Let me start off by saying that I meant no offense to any older persons regarding their educational accomplishments. I realize that upon re-reading my post it came across that way - sorry, its not the way I wanted to come across. Comparing my sentiment to racism is silly though â there are simply things one does not learn as a result of advances in higher-level education over the last 40 years. I speak mainly of scientific advances. Prove me wrong on this: I believe that there exists a technology/science awareness gap, in general, between people over 40 and people under 40 (as well between though that have and have not gone to college in the last 10 years and taken at the very minimum a physics class). This gap even exists between myself and a generation just 5 years younger than me⦠As a result of this gap, I believe the over 40 crowd are less likely to accept, understand, and embrace new forms of science and thinking regarding new technologies. There are exceptions to this of course; for example, older engineers and scientists have a wealth of knowledge, these people are the cornerstones of our advancement due to their lifelong commitment to science and its advancement. This is a result of their education and career path. Given this, I sincerely believe McCain is ignorant of current scientific advances. I propose a challenge to him: that he take a modern college physics class along with some sort of lecture on current ideas in environmental engineering. I guarantee you he will likely change his ideas regarding investment in oil drilling⦠I am not an environmentalist BTW, I just know there exist solutions to our energy problems and these solutions stem for emerging tech, not from holding on to this loser idea of doing more of the same, i.e. drilling. Cut your losses Bush/McCain/GOP. Itâs time to try something new. You speak of wisdom, in this case regarding more drilling, I call it being stubborn. A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. This is what a 71 year person offers â the same âsolutionâ that has not worked in the past, yet, this time he expects a different result. Thatâs not wisdom. Wisdom is embracing good ideas, not holding onto bad ones. In terms of my background, you will say that I am biased and possibly rightly so. I have advanced degrees in Electrical Engineering from USC (a top engineering school) and I dropped out of a PhD program in 2001. My wife graduated from a top 10 law school. Obviously, we place an emphasis on education. This also implies my age (30 btw). My beliefs on education stem from the fact that I was one of 3 white people in my entering graduate class of a little under 100. The class consisted mostly of talented and bright people from India and China. This speaks volumes of who the next generation of bright scientific minds are going to be, i.e. they will not be Americans, that is almost certain. Explain this discrepancy to me please? We offer the best Universities in the world yet it seems that Americans are not using them? Why? Honestly, do you think McCain is even aware of what I just mentioned regarding the imbalance in our higher educational systems? Give me one fact demonstrating his understanding of the problems regarding American education, just one. Regarding your comment on taxes. Maybe you are right. I do not like the idea of redistribution of wealth â in fact it sickens me. But, given the choice of having my money go to a war + oil drilling rather than technology and education, I will choose the latter every time. Mike
Mike: I understand you meant no offense. But you are simply wrong to think that your sentiment is any different than racism. For instance, check out the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. Discrimination by age is a problem, and it really is no different than other forms of discrimination. Here's a link that has more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism I think we could likely agree that most people have not taken physics at any point in their lives. What I have a hard time understanding though is how you then extrapolate this fact into the likelihood that they will not "embrace new forms of science". I don't think you have any evidence to make that statement. By the way, I had a number of science courses in high school and college...years ago....to include chemistry, physics, and a variety of engineering courses. I haven't updated any of it in the last 10 years, yet I suspect that I embrace technology as much as anyone, if not more. In this regard, McCain believes in drilling, but he also believes in moving forward in all of the alternative forms of energy as well. I think the point is that we are years away from viable solutions in some of these alternatives. In the meantime, drilling serves to take some of the burden off our need for foreign oil. It's not a permanent solution...nor does McCain think it is. Interestingly, T. Boone Pickens has one plan. I only mention it because he is 80 years old. In terms of education, I'm not certain where McCain stands on it. But I was unaware of the type of statistics you mentioned in your engineering class. I find that disturbing. I will say it has going on literally for decades. I can recall my father talking about it when I was just a kid. I will say that just because the government throws money at education, doesn't imply that it will create more interest on engineering programs. OldTrader
It is spelled "religious". "The more are" is not even close to being a coherent thought. Where did YOU get your education?
Why don't you comment on the content of my post instead of criticizing the grammar and spelling of his post? As usual no one has anything of substance to say, just typical childish BS.
Congratulations! Palin was able to read a well-written speech by her speechwriter on a teleprompter. BFD. Notice how she never touched upon how "great" the last 8 years have been??? Get real folks.
WHAT A WOMAN!!!!!!! I have no high-minded thoughts to add. Simply, That Was Awesome! The amazing thing about this speech, I was left with the question of who she emasculated more Hillary, or Obama.
If the Russian leader during Reagan's administration had been Khrushchev instead of Gorbachev, we would all be dead. Reagan gambled recklessly, and won. In other words, Reagan would have a Sharpe Ratio of about -0-.
Fallacious. Khrushchev wasn't Premier during Reagan. Hence you (me, we) have no clue as to if Reagan would've used the same tone toward the U.S.S.R.