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

[LowlyPion]

Of coarse, John McCain never got to see anyone he killed, or even had to aim, he just pressed a button and people were killed. This would be similar to how it would be for him in the white house.

That may be a little harsh. Wikipedia which I am sure has been cultivated carefully for political purposes does show this though:

"By then a lieutenant commander, McCain was almost killed on July 29, 1967 when he was near the center of the Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded;[28] McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments.[29] The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control.[30][31] With the Forrestal out of commission, McCain volunteered for assignment with the USS Oriskany."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

Can't we at least respect the man for his accomplishments? Can't our national choices be made on the basis of policy choices between two worthy candidates without the need to diminish those we would disagree with?

 

[B. Elliott]

But you haven't explained why military service is a better way to earn it than say, laying bricks.

I didn't see that question, sorry. Military teaches structure, professionalism, critical thinking and reasoning skills, leadership skills, ect, ect, ect. The military also PUSHES you you better yourself as an individual and provides avenues for better education.

Laying bricks, is just laying bricks. There's is also no reason for military personnel not to be called fourth do jobs such as that... building houses, constructing highways, better the community.

Serving in the military isn't just 'carrying a gun'.

 

[B. Elliott]

I remember reading that incarcerated vets were just as likely as incarcerated non-vets to be doing time for homicide, but thrice as likely as non-vets to be doing time for sexual assault. Also, I think these ratios were much higher for combat vets than for non-combat vets, but my memory is shaky on that. I'll look for a reference.

The real question is;

What percentage of homicides, sexual assaults, robberies, ect, ect, are committed by non-vets vs. vets?

 

[Gokul43201]

I didn't see that question, sorry. Military teaches structure, professionalism, critical thinking and reasoning skills, leadership skills, ect, ect, ect. The military also PUSHES you you better yourself as an individual and provides avenues for better education.

I meant "better" in the sense of defending the country, but I can't argue against this since I believe that you defend the country best by making yourself as productive and efficient as you can.

 

[sketchtrack]

That may be a little harsh. Wikipedia which I am sure has been cultivated carefully for political purposes does show this though:

"By then a lieutenant commander, McCain was almost killed on July 29, 1967 when he was near the center of the Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded;[28] McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments.[29] The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control.[30][31] With the Forrestal out of commission, McCain volunteered for assignment with the USS Oriskany."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

Can't we at least respect the man for his accomplishments? Can't our national choices be made on the basis of policy choices between two worthy candidates without the need to diminish those we would disagree with?

My point with that remark was just that he may not have been impacted as to affect him like a solder who was in direct combat killing people with guns. The president is responsible for many deaths, but he didn't see it with his own eyes, so it is less likely he will feel the same as the ones who committed the act. He didn't get to see who died. It is just different to look in some ones eyes and then blast them than it is to push a butting dropping a laser guided bomb. I don't really mean to insult him for it.

 

[B. Elliott]

I meant "better" in the sense of defending the country, but I can't argue against this since I believe that you defend the country best by making yourself as productive and efficient as you can.

And that's exactly what the military helps to do! It guides people and shows them efficient ways of being productive in society... how to work in groups, how to accomplish large tasks, how to properly conduct yourself as an individual and withing a group.

 

[Gokul43201]

The real question is;

What percentage of homicides, sexual assaults, robberies, ect, ect, are committed by non-vets vs. vets?

Again, I shall look for a reference, but I think the numbers said that there were lower rates among vets when you looked at raw numbers, but these lower rates were primarily due to age differences. Most vets were from the Vietnam era, and are over 60 years old now. Their incarceration rates were similar to non-vets in the same age group. But non-vets are mostly much younger. When adjusted for ages, the incarceration rates are similar. But that's for all vets. I don't really recall very much about the rates for combat vets vs. non-combat vets.

Even if you don't adjust for age, I doubt that the 3 to 1 ratio for sexual assault will be offset by the ratio of the percentage of vets to non-vets in prison for those crimes. My vague recollection of the take home message was that vets are more likely to rape, just as likely to murder and less likely to steal.

