You have no idea just how mistaken you are.if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don't (get a job later on), then you've got, the Army, Iraq, I don't know, something like that. It's, it's not as bright.
Yeah, well...... King is known for a left-wing bias. Also, it's kinda hard to take his comment as being "out of context". What context could it otherwise be in, except if he was quoting that other idiot, John Kerry, who made a similar statement back in 2006 and became the laughingstock of the Troops everywhere (not that he wasn't already).This online pub has a right wing bias so we have to read this article very critically.
That may be your opinion, but it's wrong. He said precisely that: if you can't read, you'll end up in the Army.IMO, what's saying is that for some kids, the Army just fits them not that if you can't read you can always join the Army.
On that we can definitely agree.I personally try not to make a habit of taking too many Hollywood type's speeches too seriously.
Stephen King fires back after blogger attacks remarks
By The Associated Press
Wednesday, May 07, 2008 - Bangor Daily News
BANGOR, Maine — Stephen King has fired back at conservative critics who attacked him over a remark he made a month ago at a writers symposium for high school students.
A blogger jumped on King’s statement at the Library of Congress about the importance of reading in which he suggested poor readers have limited prospects, including service in the Army.
"I don’t want to sound like an ad, a public service ad on TV, but the fact is if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don’t, then you’ve got the Army, Iraq, I don’t know, something like that. It’s not as bright," King said at the April 4 event in which he was accompanied by his wife Tabitha and son Owen.
Blogger Noel Sheppard likened the comment to former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s remarks that if you don’t get a good education, "you get stuck in Iraq."
"Nice sentiment when the nation is at war, Stephen," Sheppard wrote.
King fired back Monday.
"That a right-wing-blog would impugn my patriotism because I said children should learn to read, and could get better jobs by doing so, is beneath contempt," he said in a statement posted on his Web site.
King said he supports the troops but believes the war in Iraq is a "waste of national resources ... and that includes the youth and blood of the 4,000 American troops who have lost their lives there and for the tens of thousands who have been wounded."
"I live in a National Guard town, and I support our troops, but I don’t support either the war or educational policies that limit the options of young men and women to any one career — military or otherwise," King said.
Except, Stephen, that ISN'T WHAT YOU SAID. You specifically gave joining the Army and going to Iraq as examples of what happens when you DON'T learn to read."That a right-wing-blog would impugn my patriotism because I said children should learn to read, and could get better jobs by doing so, is beneath contempt," he said in a statement posted on his Web site.
Oh. I see...King said he supports the troops but believes the war in Iraq is a "waste of national resources ... and that includes the youth and blood of the 4,000 American troops who have lost their lives there and for the tens of thousands who have been wounded."
"When you're explaining, you're losing."Stephen King has fired back at conservative critics who attacked him over a remark he made a month ago at a writers symposium for high school students.
Bullet- I think that you hit this one right on the head. It would seem apparent that the guy was mostly just hamhanded in what he was trying to advocate to his audience- which is literacy and education. He moves in a world that is really out of touch with the military- in fact for most of New England the military is virtually an unknown world- (just another benefit of the BRAC process- there is virtually no significant military representation in New England other than a few small specialized bases which don't employ many folks or have large military populations living on them). Blowing King's comments out of proportion seems like it just adds fuel to the fire rather than helping to convince the guy and his like minded peers that he badly mischaracterized the quality and motivation of the men and women in uniform. And- really his thoughtless comment about the quality of soldiers should not be conflated with a lack of patriotism. It's not a requirement of a patriot to support the current policy in Iraq (and don't misconstrue what I'm saying here- as I do support it. However thoughtful and patriotic americans can certainly argue both that the initial cause for going to war is suspect at best and that the situation in which the country currently finds itself is untenable).Again, just my feeling on the situation, but we are dangerously close to making Stephen King a rallying point for two opposing sides of the political spectrum. His rebuttal today is proof. One side will (rightfully) display their offense at his thoughtless words (and they are just that, thoughtless!), the other will rally to his defense saying he was just trying to bring light to a tragic situation (Allow me to paraphrase what I think their arguement will boil down to: "America's poor and uneducated youth dying for no reason in a pointless war").
I prefer to take the high road. I still stand by my suggestion: extend a hand in friendship and let him meet the troops he offended with his condescending words. Only by fighting the ignorance he so less-than-eloquently displayed can we hope to get him to realize the severity of his thoughless words. He doesn't have to agree with me on everything (and I fight and sacrifice so that he has that right!), I just think its a better way than burning his books on Fox News.