And speaking of pols shooting other pols...

Another thing the good, decent Dems might take careful notice of is what
happened to Kerry. I think he's an asshole and wasn't and isn't fit to
be the President of the US, but there's no sensible person who could
honestly and seriously claim his "stupid" remarks were an intentional
slap at troops (I'll leave the Freudian aspects alone) rather than a
screwed-up attempt at a lame joke. Yet, a fair number of Dems not only
didn't support him, they ran away as fast as they could while
simultaneously claiming they were absolutely confident they were gonna
win by huge margins.

And I'd offer that those decent Dems might wish to compare those who
dumped Kerry with those that dumped Lieberman and those who might have
be involved in sending Obama to stump for Ford.

TC,
R

wrote in news:ba54l25vj1bq6gb1b0elvaph3r5p1u84b3@
4ax.com:

but there's no sensible person who could
honestly and seriously claim his "stupid" remarks were an intentional
slap at troops (I'll leave the Freudian aspects alone) rather than a
screwed-up attempt at a lame joke.


Ya know, if anyone has a right to comment on the troops, its him. I think
Kerry is a asshole with less charisma than your average little brown ring,
but I haven't seen anyone actually challenge his statement based upon
facts, like the education level of the troops, or anything like that.

So, asking you now, what percentage of those serving in Iraq right now are
college grads? If its low, why is it forbidden to point this out? How is
this any more demoralizing for our troops than, say, promising a Rumsfeld
reign over the Pentagon until the day Bush leaves office.

Not to say that the troops aren't selfless heros, but I'd wager that the
super-educated shy away from the military.

"I support the troops" is a statement that is very easy to make, and push
comes to shove, means little.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman wrote in
. 1.4:

How is
this any more demoralizing for our troops than, say, promising a
Rumsfeld reign over the Pentagon until the day Bush leaves office.


Wow!! Ask and ye shall receive. Rumsfeld seems to have announced his
resignation. Our military is already better off than it was yesterday.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 8 Nov 2006 17:56:10 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:ba54l25vj1bq6gb1b0elvaph3r5p1u84b3@
4ax.com:

but there's no sensible person who could
honestly and seriously claim his "stupid" remarks were an intentional
slap at troops (I'll leave the Freudian aspects alone) rather than a
screwed-up attempt at a lame joke.


Ya know, if anyone has a right to comment on the troops, its him. I think
Kerry is a asshole with less charisma than your average little brown ring,
but I haven't seen anyone actually challenge his statement based upon
facts, like the education level of the troops, or anything like that.

Er, did you read, see, or accidentally overhear anything in the days
after his remark?

So, asking you now, what percentage of those serving in Iraq right now are
college grads?

Roughly extrapolating, I'd say something like 1 in about 7.something.

If its low, why is it forbidden to point this out?

It isn't. Generally speaking as above, there are something on the order
of about 7 enlisted men for each commissioned officer. It's not hard to
figure out, and as such, it would be impossible to "forbid" anyone from
pointing it out.

How is
this any more demoralizing for our troops than, say, promising a Rumsfeld
reign over the Pentagon until the day Bush leaves office.

Saying that there are, by definition, not as many college grads as
non-grads isn't demoralizing. Calling those who choose to serve
"stupid" or similar is, well, stupid. That said, I don't think Kerry
intentionally called anyone stupid - I think he screwed up a stupid,
politically-dangerous joke (and again, I'll leave any possible Freudian
aspects out of the discussion as they'd not be material to the
discussion at hand).

Not to say that the troops aren't selfless heros, but I'd wager that the
super-educated shy away from the military.

Your connecting "intelligence" with "education level" and moreso,
"college grad" is telling. FWIW, many use the military as a way to get
a college degree, and IAC, given the structure of the military (18-21
y.o. initial enlistment, officers with degrees, etc.), the majority of
the military wouldn't have college degrees. That doesn't make them
"stupid," or even of low intelligence.

As to the "super-educated" shying away from the military, it'd be a
small minority that _could_ get "super-educated" prior to joining the
military (depending on the definition of "super-educated"), limited to
educations one can get by about 26-27 years old or MDs, JDs, etc., so
"shying away" really isn't an applicable term. But there are a fair
share of generally well-educated people in the military, and an even
larger share of smart, well-trained technical people proudly serving.

"I support the troops" is a statement that is very easy to make, and push
comes to shove, means little.

