Next CSAF?

[Biff_T]

31 minutes ago, FLEA said:

I don't really find it funny. He is another middle aged white dude who is making a joke out of something that is disproportionately affecting a single race

I hate saying this so much in one week, but you're right.   He shouldn't be singling out the shaving waiver as I know it affected more brothers in service than other races.  But I can't hide the fact that I would laugh at his joke.  Probably the reason I was forced to retire at 20 years and 4 days.   

In all seriousness, I agree a senior leader shouldn't be making fart jokes.  

Is there really a reason dudes in the service need to shave?  Other than my o2 mask or mopp gear wont fit properly?  Are chicks forced to shave anything?  Lol. 

[pawnman]

1 minute ago, Biff_T said:

I hate saying this so much in one week, but you're right.   He shouldn't be singling out the shaving waiver as I know it affected more brothers in service than other races.  But I can't hide the fact that I would laugh at his joke.  Probably the reason I was forced to retire at 20 years and 4 days.   

In all seriousness, I agree a senior leader shouldn't be making fart jokes.  

Is there really a reason dudes in the service need to shave?  Other than my o2 mask or mopp gear wont fit properly?  Are chicks forced to shave anything?  Lol. 

Your MOPP gear will fit properly. It was a myth leadership used to say why we couldn't have beards. 

[uhhello]

4 hours ago, FLEA said:

I don't really find it funny. He is another middle aged white dude who is making a joke out of something that is disproportionately affecting a single race. He might not see the wider context but that is no excuse--at his position he has an obligation to know better. I like seeing warriors in high office as well but they carry character flaws as often as anyone else. Especially SOCOM types. Look how many scandals were uncovered in the last decade with drug smuggling/addiction/abuse and murder for hire schemes. 

I haven't confirmed it with 23 and me but I'm going to take a flying leap here and say he's not a middle aged white dude.

[CaptainMorgan]

I haven't confirmed it with 23 and me but I'm going to take a flying leap here and say he's not a middle aged white dude.

Oh, he’s White Hispanic, like The NY Times called George Zimmerman.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hindsight2020]

29 minutes ago, CaptainMorgan said:

Oh, he’s White Hispanic, like The NY Times called George Zimmerman.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What in the ku klux klan are you implying? Yes,  Colón-López is 1st generation Puerto Rican. Yes, we exist. Not all of us are phenotypically mestizo, hence the white hispanic moniker. Latter which is mostly an Anglo-centering invention anyways.

We don't make such distinctions. We're all just Ricans/Boricuas amongst each other (well, except carpet-bagging NYC-born and raised Nuyoricans like AOC, I'll cred-check her all day, she can't gaslight me lol).

Don't misunderstand, our culture can be colorist, just like most Caribbean LAMA and South America, but we don't obsess over complexion to the insufferable degree Anglos and CONUS-raised Hispanics do.

As to Rambo's comments, I don't think his Hispanic background, nor whatever "white passing" critique some Anglos may want to latch on to, is relevant as to whether they are to be considered contemptible. Douchebags come in all ethnic flavors and colors. Now to quote ol Rodney, can't we all just get along? 😄

 

[CaptainMorgan]

What in the ku klux klan are you implying? Yes,  Colón-López is 1st generation Puerto Rican. Yes, we exist. Not all of us are phenotypically mestizo, hence the white hispanic moniker. Latter which is mostly an Anglo-centering invention anyways.
We don't make such distinctions. We're all just Ricans/Boricuas amongst each other (well, except carpet-bagging NYC-born and raised Nuyoricans like AOC, I'll cred-check her all day, she can't gaslight me lol).
Don't misunderstand, our culture can be colorist, just like most Caribbean LAMA and South America, but we don't obsess over complexion to the insufferable degree Anglos and CONUS-raised Hispanics do.
As to Rambo's comments, I don't think his Hispanic background, nor whatever "white passing" critique some Anglos may want to latch on to, is relevant as to whether they are to be considered contemptible. Douchebags come in all ethnic flavors and colors. Now to quote ol Rodney, can't we all just get along?
 

I was calling out FLEA for calling him white, you dumbass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hindsight2020]

10 minutes ago, CaptainMorgan said:

I was calling out FLEA for calling him white, you dumbass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not white, Anglo. Lopez Colon is white.

[CaptainMorgan]

Not white, Anglo. Lopez Colon is white.

So how am I in the KKK when you’re calling him white while I sarcastically called him “white hispanic?” He’s Hispanic, maybe he’s a she if zer identifies as such, but FLEA calling him a “white dude” is the mischaracterization here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hindsight2020]

8 minutes ago, CaptainMorgan said:

So how am I in the KKK when you’re calling him white while I sarcastically called him “white hispanic?” He’s Hispanic, maybe he’s a she if zer identifies as such, but FLEA calling him a “white dude” is the mischaracterization here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I see the issue now, we're talking past each other. It's now clear to me you both consider the term "white Hispanic" oxymoronic.

I was trying to highlight to you, perhaps more sarcastically than i should have, that Hispanic is not a race. It is therefore beyond presumptuous to treat the use of white as equivalent to Anglo. You can certainly do that, but as a white Hispanic I'm going to check you on it every time.

The KKK quip was tongue in cheek.

I agree with you the other poster probably did mean Anglo, and that is a mischaracterization. You are correct there.

[CaptainMorgan]

I see the issue now, we're talking past each other. It's now clear to me you both consider the term "white Hispanic" oxymoronic.
I was trying to highlight to you, perhaps more sarcastically than i should have, that Hispanic is not a race. It is therefore beyond presumptuous to treat the use of white as equivalent to Anglo. You can certainly do that, but as a white Hispanic I'm going to check you on it every time.
The KKK quip was tongue in cheek.
I agree with you the other poster probably did mean Anglo, and that is a mischaracterization. You are correct there.

Fair enough, apologies for calling you a dumbass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hindsight2020]

6 minutes ago, CaptainMorgan said:

Fair enough, apologies for calling you a dumbass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No worries. Cheers 🍺

[M2]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-to-tap-air-force-general-as-next-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-2feda02

[nsplayr]

[Biff_T]

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Lol.  I just pissed myself.  

[BashiChuni]

On 5/10/2023 at 7:47 AM, nsplayr said:

that's pretty fuckin outstanding

[disgruntledemployee]

Well, the Senate stepped over Tuberville and confirmed CSAF and CNO.  Bigger headline is the CNO, 1st woman on the JCS staff.

https://news.yahoo.com/senate-sidesteps-tubervilles-hold-confirms-165415542.html

[GKinnear]

16 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Well, the Senate stepped over Tuberville and confirmed CSAF and CNO.  Bigger headline is the CNO, 1st woman on the JCS staff.

https://news.yahoo.com/senate-sidesteps-tubervilles-hold-confirms-165415542.html

No offense, but 'exercised the authority the Senate had the entire time' is probably a more accurate description.

What legally changed for Chuck Schumer between last week and today?  Tuberville's hold was never a insurmountable obstacle.

Remember that politically, both parties use your military service as pawns of whatever it is its after.

[Stoker]

16 hours ago, GKinnear said:

No offense, but 'exercised the authority the Senate had the entire time' is probably a more accurate description.

What legally changed for Chuck Schumer between last week and today?  Tuberville's hold was never a insurmountable obstacle.

Remember that politically, both parties use your military service as pawns of whatever it is its after.

It's not feasible in today's environment to hold a hearing and vote on every individual Senate confirmable office. Removing the big ones (SECAF, CNO) from the backlog will mean less pressure to confirm the ones lower down the food chain.

[GKinnear]

1 hour ago, Stoker said:

It's not feasible in today's environment to hold a hearing and vote on every individual Senate confirmable office. Removing the big ones (SECAF, CNO) from the backlog will mean less pressure to confirm the ones lower down the food chain.

Agree to disagree.

Congress wants to be in charge, then accept the responsibility that comes with it.  I've got E-1, 2, 3, & 4s working 6/1s on 12s, I expect the same kind of work ethic from the highest law-making body in the land.

Insert a cliché about 'ignoring a problem won't make it go away' or 'Bad news doesn't get better with time'...both apply to this situation.

Again, this is political theater with three sides…unless you truly think that the 12x takers of the DoD policy on funded abortion travel is a higher National Defense priority over the nomination approvals of the Senior Military leaders.

SecDef Austin and Senate Majority Leader Schumer have statutory options they are choosing to not exercise...and I have to ask myself "Why?"

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, Stoker said:

It's not feasible in today's environment to hold a hearing and vote on every individual Senate confirmable office. Removing the big ones (SECAF, CNO) from the backlog will mean less pressure to confirm the ones lower down the food chain.

It is feasible and THIS is part of the problem.  If you have to be confirmed by the Senate why just accept the blanket approval of each service.  This practice only reinforces the broken process and continues to promote some of most acidic leaders we have ever seen. 

[Stoker]

36 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

It is feasible and THIS is part of the problem.  If you have to be confirmed by the Senate why just accept the blanket approval of each service.  This practice only reinforces the broken process and continues to promote some of most acidic leaders we have ever seen. 

47 minutes ago, GKinnear said:

Congress wants to be in charge, then accept the responsibility that comes with it.  I've got E-1, 2, 3, & 4s working 6/1s on 12s, I expect the same kind of work ethic from the highest law-making body in the land.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has approximately 50,000 nominations to review and confirm each year. If the Senate works six days a week, year round, twelve hour days, they will have approximately 4.6 minutes per nominee to review and vote. Given that a lone holdout can still force a roll call vote that will take far longer than 5 minutes, you will effectively accomplish nothing. The system is designed so that most people get blanket approved, but there is ample opportunity for serious discussion if there is any Senator who feels there's a need for it.

It's a super common misconception that Congress is only working when it's in session - there's a lot more going on behind the scenes.

[pawnman]

1 minute ago, Stoker said:

The Senate Armed Services Committee has approximately 50,000 nominations to review and confirm each year. If the Senate works six days a week, year round, twelve hour days, they will have approximately 4.6 minutes per nominee to review and vote. Given that a lone holdout can still force a roll call vote that will take far longer than 5 minutes, you will effectively accomplish nothing. The system is designed so that most people get blanket approved, but there is ample opportunity for serious discussion if there is any Senator who feels there's a need for it.

It's a super common misconception that Congress is only working when it's in session - there's a lot more going on behind the scenes.

Best get started then. Or we're going to have 50,000 vacancies a year.

[BONE WSO]

I was an AF Legislative Fellow in the Senate and saw the process up close. Our office received a list of military promotion nominees ahead of time. If there was somebody on the list that we didn't think should be promoted, we could call the SASC and they would remove that name from the list. This allowed the main list to move forward for unanimous consent vote, without that person on it. Obviously this would be rare, but it did happen to one O-6 when I was there. 

Only the very top nominees would have any attention paid to them. The highest level nominees (4 stars, JCS members, Asst Secretaries, etc...) would make their rounds to our office to meet with the Senator and others on the SASC to "kiss the ring." Below them nobody really gets reviewed, unless there was a specific person on the list that was highlighted negatively. 

And I agree with Stoker. My Senator worked everyday from about 0600-2300 and also brought a giant book of "homework" with him every night, memo's to review and approve. He frequently had 30 appointments a day. Unlike the extreme bloat in the DoD, our office was small with very few staff.  There is no time or manpower to review nominees one by one, except the people at the very top of the DoD. 

Edited November 3, 2023 by BONE WSO

[SurelySerious]

It's not feasible in today's environment to hold a hearing and vote on every individual Senate confirmable office. Removing the big ones (SECAF, CNO) from the backlog will mean less pressure to confirm the ones lower down the food chain.

There shouldn’t be so many offices to confirm in the senate then. Smaller government, boom problem solved.

[BashiChuni]

17 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

There shouldn’t be so many offices to confirm in the senate then. Smaller government, boom problem solved.

This