Former Microsoft non-executive Darcy Burner tries to explain to KOMO's John Carlson and Ken Schram how not having a degree in Economics from Harvard is the same as having a degree in Economics from Harvard.
Reichert must be doing a happy dance right now..........
Posted by: diamondshards on October 30, 2008 05:27 PMShe is a typical Democrat. She gets caught in a lie and it's everyone's fault but her own. She is living proof that the Democrats think they can run the jackass in an election in WA and win.
VW
Posted by: Violence Worker on October 30, 2008 05:29 PMIt was hysterical.
Burner clearly said in a prior taped interview that she loved economics so much she got a degree in it.
It meaning economics.
Then they go round-and-round-and-round.......
Then Burner says Harvard doesn't give degrees ....
what double speak.
Burner has been her worst enemy on this.
If she had only said "I wasn't clear...here is how it works at Harvard"..but she didn't.
Instead she was absolutely defiant and sounded like an arrogant pinhead!
This is a classic case where "deny, deny, deny" was the absolute WRONG strategy. She has spent over a week on this sideshow.
What a fool she is.
Harvard does owe her a full refund...but should NEVER send her a replacement of her Diploma that burned up in her house fire.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on October 30, 2008 05:45 PMI sure hope my family in the 8th District use some common sense on this vote, while I'm stuck with Rick Larson.
Posted by: Joshua Hammond on October 30, 2008 05:49 PMAhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhggggg!
The chalkboard comment was right on the mark.
Posted by: zapporo on October 30, 2008 06:17 PMBut boy, she is a petulant shrew.
Posted by: Marc on October 30, 2008 06:30 PMIf Ms. Burner has this much difficulty communicating a basic concept to the masses, how would she perform in Congress? I am not impressed.
Posted by: Mike on October 30, 2008 06:30 PMListning to the audio she just digs her hole deeper.
Posted by: pbj on October 30, 2008 07:14 PMShe SHOULD be ashamed of her computer science degree. She has a BA in it, most "real" computer science degrees are BSCS and are CSAB approved.
Basically a BA in Cs is a joke and means you couldn't hack the math required (diff equations etc)
She is reduced to saying right off the bat that she didn't say she has an "economics degree" but that she said she has a "degree in economics."
She should have either apologized right off the bat for "sloppy language" or just ignored the whole thing. Fighting back while making up such completely inane distinctions does not help.
(pbj, I never took a computer class, and only took one math class in college, and I think I've done pretty well in the computer science field. :-)
The fact that you think writing visual basic or using the wizard in Microsoft Access is the same as the "Computer Science Field" shows your ignorance.
Computer Scientists do the core theoretical work that has made the technology so useful and pervasive. Things like FSK,PSK, connectionaless oriented protocols, mathematical based algorithms for compression and statistical models for speech recognition systems.
I am sure you use those things every day without understaning and bit about the math and physics behind them Pudge, but do you develop new networking protocols, data transmission methods and data storage systems?
I doubt it.
Posted by: pbj on October 30, 2008 07:37 PMWhat should we do? We just can't elect them anymore. Obama, Larsen, Inslee, McDermott, Clinton etc. etc. etc.
They will literally destroy our house. Look at the Mendez Kids or ever watch those nanny 911 shows?
See the twisted mind she carries-arguing over the word "it"! Blaming Carlson! Ken we all are in the 'Twilight Zone' right behind you.
For Forty years we have appeased this mindset and look at the crossroads we are at. Ken you'll get your twilight zone with Obama in there.
At least Ken will weep upon hearing Carlson was killed in the camps but Burner will high five Murray. (BTW in the void of decency you leftists want to make please note the wind of Islam will blow in)
The greatest failing of talk radio since it was revived and blogs were invented was to think this was all something to be showcased and then it would go away. It has not; it continues unrepentantly to march across the land. Talk Radio compromises with it like Medved does or shrieking/screaming about it like Savage or Hannity or play sound bites about it like Rush. Just get the ratings. There is no strategy to methodically crush this curse over this land..it was only about ratings. Malkin/LGF et. al. have shown us so many smoking guns they can't see their screens but we again made no strategy out of what we have seen.
