Leaderboard

Let's extend that argument to it's logical (and historically practiced) conclusion:. You are free to say whatever you want, but if the government doesn't approve, it may fine, imprison, or kill you. ...does that sound like "freedom of speech" to you? I'd say your argument is dead nuts wrong. The 1st Amendment is PRECISELY there so that you can voice opinion without government punishment.

Far too slippery of a slope to even venture down, yet here we are. Does following an account constitute restricted actions? A like? A share? Who is to determine if something is a joke? Oh, but nuance and context no longer matter... At least the fighter pilot meme pages on IG are having a field day... For now. From the Army cartoon recruiting commercial advertising a woman who grew up with "two moms" who "marched for justice" to this... The leadership at the top has forgotten the reason we f***ing exist. Pathetic.

So to recap: Opinion “why does anyone put opinions on social media, no one cares what you think” Edited to add: More opinion. lolz Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media Social media is a broad term that by this Wikipedia definition, does encompass baseops. Interactive? Check. User generated content? Check. Profile? Check. Connecting one user’s profile to other users? Check. It doesn’t have to be a viral app of teens posting selfies to be social media…your early days of posting on studentpilot were social media before the term was coined.

Are you saying that everyone signed on - knowing "the rules" were going to be changed, based on wind direction and political ideology, and we're okay with it, and need to live with it?

Generally agreed. For things like security clearance investigations, I don't think reviewing public associations and posts for indicators of compromised personnel is going too far. Those are valid, imo. They should be on a schedule, known to the personnel being investigated, and strictly limited in use. Nebulous "monitoring" of all social media for administrative and punitive purposes is almost guaranteed to generate abuses.

"Although in the past the military has balked at surveilling service members for extremist political views due to First Amendment protections, the pilot program will rely on a private surveillance firm in order to circumvent First Amendment restrictions on government monitoring, according to a senior Pentagon official." From the article... I suppose circumventing first amendment protections is of no concern to you? I'd also encourage you to read up on Bishop Garrison. I just did so from both left and right leaning sources, and that is not a man who is seeking to find extremism in just Boogaloo clowns; that is a man who thinks extremism is having voted for Trump for President.

As an example of an extreme $$$ hog, my bro-inlaw at DAL flew almost nothing but "Greenslips." As a senior narrow body A320CA he made $500K, $500K, $602K in the last three years. He went on LTS last May and was making $44K/mth due to the look back clause until he retired (65) in Jan '21. I early retired 11 yrs ago and bet I outlive him and his mansion on the lake in DAL's ATL base housing.

Has it been defined yet what “extremist” views are? Can’t believe this is legal.

Yeah..no. But I can see defending myself won't go well. Y'all do whatever you want, I guess, since we're no longer listening to CDC and SECDEF guidance.

The reason: to further their careers and enrich their families. I'm no socialist, far from it, but the AOCs of the world are not entirely wrong. Something is broken. They think it's rich people. I'm more inclined to believe it's politicians. But either way, "we the people" are being Punk'd.

Except this isn’t just some extra screening to ensure that the military remains apolitical or has bad actors screened out. This is a program being headed up by a partisan political appointee. THAT is the real problem with it and why it’s such a huge departure from what has been done in the past. I’m all for an apolitical military. But installing political officers that are aligned with a specific set of views and/or party to then police what they define as “extremism” is a very dangerous slope to go down.

Here's the catch though. You volunteered to be in the military and signed on the dotted line agreeing to be subject to a different set of rules above and beyond your average civilian. You can be sent to jail for all sorts of things that aren't illegal for regular people like desertion, adultery, insubordination, fraternization, and conduct unbecoming just to name a few. And the UCMJ does have specific limits on speech for military members already. You are correct that the implementation of this policy is going to be messy and difficult. And as always the devil is going to be in the details. But acting like this is some gross overreach that is new and different from the restrictions you've already agreed to is a bit alarmist in my opinion.

Generally agree with you, at least fair the general public. The difference here is that as a member of the military, we are in a position of trust (some positions now than others). It's why we have a security clearances with recurring investigations, and why we can handle classified materials and information not released to the general public. So there becomes a balancing point between your individual right to free speech, and whether the opinions you express indicate you shouldn't be in a position of trust within the government. However, trust works both ways. If the monitoring is overly aggressive or overly broad, it'll hurt morale (or degrade performance) in the military, and become a deterrent for people to join or stay in the military. Then again, SERE beat out most of my desire to use most forms of social media (well, just reinforced my decision to stop using many forms of social media).

Or even better...is merely following the wrong people on Twitter going to trigger the security apparatus? What happens when they start associating elected leaders with extremist ideology? For example, I think she's nutty...but what if you lived in Marjorie Taylor Green's district and followed her on Twitter and Facebook? Are you now labeled an extremist? I have a lot of concern about how this will be used, on both sides. Because it may start as "we're going to find people who posted clear threats online", but I think it will devolve into witch hunts for political purposes.

Once something like this is kicked off and funded, it'll be impossible to kill. More concerning, as is inevitable in any government program, Mission Creep will eventually set in. While this program may have some good intentions at the start (even if I don't agree with them), there is no telling what it will end up as 10 years from now.

Hawaii is holding another board this year. Apps are due July 15th for those interested. They posted this on their FB recruiting page.

Or the corollary: Sure is nice to be the one deciding if your opinion/political views/lifestyle are "appropriate." What could possible go wrong...

Oh I totally agree on the fact that posting political views on social media, especially as a military member is a foolish endeavor regardless. But the issue I have with this is the fact that it appears an already existing road block to additional surveillance is being circumvented, and the individual heading the program leading this circumvention is a partisan political appointee who himself has some pretty extreme political views posted on his own social media. Which again begs the questions, what is our definition of extremism here? Is the NCO that posts about putting pigs in a blanket going to get the same attention as the NCO that posts election conspiracy theories? My guess is based on the man leading this effort, those are not going to be treated equally. Beyond that, where are we going to draw the line? If I never post anything on my social media but like or share a post to a family member from BabylonBee but the “algorithm” has determined that is “right wing misinformation” (attempts to label satire as misinformation have already happened) am I now f*cked? To me this is just another step down the slippery slope we are rapidly descending in this country to only have one “correct” way of thinking and everything else being silenced. And yes, I also agree that the Patriot Act was one of the first steps we took down this road and that it was ultimately a terrible direction for this country.

Maybe they should've put this level of effort into keeping an eye on that bio lab in Wuhan.

I can't see any possible way that will go wrong.

the CDC has lost all credibility on the COVID issue

Soft pay is your friend! I'm currently at the lowest pay rate at DAL (717 FO...8th year pay). For this month, I'll have worked 11 days (well, now only 6 because I called in sick for a 5 day trip), flown less than 30 hours and I'll be paid for 97.5 hours (last month was 132 hours pay). That works out to be ~$16k for the month...18.5k if you add in company 401k contributions. I still have 11 day in the month to either pick up normal flying or pick up some overtime trips, that could easily nudge me over the 20k mark. I enjoy time off more than money so I doubt I'll actually pick anything else up. I had multiple 30k (plus 401k) months as a Widebody FO while only actually working 12 days (due to vacation, overtime "Greenslip" flying and getting paid on days I didn't actually work due to deviating dh). Last year, I was only active at DAL (MLOA the rest of the year) for 7 months and I made more than your example above. A former squadron mate has gotten 150 hours of pay (though not flying much), every month this year. Lots of schemes to make extra pay for very little effort, especially if you get senior. The big downside, is Uncle Sam takes a much bigger cut than you're used to. As a O-4 or O-5 on the bonus, you'll do just as good as a newer airline guy if you look just at straight pay. However, it's the time off that really wins the day for me (pay per day worked). I'm for keeping it as it acts as a natural shock absorber during times like this. We could monotize them as pay rate or whatever, but the next negotiating cycle, the other airlines will match and we'll be back at square one...just without PS. I've worked at a place w/o it and now with it, and I think keeping this type of "at risk" pay is great for the motivation of employees. As long as you're not one of the idiots that COUNT on the PS to keep them afloat, then not having it is not that big of a deal. Though I don't expect to see pre-covid numbers soon, based on what I'm seeing, I'd expect to see PS in the next year or two.

Plus profit sharing that 10-12 percent. Plus retirement contributions of 12-15%. Plus per diem. Plus premium time. It seems like a normal 4-5 year dude is making 200-250k from what I can tell.

You'd be punishing them for failure to follow orders/good order and discipline. Policy is still to wear a mask unless fully vaccinated. No different than punishing a person for not shaving or having a haircut in standards (no real basis for those besides "image" and what the policy is). Likely verbal correction at first, but repeat offenders may get more serious punishments.

To clarify, people like pawnman aren’t actually bothered by unvaccinated people not wearing masks because it’s unsafe or putting their health at risk. They’re bothered by the act of disobedience. They are “following the rules,” and others aren’t. ...And the others are oftentimes “getting away with it.” And that pisses them off. It is the EXACT same nonsense we’ve all seen with reflective belts downrange. Idiotic mandates to wear them in places/conditions that make no sense (day time, etc.) — and people wearing them simply so they don’t get ‘Chief'd.’ It is not about safety/health. It’s about compliance. And the ones that are most outraged, most vocal, and most willing to elevate the issue are the same ones that are reflective belt nazis: the tools/douches that don’t have anything better to do, or the careerists that are eager to demonstrate their obedience. This is exactly why pawnman framed it the way he did. He didn’t pose it as someone who lied about their vaccination status and infected someone.... causing illness, long-term health complications or perhaps even death. No, ...it was about ‘showing red on IMR’ and ‘Violating SECDEF orders.’

Glad you’re not a commander.

Time to send them back to the Guard so our MX guys can unfuck them again, then the AD can take them back.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Were I commander, I'd just take note of anyone who didn't wear a mask. When they make the covid shot mandatory, anyone not wearing a mask who pops red on IMR gets an article 15.

Anything from the right-wing terrorist Boogaloo clowns would qualify. Like the Air Force NCO from Travis who murdered two law enforcement officers a week apart. What laws do you think this runs afoul of?

The first amendment doesn't protect one from consequences. You're welcome to put anything you'd like on your Facebook page, but there's nothing saying you won't face consequences from doing so. I think the "government monitoring" ship sailed back with the passage of the Patriot Act (a misnomer if there ever was one). To me the real questions is why people type out their beliefs on social media anyway. Literally zero people care that someone is against kids in cages or that someone thinks the Covid vaccine is dangerous. Edited to add: the Venn diagram of people who propagate/believe the Big Lie and those who hold extremist views is nearly a circle, and they're rarely shy about showing it online, so that makes this an easier endeavor.

Man, wait until you learn SECDEF, SECAF, and many other Air Force civilian leadership are are also political appointees...