A Philosopher's Blog

Go Vote!

Posted in Uncategorized by Michael LaBossiere on November 6, 2012
English: Ballot Box showing preferential voting

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If you haven’t voted already (I did), be sure to exercise your right to vote.

While it is easy to be cynical about voting, the votes do matter and it is up to us to decide the outcome of the elections.

Sadly, the turnout for elections is generally not very good and the most serious problem we face is not voter fraud but lack of participation. Somewhat ironically, the attempts of certain Republicans to “reduce” voter fraud most likely will just have the impact of scaring people away from voting and disenfranchising people unjustly. Naturally, any shenanigans by the Democrats will also be detrimental to the integrity of the voting process.

My view is, of course, that every American citizen who is eligible to vote should vote (and people who are not, should and must not). That is the point of having a democracy.

So, regardless of your political views, be sure to cast your vote.

Remember to vote LaBossiere in 2016. I assume Christ Cristie will pick me as his VP choice.

Enhanced by Zemanta

104 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] Go Vote! (aphilosopher.wordpress.com) […]

  2. T. J. Babson said, on November 6, 2012 at 9:16 am

    If Obama wins, Mike and biomass, you cannot say we didn’t try our best to warn you.

    • WTP said, on November 6, 2012 at 9:54 am

      If these choices only effected their own lives, this would be rather amusing. Like watching a European or Left Coast election. Unfortunately that’s not the case anymore. If Obama wins this election, given the BS being taught in universities and perpetuated via a significantly left-leaning media, we may have reached a tipping point in which the growth of government will not be stopped short of a much greater catastrophy than we have seen in the last 100 years. And only then if the answer to that specifically unforseen event is not even more government.

    • biomass2 said, on November 6, 2012 at 10:13 am

      If Obama wins, I won’t gloat. Can I expect as much from you and magus if Romney wins?

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 6, 2012 at 1:18 pm

      If your dire predictions come true, I will join you on the barricades to fight against the ambisexual, job-destroying, communist, socialist, atheist, radical-Muslim, success-hating, people-enslaving, freedom-hating, money-hating, etc. monsters.

      Naturally, if the straw man version of Romney gets elected, then I expect you to join me on the barricades.

      • magus71 said, on November 6, 2012 at 1:28 pm

        Speaking of straw men, I remember your assessment that Bush did more damage to the US than bin Laden. Interesting.

      • biomass2 said, on November 6, 2012 at 1:34 pm

        Mike, you omitted “liberal” from you list. Was that accidental, or have you come to realize that for the majority of those who join the discussion on here, the term “liberal” is synonymous with any or all of the labels you listed? Allow me to add flag-burning, anti-American, intellectual, baby-killing, gun confiscating, , regulation whores.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 6, 2012 at 1:37 pm

          I stuck in the “etc.” to cover all that. 🙂 But thanks for adding to the list.

          • magus71 said, on November 6, 2012 at 2:24 pm

            Just remember a vote for Romney is a vote for racism and a vote against women’s rights.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 6, 2012 at 2:39 pm

              I don’t think that Romney is a racist. In the past, he has been a moderate on women’s rights (or even liberal). I am not sure what he really is now-he went right for the primary but seemed to tack slightly towards the center.

              Romney certainly has flexible views-but he doesn’t seem to have drifted towards racism-at least he is consistent about that.

            • Anonymous said, on November 6, 2012 at 2:44 pm

              Vote like your lady parts depend on it.

  3. […] Go Vote! (aphilosopher.wordpress.com) […]

  4. […] Go Vote! (aphilosopher.wordpress.com) […]

  5. […] Go Vote! (aphilosopher.wordpress.com) […]

  6. Election Day « thoughtfulbeliever said, on November 6, 2012 at 11:55 am

    […] Go Vote! (aphilosopher.wordpress.com) […]

  7. Chris Burkhardt said, on November 7, 2012 at 10:41 am

    > While it is easy to be cynical about voting

    Ah, well since you brought the Cynics into it, here’s my reasoning for why I didn’t (and don’t) vote:


    • WTP said, on November 7, 2012 at 11:44 am

      Ah, yes…cynicism, the intellectual’s excuse for being too lazy to make an effort…or am I being cynical?

      • Chris Burkhardt said, on November 7, 2012 at 11:58 am

        You’re doing it right! Although laziness is also a virtue on its own merits without needing help from the cynics.

        • WTP said, on November 7, 2012 at 12:54 pm

          Exactly! Those who stay in the tree won’t get eaten by the lions.

  8. magus71 said, on November 13, 2012 at 10:13 pm

    Mike, what do you think of this story, that in some precincts in Ohio, Obama got 100% of the votes? I hear the same think happened in counties in Pennsylvania.

    Funny how these “mistakes” are happening in swing states so often.


    • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 14, 2012 at 7:17 am

      100% would be suspicious. Are there any other sources besides the one you link to?

      • magus71 said, on November 14, 2012 at 9:31 am

        There are several. In other places, people were told that they’d already voted (someone else had used their name), and in one place in Penn. a mural of Barack Obama was placed at a polling site on the wall. A judge ordered it covered.


        Problems were reported mostly in swing states. I cannot prove that voter fraud was what tipped the balance in Obama’s favor, but I do believe there was more fraud in this election than perhaps in any in America.


        • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 14, 2012 at 12:37 pm

          I saw a piece on the mural-it was on the wall in a high school. While that probably violated some regulation, I am not sure that people would be compelled or swayed into voting for Obama because there was a mural nearby. But you never know-perhaps it reminded people that he would give them free stuff.

          If the situation is this dire, then surely it is just a matter of time before Romney is declared the rightful winner. After all, if there is that much fraud then the Republicans should be all over it with their lawyers. And if the bloggers can find so many problems, then professionals should be able to expose the full extent of the problem.

          • magus71 said, on November 14, 2012 at 12:51 pm

            No one cares, Mike. It’s Bread and Circuses. The people don’t care about the lies of Bhengazi. I’m not trying to make a bigger deal than it is, but people couldn’t care less about it. There were obvious lies and mess-ups there. People dont really care that much about voter fraud. They have their’s, who cares about the Republic…

            You’re avoiding the issue here. The Republicans may indeed go after the fraud with lawyers: And even if the fraud undeniably occurred, nothing will change.

