M2

The woman that ran up to help was her mother... "The incident is real, but it is not new. The tiger attack happened in 2016, at China’s Badaling Wildlife World. The incident occurred at a tiger safari park where visitors can drive through and view various exotic animals in a more natural setting. The 32-year-old woman, identified only by her surname, Zhao, reportedly got out of her car after an argument with her husband. Security camera footage captured the moment a tiger pounced on her, dragging her away from the vehicle. In the video, we can see that Zhao steps out of the right side of the car, walks around the front of the car, and opens the left-side door. Then, startled, she looks behind her and within seconds, a huge tiger pounces on her, dragging her out of view of the camera. A man jumps out of the car, looks confused and tries to run after the woman. A woman – the woman’s mother jumps out of the rear seat and runs after the tiger and her daughter. We do not know exactly what happened afterward, but Zhao escaped (maybe because her mother distracted the tiger). Zhao’s 57-year-old mother, surnamed Li , however was attacked by another tiger when she was outside and seriously injured. We can see park rangers arriving at the scene in the video immediately aftewards, but Li died from her injuries before medical help could be provided." More at... https://www.cartoq.com/woman-attacked-by-tiger-when-she-stepped-out-of-car-after-argument-video-fact-check/

It's nothing new...

Almost that time of year again!! 😍😍😍

86 days* on my eForm 1 as of today, still no approval. Beginning to think the ATF is fucking with me! As of 3 July 2023, their website said the average was 40 days! 🤬🤬🤬 * - 86 days, a.k.a... 7,430,400 seconds 123,840 minutes 2064 hours 12 weeks and 2 days 23.56% of 2023

Given the performance and focus of the current CJCS and SecDef, it shouldn't get any worse (but it still will!)... Brown falls right in line with the "progressive" movement in the DoD, just as the CNO nomination and "Admiral" Levine... Bottom line: It doesn't matter what we think.

Loved my career, even despite the shitty parts of which there were plenty, and I'm especially thankful for all the great people I met along the way. Not sure if I would make the same decision now as I did 40+ years ago though...

Enjoy life when you're young and not broke either physically, mentally or financially!

That's a great movie! 🤣🤣🤣

Completely speculative, but I wonder if my state commission would prevent me from being activated Federally as a retiree? The federal government recognizes state defense forces, as per the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution, under 32 U.S.C. §109 which provides that state defense forces as a whole may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces of the United States, thus preserving their separation from the National Guard. However, under the same law, individual members serving in the state defense force are not exempt from service in the armed forces (i.e., they are not excluded from the draft). Under 32 USC §109(e), "A person may not become a member of a defense force ... if he is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces." And just to throw some gasoline on this dumpster fire... United States v. Hooper (1958):

10 U.S. Code § 688 - Retired members: authority to order to active duty; duties https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/688 (a)Authority.— Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, a member described in subsection (b) may be ordered to active duty by the Secretary of the military department concerned at any time. (b)Covered Members.—Except as provided in subsection (d), subsection (a) applies to the following members of the armed forces: (1)A retired member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, Regular Marine Corps, or Regular Space Force. (2)A member of the Retired Reserve who was retired under section 1293, 7311, 7314, 8323, 9311, or 9314 of this title. (3)A member of the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Corps Reserve. (c)Duties of Member Ordered to Active Duty.— The Secretary concerned may, to the extent consistent with other provisions of law, assign a member ordered to active duty under this section to such duties as the Secretary considers necessary in the interests of national defense. (d)Exclusion of Officers Retired on Selective Early Retirement Basis.—The following officers may not be ordered to active duty under this section: (1)An officer who retired under section 638 of this title. (2)An officer who— (A)after having been notified that the officer was to be considered for early retirement under section 638 of this title by a board convened under section 611(b) of this title and before being considered by that board, requested retirement under section 7311, 8323, or 9311 of this title; and (B)was retired pursuant to that request. (e)Limitation of Period of Recall Service.— (1)A member ordered to active duty under subsection (a) may not serve on active duty pursuant to orders under that subsection for more than 12 months within the 24 months following the first day of the active duty to which ordered under that subsection. (2)Paragraph (1) does not apply to the following officers: (A)A chaplain who is assigned to duty as a chaplain for the period of active duty to which ordered. (B)A health care professional (as characterized by the Secretary concerned) who is assigned to duty as a health care professional for the period of active duty to which ordered. (C)An officer assigned to duty with the American Battle Monuments Commission for the period of active duty to which ordered. (D)An officer who is assigned to duty as a defense attaché or service attaché for the period of active duty to which ordered. (f)Waiver for Periods of War or National Emergency.— Subsections (d) and (e) do not apply in time of war or of national emergency declared by Congress or the President. (Added Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title V, § 521(a), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2515; amended Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title V, § 502, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1724; Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title V, § 509(a), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1091; Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, § 809(a), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1840; Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title IX, § 924(b)(4)(I), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 3822.)

