Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:


you are taking him too literally.


With all due respect, Art, I fail to see how I am taking him
too literally. Mike meant exactly what he said, in no
uncertain terms. Mike subsequently said he heard the TopGun
claim on the radio and he indeed believed it.

End of story.

GZ

Michael McKelvy wrote:

WRT Top Gun school I've heard it reported on radio.

Thank you for your candor on this. I assure you the report
was wrong.

WRT Dubya's intelligence, if he's as dumb as people say, I still prefer him
to a smart Liberal.

I still don't think you have a clue about what constitutes
true Liberalism. Unless you're a multi-millionaire CEO or a
biblical end-timer, your beliefs are far closer to the core
beliefs of a true Liberal than they are to the *actual* (yet
unstated) objectives of Bush and his cronies.

Don't fall for the vulgar stereotyping of Liberals put forth
by the mainstream media and by the Conservative
establishment. You'd do well to learn what actual Liberalism
and Progressivism really mean.

I'll see if I can find independent confirmation of the Top gun deal.

Barring some *very* loose definition of TopGun, you're going
to be searching for a looooong time.

Glenn Z

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

I wasn't talking about Bush
I was talking about the ruling intelligentsia in
a socialist or communist society, about
how they just seem to live better than everyone else.

If by socialist or communist you mean North Korea, the USSR,
or Turkmenistan, for example, I agree. If, instead, you're
talking about Italy, Finland, or Sweden, I think you need to
spend some time there and see if you still want to come back
home.


GZ

Michael McKelvy wrote:

He served his commitment and got an honorable discharge.

Mike, I still don't understand the source of your vehement
protestations whenever anybody attacks GWB's character.
You're not related to him and he doesn't represent you, no
matter how much you'd like to be a multi-millionaire.
There's a preponderance of evidence that he:

a) Had many favors pulled on his behalf to get him into the
"Champagne Unit" in which he served.

b) Achieved the very lowest score on his pilot/officer
aptitude test that still allowed him to fly.

c) Served sporadically while in Texas then got permission to
transfer to Alabama to work on the political campaign of a
family friend.

d) Was derelict in his service while in Alabama.

To date, not a *single* person has come forward to
corroborate his presence in Alabama -- not even a fellow
flyboy who would likely remember his famous fellow
squadmember. The best that can be said is that his commander
can't refute claims that GWB was there.

For god's sake, Mike, call a spade a spade. This isn't mere
defamation by merciless political adversaries. It's an
exposition of the typical behavior of a wild young man with
a known propensity for irresponsibility. It's not at all
inconsistent with what's known about young W. And if he'd
have just come clean about it (too late now), it wouldn't
have been an issue.

None of this would be terribly interesting under ordinary
circumstances. But W's veracity and integrity are of
fundamental importance in the current climate: an
administration that frequently operates in unprecedented
secrecy, an administration that wants to take by fiat powers
that go way beyond those *granted* previous administrations
-- powers over the American populace and dominion over the
entire geopolitical sphere. As an avowed Libertarian, you
should be shocked and horrified.

Glenn Z

S888Wheel said:

If you get into an Ivy League school on a legacy you only have to meet the
bottom requirements of admissions. You can be pretty stupid and still get into
Yale. G.W. did get in on his fathers legacy.

I believe it was his grandfather. An endowment of that magnitude
goes on and on and one.

Trevor Wilson said:

Everyone should build their own roads.

**Is that you, Jeffrey (Archer)?

Is that you, Mikey?

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message


None of this would be terribly interesting under ordinary
circumstances. But W's veracity and integrity are of
fundamental importance in the current climate: an
administration that frequently operates in unprecedented
secrecy, an administration that wants to take by fiat powers
that go way beyond those *granted* previous administrations
-- powers over the American populace and dominion over the
entire geopolitical sphere. As an avowed Libertarian, you
should be shocked and horrified.

W's veracity and integrity are of fundamental importance, just as assuredly
as Bill Clinton's veracity and integrity were of fundamental importance.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message



W's veracity and integrity are of fundamental importance, just as assuredly
as Bill Clinton's veracity and integrity were of fundamental importance.

I agree and I'm no big fan of Clinton. But that's not the
issue here. Clinton lied often and there's no denying it,
but the Clinton administration did not seek the sweeping and
unprecedented powers that Bush and Company desire. And while
the Clinton crew was rife with creeps and corporate cronies,
I think the Bush cabal is far, far creepier.

GZ

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

I wasn't talking about Bush
I was talking about the ruling intelligentsia in
a socialist or communist society, about
how they just seem to live better than everyone else.

If by socialist or communist you mean North Korea, the USSR,
or Turkmenistan, for example, I agree. If, instead, you're
talking about Italy, Finland, or Sweden, I think you need to
spend some time there and see if you still want to come back
home.


I would not consider Italy, Finland and Sweden Socialist societies.
They do not fit the definition. BTW, modern corporations are not
typically owned by a rich minority of capitalists or
functionaries. Typically, ownership is widely distributed
via mutual funds, retirement funds, IRA's, labor unions,
etc.

The definition of Socialism,as found on the "Socialism Website"

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/#Nutshell

is as follows.

"In a socialist society the means of production are owned by the workers
rather than by a rich minority of capitalists or functionaries."











----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

I would not consider Italy, Finland and Sweden Socialist societies.
They do not fit the definition.

Yet they have many of the accoutrements of socialism that
conservative reactionaries find abhorrent: free healthcare,
free education, strict regulation of industry come to mind.

BTW, modern corporations are not
typically owned by a rich minority of capitalists or
functionaries. Typically, ownership is widely distributed
via mutual funds, retirement funds, IRA's, labor unions,
etc.

In theory, yes. But when executive compensation can run into
the hundreds of millions of dollars per annum, when
executives can trade on inside information while forcing
employees to hold stock while its value plummets, and when
CEOs can get personal external loans that run into the
billions secured with company stock without having to
disclose the loan to the stockholders (thanks, Joe
Lieberman), something is very, very wrong. Think Kozlowski,
Lay, Worldcom, Adelphia, Qwest, et. al. The naughty behavior
of a few greedy CEOs can undermine your utopian vision of
the publicly held corporation.

