Since one of our frequent commenters grew up in the nation in question, I’m thinking they’ll be interested in seeing this. From Odessa, Ukraine:
Darth Vader replaces Lenin monument
It’s no joke. And maybe I’m out to lunch, but to me it seems somehow . . . apropos. (smile)
. . . or serving in another branch of the military, maybe you should be a bit cautious regarding what musical lyrics you quote in at text message or on the Internet. As well as about what you say in such communications in general.
It seems a number of pilots at Laughlin AFB recently were grounded, then investigated for drug dealing. Some were even allegedly being processed for administrative separation, presumably with unfavorable characterization of their service.
The reason? Some of them had reportedly sent text messages to others quoting Miley Cyrus song lyrics referencing “Molly” – a common alias for the drug ecstasy.
Apparently, that’s it. Reportedly all concerned passed drug tests, and apparently the matter was either not investigated by AFOSI or the investigation resulted in insufficient evidence for any form of criminal action. (USAF officials could not immediately confirm whether other evidence of wrongdoing existed concerning the pilots in question. One of the pilots was apparently previously investigated for allegations of having an inappropriate relationship with a female student pilot; the text messages mentioning “Molly” surfaced during that investigation. Whether those allegations of an inappropriate relationship were substantiated or not is unknown.)
The matter eventually came to the attention of Reps. Duncan Hunter and Adam Kinzinger, who in turn met with the USAF Chief of Staff, Gen. David Welsh concerning the issue. Gen. Welsh has apparently ordered an IG inquiry concerning the matter. He’s also reportedly ordered a GO inquiry into decision making by senior officials at Laughlin AFB.
Now, while quoting lyrics from songs by someone who’s IMO a drug-loving ditz who has little common sense (or, apparently, self-respect) might arguably violate the standards of good taste expected in a military officer, we are talking pilots here. (smile) And that type of language in a private communications alone would seem to be far less that would be required to take criminal or adverse administrative action against someone – particularly if they’ve taken a drug test and come up clean and nothing else is found to support the allegation.
Do I know the full facts here? No. For all I know, the pilots involved may have indeed been dirty as alleged, and simply found a way to beat a drug test – or have been dealing only, not using. Or they may have simply been exchanging some rather juvenile text messages quoting popular music lyrics in a show of machismo. People in that age bracket and community often do seem to behave in “act first, think later” mode. Either could be the reality. Dunno.
Hell, when I was young I almost certainly said and did more stupid sh!t that I later wished I hadn’t than I can remember – or care to remember. I think we all probably did.
Still: this is the same service where the ACC deputy recently called comments supporting the A-10 by USAF personnel “treason”. (He later ended up getting removed from his position for doing so.) So yeah: I can certainly also believe that someone in the chain of command might have had the proverbial “hardon” for a group of folks and tried to hammer them when no real evidence of wrongdoing existed.
Regardless: until this shakes out, if you’re still serving in the military it might be wise to think twice before making a questionable public comment on the Internet or in a text message. Even if ultimately exonerated, being the target of a witch hunt can kinda ruin your whole day – if not your career.
After the Civil War, many former soldiers moved west to begin new lives. The reasons why were varied.
Some sought adventure. Others were no longer particularly welcome at home – Southerners who’d fought for the Union, for example. Others stayed in the Army and were posted in the West, settling there after getting out.
Pueblo, Colorado, was the destination of quite a number of such individuals. A single cemetery there – Roselawn Cemetery – contains the graves of 355 Civil War veterans.
Four of those Civil War soldiers recently made the news. One had died in 1899; another, in 1900; a third, in 1901. The last of the four died in 1921.
They died, in Pueblo, without known next of kin. They were buried at Roselawn Cemetery.
Their graves were presumably originally marked in some way. But over time, as can sometimes happen in older cemeteries with no family to tend them . . . their graves’ whereabouts became lost.
Enter two organizations: the Concerned Citizens of Roselawn Cemetery and the Buffalo Soldiers of the American West.
