Amazing. When salaries are talked about CEOs are leaders, decision makers, innovators, responsible for the well-being of not only their company but the nation; worth every penny. When negative results come in its the consumers, regulations, lower management, the engineers, the market, never the CEOs. How could anyone expect the poor underpaid, hard-working CEOs to be held accountable.
Its not a matter of accountability, its a matter of where the control actually exists. And the control of where things are made is in the consumers hands. CEOs don't give a crap where things are made, if they will get increased sales from domestic they would do that. And consumers were warned of this problem in the 1970s, the 80s, etc... they ignored the labor leaders, CEOs and politicians who tried to support domestic industry. Walmart **used** to favor US manufacturing, but that strategy failed over time and they adapted to the consumer lead reality of price only matter..
Or we can try to change the behavior of tens of thousands of CEOs.
We the consumers have, we changed CEO behavior to outsource manufacturing by rewarding CEOs who outsource with increased sales and punishing CEOs who manufacture domestically with decreased sales.
No, consumers only consume. They have no say in where things are made. In fact, most don't know how to make things. Most consumers only see one day ahead, that gadget for $4.95 is just as good as the one for $29.95. CEO has a longer vision, 3 months (or one quarter).
The CEO is a captive to the consumer's preference. Consumers generally do not reward those who try to manufacture domestically. The CEO does not have the control you think he does, the consumers have far more control than you think they do. Consumer decisions drive things, the longer CEO vision merely tells him to outsource like their competitor who is gaining sales. In other countries the consumers are more aware of where things are made and that contributes to economic and employment health.
India's problem is one of infrastructure, not knowledge nor ability. You could build a factory but then you would have massive problems transporting the goods to a port.
Re 'Step 2: Outsource all the jobs overseas."
South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines kept US secrets during the Vietnam war.
Nations that helped and supported their friends in the USA.
They would have welcomed and supported all and any new US high tech investment in the late 1970-90's. Low wages, low tax, secure and ready to support the USA.
Educated, english speaking. A good working history with the US mil.
Ireland would have done great tax deals too.
What did the USA do? Invest in Communist China. Give secrets away for free to China with every new US factory opened.
That was a political choice made by Nixon/Kissenger in the 1960s. The theory was that engagement with China will liberalize them. Some opportunistic behavior was to be tolerated since it will be offset by the political rewards of a reformed Communist China. Sadly those reforms ended with the Tienaman Square Massacre in 1989 but that 1960s policy of tolerating the opportunistic, now predatory, behavior continued. Trump may be an idiot but he's somehow got it correct that our policy has to change, it has to be reciprocal, free and open and fair in both directions or in neither direction. We can't continue the unidirectional policy, that failed. The modern messenger may be wrong but message is correct.
Step 1: Be in charge of a major corporation. Step 2: Outsource all the jobs overseas.
When consumers show no preference for where things are made and always reward the company with the lowest price, if you don't do step 2 there won't be a step 1 where you can make decisions. Consumers drive outsourcing, consumers decide who gets the sales, consumers rewarded those first companies that outsourced and other companies followed.
Naively pretend its the CEOs fault and the problem won't get fixed. Consumers have to change their behavior and show a preference for US made goods. CEOs will follow the sales.
This is capitalism's Achilles Heel. Businesses are run on short term thinking.
This is also short term US consumer thinking, a tragedy of the commons thing. Lowering your manufacturing cost is a secondary consideration, the primary consideration is getting the sale in the first place. Consumers drove jobs overseas by rewarding CEOs who outsource with sales. Consumers thought their one little purchase would not make a difference. Multiply by hundreds of millions of consumers, now multiply by many decades.
There is also short term US/State government thinking. For example the San Francisco bay area buying Chinese steel for a recent bridge project.
Yes managing companies for the quarterly report is bad and needs to change. But you have to have a company to manage in the first place and consumes will generally reward your competitors if you manufacture in the US and they manufacture overseas. Consumers need to change their purchasing habits and show companies they have a preference for US made goods, that is the only way that things will change.
then employ americans and dont outsource and subsidize stem subjects in education
Consumers decide where things are made, not CEOs. A lower manufacturing cost is only relevant if you are getting the sale in the first place and consumers decide who gets the sale. Consumers rewarded those first CEOs that outsourced with sales, so other CEOs got the message and followed. The message: we consumers don't care where things are made we just want lower prices. Its a tragedy of the commons thing. The individual consumer thinks there one decision will have no impact. But millions are thinking the same thing, let this go on for decades, we now see the result.
