brickhistory

Soooo, Germans (assuming here based on the accents) like big schwanzes. Or maybe they were Russkis. Good to know. Watch out Poland!

The Air Force District of Washington (AFDW) commander, a two-star, issued GO #1 ordering that USAF military assigned/attached/OPCON to him were forbidden to drink during the 48 hours prior to and after the coming inauguration. Department of Air Force civilians were "highly encouraged" to follow GO#1. His rationale was members need to be ready. WTF? As small potatoes as this is in the entire DC scheme of things, it is another brick in the load of "Screw this, I'm out" that Big Blue seems to not understand. For me as an old retired fart, this has either domestic disturbance implications or a Maj Gen who needs his sails trimmed. There is an entire thread on this. F-22 - 189 minus the ones lost thus far, ain't enough.

- Status of repealing Obamacare? - Status of introduced 50-state reciprocity bill and likelihood of both Houses passing? - BAH shenanigans (see the thread and get McCain to an old folks home) - Re-opening F-22 line? - Chances of getting the budget anywhere controlled? -edited to add - how about a lil friendly Congressional enquiry to the AFDW/CC regarding his General Order #1? That seems both ludicrous and has overtones that are scary.

Anonymous calls to various left- and right-wing news outlets seems to be in order. Each would love to go to town on the implications for such an order for an inauguration. I'd also be calling my Congress critters.

Someone in the chain can't read United States Code, i.e., DOPMA. Twice passed over = out unless offered continuation. It may take a while and will screw those affected in the short-term, but the class action suit that will result should net them a nice piece of change. Not enough to make up for not building seniority or whatever sh1t sandwich they are handed for those three years, but it will come. I'd also be calling the sh1t out of my Congressional critters and DoD IG. IF I wasn't promoted, twice, then the law states I must be separated unless you offer and I accept continuation. Key word is accept. Lots of lawyers around who like and know how to stick to The Man since it pays them handsomely to do so.

Sooo, I got whisky and books. Guess my family has figured me out.

Paraphrasing a Churchill quote (I believe): If you aren't liberal when you are young, you haven't a heart. If you aren't conservative as you get older, you haven't a brain. As the military tends to make us grow up a tad faster than the average bear, I think that is one reason why the military tends conservative.

I do it intentionally including and especially to those who wish me "Happy Holidays." 99% of the time you can see the relief on the well-wisher's face that they aren't A) going to be sued or called racist and that B) some traditions remain. I started to post the below in the "leaving for the airlines thread" since it essentially dealt with a form of stop-loss. But in the time from work to driving home, the powers that be caved to liberal pressure so to here it is posted: Rockettes must perform With this as a nice chaser: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/23/donald-trump-voters-revenge-giving-holidays-christmas-gifts-donations Tell me again how it'sboth sides that need to "get along?"

As noted by others above, "liberal" today doesn't mean what it used to. And as I intend it is most definitely a pejorative. Likewise, for most of the media which is synonymous with liberal. A liberal of old was open-minded and looked at all angles and came to a conclusion based on the evidence, facts, and the internal deliberation. Today's liberal is the opposite. And after the last eight years of being at fault because I am a white, hetereosexual, Christian-ish military officer (ret) from the South (pretty much the full monty for being to blame for everything) for the complete and utter buffoonery of the current Administration and its lap-dog press (imagine the 24/7 slanted, blaming coverage of Deepwater Horizon, the lack of results for the $1 trillion stimulus that didn't, the IRS targeting U.S. citizens, the President of the United States literally targeting U.S. citizens without benefit of a trial and then executing them via Hellfire, leaving Iraq in "truimph" only to be back in a far worse position today, etc, etc, etc, to the finale of Russian "hacking" but doing nothing about it until after the election), I am deeply and personally invested in rejecting that mantra. That much of what others want or want to tear down was largely, but not completely, built by those like me from past generations, I scoff at those who want to tear it down. It would appear that I am not alone. Trump was simply the means to an end for me. He wasn't my preferred candidate, but he won the nomination and I would have defected to North Korea before voting for Hillary (and her skewed nomination system is a whole 'nother thread). Since it gave a nice raised middle finger as well to the establishment Republicans who are essentially Democrat-lite, I am enjoying that discomfort and groveling that is occurring from them as well. As noted above, I dropped my Republican party affiliation in disgust. A pox on both parties since they have been responsible for the leviathan that is government at all levels, but especially at the federal level. I don't cotton much to being told what to do, how to do it, and how much of my labor's investment should be given to those who tell me they "know better." Again, it would appear that I am not alone. Finally, although it is very difficult to discern personalities or proclivities via short notes as on this thread, I would, however, think that perhaps I was taught wrong in my schoolin'. It would seem that snowflakes are indeed identical. So being directed "Stick to the facts instead of sweeping generalization and political non-sense. Put some arguments back into these posts instead of the Facebook standard "liberals... blah blah" "Obama... rabble rabble" etc." certainly seems directive and not a suggestion. If my writing is not to your standards, feel free to ignore it or rebut it. Either way, I am indifferent. I do, however, thank you for your service and commend you on completing the long, difficult road to being a fighter pilot. I wish we had a lot more of you. So sayeth one of the "bunch of curmudgeonly middle aged men[who] smugly laugh."

I am not trying to cast spears at the IC on being wrong sometimes or even many times. They have a literally impossible job of trying to predict the future. And get beaten up to where they are abused spouses because they can't do it 100% of the time. Which leads to paralysis which leads to it being much easier to politicize what is forwarded to decision-makers. "Give the wookie what he wants" syndrome. My point is that the IC is not immune from the DC games and are politicized at the senior levels. As are all instruments of the USG. It's is literally why elections have consequences. But for the liberals in the losing side and the press (again, repetitive but oh so satisfying to say) to blame Vlad and Co. on the nationwide rejection of transgendered, trans-fatted, trans-national, "we know better than you" attitude of the current Administration, the majority of the media, and the well-insulated liberals in the coastal enclaves is purely denial. He doesn't like you.  I don't like you either...

An agency or even several being politicized in the IC? Say it ain't so! But don't bring up CENTCOM's J2 and the watered down reports on ISIS that 40+ analysts hit the "BS" button on. Or the CIA's director's (ok, acting director) direct, personal coordination on the Benghazi was a video demonstration gone bad. Or conflicting assessments prior to the Arab Spring but only the rosy ones being accepted and briefed. Nope, no history of a politicized IC. BTW, the ODNI is not an intel agency. It is a coordinating body for the IC. Which, again, BTW, was created as a result of the Director of Central Intelligence not doing his job prior to 9/11 and that Administration not wanting to admit it was wrong. Hint, the clue of who was responsible for being the coordinator of the IC was in the job title. Set up by the same act that created Big Blue for some history learnin' for ya. But since politics demanded that no one be blamed for the inter-agency FUBAR, another entity is created. Another layer of bueracracy (sp?) and more money is poured on the political wound of an IC gone wild. There are a lot of good people in the IC who want to do their jobs and tell the truth as they know it. Senior level management is very politicized and responds to the political masters for their own personal agendas and for assuring larger future budgets. Which often times equates to the same thing. Sound familiar? edited for J-code buffoonery

Say, liberals and current Administration and press (but I repeat myself...), IF this happened and you knew about it, why aren't you baying for the blood of, or at least an investigation of, the current Executive Branch and departments that allowed this happen and what are they doing to stop it from occurring again? Why isn't this being brought up in the UN Security Council by the current Administration? Why hasn't the United States Government publicly responded and taken action against this aggressive action upon the American people? You know, the one's actually in charge now? Why haven't people been fired/court-martialed/pilloried on the editorial pages of the NYT, WaPo, HuffPo (ok, another repetition), MSNBC, CBS/ABC/NBC, Univision, et al? Oh, neverTrump. Got it...

To clarify, if they, the Russians, hacked voting machines to change votes and screwed with results, that's pretty serious and worth changing DEFCON. If it's propaganda and spending money to stir the pot, then fair enough. We do it; can't blame them for doing it. Still don't think they did it. Much easier to cry "wolf!' than defend the crap contained in Hillary's e-mails and the DNC's. If the press chases that ball, there's less ink spilled on the real news revealed by Assange. The press also has a vested interest to discourage coverage of the damaging e-mails since so many of them were revealed to be in the tank for Hillary - sending stories for an "ok" prior to running; revealing GOP dirt to the campaign and not publishing the dirt until it was coordinated with the DNC; dancing at Hillary's nomination event; having dinner with the campaign a week prior to its announcing itself; literally providing debate questions to Hillary; and on and on and on. But I hold to my position that the Russians would have an easier time putting it to Hillary (how's THAT for a visual...) than Trump. Hillary & Co., to include, especially, the so-called MSM, simply can't fathom that they were wrong. It's us, not them. According to them anyway...

Errr, fcuking with a national election and therefore the national infrastructure is pretty much a casus belli. I have not been recalled to active duty yet. Did I miss the call/text? I am not buying it. I could absolutely believe that the current Administration wouldn't do anything about it if it were true, but the fact that the IC is not in lock-step on this happening makes me lean toward an excuse of why Hillary lost since she wasn't supposed to according to all the Democrats and all the standard media. It couldn't have been her. Nope, gotta be the Russki's... They rolled her once before on the "reset" and have pretty much had their way like drunken Vikings with the rest of the current Administration, including the infamous "I'll have more room to maneuver" comment made by the soon to be ex-President back in the run-up to 2012. Why on earth would Vlad want take on an unknown (at best) or a guy who has stated he is for America first yet can work a deal as well? Yep, the logic checks yet again. Gotta be the Russki's...

Changed my voter registration today. Below is the crotchety old man letter I am sending to the National and State Republican organizations: Dear RNC and Nevada Republican Party, Today, 26 November 2016, I dropped my affiliation with the Republican Party. I have been a member since my first vote in 1984. From 2000-2008, George W. Bush vastly increased the size and scope of the federal government. In 2008, John McCain ran a clown-show of a campaign for President. In 2012, Mitt Romney would not take the many opportunities presented to put away Barack Obama. And still I supported the party and, therefore, them. I am dropping my membership because of the shocking and disloyal behavior of many prominent members of the party during the 2016 Presidential race as well as the vocal #neverTrump supporters within the establishment. Donald Trump was far from a good candidate yet he handily defeated 16 other GOP candidates according to the existing rules for winning the nomination. Yet, having done so, many leading GOP officials actively worked for his defeat. To wit: Sen John McCain Sen Ben Sasse Sen Lindsey Graham Sen Jeff Flake For Nevada, please add in failed Senate candidate Heck. His narrow loss was, in my opinion, entirely due to his abandonment of then candidate Trump in the closing weeks of the campaign. People expect and value loyalty. Soon to be former Congressman Heck showed he had none. Hypocritically, he withdrew his support over the now-infamous remarks on a bus, but has had a long and distinguished military career around and leading soldiers. For CM Heck to suddenly develop the ‘vapors’ over Trump’s remarks was absurd and was directly responsible for his loss. For the four listed senators, except for McCain who most likely won’t run again, I will actively support any and all challengers to them in in the primaries, to include financially. If they want to be Democrats, then defect and join the party to which they’d be most at home. Please do not contact me in the future for any support.

Haven't watched SNL in a looong time because they mainly weren't funny and rarely applied their smarmy humor toward the left. This was both amusing and skewered the left. Maybe they can learn that funny/stupid/ironic applies to both ends of the political spectrum. Not optimistic given their lack of taking advantage of most of the openings the current administration has given for political satire, but just maybe...

https://thefederalist.com/2016/11/23/brooklyn-grocery-store-played-sweet-home-alabama-everyone-lost-minds/ A very nice piece of writing.

This. I spent several months and letters/e-mails to my Congressional critters this past winter while working at Offutt. I specifically used the Dyess example as to how it could be done and was totally within the installation commander's purview to allow carry or carry and secure in vehicle while on base. They sent the obligatory query to DAF who sent it to Offutt, whose base king said, "Would study the issue, but the risks blah, blah, blah." Tried to follow-up with the Congressional staff, but their give-a-sh1t meter pegged way early. Gonna try at Nellis, but given the results of the near sweep of the Congressional and Senate races to liberals, I don't feel lucky at that stage never mind the local wing guy approving. But this DoD policy is a good step in the right direction.

Very good thoughtful post and I'm not meaning to sh1t on it. But... "You better get it cleared with your boss and your bosses boss and the lawyer, etc. or else your neck is on the line..." is actually the heart of the matter. Many of you still playing and even some of us blue-haired Camel-smoking commissary commandos, cared deeply about getting the job done. So much so that Big Blue took advantage of that mind-set to advance its non-mission important mission. "Do more with less," and other things that have led to the current state of the Air Force, where the Chief of freakin' Staff FINALLY realized he and his cohort destroyed the squadron, the heart of the service. And how did they accomplish that? By being those self-same O-6s to O-8s, even the Lt Gen you referenced above, and saying "Yes" without any sort of rebuttal. Any sort of "But boss, did you think of this if you take this action?" could have done wonders if there were a spine present. The fact that commanders aren't really that until, what, at the CCMD level is entirely each commander's fault for not saying "No," or saying "If you want that, you will lose this" or some such. Or going placidly along with the usurpation of his/her prerogatives by a higher boss without pushing back. If your name is on the door, you should be willing to take the fall for identifying to the emperor that his ass is hanging in the wind. Instead, it, largely, became a system of what you wrote and I highlighted above. If it's fly to Regensburg because we think destroying the ball-bearing factory will shorten the war, then by all means a "shut up and color" attitude is warranted. A brisk "yes, sir!" when told to have everyone redo CBTs so the unit looks good on an inspection, not so much... When it's all over, you will hang up the uniform. And should you decide to shave after that, the only one that will care how you did or if you actively fought for your people, even if you lost and/or got fired for a good fight, is you looking back in the mirror. I imagine you will do well as a sq/cc and I really do wish you well. I believe you most likely will try your best to look after your people while trying to accomplish your mission. Are you willing to fall on your sword for something? If so, what? I'm not looking for a public answer nor offering therapy. Just that I believe it takes that X 1,000 for Big Blue to start to course correct. Otherwise, we continue on the "Yes, sir" no matter what the lunacy trajectory I get it. I'm not hypocritical. Most folks here, and even in the wider Big Blue, want to do well and make the boss happy. It's in our DNA. Evolution can be a b1tch though if the mutation turns out badly... I'd argue that we lost the race to the mammals and it will take another extinction-level event for the jet to pull up. Like it always does. But the poor schmucks who have to pay the price while that lesson is re-learned aren't gonna be thrilled. Nor will their next of kin. Jameson's on a Wednesday? Yes, please...

There was one brief (no pun intended) line about the debrief above. Any changes there? Sitting through them after the end of a long day seems to lose a lot of the intent of everyone learning from the mistakes made. If it's the end of a 12-16 hour day with another go and crew rest looming, then the hurried LLs and DLPs seems a poor way to capitalize on the investment made in time and resources. Especially for the night gos. One bit of rumint is that the cycle might go to a three day event - plan on day 1, fly day 2, debrief day 3.

Objectifying women? Viewing them as sexual objects without thinking of their aspirations, their potential, or their names? That's deplorable...

MAF, of all types and nationalities have participated in Red Flags for decades. Lots of C-130 photos on the walls from the past Flags. Last two had USAF C-17s. In a very much square peg/round hole role, but they were there. In the compressed vuls, trying to get everybody something during the mission is like everybody gets a trophy, IMO. Does that mean everyone is getting something from the event? Is something better than nothing? Hence part of my reason for asking how to make it better.

How would you handle the not quite full up international players? Their attendance is decided far above RF-N, so not having them is not an option. edited to add: I'm not quibbling with your point which is valid. But if they're gonna be there, what would you do with them?

Does the forced fun of planning actually accomplish the desired goal of making different MWS learn from each other at the bro level? Since TLP is much smaller, is that a good thing or a bad thing if you put it into the NTTR LFE environment?