"Sing Goddess, Sing Of The Fury Of Kleiman . . ."
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | Smearing And Sliming John McCain — Comments (52) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Responding to this post--a cross-post of this one--Mark Kleiman has decided to unleash all of the rage and anger in his possession at me for deigning to take issue with his treatment of John McCain's military record. Kleiman, of course, does not link to my post and therefore does not allow his own readers to judge for themselves what I wrote and why I wrote it.
Kleiman's post is more filled with personal insults directed towards me than it is with an actual rebuttal but I'll try to take his "points" in turn. Readers will, I hope, forgive this digression but I, at least, feel it important to set the record straight on certain matters.
Read on . . .
Pejman Yousufzadeh [sic] comes through with level of civility, intelligence, and intellectual integrity we've come to expect from him. He says that since I never served in the military, I have no standing to point out that John McCain's superiors in the Navy didn't think he was fit to command a Carrier Battle Group, let alone to be Commander-in-Chief. (He also suggests that I am deranged, but this is automatic: in RedStateWorld, anyone who opposes Bush or McCain must necessarily suffer from mental illness.)
It's Yousefzadeh, actually. I don't know who "we" refers to in Kleiman's first sentence but suffice it to say that I have successfully restrained myself from crying and weeping over the fact that Kleiman and his unnamed friends apparently don't think much of my "civility, intelligence and intellectual integrity." Kleiman is mistaken in claiming that "in RedStateWorld, anyone who opposes Bush or McCain must necessarily suffer from mental illness." This is, to say the least, not a majority opinion "in RedStateWorld" and had Kleiman taken the time to read my posts or the posts of others on RedState, he would see that we take George W. Bush and John McCain to task many a time. I myself did not support McCain for the 2000 Presidential nomination. Nor did I support him for the 2008 Presidential nomination; my vote and voice went for Fred Thompson and I have in the past criticized McCain many a time for his support of campaign finance "reform" and for his various comments throughout this campaign dissing pharmaceutical companies in populist fashion, and insulting people like Mitt Romney who chose to go into business and who sought to be successful in his profession.
So in fact, we do not claim that "oppos[ing] Bush or McCain" means that a person suffers "from mental illness." I certainly have not made any such claim and I am at a loss to understand why Mark "civility, intelligence and intellectual integrity" Kleiman seems to think that I have. What is deranged--at least from a strategic and tactical standpoint in the realm of electoral politics, if not in the realm of common decency--is the attempt on the part of many a Democratic partisan, Kleiman included, to try to claim that McCain's military service to his country was somehow inadequate and somehow should not serve as a qualification for the Presidency (note that I wrote "a qualification" and not "the qualification"). From a strategic and tactical standpoint in the realm of electoral politics, anyone who makes the effort to denigrate McCain's service will likely hurt his/her own cause more than he/she hurts McCain's. And when one considers the realm of common decency, there is something exceedingly distasteful and appalling concerning efforts to insult McCain's military service. One can certainly vote for Barack Obama over John McCain and one can certainly have honorable and logical reasons to do so. If Kleiman had spent less time getting mad and more time actually reading what I wrote, he might understand that. But since Kleiman and others decided to take the electorally deranged and morally indecent route and attack McCain's service, I see no reason why I or others shouldn't call him on it. And calling him on it includes stating that unlike McCain, Kleiman has never served and is in no position whatsoever to level cheap shots at those who have. Given Kleiman's penchant for using the chickenhawk argument (see generally the list of "chickenhawk" slurs Mark "civility, intelligence and intellectual integrity" Kleiman has seen fit to toss around when it actually did seem to benefit his side to do so), the words "sauce," "goose" and "gander" come to mind in response to Kleiman's complaint.
As every sane person acknowledges (that leaves out the POW/MIA racketeers and the people fooled by them or so hostile to McCain as to be willing to retail their ridiculous charges) McCain served honorably in the Navy, and acted heroically as a POW. Let me say that once again, because Yousefzadeh is somewhat hard of listening: McCAIN'S HONORABLE SERVICE AND COURAGE ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.
One need not be "hard of listening" to be able to read the written word. I suspect that Mark "civility, intelligence, and intellectual integrity" Kleiman knows that but he is good at impersonating someone who does not.
What is in dispute is McCain's claim that entrusting him with the Presidency would be safe because his service record makes him an expert in national security affairs, while entrusting Barack Obama with the Presidency would be risky because Obama lacks the relevant experience. That claim is false, as Gen. Clark pointed out; never having had substantial command experience in wartime, Sen. McCain did not in fact have to make decisions resembling those a President must make.