            Our country isn’t going down the tubes because of politicians. It’s going down the tubes because of its people. The politicians are our country’s people.

            • WTP said, on November 14, 2012 at 12:59 pm

              And why are it’s people electing these politicians? Because of the politics of the hard leftist academia and left-of-center MSM. Most of whom present themselves as impartial and “reasonable”.

            • biomass2 said, on November 14, 2012 at 2:11 pm

              No one seems to want to answer the question(s) I’ve heard answered again and again. If the cIa had a report 3 days after the Benghazi event and Susan Rice merely stated what that report said (that it appeared to be a spontaneous event) why is John McCain ^really^ so dead set against her being appointed? And why is it that the cIa seems have gotten its I so incorrect so often under various administrations

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 14, 2012 at 3:42 pm


            • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 14, 2012 at 3:47 pm

              The CIA is a bureaucracy and has all the standard ills plus some if its own.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 14, 2012 at 3:46 pm

              People do care about what happened, at least when they remember. I don’t buy the moral decay line, having seen it presented since before Socrates.

              In any case, saying Americans are immoral won’t help the Republican Party-except to give some folks the warm feeling of self-righteousness.

            • magus71 said, on November 14, 2012 at 6:06 pm

              ” I don’t buy the moral decay line, having seen it presented since before Socrates.”

              You would agree it ebbs and flows, no?

              I’m not trying to help Republicans. I’m looking at the math.

            • magus71 said, on November 14, 2012 at 6:07 pm

              So moral decline didn’t accelerate the decline of the Roman empire?

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 15, 2012 at 11:38 am

              Good question. Rome had slavery which is a moral abomination. A case can be made that the lower moral quality of the leadership had an impact. But other factors clearly had a major role.

            • magus71 said, on November 14, 2012 at 3:54 pm


              The CIA report was the report given by David Petraeus in the 14th. His testimony directly conflicts with the CIA station chief in Bhengazi.

              “The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.”


              This turned out not to be true. The administration pushed this story for two weeks. Meanwhile, several agencies and even senators know about Petraeus’ infidelity, yet the President does not? Then, two days after the election, Petraeus resigns. So you have the CIA director, who knows that his bosses know about his troubles, giving testimony–which is favourable to the bosses whom control his professional destiny, but is ultimately not true (there was never any evidence that it was true)–and which contradicts every report from US people at the Bhengazi annex.

              This testimony also went agaisnt every account from Libyans whom were on the ground when the attack occured. The “offensive movie” account was constructed out of whole cloth–a movie that had only around 2000 views in September and first apperaed on YouTube in June.

              People in this administation knew that Petaeus was in troule, kept their mouth shut while he made statements that helped the administration’s habit of avoiding the use of the word “terrorism”, and then was kicked to the curb when the election was over and the power brokers felt safe.

            • WTP said, on November 14, 2012 at 6:29 pm

              I don’t buy the moral decay line, having seen it presented since before Socrates.

              So moral decay does not happen, or moral decay is not hapening, or it happens but does not matter…or something else. Nice vague comment he can clarify later depending on your response. Classic sophist behavior.

            • magus71 said, on November 14, 2012 at 6:34 pm

              Just not sure why the fact that philosophers before Socrates made similar arguments as myself has anything to do with if those things really did happen. The question is not if those philosophers made this argument, but if they had a legitimate point. I believe I do.


            • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 15, 2012 at 1:22 pm

              Sorry, I was rushed yesterday (test day for my 4 classes). Here is an actual argument:

              Looking back at history, it can be seen that there is constant reference to the immorality of segment X of the population, as described by people critical of that segment. For example, Meletus spoke of the corruption of the youth at the hands of Socrates. Of course, the youth were seen as corrupt because they emulated Socrates’ criticism of those who professed knowledge and virtue, but lacked both. Now the fine folks at Fox and others are bemoaning the moral corruption of blacks, Hispanics and single women. The evidence of their moral corruption is their failure of the majority of each group to vote for Romney. The possibility that there are other reasons is generally not even considered. For example, I saw the segments on Fox claiming that single women (who went mostly for Obama) voted because they want abortions and free birth control. In contrast, the segments claim, married women care about America. The evidence for this? The majority of married women voted for Romney.

              So, the moral decay argument is usually a case of “these people did not do as I wanted them to, therefore the explanation must be that they are immoral. My proof? They did not do as I wanted them to.”

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 15, 2012 at 1:23 pm

              Have you noticed that WTP is rather like a reverse toilet?

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 15, 2012 at 6:33 pm

              WTP provides a fascinating case study in the operations of a certain sort of mind. He lashes out at others with excessive vitriol but is taken aback and shocked when someone makes even a very tame negative remark in response. It is rather like an ocean of venom being enraged when a single drop of acid rain falls.

              I will say that I am sorry for the remark-a moral failing on my part, to be sure.

            • WTP said, on November 14, 2012 at 11:18 pm

              Gotta love it…from one of Mike’s colleagues at FAMU

              The Gospel According to Apostle Barak: In Search of a More Perfect Political Union as “Heaven Here on Earth”

              Yes, Barack had worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people, especially those who elected him in 2008. His followers needed to re-elect him to a second term, so that he could continue to accomplish the promises he made, thus, realizing his vision of America as a more perfect political union or “heaven here on earth.”

              Then, as I began to contemplate ways to assist Barack in his 2012 re-election bid something miraculous happened. I felt God’s (His) Spirit beckoning me in my dreams at night. Listening, cautiously, I learned that Jesus walked the earth to create a more civilized society, Martin (Luther King) walked the earth to create a more justified society, but, Apostle Barack, the name he was called in my dreams, would walk the earth to create a more equalized society, for the middle class and working poor. Apostle Barack, the next young leader with a new cause, had been taken to the mountaintop and allowed to see over the other side. He had the answers to unlock the kingdom of “heaven here on earth” for his followers. The answers were repeated – over and over – in speeches Barack had made from his presidential announcement to his inaugural address. Those speeches or his teachings contained the answers to the middle class and working poor people living in a “heaven here on earth.” For when the answers were unlocked and enacted, Apostle Barack’s vision of America would be realized.