In conducting research for a presentation on Roselawn’s history, the Concerned Citizens of Roselawn Cemetery noted an issue. While cemetery records showed that 355 Civil War veterans were buried there, they could only find 351 of them.
Using cemetery records, they located the missing gravesites. Identifying which was which took additional work, but through consulting archived records and obituaries they were eventually able to identify the graves of each of the four individuals.
Each of the four was a Southerner who’d fought for the Union. One was an officer, 1LT Louis Young; the other three – CPL Thomas Walker, PVT James W. Williams, and PVT George Washington – were freed slaves who’d later fought for the Union. The four hailed from Virginia, Mississippi, and Tennessee.
One of the two organizations – it’s not clear which – arranged for proper burial markers for these men. Those markers were emplaced; and earlier this month, members of the Buffalo Soldiers of the American West participated in a formal ceremony unveiling the new markers.
Rest well, elder brothers-in-arms. We’re sorry it took so long, but your resting places now are properly marked.
And to all who participated in preserving these men’s history: kudos – and thanks.
Q: I see the term “Blue Falcon” used here from time to time. What do you mean by a “Blue Falcon”?
A: This question may occur to infrequent or new civilian visitors. The term “Blue Falcon” is the euphemistic version of a somewhat earthier derisive military term for a “backstabber”.
A semi-polite version of that military term would be “buddy fornicator”. The version commonly used in the military isn’t anywhere close to being that polite, but I don’t really think I need to spell things out further.
What are we talking about? Here’s an example. Think of the senior NCO in a military unit. Now, suppose that NCO sees a Soldier/Sailor/Airman/Marine from another unit do something that’s out-of-line, corrects them – and gets ignored.
A professional NCO would then take the matter to their professional peer at the miscreant’s unit and request they “square away” their miscreant troop. This would keep the matter at the appropriate level (the unit level), and would also keep it within NCO channels (where such matters generally belong). That’s simply professional courtesy and using the chain-of-command/NCO support chain properly.
In contrast, a true “Blue Falcon” wouldn’t do that. They’d jump 3 or 4 levels of command and take the matter directly to a GO or equivalent civilian executive. Or maybe they’d complain directly to the senior NCO of their service (SMA, CMSAF, MCPON, or SGTMAJMC) instead. That way, they might be able to screw over a whole bunch of their professional peers – and maybe even a number of people senior to themselves – at once, by proxy.
Of course, this latter type of unprofessional behavior could never happen in today’s highly professional military, right? And if someone did pull such an unprofessional stunt they’d certainly not be publicly rewarded for doing so, right?
Curiously enough, there’s actually a second possibly valid definition of the term “Blue Falcon”. The US Air Force Academy’s athletic mascot is the falcon; their colors are blue and white. Here’s one version of their athletic logo, used from 1963-1994:
Q: What is this, some kind of “military male drum circle” with “no girls allowed”?
A: Umm, no. The site doesn’t keep detailed statistics; commenters are not asked to provide information concerning their gender. And yes, the best I can tell from what’s posted the majority of commenters at TAH do appear to be male.
One would expect that, actually; the military is around 80% male. However, there are indeed a fair number of female regular commenters here at TAH.
FWIW: I wouldn’t recommend getting on those ladies’ bad side. Well, I wouldn’t unless you are a masochist and enjoy being verbally savaged. Then you might enjoy the experience. (smile)
Q: I love what you do here! How can I help?
A: There are two ways you can help if so inclined.
(a) If you suspect you know of a case of stolen valor that should be exposed, send as much information about the individual making questionable claims as you can get to the site owner. His contact information can be found under the “Contact Us” tab on the site banner.
Verifying an individual’s actual military service involves filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information from their official military personnel records archived by the Federal government. The process of filing a FOIA request is covered in detail here. To file one, the following information is needed:
(b) If you’d like to support the site financially, you can donate $$$ using the “Donate” button just below the site banner. Or you can mail the site owner a check or cash (postal info is at the “Contact Us” tab on the site banner). Contrary to rumor, Jonn does not spend all the donations on rum and cigars. (smile)
The TAH FNG FAQ has been up for a bit over a year now.
