Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, March 31, 2013

OTP: April 2013: Daily Caller: Baseball and the GOP: To rebrand the party, think like a sports fan

This week’s GOP autopsy report, commissioned by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, is a great start in the much-needed task of rebranding the Republican Party. As the chairman acknowledged, “the way we communicate our principles isn’t resonating widely enough” and “we have to be more inclusive.” The report contains 219 recommendations to “connect people to our principles.” To achieve that goal, the party will need a strategic vision of how voters think about politics, which is something that the report lacks. For that, the GOP can learn a lot from another American passion: baseball.

This year, about 75 million Americans will go to the baseball stadium to watch a ballgame, about the same number as those who will vote in next year’s election. We rarely think about why someone becomes a baseball fan, or why they root for a certain team. Nor do we usually think about why someone chooses to vote for a certain political party. But it’s actually a very useful exercise.

When it comes to baseball, fan loyalty has almost nothing to do with the brain, and almost everything to do with the heart. In all of history, there’s never been a baseball fan who rooted for his team because it had the lowest ticket prices, or because it had the most taxpayer-friendly stadium deal, or because its players did the most community service. For the vast majority of Americans, rooting for a baseball team — not to mention, voting for a political party — isn’t really a rational choice; it’s more of a statement of personal identity — a statement telling the world, “This is who I am.” And for most people, defining “who I am” starts with family and community, before branching out into areas like race, age, gender, and class.

Family is pretty straightforward. If your mom and dad are Yankee fans, you’re almost certainly a Yankee fan. The same is true in politics. If your mom and dad are Republicans, you’re almost certainly a Republican.

Community is also pretty straightforward. If you grew up in, say, Philadelphia, chances are pretty great you’re a Phillies fan. Likewise, someone who grew up in Republican territory like, say, suburban Dallas or rural Indiana is much more likely to become a Republican than a nearly identical person from Seattle or Santa Fe.

Cities with more than one baseball team, like New York or Chicago, show revealing breakdowns by race and gender. The racial split in Chicago between Cubs fans on the North Side and White Sox fans on the South Side is well-documented. In New York, there’s an intriguing gender gap between Mets and Yankee fans, with women gravitating a lot more to the Yanks. While there’s a few theories out there trying to explain that, one obvious answer leaps out: Yankees heartthrob Derek Jeter.

In sports, as in politics, people’s convictions can’t be conveniently reduced to who their parents are or what they look like. But those things are an important foundation, upon which more rational sentiments come into being. Once you’re attached to your team on an emotional level — seeing them as a personal reflection of who you are and what you care about most — a rational exterior comes into being through phrases like “the Red Sox are the best team because they have the most heart” or “the Republicans are the best party because they know how to create jobs.”

Tripon Posted: March 31, 2013 at 10:52 AM | 6544 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 61 of 66 pages ‹ First  < 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 > 
   6001. zenbitz Posted: April 29, 2013 at 10:54 AM (#4427944)
Fly
   6002. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:01 AM (#4427947)
The current system in the US bears little relation to what "right wing conservatives" would want.


This is because the American right wing is not conservative, but reactionary.
   6003. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:08 AM (#4427950)
Gotcha. So Fidel Castro is a right wing conservative.


Actually, yes. Quite obviously. Castro is a totalitarian strongman. He has no revolutionary aims whatsoever. His only goal is to maintain his and his apparatus' power. This is a categorically conservative goal. He's no more liberal or revolutionary at this point than George III was in 1770. I realize you have a hard time with this, but a person's proper delineation on the Radical-Liberal-Conservative-Reactionary spectrum is properly defined _by his actions in the world._ Castro's regime is a right wing conservative dictatorship wearing the old hand-me-down rags of a historical radical military revolution* in Cuba.

*it could be argued reasonably that no military revolution could ever be properly understood to be radical or liberal, in end if not means. But that's a different debate.
   6004. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:10 AM (#4427953)
Leftist certainly.


The revolution was leftist.

The revolution ended in 1959.
   6005. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:17 AM (#4427959)
Actually, yes. Quite obviously. Castro is a totalitarian strongman. He has no revolutionary aims whatsoever. His only goal is to maintain his and his apparatus' power. This is a categorically conservative goal.

Conveniently allowing you to attach the label of your political adversaries to every odious dictatorship. Not self-serving much, huh?
   6006. The Good Face Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:18 AM (#4427960)
The current system in the US bears little relation to what "right wing conservatives" would want.


This is because the American right wing is not conservative, but reactionary.


If the GOP is reactionary, then why do writers who actually describe themselves as reactionaries hate it so much? The reactionary/paleocon community views the GOP with something between utter disgust and a sort of weary, bemused pity.

Unless you're arguing that the GOP isn't actually right wing, which would make a lot more sense.
   6007. Ron J2 Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:22 AM (#4427965)
Fascinating article on a medicare success story -- about to be chopped.

Law of unintended consequences and the medical system (quoting from the article)

If you go into the hospital for heart surgery and you end up getting a central-line infection, you’d hope that the hospital would be penalized for it. The opposite, in fact, is true. According to a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, surgical complications increase the margin the hospital makes on the patient by 330 percent for the privately insured and 190 percent for Medicare patients.

This, too, is a legacy of a health system built for acute care. Hospitals make money when they do more to patients. They lose money when their beds are empty. Put simply, Health Quality Partners makes hospitals lose money. “There’s no doubt that it’s a hit to the bottom line,” says Rich Reif, the former CEO of Doylestown Hospital, which worked with HQP.



   6008. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:23 AM (#4427968)
The Pigford case is no different than this. The government basically admits injustice in the past, and is willing to pay compensation for that. The compensation is fixed at $1.2 billion. The only real question in the circumstances is the extent to which any individual deserves some portion of that money. The amount of money won't change, so the taxpayers aren't harmed. The harm, if any, is to other claimants.


And people mock me for saying we can slash tax dollars. Aside from all of the other problems with this case, here Mefisto argues that taxpayers aren't harmed when a billion dollars of their money is handed out mostly to claimants who didn't qualify. (Let's set aside the silliness of talking about people "deserving" welfare, as if they are entitled to it.) So instead of giving hundreds of millions back to the taxpayers (either cut them a check, or give them a tax cut, or just slash taxes in some way), we'll just give it to people who didn't qualify. Hey, taxpayers were going to get screwed anyway, right? So what does it matter.
   6009. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:26 AM (#4427969)
Also, a conservative will find herself strongly opposed to the status quo when the status quo is anti-conservative values, whatever those might be. One can hold conservative values, of course, but it's much more difficult to hold up a time when conservatism was the status quo. It can't be the 50s, when separate but equal impoverished and destroyed families, surely the soul of conservatism. It can't be the 60s, when social equality, surely a treasured value of any conservatism that prizes, as it must, individual rights.

