[clue-talk] Wow, Card's a little political...

[Nate Duehr]

On Nov 2, 2008, at 3:05 AM, Brian Gibson wrote:

> Why wouldn't you want your leaders to be intelligent and elite?  You  
> demand those qualities in your athletes, your doctors, your  
> scientists, your business leaders, your armed servicemen, and  
> hopefully your children.  Where you got your diploma isn't  
> necessarily an indication of how smart you are.  Bush went to Yale  
> and Harvard and no one's going to say he's smart.

Bwahaha.... you put athletes and "intelligent and elite" into the same  
sentence.  That's rich.  Seen any interviews on ESPN lately after most  
sporting events?

Doctors: Yes -- high standards for education, but more importantly,  
high standards for TESTING and a required Internship.  My Doc is a  
graduate of a pretty non-elite school, according to the degree on his  
wall.  I'm more interested in the accolades/awards/whatever he's  
gained throughout his career from his peers.  He has a decent number.

Scientists: I don't care if they're educated or not, as long as  
they're true to their science and scientific principals.  THEY  
probably care since most research is based on someone else's previous  
work and also requires specialized knowledge, so they really don't  
have much of a choice.

Business leaders: I've already described my disdain for the so-called  
"leaders" who've created failed businesses out of places I've worked  
for.  Both attended Harvard, and had paychecks for the entire year I  
wasn't employed, making sure their screwups didn't lead to any risk  
for them.  So, I'll take character over any fancy education in  
BUSINESS any day of the week.

Enlisted Servicemen are rarely college-educated, college education is  
required for Officer ranks.  The Elite of the Elite Officers are  
trained at the Military Academies, not at Ivy League schools.  And  
Sergeants, Chiefs, and the "middle management" of the military are  
some of the best people in the world, and any great Officer knows they  
will only be as good as their Chiefs, Sergeants, etc.   (I find it  
interesting that you call them "Armed Servicemen".  Is there any other  
kind?)  Military life doesn't require an Ivy League degree, and never  
will.

Children:  I have none.  But if I did, they would be allowed to attend  
whatever school they liked and could afford.  We'd discuss the budget  
early and often, and they could compete for scholarships if they  
desired.   I would contribute greatly, but I would have performance  
requirements, just like a real job.

My family has only one college graduate, and she's attending a private  
school in NY for a Master's in Architecture, specializing in  
reconstruction of old and/or historical buildings.  The rest of us  
make better than average livings from nothing but our own hard work  
and aptitude.  My wife's family had more money, and she has a Nursing  
degree from the University of Iowa.   Nothing fancy there either.   
College degrees mean little to me.

My dad, a non-degreed sales person who worked his way, the hard way,  
into lower-executive management, retired at 54, and then took a small  
job related to his hobbies that he enjoys.  He's also a Vietnam  
veteran.  My mom, a non-degreed accountant, retired at 53, and then  
went back to work as a consultant to keep busy.

Both instilled a sense of value in LEARNING, and learning things is a  
great joy in my life.   I don't need a piece of expensive sheepskin to  
tell me that I (or they) know things.

I also know too many people with those sheepskins, who act as if they  
have nothing to learn from anyone.  They don't inspire confidence in  
the higher education system, since I would assume that basic  
psychology and/or human interaction is supposed to be taught somewhere  
in a good curriculum.

I have seen personally and can testify to anyone who can't afford a  
degree from an Ivy League school, but is willing to work and learn,  
that they can personally be wealthy and can retire early, as long as  
tax rates are kept low.  All it takes is discipline.

The Ivy League sheepskin also means little about what they're willing  
to learn AFTER leaving school, and many have a tendency to stop  
because they get a complex that their "education" is so good, they  
don't "need any more".  I've seen that a number of times.

All it really means is that they put in some very expensive time at a  
school that taught some tough classes, if they even chose those  
classes.  (You have noticed that Obama won't release his Harvard  
transcripts, right?)

I live two and a half blocks from a public library for a reason.  And  
I never "demand" anyone do anything but the best job that they can.

"These are certainly minor transgressions, but serial killers start  
small as well." - Yeah, that sounds intelligent... compare a question  
to a librarian to serial killings.  (Rolling my eyes.)  That's just  
fear-mongering.  An Ivy Leaguer should be able to recognize that and  
avoid it in a rational discussion, I would assume.

"Contrast that with Obama whose lineage already put obstacles and  
pressures neither of us have had to face, and he overcame them.   
Through hard work and dedication graduates from Columbia and  
eventually Harvard Law.  He worked for various community organizations  
and interned at law firms.  Taught Constitutional Law at the  
University of Chicago.  Then finally running for office.  A self-made  
man for sure, one dedicated to public service.  He also has a much  
cooler temperment and a demonstrated intelligence, the way he's run  
his campaign has been unwavering even after Palin came out of left  
field, and he's done what a leader should do, attract and rally more  
people to his vision than the other guy."

I never said I don't respect the guy's accomplishments, I just won't  
vote for him for that reason alone.   As far as "leadership", it's  
easy to attract LOTS of people when no real substance is behind the  
promises that promise "change", especially during an economic  
downturn.  I can't find a single Obama supporter who can articulate  
fluently how his changes will benefit them.

I never questioned whether he was a leader.  I question what he's  
going to do, and debated his published plan for his Presidency.  I  
don't think either man is missing any capability to lead or they  
wouldn't be as far along as they are.

"More academics, and more importantly, more economists support Obama  
than McCain."

So you're saying more academics are Democrats?  Gee, I would have  
never guessed.  Not much of a point there.

"He voted against the Iraq war and he's consistently pushed to end our  
involvement.  McCain doesn't understand, you don't win wars, you only  
finish them. Everyone loses once a war starts."

Let's see, the guy who was a POW in the first war the U.S. had lost in  
history, who had a father who was an Admiral and a Grandfather who  
also was... knows nothing about war?  And the guy from Chicago who's  
never picked up a weapon and did the job required by the President of  
thousands of servicemen and women, somehow now knows how to handle a  
war better.  Sure, whatever.  That's so close to disrespectful, it's  
fairly shocking you're willing to say that.

And of course, your Ivy League education included history classes, so  
you know from both modern and past history that there are "war  
profiteers", in fact the left even today decry them... so it's a  
logical fallacy that "everyone loses", because nope... there are some  
people that profit.  Anyone selling weapons does really well during a  
war.

I'm not saying that's a good thing, just pointing out that your Ivy  
League education seems to be missing a course -- or something.   
"Everyone loses" is false.

--
Nate Duehr
nate at natetech.com