Things will not change until **consumers** change their behavior and show a preference for US made goods.
They may have taken the jobs out of desperation, but they didn't have to announce the fact on LinkedIn. They made the information about themselves public.
Using your logic, the doctors who provide abortion openly also deserve to be compiled into a list and have that list publicly posted.
WTF is it with all this bashing of a small organization who's mission is to stop Nazis or any rebranded resurgence? It is as if we had more attack on them than we did for the Neo-Nazis
One, its only bashing the pro violence wing of antifa. The peaceful protest wing is doing good work. Two, The neonazis are not acting out of their violent rhetoric, they are shouting ugly words not punching people in the face. And in that rare instance where a neonazi does punch someone in the face he deserves to be in jail just like the antifa member who punches someone in the face over ideology. Punching someone over words or symbols is not self defense, despite what both pro violence antifa and neonazis think.
The pro violence wing of antifa deserves criticism because they are emulating the 1920s nazi brownshirts. Because they talk anti fascist but act as fascists.
One would think a tiny little known group like Antifa would be praised and people signing up like crazy when they got on the national scene protesting our recent Nazi fanboy resurgence.
The peaceful wing that does good work gets overshadowed by the violent wing that riots and punches people in the face for their idiotic armbands and words.
Especially SJW who are desperate for some meaning in their lives
Seeking meaning for their lives through violent acts, where have we heard that before? Violence to achieve a political goal, where have we hear that before? 1920s Italy, 1930s Germany.
Soldiers that went to fight bearing arms did not at some point believe their violent acts had meaning, and expected the diplomacy and propaganda to do all the work while they marched to the meat grinder? You're insulting their reason.
The pro-violence antifa member is actually a fascist himself. The idea that violence to achieve a political goal is justified is a core tenant of fascism. The pro-violence antifa member is not like the allied soldier who destroyed fascism. He is like the 1920s brownshirt who believed society is sick and must be changed, that things are so grave socially that violence is justified. The men who became the allied soldiers picked up arms when the fascists moved from words to physical violence, and when the fascists were subdued and went back to words these same allied soldiers responded only with words (ex. Illinois, 1970s).
These pro-violence antifa members insult the memory of real allied soldiers as they engage in their little soldierly fantasies and dare compare themselves to the real soldiers. Soldierly fantasies being another fascist characteristic.
I found a whole bunch of those violent anti-fascist assholes. They're under white marble crosses all over Europe.
No you did not. Because the allied soldier under white crosses did not believe in beating up people over words. When the Nazis marched in Illinois in the 1970s the WW2 vets opposed them with words not violence.
It is only the comic book caricature of WW2 soldiers that antifa likens themselves to as they indulge in their own little soldierly fantasies. The immature entitled kid in black north face clothing and balaclava is far far different than the real soldiers who destroyed real fascists. Similar story for the other side of the same idiotic delusions, the neonazi wearing an armband and speaking insulting words is nothing like the real fascists. Both the violent wing of antifa and the neonazis are all posers, little more than asshole cosplayers both.
Now the peaceful wing of antifa, that is an entirely different story. That is where one might find actual WW2 vets.
Speaking as someone who had the privilege to grow up around family who were actual WW2 combat vets, and who had teachers who were actual WW2 combat vets.
I'm still trying to figure out why we need yet another branch of the military. If all they do is space, then what how do they engage in combat?
Space is much like air. You drop things from it that impact the ground. Think of it as an AF drone operator operating a vehicle at a much higher altitude.
That's not military at all. In every branch of the armed forces, every single person has a combat role attached to their military specially.
A family member made that very clear. He was a paratrooper at Bastogne. He shared his frozen hole in the ground with a truck driver who had not fired a weapon since basic training back in the US. The driver was one of the volunteers that brought in the last bit of supplies before the encirclement was complete, they were surround immediately after his truck made it in.
That said, again, how would "space force" personnel maintaining, launching and controlling vehicles from a safe location be any different than AF personnel maintaining, directing and possibly controlling aircraft from an equally safe location in the US or an allied country?
