On Sep 7, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Ricardo Araoz wrote:
> Funny that. If you hire a lawyer or an engineer you would be adamant
> in
> keeping your right to fire him at any time (nothing about the engineer
> "focus on doing what is right, not what is" your wish "at the moment".
> Same thing if you hired an accountant to straighten up your economy.
> Yet
> when it comes to govt you have swallowed this lies without even
> chewing
> them, and you'll accept things you wouldn't accept in any other aspect
> of your life.
If it were "my" engineer, then sure, that would be the way I would
handle things. But that's not analogous to an elected government, in
which roughly half or so did not pick that engineer. Instead of
letting him do his job, this disgruntled half would spend their time
trying to remove him. I think back to the days of the Clinton
presidency, in which the Republicans focused exclusively on "getting"
him. As a result, very little governing got done, and lots of money
was spent on these witch hunts.
How I deal with people who are answerable only to me is very
different than how I deal with someone who is answerable to an entire
group, of which I am but a member. You seem to be confusing the two
situations.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
