Jump to content

SL Xpress

Full Members
  • Posts

    4267
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by SL Xpress

  1. I'll be honest. I get such a kick out of thinking those were all friendly fire incidents from Russian operators seeing ghosts on their radar and having itchy trigger fingers, that's the narrative I'm going to go with. Although the Avengers up on the border has its own appeal. Regardless, it's a good thought that hadn't occurred to me. I'm glad you shared it.
  2. I realize Jabari Rice's don't exactly grow on trees, but he was my favorite UT basketball player in a long long time. I'm very grateful to have been given the opportunity to watch him for the one season he played for us.
  3. I hadn't even thought about that. Good call.
  4. Here's an ABC News article talking in generalities about the effectiveness of the US Avenger platform, an 8 stinger missile launch system mounted on a Humvee for greater mobility: https://abcnews.go.com/International/us-avenger-important-boost-ukrainian-air-defense-top/story?id=99405568#:~:text=The Avenger has laser and infrared technology to identify and track targets.&text=U.S. Avenger air defense systems,to a senior Ukrainian official.
  5. I hated watching Caleb Love play last year. I am not a fan.
  6. I recognize a master when I see one.
  7. The portal period for beach goes until June 14. That doesn't make you wrong, but it's not too late to make some hay in the portal. And yes, there's also a December window as well. I'm not terribly concerned about it, though. The comparison I've been making is this hire is akin to hiring Augie Garrido from Cal State Fullerton. There's only two active beach volleyball coaches with national titles. Metzger and USC's Dain Blanton. That's it. Stein Metzger started the UCLA program, unlike Blanton. There simply isn't a better hire out there for the first coach in the program. It's not possible to make a better hire.
  8. Turkiye under Erdogan is so confusing. I saw Fiddler on the Roof this past Sunday. I forgot it was based out of Ukraine, in a village outside of Kyiv. Cool story, the name of the fictional village in the musical is now the name of a refugee center started in 2015 by a local rabbi. I donated to it recently just because. Here's a link to the wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatevka_(village) In any case, in the musical the lead character, Tevke, is constantly having these conversations about himself where he goes, "On the other hand...." I feel that way about Turkiye and their participation in this war.
  9. Do we not have an insurance expert on this board? I find that hard to believe. I was at a board meeting for a Galveston condo home owner's association two weeks ago. They had a special presentation from the insurance broker talking about why there's 20% less coverage for wind damage at a 50% rate increase. One of the other owners got up and said he'd had the same personal experiences with his apartment complexes throughout the midwest, even though he has no history of making claims. I've read how catastrophic the impact on claims has been on Florida coast properties. Some mortgage companies are waiving insurance coverage requirements on beach properties because of the impossibility of finding any, or how cost prohibitive it is. Which seems completely and utterly insane to me. I don't even understand how that works as a business model. I had a recent fire that gutted a small 6 unit apartment complex I have (no one was there or hurt). It will be at least a $700k claim. The adjuster just came back and said it doesn't meet coverage requirements under the policy because of the presence of aluminum wiring. A have a documented statement from a licensed electrician that there's no aluminum wiring in the complex. This policy is from a broker I've done business with on all investment properties for 30 years. The broker's hands are tied. They cannot help with the claim. The insurance business is a state regulated industry. Sure, like any smart business the industry invests a lot of time, effort, and resources into influencing the make up of those regulatory boards to make them as insurance industry friendly as possible, but it's still not untrammeled capitalism, and there is a degree of political oversight on their business practices, regardless of how effective it might be. But their current business model is taking a beating across the board. This is not something isolated to USAA, although I find the anecdotal experiences listed on here interesting. My guess is that the industry stabilizes at some point, and we see rates go down and become more accessible, but maybe this is the new normal. I also don't understand the outrage about people charging higher prices for a good suddenly in greater demand. If all of your peers were getting paid 20-30% more than what they were previously but you chose to stand fast and make the same amount you'd always made, you'd look like a chump. You'd feel like one, too. But when it's something we purchase/consume versus our own services, suddenly there's some kind of moral authority attached. Maybe I don't have all the details and it's more like what has happened in the insulin market than I realize. But it's difficult for me to feel like there should be some kind of outrage attached because someone is charging a higher price for a product because they can. Anyway, I'd love for someone in the industry to explain further what's going on across the board. Or heck, I'd love for people outside the industry to opine, too. It's just that it's the industry perspective I'm looking for more than anything else.
