Part of the desperate struggle in the Solomon Straits, and the last major surface vessel fight over Guadalcanal.

Five American cruisers and four destroyers intercepted a Japanese force of eight destroyers attempting to deliver supplies to Guadalcanal for the Japanese 17th Army. The fighting on Guadalcanal, which began in August of '42 had reached a critical stage for the Japanese, who were using submarines to deliver supplies. But the submarine forces could only deliver enough food and ammunition for a day's worth of fighting.

A strategic victory, but a very costly tactical defeat. more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 03:54 PM | Comments (426)
Post contains 374 words, total size 3 kb.

Indeed.

ndustry Minister Arnaud Montebourg, a member of the governing Socialist party, caused controversy last week when he said that the Indian company, which employs close to 20,000 people in France, should leave after it said it would have to close down a factory.

The French government announced on Thursday that it could nationalize the factory in question, with backing from an unnamed businessman.

...

Montebourg told CNBC after a meeting with trade unions in Paris: “Barack Obama's nationalized. The Germans are nationalizing. All countries are nationalizing. I've also noticed the British nationalized 6 banks.”

Everyone seems to think Obama's a socialist except the American media.

And how is all this socialism working out for Europe? Not well.

The unemployment rate continued its steady rise, reaching 11.7% in October, up from 11.6% the month before and 10.4% a year ago.

A further 173,000 were out of work across the single currency area, bringing the total to 18.7 million.
Royal Bank of Scotland's Alberto Gallo

Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

Royal Bank of Scotland's Alberto Gallo: "The real issue is we're in a two-speed Europe"

The respective fortunes of northern and southern Europe diverged further. In Spain, the jobless rate rose to 26.2% from 25.8% the previous month, and in Italy it rose to 11.1% from 10.8%.

In contrast, unemployment in Germany held steady at 5.4% of the labour force, while in Austria it fell from 4.4% to just 4.3%.

Now, of the two Europes, which one are we following? That's right, the south, big spending, big borrowing. And soon, huge unemployment.

We're really heading for something so severe that people will finally understand it to be a Depression. I suppose all I can do is laugh anymore.

Posted by: Ace at 01:59 PM | Comments (440)
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

I was in the supermarket and heard this song for the first time in twenty years, and then became obsessed with it.

Yet another song Michael McDonald sings back-up on. I might have mentioned this, but Michael McDonald is part of a lot of songs. For example, here's one you couldn't possibly know about, unless, like me, you endeavored one night to search Wikipedia to find out just how important Michael McDonald was to 70s/80s pop music:

McDonald co-wrote Van Halen's Top 20 hit "I'll Wait", from their landmark 1984 album.

There's no way you knew that.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:59 PM | Comments (267)
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

This is a neat thing, I think.

Do you need a physical computer keyboard? Well, what if a lightbulb just projected the image of a keyboard on your desk's top, and detected your fingers' motions along the projected keys?

And as far as viewing pictures: Do you really need a monitor? Wouldn't an image projected from a bulb against a white wall do the trick? (Given a sufficiently high-def projection and a sufficiently clean and reflective wall, of course.)

And with more and more actual computer work being done via the cloud... it's interesting to think that in five years a very "cheap" computer might consist of nothing more than one light-bulb screw-in accessory (for the "keyboard") and one high-def projection bulb (to project all visual content against a white wall or bit of reflective scrim you could roll up like a rag). All computation would be done in a cloud, away from any of the two small physical components.

In ten years the "portable computer" might be nothing but a little laser projector and a roll-up scrim.

Posted by: Ace at 11:47 AM | Comments (290)
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

Charles Krauthammer calls for it.

t's not just a bad deal, this is really an insulting deal. What Geithner offered, what you showed on the screen, Robert E. Lee was offered easier terms at Appomattox, and he lost the Civil War. The Democrats won by 3% of the vote and they did not hold the House, Republicans won the house. So this is not exactly unconditional surrender, but that is what the administration is asking of the Republicans.

