I have had a lot of thoughts regarding two particular topics: Iraq and Global Warming. There's a connection, I swear.
Of late, Katie Couric - aka, "The Perky Katie Couric" - and much of the mainstream media has been quick to begin declaring that the situation in Iraq has become, "A Civil War." I guess words like "quagmire" were used up with Vietnam and no longer grab the attention in the headlines. There is one positive side to this classification: the media finally recognizes that this is a War, something that has been heretofore unacknowledged.
These media wags must be reading the most broad of definitions to conclude that this is, indeed, a war that is civil. A "civil war," loosely defined, is a war between factions of the same country. In truth, I guess Iraq has been in a civil war since the early 1980's considering that during the entire reign of Saddam factions opposed one another, though the Fedayeen always seemed to muster the upper hand. Yes, in this broad definition, there is a civil war.
But, who is the enemy here? The factions opposing one another are really Iraq/Coalition Forces v. Al Qaida/Iran/Syria/Hezbollah. That seems more like a mini-world war to me than it is a civil war. But, again, there's hope: we now know that this is a war.
New Topic: The 2006 hurricane season has just ended. If you recall, pundits were fainting and foaming at the mouth, apoplectic at the potential for apocalyptic type hurricanes that were about to rain down upon the United States. Weather prognosticators predicted 13 to 18 named storms, 6 of which would be massive.
Well, despite all the breathless hand wringing, the hurricane season truly disappointed: only 9 named storms, 5 hurricanes, 2 major, and 0 that walloped U.S. soil. And Steve Cantori's heart broke.
So did Al Gore's.
It is becoming more and more apparent that global warming is a bunch of bunk. Snow in Florida earlier this month, 0 hurricanes threatening our way of life, a rather mild summer - it looks like it is an inconvenient truth: global warming is the stuff of bigfoot legends, not immutable science.
Civil wars and hurricanes usually do not relate to one another, but in this sense they do. In each, the media was more than willing to glom onto the stories. With genuinely disturbed excitement, the media has hammered away these points. Their reporting has been such that the media itself has become the story.
It appears that the only hot air of any real consequence is usually captured on tape, or published on the front page of the NY Times.
Too bad the Kyoto protocols do not include regulations of punditry.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Monday, November 27, 2006
The Source of Our Thanksgiving
Most of us can probably recite the rudimentary elements of the story surrounding the “First Thanksgiving.” Still others can perhaps recollect that it was President Abraham Lincoln on October 3, 1863 that signed a proclamation establishing that national holiday we now enjoy as “Thanksgiving Day.” However, I imagine few of us have stopped to actually read Lincoln’s proclamation.
A copy of this presidential proclamation can be quickly found on the internet, and I urge your review of it. As I read it, I was struck by the introspection recorded amidst the formality. In considering the timing of the proclamation – while the Civil War yet waged on – I was taken aback by how it recognized goodness even in the midst of such division.
Lincoln first noted why his proclamation was necessary. He proclaimed, “To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come. . ..” Have you ever done that? We are surrounded by such wealth, prosperity, and, oft-times, overindulgence that we find ourselves complaining about such things that - were we to be deprived of them - our life would yet carry on unimpeded. Lincoln was right: “we are prone to forget the source.”
What had Lincoln and the nation he led at that time to be thankful for anyway? After all, we understand the Civil War to be the epitome of divisiveness in our country. Brothers battered brothers, neighbors warred against neighbors, kin killed kin. Yet, in his decree, Lincoln notes how the country has had peace with other countries, order yet existed, laws still controlled, and harmony lived on – save for those areas of military conflict. Though war was abundantly present, Lincoln was quick to note that the population had increased, industry was alive and in excellent production, and the Union had a certain future. In short, despite division, the nation had been truly blessed.
But what was the “source” of these blessings that Lincoln urged us to not forget? His Thanksgiving Day Proclamation answers for us: “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.”
Lincoln recognized that the efforts by the politicos of his day had worked only woe and destruction upon the nation, yet peace and prosperity remained. Thus, if indeed the country did enjoy such blessings, something beyond human control, beyond our fathoming, beyond our ken, must have been working within the human framework to provide abundance, blessing, and a hope for a peaceful future.