Marines are...well...Sailors with guns, or jarheads, or "couldn't be a seal"s
1. Marines are an entirely separate and independent branch of the armed services. They are not Navy, nor are they sailors. A sailor with a gun is the Yoeman who hit the target once in basic who is then trained (tertiary) as the automatic rifleman in case a shore party is needed. [Not slamming the Navy, that's how another family member described his service. Job 1: manning a typewriter. Job 2: manning an Oerlikon 20 mm AA cannon. Job 3: Shore party, automatic rifleman. He was thankful he only saw combat via job 2. ]
2. Many Marines could be SEALs, they merely preferred to serve as a Marine rather than a Sailor. Similar story for many Special Forces and Rangers. Some Marines are equivalent to SEALs, MARSOC, elements of Force Recon, same standards, skill set and training, cosmetic difference. Similarly some Special Forces are equivalent and arguable superior to SEALs as some SF have a larger skill set. When you have an individual that makes it into SF, MARSOC or SEALs that particular individual would most likely have made it into any of those specialized units, they just preferred one branch of the service for whatever reason. Well, that's how the former Vietnam era SEAL that was a manager at a company I used to work at described it to me. He said selection for all these special operations type units selects for the same thing, basically finding those who were born with a personality type that will just not quit something they start regardless of the physical and psychological pain. He said muscles, weapons proficiency, that was all relatively minor. That nearly any healthy athletic intelligent individual could be trained to be as strong and proficient as necessary. The military has known how to develop strength and proficiency for millennia. The real problem is finding the person born with the necessary personality type that just won't quit.
But yeah, I understand, Hollywood tells you different.
Hey, Marines work for the Navy... How do I know? You work for who pays you. The secretary of the Navy signs their paychecks just like mine and I worked for the Navy.
The Secretary is not in the Navy, he/she is a civilian with jurisdiction over the Navy, the Marines and at times the Coast Guard.
This kind of stuff takes a lot of money. Is there any proof or compelling evidence that we *need* a space force separate from what our current military provides?
Its just something to give up when in negotiations with North Korea. Trump is just manufacturing perceptions for the upcoming bargaining.
For that matter the Army has its own aviation service, it's just statutorily limited to rotary aircraft.
Does it really make sense to tell the Army, "You can fly, but only using certain technologies."? Wouldn't it make sense to allow them to fly ground attack aircraft, just like the Marines do?
The Marines are not always allowed to fly a ground attack aircraft. For example they are not allowed to fly the A-10 despite the fact they would love to and the Air Force brass hates the A-10. The A-10 is not aircraft carrier capable so the Department of the Navy says no A-10 for you.
Separate but equal. Is there any subject he can't bring racism into?
Yeah you joke, but there is actually logic behind what he said. Contrary to the belief of some, the US Marine Corp is not part of the US Navy. The USMC and the USN are separate and equal armed forces, they happen to report to the same civilian department of the executive branch, the Department of the Navy. Now does DoN show some "favoritism" for the USN, arguable so. When you have to say "separate but equal" you know it is not in some practical sense.
So while technically separate and equal in the org chart sense, will the space force have its own civilian agency as the Air Force does, or will it have to share one as the Marine Corp does?
You misunderstood what I said, I used "breaking" in the context the original author used it. A complete mental breakdown, failure to recognize one is in training and to delusionally believe one is a real captive in a real enemy's hands, trying to actual kill a guard, etc. That would be a failure.
The "breaking" you refer to is something different, it is the breaking of the will. It is the breaking of the will that leads to cooperation, confessions, revealing information, etc. And yes this breaking of the will is something normal, everyone has a different breaking point. Again SERE is an opportunity to give you tools to help you resist for a longer duration, until your information becomes stale, and to help you avoid having that complete mental breakdown even if your will has been broken.
Also some forms of cooperation are/were considered appropriate at times. I previously mentioned Everett Alvarez Jr's 8+ year POW experience. In his book there was an interesting difference between the "old" POWs and the "new" POWs. The "new" POWs seemed more willing to cooperate, to go on radio and TV to read the captor's statement for example. Some of the "old" POWs had endured weeks of torture before breaking to that point (yet one still resisted by blinking TORTURE in morse code during a TV interview), the "new" POWs were cooperating almost immediately and the "old" POWs were pissed. Eventually they learned that SERE training had changed, the "new" POWs were told to cooperate with the radio and TV statements so that the US military would know they were alive and taken prisoner. The military feared not all captures were being reported, they told trainees to cooperate, that everyone knows the words are forced and are lies, just let us know they have you. I think some of the Gulf War videos from 1991 were similarly motivated to let the US and UK military know their pilots were alive.
