Is Heroism Defined by One Act or a Lifetime of Actions?

  • News
  • Thread starter sketchtrack
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the qualifications of being a war hero and how it relates to being a presidential candidate. The writer argues that serving in the armed forces should be a requirement for eligibility to run for president. They also mention the controversy surrounding McCain's war hero status and the importance of assessing a candidate's character and mindset. The conversation also touches on the issue of dodging the draft and how it reflects on a person's character. Overall, being a war hero is just one aspect of a candidate's history and should not be the sole determinant of their qualifications for presidency.
  • #71
I thought the incarceration rates were known to a fairly high degree of precision... I could be wrong though. Is 630 per 100,000 actually 630+/-31.5 per 100,000?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
chemisttree said:
Here you make the logical error that the rates for all offenses would scale linearly. Clearly a worst-case extrapolation and not backed up by any methodology.
It is not a worst case extrapolation. It is not an extrapolation of any kind. It is a true calculation of a ratio. And there is no logical error involving scaling.
You mean this statement in the report you referenced:
"If veteran men had the same age distribution as nonveteran men, the incarceration rates would be similar. The age-controlled incarceration rate for veteran men (1,253 prisoners per 100,000) would be 10% lower than that of nonveteran men (1,390 per 100,000)."
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vsfp04.pdf

I guess that 10% lower is "similar" in some people's eyes...:rolleyes:
Yes, and the people in DoJ that wrote the report would be those "some people"! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74
Has it occurred to anyone that there are as well arguments against the idea that a veteran should be allowed to run for president ?

An important principle of democracy is the separation of power. A war veteran has psychologically been deeply involved into military business. To my understanding, that makes his objectivity likely to be biaised towards favoring military solutions and/or support.

Anyway, I always found it fascinating that the US journalist actually ask war veterans about the war. Like if, being there, it makes them more likely to know about whether war was justified or "human"... Foreigners philosophical positions on this issue are remote to this system, to the point that, questionning it amounts to insulting the memory of the veterans victim of the war. Therefore, I do not expect much in this direction from the american society.
 
  • #75
I won't subscribe to the idea of barring vets from office (that seems pretty wacky), but I think there is a point to be made about whether service, and even distinguished service, really adds up to a meaningful qualification for high office. On the one hand, it is reassuring to know that the Commander in Chief has a solid understanding of how the military functions, what war is like, how the troops perceive it, and so on. And people who serve in high-pressure leadership roles obviously get an opportunity to prove their skills in that department. But I think the "war hero" issue is kind of a red herring. You could be a very admirable war hero (jump on a grenade, say) and still be a poor choice for President. Courage and heroism are not the only qualities required, nor is the military the only (or even most important) aspect of the President's responsibilities. This whole "war hero" issue seems to be just another page from the Republican playbook for Presidential politics: wave the flag and paint your opponent as soft on defence. Given that they did this while running a draft-dodger against an actual war hero last time around, it seems very much routine, and the Democratic preemption against it (via Clark) also seems to be very much politics-as-usual.
 
  • #76
humanino said:
A war veteran has psychologically been deeply involved into military business. To my understanding, that makes his objectivity likely to be biaised towards favoring military solutions and/or support.

Perhaps that's a sword that cuts both ways?

Perhaps experiencing the horror of war instills quite the opposite inclination?

Not all members of the military are cut from the same bolt as Gen Jack D Ripper of Dr. Strangelove fame.
 
  • #77
Despite graduating in the bottom of his class at the naval academy, McCain got one of the most coveted assignments available - naval aviator. His connections (father and grandfather were both admirals) got him preferential treatment that he was unable or unwilling to earn on his own.

He was shot down and he was tortured, as were lots of other servicemen. His misfortunes and mistreatment are great political fodder, but he is no more or less a "hero" than others who shared his fate, nor do his experiences uniquely qualify him to be president. It might be a good idea to get some balance by considering the viewpoint of a fellow POW who knew MCain well.
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_1,00.html
 
  • #78
turbo-1 said:
His connections (father and grandfather were both admirals) got him preferential treatment that he was unable or unwilling to earn on his own.