Thanksgiving Day has now passed for this year. Our electoral season also has passed, for the moment. Tomorrow we return to our desks to mete out the labor before us. We live today as citizens in a country, by all political accounts, divided, yet one, by all economic accounts, profusely blessed.
There must be something more to our world that makes things good than the politics that produce the laws governing our society. I suspect that President George Washington might have agreed with Lincoln when, in his Farewell Address, Washington noted, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.”
Our laws, like our blessings, must be derived from something beyond our humanity, from something truly able to bestow upon us “unalienable rights,” lest our laws coincide with whatever fancy occupies the moment. And that is something for which to be truly thankful.
Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.
A copy of this presidential proclamation can be quickly found on the internet, and I urge your review of it. As I read it, I was struck by the introspection recorded amidst the formality. In considering the timing of the proclamation – while the Civil War yet waged on – I was taken aback by how it recognized goodness even in the midst of such division.
Lincoln first noted why his proclamation was necessary. He proclaimed, “To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come. . ..” Have you ever done that? We are surrounded by such wealth, prosperity, and, oft-times, overindulgence that we find ourselves complaining about such things that - were we to be deprived of them - our life would yet carry on unimpeded. Lincoln was right: “we are prone to forget the source.”
What had Lincoln and the nation he led at that time to be thankful for anyway? After all, we understand the Civil War to be the epitome of divisiveness in our country. Brothers battered brothers, neighbors warred against neighbors, kin killed kin. Yet, in his decree, Lincoln notes how the country has had peace with other countries, order yet existed, laws still controlled, and harmony lived on – save for those areas of military conflict. Though war was abundantly present, Lincoln was quick to note that the population had increased, industry was alive and in excellent production, and the Union had a certain future. In short, despite division, the nation had been truly blessed.
But what was the “source” of these blessings that Lincoln urged us to not forget? His Thanksgiving Day Proclamation answers for us: “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.”
Lincoln recognized that the efforts by the politicos of his day had worked only woe and destruction upon the nation, yet peace and prosperity remained. Thus, if indeed the country did enjoy such blessings, something beyond human control, beyond our fathoming, beyond our ken, must have been working within the human framework to provide abundance, blessing, and a hope for a peaceful future.
Thanksgiving Day has now passed for this year. Our electoral season also has passed, for the moment. Tomorrow we return to our desks to mete out the labor before us. We live today as citizens in a country, by all political accounts, divided, yet one, by all economic accounts, profusely blessed.
There must be something more to our world that makes things good than the politics that produce the laws governing our society. I suspect that President George Washington might have agreed with Lincoln when, in his Farewell Address, Washington noted, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.”
Our laws, like our blessings, must be derived from something beyond our humanity, from something truly able to bestow upon us “unalienable rights,” lest our laws coincide with whatever fancy occupies the moment. And that is something for which to be truly thankful.
Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Waiving Goodbye to Liability
Q: Does signing a “waiver” really work to absolve someone from liability?
A: For a good answer to this question, I must relate to you some of the words of wisdom pounded into my head by Professor Tom Cady, the guru of Torts at the WVU College of Law. Every first year law student who has had the pleasure of sitting under the tutelage of Professor Cady can recite – in their sleep – the phrase: “All liability is based on fault.”
It is a short maxim, but one filled with significant meaning. You see, in order for someone to be found liable for a wrongful act they may have committed, “fault” must exist. The discussion about whether or not something is, or is not, a tort, we will leave for another day. Today, we address the issue of whether a signed piece of paper can stop the rushing onslaught of liability.
Let’s use the most classic example of a waiver to which we can all relate: our grade school field trip permission slip. Little Willy brings home a permission slip for Mommy or Daddy to sign. The permission slip says something to the effect of, “I hereby authorize Negligent Nanny School System to take Little Willy on a field trip to Antarctica. I further understand that the Negligent Nanny School System is not liable for the injury or death of Little Willy that may occur while en route to/from Antarctica, or while sightseeing thereon. Signed, Mommy and Daddy.”
To borrow from Professor Cady, if that permission slip actually absolves Negligent Nanny School System from liability, then I am going to get a license plate printed for my car that says, “Not responsible for any injury or death as a result of this vehicle.” After all, class, what is liability based upon? That’s right, “Fault!”
