I found it curious all the talk and criticism of Trump's defense secretary, Pete Hegseth over the last few weeks, and reporting that he was not experienced enough. Apparently:
- 13 years military service, postion of Major in the army, special forces in Afganistan, then "journalist" and whatever else but it isn't good enough.
Because I thought there are few (senior) federal Australian MPs or Senators who have military service experience, independants Jackie Lambie and Andrew Wilke and former defence minister Andrew Hastie being vocal exceptions. And so Australia's current equivalent, Richard Marles' experience is apparently:
- 5 years as industrial lawyer, then 13 years as official for trade unions, then Federal politician since 2007, appointed as dept PM and defense minister in 2022
Or the UK (had to google that one) - apparently MP John Healey
- Journalist, then head of communications for trade unions and MP since 1997. Seems to have had just about every random portfolio, before becoming shadow Defence Minister in 2020 and defence minister after that.
I's dunno. Maybe it is fair criticism of Trump's pick, but you'd have to wonder why the same (or more) isn't said elsewhere.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
I found it curious all the talk and criticism of Trump's defense secretary, Pete Hegseth over the last few weeks, and reporting that he was not experienced enough. Apparently:
- 13 years military service, postion of Major in the army, special forces in Afganistan, then "journalist" and whatever else but it isn't good enough.
Because I thought there are few (senior) federal Australian MPs or Senators who have military service experience, independants Jackie Lambie and Andrew Wilke and former defence minister Andrew Hastie being vocal exceptions. And so Australia's current equivalent, Richard Marles' experience is apparently:
- 5 years as industrial lawyer, then 13 years as official for trade unions, then Federal politician since 2007, appointed as dept PM and defense minister in 2022
Or the UK (had to google that one) - apparently MP John Healey
- Journalist, then head of communications for trade unions and MP since 1997. Seems to have had just about every random portfolio, before becoming shadow Defence Minister in 2020 and defence minister after that.
I's dunno. Maybe it is fair criticism of Trump's pick, but you'd have to wonder why the same (or more) isn't said elsewhere.
They would have to be an enormous amount of pressure on Trump to continue as normal with regard to defence.
It is a massive industry. Can't see him employing someone who wants to shut it down. They've been killing foreigners and stealing their resources for over a century.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
I found it curious all the talk and criticism of Trump's defense secretary, Pete Hegseth over the last few weeks, and reporting that he was not experienced enough. Apparently:
- 13 years military service, postion of Major in the army, special forces in Afganistan, then "journalist" and whatever else but it isn't good enough.
Because I thought there are few (senior) federal Australian MPs or Senators who have military service experience, independants Jackie Lambie and Andrew Wilke and former defence minister Andrew Hastie being vocal exceptions. And so Australia's current equivalent, Richard Marles' experience is apparently:
- 5 years as industrial lawyer, then 13 years as official for trade unions, then Federal politician since 2007, appointed as dept PM and defense minister in 2022
Or the UK (had to google that one) - apparently MP John Healey
- Journalist, then head of communications for trade unions and MP since 1997. Seems to have had just about every random portfolio, before becoming shadow Defence Minister in 2020 and defence minister after that.
I's dunno. Maybe it is fair criticism of Trump's pick, but you'd have to wonder why the same (or more) isn't said elsewhere.
They would have to be an enormous amount of pressure on Trump to continue as normal with regard to defence.
It is a massive industry. Can't see him employing someone who wants to shut it down. They've been killing foreigners and stealing their resources for over a century.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
I found it curious all the talk and criticism of Trump's defense secretary, Pete Hegseth over the last few weeks, and reporting that he was not experienced enough. Apparently:
- 13 years military service, postion of Major in the army, special forces in Afganistan, then "journalist" and whatever else but it isn't good enough.
Because I thought there are few (senior) federal Australian MPs or Senators who have military service experience, independants Jackie Lambie and Andrew Wilke and former defence minister Andrew Hastie being vocal exceptions. And so Australia's current equivalent, Richard Marles' experience is apparently:
- 5 years as industrial lawyer, then 13 years as official for trade unions, then Federal politician since 2007, appointed as dept PM and defense minister in 2022
Or the UK (had to google that one) - apparently MP John Healey
- Journalist, then head of communications for trade unions and MP since 1997. Seems to have had just about every random portfolio, before becoming shadow Defence Minister in 2020 and defence minister after that.
I's dunno. Maybe it is fair criticism of Trump's pick, but you'd have to wonder why the same (or more) isn't said elsewhere.
The criticism I read against was more about the fact that his first act in office, was asking officials to investigate Gen Mark Milley who served as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff during Trumps his first term. Gen Milley then went on to call Trump a fascist. The Pentagon has now striped him of US security detail and clearance.
I don't know much about Gen Mark Milley, but on the surface it does appear to be a low and petty act of revenge.
www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3jd798kpzo
Another criticism is that he seems more concerned with fighting the perceived enemy within the U.S. rather than preparing US forces to overpower the nation's foreign enemies.
According to the article below, he's a misogynist, racist wife beater. Ouch!
www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-hegseth-woke-democracy-military-dei/
How the hell is he going to imprison 300,000 illegal immigrants at Guantonomo Bay???
Select to expand quote
Good luck to RFK Jr, but I think it's going to be harder than he thinks:
reflector-online.com/28000/news/obamas-healthy-hunger-free-kids-act-14-years-later/
I just can't wait for the liability protection to be removed from vaccine manufacturers.
Without this shield they will pay more in injury compensation than what they can possibly make in sales.
Hope no one has big pharma investments because it's going to freefall.
RFK should do a better job than this DEI woke hire that oversaw the DC crash disaster:
x.com/RealJessica05/status/1885015214166258138
This may explain the hostility and hysterical behaviour of certain senators in the RFK confirmation hearings:
Select to expand quote
Be careful there msn,
The first is a news article, the second an opinion piece. So long as the two things aren't confused up we should be all good.
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..
RFK should do a better job than this DEI woke hire that oversaw the DC crash disaster:
x.com/RealJessica05/status/1885015214166258138
Not sure who the video is of, but Michael Whitaker was the administrator of the FAA from 2023 to January 20th 2025.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Whitaker_(government_official)
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
Be careful there msn,
The first is a news article, the second an opinion piece. So long as the two things aren't confused up we should be all good.
Sorry to be a pedant, but aren't we discussing 'criticism of Trump's defense secretary, Pete Hegseth'?
When is a criticism not an opinion?
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..
RFK should do a better job than this DEI woke hire that oversaw the DC crash disaster:
x.com/RealJessica05/status/1885015214166258138
As far as I can tell, the person being interviewed was Keith Washington, who was appointed as the head of HR at the FAA. How dare Biden appoint someone to do the touchy freely people stuff at the FAA who was not as familiar as a pilot with the weight of an airplane at lift off. If he didn't know everything a pilot should know, how could he possibly do the annual reviews of a bunch of air traffic controllers? The audacity of the Biden administration is mind boggling.Let's go Brandon!!!
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..
Sorry to be a pedant, but aren't we discussing 'criticism of Trump's defense secretary, Pete Hegseth'?
When is a criticism not an opinion?
Objection sustained.
Comment withdrawn.
Select to expand quotephiln said..
As far as I can tell, the person being interviewed was Keith Washington, who was appointed as the head of HR at the FAA. How dare Biden appoint someone to do the touchy freely people stuff at the FAA who was not as familiar as a pilot with the weight of an airplane at lift off. If he didn't know everything a pilot should know, how could he possibly do the annual reviews of a bunch of air traffic controllers? The audacity of the Biden administration is mind boggling.Let's go Brandon!!!
Problem there, philn, is that you are letting the truth get in the way of a good story. Pitchforks don't much care for the truth.
I've listened to RFK talking on numerous podcasts and interviews. Read his Fauci book as soon as it was available. The man is dedicated to what he does. He has a remarkable record pulling polluters into line.
With regard to the pharma industry he has stated on numerous occasions that all he wants them to do is to undergo scientific trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of their products. For some reason this has got them in a remarkable tizz.
The immunity from litigation they've had since Reagan is obviously precious to them!
Select to expand quoteBrent in Qld said..
I can't believe you guys quote science in one post and claim life starts at birth in another. Its astonishing
When does life start, or end, for that matter? Questions loaded with raw emotion, age old dogma and scientific observations to consider.
Time for Philosophical Friday?
Found some heavyweight thoughts aimed at answering a big question What is life? Have a good weekend Breezers.