While the opinion piece certainly isn't effusive in praising him, neither does it Swift boat him. It was apparently a difficult time for many others that shared his situation. And they all served with distinction.

Aren't the more compelling arguments against him the policy issues? Who cares how he got his break in the service, if he was involved in 23 missions before being shot down? Is there a presumption that he failed in his duties attached to those assignments? And if he did not fail in his missions, would someone else who had no Admiral for a father, done better or served the country with more distinction? It's not like he hid out in the National Guard - which hasn't seemed to disqualify other people from the office.

As to your statement it's wholly unprovable about "unable or unwilling". Why introduce such charged rhetoric and why attempt to Swift boat him just because the current administration embraced such tactics in their maintaining control through the last election cycle?

Can't we look to the best in people and compare them on their finest? While his war experience may not uniquely qualify him to be President, so what? It certainly doesn't disqualify him either now does it?
 
  • #79
LowlyPion said:
As to your statement it's wholly unprovable about "unable or unwilling". Why introduce such charged rhetoric and why attempt to Swift boat him just because the current administration embraced such tactics in their maintaining control through the last election cycle?
He was unable or unwilling to put in the hard work required to excel at the academy. He ended up in the bottom 5 of his graduating class, and ended up with a highly coveted assignment, nevertheless. It is not "Swift-boating" to point out that his academic performance was terrible and that he got preferential treatment because of his connections. I have a friend whose service in Viet Nam consisted largely of being inserted into North Viet Nam alone, acting as a forward observer for naval artillery. When the VC figured out his position, he would call in artillery on his own position before scrambling. He is quiet and modest to a fault - and a hero.
 
  • #81
McCain definitely has tempermanent issues.

http://mccaininsults.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/belittling-delores-alfond-head-of-the-national-alliance-of-powmia/

Edit: This link describes McCains stability a bit better.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #82
I think the whole Swift Boat thing was a total distraction. What the Republicans fail to realize is the country hopefully just may be tired of those kinds of antics. This era of Karl Rove shape-shifting manipulation has been an unfortunate development in a world of politics that needs real solutions to address the issues of over-population and resource shortages, over promoting ways to benefit the few at the expense of the many.
 
  • #83
edward said:
McCain definitely has tempermanent issues.

http://mccaininsults.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/belittling-delores-alfond-head-of-the-national-alliance-of-powmia/

Edit: This link describes McCains stability a bit better.



Unfortunately, neither of these videos are available anymore.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #84
lisab said:
Unfortunately, neither of these videos are available anymore.

Thats odd they both play for me??
 
  • #85
edward said:
Thats odd they both play for me??

For me too. Quite informative I should say.
 
  • #86
BobG said:
Actually, McCain received the Distinguished Flying Cross for that mission which is different than the Navy Cross. The DFC was the third highest medal McCain received. His highest was the Silver Star, which is the third highest medal for gallantry.
When I first saw the DFC reference, I assumed it was an error - I thought that the DFC was air force and the Navy Cross was for Navy (pilot or otherwise). And I thought they were equivalent -- sorry, my mistake.
 
  • #87
Russ, I was not very clear in my previous post. It seemed to me from the tone of your previous post like you were saying he only got a Navy Cross. I guess I misinterpreted it.
 
  • #88
humanino said:
Has it occurred to anyone that there are as well arguments against the idea that a veteran should be allowed to run for president ?

An important principle of democracy is the separation of power. A war veteran has psychologically been deeply involved into military business. To my understanding, that makes his objectivity likely to be biaised towards favoring military solutions and/or support.
No, there are no real arguments against the idea that veterans should be allowed to run for President.

There are lots of jobs that create biases in politicians. That in no way implies that such people should be barred from holding office, let alone singling-out only one particular job to be excluded!

Frankly, if we should bar anyone from office, it should be lawyers! That's the ultimate conflict of interest!
 
  • #89
humanino said:
Quite informative I should say.
I would not assign any credibility to an unsupported third person account of incidents. There is very little quality control on such things, and they could just as likely be completely trumped up slander as reports of real incidents.

The second video is thus useless to me.
 
