Boomer6

That dude isn't going to do/say anything contrary to what his boss says and jeopardize his next assignment/rank. There's plenty of actual studies/data that the AF has commissioned and then blatently ignored. I don't think a bunch of dudes brainstorming common sense ideas on the internet is going to help. Maybe if a C-17 crewed by two T-6 direct to Altus dudes crashes into an LGBTQ+ parade during a flyover they'll 're-evaluate' the training program.

Recommend reading Operation Pineapple Express by Lt Col Scott Mann (ret.). First hand account of a group led by prior Green Berets to get former Afghan SOF/Interpreters and their families out prior to the U.S. exit. Libby has it for free on audiobook. Eye opening to say the least for someone that isn't familiar with what went down.

Finally, a counterpoint grounded in logic, and not the same ol' verbal Russian handjob from the resident apologist.

Russel Case is your spirit animal Biff.

The whole point here is that there is a local law supportig this action. It's not simply a CC telling you to violate a reg. I'm advocating the politicians shoulder the majority of the blame for passing the law in the first place.

This analogy is on par with, "if we can't trust them to wear approved patches, how an we trust them in combat?!" In the absense of a law passed ordering police to torture, maim, rape, or execute prisoners I don't expect them to be constitutional scholars. We have courts for this. Its the same reason I don't condemn college admissions officials for executing affirmative action for 60+ years. It was found to be unconstitutional, but I don't hold admissions officials personally responsible for following the law.

Yes. At the danger of talking past each other, I am not in disagreement with anything you wrote. My opinion, and yours for that matter, on this not being IAW Article IV is irrelevant. The only opinion that matters legally is the court's. The point I was trying, and obviously failing, to make is that the city passed a law specifically to empower officers to do what we see in the video. It's easy to say they should have just refused. They're officers that are trying to clean up their city and were given approval to execute per the new law. Pardon me for not immediately damning them to hell for doing what they're told. If leadership directs a subordinate to do something unlawful, I'd prefer to hold leadership accountable. Even moreso when leadership just passed a law making it "legal."

There are barely double digit guard -38 slots per year for the next year or so. You'll have no problem getting a taste for what a 9-5 job is like.

Toxic Leadership according to a 0.69" Google search, "a combination of self-centered attitudes, motivations, and behaviors that have adverse effects on subordinates, the organization, and mission performance." The self-centered approach to leadership is what I've seen from the majority of senior leaders I've worked for, not to mention countless stories from the bros. I'm not saying it is done with malicious intent, but that hardly matters. The desire to climb the ladder in coupled with the standard knee jerk reaction to prove to the boss that, "we're doing something" has bred this into the bobs. It's almost like they teach this at ACSC. Working for a boss that gives a shit and you can trust implicitly is something I've experienced once.

Hopefully he has good home insurance.

Valid. Supervisors should know if their ppl have a shaving waiver or not. That being said, until very recently the only dudes I saw with a beard were black. Since 2020 I have no problem believing supervisors were afraid to ask for fear of being labeled racist/hassling airmen of color.

She's wants to know how your sex change went, funded with stolen money no doubt..

Let's see if I've got this right. Bus says taxation is theft. The taxation that paid for his helo, his crew chief's BAH, possibly even a few TDYs to see juicies abroad. You knowingly flew said helo purchased with stolen money, allowed your crew chief to morally debase themselves by using tools purchased with stolen money to work on said stolen helo, and may or may not have used stolen per diem to pay for 5min with a questionally female possibly Filipino individual. Yet, believing all of that was theft, you did it anyways, and now you're claiming moral high ground? Bruh...

If you've read up on any of the India v China border skirmishes like the one below, they're pretty eye opening. India v China (bricks, bats, knives, and Lucille)

The merging of phase 3 with IFF is because they twiddled their balls for 30 years on getting a new trainer, refuse to retain experience thus exacerbating the fighter shortage, and then decided to grow their way out of the problem. All without a valid game plan of how to solve the first problem. Combining the two is theoretically supposed to shorten the overall UPT/IFF timeline. Wouldn't really say it's an issue of "wanting" to so something, moreso having no alternative they're willing execute.