype enough".
What is right and wrong for anyone? Who is to say the dominant culture has nothing to offer a black or Indian or Asian or Polynesian or Hispanic or....well, you get the picture.
The answer is because we decide what is right for other people and races even if they say otherwise. We know best what the Mexicans want...they want to come across the border illegally, work long hours at the back breaking labor of farming for little pay, live in small houses with huge families, and play soccer. Why, the Mexican who legally comes to the U.S. seeking to be a doctor, play tennis, live with his wife and 1 child in a 3000 square foot house with no yard, and hates soccer cannot exist. After all, we know what Mexicans want...don't we?
No. We don't. Just as it is unfair and inaccurate to criticize Rice as an Aunt Tom and so forth. I think it is great we have a Hispanic in charge of Commerce. It is so contrary to our "belief" of what he is supposed to want and be that his existence illustrates the futility and inaccuracy and counter-productiveness of false criticisms.
No, if Rice is to be criticized, it is as an individual and for what she does, not for doing what she does while still being black (strike 1) and a woman (strike 2) in a Republican administration (strike 3). To me, those strikes say more about the people complaining than they do the person being complained about.
Well, that should about cover smurfing off every single person I know. I think virtually every paragraph in there has something that someone I know disagrees with...and here comes my appeal.
Please, after you are done being upset or angry, go back, read it again, think about it, and recognize that maybe, just maybe, all of us need to change the way we think. And yes...that includes me.