Foot in Mouth Disease

For me, Kerry’s comments to students about how, if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, you’ll end up in Iraq, keenly represent the elite, liberal intellect of the northeast. The insinuation is clear: if you’re not “smart” you’ll end up fighting in Iraq for a failed policy. Smart = belief that Iraq is failed policy. Smart certainly is not being a grunt with a gun.

It’s not enough to say that you disagree with someone’s prescriptions and policies and why; you need to categorize those that differ with your own position as stupid.

Here's some statistics on the academic education of those in our military:

— 49.2 percent of officers have advanced or professional degrees; 39.4 percent have master’s degrees, 8.5 percent have professional degrees and 1.3 percent have doctorate degrees.

— 22.8 percent of company grade officers have advanced degrees; 16.5 percent have master’s degrees, 5.9 percent have professional degrees and 0.3 percent have doctorate degrees.

— 85.4 percent of field grade officers have advanced degrees; 70.7 percent have master’s degrees, 12.1 percent have professional degrees and 2.5 percent have doctorate degrees.

— 99.9 percent of the enlisted force have at least a high school education; 73.3 percent have some semester hours toward a college degree; 16.2 percent have an associate’s degree or equivalent semester hours; 4.7 percent have a bachelor’s degree; 0.7 percent have a master’s degree and .01 percent have a professional or doctorate degree.

What's discouraging is that this issue of Kerry's comments has been portrayed solely as partisan fight, as if someone has to be a Republican or a supporter of Bush or the war to find what Kerry said offensive. And if you take difference with Kerry’s remarks and believe they’re offensive towards the integrity of our troops (who are being shot at all the while Kerry is making these statements) then you’re falling for the spin of the “Republican hate machine” according to Kerry’s spokespersons.

Could Kerry be any more condescending to either the troops or the American public?

I’ve also found it interesting the biased way some of the media has covered this story. The focus has been on characterizing Kerry’s comments benignly as “remarks” and “criticisms”, while the Republicans have “unleashed a firestorm”, are “starting a stink”, ”hammered”, and gone on the “attack”.

But why wouldn’t it be fair to say instead that Republicans have responded with remarks and criticism? If you read Kerry’s rhetoric as of late while he’s been campaigning for the Democrats, his language and stance has been very aggressive, so why wouldn’t it be fair to describe him as unleashing a firestorm, hammering, and attacking Bush and the Republicans? The implication being of course is that people who “criticize” are supposed to be measured and thoughtful, but people who “attack” are angry and play to people’s fears and prejudices.

So, why the different character depictions from a press that's supposed to be objective as possible?