Slashdot Mirror


USAF Counter-Terror Funds Buy "Comfort Capsules"

An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post reports, 'The Air Force's top leadership sought for three years to spend counterterrorism funds on "comfort capsules" to be installed on military planes that ferry senior officers and civilian leaders around the world ... Air Force documents spell out how each of the capsules is to be "aesthetically pleasing and furnished to reflect the rank of the senior leaders using the capsule," with beds, a couch, a table, a 37-inch flat-screen monitor with stereo speakers, and a full-length mirror.' Congress told the USAF twice that they could not spend the money on this frivolous project, but they did it anyway."

429 comments

  1. And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll
    Why is this a problem? if I could get away with spending other's money for my comfort, I would too. Heck, if I was rich enough I'd travel around in A319CJ or larger private jets like many billionaires do.

    If you travel frequently, you'll come to appreciate how important it is to have comfort.

    1. Re:And? by dave420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So the only reason you don't rape someone is because you'd get arrested? Does the concepts of "right" and "wrong" mean nothing to you, only "can do" and "can't do"? Jesus.

    2. Re: And? by eat+here_get+gas · · Score: 0

      am I the only one to have seen "...pleasure capsules" in the title to mean they were handing out drugs?....

      --
      the significance of a signature is insignificant
    3. Re:And? by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      "Why is this a problem? if I could get away with spending other's money for my comfort, I would too."

      The problem then would be that it's so easy to get away with it, no?

    4. Re: And? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      actually I visualized on a modern version of Caligula's orgy ships used on lake Nemi

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    5. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. The whole world can go to hell for all I care.

    6. Re:And? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      That's fine - I just wanted to figure out whether you were retarded or a cunt. You cleared that right up, lickety-spit.

  2. Priorities... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "McMahon said he does not recall intervening on the leather color change, but said he was sure it was unrelated to the Air Force's color. He said that it was probably because blue would not show dirt as much as tan or brown would. "

    Good to see they have their priorities straight!

  3. Smells Hammy by introspekt.i · · Score: 3, Funny

    Pork anyone?

    1. Re:Smells Hammy by davolfman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To be honest I'm fine with pork. Pork gets spent locally. From an economic standpoint I think every dollar the military spends on pork is probably a dollar that isn't getting blown up in a foreign country or payed to some sort of foreign contractor.

    2. Re:Smells Hammy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. I don't remember Congress getting upset when Homeland Security funds were being spent by cities and towns on such things as new garbage trucks and redecorating the mayors' offices.

    3. Re:Smells Hammy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're neglecting the other alternative:
      Don't collect the money that will eventually be spent on pork.

      Then its definitely local.

    4. Re:Smells Hammy by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 1

      But after they spend that dollar on pork, they'll request an additional dollar from Congress to compensate on blow-upping or contractors.

      --
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
    5. Re:Smells Hammy by larry+bagina · · Score: 2

      and the money is allocated on what thousands/millions of individual people want, not what 3 or 4 people, 2,000 miles away, think will get them reelected.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    6. Re:Smells Hammy by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't remember Congress getting upset when Homeland Security funds were being spent by cities and towns on such things as new garbage trucks and redecorating the mayors' offices.

      Don't you see that if we are driving around in old garbage trucks that the terrorists have won?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:Smells Hammy by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd prefer pork not getting spent by the government at all. Then I can buy myself some local goods that I want.

    8. Re:Smells Hammy by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1

      Yes, because government taxing your money and spending it on crap is better then leaving it in your hands to spend on crap. Maybe we should have the government control all the money since they should be better at spending it then we are. Hmm I wonder if anyone has tried this before.

    9. Re:Smells Hammy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting idea, but it'd be more efficient and less paperwork to just pay your local defense contractor out of your wallet rather than having everyone in the government take their share off the top.

    10. Re:Smells Hammy by Gerzel · · Score: 1

      This isn't pork. Pork is spending which is put in on a bill that is not related to the law the bill is proposing.

      This spending has nothing to do with any bill. In fact the congressional orders given specifically forbade this spending so it isn't pork at all. Just corruption/incompetence both of which at a high enough level should be punishable by the death penalty as treason against the state.

    11. Re:Smells Hammy by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Sorry, it ain't kosher.

    12. Re:Smells Hammy by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      Hey, it's good enough for Hellboy. . .

  4. huh? by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've read several articles and I still have no clue what the hell a "comfort capsule" is. Is it a whole plane? Is it an add-on to a plane? Is it one of those napping pods like you can find here? Am I alone in this one?

    --
    The game.
    1. Re:huh? by dontmakemethink · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are pictures in the link in the OP

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    2. Re:huh? by Loadmaster · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's just a unit loaded onto the plane. Former SecDef Rumsfeld had what was called the "Silver Bullet." It was a small oblong silver trailer type unit that was secured on top of pallets then loaded into the aircraft just like any other pallet train. Inside he had a desk, couch, TV (with sat) and a bed. Funny note, he takes his pants off while he's in there during flight. We, the flight crew, didn't get anything like that.

    3. Re:huh? by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      I'm still picturing some sort of goiter hanging from the bottom of the plane.

      --
      The game.
    4. Re:huh? by megaditto · · Score: 4, Funny

      We, the flight crew, didn't get anything like that.

      Well, you weren't the ones selling your soul to the devil. The man needs to be compensated somehow.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    5. Re:huh? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The comfort capsule is essentially a module that they can load into the plane the same way they would load a shipping container. So they can convert a military cargo plane into a private jet for the top brass.

