“… coming from nothing …”? Can you back that up? Sounds like hype to me.
So successful that he writes a column in The Moonie Times.. Cannot get much lower than that.
pretty much “coming from nothing”.
I’ve had the chance to know a lot of specialty surgeons–cardiothoracic, neurosurgeons, ophthalmologists, and the like*–some of whom could be considered hotshots.
Obviously there aren’t any outright dummies in those jobs. But while a medical education teaches many things, critical thinking is not high on the list. And the training to achieve such a position requires a level of tunnel vision that means blocking out even the parts of medicine that aren’t relevant to that specialty, much less everything else going on in the world. Someone driven to be well-rounded and knowledgeable about multiple things will have a difficult time with such a career path.
Even more than that, becoming a surgeon at that level requires a truly absurd level of self-confidence. It’s hard to imagine cutting into someone’s brain or heart or eyeball if you have any doubts about what you’re doing, so in my experience doubt is simply something they don’t do. So when they encounter things outside their specialty that they don’t know much about, but something seems right to them, then in their mind it almost has to be right–in a way it becomes right.
I see this in folks like Dr. Oz and Rand Paul. Carson may be in that camp as well.
Good doctors are typically not good adminstrators, managers, or businessmen, for pretty much the same reason that pitchers can’t hit. Carson deserves a ton of respect for his career, but the traits necessary to build that career are mostly ones I wouldn’t want in a President.
- Urologists and otolaryngologists usually don’t fall into this personality type, probably because of the mundanity of most of what they do. You’d think ophthalmologists would be excluded for the same reason, but in my experience they’re among the worst. It’s possible I know a bad sample, but I doubt it.
In the news recently by Ben Carson:
“Our military needs to know that they’re not going be prosecuted when they come back, because somebody has said, ‘You did something that was politically incorrect,’” Carson told Bill Hemmer on Fox News Monday morning. “There is no such thing as a politically correct war. We need to grow up, we need to mature. If you’re gonna have rules for war, you should just have a rule that says no war. Other than that, we have to win. Our life depends on it.”
WTF
Hey, Adaher? Care to suggest that the comment quoted above wasn’t that of an idiot?
I should mention that I mean Carson’s comment, not EndlessEntropy’s. <3
Not sure how dumb that is. How many Americans got prosecuted for war crimes during WWII? Not a whole lot, and there was no shortage of war crimes. It’s just that when you’re in a war for survival, there are more important things to worry about and taking effective soldiers out of the line for being too severe towards the enemy isn’t exactly a winning strategy.
Also, I doubt Carson is referring to real war crimes, but “political correctness”, such as disrespect towards religious symbols like Korans. I understand why the US is doing it(hearts and minds and all that), but I don’t think it’s crazy to argue that it’s stupid and counterproductive.
Ermm, yes, it is crazy to argue that defacing Korans is anything but stupid and counterproductive.
It is, but so is prosecuting soldiers for it. Assuming that’s the kind of thing Carson is referring to, he’s probably on firm ground at least public opinion wise. But it’s hard to tell because his language is so imprecise. Of course, the great thing about public figures is that journalists can ask them to clarify or walk back their statements.
The trouble is, the reason he said there should be no rules whatsoever, is that he’s so utterly unprepared and ignorant, and unable find flaws in his ideology, it didn’t occur to him that the “rules” we have for war include things like not shooting civilians for target practice, and not dropping nerve gas on orphanages.
He’s so utterly overimpressed with his intellect that he thinks he doesn’t need to know shit in order to make sweeping statements. He’s a dipshit. Wanting him to be president is goofy.
So far, that’s only 10% of the GOP electorate. He’ll have to do better to win more than that, especially with a more qualified evangelical also in the race(Huckabee).
How do you know he’s not ok with shooting civilians for target practice and dropping nerve gas on orphanages?
Well, he’s a brain surgeon! That sort of thing could damage the nervous system!
Yeah, but sometimes the glazier pays a kid to break some windows.
He’s a loony demagogue:
(Which is why he had to broadcast his message from his barracks at a concentration camp and why no one has heard a word from the Tea Party in the last 36 months.)
Well, he understands the technology of science in his field. That hardly indicates an actual understanding of science.
(And, of course, as a surgeon, he will be unfit to actually interact with people not under his control. Surgeons are just not constitutionally capable of dealing with people who cannot follow their orders. He’ll make Obama look like Sam Rayburn. 
)
You are arguing against yourself. It is crazy to suggest that you can defeat an ideological enemy while ignoring the “hearts and minds” aspect of the conflict.
In the run up to the Iraq fiasco, a number of us argued, explicitly, that our actions were going to recruit more volunteers for al Qaida and similar organizations. And now we are having to deal with ISIS that is the direct result of those actions.
How often does a nation prosecute their own war criminals? I would think that it wouldn’t be nearly as often as prosecuting the people from the opposing faction(s).
I’m asking out of genuine curiosity. I have no idea about this.
Some bolding added by me.
So there’s the actual agreements we entered in to internationally that comprise the written body of international laws of land warfare. So assuming he doesn’t mean those we’re looking at things we add on to further limit things. Those get codified in Rules of Engagement. There may be other aspects of troop behavior that get codified in General Order Number 1 for an operation which limits behaviors that aren’t strictly a matter of direct combat but may be seen in a poor light. Those are all written down and issued to the troops. Generally because of the importance of those documents they get quite a bit of legal review to ensure they are lawful. Commanders at lower levels may issue orders adding to those limitations based on local conditions.
Are we saying we don’t want the military to be able to enforce lawful orders issued to the troops? The motivation behind some of those orders may be to not offend the delicate sensibilities of clueless civilians but they are still lawful orders once issued. It’s not an actual massacre or other clear violation of the laws of war so you can pretty much ignore what your officers and NCOs say. Good order and discipline isn’t that important I guess. First Sergeant said not to screw with anyone’s Koran because it would cause us issues later… but WE"RE AT WAR!!! F*#& the First Sergeant!!!
If you are talking about prosecutions for war crimes (genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc.) or offenses against the Law of Nations (mostly piracy), or just crimes committed in war.
If you mean the latter, civilized countries do it quite frequently (here’s an example) though possibly not as much as they ought.
If you mean the former, prosecution virtually always occurs in an international context such as the International Criminal Court (which US service members are not subject to the jurisdiction of, 'cause we’re special), or ad hoc tribunals. Very occasionally it happens when the government behind such things is overthrown.
We’re special because we have something called sovereignty and we don’t surrender it to international courts that do not adhere to US constitutional norms.