It was with considerable amusement that I read today a report from the Boston Globe that John Kerry (yes that one) is in fact really, really stupid
( Read more... )
OK, well first off, the official record states that Kerry's average was a 76 and Bush's was a 77. That gives Bush a higher number. Now, granted, in Bush's final year, they did not use the percentage grading system so it isn't a pure equivalency, but given that Bush did not get any D's in that time frame, it is unlikely that he actually did get much of a lower grade in that final year. The Boston Globe and the official record plain and simple go along with what I have.
Second, the thing that always seems absurd to me about the claim that Bush only got into Harvard because of his father is the fact that his father was a conservative Republican and member of the military/intelligence establishment. At Harvard in the 1970s, conservatives were probably even more hated there than they are today, so I doubt that this put Bush in a favorable light from that perspective. Moreover, if Kerry was deemed worthy to be in Skull and Bones for whatever reason, presumably this should show that he had access to the same ultra-elite New England connections and the best he could muster was a mediocre local law school, from which he did not graduate with honors.
About nuance, Kerry isn't nuanced. He's illogical. His incomprehensible speeches reflect a fundamental ability to take responsibility for his own ideas, which not only reflects a reckless deficiency in a leader, but also reflects somebody lacking tremendous mental capacity. Honestly, look back at Kerry's campaign stump speeches and particularly on-the-spot interviews, and note how rarely he actually states something firmly or even coherently. You may quibble with Bush's diction, but at least he has a message. In stark contrast, Bush has identified freedom as the central motivating factor in his foreign policy, which displays that he at least has the intelligence to know why he's doing what he's doing. Nuance is frankly overrated given the stakes that the American president deals with. Consider this fact, on the order of one-ten thousandth of one percent of the American population died on September 11th. That might seem to be a "nuance" in other things, but when it comes to Bush's job, I want a man who would rather not compromise until that number becomes zero in the future.
Finally, tell the thousands of Iraqis freed from Saddam's torture cells that the war was stupid. Tell that to the families of the hundreds of thousands or millions killed by Saddam. Tell that to the Iraqi men AND women who lined up and voted for a democracy. Tell that to a people that was tyrannized by an evil man with the full support of the UN and France with the Oil For Food scandal. Finally, tell that to the majority of Iraqis as identified by scientific Gallup polling who said that the ouster of Saddam was worth any hardship and see if you can still possibly claim to be in favor of a policy that helps people.
More Americans have died fighting in the Iraqi war than on September 11th. Several times over. Tell the mother of the kid who signed up for the military because he didn't have any other options that he died for a just cause. Furthermore, tell that to the mother of a solider killed by friendly fire. Americans are dying in Iraq that don't have to be, and if the President so concerned with American life and well being, as he has made clear on numerous occasions, than that should be his first prioroty.
Furthermore, even more Iraqi civilians than Americans have died in the war, incinerated by bombs, caught in crossfire.
And tell the prisoners abused by American soliders, who tortured them naked, and now it has come out, misued the Koran, that America has their well-being at heart. In order to match the "with-us-or-against us/kill the terrorist" rhetoric with the ideals of liberty and compassion that the US stands for there needs to be nuance. This absence of nuance opens the door for gross indecencies like the prisoner abuse.
First of all, you might want to check where you get your facts from because a simple Google search for me found that September 11th deaths were 2792 whereas American deaths in Iraq are 1848. So actually, September 11th resulted in 1.5 times as many fatalities, so you aren't even close unless an additional 900 deaths occurred since May 31, which have not.
More importantly, though, the numbers don't matter and that was my point. My analogy was that the American deaths of 9/11 were a statistically small number that might be viewed in other contexts as nuance-level, and John Kerry and the Democrats might view a policy of gradual compromises that feed the power of terrorists as acceptable, although they would ultimately lead to death and suffering.
Furthermore, the brave American men and women who have died in Iraq all volunteered to serve in some capacity. I don't think it equates with some blue state voters how solemnly many Americans revere their country. I read an interesting credo by a killed US soldier from what he wrote in high school in the WSJ recently, and while I'm sure he wouldn't be happy to know he died, I think he would be proud of the service he gave. The fact of the matter is that our brave soldiers are fighting for a just cause: FREEDOM. If that doesn't strike you as just, then I can only assume that you don't believe in justice, and at that point you might as well just give up on life.
Moreover, think of the lives that are saved by eliminating an abominable man who saw fit to kill millions, and certainly would have killed Americans had he had the chance. If you want to live in a Michael Moore fantasy world where you think that Saddam was an alright guy, then you'll only be able to do that with the help of hallucinogens and a nice, liberal Berkeley, CA environment.
As for Iraqi citizens, their deaths are unfortunate, but many of the deaths are soldiers who served Saddam. Furthermore, no suggested number (and certainly none of the plausible ones) comes anywhere close to the number of murders Saddam committed in say a decade span. In other words, in the long run, Iraqi lives are being saved and Iraqis have a right now to actually live because now they are free.
Finally, I don't care in the least about the evil scum that are in our prisons. They should count themselves lucky to be alive in the first place, and some of the "torture" that they suffered is no worse than hazing that takes place on high school sports teams at some schools in the US. More importantly, the actions of a few morons in American service don't discount the actions of the whole policy. The policy resulted in the advance of freedom and morality, and let us not forget that these idiot soldiers are going to jail. In other words, whereas Saddam ordered torture so gruesome it is unimaginable to westerners, we lock up for a long time people who commit even the most minor violations of these murderers' rights. It makes sense to kill people who want to kill you, but we frequently give them the chance to relax in safety at the expense of the American taxpayer. Now, that is compassion to the extreme. Just to repeat the important point, we punish people who do bad things. The bad guys encourage that kind of behavior. That's the difference.
