and Conservatives - they are nearly meaningless labels.

We seem to love do that - applying labels to ourselves and others - to stereotype each other. She's cute - he's smart - they're obnoxious. All in all, however, such labels only serve to narrow our perspective - to bias the way that we perceive ourselves and those around us. It tends to create artificial divisions where none may actually exist.

The current debate over Iraq is a case in point. There is little difference between the Administration, the Congress and the two candidates regarding the US role in Iraq. Yet we manage to get into endless debates over the subject - based largely on our "political perspective".

Ron

The differences in Iraq are less about the concrete plans for what to do next than about our perception of the quality of the judgment of the candidates.

Unfortunately, Iraq is such a wretched situation that there are no good answers. Pull out prematurely and there's the risk that the country will decend into outright civil war. Don't pull out and we'll keep bleeding billions of dollars and thousands of American lives, while possibly acting as the irritant that prevents a more stable situation to take hold. There's no patently good plan for mitigating the harm we caused with our invasion. Thus, the discussion of Iraq isn't about specific plans for moving forward, which are all going to be unavoidably unappealing, but rather about whether the candidate can be trusted to make sensible decisions, in general, when it comes to foreign policy.

That's why I'll be voting for Obama. I'm not certain he'll handle the Iraq catastrophe any better than McCain. But I am certain that he's less likely to push our country into a similarly frivolous and disastrous war in Iran (or Syria or North Korea). McCain has convinced me, again and again, that he's just not smart enough, honest enough, and open-minded enough to learn any fundamental lessons from the Iraq mistake. He continues to see the errors of the Bush foreign policy as simply quibbling problems of poor military tactics, rather than the core problem of us having started a war when there were still plenty of other viable options.

Because of McCain's weak intellect and lack of moral fiber, I just don't trust him with the military. Obama doesn't have to be far removed from McCain on the "going forward" strategy for Iraq to be far removed from him when it comes to overall foreign policy vision. Obama has shown far more healthy skepticism about the usefulness of war as a tool for foreign policy, and that's almost single-handedly enough reason to vote for him.

RCH1:

and Conservatives - they are nearly meaningless labels.

We seem to love do that - applying labels to ourselves and others - to stereotype each other. She's cute - he's smart - they're obnoxious. All in all, however, such labels only serve to narrow our perspective - to bias the way that we perceive ourselves and those around us. It tends to create artificial divisions where none may actually exist.

The current debate over Iraq is a case in point. There is little difference between the Administration, the Congress and the two candidates regarding the US role in Iraq. Yet we manage to get into endless debates over the subject - based largely on our "political perspective".

Ron

.....mostly because I do not see being conservative and liberal as being mutually exclusive. One can act in both ways and one can be "cute" or "smart" to their own "crowd", but obnoxious to another's "crowd". One could also be "cute" and "smart" to their own crowd one moment and obnoxious to the same crowd in another moment.

I think the philosophies of people are different, but can change and none of them line up exactly all the time with those of a particular definition or political party and there seems to be a lot of confusion based on trying to fit square pegs into round holes. One can be a liberal or a conservative, a democrat or a Republican and be for or against whatever the debate is about Iraq.

As you point out the efforts to paint a "for" or an "against" as necessarily fitting some other "group" may stifle or stalemate any positive efforts toward good solutions. Instead of looking at the objective debate about issues in Iraq or elsewhere, it seems as though we may have gotten caught up in a political football game. Oh, he's/she's for the war? That must make him/her a conservative Republican or Oh, she's/he's against the war? That must make he/she a liberal Democrat, thus efforts are blocked or moved forward not on their individual objective merit, but whether they will score points for the team we are on.

The pledges of office for all elected and appointed officials are to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not to uphold their personal opinions, a so-called liberal or conservative philosophy (if they are somehow supposed to be mutually exclusive) or to uphold a political party's platform. The Constitution of the U.S. is the culmination and product of a lot of debate, from all the same variety of positions and opinions we see today. If not simply just upholding the contents and meaning of Constitution, it might also be useful to note and recognize the compromises and cooperation needed amongst all the various opinions and philosophies to finally ratify such a Constitution because doing so became more important than failing to do so in order that plantation owner such and such or the silversmiths guild should have their own way at the expense of a greater objective.