Another interesting bit of cooperation from Alvarez's book was an enlisted sailor who "fell" off his ship when in North Vietnamese waters. The NV thought this ordinary seaman must be an idiot to "fall" of the ship. The POWs used that. The ranking POW officers ordered him to cooperate and to accept an early release to the US. Secretly they had the seaman memorize hundreds of names of POWs. Everyone any POW could remember encountering. This ordinary seaman did so and complete his mission by delivering the names off all known POWs. This was critical during later peace negotiation and likely saved lives.
I have no doubt there were sincere tears at the flag raising, however I have heard from another graduate of SERE training (Navy/Marine, 5 day course?, non-aircrew, high risk ground combat roles) that knowing the time limit helped him endure the physical and psychological pain. In particular being "boxed" (12hr? 24hr? not sure, I don't accurately recall). Bent at the knees and waist so as to be in a compact fetal like position and then sealed in a wooden box barely large enough to fit into. Locked into that position, unable to move, having to endure cramps but the psychological fear being even worse. He was not sure how he could have endured being "boxed" without knowing and counting down in his mind to the time limit.
SERE training is mentally and physically painful, none of us civilians can understand it as graduates do. However everyone there knows it is training, at least subconsciously if their mind gets muddled and they get deep into the role playing. Its invaluable training. But as civilians cannot truly understand SERE training, SERE school graduates cannot truly understand being actually captured and actually tortured. SERE is not the real thing, physically nor mentally, and everyone knows it down deep, even if temporarily muddled. SERE gives you the tools to work from should you one day really become a real captive, not unlike infantry training gives you the tools to work from should you one day really find yourself in combat. But training is only training and everyone knows it down deep.
I appreciate your 2 day SERE training perspective. However as a teenager I read Everett Alvarez Jr's book on his 8+ year POW experience. LTJG Alvarez was literally shot down at the very start of the war, at the Gulf of Tonkin. He and his peers could end up in single torture sessions that lasted most of or longer than your entire SERE course and they had the full and complete knowledge that it was real and no time limit existed. I'm sorry, but your training lacked the latter, even if your conscious became befuddled, down deep you knew it. If you had mentally broken so deep you did not you would probably have been removed and not seen again as the guard you mentioned. If you did temporarily loose it and genuinely try to kill a guard they must have mistaken it for a "normal" assault, if your attempt had been recognized as such its hard to imagine you not failing the course.
I am sorry but even SERE training, like the university imprisonment studies, is "unrealistic" in the sense that participants know its not "real". And again I am basing this on a SERE graduate who was "boxed" for 12-24 (?) hours during a 5 (?) day course. And again, I fully recognize that despite not being "real" SERE training is realistic in its limited sense (abuse levels and time) and that the physical and mental pain and stress is quite real and that graduates of SERE training deserve to be highly regarded.
Shooting a movie with an iconic character, defined by an iconic actor? Terrible idea.
True Grit. Iconic character: Rooster Cogburn. Iconic actor: John Wayne in 1969. The 2010 remake had a good script and good actors. In particular Jeff Bridges as Cogburn. So like any other movie the script and the actors seem to be the key factors in success.
OK that's a remake not delving into an established character's past. Perhaps a more appropriate counterargument would involve a different Harrison Ford role, Indiana Jones. In Last Crusade we have River Phoenix playing a young Indiana Jones and revealing part of Jone's mysterious background. I thought those scenes worked well, again it may be all about the script and the actors. With a good script could River Phoenix have pulled off a respectable full length movie exploring Jone's youth? The Last Crusade scenes suggest that would be entire plausible.
See how the message is received and refine until accepted.
Not only that, identify those who are not enthusiastically accepting the message. That will be important in the Communist Party's History and Political Science classes. It will help identify those who need a "supplemental" class.
Slashdot Mirror
Consumers decide where things are made, not CEOs.
Amazing. When salaries are talked about CEOs are leaders, decision makers, innovators, responsible for the well-being of not only their company but the nation; worth every penny. When negative results come in its the consumers, regulations, lower management, the engineers, the market, never the CEOs. How could anyone expect the poor underpaid, hard-working CEOs to be held accountable.