We barely hang on every four years and now have the possibility of an illegal alien that is going to demand of his millions the fundamental destruction of the rules of the game-the constitution. Where is our strategy whether he wins or loses? Should he win do you think the ACLU is going to sue to defeat the end of your rights? Do you think we'll hear the screams of the Patriot Act freak out crowds from the past? HA!
Look at how twisted Darcy's logic is? In her mind she is more Patriotic than you are. Reality she has Zero patriotism. Why? We allowed it to be fashionable to call everything perverted that is not like: marriage, the Boy Scouts, traditions, courts, Christianity, whites, voting, Catholic Church, police, military, trees, food, gasoline, schools, universities. We said nothing at board meetings, we did not demand accountability, and we were not civilly disobedient in January 2005 etc. Darcy and leftists pile on at every turn. Listen to them about how awful everything is about this country except them. You're destroying the world by having a kid, the world hates you, you won't support the junkie down the street.
Replacing the above with the perversions of diversity training, speech codes, sexual harassment training, unions, teen sex, first graders attending 'weddings', feelings matter, words hurt, lawsuits everywhere, rewriting contracts in court, all types of marriage, etc. Lok now John and Jim no longer need to repress their feelings, your daughter has safe sex, universities teach the 'right' I mean 'left' stuff, etc.
Bottom line we cannot be silent anymore, take courage we'll need a lot no matter what happens Tuesday. Don't yell at anyone anymore, love them;-sometimes toughly. John and Ken loved Darcy and her pride just perverted what she did even more. If they are going to burn your town knock them down so they don't regret doing it later, just say no to more greed. Joe the plumber has taken courage. Tell them to shut up-yes lefists telling me you are going to take my money is a threat and not a policy position. But also telling me that a plant has more rights than you do is enough is enough is enough.
We spent $5 Trillion appeasing them and they will not stop. They will stop when appeasement stops. Will they like it NO! But what is their playbook to get us to stop: guilt, racism, lawsuits, bigotry, violence, deception, and law breaking. So the question Darcy's rage stirs is are we going to standup and say Enough! Then say No when all the cards are played. Then say come on home to anyone that can see that a life lived with responsibility, integrity and accountability is the fruitful life. A life that is so much more than the life of demanding everyone else will give you what you want or you'll kill them.
Um. OK, so you have no idea what I do. It's a lot more than VB and wizards. I know what CS is. I develop software in C, C++, Perl, and more. I've patched major components of the perl interpreter itself. Most of my colleagues, who do the same thing I do, are CS majors. I've been to seminars from Don Knuth. I've reverse engineered networking protocols so I could rewrite them in another language (eppc, Apple's proprietary AppleEvents-over-TCP/IP protocol). My work has been included in the core Mac OS X.
I kinda know what I am talking about here. No, I am not an expert in computer science, and I don't claim to be. But I do a lot of good work in the field.
/me rolls his eyes at pbj and goes back to hatin' on Burner
And kept going on like that for a little while.
Um... she didn't pay... went on SCHOLARSHIP!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 30, 2008 08:08 PMHeck anyone that runs any version of linux could claim they "patched pearl components". Rattling off a list of languages doesn't impress me either. C, C++, Perl, Python, FORTRAN, PASCAL, X86 Assembly language, SQL, PL/SQL etc. Wow that looks impressive. And I even stayed at a Holiday Inn last night too.
Look, you may be a decent programmer, I don't know. What you have listed so far hasn't impressed me. And I don't doubt you have developer colleagues that have CS degrees. But you are doing development, not "Computer Science".
When you develop a protocol or mathematical model of computing of the caliber of Donald Knuth, then you are doing Computer Science.
If you had actually gotten a college education in it, you would know the difference.
But hey maybe I am wrong. Can you please provide a link to articles you have published in your field? I would be more than happy to read them and give you the proper credit you are due.
Posted by: pbj on October 30, 2008 08:10 PMHeck anyone that runs any version of linux could claim they "patched pearl components".