 

[sketchtrack]

Vets don't just go around committing homicide. Vets usually feel like the good guy, and if they kill someone, then they probably do it because the person was a bad guy. One vet I know had killed someone who tried to mug his wife. He didn't get into trouble, but he was quick to kill the bad guy without question.

When it comes to world issues, they may be more prone to use deadly force against the bad guys. I think John McCain isn't going to be cold except to our enemies which I think he makes clear. The only question is that use of deadly force sometimes isn't the best ay to diffuse the enemy, but it is certain that not having the guts to do it when necessary can be a bad thing as well.

 

[B. Elliott]

he only question is that use of deadly force sometimes isn't the best ay to diffuse the enemy, but it is certain that not having the guts to do it when necessary can be a bad thing as well.

Good point.

 

[chemisttree]

Again, I shall look for a reference, but I think the numbers said that there were lower rates among vets when you looked at raw numbers, but these lower rates were primarily due to age differences. Most vets were from the Vietnam era, and are over 60 years old now. Their incarceration rates were similar to non-vets in the same age group. But non-vets are mostly much younger. When adjusted for ages, the incarceration rates are similar. But that's for all vets. I don't really recall very much about the rates for combat vets vs. non-combat vets.

Even if you don't adjust for age, I doubt that the 3 to 1 ratio for sexual assault will be offset by the ratio of the percentage of vets to non-vets in prison for those crimes. My vague recollection of the take home message was that vets are more likely to rape, just as likely to murder and less likely to steal.

Maybe you were remembering your http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080114134026.aspx"
Or maybe you were thinking about http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3797346&page=1"
Or perhaps http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/183952"
The take home message is that vets are less likely to do any crime but when they do and go to prison for it, proportionally more of those vets are in for sexual assault than the other men of similar age. A meaningless comparison.

Veterans are half as likely to be incarcerated than the overall male population in the first place, researchers found, but 23 percent of the veterans in prison was a sex offender, compared with 9 percent of nonveteran inmates.

Stop trashing our Vets!

 

[Gokul43201]

The take home message is that vets are less likely to do any crime ...

That's false, and your own quote below this proves you wrong.

Veterans are half as likely to be incarcerated than the overall male population in the first place, researchers found, but 23 percent of the veterans in prison was a sex offender, compared with 9 percent of nonveteran inmates.

Half of 23% is still greater than 9%, so vets are more likely than non-vets to be sex-offenders, looking at raw numbers. The key point, however, is this:

Veterans as a group are older than the general population, so Campbell said it is not surprising to see a higher percentage of veterans imprisoned for violent crimes, which carry longer prison sentences.

"I think that would go away if you controlled for age" in the study, Campbell said. Because crimes against women or children can carry longer than average sentences, it is possible that statistic also follows from the aging veterans population, he said. He said the statistic about sexual assault was "potentially interesting" but said it is impossible to know what that means without more information.

So it is possible that there are fewer sex offenders among vets if you control for age.

Thing is, if you control for age, the overall incarceration rate among vets becomes nearly the same as the incarceration rate among non-vets, as revealed by this DoJ study (which may be more recent that what I'd read):

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/ascii/vsfp04.txt

So, I was correct in all essential aspects. I had the age-controlled numbers and the sex-offender numbers fairly close, but not exactly right.

 

[LowlyPion]

My point with that remark was just that he may not have been impacted as to affect him like a solder who was in direct combat killing people with guns.

I understood your point, but just thought to modify it by what other facts we find in his past. To say that he never met the enemy nor looked them in the eye is not exactly the case after being a war prisoner though.

Actually I'm in the ironic position of defending him on this where I won't be voting for him regardless. It's just that the US has had already in these Bush-Cheney-Rove years so much dissembling and fraud to manipulate and bend the country to the will of a small minded minority, that any continuation of any of these people is simply loathsome to me. But I am at the very least hopeful that we can put the kind of politics we have been subjected to behind us at the next inaugural address.

