Poll: Should Poems Be Broadcasted on Aircraft Carriers?

[Josh]

I’m a bit confused. More technology means more overpaid senior executives are needed, even with a much easier mission and fewer soldiers to oversee?

[Ken]

I’m a bit confused. More technology means more overpaid senior executives are needed, even with a much easier mission and fewer soldiers to oversee?

No, it is the exact opposite.

More executives aren't needed. Less manual labor is needed. But the military unit still has all the same responsibilities and duties as before. The job of a general isn't to be the HR officer for a bunch of privates. It is to command a military unit in battle and manage said unit to maintain its readiness during peacetime. The responsibility of a general hasn't changed. The nature of the units that they command have changed to be vastly more lethal, mechanized, and mobile while requiring less total soldiers doing things like mundane clerical and communications tasks.

Put another way. The sword wielded by a modern general is vastly more powerful and deadly and with vastly more reach than his past counterpart from WW2. Also vastly more complex. The fact that it requires less soldiers than before to operate is not that meaningful to the responsibility and duty of the command.

[Josh]

Can you explain why the total number of generals keeps going up? You keep arguing efficiency etc. but it’s a very obvious question: why does peacetime with more “efficiency” mean more top brass is needed?

[Ken]

Can you explain why the total number of generals keeps going up? You keep arguing efficiency etc. but it’s a very obvious question: why does peacetime with more “efficiency” mean more top brass is needed?

It isn't going up. The number of generals is far fewer than it was during WW2 or even the Cold War when the military was much larger. I just looked it up. There are currently 277 officers in the army with a rank of major general (one star) or higher. During WW2 at the peak there were about 1,100 generals serving in the Army.

All these promotions that are being blocked are not generals moving into newly created positions. They are being promoted to fill existing positions that are vacated when people get promoted or retire. The military has very strict mandatory retirement ages. I think it is age 64. The outgoing chairman of the joint chiefs, General Miley has hit mandatory retirement and is 65. They might have stretched the rules a bit for transition purposes, but he will soon be gone. When you hit retirement age in the military you are out. And then people are promoted to take your place. The top admiral in the Navy is the Chief of Naval Operations and she is age 58. The former Chief of Naval operations retired this year at age 60.

[RZehr]

Is Tommy Tuberville Paving the Way for Trump to Fill the Pentagon with Lackeys?
…

The nightmare scenario is that none of these posts get filled and Trump gets to fill all of them with hand-picked nominees who are selected specifically for their inability to ever say “no.” Trump hated military leadership, whom he insultingly regarded as “pussies.”

…


https://www.yahoo.com/news/tommy-tuberv ... 00657.html

This doesn’t seem like an ideal ending. Maybe the military should concede to Tubervilles demands.

[temporal1]

Is Tommy Tuberville Paving the Way for Trump to Fill the Pentagon with Lackeys?
…
The nightmare scenario is that none of these posts get filled and Trump gets to fill all of them with hand-picked nominees who are selected specifically for their inability to ever say “no.” Trump hated military leadership, whom he insultingly regarded as “pussies.”
…
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tommy-tuberv ... 00657.html

This doesn’t seem like an ideal ending. Maybe the military should concede to Tubervilles demands.

Official full return to pre-2016 DJT fear-mongering?
(Which never happened, while lots of good policies, appointments did?)

Military leaders generally saw their role as preventing Trump from doing catastrophically stupid, illegal, or unethical things.

Unfortunately, no such prevention occuring for biden, “As the World Blows Up.”

[Ken]

Is Tommy Tuberville Paving the Way for Trump to Fill the Pentagon with Lackeys?
…

The nightmare scenario is that none of these posts get filled and Trump gets to fill all of them with hand-picked nominees who are selected specifically for their inability to ever say “no.” Trump hated military leadership, whom he insultingly regarded as “pussies.”

…


https://www.yahoo.com/news/tommy-tuberv ... 00657.html

This doesn’t seem like an ideal ending. Maybe the military should concede to Tubervilles demands.

The Senate could end this tomorrow if they wanted. The ability for one Senator to block nominations like this is found nowhere in the Constitution or any statute that governs Senate operations. It is just a customary privilege that Senators allow each other and that they are loath to eliminate because the left does the same thing too. Bernie Sanders is one of the biggest abusers of this privilege. For example



Individual Senators would rather horde the privilege to bring things to a halt on the say-so of one Senator than make the Senate work more efficiently.

[Josh]

The Senate could end this tomorrow if they wanted. The ability for one Senator to block nominations like this is found nowhere in the Constitution or any statute that governs Senate operations. It is just a customary privilege that Senators allow each other and that they are loath to eliminate because the left does the same thing too. Bernie Sanders is one of the biggest abusers of this privilege. For example



Individual Senators would rather horde the privilege to bring things to a halt on the say-so of one Senator than make the Senate work more efficiently.

I don't see what's wrong with Bernie Sanders doing this. The big drug companies are posting record profits. Meanwhile, hard-working Americans have to choose between buying groceries and refilling their prescriptions.

[Ken]

The Senate could end this tomorrow if they wanted. The ability for one Senator to block nominations like this is found nowhere in the Constitution or any statute that governs Senate operations. It is just a customary privilege that Senators allow each other and that they are loath to eliminate because the left does the same thing too. Bernie Sanders is one of the biggest abusers of this privilege. For example



Individual Senators would rather horde the privilege to bring things to a halt on the say-so of one Senator than make the Senate work more efficiently.

I don't see what's wrong with Bernie Sanders doing this. The big drug companies are posting record profits. Meanwhile, hard-working Americans have to choose between buying groceries and refilling their prescriptions.

That's fine. But this is exhibit #1 illustrating why government often works very slowly and very inefficiently.

Robert and others here have expressed the opinion that government should work more like a business. Well, the fact is that no business would ever allow a single employee to hold the whole enterprise hostage over a single issue no matter how important they thought their single issue was.

For example, this week Apple released its new iPhone 15. Apple would absolutely not tolerate a single employee holding up the release of the new iPhone simply because that employee wanted to see a different feature added. No business on the planet would operate that way because nothing would ever get done if employees were empowered to hold the whole operation hostage for whatever reason they wanted, no matter how important they thought it was.

But since this is government, everyone just shrugs or cheers as the case may be when this sort of thing happens. And then turns around and grumbles because the government is not more efficient. Cause and effect.

[temporal1]

Dylan Mulvaney