This idea -- there are not only no cuts in this, there's an increase in spending with a new stimulus. I mean, this is almost unheard of. What do they expect? They obviously expect the Republicans will cave on everything. I think the Republicans ought to simply walk away. The president is the president. He's the leader. They are demanding that the Republicans explain all the cuts that they want to make.

The Walk Away/Let It Burn option is growing on people. One cautionary note, though: This will provoke a serious constitutional crisis and may undo the Republic. So a soft Let it Burn could turn into a genuine collapse of the Republic.

Obama is a tyrant. If Republicans do not lift the debt ceiling, it is perfectly obvious what he will do, as he's argued for it before: Like Putin, he will begin unilaterally asserting power he doesn't have.

And what will be the recourse? Court, I suppose. Impeachment, sure, but Democrats will block conviction. So whether or not the President can suddenly assert sweeping power over the purse -- sweeping aside the last real check on his power granted to the House of Representatives -- will depend on the vote of Justice Go Along to Get Along Roberts.

Just something to keep in mind. Tyrants are always looking for pretexts to rule without any check.

Posted by: Ace at 10:59 AM | Comments (466)
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

Nah.

I am a pro-choice Republican. We are not an endangered species. Since the Republican Party declared itself pro-life, most of us have been in the closet.

I appreciate that both viewpoints are sincerely held: Pro-choicers believe that the government should not intrude in such a private decision; pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception. I have supported each.

...

Today, any Republican who believes, as I do, in a strong national defense and fiscal conservatism, and that limited government is consistent with being publicly pro-choice, knows that if she takes the latter position she will get creamed in the primary. The choice is to not run or to get in the closet. By discouraging potential candidates, our tent gets smaller and we end up with a Richard Mourdock and a Todd Akin, who confuse rape with sex.

As a political matter, being pro-life has not helped Republicans. John McCain lost Catholics by nine points. Romney lost the Catholic vote by two points, even after four years of President ObamaÂ’s strong pro-choice position and Obamacare forcing certain Catholic entities to cover birth control.

As a results-oriented matter, the pro-life position cannot prevail. In the 39 years since Roe v. Wade, no pro-life president has overturned it and, because that ruling is constitutionally based, no member of Congress can overturn it via legislation. Even Republican-appointed justices would have a difficult time overturning Roe after four decades because of the conservative philosophy of upholding precedent. If Roe were overturned, each state would decide the issue, and, presumably, local politicians would vote their constituentsÂ’ position. Many states would approve abortion, so pro-lifers would not attain their goal of outlawing the procedure.

...

I am not arguing that our party should be pro-choice. I just want our candidates to feel free to leave the closet. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels wisely counseled Republican presidential candidates last year: “Declare a truce on social issues” and address the dire economic problems. As for morality, our party should live it, not legislate it.

Semi-related: I've noticed a strong tendency, not just among conservatives, mind you, but any political actors, left or right, to think that the way to show strong agreement with a principle is to urge state action (or oppose the retreat of state action from the field, as in the case of drug criminalization). The below doesn't apply completely to the abortion question, because that one question involves, necessarily, another human life, and is not just all about the mother's choices. That said:

A "personal preference" for an outcome, without a preference for state action to forward that outcome, is often considered a sort of fake, politically-expedient stance.

Thus, the line of thinking goes:

If you're really against abortion, you would never say you're "pro-life as a personal matter, but don't favor making it illegal." Those who are really pro-life support making it illegal.

If you're really anti-drug, you wouldn't say "I don't do drugs and in fact would strongly urge people not to do them, but I don't favor laws against them." Someone who's really anti-drug, and is genuinely alarmed by the prospects of drug use, would favor the continuation of the criminalization regime.

If you're anti-gun or anti-gun violence, of course you won't just make a personal choice about gun ownership. No, those who are really against murder will naturally fight to make guns illegal, or at least burden gun ownership in every conceivable manner.

