What's wrong with the Air Force?

[AnimalMother]

The fact that people get so hot and bothered by chaplain invocations but didn't raise an eyebrow when maj nadal Hassan signed all of his letters "Allah Akbar" is pretty telling about our ridiculous PC military.

Honestly, that's really not all that different from all the people who sign their emails "have a blessed day," or something similar. "Allah Akbar," is not a terrorist rallying cry. But, I agree, the level of "PC awareness" in the military is off the deep end.

[AnimalMother]

Agree. People need to get over it; by in large we are a Christian country, just like Thailand is a Buddhist country. This doesn't mean there aren't other religions allowed or the "main" religion is the right answer for everyone. It's just simply the predominant choice. I don't go to Thailand and immediately start bitching about a monk praying in public or demanding they melt down statues in public places because it makes me feel uncomfortable. If you can't just politely stand there and not take part, then you're an idiot and need to get over yourself.

I hear this a lot, and while I agree with it in some respects, I think you have to be a little careful. Our founding fathers were indeed Christian, and they certainly invoked many of the teachings of that religion. However, they did not do so in an attempt to proselytize. Honestly I think they realized that at a very basic level, many religions are very similar and they wanted to protect the ability of people to follow a religion of their choice in order to lead a moral life without the government having the ability to dictate what religion that would be, or even worse, what constitutes morality in the first place. When exercised properly, religion is a vastly preferable guiding institution than the dictums of big government. Much of this is nearly moot however, as we have strayed very far indeed from the vision of our founding fathers. I highly recommend the book "The 5000 Year Leap," if you haven't read it, absolutely fantastic.

[matmacwc]

My thoughts exactly, ...except about the religious people.

It's simple: Keep the church and state separate like you're supposed to and you don't get these problems.

Show me in the constitution where this is written again?

[FlyinGrunt]

Guys, can we just take the religion stuff to another thread? Let's get back to sport bitching about nonexistent leadership, broke planes, and acquisition debacles. And CBTs. And . . . And . . .

[CoachAT802]

I don't want to live in a theocracy.

[pawnman]

I don't want to live in a theocracy.

This is what I constantly tell people at my local church who pray for more Christians in government, and for more "Christian" policies from lawmakers...Seems to me many of us have spent over a decade fighting against a group of people who thought their religious ideas should form the basis of their government.

[matmacwc]

I get it, I've read it AND I agree with you. Some people just hate religion, some people understand our laws. Just seeing where you were coming from.

[PropWash]

I get it, I've read it AND I agree with you. Some people just hate religion, some people understand our laws. Just seeing where you were coming from.

So your idea of honest debate is to troll the conversation with positions you know to be inaccurate? Nice.

[Homestar]

The constitution does not require that people check their religion at the door. It does require, however, that the government establish no religion, nor provide religious test for office. This is to protect religion and its free practice, not necessarily allow only secularists to serve in government.

[slackline]

Wrong thread for this dead horse conversation...

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[matmacwc]

My point is above.

Edited April 3, 2014 by matmacwc

[MSCguy]

To throw in something that's not religious: The AF places way too much emphasis on higher education. It used to be like this: enlisted: high school graduate, line officer: bachelors, professional/medical officer: advanced degree. Now it's advanced degrees pushed across the board. When enlisted members have the same or more education than officers what the hell kind of environment is this supposed to foster?

[panchbarnes]

No high paying civilian business cares about an associate degree (CCAF). If the E-9s really care about their folks, they would steer them towards a bachelors degree. But nope, it's about making sure people check the boxes to indicate "desire and potential."

Edited April 10, 2014 by PanchBarnes

[BB Stacker]

No high paying civilian business cares about an associate degree (CCAF). If the E-9s really care about their folks, they would steer them towards a bachelors degree. But nope, it's about making sure people check the boxes to indicate "desire and potential."

To be fair, that's less about an enlisted culture issue and more about the fact that by AFI (signed by a three-star) you are prohibited from getting SR without CCAF complete.

I agree that CCAF is stupid but I think the fire is a bit misplaced if we're directing it solely at org level SNCOs...fact of the matter is until the AFI changes you ain't getting promoted past MSgt without your CCAF, period.

[panchbarnes]

I didn't know about the AFI requirement. Thanks for the education.

[pawnman]

No high paying civilian business cares about an associate degree (CCAF). If the E-9s really care about their folks, they would steer them towards a bachelors degree. But nope, it's about making sure people check the boxes to indicate "desire and potential."

Never been enlisted, so correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't CCAF more "job related training" than most degree programs?

[SocialD]

Never been enlisted, so correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't CCAF more "job related training" than most degree programs?

Yes. I got college credit for basic/tech school/course 1 (SSgt test for the guard) and 5 or 7 level. After I received my bachelors, I transferred my basic electives into the CCAF and a A.A.S. in aircraft maintenance showed up a year later while I was in UPT.

Edited April 10, 2014 by SocialD

[MSCguy]

No high paying civilian business cares about your masters in underwater basket weaving from TUI either.

[zach braff]

I dropped out of CCAF as an Airmen when the Ed Center told me they would only transfer 2.33 credits from all my pre-USAF college classes. Since I'd gone to school for a year in Washington State, which at the time had trimesters instead of semesters, they wouldn't give a full transfer. Where the hell was I going to find .67 credits anywhere?

When I went ROTC, go figure - my 4 year school transferred everything no problems. I now have a bachelors and (worthless box-checking) masters but still probably would not qualify for a CCAF.

zb

[HercDude]

Got this dozy in the inbox today:

Subject: 18 AF Focus Group Participant Call

Execs,

SUSPENSE: ASAP

<words>

,the tasker is looking for individuals to participate in focus groups via DCO which will take place somewhere between 24 Apr 2 May. These DCOs will last one hour max. This is a great opportunity for your people.

I need one person from each of the following categories:

Amn

NCO

SNCO

CGO

FGO

GS

for each nom I need the following:

Last 3 OPR/EPRs

SURF

PT score

If you can get me names and PT scores I can pull the OPR/EPR and SURF.

<more words>

Please get me any names you have and thank you for your help.

v/r

-An Exec

So, in order to participate in a DCO focus group - sitting behind a pc screen, picking boogers and Cheetos - you have to submit your PT scores and last 3 OPRs. I'd assume the point of such an event was for the 18th AF/CC to get some tactical level opinions from his troops - maybe see some small portion of the world through the eyes of those suffering through it, and not a stoplight chart & some PhD level spreadsheet. Instead the Wing has to nominate people then vet them based on strats and PT scores. Absurd.

[Butters]

Heard it yesterday at a mass awards/promotion ceremony.

Jesus Christ, that is fucked up. How did you deal with it? Was anyone Tebowing?

[chim richalds]

whats funny is that i just sat on a court martial and no pt scores were required. I guess making a decision on whether a guy did time was less important than some "great opportunity" that management has for me.

[BitteEinBit]

PT test scores (as long as you pass) and OPRs don't seem to matter for 365 or other deployment opportunities either. Weird.

[Champ Kind]

We passed the point of "full retard" on PT scores long ago.

If you know anything about the 18 AF/CC (oops, I mean future AMC/CC), this shouldn't be a surprise.

[Chuck17]

We passed the point of "full retard" on PT scores long ago.

If you know anything about the 18 AF/CC (oops, I mean future AMC/CC), this shouldn't be a surprise.

Champ, I agree with your sentiment, and far be it from me to defend the mgmt at 18AF, but I am 90% sure this is a boy-wonder wing commander requirement, and not coming down from on high...

Think the wing cc is gonna roll in just anyone to sit for a spell with HIS boss and possibly make him look a fool? No. Hence the screen. And the subsequent garbage in - garbage out dynamic of the whole thing. This is a wing commander problem, not at 18AF problem. Knowing the current command climate, this should surprise no one.

Now, if the 18AF expects honest feedback from the general population he has to go to the source, not the sources supervisors or chain of command. (Get the hooks out of your ass, do some battlefield circulation and pull aside a random group of captains - ala Gen Welsh). The fact that DCO is being used to touch as many people from afar as possible (like the new money saving version of "High Flight") should tell you how "important" this is to leadership - as in, it ain't. It's all show. It briefs well.

Take note fellas... One day you are going to be leading people. Decide now what your style and legacy will be, and find good and bad examples to pull from.

Just remember, perception is reality.

Chuck

Edit: follow up - also take note of how this "tasker" was pushed down - via the exec chains, circumventing the squadron commanders authority, though they would ultimately be able to nominate dudes up.

No decentralized execution. No empowerment. No trust.

No "send me your three strongest dudes to come learn a thing or two about leadership and work in some focus groups for a few days." No, instead we get "send up names, OPRs and PT scores so we can screen them and then the wing commander will decide who is going to participate."

If the wing is this far in your chili, maybe you don't need squadron commanders, let alone a Group commanders... Small example, but I think it says a lot.

Cheers

Edited April 12, 2014 by Chuck17