And just because McCain's party has behaved less than honorably in executing their offices the last 8 years doesn't mean that we have to paint him with the same brush if it's not warranted. [/End_Soap_Box]

 

[russ_watters]

Funny, I consider that to be a negative. Somehow being trained to kill people, and then actually killing people, doesn't seem like a life improving experience. Nor do I see any evidence of it. But since one has to be dispassionate to deal with the reality of dropping bombs, if there is any "value" in his experience in VN, shouldn't we expect that if anything, he has been desensitized to death, and kllling, as it was a part of his job? Do you consider that to be good?

It is not about being a good person or a bad person. We are talking about a mindset; in effect, a brainwashing.

What do you think of the other qualities that go along with the job? You do understand that "trained killer" is not the only thing that the military puts on your resume, right? The way you put it is disturbingly simplistic.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know who to believe about his war records, but even my uncle who is a Vietnam Vet and a strong supporter of McCain admits that most of his medals were undeserved and he wouldn't have gotten them if his father wasn't a four star general.

The highest medal that McCain got was the Navy Cross. He got it for continuing to carry out his bombing mission after his aircraft had receieved fatal damage. Attempting to fulfil your mission in disregard of your own life is an act clearly deserving of that medal.

 

[Gokul43201]

The highest medal that McCain got was the Navy Cross. He got it for continuing to carry out his bombing mission after his aircraft had receieved fatal damage. Attempting to fulfil your mission in disregard of your own life is an act clearly deserving of that medal.

Russ, that sounds almost like the Navy Cross is not a big deal. Someone reading your post wouldn't get the idea that it is the second highest Navy Medal, and only http://www.homeofheroes.com/navycross/index.html of the hundreds of thousands of navy personnel that fought in Vietnam received a Navy Cross.

PS: I didn't know McCain got the Navy Cross.

 

[BobG]

The highest medal that McCain got was the Navy Cross. He got it for continuing to carry out his bombing mission after his aircraft had receieved fatal damage. Attempting to fulfil your mission in disregard of your own life is an act clearly deserving of that medal.

Russ, that sounds almost like the Navy Cross is not a big deal. Someone reading your post wouldn't get the idea that it is the second highest Navy Medal, and only http://www.homeofheroes.com/navycross/index.html of the hundreds of thousands of navy personnel that fought in Vietnam received a Navy Cross.

PS: I didn't know McCain got the Navy Cross.

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.

I don't know who to believe about his war records, but even my uncle who is a Vietnam Vet and a strong supporter of McCain admits that most of his medals were undeserved and he wouldn't have gotten them if his father wasn't a four star general.

There is a group called veterans against John McCain, who don't like him very much. They don't like him because of his role in fighting to keep us from going back for POWs after he was released. They say he didn't want them to get released because it would expose him. They say he was nicknamed song bird for talking so quickly to avoid torture, and that he was given extra special treatment while there. I'm not going to just go ahead and believe them, but he did fight relentlessly to keep us from going back for POWs which seems strange when he was one himself.

"As a member of the 1991–1993 Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, chaired by Democrat and fellow Vietnam War veteran John Kerry, McCain investigated the fate of U.S. service personnel listed as missing in action during the Vietnam War. The committee's unanimous report stated there was "no compelling evidence that proves that any American remains alive in captivity in Southeast Asia." Helped by McCain's efforts, in 1995 the U.S. normalized diplomatic relations with Vietnam. McCain was vilified by some POW/MIA activists who believed large numbers of Americans were still held against their will in Southeast Asia; they objected to McCain not sharing their belief and his pushing for Vietnam normalization."

To believe McCain fought against the US going back for POWs, you have to believe there were still POWs in Vietnam in the 90's. You'd have to condemn every member of the committee along with McCain, plus any of the staff that helped research the issue. That's quite a few people keeping a pretty big secret. Being on that committee wasn't something that would help a person's political career. As Bob Kerrey (Senator from Nebraska and Medal of Honor recipient) said, "Nobody wanted to be on that damn committee. It was an absolute loser. Everyone knew that the POW stories were fabrications, but no one wanted to offend the vet community."