      I read the article yesterday and was disgusted. I suspect that we are going to see more than a few careers end over it. Every military promotion above a certain level has to be ratified by the Senate. Once the generals behind this boondoggle are identified they are going to find they don't see another promotion.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    6. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like a hotel room, but inside an airplane.

    7. Re:huh? by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      Promotion? How about a kick ass demotion to corporal (or the equivalent) followed by a dishonerable discharge? That way they can't go around refering to themselves as ex-generals

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    8. Re:huh? by Rabbi+Shmabbi · · Score: 1

      Comfort capsules are like giant suppositories, except the assholes are inside.

    9. Re:huh? by Oswald · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Funny note, he takes his pants off while he's in there during flight.

      Sad note, the older men get, the more sensitive their testicles get to pressure, and the more their mass drops into the part of the abdomen constricted by a belt. Business slacks become pretty uncomfortable for long periods of sitting. I'm 48, and I can already see where things are headed.

      Just something for you to look forward to (assuming you're male).

    10. Re:huh? by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Discharge? That's dumb, with all the decent personnel in Iraq or other combat zones, demote them down to private and relocate them to Iraq.

      The promote a few of the personnel from below that have been behaving in a professional and otherwise honorable manner.

      Or use that extra person to allow for a fraction of a day of R&R.

    11. Re:huh? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      Promotion? How about a kick ass demotion to corporal (or the equivalent) followed by a dishonerable discharge?

      Someone correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that officers receive a commission directly (well, in theory) from the President and couldn't be demoted to the enlisted ranks. They could have that commission revoked by POTUS but I'm not sure that Congress could do it -- though they could hold-up/refuse promotions over this as somebody already pointed out.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    12. Re:huh? by darkstar949 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Officers can't get demoted to an enlisted rank - but they can be "dismissed" from service which, IIRC, also means that they forfeit their retirement pay plus all of the other perks. For a brigadier general, the retirement pay starts at about $30,000.

    13. Re:huh? by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So they can convert a military cargo plane into a private jet for the top brass...
      ...and certain civilians, like maybe Senators. No one in Congress or the Air Force brass is loosing any sleep over this. They just have stall until the next affront to the average tax paying citizen overshadows this one. Then the media/public pressure is off and the can go enjoy their fancy new hotel-room-in-a-plane. Trying to get any accountability out of today's government requires that you let ten offenses slide by, just you can finish addressing one offense. Good luck with that in today's ADD-like, sound bite ridden, OMG Amy Winehouse is a post-op transvestite!!11!
      What were we upset about again?

      --
      We are all just people.
    14. Re:huh? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...the flight crew, didn't get anything like that

      No kidding. When I was in the army (early 80's) we flew on an air force C-130 from Frankfurt to Crete.
      The 'seats' were just web straps.
      The 'facilities' was a small, rectangular urinal (I assume it just flowed to the outside).
      I'm not sure what you are supposed to do if you need to take a crap on a long, slow flight.

      Has that improved any recently? It just seems like common sense to have a real bathroom. At the very least you don't want the pilot distracted by a large load he can't dump.

    15. Re:huh? by uberjoe · · Score: 1

      While I was a Air Force ROTC Cadet I saw one of these on a base visit. Its basically a posh travel trailer, that they stick into the fuselage of a cargo plane. That way the VIP's can travel around the world in comfort while still on a noisy slow cargo plane.

      --

      The days of the digital watch are numbered.

    16. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read the article yesterday and was disgusted. I suspect that we are going to see more than a few careers end over it.

      Oh yeah? Like all the people who lost their jobs in the wake of the 9/11 attacks?

      Oh wait, they mostly got PROMOTED!!

    17. Re:huh? by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Funny note, [Donald Rumsfeld] takes his pants off while he's in there during flight. We, the flight crew, didn't get anything like that.

      Yeah, we didn't get 70-year old male strippers in the Navy, either.

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    18. Re:huh? by antirelic · · Score: 1

      Yes, because its traditional to treat a "flight crew" with the same type of accommodations as high ranking official. If you dont like being treated like a member of a flight crew (read as: enlisted person), get a college degree and go to OCS. There are alot of reasons for treating officers good and treating enlisted individuals marginally. Its an unfortunate aspect of military service, but the disparity is well known, accepted, and absolutely necessary.

      --
      20th century Marxism is not progress...
    19. Re:huh? by iminplaya · · Score: 0, Troll

      Let's send them to the Eastern front(Afghanistan).

      --
      What?
    20. Re:huh? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Informative

      When I was in the army (early 80's) we flew on an air force C-130 from Frankfurt to Crete. The 'seats' were just web straps. The 'facilities' was a small, rectangular urinal

      C-130's haven't changed at all, of course. They're still the 1950's cracker boxes they've always been. I flew 14 hours on a C-141 to Saudi back in 1990 for Desert Storm. Sling seats, sitting with your knees interlocked with the person across from you... nightmare. In 2001 I got to make almost the same flight on a C-17... quite a difference. You can walk down the center! It has a real aircraft lavatory! The seats... well, the seats are still sling seats, but they're much better designed with a more sophisticated frame. Less like a cargo net and more like a beach chair.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    21. Re:huh? by Apocros · · Score: 1

      more than double that...

      http://www.armytimes.com/projects/money/pay_charts/2008/retirement_pay/

      O7 starts at $4961 a month, and most of them probably have closer to 30 years of service than 20. so that's almost $100k a year in retirement. i'm not certain, but i think at least some of that may be tax-free too.

      --
      "onward!" cried the copper man, little knowing brass corrupts...
    22. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your the kind of asshole that would have been fragged in 'nam.

