Blue

I imagine the FAA Administrator is a tough job to staff. The population of people with aviation experience at an executive level (whether public or private) is pretty small. To add, the person you nominate has to want the job. With commercial aviation reeling from Covid, Boeing's shenanigans with the MAX and 787, etc, I'd think some qualified people would respond "thanks but no thanks." However, the reality is that, in the hierarchy of qualifications for these politically-appointed jobs, experience is pretty far down the list. It's Identity Politics above all, which means the number one criteria Democrats are looking for is that the nominee either be a woman or a "person of color." When you constrain the candidate pool that much, it's no surprise that you end up with candidates who have really thin qualifications.

Careful what you ask for. From the Seattle Times:

I saw the first Presidential Debate (Sept 29th, 2020) as a prime example of this. Trump could have "parked his ego in the corner" and just let Biden run his mouth. Biden has historically been a poor performer at debates, normally providing a steady stream of verbal gaffes. Instead, Trump came in with both guns blazing, all all Biden had to do was sit back and watch the night implode. Still shake my head at that whole debate.

Some recent rumblings about Biden being too old to run in 2024. The cynic in me thinks that these stories aren't simply plain old journalism, rather they've been timed appropriately to "test the waters" and gauge the public's reaction. From the NYT last week: Should Biden Run in 2024? Democratic Whispers of ‘No’ Start to Rise. In interviews, dozens of frustrated Democratic officials, members of Congress and voters expressed doubts about the president’s ability to rescue his reeling party and take the fight to Republicans. Related article in The Atlantic from yesterday: “It’s not the 82 that’s the problem. It’s the 86,” one swing voter said in a recent focus group, referring to the hypothetical age Biden would be at the end of that (very) hypothetical second term. The Chicago Tribune is going so far as to speculate that IL Governor JB Pritzker's recent trip to New Hampshire is signaling a "soft launch" of his presidential campaign. The guy has a net worth close to $4 billion, so would be interesting to see the impact of his money on the race.

This thread was producing a lot of good discussion, and then the Climate Change grenade got thrown into the room, sending us into a whole page of nonsense back and forth. Don't feed the troll.

It's really stunning the amount of infrastructure that has been dismantled or otherwise hobbled in the pursuit of so-called "green" agendas.

The Air Force Intern program always seemed like a good deal if you were fresh out of school and considering a career in civilian service. Knew a couple of engineers who did it. The starting pay was low, but you were escalated pretty quick, and you had a relatively defined career path. That said, the whole program was designed around engineering, cyber, intel, etc. The fact that they're trying to shoehorn T-6 IPs into the AF Intern program is suspect. If they really wanted civilian T-6 IPs, there is a path to creating and staffing GS billets. If you don't have the time and/or horsepower to create civilian billets, the normal path is to hire contractors. Smells like someone got a visit from the Good Idea Fairy, and came up with the idea of civilian T-6 IPs. Getting GS billets or contractors was to tough a mountain to climb, but they found that the AF Intern program could be used as a workaround. Also, the "pamphlet" thing in the first post, the upper right hand corner reads "Positions available in the follow field." Shouldn't that be "following?" The whole thing just seemed half-assed. If they actually did hire folks, watch them all be quietly dropped once the CSAF or someone moved on (like enlisted UAV pilots).

Yeah, from the outside looking in, it seems like this is just a play to reduce the number of AF pilots needed to man AF planes. Freeing up pilots to go work staff. Since, if you're gonna send someone through the above training, it would seem to make sense to tack on a couple months (or whatever it is) at OTS and make these civilians into Air Force officers.

The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) was founded in 2008. Over the past 14 years, did their work drive any meaningful change? Their reports were regularly quoted in the press. It seems like they did good work. But, the most recent reports sound as depressing as their early reports. Since 2008, the reports always seemed to take on an almost absurdist tone, and never seemed to show that we actually learned anything.

Have some loose ties to the Northern NJ area. Seen it more than once: Boomers who started out in the 80s in NYC. Rode the stock market up, and moved out to the open spaces of Northern NJ when they started families. Built big, beautiful houses. Now, 40 years later, those boomers are retiring. The areas they moved into in the 80s have gone from open fields and quaint little towns to the land of endless big houses and continuous strip malls. Some of those boomers want to sell their houses and cash-in/downsize, but they're finding "Dang millennials just don't want these big houses." While it's probably more accurate to say "Those dang millennials can't afford to buy your house, much less pay the taxes and upkeep required." I think we're seeing the end of the most recent "gilded age" in the US. Not just an inevitable ebb in the ebb and flow of the economy, but a real, sustained period of excessive pain for everyone but those at the top.

I find it hard to believe that anyone with any level of intelligence would think the US could put the genies of abortion or birth control back in the bottle. High net worth or not. I always assumed the "solution" was being carried out in our existing immigration "policies." As in, regardless of what we say, the real policy is that the US will do next to nothing to stop illegal immigration, because the people with money and power don't want to take their hit to the balance sheet.

In the context of linked article I discussed, the author makes an entirely different point. It's not left vs right. Both "sides" are pushing for larger and larger intervention in Ukraine, and if you buy into the typical "my political party vs your political party" argument, then you're a fool. Our current efforts in Ukraine are clearly another proxy war. Which, hell, I'm not even against it. I wish Putin wouldn't have invaded, but now that he has, I see the arguments for giving various forms of support to Zelensky (military, financial, logistical, humanitarian, etc) Where does it end though? If you're keeping score, we have a bad track record at proxy wars: Korea - 1950-1953. We're still there. Vietnam: 15 years of pouring blood and treasure into a country, then left. Afghanistan: We supported the mujahedeen against the Soviets - where the fuck did that get us? An invite back to the country for 20 years of pain and a Global War on Terror. Various involvement in Central and South American proxy wars during the 80s: Not too bad for the average American. Left those poor countries in shambles, though. Would love to see us support Zelensky in his push to get the Russians out of Ukraine. I'd cheer along with him as the last Russian troop walks back across the border, without his weapon. I'd hope Biden and his team have a nice celebration in the Situation Room when that happens. But then what? My fear is we end up doing the same thing in Ukraine that we've done everywhere else. We stay, and continue to pour a bunch of our national treasure into a rat hole. Eventually we start spilling American blood there, too.

I don't know @Prozac. Not sure why I'd be asking a washed up actress, congressman, or TV personality for any kind of medical advice. But that's besides the point. Back in the Before Times, if the CDC made a recommendation, I could evaluate it on my own. I could consult my doctor, my friends, my clergyman, my drinking buddies, or the monster that lives under my bed. I could make my own decision on what to do. I could decide to do what the CDC recommends. I could decide to do the opposite. I could exercise my God-given American right to sit on my ass, and take absolutely no action at all. Regardless of what I decided, I wouldn't face a loss of my job, being barred from local businesses, or anything of the sort. But, I suppose those times are long past.

I too wish to avoid dying of preventable infectious diseases. I believe where we differ is that you have much more trust in our federal government than I do. Good luck, I hope your trust in your government is rewarded, and that your mandated shots bring you the result you desire.

MSM Is Empire Fanfic For Children Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian-based writer who brings an interesting perspective to current events. Her latest post is good in it's own right, but the thing that really stuck out was how Zelensky spoke at both the Grammys and the Cannes Film Festival (via video feed, of course). Of the many things that are troubling about everything surrounding Ukraine, the fact you have this foreign leader speaking at these award shows seems bordering on the bizarre. One aspect of the progressive left is how quickly and easily they are whipped up into fury over the latest cause (Covid, vaccines, BLM, etc). Appearances by Zelensky at these events seem to point towards the continual effort to rally support for increasing involvement of the West in Ukraine.

White women. It's always white women.

Care to share a review of it?

Trying to read between the lines in the original announcement. The FY23 President’s Budget request includes $227 million in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funds starting in FY23. These funds support the acquisition of a rapid prototype aircraft planned to deliver in FY27. So, $227 million in RDT&E starting this fall, to deliver a prototype aircraft in 5-ish years. Can't tell if that's $227 million just for FY23 with more to come in the future, or is that $227 million with execution spread throughout the five years. Either way, that's a decent amount of RDT&E money for a platform that's already fielded. Is there some sort of modernization built into the budget? Respin all the electronics? End up with an "E-7B," or something to that effect?

Yup, that there is the rub, isn't it. They don't need to get all their nukes airborne to cause a big ruckus. Or even some of their nukes. They just need one.

Ehhh, I bristle at any talk of "We must retire platform X to pay for platform Y." It's just another example of a bureaucracy's favorite logical fallacy: The False Choice. If the Air Force's mission really was "Fly, fight and win - airpower anytime, anywhere" like it says on the front door, then we'd have F-23s, F-32s, C-27s, AT-6s, A-29, etc, in addition to the current fleets. Supporting a larger number of aircraft types costs more in operations and sustainment, but it gets you more flexibility and more options in a time of war. Flexibility is the key to Air Power, or so I was taught long ago. It also gives you the opportunity to keep a robust, varied industrial base, which encourages competition, drives innovation, and incentivizes competitors to reduce cost. However, the mission isn't "Fly, fight and win." The mission is "Jobs, graft and lobbying." That's why things always tend towards a fewer number of operational platforms, and incredibly complex acquisitions programs. Flying a fighter jet or cargo plane are pretty straightforward from a cost perspective. X dollars per flight hour, etc. It's therefore pretty hard to program in a lot of graft (although they do try and succeed pretty well). Something like the F-35 program on the other hand is so incredibly complex, there are all kinds of profit-taking and other incentives built in. Congress critters get defense work in their district, the defense contractors get a large long term program to take their 10% profit margin off the top, etc. But, perhaps a conversation better suited for a different thread.

The whole idea of retiring EA-18 Growers en-masse seems like nothing more than a negotiating tactic by the Navy. It's been a long time, and my recollection is a bit fuzzy, but didn't the AF and Navy agree for the Navy to take on all responsibility for Electronic Warfare when the AF retired the EF-111 in the late 90s? Believe the Navy took on all responsibility for tactical reconnaissance, too, when the last RF-4's were retired about the same time. As part of the deal, I believe the Navy was promised some kind of additional funding, in exchange for taking the EW responsibility for the whole DoD. I'd suspect there have been some budget games afoot, the Navy isn't getting their promised $$, and so they're resorting to political gamesmanship. Maybe someone closer to the EW community can clarify.

The vast majority of American's don't want any kind of mask mandate, and are happy the airline mandate went away. The minority of people supporting the mask mandate are: The current crop of Democrats Most of the mainstream press That minority of grown-ass adults who are impressionable and struggle with critical thinking, who buy into everything they are told by the government and the media. Those are the people in your Facebook feed, and quoted in such esteemed rags as The Atlantic and the NYT. White women tend to be overrepresented here, but that's a topic for another time. A special mention goes out to every mid-level white collar employee out there who has been able to seamlessly transition from poking at their laptop in an office building, to poking at their laptop in their home office, while wearing their pajamas. The so-called "Laptop Class." These are the people who are comfy in their homes, and only have to don a mask when going out for groceries, hitting the local Home Depot, or maybe the occasional trip to a restaurant. These are the people who haughtily say "What's wrong with you, masks aren't so bad!!!" They retreat home, with no thought for the rest of the populace out there working masked-up all day long in the grocery stores, restaurants, factories, and elsewhere. The midwits of the world can angrily post to Facebook all day long. No one fucking cares, except their fellow zealots. Everyone else has moved on.

Increased power in the Executive Branch is something that has been creeping along for some time, at least since the 1970s. There are many examples. Executive Orders are one thing. The War Powers Act of 1941, along with the War Powers Resolution of 1973 moved the balance of power in declaring and executing war from Congress to the Executive Branch. The 1976 National Emergencies Act cemented a lot of power in the Executive Branch related to declaring "National Emergencies." I think most people would be surprised to hear that, in addition to the National Emergency declared for Covid, there are currently 42 National Emergencies in effect, each renewed yearly by the President. Biden just declared his latest National Emergency last week: Invocation of Emergency Authority Relating to the Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Russian-Affiliated Vessels to United States Ports. Ostensibly to prohibit Russian-affiliated vessels from entering into United States ports. It's Biden's 6th declaration of a National Emergency...... Checks and Balances between the three branches of government is a cornerstone of our form of government. For sure, there will always be some messiness and fuzziness around the edges. How does the old saw go, something about "Our government is a terrible form of government, the only thing worse is the 100s of other forms of government that have been tried and failed?" It's a crucial problem in government that needs to be addressed, and I don't know what the answer is.

I'm with Pooter. It's been a long time since high school, and even then, it's not like we went into the minutia of how the federal courts work vs state courts, the power of the federal judiciary below the Supreme Court, etc. I get that it happened, and I'm thrilled that it did. I'm just equally surprised at the scope of thing (a single federal judge overturning a Presidential EO), the long timeline, etc. Again though, glad that it was overturned. And, surprising no one, all the typical players are taking the typical sides, using the typical talking points. Such as: NPR: The judge who tossed mask mandate misunderstood public health law, legal experts say You see, she made the cardinal sin of the Church of Covid. The judge didn't listen to "the experts." Also, it was just her that did it. This one judge. Not like there is an entire legal system behind her. It was just the one rouge judge who is determined to kill us all. [/sarcasm] NPR: What to know about Judge Kathryn Mizelle, who struck down the travel mask mandate Another article looking at the judge herself. Nominated to the bench by Trump in Sept 2020, when she was only 33. Some questions raised at the time about her limited experience, but ultimately she was confirmed. Some comments about her right leaning views, because, surprise surprise, right leaning presidents tend to nominate right leaning judges. She's a....she, so it must be so frustrating that Judge Mizelle can't be Kavanaugh-ed out with some salacious #meetoo accusation. Although maybe they'll dredge up some law school classmate (male or female) with an accusation of impropriety. But when you can't use sexism, go to racism, homophobia, and the newest bugaboo, trans-phobic! It's all so fucking tiresome.