jazzdude

I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this, and yes, Congress has it's own issues. But that's okay, and I think the fact respectful conversation from different viewpoints is still happening is great, and lends itself to rebuilding a sense of unity within our country. Congress is doing their job as being a check on the executive branch. And yes, practically it doesn't change the outcome. But if successful, it officially captures and condemns the actions of the President. It might not affect us as individual citizens directly, but it does matter in rebuilding trust in the office of the President and Congress (as a check/balance on the executive branch). And at worst, Congress wastes 2 weeks, which they've wasted on lesser things. On the NDAA, yes, it was late, but Trump vetoed it for not including the right to sue social media companies (elimination of section 230 protections), which has absolutely nothing to do with defense, and required Congress to revote to override the veto. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had the NDAA approved until after the administration change. Then Senate Republicans tied increased stimulus payments (that Trump tweeted he wanted) to the elimination of section 230. I think Trump saw the writing on the wall that he was going to eventually get blocked on social media (only reason he hadn't was twitter felt as president, they should allow him to continue to use their platform, which I'm sure brought a lot of people into twitter to see the craziness), and that he'd have no legal recourse to get unblocked because twitter is a private business that is protected by section 230. Does anyone think Trump is going to quietly fade away after he leaves office, like previous presidents traditionally have? And yes, Obama did somewhat break that tradition with public criticism of Trump, which was disappointing, but hasn't seemed to be in the forefront of any political movement, or at least has started out of the media's eye. But Trump has plenty of people who believe he was the rightful winner of the election, who believe it enough to break into Congress.

Makes two of us then. You're assessment is spot on. It's been frustrating though seeing so many conservatives against net neutrality because they viewed it as anti business, and that the free market will self correct to deliver the "best" product or service, not realizing that regulations should be in place to stop exactly what is happening now with ISPs. That, or they just accept dealing with Comcast and their monopoly in many markets as a fact of life. There are other tech issues that are interesting as well. I mentioned the shift to electronic banking earlier: should the government have some form of electronic banking not reliant on private banks or credit card companies to complete financial transactions? What about email and the servers to support it (after all, the federal government funds USPS for mail delivery, and email is much the modern letter)? It helps support our right to openly communicate. You could even argue that extend to social media platforms, though I'm not sure how that would be implemented (not sure how the government can regulate Facebook without giving Facebook a list of things people can't say, which would violate the spirit of the 1st amendment). I don't have the answers to these questions, and they are small issues, but they are interesting enough to merit more investigation/discussion on how technology changes our society, and what government needs to do to ensure our basic/fundamental rights are upheld. Sure, some conservatives may chuck spears saying that's not the founder's intent, but times change and new technologies are being invented. It's just like when the left says the 2nd amendment only applies to firearms that existed in the founder's times: it's stupid, and misses the original intent of the founder's by being over simplistic and taking an overly literal interpretation of the constitution.

Not great... But we keep doing it And it seems to backfire on us, creating decades of headaches

That's a foul, but legal based on the policies pushed by Republicans. An ISP should not have the power to unilaterally decide to block internet traffic. But it's put Republicans in a weird spot: they don't want ISPs regulated or treated as common infrastructure, but that means that an ISP, as a business, can block whatever they want. They haven't really done so in the past because there hasn't been a business case for doing so (although streaming service can and do get throttled) So the GOP (and the region served by that ISP) is reaping what the GOP sowed, and suddenly are surprised that their political platform has real consequences. When you put all your faith in the free market, you are putting your faith in the market keeping the same values as you; otherwise, you can get screwed over real quick. And now conservatives (primarily on the far right) are getting screwed by the system they profess to love. So it's internet access a right? Or is it a luxury? Because right now conservatives are screaming it's a right, and yet have blocked efforts for years to have internet treated as infrastructure, or to provide access to the poor ("Obama phone"), or to force ISPs to improve the physical internet infrastructure especially to rural areas.

I thought our involvement in Syria was largely to oppose Russian interests in the region, and Assad's actions against his own people gave us justification to take military action against a government that supports Russian interests, and help install a government friendly to US interests.

Even if you threw all the money at healthcare, the fact of the matter is there is not enough doctors and nurses in our country (and that was before the pandemic). It still takes 4 years to make a medical resident (assuming they have their bachelor's degree), and an additional 2-4 years to make them a doctor who doesn't require supervision. It takes 2 years to make a registered nurse, though many places won't hire an RN if they don't have a BSN (4 year degree), even though they both have the same license and can do all of the same procedures and care. Sure, you could buy more equipment, assuming the supply chain could accommodate a surge in demand. Also, you can't just tell the high risk to stay home without an economic impact. Maybe the elderly, but anyone with other risk factors but younger are out and working. Maybe they can telework, maybe not. If they work for a smaller company, that absence will be felt, and that person would likely be replaced by a new hire (if there's another person available, since a people staying home on quarantine means there will be competition for workers). Or the company reorganizes and eliminates that position. What happens to the person that was allowed to quarantine post pandemic? Their job is now gone, and businesses have gotten more efficient. It also doesn't fully solve the exposure problem. If one person in the household is high risk and the other isn't, you still have someone going out into public and risks bringing it home with them. Yes, there's some lower risk if that high-person can stay home, but it hasn't eliminated it for them, especially if things like masks and social distancing aren't in place.

A press conference (or really any official communication) is likely heavily filtered by the White House administration staff, likely with legal and policy reviews by administration action officers to ensure they are on message (and consistent with what they've been messaging), and to ensure whoever is delivering the message (whether it's the President or someone else) is prepared for anticipated questions or reactions, especially if they are taking questions. Twitter, as Trump used it, appeared to be very unfiltered. Maybe it was a well thought out communication, maybe it was just a knee jerk reaction or spur of the moment thought that popped into his mind. Hard to tell it apart, which made it confusing for many people used to seeing official statements (or you could say legacy types of communications).

I agree with your sentiment, to include he should be impeached. But I still believe there are Dems that actually don't care about Trump's actions, only that he is a political enemy, and to not let a crises go to waste for political gain. Put another way, is doing the right action for the wrong reasons ethical?

That's an option too. However, impeachment, if successful, would end Trump's ability to hold a federal office in the future, as well as be a formal condemnation from Congress on his actions. So those are the only reasons I can think of to do it this late in his term. Outside pure politics.

Shifting gears, it's pretty ridiculous that Democrats in Congress are pushing for Pence to invoke the 25th amendment in a bid to remove Trump. I think that would set a dangerous precedent for using the 25th amendment when opinions are different, and not the president being incapacitated. I guess you could argue Trump is mentally ill, but maybe he's just an idiot or a dick. Congress has it's own process for removing a president, so how about using that?

It's a legitimate strategy, especially if you think your opponent is going to dig themselves in a hole. All things being equal, if you're objective is to win a vote, the fewer times you are compared, the better your odds (though name recognition can skew the voting). Just like a bye round in a tournament. It's why you see late entrants into primaries, and bigger names don't formally announce their intent until a few debates have past: the fewer times your views are challenged and debated, the fewer chances you have to lose, and the better your odds are off winning. Especially if they actively monitor the earlier debates and take the most popular opinions from the other (not yet) competitors to fine tune their platform, while the competitors who declared their intent to run tear each other apart. ETA: you see both parties do this. It's likely also a reason why Trump stopped doing press conferences, or didn't want to debate. Every time Trump speaks publicly, the could be risking alienating moderate Republican voters. They might not vote for Biden, but they may just not vote. So if you don't have a official public opinion or position, there's nothing to debate against. And tweets could be argued to be an "in the moment" our off the cuff response that doesn't reflect the official position on a matter. (Like the whole mollygate debacle at Laughlin, though those IPs lost that argument, while many on the outside said it's just informal/joking talk between friends)

And just to add, one of the doctors in the article said that studies have proven that coronavirus can survive on surfaces, but haven't proven transmission. That's technically true, because the studies weren't looking to prove that. So surface transmission hasn't been "disproven" per se, just not studied (reference my earlier NIH link). Still unlikely for reasons that doctor listed though. If you've got to fund research for a pandemic, it'll likely be along the lines of the major transmission routes (droplet, aerosol?) rather than a possible but unlikely transmission route, especially when time/money is limited. Especially when routine cleaning, washing your hands, and not touching your face (which should all be "normal", but maybe not for everyone in practice) should in theory greatly reduce or eliminate surface transmission.

Also respect (and appreciate) your replies, and I think makes for good discussion that really needs to happen in Congress. But you're right, we have been dancing around some points. True net neutrality (and not what the Trump administration pushed) is essential: ISPs need to be considered common infrastructure just like phone companies or electric companies, because if they are not, they can definitely cut off individuals with no recourse. But conservatives have been fighting that tooth and nail, because it would make ISPs less profitable, much more regulated, and bring more government oversight. Money is another issue like you raise up. Sure, cash is king, but we've moved to a largely digital currency, and rely on commercial vendors to facilitate the electronic movement of money. Should electronic money transfers be nationalized? Or should there be a government service to guarantee access to electronic payments in a cashless environment so companies can't cut off people from buying/selling goods and services? It's a good question, and needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, the GOP would likely fight it since it hurts the banking industry (lost revenue from transfer fees) "Good ol' American entrepreneurial spirit" was a bit tongue in cheek. What some conservatives are learning is that the free market can be very brutal if your interests don't align with what businesses or market interests are. Who stops monopolies from forming? Typically, the government, but conservatives have been pushing to deregulate and allow the free market to reign in the name of smaller government, without considering there's a price to pay for allowing the market to set what is acceptable. I'm not throwing spears at conservatives save for one- sometimes people (both conservative and liberal) don't critically think about their values and the potential ramifications of putting those values into practice, especially when it relies on others behaving how we want them to behave. Some values are just parroted from their parties stance with an oversimplification explanation that ignores real issues with the stance. And you're right, the debate on what a platform's responsibility is not settled, and you and I have different opinions on that responsibility. My viewpoint may be a bit skewed because I gave up on most social media (not BaseOps, obviously), so maybe I'm biased in believing a person can live a happy life without checking the Facebook or twitter feed, and keep in contact with friends and family through other means. But we need to continue taking a hard look at this problem, debating potential options, and eventually putting it into law (and not just executive order or executive agency policy).

From CDC:

Social media hasn't been given a legal carve out anymore than a business that owns a theater/stage has, or any private gathering. A private theater running an open mic night can cut the mic off on a speaker who's opinions they feel are inappropriate without repercussions from the government. Or they could choose not to. It's their mic and venue, and they can choose who to let up on their stage. Same goes in my backyard, if someone is acting up and I don't like it, I can tell them to get off my property without fear of the government telling me I have to let that individual state their opinion in my yard. Same idea applies to social media. Even to this forum, which falls under the social media umbrella; our mods shouldn't have to justify to the government why a post was removed or why SpecOpsFighterPilot was banned. Social media platforms can moderate, but they aren't legally required to. Not to say they won't, but they'll do enough to stay out of civil or criminal courts, which a lot of their current efforts are focused on (blocking and reporting to the government things such as child porn, murders, etc), and I'm sure they do a lot of work with law enforcement behind the scenes. But requiring them to moderate everything leads to a very ugly world: someone would have to be the arbiter of truth and appropriateness, or the business case goes away due to the workload required and the company closes. So who owns the truth and arbitrates what is acceptable? A private company not held to public responsibility? Does the government step in and give the private companies the rules users must abide by in their speech on the platforms? If a platform has to justify blocking a user to the government, then the government is in the position of now restricting that individual's free speech, by agreeing that the block is legitimate. That is not a place we want this country to go, and violates the underlying principles of the first amendment you are arguing we need to protect. It's something some on the left have wanted, and now I'm surprised many "small government" conservatives have jumped on the bandwagon for more government control in regulating what we can and cannot say. If the government is granted that ability, it won't be long until it starts to block criticism of the government. You don't have "rights" on a private platform-your use of that service is dependent on both parties (you and the company providing the service) agreement to use that service, and that agreement can be terminated by either party at their leisure. This is the same as a store asking (or forcing) you to leave their place of business for causing a disturbance. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. If there's nowhere else to go, well, apply some of that good ol' American entrepreneurial spirit and start your own platform business. If the people want want you're selling, you'll also have the added benefit of getting rich. The American dream :) This is what the free market brings: competition. If there's a need it the on the market, or you don't like what's on the open market, build a business to fill that need, and if your product or service is better, then people will come to your business. And this is what should happen in social media: let the market decide. Users will go to the platform they like, and if they don't like it, they will leave. If you don't like what twitter is doing, quit using twitter and go somewhere else. Vote with your feet. There is no such thing as a neutral platform; they will skew with the users and moderators. And that's stuff that changes over time. But for most, the common social media outlets are good enough for most who use them to get their full of updates on friends and family, and cute pictures of cats and dogs.

Not to mentioned straight up legal racism in our country, which contributed to those race riots. But progressives of those eras pushed for reform. That's not to say every progressive agenda item is right or justified, but sometimes maintaining a comfortable status quo for a select segment of the population isn't the right answer for the nation, even if you are a conservative. That doesn't mean to just accept what the left has to say, but to challenge it and refine where the country should go on a particular issue through an examination of what we value and why.

I enjoyed my time flying in AETC, and generally had good leadership, moreso than my AMC time.

Primarily yes, but being in a room with several people eating means they aren't wearing masks, increasing transmission risks. Though it's not the primary transmission route, CDC recommends washing your hands and not touching your face to lower the transmission risk. My going away last summer skipped the food, as did many of my peers' going aways and retirements. Unfortunate to lose the last lunch push with my squadron. But Covid sucks, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

That control will be exerted by someone. It could be pushed down to states. And large businesses hold lots of influence, and to some extent, power and control. It may not be a formal, defined power or control, but may exist in practice (see the whole discussion about twitter). You're right, power and control doesn't necessarily have to be at the federal level, but stripping it from the federal government doesn't magically solve the problem, just shifts the issues. Unless we are willing to return to a largely agricultural society and don't allow power to accumulate in private organizations such as businesses. But that'd require figuring out what to do with the much larger population we have and giving up many modern conveniences we take for granted. As well as reducing our influence in the world. You could push power (and responsibility) back down to the states (arguably the original intent), but that'll never happen now because many smaller, less productive states would never allow it since it will cause then to lose funding. What happens when everyone leaves say North Dakota for better opportunities elsewhere, and the state loses any real economic power, reducing tax revenue, and preventing the state from providing basic government services? Does the state default? Get annexed? Who takes care of the citizens for basic services (like vital records or courts)? Does a state like California then get more say at the federal level because it contributes more to the federal government? And if not, what is it's incentive to stay when money flows out of state without a perceived return in value?

The GOP didn't want to let go of them in the name of keeping a solid voting block against the Democrats, and gave in to a lot of what the tea party wanted. But in return, the GOP started selling out it's ideals out to their fringe, and probably led to Trump becoming the GOP nominee in 2016. Hopefully the GOP learned it's lesson about catering to the fringe and cuts the "patriots" loose before they lose what remaining credibility they have left.

The far right MAGA breaking off from the GOP will hurt the GOP in the near term, but will help in the long term. It allows the GOP to no longer have to cater to the extremists in the party, and allow them to appeal to more moderate voters. Plus it starts to break down the 2 party system, which is a good thing.

I get your sentiment. And I think generally, social media tries to be careful and walk a fine line. Because again, there's a business case to be made for having as wide of a user base as possible to increase their revenue. But Jan 6 crossed a line for many companies who felt that the violent actions were organized using their services, so they blocked people they believe we're inciting that violence to prevent future acts using their services. The president's speech isn't limited by being blocked by twitter; he literally has a press room for official communications, and his campaign to get out political messages. Plus the argument that 1st amendment principles doesn't apply to modern communications isn't a strong one. Government can't restrict an individual's speech, but businesses can control what they publish. For publishers, they don't have to publish opinion columns that they don't like. For platforms, they generally aren't held responsible for the opinions of those speaking on their platform (a theater isn't liable for the opinions expressed by a performer or speaker who performs on the stage). Those concepts can be directly applied to new communications technology since the underlying principles remain true, and have been codified in section 230. Which is why Trump and the Republicans have been adamant about repealing section 230, and tied increasing Covid stimulus payments to repealing section 230. Repealing it allows people or organizations to sue a platform such as twitter for perceived unfairness. Which sounds good at a surface level, but opens the door for continuous frivolous lawsuits, especially from political agents, against the platform, rendering the business model unviable for social media platforms. So then everyone loses that platform due to political views of a few well connected and wealthy individuals.

If that's what they want to do... Then yeah, it's fine. Freedom of speech doesn't mean others have to listen to you, nor do you have to listen to others. Is it a good plan to live in an echo chamber you build around yourself? I don't think so. It reinforces blindspots, and prevents growth of critical analysis of what's going on in and around your life. But if you wanted to do so, it's a free country, so long as you're not breaking any laws. There's no way to force people to listen to other points of view, at least not in a free country. But this does put our nation in a precarious situation. People are free to say what they want, and to organize, no matter how vile others may view their ideas. And generally, our government can't limit that, or at least not until there's clear intent to conduct harm or violate the rights of others. So the price we pay for the our freedom is the potential for violence, with justice coming after violence has already occurred. It's built on the assumption of mutual trust and respect for fellow citizens to prevent things from getting violent. Unfortunately for an individual affected, the damage done by others can't always be undone, but as a society/country, it's an acceptable consequence of our system. So there's always going to be a trade-off between liberty/freedom and security.

As unfair as it seems or is in practice, it's still their sandbox to play in. Part of the challenge is just the sheer volume of posts to moderate, so most moderation is retroactive after something has been posted, subsequently reported, and adjudicated. Automatic takedowns create other problems (like DCMA takedowns on YouTube against original content or fair use content). So yes, if one political leaning doesn't like a platform, make your own.

Eh, don't get to wrapped up in it or take it personally. You provided analysis and COAs, and the guidance/coordination instructions from the base commander. It's up to your wing king to make his decision/actions within the bounds of the tasker, otherwise he'll just look stupid (and it sounds like that happened and he was put in the corner in time out). Sucks you (and the Gp/CCs, and I assume Sq/CCs as well) went through a bunch of thrash over the holidays, but unfortunately that's what you get with crap leaders.