From Around the Blogroll

From Deanna Fisher of the Victory Girls, we learn that the killer in the Isla Vista murders, Elliot Rodger, 22, the son of a Hollywood assistant producer, was an “incel,” or involuntary celibate. He was (apparently) still a virgin, and was horribly frustrated by the fact that none of the girls in which he was interested was even slightly interested in him. He said, “All those girls that I’ve desired so much, they would’ve all rejected me and looked down upon me as an inferior man if I ever made a sexual advance towards them while they throw themselves at these obnoxious brutes.” Sounds like he never even tried, and knew that the girls he wanted so badly were just plain out of his league, so he snapped and decided to kill them all. And Donald Douglas reported that the police have found three more bodies in his apartment.

Phineas Fahrquar, writing on Sister Toldjah, noted what we’ve all known for a long time: President Obama is simply not up to his job. We give the biggest executive job in the world to a guy who’d never run so much as a lemonade stand, and people are actually surprised that he can’t run the government? In the 2008 election, the candidate with the most executive experience was Sarah Palin, with 1½ years as Governor and 6 years as mayor of a town of 7,80 people.

Patterico has two stories on L.A. Superior Court judicial candidate Songhai “Sunny” Armstead, who is trying to scrub the internet of videos in which she tells black supporters to vote for her because she is black. The left don’t seem too terribly interested in this, but just imagine their reaction if a white candidate had told white supporters to vote for him because he’s white.

William Teach of The Pirate’s Cove noted the AP report that energy prices are expected to rise,

(A)s coal-fired plants, the dominant source of cheap power, shut down in response to environmental regulations and economic forces.

New and tighter pollution rules and tough competition from cleaner sources such as natural gas, wind and solar will lead to the closings of dozens of coal-burning plants across 20 states over the next three years. And many of those that stay open will need expensive retrofits.

President Obama sure loves poor people, so much so that he’s trying to create more of them!

A retweet from Gretchen:

 

Gretchen and I both know of a lady, then a housewife, who wanted to buy a car, so she got the only job she could, at McDonald’s. But what she had was stick-to-it-ivness, and she did something really radical: she came to work, on time, every day, and it wasn’t long before she was promoted, then promoted again, and the last I knew, she was a regional manager for the chain.

Jeff Goldstein suggested that the fifty Democrat senators who objected to the Washington Redskins team name ought to scrape together a billion dollars and buy the team from Daniel Snyder, and then they can change the name to whatever they wish. My first thought was that fifty Democrats running a National Football League team would quickly run it into the ground, but quickly realized that Mr Snyder has already done that! Besides, asking Democratic senators to raise money to buy something really means asking them to raid the Treasury.

L D Jackson writes about a New York state abortion bill. He is displeased.

Karen, the lonely Conservative, noted Senator Jay Rockefeller’s assertion that anyone opposed to President Obama must be a racist. The Democrats really can’t defend the President’s record, 5½ years of abject failure, so all that they have left is the race card. Of course, we saw that here when our now-banned former commenter continually accused us of the same thing. Apparently, judging a man on his actual performance is racism, while mindlessly supporting him based on the color of his skin is not.

Hube was amused by one professor’s “trigger warnings.”

Robert Stacey Stacy McCain notes the self-destructiveness of feminism. In their selfish promotion of childlessness, they are pushing their own extinction.

And finally, on Truth Before Dishonor, John Hitchcock points out that the acceptance of homosexuality has a really bad ending.

Happy Memorial Day weekend from The First Street Journal, and try to remember that the real meaning of Memorial Day isn’t picnics and barbecues, but remembering the brave men and women who gave their lives so that we would be free on this day.

We told you so! The VA scandal doesn’t surprise us.

From the much better-looking Dana on Patterico’s Pontifications:

A Memorial Day Slap In The Face
Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:20 am

Just a few days before Memorial Day and in the midst of the growing VA scandal, Senate Democrats blocked a bill (VA Management Accountability Act, H.R.4031) that would have made it easier to cut through bureaucratic red tape and fire VA employees, as well as hold the department more accountable.

Take heart, though, because President Obama is madder than hell about the scandal.

In the meantime, the Weekly Standard notes,

The director of the Phoenix VA hospital received an $8,500 pay bonus last month even as allegations of 40 deaths resulting from excessive wait times for care were being investigated. Sharon Helman, the director of the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Health Care System, “got an $8,500 bonus last month while there was an open [inspector general] investigation into Phoenix,” Chairman Miller told CNN’s Jake Tapper in an interview Wednesday. It had been previously reported that Helman received more than $9,000 in bonus pay in 2013 on top of her annual salary of $169,900. The VA office of inspector general began investigating the Phoenix VA for wrongdoing in December 2013, months before Helman received the additional $8,500 bonus.

And an update:

The VA announced this afternoon: “Secretary Shinseki today exercised his authority to rescind Sharon Helman’s fiscal year 2013 performance award immediately. Previously, Ms. Helman received the performance award due to an administrative error.”

Those darn administrative errors!

More at the link. But Dana refers us to The Wall Street Journal, where James Taranto noted how the left, including Nobel laureate Paul Krugman waxed effusive on the grandeur of the Veterans Administration health care system.

Of course, we have the left, this time in the guise of the Progressive Populist on the Delaware Liberal, trying to defend the VA and blame Evil Republicans:

The current uproar over wait times and probable malfeasance and maybe criminal cover ups at some VA facilities being investigated has caused a call for privatization of the VA health system. This demand is mostly heard from teabagger Republicans in Congress.

Some want the VA chief’s head on a platter. Have you really looked at our private health system in the U.S.? If you have, you’d not be calling for this absurd “solution” to current scheduling and service demand issues.

These same clowns were huge supporters of an unfunded war in Iraq and the travesty in Afghanistan which caused demand for healthcare services to increase from 400,000 to 918,000 veterans, just during President Obama’s tenure as our commander in chief. They’ve chosen to ignore possible funding needs at the VA just as they chose to ignore paying for Iraq. Now it’s coming back to haunt them. Or more correctly, haunt our recent veterans and their families who deserve the best our nation has to give.

True, President Obama has succeeded in shoehorning in a 50% VA budget increase, but not without a bloody, shitstorm fight with the congressional teabagger Republicans. I am not arguing for a one to one increase in the VA budget based on this lopsided demand growth curve. I am arguing that budget may play a role and must be at the center of solutions discussions.

Well, yes, I’ve really looked at our private health system in the United States, because I’m an American citizen who uses that private health system, and I’ve never experienced delays like those being reported in the VA system.    When I’ve had to call for an appointment with my gastroenterologist, I’ve never had to wait more than a couple of days.   When I’ve wanted an appointment with my ophthalmologist, I’ve always gotten one quickly.

But, let’s be honest here: this is a scandal only because it was revealed publicly: it was wholly intentional and a necessary part of socialized, single-payer medical care. In the United Kingdom, a former National Health Service director died after waiting for nine months for an operation, at her own hospital, after her surgical appointments had been previously cancelled by the NHS four times!

The VA Hospital story was no surprise to me at all, because we had been documenting how socialized medicine and single-payer health care systems work on the old Common Sense Political Thought.

Remember this story, from the BBC?

Hospitals told to delay treatment
Hospitals in the South East are being told to delay routine patient appointments for eight weeks, otherwise they will not be paid for them.

The minimum period is being enforced by primary care trusts because a drive to meet government waiting time targets was costing too much money.

Hospital consultants and GPs in Kent and West Sussex said being told not to see patients was “unethical”.

NHS South East Coast said it had to “live within its means”.

The strategic health authority (SHA) – which covers all hospital and primary care trusts in Kent, Surrey and Sussex – said its forecast deficit for the current financial year was £104m.

A letter sent to all the trust chief executives said routine patients should not be seen “too promptly”.

More at the link.

Everywhere you look, countries which have socialized medicine or single-payer health care systems are having to cut costs, to control expenditures, and delaying appointments is a very common way of doing this: if appointments are stretched out, the individual patient will wind up with fewer total appointments over a given period of time, and some will not make their appointments at all, out of forgetfulness, out of disgust, or just plain because some of them died before their health care appointments. What the Veterans Administration was doing was exactly the same thing as Britain’s National Health System, and as Canada’s single-payer system does!

The Progressive Populist complained that, well, maybe there aren’t enough people in the VA system with real hospital administration experience, trying to blame some of the inefficiencies on having too many former military men in positions of authority, but what the VA did was the same as other socialized health care do, just the same as those experienced hospital administrators do in overseas single-payer systems.  Of course, we can’t allow that here, so the VA had to create phony appointment calendars to hide the truth, and that’s where they got caught, but they were doing what they had to do.

And it even worked! The 40 veterans who dies while waiting for appointments at the Phoenix Veterans Administration hospital saved the government money by dying before their appointments!  That’s a pretty calloused and hard-hearted way to put it, but I put it that way intentionally, because it is the truth.1

This is not a new story. From CNN:

Veterans dying because of health care delays
By Scott Bronstein, Nelli Black, and Drew Griffin, CNN Investigations | updated 9:34 PM EST, Thu January 30, 2014

(CNN) — U.S. veterans are dying because of delays in diagnosis and treatment at VA hospitals.

At least 19 veterans have died because of delays in simple medical screenings like colonoscopies or endoscopies, at various VA hospitals or clinics, CNN has learned.

That’s according to an internal document from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, obtained exclusively by CNN, that deals with patients diagnosed with cancer in 2010 and 2011.

Hospital delays are killing war vets

The veterans were part of 82 vets who have died or are dying or have suffered serious injuries as a result of delayed diagnosis or treatment for colonoscopies or endoscopies.

Barry Coates is one of the veterans who has suffered from a delay in care. Coates was having excruciating pain and rectal bleeding in 2011. For a year the Army veteran went to several VA clinics and hospitals in South Carolina, trying to get help. But the VA’s diagnosis was hemorrhoids, and aside from simple pain medication he was told he might need a colonoscopy.

More at the link, but note the date: that story was published in January.

As it happens, I’ve had to have a couple of colonoscopies myself, and I’ve never had to wait weeks or months. Such procedures have a one or two day “clean-out” waiting period, but that’s it. But, then again, I have my health care paid for by private insurance, and I’ve used doctors who are in business to make money.

What we have is a “scandal” because Americans are used to the prompt and professional care we get from the private-pay, for profit medical system, and then a whole bunch of people are shocked, shocked! to find out that the speed and quality of care in that system is not replicated in the single-payer, non-profit Veterans’ Administration Hospitals system. I would have been shocked if it was as good as the private system.  And the closer we get to single-payer, something I’ve said many times is the ultimate goal of the Democrats, the more openly we’ll see, for everybody, what we have seen in the VA scandal: deliberately downgraded speed and quality of care designed to save money.
________________________________

  1. PolitiFact called the “Death Panels” assertions of Republicans, primarily Sarah Palin, during the debates on the Patient Protection and Affordable care Act the “Lie of the Year” for 2009, but it seems that the VA Hospital’s dual appointment books get pretty close to qualifying as “death panels.” It seems that Mrs Palin was right all along.

Hugely important question!

I changed the oil and oil filter in my daughter’s car today? Now, does this make me a good daddy, or a cisheteronormative patriarchist oppressor?

Economics 101: The left love themselves some failed policies

October 29, 1975

Remember that famous headline? From The Wall Street Journal:

Taking New York Back to the Bad Old Days
For the first time since the near-bankruptcy of the 1970s, the city will borrow to pay for new obligations.
By Fred Siegel and Nicole Gelinas | May 20, 2014 6:37 p.m. ET

Who should worry the most about New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s inaugural budget? Liberals and progressives. Mr. de Blasio is the first New York mayor in two decades to hail from the left, which makes him the face of a new progressivism in America. If the public sees that the mayor’s new $73.9 billion budget for fiscal 2015, which starts in July, is not only imprudent but improper from an accounting perspective, voters’ fears about unbridled liberalism will be ratified.

Since the city’s recovery from the 1975 fiscal crisis, mayors and the media have treated the city’s budget-day announcement as a sober technocratic event. Mayor de Blasio, by contrast, used his annual unveiling of the city’s revenue and spending blueprint on May 8 as a campaign-style opportunity to push what he himself called a “progressive” agenda. The budget adds money to enforce the city’s new mandated sick-leave law for private employers, and it spends more for public housing and education. But the most controversial and fiscally explosive portion offers retroactive pay raises to the city’s teachers and, later, raises for other city employees at a projected added cost of $9 billion over four years.

The mayor calls his budget “historic” and “transcendent.” Indeed, for the first time since New York recovered from its near-bankruptcy of the 1970s, the city is willing explicitly to spend beyond its means to buy labor peace. The new teachers’ contract, including $4.3 billion in retroactive pay raises back to 2009, is the acute example.

The United Federation of Teachers did well financially under Mayor Mike Bloomberg, with average pay up 43% over the first eight years of his tenure, beginning in 2002. But after Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008, Mr. Bloomberg made clear that New York, facing multibillion-dollar deficits, could not afford to give teachers 4% raises in 2009 and 2010, as the city had already given to the rest of the workforce.

More at the link.

New York City had it’s financial crisis in 1975, earlier than most, but, then again, it was American’s largest city, so being first in the budget crunch seems right. Even the liberal journal, The Nation, recently documented what happened, what had to happen, to get New York back on its financial feet. They criticized:

Only a month after Ford’s October speech, after a barrage of criticism from such elite figures as the chairman of Con Edison, the president of the Bank of America and the chancellor of West Germany, the administration reversed its position and agreed to extend loans to New York on the condition that the city continue to move toward a balanced budget. Nonetheless, the fact that Ford had been willing to let New York go broke signaled that ideological purity trumped all other concerns for the rising right. Teaching a lesson about the dangers of the welfare state seemed more important than international prestige, Cold War concerns or even the possible economic impact of the city’s default (Ford’s treasury secretary, William Simon, a former municipal bond trader and future president of the Olin Foundation, insisted that New York’s bankruptcy would likely not have a significant effect even on the municipal bond market).

Emphasis mine. The author, Kim Phillips-Fein, wanted to blame the “ideological purity (which) trumped all other concerns for the rising right,” but in her final two paragraphs, she wound up telling a very unpleasant (for the left) truth:

In the artistic and intellectual circles of the left, there’s an undeniable nostalgia for New York in the ’70s—when CBGB opened its doors, working artists had lofts in SoHo, hip-hop was invented, and the Lower East Side became the home to a new musical and artistic scene. It might be easy to dismiss such feelings as the sentimental romanticism of a privileged generation that has grown used to traveling the subways without being anxious about crime—or just the appeal of a time when rent was cheap. But looking around the city today, saturated with money and starkly divided by wealth, the very bleakness of the ’70s seems a refuge, a time of possibility. The violence and brutality of a city in free fall was real. Yet in the literal bankruptcy of the political establishment, there was also a kind of freedom, a political and cultural openness; there was no need to pretend that everything was all right.

The 1970s—in New York and around the country—saw the dawning of a new era of austerity, as the earlier assumptions of economic growth faded. The contraction of the state also meant the shrinking of the social imagination. The stern dictums about the necessary limits of political dreams contrasted sharply with the new populist utopianism of the free market, where anything might be possible. We still live today in a society defined by these two poles: the harsh limits of the political sphere and the delusional boundlessness of the market. Although it wasn’t solely responsible for bringing the city into this new age, New York’s fiscal crisis marks the boundary between the past and the present we still live in today.

Note what Dr Phillips-Fein said: the liberal “utopia” of New York City in he seventies was one which paid for so many social programs, but in which “(t)he violence and brutality of a city in free fall was real,” and the bills couldn’t be paid. Now, after real, conservative austerity measures had been put in place, today’s New Yorkers have “grown used to traveling the subways without being anxious about crime,”1 and the city was, prior to Mayor de Blasio’s inauguration, fiscally sound and paying its own bills.

Well, now liberalism has been emboldened, and a few people like Mr de Blasio have been elected,2 and they are going to try to turn America from the successes of responsibility back to the failures of old-line liberal policies. Places like Detroit and Chicago and a whole host of smaller cities never got the message from the recovery of New York, and that’s why Detroit is bankrupt, and Chicago and foul, fetid, fuming, foggy, filthy Philadelphia are eaten up with violence and poverty and crime.

