Kerry Joke

[S-Mart]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

"I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." --George W. Bush, talking to key Republicans about Iraq, as quoted by Bob Woodward

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --George W. Bush, interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006

Let me guess... one person did all the work and the other seven took credit for it.😎

 

[MedicalCorpse]

MedSchoolFool: I don't know what branch you served it, but most of my troops were brighter than average... I'd say better educated than the civilian population, but you don't have to believe me:

You will note that I have yet to comment on the "education of the troops" issue. In general, I was often impressed by the intelligence and industry of most of the enlisted folks I met. Many in the medical fields were taking pre-med or pre-nursing classes in their "spare" time (calculus, organic chemistry, etc.). Yes, there were a few junior enlisted (and junior officers) who seemed a bit, um, less than telencephalically well endowed...such as the PACU tech who almost drowned our SGH after her surgery by hooking up water for humidification to the nasal cannula and then UPENDING the water bottle, so that 4 l/m of water could flood the O-6's lungs...or the 2Lt ward nurse who mistook the CME dressing in the suprasternal area for the d/c'd a-line dressing ("Ya, we get very accurate readings by placing the a-line directly into the aorta, Lt.")

However, there is no doubt that I was struck nearly every day by the ignorance and willful lack of insight displayed by allegedly-educated O-6 and above M.D. administrative Outlook Rangers. The stupidity of Colonels and Generals can harm hundreds or thousands through ill-considered policies that endanger patients on a grand scale. After around 2001, there was only one O-6 M.D. I really looked up to (Dr. R., a rheumatologist, who had been my attending during internship). All the rest were either ROAD scholars or well on their way to needing lap colostomies to prevent soiling of their e-mail decubiti. Funny, the worst of the worst were all Academy grads...imagine that. When one's formative college years are spent, not in apprehending the universe inductively, but in being molded into a square peg to fit the square hole the Air Force thinks it needs to fill, the result, in my personal experience over 19 years, is not a human who values a subordinate who can say "Sir, No Sir."

Moreover, I don't think anyone can argue that the U.S. military is a nurturing place for the truly gifted. Deru kui wa utareru: The stake that stands up gets hammered down. I found it amusing that, ca. 2004, an officer's higher education and degrees were forbidden from being included in OPRs or promotion recommendations. SSS and other mind-numbingly obtuse PME offal were held in higher regard than, say, an MBA from Wharton.

(from one of my prior threads here: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=4132147 )

Here's an interesting set of articles about the role of intellectuals in the U.S. military:

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/P...r/mastroia.htm

Occupations, Cultures, and Leadership in the Army and Air Force
by (Reserve LtCol) GEORGE R. MASTROIANNI

"There is an absolutist and anti-intellectual strain in Air Force culture (as many have observed in military culture more generally) that resonates with a view of the world as simple and clear. Confidence in the intellectual superiority of the Air Force over the other services coexists with what sometimes appears to be contempt for the rough-and-tumble of open intellectual discourse. The paradox of Air Force culture is that it can be decidedly anti-intellectual—a circumstance perhaps not uncommon in authoritarian cultures such as the military—but nevertheless convinced of its intellectual superiority. This tendency is perhaps stronger in the Air Force than in the other services.

These aspects of global Air Force culture also affect organizational forms and penetrate the thinking of the rank and file, implicitly modeling a more hierarchical, executive, personal model of decisionmaking that shapes the culture of leadership in the Air Force. The responsibility of the Air Force for controlling a component of the American strategic nuclear deterrent may also have led to broad institutional reliance on organizational models characterized by concentration and elevation of decisionmaking power in highly centralized structures."

and

http://www.ausa.org/webpub/DeptArmyM...id/CCRN-6CCS4R

The Uniformed Intellectual and His Place in American Arms: Part I
by COL. LLOYD J. MATTHEWS, USA Ret.

In 1890, U.S. Navy Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan published The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783, the most influential book ever written by a serving officer with the arguable exception of Clausewitz's On War. For this feat, his endorsing officer, Rear Adm. Francis Ramsay, rewarded him on his fitness report with the following glowing encomium: "It is not the business of a Naval officer to write books." It is precisely this sort of attitude on the part of the bosses of military intellectuals that has led such thinkers as H. G. Wells to claim that "the professional military mind is by necessity an inferior and unimaginative mind; no man of high intellectual quality would willingly imprison his gifts in such a calling." More amusing than Capt. Mahan's poor fitness report but no less tragic in its import is this lament from a Navy officer passed over for promotion: "I cannot understand why I wasn't selected: I've never run a ship aground; I've never insulted a senior officer; and I've never contributed [an article] to the Institute's Proceedings."

(Of note, both articles criticize the Army as well as its sister services.)

SO, rather than focusing on the educational and/or intellectual shortcomings of junior enlisted and junior officers, what would really benefit U.S. military medicine would be a reformation of its toxic, anti-intellectual, dissent-quashing, sir-yes-sir-I'll-help-torture-that-prisoner-sir culture, which sees questioning as heresy, and principled, ethical refusal to commit medical malpractice on demand as treason. When standing up for what is right, intellectually, medically and ethically, in the face of trenchant (and invariably scientifically incorrect) political opposition becomes a sought-after OPR bullet, rather than a bullet in the back of the head of one's military career, then and only then can U.S. military medicine start the long climb out of the fen of mediocrity it finds itself in now.