Regardless of what is written on a half sheet of paper, regardless of whether the permission slip bears the notarized signature of Mommy or Daddy, if Little Willy is attacked by a polar bear while snorkeling with penguins, someone is going to be liable.
Well, a permission slip (or some other form of a waiver) may absolve liability, but only if it is not against public policy to do so. In our example, Negligent Nanny School System’s permission slip cannot stand up because why? That’s right, “All liability is based on fault.” While Little Willy is under their care, if a Negligent Nanny school bus runs over him, the permission slip is out the door. Why? Because Negligent Nanny cannot point to the signed permission slip and say, in essence, “Hey, you gave us permission to run over your kid. Tough luck.” Liability is based on fault and waivers that attempt to completely do away with that simple premise are void.
Waivers are an all or nothing proposition, as Professor Cady taught me. Either they act as a complete bar against liability, or they are entirely void because they are against public policy.
Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.
A: For a good answer to this question, I must relate to you some of the words of wisdom pounded into my head by Professor Tom Cady, the guru of Torts at the WVU College of Law. Every first year law student who has had the pleasure of sitting under the tutelage of Professor Cady can recite – in their sleep – the phrase: “All liability is based on fault.”
It is a short maxim, but one filled with significant meaning. You see, in order for someone to be found liable for a wrongful act they may have committed, “fault” must exist. The discussion about whether or not something is, or is not, a tort, we will leave for another day. Today, we address the issue of whether a signed piece of paper can stop the rushing onslaught of liability.
Let’s use the most classic example of a waiver to which we can all relate: our grade school field trip permission slip. Little Willy brings home a permission slip for Mommy or Daddy to sign. The permission slip says something to the effect of, “I hereby authorize Negligent Nanny School System to take Little Willy on a field trip to Antarctica. I further understand that the Negligent Nanny School System is not liable for the injury or death of Little Willy that may occur while en route to/from Antarctica, or while sightseeing thereon. Signed, Mommy and Daddy.”
To borrow from Professor Cady, if that permission slip actually absolves Negligent Nanny School System from liability, then I am going to get a license plate printed for my car that says, “Not responsible for any injury or death as a result of this vehicle.” After all, class, what is liability based upon? That’s right, “Fault!”
Regardless of what is written on a half sheet of paper, regardless of whether the permission slip bears the notarized signature of Mommy or Daddy, if Little Willy is attacked by a polar bear while snorkeling with penguins, someone is going to be liable.
Well, a permission slip (or some other form of a waiver) may absolve liability, but only if it is not against public policy to do so. In our example, Negligent Nanny School System’s permission slip cannot stand up because why? That’s right, “All liability is based on fault.” While Little Willy is under their care, if a Negligent Nanny school bus runs over him, the permission slip is out the door. Why? Because Negligent Nanny cannot point to the signed permission slip and say, in essence, “Hey, you gave us permission to run over your kid. Tough luck.” Liability is based on fault and waivers that attempt to completely do away with that simple premise are void.
Waivers are an all or nothing proposition, as Professor Cady taught me. Either they act as a complete bar against liability, or they are entirely void because they are against public policy.
Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Lawyering is No Laughing Matter. Or is it?
Q: What is your favorite lawyer joke?
A: I remember little about my law school orientation – save for being absolutely frightened at what was about to come my way. However, I recall the sage advice one lowly attorney deigned worthy to impart upon us. “As lawyers,” he said, “Everyone will come up to you and tell you their favorite lawyer joke. You must always be prepared with one in return.”
Why is it that lawyers are central to so many jokes? We have been called everything from sharks to snakes to things much worse. These jokes usually have one thing in common: the lawyer dies a horrific death. When was the last time you heard a doctor’s joke? Have you ever heard a joke about an engineer who suffered as horrible a fate as a lawyer? Not very many florist jokes, are there?
Centuries of parents have wanted their children to grow and become lawyers. You would think we would get a little bit of respect. But, somehow we have become better known for our jokes than for our many grand contributions to society.
It must be that lawyers are a rather self-deprecating bunch. We practice a serious trade and daily deal with major life controversies. It is the hallmark of our profession: the ability to provide objective advice to a client caught in the crossfire. I dare say, few other professions can be so blessed as to have had a tome of jokes written in their honor.