    23. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Former SecDef Rumsfeld ... takes his pants off while he's in there during flight.

      Did his senior aide also take his pants off where he was in there? I mean, he is a Republican, and we all know what they're like...

    24. Re:huh? by arakon · · Score: 1

      Yup it hasn't improved. C130 hercs, still have the horrible seating, tiny triangle shitter in the back corner. I do think they did recently add a privacy curtain though. The waste actually goes to a small storage tank. SWAT teams (Shit Water and Trash) take all that stuff out of the tank with a hose everytime the craft touches down.

      On the flip-side a C130 can land pretty much anywhere that is remotely flat. Doesn't actually need a paved clean surface like jets. So we still use em.

      --
      "If I were bound by all laws everywhere I'm sure I would have committed a capital crime somewhere."
    25. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, we still sit on the web and crap in a bucket. Not to mention the hour and a half you spend on the runway strapped in at 130 degrees+ because of a malfunction. It's your own personal sauna.

    26. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding. When I was in the army (early 80's) we flew on an air force C-130 from Frankfurt to Crete. The 'seats' were just web straps.

      Yeah, the "seats" on a Herc really suck. There's a head at the front right under the flight deck, but with cargo and passengers, it's hard to reach. The barrel with a funnel in the back is much easier.

      What sucks is sitting shoulder-to-shoulder with a metal bar under your ass (the supports for the webbing aren't always between seats) while on the left looking across the cargo at the VIPs sitting with every other seat empty knowing they could have left every third seat empty so that everyone had an empty seat next to them. I don't think I'd be able to stand seeing a cargo pallet replaced with comfy seats, but there's a reason I'm a civilian.

    27. Re:huh? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      No they just transfer them into a broom-closet sized office in the bowels of the Pentagon and yank their assigned parking.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    28. Re:huh? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I thought the commissioning of officers was a congressional responsibility anyway, the saying we had was "Officer and Gentleman by act of Congress" and was used as a pejorative phrase.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    29. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once the generals behind this boondoggle are identified they are going to find they don't see another promotion.

      That's the worst punishment you get for wasting government funds? "We're going to make you stay in your current job, enjoying all the luxuries you've arranged for yourself!"

    30. Re:huh? by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 1

      Pssst! Suspenders. Pass it on.

    31. Re:huh? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      And they'd care why exactly? Have you checked the pension plans for generals? It's pretty generous.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    32. Re:huh? by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1

      The summary says that the money for these accommodations was denied by Congress. If you don't like being subject to the whim of the taxpayer, you shouldn't be in public service. And the last time I checked the Constitution, that still included the military. Asshole.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    33. Re:huh? by Aethereal+Wanderer · · Score: 1

      You crap in a white bucket with a plastic bag in it. On 130's they're located on raised platforms just aft of the port side paratroop door, and forward of the urinal you described. There's a little magic you have to perform to get them down to usable height; one of the tricks we used to play was to get the new guys to try and use them without explaining how to lower them. Once the bag is used, you stash it on the ramp where it usually freezes, if you're at altitude. That makes it easier to carry off later.

    34. Re:huh? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      There is often some discretionary spending that Congress gives to some higher ranked individuals in the government to kind of make things work out that weren't foreseen during the budget process. Usually not a whole lot, but it can add up over time.

      It looks like it was from some of this discretionary spending that was redirected for this "special project". All of it still has to be accounted for and reported even when that sort of money is spent. What is getting these congressmen bent out of shape here is that they didn't want that kind of money spend in that manner.

      Nothing illegal was done, but it is a good excuse to make a political mountain out of a mole hill.

    35. Re:huh? by Teancum · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, every military promotion above a certain level has to be ratified.

      That is everybody at or above the rank of 2nd Lieutenant and Ensign (O-1).

      Most of these are read off at the end of each daily congressional session and ratified without even a voice vote (the Senate chair says something like "are there any objections?" and then considers the appointment to be ratified), and there are some noted exceptions for things like battlefield promotions, but every military officer does get "confirmed" by the Senate. This also includes postmasters of rural post offices and forest rangers, so it isn't necessarily unique to the military even. Enlisted ranks don't get confirmed in Congress, which is where the process is different.

      Heaven help you if you already got enemies in Congress when you are commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant, as that will pretty much sink your career before you get started.

      Generals and Admirals generally get quite a bit more attention due to their rank and authority, and often even have to go through a more lengthy confirmation process. There is also a set limit established by Congress for how many general and flag officers are permitted for each branch, and they must be assigned to specific postings or billets in order to maintain that rank.

    36. Re:huh? by worf_mo · · Score: 1

      Actually, their promotions were secured by this boondoggle. Apparently you don't read Doonesbury.

    37. Re:huh? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      At the very least you don't want the pilot distracted by a large load he can't dump.

      Hey, that's the bombadeers' job!

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    38. Re:huh? by Bota · · Score: 1

      Ouch. I'm turning 30 this year. so you're telling me i have supersensitive balls, and a gunt to look forward to?
      more On Topic: so a few hundred K on making kernel potter comfy while en route to baghdad. sounds retarded, but no more retarded than 95% of the ways taxes are spent on the military.

      --
      King Kong Died For Your Sins
    39. Re:huh? by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      No. None of the pay is tax free.

      Your active duty pay check has tax free allowances, such as housing and subsistence, but they are not included in the retired pay (or even used for calculating retired pay), only your base pay is used. To see their base pay, simply double the 20 year retired pay.

    40. Re:huh? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      "Silver bullet" Sounds like an Airstream trailer and not a bad idea. Why would they not just buy a bunch of Airstreams? Too cheap I guess.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  5. How? by quarrel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How does this happen?

