What If: The 2nd American Civil War

This time it's a state free-for-all not just presidents. From a Quora thread written in World War Z-style:

All 50 of the states in America each declared independence, and all simultaneously declared war on each other (50 states in a free-for-all).

Which state would be the last one standing? How would the battle play out? Which states would be the first to fall, the last?

A few points:
    - No foreign intervention/aid.
    - All civilians would be involved in the war (either producing supplies and food, and actually fighting).
    - Consider domestic factors (X state has x many firearm manufacturers, etc).
    - Military bases belong to the state.
    - Preferably no nukes, but hey however you want to answer.

First came a period of massive migration back to the homelands. Facing the newly invented discrimination that will be created many felt the need to go back to their own people. While the individual states retained all military assets they couldn't control the individuals who fight. A Texas Marine stationed in California, would not fight for California. A soldier in New York would not fight against their home in Virginia and a sailor in Houston would not fight against their home state of Florida. The warriors returned to their home states and the states had to re-consider that when they measured troop strength of their new nations.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:26 PM | Comments (465)
Post contains 947 words, total size 10 kb.

On how the election might have gone differently.

Over the summer, however, once Romney had clinched the GOP nomination, he did not counter months of attack ads by the Obama campaign and an allied super PAC. Romney's aides said that was part tactical and part due to a cash shortage as the primary season drew to a close. “We spent all the money that we had,” Stevens said, and even borrowed some to stay on the air until the convention.

Given limited options, Stevens said, the campaign went with a series of “day one, job one” ads about the first day of a Romney administration, rather than countering the Obama offensive. “We tested this extensively,” Stevens said. “What voters wanted to know most is what Mitt Romney would do as president.” One consequence: The largely unaddressed attacks on Romney as a heartless capitalist magnified the impact of the leaked video that showed Romney at a private fundraiser describing 47 percent of the country as irresponsible moochers. We’ll never know what course the race might have taken had Romney mounted a defense as relentless as the onslaught.

Steve Jobs famously didn't believe in focus grouping potential buyers and asking them what they wanted. His cutting, but wise, quote is something like: "It's not the public's idea to know what they want."

And that's true. The general possible buyer does not know the industry like those in the industry do. If you asked people what they wanted from their phones ten years ago, they probably wouldn't have said, "I want it to include a fairly powerful digital camera in it, and I want to tote all of my digital music collection on it. And, I'd like to use it as a portable tv screen, watching High Def movies which I purchase online."

No one would have thought of that. Few would have imagined that stuff was doable, and even if they had realized it was doable, they would have asked, "Why do I want all these completely unrelated tech gadgets in my phone?" (Actually, I still ask that, but I'm in the minority.)

And of course now if you offered a "smart phone" missing a single one of these unrelated bits of gadgetry the public would say, "But then that's not a smart phone!!!"

The idea of asking voters what they want and just taking their word for it is so naive I'm having trouble believing someone in politics said this.

Yes, the public will always say they want policy details and more policy details. Their statements to this effect are complete and utter lies. I can guarantee you that the Detailed Policy Bits parts of any political website are its least trafficked.

So these guys went in to a bunch of uninformed non-experts, and asked them "Do you think we should push back against the negative personal attacks which even now are having a powerful subconscious effect on how you view Romney, or do you want Romney to talk about his plans for the future?"

And surprise surprise, they said "Plans for the future." You know, the answer that makes them sound like highly intelligent scholars of civic policy, rather than the answer that makes them sound like dupes easily-swayed by repetitive and dishonest political attacks.

Of course they chose the former. Of course they chose the answer that offered them a more heroic self-conception of themselves. Of course they claimed to be the sort of people entirely unaffected by advertising. (If they were, why ask them what sorts of messaging they'd like to see in political ads?)

It's not the public's job to know what they want. This is ridiculous. I'm beginning to buy into this notion of Romney The Robot.

Human beings. They lie, especially to themselves. Have you met them?

Posted by: Ace at 03:51 PM | Comments (392)
Post contains 646 words, total size 4 kb.

Really.

Bob Costas said he made a “mistake,” violating his own rule of not trying to compress a nuanced topic into small bit of air time, with his controversial halftime commentary Sunday night on the murder-suicide committed by Jovan Belcher of the Kansas City Chiefs the day before.

“My mistake is I left it open for too much miscommunication,” Costas said in a lengthy interview on “The Dan Patrick Show.” The 90-second weekly spot, he said, doesn’t offer enough time in which to adequately discuss the issue of “the football culture, the gun culture, domestic violence.”

...