--
R

 

[DogFaceMedic]

Forgive me all; I've been AWOL.

I like a good debate, but I have much greater pleasures in life than to read all of the posts. I skimmed over and some seemed good; some were silly.

The negativity toward the military is unfair because stupidity is always more easily recognized in any organization. To say 95% are dumb, is self-gratuitous and silly.
There are some important problems in the approach taken by many of the posters, bloggers, etc:
- first of all, it is shallow and elitist of physicians or med students to believe they are above the stupid people who are either too stupid or naive to enlist. I've known many soldiers, poorly educated, who are far better men than the educated elites. Kerry's comments were more fitting of a European aristocrat than an American.
- There is no argument from me: the government bureaucracy is inefficient and sluggish, allowing the incompenent to hide from accountability and make a living off of the American tax-payer. It needs serious reform.
- However, the military isn't going away, nor is military medicine. It cannot be simply killed. What will replace it and who will design it? Other gov't employees? Hillary? So, my critique is similar to John Adams' of Thomas Paine -- i.e., it is easier to tear down, than to build up. So, how should it be done?
- lastly, just to throw another **** bomb, as someone so eloquently put it, and while I am riding my high-horse:
The policy of appeasement in the war on terrorism advocated by the left-wing that dominates the DNC is not necessarily unpatriotic, but it is wrong. I do think it is unpatriotic, and perhaps treasonous, to put politics before the the safety of the Nation, and the NYT did do that. Those who wish the fight in Iraq goes badly so that Democrats can win elections, are unpatriotic.

 

[DogFaceMedic]

Forgive me all; I've been AWOL.

I like a good debate, but I have much greater pleasures in life than to read all of the posts. I skimmed over and some seemed good; some were silly.

The negativity toward the military is unfair because stupidity is always more easily recognized in any organization. To say 95% are dumb, is self-gratuitous and silly.
There are some important problems in the approach taken by many of the posters, bloggers, etc:
- first of all, it is shallow and elitist of physicians or med students to believe they are above the stupid people who are either too stupid or naive to enlist. I've known many soldiers, poorly educated, who are far better men than the educated elites. Kerry's comments were more fitting of a European aristocrat than an American.
- There is no argument from me: the government bureaucracy is inefficient and sluggish, allowing the incompenent to hide from accountability and make a living off of the American tax-payer. It needs serious reform.
- However, the military isn't going away, nor is military medicine. It cannot be simply killed. What will replace it and who will design it? Other gov't employees? Hillary? So, my critique is similar to John Adams' of Thomas Paine -- i.e., it is easier to tear down, than to build up. So, how should it be done?
- lastly, just to throw another **** bomb, as someone so eloquently put it, and while I am riding my high-horse:
The policy of appeasement in the war on terrorism advocated by the left-wing that dominates the DNC is not necessarily unpatriotic, but it is wrong. I do think it is unpatriotic, and perhaps treasonous, to put politics before the the safety of the Nation, and the NYT did do that. Those who wish the fight in Iraq goes badly so that Democrats can win elections, are unpatriotic.

 

[MDDOWhatever]

I do think it is unpatriotic, and perhaps treasonous, to put politics before the the safety of the Nation, and the NYT did do that. Those who wish the fight in Iraq goes badly so that Democrats can win elections, are unpatriotic.

So... I'm just curious where you stand on putting corporate interest before the safety of the nation? Is that patriotic? If not, then you need to look at the other side of the equation a little more closely.

The war already has gone badly. Very badly. There is no "if" about it. It was based on a lie, in a post-9/11 America that otherwise would not have supported it from the beginning, regardless of how uneducated (ok, stupid) the general public was (wasn't it something like 44% of the American public that thought Iraq flew the planes into the WTC at the time of the start of the invasion?!?). Tens of thousands (by the war hawks' count) or hundreds of thousands (by other orgs) of civilian deaths later, and what is it now? ~3000 American troops deaths' later, we are no closer to stability than when we invaded. Even the conservative right is backing away from GWB like he has leprosy now.

So your statement quoted above is really not valid. It did go badly, and politically, the GOP knows it will likely end up paying the price. War, politics, religion and money go hand in hand, and they always have, at least in the history of Western Civilization. If anyone has a problem with that longtime marriage of war and politics, then, well, maybe we should try avoiding war instead of rushing in headlong at the bidding of the Bush/OPEC/Military Industrial Complex dynasty next time, and we can base our politics on something a little more humane and less "treasonous," as you put it.

I'm not a Democrat, btw, but am DEFINITELY non-Republican now. I didn't care if the candidates I just voted for believed in building walls to keep our ships from falling off the edges of our flat earth... if they were Democrat, they got my vote.

All of politics makes me pretty sick, esp. around election time, but I am actually hoping the GOP takes a major drubbing and maybe (yeah, wishful thinking) remembers the price of war in their own little bubble(s)... as meaningless as that price is when compared to human lives lost, for no actual reason other than money.

