sherpa

I agree. The primary reason was the legitimacy he gave the AFL with the Super Bowl win. But his pro Bills comment didn't hurt, and we had a lot of hurt at that time.

They should do a lot of things, but they don't, because they rely on the massive US military capability. That's why they don't support NATO to agreed upon levels, and allowed their capability to be so pathetic as the Russians invaded Ukraine. Regarding this issue specifically, there is no way "Europe" is going to defend Israel. Look at the criticism and protests over the Israelis eliminating Hamas from that group. As long as the US does what it does, the govs of the EU, ex the UK, will never step in with any significant effort.

The policy of continuing to absorb Houthi attacks on Red Sea commercial shipping, sending drones to deliver weapons against Israel and attacking US Navy forces was not "peaceful." It was unbelievably expensive, stupid and useless.

Correct, and Japan is still not innocent, but China is many magnitudes worse. A complete scam as a trading partner, on all levels. Simply horrible.

I've never wanted to denigrate the Catholic Church, as a beneficiary of its superior academic product throughout grammar and high school, but when I got older and looked at the theology, the Papacy, Mary, the Saints and Purgatory led me to move on to another Christian group. Been studying the issue and active for years, and I'm pleased I decided what I did. Hope all goes well, but I'm not invested in it.

The China thing is not even a question for me. I remember one trip sitting next to a Silicon Valley guy who was a CEO of a solar cell company. He relayed to me the issue of dealing with them. His company had developed a new technology for solar panels and was going to produce them in the area of China that does that. There is a Chinese gov requirement to submit product information to their gov once a certain level is reached, and they did. He said that two months after this submission, a Chinese factory opened less than a mile from where they were going to build, producing the exact same panels. No sympathy from me, and I could relay five stories more in addition. They are crooks who have been stealing and exploiting US and other western industry for years.

Not that this matters, but there is a Tesla dealership about one block from the Silk Market in Beijing. The Silk Market is a huge individual vendor in kiosks market, very popular, so we would always go there. I was there with a guy who owned a Tesla, and we looked at their offerings at this dealership. He said that the prices, because of tariffs, were at least 30% higher than in the US. China has been screwing the US and it's labor for decades, and it is undeniable. That doesn't even address the pilferage of US patented products and other industrial espionage. Simply, it's what they do.

Good choice. Namath said after the Super Bowl that the one win Bills team had a better defense than the NFL champ Colts. Resulted in him getting a standing ov in next year's game at War Memorial.

I don't know what industry you are in, but in mine, greatness comes from talent and effort. When "diversity" was the factor in putting people in positions they should not have been, it resulted in death.

That is a very important question that will be determined over the next twenty years. I don't think you have the knowledge to conclude that they "wouldn't last ten minutes." Your question involves a China thing, and suggests a judgement on China's ability to strike a carrier. China's Navy has short legs. They need constant refueling. The US has a massive submarine advantage over them. they have a numbers advantage. The issue is weapons technology. The US now has a air launched missile with massive range for defense. the Chinese, to my knowledge, do not. Ultimately, we are headed for remote piloted weapons, but no drone can come close to the power projection of a US strike fighter, and certainly not close to what a carrier airwing can deliver, and it can be moved 400 miles in one day. Ultimately, they are dinosaurs, but not yet.

Sorry I didn't see this earlier. The formal transcript of the CVR has not been released, but it has been discussed and pointed out by the NTSB. I am not sure it would matter to these NY Times clowns anyway, because they clearly don't understand context. Here is a legitimate discussion of that from real pilots who do understand. Only need to listen to the first five and half minutes. By the way when the guy says "aviation experts," he is being totally sarcastic. Neither anything about anything. NY Times Nonsense

Not a popular choice, but I would go with "Starry Starry Night," from Don McLean. Crafty references to Van Goghs's work. Just a tremendously written song, For pure listening, I'd go with "Boys of Summer" from Don Henley.

Can't lie about the George Floyd after effect. That area of Minneapolis has never recovered to this day. Horrible gov. Ya. He spoke in "code" to me, and he said, "I am an idiot, and I was chosen because I am dumber and not a threat to Kamala."

There were three altimeters. They were all within tolerance, but there was a difference between what her's and the other pressure altimeter were indicating. Her's was indicating 300'. The other one was indicating 400'. That is within the margin for error. She was never "told" to change course or "told" to descend. It was simply a discussion between the two. The radar altimeter, which indicates height over the water where they were, was also indicating 278'. The entire thing from the NY Times is bull stuff, written by someone who covers "money, policy and influence" for the NY Times, and a guy who is Washington based and reports on "transportation matters" for them. Neither of them is in any way competent to come to the ridiculous "conclusions" they claim. This isn't quite as bad as the Rolling Stone fabrication of a rape at the University of Virginia, which was completely false and resulted in a significant lawsuit, or the Duke lacrosse team fiction, or even the nonsense by alleged "experts" on CNN after the Malaysian 370 disappearance, but it is very b bad, and the result of the media interpreting something they are not qualified to do. Worse, they point an unjustified finger at this pilot. The grossly obvious fact is that those two aircraft should have never been in that airspace at the same time, both doing what they were supposed to be doing, and where they should be. The regional jet should have never been told to circle to land on runway 33 with a helo in the area, or the helo should have held at Haines Point until the RJ landed, which was the standard policy. Just an insane operation.

