blueingreen

Hey Baseops crew, Hope you're all doing well. I joined this forum after making the decision to pursue my dream of becoming a fighter pilot, and have enjoyed chatting with you all along the way. Many of you have taken the time to personally help me on this journey (you know who you are), and I thank you for that. I've been pursuing this goal for about a year now with little success, and am wondering if I need a reality check. To be honest, I thought I would have received an interview invite or at least a few rush invites by now, but I'm 0 for 8 on applications so far and have attended one rush event. Nonetheless, I understand that this process can be very competitive, so I'm determined to keep working at this until I succeed. I'm not picky about location, I'll go wherever a fighter slot is available. Here are my stats, let me know what you think and if there's anything I can do to improve my chances. 25 Year Old Male, Civilian AFOQT: 99 Pilot || 91 CSO || 99 ABM || 90 Academic Aptitude || 93 Verbal || 75 Quantitative TBAS / PCSM: 93 70 Hours of Flight Time, Currently Working on Scheduling my PPL Checkride B.A. in Political Science, 3.4 / 4.0 GPA at a top 20 globally ranked university Letters of Recommendation from: CFI and former Infantryman in the British Army College Wrestling Coach Former Employer / Supervisor at a Bank Multiple-Time National Champion in Judo Volunteer Assistant Judo Coach + Sparring Partner for the US National Team Founder and Sole Proprietor of a Small Business Former Professional Musician w/ Competitive Accolades Proficient in 3 languages I know that my weakest point is likely my lack of pilot certificates and flight time. That said, I've heard of cases where people were hired off the street without much flight time. My hope is that my luck will change once I get my PPL, but if there's anything else I'm neglecting, please feel free to share your feedback! Thanks for your help everyone. Sincerely, blueingreen

Very good post and thank you for sharing that report. I can only speak for myself, but I'm actually in favor of pausing most forms of legal immigration for some time while we try to sort out our domestic affairs. US immigration policy has historically been about keeping our doors shut and only opening them to newcomers when we need them. The four major influxes of people into the US occurred during the Colonial Era, the Civil War, the Ellis Island era, and now the floodgates have basically been open since 1965. We used to have a robust national quota system which ensured the country wouldn't be inundated with people from nations whose culture and values are radically different from our own, but this was removed by the Hart-Celler Act in 1965. And of course, regardless of where people are coming from, the expectation used to be that immigrants would assimilate completely (e.g., learn English, change their names, refuse to teach their children their native language or speak it in public, etc.) I also want to push back a bit on the traditional narrative of America being "built by immigrants", maybe you can give me your thoughts on it. To me, America was built by settler-colonialists, pioneers, and frontiersmen; The kinds of people who turned a vast, empty, and dangerous swath of land into a prosperous and functioning modern civilization in record time, on par with anything found in the Old World. It always irks me a bit when today's immigrants, both legal and illegal, are compared to those founding settlers, as if hopping on a plane and going to your new H1B job at Microsoft or crossing the Rio Grande and receiving government handouts is comparable to what newcomers used to have to go through. Maybe it's just the modern connotations of the word "immigrant" that I find objectionable. Still, it's undeniable that many people contributed to the success of our country.

You're not wrong, I just think there's more to the story. I'd say that among my generation (Z), 80% are neurotic lemmings who get anxious about ordering a pizza on the phone, and 20% are some of the smartest, most capable, and forward-thinking people I've ever met. The problem is that the "American Dream" wasn't meant for just the sharks/hunters who are able and willing to ferociously compete. They'll always do fine, regardless of the circumstances. Maybe that dream also wasn't meant for neurotic lemmings, I don't know. It just seems to me that you were supposed to be able to follow the rules, do your best in school, stay out of trouble, go to college or work in the trades, etc. with a relative guarantee of employment, property, family, and peace. Now, educational institutions have been hollowed out and a college degree's value has been inflated into oblivion (nearly 40% of Americans now have a bachelor's degree). The truth is that older generations did not have to work as hard to afford the standard of living that younger generations are seeking today. The data is pretty clear when you look at median home price compared to median wages over time. For many smart and well-meaning young people, affording a home in a nice neighborhood while supporting a family is simply a mathematical impossibility. The question is, what happens to a society when lots and lots of young people, especially young men, become restless and disenfranchised with little to no economic, social, or marital prospects?

You're probably right about the economic austerity on the horizon. I think the key is that, especially among young Trump voters, people actually want this to happen. They feel like their backs are against the wall and they have nothing left to lose. We're at the point now where people are genuinely open to the idea of purposefully crashing the economy and bursting this bubble (and make no mistake, we are in a bubble) through deflationary policies, tariffs / trade wars, etc. There is a growing feeling of resentment and disenfranchisement among young people toward a generation of boomers for whom the stewardship of a prosperous economy (which they were the biggest beneficiaries of) seemed like an afterthought that ought to be considered once they retire and start collecting their social security checks. Big businesses have been taking advantage of illegal labor and legal programs like the H1B visa (which is basically indentured servitude under threat of deportation) to undercut domestic wages while countless young Americans are applying to hundreds of jobs without receiving a single response, let alone an interview. This influx of people also clogs up the housing market and drives up demand while Byzantine development and zoning regulations + huge asset management firms keep the supply of homes artificially low. Not to mention the damage done to the demographics and social trust of a society that imports millions upon millions of foreigners without any plans for assimilation. Social standards of decency and decorum in just the past few years have declined dramatically, which you've probably noticed while interacting with the many foreigners and dullards who now bizarrely seem to occupy the majority of customer-facing roles in businesses across the country. To be fair, COVID probably also played a role in making people socially retarded. I don't think we've ever fully recovered from that. As for "trans rights" (a ridiculous neologism that didn't exist before 2014) and abortion, they're part and parcel of the neurotic and parochial worldview that dominates modern progressive politics. The science is clear: There are only two sexes (I refuse to use the word "gender," which is a loaded term popularized by freaks like John Money who explored their psychosexual fetishes and pathologies through medical experimentation on vulnerable children). I'm not a bleeding-heart Pro-Lifer but the Pro-Abortion crowd in America seems to view any limitation on abortion as some kind of dire violation of fundamental human rights (as if the baby gestating inside a pregnant woman isn't human?). Even the most progressive countries in Europe have abortion policies that would be considered strict in the US, usually something like a 8 - 14 week cutoff, often with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother (exceptions account for a tiny fraction of abortions; most are elective). It's easier and more approachable to discuss these social and moral issues, which is probably why people prefer to talk about them compared to the finer points of other "real policies" (whatever that means, like social issues aren't "real").

I can only speak to my own experience, but as a young guy who studied abroad in Europe as recently as 2022, I found that young Europeans hate Russia just as much, if not more than, previous generations. Some of the older Central and Eastern Europeans actually look at the Soviet era with rose-tinted glasses, which younger generations have no connection to or delusions about (except for the typical Marxist / Socialist acolytes you'll find at any university campus). My hope is that cooler heads prevail and we can find some middle ground between communist apologetics and starting WWIII with Russia.

Americans often underestimate how much Europeans hate Russia. For the US., Russia is an adversary, but we’ve had some positive albeit brief moments that demonstrated the potential for amicable relations, like the Alaska Purchase in 1867, helping the White Army fight the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War, and allying again in WWII. For Europeans, it’s way deeper. Russia and Europe have been clashing for centuries, long before the US even existed—wars over historical territories and Soviet domination during the Cold War. Some historians like Robert Kaplan have even argued that America and Russia share a similar national spirit stemming from the historical origins of their national formation: Pioneers and settler-colonialists exploring and conquering vast swathes of uncharted lands on the edges of the known world, something he calls "continental powers". For Europeans, Russia is a historical oppressor. The hate runs a lot deeper over there. So in the event of some pan-European military alliance, I think we can safely say that Europe's hate for Russia is much stronger than their current frustrations with us.

I also highly doubt this was some 4D chess move from Trump, but it's amazing how it might finally get the ball rolling on his original strategic objective: To get Europe to start funding their own defense

I haven't heard much about Hanania before, and I didn't post his tweet originally, but here's another tweet from Konstantin Kisin, a co-host on Triggernometry, expressing the same thing. There isn't even much of a "position" here to support or object to. People just need to listen to the whole Trump / Zelenskyy interview for context...

Why not deal with the content of his tweet straightforwardly as opposed to parsing it through the lens of whatever "racism" a wikipedia editor accused him of? Don't we make fun of the progressive left for pre-screening ideas based on ideological alignment?

I think we can all agree that the public spat we just witnessed wasn't very statesmanlike for all parties involved. The Hanania tweet that @tac airlifter shared was pretty spot on, though. People on social media are watching short clips and commenting without the full context of the entire event. We all know that these types of arguments happen all the time behind closed doors, so it's interesting to see the kabuki theater disappear for once. What do people think about that mineral deal?

I'm genuinely asking you because I'm still a wannabe fighter pilot going through the rush / application process and you'll have more experience with this: Don't federal civilian employees who fall under OPM purview still use ".mil" email addresses? That's the kind of stuff I was imagining might be annoying to comb through on an agency-by-agency basis.

I was just clarifying that the FBI, DoD, and DoS informing their employees that they don't need to respond to the mass email isn't some stalwart act of resistance, it's just them explaining their organizational structure. OPM is primarily responsible for HR systems administration and guidelines in the competitive civil service. Excepted service employees (CIA, USPS, DoD, DoS, etc) have their own systems, but often adhere and/or defer to OPM guidelines on various matters. It's a lot easier to send a mass e-mail to basically every federal employee than it is to comb through every department and agency looking for every exception.

To be clear, this isn't some brave act of non-compliance. There's no discord between admin officials here. DoD, DoS, and FBI are simply not under OPM purview, and are thus not obligated to respond.

Also appreciate the civility from you and others. But because I'm an IR theory nerd who studied this for years, I have to set the record straight here: Realism doesn't concern itself with systems of government. The state is a "black box" under this theory, so whether it's an oligarchy like Russia or a constitutional republic like the USA, it makes no difference. They all deal with the same concerns and interests that motivate states to pursue certain actions in an anarchic international system of uncertainty. Regional hegemony only goes so far -- hence the "regional". Mearsheimer's work suggests that Russia would prefer a buffer zone between their sphere of influence and a competing sphere of influence like NATO's. So if we follow that realist internal logic, it would be acceptable for Ukraine and Moldova to remain neutral. Russia has said this before, but you could argue that they're lying I guess. As I mentioned before, it's slightly complicated by regions like Crimea and Transnistria, but you get the idea. Realism isn't just about states wantonly invading others for hegemony's sake, it's more calculated than that. Russia has taken quite the beating against Ukraine, so even if they wanted to invade Moldova (which they don't), they would be very reluctant to act on those feelings.

I ask in all honesty -- didn't the system change when all of these unelected bureaucrats started taking matters into their own hands, sometimes defying direct orders from POTUS? It seems like that was the historical aberration, and we're now returning to a more well-pruned and cohesive executive branch...