  10. Germany, Poland, US Embassy in Kiev. Wouldn't be hard to get there in a hurry from any of those locations. If you're saying they weren't based in the US according to the timing, I couldn't agree more. But I don't think of it as controversial if they're based where other Patriot defense systems are located in neighboring NATO allies. But they got there with a quickness, that's for sure!
  11. Yeah, I'm pretty sure they're part of a larger delegation from Africa, and they're very much aligned with Russia and China more so than Ukraine and the west, for a variety of reasons. But it's a good thing they're heading to Ukraine. The more information they have about the war the better, from my perspective. I don't think Zelensky is going to be able to convince them to be more pro Ukrainian, however, as much as I wish it could happen. And the South Africans particularly still want Western money, so like many countries whose rulers are really much more sympathetic to the Russian/Chinese center of gravity, they want to keep the Western spigot open a whole lot more.
  12. What do you mean? BTW, I love/hate that photo of Bucha and comparing it to Russia. After this war is over I so want the contrast between Ukraine and Russia borders to resemble North and South Korea, or West and East Germany.
  13. Chinese have to do something with all the dollars they hold. The real problem is the current account deficit. If we're going to live a lifestyle we can't actually afford through the products and services we sell, then we have to either sell debt or assets to make up the difference. The Chinese realize assets are a safer and better return on their investment, and so they're acting accordingly. Any manipulation of the market, no matter the intention or worthiness, will have all kinds of unintended consequences. Which is not to say we shouldn't do it. I'm a Chinese hawk and feel like we should have been treating them towards the enemy side of the frenemy spectrum long ago. But we're not actually prepared to pay the price to do so, because we're blithefully unaware of all the consequences. Disentangling from the cheap Chinese manufacturing will be immensely painful whenever it occurs. But to me it's an existential threat. You especially see it with the rhetoric in Europe, where different leaders want to separate foreign policy objectives from the US, because they feel like they're more vulnerable to friction with the Chinese than the Americans. Which is a dangerous conceit on any number of levels. But all of this has little to do with the war in Ukraine. Maybe tangentially, but it's a painful rhetorical contortion to make the connections. That said, if anyone wants to take the discussion to a Chinese thread, I'd love to hear more perspectives on it.
  14. I don't see it completely the same way. The Soviets worked very hard at influencing a sympathetic audience among Western countries, using the religious rhetoric of the proletariat. It was extremely effective in all kinds of ways, leading to the stealing of atomic secrets for one thing, and other advanced military systems. They gained all kinds of apologists for their actions. They still have them. The Russians have been helped by the advent of social media, the tribalism and echo chambers it encourages. Anything that encourages dissent of any kind, or represents a contrarian view to the mainstream, they're going to support. Doesn't matter if it's Black Lives Matter or White Supremacist groups. And it can be difficult to discern because a lot of their messaging is hidden as part of a speak truth to power mentality that is extraordinarily seductive to any intelligent person who feels any sense of powerlessness whatsoever. And a lot of the messaging they support has some fundamental legitimacy. They just don't care about that. They seek out divisiveness in whatever form they can find. But let's not pretend we don't do the same kind of stuff in return. Heck, look at the recent CIA video. That's a masterpiece in manipulating legitimate Russian fears to turn traitor to the state. Never mind I agree with it wholeheartedly because it's my side doing it. I'm also not convinced we can parade the reaction to Korea and Vietnam as unmitigated successes, or some kind of balls to the wall effort on the US part to subvert Soviet intentions. Then there's the idea of Ukraine as a European democracy. I'd say it's more accurate to say they have strong aspirations to be a European democracy, and as a people they've been willing to sacrifice their lives and their potential future in ways I'm not sure have many equivalents in order to have one. But Ukraine has a monumentally complex history. The steppes around the Black Sea have a rich complicated past that extends well into prehistory. The Ukrainian (and Russian) people were founded by marauding Vikings who used wholesale slaughter to establish their culture. The separation into two separate cultures is marred by all the complexity of European wars of conquest, including the Polish Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the various Tsars, WWII, etc.. In following their elections post 1991 independence there was a very clear bifurcation between west and east Ukraine that always had a ton of political commentary attached to it way before 2014, with political thinkers wondering if this was a nation state that could actually exist long term. Even the Crimean takeover, while completely