In Defense of Rebecca Lobach - 2/3/2025

Her name was Rebecca Lobach. She was 28 years old, and a Captain in the U.S. Army.

Army Captain Rebecca Lobach

If you're calling her "a DEI hire", you're an asshole. You don't know shit about her, do you? Rebecca graduated the University of North Carolina in the top 20% of all ROTC Cadets nationwide.

Rebecca Lobach in happier times.

Something else I've heard a lot of, is that "She only had 500 hours!" How exactly do you expect any military pilot to amass thousands of hours? Lemme give you a little inside info. They ALL had 500 hours at some point. All of them. There isn't some remote airport in Texas or New Mexico where military pilots fly until they get some magical number of hours and then move on to operational squadrons. There are Air Force, Navy, Army, and Marine Corps pilots with less than 500 hours all around the globe RIGHT NOW operating military aircraft, both in training and in operations. I flew with many myself. They've grown up to be retired airline pilots now, most of them, anyways.

"There she is with Biden! See! I told ya!" Proves what, asshole?

I have to imagine for Capt. Lobach it was an honor to represent the U.S. Army at presidential events. I don't know shit about Ft. Belvoir, but it's right there by D.C. and putting on a dress uniform and acting as a VIP escort is probably part of the package, a part any soldier would be proud of. It doesn't make her a partisan or loyalist to any party or President. It doesn't mean she wasn't, either. Hundreds, thousands actually, have been called to such duties as these. Is it possible woman and minorities are asked to do so on a more frequent basis for appearances sake? Probably so. Is that something beneficial to their careers? If they carry themself notably and professionally, I would think so. But to disparage a Captain in the U.S. Army because President Biden is in the picture is asinine. Don't be an ass. You can't help it, can you? Sad little person that you are.

Saying she did this intentionally without proof or evidence is dark-hearted and evil.

There are people saying "She had to have done this on purpose." No. Just no. Is it possible? I guess it can't be ruled out, but without any evidence of that at all, the allegation is wildly inappropriate and absurd.

I know it isn't much, but I felt compelled this morning to stick up for Rebecca Lobach. Until I hear different, I will assume she served honorably and faithfully. You may not be willing to give a soldier the benefit of the doubt, but I am.

Fair skies and following winds, Rebecca. Godspeed.

Dumbass of the Week, Mr. President, Take a Bow - 1-31-2025

President Trump is the Dumbass of the Week award for the week ending 1/31/2025. I had other plans, but Trump wins for having a press conference yesterday and discussing DEI in the wake of the inflight collision of an American Eagle CRJ-700 and a U.S. Army Blackhawk helicopter in Washington D.C. Wednesday night.

The Dumbass of the Week is Trump.

We do not know that there is any question about anybody involved's hiring, training, or proficiency.

He oughtn't be politicizing the accident at all, especially at a time when it's likely casualty notifications aren't even done yet.

Let the NTSB and FAA talk about what happened and why. How about, "It's a tragedy and we offer our prayers and support however we can to the victims. We appreciate the great work of the first responders. The NTSB will conduct a full investigation to determine the cause of the accident."

His remarks, in the wake of a tragedy, insult and undermine every competent woman and minority aviation professional, even if unintentionally. This is a huge unforced error, unfortunately something President Trump is prone to doing on a too regular basis.

Jumping on the DEI Grenade... Again - 1/30/2025

I know I shouldn't, but I'm going to say it. Some of you won't like some of what I have to say today. Others will, but won't like other stuff I'm going to say. But it has to be said. I'm going to try to speak in broad terms. Today's taboo topic: DEI hiring in aviation.

To begin with, I take endless pride in my affiliation with and having worked in aviation with minorities and women. I have had minority employees and women work for me, with me, and I have worked for them.

At the moment I am thinking about the Black pilots who earned my respect, admiration, and fondness:  my friendship. Of the things I take most pride in is the friendships and mutual respect. I'll leave last names out, but those of you who knew me on the job will know who I mean when I mention Leon, Tony, and Norm, and Edward. These are guys whose justification on the job I'd argue with anyone who said different. Professional in appearance, behavior, and performance. I put these guys at the top of my list. There was one very special guy, Larry. I have never met a finer example of a human being in my life. As a pilot, as a person, as a manager (he was my manager in the mid-90's), and as a friend, talking bad about him is going to get my dander up.

I could make the same kind of a list of women, too. For the sake of brevity, I will simply say that throughout my career, I have worked with, for, and had amazing female co-workers. Many of them were very successful working with me, and to be humble, I recognize how much their efforts and talents contributed to my own success.

Competence is gender neutral and colorblind. You either are or you aren't. When you hear that the controller was a woman or a minority, or that the helo pilot or CRJ pilot were a woman or a minority, and immediately holler, "DEI hire," you're badmouthing many thousands or aviation professionals without an inkling of knowledge of who it was. It's unfair and it's wrong. It's a mistake. Trump walked this walk today. It's disappointing and he ought to walk it back. Some will never let him live it down, but that's irrelevant. Walking it back is the right thing to do. Politicizing it is wrong.

Now, listen up. This is where it gets harder. There is a very valid concern out there that DEI hiring in safety sensitive jobs like pilot (civilian and military) and air traffic controller has diminished safety margins. Anytime hiring criteria, training and qualification standards, and or job performance requirements are lowered or ignored in the interest of improving percentages of women and minorities in these kinds of jobs (I presume to mean aircraft maintenance, too), there is a very real downstream risk of increasing the odds of an accident or incident. I have had, personally, pilots who I trust and who I do not believe to be racist, when they learn my background in compliance and Safety Management Systems, tell me that hiring, training, qualification, and standards at the airlines where they were have been compromised in the interest of improvement workforce representation and diversity. They told me NOT because they had a gender or color problem, but because they saw a potential downstream safety of flight issue. I do NOT support ethnicity, race, or gender based hiring if standards in a safety sensitive job have to be lowered to meet quotas. If there are more than ample fully qualified, highly competitive candidates, then and only then do I support letting race or gender influence the hiring decision to achieve a workforce that better represents the population.

Acknowledging the foregoing, it is not possible to presume when there has been an accident like last night, should we find the pilots or controller to be Black, Hispanic, female, etc., that DEI hiring was the cause. Neither can you rule it out, but blaming DEI without knowing those aviator and controller records for training, qualification, and job performance just because you have been told DEI hiring has impacted those workgroups is an egregious error of presumption.

Even when standards have been lowered, that does not rightfully make every woman and minority a suspect for being a substandard pilot or controller, you dumbass. You do realize that even with lower standards, it is still possible that the woman or minority in question finished at the top of their peer group in training? If we lower the passing score (making this up) from 90 to 85, and the person involved scored a 96, how in the f*ck are you blaming the lowered minimum score? If, on the other hand, the person scored an 83, two points below the lower minimum standard, and 7 points below the old standard, but they were pushed along anyway, justification for lowering the standard and hiring below the standard should be scrutinized. Clearly.

If we find out one or some of these folks were only hired by compromising standards, were only successful in training because someone let a marginal trainee slip through, or that their performance was known to be substandard and they weren't dealt with because the company's diversity goals would be adversely affected, then you can point a finger at DEI. Lacking that, you're pointing fingers unfairly at a lot of people, like the previously mentioned, some whom I call my dearest and most respected former work mates and friends.

Even if we find out one or some of these folks got by with lesser performance, which I am not assuming, but hypothetically, that is still not conclusive evidence DEI hiring was to blame. It could be that what happened had nothing whatsoever to do with their hiring, training, or on the job performance, lowered standards and all. What if the beneficiary of those lower standards did everything right, to a "t"? What if, and I am NOT speculating or presuming same, there was intent or malice somewhere else? If you don't know what happened, or who was involved, that fact that you heard there were "DEI problems" there doesn't make every problem a DEI problem. Capisce?

Trump, One Week In. Some Quick Hitters - 1/27/2025

He tried to work with the people in Washington in 2017 and into his first term. He tried, he did. Did you see where that got him? This time around, Trump isn't falling for the Charlie Brown bit where Lucy takes away the football repeatedly before he kicks it. Up and down the ranks, and across departmental lines, last time around the D.C. establishment thwarted, obstructed, resisted, and defied Trump, sometimes openly. Everything that transpired in Trump's first week ought to be considered with that in mind. That's why he's cleaning house.

The Swamp, probably:

"Oh my goodness, he's putting Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, and Kash Patel into important jobs! They're not fit! They're Putin puppets. Why didn't he put someone WE approve of in there?"