              She is a professor at Florida A&M University, a former assistant vice president for academic affairs, past president of her university’s chapter of United Faculty of Florida, a graduate of the National Education Association’s Emerging Leader Academy and a two-time recipient of the Who’s Who Among America’s Teachers Award.

              Another example of what “education” has come to in this country. Paid for with my tax dollars. Our country is going down the tubes because these are the people teaching our youth.

              h/t to PJ Media


            • WTP said, on November 15, 2012 at 1:49 pm

              Have you noticed that WTP is rather like a reverse toilet?

              OK, so in what way was that called for? Or is biomass posting as Mike now?
              Not so sure I’m welcome you’re responding to me, but I suppose that by your comment I can conclude that my awaiting moderation comment was approved.

              So if we’re going to be reduced to engaging in actual ad hominem attacks, has anyone noticed that Mike is rather like an epistemological douche bag? Perhaps technically suspect, but I just liked the sound of it too much to pass it up.

            • magus71 said, on November 15, 2012 at 2:11 pm

              Mike said: “For example, I saw the segments on Fox claiming that single women (who went mostly for Obama) voted because they want abortions and free birth control. In contrast, the segments claim, married women care about America.”

              I think you’re simplifying the argument here. I asked the question on my facebook page what rights women were afraid of losing is he were to become president. They couldn’t give me an answer but many had posted items about how Romney supposedly hated women. One made a comment about how Romeny wanted to keep women “barefoot and pregnant”. I asked her to provide a quote or fact that supported that statement and pointed to the fact that Romeny’s wife has a college degree. Again no response was given. .

              I believe it is absolutely true that single women voted for Obama because of a vague, undefined fear of Romney.

              As far as the moral decline argument, it is not the only argument for our decline. Buchanan makes many compelling arguments for our decline in Suicide of a Superpower. My theories have much in common with Buchanan and Oswald Spengler’s:

              ‘Buchanan’s title echoed Spengler’s Decline of the West, in which the German had theorized that civilizations have a predictable life cycle analogous to the seasons. In winter, democracy becomes the form of government, religion curdles into materialism, and the wealthy plunder their empire while fetishizing the barbarians beyond their borders…

              …their nationalistic myths had been revised and were now objects of scorn to native and immigrant alike. With nothing to pass on but material comforts, Western people were no longer investing their capital and energies into posterity, they were enjoying their wealth today. There is a jagged edge at the bottom of such a thesis: for Spengler, the only power strong enough to overthrow the worship of money is blood and tribe.”

              This just about perfectly illustrates my beliefs.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 15, 2012 at 5:47 pm

              I would say that women were concerned with such matters as:

              1. Romney’s shifting positions on abortion (a threat to reproductive rights).
              2. Perceived Republican/conservative hostility expressed towards women (Akin, Mourdock, Limbaugh and others).
              3. Remarks like “legitimate rape” and claims such as getting pregnant by rape is a gift from God.
              4. Attacks on the Lilly Ledbeter act and criticisms of the notions of equal pay for equal work (the right to equal pay for equal work).
              5. Conservative attacks on birth control and women’s health issues (the right to comparable health care to men).

              The fear factor among some women probably arises from the extreme social conservatives. You know, the “legitimate rape” and “rape pregnancy is a gift from God” folks.

              You need to expand your circle of friends if you cannot find a woman who can list a single right.

            • magus71 said, on November 15, 2012 at 2:13 pm

              Sorry, link to my above quotes Buchanan?Spengler piece:


            • WTP said, on November 15, 2012 at 6:59 pm

              WTP provides a fascinating case study in the operations of a certain sort of mind. He lashes out at others with excessive vitriol but is taken aback and shocked when someone makes even a very tame negative remark in response. It is rather like an ocean of venom being enraged when a single drop of acid rain falls.

              I will say that I am sorry for the remark-a moral failing on my part, to be sure.

              OK, so while I accept your back-handed appology, I still gotta respond to that. I think you’re doing some serious projecting here. While I most definitely will attack lame ideas, I have never gone so far as to call anyone a “dipshit” or compare them to a “reverse toilet”. While those were probably “very tame negative remarks” where I grew up, I seriously doubt you could say the same or you wouldn’t have survived 7th grade.

              Nor have I ever run crying to my friends to ask them to defend my honor or speak up for me. I say what I say and I’m fine with it. While I regret the occasional vulgarity my concern is the idea. While I have given up on conversing with biomass, I never asked that he be banned and in fact spoke up in support of not banning him. My only reason for not engaging him is due to the lack or seriousness in his arguments. You OTOH, Mike, ceased conversing with me after I took you to the metaphorical mat such that you were left denying the meaning of words as clearly defined in the dictionary. Then you act all passive-agressive butt-hurt. Before I respond again, I must ask…Is the word Sissy “excessive vitrol”?

            • magus71 said, on November 15, 2012 at 7:17 pm

              What rights did Romney move to take away from women while in Massachussetts?

              My sister has a Master’s degree in social work, is a left-wing idealogue, and did not provide an anwswer to my question.

              What would it take for you to lose faith in Obama, Mike? I remember you once told me that you were suspicious of any theory (such as evolution) in which the faithful make it impossible to disprove their theory. What would have to happen for you to admit that Obama’s policies are bad for America?

              Here’s David Goldman, world-class econimist (PHD London School of Economics) and outstanding social comentator:


              “Be afraid. Be very afraid. The America of 2012 is not the America of 2008. If Barack Obama wins this election, the America of 2016 will resemble the beaten and bankrupt countries of Western Europe more than it will the America we grew up in. This isn’t Chicken Little speaking. Take a hard look at the trends, and then drop everything else you had in mind for the next four weeks, and make sure everyone you know votes for Romney-Ryan. We have one last chance to save the republic.

