« The President's Speech | Main | Credit Not Due? »
Dishonor
Check it out. For some reason all the critical emailers over night have decided that I, like other liberals, don't understand "how the real world works." I'm not quite sure where people get that from, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't work by mocking injured war heroes for not being injured enough for your tastes.
September 3, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83456b31769e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dishonor:
» Without honor from newsrack
Maryland side note: ...The picture's not great, so I'm not sure either, but it might be [Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael S. Steele]. [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 6, 2004 12:01:10 AM
Comments
I’VE MET JOHN KERRY. JOHN KERRY IS NOT A FRIEND OF MINE. JOHN KERRY IS NO BILL CLINTON.
Way Back in November of 1990 I attended the election night celebration of Republican Governor Bill Weld at a fancy hotel in downtown Boston. On my way to the men’s room to recycle some of the copious free beer I’d consumed I ran into John Kerry who was celebrating his victory in that same hotel.
I was able to squeeze in among the celebrating reporters and have a brief discussion with the Senator. I was not impressed with the quality of his reason. To be fair, I had the very same impression of Governor Weld when I had earlier been able to chat with him at a posh Republican fund raiser.
I suspect I owed my lackluster impressions to the sad fact that I am an MIT dropout. I recall once, very long ago, when a couple fraternity brothers (TEP) and I had picked up a hitchhiking Harvard student (Harvey to us) and he asked –
“You’re MIT guys huh? What courses are you taking?”
I responded with “Differential Equations, Organic Chemistry, Mechanics of Solids, Thermodynamics and Intermediate French Literature.”
Totally unimpressed the harvey observed “Geez you guys are narrow” and went on to brag about the five humanities courses he was taking.
After dropping him off in Harvard Square we continued to ELSIES to get our usual roast beef and Russian sauce on a roll sandwiches that were so popular back in ‘60s Cambridge. We were all amazed that the harvey thought his curriculum was broader than ours. None of us were very impressed with graduates of what was then supposed to be the second best university in America after MIT. We thought the same of Yale by obvious extension.
There is a very valid reason to hold this opinion and it can clearly be illustrated by the lackluster reasoning abilities I’d notice in Harvard grad Weld and Yale grad Kerry. These men, and most Ivy grads by extension, are certainly gifted in rhetoric and knowledgeable about history, but they are bereft of the sort of critical reasoning ability taken for granted by scientists and engineers.
From my own extensive empirical observations, this elite class of Americans thinks in the sort of talking points and one-dimensional causal chains that win high school debates. Those of us who are literate in mathematics and science think systematically and realize that the world works in multi-dimensional causal chains and feedback loops.
Democrats are far more dangerous than Republicans because the combination of their limited understanding with their willingness to “change” society will always result in unintended but often disastrous unintended consequences. The intended results of their “policies” are always far outweighed by the unintended results.
As I listen to the promises of the critically deficient John Kerry and John Edwards; I worry...
http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/09/ive_met_john_ke.html
Posted by: Adrian Spidle | Sep 3, 2004 10:06:07 AM
Projection. Swallowing the content of any modern GOP leader's speech except McCain requires living in la-la land.
Next comment, I'll say something people don't know.
Posted by: John Isbell | Sep 3, 2004 10:16:48 AM
Matthew writes: "...mocking injured war heroes for not being injured enough for your tastes."
Hey, Max Cleland losing three limbs wasn't enough for these flesh-eating zombies. The lovely Ms. Coulter joked about it.
To really get the respect of a conservative for your military service, you have to be dead.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Sep 3, 2004 10:20:33 AM
Is that gentleman in the upper-right corner Lt. Gov. Michael Steele of Maryland? I am sure it is not, but can anyone clarify this?
Thanks.
Posted by: mat | Sep 3, 2004 10:25:10 AM
Adrian, you have once again presented some almost-adequate one-demensional talking points.
Why is it that scientists and engineers so rarely go into politics? Carter learned a fair amount of engineering. Herbert Hoover was an engineer. Any others come to mind?
I think part of it may be that if you take a few years off from a technical discipline to do politics then you need a year or three to catch up when you go back to work. So it's hard to interrupt a career for politics. Lawyers have no trouble switching between arguing law and making law. And of course if you're in a profession where having important contacts is important, politics will get them for you and you can trade on your contacts when you aren't in office being an important person that others can use for a contact.
