Leaderboard

This is not in regard to this specific comment. It just reminds me to mention for all those suggestable people out there that are inclined to believe their gut, or buy into consipiracy theories: The plan is to innoculate billions of people. When you do anything with numbers that large, low probability events will occur. You could hand a party balloon to 3 billion people and a non-zero number of them would stroke out and die immediately after they took it from you. So prepare yourself to be skeptical of cause-and-effect claims for any side effects of the vaccine. There will be numerous cases of people who were 'destined' to die at 5pm on Wednesday, and just happened to have their vaccination at 4pm. There will be numerous cases of people 'destined' to develop ALS or Guillain-Barre syndrome in June that just happened to get vaccinated in late May. Conspiracy theorists will have a field day with this, but 'legitimate' media will focus on it as well because tradgedy sells. Unless the claims come with statistics that show significance, they're noise. Treat it as such.

FIFY

I’ve seen social media/news splattered with “getting kicked off for violating a TOS isn’t suppressing free speech, get over it cry babies!” What these people haven’t grasped is the majority are pissed about the double standard. Kick Trump off, that’s fine, but you better be kicking everyone else off too who violates TOS, regardless of political leaning, party affiliation, group affiliation, etc. If you don’t and are choosing to punt people off your platform you disagree with politically while looking the other way for people you do agree with, well that’s suppression. The double standard is what people are pissed about - to the point the ACLU is concerned about it, and the Twitter CEO admitted they need to work on being more uniform across the board because not doing so is dangerous. I’m sure Jack only said that to save face after the recent backlash.

I see your point technically, but I do think there is good reason to hold the vote well in advance of the change-over of power. For one, it gives time to prepare for a swap out of the government. No surprises, plenty of time for the new team to plan while the old team is still in control. Also, it gives the country time to breathe and begin to adapt to their new reality. On the topic of elections, though, one thing I do think we could move towards is what Negatory brought up earlier: ranked-choice voting, or at least some sort of voting scheme where it's not simple 1-on-1. Computerized voting systems eliminate the difficulty inherent in counting using such schemes and would be a welcome modification of our democratic process. The current system breeds polarization and also drives "grouping" where it wouldn't otherwise take place (i.e. I'm not aligned with faction "A", but I'm more aligned with it than faction "B", so I'm with "A"). Having some version of a ranked-choice system would allow moderate voices to prevail, as the motivation to vote out of fear would evaporate (i.e. voting against the other guy - which was our last two elections, at least). Then the winner would be closest to center and if it wasn't your guy that won, the one that did would very likely be pretty close to what you wanted anyway, increasing your trust in government. All for a very simple adaptation to boot. Instead, we get one clown show or another driving the bus. Personally, I love being in the back seat when numb nuts up front is going full-scale deflection one way or the other.

One of the dumbest side effects of this ordeal is that the California covid shitstorm currently happening is going to be completely swept under the rug. It would be nice if blue states with insane lockdown rules had to answer the mail when they spike just as bad or worse than the evil Floridas of the world. But I guess trump and the far right taking a steaming dump in the halls of the capitol kind of overshadows that.