Dostoevsky: It's hell.To Dostoevsky, life was a battle with the darkest parts of the human soul-a crucible of suffering where we confront our deepest fears and desires.
Socrates: It's a test. Life is the ultimate examination of virtue, wisdom, and truth. For Socrates, an unexamined life is not worth living.
Aristotle: It's the mind.Life is the pursuit of knowledge and reason-a journey to understand the world through logic, ethics, and metaphysics.
Nietzsche: It's power.Life is the will to power-a striving for self-overcoming and mastery of circumstances, rejecting complacency and embracing growth.
Freud: It's death. Freud saw life as a tension between the life instinct (Eros) and the death instinct (Thanatos)-a constant drive toward creation and destruction.
Marx: It's the idea. For Marx, life is shaped by material conditions and the ideologies that arise from them-a struggle to create a world of equality and justice.
Picasso: It's art. Life is creation-a canvas for painting our passions, emotions, and dreams, shaped by imagination and expression.
Gandhi: It's love. Gandhi believed life is rooted in nonviolence, compassion, and universal love-a journey toward peace and selfless service.
Schopenhauer: It's suffering.For Schopenhauer, life is ceaseless striving that inevitably leads to pain and dissatisfaction, tempered only by moments of beauty and art.
Bertrand Russell: It's competition. Life is shaped by human desires and ambitions-a balancing act between self-interest and collective progress.
Steve Jobs: It's faith. Life is trusting the process-taking risks and following intuition, even when the road ahead is unclear.
Einstein: It's knowledge.Einstein saw life as a quest to understand the universe's mysteries, driven by curiosity and awe.
Stephen Hawking: It's hope. Life is perseverance in the face of adversity-a belief in the future and the power of human ingenuity.
Kafka: It's just the beginning. Life is surreal and enigmatic, often absurd, yet always opening doors to transformation and possibility.
Camus: It's rebellion. Life is finding meaning in a meaningless universe, defying absurdity with courage and passion.
Thoreau: It's simplicity. Life is stripping away the unnecessary-embracing nature and living deliberately.
Rumi: It's a dance. Life is a spiritual journey-a rhythm of love and divine connection woven into every moment.
Kierkegaard: It's a leap of faith. Life requires embracing uncertainty and taking bold steps grounded in belief and authenticity.
Epicurus: It's pleasure. Life is about maximizing simple, lasting pleasures while minimizing unnecessary pain.
Laozi: It's harmony. Life flows like water-effortless and aligned with the natural order of the universe.
Confucius: It's virtue. Life is fulfilling roles with integrity, respect, and commitment to community and family.
Carl Jung: It's individuation. Life is integrating the conscious and unconscious-becoming whole and authentic.
Alan Watts: It's a game. Life is to be experienced and played with wonder-not taken too seriously.
Victor Frankl: It's meaning. Life is finding purpose, even in the most difficult circumstances, through love and service.
Simone de Beauvoir: It's freedom. Life is the power to define yourself and reject roles imposed by society.
Heraclitus: It's change. Life is constant flux-a river we step into once before it flows anew.
Hegel: It's progress. Life is a dialectical process, advancing through contradiction and resolution toward greater understanding.
Hobbes: It's survival. Life in its natural state is "nasty, brutish, and short," requiring systems to maintain order.
Rousseau: It's freedom in nature. Life is most authentic when we return to our natural state, free from societal corruption.
Marcus Aurelius: It's acceptance. Life is embracing the present moment with stoic resolve, guided by reason and virtue.
Seneca: It's preparation for death. Life is not about its length but its quality-teaching us to live well and let go gracefully.
Most of this isn't about LIFE, it's about human values.
When you ask, when does life start, you really mean, when does a fetus become a human.
The cells that make up the fetus are always alive. After all we can say the fetus died, after only a few hours.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
I can't believe you guys quote science in one post and claim life starts at birth in another. Its astonishing
Who actually said that? I think you would be flat out finding one person that says that.
Is there anyone you can remember that said that?
I for one think it starts at conception, but you could probably argue it starts even before then, it just doesn't become a particular group of cells until then. If your definition includes a cell that can move, does it include eggs and sperm?
But what does it matter? I guess it depends if you think it is more than a clump of cells.
I think I went down this stupid area before, but do you value people as having different values at different ages? Is a 1 year old more important than a 2 year old? Vice-versa?
Is a 2 day old embryo more important than a 15 year old child?
Is a 2 day old embryo aware that it exists? Is a 15 year old child aware that anyone else exists?
^^^ don't encourage the twit. He's NQR. We've been there and done the topic. Cammd lost the argument - as usual.
Select to expand quotejapie said..
I've listened to RFK talking on numerous podcasts and interviews. Read his Fauci book as soon as it was available. The man is dedicated to what he does. He has a remarkable record pulling polluters into line.
With regard to the pharma industry he has stated on numerous occasions that all he wants them to do is to undergo scientific trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of their products. For some reason this has got them in a remarkable tizz.
The immunity from litigation they've had since Reagan is obviously precious to them!
Really? Which products does he think haven't had safety trials?
Will he all of a sudden accept the evidence of these safety trials? (Because he has been remarkably resistant to accepting evidence that contradicts his view)
Will he withdraw from or at least honestly declare his conflicts of interest? Eg. Stop receiving money from his presidential campaign fund-raising that is attacking vaccines? Or sales of CHD league antivaccine merchandise?
Regarding the possibility of litigation against vaccine and pharmaceutical companies? Do you think it's appropriate that the person responsible for Ensuring the proper regulation of an industry is able to then profit from taking litigation action against that industry?
Select to expand quoteBrent in Qld said..
When does life start, or end, for that matter? Questions loaded with raw emotion, age old dogma and scientific observations to consider.
Life starts at 1 and finishes at 2
Unless your into binary and then i think it just keeps going forever
(You can add me to the fancy pants philosopher list now )
Pps. Did anyone else think he was sitting on a toilet ?
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
Most of this isn't about LIFE, it's about human values.
When you ask, when does life start, you really mean, when does a fetus become a human.
The cells that make up the fetus are always alive. After all we can say the fetus died, after only a few hours.
I won't go on because the argument has been already done and dusted.
However, as I said I find it astonishing that otherwise thoughtful intelligent people can quote science as a means to ridicule another opinion they regard as irrational and then at the same time be just as irrational. The post I replied to by brent prompted the astonishment.
To demonstrate my point, you ask when does a fetus become human. That's like asking when does a infant become human. Both infant and fetus describe a stage of life not a type of life. That's basic science and your values are interfering to twist your understanding.
So when someone quotes science to prove a point but ignores science to dismiss another I find it astonishing.
For the record abortion up to birth is legal in all states of Australia now and if you have a late abortion you can get a 4000 payment by the Albanese government. I think that's heinous.
I think its a heinous crime that really late aborting a 15 year old on an electric motorbike doing wheelies and burnouts on a footpath gets you 25 to life
Bring back the bounty system you get $50 per a fetus and another $50 for every centimeter of length of a rattail haircut
Select to expand quoteD3 said..japie said..
I've listened to RFK talking on numerous podcasts and interviews. Read his Fauci book as soon as it was available. The man is dedicated to what he does. He has a remarkable record pulling polluters into line.
With regard to the pharma industry he has stated on numerous occasions that all he wants them to do is to undergo scientific trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of their products. For some reason this has got them in a remarkable tizz.
The immunity from litigation they've had since Reagan is obviously precious to them!
Really? Which products does he think haven't had safety trials?
Will he all of a sudden accept the evidence of these safety trials? (Because he has been remarkably resistant to accepting evidence that contradicts his view)
Will he withdraw from or at least honestly declare his conflicts of interest? Eg. Stop receiving money from his presidential campaign fund-raising that is attacking vaccines? Or sales of CHD league antivaccine merchandise?
Regarding the possibility of litigation against vaccine and pharmaceutical companies? Do you think it's appropriate that the person responsible for Ensuring the proper regulation of an industry is able to then profit from taking litigation action against that industry?
x.com/drbentapper1/status/1857853410428731721?s=46
Have you read The Real Anthony Fauci yet?
No, I have not. But I have read some of the excerpts you have posted previously and found either logical flaws, blatant lies or wilful ignorance instead of well reasoned accusations, arguments, or opinions based of solid evidence.
But do feel free to explain to us how you think RFK Juniors confirmation as head of HHS is going to improve health of all Americans?
