> But without incredible sheer luck
Yep. Part of that "sheer luck" thing was catching the Japanese carriers while they were refueling the planes. Our terrible planes and ordinance wouldn't have done nearly as much damage otherwise.
> It tends to sent off my I know I read otherwise flag and my must reeducate style rants
Hah. Me as well.
Actually, if we're honoring heroes, here's one bunch that rarely gets a mention nowadays: the submariners who served in the Allied Navies in WWII. I'm going from memory, but at the end of the war, Nimitz chose to do his change-of-command ceremony on the deck of a submarine. He wanted to honor the fact that (here's the memory part, don't hold me to this) something like only ONE IN TEN (or was it one in twenty???) of those who served on submarines in the Pacific survived the war.
The losses were staggering. Being in the sub service was tantamount to a death sentence in WWII, but they did it anyway.
You beat me to it (my more long-winded post can be found below), but precisely. PRECISELY. The Japanese military knew that the raid was just that -- a raid, and no more -- but they still felt compelled to respond. And Yamamoto won his argument for Midway as a DIRECT result of that raid.
> Doolittle's raid had little/no actual strategic value.
I may be a little older than you, but I'm surprised at the number of people nowadays who don't know what actually happened in WWII. It has been over half a century now, so at most it gets a chapter in the history books, highly condensed. I had the great pleasure of reading (among other things) Admiral Nimitz's history of that war, very detailed, with a look at every decision -- juggling horribly short assets against needs everywhere.
In fact, the Doolittle Raid had a significant strategic impact -- it caused the Japanese to redistribute their forces. In particular, they strongly weakened their carrier forces in the Indian Ocean. It also strengthened Yamamoto's position in favor of the Battle of Midway, which was the turning point of the entire Pacific war. (Some revisionist historians now want to argue with that, but their heads are filled with revisionist cheese. Losing several aircraft carriers in a single battle meant that Japan would never again be able to take the initiative.)
I hate war. As Sherman said, "War is hell." But if you attack me, or threaten those I love, I'm a typical American: I gitterdone, the entire time wishing that you'd just kept your mind right and left me alone. I'm not saying that everyone feels that way, but I am typical.
Only those who've seen the suffering can begin to imagine how awful war is. My Veteran's Day story comes from Sandy's grandfather, who was in a foxhole in St. Vith when the Germans kicked off the Battle of the Bulge. In my eyes, he was a freakin' hero, and I begged him to talk about it.
All he would say was, "I lost a lot of friends that day." Nothing more. I felt ashamed for bringing it up, and we changed the topic.
Yes, you can argue about Korea, Vietnam, et. al. But go back and read histories written by Nimitz and others who were there. No, there wasn't a great deal of fear that Germany or Japan could actually occupy the United States, but there was still a very real possibility that Japan and Germany would win. We've gotten cocky nowadays, but back then, what with bad torpedoes, ossified admirals who didn't want to use that "newfangled" radar, planes that couldn't keep up with the Mitsubishi Zero, it was anything but a guaranteed thing.
As for the results of an Axis victory, I suggest a good dose of Turtledove or other alternative history. It wouldn't have been pretty. At all.
> in a properly competitive market
The problem is ensuring that it's truly competitive. What has been happening is that corporations are merging to *eliminate* competition and ensure a continued revenue stream, even though the technology might be old and "unclean" (as far as emissions).
Corporations are also allowed to buy up patents which might clean up energy, but which are then tabled and never put into production. The only reason the corporation bought that patent is to (once again) *prevent* competition and to maintain the status quo.
Both problems are quite solvable: on the one hand, here in the United States, start rigorously enforcing the anti-trust laws. For patents, if someone doesn't make a good faith effort to produce that technology within, say, a few years, the patent becomes invalid and the innovation falls into the public domain.
Do note, by the way, that I'm writing as a conservative/libertarian in philosophy. But I'm not a fool, either. From my point of view, this is precisely one of those things that government could and SHOULD be doing, but isn't.
> As for forgetting how to compromise, the problem is that there's no actual moderates left. Everybody's on a side.
So let's compromise. I'm a conservative: after realizing that we have (for example) HUNDREDS of freakin' destroyers in our Navy, not to mention that we're building planes that are being put in storage because we don't need them, and on and on
OK
That's how compromise works. It's not rocket science.
> My favored solution would be to adopt something like the Canadian or British system
You seem like a bright fellow, so you probably know this -- but the reason we set things up this way was to give equal representation to each state (the Senate), and then equal representation by population (the House). Further, Senators were originally chosen by the State legislatures. Some argue that we need to go back to that.
The Founders were unable to get the smaller states to sign on to the Constitution without the Senate. Likewise, the populous states wouldn't sign on without the House. Ergo: compromise.
OK, I'll play.
> "Checks and balances" is a fancy way of saying "if all y'all motherfuckers can't agree on shit, shit don't happen."
Remove the profane language and actually, that's pretty much what James Madison said. Our system was designed that way on purpose. Of course, then you say
> bring the entire Legislature to a halt for six days per bill voted on
These are simply the (admittedly dumb) rules which the Senate has decided to impose upon itself. Those rules could be changed at any time. That's why I view Washington as a slapstick comedy: they keep shooting themselves in the foot, the whine and wail about how bad it hurts.
Actually, what scares me more than anything is the slow move in this country toward "rule by elites." Whether Republican or Democrat is irrelevant to me. One other thing that the Founder Fathers specifically tried to prevent was the appointment of "special masters" -- especially Caesars (or to use the more modern form of that word, "Czar") -- with broad power and the ability to act *WITHOUT* a consensus on the part of the governed.
That might seem like a good idea to you NOW, as long as a "special master" is in place making changes that you like. But change masters, and you might not think it's such a great idea.