And of course if you go into politics you have to spend your time around people who think in talking points and all, it's bound to be unpleasant. Of course you get to use multidimensional causal chains while you're constructing talking points to use to manipulate the fools. Some of them are doing that too, but they don't show it because if they look like they're actually thinking things out it makes them seem dangerous and unpredictable.
I'm surprised you'd be complaining about disastrous unintended consequences from Kerry. Bush has given us a series of disastrous unintended consequences, already. It could be argued that he himself is a disastrous unintended consequence.
Back to the drawing board on that one, Adrian. It works against you. It's a Kerry talking point.
Posted by: J Thomas | Sep 3, 2004 10:30:02 AM
J Thomas,
You had me actually read Spidle, and the question that comes to mind is -- is this an endorsement of George W. Bush?
The only possible caveat in there is that Bush (as a Republican) would be less willing to transform the world, but is that true? SS privatization, biggest spending increases since LBJ, war on a whim, etc.
Posted by: theCoach | Sep 3, 2004 10:42:19 AM
I think Adrian is trying out talking points at random. He surely isn't arguing that Bush has any sort of engineering discipline that would help him think things out.
The claim appears to be that Bush can be depended on not to make any grand gestures that turn out to be stupid, while he thinks Kerry might. It just doesn't make sense.
Posted by: J Thomas | Sep 3, 2004 10:46:30 AM
Serving in Vietnam (and getting minor injuries doing so) is honorable. Lying about your injuries to get medals that will assist your then-planned future political career is not. Lying about the activities of your fellow soldiers when you return is not. Accusing your fellow soldiers of war-crimes, while some are being tortured to obtain such (false) admissions, is not. Lying about being in Cambodia on Christmas eve ("seared--seared--in my memory") is not. Basing your votes in the U.S. Senate on such lies is not. I could go on, but you get the point. Calling the dishonorable actions above, and others, dishonorable doesn't take away from the honor of serving, and it is not disrespectful to other soldiers or the military in general. Serving honorably for 4 months, in short, doesn't get one a free pass (for life) for other dishonorable conduct.
Posted by: Abadaba | Sep 3, 2004 11:02:25 AM
Shut the fuck up.
Posted by: praktike | Sep 3, 2004 11:08:12 AM
Abadaba, are you implying Kerry did those things? Why are you lying about Kerry? Why do you display your dishonor here?
Is it because you're on the internet? So nobody knows who you are? It's shameful regardless.
Posted by: J Thomas | Sep 3, 2004 11:09:23 AM
Name me one Republican speaking at the convention who mocked Kerry for not being wonded seriously enough.
You guys are never going to win if you insist on creating imaginary slights, by being perpetually insulted by trivia (the band-aids), and continuing to act as if Ann Coulter was the nominee.
I do see that Jay Leno is making purple heart jokes..but McCain, Rudy, Arnold, Miller, Laura Bush, Cheney, and the President did not.
Politics is ugly, and Bush has had a ton of crap thrown at him too, and his response has been to say "that's politics". Meanwhile knowing the end is victory. A lot more people know of Michael Moore than Ann Coulter - but I will remind you that Ann Coulter was not invited to sit in the Presidential box.
Kerry, war hero and all, is coming off like a cry-baby. This is turning into a rout and Kerry is in panic mode.
Is there any calm thinking liberal around here who is HAPPY that Kerry continues to talk the "how dare anyone challenge me who got deferrments" strategy.
The challenges on Vietnam are from the SwiftVets who bled there too. Kerry has changed 2 of his stories now, but refuses to sit down and clear up the record. But he also refuses to just SHUT UP about his Vietnam service. Winning medals in Vietnam is NOT enough to win this Presidency. Does Kerry not get that yet?
The challenges on his Senate voting record is what was coming from that convention - and Kerry refuses to deal with those votes and instead thinks that speaking of Cheney's deferrments is how he will win the election.
Do you guys SEE THIS? Please, any clear thinking liberal - tell me what you see in Kerry's strategy, starting with that midnight speech last night.
Posted by: Steve_in_Corona | Sep 3, 2004 11:10:54 AM
i still can't figure out why every member of the republican party isn't thoroughly ashamed of him or herself. i guess i will never understand it. oh well. go ahead and mock wounded veterans if it makes you feel good for some reason. i will not take you seriously as a troop supporting patriot though.
Posted by: Olaf glad and big | Sep 3, 2004 11:19:43 AM
Is there any calm thinking liberal around here who is HAPPY that Kerry continues to talk the "how dare anyone challenge me who got deferrments" strategy.
