On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:21:56 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

|On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 08:38:48 -0600 (CST),
|(Richard Harrison) wrote:
|
|Wes, N7WS wrote:
|"We had an engineer for President. Look how well that worked out. One
|term and we replaced him with a movie actor.
|
|Jimmy Carter in retirement, is negotiating peace accords around the
|world. He is now in Geneva working with Palestineans and Israelis.
|
|We`ve had other engineers starting with George Washington.
|
|We`ve had Herbert Hoover, a,n engineer, who wrecked the economy, as
|Ronald Reagan later did. Hoover, the engineer was replaced by FDR who
|served 11 years and changed the world for the better forever. W. is
|trying to undo the New Deal and in the process will likely wreck the
|economy as Hoover did.
|
|Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
|
|Hi All,
|
|The statement "an engineer" is certainly inaccurate by my count too.
|What about Davis, Grant, and Eisenhower?

I was thinking of people that I had a chance to vote for. But, what
about them? If we're going to get picky.

Davis wasn't POTUS.

Washington was not an engineer in the usually accepted sense of the
word.

If attending West Point makes one an engineer, then Grant and Ike were
engineers. Otherwise...

Grant worked in his father's leather shop, and was a failed farmer and
financier. (Anheuser Busch owns the farm now. I was there a couple of
months ago.)

Ike was a jock, who went to West Point intending to play ball, not to
get an engineering degree. (I was at his library, tomb, etc. a couple
of months ago too.)

If we're looking for qualifications for greatness, maybe "self-taught"
should be more important than "Harvard-educated lawyer" or "West
Point-educated engineer." Washington and Lincoln top my list. (I
spent some time with Abe this summer too)

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:36:57 -0700, Wes Stewart
wrote:
|Hi All,
|
|The statement "an engineer" is certainly inaccurate by my count too.
|What about Davis, Grant, and Eisenhower?

I was thinking of people that I had a chance to vote for. But, what
about them? If we're going to get picky.

You choose to limit the population by who you could've voted for is
not?

Davis wasn't POTUS.

He sure wasn't POTUSSR.


Washington was not an engineer in the usually accepted sense of the
word.

A technically trained user of instrumentation for the purpose of
measuring and generating specifications is not an engineer? We are
not talking about Alchemy or Astrology here. Getting picky.

If attending West Point makes one an engineer, then Grant and Ike were
engineers. Otherwise...

Otherwise? ALL graduates of West Point are engineers. West Point is
the 4th overall rated Engineering school in America. It was the ONLY
Engineering school in America for decades.


Grant worked in his father's leather shop, and was a failed farmer and
financier. (Anheuser Busch owns the farm now. I was there a couple of
months ago.)

I have degrees in the Liberal Arts and have made a career in
Engineering. I have failed in many things. I don't suppose you want
to vote for me, but then I'm not running.

Ike was a jock, who went to West Point intending to play ball, not to
get an engineering degree. (I was at his library, tomb, etc. a couple
of months ago too.)

Begs the results, he graduated with an Engineering degree.

If we're looking for qualifications for greatness, maybe "self-taught"
should be more important than "Harvard-educated lawyer" or "West
Point-educated engineer." Washington and Lincoln top my list. (I
spent some time with Abe this summer too)

This, too, is picky. I can't say that I have any favorite president,
especially after having put my life on the line to obey their orders.
Those several, I'm sure, considered themselves great presidents.

The point is, there is nothing inherently distinctive about being an
Engineer, and being President, and the combination being great or bad.

There is nothing distinctive about a president wearing a flight-suit
for an afternoon - especially when 77% of the troops would vote for
someone else ("The Army Times" Poll, Oct 2003).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 01:31:12 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

|On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:36:57 -0700, Wes Stewart
|wrote:
||Hi All,
||
||The statement "an engineer" is certainly inaccurate by my count too.
||What about Davis, Grant, and Eisenhower?
|
|I was thinking of people that I had a chance to vote for. But, what
|about them? If we're going to get picky.
|
|You choose to limit the population by who you could've voted for is
|not?

Forgive me. This topic drifted off when Yuri (if I can remember that
far back) proposed the premise that maybe we would be better off with
engineers running things rather than lawyers and politicians.

I offered *an* example of POTUS and *an* example of a mayor to refute
this idea. I did not intend them to be the *only* examples.

|
|Davis wasn't POTUS.
|
|He sure wasn't POTUSSR.
|
|
|Washington was not an engineer in the usually accepted sense of the
|word.
|
|A technically trained user of instrumentation for the purpose of
|measuring and generating specifications is not an engineer? We are
|not talking about Alchemy or Astrology here. Getting picky.

Not me, the place that I worked for sure was though. I can tell you
from very personal experience that it was the accepted norm that many,
many graduate engineers thought that *anyone*, regardless of talent,
without an engineering degree was not a "real" engineer.

Hell, I knew people that thought that if you didn't have a PhD you
didn't know squat. One of these could not hold a conversation about
the weather without interjecting, "When I was working on my
thesis...."

[snip]

| I don't suppose you want
|to vote for me,

You have a great gift of gab, but no, I wouldn't vote for you g