I'm also interested in the point where conservatism becomes mere nostalgia. It gets even odder when that nostalgia is for a time that didn't exist. Today's "conservatives" (and odder still when those called conservatives simply are not that) can't even be thought of as nostalgic, because the lost days they pine for never actually existed.


This comes down to a failure to distinguish third form politics in American discourse. Everyone is either "liberal" or "conservative" regardless of their aims and goals. This is a huge error in our national dialogue.

Radicals want to change the world immediately, toward some perceived utopian future-perfect state. Some radicals wish to leverage the power of the State itself to this aim (communists, for example) while other radicals believe that the future perfect utopia is only achievable by elimination of government (libertarians, for example.)

Liberals want to change the world slowly, through measured, gradual implementation of future-state improvements via existing channels of power (the State.) Liberals never want to overthrow the current state, but they do often wish to modify it and change it to fit their future-state preferences. The wing of the Democrats that Howard Dean famously referred to as "the Democrat wing of the Democrat party" are liberals, as are most Greens.

Conservatives wish to maintain the status quo and manage inevitable change as structured and controlled. The Clintonian Democratic Leadership Council, the "Washington consensus," most political journals and news outlets, and the old breed of "Rockefeller Republicans" are conservatives.

Reactionaries are the right wing counterparts to radicals. They wish to drastically modify society, but rather than wishing for a utopian future-state, they wishcast for a utopian return to a preferred historical "golden era" where all of the "ills of modern society" are set right and everyone lives like they were supposed to, before it all went to hell. Most Tea Party operatives are reactionaries, dreaming of a fictional "Mayberry, RFD" to return to.

All of these operative dispositions can be occupied by members of "the left" and "the right," although generally speaking radicals tend to be leftists and reactionaries tend to be rightists.
   6010. Ron J2 Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:29 AM (#4427970)
#6003 Dunno if I precisely agree. Fidel wanted to maintain a status quo to be sure, but the status quo he wanted to maintain was the socialist model.

If you're arguing for "left wing conservative" then I guess we're in agreement.
   6011. spike Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:30 AM (#4427971)
   6012. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:31 AM (#4427973)
Conveniently allowing you to attach the label of your political adversaries to every odious dictatorship. Not self-serving much, huh?


I'm simply applying rational political philosophy to the current fever swamp of American politics.

Most dictatorships are right wing, as they rely on a "strongman" or war lord imposing his will on a public. This isn't universal, of course. Stalinist Russia and modern day China are examples of thriving left-wing totalitarianism.
   6013. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:32 AM (#4427974)
If the GOP is reactionary, then why do writers who actually describe themselves as reactionaries hate it so much? The reactionary/paleocon community views the GOP with something between utter disgust and a sort of weary, bemused pity.


American traditional conservatives and American reactionaries are in a death match for control of the functional political apparatus we call "the Republican Party."
   6014. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:37 AM (#4427978)
That's a meaningless question in a class action settlement. The defendant in such cases is interested in one thing only: how much money will it take to get rid of the litigation? Once the defendant agrees on the sum, it's up to the class to decide how to distribute it. There is no "left over".
That's not even remotely true. There have been plenty of claims made class action settlements, in which any unclaimed funds revert to the defendant.
   6015. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:38 AM (#4427979)
Class action suits are to justice as war is to foreign policy.
   6016. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:39 AM (#4427980)
IMO real conservatives would try---both on the individual and societal levels---to create a society with inherent stability, not a society in which a paper stability is only possible by filling the jails to class levels. No real conservative can possibly be pleased with the ever-increasing income stratification that we see today, nor with the increasing racial gaps in wealthy. But then by that definition, most of the real conservatives today are seldom found among the ranks of those who use that term to describe themselves.

I agree with this. I've been harping on the plight of the working class for years.

But, you and the other liberals aren't willing to address any of the major drivers of this growing inequality, in order of importance.

1) Globalization/Free trade - completely predictable impact of raising returns on capital in the US, and suppressing returns to labor


I haven't seen free trade / tariffs as a liberal/conservative issue, since both liberals and conservatives have been divided among themselves over this issue for years. Personally I'm for whatever works, but I'm unconvinced that reconstructing trade barriers will do any good in the long run, due to the law of unintended consequences.

2) Disintegration of the nuclear family among the non-college educated - one wage earner instead of two, and all the social pathologies that go along with single parent HHs

I'm more with you than against you on the importance of the nuclear family, and I agree it's an issue that's been avoided or distorted by much of the left, going all the way back to the reaction to the Moynihan Report. On a purely economic level, the gradual erosion of the extended family has added enormous societal costs to the care and maintenance of senior citizens. That Washington Post article I linked to in 5927 is a heartbreaking example of how moneyed interests and government bureaucracies can combine both to waste money and to do nothing to improve the lives of those who need help the most. You should read articles like this and incorporate them into your overall worldview.

But it's not as if there was some sort of Golden Age in which Norman Rockwell families were all living together in intergenerational love and harmony. That sort of enforced closeness was as much due to low incomes and lack of mobility as it was due to any burning desire on the part of three generations to be eating family dinners together. The sad truth is that there are downsides to both types of arrangements, and we're now seeing the downside of the breakdown of the old regime.

And one final thought on that subject: Lumping together biologically driven gay marriage with single parent lifestyle choices doesn't get anyone anywhere.

3) Dysfunctional and incredibly wasteful public schools in poor areas, run for the benefit of local politicians and public employee unions

If conservatives would spend a tenth as much energy in trying to engage and improve the existing public school system as they do trying to undermine it,** the public schools might improve. And of course the whole issue of why some schools fail while others thrive is intimately connected to your point about the nuclear family. The single greatest predictor of student achievement is still family income, and family income is correlated to family stability.

4) High levels of illegal immigration

The way to deal with that is to give those illegals strong incentives to become citizens in all meaningful ways, including not spending a small fortune trying to break up their families. I'm surprised that more conservatives don't speak out on this issue of family separation, although lately it's nice to see that more than a few Catholic and Evangelical churches are beginning to do so. As an agnostic I don't really have much standing to speak on this, but somehow I find it hard to believe that Jesus would be rooting for the immigration cops on this issue.

All you want to do is throw more taxpayer dollars into maintaining the underclass at a slightly higher level of squalor.

That's just silly rhetoric, one part substance and about a hundred parts hot air. Investment in human capital and material infrastructure is not equivalent to throwing money down a rathole. History has shown that time and again.

**Liberal hypocrisy in many of them keeping their own children in private schools is duly noted.
   6017. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:39 AM (#4427981)
It's not about supporting the status quo of who is in power. It's about supporting the status quo of laws and social norms. The dems may be in power, but they are still trying to enact change on tons of issues (e.g. healthcare, gay marriage, drug policy, gun control etc). Hence they are not conservative.
Exactly. (Except the drug policy part.) And the MSM is basically simpatico with that agenda. Which is why they're liberal, not "center-right."
   6018. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:40 AM (#4427982)
6011. spike Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:30 AM (#4427971)

This is a big deal.


Yawn.

