You link to a CNN article, so I'd recommend you read it in its entirety. Unfortunately, Kerry did not intend to say that uneducated people are in the military. It was just a messed up jab at Bush.
The CNN article states:
Kerry was supposed to say, "I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."
It's a pretty good jab, but he left out one little word, "us", and now everyone thinks he's some crazy politician who hates America and hates the military. Considering how many mistakes Bush makes when he's speaking, it's too bad Kerry had to make a mistake that crucially changed what he meant to say.
I think the important thing to remember about all of this is that Kerry did not mean to say that, nor does he feel that way about the troops. He actually wanted to say that Bush is an idiot, not that the military is a bunch of idiots.
Even the correctly delivered joke would have been lame.. and if you watch the video, he even screwed up the setup!
A funny joke MIGHT have been "I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? Well, right now it looks like you get to be President of the United States. But THEN You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."
It's not rocket science. And now bozo Kerry might damage yet another election.
I think, when correctly delivered, it's a pretty good insult, although not a very funny joke.
I, too, am concerned with what damage this might cause on the election, but I haven't seen Kerry playing too big of a role in Election 2006, so I'm not too worried about it. I don't think people will view him as the "spokesperson of the Democratic party", so what he says probably won't affect the entire election. However, hopefully candidates don't stick up for him, because they'll just get pulled into the negative publicity.
He needs to stay out of the spotlight. He's been all used up and people are tired of him.
the subtext i read, and that disturbed me quite a bit, is that it's not uneducated people that end up in the military, it's poor people. and this hits so close to home, i don't know why it's not being addressed in the media.
a few days ago i heard an excellent NPR piece on why one person of privilege chose to join the miliary and his opinion on why the privileged don't go to war. prob still avail online.
also, chocolate gets more attention from me. right on!
My policy was usually to go through the name candy first, but most name candy is chocolate-based. Except Skittles.
It's incredible how much candy I went through in the weeks following Halloween without getting fat. But I think back then candy was made out of real cane sugar, instead of corn syrup. If that makes as big a difference as the filthy hippies say it does, then today's kids are in big trouble.
Twizzlers are also high up on the non-chocolate list, and Reeses Pieces might get a pass, because of their clever M+M like use of peanutbutter.
Just to provide some opposition data to FaSO's above assertion that the privileged don't go to war, I give you this report which studied the demographics of recruits (which therefore excludes the education and economic advancement that takes place within the armed forces, as well as existing reservists who have been activated) in recent years and demonstrates that the poor are underrepresented among recent recruits, dropping from 18% in 1999 to 13.7% in 2005. The below article also covers their education levels and race.
The source is the right-wing economic-conservative, pro-national-security thinktank The Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm
Also, not related to recruits, but it's worth noting, though I can't source it right now, that minority recruits specialize at a higher rate than whites, meaning that they're underrepresented among the so-called cannon-fodder, despite another common belief.
Also, corn syrup is good for the economy, because we still grown corn in America, and subsidize the hell out of it as well, whereas my coworker just returned from Hawaii to report that it's no longer economical over there to grow bananas, pineapples, or sugarcane.
Kirk's version of the joke is much better, and reminds me of a joke Reagan once made-- he was talking about returning to his Alma Mater and received an honorary degree, which, he said, caused him considerably anxiety, because always he had the idea that the first one he got there was rather honorary. Zing!
Yes, LAN3, but now were going to turn that corn syrup into highly susidized, petroleum-base fertilized, motor fuel, that gets 2/3 the miles per gallon of gasoline.
Weight in on candy? Was that pun intended? Chocolate all the way, for me.
NECCO WAFERS!
you like necco wafers? bleah!
LAN3, thanks for the data - very interesting. especially the 'wartime recruits by household income'. i'm surprised that the extremely poor are so underrepresented, but unsurprised at similar levels of representation at $70K+. that's where i'm coming from re: poor vs privileged. an interesting question is how this chart mirrors income levels in the US. i.e., are american demographics mirrored in the millitary or not? i'm not sure whether this article answers that question.
also, man my benchmark for 'comfortable' vs 'poorer' is skewed! must be from living in this crazy cost-of-living town.
nah, i don't like necco wafers. just figured i'd give a shout-out to some of the worst treats people give out. and while i'm at it..
BAKER'S CHOCOLATE!
Well, I take it you mean that instead of just recruits, where did the generals and admirals come from, income-wise? It gets tricky because the highest-ranking guys have been in for 35-40+ years, harking back to different economic conditions when they joined up. Certainly there are poor people *in* the military, as the lowest ratings have small incomes, not enough to support the kinds of families many such new recruits might be joining up in order to support.
my question is really how represetative of the current demographics, by ethnicity, $$, and education, is the military today? just because there are few overall poorer enlistees isn't a warning flag. what's a warning flag is if 20% of the US pop falls into that category but 30% of enlistees do. if the percentages are close to equal, then i'm happier with the makeup of the military.