GKinnear

@clearedhot @brabus Necessary evil indeed. Aside from the expertise angle, the Data Engineers, O-5 retired-now-GS, or worse contractors don't have any skin in the game. It's easier to make a "bad" decision when you don't have to answer the mail later on, or look the bros in the eyes. At least the 12x communities have that going for them. @dogs-n-guns While I've routinely gotten a JA or IG opinion before moving out, I've also relied on my own decision making after getting their risk assessment. "Legally sufficient" doesn't always equal the right thing for the Airman, Squadron, or the Force...that's why Commanders get paid to do the job. But to your point, some individuals may choose to stop at that point. YMMV Sent from my SM-N976V using Baseops Network mobile app

This image applies to so many situations in the USAF...

Looks like Wilsbach is officially out of the CSAF running...I also have a terrible track record betting on sports.

If we don't know where we're going, we can get there faster...it's all by design.

Stop feeding the troll. Go back and look up Chang's post history...there's a reason my principle is to downvote every post from that account. To your main point, sounds like a perfect shit-storm...can't recruit, can't retain.

I thought it was @BashiChuni sock puppet account

The suspense is really building on your history with Fingers

Again, great points that I agree with from both academic and personal experience. I'd offer though that the PACAF/CC is at least familiar with the airspace/basing/overflight issues in the region that will certainly affect the logistics air bridge. ACE is a logistics fight, so that may be the decider. So IMO, there's the calculus; regional Ops (pro) / regional Logistics (mid) vs. global Logistics (pro) / potential "1st Female Service Chief" (pro). Personally, the I sim'd/flew every Monday during the last non-bomber/fighter CSAF tenure so I wouldn't have to wear blues. Lt GKinnear is hoping history doesn't repeat itself.

I've never been west of Travis, or east of Manas (R.I.P.)...so your insight is enlightening, thank you. I don't necessarily disagree with the posts regarding the other candidates. I was making an assumption that the 4-star with the recency of experience would be the best pick. The Ops vs. Logistics experience is an interesting argument.

[mention=78553]FLEA[/mention] I havent seen that he retiring, so I'm putting my money on Wilsbach...I think he knows a thing or three about logistics in the Pacific. Sent from my SM-N976V using Baseops Network mobile app

The Chang parody is getting better, but principles are principles...

If I put CINCHOUSE in the TC seat, can I take it in the HOV lane? Sure Babe...I've got school drop offs today.

I didn't mention support for or against, but rather the perception of a "purely political prosecution"...which is supported by my 69 second Google search of published polls. To your point, CNN has it as a majority in support, ABC has a plurality. Based on the the highly divided political arena in America currently, neither is highly surprising. Agree to disagree for now. Beria's famous quote (Show me the man and I'll show you the crime) keeps bubbling up in my mind when I see updates in this case. I'm trying to find reasons why it's not applicable, but so far I haven't seen any reason that it's not. America's rule of law has meant that the law is equally applied to all, regardless of class or political boundaries. That's partially why the civil rights movement was so successful, the rigged jury and court system was unfounded and couldn't withstand the scrutiny when it was exposed to the country. If the DA has a history of downgrading felonies to misdemeanors, then upgrades a misdemeanor past the statute of limitations, that the DOJ decided against prosecuting....it begs the question of how that is equal justice? With all the discussion recently about bias in every system, I think I'm starting to recognize when someone's biases are unduly influencing the outcome. And that's my issue...no one can or will. So again, it seems that instead of Blind Justice in this case, the DA is explicitly viewing this for political gain...either his or the Party's, which brings me full circle back to Stalin. Just to clarify my point, my main point is about our Court system, not election politics (tangential at best). I would hope that elected officials would course correct back to equally applied justice, regardless of the (R) / (D) following their name.

This was essentially going to be my reply to @brabus...keep voting with your feet! I have no first hand knowledge, just what I've gleaned and deduced over the last couple years from some brand new, just happy-to-be-here 1 Stars, and my current Group Commander. I think the amount of O's bailing at the O-6 gate caused Bug Blue to rethink the O-6 management strategy. It's now "there's someone for every assignment" vs. "feel free to retire". IMO, the theory would work for pilots in general as well if recruiting didn't mask the issue. I'll defer to @ClearedHot or any other experienced dudes lurking on the net.

The current "Brief" at least takes you to dinner and pretends to listen to you first...but no changes since your time.

So you're arguing that if election influencing is executed at the institutional level, then it's ok? Especially when that institution is the same one who determines what legal actions are pursued in the Criminal courts? To your point about potential crime...the DA's supposed to know what the crime is before charging. He may not legally have to publish the underlying charge on the indictment, but morally & ethically he is. There is a perception of purely political prosecution, which is anathema to the Constitution and the rule of law. At a certain level, I think Stalin and Mao are a little jealous of how this case is going. The potential for conflict of interest, capricious, targeted, etc. seems very high if this were in the DoD. I wouldn't be surprised if there were an IG report if that were the case. Maybe that's on me, by viewing the whole situation through the USAF perspective.

I'm trying to reconcile your two statements here. The first one seems to back the DA's legal analysis that trying to influence the election using his personal money is somehow a crime. The second leads me to believe you support election influencing from one party to ensure the unelectable candidate is the nominee. What am I missing that would prove these statements both conform to a logical, consistent set of principles, outside of a political perspective? Edit: I'll allow it was business money on the Stormy Daniels payoff...that Trump owned, so potato / potato. As I understand it, the only person defrauded financially was Trump.

Goddammit...take my upvote, you earned it with that one

I'll "happy to glad" the word choice to "allowed" vs. "authorized", but it also appears that you've run out of arguments to make. That's just one man's opinion though. Your input on the use of ad hominem has been noted, thoughtfully considered, and rejected. Seems like a pedantic argument to make to try and shift blame from the previously mentioned no-value added statement. Last point, since this is an internet argument, there are no winners in this fight...you do you, boo.

To me the tyranny is not wearing a mask in the hospital. The tyranny is the process by which that decision was made and the lack of pubic discourse going forward. As soon as someone questioned the necessity, there was an immediate backlash to shutdown any conversation. No attempt at increasing the understanding on both side, just "I'm in charge and you're going to do it or else." Not an effective leadership style in the USAF (most of the time), and certainly not in a free society where the lawmakers and policy deciders are in theory answerable to the voting public. Wear your mask, I really don't care, but be honest that most decisions regarding the perma-pandemic and mask mandates seem to have a strong political bent to them. Again, you may see it differently, and that's ok...just as long as we can still have a civil discourse as a country about it.

C'mon bro...don't descend into ad hominem / personal attacks. We're better than that. If there's a joke that I missed in your post, please excuse me while I go yell at some clouds.

IMO, "Shouldn't everyone be free to make their own risk decision?" is not logically consistent with "of course the point is we accept some mandates" While I personally don't like mandates (you're not the boss of me!), on principle they should be the minimum amount necessary to do the job. I also think that there should be a healthy discussion to ensure that minimum amount. In this case it seems that the mask mandates are broad and over-reaching at all levels, and the lack of follow-on conversation is the sticky wicket in the whole affair. Just my $0.69 (inflation is a real bitch)

To your specific argument, the safety precaution of the risk from a highly flammable material (100% Oxygen) in close proximity to an ignition source (cigarette/cigar/pipe/joint...whatever) is backed up by science that is devoid of any political argument. In a free society, mandates from the government are always an exercise in how much power can the government assume that the populace is willing to tolerate.