My favorite lawyer joke goes something like this: A young man and his betrothed were on their way to their wedding, after years of being engaged. But the lovebirds were tragically killed in an accident involving a run away soda machine and dynamite.
Upon arriving at the pearly gates, the young almost-married couple asked St. Peter, “Pete, we were so in love and were about to be married. Is there any way we could be married here.” St. Peter scratched his head and, understanding the couple’s plight, said, “I will see what can be done.”
Three hundred years go by without word from Peter. Five hundred. Seven hundred. One thousand years go by and finally St. Peter comes by one day and announces, “We are able to get you married after all. Just come by the heavenly sanctuary tomorrow at noon and a preacher will marry you.”
It was a glorious wedding, the one the couple had always dreamed of having. But, they soon discovered that they had made an unwise choice in marriage. “Pete,” the too-soon deceased man said, “I don’t know what we were thinking. Married life does not work for us. Is there any way we could get a divorce?” Peter, understanding the irregularity of such a request, said, “I will see what can be done.”
Five hundred years go by. Nothing. One thousand. Three thousand years later, Pete arrives back at the now old married couple’s doorstep. “We can get you a divorce. Just show up at the lawyer’s office at noon tomorrow.”
“Thanks Pete.” Said the young man, “But, what took so long?” “Well,” Peter answered, “If it took us one thousand years just to find a preacher in heaven, you can imagine how hard it was for us to find an attorney!”
Lawyer jokes: just one more way lawyers help alleviate the pressures of this world.
Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.
A: I remember little about my law school orientation – save for being absolutely frightened at what was about to come my way. However, I recall the sage advice one lowly attorney deigned worthy to impart upon us. “As lawyers,” he said, “Everyone will come up to you and tell you their favorite lawyer joke. You must always be prepared with one in return.”
Why is it that lawyers are central to so many jokes? We have been called everything from sharks to snakes to things much worse. These jokes usually have one thing in common: the lawyer dies a horrific death. When was the last time you heard a doctor’s joke? Have you ever heard a joke about an engineer who suffered as horrible a fate as a lawyer? Not very many florist jokes, are there?
Centuries of parents have wanted their children to grow and become lawyers. You would think we would get a little bit of respect. But, somehow we have become better known for our jokes than for our many grand contributions to society.
It must be that lawyers are a rather self-deprecating bunch. We practice a serious trade and daily deal with major life controversies. It is the hallmark of our profession: the ability to provide objective advice to a client caught in the crossfire. I dare say, few other professions can be so blessed as to have had a tome of jokes written in their honor.
My favorite lawyer joke goes something like this: A young man and his betrothed were on their way to their wedding, after years of being engaged. But the lovebirds were tragically killed in an accident involving a run away soda machine and dynamite.
Upon arriving at the pearly gates, the young almost-married couple asked St. Peter, “Pete, we were so in love and were about to be married. Is there any way we could be married here.” St. Peter scratched his head and, understanding the couple’s plight, said, “I will see what can be done.”
Three hundred years go by without word from Peter. Five hundred. Seven hundred. One thousand years go by and finally St. Peter comes by one day and announces, “We are able to get you married after all. Just come by the heavenly sanctuary tomorrow at noon and a preacher will marry you.”
It was a glorious wedding, the one the couple had always dreamed of having. But, they soon discovered that they had made an unwise choice in marriage. “Pete,” the too-soon deceased man said, “I don’t know what we were thinking. Married life does not work for us. Is there any way we could get a divorce?” Peter, understanding the irregularity of such a request, said, “I will see what can be done.”
Five hundred years go by. Nothing. One thousand. Three thousand years later, Pete arrives back at the now old married couple’s doorstep. “We can get you a divorce. Just show up at the lawyer’s office at noon tomorrow.”
“Thanks Pete.” Said the young man, “But, what took so long?” “Well,” Peter answered, “If it took us one thousand years just to find a preacher in heaven, you can imagine how hard it was for us to find an attorney!”
Lawyer jokes: just one more way lawyers help alleviate the pressures of this world.
Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Who Holds the Power?
Q: Sometimes a legislature will pass a law and then a judge will make a decision that it cannot go into effect. The legislature can override a Presidential veto, can it also override the judiciary?
