Glenn Beck on Who da Commies Is
dav19...@nowhere.invalid
strategy for overloading the system until it collapses. And who dem
commies be.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a0e_1262748754
Dave
Ed Huntress
<dav19...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:q9gbk55q5i5q4m0up...@4ax.com...
As Beck follows his meandering course through TV land, we're watching a man
with an indifferent education educating himself as he goes along,
hopscotch-fashion, landing only on the certified "conservative" squares,
like some of the righties here. Somebody needs to give him a syllabus.
For example, he says that the "progressives" gave us the progressive income
tax at the beginning of the last century. If he had a decent education, he'd
know that the idea came from Adam Smith more than 100 years earlier, in _The
Wealth of Nations_. And Smith is the "guiding hand" guy whom conservatives
consider to be their great mentor in economics.
If the man knew what he was talking about he'd be a useful, if highly biased
pundit. As it is, he's filling his viewers' heads with mush. Maybe, if he
ever fills in the blanks in his sorry education, he might be useful about
the time he's ready to retire.
BTW, he predicted almost a year ago that we'd have raging inflation by the
middle of last year. That's because he can read a graph of the money supply
but nobody told him about money velocity. Any college sophomore in economics
can tell he's an economic ignoramus.
Inflation, BTW, is running at 1.6% -- so low it's almost dangerous.
--
Ed Huntress
TwoGuns
> <dav1936...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
It is highly educated idiots that have buried us in debt. Maybe it is
time for a few College dropouts to start running things.
DL
Ed Huntress
"TwoGuns" <R-D-L...@neb.rr.com> wrote in message
news:11f89511-29ed-4733...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
It's unregulated finance that caused the crash. Most college dropouts don't
get it yet. They will, but it may get worse before it gets better, if they
keep yelling at Congress and Congress keeps jerking its knees. You haven't
seen what the bottom *could* be, if government doesn't keep up its
intervention until we have real growth. Then they had better get real about
regulating finance, before it all happens again.
It's not very complicated, DL. An unregulated segment of finance, with
assets equal to roughly 40% of all of the financial assets in all of
banking, ran absurd levels of leverage, up to 100:1 or even more, and used
it to trade in "securities" that had no tolerance for even the slightest
slump in the economy. They got away with it because no one was watching
them -- the "conservative" theory of Reaganomics said they didn't have to be
regulated. It was the greatest money machine in history, as long as nothing
tipped the wagon.
Until the day Bush signed the bank bailout, that's the way we were
operating. Lots of economists knew better. No one listened to them, because
they were too busy making money off of the bubble. The college dropouts were
flipping houses and telling their elected representatives to shut up and
stay out of it.
Then there was a slump, because housing prices were a bubble, and the bubble
broke. So the securities tanked. The finance companies had to start a fire
sale of their still-saleable assets, which drove their value down, too,
forcing them to sell even more of their assets at a loss.
Liquidity dried up, credit froze up, demand in the real economy slowed down
because there was a shortage of operating capital for businesses, and that's
where we are today, trying to dig out of it.
If you know how to straighten out that mess without breaking a lot of eggs,
please let us know. The world awaits a better idea than pump-priming
stimulus, government bailouts of the credit-suppliers, and credits to
employers to hire people. But no one has seen it.
--
Ed Huntress
anorton
>"TwoGuns" <R-D-L...@neb.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:11f89511-29ed-4733...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Lack of education in either those being governed or those doing the
governing is NEVER a good thing.
TwoGuns
> Lack of education in either those being governed or those doing the
> governing is NEVER a good thing.
Yes education is a good thing. However I am not sure that OUR CURRENT
educational system is doing the job. Abraham Lincoln managed just fine
without a degree from Harvard or Yale. When the education system is
corrupt from kindergarten through graduate schools having an advanced
degree is no GUARANTEE of competency.
DL
Buerste
I don't understand the left's infatuation with advanced degrees. Like you
pointed out it's no guarantee of competency or intelligence. Maybe it's
because the left can't point to a person's accomplishments, character,
morals, vision, abilities, common sense, etc.. Could it be a lack of those
qualities in the ranks of the left? If only it was so easy to qualify a
person for a position by what classes they sat through in "X" school that
cost "Y" amount to attend.
Ignoramus30285
> I don't understand the left's infatuation with advanced degrees. Like you
> pointed out it's no guarantee of competency or intelligence. Maybe it's
> because the left can't point to a person's accomplishments, character,
> morals, vision, abilities, common sense, etc.. Could it be a lack of those
> qualities in the ranks of the left? If only it was so easy to qualify a
> person for a position by what classes they sat through in "X" school that
> cost "Y" amount to attend.
Are you saying that "the left" value education, and "the right" do
not? (and then you offer what looks to you to be a great reason for
this).
Correct?
Personally, I have not met a single educated person who regretted his
or her education.
i
Buerste
"Ignoramus30285" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.30285.invalid> wrote in message
news:Z-Odnch1dee4HtvW...@giganews.com...
That's a HELL of a leap. All I'm saying is that a degree does not
necessarily equal proficiency and it seem that the left seems to think it
does. Why?
I've been blessed with quality and quantity of education. But, I learned
more about engineering from an old Eastern European immigrant mechanic that
barely spoke English than all the professors I studied under combined. I'm
just not easily impressed by sheep skins as I am by proven practical
knowledge.
Ignoramus30285
> "Ignoramus30285" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.30285.invalid> wrote in message
>>> I don't understand the left's infatuation with advanced degrees. Like
>>> you
>>> pointed out it's no guarantee of competency or intelligence. Maybe it's
>>> because the left can't point to a person's accomplishments, character,
>>> morals, vision, abilities, common sense, etc.. Could it be a lack of
>>> those
>>> qualities in the ranks of the left? If only it was so easy to qualify a
>>> person for a position by what classes they sat through in "X" school that
>>> cost "Y" amount to attend.
>>
>> Are you saying that "the left" value education, and "the right" do
>> not? (and then you offer what looks to you to be a great reason for
>> this).
>>
>> Correct?
>>
>> Personally, I have not met a single educated person who regretted his
>> or her education.
>
> necessarily equal proficiency and it seem that the left seems to think it
> does. Why?
Not quite.
Here's what you said:
``I don't understand the left's infatuation with advanced degrees. ''
Clearly, you do not consider yourself to be "the left", and you do not
understand (and do not share, by implication) the "infatuation with
advanced degrees".
> I've been blessed with quality and quantity of education. But, I
> learned more about engineering from an old Eastern European
> immigrant mechanic that barely spoke English than all the professors
> I studied under combined. I'm just not easily impressed by sheep
> skins as I am by proven practical knowledge.
He probably knew engineering very well, but did not study it in
English.
i
dav19...@nowhere.invalid
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>It's unregulated finance that caused the crash. Most college dropouts don't
>get it yet. They will, but it may get worse before it gets better, if they
>keep yelling at Congress and Congress keeps jerking its knees. You haven't
>seen what the bottom *could* be, if government doesn't keep up its
>intervention until we have real growth. Then they had better get real about
>regulating finance, before it all happens again.
Getting back to the original video: It's all about overloading the
system until it eventually collapses and a New World Order can be
brought forth from the resulting chaos. Ordo Ab Chao.
A glorious socialist paradise where the elites are allowed to murder,
rape, and pillage their subhuman underlings without restraint. The
ultimate dream world of the psychopath.
Dave
Ed Huntress
<dav19...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:4i5dk5lm4tgtosm3a...@4ax.com...
It's all about a very weird guy with an enhanced imagination and a
conspiracy-theorist's disposition, who's discovered that there are enough
poor saps out there, desperate for scapegoats and plots and conspirators,
that they'll run his ratings up through the roof to have their needs fed and
shared. And he loves the feeling.
--
Ed Huntress
William Wixon
<dav19...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:4i5dk5lm4tgtosm3a...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:54:31 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>It's unregulated finance that caused the crash. Most college dropouts
>>don't
>>get it yet. They will, but it may get worse before it gets better, if they
>>keep yelling at Congress and Congress keeps jerking its knees. You haven't
>>seen what the bottom *could* be, if government doesn't keep up its
>>intervention until we have real growth. Then they had better get real
>>about
>>regulating finance, before it all happens again.
>
> A glorious socialist paradise where the elites are allowed to murder,
> rape, and pillage their subhuman underlings without restraint. The
> ultimate dream world of the psychopath.
> Dave
this is bait, right?
as opposed to the glorious capitalist paradise where the elites are allowed
to murder, rape, and pillage their subhuman underlings without restraint.
The ultimate dream world of the psychopath.
i haven't seen "avatar" yet but i gather it's kinda an allegory for the u.s.
and the wars in iraq/afghanistan.
Wes
>It's all about a very weird guy with an enhanced imagination and a
>conspiracy-theorist's disposition, who's discovered that there are enough
>poor saps out there, desperate for scapegoats and plots and conspirators,
>that they'll run his ratings up through the roof to have their needs fed and
>shared. And he loves the feeling.
Sorta like the reverse mirror image of Oberman. ;)
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Ed Huntress
"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:XTw1n.25880$H15....@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>It's all about a very weird guy with an enhanced imagination and a
>>conspiracy-theorist's disposition, who's discovered that there are enough
>>poor saps out there, desperate for scapegoats and plots and conspirators,
>>that they'll run his ratings up through the roof to have their needs fed
>>and
>>shared. And he loves the feeling.
>
> Sorta like the reverse mirror image of Oberman. ;)
Well, that's not how I see it. Beck is a classic populist -- he plays to
fears and conspiracy theories, looking for someone to blame. He sees One
World and Tripartite Commission conspiracies behind every curtain. Beck is
about big deals -- evil ones, intended to enslave and impoverish his
constituency. Beck's audience thinks the left is out to get them,
personally.
Olbermann works at confirming the left's view of the right; that they're
ignorant, mean-spirited, selfish oafs -- with running examples of buffoonish
statements, displays of ignorance, and cartoonish appearances and actions.
They're mostly little things, and the effect is cumulative rather than
revelatory.
Different animals. Different audience psychographics, as they say in the ad
biz. They're like exaggerated versions of the two ideological views, and the
two pundits are as different as their audiences.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"William Wixon" <wwi...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:YKw1n.2670$ZB2....@newsfe13.iad...
I saw it. If the righties hadn't cooked up the story, I wouldn't have
thought that's what it was. It was just an old-fashioned story about noble
savages versus rapacious interlopers. <g> The underlying story is like the
kinds of jungle stories we saw as kids.
The effects, though, are spectacular.
--
Ed Huntress
Buerste
"Ignoramus30285" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.30285.invalid> wrote in message
He knew EVERYTHING but never had been in school after he was 12 years old.
