jazzdude

Yeah, you make a great point, and I think I'm sold on it. I'm sure that in general there's a lot of back door, non public discussions to hash out bills. Plus lots of talk between staffers to work out fine details and brief their representative/senator/committee. A lot of what's on C-SPAN is done for public effect, and a lot of the real work is done outside. Chances are any questions asked in session Congress already knows the answer to (or at least a very good idea of what it will be). And I'm sure that debate isn't just between parties, but within them as well (gotta keep everyone in your political voting block in line). I guess if an issue is important enough, there will be enough people to keep the debate alive, draft a bill, and get it voted on. Not sure if I want the process to be painful, but definitely should be reasoned and deliberate, and not an emotional knee jerk.

I think the political parties don't want to push reducing the EO power in general, because they want that power when it's their turn in power. Hence the laser focus on individual EOs and overturning the individual issue, rather than addressing EO power in general. Filibuster makes sense to ensure adequate debate to make an informed decision, but only if the issue is debated in good faith. Otherwise like has been pointed out, it acts as a means to just increase the vote required to 60 (and doesn't require any real debate). I do agree that a simple majority vote can be problematic, mainly because of the 2 party system we have in place, for the reasons you mention. In theory, the president would be the balance on stopping something pushed through on party lines on a simple majority through veto power, but since the president may be aligned with the party in power, in practice this fails unless Congress and the President are controlled by different parties.

Why not just raise the vote to pass legislation to 60 instead of simple majority? Same end effect as keeping the filibuster, and forces a vote versus continuing to debate to avoid a vote. Plus, inaction on an issue is a decision. Not saying legislation should be rushed, but at the same time it shouldn't just be sat on for political gain. Yes, it slows down the process to allow debate and hopefully make deliberate decisions. But that's a double edge sword. Because it's so slow, a lot of power has been ceded to the executive branch, who can react a lot faster through executive orders, or through selective enforcement of non-enforcement of laws and policies. This grants one party a lot of power to make the changes they want without debate, though if only temporarily for 4-8 years. And as we've seen, with a gridlocked Congress, it becomes difficult to hold the President accountable.

Absolutely hilarious, classic dumb 2LT shenanigans. Though I'll say that at least one GO or DV parking spot should be fair game at the O-club for LTs, since just about everyone one of them has gotten rid of the LT spot by the door. (Last time I saw one was at Maxwell, and that was several years ago). Then again, don't think many LTs are going to the o-club on a Friday night anymore...

The challenge is that a lot of race issues are a local problem, and solutions require local communities figuring out what work for their community. Selective enforcement of the law and biases in sentencing are problems within the justice system. Great of the unfamiliar is also a problem for police: if you don't understand the culture or mannerisms of a particular group of people, it can be very easy to view unfamiliar behavior as threatening, which escalates the amount of force used. Also, the thin blue line movement is stupid. It creates this notion that people in the community are bad, and the police keep the order. This creates a mentality of separation of the police from the community it is supposed to be protecting. But these are issues that have to be fixed within a community at a local area. Increasing funding for police would have varying effects. It's built on the belief that they will spend the money to improve training, or hire more police. But I'd bet that many departments will buy better toys (cars, maybe outfit a SWAT team or two, or a helicopter) rather than invest in training. Sounds an awful lot like the DoD... That unfamiliarity in culture differences also can cause problems in other areas in life. Job interviews, housing, etc. That can also make it hard to escape your circumstances. And that's a local issue (there's already federal laws regarding hiring and housing protected classes). There's also a motion that if you work hard enough and have enough grit, you can escape and climb the social ladder. In some cases, it's true, but it also relies on good luck and timing, which aren't always acknowledged (many people are suckers for the great man theory). But often times, it seems to be parents making huge sacrifices in their life to give their kids a better life that breaks the chain. The formula for upward mobility has also changed. Used to be a college degree was enough to bring home a good job, and was a safe bet. Now even that is a significant gamble, with many people being saddled with heavy debt that can't be discharged in bankruptcy. This one's probably a national issue though-good intentions with bad unintended consequences. But it doesn't stop employers from requiring or preferring college degrees, even if the job in no way requires one. So there's a lot of systemic and cultural issues that contribute to the race problem (but it's really a culture problem). Here's an AF example: remember when everyone was complaining about having to complete SOS/ACSC and a master's in their off time in order to have a decent chance of promotion? And how that was taking away time with the family? And that commanders were using those factors also in determining strats (essentially dinging you twice for the same item)? And at least within AMC, special programs are also tired to those factors (WIC, Phoenix). The typical line was to show your commitment to the system, you know what the game is, and if you want to advance, you have to play the game. Sure, a very small percentage of people a year might be promoted without a master's or PME. The system wasn't going to change itself (the statistics show that advanced degrees and PME were positive indicators of future success...) But a systemic issue forced a lot of pain onto the population of officers, and it took CSAF unilateral action to change it (masking degrees). And even then it feels like there are commanders out there that still use master's degrees in their strat matrix. But if you look out in the civilian world, we expect people, largely who are poor or in the lower end of middle class, to pay out of pocket for night classes to get a degree or trained in a different career fields to improve their station in life, and no one blinks an eye. It's just expected, and to an extent, celebrated as American culture (busting your butt to live a comfortable life). But it ignores that there's risk involved for the individual, and even if you work hard, bad timing of luck means you can still fail. This is compounded by the survivorship bias, where is ready to pick out certain factors and point to that being the reason for success, while ignoring many other factors that contribute to that success. We're also a very individualistic society, so we tend to not recognize the support or help we get from the society that surrounds us. If you're not aware of that fact, when you look at people who are struggling from that perspective, it's very easy to lay 100% of the blame on the individual, even though there may be a societal issues to blame as well.