Its not a matter of accountability, its a matter of where the control actually exists. And the control of where things are made is in the consumers hands. CEOs don't give a crap where things are made, if they will get increased sales from domestic they would do that. And consumers were warned of this problem in the 1970s, the 80s, etc ... they ignored the labor leaders, CEOs and politicians who tried to support domestic industry. Walmart **used** to favor US manufacturing, but that strategy failed over time and they adapted to the consumer lead reality of price only matter..
Or we can try to change the behavior of tens of thousands of CEOs.
We the consumers have, we changed CEO behavior to outsource manufacturing by rewarding CEOs who outsource with increased sales and punishing CEOs who manufacture domestically with decreased sales.
No, consumers only consume. They have no say in where things are made. In fact, most don't know how to make things. Most consumers only see one day ahead, that gadget for $4.95 is just as good as the one for $29.95. CEO has a longer vision, 3 months (or one quarter).
The CEO is a captive to the consumer's preference. Consumers generally do not reward those who try to manufacture domestically. The CEO does not have the control you think he does, the consumers have far more control than you think they do. Consumer decisions drive things, the longer CEO vision merely tells him to outsource like their competitor who is gaining sales. In other countries the consumers are more aware of where things are made and that contributes to economic and employment health.
India hasn't even accepted they have a corruption problem, much less started to do something about it.
Corruption did not impede China.
India's problem is one of infrastructure, not knowledge nor ability. You could build a factory but then you would have massive problems transporting the goods to a port.
Re 'Step 2: Outsource all the jobs overseas." South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines kept US secrets during the Vietnam war. Nations that helped and supported their friends in the USA. They would have welcomed and supported all and any new US high tech investment in the late 1970-90's. Low wages, low tax, secure and ready to support the USA. Educated, english speaking. A good working history with the US mil. Ireland would have done great tax deals too. What did the USA do? Invest in Communist China. Give secrets away for free to China with every new US factory opened.
That was a political choice made by Nixon/Kissenger in the 1960s. The theory was that engagement with China will liberalize them. Some opportunistic behavior was to be tolerated since it will be offset by the political rewards of a reformed Communist China. Sadly those reforms ended with the Tienaman Square Massacre in 1989 but that 1960s policy of tolerating the opportunistic, now predatory, behavior continued. Trump may be an idiot but he's somehow got it correct that our policy has to change, it has to be reciprocal, free and open and fair in both directions or in neither direction. We can't continue the unidirectional policy, that failed. The modern messenger may be wrong but message is correct.
Step 1: Be in charge of a major corporation.
Step 2: Outsource all the jobs overseas.
When consumers show no preference for where things are made and always reward the company with the lowest price, if you don't do step 2 there won't be a step 1 where you can make decisions. Consumers drive outsourcing, consumers decide who gets the sales, consumers rewarded those first companies that outsourced and other companies followed.
Naively pretend its the CEOs fault and the problem won't get fixed. Consumers have to change their behavior and show a preference for US made goods. CEOs will follow the sales.
This is capitalism's Achilles Heel. Businesses are run on short term thinking.
This is also short term US consumer thinking, a tragedy of the commons thing. Lowering your manufacturing cost is a secondary consideration, the primary consideration is getting the sale in the first place. Consumers drove jobs overseas by rewarding CEOs who outsource with sales. Consumers thought their one little purchase would not make a difference. Multiply by hundreds of millions of consumers, now multiply by many decades.
There is also short term US/State government thinking. For example the San Francisco bay area buying Chinese steel for a recent bridge project.
Yes managing companies for the quarterly report is bad and needs to change. But you have to have a company to manage in the first place and consumes will generally reward your competitors if you manufacture in the US and they manufacture overseas. Consumers need to change their purchasing habits and show companies they have a preference for US made goods, that is the only way that things will change.
then employ americans and dont outsource and subsidize stem subjects in education
Consumers decide where things are made, not CEOs. A lower manufacturing cost is only relevant if you are getting the sale in the first place and consumers decide who gets the sale. Consumers rewarded those first CEOs that outsourced with sales, so other CEOs got the message and followed. The message: we consumers don't care where things are made we just want lower prices. Its a tragedy of the commons thing. The individual consumer thinks there one decision will have no impact. But millions are thinking the same thing, let this go on for decades, we now see the result.
