Kevin Casement

Investment manager, real estate, equities, firefighter, opinionated, realist, sometimes idealist, idea generator, maker, high expectations, meat smoker, hungry

[Kevin Casement @kcasement]

100%

[The Space Coast Rocket @CoastRocket]

WE COUNT THE ENEMIES WE KILL. WE RARELY COUNT THE ONES WE CREATE.

Nidal Hasan was a patient on my floor in the surgical trauma ICU at Brooke Army Medical Center.

I wasn't there when he arrived. I had just left for my deployment to Mosul, Iraq. But the nurses and doctors who cared for him were my peers and my friends, and I know exactly what that required of them, because every one of us had done some version of it before. Before anyone tells me what strength looks like, understand what that work demands.

I have cared for a drunk driver who wiped out an entire family and landed in our ICU himself. I have cared for gang members who shot up a block while children were stepping off a school bus, then ended up on our unit with bullets of their own. I have kept alive people who murdered their own families and failed at taking their own lives. And in Iraq, I saved the lives of the very enemy fighters who had just tried to kill us and miraculously survived our response.

Every one of those patients got our best. Not because we felt anything for them, but because of who we were. You set aside anger, grief, prejudice and every personal feeling you have, because a life in front of you is a life in front of you. That's the oath. That's the duty.

So when Hasan came through those doors, my colleagues did what we had always done. They preserved the life of a man who murdered thirteen people and would have killed them too, given the chance. He killed those men and women in one of the very same buildings many Soldier's like myself have been in when I was stationed at Fort Hood.
He is alive today because they did their jobs. That was not sentiment. It was a hard, tangible expression of the values this country claims to stand for. Our principles had to mean something even when the person benefiting from them had violated everything we believed in.

Now the Pentagon plans to livestream his execution by firing squad on Dec. 3, and our leaders apparently believe turning his death into a public spectacle will demonstrate American strength. I think it demonstrates how little they understand the enemy they claim to be fighting. We kept Nidal Hasan alive, now our leaders want to make him a martyr.

Hasan walked into Fort Hood expecting to die. He believed his death would be rewarded. At his trial, he called no witnesses and offered no defense, and his own court-appointed lawyers worried he was seeking execution. He failed at martyrdom once. Now we're about to hand it to him, in high definition, for every extremist with an internet connection to replay, manipulate and celebrate.
We supply the footage. They supply the meaning.
Long after the politicians finish congratulating themselves, that video will still exist. Their moment of bravado becomes somebody else's recruiting material for decades. And this failure to think past the immediate display of power reaches far beyond one execution. We count the enemies we kill. We rarely count the enemies we create.

Look at the school in Minab, Iran, where multiple investigations attributed the strike that killed more than 100 children and their teachers to us. You cannot bury people's children beneath the rubble of their classrooms and expect a speech about American intentions to decide how they remember you. No denial brings those children home. No claim of good intentions makes their parents forget whose weapons killed them.
If those were our children, we would remember for the rest of our lives. We would demand accountability. Many of us would want vengeance. We would tell their stories to the next generation. We know this because we did exactly that after September 11.

Why do we imagine other people love their children less, grieve less deeply, or remember less clearly?

We have developed a horrifying talent for creating more terrorists than we will ever stop. We inflict suffering, evade responsibility, and then act as though the anger that follows came out of nowhere.

Think back to the first time you saw one of those al Qaeda videos of an American being beheaded. Remember the sickness in your stomach. Remember the rage. Remember thinking that only savages would film a killing and send it out for the world to watch. Now ask yourself what the rest of the world will see when the camera is ours.
Terrorist organizations stage executions for the cameras. Authoritarian regimes make death a public spectacle to feed fear and rage. Watching our own leaders reach for those same tools should force us to confront how much of ourselves we are surrendering in the name of defeating them.

The line separating us from the people we condemn has to live in our conduct. A flag cannot hold it for us. Neither can a uniform, a title, or a declaration that we are the good guys.
On that ICU floor, on a bloody street in Mosul, and in trauma bays across this country, people like my colleagues hold that line every day under circumstances most will never face. They keep monsters alive because their duty and their humanity are bigger than their hatred of what those monsters have done.

Execute him if that's the sentence. But do it the way a confident nation does; quietly, lawfully, and without giving him the stage he always wanted. Let him be forgotten.

I expect our leaders to show at least as much discipline as the nurses who had to care for him.
They keep telling us they are defending what makes America different. Every day, they make that difference harder to see.

Robert W. Burns III is the editor and publisher of The Space Coast Rocket, an Army veteran and a retired trauma nurse. The views expressed in this column are his own.

[Kevin Casement @kcasement]

@seannajefferson "TheBigWetRun" for the slide.

[Kevin Casement @kcasement]

@meathead Appears to work fine now.

[Kevin Casement @kcasement]

@meathead Upon further use, once in the site almost no links work and it stalls out loading pages.

[Kevin Casement @kcasement]

@meathead Got in fine on my phone (android) using Chrome.

[Kevin Casement @kcasement]

@simonmaechling Yup, exactly.

[John Nichol ✈ @JohnNicholRAF]

Long ramble:
I have been mulling if I should comment on President Trump's inane comments about NATO involvement in Afghanistan. Although 35 years ago, during the US-led first Gulf War, I was lying, handcuffed & blindfolded - literally 'shoulder to shoulder' - with a US colleague on a concrete floor in an Iraqi interrogation bunker, I rather feel it should be the current generation who express any anger at the President's ludicrous, demonstrably false utterings. Which is why I earlier shared some posts from others.
But perhaps I will reflect like this - I watched Trump's press conference in the wake of the terrible tragedy when a US helicopter collided with a civilian airliner last January in disbelief. 64 people lost their lives but it seemed to be about him - his expertise, his knowledge, what he thought had happened. Much of what he said was incorrect.
So I realised back then that it was going to be pointless trying to analyse any upcoming word-salads. Everything is clearly about him; his expertise in every subject, his grasp of all situations. His need to say something, anything, to show he is the best, the cleverest, the smartest, the most knowledgeable kid on the block.
The pub-bore, the braggart, the know-it-all, pontificates on anything and everything in the hope of bolstering their own, clearly very low, self-esteem.
I wonder that, in the President's mind, that it doesn't matter if what he says is factually correct? I wonder if he knows, understands, even cares, what is true? He is saying some words, which in his mind, seems to suggest that he's important and people will admire him, laud him. The fact that everyone around him then applauds this character trait, thanking him for his 'leadership' at every turn, just amplifies his desire, his need to continue. He's got want he wants - in his mind - attention, praise, admiration.
So to sum up, trying to analyse Trump's ramblings is like trying to play chess with a pigeon. Somewhat interesting at first, but ultimately, truly pointless and rather frustrating.
To those he has hurt, insulted, vilified, I send you my deepest condolences for your loss, and gratitude for your service.

[John Arnold @johnarnold]

The rational decision for much of the world is to realign trading alliances away from the US. Last week’s China–Canada trade agreement is a prime example. The US and Canada have had an intertwined auto market for decades, with finished vehicles and parts moving freely across the border.

Prior to 2025, US/Canada auto trade was tariff free. In March, the US imposed 25% tariffs. Those tariffs pose an existential risk to a core Canadian industry. Canada needed to find alternative trading partners.

On its face, allowing 49k Chinese vehicle imports per year at a de minimus 6% tariff may not seem supportive of Canada’s auto sector, but this is only step 1. In this phase, Chinese manufacturers build brand awareness and product/market fit. If successful step 2 is for Chinese companies to build manufacturing facilities in Canada, bringing jobs and cutting edge manufacturing expertise.

Canada doesn't have any domestic auto brands to protect. They want the investment and the jobs. It doesn't matter whether the name on the factory is American or Chinese. As the US reshores the money and employment, Canada will seek other partners.

This broad realignment is happening throughout the word. The EU is negotiating new trade agreements with South America, Mexico, Australia and India. Mexico is updating relations with Canada. Canada is negotiating new deals with South America, ASEAN, and India. etc etc.

Countries have realized that reliance on our market created a chokepoint that the US is willing to exploit. As with other forms of economic warfare, once the tool is used, countries move quickly to limit future vulnerability. That means reorienting away from the US.

[Tracy Shuchart (𝒞𝒽𝒾 ) @chigrl]

Here is what PetroGirl is missing

Gulf Coast refineries absolutely can run Venezuelan crude, but what they ran in the 1990s and early 2000s was upgraded synthetic crude at API 25 to 30 coming out of Venezuela's Jose upgrader complex. That's not what's available today. Venezuela's upgraders have collapsed. They're running at a fraction of capacity when they're running at all. What's actually coming out of Venezuela now is raw dilbit blended to API 16, which is significantly heavier and nastier than anything these refineries have been optimized for in the past twenty years.

During that time, as Venezuelan supply degraded, Gulf Coast refineries systematically reconfigured their units for Canadian WCS at API 20 to 21. That's where the billions in capital investment went: coker optimization, desulfurization balancing, hydrogen systems, metallurgy upgrades. To switch back to processing API 16 Venezuelan crude would require billions more in retrofits, three to six months of downtime per processing unit, and accepting the operational headache of exporting diluents to Venezuela just to get importable crude back. And for what?

Industry sources say the margin improvement would be maybe a dollar or two per barrel. Meanwhile, Canadian supply is reliable, arrives ready to process, and the infrastructure is already paid for.
When Exxon's CEO calls Venezuela "uninvestable" and ConocoPhillips points to the billions they lost there, they're not making political statements. They're telling you the capital allocation math doesn't work. The refineries are locked in by twenty years of sunk investment in Canadian grade optimization, and no CFO is going to blow billions reconfiguring for a heavier, less reliable crude that barely moves the margin needle.

[Jason Kenney 🇨🇦🇺🇦🇮🇱 @jkenney]

I knew Doug Burgum when he was Governor of ND. Seemed like a good guy, normal Republican.

Now he’s sh*tposting juvenile memes mocking and threatening the sovereignty of close allies.

MAGA culture corrodes character.

[Barbara Starr @bstarrreports]

Sit in our air conditioned offices? Finally I have to say it. How dare you sir. Close to every member of the press corps you despise has made multiple reporting trips to combat zones, been under fire, some reporters wounded, some killed. Some today still with PTS. Mr. Hegseth should we indeed finally accept it’s just not possible for you to show any basic respect. I guess it in fact is not possible.

[Kevin Casement @kcasement]

@grok Thanks @grok-ster. You da best!

[Kevin Casement @kcasement]

@grok how prevalent is non-operational incident related moral injury in the fire service?

[Kevin Casement @kcasement]

@grok Tell me more about peer support to address organizational betrayal.

[Kevin Casement @kcasement]

@grok What types of efforts to mitigate moral injury in the fire service are being undertaken by fire service leadership?

[Kevin Casement @kcasement]

@grok Are there links between moral injury in the fire service and suicidal ideation or self harm?

[Jimmy Rushton @JimmySecUK]

Ex-Ukrainian Commander in Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi, currently ambassador to the United Kingdom makes a rare public intervention in an op-ed in The Telegraph.

"Knowing the political goal of a war makes it possible to understand what the enemy is doing, and how to respond.

The conflict in Ukraine has been going on for 12 years, beginning with the 2014 invasion of Crimea. There is no doubt over Russia’s political goal: the abolition of Ukraine as an independent state. Understanding this has to form the basis for building a strategy that will preserve our statehood.

We are in an extremely difficult situation, where a rushed peace will only lead to a devastating defeat and loss of independence.

I became commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Ukraine in August 2021. Although the military was undergoing a transformation and gaining combat experience, it still had many problems. The Russian army was rapidly increasing its forces and supplies. The Kremlin increased the military budget year after year, invested resources in the defence-industrial complex and purchased more weapons and equipment.

Meanwhile the opposite was happening in Ukraine In 2021, the army was allocated even less money than in the previous year. As a result, our military met a full-scale invasion the following year with a huge shortage of everything, from people to weapons.

At the beginning of 2022, the general staff made calculations that showed the total needed to repel aggression – including for the restoration and replenishment of missile and ammunition stocks – was estimated at tens of billions of pounds, which we did not have. And then Russian tanks rolled over the border.
According to the Russian military theorist Alexander Svechin, there are two types of strategy to achieve a political goal: defeat and attrition. The Russian strategy for defeat envisaged clear military actions: a quick strike on the Ukrainian capital and attacks in other directions.

However, this did not go according to plan. The heroism of Ukrainian citizens was the key to a victory that, although cost us the lives of our best and part of our territory, preserved the state and gave us that most important thing – a chance to fight and make peace on our own terms.

From that moment, the enemy’s strategy changed to one of attrition. Russia in 2023 tried to focus on creating a strong defensive lines, which on the one hand was logical, serving to repel our offensive, and on the other hand, distracted our attention from the main goal.
As Ukraine was pushing back, Russia was implementing a war economy, launching propaganda, changing legislation and building strategic reserves, all while dragging us into a new attritional phase of the conflict for which, just like in 2022, we were not ready.
The events of 2024 and 2025, despite minor achievements at the front, indicate the absolute effectiveness of such a strategy for Russia in its efforts to achieve its political goal.

However, a war of attrition is also being waged on the political front and the economic front. Military actions play an important role in achieving political goals, but are not the final phase.

For example, let’s imagine that Russia completely occupied the Donetsk region. The war would not end, because it would not achieve the political goal. Russia seeks to create conditions to achieve the collapse of Ukraine on the military, economic and political fronts simultaneously.

In the absence of a unified vision of a new security architecture on the European continent, without security guarantees and real financial programmes, the war with Russia risks turning into a broader war with over the capture of Eastern Europe.

War does not always end with the victory of one side and the defeat of the other. We Ukrainians strive for complete victory, but we cannot reject the option of a long-term end to the war.

Peace, even in anticipation of the next war, provides a chance for political change, for deep reforms, for full recovery, economic growth and the return of citizens.

It is even possible to speak about the beginning of the formation of a safe, protected state through innovation and technology; of strengthening the foundations of justice through the fight against corruption and the creation of an honest court system; and of economic development, including on the basis of international economic recovery programmes.

But all this is impossible without effective security guarantees.

Such security guarantees could include: Ukraine’s accession to Nato, the deployment of nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory or the deployment of a large allied military contingent capable of confronting Russia.

However, there is no talk about this today and, therefore, the war will probably continue. Not only militarily, but also on the political and economic fronts. Russia may change the tools and forms of its aggression, but they will all serve the same purpose.

For us in this situation, the main political goal should be to deprive Russia of the opportunity to carry out aggression against Ukraine in the foreseeable future."

https://t.co/rrtF85k9DU

[G. Sillak @gsillak]

@ryangerritsen The tankers would not travel up the Hecate Straight. They would cross the South end which is much less dangerous. Many similar or worse oil tanker routes in the world including TMX.

[Kiel Giddens @KielGiddens]

“If Norway can move tankers safely through fjords, if Japan can operate in some of the busiest waterways on Earth, if Alaska balances ecological protection with responsible shipping and if Eastern Canadian ports manage tankers every day, then Canada’s West Coast, with its governance standards, technical capacity and Indigenous partnership potential, can certainly do so.” @CanadaWestFdn

https://t.co/zwbospunvr

[Kevin Casement @kcasement]

Something to think about, Canada.

https://t.co/kiLuaEmOXp