In article ,
says...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:26:53 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

If I had been a constituent of this individual and had the necessary
influence, how would you view the use of that influence to jump over
the list to join the National Guard in order to avoid possible combat.

You should consider your blessings and make the most of the opportunity.
You certainly should not bring shame on yourself or those who used their
influence for such an extreme favor, especially knowing that you had
bumped someone off who was likely more deserving of the position.

Interesting.

How would you describe one person as being "more deserving" than
another in being bumped up the list?


They're more likely to have come by the opportunity honestly.

That's never been the case with Uncurious George.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:24:11 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:26:53 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

If I had been a constituent of this individual and had the necessary
influence, how would you view the use of that influence to jump over
the list to join the National Guard in order to avoid possible combat.

You should consider your blessings and make the most of the opportunity.
You certainly should not bring shame on yourself or those who used their
influence for such an extreme favor, especially knowing that you had
bumped someone off who was likely more deserving of the position.

Interesting.

How would you describe one person as being "more deserving" than
another in being bumped up the list?

They're more likely to have come by the opportunity honestly.

Allow me to rephrase.

What is the difference between being deserving or not deserving of the
use of political influence to obtain any given result.



Later,

Tom

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:24:11 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:26:53 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

If I had been a constituent of this individual and had the necessary
influence, how would you view the use of that influence to jump over
the list to join the National Guard in order to avoid possible combat.

You should consider your blessings and make the most of the opportunity.
You certainly should not bring shame on yourself or those who used their
influence for such an extreme favor, especially knowing that you had
bumped someone off who was likely more deserving of the position.

Interesting.

How would you describe one person as being "more deserving" than
another in being bumped up the list?

They're more likely to have come by the opportunity honestly.

Allow me to rephrase.

What is the difference between being deserving or not deserving of the
use of political influence to obtain any given result.

There is no deserving. It's a fact of reality that people have
influence.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It's just a matter of degrees.

jps

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:07:21 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:24:11 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:26:53 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

If I had been a constituent of this individual and had the necessary
influence, how would you view the use of that influence to jump over
the list to join the National Guard in order to avoid possible combat.

You should consider your blessings and make the most of the opportunity.
You certainly should not bring shame on yourself or those who used their
influence for such an extreme favor, especially knowing that you had
bumped someone off who was likely more deserving of the position.

Interesting.

How would you describe one person as being "more deserving" than
another in being bumped up the list?

They're more likely to have come by the opportunity honestly.

Allow me to rephrase.

What is the difference between being deserving or not deserving of the
use of political influence to obtain any given result.

There is no deserving. It's a fact of reality that people have
influence.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It's just a matter of degrees.

You said the following to the original question.

"You certainly should not bring shame on yourself or those who used
their influence for such an extreme favor, especially knowing that you
had bumped someone off who was likely more deserving of the position."

I asked how you define more deserving.

One more time - how do you define one individual being more deserving
of influence than another?




Later,

Tom

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:07:21 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:24:11 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:26:53 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

If I had been a constituent of this individual and had the necessary
influence, how would you view the use of that influence to jump over
the list to join the National Guard in order to avoid possible combat.

You should consider your blessings and make the most of the opportunity.
You certainly should not bring shame on yourself or those who used their
influence for such an extreme favor, especially knowing that you had
bumped someone off who was likely more deserving of the position.

Interesting.

How would you describe one person as being "more deserving" than
another in being bumped up the list?

They're more likely to have come by the opportunity honestly.

Allow me to rephrase.

What is the difference between being deserving or not deserving of the
use of political influence to obtain any given result.

There is no deserving. It's a fact of reality that people have
influence.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It's just a matter of degrees.

You said the following to the original question.

"You certainly should not bring shame on yourself or those who used
their influence for such an extreme favor, especially knowing that you
had bumped someone off who was likely more deserving of the position."

I asked how you define more deserving.

One more time - how do you define one individual being more deserving
of influence than another?

That's your construct, not mine. I didn't suggest one was more
deserving based on influence, I suggested that influence is an unfair
leg up that would likely bump someone off who had earned it on their
own. Perhaps I didn't explain it well enough.