Things will not change until **consumers** change their behavior and show a preference for US made goods.
They may have taken the jobs out of desperation, but they didn't have to announce the fact on LinkedIn. They made the information about themselves public.
Using your logic, the doctors who provide abortion openly also deserve to be compiled into a list and have that list publicly posted.
Someone legally compiled *publicly available* information. Started a small project to make said publicly available information accessible.
Someone did the same thing for doctors that provided abortions. How did that turn out?
WTF is it with all this bashing of a small organization who's mission is to stop Nazis or any rebranded resurgence? It is as if we had more attack on them than we did for the Neo-Nazis
One, its only bashing the pro violence wing of antifa. The peaceful protest wing is doing good work. Two, The neonazis are not acting out of their violent rhetoric, they are shouting ugly words not punching people in the face. And in that rare instance where a neonazi does punch someone in the face he deserves to be in jail just like the antifa member who punches someone in the face over ideology. Punching someone over words or symbols is not self defense, despite what both pro violence antifa and neonazis think.
The pro violence wing of antifa deserves criticism because they are emulating the 1920s nazi brownshirts. Because they talk anti fascist but act as fascists.
One would think a tiny little known group like Antifa would be praised and people signing up like crazy when they got on the national scene protesting our recent Nazi fanboy resurgence.
The peaceful wing that does good work gets overshadowed by the violent wing that riots and punches people in the face for their idiotic armbands and words.
Especially SJW who are desperate for some meaning in their lives
Seeking meaning for their lives through violent acts, where have we heard that before? Violence to achieve a political goal, where have we hear that before? 1920s Italy, 1930s Germany.
Soldiers that went to fight bearing arms did not at some point believe their violent acts had meaning, and expected the diplomacy and propaganda to do all the work while they marched to the meat grinder? You're insulting their reason.
The pro-violence antifa member is actually a fascist himself. The idea that violence to achieve a political goal is justified is a core tenant of fascism. The pro-violence antifa member is not like the allied soldier who destroyed fascism. He is like the 1920s brownshirt who believed society is sick and must be changed, that things are so grave socially that violence is justified. The men who became the allied soldiers picked up arms when the fascists moved from words to physical violence, and when the fascists were subdued and went back to words these same allied soldiers responded only with words (ex. Illinois, 1970s).
These pro-violence antifa members insult the memory of real allied soldiers as they engage in their little soldierly fantasies and dare compare themselves to the real soldiers. Soldierly fantasies being another fascist characteristic.
I found a whole bunch of those violent anti-fascist assholes. They're under white marble crosses all over Europe.
No you did not. Because the allied soldier under white crosses did not believe in beating up people over words. When the Nazis marched in Illinois in the 1970s the WW2 vets opposed them with words not violence.
It is only the comic book caricature of WW2 soldiers that antifa likens themselves to as they indulge in their own little soldierly fantasies. The immature entitled kid in black north face clothing and balaclava is far far different than the real soldiers who destroyed real fascists. Similar story for the other side of the same idiotic delusions, the neonazi wearing an armband and speaking insulting words is nothing like the real fascists. Both the violent wing of antifa and the neonazis are all posers, little more than asshole cosplayers both.
Now the peaceful wing of antifa, that is an entirely different story. That is where one might find actual WW2 vets.
Speaking as someone who had the privilege to grow up around family who were actual WW2 combat vets, and who had teachers who were actual WW2 combat vets.
I'm still trying to figure out why we need yet another branch of the military. If all they do is space, then what how do they engage in combat?
Space is much like air. You drop things from it that impact the ground. Think of it as an AF drone operator operating a vehicle at a much higher altitude.
That's not military at all. In every branch of the armed forces, every single person has a combat role attached to their military specially.
A family member made that very clear. He was a paratrooper at Bastogne. He shared his frozen hole in the ground with a truck driver who had not fired a weapon since basic training back in the US. The driver was one of the volunteers that brought in the last bit of supplies before the encirclement was complete, they were surround immediately after his truck made it in.
That said, again, how would "space force" personnel maintaining, launching and controlling vehicles from a safe location be any different than AF personnel maintaining, directing and possibly controlling aircraft from an equally safe location in the US or an allied country?
