ViperMan

The point is that CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS/NYT/WaPo and their pundits are all taken as "legitimate" news sources; no one is confused or doubts that Tucker Carlson provides "news with perspective" or that he happens to have the #1 rated show. Juxtapose this with the fact that most people take Jim Acosta, Jeffery Toobin, Don Lemon, Briana Keilar, George Stephanopolous, Yamiche Alcindor, Brian Stelter, and the rest of the bunch as un-biased, and what's more, they wear the equivalent of "blue check marks" in the news business - they are considered un-opinionated and non-political. How do I know this? No one openly scoffs them. People do openly scoff Tucker. It is the sum total of the above phalanx that has a far, far greater effect on what the nation is aware of and thus who gets to determine the framing of issues in the country than does the Tucker gadfly (and hence the fact that he as an individual happens to have a larger audience is irrelevant).

Meh. On the point of the origination of the virus, it doesn't matter what Trump said, didn't say, implied, opined, or hypothesized. Presidents behaving in ridiculous ways, saying untrue things, and so on, is not new. Anyone alive knows this after watching at least Obama, Bush before him, and Clinton before him. And in the specific case of Trump, everyone knows he is not of particularly high fidelity. Hence, any equivocation between his bloviating about a lab-leak/bio-weapon/whatever, and the media's insistence that it was a natural occurrence is BS. The media is the entity known as the 4th estate - not the President - it is their job to remain as impartial as possible. This responsibility includes sometimes ignoring BS (i.e. a lot of what the President said) while they continue to ask pointed questions and follow reasonable lines of inquiry. If I had to debrief what the media did, I would call it task misprioritization and channelized attention. Going one step further - you can't even blame the media. We as aware citizens need to ask important questions and engage in dialogue that will help push the nation in the right direction. Thaaaaat said, Jon Stewart did an awesome job highlighting the Bayesian logic we all use but are seldom conscious of - which is why the media's culpability is even more egregious since we all suspected something was up. Facts: A novel corona virus first began infecting people in Wuhan, China. Also, a virus lab exists in Wuhan that has experienced previous viral leaks. Finally, researchers at this lab came down with disease manifesting symptoms consistent with those we now know COVID-19 causes. Getting to the bottom of this requires evidence which may or may not be forthcoming. In absence of it, it is helpful to examine the situation from different perspectives. 1st Frame: What is the probability that a novel corona virus would arise randomly from nature and begin infecting people in Wuhan, China vs. any other place in the world? Very low. 2nd Frame: What is the probability that if a novel corona virus leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China, that the first city where a breakout would occur is in Wuhan, China? Very high. The "media" was intent on pushing the first frame, without evidence (beyond Trump said it), but examining the same question from a different perspective sheds light on what was and what is more likely.

I know Fauci is a dueche, but he's one guy. I'm personally much more dis-heartened by the gusto with which it was so collectively dismissed by the mainstream media. It wasn't "well, it could have plausibly been a leak from a lab, we'll have to wait and see...". Rather, it was "it absolutely was not a leak from a lab. Period. Full stop. Also, racist." Trust in institutions is at an all time low, and I feel this is but one further instance of a collective lack of integrity across the board. It's scary when you step back and consider it's implications.

Last week oil, this week beef. First, WTF is going on? Second, if I'm forced to eat soy products, that's my line for going kinetic.

Yeah, I actually read that article. At first I was surprised, but then I got to the punch line: "What Waters did was wrong, but it wasn't as wrong as what Trump did." Strange way to criticize someone, by pointing the finger at someone else...

@jazzdude I think I get the gist of your post, but it got a bit garbled with one of your quotes. In any case, here goes. Yes, the standard correlation/causation refrain. It may not be proven that those qualities lead directly to being a good pilot, but it is well-established that smarts is associated with general well-being in life - not causal - but associated. In any case, I think someone would be hard-pressed to argue the opposite: that being unmotivated, stupid, and emotionally unstable would make good pilot candidates. No one would seriously make that argument, so it's more of a necessary, but maybe not sufficient type of argument. Regarding PPLs specifically, regardless of rich Johnny or poor Johnny, having a PPL (all else equal) shows motivation. It's a hurdle that has to be overcome regardless of "access to resources" and hence is a valid indicator. The issue the general is attempting to address is how can we not exclude people who didn't get a PPL, since it does tend to be expensive. Let's not call a valid indicator invalid, though, because we want to include something else - let's find that other thing that we might not be looking at that is also a valid indicator of success and add it to our ranking system. What I think though, and what it looks like, is that they (TPTB) are tweaking something objective (however imperfect) to make room for something subjective - which is worrisome because it portends capricious decision-making under the guise of achieving some sort of artificial balance. Notice that the general didn't suggest what it was that we're missing - only that something needed to be removed because...why, exactly? Right... I like an Air Force that takes the best of society. It is my preference that society's problems are solved by society, from which a great Air Force can be built; it's troublesome anytime we start meddling with "nature" and attempt to impose our vision of what perfection is supposed to look like. Let's answer this question first: what talent do we think is out there that we are missing? Let's identify that first, before we start tweaking something so critical to the USA's well-being (Air power). My intention bringing up the gender differential observed between USAFA cadets and USAF pilots is to highlight the lowest hanging fruit I can think of to illustrate the fact that there are differences that arise between these populations that is the following: Not understood Has no reason for not being understood Is there anyway We can't answer this question satisfactorily (with a population that is as close to being fighter pilots as one can get), yet we're hoping to look for talent in other far-flung corners of the world while simultaneously being unable to achieve balance with our women USAFA cadets? Please. How 'bout we clean up our own backyard first. Women have been at the zoo since 1976 - that's nearly 50 years. Why aren't 1/8 of fighter pilots women? It's because fighter pilots are not a random sample - which gets to the most basic point underlying all of this - TPTB have determined that the make up of all institutions within society (at least the prestigious ones) need to perfectly reflect the make up of the broader society writ large. That's it. It's that simple. Any time there is divergence between a population and a sub-population it requires a fix from on high. But all these populations are not random samples - there is a great deal of self-selection occurring. Buckle up.

We already know what it takes to make good (fighter) pilots: cognitive ability, emotional stability, and motivation to succeed (http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu:180418/datastream/PDF/view). But leave it to the USAF to never read the studies they commission from RAND. When I first started in the flying world, I personally over-emphasized being technically smart - after having done it for almost 20 years, I'm convinced physical/athletic talent is an important component as well. Not to the point of being a division one athlete, but you should be above-average smart with the general ability to play most sports. As far as the PPL influencing the PCSM goes, I do think it matters since it's both a proxy to measure how motivated someone is, as well as a measurement of their ability to fly - there is at least some correlation between someone having a higher propensity to succeed in UPT who has a PPL vs someone chosen randomly from the population. I know the AF knows this, but the current effort is motivated by a desire to "uncuff" themselves from perceived restrictive selection criteria so they can implement whatever X-action program they want in order to have the right shade of skin flying their airplanes - not because current selection programs aren't actually working. Seems like fraud, waste, and abuse to me, but what the hell do I know? Besides the above, I'm already certain it won't work for one simple reason: the balance of male/female cadets at USAFA (~7:1 while I was there) is not mirrored in the fighter pilot community (or the pilot community at large). These people are of equal talents, with equal access to UPT, with equal ability to fly, yet the balance becomes lopsided immediately after graduation. There are other factors at work that "select" for pilots - PPL at USAFA didn't make a difference, and it won't make a difference elsewhere. Personally, I believe that great nations will inherently be diverse - talent has no color or sex - great nations know this. I don't think that logic works in reverse, though I suppose we'll see.

Why?

LOL. My only question, where were all the fat people back then?

Next up, reparations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEdwoxqvDOA&ab_channel=Timcast

https://youtu.be/mBx-eT8D5nc?t=11 This is the forum. 60 minutes wasn't the forum. Go with details.

Better yet, ask yourself why do we need taxes at all if the government can just run the money printer and just make themselves however much money they need...

Nicely put explanation that jives with my instinctual view that it is 'part of the system.' The US government requires payment in dollars and thereby implements taxation as a means to ensure that there is demand for their currency. This 'demand' is where its (the dollar's) legitimacy is derived. One of my biggest personal lamentations is that the your average American has no idea why dollars are so important to the world, and also that there are enormous powers that want to usurp it (China, Russia, Iran). We have immense privilege being host to the world's reserve currency and if that status changed, I think people would lose their minds overnight with how rapidly the status quo in this country changed. In other news, bitcoin has been bouncing around $60K for at least a few weeks now. Disintermediated transfer and store of value is a massive threat to the "system", and I would be shocked if it wasn't the soup of the day in board rooms around the world - which likely smell of rich mahogany. Personally, I spend a decent amount of time considering why such an asset could be considered so valuable. My conclusion is that it is because it's finite - which is in direct opposition to the central themes of MMT.

It would peg my "urge to kill" meter, thereby diminishing the enemy's chances of victory.

Riddle me this then: why doesn't the government just "move enough around" (likewise) to make it work out in their favor? They're bigger than any one company and can afford more accountants, right? Better yet, ask yourself why do we need taxes at all if the government can just run the money printer and just make themselves however much money they need...

IMO, what is driving low interest rates is a desire to make up for a variety of deflationary forces at work in the world: Technology. Aging demographics (see Japan and USA) - most modern countries have populations that are "aging out" and past something known as "peak spending" which occurs at age 46 (approximately). Globalization - outsourcing of production - i.e. a drastic increase in the availability of labor. In order to counteract these forces, the fed allows grossly low interest rates in order to stimulate spending that wouldn't otherwise happen - which is all to counteract the aforementioned factors that work in one direction. There is no confusion about how the world works. There's only the "show" that we all watch and wonder "why?".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2ZnWgvw84o&ab_channel=VasilTreska

It's already masquerading on some facebook group that probably none of us is a part of.

Link? Stats? Evidence? Genuinely curious to see numbers that differ from those in society at large. Thanking you up front.

This series of articles highlights the "Animal Farm" that the NYT - our supposed paper of record - has become: https://nypost.com/2021/02/10/ny-times-defends-1619-project-creator-after-she-doxxed-reporter/ https://nypost.com/2021/02/11/read-the-column-the-new-york-times-didnt-want-you-read/ https://nypost.com/2021/02/10/the-woke-mob-now-utterly-rules-the-new-york-times/ https://nypost.com/2021/02/09/war-erupts-at-ny-times-after-donald-mcneil-ousted-over-n-word-controversy/ In short, Nikole Hannah-Jones doxxed a journalist because she didn't like his questions about her previous (perhaps appropriate) use of the N-word. The questioning led her to delete her entire twitter history and post some nonsense about how she "routinely" deletes previous posts. I'm not personally surprised by this, because she is ultimately one garbage person, but the disparate response by the NYT decision makers is "problematic" to say the least. At the same time, another NYT journalist, Donald McNeil, has been summarily ousted because of his use of the N-word. If you read into that situation's background, you'll find it wasn't used maliciously. What's more, is that the NYT scuttled a critical, though valid, piece of its own handling of that situation - which drew attention to how context matters and is being fully disregarded in this case. I can't say I'm actually surprised by them not self-publishing an article airing their own dirty laundry, but it is important for us to understand the filter that anything the NYT publishes has passed through. Even more important, though, is that instances like this highlight the growing institutional acceptance and normalization of mob rule, arbitrary rule-making, and unprincipled application. Rules for thee, not for me. This is the type of power "1984" warns us about.

In addition to the many valid comments already posted, I would say the amount of preparation that needs to go into each sortie is far, far greater than anything I experienced in the civilian world. If you show up and can't talk your way through each maneuver, precisely, you're doing it wrong. If you don't know the sequence of what you're going to do ahead of the brief, you're already behind. Civilian instructors will probably take you up and treat the cockpit as a classroom. Mil instructor may no-step you. My approach in UPT was to treat the every sortie as a time when I was going to "demonstrate" maneuvers to my IP, not expect they would walk me through the things I hadn't adequately prepared for - there's not the luxury of time on any given UPT sortie.

🖕 Not Lord Ratner, but I do like his style. Whatever.

Right. Money. I agree, and it probably would have been had he not already been repeatedly arrested for the same crime (https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-city-police-officer-wont-face-criminal-charges-in-eric-garner-death-1417635275). Something tells me he's not getting the message? I don't know, but I get the feeling this guy decided he doesn't care about certain laws or consequences. Want to change a law? Awesome, there are ways to do that in our society, but continual and open disregard for the enforcement arm of our government is not one of them. "He has a criminal record that includes more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest and grand larceny. An official said the charges include several incidents in which he was arrested for selling unlicensed cigarettes." How many posting on this message board can relate to the type of life this guy leads? Has any of us been arrested 30 times? For the same crime? Would any of us resist arrest? Or would you rather just have your day in court? Here's video with as much context as I could find. The first minute has all the context required to establish the type of interaction it was. The officers attempted reasoning with him first. Attempted/offered a gentle arrest, which was rejected, and then escalated. I'm not saying that he deserved to die. I'm saying that this is yet another instance where circumstances are vital to understanding the whole picture. Here, this has been intentionally misrepresented in order to help paint a picture and establish a narrative that just simply isn't true.

Comparing required, necessary governmental functions (police) to not-required, unnecessary commercial functions (cosmetology) is apples to oranges and is a red herring. Much (most) of the ridiculous training, certification, and licensure that is attendant of certain professions is protectionism and regulatory capture - implemented in order to prevent others from entering a given market - and thus has little to do with the actually achieving proficiency in a given profession. Or do you actually think the 1300-2000 hours of training required to be "certified" to cut hair or paint nails is necessary? I'm sure each of the CBTs about hair-curlers are just bursting with new information and that if you miss a bullet point it's gone forever. It's ridiculous on it's face to license someone to cut hair. It's even more ridiculous that these licenses need to be "renewed." Please. So let's not draw invalid conclusions comparing "trainings" that serve wildly different purposes.

I agree with your general sentiment, but honestly, what is a victimless crime? If I don't pay my taxes, that's victimless, right? I mean, I should be allowed to not pay a dime in property taxes but keep my house, right? Likewise I should be allowed to sell an otherwise regulated product (cigarettes) whilst others abide the rules, thereby taking advantage of those who do, right? I'm in favor of the libertarian sentiment that I should be basically allowed to do whatever I want, but that's not our society. There are rules (this isn't 'Nam). If rules are going to be enforced selectively, that's a massive problem. And if we're being real, the only reason Eric Garner was even able to sell cigarettes is because other people were following the rules, which is the definition of wrong, and decidedly not why our laws exist.