Some people have access to influence through circumstance such as family
(unmerited) and some people earn it on their own (merited).

George had a leg up in every circumstance. He's a poster child for the
Peter Principle.

jps

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:50:21 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:07:21 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:24:11 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:26:53 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

If I had been a constituent of this individual and had the necessary
influence, how would you view the use of that influence to jump over
the list to join the National Guard in order to avoid possible combat.

You should consider your blessings and make the most of the opportunity.
You certainly should not bring shame on yourself or those who used their
influence for such an extreme favor, especially knowing that you had
bumped someone off who was likely more deserving of the position.

Interesting.

How would you describe one person as being "more deserving" than
another in being bumped up the list?

They're more likely to have come by the opportunity honestly.

Allow me to rephrase.

What is the difference between being deserving or not deserving of the
use of political influence to obtain any given result.

There is no deserving. It's a fact of reality that people have
influence.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It's just a matter of degrees.

You said the following to the original question.

"You certainly should not bring shame on yourself or those who used
their influence for such an extreme favor, especially knowing that you
had bumped someone off who was likely more deserving of the position."

I asked how you define more deserving.

One more time - how do you define one individual being more deserving
of influence than another?

~~ snippage ~~

Some people have access to influence through circumstance such as family
(unmerited) and some people earn it on their own (merited).

Fair enough.

However, isn't merit a subjective value judgement? The individual
making the value judgement has been subjected to influences that act
as the determing factor and these factors are entirely subjective in
terms of merit (value).

For example, A is valuable to B because of connections, money or other
influences. A askes B for a favour. B, due to the connections,
fulfills the request at the expense of C who, as it happens, is also
making a request, but does not have the same connections. Both A and
C are equally qualified to perform the appointment being requested.

It that a merit judgement or not?


Later,

Tom

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:50:21 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:07:21 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:24:11 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:26:53 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

If I had been a constituent of this individual and had the necessary
influence, how would you view the use of that influence to jump over
the list to join the National Guard in order to avoid possible combat.

You should consider your blessings and make the most of the opportunity.
You certainly should not bring shame on yourself or those who used their
influence for such an extreme favor, especially knowing that you had
bumped someone off who was likely more deserving of the position.

Interesting.

How would you describe one person as being "more deserving" than
another in being bumped up the list?

They're more likely to have come by the opportunity honestly.

Allow me to rephrase.

What is the difference between being deserving or not deserving of the
use of political influence to obtain any given result.

There is no deserving. It's a fact of reality that people have
influence.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It's just a matter of degrees.

You said the following to the original question.

"You certainly should not bring shame on yourself or those who used
their influence for such an extreme favor, especially knowing that you
had bumped someone off who was likely more deserving of the position."

I asked how you define more deserving.

One more time - how do you define one individual being more deserving
of influence than another?

~~ snippage ~~

Some people have access to influence through circumstance such as family
(unmerited) and some people earn it on their own (merited).

Fair enough.

However, isn't merit a subjective value judgement? The individual
making the value judgement has been subjected to influences that act
as the determing factor and these factors are entirely subjective in
terms of merit (value).

Merit, while subjective, is still pretty easily recognized.

For example, A is valuable to B because of connections, money or other
influences. A askes B for a favour. B, due to the connections,
fulfills the request at the expense of C who, as it happens, is also
making a request, but does not have the same connections. Both A and
C are equally qualified to perform the appointment being requested.

A and C should be on an even playing field, unless it took one or the
other extraordinary effort to reach the same plateau.

Neither A nor C is less or more deserving. The interceding influence of
B corrupts the equation.

It that a merit judgement or not?

You decide.

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:06:55 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:50:21 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:07:21 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:24:11 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:26:53 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

If I had been a constituent of this individual and had the necessary
influence, how would you view the use of that influence to jump over
the list to join the National Guard in order to avoid possible combat.

You should consider your blessings and make the most of the opportunity.
You certainly should not bring shame on yourself or those who used their
influence for such an extreme favor, especially knowing that you had
bumped someone off who was likely more deserving of the position.