A: As a good citizen, you know that our government is comprised of three separate, though equal, branches of government: the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judicial. Our United States Constitution vests all the lawmaking powers in the Legislature: the Senate and House of Representatives.
(Sidebar: Did you know you do not have to be a Congressman in order to be the Speaker of the House? In fact, the 105th Congress gave two votes for former Congressman to serve as speaker. It has me thinking of a career change.)
The Legislature, however, is powerless to put those laws into action. The Executive (the Presidency), therefore, exists to implement and enforce the laws passed by the Legislature. The Judiciary cannot make law, nor can it enforce the laws; however, in the words of one venerable U.S. Supreme Court jurist, it can, “say what the law is.”
If the Executive does not like a piece of proposed law, it can reject the work of the Legislature, known as a “veto.” In very rare instances, this will rile the Legislature enough that it will invoke its Constitutional right to override the Executive by a supermajority (a 2/3’s vote). But this seems a far cry different from when a judge declares a certain law – legislated by the Legislature, executed by the Executive – to be “unconstitutional.”
The framers of our Constitution recognized that government must have an independent branch review the law being produced and executed. If the Constitution were to have any effect, it could not be undermined by legislation contrary to its stated goal of forming, “a more perfect Union.” Hence, it falls to the Judiciary to approve of legislation and how it is being executed.
Thus, when a judge declares that a given law is unconstitutional, the court is saying that the law is inconsistent with the standard by which we have consented to be governed: the Constitution.
While the Legislature is not given a veto over the Judiciary, it can change the law that’s been deemed unconstitutional. In other words, the Legislature can fix the fatal defect and, therefore, achieve a quasi-veto over the Judiciary. Or, the Legislature could attempt to amend the Constitution so that the law previously deemed to fall outside of the Constitution would now fall squarely within the ambit of its protection.
This is why your civic duty of voting is so important. It falls to us, the citizens of America, to select representatives and senators who understand our Constitution and who will institute laws consistent with it. Good lawmakers understand the Constitution and their role in making laws that will, “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . ..”
Remember to vote on Tuesday. (And tell your Congressman to vote me in as Speaker of the House!)
Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.
A: As a good citizen, you know that our government is comprised of three separate, though equal, branches of government: the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judicial. Our United States Constitution vests all the lawmaking powers in the Legislature: the Senate and House of Representatives.
(Sidebar: Did you know you do not have to be a Congressman in order to be the Speaker of the House? In fact, the 105th Congress gave two votes for former Congressman to serve as speaker. It has me thinking of a career change.)
The Legislature, however, is powerless to put those laws into action. The Executive (the Presidency), therefore, exists to implement and enforce the laws passed by the Legislature. The Judiciary cannot make law, nor can it enforce the laws; however, in the words of one venerable U.S. Supreme Court jurist, it can, “say what the law is.”
If the Executive does not like a piece of proposed law, it can reject the work of the Legislature, known as a “veto.” In very rare instances, this will rile the Legislature enough that it will invoke its Constitutional right to override the Executive by a supermajority (a 2/3’s vote). But this seems a far cry different from when a judge declares a certain law – legislated by the Legislature, executed by the Executive – to be “unconstitutional.”
The framers of our Constitution recognized that government must have an independent branch review the law being produced and executed. If the Constitution were to have any effect, it could not be undermined by legislation contrary to its stated goal of forming, “a more perfect Union.” Hence, it falls to the Judiciary to approve of legislation and how it is being executed.
Thus, when a judge declares that a given law is unconstitutional, the court is saying that the law is inconsistent with the standard by which we have consented to be governed: the Constitution.
While the Legislature is not given a veto over the Judiciary, it can change the law that’s been deemed unconstitutional. In other words, the Legislature can fix the fatal defect and, therefore, achieve a quasi-veto over the Judiciary. Or, the Legislature could attempt to amend the Constitution so that the law previously deemed to fall outside of the Constitution would now fall squarely within the ambit of its protection.
This is why your civic duty of voting is so important. It falls to us, the citizens of America, to select representatives and senators who understand our Constitution and who will institute laws consistent with it. Good lawmakers understand the Constitution and their role in making laws that will, “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . ..”