The definition of Socialism,as found on the "Socialism Website"

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/#Nutshell

is as follows.

"In a socialist society the means of production are owned by the workers
rather than by a rich minority of capitalists or functionaries."

I stand by my assertion.

GZ

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:


you are taking him too literally.


With all due respect, Art, I fail to see how I am taking him
too literally. Mike meant exactly what he said, in no
uncertain terms. Mike subsequently said he heard the TopGun
claim on the radio and he indeed believed it.


Yes, he said that afterwards. I found it really difficult to take
the Top Gun reference seriously. I thought he perhaps meant
top flight school, in referring to the Ivy League schools.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

I would not consider Italy, Finland and Sweden Socialist societies.
They do not fit the definition.

Yet they have many of the accoutrements of socialism that
conservative reactionaries find abhorrent: free healthcare,
free education, strict regulation of industry come to mind.


Well, they certainly are very liberal, but they are not socialist.

BTW, modern corporations are not
typically owned by a rich minority of capitalists or
functionaries. Typically, ownership is widely distributed
via mutual funds, retirement funds, IRA's, labor unions,
etc.

In theory, yes. But when executive compensation can run into
the hundreds of millions of dollars per annum, when
executives can trade on inside information while forcing
employees to hold stock while its value plummets, and when
CEOs can get personal external loans that run into the
billions secured with company stock without having to
disclose the loan to the stockholders (thanks, Joe
Lieberman), something is very, very wrong. Think Kozlowski,
Lay, Worldcom, Adelphia, Qwest, et. al. The naughty behavior
of a few greedy CEOs can undermine your utopian vision of
the publicly held corporation.


Every system, every enterpise, every governemantal entity is
subject to being abused. In Washingotm DC, the very liberal
DC teachers union leaders ripped off their members. That is
human nature, and we ain't found a cure for it yet. And certainly
socialism ain't the cure. The basic fault of socialism and
communism is that they are built upon the precepts that
human beings are basically altrusitic. This is a big falsehood.
Human beings are basically egocentrical, and are motivated
by individual benefit (and to some degree by group
benefit, say family, religion, ethnicity). In consideration
of the true nature of human beings, capitalism works best.
However, that is not to say it works perfectly. There has to be
regulation to ensure against abject greed. It is a system where
some will wield more power than others, and this has
to be controlled to some degree, to prevent abuse. We have come
a long way in this regard, at least in America and in Western
Europe. But, the basic tenet of capitalism has to be the
Profit Motive. It is what makes things happen (jobs, business,
invention, progress)





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...

With all due respect, Art, I fail to see how I am taking him
too literally. Mike meant exactly what he said, in no
uncertain terms. Mike subsequently said he heard the TopGun
claim on the radio and he indeed believed it.

Yes, he said that afterwards. I found it really difficult to take
the Top Gun reference seriously. I thought he perhaps meant
top flight school, in referring to the Ivy League schools.

Understood. I'd seen him make the reference before, though,
and that's why I understood what he intended. The reason I
seized on the remark, though, is that I wanted to point out
the absurdity of some of the mythology concerning GWB. He's
not a genius. He's not a good businessman. He's not a man of
the people. He's not a good statesman. He's not an orator.
He's not a thinker. He's not an intellectual. He's not
honest. He's not compassionate. He's a doofus and a liar who
serves a single master: the corporate machine that put him
in office. The next time somebody tries to tell you he's a
TopGun, that he discovered superconductivity, proved the
Poincare conjecture, or discovered a cure for paralysis,
simply ask yourself "how can I reconcile this claim with
everything I see before me and know intuitively?" I suspect
that any rational person, regardless of political leanings,
will conclude "I can't."

GZ

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:


Every system, every enterpise, every governemantal entity is
subject to being abused. In Washingotm DC, the very liberal
DC teachers union leaders ripped off their members. That is
human nature, and we ain't found a cure for it yet. And certainly
socialism ain't the cure. The basic fault of socialism and
communism is that they are built upon the precepts that
human beings are basically altrusitic.

And the basic fault of laissez-faire capitalism is that it
is built upon the precept that the corporation *and* its
leaders are absolved of responsibility for its misdeeds. The
corporate leaders wield massive power over the employees in
their thrall, are compensated disproportionately, and mold
the very governance that is supposed to provide oversight
and protect the public. The CEOs continue to reap all the
benefits yet suffer very little in the face of their
companies' poor economic performance or, worse yet,
unethical and criminal behavior.

This is a big falsehood.
Human beings are basically egocentrical, and are motivated
by individual benefit (and to some degree by group
benefit, say family, religion, ethnicity). In consideration
of the true nature of human beings, capitalism works best.

Measured how? I urge you to think this point through very
carefully, for I fear you'll point to GDP or per-capita
income. Please consider other factors such as safety,
security, dignity, happiness, and quality of life.

However, that is not to say it works perfectly. There has to be
regulation to ensure against abject greed. It is a system where
some will wield more power than others, and this has
to be controlled to some degree, to prevent abuse. We have come
a long way in this regard, at least in America and in Western
Europe. But, the basic tenet of capitalism has to be the
Profit Motive. It is what makes things happen (jobs, business,
invention, progress)

Unfortunately, it has led to creepy philosophies such as the
PNAC, which attempts to instill a hegemony where we're the
only superpower and the moral, spiritual, economic,
military, and cultural leaders of the world. This kind of
globalization is quite dangerous given that global capital
is a zero-sum game and there are others who don't want to be
on the wrong end of the gun. There's a better way, but we're
not headed in that direction.

GZ

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:29:33 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 08:38:39 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax
cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of
the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

Or should wee just give it all to themand they send us what they
think
we
need? That seems to be the direction we've been heading.

Meltdown approaching..


--
Wrong again. Just wondering what the left thinks is a fair amount
of
income
to confiscate.