No, I *wrote* patches for the perl interpreter. A whole bunch of them. I was one of the core perl developers for a few years.
But you are doing development, not "Computer Science".
I am doing both. There is overlap, you know. Reverse engineering and reimplementing the networking protocol was large parts computer science. Implementing a new merge sort algorithm for perl was part computer science.
When you develop a protocol or mathematical model of computing of the caliber of Donald Knuth, then you are doing Computer Science.
That's stupid. It's like saying "when you can dunk like Michael Jordan, then you are playing basketball." Very few people -- and probably not even you -- have done work of Knuth's caliber.
This kind of snobbery is typical from CS majors, and not very attractive.
Hell, forget asking her about her degree. I would have loved it if Carlson asked her to explain how bill becomes law. I'd double-down on her not being able to do it.
Posted by: Dave on October 30, 2008 08:23 PMAnd you can TELL when she is upset and/or LYING because her voice gets HIGHER and faster and her enunciation gets more E_NUN_CI_A_TING.
My God.
Own worst enemy INDEED.
How smart is it to make a total ass of oneself ... repeatedly... on the radio...with guys who still have a microphone long after you go back to buying sofa's?
Our 19 yr old playing the newest Fallout Game in the background here is listening to...and yelling at the dimwit.
Yeah, FOUR votes for DAVE in THIS household.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 30, 2008 08:23 PMIt may be that Harvard doesn't give a BS in Computer science, she did take quite a bit of math, so it seems silly to speculate on that. Regarding this interview, I almost felt bad for her but this is her own making. If you are going to run for Congress, you have to ready yourself for this kind of confrontation. And it was unwise for her to state she has an econ degree. Of course the reason she didn't say she has a degree on CS with a special emphasis in Econ is that it sounds ridiculous. That's like me playing armchair psychologist and suggesting there is validity to what I am saying because I took several psychology courses in college. Come to think of it, I never even suggest my political opinions are more valid because of my polisci degree. It just sounds lame. People would rightly laugh at me.
Posted by: ModMilq on October 30, 2008 08:24 PMIt's worse than that. It was dishonest. And her now denying she said it is also dishonest.
"No, I *wrote* patches for the perl interpreter. A whole bunch of them. I was one of the core perl developers for a few years."
Funny, I don't see anyone named "Pudge" in the credits. Yeah and hey I was one of the original Apollo astronauts, really I was. Take my word for it.
"I am doing both. There is overlap, you know. Reverse engineering and reimplementing the networking protocol was large parts computer science. Implementing a new merge sort algorithm for perl was part computer science."
Implementing an algorithm is not the same as designing the algorithm. Saying I wrote a perl version of qucksort isn't the same thing as Charles Antony Richard Hoare who invented the quicksort. Reverse engineering is aking to hacking, not original thought and development of theory such as automata theory.
"That's stupid. It's like saying "when you can dunk like Michael Jordan, then you are playing basketball." Very few people -- and probably not even you -- have done work of Knuth's caliber."
No it is calling out someone who shoots hoops in his backyard that is runing around claiming to be in the same league as Michael Jordan.
"This kind of snobbery is typical from CS majors, and not very attractive."
Comparing yourself in the same league as Donald Knuth when you probably didn't understand half of what he talked about is what's unattractive.
Tell us all about Bachmann-Landau notation.
Posted by: pbj on October 30, 2008 08:36 PMOne of the best CS minds on the planet is a Harvard drop out.
Posted by: MSRedneck on October 30, 2008 08:39 PMYes, and being dishonest while campaigning is unwise - what's your point?
And children, quit fighting over your CS or lack of CS degrees, nobody really cares, this is a thread about how unhinged Darcy was.
That is why everyone is clamoring for Vista, right?
Posted by: pbj on October 30, 2008 08:43 PMYou didn't look very closely.
perl-5.10.0$ egrep -i pudge AUTHORS
Chris Nandor <pudge@pobox.com>
It's right there. This is the difference between CS and CE right here: CSs come up with theories and assume they hold true, while CEs actually find out if the theories work. :-D
Saying I wrote a perl version of qucksort isn't the same thing as Charles Antony Richard Hoare who invented the quicksort.