Anyone out there have suggestions regarding additions? Can’t guarantee they’ll be added, but I promise to consider virtually all legal and reasonable suggestions. Hell, I’ll also probably consider most not-so-reasonable suggestions – so long as they don’t involve farm animals or physically impossible solo acts.
But don’ t even think about suggesting I get “friendly” with any of our candidates for POTUS. That ain’t reasonable, and it ain’t gonna happen. (smile)
It’s Columbus Day. So, here ya go – a musical “blast from the past”, down-under style. If you’re old enough, you might even remember this one. Enjoy.
For what it’s worth: the singer’s professional name is “Joe Dolce” – and that also happens to be his real name. He was born in Ohio, and has apparently been a US ex-pat in Australia for close to 40 years now (since about 1978). This was his biggest hit.
The song was a huge international hit in 1981. It hit #1 in a number countries (15) – including the UK, France, Germany, Australia, and Italy; was #2 in Canada; and charted in the US.
And yeah, he’s of Italian-American heritage. His Italian-American grandparents were reportedly the inspiration for the song.
If you have a problem with the song, I suggest you talk to Joe. I’m sure he’ll listen – as he’s on the way to the bank to cash his next royalty check. And then I’d guess he’ll refer you to the song’s title. (smile)
If you’re offended, I’d also suggest you find a quarter and buy a clue – or a sense of humor – and quit being outraged over nada. As I noted above, the song was a #1 hit in freaking Italy. So if Italians of the day didn’t have a problem with it and made it a #1 hit, I’m thinking you shouldn’t have a problem with it either.
Happy Columbus Day, everyone.
Remember the current group of feckless fools and clueless tools’ Administration’s nuclear deal with Iran? You know, the one that that gang of incompetent neophytes the Administration refused to allow to be made public for review before it was signed?
Well, maybe now we know why. Turns out some some senior Administration officials who’ll have to implement the deal have taken a hard look at what this clown krewe Administration agreed to allow in that deal. And there’s a problem.
The deal appears to violate existing US law. Law signed by – you guessed it – the current POTUS himself. In fact, it runs afoul of multiple existing laws.
The deal purportedly allows subsidiaries of US firms to do business with Iran. This is a major part of the deal, and is expected to result in tens of billions of dollars of trade between Iran and those subsidiaries.
However, it so happens there’s this little thing called the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012.. It was passed by Congress in the summer of 2012. It was signed into law by the current Occupant, 1600 Penn Ave, in August of that year.
Section 218 of that law explicitly prohibits foreign subsidiaries of US companies from doing business with Iran. Section 605 of that law requires this to remain the case until (1) the POTUS certifies to Congress that Iran is no longer listed by the DoS as a state sponsor of international terrorism, and (2) the POTUS certifies to Congress that Iran has ceased efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Both are required.
The Iran nuclear deal is not a treaty; it is an “executive agreement” It thus does not trump existing Federal law.
What’s more, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 – also signed by the current POTUS – specifically states that prior sanctions on Iran mandated by Federal law are not affected by the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran; they thus remain in effect. So the current POTUS has signed Federal law requiring any US nuclear deal with Iran to be IAW existing US laws regarding Iran sanctions not once, but twice.
I mean, really – how freaking incompetent must a group be to “accidentally” sign off on an agreement that is patently illegal? Did they not bother to have any of their legal staff look at the damn thing before signing on the dotted line?
Looks to me like someone has painted themselves into a corner. Best I can tell, the only way to actually implement key parts of the Iran nuclear deal at this point would be to require a clear violation of Federal law. Or, alternatively, the POTUS could certify to Congress that Iran is now neither a sponsor of terrorism or pursuing any form of WMD program.
Personally, I’m betting on the former (ignore existing law). This Administration IMO seems quite comfortable with that, and I don’t think even this clueless krewe is stupid enough to do the latter. But that’s just me.