Easy, till everybody has nothing. Then we are all equal.
Of course, except for the ruling intelligentsia.

**Are REALLY suggesting that Dubya is intelligent?



I'm not suggesting it,it's simply a fact. You think because he doesn't
speak well that he's stupid? You don't get to go to Top Gun school if
you're an idiot, they are the best of the best.

I suppose that's why he said in 1994, regarding his decision to go
into the National Guard in order to avoid combat:

What's wrong with trying to avoid getting shot at if you can do it and still
serve with honor?

I guess it was better for him to let *you* get shot at than him, I
suppose.

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to
get a deferment. Not was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to
better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."

Maybe that's why he served something like 5 and a half months *less*
than his commitment because he wanted to attend Harvard Business
School.

He served his commitment and got an honorable discharge.

No, he was let out early. Almost *half a year* early. Can you imagine
an average Joe telling the military that they want to quit almost a
year early because they want to go to school?

To me, that's not the same thing as serving ones commitment.

I notice that you're willing to give moral passes to the right that
you aren't willing to allow on the left.

Maybe that's why he was grounded from flying for "failure to
accomplish medical examination".


He was grounded because the planes he had been flying and was trained became
obsolete and it was less expensive to ground him than retrain him on new
aircraft.

No, he was grounded for "failure to accomplish medical examination".

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc14.gif

Funny, I don't see anything about Miramar in the above duty
assignments. What were the dates that he attended the Top Gun school?

Ahhhh, looks like you can't worm out of this one, can you?

You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy is a
congressman. True he may only have been a C student, but a C from one of
those schools is as good as an A in a lot of other well respected
institutuions.

Well, *that's* one way to look at it, I suppose. What's *your* excuse?

What's your waiter?

Whatever *that* means...

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:32:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

[snip]

**Are REALLY suggesting that Dubya is intelligent?

I'm not suggesting it,it's simply a fact. You think because he doesn't
speak well that he's stupid? You don't get to go to Top Gun school if
you're an idiot, they are the best of the best.

Without letting this degenerate into your usual autonomic defense
of GWB, Mike, can you please explain where you got the idea that
W went to TopGun school? I think you are quite mistaken about
this. TOPGUN was a very special program that was, indeed,
reserved for the very best Naval pilots. A guardsman never would
have been allowed to participate.

Besides, there are some other compelling reasons he wouldn't have
been in the Topgun program. First of all, the T.A.N.G. is a
component of the Air Force, while TopGun is for Navy pilots.
Furthermore, he scored a 25% on the Officer and Pilot
Qualification Exam, which was the *very* lowest score that would
allow him admission to the Guard as a pilot. He was not a very
promising candidate, to be sure, and hardly TopGun material even
if the Navy allowed a reservist from the wrong military component
to train there.

Please don't find a way to spin this, OK? He wasn't in TopGun
school. Not even close.

You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy is
a
congressman. True he may only have been a C student, but a C from one
of
those schools is as good as an A in a lot of other well respected
institutuions.

I wouldn't take this as axiomatic, Mike. Running a C average in
the Ivies is nothing to be proud of. They don't like bouncing
people out of school when there's a revenue stream to be had.

It would be disingenuous of me to act like I'm sorry to say this,
but GWB is not very smart. Shrewd, maybe. But intelligent? No.
Not at all. YMMV

Glenn Zelniker

WRT Top Gun school I've heard it reported on radio.

So it *must* be true, right?

Do the research and quit shooting from the hip.

WRT Dubya's intelligence, if he's as dumb as people say, I still prefer him
to a smart Liberal.

Ahhh, now we're starting to change our tune, aren't we?

I'll see if I can find independent confirmation of the Top gun deal.

You won't be able to. He never attended Miramar.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:34:58 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy is
a
congressman.

**Sure you do.

Not according to people I've spoken with.

Sure you didn't "hear it on the radio"?

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the
tax
cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked
of
the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should
a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

Or should wee just give it all to themand they send us what
they
think
we
need? That seems to be the direction we've been heading.

Meltdown approaching..


--
Wrong again. Just wondering what the left thinks is a fair
amount
of
income
to confiscate.


Easy, till everybody has nothing. Then we are all equal.
Of course, except for the ruling intelligentsia.

**Are REALLY suggesting that Dubya is intelligent?



I'm not suggesting it,it's simply a fact.

**Not on this planet.

You think because he doesn't
speak well that he's stupid?

**Nope. I think he is stupid, because he exhibits a whole host of
obviously
stupid characteristics. Some (but far from all) include:

* He believes in God (and all the supernatural claptrap which
accompanies
such silliness).
So do Clinton and Carter.

**That does not make Dubya any smarter. Belief in the supernatural is a
major blindspot for any human. Such a beleif system shows that the person is
incapable of critical thought.


* He performed poorly at school.
He preformed average at school.

**Nope. Poorly.


* When he speaks off-the-cuff (which is, understandably, very rare), his
words are almost incomprehensible.


Meaning that he doesn't speak well.

**Not quite. I mean he often makes no sense at all. The fact that he cannot
pronounce nuclear correctly, is a minor issue. The words he speaks often
suggest a poor thinking ability.



You don't get to go to Top Gun school if
you're an idiot, they are the best of the best.

**Top Gun school? You've got to be joking. He was in the reserve! He
used
his connections to avoid actual combat.


You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy
is
a
congressman.

**Sure you do.

Not according to people I've spoken with.

**I guess you need to speak with a few more.


True he may only have been a C student, but a C from one of
those schools is as good as an A in a lot of other well respected
institutuions.

**Utter nonsense.


So's global warming, but you believe in that.

**Sadly, global warming is a fact. It's just the causes of that warming
we're arguing about.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Glenn Zelniker wrote:

Michael McKelvy wrote:

He served his commitment and got an honorable discharge.


