Prozac

To the original sentiment of this thread: The American public is FAR to disconnected from their military and the foreign policy that results in its (over) use. Some sort of mandatory national service would go a long way toward rectifying that situation for all of the reasons discussed in previous posts. Personally, I think it’s a good idea but the implementation is potentially fraught with problems. Anyone have a better idea for re-acquainting the average American with the costs and consequences of the wars his country is currently waging? Love to hear it. To the Libertarians here, I ask you this: Do you use the interstate? Hospitals? Accept police protection? Enjoy relatively affordable gasoline? Send your kids to public schools (or at least accept the fact that universal literacy is probably a good thing)? I could go on but you get the point. There is a cost to living in a civilized society. Most of us recognize that fact even if we may disagree vehemently on how much/little that cost should be or on whom the costs should fall. Mandatory national service falls somewhere on that spectrum of argument. It seems though, that there are a few “true believers” here taking the black & white argument. I have a question for you. Do you really think our society would be a better place if you were literally asked to pay nothing for your inalienable rights?

Yes. I do. And there are. And the restrictions are likely to get tighter soon with bipartisan support from what I understand. Doesn’t change the fact that that was some of the dummest shit yet uttered from a man who has said some stupefyingly dumb things.

So we should bring highly educated, highly skilled people over to compete with established American citizens for high paying jobs, but god damn, no fucking way are we letting those Haitians come over and nab that taxi driving gig that soooo many Americans have been dreaming of for years???? Really? Give me a fucking break.

Yeah. Fuck those people.

Holy shit! Is this guy for real? Did he lose a bet or something?

Well, there you go. So, justice served then? While stricter immigration laws/enforcement might well have prevented the incident, that wasn’t the purview of the case. Seems there was insufficient evidence to convict. Perhaps the verdict will spur some more informed discussion on our immigration policy. While I generally support a more liberal policy, I’m willing to say that this individual probably shouldn’t have been roaming around the streets of San Francisco freely. Maybe dems would be willing do discuss some stricter deportation enforcement in exchange for say republican support for a better migrant work policy that allows hardworking, law abiding people to be in the country legally and long term. The sad reality though is that the verdict will push people on both sides further into their respective corners.

I was initially surprised as well. After reading some details the waters are a bit muddy on this one. Apparently Steinle’s death was the result of a ricochet. Sounds like prosecutors were overzealous and went after murder charges in addition to involuntary manslaughter. I can understand not convicting on the murder charges (which would still have been plenty controversial), but not sure why an involuntary manslaughter charge wouldn’t have stuck easily. Maybe someone with some legal expertise can chime in.

Stupid shit like this REALLY helps the retention issue.

Agreed. Sadly, any accountability will likely fall on the lowest ranking people it possibly can. There is a systemic problem in the AF where things like PME, mandatory power point, volunteerism, endless OPER/EPR polishing, and a plethora of other non mission related tasks take precedence over the actual J.O.B. If someone didn’t do the proper paperwork, bad on them, but much of the blame should fall squarely on the senior leadership who make it known in no uncertain terms that job performance is not what gets you ahead. Unfortunately,I seriously doubt anyone above the rank of maybe Captain will be held to account.

Something does not add up here. Is SECDEF pushing CSAF to do something he'd rather not?

Sure sounds like this opens the door to involuntary recalls. The real post 9/11 national emergency is the fact that the USAF is stocked with "leaders" who thought it was a good idea to involuntarily separate people in the face of an impending pilot shortage that even a first year ROTC cadet could see coming. Now their piss poor prior planning constitutes a national emergency? Unfuckingbelievable.

Ok, I see the logic in your argument but let me ask you this: Should people who buy those weapons be held to the same standards as police officers? Police are trained in the use and safe handling of their weapons. (Your point about the NYPD notwithstanding) They are expected to maintain some level of proficiency. They are trained extensively in the legal ramifications of discharging a weapon in public. They undergo background checks and regular drug tests. Unless you hold people to the same standards as police, I just don't see this as a valid argument.

Valid question. Invariably there will be arguments falling on either side. My own view is that magazine size is the more relevant measure. Again, though, there will be differing opinions on where you draw the line. I may argue that 10 rounds should be the limit. You may argue for 30. Someone else may say there should be no limit. Ultimately, I believe there should be a line drawn somewhere. Where that line should be will always be up for debate.

Question: should we not regulate the purchase of weapons at all? Should Joe citizen have access to, say, a TOW missile launcher? For that matter, should we regulate anything? I guess in the ultimate manifestation of liberty everything would be legal. Hard drugs? Crack? Have at it. Meth? Knock yourself out. Reality dictates that in any civilized society, there is some trade off between liberty and security. Putting weapons meant for the battlefield in the hands of civilian citizens crosses that line for many.

Even if there is an economic downturn, airline hiring will likely continue at a fairly brisk pace just to cover retirements. Pilot retention will be a challenge for the foreseeable future.

Well, there is this tidbit about willful disregard for regulations, but yes, you are correct. My view was always that if a crew was willing to self report something, and they hadn't hurt anybody, a candid hangar fly was the most appropriate response. This was the example set for me early in my career. By the time I left, the AF had gone full retard and was willing to hang guys by the balls for very minor infractions even when they self identified. I think an Office Space quote is appropriate here:

Those guys are gonna have so much fun at survival. They must be so excited for the special "superstar" treatment they're going to receive.

Any time there is bent metal, or even just a simple inspection required, there is leadership above the squadron level that wants answers (i.e. blame assigned). Maybe this is more of an issue in heavy units than in pointy nose ones, but it seems there is no shortage of CCs at all levels willing to throw their people under the bus in order to prove that they are solving the problem. Often times the problems are systemic and these practices serve only to exacerbate them. Doesn't matter. Too many times, the blame/consequences fall on the most junior person possible. I don't mean to suggest the majority of commanders act in this manner. The truth is its probably a minority. But it happens often enough that at some point in one's career, one is likely to encounter this leadership style, thus everyone needs to beware all the time. And that's how the CYA vicious cycle continues.

You must've had good luck with your leadership. In my experience, this was absolutely not the case. I saw several instances where CCs disregarded their Evaluators/DOs/ADOs recommendations and hand out questionable Q3s. It is one of the many reasons I left and advise those who are still in to be wary. I think the point you make about shared responsibility is valid, but don't disregard the fact that there are a lot of overzealous CCs out there who are looking out primarily for number one.

Lots of guys get into the military aviation business because it seems like its probably the coolest job in the military (it is), they think a flight suit will get them laid (not so much these days), or it is expected of them by a parent/sibling/etc. These are typically the people who walk away from the career, never to take the stick again. Plenty of others truly have the flying bug. These people have never imagined themselves doing anything else. For just about anyone, a flying career can be monotonous, exhausting, and a lot of hard work. But aviation is wide and varied and there is always new, cool shit to do. Learn to fly a helo, get a tailwheel endorsement, learn how to fly floats, go to Oshkosh, get in with the warbird crowd, fly gliders, and the list goes on and on. If you have the bug, you will not get tired of aviation (at least not for long). Sure, there are days when I have stepped out of the airplane feeling tired and weary and not wanting to think about flying at all. But I'm still looking at Citabrias on barnstormers the next day.

Pussies

Pretty sure the President doesn't get to pick the Congressional health plan.

I find myself thinking the same thing at times. Problem is, these are going to be the people defending our way of life when we're in nursing homes. The Vietnam guys probably said the same thing about my generation. To be clear, I think the idea of DOD footing the bill for gender reassignment is absurd. But a blanket ban/kicking out people already serving is probably not the right answer. If the President truly trusts his military council, he should let the Pentagon handle the policy announcements and put the keyboard down.

.

Not arguing in favor or against, but the second order effects may be worth considering. Many, maybe most New recruits as of right now have social views that don't resonate with a lot of the old heads. By excluding this group, the DOD may be inadvertently sending the message that it is a backwards organization and one to be avoided by these youngsters. We already have a major disconnect where huge segments of society cannot or will not relate to military service. One of my concerns is that we are shutting the door not just on the transgender community, but on a whole bunch of forward thinking millennials that we probably want to keep in the recruiting pool.