Posting this a tad early but... It'll be Groundhogs day soon enough........
If you think 6 more weeks of winter is bad.........
Just think about 47 more months of Biden........
(11-06-2021, 08:52 PM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]Posting this a tad early but... It'll be Groundhogs day soon enough........
If you think 6 more weeks of winter is bad.........
Just think about 47 more months of Biden........
Suck it up snowflake.
Apparently Donna Deegan is going to formally announce her intentions of running for mayor. I don’t know…
All I can do is shake my head as the Marine Corps plans to reinvent itself and reflect society as it is today. I weep for this country.
Link
(11-12-2021, 09:21 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]All I can do is shake my head as the Marine Corps plans to reinvent itself and reflect society as it is today. I weep for this country.
Link
Better hope to deity they never have to line up for a bayonet charge.
Key areas for changes include:
· Recalibrating our enlisted personnel model to better balance recruiting and retention, in order to mature the force;
· Retooling how enlisted Marines are assigned to military occupational specialties (MOS) to align talents and potential with the needs of the Marine Corps;
· Developing return-to-service options for Marines who have left active duty and offering lateral entry opportunities for highly qualified candidates;
· Incorporating a talent marketplace to give individual Marines a say in the trajectory of their careers and commanders a voice in who join their staffs;
· Incorporating 360-degree feedback for those in leadership roles;
· Creating a board-selected staff officer track modeled after the acquisition officer pipeline;
· Digitizing the re-enlistment process to reduce obstacles to re-enlistment; and
· Adopting modern digital tools, analytics, and processes to improve the efficiency of the talent management system.
None of that seems outrageous to me. The Marines do have a serious problem with retention. As long as this isn't motivated in wokism, it's probably a bit overdue.
None of those sound bad, no. Some of them are necessary. One reason I didn't go Marine Corps was because they don't have medics, they use Navy corpsman. The other is they won't guarantee you get the MOS you want as long as you qualify for it on your ASVAB test scores. They literally put you where the Corps needs you. My nephew was lucky that they need embassy guards or he wouldn't have gotten that job.
Did those points come from the article? I think there was a way to download some of it but I can never find downloads on my Kindle so I didn't bother. I just know when I hear they want to reinvent themselves to reflect society as it is today I automatically think about all the woke PC crap.
No, I clicked the hyperlink to the commandant's plan. I highlighted their main points. However, I found the link to the actual document and it is worse than I thought initially. You can read it here:
https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/142...KOaA%3d%3d
Embassy duty is a special assignment. That can't be guaranteed, but, that's not true for most MOS's. As long as you qualify, they can be guaranteed. I was guaranteed my MOS as a network engineer. Basically, we built networks for backline deployment. I would have stayed in, but I sustained a leg injury and I was all but pushed out when it was time to re-enlist. This new plan looks like it places less emphasis on physical readiness where it's warranted, which would be good, but it also uses a LOT of woke language. They spent a lot of money to train me only to let me go because I had a commander that was running our unit like we were a bunch of grunts.
(11-13-2021, 11:09 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]No, I clicked the hyperlink to the commandant's plan. I highlighted their main points. However, I found the link to the actual document and it is worse than I thought initially. You can read it here:
https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/142...KOaA%3d%3d
Embassy duty is a special assignment. That can't be guaranteed, but, that's not true for most MOS's. As long as you qualify, they can be guaranteed. I was guaranteed my MOS as a network engineer. Basically, we built networks for backline deployment. I would have stayed in, but I sustained a leg injury and I was all but pushed out when it was time to re-enlist. This new plan looks like it places less emphasis on physical readiness where it's warranted, which would be good, but it also uses a LOT of woke language. They spent a lot of money to train me only to let me go because I had a commander that was running our unit like we were a bunch of grunts.
It reads like a bunch of flowery aspirational dreck. "Talent Management System" is just the newest term for a bureaucratic boondoggle that will serve to get some people promoted who developed the plan and will then fall by the wayside when manpower realities set in.
"We should have an open door for
exceptionally talented Americans who wish to join
the Marine Corps, allowing them to laterally enter
at a rank appropriate to their education, experience,
and ability."
I see this creating deep-seated discontent. Someone who's worked their way up through the ranks will suddenly be treating a boot as a peer, or even worse, a superior. Not to mention this "exceptionally talented American" will be inserted into a position with no experience in leadership, personnel management or administrative knowledge, all because they have a certificate. I can't imagine any person who has spent years developing the requisite experience and ability levels to qualify for this being young or willing enough to mold into a military mindset.
It's important to note that Generals and Admirals, who are approaching the ends of their military careers, are looking for employment as senior members in government and corporate boardrooms. This is exactly the kind of thing which sweetens their resumes. There is no doubt in my mind, whatsoever, that many flag officers are more than willing to leave their services struggling with the morass they created in order to vault themselves to good civilian employment.
Yup. Like I said, it's worse than I thought. This woke nonsense ruins everything. We're doomed.
(11-13-2021, 12:01 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]It's important to note that Generals and Admirals, who are approaching the ends of their military careers, are looking for employment as senior members in government and corporate boardrooms. This is exactly the kind of thing which sweetens their resumes. There is no doubt in my mind, whatsoever, that many flag officers are more than willing to leave their services struggling with the morass they created in order to vault themselves to good civilian employment.
