I'll tell you this about military life. Navy life. You sure do forget a lot of the BS over time. You remember your last command as a good command even though you thought it kinda sucked while you were there.
And you remember most of the guys you were stationed with as pretty decent folks, but I think there might have always been one or two guys...that you just didn't like. Listening to all those other veterans, that was the feeling I got from them.
He's never signed standard form 180. WHY NOT? What’s he hiding? I’ve heard rumors, but I’ll be nice and not put them here.
And that's the values I'm talking about. You can't put it in words. It's an "I just don't like him" kinda feeling. I honestly think that a person I wouldn't want in my backyard for a barbeque should not be president of the United States of America.
So Mr. Kerry, you are not invited to my next barbeque!
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Matt
Andy,
Why all of the credence placed on exit polls, when they have been historically inaccurate? I love how Republicans like you screamed on Election Day that the exit polls were bullshit (and you were right), but now you trot out this moral horseshit for all of us to digest. Plus, if the exit data about moral issues is correct, isn't this the lowest % of people to cite morals as their main issue since the 1992 election?
Also, its high time you let the Swift Boat thing go. The election was a month ago. Our guy made some mistakes 30 years ago. That doesn't make him any more unfit for command than Bush's love affair with nose candy does from less than 20 years ago.
We have an All-DUI executive branch, but they seem to have done well for themselves in terms of commanding.
2 - andy marsh
I'm not the one placing all the credence on exit polls. I didn't call it morals, I called it values.
I keep reading about this values issue and I was giving my opinion on what value I may have been talking about had I been asked.
And just because I can't stand kerry doesn't necessarily mean I'm a republican.
I'll let go of the swift boat "thing" as you call it, when kerry signs the SF-180.
Making a mistake is one thing, being a traitor to your country is a whole different thing.
3 - bhw
The exit polls everyone is citing listed "moral values" as one of the choices people could select for their top voting issue.
It wasn't just morals and it wasn't just values. It was the combination.
4 - andy marsh
ok, here's a definition of moral. It still fits. It says nothing about religion.
moral - Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character
5 - andy marsh
and here's an even better one.
moral - Conformed to accepted rules of right; acting in conformity with such rules; virtuous; just; as, a moral man. Used sometimes in distinction from religious; as, a moral rather than a religious life.
Even excludes religion!
6 - andy marsh
bhw - how about a moral compass similar to the political compass on your blog? 7 - andy marsh
let's try that again...
Check your moral compass
Hopefully this will work.
8 - Matt
I said nothing about religion, so I'm not sure why you are even bringing it up.
Obviously your morals and values and mine are different, because I have a much bigger problem with our president still having trace levels of coke his system than I am a senator who came back from a war and decided it was wrong.
Oh, yeah. You're not a Republican. Right.
9 - Mark Saleski
hmmmm, so what's worse...cleaning a bathroom with a flag, or having sex with a frozen chicken?
oh, that's not the point?
;-)
10 - andy marsh
No I'm not. I'm a retired miltary type that respects the opinions of prisoners of war that had to withstand the torture they did because an officer in the U.S. Navy said that our military was full of WAR CRIMINALS!
11 - Mark Saleski
so andy, were'd ya end up on that moral compass?
12 - bhw
I'm a retired miltary type that respects the opinions of prisoners of war that had to withstand the torture they did because an officer in the U.S. Navy said that our military was full of WAR CRIMINALS!
Huh? They withstood torture because the enemy tortured them, not because of anything said by John Kerry. Did the torture start before or after Kerry made his comments?
Americans should NOT keep their mouths shut because some people think it might "aid or comfort" the enemy. They should speak their minds if they think a war is unjust or if war crimes are occurring. The enemy will do what the enemy will do no matter what anyone else says.
13 - Mark Saleski
no, no bhw, you're supposed to keep yer mouth shut as you face dc and genuflect toward the pentagon.
don't worry, all of this will be spelled out in the handbook they'll be passing out at the liberal internment camp.
;-)
14 - Steve S
Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.37.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.50.
