Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (58975)	9/19/2002 4:09:35 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 82486

Too true. It is hard to watch someone you care about flail and founder. I just don't think the system should be set up preferentially for some classes of people with problems and not for others. It is endemic in Hollywood and D.C. and elsewhere. Heck, I see it in my city. We recently had a teacher without the right credentials hired over someone that had all their credentials. Why? They were a friend of the principal and attended the same (fundamentalist) church. No point trying to change it wholesale because I think it will always matter who you know, but we'd better recognize it as a major deviation from the principle "All (men,women) are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights" and honestly see it for what it is.

To: one_less who wrote (58975)	9/19/2002 4:21:26 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

It is different, IMO, where the parent is also a person with fiduciary duties. The governor of a state has a fiduciary duty to all the citizens of the state, rich and poor, influencial and politically insignificant. He is elected to represent and serve them all. This, whereas for a parent in private life to go to bat for their own child and look for special treatment, it is far different when a public servant -- particularly one who is the titular head of the State Department of Justice -- seeks personal favors to benefit himself or his family. I made the same point when Clinton was found to have lied under oath -- that it was more serious for him than for a normal citizen because as the head legal officer of the nation he had a special duty--indeed, a sworn duty--to uphold the law, so breaking it was especially serious when he did it since it undermined the entire principle of a government based on law. So I'm evenhanded about this -- criticizing both Clinton and Jeb Bush for the same failure of honesty and duty.