FLEA

This specific case is not whistle blowing. There is nothing immoral, unethical or criminal on his tax returns. Embarrassing? Maybe. But embarrassing doesn't meet the threshold for whistleblower. Some of the other things we've seen leaked are also not whistleblowing. Policy decisions, etc... There needs to be a very clear violation of law. Not just "I think this is going to be a bad move for America and people should know about it."

Let's talk about the leak for a minute: at what point are we going to hunt down and hold people accountable for committing federal crimes because they don't like their elected officials? This case has 0 whistle blower implications. This was likely an sworn state AG, who released a lawfully filed tax statement with 0 incriminating information on it, because he wanted to diminish the image of the sitting President. That is a big deal IMO. We can't continue to promote a government made up of people who won't obey laws when they dislike their political leadership. Democracy will never survive that.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html So a few assessments of this: 1.) Huge dissapointment for Democrats. Nothing overtly illegal and no connections to Russia found in tax returns. Sure he moved money to avoid paying, but it was within the bounds and we all know rich people do that. (Working class too which is why we all file a standard exemption each year) 2.) FBI investigation of the NY AG office will probably start shortly as they are the only organization outside Trump's circle with the returns. Somebody committed a federal crime providing these to the times. The timing of the article lines up fairly with the surpreme court decision that made them available to NY state.

So what your saying is, Trump improved the life of all Republicans without really disrupting anything for Democrats? Sounds like a huge win for Trump!

The one bad thing about telework though is it creates the insidious problem of always being available to work, or at least that becomes the expectation. At least I know, and for others who have had iphones/blackberries, there comes this expectation that you are always available and always reading your email. This could turn out bad if its not steered the right direction.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-termlimits-idUSKCN26F3L3 Obviously theater as it would require an amendment to really implement this and the current POTUS would veto it. However, the concept doesn't even seem that well thought out. Would voters be aware that when they elect a President they are also electing to Surpreme Court Selects? It would completely change elections because it would swing voters to vote for judges instead who would have a much longer appointment than POTUS. How is it Congress can get on board with term limits for other offices but can't get on board with term limits for their own political machines?

You can do both though and your people will love you infinitely more for it. Or you can be like every other commander that breaks their organization to make a stellar OPR.

There can't be a more appropriate place for this! https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/24/asia/vietnam-condom-sold-new-scli-intl/index.html

No I don't condone this. I'm trying to rationalize what other people are thinking. That's why I said its lazy.

This is fucking funny, but did they nail the altitude deconfliction plan?

I didn't describe racial profiling at all. You quoted a description on cognitive diversity which is a well study and established phenomenon that has nothing to do with race.

I think you are 1/2 right and 1/2 wrong. For one, no-one cares about the enlightenment. It was like 300 years ago and people still thought leaches and humor letting were acceptable forms of health care. Sure they made some awesome philosophical advances but its not like they got there and said "hah! We did it, we are at the epitome of human knowledge and understanding and we can stop now." Our recognition for how humans receive and process information has gone very far. In fact, hailing the outcomes of the enlightenment as the epitome of understanding, is in of itself bandwagon bias which is the cognitive bias associated with adhering to principles because those principles are the ones you always knew. So lets recognize that bias now and recognize that people in the enlightenment could have been very wrong and we don't know that yet. I also think you confuse sympathy and empathy. Empathy is being able to feel the physical and emotional experiences as another person does. If a friend at work has a brother that died and I don't have a brother, I can't say "I know how you feel." Nothing in my life would ever help me relate to how losing a sibling would feel. A best friend is close but not as close. A parent is different. I can possess sympathy for that person, and understand they are under a great deal of grief, I can never experience true empathy for them. I think there is a great deal of assumption in the idea that you can empathize with anyone. You are correct, that you can have two white males who are more different than a white male and a black female. However, from a strategic leadership point of view, I think people are playing the margins game. Is this possible, sure? Is it likely, probably not as much. And since in reality, noone has the time to vet every applicants complete background or make a comprehensive list of experiences, they are simply going to disregard your individuality and lump you into a group to play a game of betting odds over one that values individual achievement. The going mindset here is a diverse organization of 40 different thinkers will outperform a uniform institution of 40 identical top performers. If you think about each human being as a ven diagram plot, they are trying to maximize their chances of increasing the total footprint as large as possible and minimizing areas of circular overlap. Do I necessarily agree with this? Not really. But I see the angle, and I understand from a strategic context people in charge of large organizations believe the ends are far more important than your individual feelings about feeling underappreciated because of who you are.

Sort of, I'm not sidestepping, I simply see the two things are related. There are expereinces for example only a woman will have and as a man I never will. Child birth for instance. And while that may seem irrelevant to military operations I do know at least 1 squadron Ander who almost sent to spouse of a deployed airmen out the door to potentially murder their newborn child because before consulting with his female first seargent he didn't recognize the symptoms of post partum depression. I also look at stuff like female engagement terms, the history of the OSS in France and the use of female analyst in the IC to recognize things like signs of hidden pregnancy or menopause on political leaders to realise there is a lot to be gained by having women on our team. Now the case for racial diversity is harder to make, and im not quite there yet, but I see enough of the threads to realise that there is generally a good case to be made that POC are going to largely have a different expereince growing up then non-POC. Edit: let's describe my thoughts like this. Unity of purpose is the peak of the mountain. We all want to climb the same direction, up. But as a planner, I want people who started from all sides of the mountain because from the bottom each approach seems radically different and I want people to communicate the best approach to me. Generally, to do that, I need to maximize my probabilities of getting people who stand at hard to reach bases of that mountain.

Yes, as I said, irrelevant. The problem set has no bearing on the team dynamic. We know how humans think. We know where vulnerabilities to cognitive bias exist. Unless you somehow believe the idea you might have to fire a weapon in anger somehow makes you immune to cognitive bias? Not sure where you plan on going with this man. It doesn't take Simon Sinek to tell you if I give the same target to 10 identical F-16 pilots to hit, they are going to come up with 10 identical run in lines. I don't want 1 option. I want 10 options, of which 7 will be garbage, but now I have 3 decent ones to flex operations around which shit changes.

Irellevent. And if you think the military has a monopoly on leadership and teamwork tradecraft how would you describe the last 20 years in the AF? Edit: also literally the second study down was training a team sample to work the air filtration on space vessels. If you can't see how that correlates to working aircraft systems as a crew I can't help you sorry.

Google scholar is your friend: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=cognitive+diversity+and+team+performance&oq=cognitive+diversity

Russian PA image of the SU-35 that got the kill.

It's a thin line right? Unity of purpose is spot on but when you unify individuals into identical you lose one of your greatest strengths. Certainly not an easy problem to untangle. I think this is a good change but we need to be careful to not destroy progress made either.

The point was the majority didn't have a vested interest in upturning it which likely led to it's aboltion occuring decades later than it could have. I'll give you another example, Hitler was democratically elected by a Christian majority that really didn't have a problem with his regard toward Jews. You can name all kinds of examples in history where the majority citizens decided people outside their demographic were second class. It's the biggest flaw to democracy and one of the reasons out political system is designed as is.

You mean like when the majority whites in the country legally decided it was ok to make people of a certain skin color slaves? No thanks. I want as many obstacles to that kind of abuse as possible. The way the government is designed is intentional. It prevents a massive swing in one direction from happening too quickly. This prevents a single party from stacking the plays to their advantage. Even with a surpreme court nomination and all young conservative judges, it's hardly the end of the world for Democrats. They will eventually win house and Senate again and can pass legislation to expand surpreme court size and appoint more judges of their own.

Ahhhhh Duffelblog nails it again! https://www.duffelblog.com/2020/09/private-contempt/?fbclid=IwAR1jfvKPyKymclP-g8ghoetI3vHbhuXI2CG112VmEOol9GY2B7YqE2N58BI

My point right now is you might need to go smoke a joint bro 😂

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/14/trump-ad-asks-people-to-support-the-troops-but-it-uses-a-picture-of-russian-jets-414883

Did he get a 10 year commitment?