Correct. And yet, both are computer science.
Comparing yourself in the same league as Donald Knuth
I never did that, and never would. All I said is that I went to some of his seminars. Please, you're embarrassing yourself.
http://www.perl.com/pub/au/Nandor_Chris
Posted by: IsDarcyGoneYet on October 30, 2008 08:55 PMI worked for him as a TA one quarter. It was a terrific experience. I'm even mentioned in one of his books. It's a very small mention, but it is a mention.
Hey, in the spirit of Darcy Burner, I might claim that I am Don Knuth's co-author and that I have an Erdos number of 3!
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on October 30, 2008 09:03 PMYou are indicating a very narrow vision of software. Almost nobody comes out of school with the credentials to deliver a complete end to end solution to the software lifecycle. Regardless of what initials follow their name. People at the top and bottom of the software food chain affect the final product in profound ways.
CS has too many facets to force it into your narrow view.
Brad Paisley's "Online" song was never more appropriate for you two:
I work down at the pizza pit
And I drive and old Hundai
I still live with my mom and dad
I 5'3 and overweight
I'm a Sci-fi fantatic
Mild asthmatic
Never been to 2nd base
But there's a whole nother me
That you need to see
Go check out MySpace
Cause online I'm down in Hollywood
I'm 6'5 and I look damn good
I drive a Mazarati
I'm a black belt in Karate
And I love a good glass of wine
(Chorus)
It turns girls on that I'm mysterious
I tell 'em I don't want nothing serious
Cause even on a slow day I can have a three way
Chat with two women at one time
I'm so much cooler online
So much cooler online
I get home, I kiss my mom
And she fixes me a snack
I head down to my basement bedroom
And fire up the mac
In real life, the only time I
Ever even been to LA
Was when I got the chance with the marching band
To play tuba in the Rose Parade.
Online I live in Malibu
I posed for Calvin Kline, I've been in GQ
I'm single and I'm rich
And I got a set of six pack abs that'll blow your mind
(chorus)
When you got my kinda stats, it's hard to get a date
Let alone a real girlfriend
But I grow another foot
And I lose a bunch of weight every time I log in
Online I'm out in Hollywood
I'm 6'5 and I look damn good
Even on a slow day, I can have a three way
Chat with two women at one time
I'm so much cooler online
Yeah I'm cooler online
I'm so much cooler online
Yeah I'm cooler online
Thanks for making a 5 year reader and very occasional poster feel welcome.
Posted by: MSRedneck on October 30, 2008 09:42 PMSo even she disagrees with what she says on her website. This is pathetic. She is lying, and yet she is still competitive in the race.
Posted by: janet s on October 30, 2008 10:10 PM
mmkay
mmkay
That might have been the end of it.
My husband (who earned a doctorate at the U) and I just listened to the whole thing, and sat here shaking our heads. The Sheriff is going to beat her up and take her lunch money on Tuesday.
Posted by: Renee on October 30, 2008 10:55 PMThat might have been the end of it.
My husband (who earned a doctorate at the U) and I just listened to the whole thing, and sat here shaking our heads. The Sheriff is going to beat her up and take her lunch money on Tuesday.
Posted by: Renee on October 30, 2008 10:55 PMWhy do you CS people protest so much? - Pudge- ?
My success in life ( or yours ) is of no concern to people on this blog, as we are not running for a federal office.
Stick a fork in TuffGrrl - she be done.
Posted by: ameslaker on October 30, 2008 11:00 PMIf you think the CS degree discussion in this thread between pbj and pudge is lively, I guarantee you that someone who has an actual degree in Economics would tear into someone like Darcy Burner claiming she earned the same degree after only taking a handful of courses in the subject.
The Burner King has indeed served up another Whopper and is done. Adios, "kiddo".