His family had to contend with W.W.II and the Russians and the Socialists
after that . His personal experience with Socialism was probably the most
contributing factor to my anti-Socialist stance.
pyotr filipivich
Thu, 7 Jan 2010 20:44:21 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>"Ignoramus30285" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.30285.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2010-01-07, Buerste <bue...@wowway.com> wrote:
>>> I don't understand the left's infatuation with advanced degrees. Like
>>> you
>>> pointed out it's no guarantee of competency or intelligence. Maybe it's
>>> because the left can't point to a person's accomplishments, character,
>>> morals, vision, abilities, common sense, etc.. Could it be a lack of
>>> those
>>> qualities in the ranks of the left? If only it was so easy to qualify a
>>> person for a position by what classes they sat through in "X" school that
>>> cost "Y" amount to attend.
>>
>> Are you saying that "the left" value education, and "the right" do
>> not? (and then you offer what looks to you to be a great reason for
>> this).
>>
>> Correct?
>>
>> Personally, I have not met a single educated person who regretted his
>> or her education.
>
>necessarily equal proficiency and it seem that the left seems to think it
>does. Why?
>
>I've been blessed with quality and quantity of education. But, I learned
>more about engineering from an old Eastern European immigrant mechanic that
>barely spoke English than all the professors I studied under combined. I'm
>just not easily impressed by sheep skins as I am by proven practical
>knowledge.
There's a difference between education and schooling. The left is
enamored of certificates - of schooling - not of the education. And
thanks to fifty years of "free money" for college, we have people
schooled far above their ability to comprehend the information. The
"hard sciences" weed them out with various courses, but in the soft
liberal arts, it is possible to just echo back the teacher's
prejudices, become buzzword compliant, and get a degree. I've seen it
done, they don't know the subject, but they do know the vocabulary.
I knew a guy who took a look around, realized there were two guys
in the shop who really knew their stuff, and the one was retrieving.
So Lon attached himself to the other guy. They'd go on assignments,
he'd go back to the motel at the end of the day and read the manuals.
Next day, he'd ask the 'old guy' about what he'd read. And the old
guy sometimes didn't know the theory, but he knew what worked. Years
later, Lon was the old fart getting all the OT, because he was the guy
that everybody wanted to do the installs and repairs. And then he
retired. Even offered the last couple years to take on an
'apprentice' but ...
Some folks can't tell the difference between having been to
school, and learning something. There are lessons you can be taught,
but there are lessons only you can learn.
tschus
pyotr
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
Andrew VK3BFA
> I've been blessed with quality and quantity of education. But, I learned
> more about engineering from an old Eastern European immigrant mechanic that
> barely spoke English than all the professors I studied under combined. I'm
> just not easily impressed by sheep skins as I am by proven practical
> knowledge.
Duh. Thats how its supposed to work. You get an engineering degree
which gives you the intellectual and analytical skills to solve NEW
problems. If your lucky, (you were) you find someone who has done most
of the legwork in the routine stuff to give you hands on
experience........and has the ability to teach......and a receptive
student, usually someone who realises how little they know in a
practical sense.
Sadly, the right has destroyed this in their quest for "Economic
rationalism" - get rid of the old farts, we dont need them when we can
hire new graduates cheaper. And close the trade training schools as
well - there's plenty of qualified tradesmen out there we can hire
when we need them.
So - we have a new generation of engineers that is constantly re-
inventing the wheel, making mistakes that were fixed generations ago -
and an ageing pool of skilled tradesmen who are now mowing lawns for a
living as they cant get work at the same skilled level after being
made redundant, and not mentoring the next generation.
Go figure what the inevitable, and current, consequences of this
particular brand of Voodoo Economics is.
But, I do agree in some way - some degrees are worthless. Here at
least, MBA stands of Master of Bugger All...
Andrew VK3BFA.
Buerste
"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:pkidk5htraejje2g6...@4ax.com...
Very well said! I love the "buzzword compliant", it says it all.
Buerste
"Andrew VK3BFA" <VK3...@wia.org.au> wrote in message
news:b50ee79f-a8b8-4af1...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Andrew VK3BFA.
**********************************
Very good points! And, DAMN...I'm the old fart now.
Andrew VK3BFA
> Very good points! And, DAMN...I'm the old fart now.
Yeh, me too. And I dont like it - now I am old enuff to know
everything, no one wants to know it!
And your right about "modern" schooling - no one will fail (it damages
their psyche) so we wind up with a bunch of kids who want to start as
CEO's when they plainly cant understand how a screw driver works!. Let
alone write their own resume. (Old Fart Syndrome)
Andrew VK3BFA.
Larry Jaques
<bue...@wowway.com> scrawled the following:
There is merit in the fact that "Piled Higher and Deeper" has been the
common definition for the degree "PHD". Not all, but most fuds (OK,
so I pronounce it differently than most people) ya meet will bring the
quaint definition to the forefront of your mind if you spend more than
half an hour with them.
The fact that nearly all of our CONgresscritters have extensive
college (most degreed) and law school (further degrees) backgrounds
and _still_ screw up in so many varied and dreadful ways is quite
illustrative of the problem, isn't it?
I'll bet that Forrest Gump could sail through one of our top colleges
today and walk away with a degree; not from intelligence or competency
in the subject matter, but from political correctness alone.
--
We rightly care about the environment. But our neurotic obsession
with carbon betrays an inability to distinguish between pollution
and the stuff of life itself. --Bret Stephens, WSJ 1/5/10
Larry Jaques
dav19...@nowhere.invalid scrawled the following:
>On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:54:31 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>It's unregulated finance that caused the crash. Most college dropouts don't
>>get it yet. They will, but it may get worse before it gets better, if they
>>keep yelling at Congress and Congress keeps jerking its knees. You haven't
>>seen what the bottom *could* be, if government doesn't keep up its
>>intervention until we have real growth. Then they had better get real about
>>regulating finance, before it all happens again.
>
>
>Getting back to the original video: It's all about overloading the
>system until it eventually collapses and a New World Order can be
>brought forth from the resulting chaos. Ordo Ab Chao.
What was the name of the video, Dave? I missed that part of this
discussion.
>A glorious socialist paradise where the elites are allowed to murder,
>rape, and pillage their subhuman underlings without restraint. The
>ultimate dream world of the psychopath.
>Dave
I'm reading a book about that kind of "paradise" right now. Stephen
Hunter's _Pale Rider_. Scary freakin' stuff about a white Arkansas
Highway Patrolman stuck and tortured by white deputies in a black
penal colony in lower Mississippi (Thebes).
wmbjk...@citlink.net
wrote:
>He knew EVERYTHING but never had been in school after he was 12 years old.
>His family had to contend with W.W.II and the Russians and the Socialists
>after that . His personal experience with Socialism was probably the most
>contributing factor to my anti-Socialist stance.
Rubbish. Ignorance is the #1 cause of your anti-a-whole-bunch-of-stuff
stance, which has escalated into full blown crankism. A need-to-weasel
is a close second, as nicely illustrated here by your refusal to
address ig's point.
BTW, I agree that edumacated folks are not always intelligent. And
you, having claimed to be well schooled, may now pat yourself on the
back for reinforcing my opinion.
Wayne
Ignoramus8952
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:25:33 -0500, "Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>He knew EVERYTHING but never had been in school after he was 12 years old.
>>His family had to contend with W.W.II and the Russians and the Socialists
>>after that . His personal experience with Socialism was probably the most
>>contributing factor to my anti-Socialist stance.
I am a little bit incredulous on this. Being an engineer requires
knowing such things as calculus/integrals, trigonometry, etc, besides
the more down to earth details of any particular engineering fields.
How can someone who never had been in school after the age of 12,
learn this?
Of course, Buerste just gave us some personal example, which we cannot
possibly verify, but I have my doubts as to whether it is possible to
be an engineer without any schooling after the age of 12.
i
Ed Huntress
"Ignoramus8952" <ignora...@NOSPAM.8952.invalid> wrote in message
news:wMOdnWWT-N-n8NrW...@giganews.com...
Tawwwwm's caught up in Populist Chic, Iggy. The guy he's talking about is
the modern version of Thomas Edison crossed with the Noble Savage. <g>
It's a deep allegory in American conservatism, especially since the '80s.
Every good, up-to-date conservative needs one of these guys, to pull out
whenever the need arises.
I wouldn't recommend this editorial to everyone, but you'll probably get
more out of it than most. It's from the Wall Street Journal, last November:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122610558004810243.html
--
Ed Huntress
Ignoramus8952
>
> "Ignoramus8952" <ignora...@NOSPAM.8952.invalid> wrote in message
>>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:25:33 -0500, "Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com>
>>>>old.
>> knowing such things as calculus/integrals, trigonometry, etc, besides
>> the more down to earth details of any particular engineering fields.
>>
>> How can someone who never had been in school after the age of 12,
>> learn this?
>>
>> Of course, Buerste just gave us some personal example, which we cannot
>> possibly verify, but I have my doubts as to whether it is possible to
>> be an engineer without any schooling after the age of 12.
>
> about is the modern version of Thomas Edison crossed with the Noble
> Savage. <g>
A very convenient personal example, to be sure.
> It's a deep allegory in American conservatism, especially since the '80s.
> Every good, up-to-date conservative needs one of these guys, to pull out
> whenever the need arises.
>
> I wouldn't recommend this editorial to everyone, but you'll probably get
> more out of it than most. It's from the Wall Street Journal, last November:
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122610558004810243.html
>
Mark Lilla pulled that stuff out of his ass, I am sure, but as a
matter of fact, he is mostly right.
Tom, of course, is correct and Republicans do hate education.
On the surface, Republicans hate education because they believe that
educational establishment is liberal.
But beneath the surface, I think that they hate education in hopes
that voters would vote with their dicks instead of brains. Sarah Palin
was a manifestation of such hopes.
Republican party, for which I used to vote a long time ago, is now
profoundly sick, alternates between denial and illusions, and does not
serve anyone besides the deep pockets of its contributors. Deep in
hypocrisy and dishonesty, it lacks deep and original thought, and is
morally bankrupted by the Bush administration.
It now resorts to spamming Internet with fake chain letters, talk show
innuendo etc, who thought that it would come to that.
This personally disappoints me, as I would like it instead to be the
bastion of fiscal restraint, Constitution based personal freedoms,
respectful foreign policy, limited government, and promote economic
reforms based on honest and modern academic thought.