Mainly because the officer corps abdicated that authority. Get rid of the E-9 parking spots (I'll give a pass here for the E-club). Want a parking spot? Commission and make O-6. ETA: Want any DV treatment? Commission and make O-6

Interesting article, thanks. Hadn't seen anything on this, though it makes sense based on the rationale for a 2 shot sequence (initial reaction/antibodies, then immune memory/recall response). I'll still get the shot when I can, but I'd be surprised if it's before this summer. Hopefully more research would be done by that point on vaccinating people who have already had COVID (and hopefully confirming the info in your linked article), especially if it means I only need 1 dose, and frees up 1 for someone else. I'm not in a rush or anything, and if I can't get a shot before natural immunity runs out, I'll just keep doing the best I can with social distancing/masking/etc. I've read 8 months to 11 months on natural immunity, so picked the conservative one for my timeline. It also roughly lines up with my personal experience. Pretty sure I've had COVID twice, once in early March (couldn't get tested for Covid) and again in December (confirmed). I guess I could've caught something else in March, but running a low fever for 6 days, significant fatigue & chills, a dry cough, bruising on my toes, and a negative test for influenza A/B seems to all point to likely COVID.

Don't think the retired rank really matters until O-6, and only if you want to be treated as a DV in retirement (get that sweet DV suite at the AF Inns)

Agree that how this is implemented is important. This isn't a new problem, just pulled back into the spotlight. My guess is we won't see a substantial policy change, except for increased emphasis on existing policy/regulation), and likely some more awareness training (probably another annual cbt...) Easy kills would be people with strong ties to known white supremacists or neo nazi groups, and inspections for tattoos or paraphernalia in their dorm linking someone to those groups. Probably get ordered to remove the offending tattoo or remove the offending paraphernalia, or be discharged. Also, any military members stupid enough to storm and physically enter the Capitol on 6 jan probably gets discharged as well. From there, it gets harder. I doubt there would be any significant change to policy, but OSI/CID/etc will shift is focus to put more enough emphasis on investigating and charging suspected violent extremists within the military. Commanders will likely also be charged to be on the lookout within their units. It'll probably take several years to correct the problem. Maybe someone with ties to extremists doesn't directly get kicked out, but maybe they aren't offered reenlistment (not sure how to force an exit on the officer side). But that relies on commanders placing department goals (eliminate extremists) potentially at odds with unit goals (mission effectiveness) if an identified extremist happens to be someone that is otherwise technically skilled/proficient. I'll also bet there will be an increased emphasis on recruiters not looking the other way when a recruit has known or suspected ties to violent extremists or white supremacists groups. But this shouldn't be anything new. The challenge is that the extremists we don't want in uniform will adapt (except for the stupid ones), making it much harder to identify them until they do something, whether it's racially/politically motivated violence in the community, or leaking secrets to our enemies. I also wonder if this effort will be tied into the continuous monitoring for security clearances that we've been shifting to

