Author: Hondo

  • About That USAFR Lt Col With A CIB . . . .

    Multiple TAH commenters have raised questions about the guy in this photo:


     

    The man in the photo is the late Lt Col Paul A. Bailey, USAFR (Ret).  He passed away last year.  You’ve probably heard about him from this (or a similar) article.

    The specific question most had about him was, “A CIB??  In the USAFR?  What the . . . ?”

    It turns out the guy’s CIB is in fact legit.

    Prior to entering the USAFR, Bailey served in the US Army – in the 82nd Airborne.  He was among those deployed to the Dominican Republic in 1965, and was awarded the CIB there.  The FOIA reply from NPRC regarding his Army records can be viewed here.

    Whether his CIB is authorized for wear on the USAF uniform he’s wearing in the picture is a question someone with a USAF background will have to answer; my background was Army, so I’m not up on the “ins and outs” of what sister-service badges/decorations/badges are and are not authorized for wear on USAF uniforms.   But unlike many fakes and frauds we see here, this man’s CIB  is  legitimate.

    It’s kinda nice to see a “corner-case” claim turn out to be the truth for a change.  I think that now makes about 3 such “corner-case” claims I’ve seen turn out to be legit in the last 2 years.

    Rest in peace, Lt Col Paul A. Bailey.  You’ve earned it – honorably.

  • A Weekend Oddity – the “Members Only” Museum

    One hint, folks: it ain’t about clothing.

    It’s called the Icelandic Phallological Museum.  Hat tip to Drudge for the link.

    No, your eyes aren’t playing tricks on you – you read that correctly.  Discretion/consideration of your environment recommended if you elect to visit the link, particularly if there are small children around.  (IMO it’s not obscene – but it might raise an embarrassing question or two if viewed by little ones, and could possibly offend the overly prudish.)

     

    Spiritual mediums indicate the late John Holmes was unavailable for comment.  (smile)

  • You Couldn’t Make This Stuff Up

    White House looks to regulate cow flatulence as part of climate agenda

    Yep, you read that right – the current Administration apparently now wants to regulate freaking cow farts.  What’s the penalty for a violation – the offender gets turned into hamburger?

    All I’ve got to say is:  YGBSM!!

  • Yer Friday Funny – About That Famous Town in “Kansas”

    Dunno how common the term is in other services, but in the Army there’s a rather crude term that’s used (or at least was at formerly used ) at times when referring to an unfamiliar and faraway place.  That phrase is, “Bumf**k, Egypt”.

    Much less common is a variant:  “Bumf**k, Kansas.”  And that second phrase purportedly has an, um, interesting origin.

    What follows purports to be the origin of that second phrase.  I cannot swear to the veracity of the story; I wasn’t there when the alleged incident occurred.  It’s also unclear whether the person who related the story to me about 30 years ago was there or was relating a second-hand story he’d heard.

    Still, here goes.  Enjoy.

    . . .

    Sometime in the late 1970s or early part of the 1980s, a discussion occurred at a US Army school.  I believe the account I heard said it was at the Army’s Command and General Staff College at Leavenworth, but I could be wrong.  The subject of the discussion is not terribly important.

    During that discussion, one of those present – a mid-level US officer taking the course – used the phrase “Bumf**k, Egypt” in conversation.  The phrase was fairly common at the time as a reference to an unknown, faraway place.

    It turned out that wasn’t exactly the best choice of words.

    Within earshot was an Allied officer – a LTC – who was attending the course.  The Allied officer was from Egypt.  This individual spoke excellent English, and was following the discussion.

    The allied officer definitely heard and, unfortunately, understood the term “Bumf**k, Egypt”- interpreting it in a British-English, literal-definition sense.

    Predictably, the man was initially somewhat taken aback.  He then was understandably and visibly offended.

    A more senior US officer was also present, and had observed what had happened.  (My recollection was that he was leading the discussion – but again, it’s been around 30 years since I first heard the story – so I could be wrong.)  With his career flashing before him (being involved in an international incident resulting from an Ally’s national honor being insulted is NOT exactly career-enhancing), this more senior US officer immediately approached the Egyptian LTC and asked to speak with him.

    He explained to the Egyptian LTC that no direct insult to his nation was intended.  He further explained the common, crude use of the term as a soldier’s reference to a place far away, of which the speaker has no knowledge and had never visited.  He also indicated he would counsel the US officer who had used the phrase.

    The Egyptian LTC – obviously still angry – looked at the more senior US officer; he though for a few moments.  His face then softened.

    The Egyptian LTC then smiled, and said the following, in Arabic-accented English:

    “Very well, I can accept that explanation. 

    But around me, would you please use instead the phrase, ‘Bumf**k, Kansas’ ?”

  • Yer Periodic ObamaCare Update

    An in today’s   Pathetic Pile of Amazingly Convoluted Asininity    Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (AKA ObamaCare) update:

    Well, Reid is correct in one sense.  Around 53% of the voters voted to reelect the Administration who gave us the abomination called ObamaCare.  Maybe stupid really is as stupid does.

    The sooner we realize this mishmash is a monumentally stupid idea and is completely unworkable, the better.  We need to give it the “heave ho” posthaste.

    I know every time I think of it it makes me want to “heave”.

  • A Book Recommendation

    Most of those who read TAH have a military background.

    However, we’re not all from the same service.  And though we all know this, it bears repeating:  there is a distinct – and at times, frustrating and perplexing – difference between the services in terms of norms, goals, and objectives.  Each service has its own personality; each has its own culture.  Each prays at a different “altar”.

    And to outsiders, those norms, goals, objectives, personality, and culture are a mystery.

    If you truly want to understand the other services – their personality, their culture, what makes them tick – a book written in 1989 IMO holds the key.  The book was written by a RAND Corporation analyst, Carl Builder.  It’s called The Masks of War (ISBN-10: 0801837766; ISBN-13: 978-0801837760).

    A short description of Builder’s discussion of service personalities may be found on pp. 9-14 of this document.  While this is a credible introduction, the book contains much more.  (Builder was asked after his book was originally published about the USMC – which he originally did not include in his analysis of service personalities.  His reply was that the USMC’s altar is “Honor”.)

    From what I’ve seen over close to 40 years now, Builder is dead on target.

    The book is relatively short –  256 pages, including index and bibliography – and its examples are now rather dated.  But if there’s a better source for understanding the differences in culture and focus that drive the different uniformed services, I’ve not found it.

    It really IMO should be required reading for any Senior Enlisted or Officer going to a joint assignment, or who will be working directly with those of other services.

    Do yourself a favor:  find a copy and read it. (Used copies can be had on Amazon for $10 or less; you might also be able to get it via inter-library loan at your local library.)  If you’re interested in how the military services really work and what makes them tick, I don’t think you’ll regret the time you spend reading it.

    And if you know someone going to a joint assignment, maybe point them at a copy.  It could well make their life during that assignment much easier.

     

     

  • Today’s ObamaCare Changes

    From a conference call with reporters on Tuesday, 25 Mar 2014 (emphasis added):

    “We have no plans to extend the open enrollment period,” HHS official Julie Bataille said. “In fact, we don’t actually have the statutory authority to extend the open enrollment period in 2014.”

    But today the Washington Post says something different (emphasis added):

    The Obama administration has decided to give extra time to Americans who say that they are unable to enroll in health plans through the federal insurance marketplace by the March 31 deadline.

    Federal officials confirmed Tuesday evening that all consumers who have begun to apply for coverage on HealthCare.gov, but who do not finish by Monday, will have until about mid-April to ask for an extension.

    Under the new rules, people will be able to qualify for an extension by checking a blue box on HealthCare.gov to indicate that they tried to enroll before the deadline. This method will rely on an honor system; the government will not try to determine whether the person is telling the truth.

    So, let me get this straight.  At one point yesterday, apparently the Administration felt that no legal authority existed to extend the ObamaCare signup deadline.  But later in the day, such authority apparently had “been found”.

    Just where did that authority to extend the ObamaCare signup deadline come from?  Did the authority exist all along, and the Administration was just “confused” yesterday when they said it didn’t exist?  Is the Administration simply “rolling their own” here – regardless of what the law says?  Or is there another plausible explanation?

    Further:  the Administration says they’re going to depend on people to tell them truthfully whether they “tried to enroll before the deadline”?  So, in other words:  they’re going to use the “honor system” to determine who gets an extension.

    Yeah, that’s going to be really reliable and accurate.

    Must be nice to be able to create legal authority where none exists – and to live in a world where no one ever lies.

    Sheesh.  GMAFB! (For the uninitiated, that’s, “Give me a freaking break”.  Other translations are possible.)

  • More “Help” for Members of the Military

    Well isn’t this “special”.  It appears that one of the uniformed services is about to “help” its members by further restricting their behavior.

    Specifically, it’s been reported that the Navy is considering a ban on tobacco sales on both bases and ships.

    Hey, I understand that tobacco is (at least arguably) a nasty habit, and can have bad effects on one’s health.

    But it’s legal.  And apparently unlike the Navy, since it’s legal I don’t see any reason why adults can’t choose to use tobacco if they so desire.

    Sheesh.  Give me a freaking break.