You can't just say you support women's right to purchase birth control. No, that's a dodge. Someone who's really interested in a woman's right to birth control will of course support laws which compel third parties to purchase the birth control on the woman's behalf.

If you're really anti-obesity, anti-diabetes, and pro-good-health, you will not merely be content to propagate the message that the human body is not designed to handle the high quantities of refined, potent sugar currently part of the American diet. Such "half-measures" are what's gotten us into this Obesity Trap to begin with. No, the person who is really anti-sugar will take his relationship with the anti-sugar cause to the next level -- he'll "marry it," he'll make it official and legitimate, by joining Michael Bloomberg's crusade to pass laws against sugar sale and consumption.

It's usually taken as a truth -- an assumed, usually-unstated truth, but a truth nonetheless -- that those genuinely concerned with some social ill will naturally support state action to combat it, and those who do not support such state action must either be 1, not terribly concerned about the issue at all, or 2, actually lying in their claim to have any moral objection to the ill, claiming to be "personally" opposed to the ill in question while arguing against laws in the matter in a transparent have-it-both-ways political dodge.

As to the latter: The idea seems to be that that's "too easy." It's too easy, it's too politically expedient to be "personally" opposed to abortion (or drug use, or sugar) while not favoring any state action in the area. It's a popular position -- you get to make moral noises (popular) while not pushing any laws to enforce that moral choice (also generally popular) -- and ergo was most likely selected for its popularity.

I genuinely agree with the idea that if something feels "too easy," it probably is. Life is a series of tradeoffs, after all. You select A, and don't select B. You are forced to choose, and, generally, when you make a choice, your foreclose a lot of other choices. Choosing is an affirmative act with consequences; it's an important action, or at least should be. And the personally opposed/politically neutral formulation feels like a too-easy way to avoid making a choice of real consequence.

But that's a guideline and not a firm rule. I thought the idea that adult stem cells could produce medical breakthroughs was similarly "too easy" -- I suspected the universe wouldn't permit us to simply avoid the moral choice of destroying human embryos in exchange for possibly saving (or at least dramatically improving) other human lives. However, it seems to have turned out that adult stem cells are in fact a more productive avenue for research -- in this case, the "too easy" answer turned out to be not only viable, but optimal.

I'm wondering, lately, about this unexamined assumption that I'm pretty sure underlies the thinking of most. (I say this because I discovered it underlay my own.) "One should not do [X]" and "One is legally forbidden to do [X]" are not in fact points on the same line, with the latter being further along the line than the former, the former representing a weak form of the prohibition, the latter representing the strong form, or "real" form, of it.

Rather, they are points on entirely separate lines, one line representing the personal and truly moral, the other representing law, political might, and the official, backed-by-possibility-of-jail-or-fine prohibition of the state. One does not in fact inevitably lead to the other in strong form.

Although the "personally against" line of thought is criticized as "soft" or a "dodge," it's also the more pro-freedom line, as the state is not involved in the personal decision of citizen. It's not frequently acknowledged that the person who doesn't want to pass a law isn't necessarily "immoral" or unconcerned with the ill in question, but simply prizes another moral choice -- the value of personal freedom -- more than most other moral choices.

On morality, I'd also note that a thief with two convictions to his credit may in fact stop thieving, due to the three-strikes law; but that's not actually a choice based in morality. It's simply a pragmatic choice based on the consequences for a third offense. I don't know where people come down on this philosophically -- I suppose most would say it doesn't matter, as far as orderliness in society goes, why a citizen chooses to not commit a bad action, whether it's due to an actual belief in an ennobling morality or a very simple and self-interested desire to avoid punishment. But that's a utilitarian mode of thought, and many people reject utilitarianism, preferring true morality in personal choices. Prohibition may decrease the incidence of a particular action but it does not actually inspire a moral preference against that action.

I'm becoming more and more uncomfortable with the way politics works -- that one group assembles a temporary majority, and then does its best to start Makin' Some Laws largely to demonstrate hostility to the values of the losing coalition. It's might be the case that people will always do this, and there's no sense in even arguing against it.