If a magic transformation occurs and Republican party will become
closer to that ideal, I will vote Republican again. But I am not
holding my breath.
i
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<ignora...@NOSPAM.8952.invalid> wrote:
>On 2010-01-08, wmbjk...@citlink.net <wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:25:33 -0500, "Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>He knew EVERYTHING but never had been in school after he was 12 years old.
>>>His family had to contend with W.W.II and the Russians and the Socialists
>>>after that . His personal experience with Socialism was probably the most
>>>contributing factor to my anti-Socialist stance.
>
>I am a little bit incredulous on this.
Almost certainly this supposed engineer did not know "everything", or
anything close to it.
>Being an engineer requires
>knowing such things as calculus/integrals, trigonometry, etc, besides
>the more down to earth details of any particular engineering fields.
Most likely the guy in question was only able to do the things he
found necessary. Which is an admiral accomplishment that doesn't need
any embellishing.
>How can someone who never had been in school after the age of 12,
>learn this?
It would have been a lot harder before the Internet. But he could have
been a library hound.
>Of course, Buerste just gave us some personal example, which we cannot
>possibly verify,
Worse, we know from experience that Buerste is disingenuous and has a
habit of making things up. For example, he accuses everyone who
disagrees with him of receiving "cheese checks".
> but I have my doubts as to whether it is possible to
>be an engineer without any schooling after the age of 12.
Me too. Don't forget that Buerste believes jobless gummer's tales of
engineering expertise. So Buerste's standards for judging engineers
are already proven lacking.
Wayne
Ignoramus8952
I do not want to get too personal. Maybe this particular engineer is
one of those extremely rare people. Maybe I will become unemployed
tomorrow. All I am trying to do is to be skeptical.
i
Ed Huntress
"Ignoramus8952" <ignora...@NOSPAM.8952.invalid> wrote in message
Ah, Mark Lilla was the editor of _The Public Interest_, and is the author of
several books about intellectualism, religion, and politics. He teaches the
subject, and he presented the Carlisle Lectures at Oxford earlier this
decade. He probably has studied and written more about the subject of this
editorial than any person alive. That's why I recommened it. He's no pundit
poseur.
>
> Tom, of course, is correct and Republicans do hate education.
Well, they hate overt displays of intellectualism, but they're not against
education per se.
Conservative populism has a long history, but this moment in time may be the
beginning of its modern Golden Age. Lilla was attracted to conservatism at
the same time I was -- the '70s -- and for the same reason: That's where the
best thinking was coming from. And he left it at the same time as me -- the
late '80s -- and also for the same reason: The neocons started playing an
"anti-elite," anti-intellectual populist song to the paleocons, because they
needed their votes to win elections. That took off in a big way around 1990,
when Reagonomics was out of gas, we were headed for a recession, and the
"permanent Republican majority" was recognized as a myth.
>
> On the surface, Republicans hate education because they believe that
> educational establishment is liberal.
They do hate the educational establishment. And it is fairly liberal.
>
> But beneath the surface, I think that they hate education in hopes
> that voters would vote with their dicks instead of brains. Sarah Palin
> was a manifestation of such hopes.
<g> Ok, but I like the way that Lilla said it better. d8-)
>
> Republican party, for which I used to vote a long time ago, is now
> profoundly sick, alternates between denial and illusions, and does not
> serve anyone besides the deep pockets of its contributors. Deep in
> hypocrisy and dishonesty, it lacks deep and original thought, and is
> morally bankrupted by the Bush administration.
I'll give you those points. We may disagree about which strands of the
Republican Party promote those things. I'll go with what Lilla said.
>
> It now resorts to spamming Internet with fake chain letters, talk show
> innuendo etc, who thought that it would come to that.
>
> This personally disappoints me, as I would like it instead to be the
> bastion of fiscal restraint, Constitution based personal freedoms,
> respectful foreign policy, limited government, and promote economic
> reforms based on honest and modern academic thought.
Too bad. You're a little late. That started in the mid-'60s and ended just
before Clinton was elected. A recession stuck the final dagger into it.
You would have liked my poli sci teachers. Several of them were
conservatives of that ilk. They were like sore thumbs at a large university
in the '60s and '70s.
>
> If a magic transformation occurs and Republican party will become
> closer to that ideal, I will vote Republican again. But I am not
> holding my breath.
>
> i
That's wise. I've been holding out for that for over 20 years, and I've
gotten pretty blue in the face. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
February 19, 2006
After Neoconservatism
By FRANCIS FUKUYAMA
As we approach the third anniversary of the onset of the Iraq war, it seems
very unlikely that history will judge either the intervention itself or the
ideas animating it kindly. By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created
a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a
training ground and an operational base for jihadist terrorists, with plenty
of American targets to shoot at. The United States still has a chance of
creating a Shiite-dominated democratic Iraq, but the new government will be
very weak for years to come; the resulting power vacuum will invite outside
influence from all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran. There are clear
benefits to the Iraqi people from the removal of Saddam Hussein's
dictatorship, and perhaps some positive spillover effects in Lebanon and
Syria. But it is very hard to see how these developments in themselves
justify the blood and treasure that the United States has spent on the
project to this point.
The so-called Bush Doctrine that set the framework for the administration's
first term is now in shambles. The doctrine (elaborated, among other places,
in the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States) argued that, in
the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, America would have to launch periodic
preventive wars to defend itself against rogue states and terrorists with
weapons of mass destruction; that it would do this alone, if necessary; and
that it would work to democratize the greater Middle East as a long-term
solution to the terrorist problem. But successful pre-emption depends on the
ability to predict the future accurately and on good intelligence, which was
not forthcoming, while America's perceived unilateralism has isolated it as
never before. It is not surprising that in its second term, the
administration has been distancing itself from these policies and is in the
process of rewriting the National Security Strategy document.
But it is the idealistic effort to use American power to promote democracy
and human rights abroad that may suffer the greatest setback. Perceived
failure in Iraq has restored the authority of foreign policy "realists" in
the tradition of Henry Kissinger. Already there is a host of books and
articles decrying America's na�ve Wilsonianism and attacking the notion of
trying to democratize the world. The administration's second-term efforts to
push for greater Middle Eastern democracy, introduced with the soaring
rhetoric of Bush's second Inaugural Address, have borne very problematic
fruits. The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood made a strong showing in Egypt's
parliamentary elections in November and December. While the holding of
elections in Iraq this past December was an achievement in itself, the vote
led to the ascendance of a Shiite bloc with close ties to Iran (following on
the election of the conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of Iran in
June). But the clincher was the decisive Hamas victory in the Palestinian
election last month, which brought to power a movement overtly dedicated to
the destruction of Israel. In his second inaugural, Bush said that
"America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one," but the
charge will be made with increasing frequency that the Bush administration
made a big mistake when it stirred the pot, and that the United States would
have done better to stick by its traditional authoritarian friends in the
Middle East. Indeed, the effort to promote democracy around the world has
been attacked as an illegitimate activity both by people on the left like
Jeffrey Sachs and by traditional conservatives like Pat Buchanan.
The reaction against democracy promotion and an activist foreign policy may
not end there. Those whom Walter Russell Mead labels Jacksonian
conservatives - red-state Americans whose sons and daughters are fighting
and dying in the Middle East - supported the Iraq war because they believed
that their children were fighting to defend the United States against
nuclear terrorism, not to promote democracy. They don't want to abandon the
president in the middle of a vicious war, but down the road the perceived
failure of the Iraq intervention may push them to favor a more isolationist
foreign policy, which is a more natural political position for them. A
recent Pew poll indicates a swing in public opinion toward isolationism; the
percentage of Americans saying that the United States "should mind its own
business" has never been higher since the end of the Vietnam War.
More than any other group, it was the neoconservatives both inside and
outside the Bush administration who pushed for democratizing Iraq and the
broader Middle East. They are widely credited (or blamed) for being the
decisive voices promoting regime change in Iraq, and yet it is their
idealistic agenda that in the coming months and years will be the most
directly threatened. Were the United States to retreat from the world stage,
following a drawdown in Iraq, it would in my view be a huge tragedy, because
American power and influence have been critical to the maintenance of an
open and increasingly democratic order around the world. The problem with
neoconservatism's agenda lies not in its ends, which are as American as
apple pie, but rather in the overmilitarized means by which it has sought to
accomplish them. What American foreign policy needs is not a return to a
narrow and cynical realism, but rather the formulation of a "realistic
Wilsonianism" that better matches means to ends.
The Neoconservative Legacy
How did the neoconservatives end up overreaching to such an extent that they
risk undermining their own goals? The Bush administration's first-term
foreign policy did not flow ineluctably from the views of earlier
generations of people who considered themselves neoconservatives, since
those views were themselves complex and subject to differing
interpretations. Four common principles or threads ran through much of this
thought up through the end of the cold war: a concern with democracy, human
rights and, more generally, the internal politics of states; a belief that
American power can be used for moral purposes; a skepticism about the
ability of international law and institutions to solve serious security
problems; and finally, a view that ambitious social engineering often leads
to unexpected consequences and thereby undermines its own ends.
The problem was that two of these principles were in potential collision.
The skeptical stance toward ambitious social engineering - which in earlier
years had been applied mostly to domestic policies like affirmative action,
busing and welfare - suggested a cautious approach toward remaking the world
and an awareness that ambitious initiatives always have unanticipated
consequences. The belief in the potential moral uses of American power, on
the other hand, implied that American activism could reshape the structure
of global politics. By the time of the Iraq war, the belief in the
transformational uses of power had prevailed over the doubts about social
engineering.
In retrospect, things did not have to develop this way. The roots of
neoconservatism lie in a remarkable group of largely Jewish intellectuals
who attended City College of New York (C.C.N.Y.) in the mid- to late 1930's
and early 1940's, a group that included Irving Kristol, Daniel Bell, Irving
Howe, Nathan Glazer and, a bit later, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. The story of
this group has been told in a number of places, most notably in a
documentary film by Joseph Dorman called "Arguing the World." The most
important inheritance from the C.C.N.Y. group was an idealistic belief in
social progress and the universality of rights, coupled with intense
anti-Communism.
It is not an accident that many in the C.C.N.Y. group started out as
Trotskyites. Leon Trotsky was, of course, himself a Communist, but his
supporters came to understand better than most people the utter cynicism and
brutality of the Stalinist regime. The anti-Communist left, in contrast to
the traditional American right, sympathized with the social and economic
aims of Communism, but in the course of the 1930's and 1940's came to
realize that "real existing socialism" had become a monstrosity of
unintended consequences that completely undermined the idealistic goals it
espoused. While not all of the C.C.N.Y. thinkers became neoconservatives,
the danger of good intentions carried to extremes was a theme that would
underlie the life work of many members of this group.