Of course, Mark "civility, intelligence, and intellectual integrity" Kleiman must know that McCain is not solely basing his claim that he is "an expert in national security affairs" and that "entrusting Barack Obama with the Presidency would be risky because Obama lacks the relevant experience" on the basis that McCain served and that Obama did not. Nor is McCain basing that argument solely on the fact that he served honorably and brilliantly. McCain is basing that claim as well on the fact that he has served on the Senate Armed Services Committee for over two decades and that Obama lacks the relevant experience on that score also (indeed, McCain is the ranking Republican on the Committee and if Republicans had a majority in the Senate, he would be its Chairman). He is basing that claim on the fact that McCain has been involved in thousands of votes and discussions on the issue of national security and Obama has not. Additionally, Mark "civility, intelligence, and intellectual integrity" Kleiman must know that if Clark can make the claims he makes regarding McCain's service, then Clark's comments must be a thousandfold more condemnatory of Obama, who has significantly less experience in national security issues than McCain does and who, unlike McCain, didn't serve in the military at all. I would hope that Mark "civility, intelligence, and intellectual integrity" Kleiman would understand that, but perhaps he has not yet allowed his civil, intelligent and intellectual integrity-drenched mind to dwell on that issue.
Moreover, McCain's superiors decided not to give him the responsibilities that might have prepared him for the Presidency when they declined to promote him to rear admiral. They did so despite his heroism and distinguished ancestry. It's no disgrace not to achieve flag rank, and I never suggested that it was. But it does reflect an expert judgment about his capacity for high-level decision-making, a judgment consistent with his (very low) class standing at Annapolis and with the quality of his thought as expressed in his speeches.
Mark "civility, intelligence and intellectual integrity" Kleiman's innocent protestation that he never meant to claim that McCain was "disgraced" by not achieving flag rank belies the scorn and contempt with which he wrote this post. Note the title: "Commander in chief? McCain didn't even make admiral." Note the following comments as well:
It has seemed to me for a long time as if the definitive opinion about John McCain's fitness for a major leadership role had been delivered by his superiors in the Navy: the son and grandson of four-star admirals, who elected to stay in the Navy for three years after his return from captivity, never made admiral. No doubt the selection board would have stretched every possible point for an ex-POW with McCain's pedigree. "Commander-in-chief test," my eye! The Navy didn't even want to trust him with a carrier battle group.
As I wrote, the scorn, contempt and sarcasm redolent in Mark "civility, intelligence and intellectual integrity" Kleiman's post is clear for anyone to read and puts paid to his claim that he "never suggested" that it was a disgrace for McCain not to achieve flag rank. Mark "civility, intelligence and intellectual integrity" Kleiman will likely try to claim that he never meant to be insulting, but anyone knows and should know that such a claim could not possibly pass the laugh test.
But in the event that Mark "civility, intelligence and intellectual integrity" Kleiman actually is claiming that the achievement of flag rank for naval officers is something of a prerequisite in order to allow those naval officers to even claim that their service is a qualification for the Presidency, should those officers ever be in a position to run, then one wonders why it is that he never raised any such questions about one John Forbes Kerry when Kerry was nominated for President in 2004. Now, to make my own views on the issue clear--and these are consistent with the views I held in 2004--I believed and believe that what a Presidential candidate did in his/her formative years has far less bearing on whether or not said Presidential candidate intends to do should he/she win the office. But to the extent that we are obliged to discuss this issue, let us note that I searched in vain for any "but he never made admiral!!!!" protestations on the part of Mark "civility, intelligence and intellectual integrity" Kleiman in response to this:
John Kerry has heard the thump of enemy mortars. He's seen the flash of the tracers. He's lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a senator, he proved his physical courage under fire. And he's proved his moral courage too.
John Kerry fought a war, and I respect him for that. And he came home to fight a peace. And I respect him for that, too. John Kerry's combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander in chief.
John Kerry is a man who in time of war can lead us as a warrior, but in times of peace, he will heed the call of scripture to lead us in beating swords into plowshares.
John Kerry will lead American with strength and wisdom. He has the will to fight. He has the moral courage born in battle to pursue and secure a strong peace. Under John Kerry, I have no doubt -- and neither should any American -- that we are going to attack and destroy the terrorist threat to America.
John Kerry will join that pantheon of great wartime Democrats: great Democrats like Woodrow Wilson, who led us to victory in World War I; great Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, who turned back the tide of fascism to win World War II; great Democrats like John Kennedy, who stood firm and steered us safely through the Cuban Missile Crisis; and great Democrats like Bill Clinton, who confronted ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, and with diplomacy, backed by force, brought peace to a shattered land.
My fellow Americans, Democrats are leaders and Democrats are fighters. And John Kerry is a leader, a fighter, and he will be a great commander in chief.
You see, John Kerry knows that the power of America is not just our armed forces and our weaponry.
It's really the power of our values and ideals.
And John Kerry knows that members of our armed forces embody the best of America's values: service, sacrifice, courage, compassion.
He knows that the members in the armed forces are serving to build something greater than themselves. They're serving to build something worth fighting for. They're serving to build something worth dying for.
John Kerry knows that the men and women who serve and our veterans are a company of heroes. And everyone who fights for the best in American life is also a hero: firemen, police officers, teachers and so many others.
I say to you tonight: John Kerry's time to lead this company of heroes has arrived. Right here, right now, in this town, tonight, from this place, we set out together to put our country back on track to security and freedom and opportunity.
America, hear this soldier.