How exactly does a man of 'weak intellect' become a carrier-qualified Naval Aviator and go on to win seats in the House and Senate with such regularity?

We should all be so addled...

Well, one way to do it is to ride your powerful father's and grandfather's reputation to the Navy Academy, barely graduate, and then become a POW, so that you can spend the rest of your career running as a war hero. Gee, that question was easy.

A little more seriously: a great intellect is hardly a prerequisite for political success. George W. Bush can hardly string two sentences together without a grammar mistake, yet he rose to the nation's highest office. Reagan got there on the strength of Hollywood glamor and cowboy posturing.

Great intellect can actually be a drawback for a candidate, since it creates a gulf between him and those he has to convince to vote for him, making him seem like an elitist. If a smart candidate can speak "stupid" fluently, as a second language, he can bridge that gulf, but it sure is easier to just speak it natively, the way Bush does.

I have had dealings with numerous Naval Aviators. While many (most? all?) of them suffered from a significant overdose of ego, I have yet to meet one who was less than intellectually adroit.

Further, grammatical inability is not necessarily related to lack of intelligence, especially said inability in a public forum. Nor is great speaking ability specifically an indicator of stellar intelligence. I offer your own example of RWR as evidence.

So, can you offer concrete evidence that McCain is as bereft of cerebral puissance as you claim or are you just posturing for the partisan crowd?

McCain has his flaws. Stupid isn't one of them.

Boss Greer:

How exactly does a man of 'weak intellect' become a carrier-qualified Naval Aviator and go on to win seats in the House and Senate with such regularity?

We should all be so addled...

Possibly because ,as Lincoln described us, "a nation of the people, by the people and for the people" sends representatives who are of the people, by the people and hopefully for the people.

If a class of fourth graders picked a fellow fourth grader to "represent" them, that does not mean the "intellect" of the person they elect is any greater than their own, nor does it mean they can read at a tenth grade level.

I don't see John McCain in that way nor would I characterize his intellect in that way. I don't agree with his thoughts which are perhaps a result of his intellect on some things, but I would not characterize is intellect as being necessarily weak.

One might refer to a concern about his periodic stumbles with things at times and perhaps suggest his intellect or his mind may be somewhat diminished with age. That may not be a concern with the number of people who voted him in versus those who voted against him or did not vote for him, but it is a concern, just the way Al Gore, not living in detail according to his suggestions or challenges for America and thus leading by example.

I have known some very "brilliant" people in my life who couldn't figure out how to change a flat tire on their own car. "Intellect" is perhaps as much a measure of how we do by someone else's measuring stick as it is true intuitive, well rounded thought. I don't know how I could presume to measure someone else's intellect and exclude another's measurement of mine which I am fairly sure would suggest I am like all other humans, intellectual to some, lacking intellect to others.

Some might say serving in the military, being a senator and running for President of the United States twice may qualify one more for being a masochistic glutton for punishment more than being a "qualified" (in whose eyes?) intellect, but as with most things, that would be in the eye of the beholder.

So in this subject, as with many subjects and most people Boss, I agree with some of what you're/they're saying and disagree with some other things you're saying.

Have a great afternoon Boss!

: )

I note with some amusement that neither you nor Arkady chose to focus on (or even acknowledge) his having been a carrier-qualified Naval aviator (no easy task by anyone's benchmark), instead limiting your remarks to his political career.

Why do you suppose that was?

His dismal performance at the naval academy and his serious trouble mastering the difference between Iran and Iraq and Sunnis and Shiites would be some reasons to doubt his intelligence.

His daddy and grand daddy were admirals. I think it's quite possible that the fact his COs knew that may have influenced them into easing his way into qualifying. Heck, look at Bush -- he scored very low on his aptitude test but wound up getting a coveted spot in the Air National Guard anyway. If a powerful political father can ease the way for that, I can only imagine when the father and grandfather's powerbases are in the service.