A policy based on "nuance" (which as the original point indicates John Kerry might have trouble defining) would dilute liberty and compassion and everything else that is right. You either feel free or you do not. America either helps people or it doesn't. The world either gets better or it gets worse (with the chance of remaining static being virtually negligible). In that light, more people are now free than before the war. More people no longer fear the wrath of a maniac. Because of that, the world and the United States are now without a doubt better places, and that's almost exclusively because of the wisdom of George W. Bush to see the power of the simple beauty of freedom.
Second, the thing that always seems absurd to me about the claim that Bush only got into Harvard because of his father is the fact that his father was a conservative Republican and member of the military/intelligence establishment. At Harvard in the 1970s, conservatives were probably even more hated there than they are today, so I doubt that this put Bush in a favorable light from that perspective. Moreover, if Kerry was deemed worthy to be in Skull and Bones for whatever reason, presumably this should show that he had access to the same ultra-elite New England connections and the best he could muster was a mediocre local law school, from which he did not graduate with honors.
About nuance, Kerry isn't nuanced. He's illogical. His incomprehensible speeches reflect a fundamental ability to take responsibility for his own ideas, which not only reflects a reckless deficiency in a leader, but also reflects somebody lacking tremendous mental capacity. Honestly, look back at Kerry's campaign stump speeches and particularly on-the-spot interviews, and note how rarely he actually states something firmly or even coherently. You may quibble with Bush's diction, but at least he has a message. In stark contrast, Bush has identified freedom as the central motivating factor in his foreign policy, which displays that he at least has the intelligence to know why he's doing what he's doing. Nuance is frankly overrated given the stakes that the American president deals with. Consider this fact, on the order of one-ten thousandth of one percent of the American population died on September 11th. That might seem to be a "nuance" in other things, but when it comes to Bush's job, I want a man who would rather not compromise until that number becomes zero in the future.
Finally, tell the thousands of Iraqis freed from Saddam's torture cells that the war was stupid. Tell that to the families of the hundreds of thousands or millions killed by Saddam. Tell that to the Iraqi men AND women who lined up and voted for a democracy. Tell that to a people that was tyrannized by an evil man with the full support of the UN and France with the Oil For Food scandal. Finally, tell that to the majority of Iraqis as identified by scientific Gallup polling who said that the ouster of Saddam was worth any hardship and see if you can still possibly claim to be in favor of a policy that helps people.
Reply
Furthermore, even more Iraqi civilians than Americans have died in the war, incinerated by bombs, caught in crossfire.
And tell the prisoners abused by American soliders, who tortured them naked, and now it has come out, misued the Koran, that America has their well-being at heart. In order to match the "with-us-or-against us/kill the terrorist" rhetoric with the ideals of liberty and compassion that the US stands for there needs to be nuance. This absence of nuance opens the door for gross indecencies like the prisoner abuse.
Reply
More importantly, though, the numbers don't matter and that was my point. My analogy was that the American deaths of 9/11 were a statistically small number that might be viewed in other contexts as nuance-level, and John Kerry and the Democrats might view a policy of gradual compromises that feed the power of terrorists as acceptable, although they would ultimately lead to death and suffering.
Furthermore, the brave American men and women who have died in Iraq all volunteered to serve in some capacity. I don't think it equates with some blue state voters how solemnly many Americans revere their country. I read an interesting credo by a killed US soldier from what he wrote in high school in the WSJ recently, and while I'm sure he wouldn't be happy to know he died, I think he would be proud of the service he gave. The fact of the matter is that our brave soldiers are fighting for a just cause: FREEDOM. If that doesn't strike you as just, then I can only assume that you don't believe in justice, and at that point you might as well just give up on life.
Moreover, think of the lives that are saved by eliminating an abominable man who saw fit to kill millions, and certainly would have killed Americans had he had the chance. If you want to live in a Michael Moore fantasy world where you think that Saddam was an alright guy, then you'll only be able to do that with the help of hallucinogens and a nice, liberal Berkeley, CA environment.
As for Iraqi citizens, their deaths are unfortunate, but many of the deaths are soldiers who served Saddam. Furthermore, no suggested number (and certainly none of the plausible ones) comes anywhere close to the number of murders Saddam committed in say a decade span. In other words, in the long run, Iraqi lives are being saved and Iraqis have a right now to actually live because now they are free.
Finally, I don't care in the least about the evil scum that are in our prisons. They should count themselves lucky to be alive in the first place, and some of the "torture" that they suffered is no worse than hazing that takes place on high school sports teams at some schools in the US. More importantly, the actions of a few morons in American service don't discount the actions of the whole policy. The policy resulted in the advance of freedom and morality, and let us not forget that these idiot soldiers are going to jail. In other words, whereas Saddam ordered torture so gruesome it is unimaginable to westerners, we lock up for a long time people who commit even the most minor violations of these murderers' rights. It makes sense to kill people who want to kill you, but we frequently give them the chance to relax in safety at the expense of the American taxpayer. Now, that is compassion to the extreme. Just to repeat the important point, we punish people who do bad things. The bad guys encourage that kind of behavior. That's the difference.
A policy based on "nuance" (which as the original point indicates John Kerry might have trouble defining) would dilute liberty and compassion and everything else that is right. You either feel free or you do not. America either helps people or it doesn't. The world either gets better or it gets worse (with the chance of remaining static being virtually negligible). In that light, more people are now free than before the war. More people no longer fear the wrath of a maniac. Because of that, the world and the United States are now without a doubt better places, and that's almost exclusively because of the wisdom of George W. Bush to see the power of the simple beauty of freedom.
Reply
Leave a comment