Choose a leader whose physical courage, moral values and sound judgment, with the grace of God and our determined commitment, will strengthen our country, protect our liberty, renew our spirit and secure a future for our children that is worthy of our heritage.
Make John Kerry the next president of the United States.
This, of course, is Wesley Clark's speech in support of John Kerry at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Kerry reached the rank of Lieutenant, having won the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. McCain, by contrast, achieved the rank of Captain and won (this is a partial list, according to Wikipedia) the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Medal, the Navy Commendation Medal the Combat Action Ribbon and the Prisoner of War Medal.
Not too shabby, eh? If Wesley Clark could see fit to extolling Lieutenant Kerry's martial virtues and making clear the link between those virtues and Kerry's ability to be President four years ago, he might have, at the very least, maintained a studious and respectful silence regarding McCain's service. Instead, Clark chose to be hypocritical and because it no longer serves him to praise martial virtues (this is a new election cycle, after all), Mark "civility, intelligence and intellectual integrity" Kleiman follows Clark's lead.
As for the crack about McCain's class standing in Annapolis, everyone knows that McCain was rebellious and unpolished as a kid. Of course, Plebe McCain is not running for President. Senator McCain--with a wealth of life experience few could possibly match--is. Yet again, I note that Mark "civility, intelligence and intellectual integrity" Kleiman does not appear to appreciate this simple fact.
If you want to say that McCain's service proved his physical courage and devotion to country, and that Barack Obama has not been in a position to deliver equivalent proof, you'll get no argument from me. (That's parallel to the Kerry-v.-Bush claims, the Silver Star holder vs. the AWoL reservist, except that Obama's record is a zero and not a negative number.)
Regarding the first sentence and Kleiman's professed lack of argument, my response is as follows: Could've fooled us! See above concerning the scorn and sarcasm Kleiman threw McCain's way regarding McCain's service record and regarding the fact that McCain didn't become an Admiral. Obama, of course, was "in a position to deliver equivalent proof," or could have been, but he chose not to serve. I won't make a big deal about that--probably because Obama's lack of military service is less a target for attack in my eyes than McCain's heroic and exemplary service is (mysteriously and bizarrely) in Kleiman's eyes. As for the last bit about Bush v. Kerry--and to extend military metaphors--if Kleiman feels like wasting time fighting the last war or the last election he thought was a war, that will be fine with me, especially if it causes him to be held in the same minimal high regard that Dan Rather and Mary Mapes are held in.
But then no one but the nuts has questioned McCain's physical courage or devotion to country. What's in question is his competence, and in particular his claim that he is better prepared than his opponent to be President.
Here is the funny thing: There are a lot of "nuts" around concerning this issue. My post yesterday, to which Kleiman "responded," mentioned John Aravosis, who accused McCain of betraying his country because the poor man broke down during the course of 5 and a half years of torture. Here are some more . . . er . . . individuals (we'll let Kleiman decide whether or not they are "nuts") who have "opined" on McCain's military service:
From this story--which was the basis of my post yesterday, we learn that the following was said by Senator John D. "Jay" Rockefeller: "What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? [McCain] doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."
We also learn this:
David Fenton, a prominent progressive public relations executive who works for MoveOn.org and other groups, also inquired to old anti-Vietnam War circles about details of McCain's Navy sorties, a source familiar with the inquiries told Politico. Fenton declined to comment on the inquiries, and a person familiar with them said they were unconnected to his work for MoveOn.
The intentions to slime and smear are obvious. Still more can be found in the words of Senator Tom Harkin, who actually had the gall to attack McCain for supposedly having too much of a military background. And then, there are the words of Obama military advisor General Tony McPeak, who thought that the best way to denigrate McCain's service and heroism was to make jokes about the weight McCain gained back since his release from captivity in Vietnam.
I am unaware of any posts that Mark "civility, intelligence and intellectual integrity" Kleiman has written to denounce such comments. One might wonder why it is that I place on Kleiman's shoulders the responsibility to denounce the comments of people--or "nuts," should Kleiman choose to refer to them that way--who Kleiman may not know and whose statements he may not have the ability to control. My reply is that once again, the words "sauce," "goose" and "gander" come to mind.
Finally, we get this:
If Pejman Yousufzadeh has the courage to defend his opinions, I'd be happy to confront him on Bloggingheads.TV. Don't hold your breath; he's much better at dishing out random personal insults than he is at argument, and I suspect he has just enough self-knowledge to understand that. But if he lacks that self-knowledge, I look forward to wiping up the floor with him.
Elaboration is found here, as I am informed that if I refuse the Bloggingheads invitation, I should "STFU."
I'll give you a moment to genuflect in awe in response to such eloquent language, issued by an individual of sterling "civility, intelligence and intellectual integrity."
