Venandi

A bit of perspective and worth reading regardless of what your opinions may be.: https://nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/hamas-is-the-genocidal-entity-warfare-experts-on-what-the-world-is-getting-wrong-on-gaza?itm_source=index Like it or not, I think the IDF action in Gaza will become a model for future high density operations... especially where civilians are routinely used are human shields and the governing authority is willing to sacrifice them on the alter of propaganda. The offer of amnesty to Hamas as part of the peace process is a courageous decision IMO... I'd have to swallow pretty hard on that one.

The monkey says: "You got no point cause you're a clown. AKA NOT serious."

"^IGNORAMUS STRIKES OUT AGAIN."

"The BABY has spoken!" AND, as YOU have WISELY pointed OUT before: "... you're not the only lDIOT saying ^these things."

Yup, and if you think liberal heads are exploding now wait untill he gets the Nobel Peace Prize.

I feel much the same... do ya believe me? On a personal level, the only thing I like about Trump is his wife. Most of the reasoning has been explained above and repeatedly on other threads, the fact that you don't believe it requires deliberate effort and only extends our collective purgatory on Crazy Island. In short, Trump would have to become more bat shi% crazy than Democratic contenders and more unhinged and hateful than progressive voters. I don't see that happening in the near term and I'll always show up at the voting booth to cancel "Hateful Herb's" vote. If I were in the US i'd do the same for Roboduh. Want a deeper dive into the why of it? Read their posting histories and reflect on the fact that I will always stand opposed to the hateful BS you'll find there. You worked hard at getting this see-saw in motion and studiously ignored all the warnings of what was sure to happen. Essentially, you forced me into the voting position I'm in now and there is nothing left to vote for but extreme positions. It's become a matter of picking your poison and I see your elixir of choice as more potent and more destructive. I also fear that all of this gets worse before it gets better... I think the amplitude of the see-saw will only increase and I'm willing to bet that you, Herb and Robo will be among the folks jumping on it. Ever since the political ground shifted under my feet and the idea of continuing to vote liberal became abhorrent I've been a political agnostic. The biggest and most lamentable loss has been in the political centre. The coals of polarization were stoked for cynical political gain, it was done deliberately IMO and the price of it was always lost territory in the political centre... it's valuable territory, the sort of level ground that keeps the trains on track and on time. Show me good policy and the absence of BSC and I'll vote for it. This isn't complicated.

I had a mouth full of coffee when I read the quote (above). I managed to miss the computer but hours later the cat is still mad at me...

Blocking municipal police responses (for purely political reasons) to federal facilities that request emergency assistance is a new low in law fare efforts IMO. It's yet another self serving precedent progressives will find themselves screaming Hitler about when it gets turned against them "next time around." Here's how you set things like that in motion for "next time" and why progressives are getting little sympathy from moderate conservative quarters "this time" https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ice-director-says-portland-facility-faces-violence-little-help-from-local-police it strikes me as yet another "what did you think was going to happen?" question to be posed in the future. It also makes the case for more self contained modular detention centres like Alligator Alcatraz. The other aspect here (and I don't know the legalities) is the question of blocking a coded police response (be it 911 or whatever) for political reasons. If that isn't illegal it should be, and if it is, I would be criminally prosecuting the Mayors responsible for it. It's not much different than FEMA withholding assistance to households with Trump signs on the lawn. People who think this is a good idea now sure won't if/when they find themselves centred in the same reticle... don't think it can't happen either, progressives have bought and paid for the things they're now screaming about... and appear to have learned nothing in the process.

Oh my goodness... that withdrawal will be studied by future generations as a stirling example of how not do it. Miss Richardson's kindergarten class could have come up with a better plan. When it comes to firing fat Generals that might be a good place to start.

Guess you joined a different military. I don't know any of those folks personally and the ones Ive seen in passing (or heard about) didn't last long... they're dangerous and no one wants to work with them. As to fitness, I guess the question is whether senior leaders and field commanders should be subject to the same fitness standard as the troops they lead... that standard is adjusted for age across the board and by the time people reach senior command appointments it isn't terribly taxing or asking too much IMO. Maybe a return to leadership by example is past due. Apparently levels of obesity in the CF are now higher than comparable age/gender categories in the civilian world. Some will attribute that to widening of the recruitment band and having to run "fat farms" during OJT (while awaiting training) as a result... whether that's actually the reason for it or not I don't know. It's not that I don't care but I'm retired now and (thankfully) it isn't my problem. A bunch of smart HRM types and capable, conscientious senior officers have tackled this stuff in the past with modest (and IMO limited) success. Stick around long enough and you get to watch the see-saw swing in both directions. Your thoughts and comments aren't as original as you may think, it's all been done before. We turfed any number of talented folks back in the BMI days for obesity, it's hardly a new concept. I can't help but wonder how much of it is TDS related as there wasn't so much as a peep about this stuff back in the day. As I recall there was no shortage of kind hearted liberals telling people to lose weight or get another job. Sort of like that covid "you had a choice thing" but different.