Mike, I still don't understand the source of your vehement protestations
whenever anybody attacks GWB's character. You're not related to him and
he doesn't represent you, no matter how much you'd like to be a
multi-millionaire. There's a preponderance of evidence that he:

a) Had many favors pulled on his behalf to get him into the "Champagne
Unit" in which he served.

b) Achieved the very lowest score on his pilot/officer aptitude test
that still allowed him to fly.

c) Served sporadically while in Texas then got permission to transfer
to Alabama to work on the political campaign of a family friend.

d) Was derelict in his service while in Alabama.

To date, not a *single* person has come forward to corroborate his
presence in Alabama -- not even a fellow flyboy who would likely
remember his famous fellow squadmember. The best that can be said is
that his commander can't refute claims that GWB was there.

For god's sake, Mike, call a spade a spade. This isn't mere defamation
by merciless political adversaries. It's an exposition of the typical
behavior of a wild young man with a known propensity for
irresponsibility. It's not at all inconsistent with what's known about
young W. And if he'd have just come clean about it (too late now), it
wouldn't have been an issue.

Compared to Kerry's - gosh - I know of Generals with less major
decorations than him. Honestly. 3 commendations, 3 purple hearts,
2 bronze stars, and the crowning achievement, a silver star.

Now, most of the others you can get for being a good guy and
soldier and doing your job well(and surviving). They give
Bronze Stars to a lot of people, to be honest - but the Silver Star
is special as it requires something way above a typical heroic
act to save your men. Very very few soldiers ever get one.

That's what you'd expect from a work is ass off man or woman
in the military - they get commendations and awards and never
wimp out. That says a lot for his leadership qualities, whether
or not you believe in the tripe he says most of the time about
politics.

This is going to be a *close* race especially if he's smart and
chooses a proper V.P. from the west or middle america.

dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:29:33 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 08:38:39 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
news:v4gi205oboivb5gimiraeira7a6qfs5js2@4ax .com...

"Michael McKelvy" emitted :


Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax

cuts,

IOW

raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of

the

potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a

taxpayer

have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

Or should wee just give it all to themand they send us what they

think

we

need? That seems to be the direction we've been heading.

Meltdown approaching..


--

Wrong again. Just wondering what the left thinks is a fair amount

of

income

to confiscate.


Easy, till everybody has nothing. Then we are all equal.
Of course, except for the ruling intelligentsia.

**Are REALLY suggesting that Dubya is intelligent?




I'm not suggesting it,it's simply a fact. You think because he doesn't
speak well that he's stupid? You don't get to go to Top Gun school if
you're an idiot, they are the best of the best.

I suppose that's why he said in 1994, regarding his decision to go
into the National Guard in order to avoid combat:


What's wrong with trying to avoid getting shot at if you can do it and still
serve with honor?


I guess it was better for him to let *you* get shot at than him, I
suppose.


"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to
get a deferment. Not was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to
better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."

Maybe that's why he served something like 5 and a half months *less*
than his commitment because he wanted to attend Harvard Business
School.


He served his commitment and got an honorable discharge.


No, he was let out early. Almost *half a year* early. Can you imagine
an average Joe telling the military that they want to quit almost a
year early because they want to go to school?

Lol. Exactly. Even moreso when there's a draft going on.

No, he was grounded for "failure to accomplish medical examination".

Which raises the question - HOW FREEKING HARD IS IT TO REPORT FOR A
2 HOUR EXAM? Seriously. Let's bring this into proper context.

Also, they would have given him ample opportunity to retake it
before finally giving up and grounding him. Your C.O. tells you
to report for your exam - shoot, REAL PILOTS love to fly and
are there at 6am to get it over with so they can get back to duty.

Flying *rocks* - how he was such a deadbeat that he couldn't even
get excited about the coolest damn job in the entire military
that his relatives helped him to get I just don't know.

Trevor Wilson wrote:

* He performed poorly at school.

He preformed average at school.


**Nope. Poorly.

Exactly. Name me one grad school that will let you in with a
C average. C average is "poor but minimally acceptable" in
reality. I don't know of many employers who would hire a
skilled C student over an untrained A student in fact.

Now, a B student - that's acceptable. Oh - you need Bs in
grad school to pass, btw. Given that most classes grade on
a curve so that a C is really as low as 60-65%...

Meaning that he doesn't speak well.

**Not quite. I mean he often makes no sense at all. The fact that he cannot
pronounce nuclear correctly, is a minor issue. The words he speaks often
suggest a poor thinking ability.

That nobody else in his family has the problem and he wasn't
anything like this when he was young, this leaves his drug use
as a likely and unfortunate candidate.

Given his rich boy attitude about life and his corporate job
in the 80's - you can almost guarantee that he still used
some types of drugs, as Cocaine isn't a drug that you start
out with. So he just decided to stop one day? Even though
he had no real reason to - he had the money and it was popular
at the time among the rich - and had a track record of doing
whatever the hell he wanted to.

My educated guess is that he did it or other drugs from time
to time for the next deacade or so. He has that sanded off
mind - all the edges and spikes of intelligence - all washed
to a dull finish like a piece of glass in a river, that is all
too common of drug users.

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message


W's veracity and integrity are of fundamental importance, just as
assuredly as Bill Clinton's veracity and integrity were of
fundamental importance.

I agree and I'm no big fan of Clinton. But that's not the
issue here. Clinton lied often and there's no denying it,
but the Clinton administration did not seek the sweeping and
unprecedented powers that Bush and Company desire.

Yup, Hillary and Bill had zero interest in having the government obtain
sweeping and unprecedented powers in the area of health care. Oh, yes, and
we all know that health care involves an insignificant fraction of the GNP.
So, yes it's true that Clinton administration did not seek the sweeping and
unprecedented powers.

And while
the Clinton crew was rife with creeps and corporate cronies,
I think the Bush cabal is far, far creepier.

You certainly have the right to your opinions Glenn, But your recitations of
history seem to overlook important major events.

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message


Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

But, the basic tenet of capitalism has to be the
Profit Motive. It is what makes things happen (jobs, business,
invention, progress)

Unfortunately, it has led to creepy philosophies such as the
PNAC, which attempts to instill a hegemony where we're the
only superpower and the moral, spiritual, economic,
military, and cultural leaders of the world.