Done genuflecting? Splendid. I must confess that the number of Bloggingheads episodes that I have watched can be counted on one hand so if someone decided that Bloggingheads is the cyber-field of honor in which to settle disputes, I must have missed the memo. But even if such a decision has been made, my response is to ask how precisely an appearance on Bloggingheads is dispositive of my possession of "courage to defend" my opinions? I am defending my opinions now in the writing of this piece and even if I take the invitation, there really isn't much to add to my piece other than to note that Kleiman's posts concerning McCain's service speak for themselves in tone and tenor. Moreover--and I will ask Kleiman to pay close attention here--no one died and gave him the power to arbitrate how people are supposed to defend their opinions in the Blogosphere. Kleiman, with the "civility, intelligence and intellectual integrity we've come to expect from him" can either write up a defense of those opinions or he can choose not to. Independent of whether I choose to appear on Bloggingheads with Kleiman or anyone else, as far as I know, I am not being paid for my blogging time by Kleiman or by anyone else and therefore neither Kleiman nor anyone else has the right to tell me that I have to parcel out time to appear on Internet TV with them or forever be thought a coward. Kleiman does not set the rules of debate and no matter how worthy he thinks he is of the responsibility, no Higher Power has given it to him.
I recognize, of course, that Mark "civility, intelligence and intellectual integrity" Kleiman either does not understand that or pretends not to as he tries ever so desperately to playact the role of Blogospheric Alpha Male--no doubt, with episodes of flinging waste matter at his computer screen to complete the impression. But I am sure that others are not similarly disadvantaged. In any event, it suffices to close this long post by noting anew that the Obama campaign has denounced the comments Wesley Clark made--and Kleiman endorsed--attacking McCain's military service. Considering this post and the following passage,
In the past, I've often had the thought that if the managers of my favorite candidate would just listen to me we could beat those pesky Republicans. Not this year. If Axelrod, Plouffe & Co. make a decision that's not the one I would have made, my betting has to be that they're right and I'm wrong. And that's part of the reason I think that Obama will make a good President despite his lack of executive experience: he has put together, from scratch, just about the smoothest team ever.
I would suggest that Mark "civility, intelligence and intellectual integrity" Kleiman take his cues and understand that "[i]f Axelrod, Plouffe & Co. make a decision that's not the one [Kleiman] would have made, [Kleiman's] betting has to be that they're right and [Kleiman is] wrong."
Oh, and Mark: Acquire some sophorsyne, would you? It's a whole lot more impressive than going around shrieking "STFU!" Just a thought.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | McCain: Obama would nominate bad justices. — Comments (4) »
"Sing Goddess, Sing Of The Fury Of Kleiman . . ." 52 Comments (0 topical, 52 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
He really comes across as the classic sixth grader - faux tough guy who gets his butt kicked, then runs to the principal with his "version" of events so he doesn't get in trouble, then emerges from the office to the applause of his weenie friends. I don't know him from Adam, so if I am wrong and he has contributed anything of worth to any cause I am willing to be corrected.
I really believe that there are a lot of people on the left, particularly left wing bloggers and commentators, that have very severe (hopefully treatable) mental problems. I am dead serious about this.
And Pejman, I hope your tomato juice bath goes well.
For real and just as nuts as he sounds.
He's a big time legalize all drugs and pamper criminals so they act better in society kind of Liberal.
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle
Dems have to be negative about service because Obama never served. I think they drew the fire deliberately--Clark knew what he was doing and he's lapping up the press. Progressives can't read something they disagree with without slinging arrows at the messenger. best, Kay
I just looked and couldn't find a comment on his blog. Its as if nobody goes there.
You may be doing him a favor by giving him publicity.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
And Pejman IS doing him a favor.
There was a movie where some small country, who was floundering financially, provoked a war with the United States. The idea was after they immediately surrendered the country would be re-built. This sounds a lot like that.
I suspect that Pej required closure. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
As much as one hates to engage, you can't let that hang.
That's why I wished him well in his tomato juice bath afterwards. Yuk.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
A peter sellers vehicle they made a sequel as well.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The resulting Obamaton is mindless, filled with rage, inconsistent, easily led, willingly duped and happily ignorant.
I suggest that the answer to the Obamaton strategy of trashing someone with a real record is to simply keep hammering on the fact of tha Obama complete lack of record.
If sitting in a cockpit does not qualify, does never serviing qualify better?
If running a squadron is not executive enough, is sitting Ayers' living room listening to stories of domestic terro's good ol' days a better qualification?
If graduating low in the class at Annapolis is not a good qualification, is being a stoner in prep school better?
If serving in the Senate for over decade is not a qualification, is serving in the Senate ~150 days better?
The recovery from the Obamatization of America is dificult but pretty straight forward. It only requires a minimu of critical thinking.
Kleiman states "in RedStateWorld, anyone who opposes Bush or McCain must necessarily suffer from mental illness"
Not quite. Anyone who supports The Obamessiah must necessarily suffer from mental illness. We often don't support Bush or McCain. It's support for T.O. that is a sure sign of a neuron deficiency.
Just wanted to clear that up...
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Ignorance, stupidity, a love for totalitarianism, gullibility, and racism aren't mental illnesses, and those are all popular reasons for backing the kitten.
Out of what I'd call an excess of idealism, but that's a whole other issue.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I have faith in your great powers of persuasion. (Convince her that the grandbaby is at risk during an Opossum administration. For some crazy reason, grandchildren rate way, way higher than us children.)