  • #90
turbo-1 said:
Despite graduating in the bottom of his class at the naval academy, McCain got one of the most coveted assignments available - naval aviator. His connections (father and grandfather were both admirals) got him preferential treatment that he was unable or unwilling to earn on his own.
Now you're just making stuff up, turbo-1. Due to need, it is quite common for everyone who wants to be a pilot and has the necessary qualifications (physical and flight aptitude exams) to get selected.

I got kicked-out of the Naval Academy for academic reasons. The year I was to graduate, everyone who was qualified for flight school and wanted it got it (and I was qualified).
He was shot down and he was tortured, as were lots of other servicemen. His misfortunes and mistreatment are great political fodder, but he is no more or less a "hero" than others who shared his fate, nor do his experiences uniquely qualify him to be president.
No one has suggested that others who experienced the same thing are any less heroes than he. But McCain's experiences do uniquely qualify him in this case: the person he is running against does not have those qualifications.
It might be a good idea to get some balance by considering the viewpoint of a fellow POW who knew MCain well.
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15...4859_1,00.html
Ok...
But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW...
I've never gotten that impression either from McCain's words or the media's treatment of the issue. I'm quite baffled by that objection. And all of the others are just variations on the same theme.

So really, this guy is basically just jealous of the attention he gets for his service.

His objection to McCain due to the partying he did at the Academy, I can handle. But hey - Obama was no saint in college either (almost no one is). He smoked pot. So did Clinton. Bush probably did coke and most of them probably did a substantial amount of drinking.
turbo-1 said:
It is not "Swift-boating" to point out that ... he got preferential treatment because of his connections.
It is if the allegation is false.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #91
Gokul43201 said:
Russ, I was not very clear in my previous post. It seemed to me from the tone of your previous post like you were saying he only got a Navy Cross. I guess I misinterpreted it.
No, it was my mistake and I deleted the previous post here a few minutes after posting it when I saw Bob's.

In any case, the citation I read and said was for the Navy cross was for the DFC - same critereon applies, though: McCain pursued the mission under imminent risk of death due to a badly damaged plane. Heck, the word "hero" appears in the citation!
 
  • #92
russ_watters said:
His objection to McCain due to the partying he did at the Academy, I can handle. But hey - Obama was no saint in college either (almost no one is). He smoked pot.
I think there's a difference between graduating in the bottom 1% of your Naval Academy class and graduating Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law. I didn't find much of value in that testimonial either, but I think the point there was meant to be indicative of McCain's priorities in College.
 
  • #93
russ_watters said:
His objection to McCain due to the partying he did at the Academy, I can handle. But hey - Obama was no saint in college either (almost no one is). He smoked pot. So did Clinton. Bush probably did coke and most of them probably did a substantial amount of drinking.It is if the allegation is false.

Partying is fine, I don't even count pot, coke, hookers, whatever, as long as you can keep your grades up. It's not like they were in a gang or giving it away to kids. It was for their own enjoyment.

The problem is that it got in the way of McCain's schooling.
 
  • #94
russ_watters said:
Now you're just making stuff up, turbo-1. Due to need, it is quite common for everyone who wants to be a pilot and has the necessary qualifications (physical and flight aptitude exams) to get selected.
I'm trying to find the quote, Russ. It was from a classmate of McCain's and it was a while back.

If you doubt that he received preferential treatment due to his family, ask yourself how many jets a naval aviator in training should be allowed to crash before he is washed out of the program. One? Two? McCain crashed three. One in Corpus Cristi Bay, another in Spain when he was flying too low and took out some power lines, and yet another when he was flying himself to Philly in a trainer to watch the Army-Navy game and experienced a flameout.
 
  • #95
B. Elliott said:
IMO, I believe that to be allowed to run for president, one must have served a period of time in on of the armed forces to be eligible for presidency.

I believe that to be allowed to run for president, one must have served a period of time as a scientist. It would help avoid a lot of illogical and stupid decisions. :smile:
 
  • #96
Gokul43201 said:
I would not assign any credibility to an unsupported third person account of incidents. There is very little quality control on such things, and they could just as likely be completely trumped up slander as reports of real incidents.