A very strange statement based on the unrealistic idea that a leader can
install himself. Leaders only exist if there are followers.

Why is the US the only superpower? Not because we installed ourselves in
that role, but because the only serious contenders during the 20th century
were seriously injured by others (UK), self-destructed (USSR) or were
destroyed by our allies and us (Japan, Germany).

This kind of
globalization is quite dangerous given that global capital
is a zero-sum game and there are others who don't want to be
on the wrong end of the gun.

*Nobody* wants to be on the wrong end of a *gun*.

The *gun* was the great equalizer of power. Of course in the current context
the *gun* is a metaphor for some kind of equalizer of power that enables an
entity with small amounts of power to take down an entity that has great
amounts of power.

In the current context, the *gun* is some WMD that is available or can be
contrived for a cost that vastly understates the value of the damage that it
can do.

There's a better way, but we're not headed in that direction.

If there's a better way, it has to be more credible than what you're talking
about here, Glenn.

For openers, it takes more than a scheme or a plan to become the only
superpower in the world.

dave weil wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:32:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:
I'll see if I can find independent confirmation of the Top gun deal.

You won't be able to. He never attended Miramar.

W's flying experience was in an F102 "Delta Dart," an interceptor that was
designed to go very fast in a straight line, not get involved in dog
fights, for which it was unsuited. It was also never used by the Navy,
which means his "landing on a carrier" stunt was doubly incorrect.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:06:38 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

* He performed poorly at school.

He preformed average at school.


**Nope. Poorly.

Exactly. Name me one grad school that will let you in with a
C average.

Apparently the Harvard Business School will. But you will first have
to have ended your military service early.

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...

With all due respect, Art, I fail to see how I am taking him
too literally. Mike meant exactly what he said, in no
uncertain terms. Mike subsequently said he heard the TopGun
claim on the radio and he indeed believed it.

Yes, he said that afterwards. I found it really difficult to take
the Top Gun reference seriously. I thought he perhaps meant
top flight school, in referring to the Ivy League schools.

Understood. I'd seen him make the reference before, though,
and that's why I understood what he intended. The reason I
seized on the remark, though, is that I wanted to point out
the absurdity of some of the mythology concerning GWB. He's
not a genius. He's not a good businessman. He's not a man of
the people. He's not a good statesman. He's not an orator.
He's not a thinker. He's not an intellectual. He's not
honest. He's not compassionate. He's a doofus and a liar who
serves a single master: the corporate machine that put him
in office. The next time somebody tries to tell you he's a
TopGun, that he discovered superconductivity, proved the
Poincare conjecture, or discovered a cure for paralysis,
simply ask yourself "how can I reconcile this claim with
everything I see before me and know intuitively?" I suspect
that any rational person, regardless of political leanings,
will conclude "I can't."

GZ


Isn't he the guy that invented the internet?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:


Every system, every enterpise, every governemantal entity is
subject to being abused. In Washingotm DC, the very liberal
DC teachers union leaders ripped off their members. That is
human nature, and we ain't found a cure for it yet. And certainly
socialism ain't the cure. The basic fault of socialism and
communism is that they are built upon the precepts that
human beings are basically altrusitic.

And the basic fault of laissez-faire capitalism is that it
is built upon the precept that the corporation *and* its
leaders are absolved of responsibility for its misdeeds.

First of all, I never said I supported laissez faire. That is about an
outdated economic concept as the manor system. And anayway,
there si no precept that the corp leaders are resolved of misdeeds.




The
corporate leaders wield massive power over the employees in
their thrall, are compensated disproportionately, and mold
the very governance that is supposed to provide oversight
and protect the public. The CEOs continue to reap all the
benefits yet suffer very little in the face of their
companies' poor economic performance or, worse yet,
unethical and criminal behavior.


Thsy should be paid massive amounts for the responsibilities
of their positions. Leaders are always paid more and more as you
got up the ladder. And more and more, they are being held
responsible. But some, like Terry McCauliffe, seem to escape
justice.



This is a big falsehood.
Human beings are basically egocentrical, and are motivated
by individual benefit (and to some degree by group
benefit, say family, religion, ethnicity). In consideration
of the true nature of human beings, capitalism works best.

Measured how? I urge you to think this point through very
carefully, for I fear you'll point to GDP or per-capita
income. Please consider other factors such as safety,
security, dignity, happiness, and quality of life.


Zilch, nada in Communist societies.
No security, no freedom, no happiness, no quality
of life, no dignity, just low rent in a run down tenement,
food rationing, a dearth of consumer goods, but yes, free
health care so that they can lead a long, healthy miserable life.

Look at the freedoms, security, happiness and dignity
we have here in AMerica. We are so fortunate to live
in a capitalistic representative democracy, with strong
constitutional guarantees of freedom.


However, that is not to say it works perfectly. There has to be
regulation to ensure against abject greed. It is a system where
some will wield more power than others, and this has
to be controlled to some degree, to prevent abuse. We have come
a long way in this regard, at least in America and in Western
Europe. But, the basic tenet of capitalism has to be the
Profit Motive. It is what makes things happen (jobs, business,
invention, progress)

Unfortunately, it has led to creepy philosophies such as the
PNAC, which attempts to instill a hegemony where we're the
only superpower and the moral, spiritual, economic,
military, and cultural leaders of the world. This kind of
globalization is quite dangerous given that global capital
is a zero-sum game and there are others who don't want to be
on the wrong end of the gun. There's a better way, but we're
not headed in that direction.


Global capital is NOT a zero sum game. you don't know much
about economics. Of course, under socialaism it would be
nearly so, as there is no incentive to produce other than altruism,
which is in limited supply.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:32:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

[snip]

**Are REALLY suggesting that Dubya is intelligent?

I'm not suggesting it,it's simply a fact. You think because he
doesn't
speak well that he's stupid? You don't get to go to Top Gun school
if
you're an idiot, they are the best of the best.