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
other than a garden variety moron, I mean.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
... but he declined the promotion prepatory to his run for Congress ... so Kleiman is simply talking out his rear end.
"First you win the argument, then you win the vote." - MARGARET THATCHER.
So let's start winning the argument.
I was not aware of it, and people need to know.
Again, honorable. I don't expect him, or other libs to understand what that means.
... but of course you knew that already.
Let me say this slowly, using short words: Neither General Wesley Clark nor I challenged John McCain's honorable military service. Clark pointed out that his service was not of a type that prepared him for national-security decision-making as President. I notice that you insist on arguing about what isn't in dispute, and shouting random insults, without ever acknowledging what Gen. Clark (or I) actually said.
As to the comparison to John Kerry, Gen. Clark (and I) asserted that Kerry's heroic service in Vietnam proved his courage and his patriotism, as Sen. McCain's heroic conduct as a POW proved his courage and his patriotism. No sane person claimed that what Kerry learned as a Navy Lieutenant meant that he would know how to defend the country should he become President.
The response from the right wing was to deny the facts of Kerry's service: to suggest that his heroism, and even his wounds, were fictitious. (Remember those lovely "Purple Heart" band-aids at the Republican National Convention?) If you objected to that scummy tactic, you were curiously quiet about it. Now you're trying to pretend that what Gen. Clark is doing now -- pointing out that running an air squadron isn't the same as commanding a fleet, and much less relevant to the job of the President -- is the same as what the Swift Boat crew did then.
You posted a personal attack on me without even doing me the courtesy of giving me an email head's up. I would have expected no better. Now you're annoyed because I didn't give you a link? Right. (Sorry about misspelling your name; I've updated.)
I challenged you to a debate: a forum in which you couldn't just spew out paragraph after paragraph full of windy rhetoric and false claims for the amusement of your dittoheads, but would actually have to confront facts and contrary arguments. I take it you're refusing that challenge. I have no special brief for bloggingheads.tv, but it's one on-line debate forum I'm aware of. If you can find another, let's do that one.
Lying about what I said, and about what Gen. Clark said, makes you a scoundrel. Being unwilling to defend yourself in an open debate makes you a coward.
Just one substantive point: John Lehman, the Fool of Ships, claimed in an interview with the New York Times that he had promised Capt. McCain promotion to admiral should Capt. McCain choose to stay in the service. Jeffrey Klein at The Huffington Post did some actual reporting, showing that Lehman was almost certainly wrong.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-klein/mccains-secret-questionab_b_...
The McCain campaign hasn't bothered to respond.
I mention this because one of your commenters attacks me for being ignorant of the New York Times story, while another criticizes me for linking to a previous post in which I pointed to Klein's contrary evidence.
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/john_mccain_/2008/06/commander_in_chie...
Mark A.R. Kleiman
N/T
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2004/06/politics_you_wi.php
It's comforting, in a way, to know that some things never change.
------------
I mean seriously? Is he just some nut that you blogger guys see at conventions or something, or is he meaningful in some way?
I'm not going to post on this guy any more, but I haven't laughed at someone this hard in a while.
Mr. Kleiman is a "Professor of Public Policy" at UCLA. Now, so far as I know, no sane person would voluntarily seek out a job title like "Professor of Public Policy" unless they wanted to broadcast to the world that they had no intention of ever making any useful contributions to society.
Kind of like people who seek out the "lawyer" job title, I guess.
------------
I just snorted some fine red wine all over my keyboard. You have absolutely freaking got to be kidding me. I am breaking my promise to myself, and will post one more time.
His occupation, combined with his posts, says so much about so many things on so many levels that it is difficult to start. But let me try to list the things that are funniest about this to me:
1) A college professor calling someone - anyone - a coward.
2) A professor of Public Policy writing authoritatively about any aspect of the military, ESPECIALLY one from UCLA.
3) A professor that is so far removed from reality and a worthwhile academic career (if there is such a thing) that he posts inanities like he has posted here.
4) A professor, or any adult, who acts very much like a three year old.
5) A professor with debating skills far inferior to the sophmores whose papers he grades.
6) The fact that he is actually on UCLA's payroll - please tell me he is adjunct and not a full professor with tenure - please. I will forever love UCLA's hot cheerleaders, but if he is a full professor their reputation will never be the same with me.
7)The fact he thinks he is some white night taking on the Evil Right, and scoring body blows with his superior intellect and challenges to debate.
I could go on and on, but I just can't. I am laughing too hard to type. This is just SO typical, and SO great, and I am SO out of breath.
Thanks Leon - thank you so much. Everything makes so much sense now.
As someone who has experienced a Public Policy/Administration education first hand I can attest that in my experience the Professors are very much the polar opposite of what this doctor has presented here and on his blog.
I would be surprised if the UCLA Chancellor is not embarrassed over the rantings of this partisan hack that is a senior professor.
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle
He has been around for a while. One prof I had was cut from a similar, but not quite as nutso cloth. Praised his works and required us to read them.