I agree. McCain certainly has been making some high profile mistakes lately...maybe it's age as well.

Dave

Boss Greer:

I note with some amusement that neither you nor Arkady chose to focus on (or even acknowledge) his having been a carrier-qualified Naval aviator (no easy task by anyone's benchmark), instead limiting your remarks to his political career.

Why do you suppose that was?

I know people who are nuclear physicists, math professors and heads of huge multi-national corporations who figuratively and literally can't change a flat tire on their own car. This is not because they are not a genius of some sort in some way, but because they are not geniuses in all and every way. That would likely make them gods, not human beings.

Everyone looks for something different in their measure of others. Intellect is great in my mind, if people use it in an intuitive way to follow the flow of nature's law as well as look for exceptions to it. I haven't had a divine intervention that tells me what I look for in others is the "right" things to look for in others or the wrong thing, so it is just the opinion of one human being. It may be joined by similar opinions from other human beings.

There is intellect needed to land an aircraft on a carrier, there is also intellect needed to keep from being sliced in two by the CDP. Being a carrier-qualified Naval Aviator should not assume the Aviator has the needed intellect to avoid getting cut in half or injured by a CDP as a Hook Runner. I would also not assume the intellect needed to be a hook runner is or is not equal to the intellect needed to be a carrier qualified Naval Aviator.

I agree with you that being proficient in an activity or endeavor to the point of meeting standards of qualification offers an introductory suggestion that someone has a level of intellect, but it does not necessarily cover an intellect for all aspects of life or even for a fairly well-rounded intellect and propensity for intuitive thinking, that we need to decide on a case-by-case basis and those basis' are mixed in with our own capacity or intellect, intuitive thinking and our own opinions.

It is perhaps why vanity might be called a sin, because, in a practical sense, of the assumptions it makes about ourselves and about others and how such may lead to bias, bigotry, prejudice, inequality and subjectivity as opposed to objectivity.

I hope we're all looking at and have looked at all the candidates as the sum of their parts, including their character and intellects, both qualified and specific and unqualified and general.

Being a billionaire does not qualify someone to be a good person, being an MD/PHD of which there are a few in my family circle, does not qualify someone as intelligent or intuitive in all things.

Being a carrier qualified Naval Aviator, makes John McCain a qualified Naval Aviator, capable of doing things some others cannot and have not attempted to do, it does not qualify him to be a qualified air traffic controller or a qualified sanitary engineer any more than it qualifies him to be president of the United States. Barack Obama's qualifications to be an attorney qualify him to be an attorney, not to be a qualified air traffic controller, a qualified sanitary engineer, a carrier qualified Naval Aviator or qualifies him to be president of the United States, what will attract or detract from either or both of them is their overall package when people add up and measure the components, then the sum of the components and compare them to one another.

It would appear that you were the one that inserted his carrier qualified Naval Aviator qualifications into his political career, as most, perhaps even all discussion here regarding McCain are rooted in his political career, how is "limiting remarks to his political career" not pertinent to the discussion and how were my remarks limited to his political career, I mentioned people of a variety of intellects and believe I was addressing that as much as the political career of John McCain (Elections to Congress based on being a carrier qualifited Naval Aviator - your premise, not mine).

That's a thought of course.

Here's another one.

Nobody flies a jet on or off a carrier for you, no matter who your daddy was/is.

You will of course disagree with THIS, especially the characterization of McCain's opposition, but it might give you a glimmer into the life of a carrier pilot as seen from the outside.

THIS one is from someone who's 'been there, done that'. (totally non political)

and allowing your dislike for Bush and McCain dictate your perpective. Let me assure you that qualifying to land million dollar jets planes on multimillion dollar carriers is not a matter of who you father is. It takes a particular physical skill which you either do or do not possess.

Ron

Knot, my remarks are based solely on Arkady's calling McCain's intellect into question.

No more, no less.

Your own last post over-extended by a significant margin the scope of the dialog.

I suggest simply that you don't accomplish what McCain has by being intellectually vacant.