Costas felt the heat for his comments immediately on Twitter and in lengthier criticism Monday, when some were calling for NBC to fire him.

“There are reasonable disagreements, and I respect that. But then there are things that come from every angle, where you just have to say to yourself ‘sometimes the quality of the thinking of those who oppose you speaks for itself.’ I was told — I didn’t see it — that someone compared this as a fire-able offense to situations in which people have made blatantly racist comments, or comments that had no place whatsoever,” Costas said.

“This is simply a case of: some people don’t agree with it, or they don’t agree with what they think I was saying, and therefore, it would be okay if I was booted off the air … ‘let’s fire everybody we don’t agree with.’ It’s just absurd.”

It's not actually that absurd to me. My problem is hijacking a nonpartisan sports broadcast to engage, yet again, in partisan political commentary. No one would have a problem -- at least not a "Fire Him!" level problem -- if Costas pitched a gig where he'd do some political commentary in a political show.

The problem, as usual, is these Frustrated Liberal Sages -- frustrated that they don't have enough influence over the public to push their liberal views -- using a nonpolitical perch to push the same goddamn liberal message.

By the way, the minute a conservative does anything like this the Outrage!!! trembles throughout the liberal world and they demand a firing... and damnit if they don't get a firing 90% of the time.

So that's the problem -- Costas can do this, but no conservative-minded person can. If the conservative minded person says anything political, he gets fired.

If Costas does it, nothing happens, and then he gets to pretend how "absurd" it is to propose firing a man for his political speech.

Happens all the time. Just doesn't happen to liberals.

The problem, Costas, is that liberals are using their domination over major institutions to treat conservatives and liberals differently -- liberals as a privileged class, conservatives as second-class (or worse) citizens -- and we're sick to death of it.

Posted by: Ace at 03:15 PM | Comments (170)
Post contains 494 words, total size 3 kb.

Molannen, 39, suffered from persistent genital arousal disorder, a debilitating condition marked by continuous sexual arousal. Women who have the disorder are physically but not psychologically aroused. Many must masturbate for hours for just a few minutes of relief. Some doctors believe the condition is caused by a nerve malfunction.

It's estimated that nearly 50% of the population suffers from this condition. The victims are called "men."

But anyway, she killed herself because she "couldn't get the help she needed."

I didn't write that. That's on the writer of the article.

Posted by: Ace at 02:32 PM | Comments (145)
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

Political dysfunction -- what you have when Republicans won't roll over for liberals.

In an interview with Bloomberg's Julianna Goldman, President Barack Obama stated, "I think America is poised to take off." The main obstacle, in Obama's mind, however, is political dysfunction.

"We're seeing pretty strong consumer confidence, despite weaknesses in Europe and even in Asia. I think America is poised to take off. And the question is, let's make sure that we don't have a self-inflicted wound, because there are a lot of silly games played up on Capitol Hill," Obama told Goldman.

Posted by: Ace at 02:12 PM | Comments (124)
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

Sounds like we're going over the cliff, as Obama wants.

Limbaugh was talking about this. His theory, which sounds pretty likely, is that Obama affirmatively wants to go over the cliff, wants the hike in middle class taxes, so he can then pose as the the hero who subsequently lowers them.

Posted by: Ace at 01:47 PM | Comments (81)
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

How does one man pack so much stupid into such a short little body?

“For a long time, I’ve been wanting to get off my chest my disgust with this idea that every time something tragic happens, no matter what it may be, that in any way touches sports, there’s a chorus of people saying, ‘you know, this really puts it in perspective.’ Which is a bunch of nonsense, because if that was true, we wouldn’t have to have that perspective adjusted every time the next tragedy occurs. It’s a bunch of nonsense,” Costas said.

Well that part I agree with. But did Costas want to go on to discuss domestic violence, or substance abuse, or violence in the culture? It sure doesn't seem so, since he leaped straight to the left's go-to kneejerk excuse that blames violence on an inanimate object.

Cut to the chase:

“Here’s where I stand: I do not want to see the Second Amendment repealed. … People should be allowed to own guns for their own protection. Obviously, those who are hunters. … Access to guns is too easy in some cases. I don’t see any reason a citizen should be able to arm himself in some states in ways only police or military should — to have a virtual militia [by] mail order or gun shows. Why do you need a semi-automatic weapon? What possible use is there? … Whitlock wrote about a gun culture. That’s what I was focusing on.”

The ignorance on display there is staggering and concentrated, but let's try to unpack a little of it.