But at least now we will no longer have to hear comments from people breathlessly awaiting a time when the first gay current athlete from one of the major U.S. sports comes out.
   6019. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:40 AM (#4427983)
Fidel wanted to maintain a status quo to be sure, but the status quo he wanted to maintain was the socialist model.


1. Communist, not socialist; but I pedant.

2. Communist revolutions have a well documented historical tendency to collapse quickly and completely into totalitarian dictatorships. It's a flaw in the model. Totalitarian dictatorships are never socialist in function or design.
   6020. The Good Face Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:40 AM (#4427984)
If the GOP is reactionary, then why do writers who actually describe themselves as reactionaries hate it so much? The reactionary/paleocon community views the GOP with something between utter disgust and a sort of weary, bemused pity.


American traditional conservatives and American reactionaries are in a death match for control of the functional political apparatus we call "the Republican Party."


So the Republican Party wasn't right wing until the advent of the Tea Party? (who are not actually reactionaries, but whatever)
   6021. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:45 AM (#4427988)
So the Republican Party wasn't right wing until the advent of the Tea Party?


The GOP of Eisenhower was a functionally conservative party. The GOP of Goldwater/Reagan toed the line of right wing radicalism, while leaning on reactionaries of the "religious right" to maintain power. The GOP since 1994 or thereabouts has been functionally reactionary in trenches, with a management structure of apparatus oriented conservatives. The GOP has been migrated towards reactionary control for years.
   6022. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:47 AM (#4427992)
If conservatives would spend a tenth as much energy in trying to engage and improve the existing public school system as they do trying to undermine it,** the public schools might improve.


You don't think a strong Creationist bent in our school would help us maintain our scientific edge over the godless secularists?
   6023. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:49 AM (#4427995)
ronj2/6007: i'm familiar with hqp (and researched some competing approaches) - that's a shame.
   6024. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:49 AM (#4427996)
The GOP of 2013 is a seething war between reactionaries (Tea Party types and "social conservatives" who are primarily concerned with nostalgia for a lost past, Founder Era Mythologizing, etc), radicals (Paul Ryan, Rand Paul libertarian-Randian types) and old school crony capitalist conservatives (Mitt Romney, John McCain, etc.)
   6025. The Good Face Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:49 AM (#4427997)
The GOP of Eisenhower was a functionally conservative party. The GOP of Goldwater/Reagan toed the line of right wing radicalism, while leaning on reactionaries of the "religious right" to maintain power. The GOP since 1994 or thereabouts has been functionally reactionary in trenches, with a management structure of apparatus oriented conservatives. The GOP has been migrated towards reactionary control for years.


Funny stuff, perspectives. The writers I know of who actually call themselves reactionary would find this preposterous. They think democracy itself was a terrible mistake and would prefer we found ourselves a nice king to rule.
   6026. Mefisto Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:51 AM (#4427998)
6009 is spot on.

And people mock me for saying we can slash tax dollars. Aside from all of the other problems with this case, here Mefisto argues that taxpayers aren't harmed when a billion dollars of their money is handed out mostly to claimants who didn't qualify.


No, you simply don't understand how litigation works. The government was sued. It's position in the litigation was bad -- liability was pretty much a slam dunk and the facts are embarrassing. What the government did was what every corporate litigant does in such a case: it asked the other side how much they wanted to make this litigation disappear. The parties agreed on a sum and the court approved. Congress then appropriated the money to fund the settlement.

If you want to argue that the government paid too much, you're free to do so, but the merits of individual claims are irrelevant to this. The government needed to make a class of plaintiffs go away. It didn't care about individual claims, any more than Honda cared about individual dealers when it agreed to settle that case. The only question was, whether the settlement, on balance, represented a reasonable price to end litigation which the defendant was going to lose.

There have been plenty of claims made class action settlements, in which any unclaimed funds revert to the defendant.


Yes, that happens sometimes. But it doesn't always happen and there's nothing illegitimate in simply allocating the entire settlement among the class members. That's all that happened in Pigford, and it's what happened with Honda.
   6027. greenback calls it soccer Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:51 AM (#4427999)
Exactly. (Except the drug policy part.) And the MSM is basically simpatico with that agenda. Which is why they're liberal, not "center-right."

You're forgetting the libertarian talking point that the MSM is first and foremost statist.
   6028. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:52 AM (#4428001)
That's just silly rhetoric, one part substance and about a hundred parts hot air. Investment in human capital and material infrastructure is not equivalent to throwing money down a rathole. History has shown that time and again.

And what liberal policy proposals actually invest in developing human or physical capital?

On education, we've doubled real, per student spending in the last 25 years, but seen precious little improvement. We're deploying lots more economic capital, but not generating any more human capital.

Most of the industrial subsidies, ethanol, clean energy, etc., just turn into gifts for politically connected corporations. Much like our agricultural subsidies.

I don't see either party promoting an agenda that encourages capital formation in the US. The Dems are only worse b/c they want to decrease the returns to capital (particularly human capital) through higher tax rates.

In fact, both parties seem hell bent on driving as much capital overseas as they can, by keeping it economically advantageous to do so.
   6029. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:52 AM (#4428002)
Funny stuff, perspectives. The writers I know of who actually call themselves reactionary would find this preposterous. They think democracy itself was a terrible mistake and would prefer we found ourselves a nice king to rule.


There's always a fringe of the fringe. Your monarchists are the right wing equivalent of old guard communist sympathizers who still defend Stalin. They exist, but they're powerless and will never carry an open debate again.

The closest thing you see to a king in the western hemisphere is Fidel Castro, for the record.
   6030. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:53 AM (#4428004)
You're forgetting the libertarian talking point that the MSM is first and foremost statist.


This is where David's political theory falls flailing and screaming into the abyss.
   6031. zonk Posted: April 29, 2013 at 11:59 AM (#4428009)
Funny stuff, perspectives. The writers I know of who actually call themselves reactionary would find this preposterous. They think democracy itself was a terrible mistake and would prefer we found ourselves a nice king to rule.


I'm tanned, rested, and available.
   6032. BDC Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4428014)
both parties seem hell bent on driving as much capital overseas as they can, by keeping it economically advantageous to do so

The flip side of that movement is that by driving capital & production overseas, both parties work to keep domestic consumer prices low, and to minimize inflation. For workers, it's something of a treadmill: our real income remains flat or creeps backwards a bit, but eggs & milk aren't getting any more expensive.

Actually eggs & milk fluctuate quite a bit. But they're just a metonym. Substitute bread & butter or strawberries & bananas if you like.
   6033. Ron J2 Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:02 PM (#4428016)
#6031 No Soriano shout-out?
   6034. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:03 PM (#4428019)
The flip side of that movement is that by driving capital & production overseas, both parties work to keep domestic consumer prices low, and to minimize inflation. For workers, it's something of a treadmill: our real income remains flat or creeps backwards a bit, but eggs & milk aren't getting any more expensive.