80/20 is a heuristic (rule of thumb), and works well enough that you can describe pretty much anything using that and it'll sounds reasonable. Often it can be a good starting point, but isn't so much a "law" as it is a good estimation starting point. A person out of work going into the pandemic was not in a good place to get a job as the pandemic progressed (with layoffs, furloughs, or businesses just going under), and many people have lost their jobs (or had reduced income) as well in the course of the pandemic. You make the assumption (like in my previous post) that because they were out of work, that they are lazy (personal failure): they just need to try harder. But any number of things could've driven them being out of work (moved to a new town for better opportunities, an injury forcing a shift in career fields, just finishing school/training and in the process of job hunting, for example). Could just be bad luck and horrible timing, and not anything an individual may be able to actually control. If you focus on the people gaming the system, or are just lazy, you may miss many other people trying to work and earn an "honest" living, but can't find a job. Maybe money to individuals isn't the right answer. But what about funding food/groceries? Like a food bank or soup kitchen, but government backed providing food essentials during the pandemic for anyone who needs it? Hell, don't have any restrictions except maybe you can pick up a certain amount in a certain time period. People with stable jobs will likely buy their preferred food ahead of a handout, and the people that need it have at least for security to help pay rent or other bills, especially if they faced an hours cut. The hard part about checking for bona fide need is that it creates a lot of overhead to collect, determine, and adjudicate need, increasing costs with no additional benefit. Alternatively, you can assume and accept there will be a certain amount waste (which will it exist at some level regardless), but that on the whole is beneficial. This is especially true if the cost of anticipated (or actual) waste is less than the cost of oversight and administration. But this can be distasteful to some, because people of differing values/assumptions can point to the waste and say the program is a failure, and ignore the good that is happening elsewhere. So going back to the pareto principle, you could say 80% of the fraud/waste in a government program is caused by 20% of the people receiving the benefit, which I'd argue is a pretty reasonable estimate to start discussing with. Does that mean the program should be ended because fraud is occurring? What about the 80-ish% that weren't committing fraud that the benefit actually provides measurable help to? The next logical answer may be to eliminate the fraud through installing additional oversight. This means hiring a staff to assess each request for benefits before it's paid out, and if you want to provide the benefits in a timely manner, hiring enough staff to do so (while accounting for vacations, sick leave, and emergencies), which adds costs to the government program. So if there's $800k in fraud/waste happening, but it costs $1M to hire adequate staff to administer the program in a timely manner and eliminate the fraud, is there any tangible benefit to eliminating the fraud, outside of punishing those that have committed fraud, or for political optics or virtue signaling? This is the crux of the small government idea (and in this instance I think less government oversight is the right answer based on the assumptions I laid out, unless it can be shown that additional oversight at fair and reasonable wage/benefits would drive costs down).

The time to prepare and adapt is only because that's how it's always been for us, and what we are used to. It makes it hard to really do anything major (like prepare budgets, or major initiatives) when you know what your working on doesn't matter because as soon as the new administration is sworn in, you'll have to redo it all with new guidance. So it creates a lot of wasted time in government. And for the average citizen, it just doesn't matter. If you're candidate lost, it doesn't matter if you have 1 day or 2 months to adjust, you'll just have to come to terms with it (preferably without violently storming the Capitol, but I digress). And assumes the incumbent won't do anything out of spite, especially with how much executive power has grown. What happens if the president decides they are done with North Korea and orders a nuclear attack on them on Jan 19? Singlular authority placed in the President, with no check on their decision, outside the missleer in the capsule deciding to disobey the order to launch. If we shorten the time, we'll adapt our processes and norms. A candidate that has a good chance of winning should have a list of appointees for key positions going into the election, but if not, all of those positions usually have a career deputy that can keep everything running while appointments are sorted out. I do like ranked order voting. However, implementing would be challenging. Do you eliminate party primaries? Do you allow anyone that meets the qualifications to get on the ballot? What happens to political parties? We'll never get it though because it means the political parties will have to give up a significant amount of power and control over the election process. They lose control over the narrative, and would lead to a fracturing of the party's position and ability to vote as a block. All of this is good for the voter though, but when have the political parties really cared for the voter except as a means to access power?

Actually just a few days before you posted this. He did just that. Did you miss it because it wasn’t covered by any leftist news outlets? Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Those days went away when they stopped letting a pilot run the PT program. They don't call them the good ole days for nothing. The old saying "this isn't your daddies ANG," doesn't even apply anymore...it's not even close to the ANG I joined 20 years ago. That's back when "mandatory fun" was genuinely fun and everyone WANTED to participate! Back when a trip to Alpena meant some awesome shenanigans when the entire wing would end up at the River Club. If those walls could talk... 😳 He's at the best base there is....retired! But the things of which he speaks used to be at pretty much every base. Then cell phones/cameras happened...

The media and I guess much of the populace has the attention span of a fruit fly.

You’ve really been off the deep end on the political stuff for a little while here, and it’s getting worse. Really, you should take some time off of it.

Bay Area resident here. For the record, all the weapons/magazines/ammo I had when I retired were lost in a tragic boating accident and I was unable save anything before I moved to CA. I am now totally defenseless like all the law-abiding citizens in CA. Of course you should comply with all state laws, but I have heard people say that local government officials only know what you tell them.