 

[S-Mart]

The policy of appeasement in the war on terrorism advocated by the left-wing that dominates the DNC is not necessarily unpatriotic, but it is wrong. I do think it is unpatriotic, and perhaps treasonous, to put politics before the the safety of the Nation, and the NYT did do that. Those who wish the fight in Iraq goes badly so that Democrats can win elections, are unpatriotic.

Those who wish the fight in Iraq goes well also wish the suppression and death of the Iraqi people. It may be patriotic, but it's inhumane. Either way, we lose.

I think the rebuilding of Japan after WWII set an unrealistic goal of nation building. I just wish the government (Yes, both parties) put a little more time into understanding the cultural ramifications as opposed to the number-crunching military statistics. It's too bad Ruth Benedict wasn't here to lend us a hand.

 

[tncekm]

I'm curious:
How many people that now dominate this forum, think our nation is worth defending?

Hmm...its prime land and I'd say about 60% of the citizens are worth it 😀

 

[VolatileNavyDoc]

I'm a veteran....Chinese linguist in the Army...and I'll tell you...95% of the military are idiots, *****s, dumb asses, and plain ol' poorly educated boneheads.

Sure there are exceptions. Sure there are some smart people. But by and large this is not what the military is all about. In fact, it better suits the needs of the military to enlist the less educated, because the last thing the military needs are people who think for themself!

I actually feel like I became dumber just by associating with the military. Honestly, I've never been around a group of less sophisticated, more blatantly ignorant, and all around stupid people in my life.

And whoever thinks that being in the military is the equivalent of "defending your country" or "promoting freedom" is really drunk on propaganda. Perhaps there was a time when serving in the military meant these things, but now it is nothing but a political machine used only for control of coveted world resources.

Our way of life is not under attack, even during 9/11. Defending freedom??? Jesus, you people are pathetic. If only it were really that noble. The **** we have done and continue to do to other countries...it's like our leaders were begging for 9/11 to happen. I've got news for you all.....the people who control our country, and our military, are not the guys in the white hats. They are not the good guys. They would sell each and every one of us out in a heartbeat for a penny higher return on their oil stocks.

The honor in the military is only a facade, a mirage, some romantic idea that actually never existed. We like to pat ourselves on the back for WW II, but we would have let every Jewish person on earth perish in a concentration camp if it hadn't been for the fact that our leaders saw we might make a quick buck off of getting involved. So we ALLOWED Pearl Harbor to happen. Open your eyes all you sheep. It will always be this way.

Kerry was right to begin with...it was not a botched joke. It is pretty much a fact. The military is a place for stupid people, misfits, bullies, and social rejects to find a job and a group they can fit in with.

Sorry, but as a veteran I have the right to my opinion...and I have the right to disrespect everything the miltary REALLY stands for. I was one who they couldn't brainwash.

Ahhhh.. Memories of DLI. Where all the guys who are "smarter" than the grunts go to console themselves about the fact that they couldn't make it past that 2nd year of college but scored a 140 on the DLAB so they can now learn Arabic or Chinese or Hebrew and sit in a SCIF and take notes.

I too can speak from experience. I was an Arabic linguist for 5 years and now work with the less sophisticated side of the military. I choose the infantry hands down any day of the week. True, the guys are often not the most educated, but it's really not fair to call them stupid people, bullies, and social rejects. I would agree that from your perspective as a linguist you probably did run into a lot of misfits and social rejects. However, if you saw the cunning, ingenuity, and daily heroism of these guys in REALLY bad places (not WBAMC or NMCSD or Ft Meade), where they have been placed by often under informed leadership, I think you may better appreciate their strengths.

Sure, lots of guys wish they would have studied more, but so do I, and so do a lot of guys in washed up desk jobs with bachelor degrees. I find it extremely narrow minded to think that your experience in the military is the same as everyone else's.

OK, I bit on the troll....

A group of doctors, all of whom have presumably rotated through an ED can't possibly think that you end up in Iraq if you don't go to college... You obviously end up in a Level 1 trauma center waiting 8 hours to get treated for a cold (and then miss your "weekly" appointment b/c you're out taking a smoke break from the waiting room.) Or if you really can't find a good job when you get out of college you just go to med school where you're almost guaranteed 6 figures after you get out.

Personally, I'm a Libertarian, so I think that most of America is completely off base. However, I do agree that it is in bad taste to hope the war goes badly simply for political gain. Admittedly, there is a hint of self preservation in that sentiment.

 

[DogFaceMedic]

I was thinking the other day -- it happens occasionally -- and I realized why I have such an instinctual suspicion of people who think they are smart. An infantryman will watch your back; a self-described intellectual will rationalize why he can't. I trust American infantry over the intelligentsia.

 

[8744]

I was thinking the other day -- it happens occasionally -- and I realized why I have such an instinctual suspicion of people who think they are smart. An infantryman will watch your back; a self-described intellectual will rationalize why he can't. I trust American infantry over the intelligentsia.

****ing-A, bubba. The guys in my platoon were some of the best guys you could ever hope to meet. I don't miss much about the Marines but I haven't met too many people who even come close to the kind of guys who are run-of-the-mill in an infantry platoon. Those guys were quality. Smart, brave, and they wouldn't **** over their buddies for a million bucks.

I'm glad I'm not as smart as many of you on this forum. It seems that a requirement to be an intellectual is to have your head up your ass.