Actually eggs & milk fluctuate quite a bit. But they're just a metonym. Substitute bread & butter or strawberries & bananas if you like.


Yes, bread and circuses (big screen TVs, smartphones, etc.) are cheap. It's a way to placate the masses, but not a good way to run a country.
   6035. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:05 PM (#4428021)
The flip side of that movement is that by driving capital & production overseas, both parties work to keep domestic consumer prices low, and to minimize inflation.


Yep. Fewer jobs, less social mobility, but cheap stuff to drown out your sense of existential despair.

Snapper is a proper form reactionary on most issues, for the record. But he owns it, so we give him props for that. At least he doesn't pretend to be something he's not.
   6036. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:07 PM (#4428023)
Nothing for the FBI to see here, I guess:

Ex-girlfriend: Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev beat me, tried to make me ‘hate the U.S. like he did’

The ex-girlfriend of Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev said that he tried to brainwash her into "hating America like he did" and beat her for dressing like a typical American teen.

Nadine Ascencao, 24, told Britain's The Sun newspaper that she lost her virginity to the dead bomber when she was 17 and he was 19, and even considered converting to Islam to please him.

...

"He became extremely religious and tried to brainwash me to follow Islam. Tamerlan said I couldn't be with him unless I became a Muslim. He wanted me to hate America like he did."

...

In the days after Tsarnaev was killed in a police shootout in Watertown, Mass., on April 19, it was reported that he was jailed in 2009 for assaulting his girlfriend.

Ascencao said the pugilist slapped her in the face when he saw her heading to a pool party in tank-top and cut-offs.

...

Russell's old roommates told similar tales of Tsarnaev's manipulative and brutish behavior. He called Russell a "prostitute" and a "slut" and brainwashed her into converting to Islam, NPR reported.


   6037. The Good Face Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:14 PM (#4428029)
There's always a fringe of the fringe. Your monarchists are the right wing equivalent of old guard communist sympathizers who still defend Stalin. They exist, but they're powerless and will never carry an open debate again.

The closest thing you see to a king in the western hemisphere is Fidel Castro, for the record.


I rather suspect they're on to something. Modern democracies can only thrive in high-trust societies, and the conditions that created high-trust societies in the West are being eroded, often by the governments of those societies themselves. Rent-seeking based on personal connections or membership in a connected class (HYP graduates) is the new normal. That road leads to authoritarian government, whether through a King/strongman, or an oligarchy/junta.
   6038. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:15 PM (#4428031)
"Waste", it's other people's pork ...


WASHINGTON (AP) — Built to dominate the enemy in combat, the Army's hulking Abrams tank is proving equally hard to beat in a budget battle.

Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams.

But senior Army officials have said repeatedly, "No thanks."

It's the inverse of the federal budget world these days, in which automatic spending cuts are leaving sought-after pet programs struggling or unpaid altogether. Republicans and Democrats for years have fought so bitterly that lawmaking in Washington ground to a near-halt.

Yet in the case of the Abrams tank, there's a bipartisan push to spend an extra $436 million on a weapon the experts explicitly say is not needed.

"If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way," Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, told The Associated Press this past week.

...

If there's a home of the Abrams, it's politically important Ohio. The nation's only tank plant is in Lima. So it's no coincidence that the champions for more tanks are Rep. Jim Jordan and Sen. Rob Portman, two of Capitol's Hill most prominent deficit hawks, as well as Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. They said their support is rooted in protecting national security, not in pork-barrel politics.

"The one area where we are supposed to spend taxpayer money is in defense of the country," said Jordan, whose district in the northwest part of the state includes the tank plant.

...

Sean Kennedy, director of research for the nonpartisan Citizens Against Government Waste, said Congress should listen when one of the military services says no to more equipment.

"When an institution as risk averse as the Defense Department says they have enough tanks, we can probably believe them," Kennedy said.

Congressional backers of the Abrams upgrades view the vast network of companies, many of them small businesses, that manufacture the tanks' materials and parts as a critical asset that has to be preserved. The money, they say, is a modest investment that will keep important tooling and manufacturing skills from being lost if the Abrams line were to be shut down.

The Lima plant is a study in how federal dollars affect local communities, which in turn hold tight to the federal dollars. The facility is owned by the federal government but operated by the land systems division of General Dynamics, a major defense contractor that spent close to $11 million last year on lobbying, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The plant is Lima's fifth-largest employer with close to 700 employees, down from about 1,100 just a few years ago, according to Mayor David Berger. But the facility is still crucial to the local economy. "All of those jobs and their spending activity in the community and the company's spending probably have about a $100 million impact annually," Berger said.

Jordan, a House conservative leader who has pushed for deep reductions in federal spending, supported the automatic cuts known as the sequester that require $42 billion to be shaved from the Pentagon's budget by the end of September. The military also has to absorb a $487 billion reduction in defense spending over the next 10 years, as required by the Budget Control Act passed in 2011.

Still, said Jordan, it would be a big mistake to stop producing tanks.

"Look, (the plant) is in the 4th Congressional District and my job is to represent the 4th Congressional District, so I understand that," he said. "But the fact remains, if it was not in the best interests of the national defense for the United States of America, then you would not see me supporting it like we do."


Link
   6039. Greg K Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:16 PM (#4428033)
The closest thing you see to a king in the western hemisphere is Fidel Castro, for the record.

I don't know, (to pedanticize the pedant) us Canadians will likely be getting a king some time soon.

EDIT: Not to mention the king guys like Andruw Jones and Andrelton Simmons are subjects of.
   6040. spike Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:20 PM (#4428041)
@6038, and there are already somewhere between 2000 - 4000 tanks in storage.
   6041. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:21 PM (#4428044)
Ascencao said the pugilist slapped her in the face when he saw her heading to a pool party in tank-top and cut-offs.

...

Russell's old roommates told similar tales of Tsarnaev's manipulative and brutish behavior. He called Russell a "prostitute" and a "slut" and brainwashed her into converting to Islam, NPR reported.


Many Muslims, even educated ones, have a deep-rooted fear and resentment of liberated Western women that devolves to the very essence of their psyches. Much of their resentment of the West, which most believe to be political, stems from this base cause. A woman in a tank top and shorts sitting at a cafe and what that symbolizes is more troubling than Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.
   6042. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:22 PM (#4428047)
I rather suspect they're on to something. Modern democracies can only thrive in high-trust societies, and the conditions that created high-trust societies in the West are being eroded, often by the governments of those societies themselves. Rent-seeking based on personal connections or membership in a connected class (HYP graduates) is the new normal. That road leads to authoritarian government, whether through a King/strongman, or an oligarchy/junta.


And one of the reasons I no longer write you off entirely and make an honest attempt to engage you, rather than giving you the full Kehoskie, is that you acknowledge and argue in good faith for that position.
   6043. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:23 PM (#4428049)
I don't know, (to pedanticize the pedant) us Canadians will likely be getting a king some time soon.