Marines are...well...Sailors with guns, or jarheads, or "couldn't be a seal"s
1. Marines are an entirely separate and independent branch of the armed services. They are not Navy, nor are they sailors. A sailor with a gun is the Yoeman who hit the target once in basic who is then trained (tertiary) as the automatic rifleman in case a shore party is needed. [Not slamming the Navy, that's how another family member described his service. Job 1: manning a typewriter. Job 2: manning an Oerlikon 20 mm AA cannon. Job 3: Shore party, automatic rifleman. He was thankful he only saw combat via job 2. ]
2. Many Marines could be SEALs, they merely preferred to serve as a Marine rather than a Sailor. Similar story for many Special Forces and Rangers. Some Marines are equivalent to SEALs, MARSOC, elements of Force Recon, same standards, skill set and training, cosmetic difference. Similarly some Special Forces are equivalent and arguable superior to SEALs as some SF have a larger skill set. When you have an individual that makes it into SF, MARSOC or SEALs that particular individual would most likely have made it into any of those specialized units, they just preferred one branch of the service for whatever reason. Well, that's how the former Vietnam era SEAL that was a manager at a company I used to work at described it to me. He said selection for all these special operations type units selects for the same thing, basically finding those who were born with a personality type that will just not quit something they start regardless of the physical and psychological pain. He said muscles, weapons proficiency, that was all relatively minor. That nearly any healthy athletic intelligent individual could be trained to be as strong and proficient as necessary. The military has known how to develop strength and proficiency for millennia. The real problem is finding the person born with the necessary personality type that just won't quit.
But yeah, I understand, Hollywood tells you different.
Hey, Marines work for the Navy... How do I know? You work for who pays you. The secretary of the Navy signs their paychecks just like mine and I worked for the Navy.
The Secretary is not in the Navy, he/she is a civilian with jurisdiction over the Navy, the Marines and at times the Coast Guard.
This kind of stuff takes a lot of money. Is there any proof or compelling evidence that we *need* a space force separate from what our current military provides?
Its just something to give up when in negotiations with North Korea. Trump is just manufacturing perceptions for the upcoming bargaining.
For that matter the Army has its own aviation service, it's just statutorily limited to rotary aircraft.
Does it really make sense to tell the Army, "You can fly, but only using certain technologies."? Wouldn't it make sense to allow them to fly ground attack aircraft, just like the Marines do?
The Marines are not always allowed to fly a ground attack aircraft. For example they are not allowed to fly the A-10 despite the fact they would love to and the Air Force brass hates the A-10. The A-10 is not aircraft carrier capable so the Department of the Navy says no A-10 for you.
Separate but equal. Is there any subject he can't bring racism into?
Yeah you joke, but there is actually logic behind what he said. Contrary to the belief of some, the US Marine Corp is not part of the US Navy. The USMC and the USN are separate and equal armed forces, they happen to report to the same civilian department of the executive branch, the Department of the Navy. Now does DoN show some "favoritism" for the USN, arguable so. When you have to say "separate but equal" you know it is not in some practical sense.
So while technically separate and equal in the org chart sense, will the space force have its own civilian agency as the Air Force does, or will it have to share one as the Marine Corp does?
It sounds expensive.
Its consolidating what they are already doing in other branches so there is not really any new expenditures.
I may be mistaken but my recollection is that Congress was involved in splitting off the Air Force from the Army and creating a new armed service.
In any case, pray to God that Trump is not involved in the new uniform design.
You misunderstood what I said, I used "breaking" in the context the original author used it. A complete mental breakdown, failure to recognize one is in training and to delusionally believe one is a real captive in a real enemy's hands, trying to actual kill a guard, etc. That would be a failure.
The "breaking" you refer to is something different, it is the breaking of the will. It is the breaking of the will that leads to cooperation, confessions, revealing information, etc. And yes this breaking of the will is something normal, everyone has a different breaking point. Again SERE is an opportunity to give you tools to help you resist for a longer duration, until your information becomes stale, and to help you avoid having that complete mental breakdown even if your will has been broken.
Also some forms of cooperation are/were considered appropriate at times. I previously mentioned Everett Alvarez Jr's 8+ year POW experience. In his book there was an interesting difference between the "old" POWs and the "new" POWs. The "new" POWs seemed more willing to cooperate, to go on radio and TV to read the captor's statement for example. Some of the "old" POWs had endured weeks of torture before breaking to that point (yet one still resisted by blinking TORTURE in morse code during a TV interview), the "new" POWs were cooperating almost immediately and the "old" POWs were pissed. Eventually they learned that SERE training had changed, the "new" POWs were told to cooperate with the radio and TV statements so that the US military would know they were alive and taken prisoner. The military feared not all captures were being reported, they told trainees to cooperate, that everyone knows the words are forced and are lies, just let us know they have you. I think some of the Gulf War videos from 1991 were similarly motivated to let the US and UK military know their pilots were alive.
