Carlos

Last random thought on Japan: the context of our war with Japan and how it might have motivated using The Bomb is very different from that of today. Today we are an unrivaled military force, and we can easily invade and obliterate any country without any use of Nukes. That was not the case with Japan, and without using the bomb we were looking at a land invasion of a country with a fanatical kamikaze die-before-dishonor attitude. A land invasion with Japan then would probably have been horrid. Consider also that the nuclear weapon was a new experimental weapon, and the long-term effects of radiation were not fully known. It was also an opportunity to display ourselves as an unrivaled military power to the world. With the above considered, I don't see why it's immediately necessary that we'd want to use Nukes in fighting the Islamofascists, and their absence shouldn't be considered as a toothless or restrained military response.

Another thought: in WW2 the Japanese were a very concrete and identifiable enemy. Their nation officially attacked ours, and we responded aggressively with focus on a single target. Islamofascism though is a very delocalized and abstract enemy. It's an ideology that doesn't uniquely belong to a single given nation, and at any given time different nations are pretending to be diplomatic while under-the-table they are sponsoring what is effectively an unofficial military force. Lacking a concrete target, our military efforts have been lacking in focus and effectiveness. Probably part of the problem is failing to think in principles and recognize the abstract principles tying these Islamic terrorists groups together and identifying the source of these principles (Iran in the middle-east). If the attacks were as direct and official as those of Japan, I would expect our response to be more direct and forceful. i.e., if bomber-jets painted with Iran's colors raided NYC, I think we'd turn Tehran into a sheet of glass.

What was the long-term perspective of WW2? We let the Soviets take over eastern Europe, and allowed them to build up into a major military and ideological presence thereby resulting in the ensuing Cold War. You could even say that WW2 got as dire as it did simply because the Nazis were appeased for too long and decisive action wasn't taken sooner. I agree the US military is often not aggressive enough and acts with too much restraint, but I just don't see this sudden irreversible decline post-WW2 in our military aggressiveness and assertiveness.

Don't forget about fiction!

As another example of this larger idea, look at the food industry. The majority of Americans enjoy their food in a very "clean" way; they never see manure-filled feed lots, the bloody act of butchering livestock, etc. When they cook their meat, they find it clean, bloodless and neatly sliced in the grocery store. The entire agricultural process which precedes the act of eating meat becomes abstract to them, and they feel comfortable lecturing and moralizing about how agriculture should be "properly" done, where every chicken and pig has its own spacious field to wander in, every cow is hand fed corn and carrots and then combed daily. This is because they have no idea of the grisly and dirty practical reality of raising livestock in an efficient way; civilization totally insulates them from this reality. I think the same thing has happened to warfare, which is what leads Americans to want "humane" wars, and moralize against harsh interrogation tactics.

Our initial military response to 9/11 was hardly toothless, and years later Bin Laden is now dead, thanks mostly to long-term intelligence efforts started under the GW Bush administration. While I agree our retaliation should have been less restrained, it was hardly a disaster in the Vietnam sense. The toothless responses from the US are probably only entertained to the extent that the military action is confined entirely to foreign soil, such that Americans and politicians can view the conflict abstractly and feel comfortable about moralizing how a "proper war" should be fought. The moment the bloodshed spills onto American soil, like it did on 9/11, we get pretty damn aggressive and bloodthirsty. Remember that the initial war effort following 9/11 was supported almost uniformly across party lines.

Most forum members here made it clear that Romney was not their ideal candidate and they'd only be supporting him to keep the greater evil of Obama out of office, so the comment "your boy" is inaccurate and irrelevant. No one here personally championed Romney or took great particular pride in him. Regardless, he's not an idiot, nor is anyone who can make it to that level of politics. Even Joe Biden, on some level, probably has a surprising amount of cunning and the right kind of smarts in the suave political quick-witted deal-making sense. Regardless of actual competency, no one makes it to the top of the political heap on accident. Either they get there by their own ruthless cunning, or as in the case of Obama, by political correctness and other interests continually place him higher and higher on the political ladder thereby making it appear as if his ascendence is because of some unique and powerful qualities.