The class was focused on Human Services policy making and we used some of the criminal position papers by Kleinman on how to frame policy using his views. I'm pretty open to looking at all sides of an argument, but his stuff is just Utopian clap-trap. You know the type, be nice to criminals because they have had an (insert whine here) childhood and have not had the privilege that most people have had.
Lets just say that a thorough bleach shower ensued afterwards.
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle
I'd been posting here for nearly four years.
You've shown an utter inability to depart after a single comment.
Somebody needs to work on his attachment disorder.
Just sayin'.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
My post speaks for itself. You didn't e-mail to alert me to your attack on me on your website either and your refusal to offer a link to my post to let your readers see precisely what it was that I wrote precludes you from any attempt to call me names. When you are done acting like a child, feel free to contact me. My phone number is in e-mail being sent to you.
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
Don't take the call, Pej. He doesn't deserve it. You've already won on substance and style points.
-----------------------
Damn the Obama! Full speed ahead!
You guys should contact Hugh Hewlett to put on his stripped shirt. Hugh's way smart and has a radio show along with a pretty good blog.
Chris Mathews is not available, he's being treated for some sort of leg problem and feelings going up the same.
______________________________________
NObama...no way!.....McCain '08 !
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle
modifications. When you write:
Neither General Wesley Clark nor I challenged John McCain's honorable military service. Clark pointed out that his service was not of a type that prepared him for national-security decision-making as President
you betray how out of the loop you are. Here is how the Obama campaign's smear of McCain is to be played now, courtesy of Sen. Jim Webb:
we need to make sure that we take politics out of service
So it isn't the type of service, as you indicated, or the quality. It is any service as of today. Someone woke up in the Obama campaign this morning and realized Obama had never done a damned thing in his life, let alone service, so the modification was needed. You need to stay on top of these things. The BUS needs feeding.
I shall now address you as "R," 'k?
R...
Is there a reason you're attacking John McCain's service record, or are you breathing the same ether which has soaked the brains of Joe Wilson-Dick Clarke-Rand Beers, the Simplest Triumvirate?
Okay, put John Kerry to bed. He was beaten and repudiated years ago. (If it galls you, that's neither an argument nor an excuse.) This essentially boils down to you vs. Pejman Yousefzadeh, and you've attempted very badly to couch it in terms of John McCain and Barack Obama.
Unless you employ facts and reason, rather than insults and assumptions you must know to be false, you cannot even begin to win any debate with the man, any more than you can make a valid case for "make pot legal, man."
Let's stop this now. Take your toys, go home, and now that I've been reminded of your existence, I promise quietly to visit your blog; that is, if I knew where it is.
as there's nary a comment to be found there.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
And if you need to know where the nearest one is, I can Mapquest it for you. I'm serious, and it is free. As are the mandatory 48 hour accomodations. The apple sauce is great, I hear, and the restraints these days are velcro instead of leather. Good times - you should go. Really.
And for the record, calling someone a coward as your chubby little fingers type insults and massage a Twinkie is almost as hilarious as it is pathetic. "Meet me at bloggingheads.tv - this town ain't big enough for the both of us." Good Lord, that is funny.
Before you talk to those nice men in the white jackets (oh lookie - would you like to try on this special jacket here? With the really long arms that let you hug yourself?), just so we'll all know, exactly how has Barack Obama proven his courage and patriotism?
*whispering to Pejman...please get a restraining order*
Mr. Kleiman, I'm looking for a substantive reason to vote for Barack Obama. Nobody here believes me when I say he's the man for the job. I want to be able to say more than that he'll bring change to America; more than that he gives me hope for the future.
Please, give me a concrete example of an ability or characteristic or experience that Barack Obama has which exceeds that of John McCain. I know McCain has more managerial experience, more POW experience, more Congressional experience, more Senatorial experience, more military experience, more experience in working with members of the opposing party to get bipartisan legislation passed, and more life experience in general. But I know his GPA at Harvard beat McCain's at Annapolis.
There has to be some other area of expertise where my man Barry outdoes that old fuddy-duddy. Help me pin down just what area it is. Great bills he's gotten passed while he's in the Senate, maybe. Great laws he got passed in Illinois. Great ordinances in Chicago.
And please, convince him to keep his word to debate McCain anytime, any place. He'd wipe up the floor with McCain in those Town Hall debates.
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
... founder of Mother Jones, over the word of the actual Senate confirmed Secretary of the Navy as to the career path of a Naval officer serving under his watch?
Heh. You're a disgrace.
"First you win the argument, then you win the vote." - MARGARET THATCHER.
So let's start winning the argument.
... here is noteworthy for how complete it is.
First of all the idiot claims that McCain not reaching flag rank before his retirement to enter politics is evidence that he was considered unfit for command by his superiors, and therefore this is evidence that he is unfit to be Commander-in-Chief compared to Barack Obama.
Well, as it turns out, the Secretary of the Navy at the time of McCain's retirement had informed McCain that he was going to be receiving his first star sooner rather than later. McCain, eye on entering electoral politics, declined the promotion and retired to run for the House.
