nsplayr

Conjecture. Have that same Lt/Captain walk down Disney in uniform and then have them explain to you the virtue of always being saluted. Bro rules shouldn't apply in situations where it will be detrimental to the reputation of the squadron you represent. In the squadron parking lot, I will wear my morale patches with pride (and so will the SQ/CC) and probably not salute my O-3 bros because they are my bros. I'll roll my sleeves up and guys who chew might spit on the ground. Outside the Wing HQ or the gym or clinic or wherever else, we will follow the rules to a T because the last thing the Boss needs is some Chief or uptight Lt. Col. coming to him asking why his Lts aren't following the rules. Part of the unwritten rule is to continue to have SA on your surroundings when applying the other unwritten rules.

I tread carefully with the "one up one down" attitude. I'll gladly salute any and all Majors and above and will only potentially consider not saluting a Captain who I know extremely well and who I know shares a similar view of CGOs being bros. To me the written rules stop at the FGO level; that's my accepted level of risk in bending the rules. Clearly the correct answer is that yes, by reg, lower-ranking officers will salute higher-ranking officers, and that unwritten rules to no apply. However, since this thread is titled No Rank Amongst Lieutenants, I can 100% agree with that because we're all f*cking lieutenants.

Dear God, I would plow her like a field in the spring time. I don't care if she's a coked out whore, she looks like she could take a dick, and some girls pride themselves on their dick-taking abilities.

If the distinction between 2Lt and 1Lt is so important why does my ID card just say LT? Maybe we should start a war on ID cards so we're not losing credibility with the enlisted force every time we roll through the gate /sarcasm

Detailed report attached after 6-9 second google search. The answers are there. This also applies to Congressional staff. For members elected after 1984, they are covered by FERS. They can receive a pension after 5 years of service (so greater than 2 terms for members of the House, less than 1 term for Senators). The formulas for benefits are in the report, but basically it's: average of top 3 salary x 0.017 x years of service. Base salary for members of Congress is $174,000, and if we're talking 5 year minimum to earn the pension, your minimum payout is $14,790 per year. The 1.7% only applies only to the first 20 years of service, it's back to 1% like other federal employees after that. There's also TSP and social security benefits but we should know all about how those work. It's a nice plan (and the starting salary is very legit) and I like how you can be vested in a shorter amount of time rather than the 20 or nothing of the military. But it's not some ridiculous golden parachute of internet lore like a lot of people think. It's very similar to what all federal employees receive, except that regular federal employees are immediately vested, no need to serve at least 5 years. Regular federal employees have a similar computation found here, but it boils down to 1% of your top 3 salary for every year of service (or 1.1% if you retire over age 62 with at least 20 years). Basically Congress gives themselves the same kicker given to, "Air Traffic Controllers, Firefighters, Law Enforcement Officers, Capitol Police, Supreme Court Police, or Nuclear Materials Couriers." The facts are out there if only we knew how to find them... Edit: forgot to attach file. Retirement Benefits for Congress.pdf

I will counsel any second lieutenant that salutes me that if it happens again I will punch them in the face. It goes without saying, you're a f*cking lieutenant. Jesus. It's also an unwritten rule not to be gay (not homosexual, that's allowed now, just gay as in like this guy). With all due respect, the good Col. has broken unwritten rule #1. From the article: Which one of you 2Lts is ready for the fast-track to command? Do you solemnly swear to increase queep at every opportunity? Will you vow to totally lose focus on the actual mission after 6-9 exec/staff/school assignments? Are you prepared to be promoted BTZ? And in his thrilling next article he's gonna push club membership? Give me a f-ing break sir, with all due respect of course... Time for bed...so angry...

I agree that if we're going to do cuts it should include everyone; notice how one of those specifically mentioned groups not included in the freeze was military personnel. I don't think a federal government pay freeze does dick for our long term problem but symbolically, yes, we should all be in it together, including Congress and the armed forces. That's why symbolic cuts are kinda pointless...they do nothing to solve the long-term problem yet they're painful to the everyday guy who relies on that paycheck, sometimes after doing a great deal of service to their country (military/police etc.).

Comments button worked for me. On this Memorial Day, I'd like to take a moment to remember all the broken egos of our brave TIB servicemembers...him him.

Obama has proposed this for all almost non-military Executive branch employees already. Including DOD civilians. Much more saved right there than a similar freeze for the 535 members of Congress although symbolically they can go for it.

