Kerry, Smarts, and the Military

Are you defending what he now says he did not intend to say?

Your spin machine is every bit as fine as the right's.

I'm trying to look at his statement from a factual perspective.
For reasons you have above stated, I can't trust the media for an objective analysis.

I didn't want to come accross as defending his statement.
I apologize if that is what my post appears to be doing.

I should have said: "Perhaps there was some degree of truth to his statement, perhaps it was a blatant falsehood".

There is no doubt that people with limited means have fewer choices when it comes to choosing a profession. For many, the military is an opportunity to get and education, or to acquire some training, that will enable the person to earn a decent income, and gain a better life.

I do not question that people from lower income families are more likely to join a volunteer military than those who are more affluent. It makes sense.

I abhor what Kerry said for a couple of reasons. One, it is belittling and insulting to the great guys and gals who are putting their asses on the line. It has nothing to do with whether you agree with the war or not.

The other thing is that we have military personnel who are daily in harm's way. I think that his remarks does do not much for the morale of these people. In fact, I think that it might have done some harm to some of these young people, but we will never know.

Personally, I think that Kerry is a complete idiot for saying what he did. I really don't think that his apology was sincere at all. His Freudian slip , IMO, really showed what he thought of the people in the military. I think that he apologized because of pressure from Democrats who realized what a terrible gaffe that he made.

I had hoped that this would not become a "support the troops" discussion, but I appreciate your initial comments.

Source

With unemployment rates as low as it is and the fact that jobs are plentiful at the moment, I doubt that is an honest portrayal. In fact, I would conjecture that the low unemployment rate may be having some impact on recruitment levels in the military.

Joining the miltary is not the lowest job a person can get and offers very nice benefits as well as several risks. So does being a cop or firefighter. Considering the demographics of the country, you will see a similar cross-section in the military. Timber posted a link in a different thread looking at the actual demographics of the military and is simply doesn't jib with the thesis of this thread.

Yu don't happen to have a link or thread title for that one do you?
In spite of the preconceived notions of my agenda, the thesis of this thread is to see both sides of the Kerry gaffe.
I'd appreciate seeing what Timber cited.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2353151#2353151

Candidone,
I appreciate your dogged pursuit of truth, but you are doing no one a service by adding to the confusion about what Kerry's intent was with his "joke". He clearly would not have intentionally cast aspersions on the intelligence of the men and women on the ground in Iraq.

I'm making no attempt to do a service or disservice to anyone--Kerry, the military, or the boys or girls on the ground in Iraq.

I only framed the question around the recent hype being made surrounding Kerry's gaffe...and the inquiry could then, be made independent from what Kerry said and/or what Kerry intended.

Thanks.

Let's see how bad this gets.

No doubt about it, Kerry gave a gift to the Republican party in the remaining days of the election.

Kerry could be a mole for the Republicans as he is a member of the Skull & Bones society. He may have deliberately lost to W as he did not bring up the issue of wired trasmitter up W's back at the debate. Who knows?

"the military" is a term that embraces a very large number of people who populate a large, complex organization embracing a great variety of skills and training specialties.

As with most large groups, comparisons of the innate characteristics of individuals from different groups, based on group averages are inherently inaccurate - this because the variations among individuals within either population are generally large, compared to the differences in population averages.

Alternatively, comparisons of acquired characteristics, the result of training or experience can be reliable because in some cases the population averages differ greatly. I have known very bright Marines and some not so bright, but it is generally easy to identify a Marine, in or out of uniform.

In terms of most innate physical. mental, and psychological characteristics, the military recruits primarily from the middle quartiles of the general population. The top quartile is significantly represented - generally far more than most who have no experience with the military suspect, and the bottom quartile is effectively eliminated by the screening process. Based on this, I would expect that a comparison of the military with the general population would show a decided advantage for the military.

If the comparison is restricted to SAT scores and involves only a comparison with Harvard freshmen, the military population would likely be in second place. Alternatively if the comparison involved only the ability to maintain composure and presence of mind under extreme stress, and the military segment was composed of aviators, Navy SEALS. Rangers and Marines, I believe the Harvard freshmen wouldn't even come close.

The military also is very good at giving a second chance to very bright people who, for one reason or another (social, economic, or merely immature behavior during the vital high school years) fell behind their peers during those early critical years in which the different paths people take often mark them for life. This too populates the military with a cadre of very capable and accomplished people who, in other circumstances might not have fared or developed so well. A related process has long been observable with social and ethnic minorities in the military. I suspect that this too would lift the military average in most categories.

I once commanded a large military organization and had the repeated experience of observing the reactions of civilian visitors (usually very accomplished people) to what they had seen and experienced. Almost invariably their chief reaction was not to the drama, sound, and fury of air operations and the like, but rather to the composure, competence and quality of the people they encountered. One could see prejudices such as yours lifted from their eyes.

RAND Study

Blog on RAND study

Well, this is from someone who has never taught and who doesn't live in the real world.

During the Vietnam War, someone, somewhere published an article on the average IQ of a non-com, or, the average Army sargeant. It was 84.

I would suggest that most people who enlist in the Army immediately after high school do not take the SATs and so we have no knowledge of their scores.

As someone currently teaching SPED, I can tell you that these kids are not simply immature. A few years in the army or working in retail is not going to season them.

As for those sorts of people being able to take stress, well, most career soldiers -- not the West Point types -- are kids who couldn't take the stress of high school. Furthermore, most people can not take the stress of killing no matter how well trained they are. Rather, violent types are often attracted to the military.

All of which misses the point that the jab was at bush.

Perhaps he inadvertantly revlealed his actual (elitist) attitude.