Jump to content

sixblades

Registered User
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

sixblades's Achievements

SNAP

SNAP (1/4)

12

Reputation

  1. If that’s what you gathered from that video and his body of work as the CMSAF, then you have serious problem.
  2. Is it ok - technically no. You'll find that there's more camaraderie between the Os and Es on multi-crew aircraft that leads to conditions where military decorum is less formal. If it's objectively bad or it's really an issue for you, I'd suggest talking to one of the senior Es or 1st Sgt about it. You can also reach out to your Flt/CC or ADO if prefer to stay on the officer side. Present real evidence that highlights a broader issue rather solely calling out someone. You'd rather not come off as the FNG that is mad about not getting saluted by everyone he outranks. If it's that the squadron treats common outdoor areas as unofficial no salute zones, then hopefully that solves your problem, otherwise it could bring up good discussions about professionalism within your squadron.
  3. I think that's an important difference. Saying that you put out a bid/competition to a pool of companies that potentially included Pfizer is very different than saying that Pfizer had taken on contractual obligations to develop a vaccine on America's behalf. I believe they saw the undertaking as a future golden cash cow and didn't want any control of their IP or parents tied to US oversight.
  4. Seems like something has got you riled up. You can find slackers and ROAD (retired on active duty) types of every political ideology, so I don’t see where you’re going in your rant about liberals and racism. Thanks for your service, glad you have other things to worry about now
  5. Wow! Quite possibly single engine or just a pretty hard landing. No props on #3 or #4 and #1 is pretty mangled. Refueling pod ripped off the left side. Talk about an F’d up situation. Hell of a good job safely putting her down in a field and bringing everyone back alive!
  6. I think CG was just referring to UPT familiarization. Proficiency would be a very tough ask from a UPT syllabus, especially considering the different 3-1/3-3 TTPs for yet-to-be assigned MDSs. I agree that a more focused look at tactical event execution that incorporates energy management, positional SA, and those go/no-go checkpoints during execution will better prepare studs for what the FTUs will expect from them. After sitting in on Gen Holmes' last road show about UPT (PTN, 2.5, or whatever we're on now), it sounds like there are lot of unconventional approaches and just general experimentation in the works. I know I don't envy being in the position that our UPT IPs are in.
  7. I thinks that’s a valid theory given so many unknowns about how symptoms manifest and the true transmissibility of the virus. That would definitely push down the mortality rate in the US (and potentially abroad), and I’m all for it, but that doesn’t change the fact that we’ve poorly combatted the realities of this pandemic. Our confirmed infected and confirmed death numbers would still be disproportionately high relative to the rest of the world, and that’s what the concern is about A source would be nice... jk!
  8. I get it that we don't know with 100% certainty how other countries report their metrics, but with that line of reasoning how can you even trust the numbers that we report. It would be advantageous to under-report to reduce constrictive measures, so does the US just not get how to accurately attribute mortality to its real cause? The US accounts for 24% of infections and 22% of deaths with only 4% of the world's population. We're not the only nation that has significant amounts of tourism, business travel, or transient citizens. Hindsight is 20/20, but this isn't a situation where we're surprised as we look back at how we got here. EDIT: Agree with you that different testing measures as well as geographic and demographic conditions should be considered when comparing metrics, but I do expect our medical and scientific experts to exhibit the type of critical thinking skills you refer to. Our elected officials are there to make tough decisions, and whether they make effectives ones are something we subjectively discuss, but our worldwide scientific community is there to objectively report the truth data. Whether sovereign nations are intentionally misreporting is up for debate, but I don't believe the world is playing a big game of "gotcha!" against the US because we just want to fall on our own sword.
  9. I agree that context matters and made a very similar point a few posts earlier. To my knowledge, no one wants to “cancel” Washington or rename things that are named in his honor. Most of the founding fathers were either slave owners themselves or were supportive of the institution. It was unfortunately the economic system of the time. However, they didn’t found the nation on the principles that we must continue to uphold the inequities and inhumanity of slavery. On the other hand, that is exactly what the Confederacy fought for as they opposed any change to the economic systems of the South that were fueled predominantly by slave labor output. Operating within a system is very different than fighting to keep an unjust system place. According the majority of US citizens and wider international sentiments, the Confederacy was objectively wrong at that time. As I said earlier, people In the past have done or supported things that may be distasteful or wrong by today’s standards, but the litmus test is whether it was equally wrong when they made their choices. ETA: the point in my previous post was to say that history doesn’t disappear because you move a statue from being prominently displayed in a public square to now being displayed on the civil war section of the museum.