Another interesting bit of cooperation from Alvarez's book was an enlisted sailor who "fell" off his ship when in North Vietnamese waters. The NV thought this ordinary seaman must be an idiot to "fall" of the ship. The POWs used that. The ranking POW officers ordered him to cooperate and to accept an early release to the US. Secretly they had the seaman memorize hundreds of names of POWs. Everyone any POW could remember encountering. This ordinary seaman did so and complete his mission by delivering the names off all known POWs. This was critical during later peace negotiation and likely saved lives.
I have no doubt there were sincere tears at the flag raising, however I have heard from another graduate of SERE training (Navy/Marine, 5 day course?, non-aircrew, high risk ground combat roles) that knowing the time limit helped him endure the physical and psychological pain. In particular being "boxed" (12hr? 24hr? not sure, I don't accurately recall). Bent at the knees and waist so as to be in a compact fetal like position and then sealed in a wooden box barely large enough to fit into. Locked into that position, unable to move, having to endure cramps but the psychological fear being even worse. He was not sure how he could have endured being "boxed" without knowing and counting down in his mind to the time limit.
SERE training is mentally and physically painful, none of us civilians can understand it as graduates do. However everyone there knows it is training, at least subconsciously if their mind gets muddled and they get deep into the role playing. Its invaluable training. But as civilians cannot truly understand SERE training, SERE school graduates cannot truly understand being actually captured and actually tortured. SERE is not the real thing, physically nor mentally, and everyone knows it down deep, even if temporarily muddled. SERE gives you the tools to work from should you one day really become a real captive, not unlike infantry training gives you the tools to work from should you one day really find yourself in combat. But training is only training and everyone knows it down deep.
I appreciate your 2 day SERE training perspective. However as a teenager I read Everett Alvarez Jr's book on his 8+ year POW experience. LTJG Alvarez was literally shot down at the very start of the war, at the Gulf of Tonkin. He and his peers could end up in single torture sessions that lasted most of or longer than your entire SERE course and they had the full and complete knowledge that it was real and no time limit existed. I'm sorry, but your training lacked the latter, even if your conscious became befuddled, down deep you knew it. If you had mentally broken so deep you did not you would probably have been removed and not seen again as the guard you mentioned. If you did temporarily loose it and genuinely try to kill a guard they must have mistaken it for a "normal" assault, if your attempt had been recognized as such its hard to imagine you not failing the course.
I am sorry but even SERE training, like the university imprisonment studies, is "unrealistic" in the sense that participants know its not "real". And again I am basing this on a SERE graduate who was "boxed" for 12-24 (?) hours during a 5 (?) day course. And again, I fully recognize that despite not being "real" SERE training is realistic in its limited sense (abuse levels and time) and that the physical and mental pain and stress is quite real and that graduates of SERE training deserve to be highly regarded.
The movies are an advertisement for the merchandise. Reinvigorated sales of the Millennium Falcon merchandise is the real goal here. :-)
Shooting a movie with an iconic character, defined by an iconic actor? Terrible idea.
True Grit. Iconic character: Rooster Cogburn. Iconic actor: John Wayne in 1969. The 2010 remake had a good script and good actors. In particular Jeff Bridges as Cogburn. So like any other movie the script and the actors seem to be the key factors in success.
OK that's a remake not delving into an established character's past. Perhaps a more appropriate counterargument would involve a different Harrison Ford role, Indiana Jones. In Last Crusade we have River Phoenix playing a young Indiana Jones and revealing part of Jone's mysterious background. I thought those scenes worked well, again it may be all about the script and the actors. With a good script could River Phoenix have pulled off a respectable full length movie exploring Jone's youth? The Last Crusade scenes suggest that would be entire plausible.
See how the message is received and refine until accepted.
Not only that, identify those who are not enthusiastically accepting the message. That will be important in the Communist Party's History and Political Science classes. It will help identify those who need a "supplemental" class.