There is nothing "superficial" about the get out the vote process. Simply having a good product is not a guarantee that it will sell; that's where advertising comes in. The Democrats know how to advertise, and they do so not by saying how good their product is, but by viciously smearing their competitor's products with binders big-bird and bull*%$t.You could have an entire electorate of Eddy Willers, but if they have cartoonishly distorted presentations of the candidates delivered by the media then how does one expect them to make informed decisions.

There is nothing wrong with "wave-particle duality" if you precisely state what it actually means. A photon is not both a wave and a particle, somehow violating the law of identity. A photon is a particle that can display wave behavior because the quantum mechanical wavefunction which describes its propagation is a wave. There's no contradiction here; particles are particles.

HundredDollar, the Republican turnout was less this year than in 2004 and 2008: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/11/republican-turnout-in-2012-election-less-than-2008-and-2004/ This can't be explained purely in terms of a sudden shift in the public within a mere 8 years. Clearly Republican voters underperformed for some reason, whether it was for apathy or a poor "get out the vote" effort isn't clear.

More about ORCA http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/08/Orca-How-the-Romney-Campaign-Suppressed-Its-Own-Vote?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+BigGovernment+(Big+Government)

Whatever consolation it may be, it appears that this election was "lost" by the Romney campaign more than it was "won" by Obama's. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334783.php

Agreed.

The one thing which really scares me is that no matter how well or how fast we inspire Americans to move politically to the right, we are still going to be outbred by hispanics, who trend to the left quite dominantly. Later generations of hispanics are found to move slightly to the right, but they are always left of center as a group, much more so than average Americans.

Similarly, the early 20th century in the USA looked quite bleak. 3 terms of FDR, two world-wars, great depressions, dust bowls, etc, all make 2 terms of Obama seem like a cakewalk. If they survived then we will have to find some way as well.

Thank you for your insightful post BrianB!

That's precious!

I don't think many of them are necessarily "moochers", because there are some key things which don't make sense. In this election Obama carried Michigan in the state popular vote. However all 6 of the proposals in Michigan got struck down, some of them pretty heavily. Two of these proposals were about giving public workers collective bargaining rights in the state constitution. One of these was to require that 25% of energy come from "green" sources, while mandating a max amount that energy companies could increase their prices. These proposals lost on pretty good margins as far as I'm aware. So apparently the people voted for Obama, but they don't believe in what he stands for?

I'm well aware that there is nothing good about the situation we are in. But it's not over until it's over. The stage may be "set" for some bad end, but we aren't in the last act yet.

We're still alive; it's not over yet.

Yes. People like Akin can go to hell; don't make us political martyrs for your principles.

The legacy media is the dinosaur to the internet's asteroid, so on that front I'm optimistic. Many traditional mainstays of TV news have crumbling ratings. Education is terrifying. The leftists control the whole thing, from K-12 to the universities. Something has to be done to counter this

And on a positive note: in terms of local elections some good things happened. Michigan struck down a proposed amendment to put collective bargaining into the state constitution. And that's for a state that leans to the left!

I think it is rationalism to say this because we don't know the motivations for why many independents voted for Obama in the first place. Obviously the diehard leftists are diehard leftists, with all the associated moocher/looter principles on display. But many people I know who voted for Obama, I don't think they did it because they want to mooch; I think it's sincere confusion about what abstract concepts like freedom, liberty, individual rights, etc, actual mean when it comes to practical application in politics. When you couple this sloppy thinking with a media who will obliterate all Republicans while sucking-up to all Democrats, I don't know how you can expect any independents to make any rational decision, especially considering all the brain-washing and lack of education from K-12 schools and Big Education at the college level. The only thing that keeps me sane is that there are far more independents than we realize who will be willing to vote for Republicans if they properly understand the issues, and what is at stake. Regardless, people still vote with their feet: Red states are growing, and Blue states have low or negative native population growths and crumbling economies.

I donate to: Tea Party Patriots Tea Party Express The Heritage Foundation random Republican groups.