HeloDude

Another couple years—keep me posted on when I can stop shaving!

It’s not that I don’t think comfort is unimportant (my wife didn’t think the maternity ABUs were uncomfortable when she stopped wearing her flight suit, so there’s one data point)...rather that when this is bragged about as “real change”, it becomes a distraction from the other important problems that don’t seem to get corrected in a timely manner, if at all.

Fair enough man—I appreciate you post and your comments (honestly). As I said, I’m not against women (and men) being more comfortable, but I do want the focus of our military to be on readiness first and foremost. It definitely is frustrating, for someone who has been in quite a while, seeing the AF brag about how it takes care of it’s people by making “real changes”...when it still can’t fix problems that effect the readiness of our force. You’re right, one doesn’t necessarily (and rarely does) affect the other to a considerable degree, but when one is being triumphed as a large success and the readiness problems are “ummm...we’re working on that”, it’s hard to believe the focus is where it needs to be. Thanks guys for the chat.

Well, we usually don’t redesign/make new uniforms if there isn’t a readiness issue. Actually, scratch that—we mess with our uniforms all the time. As to your earlier point about shaving changes...not going to happen anytime soon, at least not before I retire. If it does, I’ll buy you a bottle of your choice at the Class Six.

Well, since you’re thrashing about me not reading posts (which is fine, I don’t mind some thrash)—can you please answer this simple question that I keep posting: What is the annual percentage is of flyers who wear a flight suit, who are pregnant, who are on flying status, and who cannot comfortably wear a flight suit to perform flying duties? What is your guess? I ask because this is the readiness question...yet Jazzdude is the only one who has even attempted to answer it, and he didn’t even answer the actual question...

I didn’t ask what percentage of those who wear flight suits are pregnant...I asked what percentage are pregnant, on flying status, and can no longer wear a regular flight suit in order to perform flying duties...I’m betting that it’s an extremely small percentage. As for enlisted aviators, don’t most (if nearly all?) wear the flying OCPs? But either way, same question as above. I keep asking—is this a readiness issue or an issue of comfort, sense of belonging, morale, etc? My bet is that this isn’t much of a readiness issue as only an extremely small percentage of flyers require this to perform their flight duties. So if it’s an issue of comfort, morale, etc...sure, that’s fine. There’s a lot of things I would rather change due to comfort (see below). I’m just asking then why can’t they wear the maternity uniforms already in place? And I agree...not having them available due to supply/logistical issues is messed up. As for the AF seeing this as a big issue (comfort, etc) that needed to be addressed, hey I would rather not have to shave everyday without attempting to get a shaving waiver, but the AF sees it differently...and unless I need to shave specifically to perform my job, then why not remove it? More importantly, I wish the AF would focus more attention on actual readiness issues (only so much money and resources to spread around)...OBOGS come to mind?

Do I want to, of course not. At the same time if they wouldn’t allow me to wear a flight suit because I didn’t need to wear one that day, would the AF be wrong? Also, if I had a condition which DNIF’d me and prevented me from being able to comfortably wear the flight suit, but I could be comfortable in ACUs, then what’s the problem? Nobody is saying that there shouldn’t be a maternity uniform...but one already exists. So unless a pilot can’t find a flight suit that is comfortable to perform flying duties, then what exactly is the problem? Again, what percentage of pilots annually are pregnant, on flying status, and can’t find a flight suit that comfortably allows them to perform their flight duties? I’m not saying it’s zero...but I can’t imagine it meaning too high.

Well, you didn’t answer my specific question...but that’s ok as I’m sure you don’t know the numbers (in fact neither do I, though I imagine it’s pretty darn low). But to specifically address your questions, the flight suit is most definitely a utility uniform, first and foremost. I know most of you guys aren’t old enough to remember when those in many non-flying jobs (both flyers and non-flyers) were required to wear blues, except perhaps on Friday. This was pre 9-11...things have definitely changed quite a bit since then. And of course there are still plenty of us who remember Monday’s blues. When that started and I was in an operational squadron, most guys would fight to get on the flying schedule to avoid wearing blues. Later on it was realized that guys would fall out of the schedule and we would have to ops cancel lines, so our leadership started allowing non-DNIF guys to wear the bag on Monday so as to not lose lines for wearing blues...but if you were attached in a different squadron or at the group or wing, you still had to wear blues. And then when I got sent to my staff job, yep, Monday’s blues were back until it went away. What I’m trying to say is that there is plenty of precedent for not wearing a flight suit if you’re not going to be performing (or possibly performing) flight duties that day. As to not buying uniform items, that’s definitely a perk of being a flyer...but again, it should definitely be tied to performing flight duties, hence while you’re only authorize limited/certain quantities. Once again this old guy typing remembers sequestration and when you had to turn in your old flight suits to get new ones...sad, but true. For the record, I think it’s messed up that flyers don’t have to buy their uniforms but the non-flyers do. So circling back to the pregnant piece, is this a readiness issue or an issue of people feeling that they’re being treated differently because they’re pregnant? If it’s the later, I think pregnant people are most definitely treated differently...no PT tests, limited duty hours if needed, DNIF at a certain point in their pregnancy, etc. I’m not at all against those occurring (makes sense actually), but let’s not pretend that wearing a maternity uniform was such a hardship, at least it wasn’t for my wife.

I’m not aware of the AF designing specific flight suits for dudes who are DNIF..unless I’m missing something? My wife wears a flight suit and when she was pregnant and it didn’t make sense anymore/wasn’t comfortable, she wore the maternity ABU—she never once complained about not having a flight suit that didn’t fit comfortably...because at that point, she couldn’t fly anyway. So the question I have is this: What percentage of pilots annually are pregnant, on flying status, and can no longer wear a traditional flight suit due to discomfort, etc (even if they require a different size)? My guess is that’s it’s an extremely low number, but I’m willing to see the data that says otherwise as perhaps this issue is affecting ops in a bigger way than I realize? And I’m not saying I disagree with your overall points, but if a point (DNIF guys wearing flight suits) isn’t based specifically on designing/procuring specific uniforms for X condition, then you need to argue apples to apples. Full disclosure: I think what Tucker said was stupid and unnecessary.

I’m pretty sure POTUS doesn’t take questions from the press at the State of the Union. But I do get the joke...

Can’t disagree there. But it only further supports the opinion that mainstream media is far left as they largely only carry and support only one of these two messages.

You don’t need to be a member of Congress to be the Speaker of the House...

Read my original comment is this thread: Pitt4401 made this comment: ”You forgot the part where people claimed the convicted was morally impeccable...while having a previously undisclosed love child.” I then replied: “Kind of irrelevant as to if one committed rape or not, right?” The whole reason we’re even talking about Wilkerson in this thread is because he was convicted of rape, and then the conviction was dismissed by Franklin. So again, discussing Wilkerson’s character on a completely different matter (cheating on his spouse, etc) is irrelevant as to whether or not he raped someone. Franklin dismissed the conviction because he said the evidence presented in the trial didn’t lead to a conviction. Now if we want to argue that point then that’s totally fine—I have yet to comment on whether or not I believe Franklin was right (not to mention I haven’t seen the evidence presented in the trial). But bringing up the fact that that dude later was shown to be a dirt bag should have zero relevance on whether or not that guy raped someone earlier.

He wasn’t charged with his morals being out of whack when he was stationed in Italy...he was charged with rape (aggravated sexual assault—see link below). I have yet to make any argument as to whether or not the dude had good character or not. Nor have I made any comments as to the leadership’s decision on why they overturned the original conviction. I have clearly said that someone’s past is irrelevant as to if someone committed a crime or not. Oh I’m sure lawyers use that as a way to sway a jury, but again, just because someone was a dirt bag (cheating on a spouse, for example), doesn’t equate to him also raping someone. So who are you arguing with? “How is this difficult for you?” https://www.stripes.com/news/former-aviano-ig-is-found-guilty-in-sexual-assault-case-1.195656

Dude, are you still drunk? How is what I’m saying have anything to do with a Marine spreading naked pictures of chicks online? Go ahead and make your own posts, but if you’re commenting on mine, then stick to what I’m saying: Someone’s past that has nothing to do with said crime is irrelevant as to whether or not someone committed said crime.

Really dude? The left has made the argument that if you voted for Trump then you’re lockstep with what Trump believes, etc. Hell, the left is still trying to make that argument! Let me know if you need examples... By the way, how are those “cages” (or detention holding facilities?) that Biden is forcing children into?

But that was the basis for my original comment—that what Pitt4401 said was irrelevant as to whether the dude committed rape. I said nothing about the dude’s character...I was speaking to whether or not he raped someone. If the Air Force wanted to originally discharge the guy because they thought his character was not in line with being a good officer, then that’s the argument they should have made.

Again, how is this relevant to whether or not he raped someone? Unless you’re now saying that someone’s past behavior should be relevant when determining if that same person committed a crime or not? Funny...we have another thread in which people are suggesting that Floyd’s past crimes should be irrelevant to his interaction with the police on the day he died. And Floyd is now hailed a hero...

Kind of irrelevant as to if one committed rape or not, right?

CBus T-38 crash—2 fatalities. Damn—RIP. https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2021/02/19/columbus-t-38-jet-crashes-montgomery-killing-two/4516708001/

For starters, get rid of victimless crime laws. I’m not saying that this does/does not have a specific racial element to it, but rather, why have any law enforcement action if there is no victim? Remember Eric Garner being originally confronted for selling loose cigarettes? Confrontation should have never occurred...

Are you asking me these questions or Homestar?

Well, not too long ago (see below) you were able to make a comment on the likelihood of race and physical encounter with me enforcement...and now you don’t seem to be able to do so when I ask you in my post above. 6 hours ago, Homestar said: Assuming he's white, he likely won't. In every one of these cases de-escalation techniques might have prevented the need for force altogether, which I think we all agree is the desired goal.

A simple question: Is a non-white American more likely to be engaged with physical force with law enforcement vs a non-white American who has not been engaged with physical force with law enforcement?

You made a comment that if someone is white, it’s not likely that they’ll be at the wrong side of a baton...so I would like to know what the likelihood is of someone who is non-white being at the wrong end of a baton? Are you suggesting that the majority of non-white Americans have been engaged with any sort of physical force from law enforcement?