Posted by: Smoley on October 31, 2008 12:26 AMThanks dars ...with that economic "degree" can you count to THREE strikes, you're OUT?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 31, 2008 01:41 AMI have a degree from UCSD for medical, but I'm not a doctor.
But what the heck, if darcy can claim something she is not.
Well then DR Army Medic/Vet works for me. LOL
Ok I'll stop now.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 31, 2008 06:24 AMThat may work well in the halls of Microsoft, because everyone understands the game and speaks the language. But, just like most MS programmers and marketing folks are out of touch with the real world and what they need in the way of software that works, Darcy fails to realize she is representing more than her former colleagues that live on the Plateau. Most NORMAL people understand the concept of how a getting a degree from a university works. And hey understand that most people end up majoring in a specific subject.
It seems she is making us all out to be stupid because we don't see, to understand how Harvard offers "degrees". She doesn't see that that is not the point. The point is, she represented herself as having a "degree in economics from Harvard". Right then people said "Really? I thought it was in computer science. That's what her bio emphasizes" . Rather than try to beat it into our brains how Harvard awards their credentials, she should help us understand how Havard's convoluted degree process maps to the majority of other universities.
It's like saying I got cut from the Seahawks before the season started, but then was asked to come back to be part of the practice squad. I quit football, run for office, and tell people I was a formal NFL player. So, someone goes and looks up the Football Almenac I find no mention of me ever playing in any games.
Posted by: Dave on October 31, 2008 09:25 AMDarcy Burner made a deliberate decision to state her qualifications in a way that essentially misrepresented them, banking on the fact that most voters would take the statement at face value. And knowing that if/when she was called on her misrepresentation, she could defend herself with a double argument, i.e., you are all too stupid to understand anything about Harvard AND you misunderstood what I was actually saying.
It's this second part of the defense that I find especially disturbing. She knew what her words would be interpreted to mean and chose to be deliberately imprecise. We all know what she said..."I loved economics so much, I got a degree in it." With "it" being "economics," you know, the antecedent as clearly articulated earlier in her statement.
Liberals have been getting away with this for far too long. They can no longer be allowed to coopt the English language for their own purposes. They can no longer be allowed to redefine words or ask what the meaning of "is" actually is.
Posted by: Paula on October 31, 2008 12:22 PMAww, you guys are just bit-slingers. Everyone KNOWS that we EEs do all the REAL heavy lifting in computers...:)
On topic - just listened to this... With all of Darcy's spin and weaving and ducking, you'd think she got a degree in law, not CS!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 31, 2008 04:39 PMBob R
Posted by: Bob R on October 31, 2008 08:16 PMWhat in Burner's record qualifies her for Federal office? Why not start at the County or State level, first?
You know, the question that the Reichert campaign always asks...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 31, 2008 11:34 PMThose three facts alone are very telling.
1) She is highly intelligent
2) She is willing to work very hard
3) She knows numbers, and has strong mathematical skill.
4) Having worked at Microsoft, she understands the corporate world, very important in our district. She's probably far better here than Reichert
You cannot accomplish what she has without the above 4 qualities.
Now..lets look at Reichert
- He has a two year degree from a bible college in social work.
- He's been a Seattle city cop, and King County Sheriff
This tells me a few things too.
- He's probably not too bright, or doesn't have a strong work ethic. He's certainly not educated, and probably doesn't have strong critical thinking skills.
- He does understand the issues of law enforcement and security far better than Burner would, however he's going to be clueless about corporate america.
So, based on the fact that our district has a number of key multinational corporations, including the largest software company in the world, and given that these industries employ a very significant number of people in our district..and given that Reichert has been completely ineffectual in congress, and his party has lead us to the bring of financial ruin, the logical choice is pretty clear to me.
Now, as for Pudge...
Much as I disagree with him on almost everything, I find myself forced to defend him here. He may not have a CS degree, but he definitely knows his stuff. He also works at Slashdot, which is very respectable. Not your average moronic wingnut.
And, for the record, CS degrees are highly overrated. CE (Computer Engineering) is where its at!