Agree that the market adapts, and people will find new ways to make money. The hard part is that automation and the job shifts it can cause increases the wealth gap in our country. It can also make it difficult for new businesses to complete against established competitors who can make full use of technology to drive down costs to a point a new entrant can't compete. This allows for an accumulation of wealth, which then brings power/influence to the those at the top of the business. It begins to give them increased access to and influence on political leaders, since the business executive's business decisions can have big effects in an elected official's district over you standard constituent. Automation and technology significantly boosts worker productivity, but workers generally don't see pay increases with that increased productivity, unless there is a union/collective bargaining happening. We've been moving to a services based economy like you mentioned. But we've also seen service companies start to move toward the extensive use of "independent contractors" to execute their businesses as a core businesses model. And since they are independent contractors, many worker protections aren't granted, and benefits like medical care, which have traditionally been obtained through employers in the US, or sick leaves, are now the responsibility of the individual. So great for business, not so great for the individual. There's been a lot of resistance from Republicans to increase corporate taxes, or tax increases for the wealthy (income or capital gains). And those that might support it are afraid that the Dems will squander that money on what they see as government overreach. So this gives those at the top of major corporations a twofold advantage: their business is taxed less, driving up profits and their bonuses, and those increased bonuses from the company profits aren't taxes at what they used to be. Meanwhile, they are protected by the police and the legal system (funded by taxes) from their workers banding together and striking, or threatening to "burn down the factory" in response to poor working condition or wages. They could pay their workers more, but why? They don't have options to move to a better opportunity, otherwise they would've done so already. I guess I'm saying that maybe we should think proactively regarding the effects technology has or can have on our country, both at the macro level and for individuals, rather than waiting for a crises to develop and scrambling for a solution (just like in the whole "is internet access common infrastructure, or a modern luxury" debate). But I'm not going to hold my breath that Congress will be proactive, and that large businesses won't be pitching their financial interests to Congress through lobbyists. But one can hope.

Yes, this is entirely it, it’s horridly inefficient just so people can sneer and say “the poor wouldn’t know what to do with money anyways.” What? The vast majority would spend their money on food and shelter, I’ll tell you that. $3.1T so far, with the vast majority of benefits helping big business or pump the stock market. Could have given every single person almost $10k for that amount of money. Do you feel like the average American has received $10k worth of government assistance?

IIRC, the argument for giving payments directly to people was that it was less expensive to just write those checks than it would have been to pay for the administrative burden of things like paying rent to landlords, paying mortgages to lending companies, paying for food through something like an EBT card, etc.

I don't think so. This guy was talking about recent job gripes in the AF. I thought PYB was removed from the Air Force after some conscientious objecting/protesting related to drone strikes.

One thing that would help is to eliminate the cliffs in our current system. There are several areas in the current way government assistance works where getting a job/getting a raise results in less total money coming in. If we can smooth those transitions so that someone can work their way out of poverty without ending up worse off at any point, we can create an incentive to work and get raises and eventually get off government assistance. We saw this in Seattle when they went to $15/hr minimum wage. A bunch of people no longer qualified for government benefits as full-time workers and asked to have hours slashed because they were losing money by having their wages increased. If we can introduce intermediate steps that reduce, but not eliminate, government assistance in those cases, there's less disincentive to get a better job or work longer hours.

Do they not just hand you the PT test paperwork and say “come back looking tired with it filled in”. 🧐 The days of the base “fun run” with a keg at the end are gone even from the guard; at least pencil-whipping isn’t entirely dead.

I’m sure the CEO of the pharmaceutical company making billions off a vaccine doesn’t want the disease to go away. Ever. He’s probably right. COVID isn’t as deadly as smallpox, which humans did eradicate.

Be nice to see the states get together and impose term limits and start using the 17th amendment by state legislators pick the two Senators from their state. That way they are answerable to their state house not their donors.

Listening to the impeachment debates going on right now. Absolutely disgusted by 2 things: the Trump apology tour by republicans, and the zero responsibility accepted by anyone on either side of the aisle. Everything is the fault of the other guy, none of anyone's actions, vitriol and rhetoric caused any of the current problems. It was all caused by the other guys... Time for every single one of them to be voted out. Zero incumbents should be voted back in for the next few elections!