In the meantime, we have states like Texas, known for conservative government and low taxes, which are booming, which are creating jobs for the people, versus the states where the Democrats are entrenched in power, like California and Illinois, which have higher than the national average unemployment, high taxes, and productive people leaving the state. Nationally, we have suffered through a period of inordinate deficit spending, which highly educated economists and the Obama Administration told us would lead to a strong recovery and low unemployment, and we had fewer total jobs in America in April of 2014 than we did in April of 2008,3 while the national debt increased from $9,377,557,217,133.44 (on April 30, 2008) to $17,508,437,127,661.62 (on April 30, 2014), an increase of $8.310 trillion, an 86.7% increase, and it still hasn’t made a dent in the real unemployment rate. We have done nationally, throughout the entire Obama Administration, what Mayor de Blasio wants to do in New York, and it hasn’t worked!

You know, it would be great, absolutely great, if the liberals had been right. If being generous and providing support for those in poverty had really worked to get people out of poverty, this would be a wonderful country, and poverty would have been eliminated, because we have been doing exactly what the liberals wanted with anti-poverty programs for fifty years now. We still have poverty, just as much poverty, because the liberals were wrong. If using deficit spending to create jobs had really worked, we’d have low unemployment, because we’ve been blasting our economy with borrowed dollars, but we have fewer jobs today than six years ago, because the liberals were wrong.

So, Mayor de Blasio can do just what he wants, and start to fund New York City on borrowed money again, but there’s absolutely no reason, no reason at all, to think that New York will somehow get a different result from what they did decades ago, a different result from what Chicago and Detroit and Stockton have gotten.
__________________________

  1. Several years ago, 2009 I think, my younger daughter and I went to New York City on an architecture tour. My daughter wanted to see the Cathedral of St John the Divine. St John the Unfinished is on Amsterdam Avenue, between 110th and 113th Streets in the Morningside Heights neighborhood. Well, we missed our intended subway stop and got off north of that, at 125th Street, which is in Harlem. My daughter and I walked south (I think down Manhattan Avenue, but I’m not certain of that) to cross through Morningside Park over to St John’s. The street was clean, and we didn’t feel in the least bit at risk, because people like Mayors Rudolph Guiliani and Michael Bloomberg did something really radical, and cleaned up the city.
  2. Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania, the Democrats just nominated Tom Wolf to be their candidate for Governor, running against incumbent Republican Tom Corbett. Mr Corbett isn’t a flashy, and he’s not a terribly popular guy. But he inherited a budget soaring out of whack, and, with the help of a Republican-controlled state legislature, kept his promise by balanced the state budget by cutting spending, and without raising taxes, and that is exactly what a good governor ought to do. Mr Wolf wants to raise government spending again, and raise taxes on the very people who are doing the most in the way of creating jobs in the Commonwealth. Mr Wolf is a whole lot flashier than Governor Corbett, and he just might win, but his policies would take Pennsylvania back into spending more than we can afford and hurting our economy.
  3. April 2008: 146,132,000 jobs; April 2014: 145,699,000 jobs. In the meantime, the civilian non-institutionalizd population increased from 233,198,000 to 247,439,000. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

I am so ashamed.

My darling bride (of 35 years and 2 days) went to the polls yesterday, and decided to write in my name for the Jim Thorpe Democratic Committee.

I had pondered writing in my name for the Jim Thorpe Republican Committee — there were seven spots, and no one had filed to run — but didn’t.

Phony Anger

I understand the person occupying the Oval Office does have a staff for the many different hings that go on here and abroad. So, why is it, every bit of bad news happening in this Maladministration is found out in the Oval Office by reading the newspaper or watching the news???? This is truly MIND BOGGLING. How is it BO is the Last To Find OUT????

WATCH THIS.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/president-nothing-phony-anger-act/

Paul Krugman veers into the weeds again

From The New York Times:


Paul Krugman - New York Times Blog

 

Unemployment: It’s Not Personal

Matt O’Brien has an interesting if depressing piece on long-term unemployment, making the point that long-term unemployment is basically bad luck: if you got laid off in a bad economy, you have a hard time finding a new job, and the longer you stay unemployed the harder it becomes to find work.

Obviously I agree with this analysis – and I’d add that O’Brien’s results more or less decisively refute the alternative story, which is that the long-term unemployed are workers with a problem.

You can see how this story might work. Suppose that workers have some quality – sticktoitiveness, or something – that doesn’t show up in official skill measures but which potential employers can intuit. Then workers lacking this ineffable quality would tend to lose their jobs and have trouble getting new jobs; the difficulty the long-term unemployed have in job search would reflect their personal inadequacy.

Read between the lines of a lot of commentary on the unemployed – especially from those eager to slash benefits – and you’ll realize that something like this is the implicit underlying theory.

More at the link.

The last sentence is where the esteemed Dr Krugman starts to veer off into the weeds: he tries to say those of us who believe that government spending ought to be cut want to do so because we believe, inter alia, that the unemployed somehow deserve to be unemployed. It is that belief, almost certainly a genuine one on his part, that we wicked TEA Party conservatives want to punish the unemployed for being unemployable, but he’s wholly wrong.

Dr Krugman then tells us, in a single, though relatively long, paragraph, that the relationship between worker quality and unemployment isn’t really that strong in such a weak economy, and that’s not an argument with which I disagree; in this weak economy, there are man men who were good workers who are nevertheless unable to find new jobs. Then Dr Krugman concludes with a single paragraph:

In other words, it’s nothing personal; it’s the economy, stupid. And as O’Brien said, it’s one more reason failure to provide more stimulus is a crime against American workers.

The problem with that is we have already done that, and it didn’t work! The stimulus that the Nobel Prize laureate would like to see is more deficit spending, but even with the 2009 stimulus plan having run it’s course, we are still engaged in very heavy deficit spending, still importing money from abroad to spend in our economy. We have ballooned our national debt to a level which makes it difficult to see, honestly, how we will ever pay it off, and we still have fewer jobs today, 145,699,000 in April, than we did in April of 2008, 146,132,000. And in that time, we have gone from a national debt of $9,377,557,217,133.44 (on April 30, 2008) to $17,508,437,127,661.62 (on April 30, 2014), an increase of $8.310 trillion, an 86.7% increase, and it still hasn’t made a dent in the real unemployment rate. The official unemployment rate has declined, but not because more people have jobs; it has declined because so many people have stopped looking for jobs, and thus are not counted as being unemployed.

It would be nice if the left were actually right, if stimulus spending would create more jobs. In the scholarly journals and the learned papers, it all works out just so well, but it failed, and is continuing to fail, in real life.

But how can this be?

Your Editor spoke with John Hitchcock yesterday, and discovered something new. Mr Hitchcock, despite some smidgen of Indian in his ancestry, is as white a white man as there could be, mostly Irish, fair skinned and red haired. As as everyone who has read his work, on the now-defunct Common Sense Political Thought,1 on his own site, Truth Before Dishonor, and here, is aware, he is as conservative as conservative comes, TEA Party through and through.

According to the left, that means that he must, simply must, be a total racist, nativist, sexist and utter patriarchist. But, if you look at his Endorsements section on the right-hand sidebar of his site, you’ll see four listings, all from 2012:

  • (Sarah) Palin/ (Allen) West for President 2012
  • Ted Cruz for US Senate (Texas)
  • Jamie Radtke for US Senate (Virginia)
  • Mia Love for US House (Utah 4)

So, looking at that list, and those are the only four endorsements he has, I see

  • A white woman and black man;
  • A white Hispanic man;
  • A white woman; and
  • A black woman.

I’m trying to find the racism and sexism in that list, and can’t seem to find it!

But, of course, those are political endorsements, and who knows how nefarious those racist, sexist patriarchists can be in concealing their perfidy. Well, Mr Hitchcock has taken a further step to disguise his racism, because Jessica, his new girlfriend, isn’t white and she isn’t an American! How devious, how Machiavellian, how outrageous, the depths to which a Christian, white American conservative will sink to hide his cisheteronormative patriarchal makeup.
______________________________________
Cross-posted, in slightly different form, on Truth Before Dishonor
______________________________________

  1. CSPT is still available, maintained by your Editor for archival purposes only.

Rule 5 Blogging: United States Air Force

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Amanda Seyfriend in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude. Today: some of our pilots!

Captain Katherine Gaetke, F-16 pilot from the 523 Fighter Squadron, and Crew Chief Staff Sergeant Michael Brooks from the 524 Aircraft Maintenance Unit prepare to fly dissimilar aircraft training at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, December 4, 2006. (US Air Force photo by Airman First Class Christopher L. Ingersoll)

Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: United States Air Force’ »