Navy has a new chief named Lisa

Thanks brotha! I went a little bat-shot crazy posting in the wee hours this morning. Not sure what came over me.

 

You miss me er I mean....us

 

Color me a bit confused. Seems some cog dissonance might be occurring. On the one had you deny the existence of racial bias, saying most people are color blind, but you're now saying bias in humans is natural as the sunshine?

FWIW, I completely agree with your latter point. Same time, not all bias is equal in occurrence, effect or right/wrong. Within these nuances are where problems situate especially in the aggregate and especially when biases have been normalized/entrenched and worst, legalized to disadvantage some people while advantaging others.

 

yeah, you get it

 

Nothing in life is ever “always.” But I would say usually is a fine description. The fact that he was previously recommended, nominated, and confirmed as Combatant Commander of U.S. Pacific Command (of all the joint combatant commands, the most critical to the Navy) and had Secretary Austin’s recommendation suggests to me that he was the most qualified in terms of military professional ability. In my opinion, that is or should be the overriding concern.

 

I hear you. My reason for (deliberately) using "always" was to kind of highlight that often is the case the person nominated to or promoted to any such position is done so among a list of faiap equally qualified contenders. And the reasons for landing such positions aren't necessarily because x person is unmatched by contemporaries even if there are occasions where the nominee is unmatched.

I think we can all agree (or should all agree?) that there is always politics involved in what are political decisions.

Agree or disagree with his nominee, this is the power given the president in our system...for good or bad...and that means a president has the power to ignore a recommendation from those serving the administration.

...again, for good or bad

 

According to the article upthread, Austin and Biden discussed the options and agreed on who should be in what post.

And you have Paparo's history wrong, I think. He currently commands the Pacific Fleet. Biden has now nominated him to lead Pacific Command.

As you say, that's a pretty darn important post--arguably the single most important one in the whole military, as he would have statutory command authority over all forces in-theater if a war ever broke out with China or North Korea.

 

Both can be true and I didn’t specifically say racial bias. I used the term generally, because bias is used for and against us all the time.
Like I said before, you’re interested in solving a problem that cannot be fixed.
…Unless you discriminate against someone.

 

Well you said yourself that most people are color blind, which is to suggest that you were talking about racial bias.

Maybe more accurately, there's a large swath of Americans who don't want it to be fixed because they benefit from various biases and fixing them feels to such people as losing rights?

 

Thanks OK!

 

I believe you think that some people don’t want it to be fixed.
That is the more curious and interesting piece of this discussion for me. You are probably more against a certain segment of the population, than you are for the rights of another segment.
When I used the words color blind, I meant it in a general sense, not only about race.
Truth is humans are wired to use multiple variables/characteristics when judging people and situations.
I think libbies own this obsession and hone in on the color of skin. It’s very telling about you for sure.

 

Well you'd be right in that belief, not only applied to race but where people benefit from various biases.

I'll take you at your word re: color blind, but that term is largely specific to discussions about racial bias.

Sure, I make no apologies for honing in on racial bias. It's a big part of what I have been studying for two decades, and I can't pretend the problems don't exist and as such, I can't support the status quo. Likewise, as a white male, I can't pretend that I haven't benefited from from various biases throughout my life.

 

Appreciate the honesty from you.
It’s easy for me to see how your “bias” took you down the educational journey that it did. I’m not so sure you could or would be interested in stepping back to see yourself from an outsiders perspective.
You’ve revealed to me that you have honed in on this subject, therefore admitting your own personal bias.
No offense, but it tells me you have a major chip on your shoulder against white conservative probably Christian males.

 

It wasn't a personal bias that took me down this road. It's also not the only road I travel in terms of research scholarship. That said, the expectation in academia is to become an expert on a few topics within the general field. Bias in cj happens to be one of them for me, which is why I comment a lot about it on here.

I also can't pretend that it doesn't exist. That would be me being dishonest with myself and with others.

 

Your last point is my main point. Bias is natural and its probably driving you more than you’re aware.
That ok and that’s how it works. It’s why I don’t spend too much time thinking about it. Sometimes it goes against you but many times it can help you too.

 

Possible, but it's also possible that I've spent a career challenging my own beliefs and within my research working to be objective and critical. So might it be possible that I might be more aware of my own biases then the average person?

FWIW, within the cj system, consider how our constitution and bedrock democratic ideals promise a fair system & due process and how biases undermine these ideals...and the legitimacy of the system itself.

 

A staff weenie like Kirby...

 

On your first point. I’ll just take your word for it. Lol.

 

I edited it to better explain.