jcu27 said:
All of these guys are going to say what people want to hear. Just like presidents. They all lie and mislead.
To paraphrase Douglas Rae, business teacher at Yale, the problem with theories is they are rarely applied in such a way to mirror the idealism that exists within the theory. So in otherwords, people love socialism because of the idea of socialism not the requirements to employ the philosophy within.
Your theory is that Haslam, like a Republican or Democrat politician, is corrupt because he is a part of a corrupt house. In theory that makes sense but if you truly belive these guys say everything to get hired, how do you make the correct choice? By doing work.
The perversion of the whole inbred argument that people on egriz have been spouting for years, is that there is an assumption, much like many socialist advocates of countries like England, Sweeden, Norway, that socialism must be better because it isn't capitalism. Or more appropriately for this, Johnson is better than Haslam because Johnson is from a bigger and better college.
Infuriating to me is that much like the business philosphy of modern CEO's is that bigger must be better despite the ethical, real and theoretical costs needed to employ the expansion. The same is true here, just because Montana isn't moving up or contemplating that move it is seen as a negative move rather than a sound ethical and monetary move. Ask Idaho how that is going. Perfect example where the theory of imagined profits outran the ability or foresight to understand the real costs that would be incurred by such a move.
The answer as to who the better candidate is how Douglas Rae answered the critics on the drawbacks of capitalism. Sometimes the answer isn't to throw out the whole system, but rather understand how to use the current system to distribute resources in a far more efficient manner to a large number of people. Capitalism isn't corrupt because it is capitalism. Nor is Kent Haslam corrupt for being apart of a department that has been riddled by scandal.
In that regard, the answer to who is the best candidate isn't whole is willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater but rather who has a better handle of how to maxmize resources with the current constraints of the system. If Haslam is the best candidate because he has a very good handle for the real issues of the athletic department going forward and understands how to eliminate inequalities then it shouldn't matter that he is from within the department or not.