If there was a single overarching theme to the domestic social policy
critiques issued by those who wrote for the neoconservative journal The
Public Interest, founded by Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer and Daniel Bell in
1965, it was the limits of social engineering. Writers like Glazer, Moynihan
and, later, Glenn Loury argued that ambitious efforts to seek social justice
often left societies worse off than before because they either required
massive state intervention that disrupted pre-existing social relations (for
example, forced busing) or else produced unanticipated consequences (like an
increase in single-parent families as a result of welfare). A major theme
running through James Q. Wilson's extensive writings on crime was the idea
that you could not lower crime rates by trying to solve deep underlying
problems like poverty and racism; effective policies needed to focus on
shorter-term measures that went after symptoms of social distress (like
subway graffiti or panhandling) rather than root causes.
How, then, did a group with such a pedigree come to decide that the "root
cause" of terrorism lay in the Middle East's lack of democracy, that the
United States had both the wisdom and the ability to fix this problem and
that democracy would come quickly and painlessly to Iraq? Neoconservatives
would not have taken this turn but for the peculiar way that the cold war
ended.
Ronald Reagan was ridiculed by sophisticated people on the American left and
in Europe for labeling the Soviet Union and its allies an "evil empire" and
for challenging Mikhail Gorbachev not just to reform his system but also to
"tear down this wall." His assistant secretary of defense for international
security policy, Richard Perle, was denounced as the "prince of darkness"
for this uncompromising, hard-line position; his proposal for a double-zero
in the intermediate-range nuclear arms negotiations (that is, the complete
elimination of medium-range missiles) was attacked as hopelessly out of
touch by the bien-pensant centrist foreign-policy experts at places like the
Council on Foreign Relations and the State Department. That community felt
that the Reaganites were dangerously utopian in their hopes for actually
winning, as opposed to managing, the cold war.
And yet total victory in the cold war is exactly what happened in 1989-91.
Gorbachev accepted not only the double zero but also deep cuts in
conventional forces, and then failed to stop the Polish, Hungarian and East
German defections from the empire. Communism collapsed within a couple of
years because of its internal moral weaknesses and contradictions, and with
regime change in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact
threat to the West evaporated.
The way the cold war ended shaped the thinking of supporters of the Iraq
war, including younger neoconservatives like William Kristol and Robert
Kagan, in two ways. First, it seems to have created an expectation that all
totalitarian regimes were hollow at the core and would crumble with a small
push from outside. The model for this was Romania under the Ceausescus: once
the wicked witch was dead, the munchkins would rise up and start singing
joyously about their liberation. As Kristol and Kagan put it in their 2000
book "Present Dangers": "To many the idea of America using its power to
promote changes of regime in nations ruled by dictators rings of utopianism.
But in fact, it is eminently realistic. There is something perverse in
declaring the impossibility of promoting democratic change abroad in light
of the record of the past three decades."
This overoptimism about postwar transitions to democracy helps explain the
Bush administration's incomprehensible failure to plan adequately for the
insurgency that subsequently emerged in Iraq. The war's supporters seemed to
think that democracy was a kind of default condition to which societies
reverted once the heavy lifting of coercive regime change occurred, rather
than a long-term process of institution-building and reform. While they now
assert that they knew all along that the democratic transformation of Iraq
would be long and hard, they were clearly taken by surprise. According to
George Packer's recent book on Iraq, "The Assassins' Gate," the Pentagon
planned a drawdown of American forces to some 25,000 troops by the end of
the summer following the invasion.
By the 1990's, neoconservatism had been fed by several other intellectual
streams. One came from the students of the German Jewish political theorist
Leo Strauss, who, contrary to much of the nonsense written about him by
people like Anne Norton and Shadia Drury, was a serious reader of
philosophical texts who did not express opinions on contemporary politics or
policy issues. Rather, he was concerned with the "crisis of modernity"
brought on by the relativism of Nietzsche and Heidegger, as well as the fact
that neither the claims of religion nor deeply-held opinions about the
nature of the good life could be banished from politics, as the thinkers of
the European Enlightenment had hoped. Another stream came from Albert
Wohlstetter, a Rand Corporation strategist who was the teacher of Richard
Perle, Zalmay Khalilzad (the current American ambassador to Iraq) and Paul
Wolfowitz (the former deputy secretary of defense), among other people.
Wohlstetter was intensely concerned with the problem of nuclear
proliferation and the way that the 1968 Nonproliferation Treaty left
loopholes, in its support for "peaceful" nuclear energy, large enough for
countries like Iraq and Iran to walk through.
I have numerous affiliations with the different strands of the
neoconservative movement. I was a student of Strauss's prot�g� Allan Bloom,
who wrote the bestseller "The Closing of the American Mind"; worked at Rand
and with Wohlstetter on Persian Gulf issues; and worked also on two
occasions for Wolfowitz. Many people have also interpreted my book "The End
of History and the Last Man" (1992) as a neoconservative tract, one that
argued in favor of the view that there is a universal hunger for liberty in
all people that will inevitably lead them to liberal democracy, and that we
are living in the midst of an accelerating, transnational movement in favor
of that liberal democracy. This is a misreading of the argument. "The End of
History" is in the end an argument about modernization. What is initially
universal is not the desire for liberal democracy but rather the desire to
live in a modern - that is, technologically advanced and prosperous -
society, which, if satisfied, tends to drive demands for political
participation. Liberal democracy is one of the byproducts of this
modernization process, something that becomes a universal aspiration only in
the course of historical time.
"The End of History," in other words, presented a kind of Marxist argument
for the existence of a long-term process of social evolution, but one that
terminates in liberal democracy rather than communism. In the formulation of
the scholar Ken Jowitt, the neoconservative position articulated by people
like Kristol and Kagan was, by contrast, Leninist; they believed that
history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will.
Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as
farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a
political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no
longer support.
The Failure of Benevolent Hegemony
The Bush administration and its neoconservative supporters did not simply
underestimate the difficulty of bringing about congenial political outcomes
in places like Iraq; they also misunderstood the way the world would react
to the use of American power. Of course, the cold war was replete with
instances of what the foreign policy analyst Stephen Sestanovich calls
American maximalism, wherein Washington acted first and sought legitimacy
and support from its allies only after the fact. But in the post-cold-war
period, the structural situation of world politics changed in ways that made
this kind of exercise of power much more problematic in the eyes of even
close allies. After the fall of the Soviet Union, various neoconservative
authors like Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol and Robert Kagan suggested
that the United States would use its margin of power to exert a kind of
"benevolent hegemony" over the rest of the world, fixing problems like rogue
states with W.M.D., human rights abuses and terrorist threats as they came
up. Writing before the Iraq war, Kristol and Kagan considered whether this
posture would provoke resistance from the rest of the world, and concluded,
"It is precisely because American foreign policy is infused with an
unusually high degree of morality that other nations find they have less to
fear from its otherwise daunting power." (Italics added.)
It is hard to read these lines without irony in the wake of the global
reaction to the Iraq war, which succeeded in uniting much of the world in a
frenzy of anti-Americanism. The idea that the United States is a hegemon
more benevolent than most is not an absurd one, but there were warning signs
that things had changed in America's relationship to the world long before
the start of the Iraq war. The structural imbalance in global power had
grown enormous. America surpassed the rest of the world in every dimension
of power by an unprecedented margin, with its defense spending nearly equal
to that of the rest of the world combined. Already during the Clinton years,
American economic hegemony had generated enormous hostility to an
American-dominated process of globalization, frequently on the part of close
democratic allies who thought the United States was seeking to impose its
antistatist social model on them.
There were other reasons as well why the world did not accept American
benevolent hegemony. In the first place, it was premised on American
exceptionalism, the idea that America could use its power in instances where
others could not because it was more virtuous than other countries. The
doctrine of pre-emption against terrorist threats contained in the 2002
National Security Strategy was one that could not safely be generalized
through the international system; America would be the first country to
object if Russia, China, India or France declared a similar right of
unilateral action. The United States was seeking to pass judgment on others
while being unwilling to have its own conduct questioned in places like the
International Criminal Court.
Another problem with benevolent hegemony was domestic. There are sharp
limits to the American people's attention to foreign affairs and willingness
to finance projects overseas that do not have clear benefits to American
interests. Sept. 11 changed that calculus in many ways, providing popular
support for two wars in the Middle East and large increases in defense
spending. But the durability of the support is uncertain: although most
Americans want to do what is necessary to make the project of rebuilding
Iraq succeed, the aftermath of the invasion did not increase the public
appetite for further costly interventions. Americans are not, at heart, an
imperial people. Even benevolent hegemons sometimes have to act ruthlessly,
and they need a staying power that does not come easily to people who are
reasonably content with their own lives and society.
Finally, benevolent hegemony presumed that the hegemon was not only well
intentioned but competent as well. Much of the criticism of the Iraq
intervention from Europeans and others was not based on a normative case
that the United States was not getting authorization from the United Nations
Security Council, but rather on the belief that it had not made an adequate
case for invading Iraq in the first place and didn't know what it was doing
in trying to democratize Iraq. In this, the critics were unfortunately quite
prescient.
The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the
United States from radical Islamism. Although the new and ominous
possibility of undeterrable terrorists armed with weapons of mass
destruction did indeed present itself, advocates of the war wrongly
conflated this with the threat presented by Iraq and with the rogue
state/proliferation problem more generally. The misjudgment was based in
part on the massive failure of the American intelligence community to
correctly assess the state of Iraq's W.M.D. programs before the war. But the
intelligence community never took nearly as alarmist a view of the
terrorist/W.M.D. threat as the war's supporters did. Overestimation of this
threat was then used to justify the elevation of preventive war to the
centerpiece of a new security strategy, as well as a whole series of
measures that infringed on civil liberties, from detention policy to
domestic eavesdropping.
What to Do
Now that the neoconservative moment appears to have passed, the United
States needs to reconceptualize its foreign policy in several fundamental
ways. In the first instance, we need to demilitarize what we have been
calling the global war on terrorism and shift to other types of policy
instruments. We are fighting hot counterinsurgency wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq and against the international jihadist movement, wars in which we need
to prevail. But "war" is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle, since
wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings.
Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a "long, twilight struggle" whose
core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and
minds of ordinary Muslims around the world. As recent events in France and
Denmark suggest, Europe will be a central battleground in this fight.
The United States needs to come up with something better than "coalitions of
the willing" to legitimate its dealings with other countries. The world
today lacks effective international institutions that can confer legitimacy
on collective action; creating new organizations that will better balance
the dual requirements of legitimacy and effectiveness will be the primary
task for the coming generation. As a result of more than 200 years of
political evolution, we have a relatively good understanding of how to
create institutions that are rulebound, accountable and reasonably effective
in the vertical silos we call states. What we do not have are adequate
mechanisms of horizontal accountability among states.