unjustified which should have been resisted way more stringently and forcefully by the West at the time it happened, isn't clear cut at all, given Stalin's forced relocation of the local Tartars, and the massive influx of ethnic Russians into the region. It was only given to the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic by native Ukrainian son Khrushchev in the 50s, in a move that was protested at the time and was a huge basis for Putin's view it was a historic mistake. Crimea was arguably the strongest pro Russian region in all of Ukraine. Then you have the Ukraine nationalist rhetoric which is often couched in cultures, language and history that would make many of us uncomfortable. But when you've been marginalized as a people for centuries, with the Russians and others making constant efforts to wipe your existence from the planet, you don't always get to pick your heroes. They're the ones you have. None of this is to discount the Ukrainian effort. I have an immense amount of respect and admiration for them as a people. An overwhelming amount, really. This truly is good versus evil in my mind. It's blatantly obvious in all kinds of ways in how the war is being conducted. Russian civilization is marred at its center by cruelty and an almost unbelievable demeaning of the value of human life. This war effort is Putin's equivalent to Hitler's Final Solution for the Ukrainian people. He thinks of them as a historic mistake as a people and like Randy Newman's short people, feels like they have no reason to live. But overall what I tend to feel is a great sense of gratitude for the efforts that have already been extended. I wish it was more. I wish it was a whole lot more. But there are a lot of factors at play that simply can't be dismissed. The US is an isolationist country with isolationist tendencies that harken back to its creation. The Republicans began a strategy of all out confrontation and obstruction of virtually anything Democrats want to accomplish under Newt Gingrich, and that strain exists today. So if the Democrats are for supporting Ukraine, there is a segment in the Republican party that immediately wants to make that more difficult. Then there are the Russian sympathizers, of which there are an appalling amount. But what are you going to do? It's a free country, and that's what you get. I also know there's a segment of the Democratic Party that feels uncomfortable being this supportive of Ukraine, but because their party is the one in power they play along because it's important from that standpoint. I don't really care about the reasons. I'm all in favor of anyone who is supportive of our efforts in Ukraine, regardless of how they get there. Even with all of that there has been an amazing amount of bipartisan support for the efforts to help Ukraine. The US has slowly ratcheted up the systems they supply to the Ukrainians, from javelins and stingers, to HIMARs, to Abrams, to Patriot air defense systems. I remember bringing up the need to supply Patriot defense systems on this thread shortly after the invasion began and being told by some of the posters that's a step too far, and too risky. Now it seems like the natural progression of US support. We're all kind of waiting to see what this spring/summer counter offensive brings. I'm confident it's going to have a huge impact on how the war is conducted from now on. I'm hopeful for Ukraine's future, maybe even a little desperately so. But they first need to bring this war to an end on their terms, and right now that feels a long ways off.
  15. Article from Kyiv Independent talking about extensive Russian defensive fortifications along the front. I did not find it particularly informative. I don't know what I'm expecting. Apparently some kind of guided video tour through the bunkers and installations, which obviously isn't going to happen. A lot of blinding glimpses of the obvious. "The fortifications are impressive, but will they be sufficiently manned with soldiers and equipment?" Anyway, all the thick red lines are very impressive and scary. I can't imagine this is realistic, but I wonder how much Ukraine's army is capable of feints? Because I feel highly confident Russia's forces would not be able to shift deployment on the fly. At least not without it being a complete clusterfuck. Anyway, beyond my paygrade. We'll see what it entails pretty soon. I can't imagine it won't happen by the end of May or in June at the latest. I'm not in any actual hurry as an observer. There may not be a second chance to employ an assault force of this magnitude, equipped in this manner. Best to get this one right. Too much hinging on it being successful. https://kyivindependent.com/where-does-russia-expect-ukraines-counterattack-overview-of-defensive-lines/ BTW, in general I hate static defensive formations in war. There have been plenty of times in history where they've provided the winning edge, but mostly it's the use of mobility to outflank the enemy that wins battles. Personally I consider it a huge sign of weakness from the Russian military that they've resorted to this strategy. But because there isn't anything more productive they can actually accomplish, they dig a bunch of fancy ditches, and after those ditches are dug, they dig some more. But if the defenses work and the Ukrainians bog down in an effective manner, it will have proven successful. My hope is we don't see that happen.
