Forum : Article Discussions : John Kerry Reporting for Duty

Thursday
September 2, 2004

John Kerry Reporting for Duty by Barbara Branden

For the past year, I have thought that John Kerry was both weak and a hypocrite. Recently, since information about his Vietnam "service" has come out, I realized that he also was a liar. Today, I am beginning to think that the man is demented. Either that, or he thinks that his audiences are of subnormal intelligence and have no memories. Or both. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (36 messages)

Post 20

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 12:06am

Link

Edit

Dear Mrs. Branden:

You write that I "missed the point of Rand's disappointment with Wilkie. It did not cause her to vote for FDR." It is you who missed the point. Just as the enemy in 1940 was not Germany but collectivism, the enemy of humankind in 2004 is not Islamism but theocracy. Just as FDR was the head of the American branch of the same international collectivist movement against whose German and Japanese branches he would soon go to war, George Bush is the head of the American branch of the same international theocratic movement that murdered 3000 Americans who worked in the World Trade Center. George Bush is in total agreement with Al Qaeda that it is appropriate to force others to obey the imaginary whims of his imaginary supernatural deity. His only disagreement with Al Qaeda is about methods, not principles. So I think that YOU miss the point of my disagreement with Kerry. It will NOT cause me to vote for Bush.

In response to Eli's concern with Bush's ban of therapeutic human cloning and medical research into applications of embryonic stem cells, you write that Bush "didn't outlaw stem cell research, only its funding by the government." But for stem cell therapies to be useful and profitable enough to justify the expense of private research, the stem cells for therapy must be derived from an embryonic clone of the patient's own DNA - stem cells from any other source would face immune rejection and other obstacles that cannot be overcome by any commercially feasable technique that can be foreseen at this time. The relevant fact of reality is, that a ban on human cloning is, unavoidably, also a ban on commercial development of embryonic stem cell therapies. And, if this were not enough, the FDA has banned, for purely religious reasons and without any grounding in reality, the emergency contraceptive Plan B - in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that Plan B is completely safe and effective. Leonard Peikoff, in the lecture segment in which he endorsed Kerry, cited reports from two biotechnology CEOs, both Objectivists, of FDA pressure on their companies not to develop embryonic stem cell therapies. What more do you need to confirm that a ban is in effect?

As for your comment that "if Kerry is "a symbol and embodiment of secular rationality," then we should welcome his economic policies and hail the advent of socialism" - I can only recommend that you lay off time travel for a while. In 1957, all countries of the world had more than 50% socialist economies, with 4 exceptions: US, Germany and Japan - thanks to American occupations - and Switzerland. Today, there are 4 countries in the world that still have 50%+ socialist economies: North Korea, Myanmar, Cuba and Venezuela. Time travel is bad for your head, Mrs. Branden. If you indulge, you will continue to feel a strong urge to dig up the putrid corpse of socialism and wave it in the wind like a scarecrow. Whom are you hoping to scare?

Which brings me to unfinished business from another discussion. You wrote: "I just learned something else about Kerry that had only been a rumor before. When he returned home after his four-and-a-half months in Vietnam, he secretly flew to Paris and met with high officials of the Viet Cong." I responded: "If he did this SECRETLY, how did you "learn" about it? Please share." You wrote: "My "Deep Throat"in this instance consisted of two television broadcasters speaking on national television." I responded: "Two television broadcasters? If they are so reliable, why not mention their names, and what stations they broadcast on? In my experience the correlation between truth and television, especially our FCC-controlled television, is reliably negative; most of it is such dreck that no reasonable man would dignify it with a denial. But I admit there are exceptions. Do let us know." You never did.

Mrs. Branden, posting a scurrilous rumor, and insisting that it is NOT a rumor, on the authority of two FCC-controlled broadcasters whom you have declined to name, is bad intellectual hygiene. If this is the method by which you arrived at the more suspect portions of your "Passion of Ayn Rand," then I would have to consider your writings, then and since, as something to be read only while wearing thick rubber gloves.

Post 21

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 1:54am

Link

Edit

Mr. Erica, you wrote:

"Mrs. Branden, posting a scurrilous rumor, and insisting that it is NOT a rumor, on the authority of two FCC-controlled broadcasters whom you have declined to name, is bad intellectual hygiene. If this is the method by which you arrived at the more suspect portions of your "Passion of Ayn Rand," then I would have to consider your writings, then and since, as something to be read only while wearing thick rubber gloves."