Burner's screed on The Commentators demonstrates that she possesses all of the negative traits you attribute to law enforcement. How bright could she be to waste over 16 minutes of precious air time just days before an election trying to justify a screw up and a lie. Who's work ethic is stronger, Darcy's , who hasn't held a job in at least 4 years, or Reichert, who has served us non-stop as a policeman, detective, sheriff and Congressman for well over 30 years? And let's not forget Darcy's lack of critical thinking skills - did you LISTEN to the audio on this thread? Despite urging from both the right (Carlson) and the left (Schram) she could not budge off her point that having a degree in Economics was the same as having a special concentration - a statement totally devoid of critical thinking skills.
I suggest you mosey on back home and hang with your peeps at HA. We prefer fair and intelligent commentary on this site.
Posted by: diamondshards on November 1, 2008 08:11 AM1. Darcy Burner went to Harvard so I'll agreen, she's book smart. But can she apply her brains to the real world? I haven't seen anything to prove to me that she can.
2. She went to Harvard on a scholarship. As a mother of three who has spent hundreds of hours researching college financing options online, I can assure you, scholarships are very often based on anything other than being "smart." For example, financial need, community service, you father works for this company, etc. So please don't cite a private scholarship as proof of intelligence.
3. My understanding is that, once you get into Harvard, getting out with a decent GPA is not all that hard.
Random thought...I just read Burner's 3rd grade reading level bio again (I guess they need to keep it simple so her supporters can understand it), it says she put herself through Harvard. So I wonder which it is...went to Harvard on scholarship, or worked her way through? Is this another case of creative wording, i.e. does she mean to imply, against conventional thought, that attending on scholarship equals working your way through college? That would not be the conclusion that most people would draw from that statement.
AND let me just say, that at least in her official bio, there would have been plenty of room to say that she earned her degree in computer science with a special (what is it) field? concentration? of economics. But instead she chose to imply a double major.
Posted by: Paula on November 1, 2008 12:39 PMThis fact:
"He has a two year degree from a bible college in social work."
Tells me this:
"He's probably not too bright, or doesn't have a strong work ethic. He's certainly not educated, and probably doesn't have strong critical thinking skills."
You with me so far?
This next fact:
"He's been a Seattle city cop, and King County Sheriff"
Tells me this:
"He does understand the issues of law enforcement and security far better than Burner would, however he's going to be clueless about corporate america."
There are plenty of intelligent, well educated cops out there. Reichert is not one of them however. He's certainly not well educated, and doesn't seem terribly bright.
That simple enough for you? I know you people see things in black and white, but really!
Posted by: Proteus on November 1, 2008 10:59 PMAside from that, I don't think going to a 4 year university guarantees critical thinking skills, any more than NOT going to one guarantees their absence. I would go further and argue that being a successful law enforcement officer is at least as indicative of critical thinking skills as having a four year university degree, and probably moreso as those skills have been honed in the real world.
And why do you think that a two year degree from a Bible college equals a lack of work ethic? Seriously, that's a bizarre conclusion and extremely insulting to anyone who works hard every day in a job that didn't require a university degree. There are lots of paths to success in life. Not all of them require a four year degree.
None of the conclusions you've drawn from the facts you stated about his education prove anything other than that you're an unmitigated snob.
Posted by: Paula on November 2, 2008 09:50 AMWhat about Burner's background tells you that she knows corporate America, or business?
I can give you a BIG word of advice: working at Microsoft does NOT create real world business experience... In fact, Microsoft is such an anomaly in terms of business that most there learn the WRONG things to do.
I know, I worked for a few start-ups in the late 90s that were founded by MS "retirees". They assumed because they were successful at MS that they knew how business really works.
However, once they no longer had multi-million dollar budgets, massive support staff, and the pull of the name "Microsoft" behind them, they quickly learned what the real world is all about.
In my experience, working at MS is a detriment to actual business experience. And this comes from someone who's been a business owner, independent contractor, and actually contracted at MS for two years, part time (and yes, my product actually shipped and is used every day).
MS is NOT the real world; it's about as far from real business as you can get.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 2, 2008 12:32 PM