    Who's actually in charge of how they spend it? Is it not Congress?

    If Congress says no, is this a "we think that's frivolous, bad dog, no biscuit", is it a "you will be breaking the law", or are congressional meetings about this stuff just for fits and giggles?

    --Q

    1. Re:How? by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In Pelosi's House, it results in a sternly-worded letter.

    2. Re:How? by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      some military types have no respect even for the constitution or their own rules of conduct ( http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier/index.html ), so what makes you think they'll listen to congress when it comes to spending money on luxuries for themselves?

    3. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress controls how much money they get next time, so congress may eventually have to smack them down by passing a compromise bill which gives specific funding for comfort capsules.

    4. Re:How? by Extremus · · Score: 1

      And soon they will become one of the things that they fight at most: the so called "religious extremist".

    5. Re:How? by Jubedgy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Coming up on the end of my 7th year in the Navy, and I can't recall any instances of religious discrimination. I'm an agnostic myself, and in my experience people just "do" (ie, complain about) their jobs regardless of their affiliation with Atheism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, etc...

      Personally, I found the evidence presented in that article to be fairly weak. When asked to sit somewhere else at Thanksgiving, was it because he was being obnoxious about his belief rather than just sitting there silently while other people did their thing? How is being asked if he believed in Jesus after a near death experience evidence of discrimination?

      I've had hours and hours of training in religious tolerance and whatnot, I can't imagine that the Army is much different. But this is America, so if people want to make fun of his atheism, he's more than welcome to make fun of their prostrations to FSM so long as it does not affect anyone's job, evidence of which I did not see in that article.

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
    6. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Air force brass actually tried to get separate funding for it through congress. Congress denied them these funds so the Airforce is using it's own funding from it's allocated budget to purchase these. Money that could be better spent on aircraft maintenance, or at least improving the bunkers for the actual troops.

    7. Re:How? by aeschenkarnos · · Score: 1

      Haven't they taken sternly worded letters off the table yet?

    8. Re:How? by budgenator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I ran into one instance back arround 1978 or 79, none since and I retired in 1998. The Military is big and diverse, you'll run into anything you'll run into in society there yet for the most part the military is more progressive than society in general.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    9. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if this is congress didnt they vote on the budget that was placed in front of them? And the USAF asked if they could buy something with their money and were told no. Then if the USAF continues on to buy the said capsule -- wouldnt this be missappropriation of Congressional Funds? This should lead to one or two people losing their jobs. When I was in Fulda Germany Congress had appointed funds to build a Burger King on base for the troops. Instead Colonel Yuknis took that money and put us in the field for 295 days. Soon after in Kuwait we blew up our own base on accident and Yuknis was excused from duty without pension. Karma Bitch. After I started asking questions about the money, i was transferred and 1 year later the base was closed. HMMMMMM

    10. Re:How? by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      As a retired member of the military, my last job was Military Equal Opportunity and we are the people who handle these types of complaints. They occur. YOU may not have seen it, YOU may not have been personally affected by it, but many others have. And the Navy has had some of the more egregious examples of this behavior over the years.

      There have been members of the military who are NOT of a Christian faith who have received death threats when they complained about forced religious activities. Their careers have been cut short. I know of an officer who was downchecked on his annual Fitness Report (OPR for official acronym) for "not being a good Christian Team Player' (note: he filed a complaint, it was confirmed, rater was punished/career ended, report was removed from the officer's file and new one written).

      Bottom line...it happens way to damn often despite all the training. With all the training the military gets, there is no reason I should have needed to investigate several complaints in the AOR (discrimination, sexual harassment, etc)...and confirm many of them...but unfortunately I did.

       

    11. Re:How? by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      Call BS. The BK would have been built with NAF (Non-Appropriated Funds) money as they are an AAFES concessionaire. The money would not have been accessible to any officer NOT assigned to AAFES (and those tend to be in TX).

      Perhaps this ignorance or stupidity is why you were transferred? After all, you admit to accidentally blowing up your own base.

    12. Re:How? by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      The cops in my town have never, as far as I know, shot and killed unarmed innocents. Therefor, no cops in the U.S. have ever shot unarmed innocent people.

  6. Beowulf Cluster F^(k by Humorless+Coward. · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Would this be anything different from the way money is being spent on irrelevant "security measures" at public transportation access points?

  7. Yeah Baby! by KozmoKramer · · Score: 0

    Capsule comes Equipped with Trojans, body oils, and Austin Powers Novel "That's May Bag Baby!!!".

    Yeah Baby!!!!

    --
    My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my Father! Prepare to die!
  8. Pork Barrels v Comfor Capsules by still_sick · · Score: 1

    One holds white meat from self-indulgent hogs, the other holds pork.

    --
    ...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
  9. USAF... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what a bunch of pussies
    Signed,
    Cpl. Punishment, USMC

    1. Re:USAF... by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's not like the USAF, USMC, Navy, and Army are all on the same team, or something...

    2. Re:USAF... by stoolpigeon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      usaf has never been on the same team as the others you mention in this regard. from building the golf courses on a base before the runway to lavish living conditions for staff - they've always been very different.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    3. Re:USAF... by Loadmaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bullshit, the USAF does NOT build golf courses first. They build the O-Club first then whatever money is left goes to the golf course. They delay the runway and other necessary ops till the Army has to have them and pays for 'em.

    4. Re:USAF... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Weird. All the main Army posts I've been to have a golf course. I'm sure Navy and Marine bases are the same. Even the Army camp near the JSA on the Korean DMZ has a golf course.

    5. Re:USAF... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seeing an insightful mod on the parent made me want have to reply... mods should stop and think about what the author is saying, so that they don't mod up false posts and make people believe crazy things.

      O-clubs come before a golf course because the Officer clubs is usually a required component of a military golf course. However, this has nothing to do with delaying the runway or necessary operations. MWR is alotted a certain portion of the budget to build Morale, Welfare, and Recreation centers and to fund certain activities for the benefit and entertainment of military personnel. While the Air Force may allot a certain amount more MWR money than other services, it most certainly does not due so to the detriment of vital operations, necessary runways, and so forth.

    6. Re:USAF... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      They aren't on the same team. They are all employed by the same government but they are each different branches. The animosity between the branches isn't just tolerated, it is encouraged.

      A Marine, knowing he has had a rougher training and is a better soldier makes him all the more eager to go into combat first. A person in the Army, knowing he is smarter, is more than happy to ride into combat on the red carpet left by the Marines. (The red carpet is the blood of the Marines who died in the initial attack.) The Marines hate the Navy but they actually have good reason to. *grins* The Navy provides the corpsmen (medics) to the Marines and the Marines provide their ships protection and the Navy provides the Marines with transportation.

      As for the USAF? Most people seem to think that they don't serve a whole lot of function when it comes down to it and cite their tendency to get public attention for their mistakes such as, oh, bombing the other department's troops, crashing aircraft, and generally treating their officers and pilots like deities. The reality is that they're actually really damned good at what they do, for more information see Marines in helicopters...

      It is these rivalries that actually make for better soldiers in most cases. But, when it comes down to the matter of combat they even love the Army guys in the field beside them because they know that they're all doing the same job.

      When it comes to being factual you can even get an honest Marine to grudgingly admit that a Navy Seal Team is a formidable force and, on a good day, you might even get him to admit that they're even better than the Recon's. The rivalries get better soldiers and the banter is usually good humored if a little course.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    7. Re:USAF... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just because these ways of thinking provide better soldiers does not make them correct in any way. your post was insightful in its own right, but it avoided the point

    8. Re:USAF... by servognome · · Score: 1

      As for the USAF? Most people seem to think that they don't serve a whole lot of function when it comes down to it

      They are the precursors to the maintenance workers who will repair the robots that will fight wars in the future.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    9. Re:USAF... by techno-vampire · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Being ex-Navy, I'm no fanboi of the USAF. I understand that they've turned down control of all Naval Aviation because they're afraid of carrier landings. However, let's give them credit where credit is due: they're the only branch where the officers go into combat and the enlisted men almost never do.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    10. Re:USAF... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      when I was in the Army, the aircraft approached along the golf course to land at the helipad; the rotor wash could sure screw up your drives too.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  10. RTFA mate? by atari2600 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Production of the first capsule -- consisting of two sealed rooms that can fit into the fuselage of a large military aircraft -- has already begun.

    Air Force documents spell out how each of the capsules is to be "aesthetically pleasing and furnished to reflect the rank of the senior leaders using the capsule," with beds, a couch, a table, a 37-inch flat-screen monitor with stereo speakers, and a full-length mirror.

    1. Re:RTFA mate? by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      I did RTFA, but I still can't picture it. The picture definitely didn't match the description(s).

      --
      The game.
    2. Re:RTFA mate? by atari2600 · · Score: 3, Funny
    3. Re:RTFA mate? by iminplaya · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Imagine taking a mobile home, having some guy who hardly deserves the rank of general, doing some interior design with highly padded funding, and sliding it into a C-141 or C-5.

      --
      What?
    4. Re:RTFA mate? by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's flamebait about it? The money was stolen. They were not authorized to spend it that way. And look at his bio. What has he done to deserve the promotion? He's a bureaucrat. Does being "chief" bureaucrat qualify you for all that? Puleeze! Part of the problem with today's military, beyond the lowered standards for getting in, is the ease that you can be promoted for kissing ass.

      --
      What?
    5. Re:RTFA mate? by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      Hm...he was a navigator and then pilot. As he got promoted to command, he spends more time as a bureaucrat (problem inherent in senior command positions in the military). He is a Desert Storm veteran (among other campaigns). He is a career Heavy Transporter guy based on his bio, culminating in his previous job being the commander of the USAF Airlift command (Air Mobility Command), in charge of all airlift and air refueling tanker support.

      Perhaps you should learn how to read the bios before you mouth off about them.

    6. Re:RTFA mate? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I read the bio. I'm not impressed. He did his job. Being a competent dispatcher doesn't make you a general. There's way too many of them. Becoming a general should require a bit more than that. A little something called "above and beyond". What we have here is a thing called "featherbedding".

      --
      What?
    7. Re:RTFA mate? by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      Dispatcher? Sorry...what are you talking about?

      He was a pilot, mostly in heavy airlift until he reached command rank.

      And his bio is not likely to list everything he did in his career. It is designed to show his education, his awards, his assignments and his specialties (in this case, Nav, then Pilot).

  11. How is this News For Nerds? by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Honestly, the s/n ratio keeps getting worse and worse here. News flash: government wastes money. Next.

    1. Re:How is this News For Nerds? by SpeedyDX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you suggesting that, because it is regular practice, we should ignore these transgressions? Shouldn't the fact that this happens all the time be all the more reason to spread awareness? Your post makes little sense to me.

