I think you could draw a parallel. Strategy is, or at least should be, timeless while tactics change based on technology and other factors. For example, destroying the enemies ability to fight by stopping the flow of goods required to execute a war is a viable strategy in ancient Egypt, the American Civil War and today. Of course you should make sure that your strategy will logically bring about the conclusion you expect. Not being familiar with modern military tactics I can’t say if the wars are being executed correctly, but strategy seems sound, assuming that an army of occupation controlling certain key areas can break the enemy’s will to fight. Or were you referring to the strategy of our enemy?

I agree with the general statement that if a person can work and support his or herself and/or a family, they should. But you’ve actually hit the nail right on the head with answer 6. In southwest Missouri $20,000 a year is a livable wage. That same wage in Northern Virginia is a joke. When I tell people how much I made interning at Accenture they are usually very surprised. In this area you’re hard pressed to find a sleazy studio apartment in the ghetto for under $1,000/month. Missouri has an estimated population of around 6 million with about 1.5 million of those people in our large cities and even more in the greater metropolitan area. Again, the cost of living is higher so $39,000 a year for a family of 4 in St. Louis or Kansas City is a pretty low income. This means that some people in Joplin receiving aid might be able to make it on their own. But move to an area like St. Louis of Kansas City where the number of people requiring aid is larger and living is more expensive and suddenly the situation is reversed. You can’t support yourself on minimum wage anymore. There is a whole class of people, the working poor, who work very hard and still are just barely able to scratch by, even with government assistance in some cases.

I think this all leads to a deeper question, why is there poverty in this country, or even in general. The sense I get is that people think poverty is caused by laziness. But the fact that there is a class of hard working poor people contradicts that.

The president does have some very specific and significant powers. For some reason we never seem to focus on those. More over why is it the considered a good thing for the president to be immobile but we seem to value “voting on the other side of the isle” in a legislator. I’m not really sure what we want in a judiciary, people who think as ‘we’ do I suppose.

I should probably point out that it is unlikely that we will ever have one party only. Even if the Democrats were to gain an absolute majority allowing them to pass legislation over a presidential veto it would not be long before the situation re-balanced itself. There are lots of reasons for this which I will convey if anyone shows even the slightest interest.

I think the real reason that the Democrats are doing so well is that the Republicans don’t seem to be grabbing for swing voters. It appears that they spend all their time trying to convince the white middle-class Christian, sub-urban to rural types to vote for them. This is a little like trying to convince people who showed up to a sermon to come to church. They are there already, if you want more you have to go outside. I imagine that starting in 2010 you’ll start to see the Republicans appear a little more moderate on most topics in an attempt to grab more from the middle. With any luck that will mean less talk of abortion, gun-rights, immigration, etc., and more talk of economic security in an eastward shifting world, improving education, etc.

This is thing I’ve never understood, it’s not as if the Republican base is going to exodus to the Democratic party if the Republican Party doesn’t tow the line on the traditional issues. The worst thing is that they won’t vote. All the Republicans need to do is pay lip service to the issues that concern their base and then focus on the issues that concern the middle. I should probably be charging for this stuff. Hey, Republican Party. Want more good ideas? Give me a call. My number is probably in a domestic surveillance database somewhere. (Okay, that was highly partisan, I couldn’t help it, sorry.)

Having lived in Germany and having spent a good deal of time abroad I tend to agree that most Europeans appear healthier. I assume you have some good first hand knowledge of the situation, especially considering your own background in medicine. But, sticking rigidly to the point, I have ‘heard’ many things.

Case in point, I have ‘heard’ that Texas has the highest crime rate in the country and the lowest crime rate in the country, two situations which are obviously mutually exclusive. I have heard that both situations are a result of either Texas’ lax gun control laws, frequency of administering the death penalty or both. Obviously Texas cannot have the highest and lowest crime rate, more over I’ve never seen proof to suggest that the legality of guns and crime rates are correlated in any specific way. In fact, all I know of Texas law is “common knowledge.” I have never actually compared the law in Texas or number of executions per year with any other state in the Union. For all I know Missouri or Virgina could have looser regulation on guns.

If you have it or know of its existence; I would love to be directed to some documentation fairly comparing American and European health. Additionally, if it took into account the overall healthfulness of our opposing lifestyles that would be great.

Largely, I think, because of the internet and the horror that is 24 hour cable news we have become individual consumers of news. The persistent and unsubstantiated myth of the Liberal Media has led to the development of a whole world of alternative news which is explicitly partisan (drudge, AM radio, FNC). There is nothing inherently wrong with partisan news outlets, but these particular ones fail miserably in the cause of investigative journalism and instead just repeat GOP talking points.

Furthermore, like you said, people are incredibly resistant to evidence. You brought up healthcare. What is the global evidence that a nationalized healthcare system will not work? There really isn’t any. The most often cited case is that you have to wait for an MRI in the UK. Uh, ok, but they have healthier citizens, live longer lives, have lower infant mortality. Ditto France, Germany, Holland, the Scandinavian countries, Italy, Spain, etc etc.

The final thing that I think is quite scary is because of the number of talking heads that surround us we have become unable to recognize and admit simple truths. My proof of this needs only 2 words: Sarah Palin.