I see most of the trashing of McCain's military career as payback for Bush/Rove's trashing of John Kerry's career and the particularly despicable trashing of Max Cleland by Saxby Chambliss in a Georgia Senate race in 2002. Just one of the uglier legacies left behind by the Bush era. (In fact, wasn't fighting against going back for POWs one of the charges leveled against Kerry, who was also on that committee? There was so much BS flying about Kerry that it's hard to keep track.)

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

I was only aware of chatter about the citation for the Silver Star, and nothing about a Navy Cross. And from what I'd read, I got the impression that there are a lot of vets that seem to think his Silver Star was undeserved. I don't know why.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I was only aware of chatter about the citation for the Silver Star, and nothing about a Navy Cross. And from what I'd read, I got the impression that there are a lot of vets that seem to think his Silver Star was undeserved. I don't know why.

Neither airforce nor officers are/were usually thought highly of by grunts and grunts probably make up the majority of vets. Add to that a rich family and a general for a daddy and its not too hard to see why some might think he was just a prissy flyboy.

 

[chemisttree]

That's false, and your own quote below this proves you wrong.

It doesn't prove anything. It could simply mean that the Military effectively trains it's troops for a career once their service is concluded. The other 50% of veterans that aren't incarcerated might be gainfully employed and thus much less likely to commit non-sex offender crimes. You have absolutely no data to prove anything and I certainly didn't provide it.

Half of 23% is still greater than 9%, so vets are more likely than non-vets to be sex-offenders, looking at raw numbers. The key point, however, is this: So it is possible that there are fewer sex offenders among vets if you control for age.

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.

Thing is, if you control for age, the overall incarceration rate among vets becomes nearly the same as the incarceration rate among non-vets, as revealed by this DoJ study (which may be more recent that what I'd read):
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vsfp04.txt

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...

 

[humanino]

I guess that 10% lower is "similar" in some people's eyes...

Technically, you could claim that your 0.1M sample provides a 1% accuracy, providing enough statistics to prove a 10% meaningful difference. However, 10% are very hard to be convincing in social science because of the complexity of the problem. Can you check for the income dependency of your statement ? This requires to subdivide your 1k or so individual in further sub-samples with different incomes. I just take a silly example here, but the main point is simply, unless you get a large effect, say a factor 2 at least, it will be hard to convince oneself that there is no further bias one can think of.

Just a highly-biaised perspective from particle physics statistics

edit
still can not load your document...
edit again
ok I could load it, now I understand where I am wrong : statistics is large

 

[chemisttree]

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?

 

[Gokul43201]

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...

Yes, and the people in DoJ that wrote the report would be those "some people"!

 

[Jordan Joab]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hero

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero

Yes, McCain is a war hero.



Jordan Joab.

 

[humanino]

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.

 

[quadraphonics]

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.

 

[LowlyPion]

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.

 

[turbo]

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

 

[LowlyPion]

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?

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[WarPhalange]

It's funny you should mention Swift Boating.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...uth-squad-defender-was-swift-boat-vet-member/

 

[edward]

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.

 

[LowlyPion]

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.

 

[lisab]

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.

 

[edward]

Unfortunately, neither of these videos are available anymore.

Thats odd they both play for me??

 

[humanino]

Thats odd they both play for me??

For me too. Quite informative I should say.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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!

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

It is not "Swift-boating" to point out that ... he got preferential treatment because of his connections.

It is if the allegation is false.

 

[russ_watters]

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!

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

 

[WarPhalange]

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.

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[vanesch]

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.

 

[humanino]

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 .

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!

Agreed, based on exactly the same principle. Then there is no more candidate

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.

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.

 

[Borek]

I certainly think that there should be somewhat specific education requirements.

Look around you, how many morons with diplomas you meet every day.

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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?