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

[Brian Gibson]

"intelligent and elite" would probably been better phrased as "and/or".  Regardless, your assumption that all athletes are muscle heads is equally as silly.  Just as your assumption that intelligence plays no part in some sports; it's not all strength and agility.  

You can excel in character as much as you can in any desirable trait.  So yes, business leaders should be elite in that respect as well.  My leaving out a particular trait was not to imply it was excluded.  

Whoever said military leaders come from Ivy League schools?  All I claimed was that they, like any person in a leadership position, they should be the best at what they do, they should be elite, and we should demand that they be so.  You can have non-combatant servicemen.  Though trained in the use of firearms, there are servicemen who do not actually fight and instead are in support roles.

It's good to see other people value on-going education.

No, you missed the comparison.  Serial killer profiles often involve an early, consistent, and increasing set of violent behavior, e.g. torture and killing of small animals, abusing smaller children, etc.  In other words, people start small and move up if they get positive reinforcement for their behavior, including getting away with said behavior.  The use of "serial killer" is nothing more than an overly dramatic example.  Is Palin going to be a theocratic dictator?  Probably not.  If given the opportunity to put forth a theocratic agenda, be it small or large, and she thinks she can get away with it?  Maybe.  What's even more disturbing is that there's a segment of the population who would applaud her for doing so.  I reject such a idea based on principle, not because I agree or disagree with her (though admittedly, more often than not I disagree with her). 

Things I like about Obama.  
- I'll pay less in taxes and if and when they are raised, it'll be no worse than what I paid under Clinton. (self-serving, yes; and if taxes are raised for those in the highest income bracket, their tax is still less than anywhere else in the world; I'm not ignorant to think that the national debt is going to magically disappear without taxes being raised.)  
- Healthcare: no change for me, emergency room no longer provider of last resort.  (Plan is still not what I want.)  
- War: for once, we might actually listen to the Iraqis and get out like they've been asking us to.  We shouldn't have been there in the first place.  He voted against it; that's character.  The first decision of any commander-in-chief is to know when it's prudent to go to war (and hopefully would have a plan to finance it).  Obama got it, right.  McCain got it wrong.  Argument over.  That's not disrespect.  That's questioning judgement. 
- His ability to run his successful campaign is about as close to an indication of the kind of administration he's going to run---a tight, well-oiled machine.


McCain.  His pick of Palin, his stance on Iraq, and his continued negative campaigning without any positive campaigning to balance it disqualified him for me and dimished any positive things he brought to the table.  His campaign is driven by fear mongering, the previous administration was as well, and that certainly doesn't bode well.  I dislike your attitude that the ends justify the means when you say McCain is only doing all these negative things just so he can get to office, and then will change his stripes back.  As I've said, he's an opportunist, but his priorities are more closely aligned with yours.

If CO wasn't a swing state and a traditionally red one at that, I probably would've considered a third-party candidate just as I've done in the past.

Fine if you want to get nitpicky.  Yes, there are war profiteers, but as you say it's not necessarily a good thing, but what does that matter right?  It's positive GDP growth!  I think the biggest problems with business aren't the CEOs or regulations, but accounting.   Accounting doesn't factor in everything, and things that are considered positive inputs/outputs should actually be negative.  I wish something like the Genuine Progress Indicator (http://www.rprogress.org/sustainability_indicators/genuine_progress_indicator.htm) would be used.  With that, war profiteering might be regarded as a negative output.  Then maybe we could stop shackling businesses with regulations because their bottom line would show a truer reflection of their gains and losses, and they'd be able regulate themselves; people tend to make better decisions when they have all the facts.  Of course, there'd have to be accounting regulations to make sure the books are kept clean.


----- Original Message ----
From: Nate Duehr <nate at natetech.com>
To: CLUE talk <clue-talk at cluedenver.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2008 6:30:34 AM
Subject: Re: [clue-talk] Wow, Card's a little political...


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
_______________________________________________
clue-talk mailing list
clue-talk at cluedenver.org
http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk