Leaderboard

I was raised being taught that painting over history was stuff the Soviets and People's Republic of China did...not America.

Oddly enough I flew in all the squadrons Jen Smith worked in at Shaw. I know every single person in her complaint (and I'm not one of them, despite my oh so offensive callsign). I also know and have corresponded with female airmen that she worked with. She went looking to be offended and she was. If I was her commander, who was also my commander, I would probably have handled it the same way he did, which obviously wasn't good enough for our sensitive TSgt. Good people got crushed for no good reason because of her. The fighter community is weaker because of it. And by the way, since you obviously don't know, a 1c0 doesn't have access to the vault, therefore shouldn't be exposed so the evil doofer book or songbook. Or the flyer posted in the men's room.

You make a pretty good argument and I agree with most of what you said. But this? This doesn't make sense to me. The sq/cc selected the picture because she wanted it to be offensive. The whole purpose was to be offensive and see if anyone would speak up. She willfully placed material that she personally felt was sexually offensive in the workplace. You can't have it both ways. Unlike the person who doesn't know they've crossed somebody's line and makes a correction when informed of an accidental indiscretion, she knowingly subjected her subordinates to things she felt were sexually offensive enough that they should have been reported. I'm honestly a little surprised that she's being lauded for her actions instead of being investigated for sexual harassment herself.

UCMJ Article 88: "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” Punishable by dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinement for a year. I don't make the laws, but I try to know them. As a rule, I avoid conversations about politics. Commissioned officers have a duty to be politically impartial. We should not violate the trust between the military and our civilian leadership. This should apply to our retired GOFOs. Their remarks damage the trust and confidence our civilian leaders have with current GOFOs.

I normally don't pitch into these discussions on BO but I find the Bikini Sting Operation at Vance fascinating. https://www.vance.af....sp?id=123368125 Granted I only did SOS in correspondence, this leadership style is interesting to say the least. Not that long ago when the Air Force spent money on flying.... So there I was flying my Viper 1 foot high and 1 knot under the max speed limit over an NFL stadium full of screaming fans after a full ACM mission, we hustled home, debriefed in the car and found ourselves back at the game before half time. At some point we were escorted into the bowels of the stadium where we took photos with the NFL cheerleaders - them in a two piece, us in uniform, which were then displayed on the jumbotron, saluting the military to thousands of red blooded americans cheering our prowess. That picture hung in the squadron for years. No one that saw that picture ever mentioned it in a bad way, we were in the squadron and certainly approachable about it. Most of us were married with kids. Now there is an off colored empty space where it used to be. Next to the now void space is a large plasma that we spent end of year funds on that usually shows ESPN, often displaying highlights of the same cheerleaders in full HD. I saw those same cheerleaders in the desert during the war, brought in to increase morale. Airmen, and officer alike lined up to have their picture taken with them. PA then took pictures of the airmen having their pictures taken and posted them on the base web page and news letter. I had a picture already with the cheerleaders so I skipped that page of the base paper. There were often musicians that were on that desert base that had lyrics that I didn't agree with - mainly the country singers. I usually just didn't go. I have to do water survival every few years. This has taken place at the pool, the beach, a river and even a water park where the family was invited to spend the day afterwards as a unit cohesion family day. Work and play in the same outing. I was never issued a swim suit by the Air Force so I wear the same board shorts I use to surf. The women wore the same suits they use to surf, the enlisted life support and the officers alike. PA was there and they took pictures of the day, all in our swim suits and put it in the base paper saying how great of a day it was to accomplish the mission and build that camaraderie. My little girl and I went to to the beach a few dozen times this summer. She is 3 and has two bathing suits. A pink one piece with Cinderella on it, and a two piece with Dora. She picked them out at Walmart. I think they only make 5 swimsuits total for kids her age because I saw many other kids wearing the same thing. On babycenter.com you can find discussions on what is appropriate for a child to wear to the beach. Some think children should wear jeans and long sleeves as not to attract predators. I see these children in full clothing at the beach and some of those kids even play with my daughter. I know the views of the parents are different, but I have never been lectured on it. She thought it was hilarious to smash sand castles that I built, so I took videos and pictures and showed them to friends at work when I wasn't busy learning how to kill. I have framed pictures of the same. They all thought it was adorable. What if she was 16? Could I show those same pictures? 18? Does the difference in age make them appropriate or not? Maybe it is worse displaying a minor in a bikini? If someone said something inappropriate about my daughter in the way the sting implies, we would discuss it after they woke up from being knocked out. Or maybe I invited inappropriate remarks for showing the picture in the first place. Possibly we are finding controversy where there really is none. The Vance sting is an interesting experiment. I know the exact day the Air Force lost its mind and it is somewhat related. I'm working on a story for my story thread but it is a little out of order. I think I'll bring it to the top.

Liquid, What about WSV where Taliban are vaporized into hair, teeth, and eyeballs by the dozens in vivid detail - do you find those images offensive too? You are astonishingly disconnected from the mindset of the fighting man. The mentality you have displayed here is better suited to managing a Staples than Generalship of a force that holds as its motto "Fly-Fight-Win". You can have a force of warriors, or you can have a force of monks, but General, I'm sorry, you simply cannot have your cake and eat it too.

This one is straight from the top dudes, and it is a breath of fresh air in the form of direction that promotion boards WILL understand and weigh what it means if a dude has a gabazillion combat hours and deployments and zero community involvement / party-planning bullshit OPR bullets. This is the parity that the mission hackers have been dreaming about for years. Hopefully it continues, because common sense breaking out is not all that common.... Chuck

Liquid, I won't argue they make me a better warfighter...they don't. You need to understand that it isn't about the women or dirty language that is pissing everyone off. Its the fact that the USAF is riddled with serious problems and leadership has gone full retard to stamp out things that anyone with a 69 IQ can tell is not really a problem and is just for show to the politicians. Instead of finding the real issues, the USAF has focused on fighter culture because it is visible. You want some of the best/brightest officers to work 14 hour days, work on weekends and think you can get that by treating them like A1C dumbass? See where this gets you in a few years.

"Everyone is an adult who volunteered to serve their country. Thank you for that...along with the privilege of having one of the best professions in America, you now have shouldered the responsibility to act like an adult who is payed directly by the American taxpayers. Do you job, do it well, don't waste anyone's time, work well with your peers regardless of your personal opinion of them, and above all accomplish our critical mission. If you feel like you have ever been treated as anything other than an adult and a valuable asset to our national security, come and talk to me directly and I will address the situation with you personally and take swift and direct action as appropriate. In addition, see my policy memo which gives specifics on some pretty obvious behavior that will not be tolerated (i.e. drinking & driving, racism, pornography on GOV property, etc.)" Yep, wouldn't ban any of that stuff if it didn't interfere with the mission and was dealt with at the appropriate level. As other posters have pointed out, you enter a never-ending slippery slope when you try to outlaw very specific things...there's always something else the kids will think up next. I learned this from my 2 year old...it's futile to attempt to ban specific behavior (Don't eat crayons!) because she'll just start putting them up her nose next and, damn, I didn't tell her specifically not to do that. You set the example, lead with a firm but fair attitude, and give those you're leading a frame of acceptable standards within which they can operate freely. Is it probable that she will start putting crayons in her socks within my "acceptable frame?" Sure, been there done that, but at the end of the day such lesser offenses aren't detracting from my mission to run a successful family and I'm willing to appreciate her creative BFMing of my authority up to a certain point. I cannot legislate naughtiness out of a 2 year old and you sir cannot legislate sex or anything related to sex entirely out of the American culture of your airmen. Attempting to do so will be a waste of time and will just piss everyone off. Then again I don't have to CYA my parenting style to Congress like you guys do so...I'll chalk it up to that. My message to first-term airmen is relatively the same as I put in quotes above, perhaps with a little more detail or sternness to disuade anyone from choosing to f*ck around and not respect my authoritah. I though most of this was common sense...

Runners World - offensive. Got it. According to the strict interpretation of Sharia law, men might go on a rape fest (not sure if they sing rape songs while actually committing the act but I will look into that) if they view so much as an ankle or wrist or the form of an arm or leg. Not actually viewing said arm or leg but just the form, hence the all encompassing clothing. So, Liquid, what is acceptable? Give me a definition of what I can see or what can be shown. Now, you keep saying leave this stuff at home but my understanding is that military members are in the military 24/7 and therefore subject to the UCMJ even off base, off duty, etc. So which is it? Is this material acceptable or not? I think you are trying to go down a road of policing behavior that will stir up far more hate and discontent than problem solve. Side story. Best line ever from a flight atttendant. I am riding the jumpseat of a 777 from Chicago to Dallas enjoying the conversation with a pair of Captains flying this thing when a flight attendant comes up and sits down in the other jumpseat. She is very, very attractive. Mediterranean features, great figure. She starts complaining about the status of her love life and the inability to find that special person. She says to the guy in the right seat, "Married?" Gets a yep. Looks to the guy in the left seat, "Married?" Another yep. Looks at me, "Married?" I say yes. After a heavy sigh, she says, "I'm just looking for man who likes to eat Italian...and if he's hungry, I can cook, too." Stunned silence was best description of the flight deck environment. Oddly enough, the jet did not spin violently out of control, the cockpit did not burst into flames, the crew found DFW and actually landed on the correct runway with the gear down. Going down the road towards Warrior Monk status is not going to make the military a better fighting force because not everybody wants to be a Warrior Monk. I'm not sure what world you live in but somehow you want our military members to completely disregard everything they see, hear, or read that is circulated in the public realm or at least be able to flip some type of internal switch so that this world they live in for a MAJORITY of their lives, vs the 8 hour work day, does not rear its deemed offensive head (Can I say head?). You can get the military you want but you are going to need a whole lot of crosses to crucify those that do not meet your criteria.

I don't have a problem with the message, but with the delivery of the message. Why not have a CC call or open discussion forum? Not a set-up where a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation that stretches out over hours or days. If she wanted to demonstrate what is acceptable and what is not, then why not do it in a classroom type environment. Display pic-"this is acceptable," show different pic-"this is not" and then discuss why. Leave the guess work/gray area out of it. No tricks, no gimmicks. Your airmen are adults. Treat them like adults.

I am blaming the victim. It wasn't that the female that I talked to wasn't offended, it was that she never saw the shit in the squadron that Jen Smith dug up. She was known among her peers as a liar and a backstabber. She scoured the squadron computer network to find things to give to Sharon Burke. She went in the vault and dug through desk drawers and found a doofer book and a Playboy from 1987. The majority of the "exhibits" in her lawsuit are laughable. I don't know exactly where I would draw the line, but most of that shit wouldn't be over it. The problem was that the Capt she took her complaint to didn't know her backstabbing background and didn't take it seriously enough. Lesson learned.

During the great purge, many senior leaders worked to destroy anything that could possibly be construed as offensive, regardless of heritage. Museums were picked over. Walls were cleared of squadron history. Historic noseart was painted over. It felt like one more attempt to rewrite our past to make it more acceptable to the most sensitive elements of the present. There was one wing commander who was actually willing to stand up for Air Force heritage and defended artifacts in the AF Museum, accepting the risk to her command during this fervor. Here are her comments: “I think the tradition and history at the Air Force museum is just that,” Col. Cassie Barlow, commander of the 88th Air Base Wing, said Friday. “That’s our history. We’re not going to go back and change those things because that’s part of our history and that’s an important part of our organization. I think the museum will keep the displays that they have just as they are.”1 Emphasis added. I don't know her, nor have I ever worked for her, but I have great respect for her decision.

Commander Carpenter was the second man to orbit the Earth, leaving John Glen as the only living member of Mercury Seven. Godspeed, sir. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/astronaut-scott-carpenter-to-be-remembered-at-colorado-funeral-2nd-american-to-orbit-earth/2013/11/02/3bb6871a-4394-11e3-b028-de922d7a3f47_story.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Carpenter

Anyone toeing the party line this closely has little to worry about being outed.

I know it's against popular opinion, but I really appreciate hearing Liquid's thoughts on these items. It's already been quoted, but saying you ordered the removal of that specific nose art will make it a lot easier for an internet detective with a grudge to vet you out - FYI.

Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month also has nothing (repeat NOTHING) to do with defending the nation, killing people, or executing the mission...but yet you guys at the Pentagon have hard-on's for all these 'special' months. Now why is that? I'm sure if we got rid of those special months that the Air Force would move right along and execute its mission. And I'm sure (like you said) nobody would be talking it about 3 years from now...and do you know why? Because nobody talks about it now! It wastes resources, but yet, someone has to set up events, write a PA article about it, and promote the month. I know you're getting crapped on from just about everyone on here (including me) but I would appreciate a response to my questions in earlier posts. You're trying to explain the directive of the CSAF, and in doing so, I want to know if watching Seinfeld while pulling alert is allowed? If we can listen to FM radio at work (maybe during unit PT sessions) even though there are sexually offensive songs on the radio? Why can't guys sleep in the same pods with girls (non-married) downrange or use the same cadillacs? Why are bikini pictures, posters of girls with guns, etc considered offensive today and not last year? Was 90% of the General Officers knowingly and willingly supporting sexual harassment several years ago by allowing all this to happen?...even at the point of allowing AAFES to bring in NFL cheerleaders? Why is it not sexually offensive or inappropriate to allow service members to march in a civilian gay pride parade supported by the DoD? Why are the pictures RTB posted of girls in bikinis still available for view on a DoD website? By the way, the chick on the 6th picture looks pretty damn hot. Unless a brand new Lt or A1C was actively involved in a deployable unit (ops, mx, etc), that said new Lt/A1C would barely understand the gravity of the situation of that we're still at war and we have good dudes fighting downrange. 7-8 years ago that's mostly what CC calls were all about...now it's about all this other crap. In a lot of ways, you senior officers 'can't see the forest for the trees'.

I don't work at the puzzle palace, hunt pictures or desecrate AF heritage. #### you and your "here you go" bullshit. I am doing something about this.

You know, "For the Children™."

It's just another piece of the "whole person" pie, but it's an important piece. As Chuck said, it can help explain the timing of an AAD or a lack of "community involvement." The bigger picture to me though is it shows who's been on the front lines actually carrying out the mission of the USAF. Combat time, total flight time, combat support, whatever...all that should be important because aren't we supposed to be flying, fighting and winning? Max time isn't everything or the most important thing in evaluating future leaders but it is what I would consider an important piece of an aviator's records that should be considered by the board at least as much as some of the other BS factors that we all bitch about.

No way! Once a general retires, they are immediately banned from all communication with current generals! There are no retired generals lurking around the Pentagon in cool "advisor" positions. lol, that would be pretty impressive though. "Yeah, I was drinking with current General X, Y and Z, and they all say the POTUS is a tool", matter of fact, I have it on tape just in case someone thinks it's gossip!, since it was said at my house, please don't hold them accountable." I bet they just retire, grow mullets and sit on their porches drinking PBRs . (OK, that may just be what I am going to do!)

You don't think either of them may have direct access, or maybe even still be directly involved with, these types of events?

"Vertigo", aka the Libertairan who almost always supports Obama. Had you had quoted from the Huffington Post, Vertigo wouldn't have questioned the source. Here's an idea Vertigo--the article quotes certain people saying certain things. Why don't you comment on the reputation of the guys quoted and/or the substance of their quote? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the retired Generals, but I'm also not just making a worthless response the the source of their quotes. Focus on substance not emotion.

As long as everyone up the chain is fine with the 2d and 3d order effects of this change, so be it. Ever since I enlisted in 1991, I was told about how great it is that the Air Force is a "family". It MORE than just going to work, it's people that will fight to the death next to you, it's people that will support you, even if you are flawed, it's people that are worth the extra effort from you. It's not "just a job". I totally bought into that, and really, it worked for me for years. It has been a sad, sad, transition. Many of the policies put in place now are basically making us a sanitized, civilian style workplace. That is fine. I can follow orders. I will also not be playing in any more of that mandatory fun that used to actually be…fun. Holiday parties? Unit events? Esprit de corps? Those types of things that are above and beyond my assigned time at work are reserved for people/institutions that care about me and that I care about, like a family. Will I be hanging out with good friends from work after duty hours? Sure, but not at the Club, not in the squadron. The new USAF that is afraid to let people interact as the flawed humans they are are simply going to create a culture of clicks and small groups…all being politely professional at work, but with no actual substance to their relationships, no true desire to see their community as a whole succeed, just to survive the work day…make sure to keep those feelings in…don't want to show your true self, if for no other reason that someone may take a minor offense to it. Really, it's all good. I can adapt.

Well, what I wouldn't do is water down important issues with knee-jerk reactions like removing family photos, magazines sold on base, and pictures of females brought in by AF leadership (cheerleaders on a USO tour, for example). It's not just a matter of whether it makes us better warfighters or not. Hell, you want to pull that argument, let's ban people from having families, since it makes them reluctant to work long hours, nights, and weekends. My biggest problem with this is that we have an actual, serious issue with sexual assaults, and our response has been to classify everything as a sexual assault. It would be like the police attempting to catch a serial killer by arresting every jay-walker. When leadership spouts this idea that a magazine with swimwear (sold at the BX, no less), or a picture of a wife in a bikini, or a Maxim, are the same as a rape, you are only serving to dilute the seriousness and severity of the real offenses. Instead of looking for real ways to solve our actual problems, we bring in briefers who tell me I'm committing sexual assault if my wife has a drink or two before we go to bed for the evening. Do you really think I'm going to listen to the rest of what that guy has to say? I'll also leave you with this article about the recent "bikini photo sting operation". https://www.jqpublic-blog.com/?p=558

So everything was wrong before the Gen's policy change and now everything is correct? Yes, that is a juvenile response, and it was on purpose. You ducked my entire question--if it was condoned before (even you said yourself that is was), then why wasn't Gen Swartz and a bunch of other senior officers fired? Why now? Girls were being harassed and assaulted earlier than just 1-2 years ago...why all of a sudden the change? I have a hard time believing that 90% of General officers thought an NFL cheerleader calendar at work added to the problem of sexual assault or believed that it was sexual harassment, but yet allowed it to continue for so long. It's not like any of this was a secret beforehand...hell, AAFES brought the cheerleaders to the base and would meet with the Wing Commanders! You're right...you mentioned 'work' and that's what it is becoming. It used to be a place of a close fraternity of warriors--guys and girls, working hard to achieve a mission and not spending time worrying about BS. It was a place where you didn't have to worry about re-telling the slightest joke that you heard on TV the other night. It was a place where guys and gals would tell stories at the squadron bar and make fun of each other (whether with a sexual innuendo or not) and it would foster camaraderie, morale, and communication in a less threatening environment. It was a place where people would pull pranks on each other to lighten the tough work and didn't have to worry about somebody being 'offended' because people knew it was in good fun and we cared about each other and knew where the line was. I don't think I need to go on, I think you get the idea. It's called incrementalism, General. You can say that it's just coffee mugs and posters, no big deal...but it is a step towards more. The below article is mentioned in a new thread, but just in case you missed it... https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/31/pentagon-training-manual-white-males-have-unfair-advantages/ And you didn't respond to my post from yesterday when I ask why you all still haven't enforced the tattoo policy all these years. Selective enforcement of the standards, depends on which way the politics is blowing. It's wrong to have a picture of a wife in a bathing suit (I'm sorry that offends you) but yet if it offends someone that DoD approved dudes in uniform to march in a gay pride parade next to dudes in drag, well then that's just their tough luck. I saw this hypocrisy with the repeal of DADT...we were told sexuality didn't matter anymore, that we were all professional enough to deal with the issue, but yet, a guy and a girl can not live in the same pod together downrange even though 2 gay guys/girls can, that I can't use the same cadillac as the women, but yet if a guy is uncomfortable with having a gay guy in the same cadillac as him, well then that's just tough luck. I don't envy the fact that senior officers have to deal with political bosses and answer to their ideology...but you know what, you guys asked for the job. Again, tell me which standards and regulations will and will not be enforced and I'll comply accordingly.

A buddy of mine has a picture on his desk of him and his college buddies on a deep sea fishing trip. They're cheering as they hold up a marlin they just caught. They're completely naked, aside from board shorts. You can clearly make out their naked chests. How dare he take pride in such a moment and present said image at work! The horror! You can even see his nipples! It's sexual! Porn even! We're all equal... can you imagine if a FEMALE posed in swimwear?!?! Some A1C of any gender could be (gasp!) offended! Won't SOMEONE think of the children?!?! Ladies and gents, I give you AF Management. Sure, you'll say "why does he need a picture of him in his free time at his workplace?" Ok, you're right. Which is exactly why you and your peers have made this organization, which demands so much more sacrifice and surrender of personal freedoms than our civilian counterparts, and involves a gargantuan amount of bullshit getting in the way of doing our duties, into just another job. Meanwhile, the shit that actually matters goes ignored. Fine. We'll treat it as just another job, decide we don't like where said job is going, and take our services elsewhere. At least you have the balls to come around here and plead your side, as ridiculous as it is. Seriously, thanks...that's more than most of your peers will do. Still waiting on that vector we were promised in January 2013...

"But I'm a Captain... an A1C can't give an LOR to a Captain!?!" "Sir, I got two Bronze Stars for working in Finance at Al Udeid and Manas... Not only am I a Warrior, I'm pretty sure I outrank you now! Oh, the second LOR is for not having your Masters... scumbag!"

Fixed

Article found on November 1 Drudge Report: https://www.wnd.com/2013/10/top-generals-obama-is-purging-the-military/ “There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” Brady told WND.They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” one source told WND. Not only are military service members being demoralized and the ranks’ overall readiness being reduced by the Obama administration’s purge of key leaders, colonels – those lined up in rank to replace outgoing generals – are quietly taking their careers in other directions. Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was with Delta Force and later Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence under President George W. Bush, says it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama. “Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,” Boykin said. “I believe there is a purging of the military,” he said. “The problem is worse than we have ever seen.” Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2013/10/top-generals-obama-is-purging-the-military/#2zzumLYvY0j38ieZ.99

Ok- just to clear the air, AGAIN, I am not a fan of Obama. Yes I defend him when absolute bullshit is thrown his way. He has enough bad policies out there that there's no need to make shit up- which happens a lot. I appear to be an ardent supporter of him on this forum because most everyone on here is so far anti-obama that anyone who calls BS on BS gets labeled a supporter. And because I don't dogpile on with everyone else on every little thread that has to do with him. So if you want to know my actual view on a particular subject- ask me. I'd be more than willing to give you an answer.

Doesn't matter if they do...either way they'll call it an AR-15 (maybe they'll call it an AK-47 if they're feeling saucy).

A picture of a woman in a bikini is not sexual harassment but it is sexually offensive material. It is inappropriate for the workplace and should not be displayed on your desk, whether it is your wife, sister or favorite supermodel. We should regularly correct inappropriate behavior. Not with the "paperwork" you are all so concerned about, but with direct language and action that demonstrates your intolerance for sexually inappropriate material, language and actions. A major factor in this discussion is the "at work" part. I could care less that nsplayr says he would "hit that" on a message board when he looks at an official photo of an Air Force officer, but I would put a boot up his ass if he said that in the squadron, while in uniform or deployed. On a forum he thinks he is being funny. At work, he may still think he is being funny, but he would be absolutely failing his duties to be an officer, a leader and a professional. Many of you think it is easy to keep your off duty humor, language and actions separate from what you do at work and in uniform, but it is not easy. The Shaw CDI clearly showed inappropriate behavior, a hostile work environment and leadership's failure to enforce standards. You cannot defend how playing a cartoon video at Balad that showed a horse d*ck and sang a song about drinking horse urine called sweet lemonade. Many argue that as long as you stop doing it when someone says they are offended, you are ok. You are not. The standard is not whether someone is offended. The standard is whether it is appropriate for work and professional. Discrimination, sexual harassment and sexually offensive material should not be tolerated at work, period. Whether anyone in the group is offended or not is irrelevant. When you try to keep it separate with "bros", you actively condone the behavior and fail. Sure some people make bad decisions and judgments about what is sexually offensive material. People, including commanders, make bad decisions every day. Challenge them directly and make your case. Work towards the right decisions, not against the entire concept. I do not think most squadrons or flyers put up with this shit. Which is why I find it interesting why so many on this forum strongly defend the value of a culture and traditions that tolerate sexually offensive actions and language at work. Nobody cares if you say package. Everybody should care if you say package, then so to speak, changing the conversation from aircraft and mission to your obsession with sex and your junk. It is juvenile and you should be swiftly corrected for doing it at work. If you are an officer doing it in front of enlisted, you should probably find another profession. Maybe Delta airlines will be more tolerant of your jokes towards the stews. I doubt it. The USB analogy does not work. We failed to enforce standards and guidance to not use USBs on SIPR and we paid the price. Hammering people after the enemy has exploited our vulnerabilities is not a good strategy. Ensuring a strong defense, of the network or the installation or our Airmen, is much better than only punishing those who fail to follow standards afterwards. Training, standards, enforcement, defensive and offensive measures, and the ability to rapidly adapt to the most effective procedures are important tools that must be used together. Neither does the old car or disabled brother analogy. Our government, department and Air Force has a zero tolerance for sexual harassment in the workplace. There is a big difference between sex jokes and old car jokes. Should we outlaw all jokes? No. But we have outlawed sexually offensive jokes and racist jokes. If you haven't figured that out or you don't agree with it, you probably need to look for employment elsewhere. You won't last long. The recent actions taken by commanders to prevent hostile work environments (sts memo, bikini test, black eye) may not be effective, but they are not wrong. They show commanders are serious about preventing hostile work environments, mentoring their Airmen and making sure they understand what they should do when they see something wrong. These actions, and the recent efforts to change the inappropriate culture that exists in a small portion of our force, will not ruin our Air Force. They may piss you off, and make you long for the times when the word games, songs, posters, panties and call signs were allowed at work, but we will get over it and move on to other more important issues. I don't think these actions alone will make an impact on the number of sexual assaults, but as part of a comprehensive effort to educate our force, investigate allegations, deter and punish offenders, take care of victims and stop tolerating illegal behavior, we will reduce the number of sexual assaults. Reducing them is the right thing to do and we owe it to the mothers and fathers of the young sons and daughters they trust us to lead.