Cool, we're actually in agreement. "Don't know" is sometimes useful in surveys, but sometimes dumb. For the question we've been looking at, I think it's pretty hard to not have an opinion one way or another, and a don't know answer to me says "hey, it's possible, just don't know one way or the other." But I'm probably biased. A better scale here might've been the strongly agree/somewhat agree/somewhat disagree/strongly disagree scale: force them to make an opinion, and not take a coward's stance... Also, some of the better designed surveys will ask the same question multiple times in different ways. Increases length, but can provide better information. It's why some of the AF or DOD surveys are so long. And yet, they have the time to do a survey. (I realize the irony of us having spare time to post politics on an online discussion forum, to include doing some cursory research to back comments) Probably the hardest part about conducting surveys/polls: your data is only as good as the people who have the time and desire to do the survey in the first place, and often without compensation. Making it mandatory doesn't help either, since those that don't want to participate will at best click through as fast as possible (especially if don't know or neutral are options), or at worst deliberately pick answers to try and screw with the results.

I absolutely hated statistics in high school and undergrad. Developed an appreciation for it though after I signed up for a graduate level certificate program that I didn't realize until it was too late was essentially 5 graduate level stats courses with fancier/cooler sounding course names... But I agree, intro to stats/probability is definitely more useful in normal life than calculus (or pre-calc) in high school.

I'm trying to figure out how you go from: To: I'll give you that it's probably less likely that someone who says they are a Democrat to fully buy into all of QAnon. But for that question in particular, it shows that a good amount of people don't outright reject their craziness. Even the "I don't know" responses show one of two things: I'm not convinced one way or the other so show me proof, or I don't really care. I think it speaks to a general distrust of our government and society, which is a much larger problem than just QAnon (who admittedly is part of the problem) So I guess I'm confused as to why you'd accept some conclusions from the study and reject others from that same study, without a specific complaint about the methodology. Otherwise, it's just cherry picking data to support your point of view while ignoring conflicting data.

I'm in a similar boat (spending Christmas down with COVID wasn't fun), but will will get the vaccine as soon as it becomes available to me. (Not to say you're wrong in your reasoning) Here's my assumptions: - Need at least 42 days from that (28 days between shots, plus a couple weeks to build immunity following shot #2) from when I get the first shot to build immunity - Shots are available on my schedule, and not running into delays, especially getting the second dose on time - Natural immunity seems to run somewhere between roughly 3 to 8 months based on the data we have now. - Natural immunity provides enough protection against new stains (unknown, so have to make a guess) So that puts me "needing" to get the shot somewhere between 6 weeks (high likelihood of still being immune) and 6 months (likely no remaining natural immunity) after I recovered from COVID to make a smooth transition from natural to vaccinated immunity. Longer waits between shots reduce the upper end of how long I can wait and have some immunity. Since I'm not in a priority group (phase 3), I'm guessing I'll be towards the back end of that window anyways, so I will need to take it as soon as I get the opportunity. It's not a scramble though, I'm not overly concerned, but at the same time don't want to delay unnecessarily into an uncertain future. I also am guessing the longer I wait, the harder it will be to get the second shot as more people become eligible for it (unless completing the shot schedule for higher immunity is given priority over giving everyone partial immunity with just the first shot and then circling back for round two)

Interesting study. Sample size seems to be reasonable (though the testers are at the mercy of people willing to do the survey, I'm sure a lot of us take the time to do all those AF and DoD surveys when they make their round in email). My beef with this study is that some of the questions seem pretty biased-they could've done a better job at designing the questions. So that's my concern with their methodology. For example, "Republican efforts to change the results of the election are damaging the country" probably would have been better as "Undermining the legitimacy of elections damages our country." The original question biases the respondents into defending their tribe over responding to the underlying question, and creates a barrier to answering the question from a rational/reasoned point of view. Might as well have asked "Are Republicans always better than Democrats?" instead as you'd probably see a pretty similar response breakout. Though they did bait Democrats with "President Trump worked with Russia to win the 2016 Presidential election" (which the pollsters were looking for false as the correct answer). Interestingly, that last question was dropped from NPR's infographic despite being on the pollsters infographic. NPR's article also implies QAnon beliefs is an issue for Republicans, where as the pollsters article points to it being a problem across the board, with Republicans being more likely to believe. For example: T/F regarding Satan worshipping elites running the world, only R-14% D-46% I-33% said this was false (correct answer). So yes, it's a big problem for Republicans, but it's also a big problem for Democrats and independents alike. Unfortunately, the to NPR article only states the first half (Republican problem) while leaving out the rest of the story.

Whether we are in the Paris Accords or not, being the example like in CH's chart buys us credibility in the world to get others to do the same.

I generally agree with you on your points (need for action, we've made good progress towards reducing emissions), though with some caveats. China's the biggest threat, especially if you look at total CO2 produced, and their increasing trend. While the US has made the most reduction, we were and still are the #2 CO2 producer in the world (2018). So the chart you posted can be misleading, but it does show that we are moving in the right direction. Total fossil fuel CO2 puts China at #1 , and the US at #2 as of 2018 data. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/092915/5-countries-produce-most-carbon-dioxide-co2.asp Per capita we're worse than China, so that does temper some of their CO2 output (with more people you'd expect more total emissions), though they are trending upwards. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?stackMode=absolute&time=latest&country=~USA&region=World We didn't formally leave the Paris Accords until Nov 2020, and it looks like we'll rejoin in March 2021, so I don't think leaving really did anything beyond symbolic.

What was that old rule? Never talk to the media? Guess that includes being wary of your own social media...

That, or have a PA handler reviewing posts

This right here is the strongest message the AF has sent in years regarding pilot retention: it's unsolvable, so we are focusing on increasing production. Even the napkin math works out: 1000 pilots per year x 60% retention = 600 pilots retained Ramp up production and you get: 1500 pilots per year x 40% retention = 600 pilots retained Sure, I had to make assumptions (take rate staying the same for starters). More pilots per year produced may help ops tempo issues, but in return makes training and seasoning more difficult (FHP probably isn't going to increase significantly to allow for better training of more pilots). --- I will caveat all this with the fact I did take the bonus. Though probably the biggest change for me was not caring what the AF thinks anymore after I got passed over for major the first time, and focusing on the things I felt were important in my small corner of the AF better. Had a good string of sq/CCs who've helped me overcome some bad luck in my career, and helped me get to jobs working on what I felt was important/interesting work. So it ended up being a win-win for both me and the AF (I wouldn't say the least couple jobs I've had were necessarily "desirable" to most, and me, and in that sense I've been lucky in the latter half of my career. I will give Goldfein credit for his emphasis on the squadrons-a good squadron climate and command would work wonders for retention. But where the AF failed is consistent messaging from CSAF to staffs to AFPC to Sq/CC about an individual's value to the organization, and making individuals feel like their concerns were at least heard. I think things have gotten better, but we still have a long ways to go to fixing the problem.

Looks like we were both partially right. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/01/22/pfizer-vaccine-doses-syringes/%3foutputType=amp Biden administration and Pfizer agreed to pay for 6 doses per vial only if accompanied by the specialty syringe. However, that means every vaccine kit that's already shipped needs the special syringe from an outside vendor if we want to utilize that extra dose.

The AF has done a poor job messaging that we are valued and needed to accomplish the AF mission. The message went from "go ahead and leave, someone will be there to replace you" to "make the best choice for you and your family, the service will find a way to continue, and thanks for your service." I posit that essentially, the AF message hasn't changed, just the language got kinder. They both resign the service to not having to tell us they want or need us to stay ("I'm not going to try and convince you to stay"), which points directly to us not being valued by the service. I don't remember at any point the AF saying during the pilot manning crisis "we need you. We need you to stay because we value your experience and your ideas. Our country needs you. But my words don't mean anything without actions, so here's what we are going to do to show you the service values you." Of course, that also has to be followed up with actual action, or it undercuts the credibility of the GOs, and pushes people out. That's not to say there's been no improvements to show the AF might care about our value you as an individual. Probably the biggest improvements are the MyVector assignment bidding process (better communication of assignment desires and visibility on what is available your vml cycle), and the ability to turn down school without prejudice. Both do give individuals more say in their careers, which may help them decide to stay in. The bonus is still there, though it seems to lag by 2+ years to what's needed, and probably is too low to push people over the fence, so partial credit there (I'd give it a D-). Yes, a military career will probably net you less money than going to the airlines. But it's a similar problem with other fields out in the civilian sector. For example, someone working at a non-profit versus at a for-profit organization where they could make more money. What drives them to take the lower paying job? Likely, a sense of purpose and mission gets them there, and a sense of accomplishment and the organization valuing their efforts keeps them there. Another example at the extreme is volunteering (like Habitat for Humanity): here there's no pay, yet people participate, sometimes with large chunks of their time? So what motivated them to work for free, and continue to do so? Again, my guess is a sense of mission, pride in that mission, and the organizers valuing and encouraging their participation. That's not to say pay doesn't matter. It's much easier to stay when you can pay your mortgage, take care of your family, and have money leftover to pursue what you want (hobbies, travel, toys, side businesses/investments, opportunities for your kids, etc). This article was posted somewhere here several years ago, but it's still relevant today and I think with reposting. It's a blog by a former RAF fighter pilot turned motivational speaker/consultant and it's his take on pilot shortage in the RAF, and his take on why pilots leave the RAF. https://www.fastjetperformance.com/blog/when-pilots-quit-why-we-must-stop-telling-people-they-are-valued-unless-we-truly-value-them

I wrote that from the government's perspective in determining what response to take. From a business perspective, yeah, I agree that it sucks if you're forced to close for pandemic response. Especially since we don't have a significant social safety net. But they still have to collect facts about the market, their customers, and society, make assumptions where gaps of information exist, and go do it. There's been a big shift in facts (government rules), so it's adapt our die. If a restaurant pre-pandemic failed health inspections, they could be fined and/or closed. Is that un-American? You could argue that customers will just figure it out on their own, maybe some like the food, maybe some get sick. Shouldn't it be the business' choice on what health measures to take, and let the free market decide if they stay in business? Or should society set and enforce rules for public safety? What about mandatory evacuations for major fires, hurricanes, earthquakes? Are those un-American because you are being compelled to leave against your will? Each state is different. Different values, different situations, different realities of life. Don't like how your state is handling the response and it's shutting down your business? Move to a state friendlier to your interests and set up shop there. One of the good things so far with pandemic response is that states have taken the lead on executing the plan they believed was best for them. I'm concerned the new administration is pushing (has pushed) towards a stronger federal response, which will ignore the realities and situations in local communities, and favor blanket approaches that may or may not be appropriate at a local level.

Generals can't win wars if there's no one around to fight the wars. That problem gets harder when the fighting force is all volunteer, and draft is pretty much off the table.

It's not just with COVID, in general regarding health and medicine there is a lot we still just don't know, and there's not really an ethical way to accelerate that learning in human trials. So yeah, it's just like anything else in life. You'll never have all the information, so you examine your facts, make assumptions to fill gaps in knowledge, create and weigh your COAs, and execute. Then reassess and readjust as facts and assumptions change. Bias for action, no plan survives first contact, etc. All the standard military operations planning applies. Or if we do what you're suggesting, well, "if he dies, he dies." No matter what, unfortunately people are going to suffer from the pandemic, whether it's directly due to catching COVID, losing family/friends, losing a job/getting hours cut, quitting your job because you're high risk for COVID and trying to protect yourself, your business case changing, etc. Each COA to mitigate COVID has consequences, and it just shifts the suffering to different groups. But the pandemic will run its course until everyone left is either immune (likely through vaccinations) or had died off from COVID.

Oh, forgot about WingX. Same company also makes the aero app for NGA. They used to give subscriptions to military and CFIs for free, not sure if they still do so.