I get giddy every time I hear that. Whew, got giddy again just imagining hearing that. Whew, got giddy again just imagining that I imagined hearing that.
Posted by: djangone | Sep 3, 2004 11:23:26 AM
"Shut the fuck up"?
Praktike, we love you, but get more sleep!
Posted by: Andy | Sep 3, 2004 11:26:22 AM
Steve,
I was a little dissapointed that he mentioned the deferments (I would have liked him to discuss Cheney as Secretary of Defense cutting programs, because adults need to conssider things like costs and trade-offs, and that Cheney used to be an adult). As far as the Senate votes, I think it is smart not to get into details -- legislating is complicated and he should avoid complicated answers, although he should talk about his thoughts regarding those issues.
Kerry needs to bring the focus back onto Bush's record, Bush's post 9-11 predictions of job growth, and Bush's errors in the war on Iraq. He then needs to begin to crystalize his vision for America. There will be plenty of time.
August, with the Olympics, Kerry's money restrictions and the Bush campaign, kept the news focus off of Bush's record and actual policies, but the Republicans cannot keep that up until the election.
Posted by: theCoach | Sep 3, 2004 11:31:51 AM
bush's record:
no jobs
no healthcare
no budget surplus
no allies
no terrorists caught
Posted by: Olaf glad and big | Sep 3, 2004 11:37:03 AM
theCoach,
Thanks for the thoughtful, civil reply. I agree with what you said, but would suggest he must have distinctives of his own to put on the table. He can't just say "Iraq is screwed up" without specifics and what he would do differently.
As far as crytalizing a plan for the future - I suppose there is time, but the time to really do that is the convention. I agree with you that it is a must.
How do you think he should handle Vietnam? I think he should apologize for his post-war actions, which are the ones doing damage in the new Swift ads. He should do an interview with Russert immediately afterwards, and pledge that his entire campaign from this point on will not talk about Vietnam, or Bush AWOL charges, Cheney deferments. Point to the future. Let moveon.org run ads against that stuff, like the SwiftVets run their ads. But tell McCauliffe and every other Democrat to not mention it.
The problem is that if he waits too long, and the polls show him down by several points, the apology will come off as insincere..especially if he gives repeat performances like last night. What a scene! He should have done this a month ago.
What is your idea on the Vietnam issue? He can't keep his focus on Vietnam stuff with only 60 days left.
Posted by: Steve_in_Corona | Sep 3, 2004 11:46:31 AM
Steve in Corona: Glad you're keeping it civil. I am curious as to exactly which post-war actions you think Kerry should apologize for.
Posted by: Andy | Sep 3, 2004 11:52:39 AM
Steve,
I would agree with most of what you write. In my opinion the convention was not the time, but that is rather trivial.
Apologize is a bit strong. A good national interview with, say Russert, where he said, I was young and I regret some of what I said. Those were difficult times, and I felt it was important to face the reality of the situation, but I said some things when I was young I now wish I had not. If George W. Bush wants to make this about mistakes we made in our youth, I will win on that too, but I think the American people deserve a campaign on GWB's record, and on the issues of the day, blah blah balh.
Posted by: theCoach | Sep 3, 2004 11:56:06 AM
Andy and Coach..by apology, I was thinking along the lines of what Coach states. In other words, I was young and doing what I though was best to end the war, but now realize I caused tremendous hurt to many soldiers and Americans...in other words, apologize for the hurt - not the actions per se.
Posted by: Steve_in_Corona | Sep 3, 2004 11:57:43 AM
So, Adrian, you're endorsing the Unabomber?
Posted by: Social Scientist | Sep 3, 2004 12:00:52 PM
I think Adrian is trying out talking points at random.
Me, I still think Adrian is a perl script....
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Sep 3, 2004 12:06:57 PM
"Name me one Republican speaking at the convention who mocked Kerry for not being wonded seriously enough"
well duh. that was the talking point up to three days _before_ the convention. the talking point after that is about his testimony to the senate, although equally misleading.
Posted by: anon | Sep 3, 2004 12:16:29 PM
Steve,
That makes sense to me. I still think there is time, perhaps wait until Bush's convention glow wears off. Eventually, the conversation has to switch to issues, and when it does, Bush is in trouble. His internals are pretty bad.
Posted by: theCoach | Sep 3, 2004 12:17:45 PM
Abadaba writes: I could go on, but you get the point.
Yes, that you will gladly participate in the dishonoring of war veterans. That's what Matthew said.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Sep 3, 2004 12:32:36 PM
