August 06, 2004

• I have no problem with Bush taking this stance. I do not think that it is hypocritical to take advantage of something and later oppose it. I certainly do not think that it is hypocritical to take advantage of something, and then use that advantage to help reverse that policy. That is what Clarence Thomas has done with affirmative action.
• well, wouldn't you say that his yale degree helped get W where he is today?
• I would. And I am saying that it is okay for him to not agree with the system that got him to where he is.
• Well, I disagree with the system that got me to where I am, i.e. credit cards. Bankruptcy here I come.
• and now he is "us[ing] that advantage to help reverse that policy" to use your words... seems like apples and apples to me. oh wait. i reread your original post, and i think i see what you're getting at... you're ok with clarence thomas dismantling affirmative action and don't see it as hypocritical. i respectfully disagree and consider both to be pretty hypocritical... i believe it's called biting the hand that feeds you.
• Or raising the draw bridge once you are safely inside the castle.
• thanks merc, i would have said something like that but i got stuck in an endless barn door-horses loop and couldn't get out...
• So a white person (say, Thomas Jefferson) who had benefited from slavery would have been wrong to oppose it?
• If he only pretended to oppose it for a soundbyte, then yes.
• And slavery is a far cry from preferencial treatment by college admission boards. Talk about apples and oranges.
• This reminds me of campaign finance reform. Except of course that real finance reform involves bravery on the part of the politician, since you have to run again after the reform is enacted if you want to keep your job. Still, you'd have incumbancy and name recognition going for you. Where was I going with this argument again?
• Damn it! I hate when politicians flip flop on issues.
• Bush was just a kid when he got into Yale based on his family, not a politician standing by his values. The fact that he would now publically states that he does not think legacy admissions are a good idea is to be admired, not derided. Whatever you think of his other policies, this is a good one - and having benefitted, no one can claim that he is suffering from sour grapes. The only better people to advocate would those who stand to benefit.
• (in the future that is)
• Is it just me or is that distinctly un-Republican sentiment? Is he trying to piss off his rich supporters or what?
• I think that Thomas Jefferson having slaves but opposing slavery is a little too different from George Bush benefiting from the system, then opposing it. If Thomas Jefferson were to decide to fight against slavery, even though he had benefited from it, he would have to give up all his slaves, and so be just as affected by the change as everyone else. Bush, on the other hand, were he to fight against it, would still possess the benefits, he would just be forbidding anyone else from ever reaping them.
• Re: what languagehat said, I mean.
• He was still a kid, and how do we know that it was even his choice? (He may have been informed, as many that age are, that he is going to university will he nill he). But aside from that, what's the choice now? Can you ungraduate from university? Unlive large parts of your life? However, having re-read the article, I see that Bush, while opposing continued legacy admissions, denies that he benefitted from it, which makes me loose the little bit of admiration I'd had for his first statement. Moreover, he clearly continued to use nepotism and family influence throughout his life, including to gain his political career. So this would make his statement somewhat hypocritical. However, I don't care, because it's more important to end legacy admissions than to worry about one politician's honesty.
• Actually, I believe he did not benefit by it. Not in the slightest. In fact, I think he may have had a very long history of not benefitting from whatever glancing exposure to educational institutions he may have had. For instance, many Yale grads are not this dismal at forming complete and cohernet sentences or chewing food* before swallowing -- tasks which most kiddies master before starting nursery school. * to reprise the Great Pretzel Mystery in the White House -- woz he or woz he not Under the Influenc? Or wot?
• What jb said. Being an hypocrite is not arguing against something you had benefited from. But negating to having benefited from it. Admiting to having benefited is plain honesty as long as you express your shame for it.