Lord Ratner

What did you expect from the same leadership caste that ran the service for the past 20 years? They were never good at leading or managing, they just relied on the patriotism of youth and the comfort-seeking of age (amplified by an uncertain economic environment) to solve their manning issues. Now the patriotism is diminishing in the next generation and the older pilots have realized that making 2-3x the pay for 16 days of easy work a month is worth the fear of change... So they are scrambling. Add on the insult that the O6-O10s had to eat a million shit sandwiches, leave their families behind, and repeatedly fight force reductions over their careers, but now they have to convince/beg/bribe a bunch of Millennials and Gen-Z to stay. Good luck.

How shocking, an organization that uses monetary policy as its sole tool to meddle with the economy releases research that absolves them from the obvious and measurable effects of their meddling. I look forward to NAMBLA's soon-to-be-released study that disproves the connection between pedophiles and childhood trauma in victims.

Is this some sort of Keynesian fever dream? You are taking government action in meddling with the economy, designed specifically so they can achieve ends that do not occur naturally in an unmolested economic system, and using the results of those actions as evidence that the outcome was inevitable. This is effectively why we are in the catastrophe we're in right now. The Fed completely and totally failed to achieve their 2% inflation target over a period of decades, and were unable to identify why. Then, when the massive deflationary forces of globalization were brought to an immediate halt by the pandemic, the extreme inflationary measures the FED had been taking for years were finally able to take effect, uncontested by the deflation that had been hiding the results of government spending. And when that started, the Fed spent a year outright denying it, then recharacterizing it, before finally admitting its existence and now claiming that the very same economic philosophies and policy tools that led to the disaster are somehow the solution. The entire field of advanced economics has devolved into a secular religion that requires absolute faith in a set of principles that are unsubstantiated and fail upon first contact with reality, every single time they are used. And it's even funnier when you realize it's just a bunch of political opportunists, steeped in worthless academia, who have been tasked with the unenviable chore of creating an intelligent sounding justification for what their political masters wish to do: spend more money than they have access to. And because of this, our entire banking industry has morphed into a one-way money siphon designed specifically to take advantage of these political cowards and their obviously absurd economic policies. If you can't beat 'em... But yeah, let's hear more about debt is actually good. Everything is going great.

Been involved in the union much? I've been blown away by how leaky *everyone* is. Once you get connected to the "swamp" within your union, you start getting texts anytime anything happens, v from multiple people. The gossip and whisper campaigns are amazing, all the way to the top.

Exactly.

That's about the quality of analysis I would expect when you ask a Polish 50-year-old contractor about a geopolitical dispute in a region his family has deep and emotional ties to.

Of course it can. It has been for decades. But the Air Force isn't suddenly interested in reevaluating that mix to see if there's a better distribution of sim and aircraft hours that will result in an acceptable product. They fucked up, they're out of specific resources, and they are going to mold the solution to fit the shortage, not the training/proficiency requirements. We all know the score. How many of these new methodologies include more time in aircraft? When all of your testing scenarios support a predefined conclusion, in this case, more same time will allow for less aircraft time, the result is predetermined. I wasn't around. Did we buy the T-1 because we determined that business jet-trained students do better in the MAF than pilots who successfully completed the T38 syllabus? I doubt it...

I agree with you entirely there. And I think it's an acceptable middle ground. I think the order is lawful, but exceptionally questionable. Questionable based on the direct impact of COVID to the military demographic (minimal) and the failure of the vaccines to prevent transmission.

Hold up... Define efficacy. Because it was once postulated that the vaccine stopped hospitalizations, deaths, and transmission. In fact when everyone was high on the nearly release vaccine euphoria, 99% effective was often cited. We now know the vaccine has very limited ability to reduce transmission. And the protection against Alpha and Delta have not carried over to omicron in the same way. So yeah, it works, so long as you redefine "works" in a way that no longer has much to do with military necessity.

Yet there are many serious climate scientists going down this path. They are so convinced that greenhouse gases are going to destroy the species they haven't stopped to consider the possibility they, like every other catastrophy theorist, are wrong. It's not an evil plan, it's a misguided belief that humanity is doomed. You have to put yourself in *that* mindset to understand the crazy conclusions otherwise rational people can come to. There has always been an obsession within scientific and political circles with end-of-world threats.