The conservative critique of the United Nations is all too cogent: while
useful for certain peacekeeping and nation-building operations, the United
Nations lacks both democratic legitimacy and effectiveness in dealing with
serious security issues. The solution is not to strengthen a single global
body, but rather to promote what has been emerging in any event, a
"multi-multilateral world" of overlapping and occasionally competing
international institutions that are organized on regional or functional
lines. Kosovo in 1999 was a model: when the Russian veto prevented the
Security Council from acting, the United States and its NATO allies simply
shifted the venue to NATO, where the Russians could not block action.
The final area that needs rethinking, and the one that will be the most
contested in the coming months and years, is the place of democracy
promotion in American foreign policy. The worst legacy that could come from
the Iraq war would be an anti-neoconservative backlash that coupled a sharp
turn toward isolation with a cynical realist policy aligning the United
States with friendly authoritarians. Good governance, which involves not
just democracy but also the rule of law and economic development, is
critical to a host of outcomes we desire, from alleviating poverty to
dealing with pandemics to controlling violent conflicts. A Wilsonian policy
that pays attention to how rulers treat their citizens is therefore right,
but it needs to be informed by a certain realism that was missing from the
thinking of the Bush administration in its first term and of its
neoconservative allies.
We need in the first instance to understand that promoting democracy and
modernization in the Middle East is not a solution to the problem of
jihadist terrorism; in all likelihood it will make the short-term problem
worse, as we have seen in the case of the Palestinian election bringing
Hamas to power. Radical Islamism is a byproduct of modernization itself,
arising from the loss of identity that accompanies the transition to a
modern, pluralist society. It is no accident that so many recent terrorists,
from Sept. 11's Mohamed Atta to the murderer of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van
Gogh to the London subway bombers, were radicalized in democratic Europe and
intimately familiar with all of democracy's blessings. More democracy will
mean more alienation, radicalization and - yes, unfortunately - terrorism.
But greater political participation by Islamist groups is very likely to
occur whatever we do, and it will be the only way that the poison of radical
Islamism can ultimately work its way through the body politic of Muslim
communities around the world. The age is long since gone when friendly
authoritarians could rule over passive populations and produce stability
indefinitely. New social actors are mobilizing everywhere, from Bolivia and
Venezuela to South Africa and the Persian Gulf. A durable
Israeli-Palestinian peace could not be built upon a corrupt, illegitimate
Fatah that constantly had to worry about Hamas challenging its authority.
Peace might emerge, sometime down the road, from a Palestine run by a
formerly radical terrorist group that had been forced to deal with the
realities of governing.
If we are serious about the good governance agenda, we have to shift our
focus to the reform, reorganization and proper financing of those
institutions of the United States government that actually promote
democracy, development and the rule of law around the world, organizations
like the State Department, U.S.A.I.D., the National Endowment for Democracy
and the like. The United States has played an often decisive role in helping
along many recent democratic transitions, including in the Philippines in
1986; South Korea and Taiwan in 1987; Chile in 1988; Poland and Hungary in
1989; Serbia in 2000; Georgia in 2003; and Ukraine in 2004-5. But the
overarching lesson that emerges from these cases is that the United States
does not get to decide when and where democracy comes about. By definition,
outsiders can't "impose" democracy on a country that doesn't want it; demand
for democracy and reform must be domestic. Democracy promotion is therefore
a long-term and opportunistic process that has to await the gradual ripening
of political and economic conditions to be effective.
The Bush administration has been walking - indeed, sprinting - away from the
legacy of its first term, as evidenced by the cautious multilateral approach
it has taken toward the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.
Condoleezza Rice gave a serious speech in January about "transformational
diplomacy" and has begun an effort to reorganize the nonmilitary side of the
foreign-policy establishment, and the National Security Strategy document is
being rewritten. All of these are welcome changes, but the legacy of the
Bush first-term foreign policy and its neoconservative supporters has been
so polarizing that it is going to be hard to have a reasoned debate about
how to appropriately balance American ideals and interests in the coming
years. The reaction against a flawed policy can be as damaging as the policy
itself, and such a reaction is an indulgence we cannot afford, given the
critical moment we have arrived at in global politics.
Neoconservatism, whatever its complex roots, has become indelibly associated
with concepts like coercive regime change, unilateralism and American
hegemony. What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor
realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world - ideas that
retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but
without its illusions about the efficacy of American power and hegemony to
bring these ends about.
Francis Fukuyama teaches at the School of Advanced International Studies at
Johns Hopkins University. This essay is adapted from his book "America at
the Crossroads," which will be published this month by Yale University
Press.
--
John R. Carroll
Buerste
"Ignoramus8952" <ignora...@NOSPAM.8952.invalid> wrote in message
I'm confused as to how and why you insist on reading more and more of what
you want to portray me as into what I write. Your passion for your ideology
compels you to stuff everything and everyone into the shoebox you have
prepared for them. But I understand how you "work"!
Now, go back and read:
"But, I learned more about engineering from an old Eastern European
immigrant mechanic that
barely spoke English than all the professors I studied under combined."
Did you not notice that he was a mechanic, not an engineer??? His name was
Steve Kapatany, from Hungary. He and his wife Margaret worked for my
company for over 20 years back in the '60s and '70s. If you like, I can
e-mail you scans of some of his and her records, I'm sure that there are
some old records in one of the stock rooms. Or you can call and speak with
the last employee I have that was here when he was, Debbie Walendzik. I
know it's much easier to just call me a liar and that is your prerogative.
After all, I don't agree with your positions on many things therefore I
should be discredited, dismissed and disrespected. I'm not offended by
anyone on the fringe left anymore, I'm aware of their tactics.
If you ever get a chance, read-up on the history of the Socialists in
Hungary. That is what the left wants for the US.
Have a nice day!
Ned Simmons
<ignora...@NOSPAM.8952.invalid> wrote:
>On 2010-01-08, wmbjk...@citlink.net <wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:25:33 -0500, "Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>He knew EVERYTHING but never had been in school after he was 12 years old.
>>>His family had to contend with W.W.II and the Russians and the Socialists
>>>after that . His personal experience with Socialism was probably the most
>>>contributing factor to my anti-Socialist stance.
>
>I am a little bit incredulous on this. Being an engineer requires
>knowing such things as calculus/integrals, trigonometry, etc, besides
>the more down to earth details of any particular engineering fields.
>
Calculus and differential equations are elitist left wing subjects.
This country would be whole lot better off if we had more engineers
who never studied any mathematics beyond trigonometry. Even trig is
suspect since everything worth solving can be dealt with graphically.
--
Ned Simmons
Buerste
Andrew VK3BFA.
On the other hand, the phenomenal technology available has eliminated a lot
of the need for the seat-of-the-pants engineering type guys. The software
available today and the quick prototyping eliminates so much of the human
expertise. I use Solidworks and my parts and mechanisms don't get built
until I'm on version four or so. I can test (and break) stuff in the
software and then the metal version usually works as predicted. We don't
repair odds and ends things anymore, we buy them off the shelf. The
availability and price of components is so much cheaper than
troubleshooting. My mechanics are more parts changers now. There is the
danger of a person being so far removed from the actual physical process
that they haven't a clue what hands-on "feel" can mean to the process.
Buerste
"Ned Simmons" <ne...@nedsim.com> wrote in message
news:e9hfk5hsetv7o8lg3...@4ax.com...
I have yet to use 1/10 of the math I was schooled in. Either I have
software that does everything automatically or Google it. It's faster. But
I admit I'm not doing anything complex, just ingenious.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
wrote:
Q: How can a mechanic who quit school at age 12, teach more about
*engineering* than all the professors combined that one ever studied
under?
A: When the mechanic is a better engineering teacher than all the
professors combined that one ever studied under!
Q: Why is it wrong to ask the above question?
A: Because asking it makes one a leftist with a shoe box!
>If you ever get a chance, read-up on the history of the Socialists in
>Hungary. That is what the left wants for the US.
And 1+ 1 = 11 on Planet Weaselcrackpot.
Wayne
jbsl...@gmail.com
<ignora...@NOSPAM.8952.invalid> wrote:
I suspect that the problem comes with how you define "engineer". On
one hand, you might find a guy who has little, if any, formal
education but can figure out how to make the little gizmo over here go
up and down while the thingmee over here is going round and round.
Hey! Success.
On the other hand you have a guy over here who can figure out how to
make the gizmo go up and down while the thingmee is whirling around
and calculate how thick to make the whaducallit so it won't break; and
redesign the linkage to reduce friction so that you can use a smaller
motor and build the whole thing for 40% less money by using welded
fabrications instead of machining from a solid block.
If you have the first guy everything works; if you have the second guy
it still works, lasts longer and is cheaper.....
Regards,
J.B.
John R. Carroll
> "Ignoramus8952" <ignora...@NOSPAM.8952.invalid> wrote in message
> news:wMOdnWWT-N-n8NrW...@giganews.com...
>> On 2010-01-08, wmbjk...@citlink.net <wmbjk...@citlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:25:33 -0500, "Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> He knew EVERYTHING but never had been in school after he was 12
>>>> years old.
>>>> His family had to contend with W.W.II and the Russians and the
>>>> Socialists after that . His personal experience with Socialism
>>>> was probably the most
>>>> contributing factor to my anti-Socialist stance.
>>
>> I am a little bit incredulous on this. Being an engineer requires
>> knowing such things as calculus/integrals, trigonometry, etc, besides
>> the more down to earth details of any particular engineering fields.
>>
>> How can someone who never had been in school after the age of 12,
>> learn this?
>>
>> Of course, Buerste just gave us some personal example, which we
>> cannot possibly verify, but I have my doubts as to whether it is
>> possible to be an engineer without any schooling after the age of 12.
>>
>> i
>
> I'm confused
No shit Buckwheat.
--
John R. Carroll
Buerste
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:oMydnZGTVM0BRNrW...@giganews.com...
Still the hateful little person that you do so well. I would think you
would be jovial now that your Socialist gods are in power...at least for a
while. Enjoy your spite and hate, it fits you well and you are so
comfortable wallowing in it.
Have a nice day!
dca...@krl.org
wrote:
> I am a little bit incredulous on this. Being an engineer requires
> knowing such things as calculus/integrals, trigonometry, etc, besides
> the more down to earth details of any particular engineering fields.
>
> How can someone who never had been in school after the age of 12,
> learn this?
>
> Of course, Buerste just gave us some personal example, which we cannot
> possibly verify, but I have my doubts as to whether it is possible to
> be an engineer without any schooling after the age of 12.