 

[Croooz]

So then the infantryman is not intelligent which validates Kerry's joke. If an infantryman decides not to watch your back it's because he's intelligent and therefore not to be trusted. So dumber the better. Now GW makes perfect sense.....however he was a pilot so..... I'm confused maybe I'm loyal or just bored.

I was thinking the other day -- it happens occasionally -- and I realized why I have such an instinctual suspicion of people who think they are smart. An infantryman will watch your back; a self-described intellectual will rationalize why he can't. I trust American infantry over the intelligentsia.

 

[MedSchoolFool]

Ahhhh.. Memories of DLI. Where all the guys who are "smarter" than the grunts go to console themselves about the fact that they couldn't make it past that 2nd year of college but scored a 140 on the DLAB so they can now learn Arabic or Chinese or Hebrew and sit in a SCIF and take notes.

I too can speak from experience. I was an Arabic linguist for 5 years and now work with the less sophisticated side of the military. I choose the infantry hands down any day of the week. True, the guys are often not the most educated, but it's really not fair to call them stupid people, bullies, and social rejects. I would agree that from your perspective as a linguist you probably did run into a lot of misfits and social rejects. However, if you saw the cunning, ingenuity, and daily heroism of these guys in REALLY bad places (not WBAMC or NMCSD or Ft Meade), where they have been placed by often under informed leadership, I think you may better appreciate their strengths.

Sure, lots of guys wish they would have studied more, but so do I, and so do a lot of guys in washed up desk jobs with bachelor degrees. I find it extremely narrow minded to think that your experience in the military is the same as everyone else's.

OK, I bit on the troll....

A group of doctors, all of whom have presumably rotated through an ED can't possibly think that you end up in Iraq if you don't go to college... You obviously end up in a Level 1 trauma center waiting 8 hours to get treated for a cold (and then miss your "weekly" appointment b/c you're out taking a smoke break from the waiting room.) Or if you really can't find a good job when you get out of college you just go to med school where you're almost guaranteed 6 figures after you get out.

Personally, I'm a Libertarian, so I think that most of America is completely off base. However, I do agree that it is in bad taste to hope the war goes badly simply for political gain. Admittedly, there is a hint of self preservation in that sentiment.

I say again.....I was one whom they could not brainwash. I never said that my experience or POV is the universal POV...so your comment about narrow mindedness is off point. However, I did say in a later post that the characteristic which lends most to the overall stupidity of the military is the extreme narrow mindedness of its people.

You really don't have to get personal. I am speaking about the military in general. People like you who attack the speaker rather than the position are the real trolls on SDN.

And by the way, when I say the military folks are stupid...I include with a passion those "top 10%" at DLI. Being the top 10% of the military is like being in the winner's circle at the Special Olympics.

I'm sure there is cunning and ingenuity out on the battlefield, but these things can be found in an ant colony or a bee hive as well. We are all programmed to survive, we find a way to keep going. Please don't be so cavalier as to suggest that everyone who fights in battle truly displays heroism. Heroism happens when you have a choice. Those people in the military don't have a real choice, because they are beaten down until they stop choosing for themselves...they let the CO or platoon Sergeant or whoever has more stripes than them make the choices for them. They are not necessarily heroes. They are just following orders. Much like the insects do. This is why the military caters to the less educated crowd. They need their insects.

Anyway...the whole grunts vs. intelligentsia argument is only a straw man. The topic was never who would be better to have by your side in a battle or who would have your back. The topic is the brain deficit inherent to the military. Say what you want about the "nation's finest" or the "boys and girls overseas" or whichever applie-pie, virtue-laden descriptor you wish. But just don't act like we're dealing with genius when it comes to the majority of miltary people.

 

[Ex-44E3A]

Proves the age-old wisdom that's been validated by studies going back to WWII.

Unit cohesion is the key. Patriotism and ideals are not unimportant... but when the bullets start flying, soldiers don't fight for a flag, or an idea, or a political position... they fight for their buddies. They fight for the man next to them.

Here's a study on the subject, from 2003.

 

[VolatileNavyDoc]

I say again.....I was one whom they could not brainwash. I never said that my experience or POV is the universal POV...so your comment about narrow mindedness is off point. However, I did say in a later post that the characteristic which lends most to the overall stupidity of the military is the extreme narrow mindedness of its people.

You really don't have to get personal. I am speaking about the military in general. People like you who attack the speaker rather than the position are the real trolls on SDN.

I really wasn't trying to get personal. The narrow mindedness comment was aimed at the general tone of the thread. Admittedly, I didn't read all of the thread (it's 30 mins then the next guy gets the internet line). I guess the point is that I think intelligence in and of itself is often overrated. I have met lots of people at DLI and in med school (I think the average DLI student is much more intelligent than the average college student) who literally couldn't balance their checkbook. They could be great at breaking some obscure code or play a hell of a game of chess, but they had no concept of how to apply their intelligence. But the "intelligent" ones somehow get this idea that their capabilities are superior to the plumber with dyslexia and a mid range IQ who is making $150,000 / yr and managing a thriving business. I mean it's great that you can synthesize some obscure molecule out of pine tar and rat turds, but if you can't take your head out of your rear long enough to remember where you put the flask, then it really does nobody any good. I would propose that the infantry guys with whom I work are often smarter, if not more educated, than the people with whom I went to college. Education really only makes you more educated, it doesn't make you smarter or more useful or better than the ones without the education. A high IQ is a nice benefit, but if you never learn how to operate in the real world, you really aren't contributing very effectively to your society.

