Leaderboard

The next question is, did he at least key the mic and say, "Lead, you're on fire." If not, then he broke the second rule, too. God help him if he didn't take the fat chick, either.

First Rule: Don't hit lead. Everything else is debriefable.

"I want to die while I'm asleep just like my Grandfather; not screaming and yelling like his passengers"

Just trying to keep this thread relevant!

The topic is laughable at best. Overheard at a training session. "What are some ways to improve resilience?" Answer: "stop deploying me on a 1:1 dwell for years on end with no end in sight." Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They can't tell them what to do, but they can and certainly do pull the "If you want your choice of next assignment, you'll do what I say" card. Agreed that it is a good thing. I would pay good money to read some of them, because Lord knows there are quite a number of senior leaders who need to be (rightfully) slaughtered on these things. This is great college graduation or SOS guest speaker material, but just doesn't cut it in today's climate. I wish it were different, and indeed I can remember the days when you could speak out respectfully and it would be welcomed by squadron (and above) leadership. The sad truth is that these days, if you disagree with leadership, "regardless of the consequences" takes on a whole new meaning. In the last 5 years I have heard several instances of CGOs literally being threatened with 365 deployments, UAV assignments, getting non-join spouse assignments, and unfavorable rankings during the "RIF". I'm talking "You didn't agree with me over the TDY crew schedule, so I had your assignment cancelled" type things. There is a difference between possibly slowing your career/upgades/office movement down over "fighting the good fight" and "I don't get to see my family for a year because I spoke up." It doesn't take too many instances of that sort of heavy-handed "leadership" to shut everyone up. The worst offenders for this sort of behavior, in my experience over the last 2-3 years, have all made O-6 or O-7. As the saying goes, "Rule #3: There is no justice". FWIW, I'm not trying to grind an axe here. I'm just a former AD, now long time ANG guy who deploys quite a bit and watches in shocked amazement when I hear these stories from my AD buddies. I'm hopeful that the doses of current reality you are getting on BODN are helpful in fighting the good fight at the puzzle palace. We really need it.

Bullshit. Your second sentence is baseless and without context. I told you to off for saying am a company man, try to jump higher and implying I am a cheerleader. Don't confuse professional disagreement, challenges and talking to your bosses about serious leadership issues with the anonymous and frequently whiskey influenced garbage dialogue on this blog. I get the broad generalizations about senior leadership, even when they are lacking specific details and context. I'm fine with being insulted by people who know me. You don't. Stick to the argument.

I'm pretty sure the line would be drawn at "Housewife Cookin' Night". The poster would promote a barefoot, prego, gal in an apron, holding a kid in one arm, frying pan in the other, while another rugrat tugs at her skirt. The menu could include meatloaf, pot-roast, and steak. If not prepared correctly, male patrons would be expected to correct the situation immediately. Pretty sure that would offend appropriately. Who wants to ops check?

Going active duty instead of direct to the guard/reserve.

How do you view employers who are cutting employee hours so they don't have to cover their health insurance costs? Are you fuming mad at them for being less productive then they otherwise would be? Many have said they're doing so to avoid new government mandates, not because business conditions dictate that employee hours be cut. It's the exact same principle. Those companies are responding to the incentives presented to them, just like individuals do. Like HeloDude said, don't hate the player, hate the game, and I agree for the most part. The goal is to design a system that has the right incentives because in the end, the government isn't broadly powerful because of what it does or buys itself in the public sector, it's more because it has the power to set the rules that ultimately influence private sector behavior. Part of the purpose of Obamacare was to reform the health insurance market and get away from bare-bones, catastrophic plans. The fact that those plans are going away is not a glitch, it's a feature. Agree or disagree, but it's dumb to argue that it was an unintended consequence. The administration screwed up the messaging here badly; they promised that you could keep your insurance if you liked it and yet designed the law to crowd out of the market plans that didn't cover a broad range of service that the government determined constituted "adequate insurance." While this dishonestly only applies to about 4-5% of the population, it was still wrong to frame it like they did and they're seeing the political backlash right now. What they should have done, in my opinion, is to argue up front that Obamacare would reform the insurance marketplace for the better, getting rid of plans that have huge out of pocket costs, don't cover preventative care, and have yearly and lifetime caps that can leave you high and dry in an emergency. That argument was made, but not strongly enough and it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker quite as well as "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance." That's part of the inherent problem with politics influencing policy making; policy making is complex, nuanced, and should be conducted in a rational way after consulting a broad array of experts in the appropriate field. Politics is an expensive a dog fight between bitter, rival factions and broadcast to a generally uninformed and uncaring audience. It leads to the need for quick, simple messages that resonate and you end up with nearly every politician telling some pretty big half-truths (at best) in order to communicate their message. How exactly is this fundamentally different than what happens under Obamacare? The government provides tax credits to offset the cost of private health insurance for people who make too much for meidcare, up to 400% of the poverty line. That's applicable to families of four making between $23K and $94K, i.e. much of your middle class. Can you explain the difference between that and what the author of the article is proposing?

The problem wasn't with the messaging, the problem is with the piece of crap, over-reaching legislation that was passed 100% on a party line vote. The Dems barely got it through, and that was with having to lie about what it would do...if they had told the truth then it very well might have not gotten through the way it did, or even at all. And if you think Obamacare is just going to negatively affect 4-5% of people then you're just as wrong as you were 4 years ago when you bought into all the other lies. Rates are going to continue to rise because of what the law has deemed plans must cover...and when the employee mandate kicks in next year, you'll see the next wave of shit hitting the fan. I can't understand why people believed that this bill was going to reduce costs for most people--it covers more in the new mandated plans and gives subsidies to people who don't make enough money. So either other people's premiums must go up, employers must pay more, and/or taxes must go up. The Dems didn't reduce any costs, they just shifted who pays for these costs. The insurance companies will make more money because it's more business for them, but at an increased cost in premiums and higher deductibles for the people. Part of me thinks this will blow up so bad that the Dems will pay severely for it...but the other part of me thinks that they will spin it in such a way to blame the GOP, the insurance companies, etc and will take very little of a hit (if at all) because the American public is too stupid enough to see what is going on here. It's just another several nails into the coffin of the Republic.