  16. It's not even as long as the Mark Hertling op/ed you posted yesterday, lol, then posted a video in case it was too much for anyone to read.
  17. Well, I don't know how dialed in someone has to be. Based on what I've read and what I know in terms of how US administrations think - especially Democratic ones (I apologize in advance for this veering into Cloak Room territory, I do not mean to offend anyone) - there are three main issues. The biggest one you've already mentioned. The allocation of resources. There are plenty of people already saying the money passed in the last Congress is about to run out, but the administration is insisting it will last until the end of the fiscal year. They DO NOT want to go to this Congress with hat in hand and ask for more money in this fiscal year. That's less about the war in Ukraine, and more about the dynamics between the House and the administration. With the debt ceiling being front and center, but not the exclusive issue. There are signs the Republicans in the House - McCarthy specifically - are willing to extend more aid to Ukraine, but it will for sure be an unpleasant process that the administration is loathe to embark upon. It's highly questionable how much this issue resonates with average Americans, so we're not talking about some kind of massive public outcry if the US suddenly stops sending aid to Ukraine, or dramatically reduces its support. So we're left with politicians who approve spending because they think it's the right thing to do. Which there are plenty of. I'm just saying it's not a vote getter at the end of the day. But all of this means any kind of big ticket item - and F-16 exports would be huge, not just for the aircraft itself, but the support systems and the weapon systems it would employ - means less of everything else. That's a lot of artillery shells, SAM missiles and armored vehicles with their support systems that might be part of the opportunity cost involved. The second one is logistics. The F-16 is notorious for needing a cleaner runway than other fighter jets. Here's a great article that goes over the exact same information I came across, from the exact same source: https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-may-spot-ukrainian-bases-preparing-for-f16s-expert-says-2023-4 Here's another more recent article, also from Business Insider (which is not a publication I get information from regularly, but it came up on a google search and the quotes are credible and relevant) talking about how outmatched any fourth generation fighter, even one updated as much as the F-16 has been, is in the current air defense environment: https://www.businessinsider.com/former-f-16-pilot-aircraft-no-fighting-chance-over-ukraine-2023-5 My problem with this particular article is it's coming from the vantage point of a US pilot who wouldn't want to fly in the current air space in Ukraine, not from a Ukrainian pilot who is already facing long odds of survival flying old MiGs. I'm not saying the guy is wrong, but I wonder if he'd take the same position if he was flying planes into the Eastern seaboard against an invader who launched an attack on the United States. I just feel like he lacks the right perspective, and he's doing a very poor job in this article of acknowledging it. So opportunity cost and effectiveness are two big, salient issues that we're not capable of addressing completely. Or in some ways even a little bit. That's not about wanting the Russians to win. That's about real world issues we're facing in making the decision to send the aircraft. It's also my opinion - and this is the Cloak Room part, so apologies in advance - that Democratic administrations tend to have a different view of the military and how to oversee military operations than Republicans. As a life long Republican who doesn't really know what I am any more, I have always been biased towards how Republican administrations handle the military. I'm not saying I'm correct on this. I'm saying it's my opinion, and admit it's a biased one. But if you look at the perspectives that Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama, and even Biden have taken in terms of military operations, there is a consistent piece meal approach to them that I have always disagreed with on some level. I don't want to get into a discussion about Truman's approach to Korea, Kennedy's approach to Bay of Pigs (an operation he inherited and almost certainly should have stopped, but regardless the lack of promised air support was a strange mixed message) Johnson's approach to Vietnam, Carter's approach to the Cold War, Clinton's