              1) Dependency on government handouts: As Dick Morris points out in his latest book Here Come the Black Helicopters!, 20% of Americans received some kind of means-tested government check in 2008, when George W. Bush left office. Now 32% of Americans get some kind of means-tested support — food stamps, disability, welfare, and so forth. That’s a third of the country. Transfer payments are now fully one-fifth of personal income, as I observed in an essay last year. Obama’s arbitrary and perhaps illegal changes in welfare work requirements create a cycle of dependency, as the Romney campaign has warned. They also create a built-in majority for the welfare state. Morris observes that the shift to dependency gives the Democrats a majority on paper. The only question now is turnout. Give this another four years, and the number of Americans who have a stake in economic growth will be a minority of the population.”


              We are weaker than we were a decade ago. We will continue to grow weaker under Obama’s policies, not only because those policies drain our national bank account, but because they drain the will of America’s people to put as much into the system as they take.


            • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 15, 2012 at 7:34 pm

              Massachusetts Romney was liberal-moderate. However, Primary Romney distanced himself from that Romney. I’m not sure what President Romney would have done. Would he return to Massachusetts Romney? Be severely conservative? Be moderate?

              As far as the dependency, this requires some context: the economy was crippled and is still in rough shape.

              Also, the dependency culture that consumes the most is not the poor but the wealthy. So, if we want to reduce dependency to cut costs, then that culture should be targeted first.

              I do, of course, agree that the state should not serve in the role of funneling money from one group to another. Which is why I favor cutting subsidies to oil companies, closing loopholes and so on. To be honest, I had hoped Ryan and Romney would have the guts to lay out what loopholes they would close and what deductions they would remove. I would support many such closings and removals-even ones that benefit me. If it would help the country, I would accept an increase in my taxes. So, I’ll throw this out:

              Rich Americans-If I give up Bush era tax cuts will you? Naturally, I’ll still have to go to work even when I am making less and paying more taxes. I won’t threaten anyone-after all, the increase will be relatively minor and bring me back to where I was before. It will be a bit of a challenge, but I’ll sacrifice for the good of my country. How about it?

            • magus71 said, on November 15, 2012 at 7:36 pm

              I should clarify the responses I got on facebook: There was one response from a female but she admitted she wasn’t concerned about losing rights, but stated that Obama would give her more stuff, like free contraceptives.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 15, 2012 at 8:05 pm

              Do your Facebook friends constitute an adequate sample in terms of size and diversity to represent the women of America? To adequately represent a population of this size, you’d need a minimum of 1,500 female friends and they would need to correspond to the general population in terms of the relevant qualities (age, income, education, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, and so on). Plus, any biasing factors would need to be taken into account. After all, the sample is not random-they are people you friended or who friended you.

            • WTP said, on November 16, 2012 at 12:07 am

              Back on the main point here about why the country is going down the tubes…

          • biomass2 said, on November 14, 2012 at 2:04 pm

            Where I live in PA Pro Romney voters wouldn’t be swayed to vote for Obama with a gun. Neither would the so-called “independent” voters here be swayed.

        • biomass2 said, on November 15, 2012 at 2:58 pm

          magus71: I like the info in the following article: It contains the actual texts of Ms. SRice’s interview with Schieffer and the FactChecker’s evaluation of McCain’s “assessment”. It’s worth a read if not only to see the kind of reaction JMc dragged out when defending Ms. CRice’s statements concerning WMD’s etc.

          In intelligence, information comes in from all directions. Some, I would assume, is more accurate than others. Someone else in intelligence gathers such info,mashes it into a neat compilation that should accurately reflect the state of info at the moment., and sends that intelligence,as a matter of practice, up the line. If one is in a leading position, should one leap ahead of the information provided by one’s best ^intelligence^ sources (in this case the cIa?)? If the ‘intelligence’ was still in its rougher form and didn’t match more immediate information that hadn’t filtered through the intelligence chain, who’s responsible if it’s wrong? A slow, inefficient chain of intelligence, or the person speaking from their intelligence reports?
          Or maybe it’s just JMc who showed us his judgment in his choice for VP running mate in ’08 😦

          And WTP: What can I say? You should be glad it was Mike making the observation and not me. We agree on the toilet observation and then some.The difference is that I’m willing to tell you directly, under any screen name (see erik Jan 28 2011), what a pompous mean-spirited dipshit I think you are.

          • magus71 said, on November 15, 2012 at 3:48 pm


            The problem with the “it’s difficult to connect the dots” theory (which does apply in some cases) in the Benghazi case is that you had CIA and State Department officials sending emails directly to the Whitehouse telling them what was happeing. This was not so much intelligence work at this point, as front-line reporting of a raging battle. This is analgous to a police dispatcher refusing to send a cop to a reported school shooting because “we don’t know what’s going on”. You send the cops to find out what’s going on, and if need be take action.

            In any case, the first law of combat and intelligence work was ignored: Always believe the guy on the ground. If you have credible men telling you something that’s happening right in front of their eyes, that trumps all the arcane analysis and connection of miniscule pieces of information you may have done.

            • biomass2 said, on November 15, 2012 at 5:13 pm

              Who ignored the first law of combat? With this info is it always a matter of what you see is what you get? Can’t some issues get pretty complicated?
              Let’s say there was concern for the taking of hostages (a la the Carter era). Let’s say there are emails among all the reams of information that the select committees will be examining that show that some specific “persons of interest” have been identified and that their identities, if revealed to the enemy, through the (let’s say) ‘hostages’, could compromise major progress in intelligence gathering in one of the major hotspots of the world. I’ve read spy books less complicated than that. Wouldn’t such a scenario cause what we, the American public, believe to be all important—-the lives of an ambassador to be rather inconsequential?