What do these results mean:
Your Moralising Quotient is an aggregate measure of your tendency to condemn the actions described in these scenarios as morally wrong. A score of 1.00 indicates a fully moralising position. A score of 0.00 is a fully permissive response.
Your Interference Factor is an aggregate measure of your tendency to judge the actions described here as being the legitimate target of societal interference in the form of prevention or punishment. A score of 1.00 indicates that you think that every act described in these scenarios is subject to societal interference. A score of 0.00 indicates that you think that these acts are essentially a private matter, and that societal interference is inappropriate.
Your Universalising Factor is an aggregate measure of your tendency to judge moral wrongdoing in universal terms. A score of 1.00 means you have indicated that the act is wrong regardless of prevailing cultural norms and social conventions. A score of 0.00, on the other hand, means you have indicated that whether an act is to be thought of as wrong is largely a matter of social norms, and that it is quite possible that what is wrong in one culture may not be wrong in another.
Overall analysis:
I puzzled the results machine.
Are you thinking straight about morality?
Although you do not evaluate the actions depicted in these scenarios to be across the board wrong, it is not entirely clear why you think that anything in them is morally problematic. You don't think an action can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. Yet the actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Possibly an argument could be made that the people undertaking these actions are harmed in some way by them. But you don't think that an action can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. More significantly, when asked about each scenario, in no instance did you respond that harm had resulted. Consequently, it is a puzzle why you think that any of the actions depicted here are questionable morally speaking.
Where I fall on the chart.
15 - Shark
Andy: "...a person I wouldn't want in my backyard for a barbeque should not be president of the United States of America."
A person who would write such mindless drivel is not worth reading.
Bye.
PS: Who is this "Kerry" person anyway???
16 - andy marsh
then don't read it shark!
Did someone hold your face to your computer screen and MAKE you read it?
17 - MCH
Re comment #12;
I concur with bhw that "Americans should speak their minds if they think a war is unjust or if war crimes are occurring."
The following letter, titled "Fighting the war in Vietnam all over again," was written by a decorated combat veteran with PTSD and appeared in our local newspaper prior to the election:
"I've spent a few years in and out of VA Hospitals and I know that I shouldn't be writing this letter. When I was discharged from my last stay trying to heal 30-year-old invisible wounds, the doctors told me that when I got back home to never watch Fox News and avoid all politics. But one day, earlier this year, I woke up and discovered that the 2004 campaign for president was suddenly all about Vietnam.
That was interesting because I thought we had silently agreed a long time ago to never mention it again. It had all that nasty stuff like trumped-up lies, deaths, deficits and a nation really angry at each other. Oh yeah - there was also about two and a half million uniformed men and women involved and a lot of them were screwed up from that chemical stuff and the uglies of people killing each other.
But after decades of quiet, it was back on page one, on all the channels and every radio talk show.
At first it was a little difficult to decipher. One candidate was a decorated Vietnam vet, but he was bad because he came home and spoke out against the war in 1971. If I remember it right, there were also a few other thing goings on around that time. You guys who are old enough may remember the Pentagon Papers, Kent State and Jackson State.
Now the other candidate did not go to Vietnam. His pop got him into the National Guard to fly jets, but they had to take away his pilot's license because he wasn't showing up for drills and exams. Yet he was good, because as Commander In Chief he led us into victory in Iraq. Oh yeah, he also brought back all that nasty stuff again. You know...trumped-up lies, deaths, deficits and a nation really angry at each other.
You're right, I can't fool you. Like Kerry, I was one of those Vietnam Vets Against the War. As a matter of fact, Vietnam turned me against all war.
Oh yeah, just one more thing. Senator Dole, I admire your courageous service to your country in war and in the Senate, but you got it wrong when you say that John Kerry owes an apology to the U.S. Senate. Sir, the U.S. Congress owes an apology to John Kerry and to the rest of us who belong to the 'Brotherhood of the Paddies.'
And by the way, tell them to put back the appropriations into the VA bill that they just cut-up because there are a lot of us who still need help and it looks like they're going to have a lot more patients for the next 30 years."
Just for the record, I'm a Vietnam era vet and I too was against the war when I got out over 30 years ago, in addition to being opposed to this current invasion of Iraq.