In response to this, Kleiman insults Lehman, and says Lehman was wrong about what Lehman himself said, and cites a sneering hit piece Huffington Post article written by Jeffrey Klein, the co-founder of the Extreme Far Left Mother Jones (nice neutral background there, eh?) as his authority.
Now, this is where one sees just how much a mendacious sorry excuse for a person who is supposed to be molding young minds Kleiman is. Jeffrey Klein's article blatantly states that Lehman is lying that McCain was about to receive his first star in 1981 because ...
To begin with, John Lehman did not select Navy flag officers. That was done with a very august selection board headed by a four-star admiral. The Secretary of the Navy does not appoint. He is in the approval chain, but he is not on the committee.
Examine Jeffrey Klein's attempt to be deceiving here. First of all, Lehman was not said to have told John McCain that he would give him his first star so the little detail of how Naval flag officers are selected and the composition of the selection board is interesting but irrelevant. What is relevant is that Lehman was in the approval chain as the SecNav, which means he would know who was being considered/selected.
Another reason Klein is basing his charge of lying against Lehman is that;
... McCain had been promoted to captain on August 1, 1979, so he wouldn't have been due for another promotion by March of 1981.
Which means that Kleiman's position that McCain was passed over for promotion to Rear Admiral because he was considered unfit for command by the Navy top brass once again collapses in on itself. If we accept the sneering article Jeffrey Klein posted up at the Huffington Post, which Kleiman supposedly does, then McCain was not passed over for promotion to Admiral because he was unfit (as Kleiman would have it), but because, in addition to a lack of the requisite physical fitness after years of torture in Hanoi, he hadn't put in enough years as a Captain so he wasn't even up for consideration.
Either way, Kleiman has exposed himself as the typical mendacious Leftist smear artist.
"First you win the argument, then you win the vote." - MARGARET THATCHER.
So let's start winning the argument.
My posts on this matter have been mocking, disrespectful and personally insulting, which fit the tenor of what's-his-name's original posts to Pejman (STFU?). Pejman does not need my help, nor does he probably appreciate my posts since my tone was mocking, disrespectful and personally insulting. His have never been -not once, no matter how he has been goaded.
What IS important about garden variety nut / college professor is that this outlier loon blogger (there I go again) has provided a template on exactly how Obama's campaign is going to continue to smear John McCain, and this "passed up for flag rank" is going to be a lynchpin. After all, they will say, if the military didn't think John McCain should "order the bombs to fall", well, why should we?
It is very, very important that the truth about this part of McCain's be told, and I appreciate your ability to do so. I am outraged and disgusted, and if my conversations with people who were against McCain or at best lukewarm are any indication, this has backfired in a HUGE way.
His post simply demonstrates a profound ignorance of how promotion boards work at senior levels and the role of the service secretaries in influencing those boards.
This isn't surprising. As someone who's spent more time under an MC1-1B canopy than Kleiman and Klein have spent on military installations or talking to military people I've become unsurprised at these profound and disturbing levels of ignorance which are inevitably combined with a heavy dose of InstaExpertise™
Klein is right that the selection board is composed of senior officers. But the board doesn't operate in a vacuum. It operates under guidance issued by the service secretary. This guidance decides what the cohort selected looks like in terms of background if not by name.
Typically, the board starts with all the eligible officers placed on an order of merit list from 1 to infinity. Probably only the top 25% are really competitive for the handful of promotions to flag status. For the purposes of this, we'll assume there are 1000 officers on the list and 50 will be selected for promotion.
So when the board begins deliberations they aren't looking at 1000 officers they are looking at 250. They vote on these files and a new OML is created ranked from 1 to 250. Ideally, 1-50 are in and 51-250 aren't. Now is where the service secretary's guidance comes into play.
Suppose we know that one of the billets to be filled by someone from this list is military attache in Peking. The department's guidance will require that one of the officers on this list have previous experience as an attache and is fluent in Mandarin. If this person shows up in the top 50 fine. If not, the search proceeds down the OML until such a critter is found. He then becomes #50 on the OML and the former #50 now becomes #51. And so it goes. There may be a requirement for a general/admiral with lots of experience in marine terminal operations, or one with special forces experience, the service may decide that precedence needs to go to those officers who have a PhD or who have worked on an Allied staff. Typically, there is a pendulum effect between selecting very junior officers for promotion (the "new blood" effect) or selecting senior officers in the grade ("more experience") which is very unpleasant if you are one of those suddenly out of favor.
If John Lehman had required that the list include one officer with a strong background in aviation safety/training there is a good chance McCain would have been an admiral.
In short, Klein puts us in the position of either believing him or John Lehman. Not much of a choice really.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
my mind for a second that Klein knew what he was talking about.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Wounds that the record shows consisted of fingernail clipping-size shrapnel and were treated with a bandaid, for which the "victim" applied for and received the Purple Heart as part of his 3-and-out stratagy.....
Yeah, keep reminding us of the differences between the Treason Media's treatment of Kerry and McCain vis a vis military service, wounds, and the like.
All day, baby, keep them coming!
Impeach the 5 usurpers
You = Fail.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA. Nice job Kleinman, way to look like a complete tool.