  10. I agree that some people don’t know what they’re doing out there as they’re defacing and tearing down some of these statues, and that’s a problem. But the vast majority of protesters aren’t rioters, or looters, or tearing down statues. What difference does timing make when they bring up relevant issues that they want their civic leaders to address? There will always be a vocal minority in every movement that tries to hijack the narrative for their own good or exploits the situation to do things that aren’t representative of the greater ideology. Our history isn’t going anywhere. We’re still going to know who Stonewall Jackson is and everyone is going to know that Woodrow Wilson was the President. I do believe there’s great value in preserving these statues and art, the same as any other artistic piece, I just don’t think celebrating things that are so contrary to the values we collectively hold makes sense. How many statues do we have of Andrew Jackson, as is that a concern about his historical relevance?
  11. I think I get where you’re going, but I respectfully disagree with your notion that cancel culture leads to destruction of monuments, art, flags, etc. I can’t fundamentally get behind the idea that a group’s ethical or moral dissent equates to a harmful anti-cultural or ethnic cleansing movement. Cancel culture isn’t Nazi Germany. Cancel culture isn’t the Rwandan Genocide. Cancel culture isn’t The Crusades. Cancel culture is probably an overly misused, faddish approach to raising public awareness to highlight a topic. I know you’re probably not saying what’s going on now is going to result in something as horrendous as a genocide, but the tough conversations and opposing viewpoints we’re seeing now, that some may consider synonymous with “cancel culture”, could in fact be a crazy idea not so different than women deserving equal rights (Equal Rights Act) or minorities deserving equal rights (Civil Rights Act), and are just difficult to grasp and support in the moment but is common sense in hindsight. I believe few people exclusively want to destroy monuments, art, flags. Instead they want to have a conversation about why and how we celebrate these symbols and individuals. We don’t celebrate monuments of the kings or queens of England in our public squares so why do we do that for generals of the confederacy? If Milley, Goldfein, and the rest of the Joint Chiefs unsuccessfully tried to execute a coup d’etat next week I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t be celebrating them 50+ years from now with public statues and buildings named after them. However, I wholeheartedly believe we would know about their background, accomplishments, and the history behind the events like everything else in US history. What you don’t hear is people asking for these historical artifacts and heraldry to be removed from museums. I don’t believe people want to rewrite history, they want to address who and what celebrate. Historical context matters. The US has done some pretty f’d stuff over the years and people recognize that. Our civic and social leaders have supported things in the past that would be distasteful today and people recognize that. But when you decide to celebrate something that was contextually f’d up and/or distasteful both then and now, it’s not hard to understand why people would have issues that.
  12. Yeah, I can see how what I wrote could look like an attack - not my intention. I was trying to address the ideas that freedom of speech is unique to the US and that his freedom to express his viewpoint is only possible because he’s in the US. Like the US, most democratic nations legally protect freedom of speech. I hate to cite Wikipedia, but it’s the most succinct list I could quickly find addressing the topic (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country). The big difference we see is the degree to which these countries espouse the value of freedom of speech at their founding as well as the lengths they go to establish and protect a free and independent press, and that’s the big plus the US, but not a unique characteristic. I was just trying to to say that Individual freedom of expression is more widely protected than we may believe.
  13. Completely inaccurate... What’s your point? He shouldn’t be able to share his viewpoint? Or that he should feel humbled by these freedoms to turn a blind eye to something he doesn’t agree with? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  14. 2008, huh? Seems like veiled language for something else, but regardless, Americans have been dealing with matters of race for 400+ years and it only becomes political when people become uncomfortable talking about it or somehow when it involves discussions about equality and humanity. For something that you describe as an immutable characteristic (race, sexual orientation, heritage...) why is it controversial to acknowledge and discuss salient issues that involve them if they pertain to leadership?
  15. Since when did topics of race and leadership become political? He seems to be challenging a thought process that downplays the experiences of a large subset of our force. You may not agree with what he’s saying, it’s obviously an opinion post, but he seems to frame his argument in way to drive self-reflection from leaders at all levels on how they connect with and treat their people.
×
×
  • Create New...