Text 14285, 60 rader
Skriven 2007-05-09 12:16:06 av Amy Guskin (655.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: OT: a proposal for increasing teachers' salaries
============================================================
>> On Wed, 9 May 2007 00:35:07 -0400, Josh Hill wrote
(in article <9jj243d5patcc097upv9u1cv13m7jgbg2j@4ax.com>):

> On Tue, 8 May 2007 20:21:21 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Josh Hill wrote:
>>> On Tue, 8 May 2007 11:02:33 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Everyone agrees that there's pork.  Everyone knows that there's
>>>> waste.
>>>> Why is it that once it's added to a budget it becomes sacrosanct?
>>>> 
>>>> It seems like budgets always start with "We want more of everything
>>>> we have now, and then we want to add new things on top of that.
>>>> 
>>>> Why can't we review what we have an honestly evaluate whether a
>>>> program  has worked, and if not, cut it?  We can try something else
>>>> if it's something that needs
>>>> to be done, but why settle for whatever we have now?
>>> 
>>> Because the public doesn't elect politicians who do that. People like
>>> pork, and fail to understand the cost of having a Congress that's for
>>> sale to the highest bidder.
>> 
>> In other words...we all deserve the corrupt bastards that make up
>> both parties.
> 
> A. To some extent, we do -- to the extent we don't read a good
> newspaper, for example, or vote on the basis of narrow self-interest
> 
> B. To some extent, we don't -- because politicians tend to be smart,
> educated people, and not all of us are, and even those of us who are
> can't always know what they're plotting and doing in the formerly
> smoke-filled rooms
> 
> C. But mostly -- and I stress and restress this point -- they aren't
> all corrupt bastards, and even when they're corrupt bastards, they
> aren't equally corrupt. You see, I hear this sentiment a lot, and it's
> wrong, wrong, wrong -- because it absolves us of our responsibility to
> make an enlightened choice at the polls, and it closes off the
> possibility of change for the better, because when all alternatives
> are bad, choice no longer matters. <<

It also demeans people who care, and who _do_ want to pick the best person 
for the job.  It's a way of attempting to defeat their hope.  You're saying 
to them, "You're wasting your time making an informed choice because they're 
all bad, bad people."

I do _not_ believe that they are all bad, bad people.  Some of them _are_.  
Some of them are fairly or very decent human beings, who will certainly make 
_some_ bad choices over the course of their careers.  I don't think that can 
be avoided, frankly.  But it makes all the difference what's in that person's 
heart, what motivates them, and what their intentions are.  Because that will 
inform all of their choices.

Amy
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)