If Harry dresses up on drag and waves a pipe cleaner in the air, that don't make him a real Pope either.
   6044. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:24 PM (#4428052)
Nothing for the FBI to see here, I guess:


Were these things reported prior?
   6045. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:27 PM (#4428055)
The nation's only tank plant is in Lima.

This is the only reason to continue production. You can't lose the industrial base required to build tanks.
   6046. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:28 PM (#4428059)
Were these things reported prior?


The FBI can't interview people such as the ex-girlfriend?

But the domestic violence incident was a matter of record for years, as it happened in 2009.
   6047. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:29 PM (#4428060)
I rather suspect they're on to something. Modern democracies can only thrive in high-trust societies, and the conditions that created high-trust societies in the West are being eroded, often by the governments of those societies themselves. Rent-seeking based on personal connections or membership in a connected class (HYP graduates) is the new normal. That road leads to authoritarian government, whether through a King/strongman, or an oligarchy/junta.


This is laughably wrong, but, whatever. Maybe you can blame the catholics and/or confucianists, while you're at it. If only the protestants ruled things like the good old days!
   6048. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:30 PM (#4428062)
This is the only reason to continue production. You can't lose the industrial base required to build tanks.


If only there were something other than tanks those federally funded machining lines could be manufacturing instead...
   6049. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:31 PM (#4428065)
I rather suspect they're on to something. Modern democracies can only thrive in high-trust societies, and the conditions that created high-trust societies in the West are being eroded, often by the governments of those societies themselves. Rent-seeking based on personal connections or membership in a connected class (HYP graduates) is the new normal. That road leads to authoritarian government, whether through a King/strongman, or an oligarchy/junta.

Yup. the more polarized (by class) our society becomes, the harder it will be to maintain democracy.
   6050. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:31 PM (#4428066)
The FBI can't interview people such as the ex-girlfriend?


Can't? I don't recall saying anything about can or can't. I'm asking if this was reported prior. Without some sort of flag, it's no a matter of can or can't, but if it's reasonable to follow-up on.
   6051. BDC Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:31 PM (#4428067)
I dunno, I appreciate the bread part of "bread & circuses." I appreciate the circuses part for that matter, but the circuses are getting more expensive, as contemplating a trip to New Yankee Stadium later this summer reminds me :)
   6052. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:32 PM (#4428070)
Yup. the more polarized (by class) our society becomes, the harder it will be to maintain democracy.


Please don't pretend to drape this conversation up in a keen sense of wanting to preserve democracy. We can have the actual liberals and democrats play that role.
   6053. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:34 PM (#4428074)

If only there were something other than tanks those federally funded machining lines could be manufacturing instead...


Drones?
   6054. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:35 PM (#4428075)
If only there were something other than tanks those federally funded machining lines could be manufacturing instead...

Manufacturing the armor and cannon for main battle tanks is not the same as building trucks. You can perhaps divert some of the capacity to maintaining/upgrading existing tanks, but you never want to cease production entirely. Especially since we no longer have the robust heavy manufacturing sector to convert in case of war.

I'm sure there are $436M in Pentagon bureaucrats that can be eliminated to off-set this.

Our huge DoD cost-structure isn't caused by too many weapons, it's caused by a bloated bureaucracy.
   6055. Greg K Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:35 PM (#4428076)
If Harry dresses up on drag and waves a pipe cleaner in the air, that don't make him a real Pope either.

Not really disagreeing with you (as noted I was merely being a pedantic dick for fun), but as it's a topic that interests me...

Who would you say was the last "real" king of Great Britain? (Or perhaps Great Britain has never had a real king, in which case, last one of England). It's a bit of an arbitrary line of course, but fodder for conversation, and so many choices! James II is probably a popular answer.
   6056. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:37 PM (#4428078)
Yes, that happens sometimes. But it doesn't always happen and there's nothing illegitimate in simply allocating the entire settlement among the class members. That's all that happened in Pigford, and it's what happened with Honda.
But there is something illegitimate in allocating a portion of the settlement to non-class members. Now, if Honda Motor Co. wants to do that, that's between the company and its shareholders. But if political appointees at the DOJ want to do it with taxpayer money, that's a big problem.
   6057. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:38 PM (#4428079)
Please don't pretend to drape this conversation up in a keen sense of wanting to preserve democracy. We can have the actual liberals and democrats play that role.

You're correct that I don't inherently care about democracy, but I do care about liberty. And democracy has been the best bet for preserving liberty the last century or so.

I mean, we're not likely to make the Habsburg family Emperors of America. Any autocrat is likely to be worse than the worst excesses of democracy.
   6058. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:42 PM (#4428083)
Especially since we no longer have the robust heavy manufacturing sector to convert in case of war.
We've been over this many times. We certainly do. It's manufacturing employment, not output, that has dropped. And that's because people are being replaced by machines, not furriners.
   6059. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:44 PM (#4428086)
We've been over this many times. We certainly do. It's manufacturing employment, not output, that has dropped. And that's because people are being replaced by machines, not furriners.

We have almost no commercial shipbuilding left. We have very little heavy machinery, and machine tool production, relative to the size of our economy. Civilian aircraft manufacture is down to one firm for large planes, and a handful for small planes. We have zero consumer electronics.

Our industrial base can no longer support a mass mobilization, if that became necessary.

   6060. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:45 PM (#4428087)
Manufacturing the armor and cannon for main battle tanks is not the same as building trucks. You can perhaps divert some of the capacity to maintaining/upgrading existing tanks, but you never want to cease production entirely. Especially since we no longer have the robust heavy manufacturing sector to convert in case of war.


So you're arguing not for the preservation of inherit industry base to machine metal, but specifically the base to build tanks? Because, tanks are super awesome or something?
   6061. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:46 PM (#4428090)
We have almost no commercial shipbuilding left.


And that's why we have no capacity to make air craft carriers or submarines any more!
   6062. BDC Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:48 PM (#4428091)
Oddly enough, the Netherlands is getting their first king in over a hundred years this week. (OK, not a real king.) The new queen consort of the Netherlands, like the new Pope, is from Argentina, and like the new Pope, had no idea that the juntas there were ever making anybody's life difficult.

Last real king of England … I guess the views of a monarch and of other English people might diverge on that question. Charles I once said that "a subject and a sovereign are clean different things," but then they cleanly relieved him of his head :)
   6063. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:50 PM (#4428096)
We have almost no commercial shipbuilding left. We have very little heavy machinery, and machine tool production, relative to the size of our economy. Civilian aircraft manufacture is down to one firm for large planes, and a handful for small planes. We have zero consumer electronics.
Even if what you were saying was correct, why would it matter about whether it was "relative to the size of our economy," since the issue you raised was "in case of war"? We don't fight wars as a percentage of our economy; we fight wars in absolute terms. Nor do I quite see what the number of firms has to do with the issue of output. Is our output down? That's the question, and the answer is no.

