Hitting the newswires is an article that purports to prove one thing but actually proves another.
“Sen. John F. Kerry’s grade average at Yale University was virtually identical to President Bush’s record there, despite repeated portrayals of Kerry as the more intellectual candidate during the 2004 presidential campaign.”
Basically, Kerry’s Yale cume average was 76 while Bush’s was 77.
The thing is, if you read the article, Kerry tanked his Freshman year, with several D’s and one failed course. But during his subsequent three years his grades steadily improved. He was never çûm laude or anything, but the point is…he learned from his mistakes.
Whereas Bush started off with an average of 77 and didn’t deviate from it for four years. Kerry improved exponentially. Bush didn’t.
But, hey, what else to expect from the supposedly liberal-leaning press than an article that essentially tries to say that Kerry is no smarter than Bush.
PAD
• 
Mike–
Please read the WHOLE article, not just select paragraphs! It IS 71 to 76 — an “exponential” rise, according to the Peter David lie.
And if I’m so “needy,” what does that make YOU for responding so many times to ME?
QUOTE: “The transcript shows that Kerry’s freshman-year average was 71.”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/
QUOTE: “[Kerry] showed a slight improvement in subsequent semesters, topping out with an 81 average his senior year. Kerry had a cumulative average of 76.”
Someone addressing the neo-con paradigm of painting neediness as strength. For the damage this is doing to the country, I again refer to I Used To Be a Neocon
Hey, let’s try this: X-ray’s whole argument is based on the idea that PAD lied when he said Kerry’s increase of his grade average (from 71 his freshman year, to a final cumulative average of 76) was an exponential increase. Exponential means either a rapid increase, or the raising of something to a power.
So, anyone really good with math (or at least better than I am) care to take a stab at seeing what power a cumulative average increase from 71 to 76 is?
I can use a logical approach: Someone else already pointed out that Kerry would only need a 3 year cumulative average of 77.6 in order to finish with a 76. I’d see a 6.6 increase in one year…a whole grade increase in a system that uses + and – grades…as the exponential grading equivilent of rising a power in math.
So, having thusly disproven X-ray’s theory, I guess that makes HIM a liar, at least in this instance.
Yes! And you didn’t have to develop hardly ANY intricate and technical mathmatical formulas to prove your “point.” (Well, just one.) I’m sure everyone, when seeing the word “exponential,” does that same formula in their head.
So, having thusly mocked your theory, I guess that makes YOU a liar, at least in this instance.
X-Ray: Then I guess any word can be “interpreted” to mean anything then. For example, you said “Nope.” I interpret that as meaning you agree with me totally!
Luigi Novi: How do you figure this? “Nope” can be interpreted to mean that I agree with you? How so? Why is it that “distortion” on the part of others means that you can call them liars, but when you do it, it’s okay?
X-Ray Daivd] calls what I said, “Classic. And funny.”
Luigi Novi: Actually, he didn’t.
X-Ray: Actually, he did.
Luigi Novi: No. You claimed that he said this in response to your calling him a liar. He didn’t. He said it in response to you “Bush sucks” retort. Nice little Straw Man on your part.
“Luigi Novi: ‘Nope’ can be interpreted to mean that I agree with you?”
Yes, it can. Thank you for agreeing with me!
“X-Ray: Actually, he did. Luigi Novi: No.”
Yes.
“Yes! And you didn’t have to develop hardly ANY intricate and technical mathmatical formulas to prove your “point.” (Well, just one.) I’m sure everyone, when seeing the word “exponential,” does that same formula in their head.”
Hey, is that sarcasm? I can’t tell…
What are you saying? That the average, ordinary person is incapable of figuring out a simple average? Here’s my “intricate and technical” formula: X/4 = y, where X = cumulative grades, and y = grade point average.
Now, the hard part….inserting the known quantities and unknown variables you want to solve for: (71 + X)/4 = 76.
