nsplayr

My new go-to .ppt add-in for slides that just aren't up to snuff will be either the double-panther or the rattlesnake + bill of rights. They're both winners in my book. Watch out squadron staff meeting!

That quote was in there for context...I happened to read a different article where Sen. Conrad recently was concerned with the cost of keeping so many troops in Afghanistan and how that cost has increased dramatically in recent years, largely due to tensions with Pakistan. Maybe that's driving his mindset WRT cutting defense spending. He also mentioned "core defense spending" without being more specific, it's unclear exactly what he means by that. Except that they are.

WTF is he talking about here? Are SMSgts not called "senior" out of respect rather than the regs-approved "sergeant" and are we stopwatching airmen when they step foot indoors to see if they take their freaking fleece off? There needs to be a smiley that's blowing it's brains out...

This may be among his recent concerns... Link

Yea, I just read that and got a good chuckle...looks like she's still looking for others to make sure there's enough fuel in her engines

A really small one.

That's how the government looks at it man...all the things I listed are discretionary spending. The fact that you find one program or category more important is your opinion and everyone's got one. Why is this ok for a state but not for the nation? You don't have to live in the United States either. Doesn't logically make sense...either it's a good idea or it's not. Romney did give a lot to charity and that's good for him. While that's an admirable personal quality giving to charity certainly isn't a requirement, free country and all. Romney is probably the best example of the whole "self-sufficiency apart from the government" idea on a personal level being a Mormon, they're big into taking care of their own and stockpiling stuff for bad times. And since they controlled about 1/2 of Congress they got to cut from about 1/2 the accounts they wanted and the Democrats got to pile on cuts where they wanted, that's how it works. Few of the cuts were necessary IMHO in the short term but at least we agree on the source of our current problem now that we're actually faced with the cuts. In a broader reform to the entire system, sure, but that's another conversation. You don't huh? Must be a Ron Paul guy which is cool but clearly I'm not. Alright, that's enough for one day...I've been in enough gangbangs to recognize when it's no longer really entertaining...we'll have plenty of opportunities to debate politics over the next 6-9 months.

Saw this fine gentleman on base today...in addition to being pretty solid on the bagpipes, he had the single best mustache I've ever seen in my life. To you sir

I think we can all look to for some wisdom in pursuing that path.

A lot of people here (perhaps not you) wanted to "slash spending" but not one drop of blood from the DOD (except maybe the flat-screen TV and reflective belt accounts). Neither camp (GOP or Dems) can have it both ways and my vote was to not cut spending much at all and I can live with that because I know the spending cuts would not be favorable for many DOD folks' interests including my own. Since DOD spending (and non-discretionary spending in general) aren't causing 98% of the problem, we shouldn't have taken an axe to anything (DOD, arts programs, national parks, transportation, food stamps, foreign aid, etc.). If cutting those things would solve the problem then great, go for it, but it won't so why make deep cuts to programs and services that people rely on and that do a lot of good just to be in ~1% better shape than you were before? So we shouldn't have made huge cuts to anything! The Tea Party wanted blood from the federal budget but they didn't have the power to control the process so blood is what they got...some of it from the DOD to the horror of McCain/Graham/MeKeon republicans. IMHO the GOP establishment opened Pandora's Box politically by largely embracing the Tea Party and the 2010 fervor to cut spending when they should have known that the Democrats would maintain the Senate and were holding the White House. Hopefully some of them can regroup and partner with moderate democrats and stop the sequestration cuts that the failure of the Super Committee triggered. Sounds good, let's throw in reforming the tax code while we're at it. What's the plan and how do you get 60 senators and half the House to back it? I'm saying it sucks but isn't surprising. Personally I don't plan my life based on promises of future good deals from the government or any particular company.

I try to make it a point to always say that I am not for the cuts being made to the DOD budget for the most part. They're not necessary, and don't need to be carried out this fast at any rate. But like I said before and will say again, if I remember correctly it was not liberals by and large "beating the drum" to slash government spending that forced us into the cuts we're seeing now. Most of the cuts we're seeing (though not the Tricare fees we're talking about here) are part of the Budget Control Act, which would have been completely unnecessary had Congress raised the debt ceiling in a normal fashion without requiring short-term, corresponding spending cuts.

And these sources stuck to the facts at hand and relied on the CJCS's assessment rather than the wild speculation of unnamed congressional aides.

I've heard rumors of this as well. Hopefully it's BS since I know tons of navs (including myself) who never went because we went relatively direct from commissioning to nav school to our platforms without a break for ASBC. Whatever, if not having the ASBC box checked is the straw that breaks the camel's back on some poor guy down the line then the AF is truly F'd!

This is exactly it...the proposal for increased Tricare fees has been out there for some time and shouldn't come as a surprise. The fact that some journalist came up with the headline "Trashing Tricare" to hawk his new news outlet doesn't really make this "news" again. And his use of unnamed "congressional aids" who suggest some ulterior motive other than saving money doesn't strike me as important new insight. It may be unpleasant to hear that tricare fees may be going up and that's fine, I just don't understand the fresh outrage when this has been out in the open. And after all Congress has the power of the purse so anything in the President's budget proposal is at best an opening salvo in the budget negotiations. ADAF. I am young so maybe I don't "get it" but frankly I don't find (bar napkin numbers ahead!) paying ~$800 a year for a family's healthcare vice ~$500 a huge burden for the top-earning set of military retirees. Are increased tricare fees my first choice of ways to save money? F*ck no, but if we're cuttin' budgets right away and with an axe then so be it, unintended things get cut when you use an axe. I frankly don't think we needed to do a lot of cutting from the DOD budget in the short-term but you bet your ass I know who in Congress pushed real hard for cuts to government spending. Raising tricare fees is effectively a cut to government spending, mission accomplished apparently. And honestly if you read Dempsey's numbers on the huge cost of healthcare benefits to the DOD, you have to know changes need to be made, the current system is unsustainable. Thanks for your service. When I commissioned much more recently than that, I was told by those wiser than me that nothing was guaranteed unless it was on paper and I had the signed original copy and even then the rules can and will be changed at any time by the Air Force, Congress, etc. YMMV, and if the government goes back on some promise it made to you 40 years ago, it wouldn't be the first time unfortunately.

Humm...any sources that are not ridiculously biased? I was unfamiliar, but after a quick once-over of their website it's perhaps a little slanted. The author of that particular article is from the Washington Times upon further googling. I also am not sure why it's news that the Administration wants to raise some Tricare fees, we've discussed this somewhere else already. It's been out there for months, they want to raise Tricare fees in order to save some money and MOAA et. al. are not happy about it. That "several unnamed congressional aids" suggested that it was some kind of devious scheme is not really compelling.

Jesus H. Christ...I'm down here and haven't even seen those kind of shenanigans in person. Dude...every weekend is a 2 day bear-growing sprint to see how hobo-like I can look by Monday at 0700. If that's not "professional" enough for the Boss I guess maybe I'm just not a "professional." I told my wife that when I get out I'm gonna take a year and make it my goal to look like Opie from Sons of Anarchy...I think beards like this would add some much-needed badassery to the Air Force.

That's totally true but totally irrelevant in the long term. Today we have an embassy in Hanoi, dock Navy ships there and have normal trade relations. At some point the enemy can outlast us on their own turf using 4GW but we have the power to say "fuck em" and leave, knowing we'll get them in the end with the spread of globalization. You're right that the Taliban and other assholes who will probably take over again at some point will kill Karzai and anyone else who helped us but at this point, so what? We got what we wanted out of Afghanistan IMHO (decimating AQ senior leadership and training camps), and we even gave nation building the ole' college try and did a better job than the previous occupiers. I think you meant madrassas. Madras on the other hand is a soft cotton fabric from India. I think you're overestimating the Taliban's love for AQ foreigners...that relationship didn't exactly work out so great for the Taliban last time they let AQ hang around. There will be assholes that hate us there for sure (there are now), but will they be able to strike us back home once all the "easy" targets like convoys are out of there? That's the real question and I'd argue the answer is no, Afghan militants won't be nearly as dangerous as those in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. State also has no money or personnel (compared to DOD), so yea, good luck with that!

Well played...well played. Rushed post + iphone = bad grammer. I promise am NOT a Chinese spy...

How would have known said NCO was even on active duty vs. a family member? I mean, I've heard well of his escapades, but that just sounds pretty far. I did remember hearing about the CV-22 thing but yea, it was not exactly recently.

In case anyone was wondering about this... Sex With Animals Still Not OK in U.S. Military.

I will...so long as the bad guys continue to squirt off of the objective with such gusto.

I know someone from my ROTC Det. who "failed" ASBC...still on active duty as far as I know after some light facebook stalking. Not sure how that's even possible based on what I heard about how difficult the training there was.

You're wife's looking wonderful these days...tell "her" I say hi!

I hadn't open this link earlier and when I got to work I read the email from Gen. Fiel notifying AFSOC of another warrior lost. Can't believe Hurlburt has lost another good dude in such a short period of time. Lt. Col. Loftis was an instructor at the USAF Special Operations School and taught a week-long class that I took last summer. Former space & missiles nerd, spoke a really difficult language, really knowledgable about about Afghanistan and security studies in general. Good dude, he'll be missed. Left behind a wife and two young kids too... Those Afghan cock-suckers who killed him deserve to be hunted down, killed, and rot in hell. They can have their piece-of-shit country to themselves as soon as practical if you ask me...declare "victory" and let's chunk up the deuces on that place.

Come on..."Holy crap, I've got about 5-6 guys squirting in every direction!" It's gotta make ya laugh just a little bit...even if you end up killing them all after the fact. Despite the 31% on rottentomatoes.com, will definitely be adding Act of Valor to my "to see" list.