I don't suggest that everyone who fights in a battle is a hero, but some are. If you haven't seen it, then good for you, but it happens every day.

I don't think that I am dealing with genius. There are few times I thought I was dealing with genius, even with my "elite" educational background (MedicalCorpse may be one or else he has a lot of time to spend on the internet... I mean learning Chinese from a book and tapes???.) Most of the times I have, I have felt sorry for the person, b/c they usually had no direction, were never happy with the world or their life, and were generally miserable.

The other point is that there are a lot of people who have a certain perspective on the military (medicine, linguist community, pilot, infantry, etc...) who claim to speak authoritatively about the entire military. Example: I can authoritatively say that being a GMO with an infantry unit affords you no special treatment or security because of your education and background. I can't authoritatively say that a pilot who won't fly at 8000 ft at night in the mountains to pick up a wounded soldier is an undertrained, undereducated, unintelligent ninny who doesn't know his a** from a hole in the ground. Well, I can say it, but it really doesn't mean anything b/c I've never been with the air wing, I'm not a pilot, and I don't even like to get in those rotorwashing, hovering, teetering contraptions if I can help it. But some people will take it as an authoritative remark because I'm in the military, and I've been in combat where stuff like this happens. I just remember those days at DLI where the "top 10%" thought that they had a bead on the entire military from their hilltop campus in paradise.

Often, I think that we, as the most intelligent and academically functional segment of society, are brainwashed to think that we are somehow better than everyone else out there. More brainwashed even than the military. Especially people of my generation who took those stupid IQ tests when we were 7 years old that said we were "gifted" or "genius" or whatever category you fell into. Now we somehow have a better ability to analyze right from wrong and to solve morally and ethically complex situations. All we can really do is use big words to describe the same situation that an infantryman can describe in a much more succinct and effective manner. If you just listen.

 

[siinew]

Being the top 10% of the military is like being in the winner's circle at the Special Olympics.

LMAO. Well said.

 

[siinew]

I really wasn't trying to get personal. The narrow mindedness comment was aimed at the general tone of the thread. Admittedly, I didn't read all of the thread (it's 30 mins then the next guy gets the internet line). I guess the point is that I think intelligence in and of itself is often overrated. I have met lots of people at DLI and in med school (I think the average DLI student is much more intelligent than the average college student) who literally couldn't balance their checkbook. They could be great at breaking some obscure code or play a hell of a game of chess, but they had no concept of how to apply their intelligence. But the "intelligent" ones somehow get this idea that their capabilities are superior to the plumber with dyslexia and a mid range IQ who is making $150,000 / yr and managing a thriving business. I mean it's great that you can synthesize some obscure molecule out of pine tar and rat turds, but if you can't take your head out of your rear long enough to remember where you put the flask, then it really does nobody any good. I would propose that the infantry guys with whom I work are often smarter, if not more educated, than the people with whom I went to college. Education really only makes you more educated, it doesn't make you smarter or more useful or better than the ones without the education. A high IQ is a nice benefit, but if you never learn how to operate in the real world, you really aren't contributing very effectively to your society.

I don't suggest that everyone who fights in a battle is a hero, but some are. If you haven't seen it, then good for you, but it happens every day.

I don't think that I am dealing with genius. There are few times I thought I was dealing with genius, even with my "elite" educational background (MedicalCorpse may be one or else he has a lot of time to spend on the internet... I mean learning Chinese from a book and tapes???.) Most of the times I have, I have felt sorry for the person, b/c they usually had no direction, were never happy with the world or their life, and were generally miserable.

The other point is that there are a lot of people who have a certain perspective on the military (medicine, linguist community, pilot, infantry, etc...) who claim to speak authoritatively about the entire military. Example: I can authoritatively say that being a GMO with an infantry unit affords you no special treatment or security because of your education and background. I can't authoritatively say that a pilot who won't fly at 8000 ft at night in the mountains to pick up a wounded soldier is an undertrained, undereducated, unintelligent ninny who doesn't know his a** from a hole in the ground. Well, I can say it, but it really doesn't mean anything b/c I've never been with the air wing, I'm not a pilot, and I don't even like to get in those rotorwashing, hovering, teetering contraptions if I can help it. But some people will take it as an authoritative remark because I'm in the military, and I've been in combat where stuff like this happens. I just remember those days at DLI where the "top 10%" thought that they had a bead on the entire military from their hilltop campus in paradise.

Often, I think that we, as the most intelligent and academically functional segment of society, are brainwashed to think that we are somehow better than everyone else out there. More brainwashed even than the military. Especially people of my generation who took those stupid IQ tests when we were 7 years old that said we were "gifted" or "genius" or whatever category you fell into. Now we somehow have a better ability to analyze right from wrong and to solve morally and ethically complex situations. All we can really do is use big words to describe the same situation that an infantryman can describe in a much more succinct and effective manner. If you just listen.