This is a great point, btw. My dad and I were talking about this the other day.
Good grief. Watching the 60 Minutes story on the cargo ship/supply chain issue is crazy. Everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else from the cargo ship companies to the trucking industry to the ports to the railyards. A container of goods that cost $3K to ship to the US last year can cost $20-30K now. Ports charge tens of thousands of dollars in storage fees to companies who can't even access their shipping containers because they're buried under other containers. This one fellow was charge ONE MILLION DOLLARS for one month of storage alone for containers he couldn't even get to. His company couldn't absorb that cost so he had to raise prices on the goods.
I know we all want to blame the government but there are many villains in this story and we the people are paying for it.
It's still driven by the government. California policies are particularly egregious. The east coast is not having the same problems. Why not?
(11-14-2021, 08:59 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Good grief. Watching the 60 Minutes story on the cargo ship/supply chain issue is crazy. Everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else from the cargo ship companies to the trucking industry to the ports to the railyards. A container of goods that cost $3K to ship to the US last year can cost $20-30K now. Ports charge tens of thousands of dollars in storage fees to companies who can't even access their shipping containers because they're buried under other containers. This one fellow was charge ONE MILLION DOLLARS for one month of storage alone for containers he couldn't even get to. His company couldn't absorb that cost so he had to raise prices on the goods.
I know we all want to blame the government but there are many villains in this story and we the people are paying for it.
I watched it too. Another important point raised is that U.S. ports lag far behind Asian and European ports in terms of technology and efficiency. The reason being is U.S. ports are owned and operated by the cities in which they're located. That was somewhat of a surprise to me. I figured at a minimum they were run by the states with federal oversight.
(11-14-2021, 10:09 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]It's still driven by the government. California policies are particularly egregious. The east coast is not having the same problems. Why not?
Probably because of the huge amounts of imports arriving from Asia, mostly China. They're not going to use eastern ports because the one cost which dictates the profitability of shipping more than any other is fuel.
(11-14-2021, 10:12 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (11-14-2021, 08:59 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Good grief. Watching the 60 Minutes story on the cargo ship/supply chain issue is crazy. Everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else from the cargo ship companies to the trucking industry to the ports to the railyards. A container of goods that cost $3K to ship to the US last year can cost $20-30K now. Ports charge tens of thousands of dollars in storage fees to companies who can't even access their shipping containers because they're buried under other containers. This one fellow was charge ONE MILLION DOLLARS for one month of storage alone for containers he couldn't even get to. His company couldn't absorb that cost so he had to raise prices on the goods.
I know we all want to blame the government but there are many villains in this story and we the people are paying for it.
I watched it too. Another important point raised is that U.S. ports lag far behind Asian and European ports in terms of technology and efficiency. The reason being is U.S. ports are owned and operated by the cities in which they're located. That was somewhat of a surprise to me. I figured at a minimum they were run by the states with federal oversight.
(11-14-2021, 10:09 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]It's still driven by the government. California policies are particularly egregious. The east coast is not having the same problems. Why not?
Probably because of the huge amounts of imports arriving from Asia, mostly China. They're not going to use eastern ports because the one cost which dictates the profitability of shipping more than any other is fuel.
Fuel isn't a huge deal but does cost more. The fees for the canal passing is high. You have ships sitting there for a long time losing money instead of going to another port because they don't want that additional cost.
Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
(11-14-2021, 10:37 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (11-14-2021, 10:12 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I watched it too. Another important point raised is that U.S. ports lag far behind Asian and European ports in terms of technology and efficiency. The reason being is U.S. ports are owned and operated by the cities in which they're located. That was somewhat of a surprise to me. I figured at a minimum they were run by the states with federal oversight.
Probably because of the huge amounts of imports arriving from Asia, mostly China. They're not going to use eastern ports because the one cost which dictates the profitability of shipping more than any other is fuel.
Fuel isn't a huge deal but does cost more. The fees for the canal passing is high. You have ships sitting there for a long time losing money instead of going to another port because they don't want that additional cost.
Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
Fuel costs are absolutely a big deal and dictate the routes used.
Beta O’Rourke throwing his hat into the ring for governor of Texas. He gave Cruz a close race.
It will be an interesting race to determine just how purple Texas has become. Then again, Cruz’s close victory may have been a result of TDS.
(11-15-2021, 11:03 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (11-14-2021, 10:37 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]Fuel isn't a huge deal but does cost more. The fees for the canal passing is high. You have ships sitting there for a long time losing money instead of going to another port because they don't want that additional cost.
Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
Fuel costs are absolutely a big deal and dictate the routes used.
Not like you are thinking though. Normally yes they play a part but it's not a big factor right now. You have ships that are willing to sit indefinitely, not being paid, instead of going to unload to the on the east coast. They could be unloaded in 1-2 weeks instead of sitting there for who knows how long.
(11-15-2021, 02:15 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (11-15-2021, 11:03 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Fuel costs are absolutely a big deal and dictate the routes used.
Not like you are thinking though. Normally yes they play a part but it's not a big factor right now. You have ships that are willing to sit indefinitely, not being paid, instead of going to unload to the on the east coast. They could be unloaded in 1-2 weeks instead of sitting there for who knows how long.
Because the fuel expenditures wouldn’t be worth it.