              Caution: Road Slippery Ahead///Four Dead in Benghazi. What’s that compared to Four Dead in Ohio? Great song. Mitt Romney’s thought of taking variations for his excuse road trip. Four Dead in Ohio —-I lost in Ohio because Obama killed my voters in each hamlet and city. . . .No wait. I saw a vision last evening assuring me that Obama won by offering gifts. Yeah, that’s it. I’ll go with that one. Just the view of one credible man crying himself to sleep each night acting on what he thinks he wishes he knows.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 15, 2012 at 5:53 pm

              I had hoped the that Iraq WMD fiasco and the original 9/11 fiasco would have improved the intelligence system. But perhaps our intelligence services have been distracted by other things? Or maybe intelligence is not a perfect science and things go wrong without any malign intent on the part of those involved?

            • WTP said, on November 15, 2012 at 6:13 pm

              So the ad hominem continues unabated…Before I respond, another thing for Mikey…”reverse toilet”? After months of ignoring me, that’s the best you can do? I would expect something a little wittier from someone with such an advanced “education”.

              So what with Mike actually referencing my existence, perhaps I’ll reciprocate by taking a bite-o-biomass…

              I find it rather fascinating that something I said, not even to yourself but to Mike, got so under your skin that you’re still whining about it two years later. It’s almost charming in a way. Precious, even. And thus you consider me a “pompous mean-spirited dipshit”. Touché.

              Along the same lines, the “Spaghetti-armed metrosexual” thing…That’s gotta be damn near as old. For someone to still be hung up on it is intriguing. But here’s something that’s been bugging me given what we’ve learned recently…and this is probably more of a question for Magus than yourself…I find it rather interesting that you took such a slight so hard, you being a big strong discus thrower and almost-football player. Just rather odd that these two he-man, not-spaghetti-armed activities didn’t come up at the time. They were only raised several months later when you were in a more, shall we say, creative frame of mind. Magus, curious if you find anything incongruous there?

              There must have been some considerable gridiron talent at that school where there was no room on the football team for the discus thrower. Those two activities tend to have a strong correlation.

            • biomass2 said, on November 15, 2012 at 7:26 pm

              What you said was Oh, bull fucking shit. I had been following this blog and commenting on it for two years or more as biomass2 before that and no one–and may I emphasize that one more time—no one had stooped to that kind of response. And, unless your memory has failed you, there have been a few times when you’ve gone off the deep end and, I believe, even magus71 commented negatively on your tone. I’m not whining about it. I’m repeating to you a message that you can’t seem to comprehend.
              As for your last two paragraphs: “. . .here’s something that’s been bugging me. . .” It seems much too easy to plant a little bug up your butt, doesn’t it? (see that erik Jan. 28, 2011 post) Your brain is just whirling all around in those last two paragraphs. 🙂
              And yes, you’re still a pompous, mean-spirited dipshit. I doubt that’ll change no matter how much we write about it.

            • magus71 said, on November 16, 2012 at 12:17 am


              So now your argument is that it doesn’t matter? Than we must admit Watergate doesn’t matter.

            • biomass2 said, on November 16, 2012 at 12:33 am

              Name one that’s been right that I claimed was wrong that has been proven wrong by independent sources .Or at least credible sources other than yourself—and by credible I don’t mean Limbaugh, Breitbart, Beck, et al.. I could use DailyKos, TalkingPointsMemo, etc as primary sources, but I’m well aware of their biases. I know they’re opinionators)

              You name one of your claims about Obama that I denied after you offered decent evidence, and I’ll admit I was wrong. More than I could expect in return from some, I expect. But let’s allow at least a 4-8 month gap between the claim and the final, definitive proof. At least allow the dust to settle.

              And please don’t , as some might be inclined, bring up the birth certificate, grade transcript stuff again. Give me a smoking gun. Something like the 47% videotape. . . might be helpful.

  9. magus71 said, on November 15, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    More cracks:

    From Michael Yon’s Facebook page:

    Important Message from Marine Field Grade Officer

    This officer served in Afghanistan. I publish his email with permission, but withhold his name for obvious reasons. PLEASE FORWARD THIS ONE:


    …the election has put a damper on my motivation to contribute. What I would really like to write about is the loss of faith and confidence in our administration and. I found myself seriously considering resigning my commission last week and I haven’t spoken to a single one of my peers that doesn’t feel similarly.

    I am very concerned that we’re reaching a point where many people like me are seriously questioning why they would risk everything in defense of a country that they no longer recognize and in service to an administration that will sacrifice American lives and careers for politics without batting an eye. But of course I can’t really write about that until I retire next year.

    Maybe I’m being overly dramatic, but the debacle in [Afghanistan], 10 years of General and Flag officers failing to lead us, sequestration, the discussions about significantly scaling back retirement benefits for military members and the significant decrease in funding available for training, leads me to believe that we are facing a perfect storm that will decimate morale and will cause a massive exodus of the good people from military service.

    I think there are a lot of us who feel betrayed by a clueless, selfish nation that thinks that because they say “thank you” to a veteran from time to time, we will continue to do the heavy lifting and they can keep maxing out the credit card at the mall. That scares the hell out of me.

    Anyway, sorry for the rant. As always, your thoughts on any of this are of great interest to me…

    • T. J. Babson said, on November 15, 2012 at 11:50 pm

      Why should the people from red states do all the fighting and dying for the blue state people who despise them?

      • biomass2 said, on November 16, 2012 at 12:00 am

        Do they? Should there be a volunteer army? And then there’s this:

      • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 16, 2012 at 6:47 am

        What? Are you claiming only Red State Republicans serve in the military? If so, that is obviously untrue.

        • magus71 said, on November 16, 2012 at 8:20 am

          Yes, that’s what he’s claiming.

        • T. J. Babson said, on November 16, 2012 at 11:20 am

          The “Truth-O-Meter” grades it as “Mostly True.”

          • T. J. Babson said, on November 16, 2012 at 12:55 pm

            Evidence here: http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/E8F05D884C7E78E45A200DC953ED3854.gif

            Compare “over-represented regions” with red vs. blue states.