Indeed. I was (voluntarily) vaccinated with Pfizer on Jun/Jul of last year. Right now I have COVID for the second time, and it's been full COVID, like a bad flu. But this was never about science.

Yup. This covers it. We are talking about removing *basic* flying instruction. The whole reason sims work for planes like the KC-135 and 767 is because the foundation was laid in smaller planes, in the real world. And even then, guys don't go from the sim to the real plane without xx hours of supervision with a CKA. I'm surprised that anyone who actually taught phase 2 would think this was a good idea. Any time there was bad weather or MX issues that kept a student out of the jet for a week, they suffered greatly no matter how many intervening Sims they had. Hell, many were barely capable with the hours they had. Fewer now?

Wasn't Eisenhower a republican? Everything goes in waves.

Having now done all manner of sim- and aircraft-training, there's simply no comparing the two in the early phases of training. Hell, one of the biggest weaknesses in MAF was the lack of raw stick-and-rudder flying ability. That comes from the smaller planes that don't translate well in Sims. We should also dispense with the "modernizing" argument. Today's sim technology has been around for decades, and the AF didn't decide to "modernize" until a manning and resource shortage. This is about cutting costs, and the results will be predictable.

Uh, I might not be a statistician, but I think it's more like 87% true... Not 100%. But I'm colorblind, so... 🤷🏻‍♂️

Your fact is that an IUD destroys a fertilized egg, which is you learned, only happens if the primary mechanism of the IUD fails. Every woman I know stopped having periods on they IUD, so your scenario is not common enough to be an unqualified fact. And given the way you phrased it I'm pretty sure you had no idea how an IUD works in 2022. But, let's take your "fact" without any context. IUDs destroy fertilized eggs (which they mostly don't). That's supposed to be the same as abortion. But that's like saying a husband beating his wife to death is the same as a grunt shooting an insurgent. Murder is murder, right? I hope those drone operators realize they are no better than the Nazis who were herding gypsies and Jews into the gas showers. It would also be similar to saying an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy is the same as a partial birth abortion. Sure... Technically. There are some people of course who do believe those things. But they don't represent the entirety of the pro life crowd, or even the fervent pro-life crowd, because people live in a nuanced world. And it certainly isn't the case that the anti-abortion folks here have all expressed an absolute objection to all abortions for any reasons, rape and incest, for example. But your post, ironically posted after you expressed fears about the potentially divisive nature of the ruling, is exactly the mentality that is dividing the country. If you don't agree with me you're a hypocrite. A wise man once told me there's a better way of communicating with people... But he was an idiot, so... 🤷🏻‍♂️

Or, hear me out, people don't see it your way. See that's why I called you and idiot. Not because the point is invalid, but because you somehow think it's much stronger than it is, to the point you ridiculed those who disagree. Yup. Yes, as I've said many times, this was never an issue for the courts to decide. Bad law. I'm fine with that, if it is the will of the people as expressed through their representation. I disagree, but that's a feature of democracy, not a bug. Correct. And no such protections exist for abortion in the constitution. Disagree all you like, but make an actual argument for how Roe was good case law. It's not about undoing a past wrong, though that will happen too. It's about the entire concept of a judiciary. They must never create laws, even if you like them. It undermines everything. Roe was not the first absurd ruling, nor the first to be undone. If you are unfamiliar with SCOTUS proceedings, or law in general, I can see how you would think that. But they made no such promise. Plessy was "settled law" as well. These are not stupid people, and they said what they said very intentionally. I strongly recommend you listen too the linked "Honestly" podcast. Hugely informative. Read the ruling. It explicitly protects against that fear, for good reason. Also, gay marriage is an equality issue, not a privacy issue, as abortion was framed. No way. You won't get Gorsuch (who added trans you the civil rights act) or Kavanaugh (who was a Kennedy disciple) to go for that. Buy I'll happily take the bet. I want tequila though 😂🤣 Yeah no clue. Doesn't pass my sniff test. But that too should be subject to the will of the people. No reason States couldn't have different laws for that.

Be fair, I totally called him an idiot.