Without letting this degenerate into your usual autonomic defense
of GWB, Mike, can you please explain where you got the idea that
W went to TopGun school? I think you are quite mistaken about
this. TOPGUN was a very special program that was, indeed,
reserved for the very best Naval pilots. A guardsman never would
have been allowed to participate.

Besides, there are some other compelling reasons he wouldn't have
been in the Topgun program. First of all, the T.A.N.G. is a
component of the Air Force, while TopGun is for Navy pilots.
Furthermore, he scored a 25% on the Officer and Pilot
Qualification Exam, which was the *very* lowest score that would
allow him admission to the Guard as a pilot. He was not a very
promising candidate, to be sure, and hardly TopGun material even
if the Navy allowed a reservist from the wrong military component
to train there.

Please don't find a way to spin this, OK? He wasn't in TopGun
school. Not even close.

You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy
is
a
congressman. True he may only have been a C student, but a C from
one
of
those schools is as good as an A in a lot of other well respected
institutuions.

I wouldn't take this as axiomatic, Mike. Running a C average in
the Ivies is nothing to be proud of. They don't like bouncing
people out of school when there's a revenue stream to be had.

It would be disingenuous of me to act like I'm sorry to say this,
but GWB is not very smart. Shrewd, maybe. But intelligent? No.
Not at all. YMMV

Glenn Zelniker

WRT Top Gun school I've heard it reported on radio.

So it *must* be true, right?

Do the research and quit shooting from the hip.

WRT Dubya's intelligence, if he's as dumb as people say, I still prefer
him
to a smart Liberal.

Ahhh, now we're starting to change our tune, aren't we?

I'll see if I can find independent confirmation of the Top gun deal.

You won't be able to. He never attended Miramar.

I never heard anywhere, any time, that he did. Mikeys psots
are the only time I ever heard scuh a thing. And Mirimar,
at the time, it was Navy, and Bush was Air NAtional Guard.
They didn't use Miramar, did they?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

From Glenn Zelnicker:


I wanted to point out
the absurdity of some of the mythology concerning GWB. He's
not a genius. He's not a good businessman. He's not a man of
the people. He's not a good statesman. He's not an orator.
He's not a thinker. He's not an intellectual. He's not
honest. He's not compassionate. He's a doofus and a liar who
serves a single master: the corporate machine that put him
in office. The next time somebody tries to tell you he's a
TopGun, that he discovered superconductivity, proved the
Poincare conjecture, or discovered a cure for paralysis,
simply ask yourself "how can I reconcile this claim with
everything I see before me and know intuitively?" I suspect
that any rational person, regardless of political leanings,
will conclude "I can't."

GZ

A wonderful summation of the most woeful president of my lifetime (I'd
even vote for Ronny Raygun over GWB).

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
k.net...
Glenn Zelniker wrote:

Michael McKelvy wrote:

He served his commitment and got an honorable discharge.


Mike, I still don't understand the source of your vehement protestations
whenever anybody attacks GWB's character. You're not related to him and
he doesn't represent you, no matter how much you'd like to be a
multi-millionaire. There's a preponderance of evidence that he:

a) Had many favors pulled on his behalf to get him into the "Champagne
Unit" in which he served.

b) Achieved the very lowest score on his pilot/officer aptitude test
that still allowed him to fly.

c) Served sporadically while in Texas then got permission to transfer
to Alabama to work on the political campaign of a family friend.

d) Was derelict in his service while in Alabama.

To date, not a *single* person has come forward to corroborate his
presence in Alabama -- not even a fellow flyboy who would likely
remember his famous fellow squadmember. The best that can be said is
that his commander can't refute claims that GWB was there.

For god's sake, Mike, call a spade a spade. This isn't mere defamation
by merciless political adversaries. It's an exposition of the typical
behavior of a wild young man with a known propensity for
irresponsibility. It's not at all inconsistent with what's known about
young W. And if he'd have just come clean about it (too late now), it
wouldn't have been an issue.

Compared to Kerry's - gosh - I know of Generals with less major
decorations than him. Honestly. 3 commendations, 3 purple hearts,
2 bronze stars, and the crowning achievement, a silver star.

Now, most of the others you can get for being a good guy and
soldier and doing your job well(and surviving). They give
Bronze Stars to a lot of people, to be honest - but the Silver Star
is special as it requires something way above a typical heroic
act to save your men. Very very few soldiers ever get one.

That's what you'd expect from a work is ass off man or woman
in the military - they get commendations and awards and never
wimp out. That says a lot for his leadership qualities, whether
or not you believe in the tripe he says most of the time about
politics.

This is going to be a *close* race especially if he's smart and
chooses a proper V.P. from the west or middle america.



Dan Quayle?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:28:03 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:

First of all, I never said I supported laissez faire. That is about an
outdated economic concept as the manor system. And anayway,
there si no precept that the corp leaders are resolved of misdeeds.

Which jail are the Enron lot currently serving time in, out of
interest?

--
td

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:02:42 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**Is that you, Jeffrey (Archer)?

I could get quite testy if you keep this up.

--
td

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:15:21 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:

Everyone should build their own roads.

On and across other people's property?

Only yours.

--
td

Joseph Oberlander said:

Flying *rocks* - how he was such a deadbeat that he couldn't even
get excited about the coolest damn job in the entire military
that his relatives helped him to get I just don't know.

Dubya knew then what we all know now -- namely, he's a screwup and
would have crashed his plane, or shot up a barn, or some other
stupid Bush trick.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message


I agree and I'm no big fan of Clinton. But that's not the
issue here. Clinton lied often and there's no denying it,
but the Clinton administration did not seek the sweeping and
unprecedented powers that Bush and Company desire.



Yup, Hillary and Bill had zero interest in having the government obtain
sweeping and unprecedented powers in the area of health care. Oh, yes, and
we all know that health care involves an insignificant fraction of the GNP.
So, yes it's true that Clinton administration did not seek the sweeping and
unprecedented powers.