approach to Somalia or the Balkans, Obama's approach to Iraq, Afghanistan, ISIS, Syria, and Libya, or Biden's approach to Afghanistan. I also don't want to indicate a full throated support for everything the Republican administrations did, because they're certainly not without fault. But I approve of the bombing campaigns on Hanoi, the all in attitude in taking back Kuwait, the all in attitude with Afghanistan following the WTC attack. I was a part of the initial deployment in Somalia under George Bush, and I'm convinced - rightly or wrongly - that if he'd been president Blackhawk Down doesn't happen. To me there's a tendency of Democratic administrations to go part way in, in an effort not to be...I don't know. Too militaristic? Appeal to popular support externally? To not be too bloodthirsty? Not get our hands too dirty? Or, on the other hand, maybe it's smart tactical decision making that prevents something worse from occurring. I'm willing to admit that may be a possibility, even if I don't believe it. But given that the alternative in this case was very little support whatsoever, and an almost tacit approval of how Putin conducts business, I'll take what we have right now under Biden every day and any day, and I'll be very grateful for it. But I do feel like there are voices in the administration that don't necessarily want Russia to win, but are concerned about how much the US does to ensure it loses. And for me, that's a historical position Democratic administrations have always possessed in their ranks. Again, rightly or wrongly. It's just my belief, and I admit that. So I feel all those forces are at play, along with an isolationist strain that blends in with sympathetic voices to Russia's cause. But it's not as black and white as this guy is making it out to be. Like I've said, the tweet feels like a shot to the groin to get people galvanized that are on the fence to send the F-16s, not as an accurate description of the dynamics at work.
  18. The whole "time is on Russia's Side" argument is based on an unclear time line for how long Western resolve can hold out. It's not indefinite, that's for sure. Without massive western support, both military and financial, this war looks very different. I don't believe Russia just takes over without a fight, but there would be a lot more occupied areas, more mass incarcerations, children taken away, burning of books in the Ukrainian language, suppression of Ukrainian speech, and the slaughter and rape of civilians. There is no doubt Russia has a greater appetite for military losses. It's not infinite, but it may take some kind of regime change to install a different mentality. They have a history of grinding down opponents. From Charles XII to Napolean to Hitler. Even Genghis Khan couldn't wipe them out, although he did everything but. This war has been prosecuted basically the way every war is prosecuted by the Russians. They win some and they lose some. My mistake was believing the hype Putin had successfully transformed the military. I do think the elite troops operated differently, but they've mostly been wiped out after the initial failures. They were too few and without enough power within the military to make drastic changes. Couldn't be happier to be wrong. The more successes Ukraine has on the battlefield, the greater the support provided by allies and the stronger position they'll have at the negotiating table. I definitely think time is on Russia's side all things being equal. My hope is things are so unequal that we see Russia scrambling with their tail between their legs with all the occupied territories returned to Ukrainian sovereignty.
  19. Not to mention how many of them are in arsenals around the world. It's funny. It was originally designed as a quality over quantity air superiority fighter along with the F-15 but it turned into a quantity type of equation as one of the best cost effective means to establish an air force as existed in the world for several decades. But based on what I've read, the F/A-18 and the Swedish Gripen would be better fits for the battlefield environment. Much like the Leopard 2 is a better fit than the Abrams as a tank. But the support systems for the F-16 are so robust, and they're nearing the end of their vastly extended life cycle. I do think there's a certain inevitability to the F-16s being deployed. Unfortunately I think the hesitance is mostly based on political will, when I wish that wasn't a factor. But a lot of that lack of political will is composed of something other than wanting the Russians to win. Which is the issue I took with the tweet.