I haven't seen this line of reasoning. What are the pre-1973 examples of abortion in common law? Are you suggesting that abortion wasn't overwhelmingly restricted in pre-Roe America?

Yes, and you called an entire segment of the population hypocrites on an issue they find deeply meaningful. I'm not fond of blatant insults, but I'm not find of subtle ones either. And if "useless" is an insult then clearly "hypocrite" is too. Probably "fervent" too, since "silly" sets a pretty low bar. So I guess you started it 😂🤣.

Do you answer questions that are posed in the safe space? Besides, it is clear that whatever the fuck triggering is, it works quite well on both of us. You reduced an incredibly complicated issue down to a barely cogent comparison, while clearly not realizing that your comparison is irrelevant in the vast, vast majority of IUD cases. You then fell back on the well it's not 100% argument which is a nearly useless rebuttal. And despite all of that, I even addressed the (silly) comparison by pointing out that both the use of iuds and abortion should be decided through our constitutionally directed system of voting and representational democracy. And through all of it, your primary concern seems to be the divisive nature of the topic, in which case I really don't see how telling people who are using iuds, specifically to avoid the necessity of an abortion, that they are hypocrites based on a very shallow logic, somehow addresses the issue decisiveness rather than stoking it.

And where exactly are these traditional IUDs being prescribed? They are quite rare, but sure, I guess with your twisted logic we can ban those, if the voters so decide. The technology advanced to meet your hypothetical. Great news for everyone. Further, my logical line regards the point at which life begins, not when a person should no longer have the ability to prevent/end a pregnancy. Since we don't yet have the tech to fully prevent crossing "my" logical line, more allowances are justified. Further further, the 100% standard isn't used anywhere, so why bring it up here? Further further further, you are still avoiding the topic of the constitutionality of abortion. You are arguing that despite the complete absence of any constitutional basis for Roe, despite the wild variation in voter opinions, despite your own beliefs on abortion, despite the position of the rest of the developed world... That Roe should stand because of the mid term elections? Yikes. This is exactly why Ron needed to be overturned. You are twisting yourself into knots trying to come up with some sort of excuse to bypass the American system of governance. We do not rule through judicial decree. "To have neither force nor will, but only judgement." Which is an excellent way of bringing us back to the actual topic at hand. Should the right to abortion be through judicial decree, or should it be through the will of the people? There are no constitutional arguments for abortion, and there is no shortage of liberal scholars, rooting the justices that wrote roe in the first place, who will point this out. Have you read the ruling? I don't really care what your position on IUDs is in relation to abortion, because the rest of America is not required to conform their moral positioning around your logic. Is abortion a right? Why?

No, I have not. Personally I think fertilization is the logical point. But I recognize the limits of the technology we have. As I said, I'd like a better way, but we don't have it. That's doesn't change the distinction between an abortion and an IUD, which is obvious. We hold the same position on abortion, except I believe the people get to decide, not just me, just just the court. I follow the constitution wherever I can. And someone can take care of a baby delivered after viability that isn't the mother. Just like someone else is required to perform most abortions. Semantics. Once in (and always inserted before pregnancy), you do nothing to enable the function of an IUD. Again, if you can't see the difference you are being intentionally obtuse. Also, you're forgetting that overwhelmingly IUDs prevent ovulation in the first place, as well as prevention sperm from reaching the egg. The comparison falls apart even more. Plan B is a middle ground insofar as you don't actually know if you're pregnant (and can't be at the time of taking it). Go figure, another shade of gray in an issue everyone wishes was black and white. And where exactly is that "freedom" provided for? Once again, by what basis do you make this statement? There's nothing in any of our founding documents that protect someone from consequences. The logical extrapolation of this unenumerated right is extreme. Do I have a right to keep my house if I gamble away all of my money and can no longer afford the payments? I have always been in favor of abortions for rape cases, so that only leaves voluntary associations made between a man and a woman that result in pregnancy. I really can't see how the obvious outcome of such associations is somehow anathema to the foundation of freedom in our country.. So... Just another Tuesday. It's been 50 years in the debate surrounding this subject hasn't cooled off one iota. If anything it's gotten worse. Our system is by design meant to resolve those issues at the ballot box. Perhaps. I suspect a lot of Republicans would argue that taking control of the legislature is meaningless if you can't pass legislation that is most important to you. You pose a catch 22 that the Republican party has been grappling with since the Bush years. I suppose you'll completely step back from this argument once you realize that IUDs do in fact stop fertilization? Honestly I think it's absurd even without that technicality, but it is fully invalid with it.