            • biomass2 said, on November 16, 2012 at 1:41 pm

              Your heritage.org graph might benefit just a wee from an accompanying wealth relative to population ratio visual. At the time of their enlistment could the young people in those red and orange states, for whatever reason, see as clear a path to a solid financial future in their states as young people in those gray and blue states?
              Did they all enlist voluntarily because they’re patriots? Am I sensing an implication that only the true patriots live in the south? Gee whiz, by golly, I thought Palin’s state (you know, the one that would, like Texas, secede) would be redder than red. But it’s grey, you betcha. Could that possibly have anything to do with the relative wealth of the population there? Or some other factor that has nothing at all to do with the pretty heritage map, perhaps.

        • T. J. Babson said, on November 16, 2012 at 11:25 am

          And I notice that nobody has taken issue with the second half of my statement “the blue state people who despise them.”

          I often feel that blue staters (BSers?) have more sympathy for the people shouting “Death to America” than they do for evangelical Christian social conservatives.

    • biomass2 said, on November 15, 2012 at 11:56 pm

      It’s fortunate that we have a volunteer army to carry on our worldwide mission. Those who return alive deserve to be treated much better than they are. Government treatment of its returning veterans has historically been grossly wanting. Who hasn’t heard of Agent Orange? Could we, possibly cut back the defense budget relative to foreign interventions and increase the budget for returning vets?

      The anonymous writer seems to be all over the place here. He uses phrases like “in service to an administration” and “lost faith in our administration”. Just the Obama administration? Or other administrations? Like the Bush administration, for example? The Johnson and Nixon Administrations? Because later he refers to “the debacle in [Afghanistan], 10 years of General and Flag officers failing to lead us. . .” . I can’t figure out whether Mr. X is fed up with Republican ^and^ Democratic leadership at the top and/or all military leadership above him and his peers— or both. I don’t think this is intended by the writer as a specific condemnation of the Obama administration. If it is, it needs a rewrite. If another reader believes it is, he needs to give it a more careful reading.

      Significantly, he hasn’t “spoken to a single one of [his] peers that doesn’t feel similarly.” As hearsay evidence that doesn’t carry much weight, coming from someone who admits he’s ranting. He’s obviously very upset,and
      his observations should be scrutinized accordingly. Expecting us to assume that all military personnel below a certain level feel a certain way is, in a way , like believing the guy who stands behind the lady wearing a fur coat in the checkout at the grocery story,watches her use food stamps, then makes generally critical statements about the welfare system. Or. pointing to a case where a thug beats the criminal justice system and declaring that the courts are worthless. What I observe in my world is limited. What you observe in yours is limited. What he observes in his is limited. For what it’s worth, and as a personal observation—on a level with the observations above—I know 2 vets who never set foot in Iraq or Afghanistan. Neither one spent much time outsde. Their views, as I understand them, aren’t nearly as negative as Mr. X’s.

      • magus71 said, on November 16, 2012 at 1:19 am

        I can only say right now that Afghanistan really is a debacle and will get worse in January. It is quite amazing to realize that our generals have actually regressed in their ability to win wars from the Civil War. If Sherman had Allen’s technoligical terrors, the Taliban would be begging for mercy. As it is now, they’ll be running Central Asia by 2016.

        The author doesn’t expect you to believe that all military personnel feel the same way he does, only to realize that if all his associates believe the same way, it is a significant thing. I have seen the effects of combat on soldiers. It is not combat that crushes soldiers. It is combat without the legitimate opportunity to eliminate the enemy the destroys their morale and makes them question the validity of the fight. We did it in Vietnam, and we made it even worse in Afghanistan. Thus, we performed worse in Afghanistan than we did in Vietnam. We really did.

        • WTP said, on November 16, 2012 at 9:08 am

          It is quite amazing to realize that our generals have actually regressed in their ability to win wars from the Civil War. If Sherman had Allen’s technological terrors, the Taliban would be begging for mercy. As it is now, they’ll be running Central Asia by 2016.

          There’s nothing wrong with our generals. The problem lies, as you state elsewhere in regard to politicians, in our people. We’ve become weak intellectually and morally. It’s gotten to the point where the intellectuals have defined strength as a form of moral and even physical weakness. Mike has done so himself on this blog. As long as we allow such intellectual vacuousness to persist, especially in our educational systems, we will continue to handcuff our generals.

          You know it’s both appropriate and yet a bit blind of you to bring up Sherman in this context. His style of warfare has been condemned quite broadly in our cultural institutions. I’m curious if he’s even respected in military tactics courses any more.

          What is getting you guys killed over there is not the Taliban nor AQ nor the US military’s poor senior leadership, it’s the moral and intellectual weakness of our homefront institutions.

          • magus71 said, on November 16, 2012 at 10:57 am

            “There’s nothing wrong with our generals.”

            I disagree. Writing an article as to why. But in short, out generals are politicians and careerists. That includes Petraeus.

            “You know it’s both appropriate and yet a bit blind of you to bring up Sherman in this context. His style of warfare has been condemned quite broadly in our cultural institutions. I’m curious if he’s even respected in military tactics courses any more.”

            I agree. And that’s the problem. As Sherman said, any attempt to make war easy will end in disaster. In our case, easy means not having to kill. I didn’t say “fight” as Sun Tzu did. Sun Tzu’s winning without fighting could also entail poisoning an entire village.

            Please read this:


            Sherman would win in Afghanistan. Or he’d at least have the guts to step down if he thought he couldn’t.

            • WTP said, on November 16, 2012 at 11:46 am

              I still stand by “there’s nothing wrong with our generals”. If they could operate in a less PC environment, I believe they would be doing a much better job. Look what happened to McChrystal over basically nothing. MacArthur had a far more difficult relationship with Truman and was only relieved as a result of tactical issues. Having to spend so much energy on PC stuff takes away from being able to focus on their job. You’ve stated similar frustrations in regard to practical soldiering.

              Thanks for the link, though. I think I’ve stated here myself as similarly stated in the iink “All wars in which bullets—or arrows—fly are wars of attrition.” Though I would also include cold wars. I understand his point on the over emphasis of maneuvering, but see my comment on Sun Tzu below. I agree also on the issue of airpower winning wars. An argument my father tried to beat into me when my “teachers” would allude otherwise. I finally understood after some time. A war isn’t won until the infantry soldier takes and controls the land. Also, Peters briefly discusses “body counts”. This is another point I feel is very important. For some reason it’s been OK and even encouraged to publicize American and coalition casualties, but not those of the enemy. Hell, the whole point of war itself is to kill as many of the enemy as you possibly can. Why would you publicize your losses but not your victories? Stupid on stilts. All in all a good article that I would enjoy discussing further if I had more time.

              Also, while Sun Tzu’s winning without fighting could also entail poisoning an entire village. , I don’t think that differentiates Sun Tzu’s tactics from any other warrior. What sets him somewhat apart was in choosing the battle field, preparing the troops long before battle, and thus presenting to the enemy the choice of either die or join. Alexander the Great used similar tactics but he’s not all “magic Asian”, thus not as PC.

            • T. J. Babson said, on November 16, 2012 at 12:02 pm

              Agree. These clowns are media savvy politicians, not real generals. Does anybody believe that somebody like Curtis Lemay would advance very far in today’s military?

            • magus71 said, on November 16, 2012 at 12:12 pm


              I’m all for body counts. As a matter of fact, if I were in charge, I’d probably have quotas for body counts…..(disclaimer: that’s sarcasm, but I need to put this up here because Mike and biomass often fail to detect my sarcasm–but I am in favor of body counts. )

              What’s out “metric” now for success in war? How many soccer balls we hand out.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 16, 2012 at 3:07 pm

              At least that is easy to measure.

            • biomass2 said, on November 16, 2012 at 12:49 pm

              As ” politicians and careerists” aren’t they part of a larger system (in this case the military) that encourages that approach? Perhaps WTP is correct. . . .The onus is on all of us. Even WTP. The American People have screwed up a perfect document—the Constitution—written by perfect men , men who probably foresaw that all their efforts would fail in the face of the unexpected wealth, progress, and prosperity of this new, exceptional country

            • WTP said, on November 16, 2012 at 12:58 pm

              TJ, I still object to dismissing them as clowns. They are media-savvy politicians because that is the mission that we give them. Because we, as a society (as much as I hate to put it that way), refuse to face many of the cold realities of life, we limit them in what they can get accomplished. It’s all part of the battlefield.

              Perhaps a better summation of what Ralph Peters (at Magus’ link) was saying in regard to attrition is that all wars are fought between the ears. With a bullet or otherwise. Our enemies lack sufficient physical ammunition. Their even lacking in savvy use of mental kind. But they’re learning and we’re helping them. It’s like our military is trying to play defense with an offense that fumbles and throws interceptions every possession.

            • magus71 said, on November 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm

              I’m looking for people with moral courage and intellectual honesty.

            • biomass2 said, on November 16, 2012 at 4:56 pm

              I’m all for body counts. Just make sure someone out there knows how to count beyond his her fingers and toes. Sarcasm.

          • magus71 said, on November 16, 2012 at 11:07 am

            “What is getting you guys killed over there is not the Taliban nor AQ nor the US military’s poor senior leadership, it’s the moral and intellectual weakness of our homefront institutions.”

            I do agree with this, too. But the generals are learning in our Ivy League schools, now. I once had a copy of American Interest that had a debate between David Petraeus and Ralph Peters as to if an offcier in the military should pursue a PHD. Peters said an officer should stop at a Masters, Petraeus argued for PHD. Peters said generals are taught to lose wars at the PHD level. I agree with Peters, except in individual instances. Could find the articles, but Petraeus’ was called Beyond the Cloister and Peters’ was Learning to Lose.

            • WTP said, on November 16, 2012 at 11:49 am

              I agree on PhD’s also. Applies to business as well. Sometimes I think that even the Masters degree gets in the way of progress when it gets too theoretical.

          • T. J. Babson said, on November 16, 2012 at 1:11 pm


            Rising through the ranks in the military is a form of natural selection. You need to ask yourself which traits give the possessor an advantage, and which give the possessor a disadvantage. I would argue that the traits needed for rising through the ranks today are not the ones required to win a real, all-out war.

            The problem is not so much that the generals need to put up with the PC nonsense so much as they actually believe it, which is a whole lot worse.

            Magus, can you confirm that the top brass actually believes all the PC nonsense that is getting our boys killed?

            • T. J. Babson said, on November 16, 2012 at 1:15 pm

              What would Curtis Lemay say about “Three Cups of Tea?”

              I’m sure it would be unsuitable for a family blog.

            • WTP said, on November 16, 2012 at 1:33 pm

              TJ, we could dismiss this as a chicken/egg argument, but while I’m sure what you say applies to a number of senior officers (as it would to any large organization), if the incentives are in the right place those with a tactical mindset will move there.

              I’m not dismissing the problems we have but I believe the problems we have are more a result of the attitudes and behaviors on the homefront than on the war front. Some of this is could probably be traced back to social promotion seeping its way into the military. What in God’s name do we need with 38 active-duty 4-star officers? For what, 9 command zones and one or two (however you want to count) active war fronts?

            • T. J. Babson said, on November 16, 2012 at 1:44 pm

              Historically, the people in charge of the military during peace need to be replaced when there is a real war and you need real leaders.

              The problem today is that the “kinetic military actions” we are involved in has not required that we throw the clowns out.

              Don’t you agree that the revelations in the past week have shown that these generals who send our troops off to their deaths are in fact hollow men?

            • T. J. Babson said, on November 16, 2012 at 1:51 pm

              Our guys are getting killed and the guy running the war has time to send out thousands of emails to some Tampa Bay socialite? Petraeus screwing some groupie biographer under his desk?

              And these guys are the creme de la creme. My blood is boiling.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 16, 2012 at 3:17 pm

              Petraeus still deserves the respect he has earned…as well as the contempt. When someone like that falls, I try to remind myself that most people have all the flaws and little of the greatness. This does not warrant their failures, but is worth remembering.

              But, yeah, you are right about the email volume and the link to the socialite. I’m a lazy professor and I don’t send that many emails.

