Leaderboard

I believe the feeling is mutual on the other side. So the question becomes: How do we bring politics back to something approximating the center in this country? I’m not sure as many political issues seem nearly insurmountable at present. Term limits and campaign finance reform would be a start, but those issues are a third rail for career politicians with too much to loose. I think the fact that you make the distinction between political actors and normal everyday folk is an important step that many, many keyboard warriors should consider.

Trump will "allow" for the peaceful transition of power... That is out right funny considering members of the democrat party are openly calling for violence and mayhem before, during and after the election. Along with all of the other temper tantrum tactics like impeachment, stacking the SCOTUS, adding States, mail in voting shenanigans, false narratives when it comes to race relations, etc. And the defund the police bullshit coming from democrats in democrat run cities is part of the plan too. Let's make sure the police departments are in a really bad spot when it comes to dealing with democrats "burning it all down" when Trump runs the tables on November 3rd. At least Bloomberg isn't out there violating election laws by paying off criminal's fees in Florida so they can vote. Oh wait. Yes he is... And the alternative??? Biden? That dude is the literal architect of the 1994 crime bill. He sniffs and rubs up on women and children. His son is a train wreck who made millions off of the very countries that Democrats accuse Trump of being in bed with. I used to be a middle of the road guy when it comes to politics. I have always just wanted left alone. I am a simple Texan. But this is fast becoming right vs wrong IRT policies and politics. I would so much rather have the loud mouthed New Yorker who gets shit done and protects the country instead of someone in the Democrat party who has been in DC for almost 50 fucking years. The republicans don't owe the democrats shit when it comes to a SCOTUS pick after the Kavanaugh debacle. Trump is the President and there is a republican senate. There will be a 3rd Trump SCOTUS justice.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-termlimits-idUSKCN26F3L3 Obviously theater as it would require an amendment to really implement this and the current POTUS would veto it. However, the concept doesn't even seem that well thought out. Would voters be aware that when they elect a President they are also electing to Surpreme Court Selects? It would completely change elections because it would swing voters to vote for judges instead who would have a much longer appointment than POTUS. How is it Congress can get on board with term limits for other offices but can't get on board with term limits for their own political machines?

Kavanaugh really did change things. I wasn't around for Bork or Thomas. The Kavanaugh hearings were the first time I could see an actual difference between the parties in terms of morality. And it was stark. Honestly I don't even like using the term "Democrats" anymore, because it does not draw a distinction between voters who are registered with or consider themselves a part of the Democratic party, and the politicians in the party at the federal level. The voters I have no beef with, just a disagreement on the best way to accomplish largely the same goals. The politicians however, I believe to be in many cases irredeemable.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Uh, no, that's not racism, that's data. There is data that says if you grow up black in the US you are more likely to have a relative in prison. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/06/share-of-black-white-hispanic-americans-in-prison-2018-vs-2006/) There is data that says if you grow up white in the US you are more likely to live in a suburb. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/06/share-of-black-white-hispanic-americans-in-prison-2018-vs-2006/) It might be uncomfortable data, but its out there. Honestly, I don't follow you. I understand there are differences among races as far as the data goes. That is well documented, and I agree. My point to you was to say that your view which ascribed a characteristic to an individual based on membership in a group (or to the group as a whole) is the fundamental, operational characteristic of racism - not that there aren't observable differences between the races. Differences between the races will likely always exist - it doesn't mean there are actual biological reasons for those differences. Coming at this problem from the standpoint of biology is awful, and it will never result in lasting solutions for our society. While we're talking about data, there is also data that says police officers are much more likely to be involved in a violent encounter with blacks than they are whites. From the Wapo (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/09/are-black-or-white-offenders-more-likely-to-kill-police/). Why are offices far more likely to be killed by a minority than they are a white person? "There were 511 officers killed in felonious incidents and 540 offenders from 2004 to 2013, according to FBI reports. Among the total offenders, 52 percent were white, and 43 percent were black." "From 1980 to 2013, there were 2,269 officers killed in felonious incidents, and 2,896 offenders. The racial breakdown of offenders over the 33-year period was on par with the 10-year period: 52 percent were white, and 41 percent were black." In my worldview, this boils down to a cultural issues. There are legitimate historical reasons for it (racism), but that is from historical social forces, not actual racial disparities between different ethnic groups. That is my point. The differences that we observe which we are happy to pin on race are really due to deeper, underlying factors such as culture, etc. That, however, is a much more difficult conversation to have, and our society isn't exactly behaving in a mature, adult manner of late. Looking to those facts above, officers are vastly more likely to be involved in a deadly encounter with blacks than they are with whites - does that mean black people are inherently more violent? No - that is racist. What it indicates is that there are systemic issues within the black community that result in a grossly disproportionate number of violent encounters with police. It is convenient to pin it on race, but that's not going to solve any problem, because the problem isn't because they are black. What has changed since the enlightenment is we know for a fact now that humans are incapable of reason because of cognitive bias. In fact, the very term cognitive bias is defined as humans making irrational actions because of unconscious perceptions. Realize, there are over 100 forms of cognitive bias, and they are well documented. You probably talk about a dozen of them every time you do a CRM class. Recency bias? You're more likely to treat the most recent SIF you read as more important than one from the 90s. Authority Bias - You are more likely to trust someone if they are credentialed in the field they are speaking, even if their data seems illogical. Halo Effect - You are more likely to assume a "good ing dude" is immune to mistakes in the cockpit. Status quo bias: assuming the enlightenment is the epitome of philosophical thought because that's the way it has been for the last 300 years etc... This is also the major flaw with game theory as well, which presumes a game player always makes rational decisions to effect winning outcomes. People aren't rational, even when they think they are. I am always perplexed by arguments that proceed like this. We are "incapable of reason" except for the reason that lets me to conclude that humans are incapable of reason. Whaaa? Any argument that starts off with "we're incapable of reason, so therefore X, Y, and Z" has some inherent problems. I don't want to hammer this too hard, because there are different ways you could have phrased it, but to me, it does highlight one of the major themes that is going on in our culture - which is to say "there is no objective truth," which has one purpose: to empower certain groups or individuals over others. I'm aware of and know there is such a thing as bias. It's the new hotness. And this thing called unconscious bias, I'm aware of that too. I actually took an "inherent" bias test related to fat/thin (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html). Of course it indicated that I'm biased towards thin. The problem is that I am completely aware of my "inherent" bias towards thin people and against fat people. Fat people take up way to much of my airline seat, too much of my air, and too much of my pricey healthcare. Americans are too fat, and I am biased against fat Americans, but I already knew this. This is more appropriately called preference. Humans have preferences. In fact, I think a strong anthropological argument could be made that says these "biases" are the only reason there are still races. I feel like we have had enough generations all living together at this point that if there weren't preferences, we would all be the same shade at this point. I say all this, but I also don't want to disavow the importance of understanding one's own biases, because it is valuable. Humans are capable of reason, and knowing what your biases are, allows you to modify your behavior appropriately in order to counter those biases. In fact, if people weren't capable of reason, what use would it be to understand one's biases? I can't think of a reason (since I'm not capable of it). The bottom line is that I am deeply suspicious of any post-modern logic that discounts the very notion of "Truth", all the while purporting to have some sort of received wisdom/knowledge which is basically unsubstantiated. 99% of people on this forum give plenty of Eucks? about this. There are whole threads dedicated to leadership not taking care of people. How do you think people are taken care of if not through empathy/sympathy. You want to lambast the AF for poor leadership, but literally every book on leadership out there says you need empathy/sympathy for your charges. Are you really telling me, as a commander, you wouldn't have sympathy/empathy for any of your people if they lost a spouse/child/loved one? I don't think you mean that but how else do you describe that if not sympathy/empathy? I put "Eucks" to avoid the post being blocked (I think they used to be, maybe not anymore). In any case, empathy and sympathy are important for leaders. My point, which I did a poor job of making, is that we now live in a culture that seeks to put empathy and sympathy in front of fact, reason, and logic. Empathy and sympathy are all good, I got no issue. My issue is when we just go soft on people and issues because we don't want to address actual problems cranium-on.

Here is some information I received: Air Force Reserve command has limited the amount of UPT slots for the upcoming fiscal year, realistically less than 50% of the pilot training allocation slots it usually does. That is a total of 92 UPT slots for 2021. Additionally they have 56 flying squadrons that are under 90% manned. The summation of that is AFRC is going to allocate its 92 slots for the undermanned units.

Texas Reloaded https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd6b_8OlwXU

I guess I'm just not seeing the same awesome results you guys are... He's done some good, but I'd say the balance is not in his favor. I'm not here to say anything that hasn't already been explained, then completely ignored on here. One thing Pres Trump has going for him is the inexplicable ability to inspire absolute loyalty in spite of his obvious lack of concern for anything or anyone but himself. His followers, because I don't know what else to call them, have an amazing ability to ignore everything he says and does that is clearly beneath his station while buying everything he says is "thanks to him" as gospel truth. Obama created a serious divide in our country, and Trump thought it looked like fun, so he's run with it on steroids. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s funny that you mention about the definition/perception of leadership. I’m in a group on Facebook for USAF O’s (long story...) and there are a TON of posts in there about leadership development techniques, styles, etc. Every one that I have seen is generated by and subsequently flooded by a bunch of medical and MSG O’s. I posted one time that my leadership philosophy and mentorship program was primarily getting young guys to study and be good at killing the enemy (tangible results). They looked at me like I had 3 arms because I didn’t want to take the time to sing kumbaya and get to know the feelings of every individual. To them, that’s leadership even if the ability to do their job suffers. To me, doing the job at a high level and producing results is what matters. I’ll admit that the President sounds like a dipshit very often but he produces some good results. The former president definitely made people feel better about themselves but was light on things that mattered (I know that’s a gross over-simplification). My $0.02

Data is a few years old but from what I remember no leave during PIT except by exception (weddings, etc). What airframe?