    2. Re:How is this News For Nerds? by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed. GP's post seems to imply that he's so used to the problem that he doesn't even want to hear about it anymore. That's the equivalent of just giving up and letting politicians and government people do whatever they want. That's precisely what they want and precisely what we shouldn't let them do.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    3. Re:How is this News For Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you suggesting that, because is is regular practice, we should consider it news for nerds? Shouldn't the fact that it happens all the time make it not news? Your post makes little sense to me.

    4. Re:How is this News For Nerds? by ricebowl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree with both of you, to be honest. It's hugely important that government and military, or indeed any expense paid for with tax-payers' cash, is highlighted and examined. Particularly when that expenditure was for something so pointless. Generals want nice, comfortable quarters on a plane? Fair enough, make the military planes comfortable for everyone, don't buy a 'pod' that's presumably removable (I haven't RTFAd) so's they don't have to share it with the commoners. I have this strange notion that the senior people in any organisation should lead by example, rather than seek luxury for themselves regardless of cost, while moaning that standards in the young 'uns have deteriorated.

      I also agree with the GP that, really, this isn't news for nerds. Yes it matters, but it matters to everyone in the country in which the expenses were paid, not just nerds and geeks. This should be more for CNN or the BBC news, surely?

    5. Re:How is this News For Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      News flash: government wastes money.

      While I don't particularly like the wasted money, I'm much more concerned about attitude that it reflects.

      First, a good leader should try to have as accurate an understanding as possible of what things are like for the followers. In this case, the leaders are going out of their way to avoid first hand experience of what it's like for the followers. Basically, they're going out of their way to remain ignorant.

      Second, and more fundamentally, the leaders seem to think they're better than the followers. One of the key innovations of the American revolution was that it's better to have a system of experts working together rather than one lone guy at the top. Instead of having the king decide whose head to chop off, it's better to have a system of laws and courts with juries and lawyers and judges.

      I worry that the military leadership may be seeing themselves more as lone decision makers (chosen because of their elite decision making capabilities) rather than as humble participants in a larger system. In terms of making decisions, when things are bad for the low level soldier on the ground but good for the top general in his comfort capsule, the experience of the top general should not outweigh the experience of the low level soldier.

    6. Re:How is this News For Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the assertion is that, beyond the fact that they get a LCD tv in their "comfort pod", one is hard-pressed to see the relevance to "News for Nerds". Why doesn't /. just make a cooking and sports section and be done with it?

    7. Re:How is this News For Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a problem occurs so frequently that it ceases being newsworthy you really have to start worrying about it. Take car accidents, for instance. They happen all the time, but very rarely do I see an article in any of the papers I read mentioning one, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about them.

    8. Re:How is this News For Nerds? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      GP's post seems to imply that he's so used to the problem that he doesn't even want to hear about it anymore. That's the equivalent of just giving up and letting politicians and government people do whatever they want

      Actually I think his post implies that this isn't really on-topic for the typical /. story. How is this related to technology?

      Now I don't have a problem with /. expanding the scope of what they cover but don't imply that the OP is so disillusioned that he "doesn't want to hear it anymore".

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:How is this News For Nerds? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Having the pods is potentially legitimate, having a pod allows for them to keep track of what's going on while flying and presumably get some work done.

      What isn't legitimate is that the pods go far beyond a temporary work space and well into the realm of luxury. And that they were specifically told not to go ahead with the pods on several times because they were a frivolous waste of tax payer dollars.

      It probably would have been accepted if the pods were designed for work and had a reasonable amount of comfort where necessary to allow for that purpose.

    10. Re:How is this News For Nerds? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes, they do. But if reports about this stops, people might get the impression that this only happens once in a while, and that in the meantime they spend money sensibly, considerably and responsibly.

      When you get to hear such a story daily, people might start to reconsider that. We're far from people understanding that they're wasting more on trivial perks for themselves than they're spending on goods and services beneficial for the general population.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:How is this News For Nerds? by mattmarlowe · · Score: 1

      No...you know there are at least 2-3 stories a day that come out in the blogosphere which are embarrassing to congress, political parties, government, etc...maybe 1/3 of those have a big spending component.

      The only reasons this article reached the front page of slashdot is that:
      a) It sounded a little exotic ( e.g. wth is this military capsule)
      b) It was safely not exposing anything that could embarrass the party/people (democrats-obama) supported by a majority of Slashdot users
      c) By focusing on what appears to be stupid american military spending, the article allows the international audiance of Slashdot to get their daily dose of "feeling superior".

      Yes, in an ideal world and possibly as recently as 5 years ago the editors of Slashdot wouldn't have let this story reach the main page, but the internet is maturing like all other media and you can no longer count on getting the real news from big sites like Slashdot...articles are filtered for what the international readership wants. I'm still looking for an alternative.

    12. Re:How is this News For Nerds? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Honestly, the s/n ratio keeps getting worse and worse here. News flash: government wastes money. Next.

      What's really stupid here is that this isn't a waste of money. You think general staff and VIP politicos are going to ride down in the slings with the infantry? Fuck no! They're going to make the Air Force fly them around in C-40's or the like. Ponying up $1.5M for a box they can load on a C-17 is much cheaper. On top of that, when you look at the Air Force's budget, a few million is chump change. The only part of this that's even remotely dodgy is them trying to pay for it with "anti-terrorism" money. It hardly rates. All the money they spend comes from our pockets, regardless of what it's earmarked for, so what's the difference?

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    13. Re:How is this News For Nerds? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Admittedly, I've seen extremely good "nerd news" sites get bogged down in political/governmental stories and completely lose sight of their original purpose. I'd give up a certain extent of politics on Slashdot to keep the science and technology stuff, but I've seen no evidence Slashdot is being overwhelmed.