The powers I'm referring to are the ones pertaining to civil
liberties, Arny. I agree that the Clinton healthcare proposal was
a mess and a disaster, but the way in which Patriot I was passed
was bothersome, as were many of its provisions. Patriot II is
even scarier and it's still more frightening that many of *its*
less savory measures were successfully snuck into other pieces of
legislation. As an avowed Liberal, there are many other things
about the present administration that scare and disturb me. But
I'm not talking about those things; I'm talking about the space
where my ideology and the civil libertarian ideology overlap.

You certainly have the right to your opinions Glenn, But your recitations of
history seem to overlook important major events.


I'm quite aware of the recent major events and of the dangerous
position we're now in. But I don't think our current aggressive
course of action is going to help matters in the long term.
Granted, I'm far younger than you and haven't had the benefit of
living through earlier crises of similar global proportion. But
these are my beliefs.

GZ

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

Thsy should be paid massive amounts for the responsibilities
of their positions. Leaders are always paid more and more as you
got up the ladder. And more and more, they are being held
responsible.

But some, like Terry McCauliffe, seem to escape
justice.


You still want to turn this into a Dem vs Rep thing, don't you?
Terry's a very bad boy and he should pay dearly if ever convicted
for his role in the Global Crossing disaster.

Measured how? I urge you to think this point through very
carefully, for I fear you'll point to GDP or per-capita
income. Please consider other factors such as safety,
security, dignity, happiness, and quality of life.


Zilch, nada in Communist societies.
No security, no freedom, no happiness, no quality
of life, no dignity, just low rent in a run down tenement,
food rationing, a dearth of consumer goods, but yes, free
health care so that they can lead a long, healthy miserable life.


We're talking about different things, Art, OK? Let's not
vulgarize my position. I'm talking about modern European-style
socialism. The kind you see in Scandinavia.

Look at the freedoms, security, happiness and dignity
we have here in AMerica. We are so fortunate to live
in a capitalistic representative democracy, with strong
constitutional guarantees of freedom.


Those guarantees are not as strong as you'd like them to be. Keep
your eyes on the constitutional sleights-of-hand Ashcroft and Co.
are performing.

Global capital is NOT a zero sum game. you don't know much
about economics.


Try to keep the gloves on, Art. I understand economics. Give me a
counter-example to my claimed theory of "conservation of wealth."
That is, give me an example where wealth is created without an
attendant, equal loss.

Of course, under socialaism it would be
nearly so, as there is no incentive to produce other than altruism,
which is in limited supply.


Let's talk about the same socialism, OK? We're in utter agreement
on this point, provided we're discussing a country like North
Korea.

GZ

You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy is
a
congressman.

Sure you do.



Well, technically speaking, you *don't* get an Ivy league degree - or any
other
college degree - if you meet the intellectual definition of "idiot" as
defined
by standardized intelligence tests.

I thought idiot was a reletive term and moron was a specific standard term
when
it comes to intellegence.





Both are specific terms. "Idiot" is a term generally referring to extremely
severe or profound mental retardation, whereas "moron" refers to mild mental
retardation.

I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

(In between these levels are "imbeciles"). Actually, all these
terms are somewhat anitquated when discussing modern intelligence test
results
on instruments such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - III, the most
highly regarded, standardized intelligence test currently in use.

And hopefully it is understood that I didn't mean idiot in any clinical sense.

Using Full
Scale IQ scores as the basis for comparison, people are now described in
terms
of their level of retardation (profound, moderate, mild) rather than as
idiots,
imbeciles or morons. I would guess that dubya's Full Scale IQ score would be
in
the "bright normal" range, but not above that. That would correspond to that
of the average college graduate with a Bachelor's degree.

I suspect you are right.


Of course, if you're really an idiot, you don't get *in* to college either
-
lol.

If you get into an Ivy League school on a legacy you only have to meet the
bottom requirements of admissions. You can be pretty stupid and still get
into
Yale. G.W. did get in on his fathers legacy. He did not get in on the merits
of
his grades or test scores in any real competitive sense.



Probably true, but even legacies have to meet certain minimal requirements.

Yes, "minimal requirements." They are rather..... minimal.



OTOH, although Ivy league schools are not easy to get into (and I went to
what
is sometimes called a "small Ivy school"),

Provided you have to actually compete for a spot not saved for those who get
in
on legacies.

they are not necessarily any harder
to *stay* in and graduate from (I know, dangling participles, and I don't
care
- lol) than other schools of lesser esteem.

They are arguably easier to graduate from than the average University let
alone
the better ones.


It would be interesting to see the attrition rates at these schools.
Graduate
programs at some schools can have really high attrition rates. For example,
my
doctoral program had an attrition rate of, believe it or not, about 75%. We
had an entering class of about 20, and 6 of us got through the program and
got
our degrees. If I had known what the attrition rate was before entering, I
might have made a different choice - lol.


I looked at such figures many years agao and was quite surprised to find that
the attrition rates were pretty low at Ivy League schools. They were quite high
at my university. They seem to be lowest in the major military academies.



Among the important variables that
probably have as much to do with getting through college as intelligence
per
se, are motivation and choice of major field of study. Obviously, some
areas
of study are much harder to do well in than others.

Doiing well and graduating are nto the same thing. It is quite challenging
to
do well at any Ivy League school.


This, too, would depend on the choice of major area of study and degree (no
pun
intended) of motivation. I seriously doubt that it is as difficult to
graduate
with honors if one selects certain major subject areas as would be the case
with others.

I suppose so. But such majors would be the exception rather than the rule. It
seems most programs in most Ivy League schools are highly rated.

Scott Wheeler wrote:





You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy is
a
congressman.

Sure you do.



Well, technically speaking, you *don't* get an Ivy league degree - or any
other
college degree - if you meet the intellectual definition of "idiot" as
defined
by standardized intelligence tests.

I thought idiot was a reletive term and moron was a specific standard term
when
it comes to intellegence.