The second video is thus useless to me.
Sure. I just have so little american polical culture, I did not even see the first video before.
The second video, indeed, I watched only for 15 s or so :smile:.
russ_watters said:
No, there are no real arguments against the idea that veterans should be allowed to run for President.
Well, I just mentionned separation of powers, one of the fundamentals of democracy.
Frankly, if we should bar anyone from office, it should be lawyers! That's the ultimate conflict of interest!
:rofl: Agreed, based on exactly the same principle. Then there is no more candidate :rolleyes:
 
  • #97
vanesch said:
I believe that to be allowed to run for president, one must have served a period of time as a scientist. It would help avoid a lot of illogical and stupid decisions. :smile:

I certainly think that there should be somewhat specific education requirements. In todays day and age I don't think it would be at all unfounded.
 
  • #98
TheStatutoryApe said:
I certainly think that there should be somewhat specific education requirements.

Look around you, how many morons with diplomas you meet every day.
 
  • #99
Borek said:
Look around you, how many morons with diplomas you meet every day.
True. Diplomas do not confer intelligence, reason, judgment, etc, nor are they any indicator that the holder is honest, ethical, or compassionate. There are plenty of crooks and fools with framed paper.
 
  • #100
TheStatutoryApe said:
I certainly think that there should be somewhat specific education requirements. In todays day and age I don't think it would be at all unfounded.
I disagree somewhat with that. You can learn a lot by yourself or outside of the academia.

But on a related note, what do you think about computer literacy? Do you think that a pre-requisite in this day and age should be that a President know how to operate a computer and be somewhat conversant with the use of modern technology?
 
  • #101
Aside from citizenship and age why would there be any further requirement?

If the majority of the citizens want the Executive branch of the government run by anyone meeting those basic requirements (oh yeah and they have to be alive) then let them vote that person in.

If the person proves unfit to serve there is another mechanism to remedy that.

Personally I would be happy just to have a President that served the interests of the entire country without succumbing to merely serving the interest of perpetuating their own stay in the office. But then again such a person might not meet the requirement of being a living human born in the USA.

As a point of minor interest - while McCain was born to American Citizen parents, he was apparently born on a Panama naval installation.
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #102
turbo-1 said:
If you doubt that he received preferential treatment due to his family, ask yourself how many jets a naval aviator in training should be allowed to crash before he is washed out of the program. One? Two? McCain crashed three. One in Corpus Cristi Bay, another in Spain when he was flying too low and took out some power lines, and yet another when he was flying himself to Philly in a trainer to watch the Army-Navy game and experienced a flameout.
That depends, of course, on the exact causes of the crashes.
 
  • #103
humanino said:
Well, I just mentionned separation of powers, one of the fundamentals of democracy.
Yes, it is: but what you described is not separation of powers. Separation of powers is a multi-branch government and has nothing to do with the military or the qualifications of the leaders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers
Agreed, based on exactly the same principle. Then there is no more candidate
Thus, we are agreed that it is a completely pointless argument.
 
  • #104
Gokul43201 said:
I think there's a difference between graduating in the bottom 1% of your Naval Academy class and graduating Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law. I didn't find much of value in that testimonial either, but I think the point there was meant to be indicative of McCain's priorities in College.
Granted, with the caveat that I don't know what Obama did as an undergrad.

In either case, I have several friends who got absolutely abysmal grades as undergrads and then were stellar in grad school and in life in general. People mature at different ages/rates.
 
  • #105
russ_watters said:
Granted, with the caveat that I don't know what Obama did as an undergrad.
He goofed off a lot in his first two years at Occidental College, and was an average student there. He then transferred to Columbia and became dead serious about academics.

Source: "Obama: From Promise to Power", David Mendell
 

Similar threads

News Project Hero: Scholorships for children of Deceased soldiers.
    • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
3K
The Scientist as Hero - or not
    • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
What defines a truly smart person?
    • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
2K
AI Is An Alien Invasion Theory
    • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
1K
All About Assets (One-Stop Shop Chat Thread)
    • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
1K
Where did Lincoln give his Gettysburg Address from?
    • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
842
Tesla": A Movie Review of the Unusual
    • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
2
Views
2K
MHB Serpents and Stairs Trading Card Game
    • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
Is asteroid mining the key to solving world economic problems?
    • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
975
News Atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki: The right course of action to end WWII?
    • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top