But I'm not sure about that. Maybe people can start to think about larger principles than the instant issue. Maybe people -- maybe even liberals -- can start to take seriously the idea that respecting a fellow citizen's freedom to choose and freedom to live by his own moral code is even more important than the critical issue of Big Gulps.

Posted by: Ace at 09:45 AM | Comments (846)
Post contains 1533 words, total size 10 kb.

He also notes a CBS question was the first question about Benghazi asked of Obama, apart from Fox.

It's something, I guess.

Posted by: Ace at 08:26 AM | Comments (238)
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

The main reason we appear to be in a weak negotiating position on the so-called "fiscal cliff" is that we have weak negotiators.

Why are Republicans playing the Democrats’ game that the “fiscal cliff” is all about taxation?

House Speaker John Boehner already made the preemptive concession of agreeing to raise revenue. But the insistence on doing so by eliminating deductions without raising marginal rates is now the subject of fierce Republican infighting.

...

Obama is claiming an electoral mandate to raise taxes on the top 2 percent. Perhaps, but remember those incessant campaign ads promising a return to the economic nirvana of the Clinton years? Well, George W. Bush cut rates across the board, not just for the top 2 percent. Going back to the Clinton rates means middle-class tax hikes that yield four times the revenue that you get from just the rich.

So give Obama the full Clinton. Let him live with that. And with what also lies on the other side of the cliff: 28 million Americans newly subject to the ruinous alternative minimum tax.

This is the reason Obama and TurboTax Timmy made that ballsy proposal yesterday. They fully expect Boehner and McConnell to cave, and why wouldn't they?

This should be Team GOP's counter-offer to that steaming pile:

• Current tax rates become permanent


• AMT repealed


• Spending permanently capped at 2007 levels plus inflation and population growth, with cuts to get down to the cap applied across the board (good for about $600 billion in deficit reduction by my quick math)


• Obamacare delayed until the debt to GDP ratio is below 80% and U-6 unemployment is below 10%

And if not ... more...

Posted by: andy at 07:04 AM | Comments (304)
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

Evenin' morons. Another Friday is upon us so grab a cold one and regale the horde with your tales of, well, whatever is on your mind. more...

Posted by: CDR M at 06:00 PM | Comments (823)
Post contains 445 words, total size 5 kb.

• Is John Boehner Dumb Enough To Take The Deal?
  
• Susan Rice Has Investments In Companies Doing Business With Iran
  
• 2012 Election Vote Count As Of Today. Obama At 65 Million, Romney At 60 Million
  
• Orwell Was Wrong, Huxley Was Right
  
• In Case You Missed It In The Side Bar, Jacksonville Introduces Its Terrible Towel Ripoff Called "The Jag Rag"
  
• Fast Food Workers In NYC Demanding A 100%+ Pay Raise To $15 An Hour. How Will The Fast Food Companies Ever Replace Such Low Low Skilled Labor?
  
• Media Averts Eyes From Democrat Campaign Finance Hypocrisy
  
• Cameron Threatens To Veto New Government Regulation On The Media
  
• Obama Seeks Power To Raised Debt Ceiling Himself
  
• Alabama Football Fan Gets Two Years In Jail For Teabagging An LSU Fan
  
• Man Who Claims Parkinsons Drug Turned Him Into A Gay Sex Addict Sues And Wins $250,000
  
• Sorry Rust Belt States, Obama Isn't Going To Name China A Currency Manipulator After All
  
• Buffet Didn't Always Like Taxes
  
• U.K. Dad's Letter To His Kids Goes Viral
  
• Gizmodo Writer Pimps Anti-Reagan Song And Gets Schooled By Commenters
  
• Time To Ditch The Dollar
  
• EU Unemployment Hits Record High
  
• Another Empty Victory For The Palestinian Cause
  

Follow me on twitter.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 05:02 AM | Comments (252)
Post contains 208 words, total size 3 kb.