    14. Re:How is this News For Nerds? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      actually they said the capsules were intended for 4-stars and assistant secretaries

      There are currently 37 active duty four-star officers in the uniformed services of the United States: 10 in the Army, 10 in the Navy, 11 in the Air Force, 4 in the Marine Corps, 1 in the Coast Guard, and 1 in the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. List of active duty United States four-star officers

      so we're not talking about a lot of people here from the military.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    15. Re:How is this News For Nerds? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      First, a good leader should try to have as accurate an understanding as possible of what things are like for the followers. In this case, the leaders are going out of their way to avoid first hand experience of what it's like for the followers. Basically, they're going out of their way to remain ignorant.

      That part your forgetting is they don't get hired in at that level, it's not like getting a MBA from Harvard and hiring in as an Assistant Vice President for a fortune 100 corp, They start out as an O-1 which means lower than whale shit in civilian speak. Most of those Generals in the Army have not only ridden around in cargo planes sitting in web seats, most have also jumped out of them.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    16. Re:How is this News For Nerds? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that, because it is regular practice, we should ignore these transgressions?

      No, he's suggesting (as I have before, as I agree with him) that Slashdot is less and less a tech news site - and more and more general news site with developing bias towards political news. This isn't even net neutrality, which can be vaguely claimed to be tech issue since it concerns the internet... It's out and out politics.

  12. WTFOMGBBQ? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was worried that these capsules might leave our betters and brass fatigued when they arrived at their destinations, until I saw that the vulgar and degraded brown leather had been replaced with suitably dignified blue, and the wooden fittings replaced with cherry, restful to the eyes and mind of the higher orders. The DVD player, also, will be of incalculable military utility, I have no doubt.

    Seriously, I can understand the logic of having people be able to sleep on the flight, so as not to waste time at the destination; but how could anybody possibly justify this level of ostentation(or, for the amoral weasels who just don't care, how could they possibly believe that they could get away with this level of ostentation(erm, besides a quick assessment of what people have been able to get away with these days, that is, never mind about that one))?

    1. Re:WTFOMGBBQ? by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      The generals obviously thought so... Can anyone tell me what is supposed to happen when congress says "no" and the military ignores them?

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    2. Re:WTFOMGBBQ? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Usually we call that a "coup d'etat". In cases strictly confined to furniture, though, we should probably consider slightly milder vocabulary.

    3. Re:WTFOMGBBQ? by El+Cubano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but how could anybody possibly justify this level of ostentation(or, for the amoral weasels who just don't care, how could they possibly believe that they could get away with this level of ostentation(erm, besides a quick assessment of what people have been able to get away with these days, that is, never mind about that one))?

      Basically, just about every political appointee and other federal elected official thinks (rightly or wrongly) that he/she is entitled to better than first-class treatment when they fly. When they have to fly military airlift (especially on something like a C-17 instead of a real business-type jet), the military has to put those "comfort capsules" on there. (Imaging riding for 8 hours in a C-17 sitting on a jump seat like a paratrooper instead.) Now, because those officials think they are entitled to kingly treatment, they probably always complain about the quality of the accommodations. Heck, if I was the unfortunate captain of that aircraft, I'd get tired of hearing about it really fast.

      In fact, I'll bet that some of the people in congress who sought to deny the Air Force the permission to spend the funds that way are some of the very same people who have complained or berated Air Force crews about the accommodations. Hypocrites and all that.

    4. Re:WTFOMGBBQ? by Loadmaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In this case I assume they'll say, "Oh, well, there's nothing we can do. By the way, Air Force, I want to take a 'tour' around Iraq and Afghanistan, prep a C-17 with a comfort capsule on it. These capsules aren't just for Air Force personnel they are for any DV. These people who are saying no to the spending will be the same people using it next month.

    5. Re:WTFOMGBBQ? by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      So maybe that "it is absolutely forbidden" came with a nudge and wink...

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    6. Re:WTFOMGBBQ? by Ihmhi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Coup d'ottoman?

    7. Re:WTFOMGBBQ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gasp, you mean politicians say one thing and mean another?! Say it ain't so!

    8. Re:WTFOMGBBQ? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      These people who are saying no to the spending will be the same people using it next month.

      And how exactly does that justify the military ignoring a mandate from Congress? I thought we were supposed to have civilian control of the military in this country?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:WTFOMGBBQ? by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      (Imaging riding for 8 hours in a C-17 sitting on a jump seat like a paratrooper instead.)

      I'd rather do that than deal with the anal-probing TSA officers that we get to contend with when we fly civil aviation.

      In fact, I'll bet that some of the people in congress who sought to deny the Air Force the permission to spend the funds that way are some of the very same people who have complained or berated Air Force crews about the accommodations.

      That still doesn't justify the military ignoring a lawful mandate from Congress. Particularly when we are fighting two wars and running up massive deficits to do so. I don't know how much these things cost but I do find it pretty disgusting that the USAF is going to spend money on them when we are having problems getting enough equipment (body armor anyone?) to our troops on the ground.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:WTFOMGBBQ? by Jubedgy · · Score: 1

      The Commander in Chief is the president, a civilian. He has ultimate control over the military. Congress controls the purse strings of the federal government, but that is usually limited to giving the DoD such and such amount with a portion of that earmarked for, say, ship building or aircraft acquisition. They also decide when to promote flag officers.

      Post WWII, I'd say Adm. Rickover is the only one who really had any completely autonomous control of any part of the military. He had his little fiefdom in the Nuclear Navy, but after he left the Submarine Mafia has slowly been losing control. IMHO, it's more a case of the tail starting to wag the dog as 50 years of bureaucratic inertia has built up.

