I am trying to get some posts together to share. But until I can finish them, I want to recommend something for my readers to read, and if you desire, comment on. It's located at Mustang's Social Sense and I have left my comment there, so as not to hijack his thread.
The subject is China and it contains some things we all should be thinking about, when formulating some semblance of a policy.
Another thing I'd like to bring up is a question he and I have been discussing offline, via telecommunication devices:
The subject arose during the campaign. It involved McCain's class standing at the Naval Academy. It seems he ranked on the low end of the totem pole and the question becomes the efficacy of a person in a vital profession, whereby the margin of error can be costly to human life.
Military leaders, medical personnel, public safety people all must meet standards that have been set by a collaborative effort of a given profession's leaders (and in some cases government) just to qualify to study the science of such. I'd like to believe that out of the many people that apply for appointments to the academies, medical and nursing schools, and others that rank high in the public interest, the ones that were chosen were the cream of the crop.
My contention is simple. Despite the fact someone graduated last in his or her class, it should have no bearing on their ability to effectively performing their job, according to acceptable standards set by society's reasonable expectations. They may have been last, but they made it. In all classes, there are those who didn't. In addition, there are those that do well in the theory portion of the curriculum, do not always translate to a competent...whatever.
So, what do you think?