- MCH
18 - Mike Kole
Hey Andy, that moral compass thing was fun. I've never thought of myself as amoral, but within the narrow set of scenarios offered, well... When I saw the results, I laughed out loud.
"Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.07.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.
What do these results mean?
Are you thinking straight about morality?"
Heh.
"You see very little wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. However, to the extent that you do, it is a moot point how you might justify it. You don't think an action can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. Yet the actions described in these scenarios at least seem to be private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Possibly an argument could be made that the people undertaking these actions are harmed in some way by them. But you don't think that an action can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. More significantly, when asked about each scenario, in no instance did you respond that harm had resulted. Consequently, it is a puzzle why you think that any of the actions depicted here are of questionable morality."
Of course I think I'm thinking straight about morals, but then, so does everybody else. ;-)
19 - Vic
Andy,
Fascinating quiz... even moreso was seeing where I compared to most responses. Must be a lot of Liberals taking that quiz. ;-)
My results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.73.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.40.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.80.
The averages:
Moralising Quotient is: 0.23.
Interference Factor is: 0.14.
Universalising Factor is: 0.23.
I would have had quite different results if I'd taken the test in my 20's.
Vic
20 - bhw
I wanna be like Mike [Kole]:
Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.07.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.
People, go have sex with your brother/sister or the frozen poultry in your kitchen. Matters not to me.
Oh, and girls, keep pushing those boys off the swings.
21 - Mark Saleski
i forgot my numbers but i ended up in the extreme (imagine that!) of the lower, left (imagine that!) quadrant.
permissive.
22 - Steve S
I kept wondering on that quiz, I don't care if someone has sex with a frozen poultry, but would I then feel the same about eating over at their house? THEN I'd have a different answer!
I post recipes on my blog. I'll never be able to talk about stuffing a bird, without grimacing, from now on.
Also, that question about eating your dead pet, I answered that it was morally wrong for me, but could care less about anybody else. If I was supposed to apply these questions solely to other people, then my answers would have been much more liberal than they were.
23 - bhw
The test was confusing at times, but I think you were supposed to apply the scenarios/questions solely to other people. Based on the feedback I got with my score, it looked like they didn't want you to infer anything about the scenario beyond exactly what they told you about the people involved and the circumstances, and I think that includes putting you in the place of the people in the scenario.
So, I'm not sure I was supposed to think about who got harmed outside of the family who ate the cat and the cat itself, for example, and I did. I thought the people who got harmed were the cat owners. But the feedback said I wasn't supposed to think about stuff not specifically mentioned in the scenario. But then it WAS mentioned in the scenario that the cat was owned by a family other than the one who ate it. So I don't know.
I also thought the question about the girl and the swing was potentially misleading. I answered "no" to that question, that the girl was not morally wrong to push the boy off the swing. But that's not because I thought the boy wasn't harmed but because I think children can't be expected understand and/or act upon morals the same way adults can. If the scenario had adults or even teenagers in it instead, I might have answered that question differently.
Or maybe that question dealt with the "universalism" piece, that morals are morals no matter what the social context. If you answer "no" to that question, it implies that you see morals contextually and not universally, I guess.
Yeah, that's it.
24 - Steve S
oh, if it's solely about other people and I never have to eat over at their house, then my answers would have probably been as low as yours.
I don't know why but I assumed the girl was 10 or 12, although it doesn't say any age. Heck, my daughter is two and she knows it's wrong to hit, punch, kick, etc. Kids should know it's wrong early on. Doesn't mean they will behave, but they should know. I answered that one is morally wrong. But I don't apply the same moral standards from an adult to a child. Ergo, any reprimand would be different than if a 30 year old woman pushed him off. (maybe cuz he ate her cat).
25 - bhw
I agree that kids should know that it's wrong to push/hit/etc. But even though they can recite the rules, they can't always process what those rules really mean or apply them in real-life situations. They are by biological definition self-centered for several years [on a scale; some lean empathy earlier than others].
And their impulse control isn't the same as an adult's.
So I guess I was looking at it as was it morally wrong from the girl's point of view: she wanted the swing, so she got it for herself.