Caller ID is your friend! 😎

That one comment caught my attention, and I'd like to share a few (well, more than a "few") thoughts on it.... First, while I will agree that volunteers are more preferable than conscripts (having spent copious amounts of time in countries whose military is made up of the latter); I don't necessarily agree that voluntarily joining makes one of "noble character" as they are fairly well compensated for doing so! I joined the USAF right after high school after discovering stocking shelves at Winn Dixie was not something I wanted to do when I got older (say, into my mid-to-late 20s!). I barely had a education (and it's only gotten worse) and zero skills or experience other than the aforementioned grocery store job. I was just above the minimum wage level and without more things to bring to the table, my chances for making more money and getting a less mundane job were low. Joining the USAF gave me the opportunity to increase my "net worth" considerably while serving. I got two degrees, a commission, and accomplished a long list of things I otherwise would not have had I not joined the military. Yes, we all know the sacrifices required; but we also should have known those risks going into the agreement. Even I, as a 18 year old dumbass, basically knew what would be required of me when in uniform. But the volunteering difference really struck a cord with me after I retired and joined a State Defense Force thanks to a former USAF bud who was already in and talked me into it. If you are not familiar with those, they are military units who operate under the sole authority of a state government as authorized by state and Federal law (in 1940, Congress amended the National Defense Act of 1916 to allow them), and are under the command of the governor of each state. State defense forces are distinct from National Guard units in that they cannot be Federalized, which in turn means no Federal funds can be used to sustain them. So what that boils down to is service in SDFs are true volunteers as they do so pro bono. My TXARNG counterpart across the hall from my office at the armory makes $1,448.24 for his weekend, whereas not only am I unpaid but all my expenses (uniforms, equipment, meals gas, etc.) are out of pocket as well as the amount of time I have to put into my duties (usually in addition to drill, it's an hour or two daily, sometimes more). As you can imagine, it gets to be a very expensive "hobby!" So while I am no disparaging those on Active Duty or in the Guard and Reserves, I now have a second perspective of what "noble volunteerism" is about. Honestly, when I get "thanked for my service" these days, I take it more to heart. And, for anyone still interested enough to be reading this far, our mission for the state is mainly emergency management. We can be activated more easily and quicker than our TXARNG and TXANG counterparts, and are trained to assist state and Federal agencies in establishing shelters and distribution points for disaster survivors. We also have other related missions to include operating emergency tracking networks, supporting comms, security, SAR, conducting wide area searches in disaster areas, medical support, boat and dive crews, and anything else I can get my unit trained and certified to do. Our mission is to initiate and sustain these operations until the TXARNG and TXANG can recall and deploy their troops and equipment into the area, which can take up to two weeks. Just to add, when we are activated on State Active Duty (SAD) orders we are eligible for per diem of $179/day but there is no rank pay at all. So the E-1 is getting the same money as I am. Also, we do have the opportunity to deploy to the Texas border mission (Operation LONE STAR) which has additional compensation to the tune of $84K/yr; but that is mainly offered to enlisted and CGOs. I have about 27 troops on that mission at the moment... So if you think it's tough trying to recruit and retain quality individuals for Active Duty, imagine the leadership challenge to do so for a mission which normally doesn't pay!

I'm interested in what he has to say...

Care to explain how this was a "necessary money move?!?"

Geez, you guys are taking all the fun out of war!

Qu'ils mangent de la brioche!

It's been too long since anyone's posted in this thread! Step it up, gentlemen!!

Space Force general decries 'anti-LGBTQ+' laws at Pentagon 'Pride' event, claims they affect hiring decisions A high-ranking officer in the U.S. Space Force used her speech at a Pentagon "Pride" event last week to rail against what she called "anti-LGBTQ+ laws" introduced in state legislatures across the country. Lt. Gen. DeAnna Burt, deputy chief of space operations, also claimed that such laws affect her hiring and promotion decisions, sometimes leading her to choose a "less qualified" candidate because of a preferred candidate's "personal circumstances." "Transformational cultural change requires leadership from the top, and we do not have time to wait," Burt told those attending the event. "Since January of this year, more than 400 anti-LGBTQ+ laws have been introduced at the state level. That number is rising and demonstrates a trend that could be dangerous for service members, their families, and the readiness of the force as a whole." "When I look at potential candidates, say, for squadron command, I strive to match the right person to the right job. I consider their job performance and relevant experience first. However, I also look at their personal circumstances, and their family is also an important factor," she said...

To tell if a party has traits of fascism, here's the acid test. - Are they attempting to disarm citizens? - Are they attempting to control the flow of information? - Are they trying to set up where the government controls your healthcare, housing, education, and welfare making you dependent on them? - Do they balk when you suggest making elections more secure? - Do they attempt to blame one racial group for the problems of the nation? - Are they trying to control academia and the media? - Are they wanting to pack the courts to suit themselves? - Do they call for violence against those that disagree with them? That tends to be your “real party of fascism!”

It's not the "exclusive domain of liberals," but they use it far more than the conservatives...