If you care to rewrite your post to me in a civil manner, I'll be glad to answer your questions.

Barbara

Post 22

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 1:56am

Link

Edit

I am so sorry, Sam. My post should not have been addressed to you, but to Adam Reed. My apologies.

Barbara

Post 23

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 12:01pm

Link

Edit

Barbara: No problem.

Sam

Post 24

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 2:17pm

Link

Edit

Adam, you say that you have "unfinished business" with Mrs Branden and conclude that since she hasn't replied to your boorish request to substantiate what is public knowledge that you can then berate her intellectual credibility. Why should she swim through your chosen sewer?

Mr Reed, you are a disgrace. If this is the method by which you routinely conduct yourself then I am only surprised that you yourself have never enjoyed an encounter with a rubber glove. Perhaps if you were honest rather than oafish you might have answered your question yourself, as I have done for you below. Or are you just too slothful to do your own work?

Boston Globe (3/25/2004)

Kerry spoke of meeting negotiators on Vietnam
By Michael Kranish and Patrick Healy, Globe Staff, 3/25/2004
WASHINGTON -- In a question-and-answer session before a Senate committee in 1971, John F. Kerry, who was a leading antiwar activist at the time, asserted that 200,000 Vietnamese per year were being "murdered by the United States of America" and said he had gone to Paris and "talked with both delegations at the peace talks" and met with communist representatives�.
When Kerry was asked by committee chairman Senator J. William Fulbright how he proposed to end the war, the former Navy lieutenant said it should be ended immediately and mentioned his involvement in peace talks in Paris.
"I have been to Paris," Kerry said. "I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points . . . ."
The latter was a reference to a communist group based in South Vietnam. Historian Stanley Karnow, author of "Vietnam: A History," described the Provisional Revolutionary Government as "an arm of the North Vietnamese government." Madam Nguyen Thi Binh was a leader of the group and had a list of peace-talk points, including the suggestion that US prisoners of war would be released when American forces withdrew.
After their May 1970 marriage, Kerry traveled to Paris with his wife, Julia Thorne, on a private trip, Meehan said. Kerry did not go to Paris with the intention of meeting with participants in the peace talks or involving himself in the negotiations, Meehan added, saying that while there Kerry had his brief meeting with Binh, which included members of both delegations to the peace talks.

Sir, you are a git and a buffoon. I trust you will prostrate yourself in apology for your contemptible incivility.

Post 25

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 6:21pm

Link

Edit

Peter,

Please compare the reference you found to Mrs. Branden's post. Mrs. Branden wrote, "When he returned home after his four-and-a-half months in Vietnam, he secretly flew to Paris and met with high officials of the Viet Cong." But according to your source, Kerry did not fly to Paris "when he returned home after his four-and-a-half months in Vietnam," but much later, after his wedding. He did not fly to Paris secretly, but openly, in the company of his wife. Not only did Kerry not treat his trip as any kind of secret, he talked about it on-the-record, in public hearings. Of 27 words in Mrs. Branden's scurrilous claim, 15 are false. As I wrote, that level of (in)accuracy does not meet my standard of intellectual hygiene. Make of that fact what you will.

Post 26

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 7:39pm

Link

Edit

Peter, many thanks. For more reasons that I want to say publicly.

Barbara

Post 27

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 8:03pm

Link

Edit

Adam: "Make of that fact what you will."

I make of it a wriggle.

Post 28

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 8:13pm

Link

Edit

Mr. Reed, you write that

"the enemy of humankind in 2004 is not Islamism but theocracy"

I am a little curious about this viewpoint. I do understand that apparantly in the US religion has a much higher profile than here "down under", where the constant complaints from all churches are of empty pews and declining attendances, and complete lack of interest in religion by the population in general and politicains in particular.
I understand this is so for most Western countries - that true theocracy is mainly a preserve of Islam.
I believe that the greatest threat to mankind in 2004 onwards is the spread and acceptance of postmodernism, and all its subsequent offshoots - such as relatavism and "multiculturalism". These philosophies are corrupting the actions and thought processes of people for whom religion has no meaning, but are so corrupting our cultures and civilizations that the time is not far off when any invader who comes knocking at the door is going to find an empty shell they can take with no problem.
This is why I believe both your leaders are wrong, as are all other Western leader politicians. Unless they can address this issue, - which they cant/wont - they are all contributing to our ultimalte downfall.

Post 29

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 8:58pm

Link

Edit

Barbara,

I think your article, if true, would be good cause to consider Bush over Kerry.

