Replies

I'm pissed at Bush for all sorts of things, and I'll probably still vote for him, but on this, he's a complete hypocrite, and selling out to the left AGAIN.

You, like far too many, don't understand the meaning of 'hypocrite'. For example, a recent anti-drug commercial has a dad talking about how he used to use drugs as a teen and how he's a hypocrite for telling his teen now not to use drugs. The ad concludes with a voice-over saying something to the effect that it's better to be a hypocrite than to have the kid on drugs. This is an incorrect use of the word. Now, if the dad were currently doing that which he was telling someone else not to do, then he would be a hypocrite.

By the way, I don't think that the practice of legacy admissions is an "academic crony scam." There are a lot of things to be gained by various types of admission. Affirmative action may enable the school to bring in students that don't match basic entry criteria but who, through interviews, are considered to be worthy to enter. It is good for both the students and the school when such students graduate--and these students who were given a chance at something great are more likely than others to remember the school when it comes time for alumni support. Legacy admissions play another important role, especially in private schools. Most of the endowments of the private schools come from alumni contributions. These schools couldn't exist without those endowments and the endowments couldn't exist without the contributions. If legacy admissions perform the function of keeping people connected with the school to facilitate the support of the school over the long haul, they are worth it. Spots for faculty children, though, aren't the same as legacy admissions because they are part of the faculty employment package.

Originally posted by aruanan:

You, like far too many, don't understand the meaning of 'hypocrite'. For example, a recent anti-drug commercial has a dad talking about how he used to use drugs as a teen and how he's a hypocrite for telling his teen now not to use drugs. The ad concludes with a voice-over saying something to the effect that it's better to be a hypocrite than to have the kid on drugs. This is an incorrect use of the word. Now, if the dad were currently doing that which he was telling someone else not to do, then he would be a hypocrite.

Now I understand. If George Bush opines before a minority journalist's conference that he now believes that 'legacy admissions' should be abolished after both he and his daughter Barbara are now finished using them to help gain admission to Yale, that is not 'hypocritical'. However, if he had made the same statement before the same organization the day before his daughter's graduation from Yale three months ago in May, then he could be considered a hypocrite.

Wait a minute, this seems familiar... The meaning of the word depends exclusively on the time-frame involved. It's coming back to me... Ah, yes. "that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

dvwjr