This, in a nutshell, is why our Constitutional system of government was set up the way it was. No one person (or small group of people) was to have power to rule by "dictat" and decree.
Finally, what troubles me the most about this country is that we've forgotten how to compromise. Political compromise basically boils down to, "we hammer out an agreement that no one really likes, but that everyone can live with." Instead, we have people on both Left and Right screaming that it MUST be all done their way, no compromise
Just my opinion, and worth precisely what you paid for it.
UN Official #1: "Sir! An asteroid on a direct collision course has been spotted! Impact in 5 days!"
UN Official #2: "Plenty of time. We've fired the missiles, each loaded with a STERNLY-WORDED letter
> I am not American but I cannot think how can he know about everything.
No, but as an effective politician, he should hire people, and surround himself with people, of demonstrated competence and who will inform him when they think it's important.
Not with ideologues (or worse) who color the truth. And before anyone here raises the usual "but
Those who were hoping Obama would be a breath of fresh air are very disappointed, and all the handwaving in the world won't obscure that fact.
In this particular case: if he was, in fact, informed in 2010 of the Merkel spying, he could (and should have) right then, right there, said: NO. I don't approve of this. We still don't know all the facts (or even if this story is true), but if that is indeed the case, the buck stops at the desk in the Oval Office. Period, ending DOT.
> sort flights by cost
I'm willing to pay a little more for a better seat, but flying from a smaller airport (Birmingham, AL), there aren't that many choices. You're gonna be stuck on a CRJ most of the time. You don't fly in those things, you wear them.
My wife and I have driven 2-1/2 hrs to the Nashville airport in the past just to get a better plane. Of course, the security is lot more of a hassle at a larger airport. It's a beautiful thing. Compensation: getting to watch all the musician wannabes walking around with their instruments, trying desperately to Look Cool. "Hey, I'm in Nashville, someone notice me!"
Look: you know what's gonna happen (and is already happening): most of Coach will be cheap, itty-bitty seats all smished together, but for a small upcharge, you can sit in the "extended coach" or "Real Seats(tm)" or "Slightly Wider" sections. I can't justify paying the hilariously higher price for First, but I'm willing to pop an extra $50 for that.
> If the person in front of me in a flight pushes their seat back
You get an extra inch, and you also win one (1) free head right in front of your face. If you're lucky, this person doesn't wear overpowering cologne or use some kind of hair gel that makes your eyes water. Or have a high-voltage hairdo that tickles your nose.
What I love, when a plane gets full, is that the rear of the plane tends to "drag down" a bit. SO, when you go to the lavatory, you get to run downhill on the way, then climb uphill on the way back.
Ah, modern technology.
>
Exactly. I work in the media (radio), and you'd better believe it. But it doesn't only happen with "rich guys." (Or "gals.)
The classic example is that of a small local newspaper. The largest advertiser's son is arrested for drunk driving. The advertiser calls the paper and says, "please don't run that story." What does the paper do? If it agrees, it has compromised. If it doesn't, though, it loses its largest advertiser and (this example is based on a true story, can't remember the details now) goes out of business.
In this particular case, who knows? Maybe the rich guy could *afford* to tell the advertiser, "sorry, but it's news, we're gonna print it."
My only other strong disagreement with some of the other posts here is the idea that government could somehow do a better (or at least more "unbiased") job. That's ludicrous. Politiclowns are the LEAST informed and the most swayed by public opinion. Now add in the fact that they earnestly want to *shape* public opinion, and you'll see what I don't believe anything emitted by a government organ.
> Both, equally.
Exactly
Both parties may have different policies and beliefs and different strategies for firing up their base(s) and winning elections, but anyone who thinks that either party is for the "common guy," they are delusional. Simply delusional.
The attempt by both parties to blame this current shutdown on the other would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
> Most of the sequester cuts were planned
My wife works for the federal government, so I think I know a bit about what's going on.
You are absolutely right. The fact is, during a "shutdown," the government can decide which employees are "essential" and which can be furloughed. My wife is considered "essential," so she WILL go to work. She just may not get paid on time if this thing drags on.
Both parties are guilty of this: when there's a shutdown, they decide whom to send home, and they will inevitably play to their base(s) and try to get the public angry at the other party. It's all political theater. They ought to wear makeup and costumes. And really: is there any geek here who doesn't know how to leave a Web server running overnight or on weekends?
Hey, it's not like they didn't know this has been coming MONTHS in advance, is it? And to REALLY cheer you up, remember that we have a debt ceiling debate coming up in a couple of weeks. How much you wanna bet this wink, wink "shutdown" will continue past THAT debate?
> you are lying. Stop it. That not how it works. They only have to be sure you aren't dying right at that moment.
As someone else said here, please name your hospital so I'll know where NOT to go.
Look: I'm not going to give the details of my friends. If you choose not to believe it, so be it. Both were in the Fayetteville area of NC, where I used to live. One I went to church with, the other was a very good friend. Both were as I stated: they received full courses of treatment. The one with cancer even received free drugs. Her doctor helped arrange that for her.
Sure, there details that I omitted. For example, if you go to a "doc in the box" (i.e., one of those "urgent care" joints) and don't have insurance or can't afford to pay, they can refuse treatment unless it's a true emergency. They'll send you elsewhere -- and they can do so legally.
But friend, I assure you: if someone dies because your hospital didn't treat them, unless there were alternatives close by that could have handled that treatment, your hospital will be sued. Period. And the plaintiffs will win. Big.
That's not a lie. If you don't know that, I wouldn't want you working for me, not if I was in health care. You'd get me tied up in a $$$$ lawsuit due to your failure to understand the law.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo. - Andy Finkel, computer guy