"Good golly gosh! He unlawfully fired 17 Inspector Generals!"

"Oh my! He is actually starting deportations! He even flew some to Colombia even though Colombia didn't want them back!"

"He's eliminating DEI in the government and in the military!"

"Holy crap! He pardoned the people who interfered with a woman's right to choose by protesting at abortion clinics!"

"He pardoned the whole J-6 crew AND is cleaning out the Justice Department in D.C. of the people who prosecuted them!"

I could go on and on and on. It has been an amazing first week. You know what? I love it. I love it. I love it. This is what he ran on, and he is doing EXACTLY what he said he would do. People are so used to Republicans talking big and then asking, but not getting, Democrat approval to do the things that they were elected to do.

To Democrats angry, upset, disappointed, or our party steamrolled us with progressive policies at odds with what's best for our country and our people. The people rejected their bullshit, YOUR bullshit. We watched your weaponized justice system and your hyper-left social agenda and we said, "No!" Now, suck it up, because it's over.

Unlike Democrats in shock and awe, I'm good with the first week. It's refreshing to see him doing the things he promised, the things we voted for. That was actually my second take-away after this first week. My first was something more general.

Holy crap Trump works hard!

The very first thing that struck me is how hard Trump works. He's got even his supporter's head's spinning. The Energizer Bunny's got nothing on the Orange felon. I suspect Trump worked harder this week than any other President has in my lifetime. He did get in a round of golf, not sure if it was today or yesterday, and predictably, there was Sen. Adam Schiff lambasting him for playing golf while food prices are still high. How many unscripted engagements with the press did he do this week? He met western North Carolina people where they live. He met with California's Governor and L.A.'s mayor. What a refreshing thing, to see our President working his ass off to do the things he promised and putting America first. Shut the hell up, you lying Schiff-head.

The best part is Trump's just getting started.

Poitical Insanity and Stupidity, Dumbass of the Week - 1/24/2025

Dumbassery isn't confined to the left. Rep. Andy Ogles, a Republican from Tennessee, filed a Constitutional Amendment to allow President Trump to serve a third term. Give me a goddamned break. Why is it people with bad ideas are allowed to have loud voices. Some undoubtedly will agree. Some. Most? Nah. Most of us aren't that stupid. It's a bad idea and it's going nowhere. Ogles gets Dumbass of the Week, Second Runner up.

Next!

California raises their hand. "Look at us, look at us!" Democrats have unified and total control of the California government. Republicans don't have a chance, and hardly have a voice. What has California been up to? Spending California Democrats have been "Trump Proofing" California. I'm not exactly sure what Trump Proof means, but I'm pretty sure that neither the California Legislature nor the Governor have unilateral or joint authority to amend the U.S. Constitution. Now I hear wailing and gnashing of teeth from California: "Evil Donald Trump is politicizing the fires!" These mf'ers spent millions to erect political firewalls against an incoming President. Now, the chips are down, the same people are shrieking, "How dare the incoming President be political when he deals with us!" Gimme a break. California? Dumbasses of the week, Honorable Mention.

That can't be all, can it?

Reps Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jamie Raskin have filed Articles Of Impeachment against Donald Trump for pardoning the J-6 people. Didn't Joe Biden pardon Jamie Raskin for his role in the J-6 Committee? I think he did. Filing Articles of Impeachment on a President's 4th day has to be some kind of a dumbass record. I'll award them both, Dumbasses of the Week for their efforts.

Dumbasses of the Week AOC and Jamie Raskin

Stupidity is not the sole property of Democrats, as we've seen and shall see.

They're not the only J-6 dumbasses. Rep Lauren Boebert, a Republican from Colorado, has offered pardoned J-6'ers a guided tour of the Capital. Lauren, listen, please. I get that some of these folks got screwed royally by the Biden DOJ and D.C. courts. I get it. But the victory lapping to celebrate the pardons and to rub the salt in Democrat eyes and wounds don't work for me. No, just no. Dumbass of the Week, Runner Up, right here.

Unrelated, from the Dumbass of the Week rumor mill:

Off topic, but to close it out for today, rumors are swirling that Barack Obama and Michelle are on the road to divorce. She no showed with weak excuses for both the Jimmy Carter funeral and the Presidential inauguration. The rumors also say President Obama's new love interest in Jennifer Aniston. Aniston denies it, in fact she insists "We're just "Friends," dumbass!

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion: My Thoughts - 1/23/2025

I'm going to walk into the DEI minefield. At least just a little. I'm going to try to get in and out as quickly as I can. I probably can't, though.

DEI why?

I oppose DEI hiring. If you ask me, when the Supreme Court outlawed Affirmative Action (because the program imposed systemic prejudice against certain ethnic and racial groups in favor of other), DEI sprung up in it's place as a replacement. If not DEI, then what, Matty P? How about qualifications and merit, and if someone or some organization is proven to be unfairly biasing hiring or enrollment decisions on the basis of race, address that wrong on a case by case basis.

I saw a Facebook friend ask the rhetorical question yesterday, "What's wrong with diversity and inclusion?" Let me answer. Nothing. What's wrong is when diversity and inclusion are higher on the totem pole of enrollment or employment priorities than qualifications, experience, and merit. What's wrong is when hiring standards, performance standards, and academic requirements are diminished in order to ensure some group or another that is for whatever reason deemed incapable of meeting the existing standard won't be left behind. How about bringing that group up instead of lowering standards? Otherwise, you're replacing what you perceive as one wrong on the basis of race or gender with another.

I saw a post today from a lefty on X. He said to MAGA, any minority in a job is "a DEI hire". I think some do think that, unfortunately. Do I? NO, not at all. So to me, what is a DEI hire? A DEI hire is someone who was hired on the basis of race, gender, or other criteria other than potential and merit. This person was hired (or enrolled in a school, same thing) with lesser qualifications and potential than other applicants who were bypassed in the hiring process, or worse, hiring standards were lowered in order to avail the job or school enrollment to them.

I have many friends in the airline industry. I know personally, many highly qualified women and minority airline pilots. But I also know that in many companies hiring criteria were lowered in order to improve numbers. Improve numbers? Yes. The percentage of women and minorities became an important factor in hiring and when not enough women and minorities were filling new hire classes, some airlines, most, actually, dropped their standards to rectify the problem. Both extremes can be a problem, ok? Lowering hiring standards in a safety sensitive job like airline pilot is a major problem, if you ask me. Hire the best people. Want more women and minorities? Train them better. Find jobs in which they can grow into what it is they need to become airline pilots without the asterisk of a lower standard for employment. And to be clear, not all minorities, not by a long shot, are underqualified. I am NOT saying that. But when standards are lowered, when an underqualified or historically underperforming minority or woman has an accident, the whole group is tainted by it.

The other extreme, NOT hiring women or minorities because you think white dudes are best, is equally and inexcusably wrong, too. I once worked at an almost exclusively white airline. I remember, day after day, wondering where the Black people were at. I think of 1000 or so pilots, I only remember one Black guy. Yeah, it was over 30 years ago, and there were less qualified Black people then, but really. Something's wrong there. I remember getting to my job at UPS, how proud I was every day for working with a diverse group that included Black, Asian, Hispanic men AND women. Competent people. Qualified people. NOT DEI hires, ok? My previous employer could have learned a lot from UPS and the folks who did recruitment and hiring there. One got it right. The other, not as much.

Shifting gears slightly, why did so many refer to Vice President Harris as a DEI hire? Two simple reasons. 1) Joe Biden said he was going to choose a black woman. So, he was intentionally NOT considering white women. He was intentionally NOT considering men at all. He narrowed the field to 25% or less (I don't know what that number would be exactly), and for the purpose NOT to select the best person, but to show the world how righteous and wonderful he was to give a woman of color the job. This calls into question, whether you like it or not, whether Kamala was the best choice. That leads me to the other reason. 2) Kamala Harris showed herself daily to be an inferior performer. This started in the 2020 Presidential Primaries, and carried through her failure as border czar, and her horrific performance in the 2024 campaign once she became the Democratic Party nominee. By the way, look at how she was nominated. Did she win a the Primaries? No. No merit at all. She was installed as nominee. If you can't see how that undermines perception of her, and then on the basis of how she performed, undermines the perceptions of other women and minorities, then we can't talk.

I don't think women and minorities are inferior. I don't think every woman, every minority is incapable. I don't think every woman and minority is a DEI hire. But as long as a school's enrollment standards, or a job's hiring practices put race and gender above competence, qualifications, and merit, when people see a woman, minority, or a person who's both, failing in their job, the slight "DEI hire" is going to, unfortunately, be bandied about.

The only thing worse than DEI hiring or enrollment based on race or gender is enrollment based on sexual preference or gender identity. That's another story for another day.

Birthright Citizenship and Deportations - 1/22/2025

This might shock some of you, but I have opinions on these issues. The incoming Trump Administration is wading into both issues better than waist deep, and, not surprisingly, getting pushback from the left on both. Let's delve into them, just a tiny bit.

On Birthright Citizenship: Students of our history will tell you that citizenship by birthright came to be as a way to ensure freed slaves were not denied citizenship. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1868 and permanently ensured freed slaves had a right to citizenship. Like other rights, it is inalienable. Initially, Native Americans were excluded from citizenship as a birthright (at that time we were at war with many tribes in the west), but that was corrected in the 1920's in a Supreme Court decision, if my memory of our history serves me correctly.

The law wasn't intended for illegal immigrant's anchor babies or Chinese tourism babies to obtain citizenship, but, like it or not, is was interpreted thusly by the U.S. Supreme Court, and that's what we are living with now. I happen to think the Amendment and its subsequent interpretations are bad law, but that they are indeed, the law. I don't think the Trump Executive Order has a chance in hell of withstanding legal challenges, and just like Biden's student loan forgiveness, it's a proposal the President knows won't stand up. Just my opinion. Sorry if you disagree.

I'm glad Trump is tackling the issue, though. There are only two ways to properly, legally stop tourism and anchor baby citizenship, which are both bastardizations, in essence loopholes from original intent. An Executive Order isn't one of them. The first is a Supreme Court ruling. I doubt this is possible, even with a 6-3 sympathetic court, so forget that. The other is a new Amendment, an amendment to the 14th that clarifies who is entitled to birthright and that eliminates these loopholes. That is a long process, and in my opinion there are too many blue states where the measure won't pass for it to become a reality. So, sure, I'm glad Trump is tackling the issue, but at best I see a legal battle that leads only to more awareness of the issue, but no favorable resolution. I think the left wins this one, not because I agree with their position, but because the heavy lifting to amend the Constitution will require some support from the left, and I'm not seeing that. That still leaves deportation on the table for many who were NOT born here.

On Deportations: My advice to the Trump Administration is straightforward: expend all your time, energy, and political capital on 1) persons already designated for deportation, 2) persons known to have committed crimes of violence and other serious crimes in their home country, 3) persons who commit additional crimes here in the U.S.A., and 4) members of terrorist groups, including cartels and gangs. We have tens of millions of people here illegally, and I can't fathom a deportation program massive enough to evict them all in 4 years. But there are plenty of "low hanging fruit" that the government can, and should go after. I have little interest in arguments against deporting these folks. The U.S. is a sovereign nation, not a global penal colony. If you're against deporting 1-4, above, you're an idiot, an un-American asshole, or an idiotic anti-American asshole.

Only the wackiest of wackos on the left can argue against deporting Trent de Aragua members.

One of the problems I see on the left, is that their values place protecting people whose status is "undocumented immigrant" (to use their preferred terminology) higher than protecting the safety of U.S. citizenry. That's what sanctuary cities are all about. "We won't let those silly little crimes you commit here be used by the evil, Nazi xenophobes as an excuse to send you away." There isn't much I can do or say that's going to re-shuffle their moral hierarchy cards and re-prioritize. Not going to happen.

What I would also try to do, if I was Trump, is at the same time as I try to rid the country of as many of the aforementioned "low hanging fruits", is to NOT waste time and effort on illegal aliens here who 1) are gainfully employed and can have an employer vouch for them, 2) who are financially self-sufficient and NOT relying on the U.S. taxpayer for food, transportation, or shelter handouts, and 3) who have committed no additional crimes after making illegal entry in the country. 

I know that my ideas here might not be popular with some on the left, nor with others on the right, but we probably have 30,000,000 people here illegally, give or take. I in no way see 7,500,000 deportations a year as remotely possible, which is what it would take to clear them out in 4 years. If we concentrate on the worst of them and help the best of them, maybe something better can come from this very bad situation. If you're hard over on deporting all 30,000,000, all else be damned, prepare to be disappointed. And don't be surprised when you look in the mirror if you someday recognize an asshole looking back at you.