>
>
I think it is possible. Consider that in electrical engineering,
there is a belief that half of everything one knows, becomes obsolete
in seven years. Which means that electrical engineers continuously
learn engineering outside of school.
Also consider home schooled kids. Lots of home schooled kids are
getting into college. So it is obvious that one can learn what is
taught in high school without going to high school. No reason that one
can not learn what is taught in college without going to college.
I took electrical engineering in college, but learned enough
mechanical engineering outside of college that I supervised a
mechanical engineering group at one time.
I am not arguing that one should not go to college. One learns a lot
more and a lot faster going to college. I especially think one should
go to a college and live there.
There can be a lot that is learned from roommates and friends that are
taking courses that you do not take.
Dan
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
<wphew!> I was a third of the way through that before I realized I'd read it
before. <g>
Fukuyama knows his neocons, alright. He used to be one of the bull-goose
neocons himself.
--
Ed Huntress
Andrew VK3BFA
> "Andrew VK3BFA" <VK3...@wia.org.au> wrote in message
>
>
> On the other hand, the phenomenal technology available has eliminated a lot
> of the need for the seat-of-the-pants engineering type guys. The software
> available today and the quick prototyping eliminates so much of the human
> expertise. I use Solidworks and my parts and mechanisms don't get built
> until I'm on version four or so. I can test (and break) stuff in the
> software and then the metal version usually works as predicted. We don't
> repair odds and ends things anymore, we buy them off the shelf. The
> availability and price of components is so much cheaper than
> troubleshooting. My mechanics are more parts changers now. There is the
> danger of a person being so far removed from the actual physical process
> that they haven't a clue what hands-on "feel" can mean to the process.
This is getting into sophistry, so will reply in similar vein, mixed
with Old Fart Syndrome...
Your quite correct, in a production environment modern tools like CAD
and CNC are essential - if you had a bunch of guys, standing in front
of multiple manual machines, then you would go broke. As has happened
with a lot of "traditional" engineering job shops. And, yes, you can
buy things off the shelf instead of making them, mechanics are parts
changers. (try and buy a new tail light lens for your car - chances
are, you will have to buy a complete assembly, including bits you
don't need/want)
BUT - and a big BUT - you assume that the parts are available off the
shelf. If your million dollar cnc machine breaks, and there are no
parts (for whatever reason) then is there still someone with enough
machining skill to MAKE the part you need? Or repair a control board
to component level? And the parts suppliers have you by the balls as
they know its costing you money for down time, so they can, and do,
charge outrageous prices.
CAD - yes, can do lots of things, including stress analysis - so you
can design a part that will do X cycles, then break. (This, combined
with the Warranty Expiry Chip is pretty commonplace, its a significant
gripe topic in this group <g>)
I am learning manual machining, because I need to make unobtainable
replacement mechanical parts, mainly for electronic gear. (the plastic
bits break) Would only ever need to make a few, so CNC is not
warranted for me.
I go to trade school with an apprentice group - they are eager to get
to the CNC sections as thats what they use at work, cant see the need
for manual machining.
So - will we get to the stage where industry is totally dependent on a
few companies, making thousands of parts on their CNC machines? - (its
already happened, I think) - I would argue that if you cant operate a
manual machine, and thus have a "feel" for what the CNC machine is
trying to do, then your taking a big risk. Crashing a CNC machine is
usually big bikkies, and is often done by someone who "forgot" some
simple parameter.
And reiterating an earlier point. With the demise of skilled craftsmen
as mentors, to teach a new generation, who will run the machines. Yes,
you can go and buy CNC off the shelf, but if theres not enough people
with a skilled engineering background, then how can you re-establish
an industry that had been destroyed by cheap foreign goods (no names
here)
It would take generations to regain the human capital needed -
something the "economic rationalists" ignore with their VERY short
term profit focus. Its like aviation - the best way to make a profit
is to cut maintenance/training to the bone, as no money is made on
maintenance. Same for bridges, roads, railways, electricity generation
and distribution - in short, most of the things that make us more than
a 3rd world economy. I can never figure out WHY accountants have the
ascendancy they do in management - usually with very limited vision,
if it cant be put into a spreadsheet, then it doesn't exist. Skilled
tradesmen and engineers fall in this group.
And a few personal experience examples - my company had a big rock
cutting ditcher, another company had a big bulldozer. We would swap
machine time to get a job done. Never got on the books, too
complicated. So when the company got restructured, the brains trust
couldn't figure out why they had to go and buy a bulldozer. They would
hit our cables, we would abuse them and go fix it. When we hit one of
their water pipes, they would abuse us and then go fix it. Worked
well, but nothing on paper. Another thing the accountant managers
didn't know about. We did the same with the local electricity supply
guys. You saw someone doing a road crossing trench, you would throw a
section of pipe into it in case it was needed later. Not on the books,
would have been horrendous to do the paperwork. The water people had a
backhoe operator who could just about play the violin with his machine
- he came to us when we needed to take off a quarter inch of soil at a
time to find buried plant. We didn't pay him, the other mob did. It
all worked out in the long run.
People complain they use only 10 percent of the maths they learned at
school - yes, but WHICH 10 percent. You had learnt a lot more, and in
that pile is the stuff you need. You had no idea at the time what 10%
you would need. And education? - yes, theres idiots with higher
degrees, same as theirs idiots with guns and idiots driving cars.
Thats no reason to ban guns, or cars, or education - its not a
strictly black and white equation, thats just being stupid.
Yep, bit of a rant, I know. The world is changing too rapidly for me,
becoming an old fart seemed to have crept up on me overnight. Remember
the way things used to be, and am not flexible enuff to change. There
is SO MUCH out there now, cant keep up with even a narrow field.
Andrew VK3BFA.
dav19...@nowhere.invalid
<wwi...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
><dav19...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>news:4i5dk5lm4tgtosm3a...@4ax.com...
>> A glorious socialist paradise where the elites are allowed to murder,
>> rape, and pillage their subhuman underlings without restraint. The
>> ultimate dream world of the psychopath.
>> Dave
>this is bait, right?
>
>as opposed to the glorious capitalist paradise where the elites are allowed
>to murder, rape, and pillage their subhuman underlings without restraint.
>The ultimate dream world of the psychopath.
>
>i haven't seen "avatar" yet but i gather it's kinda an allegory for the u.s.
>and the wars in iraq/afghanistan.
No, it's not bait. And not opposed to the "glorious capitalist
paradise" either. BOTH are the same thing. BOTH have an elite class
that runs the world of slaves, because the capitalists in charge of
forming this system are MONOPOLY capitalists. These very same
"capitalists" funded the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and Chairman
Mao's revolution in China.....and also funded the Nazis. Fund both
side of wars and make double the profits, and then profit from the
rebuilding of all the destruction the wars caused. And do it all by
controlling the printing presses that create money out of thin air.
You have to wake up to the scam.
Dave
Martin H. Eastburn
I knew two honorable people that managed after extensive planning
walked out of the communist state of Romania during the cold war.
He was a production plant manager of high tech electronics. She, his
wife was an engineer since she had a math background. I was honored
to hear parts of their tale. It was not a place to stay and death
to anyone who tried to leave or differ.
They left a large estate that was family owned and most all they owned
as well. Walking out you can't take much with you. The planning
was done like an engineering and production job. They had some information
from others that didn't make it.
Martin
Buerste wrote:
>
> "Ignoramus30285" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.30285.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hoGdndWY8vewDdvW...@giganews.com...
>> In rec.crafts.metalworking, Buerste wrote:
>>> "Ignoramus30285" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.30285.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> On 2010-01-07, Buerste <bue...@wowway.com> wrote:
>>>>> I don't understand the left's infatuation with advanced degrees. Like
>>>>> you
>>>>> pointed out it's no guarantee of competency or intelligence. Maybe
>>>>> it's
>>>>> because the left can't point to a person's accomplishments, character,
>>>>> morals, vision, abilities, common sense, etc.. Could it be a lack of
>>>>> those
>>>>> qualities in the ranks of the left? If only it was so easy to
>>>>> qualify a
>>>>> person for a position by what classes they sat through in "X"
>>>>> school that
>>>>> cost "Y" amount to attend.
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that "the left" value education, and "the right" do
>>>> not? (and then you offer what looks to you to be a great reason for
>>>> this).
>>>>
>>>> Correct?
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I have not met a single educated person who regretted his
>>>> or her education.
>>>
>>> That's a HELL of a leap. All I'm saying is that a degree does not
>>> necessarily equal proficiency and it seem that the left seems to
>>> think it
>>> does. Why?
>>
>> Not quite.
>>
>> Here's what you said:
>>
>> ``I don't understand the left's infatuation with advanced degrees. ''
>>
>> Clearly, you do not consider yourself to be "the left", and you do not
>> understand (and do not share, by implication) the "infatuation with
>> advanced degrees".
>>
>>
>>> I've been blessed with quality and quantity of education. But, I
>>> learned more about engineering from an old Eastern European
>>> immigrant mechanic that barely spoke English than all the professors
>>> I studied under combined. I'm just not easily impressed by sheep
>>> skins as I am by proven practical knowledge.
>>
>> He probably knew engineering very well, but did not study it in
>> English.
>>
>> i
>
> He knew EVERYTHING but never had been in school after he was 12 years
> old. His family had to contend with W.W.II and the Russians and the
dav19...@nowhere.invalid
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>What was the name of the video, Dave? I missed that part of this
>discussion.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a0e_1262748754
Dave
Larry Jaques
<bue...@wowway.com> scrawled the following:
>
He'll certainly enjoy the added taxes on his CA business this year. OR
is trying to pull the same shit.
-= NO =- on 66 and 67, a special election, to boot.
Hawke
> old. His family had to contend with W.W.II and the Russians and the
> Socialists after that . His personal experience with Socialism was
> probably the most contributing factor to my anti-Socialist stance.
You have to understand that he never actually had to deal with
socialism. What they had in Russia and eastern Europe was never
socialism. It was more like an oligarchy or else a dictatorship.
Socialist governments are what you see in Denmark or in Scandinavia, and
you have to admit they are a far cry from what they had in the Soviet
Union. As to his knowing everything about engineering, that may be
possible in that field but in many others without the formal education
you don't know squat. I doubt you would like to be treated by a doctor
that didn't go to med school. Some things you can do fine with no
educations but in others it's a must.
Hawke
Michael A. Terrell
Andrew VK3BFA wrote:
>
> On Jan 8, 11:44 am, "Buerste" <buer...@wowway.com> wrote:
>
> > I've been blessed with quality and quantity of education. But, I learned
> > more about engineering from an old Eastern European immigrant mechanic that
> > barely spoke English than all the professors I studied under combined. I'm
> > just not easily impressed by sheep skins as I am by proven practical
> > knowledge.