In fact, U.S. manufacturing output is a stable, high percentage of a growing world economy. (I'm speaking in longer term trends, not of the past few years of recession.)

I'll grant you that we don't assemble trinkets here anymore. Commodity DVD players or the like. But so freaking what?
   6064. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:50 PM (#4428098)
And that's why we have no capacity to make air craft carriers or submarines any more!

We have 100% DoD supported military shipyards. We do not have other shipbuilding industry that could be converted to military use in wartime.

So you're arguing not for the preservation of inherit industry base to machine metal, but specifically the base to build tanks? Because, tanks are super awesome or something?

Yes. Because state of the art tanks are necessary to dominate the land battlefield, and will be for the foreseeable future.

Just like we have to keep Electric Boat and Newport News in business, even if we don't need subs or aircraft carriers at the moment.

Once the infrastructure and skilled workforce is lost, it would be massively difficult, expensive, and time consuming to reassemble.
   6065. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:51 PM (#4428100)
Who would you say was the last "real" king of Great Britain? (Or perhaps Great Britain has never had a real king, in which case, last one of England). It's a bit of an arbitrary line of course, but fodder for conversation, and so many choices! James II is probably a popular answer.


Of England? Ima gonna pendant the pendantry of my pendanticism and go with Harold II.

More to your point, I'm quite tempted to say Elizabeth I, or maybe Charles I. I would argue that real kings ended with the Commonwealth, though my arguments would be specious and of the variety known to be inhabited by up-jumped Americans who have done no real research into the line of kings and queens of England, but who once visited the Tower on vacation.
   6066. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:53 PM (#4428103)
Even if what you were saying was correct, why would it matter about whether it was "relative to the size of our economy," since the issue you raised was "in case of war"? We don't fight wars as a percentage of our economy; we fight wars in absolute terms. Nor do I quite see what the number of firms has to do with the issue of output. Is our output down? That's the question, and the answer is no.

The issue is we have lost entire sectors of the manufacturing base necessary to fighting major wars.

If we lost 2 or 3 aircraft carriers in a war, it would take us a decade to replace them, not the 12-18 months it took in WW2.

Electronics a re a major component of modern military equipment. In a major war it would certainly be nice to have a few factories producing advanced consumer electronics that could be converted. We have none.
   6067. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:53 PM (#4428104)
Yes. Because state of the art tanks are necessary to dominate the land battlefield, and will be for the foreseeable future.


I'm not sold on the pressing need to preserve our trebuchet manufacturing capacity, personally. Tanks are just slow crawling targets for drones.
   6068. Lassus Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:56 PM (#4428107)
Tanks are just slow crawling targets for drones.

I'm pretty sure current tanks move pretty fast. That, however, doesn't really make thenm any less of a drone target.
   6069. Ron J2 Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:58 PM (#4428109)
#6044 The DV accusation was on record. The "hates America" stuff is basically contradicted by his actions in the same general time frame -- specifically the interview he gave while trying out for the national boxing team. Now it's true he says that the US is only his second choice, but he acknowledged that his first choice -- an independent Chechnya -- wasn't a realistic possibility.

The Post article says he was "jailed" over the DV accusation. That's be news if true. My understanding was that the charge was dropped because she declined to testify.

That he was a thoroughly unlikeable person was already a matter of record and we now have the ex's roommate account to add to that.
   6070. zonk Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:58 PM (#4428111)
If we lose our tank producing capacity then how will future generations be able to comprehend Michael Dukakis references?
   6071. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 12:59 PM (#4428113)
Tanks are just slow crawling targets for drones.

If attack helicopters with 16 ATGM didn't make tanks obsolete, drones with 1 ATGM won't.

In any case, we generally intend to have air supremacy, or at least air superiority anywhere we plan to send ground troops. Tanks are also vital to urban combat, which is likely to dominate future wars.

Neither the drone, or the tank, or the helicopter, or the fighter jet, or anything else, is some magical super-weapon. They are all necessary parts of an integrated combined arms team.
   6072. Ron J2 Posted: April 29, 2013 at 01:04 PM (#4428116)
#6055 Ever read "Ride With Me" by Costain? One of the more surprising events in the story is the editor of the Times ending up in the stocks for being too critical of the monarchy. Set in the Napoleonic war. Point being that in the early 19th century the monarchy still had a lot of power even if it rarely used it. By the time of Victoria it's down to, "We are not amused"

I read a lot of historical fiction and "Ride With Me" is an old favorite.
   6073. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 01:05 PM (#4428118)
#6044 The DV accusation was on record. The "hates America" stuff is basically contradicted by his actions in the same general time frame -- specifically the interview he gave while trying out for the national boxing team. Now it's true he says that the US is only his second choice, but he acknowledged that his first choice -- an independent Chechnya -- wasn't a realistic possibility.


Ron, am I misunderstanding you? You can't seriously be arguing that it was probative that he wasn't spewing "I hate America" type nonsense while trying out for the American boxing team. He had to stick to the script, so his comments there are of little import.

The Post article says he was "jailed" over the DV accusation. That's be news if true. My understanding was that the charge was dropped because she declined to testify.


Yes, the Post article is clear that he was jailed:

The brute wanted Ascencao to isolate herself from non-Muslim friends and buy into his radical lifestyle.

“He once ripped a pair of my jeans and hit me in the face with them,” she said.

“Tamerlan told me I should only talk to Muslim girls, not other ‘slutty’ girls.”

The final straw came when Tamerlan attacked her for going to a pool party in cut-off jeans and a crop top.

“He was shouting and screaming at me,” Ascencao said. “He slapped me across the face really hard.”

Ascencao called cops, leading to Tamerlan spending a night in jail. She dumped him soon after.

Even though he was never prosecuted, that domestic violence complaint contributed to US authorities denying Tamerlan citizenship.
His brother Dzhokhar was minted a naturalized US citizen on Sept. 11 last year.


But I'm not clear why it's implausible that he was jailed over the incident. Isn't that what often happens in a DV call? Unless I'm not remembering my Cops right, the guy is often cuffed and put in the back of the squad car and booked into jail.

   6074. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 01:08 PM (#4428121)
But I'm not clear why it's implausible that he was jailed over the incident. Isn't that what often happens in a DV call? Unless I'm not remembering my Cops right, the guy is often cuffed and put in the back of the squad car and booked into jail.

I think it's actually mandatory in some jurisdictions that someone has to be taken to jail, if not necessary booked or charged.
   6075. Greg K Posted: April 29, 2013 at 01:19 PM (#4428132)
Last real king of England … I guess the views of a monarch and of other English people might diverge on that question. Charles I once said that "a subject and a sovereign are clean different things," but then they cleanly relieved him of his head :)

Charles I and the 1620s actually tie in with the discussion of "what is a conservative?"

You essentially had a political culture marked by intense debate and strained tensions, between groups of people who all claimed to be (and likely understood themselves as) preserving the political system against those other bad guys who were trying to bring in "innovation", almost as dirty a word as "Papist" for an early Stuart politician to use.