            • WTP said, on November 16, 2012 at 1:56 pm

              I’m not sure you can make such a generalization about peace/war generals (forgive the wording). Generals get replaced when things bog down. Even hugely successful ones in the middle of a new war, like MacArthur for example. Politics is a big part of a general’s job even historically speaking. Look at what Ike and even Patton had to do to get through the metaphorical land mines of 1940’s Europe. Our current problem is not that our generals are political but that their political fronts are homeland-facing and not ally or enemy facing.

              As for the last week, we’re talking one general here. I think we really need to wait and see with General Allen. Petraeus was definitely a disappointment, but he did successfully get the war(s) on track. I think he would have done a hell of a better job if not for the environment we expect our generals to work in.

            • magus71 said, on November 21, 2012 at 10:52 am


              Sorry, internet’s been out. Yes, I can confirm, 100% The core of the problem began with the counterinsurgency model, when the media began overemphasising the handing out of soccer balls, and underreporting how many enemy we were killing. So poor is the logical thinking and honesty of those at the top, they didn’t even really know whay they won. Witness McChrystal, the head of the industrial strength black ops killing machine, known as Task Force 145 in Iraq, then his incredibally restrictive rules placed on US troops in Afghanistan. Even Petraues had to lighten the rules when he took over. Before I deployed I heard an interview with an officer on TV. He said something to the effect that killing 1 innocent civilian hurts us more than killing 1000 enemy helps us. I knew, at that point, that we were finished. Nobody could fight under those restrictions. When I first arrived at Bagram Airfield, the first book they tried to make us read was “Three Cups of Tea.” One DIA nalyst actually stood up and said it was bullshit, but it fit well the narrative of winning without killing. I was working at the highest levels of Army intel in Bagram, an area called the JAIIS. And that was the message. At one point, I was actually forbidden from writing about the enemy and told to only write about governance and development. I asked my superiors how I could write about governance without considering how the enemy may affect that governance in a war zone. I got no answer.

              That’s when I knew I could make more difference by publishing articles in magazines and newspapers than I could writing intricate intelligence papers. Our leaders are not taught to be strategic thinkers. They are subject to a hoard of logicl falacies and barely recognise the human factors of war. In essense, they are fools.

              My belief is this, as Ralph Peters states in his article, Bloodless Wars, The Failed Revolution, and 10,000 years of human history have proven it true: The enemy who has no need to fear has no incentive to surrender.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 16, 2012 at 6:44 am

      One example, assuming it is truthful.

  10. magus71 said, on November 16, 2012 at 12:02 am

    What’s amazing is that not a single criticism levied against Obama on this blog is ever acknowledged as being correct by the author of this blog, nor biomass. This reminds me of my statement to my ex-wife concerning the outcome of every disagreement we ever had: “Honey. It’s quite amazing. I’ll go down as the only man in history who was wrong about everything.”

    • biomass2 said, on November 16, 2012 at 12:34 am

      See above @12:33 am. I replied it incorrectly.

    • WTP said, on November 16, 2012 at 12:43 am

      Believe me, you’re not the only man in history…

      • biomass2 said, on November 16, 2012 at 12:48 am

        But you’re a special case. 🙂

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 16, 2012 at 6:50 am

      That is untrue. I’ve written critical posts about Obama and legitimate (that is based in reality ) criticisms are always welcome.

      • T. J. Babson said, on November 16, 2012 at 12:21 pm

        I guess the real question is what would Obama have to do in order to switch you to the “anybody but Obama” camp?

      • WTP said, on November 16, 2012 at 12:43 pm

        Mike is correct.

        Magus, what you should have said is that criticisms levied against Obama on this blog that do not originate with the author or his fellow narcissists or their various dopplegangers are not acknowledged as being correct by the Mike-o-masses.

        • biomass2 said, on November 16, 2012 at 12:57 pm

          Narcissist—-now that’s a chuckle coming from . . . . 🙂

          • WTP said, on November 16, 2012 at 1:43 pm

            From Dr. Sanity. How many leftist tendencies can you identify?

            In a book titled WHY IS IT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU? The Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism, authors Hotchkiss and Masterson identify what they call the “seven deadly sins” of narcissism and their origin:

            1. Shamelessness: Shame is the feeling that lurks beneath all unhealthy narcissism, and the inability to process shame in healthy ways.
            2. Magical thinking: Narcissists see themselves as perfect using distortion and illusion known as magical thinking. They also use projection to dump shame onto others.
            3. Arrogance: A narcissist who is feeling deflated may reinflate by diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else.
            4. Envy: A narcissist may secure a sense of superiority in the face of another person’s ability by using contempt to minimize the other person.
            5. Entitlement: Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an “awkward” or “difficult” person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage.
            6. Exploitation: Can take many forms but always involves the exploitation of others without regard for their feelings or interests. Often the other is in a subservient position where resistance would be difficult or even impossible. Sometimes the subservience is not so much real as assumed.
            7. Bad boundaries: Narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist are treated as if they are part of the narcissist and are expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist there is no boundary between self and other.


            • biomass2 said, on November 16, 2012 at 6:05 pm

              I started reading this, and by the time I got to #5 I thought of a great subject for a research paper. WTP Unplugged.
              The intrepid researcher should take these seven guidelines and have a group of conservatives, a group of liberals, and a group of independents apply them to you by going back through your contributions to this blog over the last 2+ years and reporting their findings. The researcher should then have you sit down and do the most realistic self-analysis you can manage using these same seven criteria. When you have finished, Mr. Investigator should present you with the raw responses of the three groups and give you a while to digest that information. He should then ask you to reexamine your self according to the same standards . If your views of yourself have changed at all, the results may rock the blogging community.
              Never know. It’s worth a try. 🙂

            • biomass2 said, on November 16, 2012 at 6:19 pm

              Wait! I just thought of an alternative title.

              A Group of Conservatives, a Group of Liberals, and a Group of Independents Walk into a Lab . . .

  11. permanent resident said, on September 20, 2016 at 12:11 pm

    Thanks. It’s a good post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: