pcola

"Medicare, welfare, obamacare are unearned entitlements. Tax and social security are cash-out-of-pocket. Military retirement is an earned benefit. See the difference yet? Yes, we have "a leg to stand on," and no, they can not touch my earned retirement without opposition. And who gives two fucks about BSMs and TIB? Yes, it could be much worse, and that is what we'd like to prevent. You suck at "playing devil's advocate" because your arguments are irrelevant. I advocate scrapping the whole thing. Yes, I want to go through another year of "reduced" readiness, flying hour cuts, no TDYs, cx'd Red Flags/WICs, etc. The gov't is wasteful, and the USAF is not immune. We have a metric shit-ton of waste that can be slashed. To include many of the pieces you mentioned. We are not good at "thinking outside of the box", no matter how much we pride ourselves in our ability to do so. But we are stocked with an equivalent metric shit-ton of talent and really fucking smart people. We just have to use it. As the age-old saying goes, "necessity is the mother of invention." I, for one, am not completely opposed to sequestration. The impacts have been and will be felt, but we will weather it, and we will come out leaner. That, IMHO, is better than giving up my retirement to continue to fund our wasteful enterprise. ETA: I'm drunk and fired up.

It's kind of like how the AF can make life suck so much, that when they take a couple of steps back in the direction of normal, it seems like a huge win (see the "what has improved in the AF thread.) Congress has made such an epic clusterfuck of things lately, that any cooperation at all is being hailed as a huge victory, regardless of how shitty the end result actually is. If not for my complete lack of faith in any actual ability of congress to develop a coherent strategy, it would seem like they actually executed a savvy strategy. Entitlement benefits continue their upward trend, at the expense of those very few who actually make the sacrifice to guarantee that the majority can continue to receive benefits from their government. Spending isn't really cut, taxes actually do go up, and the deficit sees no immediate relief. This should be no surprise, because it is what the majority wants. It is what they voted for, after all. Like the saying goes, you can't fix stupid. It looks like the scales have tipped, and the majority of Americans now fall into that "stupid" category.

C-5 = same. Some of us (not many) will also make it a priority to fly FD-off approaches in the sim/local area as well.

True. I predict this will end up exactly like the last round, with the exception that more people will be more wary of showing their cards. I've snipped the most important parts from the VSP Q&A. The writing is on the wall…just like last time, they will let anyone apply, but then they will deny 99% of the pilots. Thus, no RIF boards will be cancelled, because the only Officers that want out are the ones they need the most...

It seems a ton of people are looking at ORM from the wrong vantage point. The ORM is your tool, not TACCs. It is your "get out of jail free" card (if used before you actually go to jail.) It gives you the leverage to alter your day without pulling the "safety of flight" card. Mark up the ORM to the level you feel appropriate. Then call TACC with your plan to mitigate. IF your plan is to fly as fragged, then YOU have accepted the risk, not TACC. If you deem the risk unreasonable, due to the factors contributing to your high ORM, then voice that opinion to TACC and fight to alter or slip your day. Its not rocket surgery, in fact it's actually the very definition of the program. For once (and this doesn't happen often,) I'm actually on the side of "THE MAN" on this one. ACs need to have the balls to stand up for their ORM level and decision. More often than not, ACs will run the numbers and call for the approval, then hang up and joke/bitch about the approval they just asked for/received. In my experience, if I have an issue, say for example we are alerting on a 23.5 hour day after 12 hours sitting LFB, with dog-shit wx to an unfamiliar field with an inexperienced crew, TACC will give me approval if I ask for it. They will also be willing to flex if I provide an alternate plan, like delay for better wx, or build a crew rest en route. The last person calculating/signing the ORM is the AC. If the plan is stupid, raise the BS flag, and ORM is your tool.

Damn skippy.

Ya, thanks for the reminder Chief…It's not Olds' AF anymore, it's Gen Welsh's. And if I recall, he said to ignore the stupid regs. Since Olds proved that mustache compliance has nothing to do with mission accomplishment, I feel confident in throwing that part of your beloved 2903 into the "don't give a shit" category, as authorized by Gen Welsh.

The majority in this audience are AD military, and most will own their home for 5 years or less. Comparing the numbers through the first five years results in: $220K, 3.25%, 30 years ($957/mo) = $33,922 interest paid through 5 years $176K, 3.25%, 30 years ($766/mo) = $27,137 interest paid through 5 years $140K, 2.5%, 15 years ($933/mo) = $15,035 interest paid through 5 years 1. Here's the philosophy: Say you're the average Joe and your numbers say you can afford a VA loan of 220K with 0 down, you're going to pay the above in interest, plus an average of a couple thousand in higher VA fees, with no benefit of a lower rate (contrary to popular belief.) Now, if you've saved diligently, and can afford to put 20% down and get a conventional loan at the same rate (in all likelihood you should be able to do a 16th or so better,) you'll save $7K in interest alone, plus the $2-3K in VA costs over the 5 years that you are likely to own the house. Also, if you invest the $200/mo difference in your payment and earn 3.25% compounded monthly for 5 years, you'll end up with a balance of $13K in your savings account. If instead you were to invest that $44K (no money down) and earn the same 3.25% compounded monthly over the same 5 year period, you'd earn $7700 in interest, essentially leaving you behind by the 2-3K extra that it costs for the VA loan plus the $5300 difference ($13K-$7.7K). So, unless my math is wrong, the no money down VA loan will cost you roughly $8K more assuming you resale in 5 years and reinvest at the same rate as your loan. But, if instead you were to purchase a 20% cheaper house, AND put 20% down, you could afford to finance the house for 15 years at a much lower rate with a slightly cheaper monthly payment and save more than $20K in finance charges over the same 5 years. Hence my affinity for buying cheaper... 2. Your math and mine are obviously different 3. 100% false, you are. I'm not currently in the market, so I guess I could be out of touch, but In my 3 purchases and 1 refi, in every case a conventional w/20% down was cheaper than the lowest VA I could find.

No, that's called "saving" to purchase what you need. An art lost to the latest generations of Americans. Not picking a fight with you personally here, I have no knowledge of your personal financial priorities or strategies. But it is hard to argue that the VA loan isn't the worst of the three options, for precisely the reasons JS quoted. However, most Americans, military included, want the best house they can obtain financing for, hence the military's love affair with the VA loan. Buying the cheapest home that suits your needs (size, schools, location) while financing the least amount possible at the lowest cost possible is usually a more sound decision than obtaining the most money you can get for the best house available within your monthly budget.

I would think that to be a pretty safe assumption, considering they slipped the 05 board by a full year. I would plan on around 100ish/month beginning 1Jan. However, I am by no means "in the know" so your guess is as good as mine!

Well, for starters, we in the military used to be concerned with things called "esprit de corps" and "camaraderie" and "brotherhood." Maybe those concepts are another example of things that you used to "tolerate but did not say anything." But you (and your type) certainly seem hell bent on killing all semblance of those concepts in your vision of tomorrow's military. And no, Delta would probably not approve of such concepts or traditions. Who fucking cares. Last time I checked, they weren't in the business of stepping into harm's way in order to kill people and break their shit.

Completely agree. Exactly where is the line and who is responsible for drawing it? The grand ayatollah, maybe the Pope, Larry Flint? I'd like to suggest a pretty good rule of thumb: If he or she is wearing clothing that is legal to wear in a public place in the US of A, then we should all agree that it is sufficiently inoffensive to the majority and therefore acceptable.

Looks like another victory for the enemies of America.

The AF will make it suck. It'll be tent city, no alcohol, $3.50/day, and only going off base after a full rectal and a polygraph to get back on. Kind of like how awesome Alcatraz must have been for the inmates. SF close enough to smell it...

Its simple... the need for an FE is completely dependent on the design of the airplane. F-16s don't need FEs; C-5s do. And for everything in the middle: if you've never been qualified on the airplane in question, your opinion is not valid.

First, I certainly don't condone and won't advocate for any sort of sexual assault, discrimination, harassment (legitimate) or sexism. Second, I'm not a fighter pilot, so I have no personal attachment to their specific cultural values. However, I do vehemently oppose this current trend of neutering our fighting force through the eradication of the warrior ethos in the name of "political correctness." We are fighting the replacement of a true warrior ethos with a weak and fabricated "everybody is a warrior" mentality. We are witnessing the pussification of the world's greatest air power, and the topic of this thread is yet another symptomatic manifestation. Congratulations on your shoe PhD. You have just quoted a rule that is so broad that it can easily be interpreted in the manner that most easily benefits the easily offended. "Sexual harassment is...verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature." Really? So, if I hear a sexually explicit song played on someone else's IPod at work, I (and presumably anyone else within earshot) is being sexually harassed? If a doc asks about my sexual contact to facilitate a diagnosis, am I being sexually harassed? Ridiculous you say? Well, it falls into the law that you so readily quoted as clear and definitive. This is what the shoes do every day in order to justify their queep and rid the AF of black boots, black T-shirts, morale patches, friday shirts, and impose reflective belt and sock check policies. And what about your definition of a reasonable person? You first define sexual harassment in the broadest terms possible, then continue to assert that anybody who is exposed to anything that fits this very broad definition as being subjected to a hostile work environment. I'd argue that it is weak (and therefore unreasonable by military standards) for any person to be so offended by a non-threatening sexual reference made in the military workplace that they consider the workplace to be hostile solely as a result of their feelings regarding said non-threatening sexual reference. Does it then stand that a reasonable person is one who joins the military (a killing, fighting force) and then expects to operate in a sterile environment, devoid of any and all sexual reference? "we" as in you and your GO cronies at the Pentagon? Because the "we" of the "boots on the ground", "flying, fighting, winning", "mission hacking", "getting the J-O-B fucking done" AF will certainly miss it. Of all of the things you have claimed on this board, this may be one of the most revolting assertions you have made to date. Given your AFSOC background and reference to the "joint force," I'm assuming you are referencing the SF world as a whole when you say "my community." As a person who spent the better part of a year in the JFSOCC-I J3, working side-by-side with FGO, CGO, and SNCO Green Berets, I'd beg to differ. Well, I guess they wouldn't consider their traditions "bullshit" any more than the operators of the AF would, but make no mistake, those folks aren't PC, nor are they the "professional" you would wish to impose upon them were they in the AF. Yes, trust and competence are of the utmost importance, but BS AADs, self serving careerist attitudes, and queep regulations are not. These guys are some of the crudest professionals I've ever had the pleasure of serving beside, and since we were deployed, you can bet your ass it was all done in the "workplace." And yes, traditions are certainly important, and I'd wager a beer you'd call those traditions either bullshit or sexist, if not both. True and untrue. I just heard A-SecAF Fanning tell a crowded auditorium that the topic of Sexual Assault was on his radar because it was on Congress's radar. He said something to the effect of "trust me, it will be better for us as a service to lead-turn this one then to be perceived as doing nothing and then to have Congress dictate to us how we should solve this 'epidemic'." Truth be told, it wasn't "DoD's failure" to do anything, it was, once again, the media's lopsided influence on the public and subsequently on the members of Congress that created this "epidemic." It was the media who hyped selected stories and created a disproportionate response to a statistically small issue. It was the members of Congress who jumped on the bandwagon as a means to gain popularity amongst their constituency. It was the AF Senior Leadership who pandered and cow-towed in the name of staying in good graces. If the AF's true track record of sexual assault (vice the media-hyped sensationalized version of sexual assault amongst the ranks) were at play, then any reasonable mom or dad would be far more concerned about sending their daughters to college than to the AF. I am not privy to AF sexual assault stats outside of my Wing, but I feel pretty safe in making an anecdotal assumption that a far higher percentage of females are sexually assaulted on a college campus than on an AF installation. And certainly that a typical frats traditions are far more toxic than those of a typical fighter squadron. Did you not read several of the previous posts outlining the reality of today's AF for a CGO/Jr FGO? Standing up to this queep will get you squashed just as certainly as standing up against your idea of sexual harassment will. Remember, General, that just because it's not important to you doesn't mean it's not important to someone equally as powerful as you. Your hot button appears to be this idea of the demon of sexual harassment in the workplace, and I can bet you intend to squash anybody who doesn't fall in line. Well, you may be out of touch enough to not realize, because as a GO you are apparently above it, but for some other O-6s out there, their hot button is strict compliance with any written regulation, regardless of the validity or importance. (sound familiar, like a "shoe PhD maybe?) "Aggressively challenging" them would get me no further than aggressively challenging your weak, overly-pc assertions of what actually constitutes a hostile MILITARY work environment. And while I'll sit on BODN and call BS all day, you can bet your ass I'll be saying the same things in very hushed tones around the office from here on out (well, at least for the couple of years the AF still owns me. "Out."

Yes, we all know what a suggestive phrase is. And it's not actually even that funny, but even though (as a MAF guy) I don't understand or partake in it, it makes me sick that "leadership" is making an effort to highlight and eliminate an integral part of the CAF culture in an effort to appease a minority group of hyper-sensitive non-essential personnel. In any case, I was actually referring to the "will no be tolerated" part when I asked what that even means. How are they planning to un-tolerate it when it would be extremely difficult to prove any actual wrong-doing if any resulting paperwork was actually challenged by the "offender?" I agree, you will most certainly be considered guilty by your leadership (assuming your leadership are the douchebags in the chain of command associated with the posted MFR.) And there are avenues to challenge the "guilty" consideration by your leadership. I don't see a vague explanation by leadership of "used sexually suggestive verbiage specifically barred by the CC" holding water if challenged in a legal proceeding. I can see it now: IG/JA: And what was the sexually suggestive verbiage? CC: Mbr said "so to speak" after I specifically forbade it in writing. IG/JA: And what was the context of the offensive verbiage? CC: Umm, I don't know, I think he was insinuating a double entendre of a sexual nature. IG/JA: But you're not sure? CC: Yes, I'm sure, I know it when I see it. IG/JA: Umm, yeah, thanks for your time. Obviously a simplified example, but an illustration none-the-less of how difficult this would be to find someone guilty of wrongdoing for the use of a double entendre such as the phrase "so to speak." I know, people are thinking "yeah, it's shitty, but I'm not willing to risk my strat, job, upgrade, assignment, etc over this." The bottom line is this: if it's that important to your culture, stand up and challenge it. I don't think the author of this particular MFR has a leg to stand on WRT this particular decree (the banning of specific common phrases.) If it's not important enough to risk your standing in the Sq over, then SUAC. I don't have a dog in this fight, but as an outsider, this effort smells of yet another instance of cockbreath leadership to me.

WTF does that even mean? What article of the UCMJ is violated by the use of a common English-language phrase? If this is tested and stands, does it then set precedence for CCs to ban any word or phrase they happen to dislike? Complete bullshit...can't wait until somebody fights an LOC for saying "so to speak."

Rainman...chomping at the bit to roll in to this fight.

50% of the questions are about sexual assault. I guess this is the AF's greatest threat in the mind of these bozos? Never mind retention, sequestration, old iron, civilian layoffs, and dozens of other problems - 1 in 1000 Airmen might face the possibility of being sexually assaulted. Something must be done, pronto!

Ok dude. Yes, Obama is making us all look bad. He is also making our country less secure. Is this a surprise to anyone? However, WW3 will not be started over Syria. At least not now. There will be no shots fired between Russia/US or Iran/US. It's all posturing in an effort to manipulate perceptions with each party having an end goal of strengthening their influence in the region.

While I agreed with most of what Ms Pirro had to say, I think she's also guilty of resorting to sensationalism and fear mongering. WW3? Really? Russia isn't in nearly as strong of a position as they like to claim, and Iran has no interest in provoking us to directly attack them. After all, most of our meddling in the region is working out well for them. For a decent analysis of Russia's stake in this, check out Stratfor's latest geopolitical weekly: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/syria-america-and-putins-bluff?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130910&utm_term=Gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=3ba8c95317684b20b615181176bc0e0e

This is the first I've heard of this source. After a limited amount of browsing their site and reading their stated philosophy, I'm inclined to consider them a relatively unbiased and trustworthy source. Anybody else familiar with KGS, or have any other opinions?

In my case, CC never knew. I called the MPF, referred them to the reg, and they concurred and apologized for the mistake. The form went away and nobody asked again.