The other crazy thing in all of this is our election timelines. With faster modes of travel (or the ability to telecommute), modern communications, and technology to help speed up counting votes, why is our election so far from our from the actual inauguration? I can see in the past needing time to: - Manually count votes by hand - Travel on foot or by horse to aggregate results at multiple levels -Having electors gather and vote -Having congressmen travel to deliver that vote to Congress -Time to communicate the overall electoral votes and winner back to their home states and to the candidates -Travel for the winning candidate to DC (if they aren't already there) I can see why that took months originally, but maybe we should shorten it given modern technologies we enjoy now, versus keeping lame duck administrations who's only reason not to do something crazy in that time period is tradition (which arguably has now been broken).

That's a foul, but legal based on the policies pushed by Republicans. An ISP should not have the power to unilaterally decide to block internet traffic. But it's put Republicans in a weird spot: they don't want ISPs regulated or treated as common infrastructure, but that means that an ISP, as a business, can block whatever they want. They haven't really done so in the past because there hasn't been a business case for doing so (although streaming service can and do get throttled) So the GOP (and the region served by that ISP) is reaping what the GOP sowed, and suddenly are surprised that their political platform has real consequences. When you put all your faith in the free market, you are putting your faith in the market keeping the same values as you; otherwise, you can get screwed over real quick. And now conservatives (primarily on the far right) are getting screwed by the system they profess to love. So it's internet access a right? Or is it a luxury? Because right now conservatives are screaming it's a right, and yet have blocked efforts for years to have internet treated as infrastructure, or to provide access to the poor ("Obama phone"), or to force ISPs to improve the physical internet infrastructure especially to rural areas.

Go fuck yourself. I have no underlying health concerns and it nearly KILLED me and I can assure you prior I was not already prone to dying. Idiots like you make me want to vomit...truly a clueless fuckwit. Two of my immediate family members were thankfully released from the hospital yesterday after receiving all possible therapeutics and one being given last rites. I am all for keeping things open and using mitigation measures to protect those at great risk but saying this is a nuisance is fucking ignorant. There is a lot we simply don't understand especially as it related to certain blood types.

Thinking about it further. I'm not even sure it matters. From Tulsi's point of view, I think the wider interest is we don't need to be policing every world dictator who gasses his people. Its certainly tragic and has a human costs, but shes clearly stated that the human costs of war should be bared by the US alone. Taken more holistically, and having looked up her remarks, I think she's quite clear her stance on international politics is one where we need to be willing to accept a few dictators in the world. I can't disagree with that.

They might be busy this week...

Seems like you're really committed to calling "gather evidence and try him in court" a defense of Assad. The whole point is not to launch sorties. Because we've seen that it often causes more problems than it solves...Is Libya better off without Gaddaffi?

Dude very few people have seen that evidence and Tulsi likely never saw it when she discussed it. Weve all seen intel reports and seen how wildly off base they can be. She was an Army officer she probably remembers that too. She provided a voice of caution. Obama was a warhawk who campaigned on peace, then turned around and entered us into other conflicts most Americans never heard of and deepened out stakes in the two existing conflicts he inherited. That didn't sit well with a lot of Democrats who thought of themselves as the party of peace. The same intel community reported with consensus WMDs were in Iraq. It is considered one of the greatest national intelligence failures of all time and is widely discussed in intel academia. I'm not going to hold a grudge against anyone who said "wait a minute, let's make sure we got our shit straight this time before entering another cluster fuck."

Will be interesting to see how often our incoming president utilizes the above forum

Like stirring a big pot of Kraft Mac and Cheese

Wish we had audio of it becoming unstuck. I feel like there would be a great BQZip’s mom joke in there somewhere.

It baffles me in the day of literally carrying a device in your pocket capable of connecting you with people across the globe people still find a way to violate the first rule. Don’t crap where you eat! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She's out!

I wonder if anything happened to the woman involved in this relationship? Sounds like she started it, pursued it, caused all the conduct that was prejudicial to good order and discipline, but he lost 2 stars and given paperwork and forced to retire. I’m sure I’m just a misogynist, but if she didn’t receive a similar punishment as an AF officer, that’s BS.

Rule of Thumb: If you cannot drink the tap water in a country, don’t fly their nation’s airlines.

It's no wonder our country is so divided. Dude was elected back in Nov. Nothing Trump could have done to change it, so for you conspiracy nuts, why wouldn't they have changed immediately after the election was declared for Biden if this was done just to get him elected? You all sound like the upstanding Patriots that stormed the Capitol! It couldn't possibly be that while they recognize that the Rona is serious, they also seriously want to get the economy moving again, could it? Nah, that would be bonkers...