But I do have a couple of problems with the legitimacy of your information. Personally, I'm wary of almost all sources from inside the US, especially network news. It's blatantly obvious that they play to the agenda of who's in power at the time. All of the rumors flying around about Kerry's war record have never been proved, and those who actually served with him have spoken strongly in his defense. So do you trust the anchor who reads whatever the teleprompter spoon-feeds him, or those who actually fought with Kerry and saw the blood?

Besides, protesting war doesn't make one unpatriotic. I think, if anything, it makes one more patriotic if the war is unjust. And the war we're in is unjust.

It's very easy to point fingers at Kerry for his flaws, but what most people don't realize is that Bush has many, many more flaws than Kerry. He's just better at hiding them. He lied to the American public, has caused thousands of innocent deaths in Iraq (of their civilians and our troops), and for what? Apparently to protect the interests of his buddies in the oil industries. If that doesn't piss you off, then I don't know what will.

Here's are a couple of sources that might shed a little light on Bush:

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263
http://www.thousandreasons.org/

Post 30

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 2:33am

Link

Edit

Nix-O-Matic, you cite, as creditable sources of information about Bush, two internet websites which are openly dedicated to opposing him. The American Progress Action Fund contains every accusation against Bush I've ever heard, and many I haven't heard. One Thousand Reasons purports to present 1,000 mistakes Bush has made since becoming President.

Yet you write, after presenting outrageously unsubstantiated accusations against Bush, that you have problems with the legitimacy of my information about Kerry. ?????

Barbara

Post 31

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 2:38am

Link

Edit

I plan to discuss other questions and objections to my article, but I'm working against a deadline on another matter, and I cannot do so immediately. Thanks for your patience.

Barbara

Post 32

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 3:07am

Link

Edit

I have just watched a documentary taking viewers, to a degree, behind the scenes on September 11. It reinforced for me that the President of the United States is a very decent man who responded correctly, courageously & inspirationally to the declaration of war by unspeakable scum that September 11 was. It also reinforced for me that the proposition that Mr. Bush is a theocrat, on a par with Al Qaeda in everything but his methods, is preposterous beyond words. It is moral hysteria - a *numbing* lack of perspective, proportion & context - of the ARI kind, & I note that on this forum it emanates from a fan of the third-worst ARI hysteric.

It *should* speak volumes to the fan of the hysteric that he's free to post here as he pleases, even in defence of that flip-flopping moral vacuum named Kerry, but I've seen enough of the fan of the hysteric to know that he's simply a boorish, socially-challenged monologuer, deaf to *anything* *anyone* else says.

I would have held back from saying this were it not for the fan of the hysteric's pursuing of his vendetta against Mrs. Branden on *this* forum. For the record, I'll take one Mrs. Branden over one million shrill, theocratic Peikovians any day of the week, sight unseen. And the fan of the hysteric & his fellow-Peikovians can stick their pin-up boy Kerry where the sun doesn't shine & the bacteria are Saddamite-friendly.

Linz

Post 33

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 6:35am

Link

Edit

It seems to me that Mr. Reed is bringing some personal issues to this discussion.

Post 34

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 11:37am

Link

Edit

Rodney,

It seems to me that Mr. Reed is bringing some personal issues to this discussion.

Ah, Rodney, the master of understatement.

Now, completely aside and to you, because I know you have a great interest in music...

The reed is a device used on certain instruments which are hollow and frequently made of wood and, therefore, appropriately called woodwinds, noted for their frequent immision of shrill meaningless squeaks.

Also, as an aside, some people really do live up to their names; not that I have anyone in mind, of course.

Regi

Post 35

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 11:05pm

Link

Edit

Actually, if you looked closer you would find that the sources I gave documented their sources. For example, on the list that documents how Bush has lied and flip-flopped on issues, they list interviews and sources where Bush himself said the comment in question, or someone in his administration did. Not only that, but you can find the information yourself. Look at the list of executive orders on the whitehouse.gov website and see that Bush issued an EO stating that social security is not to be invested in the stock market. But what is he trying to do now? The very thing he issued an EO saying shouldn't be done. And the thing is, he tells the American public that he's a "honest man" and a "straight shooter." Give me a break. He just uses his simplistic demeanor and religious overtones to put up a smokescreen which he can hide behind and use to pull all kinds of evil shit behind our backs.

No, I think my sources are very credible, because my sources actually care about getting the truth about what's going on in the government, instead of just spreading old lies and rumors to smear someone's reputation.