This I agree with and matches my experience as well. I didn’t mean that a majority of those in the enlisted ranks were idiots but that the military (at least in those days and I suspect the same is true now) was also a repository for the poor, the uneducated and the delinquent. It’s not that “military=uneducated/unmotovated,” but that oftentimes the military is the only good option for the uneducated/unmotivated. Sam is also right that in Kerry’s day, staying in school was unquestionably synonomous with staying out of Vietnam.
I think it’s all moot anyway since listening to the stement in context makes it crystal clear that Kerry was talking about Bush.
kerry bought a townhouse on beacon Hill in Boston. apparently, he was “upset” by the fact that the FD had the temerity to place a fire hydrant on the sidewalk outside his house!! Kerry paid to have it moved! Stuck-up piece if shite he is… :smack:
Sure, he’s technically a junior Senator and has been in the background since 2004, but the fact is that as the former nominee for President he presumably speaks for a sizeable number of Democrats. That’s how it’s going to be served up for the next week, like it or not.
So, Kerry who said he wouldn’t apologize, has now apologized. I guess he meant that he didn’t apologize before he did apologize. Somone put a gag in his mouth before he ruins it for the Democrats again.
I have known plenty of military people, but probably not as many as you. Either way, our personal observations do not add up to much when there is statitical information available to back up what I’m saying.
Ok, so about 18% (or 13% depending on your you interpret that statement) have an assoc. degree, college degree, or some college. Among the general public, 27% have recieved the bachelor’s degree. Nation Master puts that number (including assoc. degrees) at 37%. Either way, the armed forces are far below that level. To be fair, they seem to have fewer people with little to know education.
I will bet any amount of money that the relative percentage of our best and brightest that end up up in the military is far below the relative percentage that come from poor areas. How many people from Ivy-League schools, and other schools of that calibre end up in the military? Plenty of richer schools don’t even allow military recruiters because they realize their students have “better” options. Obviously, schools like West Point have churned out plenty of bright students, but it’s not even close leveing the playing field. But, you don’t have to take my word for it. Here are a few examples of military recruiting tactics that illustrate that the poor are disproportionately representing in our armed forces (1234 ). Now of course poor does not equal stupid, but there is a strong correlation between the two.
The sad, but obvious reality is that we have an information economy that does not benefit from steering our smartest citizens into the armed forces. That’s why they didn’t draft college students, and that’s why they don’t try to recruit valedictorians and National Merit scholars. I’m not saying all the people in the military are stupid, just that they tend to be less educated and poor, and have fewer educational opportunities. This seems pretty self-evident, and the contrast will become more and more stark as society becomes more advanced. It just doesn’t make sense to steer the next batch of chemical engineers, Rhodes scholars, and doctors to a line of work that increases the likelyhood they will end up crippled by a roadside bomb.
To be ruthlessly fair, I wouldn’t go quite that far. Its entirely reasonable to assume that he talking about the same thing in sentence five that he was talking about in sentence four, absent some clear signal of topic change.
Which appears to be missing. And none of our tighty righty correspondents, who know precisely what Kerry meant is able to supply us with any such signal. None is even attempting to do so, but simply blustering ahead as though their raw conjecture were proven fact that has no need for substantiation. Revealed truth is like that, I suppose. I wouldn’t know.
As irritated by all this “botched joke” fiasco, I am finding it amusing that the best thing that the Republicans have for this election is “Kerry insulted the troops!”
In my mind, it kinda mirrors the “All the Democrats do is say they’re not Bush! They have no plan!” of last week. Hell, who needs issues when you’ve got histrionics?
Your cite makes it abundantly clear that Kerry apologized for botching the joke. By omiting what Kerry was apologizing for you allow the unfortunate implication that Kerry was apologizing for “dissing the troops”. Which is not the case.
Unintentional, I’m sure, but still, a bit sloppy. No harm done.
Good point! I think it will allow some Dems to call for an apology and make a few brownie points with voters. Could help them win the election. Not sure if those are the kind of LibDems you want but they are the ones likely to win. If they aren’t the kind you want then it makes the party on the left more and more irrelevant.
A classic Kerry-esque distinction that is why he needs to STFU. Yesterday he said he apoligizes to no one. It’s clear to me what he’s trying to do. He’s trying to push himself to the head of the “I can stand up to Republicans” line after the cheers that Clinton got for going after them on Fox a few weeks ago. But he can’t do it. I know Bill Clinton, and John Kerry is no Bill Clinton. Look at what his web site is saying:
Yeah, you go get 'em, Kerry! Fight like the bulldog you are. Oh, that was what you were supposed to do 2 years ago. :smack:
So he should just bend over and take it? Its refreshing to see someone come out swinging against bullshit, even if it is too late. Does this change my opinion of Kerry? No. But it sure is nice to see someone not stand by and just ignore the diarrhea spewing forth from certain republicans’ mouths.
With all due awe, John, it is not a minor point. It has been stated here as proven fact that Kerry was dissing the troops. Without, I point out again, the slightest, the merest hint of evidence.
What is this, semiotics? Deconstruction? “The words don’t mean what they mean, they mean what I say they mean?”
For what it’s worth, the first I saw or heard of this story was the OP of this thread. I read the quote, and, taken just as it is written, out of context of the entire speech, I took it immediately as a slam on the troops. I still haven’t heard it IN context, but only know of the context what I have read in this thread, and I agree from what people are saying here that he may very well have been talking about the President when he said it, and then again, he may not have been. The fact is, John Kerry has spent a lot of energy in his life criticizing the troops. If he wants to be effective as a campaigner for other candidates…or for himself should the situation arise again…he would do well to remember that he has established a reputation of NOT being friendly to the military (which may or may not be earned, but that’s not really the point). He really should be much more careful when he criticizes ANYTHING even vaguely related to the war. Speeches are not heard in their entirety, but in soundbites, and there is nothing about that soundbite that would ever lead me to believe he was talking about the President.
If you believe Rush and friends, yeah. Or if you conflate criticism of command and political leaders with criticism of the troops, yeah. Otherwise not so much.
Of course it is the point; it is the only point in this thread. If he didn’t say it, those who contend he did are liars.
Which is why you should never take anything at face value. Critical thinking is a virtue. Use it.
Isn’t it your duty as a citizen to put that quote in-context? As you say, the media takes things out of context and re-represents it all the time. Shouldn’t it be our duty to find out the whole story instead of jumping to conclusions about 2% of a speech? A speech, that even if it slams the troops, has absolutely no bearing on whats being done to solve America’s problems in Washington right now?
