brickhistory

"Battle Ready" by Mark Donald. Guy enlists in the Marines, becomes Force Recon, decides to be a medic, switches to Navy, becomes a SEAL, then decides to become a PA in the Navy, stays with special ops. Suffers from PTSD. Who'da thought...

Have seen Big Blue non-vol folks for 365s even when they had less than 365 remaining. Mid-90s drawdown, pilot feet on the ramp fiasco: "Here Mr. former F-16 driver, here's your remote." "But, I'm less than 365 left in service." "Here's your 250 day orders." Big Blue can and will waiver anything to meet its needs.

Knock, knock. Who's there? AGM-114...

Anybody got the number to NSA? Or is me typing their initials good enough for them to start the process on this guy?

And a dictionary...

Again, not getting the point. Ok, Gen Liquid, you just racked and stacked your guys. Me, I'm Capt Snuffy and I think you screwed the pooch on Maj(S) Bagodonuts. And just how would Gen Liquid, Col Piningaway, or any other senior rater react in their gut? Never mind the how does Capt Snuffy know how you ranked anybody to be able to call you out? I can assure you that the average O-6 and above bear does not like being second-guessed either by a senior or junior. I wouldn't either. But the aforementioned rater being called out has recourse to his challenge. You seriously gonna say it won't be done? Different from my experience. Fix what is graded, not rely on the 'courage' of the next 'troublemaker' highlighting his need for a 179. And please don[t come back with a "that's poor leadership and/or that would never happen." Yes, it is poor leadership. It is the rule rather than the exception. And it has and will happen. I get that you think the system needs work but overall performs well. There is an awful lot of folks who disagree and are voting with their feet. Again, nothing new in our AF history. I also will argue that being rated is not the be all and end all and that's who must be taken care of. The CE guy busting his hump, getting it done, take care of his folks, and the other support folks deserve as fair a shot as any rated guy. But the discriminators in play don't work and rewards the wrong things. I will also argue the trap being laid by the Corona piece you put out and that AADs might get hidden again. That'd be great until the next time a new guy decides to reinvent the wheel like happened recently. How many guys got caught flat-footed by that little move? I am all for the wing commander or equivalent being the guy/gal to decide the ranking of his people. But the standards need to be known and of value to military readiness and mission accomplishment, not AAD (nice to have, but of what value?) or Shoe U by correspondence. But the Neidermeyer "all is well" doesn't play well.

While the sentiment is nice, and I actually agree with that, the truth is that those same (majority) of SRs who worked the system to get where they are will score according to that system and will not appreciate the "feedback." Rather, it'll be Capt Snuffy is not a team player, at least not my team. And Capt Snuffy will then join your APZ pile that apparently deserve their status.

By God, if only someone, somewhere had thought of this before. Say since 1947... It's thinking like this that is gonna take this great nation all the way to California one day. edited to add: The system is like it is because the system, i.e., those running it want it that way. It worked for them, why shouldn't that be the measure of success? Otherwise, you invalidate their achievement. And, again, this is not a new phenomena. Look at the b1tches from the Vietnam era. Look at it from the 1980s.

Wonderful, even motivational cheerleading. But it doesn't, and hasn't, fixed the problem. On this site alone, how many threads with how many anecdotes about p1ss-poor leadership and/or senior officers commanding who weren't good aviators? And that's just this site. Multiply it by how many p1ssed, non-led folks who have seen the beast and decided "fcuk that" while Col or even Gen Skippy goes about his or her merry, Kool-Aid chugging way? Billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money...(famous quote from Congress).

Good comparisons. The FNX is not that much bigger than the others and to get the fistful of .45 looks worth it. But for a CCW would be a trick. Nice S&W Patrolman six-gun! That needs a report as well to ensure the old school stuff doesn't disappear with the polymer generation.

Self-published? Not a criticism; a question as I couldn't find the publisher using google fu. I hope the guy sells a million copies. And the lesson learned is that this is something that many of you could do. You have done, and will do, some amazing sh1t, in aviation and people want to read about it. Write it down, get some pics, take a shot at a magazine. Worse they can do is ignore you, best bet is a published article, a little bit of beer money, and maybe more writing.

Second...

Giggity... I'm a bad man...

14/15 + 1?! That is some serious firepower for the long haul. Nice review.

This essay by Slate (left leaning pub) predates the recent SCOTUS ruling by a few months: https://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

Argue with what I actually wrote. Did I say society will collapse? Why don't polygamists and others have the same argument now regarding 'marriage equality' as gays did prior to last week?

Does it get old never addressing the argument directly? Ad hominem attacks are the equivalent of, what do you whippersnappers call it? - chaff/flare but can still be defeated by the good old-fashioned gun. Other than to point out my retired status - out of touch, couldn't/can't lead, and am "haughty (fabulous word choice!) - your post did nothing to counter my basic argument of equality. Is my opinion therefore irrelevant because I am retired? That seems a little close-minded which seems to counter your position here. Surely you aren't claiming that only one viewpoint is tolerated? The personal characterizations may or may not be accurate, but I'm still waiting on you or anyone else to demonstrate to me the difference in logic between homosexuals obtaining what is due them under this SCOTUS ruling and others who are 'different.' Other than the implementation of DADT, you are absolutely correct. No changes/adjustments/PC minefields for that. Same for the addition of women in combat flying squadrons. That was just done with the stroke of a pen and no upheavals/changes required. Sure do look back on my 'hetero white guys only' time with great fondness. (Paula Deen, get me a sam'mich...) No LL applicable for what to do or, as importantly, not do when a major Big Blue societal change is imposed upon the folks that have to make it work. Lectured? I don't think that word means what you think it means. Please to point out where I have instructed anyone on what or how to do anything, let alone related to this thread. I had hope that you were getting it when I read this sentence, but then I continued reading and it was simply more of the "you are old, bigoted, and late for the early bird special at Denny's." I have asked how commanders will deal with the issues of this ruling or of folks who will be commanders and most likely will have to deal with some weird sh1t due to this ruling as well as others as the boundaries continue to shift. Finance Guy's reference on BAH was but one example (and I am not bringing him on my side, for or against. Merely pointing out that the rules were written for the 'normal' situations). You (thank God ((religious reference admittedly so there's me nullified as to reason and objectivity)) and others still and to serve will have to handle these situations. Which, I believe, mere mortals will have to devote extra time and attention to instead of running a military organization focused on killing people and breaking their stuff. That 100% effort dedicated to being the best at being a warrior won't suffer dealing with social science effects at all. I'm sure you can handle it however. You've already said you would. I believe you are conflating my posts/arguments with those of some others who don't see things the same way as you. I don't recall basing my argument on religion. I will acknowledge my error if you find I did so in this thread. My point in bringing in polygamists and any other weird combination that might want to get married is that they now have a Supreme Court ruling setting precedent for their argument about "marriage equality." Therefore the rest of your paragraphs regarding religion as it relates to my argument are moot. Copy, I'm dismissed. But before I go, what are those "real issues" and how will you and Big Blue "take care of them?" As to the illegality of homosexuality in the past, I refer you to Lawrence v. Texas where the great state of Texas had, indeed, enshrined in their legal code that two men fukcing was illegal. SCOTUS eventually overturned that law. So there's one example which seemingly pokes a hole in your thinking (no sts). If my argument is "inflated and unrealistic" is it invalid? I've yet to see you address the logic of why one group that has been considered "abnormal" until recently is any different that other groups that are currently "abnormal." You seemed to try with the "freedom of religion" paragraphs; a religious belief over sexual preference, but for this ruling, by this Supreme Court, I don't see the difference. Folks are free to marry who they want, providing it's consensual, or they aren't. Gotta go; commissary got a shipment of Lucky Strikes in and the electric fat bastard carts go quick if you aren't at the front of the line.

Allow myself to quote myself: Still looking to see the logic explained on why others seeking their position as valid are wrong.

Hey, I've acknowledged the Supreme Court's ruling. It is the law of the land. It is something that must be dealt with in both society and in a practical manner in the military. But why is not just as applicable for the other scenarios described? Polygamy, consenting incest, other combinations still TBD? I'm not arguing for any of these, far from it. But those that would, and they will (already are, I'm sure), can take this finding and run with it. Why are they wrong?

No, I gathered your point. Mine remains valid. You, and others, are arguing that 'this' is the end of the matter. Now that homosexuals can legally marry, the issue is settled. I don't think it is. I see many legal challenges arguing for legal equality and recognition of these different combinations using this same logic. And they'd be correct. As noted above, you (and those supporting the same including the Supreme Court) have substituted your opinion/values/judgement for what has been. So you state that your opinion and judgement is the end of the matter? No other combinations can be or should be considered valid? Convenient, if illogical.

Err, is this the exact argument used to pass and support gay marriage? "Equality of marriage" either is a valid concept or it is not. That you don't like the examples given or the potentials for further combinations is ironic indeed.

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/office-of-personnel-management-benefits-now-available-to-same-sex-spouses-93584.html?hp=r7 So I can assume that I and my 4 sister-wives can look foward to "equal protection and equal treatment under the law?" Since previously, same sex marriage was against the federal law (DOMA) and still is in 35 states (although federal law trumps state law so the de facto ruling was for nationwide same-sex marriage), why can't I have anti-polygamy statutes ignored and/or overturned? Incest ones? Others that haven't even been thought of yet? For the ID card, will it say "spouse" for each one or will it be in marriage order, i.e., Spouse 1, Spouse 2, etc? For those that choose to marry their age of consent sibling, will the card say "Spouse" or "Dependent?" Brave new world indeed...

You will get your wish. And if "this group" gets their 'just' rights, why not all the others mentioned in this thread regarding marriage - polygamists, incestous ones, bestiality ones, whatever else man can come up with and he/she will because he's a weird sumbitch? As to "entire groups" being denied, I assume you are good with handicapped - physically or mentally - being allowed to serve in our armed forces? The rules banning such have been mainly because it's been "more convenient." Same as those now antiquated notions about knowingly inserting homesexuals in with the large majority who aren't. "Convenience for the few" was outweighed by the logistics/good order and morale/focus on the military mission by the many. I think the plot has been lost, but I'm just an observor now. I do hope you will share some anecdotes of how you handled some of the gnarly command decisions awaiting you and your contemporaries.

To the contrary, I'm thinking that all the rules are out the window to include restrictions against polygamy and other combinations. "Equality of marriage" either is or it isn't. I also look forward to reading about how future leaders here will deal with this brave new world you are celebrating. No doubt the counter will be "just fine, thank you very much." And that maybe, but my enjoyment of my "told you so" bourbon will be that much sweeter thinking about the puzzles that will have to be sorted out now: - transgender in the military - why not? And what to do about quarters/hygiene for such? - polygamist marriages - why not? And how to deal with custody rulings following inevitable divorces? Will married quarters have to be larger to reasonably accomodate such? Why not? - related to the hot topic currently - what to do about sexual harassement/assualt/rape and will the inevitable spike in homosexual (inevitable because larger numbers will be allowed in/will be married to such, not because there is a proclivity for such behavior) assualts on same gender victims receive adequate attention? - y'all have fun with it; dealing with these and many more 'fairness' issues will further take your time away from developing warriors, honing combat skills, and devoting resources to military purposes and not social equality issues.

I believe it's something along the lines of "honor thy father and thy mother" or maybe that's Old Testament/10 Commandments. Either way, I'm not arguing from a religious point of view. Perhaps because the concept of one mother, one father/one man, one woman derives from Judeo-Christianity as well as other religions, maybe you're on to something. I'm arguing that the standards were destroyed by this ruling therefore holding the line anywhere is illogical. In both the marriage of gays, soon to be many other combinations, and for three parent IVF, simply because you can do something doesn't mean you should. But if all bets are off, then all bets should be off. Strong survive and flourish, the weak get trampled and killed off. I believe that's called a state of nature so it goes against the religion thing.