>
> which gives you the intellectual and analytical skills to solve NEW
> problems. If your lucky, (you were) you find someone who has done most
> of the legwork in the routine stuff to give you hands on
> experience........and has the ability to teach......and a receptive
> student, usually someone who realises how little they know in a
> practical sense.
>
> Sadly, the right has destroyed this in their quest for "Economic
> rationalism" - get rid of the old farts, we dont need them when we can
> hire new graduates cheaper. And close the trade training schools as
> well - there's plenty of qualified tradesmen out there we can hire
> when we need them.
>
> So - we have a new generation of engineers that is constantly re-
> inventing the wheel, making mistakes that were fixed generations ago -
> and an ageing pool of skilled tradesmen who are now mowing lawns for a
> living as they cant get work at the same skilled level after being
> made redundant, and not mentoring the next generation.
>
> Go figure what the inevitable, and current, consequences of this
> particular brand of Voodoo Economics is.
>
> But, I do agree in some way - some degrees are worthless. Here at
> least, MBA stands of Master of Bugger All...
>
> Andrew VK3BFA.
Master of Business Annihilation. :(
--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
Hawke
Since the republican party was never any of what you just listed it's a
pipe dream to think some day they will be. The tradition of the
republican party is simple, it's the party of business, period. It has
never been a majority party like the Democratic party because it has
never represented the broad interests of the people. Why, because it's
purpose was to represent business interests. Over the years they have
attracted different groups to help them win elections but at its heart
it's always been the handmaiden of American business. Now its losing
many of those groups that joined with the core of the party, those with
interests other than business like the evangelicals, who never had
anything to do with the republicans in the past.
The party is in trouble right now but it will likely make something of a
comeback eventually. When it does it will be the same as it always was,
the party of business. It lost its way when it brought in all the
different groups that were part of the republican coalition from the
Reagan era. With the talk of tea parties, conservative parties,
libertarian parties and the like the republicans are likely to be a
smaller party like they used to be without all the unrepublican types
let go to join other parties. It'll be interesting to see where the
party goes in the future considering the demographic shifts in the
country. With so many different non white groups making up the
electorate the question becomes how does a basically all white party
that represents business ever win office? Maybe they don't. Maybe it's
the time when there is a real shift in the party structure and the
republicans will just fade away to be nothing but a minor party
representing wealth and business. Time will tell but things don't look
good for them now.
Hawke
Hawke
> On Jan 8, 8:42 pm, "Buerste" <buer...@wowway.com> wrote:
>
>> Very good points! And, DAMN...I'm the old fart now.
>
> Yeh, me too. And I dont like it - now I am old enuff to know
> everything, no one wants to know it!
> And your right about "modern" schooling - no one will fail (it damages
> their psyche) so we wind up with a bunch of kids who want to start as
> CEO's when they plainly cant understand how a screw driver works!. Let
> alone write their own resume. (Old Fart Syndrome)
>
> Andrew VK3BFA.
>
I wonder where you guys get this no one will fail stuff? Is that what
they do in elementary school these days? This isn't the way they do it
in college. I only finished college in 2003. They had no problem giving
you a lousy grade if you didn't learn the material. And just try going
to graduate school. They won't even let you in unless you can prove you
have a good chance of getting through it. My experience in college was
that once you got past the first couple of years it was very
competitive. If you didn't excel you didn't get the grades. Believe me,
they give out a lot of Cs and Ds and they will fail you too. Maybe you
guys just read that stuff on some right wing website because it's not
like that in any college I know of. So where are the "no fail" schools?
Hawke
Andrew VK3BFA
Your correct to query the point - I should have given more
information, but it was getting to be a ridiculously long rant anyway.
BTW - Seems like a lot of different threads have sprung up within this
topic.
OK. Here in OZ, primary and secondary kids dont fail. Some kids, the
teachers suggest they would benefit from repeating a year. They all
get to high school. They will, if they stay there, get to the VCE. No
idea what you call it, but its the final public exam in high school,
which generates a thing called a TER number, and if you've got a high
enough number, then you can go to the uni of your choice, and the
course of your choice. And your right - its a different world, for
some of them the first dose of reality - but the rating thing has
sorted out most of the idiots anyway.
(As we dont run a Socialist Paradise here, you either pay yourself
(ie, parents - sound familiar?) or the Gov lends it to you and you
have to pay it back when your income reaches $30K(?) a year. This
scheme is called HECS here. You've got your own acronyms for the weird
way this all "works".....<g>
This is in the state of Victoria, in Oz. Any skips out there who want
to confirm/deny/expand on this, please feel free to do so. And Hawke,
I hope I have responded to your query in a satisfactory manner. If you
need further information, I will try and find the links for you to
research further this subject.
Andrew VK3BFA.
Buerste
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hi99qq$bh9$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
I agree that higher education is not shuffling through poor students. But
the K through 12 systems need work. I think you'll agree that throwing
unspecified money at the issue won't work. I use employment applications
that have simple math and word problems and have some printed lines for the
applicant to measure with a ruler. I bet you can imagine what kind of
answers I get on these simple tests.
What were you studying last?
John R. Carroll
I thought you'd recognize it immediately based on the date and author.
>
> Fukuyama knows his neocons, alright. He used to be one of the
> bull-goose neocons himself.
That's right and his writing in February, 2006 offers a broader perspective
that Lilla's more narrowly sourced and focused works, which was why I posted
it.
James Carville's analysis' are also worth reading.
--
John R. Carroll
Larry Jaques
dav19...@nowhere.invalid scrawled the following:
Back to "Avatar", it was allegorical to the way the early Americans
treated the Indians, and the way the large multinational corporations
have treated people and ecologies in 3rd world countries, the whole
Good v Bad thing. It was extremely reminiscent of the anti-war + save
the Earth doctrinaire prevalent in the '70s, when I was a teen. Once
you get past that political part, it is a great movie where the good
guys win and the graphics/score are stunning.
Two thumbs up. I'll go see it again, or watch it via Netflix (on my
computer) when it's released.
--============================================--
Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.
---
http://diversify.com/handypouches.html ToolyRoo(tm)
and Possum(tm) Handy Pouches NOW AVAILABLE!
Larry Jaques
dav19...@nowhere.invalid scrawled the following:
>Beck does a pretty good job of pointing out the "progressive's"
>strategy for overloading the system until it collapses. And who dem
>commies be.
>
>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a0e_1262748754
Indeed, but isn't one a wannabe-Muslim commie, Dave? What a combo!
pyotr filipivich
Fri, 8 Jan 2010 05:39:17 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote
>> There's a difference between education and schooling. The left is
>> enamored of certificates - of schooling - not of the education. And
>> thanks to fifty years of "free money" for college, we have people
>> schooled far above their ability to comprehend the information. The
>> "hard sciences" weed them out with various courses, but in the soft
>> liberal arts, it is possible to just echo back the teacher's
>> prejudices, become buzzword compliant, and get a degree.
[snip]
>
>Very well said! I love the "buzzword compliant", it says it all.
I love that line. I heard it when attending some of the hoopla
surrounding the rollout of Java. "It is the first language which is
100% buzzword compliant." Much mirth from the assembled nerds.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
pyotr filipivich
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>On the other hand, the phenomenal technology available has eliminated a lot
>of the need for the seat-of-the-pants engineering type guys. The software
>available today and the quick prototyping eliminates so much of the human
>expertise. I use Solidworks and my parts and mechanisms don't get built
>until I'm on version four or so. I can test (and break) stuff in the
>software and then the metal version usually works as predicted. We don't
>repair odds and ends things anymore, we buy them off the shelf. The
>availability and price of components is so much cheaper than
>troubleshooting. My mechanics are more parts changers now. There is the
>danger of a person being so far removed from the actual physical process
>that they haven't a clue what hands-on "feel" can mean to the process.
Friend is an engineer. He has a feel for the calculations, what
the numbers ought to be. So when his drafters bring a set of numbers
which don't make sense, he is able to say "Just because they came out
of the computer doesn't make them sacred!"
I keep in mind that the moon shot was largely done with slide
rules and 3 digits of precision. Downside of the "cheap" computers
is that we can run calculations we don't need, to produce graphs which
have no meaning, but look good to the marketing department.
pyotr filipivich
Fri, 8 Jan 2010 19:12:25 -0800 (PST) did write/type or cause to appear
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>
>CAD - yes, can do lots of things, including stress analysis - so you
>can design a part that will do X cycles, then break. (This, combined
>with the Warranty Expiry Chip is pretty commonplace, its a significant
>gripe topic in this group <g>)
>I am learning manual machining, because I need to make unobtainable
>replacement mechanical parts, mainly for electronic gear. (the plastic
>bits break) Would only ever need to make a few, so CNC is not
>warranted for me.
I recall reading of a shop that had not a single CNC machine in
the place. But it had lots of experienced machinists, who could take
a broken part, a sketch on a cocktail napkin, even complete drawings
(!) and make the needed part - RFN! And they charged the big bucks,
but they would have the part complete,long before the CNC guys got
their first draft of the program written. Now, that was back in the
1980s, I've no idea how CNC compares then to now, but ... sometimes,
you don't need fancy drawing.
>I go to trade school with an apprentice group - they are eager to get
>to the CNC sections as thats what they use at work, cant see the need
>for manual machining.
When we started the CNC section, I announced "best to think of the
CNC machine as a very fast, eager and idiot apprentice, who will do
exactly what you said to do. Exactly what you said - not what you
meant." (I'd been a programmer in a previous life.)
>
>So - will we get to the stage where industry is totally dependent on a
>few companies, making thousands of parts on their CNC machines? - (its
>already happened, I think) - I would argue that if you cant operate a
>manual machine, and thus have a "feel" for what the CNC machine is
>trying to do, then you're taking a big risk. Crashing a CNC machine is
>usually big bikkies, and is often done by someone who "forgot" some
>simple parameter.
Yep. And no amount of checking, double checking, and signing off
by leads will protect you from the too solid goof.
I recall a short story, where the"kid" was not doing well on the
standard tests. But The Powers that Be came to him, after he came in
third in the regional finals. He explained that his school had the
Jones model, not the Brown model, and how was he to trouble shoot a
Brown model if he wasn't trained on it? And the suit from the Powers
That Be, pointed out that both Jones and Brown had been individuals
with a talent for working outside the box. Would you like a chance to
join that group?