Hi Michael... sometimes there's more to it than simply maintaining standards because there are other military centric issues that often escape notice. If you look at women serving with the Navy as an example, it doesn't work to simply allow volunteers in small numbers even though it might seem like a good idea. It actually takes an entire ships company to fight the beast, since you can't leave under manned and since mixed mess decks aren't an option (or at least they weren't when I was around) you're left with a problem. If the smallest mess deck is 15 people, that means that 6 female volunteers doesn't work and you need to find 9 more. As you can imagine, pressing 9 unwilling women into service in generic trades like supply, admin, a/c maintenance etc challenges personnel retention efforts. I'm actually laughing as I type because it's a massive understatement... it can bludgeon your retention efforts. By way of example I'd offer the challenge of finding a female doctor on one 5 month naval deployment I was on. Two female MOs quit before the third was pressed into service. She did a great job, there was absolutely no issue with competency at all... but at the end of it she said "never fuc&^%$ again." Not sure how you overcome that but it illustrates the nature of the recruiting band I referred to. I did several deployments with the Navy and I'd go again if they'd let me... she was way smarter than me but you can bet she wouldn't. Competency is one piece of the puzzle but it really is a 50 page issue and I realize that any single post I could ever make is easily countered with a series of "ya buts." Unfortunately though you have to dive deep into the weeds to see it all in a military context and understand why the efforts to date have been problematic.

The target vs quota debate.... There's clearly a substantive difference between the two when discussed rationally but when set as a target or in the form of objectives to be met (not quotas per se) they prove difficult to achieve while maintaining existing competency standards. The CF target of 25% women by 2026 is tough because the recruiting band I mentioned (above) typically isn't composed of 25% women; you have to go outside the band and when you do that competency (in the form of able and ready) typically becomes an issue to be overcome. One of the difficulties here (and a hard one to address IMO) comes down to interest (the willingness factor). I know a number of athletic young ladies who would be prime candidates for a variety of military occupations, and even though they qualify as age appropriate ready and able, they simply aren't interested (or willing). I also know women who serve in the navy and "go to sea" but outside that cadre, I don't know a single (non military) women who wants to join the navy and spend 6 months of the year on a ship. It makes meeting targets within a narrow band of the population pretty challenging. I've had this conversation with people before and usually the missing link is recognizing the challenges that are associated with that ready / willing / able side of the equation. Finding people who meet two of the parameters is easy, all three typically isn't and it leads to the idea that we can expand the band and organically create / train (over time) the missing component(s)... usually either ready or able (often both). A noble idea I guess but it hasn't worked out to well so far. Very true, but in practice it only applies in presence of competencies that are not adjusted simply to achieve the diversity you (quite rightly BTW) hope to achieve. In short, I'm guessing you think I'm attacking the idea... and I'm actually not. I'm suggesting that the implementation has been largely dysfunctional for a variety of reasons. All of this could be a 50 page thread but I'll try to summarize the challenge with a simple question: How many young fit women of your acquaintance (and I mean all of them) actually aspire to join the infantry and become paratroopers? I don't know any but I've heard of a few that we lost to policing due to recruiting / training delays. That's the first thing I'd be fixing and that's a huge challenge due to manning levels. Balancing recruiting, retention and operational tempo is a critical factor in all of this and that equation is way out of balance. I haven't looked at female attrition in a while but I'd hazard to guess that still poses a similar challenge to recruiting... it makes something as simple as maintaining the status quo more difficult than many would think. All IMO of course.

And EQUALLY relevant IS the FACT that THE square OF a PLANET'S orbital PERIOD is PROPORTIONAL to THE cube OF the LENGTH of THE semi-MAJOR axis OF its ORBIT. So.... there ya go.

I would have gladly supported a trade... they would have had to keep JT as part of the deal though.

Will the Governor General? No, I think little of that is actually relevant news for anyone who spent more than 10 minutes doing the do. An interesting (but reverse by design) perspective on observed recruiting challenges / statistics . The recruiting band for the military, policing, firefighting, and EHS is relatively narrow and it's (mostly)limited to age appropriate candidates that are ready, willing and able to be recruited when called upon. Those four factors are governing if you chose to recruit based on merit and sadly it represents only about 7% of the population but there are women and people of colour in the group based (I think) on per capita representation within the 7% group . You can expand beyond that in the name of DEI but you lose something in the process... and it will always show up in one of the four parameters. As a for instance, I'm fully trained and still ready, willing, and able... but for how much longer? The age appropriate thing throws me out of the running unless you're willing to stipulate that POOF...I'm suddenly 25 years old simply because "I feel like I am." Here's an analogy I think is relevant: Imagine if the NBA decided there were too many black players in the league and insisted that 50% of every team had to be made up of white guys. Since tall black men are statistically the best basketball players in the world, would the standard of play be increased or decreased as a result of the directive? And is talent, ability and a high standard of play the objective? Then ... if you suddenly changed recruiting parameters back to merit based criteria, what would the makeup of the teams become overnight? Is the new result racist or is it simply a function of the recruiting band? What is the objective here, is it a high standard of play or is it inclusiveness for the sake of diversity because I don't think you can aspire to both at the same time. The recruiting band (of basketball excellence) isn't based on race, religion or any other non-competency based parameters, IMO, white guys in the NBA aren't there simply because they happen to be white Are they? Should they be?

They were fresh out of ex-drama teachers...

Not to worry... Robo and his friends are currently discussing a solution.

Anticipating (and fearing) the trajectory here isn't ridiculous though... apparently the truck had explosive devices in it, 4 IEDs constructed with consumer grade fireworks were found. This is potentially the next step as political polarization and hateful rhetoric increase... It's easier, more effective and more terrifying than the "assault style rifle" debate favoured by democrats. Don't be fooled by the whole Marine veteran thing either... this is something anyone can contrive, consumer drones armed with explosives or incendiary devices don't tax the imagination much either. Drones are already in use in smuggling circles... It's pretty much impossible to ban all the bits and pieces here. As I've said before, allow this to fester whilst pouring gas on the flames of division and before you know it all those arguments about gun control will become something you and Herb associate with "the good old days." Human nature doesn't respect borders and circumstances are always different. but (and it's a big but) over there can come over here quicker than you think. Trouble is, it takes about three deployments to figure that out and the people carrying gas cans haven't done their first one yet.

For non monkeys who can read stuff without every other word capitalized here's how voter identity laws in the US shape up generally and by state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_identification_laws_in_the_United_States

Impossible, In that case it will be the gun... but if this keeps up I think the entire debate over guns will be considered the good old days. Incendiary devices will be delivered by commercially available drones and the Herbs of the world will want assault style drones banned too. After that it will be fertilizer, then fuel oil, then fire crackers, then pressure cookers and on and on until Herbs head explodes and Robo runs out of Duhs. Check out the fire: https://nationalpost.com/news/michigan-mormon-church-shooting?itm_source=index

It certainly would... but only if people were totally incapable of mustering the slightest pinch of common sense. Show me where I said don't take it for fever... or even don't take it at all. I said be aware of possible interactions during pregnancy and use some common sense. You can only do that if you are aware. You seem to be suggesting that lack of awareness is a good thing and since I don't agree, guess I'll just leave you to it...

Here's another church attack that may be instructive to watch: https://www.foxnews.com/us/michigan-church-shooting-leaves-multiple-victims-police-say-shooter-down No doubt the shooter was a MAGA Mormon motivated to attack other Mormons because they weren't Mormon enough... right Chrissy? If not a MAGA Mormon then it had to be the gun's fault. Look, I can do it too.

No, that would have been Herb you were performing first aid on.

Well, the monkey has a few thoughts for ya: "Just because you agree with something doesn't make it "THE TRUTH." Duh" and "You've gone off the rails on the crazy TROLL train."

I really have little in the way of argument with that, I'm simply suggesting that if most women knew about a possible link between Tylenol and autism/ADHD they (perhaps) would not have used it routinely for minor pain relief thinking it was totally innocuous. Maybe it is... maybe it isn't, the point is most (or some) might play it safe and suck up a bit of minor discomfort had they been aware. Taking it for a fever isn't in the same file folder as daily consumption for minor back aches. I'm not going to continue around the buoy on this but I'd suggest that most women don't do in-depth research on such things and don't read studies posted online as a matter of course. The fact this is a topic of conversation now seems to bear that out.