3 ms·

> I'm beginning to think HN is full of really lazy people. > Ted Cruz claimed it was his children's fault for pressuring him into their trip... I'll bite. (St

> I'm beginning to think HN is full of really lazy people. > Ted Cruz claimed it was his children's fault for pressuring him into their trip... I'll bite. (Stick with me; I'll get to the point after some analysis that may be objectionable or seem unrelated.) He's got responsibility to two parties: the citizens of his state and his children. Both are important in different ways, and the needs of each conflict in certain circumstances. Did he want to get somewhere warm? Probably. Did his children want their father with them? Probably. Was he unable to advise while in Cancun? Doubtful. Was he unable to legislate while in Cancun. He was not. So, despite the inappropriate optics of his trip (and reflection of poor character for a leader of the state), it appears as though he made a judgement that favored his family and his self, presumably because he judged no apparent harm to the state by his actions. I bring all this up because it's relevant to the parallel you bring: he blames his children for the choice. The problem is, neither you nor anyone else I'm aware of have demonstrated harm by his choice. So his "blaming" his children appears to reflect his choice between two conflicting priorities. The intern, on the other hand, caused demonstrable harm and the CEO blames his own decisions on said intern. Cruz did not blame lack of preparedness on his children. He blamed bad optics on his choice to acquiesce to his children. Far as I can tell, you're bringing a straw man to a knife fight. I don't think your assertion is incorrect, that incompetence and lack of integrity are responsible for the CEO's choice, but I don't think you demonstrated that properly with your parallel. I find Ted Cruz to be pretty unpalatable, but I believe the hype around his trip is exaggerated, and your use of it to affirm your assertion is misplaced. However, in an effort to make this more interesting, let's say the parallel is appropriate. I would, for the sake of argument, challenge that the fault, instead, lies in the hands of the people of Texas. If "the buck stops here", then let us remember that there is an entity above that of Ted Cruz, and that is the people of Texas. If we truly believe that mistakes are not the fault of the individual who made the mistake, but rather the person at the top of the chain, then it stands to reason that politicians are not at fault, but rather the citizens that voted that politician in. Since voters have ultimate responsibility to decide the way in which their community is governed—just as a CEO makes choices that bubble down—then it seems to me the people are ultimately responsible. And in this context, your parallel seems even more misplaced, because the people of Texas (and the rest of the country) are blaming the "little guy" when those in charge of actually deciding who's hired and who's fired are the responsible parties. Personally, I find the ultimate lack of integrity in "the people", because everyone blames "government" when "government" goes wrong, but fail to acknowledge that they are, in fact, said government. I charge you to challenge my assertion and justify your parallel.

sosborn 6y ago
> they are, in fact, said government Great! where do we sign up to vote on legislation?
loceng 6y ago
I see this, though I've exhausted my mental focus for today - I have severe chronic pain to contend with every day. I promise you I will respond likely by tomorrow, perhaps only will get a draft done and then Monday will reply. First though, thank you for taking a bite and spending energy engaging - I appreciate that alone.
- covidthrow 6y ago
  Thank you, and I hope you feel at least a little better tomorrow. I'd like to clarify one thing that I think was nebulous in my post: while I think "the people" are the responsible party, I meant to suggest that choosing who is the responsible party at all is close to arbitrary. That is to say, arguments over who's held responsible more reflects who we want to be responsible than who may actually be responsible, which is in fact shared among several people. (The CEO, the intern, the person who gave the intern the password, the person who configured the system to require a password that could be leaked, etc.) We choose the CEO (or Ted Cruz, or whomever) because of our own biases, in spite of the fact that responsibility is shared, and in spite of the fact that who's "in charge" is nebulous at best. We do the same when blaming the 12 US billionaires (or however many there are) for income inequality in the country, or blame all white people for racial injustice, and so on. That doesn't mean there aren't responsible parties, or that people and groups should be free from criticism. The truth of the matter is that—no matter how justified it is to assign blame—it's exceedingly rare for anyone to take responsibility for their own failings. This shouldn't necessarily contort to whom and how we assign blame. But, rather, it should inform us of the breadth of the problem, our own contributions to it, and help us become better citizens, instead of shift the blame as the CEO or Cruz did. If we find that unpalatable, but don't acknowledge our own complicity, then all we've achieved is a pitchfork-laden witch hunt, and not actual direction towards resolution.
humaniania 6y ago
Cruz had a choice: 1) Flee the state and do nothing 2) Stay and do ANYTHING to help He chose 1.

sosborn 6y ago

> they are, in fact, said government Great! where do we sign up to vote on legislation?

loceng 6y ago

I see this, though I've exhausted my mental focus for today - I have severe chronic pain to contend with every day. I promise you I will respond likely by tomorrow, perhaps only will get a draft done and then Monday will reply. First though, thank you for taking a bite and spending energy engaging - I appreciate that alone.

covidthrow 6y ago
Thank you, and I hope you feel at least a little better tomorrow. I'd like to clarify one thing that I think was nebulous in my post: while I think "the people" are the responsible party, I meant to suggest that choosing who is the responsible party at all is close to arbitrary. That is to say, arguments over who's held responsible more reflects who we want to be responsible than who may actually be responsible, which is in fact shared among several people. (The CEO, the intern, the person who gave the intern the password, the person who configured the system to require a password that could be leaked, etc.) We choose the CEO (or Ted Cruz, or whomever) because of our own biases, in spite of the fact that responsibility is shared, and in spite of the fact that who's "in charge" is nebulous at best. We do the same when blaming the 12 US billionaires (or however many there are) for income inequality in the country, or blame all white people for racial injustice, and so on. That doesn't mean there aren't responsible parties, or that people and groups should be free from criticism. The truth of the matter is that—no matter how justified it is to assign blame—it's exceedingly rare for anyone to take responsibility for their own failings. This shouldn't necessarily contort to whom and how we assign blame. But, rather, it should inform us of the breadth of the problem, our own contributions to it, and help us become better citizens, instead of shift the blame as the CEO or Cruz did. If we find that unpalatable, but don't acknowledge our own complicity, then all we've achieved is a pitchfork-laden witch hunt, and not actual direction towards resolution.

humaniania 6y ago

Cruz had a choice: 1) Flee the state and do nothing 2) Stay and do ANYTHING to help He chose 1.