> I don't think that's what he's saying. Those are political positions,
> assigned by someone who wants to keep his job and who didn't
> even get the
> popular vote. They probably are good at what they do.
> However, they may not
> be _the_best_ at what they do. People are chosen for those
> positions based
> partly on their political agreement with the person doing the
> assigning.
And, to be honest, I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't think
it's possible to nail a "score" on someone on how good they are. I mean,
consider the CF world. Let's say you have two people who you are
considering for a position. You wouldn't simply take their scores on the
CF Cert exam, would you? Of course not. The person with the higher score
may have zero to no interpersonal skills, or may be lacking in other
areas.
Now, as a politician, you have certain views. These may be pro-big
business, pro-environment, whatever. For now, let's not call them
bad/wrong/right/whatever. They are just views, period. It only makes
sense, however, that you would want to work with people who share your
views. That being said, you wouldn't hire a complete idiot for the job,
or turn away someone with amazing skills just because you disagree with
that. I'm just saying, in general (big caveat there), that there isn't
anything wrong w/ wanting to work w/ people who share the same ideals,
points of view, etc. In a broad sense, of course. There is a difference
between someone who shares your _basic_ ideals, and a "yes man." I would
never advocate hiring a sycophant.
-Ray
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
