Posted by Eagle at adsl-67-37-182-218.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net on June 28, 2002 at 18:50:34:
In Reply to: Re: Correct. I didn't posted by pixies chick on June 28, 2002 at 18:40:47:
but I have to leave. I actually agree with the first part of what you've written. Just note that other things good for society are merit based rewards (vs. punishing those who bust ass to accomplish something in life), individual responsibility and accountability, and basic morals and ethics. It can be argued that liberalism is against the first two thoughts in that list and can lead to promoting those who do not have the third (e.g., Clinton). Anyway, if Bush was promoted along without having any of his own merit, then I would agree with you. But it appears to me that he's proven himself and I feel lucky that he's a guy who wants to actually do something as President as opposed to a guy who just wants to be President.
: Ah, secular humanism, my friend. I believe in the self-correcting nature of the human spirit, and the potential for all people to reach a state of maturity and optimal functioning when given the space to do so.
: It's sort of like capitalism, except instead of the highest form of perfection being the corporation, it's the people who work there.
: Yes, I mean all of them - the workers, the bosses, the researchers, ... Room to grow and freedom to innovate and live a balanced and productive life are good for society.
: So what does this have to do with Bush?
: Well, for one thing, he ruins that theory - the guy is such an outlier in the graph of human potential and achievement, I'm tempted to grab some Ayn Rand and run to the hills. He is an example of the beauty of patronage. Even the untalented can achieve riches with the support of the best and brightest and richest of the well-connected to shove
: shove
: SHOVE them to greatness.
: ... People who don't believe in equal rights or affirmative action might want to consider how this guy ever got into college - and why he was accepted as a pledge.