Interesting.

How would you describe one person as being "more deserving" than
another in being bumped up the list?

They're more likely to have come by the opportunity honestly.

Allow me to rephrase.

What is the difference between being deserving or not deserving of the
use of political influence to obtain any given result.

There is no deserving. It's a fact of reality that people have
influence.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It's just a matter of degrees.

You said the following to the original question.

"You certainly should not bring shame on yourself or those who used
their influence for such an extreme favor, especially knowing that you
had bumped someone off who was likely more deserving of the position."

I asked how you define more deserving.

One more time - how do you define one individual being more deserving
of influence than another?

~~ snippage ~~

Some people have access to influence through circumstance such as family
(unmerited) and some people earn it on their own (merited).

Fair enough.

However, isn't merit a subjective value judgement? The individual
making the value judgement has been subjected to influences that act
as the determing factor and these factors are entirely subjective in
terms of merit (value).

Merit, while subjective, is still pretty easily recognized.

Really?

D is pro life, E is pro choice - which view has more merit? :)

For example, A is valuable to B because of connections, money or other
influences. A askes B for a favour. B, due to the connections,
fulfills the request at the expense of C who, as it happens, is also
making a request, but does not have the same connections. Both A and
C are equally qualified to perform the appointment being requested.

A and C should be on an even playing field, unless it took one or the
other extraordinary effort to reach the same plateau.

What if it was A who made the extraordinary effort?

Neither A nor C is less or more deserving. The interceding influence of
B corrupts the equation.

Hmmmm - not really. B has the power and makes the decision - B
doesn't corrumpt anything.

Let's try a different example. We both own the same outboard. Our
outboards blow up in a hail of pieces and parts. Both are out of
warranty by six months. I know the manufacturer's service
representative who takes care of me by juggling the warranty data so
that my engine is in warranty. You have to pay for your new
powerhead.

One situation, two questions.

I can afford to pay for the new powerhead and your can't. Is my use
of influence fair or unfair?

I can't afford to pay for the new powerhead and you can. Is my use of
influence fair or unfair?

It that a merit judgement or not?

You decide.

Good question, but you made some assertiations and I'm trying to
determine what your viewpoint is - your logic path if you will. So
far, you haven't really said anything specific even when given
specific examples.

However, since you asked, in my world, the use of influence is more
than appropriate because it can work to benefit others who don't have
influence and, as it happens, it can, and often does, benefit me Such
influence that I have can be magnified three or four fold when any
given individual benefits from my help - at some point, that
individual may be able to repay the favour and so on and so on and so
on. Influence is actually a currency and in some ways, a much more
effective currency than money.

The skill is in balancing the ethical application of influence.

How's that for an answer? :)

The ball is in your court.

Take care.

Tom

"The beatings will stop when morale improves."
E. Teach, 1717

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:38:32 GMT, "Jim" wrote:

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...1349707631.htm

extract


DALLAS (AP) - Former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes said he is ``more
ashamed at myself than I've ever been'' because he helped President Bush and
the sons of other wealthy families get into the Texas National Guard so they
could avoid serving in Vietnam.

So if I were somebody who could have joined the National Guard to
avoid combat status does that make me smart or stupid, brave or
cowardly?

Just curious.

Later,

Tom

In the case of GWB, and other well to do people of Texas, in this
case, it would make you privledged.

On 30 Aug 2004 07:16:06 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:38:32 GMT, "Jim" wrote:

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...1349707631.htm

extract


DALLAS (AP) - Former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes said he is ``more
ashamed at myself than I've ever been'' because he helped President Bush and
the sons of other wealthy families get into the Texas National Guard so they
could avoid serving in Vietnam.

So if I were somebody who could have joined the National Guard to
avoid combat status does that make me smart or stupid, brave or
cowardly?

In the case of GWB, and other well to do people of Texas, in this
case, it would make you privledged.

What if it were your son and you could get him out of Vietnam this
way?

Be honest - would you do it?

Later,

Tom