I'm not sure what you intend to convey.

TC,
R

wrote in news:bf74l25rl7l51olcs71gj71vi3fdse5u63@
4ax.com:

Your connecting "intelligence" with "education level" and moreso,
"college grad" is telling.

That seems to be the context of Kerry's statement in front of the college
audience he was addressing, though.

FWIW, many use the military as a way to get
a college degree,

Yes. Unfortunately, the student aid structure is such that a college
education, because of loan interest, cost a poor person considerably more
than a rich person. The army is a fantastic way for a person of little
means to pursue an education without mounting large debts.

and IAC, given the structure of the military (18-21
y.o. initial enlistment, officers with degrees, etc.), the majority of
the military wouldn't have college degrees. That doesn't make them
"stupid," or even of low intelligence.


No, it of course doesn't.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
wrote in news:bf74l25rl7l51olcs71gj71vi3fdse5u63@
4ax.com:

Your connecting "intelligence" with "education level" and moreso,
"college grad" is telling.

That seems to be the context of Kerry's statement in front of the college
audience he was addressing, though.

FWIW, many use the military as a way to get
a college degree,

Yes. Unfortunately, the student aid structure is such that a college
education, because of loan interest, cost a poor person considerably more
than a rich person. The army is a fantastic way for a person of little
means to pursue an education without mounting large debts.

and IAC, given the structure of the military (18-21
y.o. initial enlistment, officers with degrees, etc.), the majority of
the military wouldn't have college degrees. That doesn't make them
"stupid," or even of low intelligence.


No, it of course doesn't.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply


Despite the fact that we have disagreed in the past, Richard hit the mark
here.I served 8+ years as a Marine and 8 years after that am finally using
the G.I. Bill to go to school. The G.I. Bill isn't the only higher education
opportunity afforded to those that serve. There are professional advancement
programs for most branches that are not only required for promotion, but
transfer to college credits. While I was in, our base worked with the local
community college to start a degree program for NCO's. Free to the Marines
that qualified. Most service members are bright young people with the
potential for greatness. The military often serves as a transition into the
real world and provides some guidance while these kids mature enough to be
independent later in life.

Jeremy Moe

Dawn Moe wrote:
...Most service members are bright young people with the
potential for greatness.

Well, I was right there with you up to this point. You know
better.....and/or you should.....and/or you don't care....and/or you're
a liar.....and/or any number of other things. Regardless......pick any
combination you like.....it's horse****.

The military often serves as a transition into the
real world and provides some guidance while these kids mature enough to be
independent later in life.

Ah!.....back on track. Good.

Wolfgang
who knows that MOST people from any sample group (yeah, even engineers)
aren't particularly stupid......nor are they (yeah, even rocket
scientists.......or double-naught spies) particularly bright.

Rumsfeld is thrown on the barbie.

/daytripper (spin *that* ;-)

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:02:01 -0500, daytripper
wrote:

Rumsfeld is thrown on the barbie.

/daytripper (spin *that* ;-)

Nothing to spin. He's gone, and that's that. Hopefully, if Gates is
the guy, he'll do a good job. I'd offer others might be a better
choice, particularly Schwarzkopf or perhaps Honore, but time will tell.

TC,
R

wrote in newsq84l21iu2e9h1udmbhdot0rfpv1mku66f@
4ax.com:

Hopefully, if Gates is
the guy, he'll do a good job.

Hopefully, whoever ends up in the position will do a good job. That said,
given the situation, putting a career spook up for the civilian leadership
of the Pentagon with the current CIA role in the "questioning" of prisoners
in the national disgrace that Gitmo has become, not to mention a new
attempt at hiring one of his dad's old buddies, is a very strange thing to
do in this situation. It's almost like Bush is trying to bring things to a
head as quickly as possible, and I'm anxiously awaiting the DemocratIC
(maybe we can add the "IC" back on now!) response. My suspicion is that
the Dems will hold out the olive leaf, and seat him. Anything else might
look ungracious-- maybe Bush is taking advantage of this possible "new
honeymoon"-- but expect a rigorous hearing nonetheless.

Schwartzkopf would have been interesting. Powell would have been an
interesting choice as well, clearly conveying an attitude of national
reconciliation without actually putting a Democrat in the slot. Lieberman
would have been even more interesting, given the earlier rumors, and you
could almost envision a decision process deciding not offer him the job
last week because of his now critical Senate role.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply