Leaderboard

Red Hat in a Democratic sanctuary = probably not smart. This whole thing kind of stirs up the Rodney King time if anyone was around or in CA which I was during college. But BLM has a much stronger force behind this. Former African American Chief of police killed; African American police Captain shot performing his duty assisting a call during a looting shot dead along with several other incidents - BLM doesn’t discuss such matters as it’s not part of their narrative. Collateral damage perhaps? Either way, just think - Gun control, take away the right to protect yourself. If it had succeeded before this and it may very well in the future then where might some folks be now when the cry out to defund the police is pressed. Let that sink in as the masses would become sheep to the slaughter. A police report is just that - an account of the aftermath. Presence helps but they cannot be on your lawn for you. Only community (if you will) lightly abused during the Rodney King timeframe were the Koreans. This is why they were “lightly abused” = Welcome to Korea Town storefronts avidly protecting their property with firepower putting down the menace to society no matter what race. Have guns, will travel and word got out quickly - don’t go there. Could get ugly as most Americans have armed themselves based on criminal behavior and fear of a tyrannical government these past decades. Now, we can only hope WROL does not prevail and the blowback would be catastrophic. Side note: As far as immigration is concerned. Father was 1st generation Japanese to step foot in America the proper way and became a naturalized citizen giving up his Japanese citizenship as he saw the opportunity and was amazed by the Great USA. In his early teens he worked in a bullet factory during WWII. Took bombing shrapnel from Billy Mitchell’s friends as he would say. During his training as a physician in Japan, he gave up everything as the first born to his younger brother and left for the U.S. to finish his residency. After decades practicing in the U.S. he returned to his home country to share his knowledge like many current great country citizens have. Not all do and that is why many countries remain below standard as an observation and cultural differences play a huge part. In fact, he started work with the US Military in Japan at the largest private hospital which was one of the first to have an MRI when it was first introduced. It was so successful that he was sought after by the State Department or whoever and vetted by the Secret Service and became President George Herbert Walker Bush’s Neurosurgeon when he traveled in the Far East. (I was adopted; therefore, too stupid to be a doctor so I became a USAF maintenance officer, staff weenie and then a pilot.) Became a staff weenie as a pilot too and now retired flying rubber dog crap out of Hong Kong and better for it because of my fathers tenacity and ferocity. Bottom Line: My father took a lot of crap as part of the Greatest Generation on the wrong side. Racism galore and well founded based on the era, but see how others have risen - get a clue. He sought perfection at all times and earned every success. Thru intestinal fortitude and down right grit he became a major contributor to American society and more successful than most. Americans of all color or whatever are great and he did it right, there is no excuse. Effort and discipline X 1000, unfortunately becoming a rarity in some cases. I always had a good home, good food and a great father that guided me and made me work for everything I had and truly blessed. Even that base model puke yellow 1981 Monte Carlo in 1987. Should have bought a Toyota Corolla. Truly miss gentleman like my father. Our future generations need to be greater once again.

You don't think there's an agenda? BLM has a website. Their agenda is spelled out. I think you're presenting a very inaccurate portrayal of the conversation. One side is repeatedly and now violently lying about the realities of crime and policing in America. When the other side tries to discuss these statistics, it turns out you're a racist for saying so. I'm not ascribing these tactics to you, but considering federal politicians are actively making this argument and Pulitzer winning media figures are repeating it, I don't think I'm mischaracterizing the movement. This stuff is not haphazard. When you control the language you control it all. They know that even if you don't.

I'm just tired of people insisting that every statistical difference between races/genders is automatically linked to structural injustice. As an example: orders of magnitude more men are incarcerated than women. Does this mean courts are violently skewed against men? Does an oppressive matriarchy dominate the justice system?! Or is this indicative of broad behavioral differences between men and women resulting from everything from biology, to evolution, to social norms etc... The problem is that no one wants to talk about behavior.. or the factors that influence people's behavior. It's much easier to blame statistical differences on a nebulous boogeyman like "the patriarchy" or "structural racism."

I have experienced the opposite, especially during the last administration. Correct me if I'm wrong but the kneeling during the national anthem wasn't against any NFL rules until the following year. I agree on your other points.

Someone once told me, if you truly believe you are right, don't resolve to change someone's mind in a single conversation. Resolve to change their point of view in a 10 year friendship. Was great fricken advice and I have some extraordinarily close friends because of it. But in reality, I have found very few people deeply challenge their own beliefs passed college.

I generally agree with your statement above, but yes, there are a lot of otherwise smart people who immediately and blindly follow a narrative based on a headline, a tweet, a misleading infographic, etc. It’s due to one or more of the following reasons: laziness (they don’t want to spend time engaging in critical thought, research, comparing multiple sources, etc.), emotional connection (or aversion) to one side of an argument (and unwilling to let facts sway them), they live in a bubble that is better than what 99% of the world experiences and think they have ultimate SA when they actually have nil (I liken this to the Army’s self-image of their SA on how to use airpower), and they see modifying their viewpoints as losing/quitting/giving up, so they won’t do it (regardless of new information presented). I see the above every day, across the political spectrum, from college-educated, “smart” people. They’re good people, but they blindly follow a narrative and refuse to have an open mind to new information, or information that doesn’t support their opinion. They then are unwilling to accept that people may disagree with them, and are disrespectful, disdainful, condescending and/or aggressive towards them (vs. having an unemotional, respectful conversation). Much of America is driven by emotion (fueled by social media and the MSM). So yeah, a lot of otherwise smart people very much make their opinions while sucked deep into the FaceBook void, and I think that essentially is a vacuum of single POV information with more misleading and flat out false information than their is truth. Instructional Fix: Stop getting your information from social media, throw your emotions in jail for a second when you have a complex conversation, and be open to other ideas and welcome information that doesn’t support your bias. Even if you don’t trust it, acknowledge it and do some research yourself to verify it (from reputable sources), then don’t be ashamed to update your viewpoint if said info is found to be credible/accurate. Lastly, have respect for others and in the end, this is not a competition...be OK with someone else not changing their mind and accept that you can disagree while still being friends, neighbors, etc.

I deleted the post, I didn’t realize that people where that seriously injured. Shit timing, during an attempt at good natured ribbing.

I'm not talking about the talking heads. I'm talking about every day people. I'm talking about the quiet dude in your office that everyone knows votes Democrat but he never really speaks up because he doesn't want to instigate an argument. Or your neighbor, who's nothing but friendly but keeps a BLM sign his yard. Those people don't have agendas. They are just living their life trying to be as good a human being as they know how. Talk to them and ask questions. Instead of saying "but blacks commit more crime" ask "there are statistics that show blacks commit more crimes, do you think that has anything to do with it?" I think you'll be surprised. These people didn't arrive at their conclusions in a vacuum. If its all the MSM why didn't you fall for it? Do you really believe you are smarter than roughly half the country? Or do you think your expereinces in life led you to be skeptical of MSM? Have you considered their expereinces may be reinforced by MSM? We're all just people man. Everyone is trying to live the best life they know how.

“He who controls the language controls the masses.”

BLM has an agenda. Most people in the streets and on facebook saying "black lives matter" are supporting the sentiment not the organization, or are only vaguely aware that the organization is more than just the sentiment.

There are plenty of words that already exist to describe the points that are trying to be made, none of those words are loaded with the emotion and horrific history of racism. Adding another meaning to a word that is so closely tied with lynching and Jim Crow is an organizing tactic. Not to mention so overly broad as to be almost useless as a tool for making any productive changes. unconscious bias agency structure lack of economic investment, [leading to] endemic poverty and crime [and] self destructive cultures and practices See plenty of words. So yes language evolves, but to claim that in this case it's due to a lack of ability to discuss the problem is a fallacy.

So just like Kaepernick.

In my experience, most guard/reserve bubbas are some of the best in the business. They are also generally more experienced. I’d fly into combat any day with them. I know you were probably trying to be funny with your post but it came off super douchey especially since our fellow aviators are still in the hospital.

Dude, no harm no foul on the drinking front. We’ve had guys rush our unit that had the same feelings. They got around it by bringing a couple of boxes of Einstein Brothers bagels and coffee. It was also said earlier and is worth repeating, no specific bottle is going to get you hired, regardless of the price, rarity, or nostalgia. To be honest, the bottles I remember and appreciate the most were the ones that guys bought and then made them unique by attaching something squadron related to it or something else that is relevant to that particular applicant.

This is generally my most reliable indicator that a movement lacks a foundation in reality. If you have to redefine (verbal appropriation?) the language to make your point, you probably don't have one. It does not seem coincidental that the people trying to change what words mean are the same ones equating speech with violence. The first amendment is the most powerful tool in the world for discovering truth. I do not trust those that seek to restrict it.

In an interesting turn related to the power of language, the definition of racism will change, forcing discourse to change as well. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/dictionary-racism-definition-update-trnd/index.html

Anyone get a B-1 invite?

2. Pop sociology is a good term. A huge amount of the scholarly output from sociology departments in the last 20 years is unsupported. Pull up some of the papers on Critical Race Theory, and the only thing they cite (if anything at all) are other papers on CRT. It's just a big loop of non-support. 1. https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/ 3. Absolutely a discomfort. A noble and morally necessary discomfort. That doesn't change the timeline. It's like a G-ex. Pull too hard and the plane stalls. Keep the stick in your lap forever and the plane falls out of the sky. Some of the framers wanted to abolish slavery, but they recognized that the time wasn't right. So they did what they could, and established the new country on the philosophical basis that would eventually be used by Lincoln. You don't have to like it, I don't, but things take time. One of the biggest pushes for gay rights in the US was Will and Grace, not protesting. That doesn't mean you don't protest, but the "how" matters just as much as the "why." Dr. King and Malcom X disagreed vehemently on the "how," where X thought King's strategy was too gentle, too slow. But it worked, eventually. Further, King didn't rely on statistical misrepresentation to make his point. The BLM movement does. That matters, because when you hit someone in the face over and over with evidence of injustice, don't give them a reason to ignore your message. Misrepresenting crime and policing statistics does just that. 4. It's nothing cosmic, nor deeply philosophical. How do people think? Confirmation bias, group think, rationalization, confabulation, etc. How do they act? What do they do? As an example, people like to have stuff. They just do. Cars, TVs, jewellery, golf clubs, you know, stuff. Any culture, any era. Give them the chance to get more stuff, and they'll work surprisingly hard. So hard that they produce an overflow of wealth that enriches the society. So hard that the economy of a country that recognizes property rights and personal freedom to choose will dominate every other economy on the planet that instead tries to determine what stuff and how much stuff you should have. The brilliance of capitalism is that it accepts human nature and channels it. Racism is an ugly form of a natural phenomenon, grouping. If humans don't group, they die. You can't fix racism without addressing grouping. The American dream is a set of ideals that do not exclude anyone based on unchangeable characteristics. You don't get rid of racism, you replace it. "Black people are Americans too." That's a winning message that made a difference. But by its very nature it excludes people who aren't American. That gets into cosmopolitanism, which is another thing all together, but fits into my point that you ignore human nature at your own peril.

I'm not sure I would call it quibbling, but if you consider the entirety of Waco, TX, Lawton, OK, and Oshkosk, WI to be part of the Urbanization we are talking about, then we're having two separate conversations. For multiculturalism, let's go with the Stanford explanation: Multiculturalism First published Fri Sep 24, 2010; substantive revision Fri Aug 12, 2016 The idea of multiculturalism in contemporary political discourse and in political philosophy is about how to understand and respond to the challenges associated with cultural and religious diversity. The term “multicultural” is often used as a descriptive term to characterize the fact of diversity in a society, but in what follows, the focus is on its prescriptive use in the context of Western liberal democratic societies. While the term has come to encompass a variety of prescriptive claims, it is fair to say that proponents of multiculturalism reject the ideal of the “melting pot” in which members of minority groups are expected to assimilate into the dominant culture in favor of an ideal in which members of minority groups can maintain their distinctive collective identities and practices. In the case of immigrants, proponents emphasize that multiculturalism is compatible with, not opposed to, the integration of immigrants into society; multiculturalism policies provide fairer terms of integration for immigrants. As the first American-born child of Cuban immigrants, I'm not completely removed from the concept. Nations (all groups actually) need a shared identity. The neat thing about America was the use of ideals (espoused in the constitution and bill of rights) to generate that identity rather than ethnic origin, skin color, or other immutable characteristics. Freedom of speech. The rule of law. Individualism. Abandoning the melting pot is a threat to shared identity, which seems pretty clear these days. Why reply? For the exact reason I "shit on you" in the first place. You use strawman arguments regularly to support your own position. For example: "and my wife is paid the same as any other person doing her job regardless of gender (general equality). Life is good! If you'd like to live differently feel free" Absolutely no one has argued for women to make less money for the same work. And they don't. But discussing the reasons why only 4% of airline pilots are women is easier when you can just blame discrimination. Mostly though, like you I simply enjoy the mental sparring.

Rodent lives matter. Burn it all down! too soon?