The $400 billion cut is over 10 years, so by 2023 since the budget request for 2012 is already submitted and includes the original $400 billion Gates has already identified. Story. Most of the time pay "cuts" are really either freezes or measures that slow their growth (like smaller cost of living increases, etc.). Honestly, if we're serious about cutting deficits all of a sudden, why is this not on the table? Everything should be on the table so the American people can really see what the options are, no sacred cows on either side if we're being serious. The voters will see that the sentiments to "make cuts" are not nearly as easily met when the things that are eating the vast majority of our budget are quite popular (i.e. not foreign aid, the department of education, etc.). WRT DoD, it's either make cuts to personnel costs (either less troops or same number and pay them less) or cut R&D, procurement, or operations. A lot of reductions are projected from drawing down operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and obviously some major procurement items have been cut recently as well. I don't want a reduction in pay or benefits for active military members but if cuts are gonna come you realistically have to expect that they will hit that aspect of defense spending. Some of the proposals have even been very reasonable (Tricare fees) but have met a firewall of categorical opposition that defies logic. Attached good report on DOD personnel costs with a sh*t-load of graphics and numbers on the issue. Forgot to attach and lost the file...

Could this potentially be a case of non-judicial punishment? Nothing would humiliate me more than to pen a queepy article and have it posted on af.mil to forever enshrine my commitment to the Party line bullsh*t our AF has become. That would be a creative commander.

Clearly this is a box you need to check to make Chief/Colonel. Honestly... Unfortunately, most of the comments were supporting the Captain's sentiment. While I agree crisp salutes are great and all, come on, that's what you're gonna put your name to on af.mil? My god...the rationale of people in the comments. If I hear one more time "If you can't salute properly how can we trust you to fly a multi-million dollar airplane?" I will choke that person out.

Saw that on an international flight. Pretty good, informative without being boring.

Lol, so now that you're no longer AD feel free to speculate all you want. OPSEC be damned! /sarcasm font Whatever it was was probably bad ass and hopefully one day we'll know the truth when the book gets written.

I started mine early so when I'm two years out from my commitment I can be done taking TA and tell the AF to go F themselves two years later if I want to. Obviously not the same numbers game for pilots but starting that early sometimes has a point. The captain's board excuse is ridiculous.

CNN is running a story on how all the leaks about the operational details of the bin Laden raid are potentially putting the SEALs who took part in danger. They then go on to run down all the operational details that have been leaked recently, send a reporter to the supposed base where the team is stationed, and attempt to go to bars and restaurants "known to be frequented by SEALs" to get them on camera. WTF...YOU ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE REPORTING IS DANGEROUS!! Stop making it worse you idiots... Best quote: Ken "Former Special Forces Officer" Robinson, "The executive branch, the legislative branch, friends, relatives, and acquaintances; they need to shut the f*ck up." Well said Ken...or should I say Rainman...

We had some kind of deal where our work for Haiti counted for an inspection last year. Anyone else at HRT remember better than I do?

This whole RIF board thing is a cluster of paperwork. Create PRF-like folder, with 8 lines of narrative, for every 03-05 captain and every 00-02 major in our squadron...oh wait, that's about 69 folders. And I'm willing to 100% guarantee none of these people will be RIF'd since all of our VSP applicants were turned down and there isn't an overage of 11SX or 12SX folks anywhere. Son of a bitch air force...

I think there's credit due all around. The folks who gave the order and carried out the mission would not have been in a position to do so if there wasn't groundwork laid ahead of time. The desire to bring a ruthless killer to justice can and does transcend partisan politics.

I did see a KC-10 refueling a B-1 below me in a country with notoriously high terrain. Keep in mind we don't get up real high with one engine...thought that was pretty forward-leaning of them.

I've heard myself saying this exact same phrase before around 2003...

Looks like the idea to control at locations separate from where the birds are located is finally taking off. Eglin isn't exactly paradise but it's a hell of a lot nicer than the current UAV locations... Link

Also conjecture. Edit to add: awesome video of Obama's alternate speech from Sunday night.

CNN was talking about it just now...not really surprised we brought out the fanciest toys for the biggest missions.

I think that's the judgment call and it apparently has been made in the affirmative. I probably would have been inclined to release the pics, but then again we saw all the violence caused by the Danish cartoon or the Koran burning shennanigans. To me, it seems like a lot of the more radical Muslims out there get their panties in a wad easily and believe "being offended" means "rampage through the streets and kill people and break shit," so if there is a genuine belief that releasing the photos would cause more violence directed at U.S. forces and personnel then I guess it's the right decision.