I remember, right fresh from drafting classes, making a scale
drawing of some furniture I needed to make. Ever try to draw a 3/4
inch (16mm) thick board - six feet (2m) long? To scale? On a
standard letter sized piece of paper? Dad then told me a story of
his youth, as a young Forester, trying to design a replacement bridge
after the spring break up had washed out the old one. He couldn't
figure out how to get one "right". Then the woodrat - the guy who
taught Paul Bunyon - cobbles a crib of logs together, skids it off the
ramp into the creek, Splash - it settles, upright, and you can put a
bridge over the creek. Not square to the road, but "It's done, and it
only has to last until next spring break up."
How precise does it need to be?
pyotr filipivich
Fri, 8 Jan 2010 19:12:25 -0800 (PST) did write/type or cause to appear
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>
>school - yes, but WHICH 10 percent.
And is it always the same 10%?
>You had learnt a lot more, and in
>that pile is the stuff you need. You had no idea at the time what 10%
>you would need. And education? - yes, theres idiots with higher
>degrees, same as theirs idiots with guns and idiots driving cars.
>Thats no reason to ban guns, or cars, or education - its not a
>strictly black and white equation, thats just being stupid.
Sometimes, schooling will teach you what you could learn on the
job. But in much less time.
Hawke
So where is OZ? Canada? It doesn't sound like anything like what we have
in the U.S. I have heard about schools where they don't promote
competition and make everyone a winner at everything but I don't know
where they do that. I know they don't do that in our lousy elementary
and high schools. I haven't been to one of those in decades but their
reputations are definitely bad. I don't remember the statistics but a
hell of a lot of freshmen in college have to take remedial courses in
English and math just to get in. We're not sending a lot of people
prepared for college these days. But then that's when the weeding out
starts. Fully half of all college freshmen don't finish the first year.
Little by little the people who can't cut it are left by the wayside.
One thing I learned about college is that much of the achievement of it
is just the fact that you actually went the whole way and finished it.
Like running a marathon, just the fact you completed says something
about your worth. Having what it takes to complete the whole thing takes
a real commitment especially when you consider it takes most people five
years to finish. That alone disqualifies most people. Quitting is easy.
Finishing anything takes a lot especially when the commitment is a
matter of years.
Hawke
Hawke
I've heard many horror stories about the low quality of people applying
for jobs nowadays. It does seem like the average high school educated
person doesn't know anything. It didn't used to be like that. I think
when they took the discipline out of the schools it was the end of
quality high school education.
> What were you studying last?
Political science, of course. Or are you asking for specifics like what
kind of classes, program, etc.?
Hawke
pyotr filipivich
about Fri, 08 Jan 2010 23:04:54 -0800 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
K-12. I tried to flunk out twice - in grade school. Did minimal
to zero class work. But they saw my test scores - in the sixth grade
they knew I wasn't really stupid, I was reading the encyclopedias in
class. I learned a lot, but I couldn't get held back a year.
Some college level classes are "no fail" in the sense that the
instructor will consider the class/subject as un gradable. Intro to
Jazz, Art Depreciation, Conversational English, Remedial
Conversational English - you can't pass them, but you can't fail them
either. Or vice versa. I recall reading of a teacher who was
required by a school policy to give a final, but it was not a class
which lent itself to a "final exam". So he passed out a test on the
state capitals of the US. He had to give it, he didn't have to use
it.
Grumpy
Andrew VK3BFA.
Yep! In 1971, the day of our graduation, one of the older profs walked into
the common room where we were sitting around talking about what we were goin
to do with the nice shiny Batchelor of Engineering degrees we were to
recieve that evening. He wandered over and had a bit of a yarn with us. The
most memorable thing he said was" remember that the piece of paper you get
tonight is really a licence to start learning" How right he was. The most
important thing we didn't know was how little we knew!
Buerste
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:h3jhk5lbbmba9iqde...@4ax.com...
Do they still have those "Save the Earth", "Stop the War", Feed the Starving
Children" parties like they did in the '70s? Great places to meet gullible
young girls.
Buerste
"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:i2qhk5dstqs0j15iu...@4ax.com...
I had a next-door neighbor CNC programmer that had just finishes the first
program for a company's first CNC machine. All the owners and employees
gathered around for the first run. The cutter promptly came down and cut a
grove in the table of the machine.
Buerste
What do you do with Political Science?
David R.Birch
>
> So where is OZ? Canada?
Australia.
David
Andrew VK3BFA
Gotcha!
Oh Dear....you both just failed your "I wanna be a apprentice
engineer" test. For, even though you were both sitting in front of
PC's with the Google search bar, you could not work out how to find
out....
OZ - Wizard Of OZ- The Emerald City - Worlds Best Place - Australia.
Local term for us, most people on the net are familiar with it.
Now, which school taught you logical, analytical, and perhaps lateral
thinking?
Andrew VK3BFA <g>
Andrew VK3BFA
> "Andrew VK3BFA" <VK3...@wia.org.au> wrote in message
>
>
> the common room where we were sitting around talking about what we were goin
> to do with the nice shiny Batchelor of Engineering degrees we were to
> recieve that evening. He wandered over and had a bit of a yarn with us. The
> most memorable thing he said was" remember that the piece of paper you get
> tonight is really a licence to start learning" How right he was. The most
> important thing we didn't know was how little we knew!
Me too - I did Electronics Servicing as a Mature Age Student (yeh, you
could question the mature bit, I know) and on the last day, when
everyone had passed (including the kid who had set fire to one of the
prac. rooms) they were all happy and overjoyed cause they were now
Qualified Technicians. I was morose, as I was old enough to know how
little I knew and the slog of finding work and getting experience had
yet to begin....
Andrew VK3BFA.
David R.Birch
OZ - ... - Australia.
What part of my answer was wrong?
David
Larry Jaques
<dbi...@wi.rr.com> scrawled the following:
>Hawke wrote:
>
>>
>> So where is OZ? Canada?
>
>Australia.
Be gentle, David. The man has just been bragging about the vast
amounts of knowledge he got from all of his degrees. <chortle>
Larry Jaques
<dbi...@wi.rr.com> scrawled the following:
>Andrew VK3BFA wrote:
Not you, David. The brainiac Parakeet. <giggle>
pyotr filipivich
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>
>>>I go to trade school with an apprentice group - they are eager to get
>>>to the CNC sections as thats what they use at work, cant see the need
>>>for manual machining.
>>
>> When we started the CNC section, I announced "best to think of the
>> CNC machine as a very fast, eager and idiot apprentice, who will do
>> exactly what you said to do. Exactly what you said - not what you
>> meant." (I'd been a programmer in a previous life.)
snip
>
>I had a next-door neighbor CNC programmer that had just finishes the first
>program for a company's first CNC machine. All the owners and employees
>gathered around for the first run. The cutter promptly came down and cut a
>grove in the table of the machine.
LOL!
pyotr
pyotr filipivich
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>
>>> I agree that higher education is not shuffling through poor students.
>>> But the K through 12 systems need work. I think you'll agree that
>>> throwing unspecified money at the issue won't work. I use employment
>>> applications that have simple math and word problems and have some
>>> printed lines for the applicant to measure with a ruler. I bet you can
>>> imagine what kind of answers I get on these simple tests.
>>
>> I've heard many horror stories about the low quality of people applying
>> for jobs nowadays. It does seem like the average high school educated
>> person doesn't know anything. It didn't used to be like that. I think when
>> they took the discipline out of the schools it was the end of quality high
>> school education.
>>
>>
>>> What were you studying last?
>>
>> Political science, of course. Or are you asking for specifics like what
>> kind of classes, program, etc.?
>>
>> Hawke
>
>What do you do with Political Science?
Engineer the overthrow of the manager at the McDonalds where you
work.
Hawke
I didn't think it was in my neighborhood. I was right. I haven't been
there, to Australia, but I hear they do things a bit different down
there than they do here. We haven't been doing things very well for
quite a while so maybe you can show us how to do things better. We need
all the help we can get.
Hawke
Hawke
So what was wrong with asking you the question? Looks like some people
are really trying awfully hard to find a flaw. But this kind of thing
just shows how hard they actually have to look to find something to
criticize. Getting pretty near the bottom of the barrel, I see.
Hawke
Andrew VK3BFA
David, my apologies , I blew that one - hadnt read your post
thoroughly so thought you were asking where OZ was as well.
And in a self incriminating way, I guess we have (a lot us us) been
having a comfortable Old Farts rave about the youth of today, accusing
them of general laziness and incompetence, and we are doing the same
thing in our condemnation. Ie, not analysing the problem, not reading
the whole text (even if only 3 lines!), not thinking about HOW to
answer a problem. Probably both our brains in idle mode - having a
good gripe/argument, and generally enjoying ourselves.
I forget how this whole thing started. (Oh yes, one of your radio
shock jock people, suspect we have equivalents here)
TC
Andrew VK3BFA.
Andrew VK3BFA
Nah, your getting paranoid. Stop It. Nothing wrong with your asking
the question, but your not attempting to solve it yourself is a bit
slack. Lots of clues in there. Hence the Gotcha, and my later remarks
to David. And where I also get caught doing the same sorta thing - not
putting brain in gear.
Maybe its a language thing - words used in a different way - we
nominally both speak the same language, - and we think you guys do
weird things to English as well! So we accidentally wind up starting a
barney.
Yeh, we niggle you guys, as you do to us. And some things rankle, but
hey - its like being married and arguing for a 100 years and being
driven NUTS but if the chips were down, then the bullshit stops.
The war - stuffed if I know what to do. I know at heart you guys are
kind, generous people, and havent deliberately set out to stuff things
up real bad. I know our elected leaders aren't doing too good either.
And we have troops over there in Afghanistan with you guys - they get
blown up, injured, some dead. Not as many as your dead, for whom I
sorrow. And for us here, like you, we take it seriously when we send
our young soldiers off to possibly die. Each death resonates within
you. So there had better be a bloody good reason for doing
it..........Stuff politics - these men are not chess pieces.
And we had troops with you guys since 1918 - you can ascribe all
manner of base motives to this, we are buying insurance, being
cynical. So ask your self how many of your "friends and allies" have
got their troops in Afghanistan with you guys as well.
Anyway - will stop before I digs the hole I am in any deeper.
Andrew VK3BFA.
Larry Jaques
<ph...@mindspring.com> scrawled the following:
The Science of Politics, as pristine as the Science of Global Warming!
(as practiced by AGWK alarmists and the gov'ts they subvert.)
Michael A. Terrell
Buerste wrote:
>
> What do you do with Political Science?
What do you do with Political Science major?
Pay for the damn pizza and send them on their way. They have lots of
other pizzas to deliver.
--
Greed is the root of all eBay.