Disagree. Threatening to use special weapons in defense of the territorial sovereignty of allies or other non-existential interest is not a realistic threat / deterrent. Our foes who also possess special weapons with the capability to strike with them intercontinentally know this, that we will not use them against them unless they already have or we truly believe they will use them on us our own homeland. We will have to use conventional means to deter or defeat them in potential conflicts against allies, control of global commons or other vital national interests, hence the percolating idea that we need a force that can take hits and come back on Night 2, 3, etc... I've heard smart folks say resources don't drive requirements, ok maybe but they do shape the answers to those requirements or even if that requirement can be met. So in answer to the requirement (assuming it's valid for this discussion) we might need to first start with a dollar amount or X percentage of the AF appropriation and work backwards from there on what it is we want and for what purpose.

are you suggesting that if the "kavanaugh debacle" didn't happen republicans would "owe" the democrats or are you just that drunk on your own koolaid? You seem to be fairly solidified in your stance and well versed in the republican talking points. I hate to break it to you, but reading your post you weren't middle of the road, you were just confused brah.

80 is low. Multiple AD boards have been cancelled/postponed. As of right now, AD is only planning one rated board for FY21. It’s possible they could add more. I guess it depends how well the first one goes. It’s safe to assume this is due, at least in part, to covid.

Not sure if the report is still out there but a Confidential report discussing the defense of Taiwan with every F-22 we own got released online. The report used Chinese basing options and aircraft availability vs US basing options which was minimal with tankers required. When the balloon goes up and the fight starts, the report assumed 100% Pk (hardly likely) of US missiles and, guess what, you run out of missiles with hordes still inbound. Admittedly, the US Navy was not included nor other fighter types but the report does a good job with the argument of quality vs quantity and confirms the old Soviet argument of "quantity has a quality of it's own."

Fake news. This example is clearly systemically biased and false. The only way to get 7 garbage attack plans out of a group of fighter pilots would be to have a diverse group consisting of 1 Hog driver, 1 Viper driver, 1 fat Amy "driver" and 7 Mudhen crew.

It worked for me quite well. In Oct 2009, I three-day-opted a non-flying remote to Iraq. I had 22.5 years of service, was a U-2 interview pilot, and evaluator in both the U-2 and T-38. I didn't want to retire. The three-day opt required me to retire 1 May 2010. I was determined to defeat the threat. I was working a number of angles, but nothing was panning out. By early 2010, I hadn't found a solution, but I did figure out that I could request a 6-month extension to my retirement date if my Wing CC wrote a letter asking for it. At the time, the Beale Wing CC was a 1-star. I presented my case that extending me 6 months was in the best interest of the 9th Wing and the Wing CC agreed. AFPC isn't going to tell a 1-star to pound sand: I got the extension. Around that time, AFPC announced the VRRAD. In my first phone call with the VRRAD person at AFPC, I explained that I was still on active duty. "Will you be retired before 31 December 2010?" "Yes, I will be." "Then you are eligible for the VRRAD." Basically, one office in AFPC was requiring me to retire... and another office in AFPC was allowing me to return to active duty as a retiree. I never told the two offices about each other, and figured it was best if they didn't know my plan. My VRRAD got approved. So, on Friday, 29 Oct, I had a short ceremony in the bar and retired. The following week, I came back to Beale, to my old desk, which I obviously didn't vacate... turned in my week-old retiree ID card... went through in-processing with a room full of 18 year olds (at least I got a verbal waiver from the Vice to skip the Right Start briefings). I even submitted a travel voucher for my 33-mile drive from home to Beale AFB for my first day back on active duty. In 2013, after 3 years, the VRRAD was coming to an end... but I asked the Wing CC to write me a letter requesting a 1-year extension. He did, and I got it. Finally... I retired 1 Nov 2014. It was my third set of retirement orders, and the second time I actually retired.

Got my CMP 1911 today. I had honestly forgotten about it since I submitted the application almost two years ago. It's a 1945 S/N R&R field grade. It'll go well with my Garand in the heavy metal class whenever three gun opens back up.

Sounds like a bunch of nonners validating their life. Nothing wrong with not flying if it doesn’t work out, but it’s the best job in the AF if it does.

I don't think any of them were pilots. Probably non-flying officers. But hell yeah man. Every officer may fly a desk but at the end of the day only pilots still fly real aircraft!

Pilot or bust.

Anyone who tells you they would rather not be a pilot in the Air Force, but is in fact a pilot in the Air Force can go f*ck right off. I might bitch about shit constantly, but I love flying. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk