brickhistory

In progress. I'm at the part where they put a Gatling gun on the Wright Flyer, but the Signal Corps said it was a bad idea since the hydrogen observer ballons could do the job, so stop it...

For XDS .45 users, Springfield has finally come out with a six-round magazine. It is like a full-length of the grip Pierce front extension, but in addition to adding one more round, provides just a bit more palm contact on the rear of the grip (errr, sts...). Completely changes the way I shoot the thing; much more comfortable and much more in control without the death grip because i fear having the thing shift while controlling the .45's recoil in a very light weight pistol in the five-rounder, even with the Pierce extension. Ordering from the company was in the high $40s including shipping. Worth it compared to either the existing after-market version which looks terrible or having someone modify a seven-rounder which is even pricier.

Right? No. Accurate? Not really. "Rounding out" via squares... Descriping the past, current, and future situation? Absolutely. The ones that recognize how the game is played "successfully" regarding higher rank and positions of authority/change, then proceed to attempt to make it better, are the ultimate goal keepers. The rest of them that adhere to/praise/never want the system to change are you... Each of us has to look himself in the mirror in the morning.

Saw American Sniper last night. Even though I read the book and knew the story, I couldn't speak for a few minutes afterwards. Danged eye irritants... First time I have ever heard silence for a solid 3-4 minutes after a movie and nearly no noise as the crowd departed. Great movie and story told exceedingly well. Nothing grand strategy or ideological; simply a dude who did his job to help protect his bros in uniform. The relief/guilt dilemma of those on the deployment grind and how it screws with the family was perfectly told. Great movie by Eastwood. Great acting by Cooper.

Smith & Wesson Model 3914 LadySmith I think I've come to the end of the internet. I bought the original stainless steel finished version of this 3d generation S&W, the Model 3913NL last spring and wrote a good report on it some pages back. But I don't like silver guns that much. I'm old and set in my ways. So discovering a decent deal on the blued/black version, I bought it. Same cool looking upward rake on the dust cover. Same slim single-stack grip angle that is as good as a 1911's. Same 8+1 capacity, with the first shot necessarily from double-action, the rest single. The trigger on this one is better than the 3913's original one. Some pro gunsmith work on the 3913 had fixed that, but this one is good to go upon arrival. Aluminum frame, steel slide and it's pretty light weight but not compared to the first generation polymer guns that hit at about the same time and dominate the market now. Therefore, S&W quit making their metal semi-autos for the most part. Used or the rare 'barn-find' NIBs are the sole source of them now. The only complaint I've found in on-line research is dudes didn't like having a pistol that had "LadySmith" engraved on it. I don't mind as it's likely to be a range toy/collectable, not a daily carry, but I wouldn't be bothered by the word. Some of my best friends are ladys... Good, reliable (500+ so far), modestly-priced semi-auto that would be a good EDC weapon.

The Imitation Game: Sheldon Cooper of The Big Bang Theory vs. Hitler's Enigma code machine. Fairly fast and loose with history and crams various real people into the characters of only a few and not always accurately. Big on the quirkiness of Turing and his background of why he became the prototype Sheldon Cooper. Not enough skin from Keira Knightly. Good acting, good capturing of the 1940s wartime Britain vibe. Lead actor does a great job with the quirks. Not so much on the accuracy, but the producers are telling a true-ish story, not a documentary. A bit too much focus on the homosexuality aspect as a how it was a crime, not from man on man depiction for which there was none thankfully to this correspondent. It is this "courage" for addressing homosexuality that generated the Oscar buzz for an otherwise good-ish movie. So, here's to Alan Turing for masterminding one of the most critical components for victory in WWII. We cut your nuts off (actually chemically castrated) as your reward. There's a lesson for today in there somewhere... A solid "meh." Not a waste of time/money to see it; will be just as good on a video service vs. going to the theater, however.

Roger, makes sense, thanks. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...

Stupid question pause in the thread: Nav to pilot, ok, not uncommon. Heavy to fighter - back in the day, was possible (saw it once from E-3 to F-15C). F15E to C-130 after only a few years? Injury (saw it once F-15E to E-8, "no more ejection seat for you!")? No disrespect or insult intended for either community, just not part of either community and it looks 'different.'

I see another politician being hatched...

Conan like 9mm... Conan carry .45... All things being equal, I'll take a bigger hole (sts).

This is exactly my problem with you and those like you. You think you are smarter than everyone else and therefore need to think and act for me/them. That is a sweet gig to acquire.

I wonder if those in the high horse brigade ever wonder about the massive risk aversion incentive (again) this self-loathing behavior begets? Then those same fingers get to point (again) when something goes "boom!" for not doing 'enough.' Win/win.

I'm digging the "we're better than that" and the general "I'm outraged" tone by many. We aren't. We generally win, however. That, and continuing to have my family and me process oxygen, is much more important than how goat fcukers who, surprise, don't and aren't going to like us anyway. If they don't have oil and they don't fcuk with us, I believe we generally leave them be. If they do, well, then I'm not so squeemish. For all the chest-thumping "we follow the rules," please explain to me the rules in the couple of years post-9/11 when we were bat-sh1t scared of another such attack which was, and is, highly plausible. Besides the death and economic disruption (disintergration) following a second massive attack, will anyone admit to the maaaaaavise second-guessing and pointing of fingers towards those "who didn't keep us safe?" We don't throw Americans in jail without cause. Except during the Civil War and during WWII, we did. Were we right? Nope. Did those in power, at the time, with no way of knowing what the future held, doing what they deemed necessary to prevent further massive loss of U.S. life and physical damage? Yep. Go ahead, mount up on the high horse. Don't b1tch and moan about those heroes in our past who ignored the rules to save their bros by flying in spite of the ROE, the weather, etc, etc, etc, or whatever rules said "don't do it." We hold those guys up as heroes because they bucked "The Man." On this, not so much. Or a single comment about whacking two Americans without due process on the orders of the President. That seems to be ok, but dunking a bad guy, oh the horror. I also notice that the media is either ignoring or chastising the American public in a recent poll regarding the "torture" - only 21% were against. The rest were either ok with it or "meh" at worst.

Nary a word about the President ordering the killing of two Americans - al Awalki (sp?) and his 16 year old son - but much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the now decade old news of roughing up some goat fcukers who killed 3,000 Americans. I have no issue that al Awaliki is taking a dirt nap. But that due process thing seemed to be missing. Probably just me. I'm sure some other Pres wouldn't/couldn't order a hit on another American cruising down some deserted highway in, oh, say, New Mexico or the like.

That mental image has caused me pain and suffering. You will be hearing from my attorney. Ah, Gawd, my eyes...

Wow. UFB. Just wow.

I am once again impressed by the unexpected links to knowledge that can occur here at Baseops. In the above quote, I see both astrophysics and political doctrine being displayed. Astrophysics in that, while I only attended public universities, I was sure that only celestial size bodies had the gravitas to make other things rotate around them. Here I see just one poster demanding that the world revolve around him and any points to be made written in a manner and style he deems satisfactory. Doctrinal in that not only will he help me better shape my argument - that I'm not arguing the point is beside the, er, point - but he will then qc it to make sure it fits into policially correct thinking. Is homework checker a paid gig or another volunteer thing like a mod? That, my friends, is impressive. What scores the hat trick for me is that he never ever addressed the simple, practical problem given. Instead, more great words about "we decided it was worth the effort," not only, again, equating LGBT with race, but spewing out politically correct but meaningless drivel. But a policy without thinking through the practical aspects is for the lesser folk to worry about, not the celestial mechanics. I see a great future as an OSD spokesman, er, "person." Maybe even one for the State Department. Bravo (golf clap...).

Good ol' First Amendment. Allowing the words and ideas of even ones you don't like or agree with to be out in the world. Interesting how those on the new "correct" side of the fence forget that little aspect of life. Seems like only yesterday that your ideological group were on the other side and embraced the idea of diversity. My bad... As for "dress and grooming standards," what prevents someone with inappropriate plumbing who feels they are in the wrong body from wearing the uniform of the gender of their choice? If none, then how much time and effort will have to be devoted to rewriting, retraining, and then enforcing these new standards? And this is just one relatively minor area that will have to be addressed.

I'm not going to be put on the defensive "answering your questions." Hey, you won or are winning. You, and those like you, or following you, will have to figure out how to accommodate this .000X percentage. Accommodate = -dress and grooming standards -hygiene and billeting requiremets -dealing with the loss of capability should someone decide mid-tour to switch uniforms -dealing with the inevitable friction that develops from such an integration - from counseling to UCMJ actions And these issues are just off the top of my skull. They may be non-issues to you in the interests of "inclusion" or "equality." But some poor company commander, some squadron commander, some senior NCO sure as sh1t is going to have to devote a helluva lot of time in learning about all this, then executing it. Never mind the actual mission of whatever unit. Taking the time to deal with this tiny fraction of a percentage of the overall population has to take priority. Because it will. Getting fired over this buffoonery will be a higher threat than not accomplishing the mission due to lack of attention on it or preparing for it. Again, you win the argument. It's gonna happen. Enjoy it.

Neatly done. I'm a bigot for not agreeing with the concept. But those who think that the majority should be bent to the will of the minority are not? Convenient. Couple, actually only one, of questions for you: How are you gonna solve the problem of accomodating a transgender individual in a military unit?

Taste like chicken... But on a more serious note: 1. edited to delete the F. U. I originally had written 2. I don't equate race with LGBT. Great if you do, I don't. 3. What is the percentage of transgenders compared to the overall male/female population, particularly that percentage within the military? Given that ithe percentage is going to be exceedingly small, the amount of attention, the funds, and the asspain (sts) expended to accomodate this miniscule percentage doesn't make economic or military sense. 4. Another example of the very large majority having to adapt to the even tinier minority that is the "T" part of LGBT. edited to delete the original "Oh yeah, before I forget, F.U." I had written. Having walked away from the Lena Dunham-like non-accusation accusation, in this case, that I'm racist, I will attempt to make my point. If there are to be standards for serving, why? If those standards can be changed to accomodate, relatively speaking, a small percentage, i.e., gay/lesbian, and I think it is a given that the transgender percentage is waaaay smaller than that, then why are the remaining standards any more valid? We could make reasonable accomodations for the severely crippled. We could find uses for the mentally retarded. If you think these points are ludicrous, then why? Wouldn't your 'standards' be arbitrary and discriminatory to someone who, by definition, doesn't meet those 'standards' and are excluded because you decided to do so? Giving a military order and expecting it to be obeyed is a standard enforced by law. But unless that order is given to everyone, isn't it discriminatory? "Go fly this exceedingly dangerous mission with a good chance of you not coming back. I don't need the entire squadron to perform the job, just one jet/crew. That's you." Sure seems arbitrary to me and a smart 'victim' class can make the argument that the order is discriminatory. Silly? Absolutely. But it does follow the logic train being ridden by the LGBT brigade. Logic and common sense aren't necessarily the same thing.

Ick. But then so was the previous decision. That "needs of the many" thing doesn't seem to be a military necessity anymore. Definitely a first-world problem. We can discuss the ramifications of such an individual becoming captured by less progressive enemies elsewhere, I guess. Have fun. I freely acknowledge my dinosaurness. Proudly.

No argument from me about when it's time to step, the discussion ends. However, as a general thought about the Air Force, indeed, the US military, senior leadership is much more comfortable with it being the provider of "insight" and new ideas than having the masses (or one from it) do so. I make no points for or against the article referenced above. But about a "new" Billy Mitchell, my sarcastic note was about how that mythical being out there today would never make it to any position to where he could make a difference and a real change. As a start, society, including the military, was much different then. Officers were much more a kind of knightly class; the proverbial "profession of arms" we're always told to emulate. Besides having been the face of airpower during WWI, where he built up all kinds of political capital, including lots of friends in high, non-military, places, Mitchell was, if I recall correctly, independently wealthy. Today's "Billy" is much more blue collar (sts) in that his ability to pay the bills and feed the family depends on the paycheck from Uncle Sam, thus the risk to all of that is immediately greater than one who has a "fcuk it" option as did Mitchell and his willingness to speak his mind knowing it would lead to a court-martial. So, today's "Billy" needs to be independent of The Man, needs higher top cover than is realistically plausible, and likely, as Hacker noted above, more likely to just say to hell with it after The Man has told him to KIO. Would that Billy really put up with it or stay in the private sector where he can make a bazillion dollars while not living in an 12-man tent for 8-10 months per year? This topic is of professional interest to me due to that is supposed to be my job at the sleepy combatant command at which I presently work. I'm charged with leading "disruptive" thinking and the CCDR says the buzz words, but the follow-up isn't there. Consequently, trying to institute the ability to challenge a plan during the planning phase in order to find weak spots before execution* is about as popular as...well, I can't use the analogy of days past. Guess that's changed since Mitchell's time as well. I am not encouraging folks not to tilt at windmills. Sometimes, it's gotta be done. Just don't be surprised when you see dudes saddling up get passed over. The casualty rate is high. Pk > .5 in my experience. YMMV. The Man doesn't like his wings rocked. *Think Army's Red Teaming. That is our approach with some local twists.

Today's "Billy Mitchell" can never exist. He scored an 80% on a PT test in 2009 as a 250+ day deployed O-3 crewdog. Or he didn't 2 below BTZ to O-5, thus will never see GO. Or he spoke up against The Man who therefore didn't stratify him. Being a maverick today at any level of authority at most means being "a character" who can tell a good story, not someone who truly bucks the system. The system is a vindictive b1tch who does not like past boyfriends talking smack.

With respect, it has always been thus. As infuriating as I find Chang's words and, apparently, attitude, he at least recognizes the 'system' and embraces it. Big Blue has always had its hoops to jump through, PME almost always being one of them. That the majority of talent finds the system repugnant doesn't matter to "The Man." The Man got where he and it is because it willingly jumped through those hoops. It finds those unwilling to do so as failures and unworthy. Fighting it, while morally satisfying, nearly always results in frustration for the fighter and a win for The Man. That "two below" and DG in academic situations counts so much for a military, thus warfighting, institution is demeaning but those in power have made/rigged the rules. They won't willingly change those rules and will very willingly cull from the herd those who won't embrace those rules. That it costs lives each and every time the "warfighting, i.e., bullets flying, things going 'boom,' bit occurs is acceptable to them to maintain the purity of the body. The AF is not different from any other large organization with its own culture. You either embrace those norms or the body eventually rejects you. Informed choice is the best any individual can do. That and being able to look yourself in the mirror... Nothing cosmic or wise, just recognizing the very well known threat.