Both are specific terms. "Idiot" is a term generally referring to extremely
severe or profound mental retardation, whereas "moron" refers to mild mental
retardation.

I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.


You're welcome.


(In between these levels are "imbeciles"). Actually, all these
terms are somewhat anitquated when discussing modern intelligence test
results
on instruments such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - III, the most
highly regarded, standardized intelligence test currently in use.

And hopefully it is understood that I didn't mean idiot in any clinical
sense.


Clearly understood.



Using Full
Scale IQ scores as the basis for comparison, people are now described in
terms
of their level of retardation (profound, moderate, mild) rather than as
idiots,
imbeciles or morons. I would guess that dubya's Full Scale IQ score would be
in
the "bright normal" range, but not above that. That would correspond to
that
of the average college graduate with a Bachelor's degree.

I suspect you are right.


Of course, if you're really an idiot, you don't get *in* to college either
-
lol.

If you get into an Ivy League school on a legacy you only have to meet the
bottom requirements of admissions. You can be pretty stupid and still get
into
Yale. G.W. did get in on his fathers legacy. He did not get in on the
merits
of
his grades or test scores in any real competitive sense.



Probably true, but even legacies have to meet certain minimal requirements.


Yes, "minimal requirements." They are rather..... minimal.



Granted.




OTOH, although Ivy league schools are not easy to get into (and I went to
what
is sometimes called a "small Ivy school"),

Provided you have to actually compete for a spot not saved for those who
get
in
on legacies.

they are not necessarily any harder
to *stay* in and graduate from (I know, dangling participles, and I don't
care
- lol) than other schools of lesser esteem.

They are arguably easier to graduate from than the average University let
alone
the better ones.


It would be interesting to see the attrition rates at these schools.
Graduate
programs at some schools can have really high attrition rates. For example,
my
doctoral program had an attrition rate of, believe it or not, about 75%. We
had an entering class of about 20, and 6 of us got through the program and
got
our degrees. If I had known what the attrition rate was before entering, I
might have made a different choice - lol.


I looked at such figures many years agao and was quite surprised to find that
the attrition rates were pretty low at Ivy League schools. They were quite
high
at my university. They seem to be lowest in the major military academies.


I would imagine you are correct. Interestingly, one of my graduate school
classmates who got his Bachelor's from an Ivy league school and actually had
the unmitigated gall to wear his Phi Beta Kappa key around his neck - didn't
make it through our program. Needless to say, the rest of us were heartbroken








Among the important variables that
probably have as much to do with getting through college as intelligence
per
se, are motivation and choice of major field of study. Obviously, some
areas
of study are much harder to do well in than others.

Doiing well and graduating are nto the same thing. It is quite challenging
to
do well at any Ivy League school.


This, too, would depend on the choice of major area of study and degree (no
pun
intended) of motivation. I seriously doubt that it is as difficult to
graduate
with honors if one selects certain major subject areas as would be the case
with others.

I suppose so. But such majors would be the exception rather than the rule. It
seems most programs in most Ivy League schools are highly rated.




Agreed. The articles I've seen in which different college programs are rated
by an allegedly impartial panel use such variables as size of the college
library in a given subject area, number of research publications by faculty,
and ability to get research grants in given subject areas as among the more
important variables. I have no doubt that Harvard and some of the other Ivies
are relatively superior in certain subject areas (but not mine - lol) in that
regard.



Bruce J. Richman

Captain Fire Farter; "The" wrote in message
news:2t4n20lt7615gaf4ssre88jsi9ft41b1gi@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:02:42 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**Is that you, Jeffrey (Archer)?

I could get quite testy if you keep this up.

**You've got me shaking in my boots.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:

He served his commitment and got an honorable discharge.

Mike, I still don't understand the source of your vehement
protestations whenever anybody attacks GWB's character.

Because so much of it seems to be created out of whole cloth.

You're not related to him and he doesn't represent you,

Of course he represents me, he's the President of my country.

no
matter how much you'd like to be a multi-millionaire.
There's a preponderance of evidence that he:

a) Had many favors pulled on his behalf to get him into the
"Champagne Unit" in which he served.

b) Achieved the very lowest score on his pilot/officer
aptitude test that still allowed him to fly.

c) Served sporadically while in Texas then got permission to
transfer to Alabama to work on the political campaign of a
family friend.

d) Was derelict in his service while in Alabama.

To date, not a *single* person has come forward to
corroborate his presence in Alabama -- not even a fellow
flyboy who would likely remember his famous fellow
squadmember. The best that can be said is that his commander
can't refute claims that GWB was there.

I believe someone is going to do that today.

For god's sake, Mike, call a spade a spade. This isn't mere
defamation by merciless political adversaries. It's an
exposition of the typical behavior of a wild young man with
a known propensity for irresponsibility.

Maybe, maybe it's just leftist smear.

Even if it all turns out to be true, I still would rather keep him than any
of the Putzes from the other side.

It's not at all
inconsistent with what's known about young W. And if he'd
have just come clean about it (too late now), it wouldn't
have been an issue.

Why is it an issue when not that long ago John Kerry was criticizing that
other Carey about Clinton's lack of service?



None of this would be terribly interesting under ordinary
circumstances. But W's veracity and integrity are of
fundamental importance in the current climate: an
administration that frequently operates in unprecedented
secrecy, an administration that wants to take by fiat powers
that go way beyond those *granted* previous administrations
-- powers over the American populace and dominion over the
entire geopolitical sphere. As an avowed Libertarian, you
should be shocked and horrified.

Glenn Z

I think it's about time somebody was proactive against terrorism. I have
every conficence that should any of the Democrats get elected to the office
of President the war on terrorism will go the way of the Dodo. They scare
me much more than Dubya. Look at the record of the Democrats on Defense.
If it were up to them they'd dismantle it completely.

Mostly, it's a matter of fairness. If any Dem were doing what Bush is
doing, they'd be defending him.

I am on record as being opposed to things that Bush has done, but they pale
in comparison to what the left wants to do to the American people.