First, he seems to believe that there's a thriving mail order industry for modern firearms where, I guess, Amazon ships AR-15s and AK-47s to your house without a background check. In reality, when a modern firearm is purchased from an out-of-state dealer by an individual, it goes through a dealer-to-dealer transfer process if the sale isn't over-the-counter, and it is subject to all applicable federal laws as well as all state laws applicable to the transferee. This is part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, fer chrissakes.

Generally, a firearm may not lawfully be sold by a licensed dealer to a non-licensee who resides in a State other than the State in which the sellerÂ’s licensed premises is located. However, the sale may be made if the firearm is shipped to a licensed dealer whose business is in the purchaserÂ’s State of residence and the purchaser takes delivery of the firearm from the dealer in his or her State of residence. In addition, a licensee may sell a rifle or shotgun to a person who is not a resident of the State where the licenseeÂ’s business premises is located in an over-the-counter transaction, provided the transaction complies with State law in the State where the licensee is located and in the State where the purchaser resides.

[18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3)]

And gun shows? This again?!

A gun dealer doesn't have some magical power to evade applicable laws if he sells at a gun show. And non-dealers at gun shows are just that ... non-dealers. They're conducting private sales, no different than if they ran an ad in the classifieds. Additionally, in Massachusetts where I live, a private sale is subject to virtually every rule that a sale from a dealer is anyway.

Finally, he brings up the semi-auto bogeyman, which, again, is just ignorant. A Colt 1911 .45 is a fine semi-auto. It's also been around for over 100 years, hence the name.

It isn't like this type of action on a repeater is inherently more dangerous than a revolver, pump, or lever action. It's just that the left has been taught that semi-autos are something new and bad and inherently more powerful and dangerous than non semi-autos, so they have to drop the buzzword.

Costas says he wants new gun laws, but he doesn't know a damned thing about the ones that are already on the books. And he knows even less about guns themselves. Color me shocked.

Posted by: andy at 01:38 PM | Comments (114)
Post contains 682 words, total size 4 kb.

Oh, Obama.

housands of Egyptians massed in Cairo Tuesday for a march to the presidential palace to protest the assumption by the nation's Islamist president of nearly unrestricted powers and a draft constitution hurriedly adopted by his allies.

The march comes amid rising anger over the draft charter and decrees issued by Mohammed Morsi giving himself sweeping powers. Morsi called for a nationwide referendum on the draft constitution on Dec. 15.

It is Egypt's worst political crisis since the ouster nearly two years ago of authoritarian president Hosni Mubarak. The country has been divided into two camps: Morsi and his fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, as well as ultraconservative Salafi Islamists versus youth groups, liberal parties and large sectors of the public.

Hundreds of black-clad riot police deployed around the Itihadiya palace in Cairo's district of Heliopolis. Barbed wire was also placed outside the complex, and side roads leading to it were blocked to traffic. Protesters gathered at Cairo's Tahrir square and several other points not far from the palace to march to the presidential complex.

Remember when Obama offered some shoot-from-the-lip demands that "Mubarak must go," and quickly too?

I don't see him calling for the ouster of the Muslim Brotherhood tyrant. He seems to like Morsi. I wonder what accounts for the difference in treatment between Mubarak and Morsi. Besides the fact that one was pro-American and secular and the other anti-American and Islamist.

Update: Some cops are apparently siding with the anti-Morsi protesters.

Posted by: Ace at 12:13 PM | Comments (285)
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

I was out at an appointment, but now am back. Working on a new post.

Posted by: Ace at 09:17 AM | Comments (86)
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

No one could have foreseen this, apart from everyone.

Thousands of Egyptians massed in Cairo Tuesday for a march to the presidential palace to protest the assumption by the nation's Islamist president of nearly unrestricted powers and a draft constitution hurriedly adopted by his allies.

The march comes amid rising anger over the draft charter and decrees issued by Mohammed Morsi giving himself sweeping powers. Morsi called for a nationwide referendum on the draft constitution on Dec. 15.

...

A large turnout would signal sustained momentum for the opposition, which brought out at least 200,000 protesters to Cairo's Tahrir Square a week ago and a comparable number on Friday, demanding that Morsi's decrees be rescinded.

...

The Islamists responded by sending hundreds of thousands of supporters into Cairo's twin city of Giza on Saturday and across much of the country.

Who Lost Egypt?

When Bush was president, the left and the media (but I repeat myself) were very interested in a strict accounting of bets won and bets lost. Well, they weren't very interested in bets won. But they were extremely interested in the bets lost part.

Since Obama, no one's keeping score anymore, huh? Now everything is just assumed to be Beyond Any Man's Ability To Predict Or Influence.

Posted by: Ace at 09:13 AM | Comments (545)
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.