You guys are drawing distinctions at a different location, then complaining that people draw distinctions somewhere else. Is it or is it not okay to murder a 1-year-old? How about 6 months? How about 2 days after birth? Why? Is it merely the encapsulation of the body inside another body? The transfer of nutrients and blood through the umbilical cord? The one month old is still completely reliant on its mother for survival as it is post-viability, so why do we draw the line at birth? Because life isn't black and white, and you have to draw lines somewhere. I'm not religious, so I can't speak for Catholics who are against birth control or condoms, or anybody else with different views. But I believe there is a fairly obvious difference between an IUD, which is a passive measure that must be undertaken before conception, and abortion, which is an active measure taken after the life is created. Is it perfect? Obviously not. I would much rather a bulletproof method of contraceptives that can be given once via handshake, has 100% effectiveness, prevents the discharge of an egg from the ovary until a reversing drug is taken, and makes my dick bigger during sex. The primary difference here is I am not acting as though your position is unreasonable or illogical, though your characterization of the opposition is. I simply disagree and have a differing view of the various factors, and the point of this whole thread the Roe ruling rather than the morality, which is clearly one of the most constitutionally unfounded Supreme Court rulings in American history. I do not consider your position absurd, nor do I view you as immoral for holding it, though I do believe the sanctity of life is a moral issue. That's why I disagree with (most) abortion, which is separate from disagreeing with the train-wreck-rulings that are Roe and Casey. But it is getting tiring hearing a bunch of people act like a biological function, in fact the primary biological function, is somehow a massive imposition on the species. Billions of women living in much harsher times have endured the rigors of childbirth just fine, while the medical risks have been enormously reduced and the non-abortion options to avoid pregnancy have multiplied in both methods and access. It's never, ever been easier to be a woman (or man) of any class. The hysteria over the supposed suffering to be endured by women as a result of the banning of abortion is simply overblown. If a state bans IUDs I will oppose it, for fuck's sake I'm not even in favor of banning first trimester abortions, but I will not subvert our entire system of governance for this issue. Contested social issues are decided by votes, not judges. IUDs and abortions are not immune from such considerations. If it's a matter of human rights, add it to the constitution; there's a process for that too. We the people, not we the people who agree with my position and not the other ones.

1. Because context matters. Unless you're making a religious argument, which overwhelmingly the pro-choice crowd is not, then you have to base morality off some sort of societal context. Since the rest of the world has a much lower tolerance for third term trimesters (much, much lower), you have to make a counter-argument for how such abortions are a moral "right." 2. This is another false equivalence. It also wildly overstates the costs of birth in the US. If you're poor and pregnant, you can have the child, surrender it, and live a normal life. Everything you listed, like abortion, is an issue to be decided by the voters, not the court. The premise that abortion can only be illegal if you make a bunch of other stuff that I want legal is not how it works. You may not like it, but it is perfectly rational for someone to believe that you are not allowed to kill a fetus, and also not allowed to rely on the government to provide for your every need. 3. According to polling, correct. But I'm not sure what you mean by "what's being debated." Once again, are we talking about the supreme Court ruling, or are we talking about the morality of abortion? Overturning Roe does not make abortion illegal. Full stop. Read. The. Ruling. 4. This is a rather ironic statement, considering the Roe and Casey rulings were foisted upon the American people at a time when 49 or 50 states had some sort of restrictions on abortion more restrictive than the viability precedent set by Roe. No one voted on it, and no one legislated it. That is by definition the actions of a ruling class. https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vUlNWMjM0NzE0Mjg4MQ/episode/OTAwYWNlNjItNjI3MC0xMWVjLWFmNzctNTdhMTc3ODNmMmJj?ep=14 Once again, Bari Weiss saves the Day. This is a Democrat interviewing a Democrat about why Alito's ruling is correct and constitutional.