When is basic algebra taught these days? 6th grade? 5th?
My point, which I had thought was clearly made, but I’ll explain it in Village Idiot terms, was that you can’t take a term like “exponential” and apply it to something like a GPA just because it’s based on a number system. Grading scales are not necessarily linear, so you can’t say that 76 is not exponentially greater than 71, just because there’s only 5 “points” between them. Take, for example, the decible scale. A 3 point increase represents roughly a doubling of the sound power. So something that is 63 dB has twice the sound power of something at 60 dB…an exponential increase, even though there are only 3 “points” between the two factors.
Oh, in order to effectively mock something, you have to be able to say something negative about it. A basic algebra formula that most 6th graders should be able to figure out, set up, and work, hardly qualifies as “intricate and technical.” Also, mocking someone doesn’t make you right, and them wrong.
However, proving someone wrong does, in fact, make them wrong. I’ve proven you, X-ray, wrong. The best you can do is try to paint my response as overly technical (which, again, would not make me wrong, just demonstrate some aptitude you appear to lack) and then dismiss me through mockery. Which would suggest that you have no way to counter my response.
Teacher: “Class, please define ‘exponential.’ “
Bobb: “OK! Exponential means X/4 = y, where X = cumulative grades, and y = grade point average. Now, the hard part….inserting the known quantities and unknown variables you want to solve for: (71 + X)/4 = 76.”
Teacher: “what are you babblong about? I asked you to define a word, and you give me a formula.”
Bobb: “But it’s so EASY! Are you stupid?”
Mr. David asserts that Kerry’s grades improved “exponentially.” The characteristic of an exponential curve is a small increase in the beginning, with the rate of increase steadily becoming greater. So Mr. David is saying that Kerry’s grades didn’t improve much his second year, but they improved more in his third year and still more in his fourth.
So saying that his grades improved exponentially is not a particularly flattering statement.
As for the accuracy of the statement, the article which I’ve seen doesn’t provide sufficient information. It says Kerry got a first-year average of 71, a senior-year average of 81, and a cumulative 76 for all four years. That’s consistent with linear improvement, not with an exponential curve. If his improvement were exponential, the 4-year average would have to be lower, or the senior year average higher.
But I agree with many others that what’s important isn’t the grades themselves, but that Kerry concealed his grades in order to avoid comparison with the “stupid” Bush. The mantra that Bush is a dummy is such a convenient substitute for raising substantive issues.
…except that isn’t a mantra propogated by liberals, but by conservatives to hide the fact that his agenda is predatory. Bush’s stupidity is merely something liberals believe.
To Gary McGath:
Bravo! But don’t expect facts to matter to the lunatic liberals that post here. They know only one thing, their mantra … BUSH SUCKS.
“The mantra that Bush is a dummy…”
But I love this mantra! The liberals never seem to realize its implications. If Bush is THAT dumb, then what does that make the libs themselves, and John Kerry, whom Bush has consistently beaten?
Any comment that Bush is dumb also implies that those he consistently defeats are FAR dumber! Their usual lame comeback: But Bush didn’t “REALLY” win! GOP voters were tricked, are stupid … etc, etc. Whine on, my children!
As I’ve been saying — Bush is a predator who harvests middle-class savings.
He gets votes by measuring strength by dominance. The poor who vote for him are like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her.
Again, your neediness is sickening. Maybe I’m responsible for prolonging your displays of neediness here, by calling it what it is.
But I can’t think of anything that gives evil greater license than the pretense of virtue. In the comic book community, that was the theme preserved in the recent Sin City adaptation, and is the harm caused by the censorship the CBLDF fights.
If Bush is THAT dumb, then what does that make the libs themselves, and John Kerry, whom Bush has consistently beaten?
It means Dems are thankfully that they don’t have a Karl Rove churning out the propoganda, nor a Cheney or Rumsfeld to pull Bush’s strings.
If people like Bush because he comes across as “an everyday Joe”, then this country is in trouble.
“It means Dems are thankfully that they don’t have a Karl Rove churning out the propoganda, nor a Cheney or Rumsfeld to pull Bush’s strings.”
No … it really means they are world-class bad losers.
“Your neediness is sickening.”
Then PLEASE ignore me! I’m begging you. I need you to ignore me.
I can see why PAD labled X-ray a clod.
Ok, OK, I’ll stop feeding the troll.
“I can see why PAD labled X-ray a clod. Ok, OK, I’ll stop feeding the troll.”
Thank you! But making posts about me is not really ignoring me, is it.
Who said I was ignoring you? By “stop feeding the troll,” I meant I’d stop giving you an excuse to embarrass yourself by giving you something to respond to.
But I’ll be happy to ignore you, from now on.
From The Boston Globe article:
“The records, which the Navy Personnel Command provided to the Globe, are mostly a duplication of what Kerry released during his 2004 campaign for president, including numerous commendations from commanding officers who later criticized Kerry’s Vietnam service. . . . An earlier release of the full record might have helped his campaign because it contains a number of reports lauding his service.”
Looks like some of those Swift Boat guys actually said nice things about Kerry in the past. Hey!! Wait a minute. Aren’t The Swift Boat Veterans liars?
http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/breakdown.html
The Swift Boat campaign is just a glaring example of how the public can be swayed…get a few people that will follow blindly (kool-aid drinkers, I call them), throw in a few statements that have a tinge of credibility (SBVs against Kerry), then repeat ad nauseum in public, and pretty soon, you have yourself an unassailable “truth.” Despite the fact that there’s not a shred of supportable fact contained within that “truth.” The sheer repetitive nature of the statement creates it’s own viability.
My understanding is that the most resolved critics of a movement are those who have been converted from it, like the guy who wrote I Used To Be a Neocon.
You aren’t the only Bush supporter reading this thread, so just because you aren’t a likely candidate to see how poor voters of Bush voted against their own self-interest (like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her), that doesn’t mean letting you continue with your inconsistencies won’t reach another candidate.
With Bushes popularity down 20-points from where Clinton was when impeachment began, maybe it’s time to start feeding the trolls.
Bobb wrote: “The Swift Boat campaign is just a glaring example of how the public can be swayed…get a few people that will follow blindly (kool-aid drinkers, I call them), throw in a few statements that have a tinge of credibility (SBVs against Kerry), then repeat ad nauseum in public, and pretty soon, you have yourself an unassailable “truth.” Despite the fact that there’s not a shred of supportable fact contained within that “truth.” The sheer repetitive nature of the statement creates it’s own viability.”
In my opinion, anyone who dismisses the Swift Boat Veterans arguments out of hand is a “Kool-aid Drinker” as well. The truth, from all the evidence I’ve seen, lies somewhere in between both arguments.
I tend to believe Bush got elected for two reasons:
1) He represents the values of most Americans, and
2) Democrats do not represent the values of most Americans (I would say the representative liberals on this site, though intelligent and sincere, do not represent what most Americans think are important).
People weren’t tricked. The American people aren’t prostitutes knifing the guy who stops their pimp from beating them, they are people who don’t want to become prostitutes to the Democratic pimp (working hard so their money can be redistributed to those who don’t, against their will). Democrats encourage the poor to stay poor, afixed to the government teat. Republicans do NOTHING to prevent people from moving up; republicans are not pimps, they don’t force people to work for them, at worst, they discourage people from staying poor.
R. Maheras, I’d agree…any time you dismiss something out of hand, you’re at least getting in line to drink the funny colored water. Which I’m sure some people supporting Kerry did, simply because Kerry was their guy.
Then there are others of us that actually did some research into what the SBV were saying. As I said, I found them to have a tinge of credibility (many of them actually were SB vets themselves, serving about the same time as Kerry, and in some instances, involved in the same missions as Kerry), but that I saw not one single statement from someone that actually, physically served with Kerry on the missions in question. All of those vets, those that actually had first-hand accounts of Kerry’s service, were supportive of Kerry and the official record.
So I dismissed the SBV messages after seeing that their claims were not based on any good evidence.
“With Bushes popularity down 20-points from where Clinton was when impeachment began,”
You could probably say that Bush’s popularity is dropping exponentially…
PAD
“You could probably say that Bush’s popularity is dropping exponentially…
PAD”
……….
bwa-hahahahahahhahhahahah! 🙂
Republicans do NOTHING to prevent people from moving up; republicans are not pimps, they don’t force people to work for them, at worst, they discourage people from staying poor.
They’re also then, by default, heartless bášŧárdš who don’t want to help those in need.
Case in point: a great number of those filing for bankruptcy do so because of medical hardship.
So what do the Republicans and their big business buddies do? Make it more difficult for these people to file for bankruptcy.
And you think they don’t prevent people from improving their lives?
Also no exemption in the new bankruptcy law for soldiers in combat &/or their families.
Just the usual Republican support for the troops.
Query: What was the voting record on the recent bankruptcy bill? Was it a straight-line party vote?
http://www.indiadaily.com/breaking_news/31776.asp
Says it passed the House 302-126, and the Senate 74-25. This wasn’t exaclty a partisan bill, although it was penned by a Republican. There was some talk during the debate over it that it would make getting credit easier, and lower interest rates. Most experts I’ve seen discussing it have stated that your average personal credit card interest rate won’t be going down at all. And in a world where a DOG can get a credit card, is it any wonder that there’s a large number of bad accounts out there?
But, rather than recognize that the credit industry has created it’s own mess (mass mailings, targeting young and inexperienced college students and recent grads, granting huge credit limits to students with little to no income), our government decides to throw them a bone…because, let’s face it, banks present a huge lobby group.
This isn’t just a republican decision, much as I’d like to say it is. This is just a general failure of the government to look out for the average citizen. Those truly need bankruptcy protection must now go through an even longer, and more expensive, process in order to do so. Which is just what someone contemplating bankruptcy wants to hear…another bill coming their way.
Query: I may be mistaken, but aren’t there already legal protections relating to financial and employment issues for members of the armed services when they are deployed? Aren’t a lot of the problems many of them are encountering due to poor private industry education of their responsibilities, rather than the need for further protections?
Oh, and thank you, Bobb, for the information relating to my first question.
Thank you, Peter David, for continuing to ignore me!
(I’m sure your very funny “exponential” pun was not at all directed to me.)
That brings you up to NINE posts about me … even though you are “donne” with me.
Wow .. if you were NOT donne with me, you’d probably make EVERY post about me!
How exponential!
“They’re also then, by default, heartless bášŧárdš who don’t want to help those in need.”
No, they don’t want the GOVERNMENT to do it; many are willing to help personally. Remember the charity reports on Kerry and Bush? Kerry, rich as he is, gives sparingly; Bush gives copiously (one might dare say: exponentially) and always has.
Jason, as I understand it, there are very few protections for deployed soldiers. Full-time enlisted you don’t really need to worry about…I’m pretty sure their families are allowed to remain on their domestic base, and since meals and such are provided, they don’t really see a cut in income (apologies if I’ve got that wrong, someone feel free to correct me).
It’s the deployed guard that run into hardships. The only thing required by law is that they are able to resume their jobs when they return. The only pay they are guaranteed is their guard pay, often a frail fraction of their civilian income. Most employers will allow them to use accumulated leave (if any), but that will run out long before their current deployment ends.
Some employers voluntarily maintain their Guard employees civilian salaries, but are not required to do so. So many guard families, especially those with children, are suffering extreme financial hardship right now. If the mother has to quit her job to care for children, they could effectively go from 2 salaries to less than 1 salary. It’s also hard on members that own their business.
They are desperately in need of additional assistance.
Thank you again, Bobb. I understand about the regular forces. I asked because within the last month I saw a news report (my apologies, I can’t remember the network/news show source) talking about Guard and Reserve members who were having problems with landlords, and in that story they talked about protections under the law that prevent a creditor from seizing assets or evicting someone while someone’s deployed. According to the report, the laws are already on the books; it was a lack of public education about reservists’ rights while deployed. I didn’t look it up at the time, but I was reminded of the story after reading some of the posts above and was curious if anyone knew more. I genuinely don’t remember enough to be sure I’ve got my facts straight.
…
Supports my point: the poor who vote republican are voting against their own self-interest — like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her.
They do this in campaigns that can be summarized as “You will know America is strong by our dominance.” The republican politicians leave the voters feeling strong, while they implement policy to harvest middle-class savings.
“The poor who vote republican are voting against their own self-interest — like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her.”
———-
Yet strangely enough … the military voted overwhelmingly for Bush.
THEY ARE STUPID!
P.S. Is that the only simile you know? Repeating it over and over is like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her!
I never called anyone stupid. Like I mentioned here, there’s no defense against your relentless, anonymous agenda, and you appear to be getting off on domination. You have an appetite for human blood — confusing your need for domination with strength — for which you should seek help.
Just asking, should we consider the half of the Democratic Senators that voted for the recent bankruptcy law as buddies of the Republicans and Big Business? Please refer to Bobb’s post above and form your own opinion; I’m purposefully referring you to his actual post instead of quoting from it in order to avoid somehow misrepresenting someone else’s words.
There are legitimate complaints about how President Bush has handled social services in this country, but it seems like a tough sell to me to characterize a non-partisan vote in Congress as all one party’s doing.
Ah, those are different matters I’m not as familiar with, Jason, but it appears you are correct.
http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourcesContent/0,13964,31042,00.html
not sure if the guard/reserve members all are aware of these protections…they probably need to contact credit card companies, for instance. And if their family members get evicted while they are away, because they are unaware of their legal protections, well, that doesn’t help them that much.
Looks like maybe there were a few guard/reserve members that missed a newsletter?
Again Bobb, thank you for the information. Frightening to think that protections like this already exist, and yet people in our armed forces still lose their homes sometimes because they are either unaware of their rights or have to educate others about them.
I don’t see why not.
Seeing as how the majority party sets the agenda, however, it only seems reasonable (ha, ha, reason) that they should receive the lion’s share of the blame.
X-ray complains I’m repeating my point, that poor who vote republican are voting against their own self-interest — like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her. Yet the plain truth continues to daunt him and his fellow republicans.
“Also no exemption in the new bankruptcy law for soldiers in combat &/or their families.
Just the usual Republican support for the troops. “
Just remember that while Bush claims to support the military, he doesn’t care about the hardships and murders he inflicts upon the INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE that make up the military. To Bush, the military is a toy, not a collection of people.
Actually…I’d say it isn’t exactly a toy to him, but he just doesn’t mind “collateral damage.”
Actually, Mike, I would have to say that your preferred analogy in illustrating your point is a little distracting due to its graphicness. However, I am still considering your actual argument.
At this point I would refer to something that bothered me during Kerry’s campaign, which is off-topic and not a response to your post, but something I’m still curious about: how did he expect people like the poor, who I’m inferring you think would vote in their self-interest if they were aware of a better option than the situation they know, to go to his website to see his ideas for change?
Forgot to finish my thought:
The poor are not known for having extensive internet access, though there are several programs out there trying to remedy this. Even with internet access, though, how many people liked being referred to a website instead of hearing Kerry actually say what he thought needed to be done? I think the campaign was decided, at least to some degree, to a perceived lack of ideas in the Democratic party. In other words people on the fence might have decided differently if presented with a complete argument, substantiated by clear thought on objectives and methods.