I don't think Runners world magazines are sexually offensive, unprofessional or inappropriate. I don't know why anyone would need to display their favorite magazines in the workplace. Put your recreational reading down and do what you are being paid to do. Read your magazines on your own time, not at work. With as much bitching about how you can't read the -1 or the SPINS because you have to get your bullshit AAD, I'm surprised how many people want open and visible access to their magazines. If you need them or want to read them during your break, just put them in the damn drawer. And keep your stupid ass mermaid handle mug at home. Some stews like to talk about sex with the pilots while they fly. Some female pilots say "sts" and 69. So what? That doesn't make it right. Ask your chief pilot or union rep if you can hang your Maxim calendar on the back of your seat without being hassled by "leadership" and let me know what he says. Maybe you can convince him that it makes you a better pilot.

Why should I or anyone else be subjected to a picture of your wife in a bikini? Why do you want other people to look at this picture? What message are you trying to send those you work with? You shouldn't wear a bikini to work, display calendars of models wearing bikinis or put up a picture of your wife in a bikini. It is clearly sexual in nature and not appropriate for the workplace. However, the picture of the wife in the bikini is not that big of a deal. It is probably on the lowest end of the sexually offensive material scale. That is probably why the sq commander used a picture of a model in a bikini. It is not so offensive that it crosses the line of performing sexual harassment exercises by actually sexually harassing people. It is an example of a commander being creative and aggressive in the effort to prevent sexual harassment and assault. Nobody is arguing for paperwork or NJP for inappropriate material at work. Most are encouraging self policing, awareness and a better understanding of what is inappropriate at work. No clear line, but a clear objective: clean up the workplace by removing sexually offensive and inappropriate material. Like Tony Carr points out, putting the fake picture on a Lts desk in a predominately enlisted workplace was not smart.

WND. GREAT source. Can you post an article from the National Enquirer next?

Because unless they are in and actually observe what is happening first hand, everything else is speculation and gossip. Or contrived stories for the sake of an article on a site that is known for making up stories.

Post 547. Ok "Beaver", where do you draw the line? Let's pretend you are an officer and you lead people. What do you tolerate, on the scale of porn played on a work computer to a poster of your favorite sports team? There is a line on what is acceptable. The discussion should be about where the line is. I think it is sexual in nature with no other purpose. A picture of a woman in a bikini, posted by someone who likes to say "check out my hot wife" is above the line. Runners World magazine cover is below it. That picture is about sports, not sex. Unless the same idiot who has the "hot wife" photo also has 25 pictures of scantily clad female "athletes". That would be obviously sexual in nature and should be corrected. Not with a firing squad or referral OPR. With direct feedback that he is being an idiot and to knock it off. Not direct feedback from a Chief, or CPTS Sq/CC, but from everyone who sees it. This whole discussion is about where the line is drawn. Many think it is right below porn because of the sexualized society we live in. I think the threshold is much lower, primarily because it is the workplace and has nothing/nothing to do with defending the nation, killing people of precisely executing your mission. Did you read the IG report and CDI on the 55 FS? What did you think about the substantiated findings and punishment? What do you think about TSgt Smith's allegations and what would you say to her if you were her commander? Come on "Beaver", are you up for really talking about this bullshit?

Ok, blame the victim. Got it. You would have handled it the same way because the females you talked to weren't offended. 1COs are allowed in vaults in other squadrons, but the concept that the vault is a protected area because no enlisted females are allowed in there is flawed. The threshold for appropriateness is not whether someone like Jen Smith is offended. It is whether it is appropriate for the workplace. Porn in the vault is just as bad as porn at the ops desk. How about the Sweet Lemonade video at the ops desk? That one was ok too? Yes, drawing the line is difficult. Notice I didn't get many answers to my question, where would you draw the line. Right below porn? Above a grainy picture of a Taliban molesting a goat? How about the slides about sex underage teens like the ones Jen Smith turned in to her lawyer? Let individuals judge themselves? Aren't we doing that now? Obviously the line has been raised above where it was. Our senior Air Force leadership, including the top fighter pilot, has decided that we will no longer tolerate the sexually offensive material and behavior we did last year. This was probably brought upon by the Jen Smith lawsuit and the embarrassing press that followed, and the unacceptably high number of sexual assaults in the AF. And by the fact our culture is evolving to not value overtly sexual behavior at work. Much like we did when we rejected the overtly racist behavior. Just because we did it xx years ago, doesn't mean it is right. Look, for the 8th time, I am not personally offended by this shit. I enjoy the good old fashioned Western culture that values sex, violence, and raunchy humor in our entertainment. My personal tolerance for offensive material is quite high, but also irrelevant to where our institution should draw the line. What we value in entertainment is not the same as what we value at work. The museums should not have changed anything with nose art, that is what museums are for. But we should not be putting the nose art that was acceptable in WWII on our current aircraft. And there is probably a line that needs to be drawn with regards to 10-15 sexy nose art pictures lining the halls of an ops squadron. The 69 discussion summarizes our current situation well. Many people think there is nothing wrong with using the number 69 and sts in order to sexualize a situation. This happens in the professional workplace. People like doing it, people do it by habit and people get pissed when you tell them to knock it off. The unnecessary sexualization of workplace actions and environments is wrong and should be stopped. And there is a difference between a picture of your wife wearing a bikini, posing on her knees like a swimsuit model, and a family photo with someone wearing a bikini. One is overtly sexual, the other not. The suitability is a judgment call that should be made by officers and SNCOs and validated/confirmed and enforced by commanders. We shouldn't be unreasonably sensitive and you could make a strong argument that the picture the sq/cc used in her exercise was not inappropriate. Make the argument, but don't just say we should accept every behavior and workplace material we used to because those were the good old days. You crack me up Viper.

I may appear as if I almost always support Obama because I look at things with a neutral eye first, whereas 99.69% of the members here come in with a predetrmined mindset on the president. And Obama was elected when?

Did you read the quotes by the ret Generals? “People I’ve spoken to would like to see..." "I talk to a lot of folks who don’t support where Obama is taking the military..." "I hear from many off the record who are upset with the current military leadership..." A lot of "I hear" and "I talk to" yet no "I witnessed" "I can show proof" or "I can verify". Sounds like gossip to me.

I was not clear on that post. By beloved WWII nose art, I meant that nose art means a lot to me. I wasn't being a smart ass. I think it is a shame that we are removing nose art from our culture. My grandfather flew B-17s in the Bloody 100th and I own nose art. I did not like directing the removal of "Camera Shy" at our wing, but I did it and moved on. It is now not appropriate. It was at the time, but now it is not. We should preserve it in our museums and as a proud part of our heritage, but not as a part of our current culture. Specifically, the nose art that was acceptable in WWII is not acceptable on our aircraft today. Or on posters in our workplaces. I think it is unfortunate. I absolutely do not feel the same regret when it comes to stupid ass word games, sexually offensive traditions or most of the bullshit that was taken off the walls during the "purge". None. That doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. Do you think the Sweet Lemonade video at Balad contributed to the hostile work environment and sexual harassment experienced by TSgt Smith? How about the Doofer books and Fighter Pilot Song book she got from the vault? Do you agree with the findings in the CDI and IG report? Many of her allegations were unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence. Most of the substantiated allegations were for a failure of leadership. Were those commanders wrongly judged due to civilian pressures?