#6065, thanks for the response. The last monarch of England who was "English" is also a fun conversation some history nerds like to play around with.

#6072, haven't read it, but I will definitely give it a gander. It's probably part of why the "last real King" thing is so open-ended. The British monarchy has been a fairly flexible institution over several centuries. Throughout English/British history there's a constant debate over who/what the King is, and what his (or her) role is in political culture - quite often with the monarch himself jumping into the debate. Not that I'm a monarchy nut or anything, but that underlying tension is really what drives my interest in my day job.
   6076. Ron J2 Posted: April 29, 2013 at 01:22 PM (#4428135)
#6073 Thanks. So the "jailed" is really not new information.

And Ray, if you'd read the interview you'd see that his motivation for trying to make the US team is to try and get citizenship. That's not exactly consistent with "Hates America".

Unless of course it's "Hates everything and everybody. Just hates America a little less." And he does seem to have been a hater.
   6077. The Good Face Posted: April 29, 2013 at 01:27 PM (#4428144)
If attack helicopters with 16 ATGM didn't make tanks obsolete, drones with 1 ATGM won't.


Helicopters are expensive and must be manned with trained crews. Drones are comparatively cheap and rely on remote operators whose existence is independent from the drone's.

Helicopters are easier to destroy than drones, and helicopter losses are far more devastating than drone losses.

Tanks are pretty cool, and we'd have all been diminished if Michael Dukakis hadn't gone for a ride in one, but they're increasingly less important for the sort of warfare USG is engaging in, let alone SHOULD be engaging in.
   6078. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 01:33 PM (#4428152)
Tanks are pretty cool, and we'd have all been diminished if Michael Dukakis hadn't gone for a ride in one, but they're increasingly less important for the sort of warfare USG is engaging in, let alone SHOULD be engaging in.

That may well be true, but they're really important in the kind of warfare you don't want to lose.

If we eff up in counter-insurgency or anti-terrorism, who really cares. If you eff up a major war in the Middle East, it hurts.

And as I said above, tanks are critical to urban fighting. You need a mobile direct-fire gun platform that can sustain RPG hits.

Never focus entirely on the type of war you're currently fighting, or just finsihed. That's our military's biggest failing, traditionally. You have to maintain the broas spectrum of capabilities.

Helicopters are expensive and must be manned with trained crews. Drones are comparatively cheap and rely on remote operators whose existence is independent from the drone's.

Helicopters are easier to destroy than drones, and helicopter losses are far more devastating than drone losses.


Hamas is deploying drones over Israel, and Israel seems to be having no problem shooting them down.

Drones are a tool for those with air superiority.
   6079. McCoy Posted: April 29, 2013 at 01:38 PM (#4428162)
If we lost 2 or 3 aircraft carriers in a war, it would take us a decade to replace them, not the 12-18 months it took in WW2.

We also didn't have the capability of producing 2 to 3 aircraft carriers in less than 18 months before WWII either. Aircraft carriers also weren't as complex then as they are now so the comparison isn't really valid.

   6080. The Good Face Posted: April 29, 2013 at 01:42 PM (#4428175)
That may well be true, but they're really important in the kind of warfare you don't want to lose.


What kind of warfare do you see USG engaging in over the next decade or so that would require a heavy tank presence?

More importantly, what kind of warfare SHOULD USG be engaging in over the next decade or so that would require a heavy tank presence?
   6081. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 01:45 PM (#4428183)
What kind of warfare do you see USG engaging in over the next decade or so that would require a heavy tank presence?

More importantly, what kind of warfare SHOULD USG be engaging in over the next decade or so that would require a heavy tank presence?


Another war for control of the Persian Gulf oil fields, a conflict in Korea, and a conflict in Eastern Europe, would be the three wars we could, and should, fight with heavy divisions.
   6082. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 29, 2013 at 01:46 PM (#4428184)
Communist revolutions have a well documented historical tendency to collapse quickly and completely into totalitarian dictatorships. It's a flaw in the model.

The old "good at the beginning, but went too far"! Thanks, Marge.
   6083. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 01:47 PM (#4428189)
We also didn't have the capability of producing 2 to 3 aircraft carriers in less than 18 months before WWII either. Aircraft carriers also weren't as complex then as they are now so the comparison isn't really valid.

But we had numerous large shipyards that could be converted to produce them. Just the Navy yards alone gave us more capacity than we have now.

We have exactly one yard that can produce aircraft carriers, and zero commercial yards producing very large ships (tankers, bulk carrier, cruise ships) that could potentially be converted.
   6084. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 01:49 PM (#4428195)
If we lost 2 or 3 aircraft carriers in a war, it would take us a decade to replace them, not the 12-18 months it took in WW2.
(1) It takes longer to make them now because they're far more complicated and powerful, not because we don't have shipbuilding capabilities. Oh, and because we can't conscript the whole country into war production.
(2) Except that if we lost "2 or 3 aircraft carriers," it would either be because (a) the nature of warfare had changed so as to make aircraft carriers completely obsolete, in which case who cares, or because (b) a nuclear war had broken out, in which case, well, see (a).
(3) Oh, and if we lost 2 or 3 aircraft carriers, we'd still have four times as many aircraft carriers as all of our enemies combined.
   6085. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 01:50 PM (#4428198)
Hamas is deploying drones over Israel, and Israel seems to be having no problem shooting them down.


1) Israel seems to have shot down one (1) drone. That's not enough information to declare them super-successful in the effort. We don't even know how many are in the air.

2) Comparing Hamas' drones over the Levant to a US Predator is like comparing Hamas' make shift rocket launchers to an Hellfire. It's not even in the same category of weapons system.
   6086. Lassus Posted: April 29, 2013 at 01:52 PM (#4428201)
The old "good at the beginning, but went too far"! Thanks, Marge.

Where was the "good at the beginning" part of that quote?


   6087. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 01:52 PM (#4428203)
But we had numerous large shipyards that could be converted to produce them. Just the Navy yards alone gave us more capacity than we have now.


And if the US were to find herself drawn into a massive conflict that required large scale ship-building beyond the current DoD/Naval capabilities, we'd ramp that up in less than a year. It takes a lot less time to build a ship yard than it did in 1945.
   6088. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 01:54 PM (#4428207)
More importantly, what kind of warfare SHOULD USG be engaging in over the next decade or so that would require a heavy tank presence?


I'd like to see an answer to this question.
   6089. Ron J2 Posted: April 29, 2013 at 01:54 PM (#4428208)
#6079 We also couldn't make the repairs to the Yorktown in a couple of days in peacetime. Or send it in to battle with the guys making the repairs still on board.

Or for that matter, make a Liberty ship in 24 hours. But hell, even as far back as the Korean War, new stuff took a lot longer than a mere few years before.