___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!
You are a fraud, a scoundrel, and a coward.
What's worse, you're wholly uninterested in the truth, which is odd for someone whose job is to teach young people.
As to the comparison to John Kerry, Gen. Clark (and I) asserted that Kerry's heroic service in Vietnam proved his courage and his patriotism, as Sen. McCain's heroic conduct as a POW proved his courage and his patriotism. No sane person claimed that what Kerry learned as a Navy Lieutenant meant that he would know how to defend the country should he become President.
The response from the right wing was to deny the facts of Kerry's service: to suggest that his heroism, and even his wounds, were fictitious. (Remember those lovely "Purple Heart" band-aids at the Republican National Convention?) If you objected to that scummy tactic, you were curiously quiet about it. Now you're trying to pretend that what Gen. Clark is doing now -- pointing out that running an air squadron isn't the same as commanding a fleet, and much less relevant to the job of the President -- is the same as what the Swift Boat crew did then.
Yet, you ignore the FACT that Kerry's heroism was fictitious. You ignore the FACT that the Swift Boat Veterans' charges were never once refuted -- simply decried and swept under the rug. Political partisan hacks might just scream and yell and pretend that the truth doesn't matter, but someone claiming to be a scholar of some sort, someone claiming to care about knowledge and truth, should back up assertions with some modicum of facts.
You sir, are a fraud for pretending to be a seeker after truth and knowledge. You sir, are a scoundrel for continuing to draw a salary as a teacher of youth, despite being wholly unqualified by your lack of concern for the truth. You sir, are a coward for not having the cojones to face up the hypocrites and lying bastards on your side of the political aisle.
UCLA ought to be ashamed. The people of California are owed a refund. And you are owed nothing but contempt.
-TS
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan
You're a PhD at UCLA and you use a speculative article from the Huffington Post to support your arguments? An article with internal inconsistencies you could drive a truckload of Priuses through? Do you also provide links to Wikipedia?
Challenged Pej to a debate?
Would you still be there if he agreed, or would you take the Obama way out?
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
consider concerning his comments re: McCain's promotion to Flag rank.
a. McCain had just spent 6 - 7 years in captivity, many in solitary confinement and all under conditions of barbarous torture. He was completely out of contact with his family until returned from captivity. Flag rank demands continuous and often long term absences from home. Why in god's name would he wish to go from one to the other. No one knows what passed between McCain and his family upon his return. He may simply have opted out of that level of career progression.
b. Screening for Flag Rank is more vigorous that the uninitiated can imagine; more so than many other professions. I believe the selection rate was once about 5% (-) for each officer career year group. It is possible that McCain's post-confinement, post-torture physical condition was such that he was adjudged physically unfit AT THAT TIME IN HIS CAREER for the rigors of Flag level command. No fault of his, of course. A permanent physical profile resulting from his injuries would not have helped.
c. McCain was what - Lieutenant or Lieutenant Commander at the time of his shoot down? As a POW his date of rank and promotions would have occurred as normally projected along with his contemporaries, although absent from their ranks. Unfortunately, as a prisoner of war, McCain would not have been able to be assigned to those positions of ascending rank, authority and scope as his contemporaries. Although being promoted - in absentia, as it were, McCain would have missed the experiences gained through 2,3 ranks over 6,7 years. Although being promoted to Captain, McCain simply would not have had the military experience and command portfolio as his contemporaries. Thus, he would be far less competitive for Flag rank than they simply because he had been a POW for so long. Ironic, isn't it.
Captain Stockdale was the senior US POW in the Hanoi Hilton. He was already of advanced rank and experience when shot down. He did not miss those qualification criteria although he had been a POW for some time. His POW status did not interfere too much with his advancement potential (as with McCain). Stockdale was promoted to Flag rank not long after his release. McCain never would and never could under his circumstances.
So, Kleiman's arguments on this matter are fatuous, at best and serve simply to highlight his vast ignorance of one of the most importance (and basic) aspects of a professional military career: Advancement.
I suggest he be made to repeat Advancement 101: How Admirals Are Made.
Kleiman's comments about McClain's 'failure to make Admiral' do not mask his arrogance as they (mis) apply to McCain. They are not only sneering cheap shots - that are uninformed sneering cheap shots.
The true absurdity of Kleiman's vent at McCain not 'making Admiral' is that it has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with his qualifications for the Office of President.
Finally, it cannot be said that McCain failed to talk-the-talk and walk-the-walk, whereas many of his detractors simply talk-the-walk.
GB
De Opresso Liber
Death by innuendo. They plan to obfuscate the issues by deploying their sneakered minions to their computers to drown Google in complaints and create their own internet chaos with rumors purportedly started by conservatives.
I will say this, the Obama campaign is diabolically clever. Shame it doesn't extend to their candidate.
Millions of dollars are going to pajama-clad college anarchists. Their mission--donate to Obama and muddy the waters in the blogosphere..
It's not how fast you run, it's when you start. (And they started in 2003)
Kate
“It is the American vice, the democratic disease which expresses its tyranny by reducing everything unique to the level of the herd.” Henry Miller