I hear your point... and the other side's as well. Just to give personal perspective, I was a DLI guy too (interrogator - 96C back then, but the MOS changed to 97E while I was still in), and an interpreter/translator/ liaison/half-assed spy back on what used to be the East/West German border. Then I was at the opposite end of the spectrum... ground troop... namely Special Forces Medic. In between I went to college as a civilian. And yeah, I think I scored the highest score on the DLAB I've seen yet... 156? 154? something like that. Big f*cking deal. I just happen to like languages is all and was studying Latin, Russian and Spanish in HS at probably a college level (have a degree in linguistics) back then.

Anyway, I would never insult the intelligence of infantry, artillery, tankers (well, ok, maybe tankers just a little), cavalry, or any other number of "ground pounders" (even if they are "legs" 🙂 j/k)... not in a million years. I met some of the best people I have ever met in my life in that group.

But I just really wanted to say, hopefully with some validity given my past(?) that I don't think anyone here or Kerry was actually insulting the troops intelligence. At least that's not how I read it. I think he is pointing out a socio-economic fact. This fact is that the Army (all I can really speak for) is filled with guys/kids out of HS who went in to make something better for themselves because they didn't really have the means (or desire) to go the standard HS to College route. In many cases, it is the means. It's a good way for someone coming from a poor background, to pull themselves up. It paid for my college and gave me tons of amazing experience and education (I think the Army schools I went to were the best education I've had anywhere).

However, it also means that in the Michael Moore sense, it is a also true that the lower socioeconomic classes (with a larger percentage of minorities) is out there putting their lives on the line for decisions made by and for the higher socioeconomic classes. Is this necessarily different than it has ever been in the past 2k years? Probably not, but that doesn't make it right, and Kerry just pointed that fact out by saying "if you don't have an education you end up over here." Or if you take it the other way (because you and I know Kerry wasn't calling the troops stupid, but he wouldn't hesitate to call GWB stupid, and who would?) "If you are ******* redneck who claims TX as his home, even though he is not Texan, you can land up to your ass in Iraq, politically speaking"

Longwinded post, sorry, just thought I'd chime in.

 

[VolatileNavyDoc]

[/QUOTE] But I just really wanted to say, hopefully with some validity given my past(?) that I don't think anyone here or Kerry was actually insulting the troops intelligence. At least that's not how I read it. I think he is pointing out a socio-economic fact. This fact is that the Army (all I can really speak for) is filled with guys/kids out of HS who went in to make something better for themselves because they didn't really have the means (or desire) to go the standard HS to College route. In many cases, it is the means. It's a good way for someone coming from a poor background, to pull themselves up. It paid for my college and gave me tons of amazing experience and education (I think the Army schools I went to were the best education I've had anywhere).

However, it also means that in the Michael Moore sense, it is a also true that the lower socioeconomic classes (with a larger percentage of minorities) is out there putting their lives on the line for decisions made by and for the higher socioeconomic classes. Is this necessarily different than it has ever been in the past 2k years? Probably not, but that doesn't make it right, and Kerry just pointed that fact out by saying "if you don't have an education you end up over here." Or if you take it the other way (because you and I know Kerry wasn't calling the troops stupid, but he wouldn't hesitate to call GWB stupid, and who would?) "If you are ******* redneck who claims TX as his home, even though he is not Texan, you can land up to your ass in Iraq, politically speaking"

Longwinded post, sorry, just thought I'd chime in.[/QUOTE]

True. I haven't had the benefit of hearing all of the political commentary on the statement, but I can't imagine he meant to say it that way. The bad thing is that people here are trying to justify that it was a valid statement. Nobody ends up in Iraq because you don't study. Probably a lot of the folks who enlisted weren't stellar students, but that doesn't mean that all poor students end up in Iraq. That train of thought just doesn't make sense. There is nobody there to take you away in irons if you don't pass high school calculus. Furthermore, I think even the most ignorant 17 year old kid knows if they join the military right now they are going to Iraq/Afghanistan/Ft Campbell (don't know which is worse). It would take a pretty clever recruiter (oxymoron? maybe) to convince someone they are going to join the infantry and get stationed in Garmisch guarding a ski resort.

 

[VolatileNavyDoc]

But I just really wanted to say, hopefully with some validity given my past(?) that I don't think anyone here or Kerry was actually insulting the troops intelligence. At least that's not how I read it. I think he is pointing out a socio-economic fact. This fact is that the Army (all I can really speak for) is filled with guys/kids out of HS who went in to make something better for themselves because they didn't really have the means (or desire) to go the standard HS to College route. In many cases, it is the means. It's a good way for someone coming from a poor background, to pull themselves up. It paid for my college and gave me tons of amazing experience and education (I think the Army schools I went to were the best education I've had anywhere).

However, it also means that in the Michael Moore sense, it is a also true that the lower socioeconomic classes (with a larger percentage of minorities) is out there putting their lives on the line for decisions made by and for the higher socioeconomic classes. Is this necessarily different than it has ever been in the past 2k years? Probably not, but that doesn't make it right, and Kerry just pointed that fact out by saying "if you don't have an education you end up over here." Or if you take it the other way (because you and I know Kerry wasn't calling the troops stupid, but he wouldn't hesitate to call GWB stupid, and who would?) "If you are ******* redneck who claims TX as his home, even though he is not Texan, you can land up to your ass in Iraq, politically speaking"

Longwinded post, sorry, just thought I'd chime in.