  20. Heck, and in Bakhmut now they're taking swaths of territory on the flanks. Russia is sending in troops completely and utterly unprepared to put up a defense. They're going to have to figure out some way to keep Ukraine from taking 20 kilometers at a whack or they're going to have to withdraw from the rubble of Bakhmut in short order. I'm also reminded of the island fortress battles against the Japanese in the Pacific. There are a lot of marines at the time that felt MacArthur the Army general was a little too fast and loose with their survival rate, when he could have pinned down Japanese forces on some of those islands without a full scale invasion. And while that didn't work out well for the Japanese, their commitment to a wholesale loss of life on the main island is documented and legendary, if it hadn't been for the two atomic bombs dropped. There's also such an immeasurable aspect to defending territory. I don't know how anyone can hope to quantify a cost benefit analysis regarding the loss of life versus displaying a never give an inch demeanor. Those are hard decisions for any military leader to make. The hardest. As human beings we love to talk about some of these decisions in hindsight as obviously the right or wrong ones, but that's not really accurate. There's no way to go back and do a do over, so we're left with the decisions that were made. I do know Ukrainians look like tough sons of bitches, but there are a lot of men dead and wounded in Bakhmut who wish maybe they could have fallen back instead. I remember watching videos of the bunkers in the town, and many of the guys portrayed were scared out of their minds, and refused to report for duty. But what are you gonna do? I sit here typing on a computer not facing any of those daily decisions, from either a command or infantry man level. I just know this is a battle between good and evil, and I fervently want to see the good side prevail in as decisive a manner as possible. I think it's important for the near term future of the human race.
  21. There's certainly a de-escalation faction. There's a huge "the US shouldn't get involved" faction, too, that has little to do with Russia, and is entirely historical. There are a lot of factions. There's also a faction that recognizes the F-16 isn't exactly the ideal aircraft for the kind of operations it will be undergoing in Ukraine. Doesn't mean it couldn't work. I want to make it clear I'm all in on sending F-16s and ATACMs and my frustration over the fact we haven't yet is only mollified by my gratitude we're doing as much as we are. I followed this thing closely back in 2014 when it felt like we left the Ukrainians out to dry on any number of levels, and there was concern that would be the case on some level this time, too. If Biden hadn't won the election, I feel comfortable in saying the level of support and the rallying of the Europeans would be quite different. Heck, I'd love to see us send F-22s, even if that's unrealistic. All I know is that the reluctance to send F-16s is also rooted in other things other than wanting Russia to win. To say something different is a gross misrepresentation of the issue. Which doesn't make it wrong. It can be effective. But it's still incorrect.
  22. That's not a correct take, but it's not a dumb one, either. Shame the people who don't think it's smart to send F-16s - for a variety of extremely valid reasons - into sending them so they're not painted as pro Russian in some sense. But that's not an accurate portrayal, and is a bit of rhetorical dirty pool. Which, all is fair in love and war, so have at it.
  23. This article from volleyballmag.com makes it clear you're way more right on this than I am. https://volleyballmag.com/texas-beach-volleyball-hires-uclas-stein-metzger-051623/ "'Like I told Stein, we’re going to change the landscape of beach volleyball, with the staff that we hire, the fans, the facilities, the locker rooms, the media attention, social content, TV,' said 23-year Texas indoors coach Jerritt Elliott, who will serve as director of volleyball operations, overseeing both programs." That sounds very much like he'll have hiring/firing authority, and that Metzger will report to Elliott, and then Elliott reports to CDC. Obviously it doesn't work exactly like that in any organization, but org charts matter, and this one has Elliott as the boss. I imagine it's a good way to give Elliott a raise, too.
  24. He's in the friggin' UCLA Hall of Fame. He's their only coach for beach volleyball. This is just rubbing our athletic department nutsack all over UCLA's face. I bet UCLA cannot wait to get into the Big 10 to get a huge infusion of cash.
  25. Well, maybe not completely sad. Having air cover by not being directly responsible for that hire is what helped keep Dodds in the job for so long. It's a good strategy, frankly. Everyone knows that was Eltife's guy, and he's owned up to it. And CDC's hands were tied with the Terry hiring. Anyway, the point is I agree with you completely. The dude goes after his person and gets them. It reminds me of Darrel Royal and the stories I heard Gustafson and Reese tell me about their hiring process. I love it. I'm very grateful that he's our AD.
×
×
  • Create New...