Remember to vote on Tuesday. (And tell your Congressman to vote me in as Speaker of the House!)
Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Kerry. Apparrently Someone Didn't Study Hard Enough
Ok, you know I cannot pass up a chance to talk on these comments by Lurch, aka John "I served in Vietnam" Kerry. You know, put aside his constant mispronunciation of "Jenjis" Khan, put aside his horid excuse for a salute when he "reported for duty" at the last DNC national convention, put aside his gallutish bafoonery, and he's just a your typical, intolerant liberal.
On Tuesday, John "Did I mention I was in Vietnam" Kerry said the following: "You know, education, if you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you -- you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
This, according to his strongest defense, was a "botched joke." I would hate to see the real joke. The obvious implication of this "joke" was that the military is filled with dummies who could not cut it in the real world; ie, military service is a penalty.
Sidebar: In another report, the Yale University grades of John Kerry and George W. Bush were finally compared - about two years too late. Apparently Kerry is as "dumb" as Bush. While at Yale, Kerry managed more "D's" than W and their final grade average (they did not have GPA's then) were only two points apart.
Here's the point I want to make: Kerry's comments were not as much of an insult to the active military (though it is) as it was a direct insult to the fine ROTC programs throughout our fine nation's campae of higher education. ROTC programs exist to provide men and women a chance to go to college for near to free in exchange, following college, for service in the finest military in the world.
And I can personally attest to how well ROTC works. My brother-in-law is a soldier, a former commanding ROTC student officer of his unit. He worked hard to complete his ROTC training and, in return, was given a tremendous education. What is more, he continued in the Air Force and was given a chance to gain both his Masters and Doctorate degrees while on active duty. My brother-in-law is smarter than I will ever be, and twice that of Senator "Don't forget, I fought in Vietnam" Kerry. He remains, to this day, committed to his work in the Air Force, doing some of the most complex monitoring and research that this world has to offer. To imply that the very military education program that vaulted my brother-in-law's educational development is somehow second best to "education" is an insult of dynamic proportions.
Mr. Heinz-Kerry: keep talking, keep showing us that today's liberals hate the military and are, in essence, rich, snobby white boys from Boston Commons and botoxed women from San Fran.
Your comments, your "botched" attempt at humor reveals exactly one thing: even the most uneducated boatswain's mate is smarter than you.
Even if you did serve in Vietnam.
On Tuesday, John "Did I mention I was in Vietnam" Kerry said the following: "You know, education, if you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you -- you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
This, according to his strongest defense, was a "botched joke." I would hate to see the real joke. The obvious implication of this "joke" was that the military is filled with dummies who could not cut it in the real world; ie, military service is a penalty.
Sidebar: In another report, the Yale University grades of John Kerry and George W. Bush were finally compared - about two years too late. Apparently Kerry is as "dumb" as Bush. While at Yale, Kerry managed more "D's" than W and their final grade average (they did not have GPA's then) were only two points apart.
Here's the point I want to make: Kerry's comments were not as much of an insult to the active military (though it is) as it was a direct insult to the fine ROTC programs throughout our fine nation's campae of higher education. ROTC programs exist to provide men and women a chance to go to college for near to free in exchange, following college, for service in the finest military in the world.
And I can personally attest to how well ROTC works. My brother-in-law is a soldier, a former commanding ROTC student officer of his unit. He worked hard to complete his ROTC training and, in return, was given a tremendous education. What is more, he continued in the Air Force and was given a chance to gain both his Masters and Doctorate degrees while on active duty. My brother-in-law is smarter than I will ever be, and twice that of Senator "Don't forget, I fought in Vietnam" Kerry. He remains, to this day, committed to his work in the Air Force, doing some of the most complex monitoring and research that this world has to offer. To imply that the very military education program that vaulted my brother-in-law's educational development is somehow second best to "education" is an insult of dynamic proportions.
Mr. Heinz-Kerry: keep talking, keep showing us that today's liberals hate the military and are, in essence, rich, snobby white boys from Boston Commons and botoxed women from San Fran.
Your comments, your "botched" attempt at humor reveals exactly one thing: even the most uneducated boatswain's mate is smarter than you.
Even if you did serve in Vietnam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)