True. I haven't had the benefit of hearing all of the political commentary on the statement, but I can't imagine he meant to say it that way. The bad thing is that people here are trying to justify that it was a valid statement. Nobody ends up in Iraq because you don't study. Probably a lot of the folks who enlisted weren't stellar students, but that doesn't mean that all poor students end up in Iraq. That train of thought just doesn't make sense. There is nobody there to take you away in irons if you don't pass high school calculus. Furthermore, I think even the most ignorant 17 year old kid knows if they join the military right now they are going to Iraq/Afghanistan/Ft Campbell (don't know which is worse). It would take a pretty clever recruiter (oxymoron? maybe) to convince someone they are going to join the infantry and get stationed in Garmisch guarding a ski resort.

 

[S-Mart]

It would take a pretty clever recruiter (oxymoron? maybe) to convince someone they are going to join the infantry and get stationed in Garmisch guarding a ski resort.

I don't think the recruiter has to be clever. He just has to be able to tap into the person's preconceived military fantasy. I think we all pretty much recruit ourselves. I know I did.

 

[DogFaceMedic]

To be clear: I did not say the infantry were less intelligent, or that the intellectual elitists are more intelligent. I said the intellectuals "think" they are more intelligent; they are not more intelligent, only more privileged. The infantry has many of the smartest and bravest Americans who do a lot more for than country than expect to be pampered and put into positions of leadership or prestige.

My barber is a very nice lady, not very political, from a poor socio-economic background, an even poorer education, and an honest soul willing to believe almost anything she is told. She brought up the Kerry issue. Her comment was you don't say that, unless you believe it. He is not qualified to be an American leader -- maybe a French one.

As for the linguists: MOnterey is a nice place, with a lot of smart kids. Often their experiences with DoD is being mismanaged by the intelligence community, which undertandably negatively influences their views. SOCOM tends to use linguists much better.

 

[MDDOWhatever]

My barber is a very nice lady, not very political, from a poor socio-economic background, an even poorer education, and an honest soul willing to believe almost anything she is told. She brought up the Kerry issue. Her comment was you don't say that, unless you believe it. He is not qualified to be an American leader -- maybe a French one.

Interesting, yet we always make fun of the French for running from wars that they might have to fight in themselves.... now which leader, between Kerry and GWB, does that sound like more? hmmm.... let me think, that's a real tough one.

Your barber sounds like the tailor-made candidate for the ideal 2004 election Karl Rove target. I remember the administration was in desparate need of poor socio-economic people who were gullible enough to believe anything. I guess they were running out of gullible people from the christian right, which seems strange. I thought the supply of gullible people was never-ending from that source. Sort of like endless wine (or is it "whine"?) from water.

 

[DogFaceMedic]

I think my point was just unknowingly reinforced.
I trust the wisdom of Americans, regardless of education level. My barber is wise, just not well-educated, and can be fooled some of the time, as Lincoln observed. But, to suggest the poor and the Christian right are gullible is to believe these people have no substance and deserve their place in life. I think such views come inpart from a lack of respect for other citizens - i.e., elitist.
Perhaps some people might benefit from learning why the poor or Christians think the way they do, respect their opinions, and refrain from the dehumanizing generalizations made by elitists about people they do not understand.

 

[siinew]

...and an honest soul willing to believe almost anything she is told.

First quote

...to suggest the poor and the Christian right are gullible is to believe these people have no substance and deserve their place in life. I think such views come inpart from a lack of respect for other citizens - i.e., elitist.

Second quote...

I guess I don't follow this either. It kind of sounds to me on the one hand like you defined her as believing almost anything she is told, then when someone called her gullible, you jumped on him/her for saying the same thing you just said... but using one word for it instead of several.

 

[ExNavyRad]

I remember the administration was in desparate need of poor socio-economic people who were gullible enough to believe anything. I guess they were running out of gullible people from the christian right, which seems strange. I thought the supply of gullible people was never-ending from that source. Sort of like endless wine (or is it "whine"?) from water.

[whisper]Pssst, dude, your bigotry is showing...[/whisper]

 

[DogFaceMedic]

First quote



Second quote...

I guess I don't follow this either. It kind of sounds to me on the one hand like you defined her as believing almost anything she is told, then when someone called her gullible, you jumped on him/her for saying the same thing you just said... but using one word for it instead of several.

OK that was not all that clear, but I was in a rush: I was ineloquently trying to make Loncoln's point that some of the people are fooled all of the time, all some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. The message is to trust the democratic process over time.
I did not complete the thought: She like most of us, is willing to trust what people tell us. But, after awhile the scales fall from our eyes. She was disillusioned by Kerry's comments and thinks his rationalizations later were dishonest. I always know not to trust Kerry.
As for the Christian Right: the Left have this irrational fear of this grand coalition of televangelists and millions of followers taking over the world, along with a small genetically altered mouse. The Left that dominates academia are imagining enemies. And, they do not understand or trust people of faith.

 

[MDDOWhatever]

As for the Christian Right: the Left have this irrational fear of this grand coalition of televangelists and millions of followers taking over the world, along with a small genetically altered mouse. The Left that dominates academia are imagining enemies. And, they do not understand or trust people of faith.

I apologize, ExNavyRad's right, that was a pretty bigoted statement. I think I do very much understand people of faith though. I grew up in an extremely christian household and experienced firsthand the damage it did to all of us. One of us was unfortunate enough to carry the tradition on with his family and his (and only his, what a surprise) life is a train wreck...kids that ran away from home and much, much worse. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars were poured into churches and private christian schools by him, and..and..and. Not to belabour my own background, but hopefully it clarifies that I'm not just saying this off the cuff, but rather from a set of childhood, adolescent and young adult experiences that greatly mirror others who are similarly, politically inclined.

Just to clarify though. I have absolutely no irrational fear of any coalition of the christian right (or any fundamentalist religion, since they are all pretty much the same in effect) taking over the world. However, I do have a problem with those who don't understand the wisdom behind our founding fathers' separation church and state in this country (and learn from the mistakes of western civilization's past... most of which were religious in origin, I might add), and those who take claims beyond "I believe" to "you better believe, too, 'cause it's the 'Truth.'"

We all have the right to religious belief... and what a wonderful privilege of our nation that we do. I am not religious, but I have my own set of spiritual beliefs, without which I wouldn't have a need to continue living on this planet. So I apologize for making that rude comment about water from whine. That was uncalled for, and I do understand the need and reality of "faith."

Hopefully I'm clarifying here what it was I was saying in regards to the blind dogma in your barber's statement about Kerry. I kind of made the assumption that she was (as you were) asserting a reason to believe in the existing administration rather than someone from the left-of-center side. So making that assumption, I was basically trying to say that she has any self-honesty whatsoever and applies the same standard of truth and lies to the countless lies that have led us to the war we are currently in, she would be running to Kerry with open arms.

Kerry's statement wasn't even a molehill, yet it's one of the few things that could be grasped onto during the mudslinging (on both sides) of election time, so it was clutched and held onto like the folks from the Titanic held onto bales of hay in the water as they sank. Pretty silly. There are a lot of things a person can say that are messed up about the Democratic party... and a lot of well-founded criticisms of Kerry. However (to finally bring this back on subject), this "joke" of his really doesn't rank up there as fodder for criticism beyond maybe the level of a statement like, maybe, "John Kerry doesn't get out of the shower to pee!!"

 

[DogFaceMedic]

A bit long.
The consensus on this forum seems to be that Kerry was basically right that the enlisted have few choices in life, and wouldn't join if they had the chance.
That leads me back to my basic premise: Kerry and his supporters would never enlist - they would join only if they are treated special - thus they do not think the United States as consituted is worth defending that much. They go along as long as it is in their interest. It's a Hobbesian/Lockean perspective of democracy and a reason extremists in the world, whether Nazis, Commies, or Al Qaeda, think the US is morally corrupt and a paper tiger.
Again, why I like infantrymen over self-professed intellectuals.

 

[siinew]

A bit long.
The consensus on this forum seems to be that Kerry was basically right that the enlisted have few choices in life, and wouldn't join if they had the chance.
That leads me back to my basic premise: Kerry and his supporters would never enlist - they would join only if they are treated special - thus they do not think the United States as consituted is worth defending that much. They go along as long as it is in their interest. It's a Hobbesian/Lockean perspective of democracy and a reason extremists in the world, whether Nazis, Commies, or Al Qaeda, think the US is morally corrupt and a paper tiger.
Again, why I like infantrymen over self-professed intellectuals.

Man, you either took too much medication or not enough. WTF are you talking about? Do you have any idea how many people who are enlisted in the military that voted for Kerry (hence "Kerry supporters")? Here's a rough guess... more than zero, so I guess that kind of shoots your "theory" (that is, if a rambling hallucination can be called a "theory"). I'm a Kerry supporter with over 10 years in as an enlisted man... definitely no privileges here. Are you, btw, saying that service as an officer doesn't count? If you are saying something that ridiculous, then how about infantry officers? Or are they too "intellectual?"

Now... should we look at the other side of the fence? Are you saying that GWB hiding in the national guard under daddy's care to escape Vietnam was then NOT being treated special? Or the other mile-long list of reasons that everyone from Cheney to Rush Limbaugh were able to present as excuses not to have to go to Vietnam maybe isn't special treatment? Excuse me, but I think there are a hell of a lot more politicians who would be aligned with Kerry's viewpoints (to include McCain, even) who actually SERVED at ALL! Let alone during times of war.

My vote at first was that you change your login name to "DogBrainedMedic." But never mind. I love dogs and that would be insulting to their reasoning ability. Besides, I am assuming you made the name because you are/were a medic in the Marne Division (3rd ID). I used to be in that division too, and in fact had to sing the "Dog Faced Soldier" song for my E-5 board. As jacked up as that division was, at least at that time, it's probably fitting that you have that login.

 

[MDDOWhatever]

A bit long.

My bad. I should have just said: "STFU" as a reply, instead of trying to be polite to you.

I'd have to say, I think siinew's description of your basic premise about Kerry supporters as a "rambling hallucination" is directly on target. Fire for effect.