busdriver

Big blue doesn't like the ambiguity of platforms that require anything approaching "art" to employ. It doesn't fit with the algorithmic thought process to war planning. What they want is the ability to run an equation: A aircraft x B munitions x C sorties = we win. Basically an operational level JWS. I suspect that is the actual root cause, but also influenced by shrinking training dollars and some other stuff.

It depends a lot on where in the city you are. I was there about a month ago, stayed in the Northwest district. 23rd street area was fine. Walking down to Powell's city of books, there were more homeless folks/piss/etc. Seattle up by the space needle was fine. Walking down to pioneer square, the urine and puke aroma just kept getting stronger.

Stop being so pedantic.

That bent towards bloviating showmanship is exactly what I was talking about. Their presence on the political stage, not what they have or haven't accomplished in their lives. He vomited out stupid shit constantly. The most comical was the sharpie modification of the hurricane thing, at least that was my favorite. 90% of of the stupid bullshit, people on the right just ignored. "Trump's just bullshitting" sort of response. At least that's my response. I have to think there is a similar thing going on, on the left. She opens her mouth and I get pissed off. But that's the same response on the left when Trump opens his mouth.

She's like a left wing female version of Trump. Just spews nonsense. I suspect her actual supporters believe the crap she says at about the same rate as Trump supporters. So the left wing equivalent of that hand-full of retired guys we all know on facebook. It's mostly a nihilistic big old middle finger to the other tribe.

One of the great ironies of pictures like this: protestor screams in face of representative of the institution, while simultaneously relying on the restraint of the institutional representative. It wasn't that long ago that protestors relied on the lack of restraint to make their point.

Wasn't disagreeing what should have happened. That is pretty clear. My point was why it didn't.

Quality and quantity, yes. I feel safe saying most patrol officers don't routinely train anything. And some of those in that department may well be lost causes. Obviously the department level and on-scene leadership was terrible and have proven incapable of doing the job.

It was an absolute top to bottom failure, no doubt. Was it cowardice, well in a definitional sense (lack of bravery), sure I guess. What I'm saying is righteous indignation about a bag of pussies doesn't fix anything. In other words, is the root cause of the problem a constitutional problem with the specific people hired to do the job? Or a complete failure of department training and culture? You want cops who will act in that type of situation, then you have to have enough on the force that you can pull a percentage of them off the street on a routine basis and have them drill building entry. They have to have to tools to actually solve the problem. If they haven't drilled it to the point of second nature, they won't do it under stress. They "freeze." How many people in the military who've done amazing things, have afterwards basically said they didn't think about it, they just did what they were trained to do? EDIT: I guess I'm just really beating around the bush of an old dead guy quote: "We don't rise to the level of our expectations; we fall to the level of our training." -Archilochus

How many days of drilling over how many years of training? How many years of training within a culture of constant learning as an aircrew member before you started acting in a leadership role? Academically knowing what you are supposed to do, is different than doing it with proficiency under stress, without thinking. Whatever training system produced those cops will produce the same in the future. "Courage under fire" isn't innate. It is taught and built over years.

Is there only one shooter? So they shouldn't be covering other potential axis' of approach? I'm not saying they shouldn't have gone in, obviously they should have. I said this fits the description of an emergency situation. Put it this way. Look at the first handful of cops going in on the video. Do they look anything like any video you have ever seen of dudes going into a building? But they are moving towards the shooter. Then shooting, and then running. Panic. No idea what to do. Success in that environment requires speed and teamwork, which requires training to acquire. If one or two of them had straight up banzai'd the shooter, the outcome would have likely been hero of the day. But if the plan is rely on a hero emerging instead of training competence and confidence, well hope is not a tactic. So the lesson learned in debrief of this thing is to stop hiring pussies? Essentially "do better," great lesson learned....

Clearing a school building is a MFer, I would guess that they're taught to wait for SWAT and only go in, in an emergency. I would guess they've never drilled the emergency part, which is based on their god awful movement/positioning/etc. My contention is if those pistol packing cops had drilled that emergency situation (clearly this situation fit that description) repeatedly, to the point of automatic response, they would have moved in this case. Your contention is they are just a whole group of pussies? Some of them, maybe, but all of them?

That's a complete lack of training. They have no idea what to do, they're out of ideas. Not knowing what to do, is what breeds that fear.

Thanks.

Question for you then: Peter Zeihan has made a point about refineries and setup/re-tool costs and timeline when switching from one crude formulation to another. How much of an impact is it to go from refining light/sweet from a shale field to a heavy/sour crude from where-ever?

Zilch. I just remember reading some stuff years ago about how Venezuelan oil was so gross that they were essentially reliant on US refiners to buy it, since no one else was willing to re-tool to deal with it. Not saying the Texas refineries can't deal with it (they obviously refine Canadian tar sands oil), just that my understanding of the business model shifted a bit after the US went from net oil importer to exporter.

Ironically, US refiners used to specialize in shit oil. Not so much after shale and Venezuela collapsing. Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

And politicians say all sorts of dissembling nonsense Edit: I don't think nsplayr is dissembling, Biden is in reference to what I assume is a monkeypox question.

14 years or so? I thought it was one and done, but they re-stuck me before my '18 deployment.

I got a booster for it a bit back.

agree with your point 100%. I'm not sure what the actual personality trait is that we're batting around, but I don't think entitled rule-breaker really covers it. That seems more trust fund baby, teen angsty to me. Aristocratic narcissist maybe? Although charismatic bad-boy is probably useful. But I digress/ramble. In an age when the social media popularity contest is how people succeed or fail in politics, social media star personalities will be the norm. Is everyone ready for President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho?

Truth We had one crash them into each other, drop one and then step on it.

So other than the stupidity of it, no qualms about killing a hypothetical sentient species? Intelligence in animals is not the same thing sentience. Although it's possible that some animals have some kind of proto sentience, on the way to evolving it. I will grant the definition isn't nice and pat. I never said life doesn't start at conception, I said that it's irrelevant. Nuance is life. In the desire for a pat answer, you've just said that killing a sentient creature (alien, my hypothetical super dolphin, whatever) has no more moral weight than killing a dog or cat.

Why in the hell are so many pro-choice folks so bad at making a rational argument? Point of human life is irrelevant. Living things die all the time, why does the presence of human DNA make one particular life more important than another? All animals have heartbeats, unique DNA is a characteristic of all non-hermaphrodidic life. I contend that the ability to make choices based on conscious thought to exercise agency is what differentiates the human species from the rest of the living things on earth. From that basis, individual rights from a state of nature flow. While a Zygote will eventually develop into that, it does not have those characteristics yet. I would argue that a new born has enough of it to qualify. Where that specific transition happens, I don't know. Fetal viability in the original Roe argument is actually a compromise with some logical basis, even if I think it's a ham handed one that misses the point. A better theoretical logical cut off point would be development of consciousness, however I suspect that there is no single light bulb comes on moment. For the religious folks, I'm also fine with euthanasia, and doctor assisted suicide. You and I will never see eye to eye on this, I get it.

Consciousness, agency, choice. If we someday find out that Dolphins are actually conscious in the human sense of the word, your view that they are not made in God's image would make it fine to kill them? Likewise if an intelligent alien species showed up at our doorstep, not in God's image? One doesn't need a belief in God to rationally come to the conclusion that moral relativism is dumb, or that your logical end-point isn't logical.