Hellcats and Corsairs were in short supply (corsairs made fine ground support planes even if they were of no value in an air superiority role any longer) because literally thousands of them had been simply dumped into the sea when WWII ended. The great fleet train didn't exist any more either. They had to improvise.
   6090. The Good Face Posted: April 29, 2013 at 01:54 PM (#4428210)
And as I said above, tanks are critical to urban fighting. You need a mobile direct-fire gun platform that can sustain RPG hits.


Missed this line before. One of my best friends is a military officer who did a stint in Iraq as a tank commander. According to him, the Bradleys and MRAPs were far more effective and feared by insurgents than the tanks. The main gun of an Abrams is only useful against other armored vehicles or fortified structures; it's almost useless against insurgents in an urban environment, and unlike personnel carriers, a battle tank can't vomit out a squad of pissed-off infantry.
   6091. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 01:58 PM (#4428213)
Helicopters are easier to destroy than drones, and helicopter losses are far more devastating than drone losses.

Hamas is deploying drones over Israel, and Israel seems to be having no problem shooting them down.
Hezbollah. Hamas is very different.

And they shot down a drone, and another six months ago; I don't know that we can conclude from this that Israel always catches their drones.
   6092. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 02:02 PM (#4428216)
And if the US were to find herself drawn into a massive conflict that required large scale ship-building beyond the current DoD/Naval capabilities, we'd ramp that up in less than a year. It takes a lot less time to build a ship yard than it did in 1945.

That's crazy. We completely lack the skilled heavy manufacturing workforce to make it happen. You don't become a skilled shipbuilder in a 3-week e-learning course.

Missed this line before. One of my best friends is a military officer who did a stint in Iraq as a tank commander. According to him, the Bradleys and MRAPs were far more effective and feared by insurgents than the tanks. The main gun of an Abrams is only useful against other armored vehicles or fortified structures; it's almost useless against insurgents in an urban environment, and unlike personnel carriers, a battle tank can't vomit out a squad of pissed-off infantry.

But the tanks are much harder to destroy, which is critical given our aversion to casualties, and destroying fortified structures is also quite important in heavy urban combat (as opposed to counter-insurgency).

The answer, of course, is you need both. All the military thinking on urban combat is that a closely integrated, combined arms team of infantry, tanks, combat engineers, and even artillery (used in a direct fire capacity) is the battle winning formula.
   6093. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 29, 2013 at 02:03 PM (#4428220)
The FBI can't interview people such as the ex-girlfriend?
But the domestic violence incident was a matter of record for years, as it happened in 2009.


Shitty Boyfriend Determined To Strike In US
   6094. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 02:05 PM (#4428223)
Hezbollah. Hamas is very different.

And they shot down a drone, and another six months ago; I don't know that we can conclude from this that Israel always catches their drones.


My mistake. The point is simply that our adversaries are not going to overwhelm us with a fleet of anti-tank drones, as long as we have air supremacy.

Every prediction of a "wonder-weapon", right up to the Rumsfeld obsession with precision-guided munitions and special forces, has proven to be a bust.

The answer is always combined arms.
   6095. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 02:05 PM (#4428224)
All the military thinking on urban combat is that a closely integrated, combined arms team of infantry, tanks, combat engineers, and even artillery (used in a direct fire capacity) is the battle winning formula.


And all the military thinking about tanks is that we have plenty of them. Thus the original point of the link. (Also, insurgents seem to get by reasonably well without tanks.)
   6096. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 02:09 PM (#4428232)
And all the military thinking about tanks is that we have plenty of them. Thus the original point of the link.

Right. But we won't have plenty forever. I'm just saying it's worth wasting a few hundred million dollars (in the trillion dollar ocean of gov't waste) to keep the tank plant operating. It's an insurance policy if nothing else.

(Also, insurgents seem to get by reasonably well without tanks.)

If you ignore the fact that they lose every direct encounter with our forces, and suffer many multiples of our casualties whenever they stand and fight, sure, they do just fine.

You can't police a country by planting IEDs. The governing power doesn't have the option of running from a fight.
   6097. Morty Causa Posted: April 29, 2013 at 02:16 PM (#4428236)
6011:

Now that is a handsome man.
   6098. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 02:26 PM (#4428245)
You can't police a country by planting IEDs. The governing power doesn't have the option of running from a fight.


So we should only need tanks to occupy territories we plan on governing. Which should approach zero. Thus, tankless water heating.
   6099. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 29, 2013 at 02:41 PM (#4428269)
So we should only need tanks to occupy territories we plan on governing. Which should approach zero.

Or supporting the existing gov't, so it's not zero.

We need advanced tanks for, at a minimum, defending South Korea, defending Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the emirates, and defending Poland/Hungary/Ukraine/the Baltics, etc.

If you want to cut spending, tanks are cheap. Focus on the multiple boondoggle advanced fighter programs.
   6100. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 29, 2013 at 02:50 PM (#4428282)
We need advanced tanks for, at a minimum, defending South Korea,


From whom? The Hermits up north? If that goes hot it goes nuclear and Pyongyang's a glassy wasteland. The only real question in such a potential conflict is how to prevent as many deaths in SK as possible, how to keep China from going belligerent over US forces active on their doorstep, and how to bring the remains of the former NK into the modern world as painlessly as possible.

defending Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the emirates,


From whom? Iran? Please. Their own citizens? Not a war we should be involved in.

and defending Poland/Hungary/Ukraine/the Baltics, etc.


Again, from whom? Russia? Somehow I doubt a potential Russia vs US and Western Europe free-for-all in the mid-21st century is going to come down to tanks.
Page 61 of 66 pages ‹ First  < 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4166 - 12:35am, Nov 23)
Last: bobm

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(552 - 12:33am, Nov 23)
Last: Mike Webber

NewsblogRays name managerial finalists: Cash, Ibanez, Wakamatsu | Tampa Bay Times
(12 - 12:17am, Nov 23)
Last: rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(96 - 12:07am, Nov 23)
Last: Shibal

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(17 - 11:55pm, Nov 22)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(965 - 11:50pm, Nov 22)
Last: steagles

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-21-2014
(48 - 11:13pm, Nov 22)
Last: Sweatpants

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(28 - 11:04pm, Nov 22)
Last: Squash

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(134 - 10:49pm, Nov 22)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogDeadspin: Curt Schilling’s Son Accidentally Brings Fake Grenade To Logan Airport
(10 - 10:33pm, Nov 22)
Last: puck

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(24 - 10:32pm, Nov 22)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogFriars show interest in dealing for Bruce | MLB.com
(19 - 10:19pm, Nov 22)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogPirates DFA Ike Davis, clear path for Pedro Alvarez - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
(4 - 10:00pm, Nov 22)
Last: jingoist

NewsblogMLB.com: White Sox Land Adam LaRoche With 2 Year/$25M Deal
(19 - 8:03pm, Nov 22)
Last: boteman

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(9 - 7:26pm, Nov 22)
Last: PreservedFish

Page rendered in 0.9831 seconds
52 querie(s) executed