jice

Yeah, living in Nevada with the option to visit a successful neighboring state does sound great! #stateofjefforson ETClarify: not down with splitting the union

What’s old is new again. (Albeit slightly more ed up and delayed by bureaucracy... and I imagine an MC-12 to be significantly less exciting than O-2 flying.) The McDozen folks who flowed to fighters should all be through their B-courses now. What are the reviews there? The crossflows from all sources who I’ve interacted with haven’t been top of the class, nor the bottom. None have washed out that I’m aware of. Note here: if we want to crossflow, it should be a continuously operating system. In times of max throughput required, or when you need to balance year groups, open the valve. Otherwise, keep a trickle going so that 1) we don’t have to invent a “process” as an aid to avoid decision making and 2) the CAF knows what to do with/how to instruct these people. (Hint: in most cases if your root cause is related to somebody’s personal history, you’re likely two assumptions and a stereotype off the instructional fix.) Next note: Not sure if you intend to sync airframes or units themselves. Airframes: great. Units: WRT light attack, absolutely not. Light attack is a combat role, and folks going into combat deserve dedicated training to stay alive. I do think ADAIR and CTP are likely compatible, given sufficient resources. I’d love to see somebody plop down a 20+ airplane squadron of jets at Beale to service the U-2’s CTP needs while also serving as ADAIR for Fresno, Klamath, Portland, and Nellis. You’d need a cadre of IFF/ADAIR instructors and enough fighter/Adair wingmen to meet demand (you couldn’t expect robust BVR/WVR threat rep with dual qual’d folks alone), but a shared fleet could be beneficial for everybody. WRT ADAIR as a stopping point in crossflow: there just isn’t time, unless you want to severely restrict opportunities for promotion/leadership for those folks. Officership and potential to lead isn’t explicitly tied to quals, but credibility and perception of that person’s value to a fighter squadron are. Rip the bandaid off and fully crossflow or borrow them for ADAIR then send them back.

If you think you want to fly fighters, do it. You can always ask for the door after your first assignment to be useful elsewhere (bet you won’t). Plug for FAIPing: you’ll get three years to figure out where you want to spend the following time. Will build decision room for you and your family. Opens some doors (U-2, B-2), makes other things more difficult. QOL in the U-2 is extremely high with pretty good family life. You pay your dues early and often, but with short trips. There should be one or two U-2 guys kicking around SPS who can tell you about it and help you figure out if you’re the right fit for that job.

Or we embrace the fact that we have an opportunity to maintain operations in an “unconquerable” land and let the geography work in our favor while looking west and East while committing to an expensive 100 year presence.

“Total destruction” only works for people and things, not ideas. As long as the enemy is “XX extremism” in the Information Age, total destruction is not going to play. Do you think it was the atomic bombs that prevented further wars with Japan or the fact that they’ve been essentially integrated into the “western world”? Not a popular idea, but we need to decide what the acceptable level of risk to civilians through acts of terror is and expend minimal resources to maintain that. Then talk about it. Then we focus the military on more existential threats. We can’t continue to live in a societal fantasy of zero risk from terrorism at any price... anyway, back to texting and driving on my way to Dunkies.

I don’t assume your intent is malicious, but I think most here would prefer patience to wild speculation at this point, especially given the absence of your history here. There are people working very hard to get the facts. You’ll be privy to them at an appropriate time for your stake in the matter. Appreciate your patience (and taciturnity) while it gets sorted out.

You know what really pisses me off? Urinals. I mean, why do we have two standards for toilets? It’s so dumb. Nobody even has a urinal in their house unless they’re some kind of fanatic. I just don’t understand why everybody isn’t pissing the same. The standard should be the standard. Urinals are emotion. Sitpissers are logic. Edit to add: trying to go out of this discussion on a lighter note. Appreciate all the opinions; you have my agreement to disagree if you want it.

Totally with you for applying across the board. But! If for some dumb reason we’re unable to do that, I think it is better to accommodate (and consider headgear and hair ‘reasonable’) than not to in the name of “standards”; we’re (mostly) all saying allowing those things wouldn’t detract from the mission in and of themselves as we argue for allowing them across the board. That argument means it isn’t the beard that’s the problem. Somebody not working on the sabbath may be reasonable; it may not. For the same person it may be reasonable at some times and not at others. Depends on the situation. Same for beards. Reasonable accommodation is the name of the game, and I don’t think fear of the masses complaining renders something unreasonable. That’s just a leadership challenge.

Got interested, did a little reading. Of note: There’s a debate that’s been raging Re: warfare on Shabbat since hundreds of years BCE. Generally, fighting, support for fighting (and fighting fires!) are allowed, provided you don’t intentionally start a conflict on Shabbat or exploit it. You can also walk home with your weapons. Regarding your example: Refusing to work on Saturday when I need you to is a problem for everybody. I just don’t see beards and turbans as detracting from a member’s duty or the unit’s ability to function... unless I need them to not disclose their identity. In that case, lose the turban or you get a different job. If somebody has a problem with the AF-sanctioned headgear, that’s their problem. That person should have other things to worry about.

1) Valid for implication of false dichotomy here as a third party. But! 2) For many, the dichotomy isn’t false. For some it’s a choice between piety and service. Agree that banning display and denying service aren’t the same. However, what if practice and display happen to be the same? Sikh hair (thus turban) is a great example. That’s the intent these exemptions are designed around. (Not to mention, the number of times I’ve heard people say “In Jesus’s name we pray” on others’ behalf at an AF function makes me feel like wearing a different hat is pretty innocuous. 3) Those people already serve. It just so happens that they’re Christians (including Mormons), Jews, Vegans, and Pastafarians. They just don’t have to wear things that are outwardly visible. 4) Here’s the crux of this: they irritate because they seem invalid. That’s fine and good. The dirtbag with the ‘hurt’ knee is a dirtbag and we should all be frustrated. The person who just had ACL surgery is not a dirtbag; I don’t think you’d express the same frustration towards them. Is a religious requirement a valid reason to grant exemption? I think so; if it gets me a more diverse force. (I’m a firm believer that diversity increases problem solving ability, and a larger talent pool doesn’t ever hurt). But... you’re right, people will rankle at “their rights are more important than my rights” arguments... So!.. 5) Totally agree. Change the rules for everyone. If you’re a dude who wants to wear a turban to work, do it. Not going to check up on your religious beliefs. Don’t be a douche. It’s just a hat (unless it’s not), who cares! 6) Not going to touch it. Believe what you want.

I’ll buy that for a $2 bill (for the sake of argument). So then the question is what do we value most? [which detriment are we most willing to accept?] Do we want the Muslim in uniform with accommodation or do we want him to stay home? Thinking about it for a minute: Under conscription, I’d be all for absolute minimization of other-than-service identity. With an all volunteer force, we’re a team of people whose motivations should (in theory) be roughly aligned at entry. The uniforms at Lexington and Concord probably looked like shit.

Dude, if you’re pressing the cutoff for SOS and nobody has indicated that you’ll go 1) your leadership really really doesn’t like your act or 2) has forgotten. More likely 2 is true. Why roll the bones on meeting the board without it? If you’re a pilot, you’ll still be under an ADSC when you pin on. No reason not to take the money in exchange for a vacation to Maxwell. Ask your Bobs. Remember, there’s rarely a secret plan, oversights are common, and nobody cares about managing your career but you.

The law might not leave room for grandma’s house, but the enforcement certainly does. There’s always room there... unless you live and work in a military service so addicted to rules that oftentimes humans don’t matter. Add a few overeager 22 year olds with “special” investigative mandates (that they’d receive only after decades of law enforcement experience and/or law school anywhere else) to the mix and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. Then! Conviction beyond reasonable doubt (but only most people’s doubt... some don’t count), and you get the military justice system. All dressed up with nowhere to go until the next big war and occupation. And yes, we believe them until we convict them under the best system available. Or better yet help them without convicting them where possible. Old Airmen too.

🥃

Sorry, I’m dense. Could you elaborate? No sarcasm intended at all, just completely tumbleweed re: this line of comments.