[editor's note:  Captain Nemo rises from the depths to provide another post......]


While perusing the tech headlines on CNET, I came across an article about John Palfrey - the Harvard inter-thinker. The article goes into a discussion about the effects on the “digital generation” (“stupid generation”). The last paragraph caught my eye: 

“How can you lead a country without e-mail?

During the talk with the audience at CNET, Palfrey was asked about statements made by McCain, the Republic presidential hopeful. McCain has said that he doesn't know how to get online. Palfrey responded that he didn't wish to make a political statement but that he didn't know how anyone lacking a rudimentary grasp of the Web and technology can lead this country effectively--not when cyberwarfare, surveillance, and security are so grounded in tech.”

Palfrey responded that he didn't wish to make a political statement but that he didn't know how anyone lacking a rudimentary grasp of the Web and technology can lead this country effectively

 

Full article: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10043714-93.html?tag=mncolb

This is pure political hyperbole. First, it is very doubtful that Obama is any better (not able to do much beyond e-mail & web surfing), so the statement is amorphous in terms of who is better.  However, it was McCain who was singled out.  Second, I am in the technology field, and as with the medical profession, there are a vast array of specialties.  No technogeek knows everything.  For example, if the network card in my PC fails, I won’t put an oscilloscope on the card and try to fix it.  I would simply throw it in the recycle bin, and get another.  A Harvard professor should understand this – right?  Third, leadership is what is needed in time of war and crisis, not nuts and bolts technical know-how.  Fourth, when the geeks run the show in time of war, expect disaster – a’la Robert McNamara (Chieftain of the so called Kennedy ‘wiz kids’) who ran the Vietnam War on algorithms and statistics (X number of bullets fired should kill Y number of enemies and somehow this equals V for victory) rather than tactics and strategy. 

While it would be nice for a candidate (nominee in this case) to have tech in his background, it is not a requirement.  Neither candidate possesses an impressive pedigree of ‘technical intelligence’.  This makes the complaints by the one against the other laughable.

This same tack was used against George Bush Sr. during the 1988 election season which, by the way, turned out to be false.  The claim was that Bush did not know what a supermarket scanner was.   The concept at the time was: how can someone who has control over the “button” not know what a supermarket scanner is?  The mainstream press ran with this back then, namely the stalwart NY Times. See this snopes link for a dissection of the affair http://www.snopes.com/history/american/bushscan.asp.  For those with short memories, this claim didn’t prevent Bush’s election.  

It is always amusing when Ivy Leaguers demonstrate their practical ignorance.  Professor Palfrey had best take advantage of his prestigious surroundings, and hit the books. An effective President of the United States has only to understand the fundamental importance of technology to the survival of the United States.  He doesn’t need to be a code rat, a hacker, a network engineer, a database administrator, or any of the other myriad of computer disciplines out there.  All that is required is to understand strategic importance, and leave the technology nuts and bolts stuff to the little people.  From our vantage point, we see that McCain is fully capable of thinking both tactically and strategically.  We are more than a little worried about what Obama has had to say thus far about strategic geo-political issues, strategic energy issues, and strategic economic issues. 

Capt. Nemo