A link to what? The CVR is quite clear. She didn't deny anything.

Not that anyone cares, but this non skid stuff is kind of interesting. A friend of mine, also a carrier aviator, was involved as a civilian in the F-35 program. During testing, the carrier suitability tests are done at Pawtuxet River MD. They do normal carrier landings and very hard ones at the runway there prior to sea trials. Everything was fine. When they started sea trials on the F-35 there was an unexplainable and dramatic increase in engine damage because the engine mounts to the airframe were failing. Months and millions spent, and nobody could figure it out. One day this Navy buddy of mine was working on it and he was watching the carrier landing testing at Pax river. He mentioned to his cohort that the only thing different in this environment was the lack on non skid on a runway. They did the testing and found that the non skid on the carrier was causing a harmonic through the landing geat that was vibrating the airframe to levels that were causing the engine mounts to fail. Solved the problem. Saved well over a hundred million bucks. Carrier aviation is weird. There's an old quote from somebody years ago. "Carrier aviation. It gave me moments of extreme exileration and moments of extreme terror, but either way, it will always be with me."

Almost never. If they are re-spotting in heavy seas, and they don't unless necessary, they'll put a guy on each wing carrying chocks, and if something goes awry, they run up to the main gear and get the chocks under, hoping to stop it. I can remember a few times when the deck was really moving and after I landed they had our guys with chocks follow me throughout the entire taxi to a parking spot. Once you park, you are immediately chained, every time.

Sure. I guess you're referring to the Truman based F-18 that went overboard. At sea, airplanes are chained to the deck on the flight deck, anywhere from a four point to a twelve point tie down. So four to 12 chains, depending on sea state. When they go below to the hangar deck they are also chained. When they have to be re-spotted, (moved), without the engine running, they put a maintenance guy in the seat as the "brakerider." The problem is that if the engine isn't running, they have no hydraulic power, and thus, no airplane brakes. They use a "tug," which is a big low built byt very heavy vehicle to tow them, connected through a tow bar which hooks to the nose gear. To re-spot an airplane to the flight deck from the hangar deck, it is towed to one of three elevators, goes outboard to that elevator and is raised to to the flight deck. They don't do this in heavy seas for obvious reasons. Anyway, it looks like calm seas, a re-spot tow underway and the ship, for some reason, Truman an abrupt maneuver, which caused a significant list which was enough to exceed the braking capacity of the tug, which is significant. Tug driver and brake rider bot jumped out and remained aboard. Tug, tow bar and F-18 deep sixed. As an aside, after about two months at sea, the flight deck loses a good deal of it's "non skid," which is a thin layer of abrasive material to give ample traction to the steel deck. After a time, this wears off and the combination of small jet fuel leaks, hydraulic fluid and other lubricants can make the flight deck quite slippery. When you launch, you man a chained up airplane and the chains don't come off until taxi to the catapult. If this ship is moving because of sea state or turn, this can get quite interesting. That's why we always arm the ejection seat when getting in. I can clearly remember one day at sea and the deck was quite slippery. I was taxiing to cat 4 for launce and the ship started it's pre-launch turn into the wind. Airplane started slipping sideways and there was nothing I could do to stop it. Fortunately, whoever was at the helm eased the turn and all turned out well. Next day they cancelled the morning schedule and hosed the flight deck using sea water. They always apply new non skid during port calls at places that have the stuff.

No offense to you because you are just reiterating what the NY Times reported after "investigating." What they "concluded," and what was linked to above, is completely false, and totally not supported by the voice recorder. That is what happens when you get people "investigating" something they know nothing about. This crap happens all the time.

I understand your attempt at humor, but the situation is far more complicated, and these people are not stupid. Moving airplanes on an aircraft carrier is done with great care. If the carrier needs to maneuver very quickly, and it is unanticipated, ie., when repositioning a hangar deck airplane, where the the engines are not running and no hydraulics, stuff can happen. Back to basics, it is a boat, and boats can do things that cause the deck to be inhospitable to towing airplanes.

I'd be all over it. Jack Kemp made a compelling case against it, but in the decades since, it has gotten way more desirable, and I think, necessary.

That is what I am suggesting.

Not me. We need to attract the best people for public service. Denying them the opportunity to participate would be a major deterrent. My view is that a blind trust should be established, managed by a competent, approved group. The Representative is allowed to participate to whatever level they desire, but has no influence over the portfolio.

I really regret the way the administration has not informed our country on how obvious this situation was, and that something absolutely needed to be done. We were getting abused by China, India and the EU. A response to this is absolutely justified. China is the worst, but our other trade partners are nearly as guilty, and the situation needs to change. The Treasury Secretary was on CNBC for an extended interview this morning and his most informative comment was that when they started looking at this stuff, he couldn't believe how bad it has gotten. This gets worked out, but it wasn't moving in that direction.

Russian intel is pretty good. Having a phone number isn't condemning to the person.