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
    11. Re:WTFOMGBBQ? by Loadmaster · · Score: 1

      It doesn't. It just shows the hypocrisy of Congress. They won't do anything about this, but you can bet that when they use a military plane they'll have one of these comfort capsules, because they are so damn special.

    12. Re:WTFOMGBBQ? by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1

      The mindset of these people is this: I am better then everyone else, so that making me comfortable isn't a waste, the waste is on the ungrateful soldier who should be thankful for his third meal.

      The sense of entitlement happens whenever democracy and respect for fellow man breaks down and you have little lords who think themselves divine. This is really just a symptom of the shift away from grass roots democracy towards imperialism and the Aristocratic style government.

      As an aside, even with all this graft, I think our government has been getting better over the long run, you look at the luxury officers have had in the past and it should make a decent person sick.

    13. Re:WTFOMGBBQ? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I wasn't sure who Admiral Rickover was, so I did a little research and found this YouTube video which gives quite a bit of information on how he was able to avoid giving up control over his part of the Navy. Hope this helps people who were as baffled as I was reading the above.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    14. Re:WTFOMGBBQ? by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      The U.S. Congress can't tell the military to do anything directly. Only the President can. This "lawful mandate" isn't.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    15. Re:WTFOMGBBQ? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Post WWII, I'd say Adm. Rickover is the only one who really had any completely autonomous control of any part of the military. He had his little fiefdom in the Nuclear Navy

      Eh, say what you will about Rickover but he built a pretty impressive nuclear training system and operational doctrine. The US Navy has over 5,000 "reactor-years" of operation without a single accident. I've often wondered what he could have done if he had been placed in charge of the civilian nuclear program. Three Mile Island never would have happened on his watch -- and who knows where we might be with nuclear power if not for the public rejection of it after TMI?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    16. Re:WTFOMGBBQ? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      We don't have an aristocracy in this country. An aristocracy feels noblesse oblige.

    17. Re:WTFOMGBBQ? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The U.S. Congress can't tell the military to do anything directly. Only the President can. This "lawful mandate" isn't.

      No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    18. Re:WTFOMGBBQ? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "(Imaging riding for 8 hours in a C-17 sitting on a jump seat like a paratrooper instead.)"

      C-17s are cozy and stable. C-5s are cozy, stable, and have conventional seating. I just kicked back on the floor or on a pallet of bags when I deployed, and brought some foam rubber for an arse pad while in the sling seats.

      BTW there is no way to get any work done in a sling seat. They exist out of necessity, and for a decision-maker it is sensible to have at least a conventional seat so they don't arrive stupefied and stiff.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    19. Re:WTFOMGBBQ? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I can understand the logic of having people be able to sleep on the flight, so as not to waste time at the destination; but how could anybody possibly justify this level of ostentation

      First you have to realize that to anyone outside of the stereotypical Slashdotter (20yo, living in parents basement, no real job, no real possessions outside of a few tech toys), this isn't particularly ostentatious. Heck, when I finish remodeling our master bedroom it'll be much like this.

    20. Re:WTFOMGBBQ? by CrimsonScythe · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure there's a Ballmer joke somewhere in there.

      --
      The view was horrible and the smell was even worse; Julie severely regretted becoming a proctologist.
  13. A better use for the funds...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    would be rectal redecoration so they'd had something to look at while their heads were up their asses. Adding a 37" TV I think would be money well spent.

  14. As a previous member of the Air Force... by shiftless · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...doesn't surprise me at all

    1. Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nor does it surprise me that Congress told them they couldn't to it, yet Congresscritters have NO problem spending tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money on expensive travel and live quite ostentatiously while doing so. Case in point: Barack Obama's 'fact finding tour', funded by taxpayers. It's just a campaign trip and the costs for security and the nice living he and his three press secretaries (Couric, Williams, and Gibson) will enjoy while along for the ride will all be paid by people like you and me.

    2. Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      But this wasn't travel tax-dollars being spent on travel. This was counter-terror tax dollars being spent on travel. Small difference.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    3. Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey come on, be nice to congress. If you had billions of dollars, you'd be throwing it around on anything and everything too!

    4. Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Oh I was not at ALL excusing this; I was just pointing out that Congress is filled with wasteful hypocrits. Most of them are millionaires yet they get leased cars paid for with our dollars, travel to exotic places on 'fact finding' tours with our dollars, plush padded expense accounts, etc.

      Government is out of control with spending in all branches and at all levels, with the possible exception of the Judiciary.

    5. Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Thank goodness there's another major party candidate who hasn't spent money on this kind of taxpayer funded boondoggle. Oh, right, there isn't one. FTR, I agree. The costs should be borne by their campaigns.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    6. Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't have any personal experience with Congress, so I don't know how bad it is. I was in the Marine Corps during the Clinton years when money was scarce, equipment was old, and we had to go without most things we needed. I've since worked in many commands, most of them Joint or Combined, where they literally had more money than they knew what to do with. Waste, Fraud, and Abuse is rampant in the larger commands, and the Air Force is the worst of the services. Its bases are nothing but manicured lawns, its offices full of leather chairs, hell their barracks in Qatar were practically 4-star hotels. Having lived in condemned WWII barracks in the states, I just find it all appalling.

      I agree with the GP; doesn't surpise me at all.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    7. Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yet Congresscritters have NO problem spending tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money on expensive travel and live quite ostentatiously while doing so. Case in point: Barack Obama's 'fact finding tour', funded by taxpayers

      No kidding: the McCain campaign has been complaining that Obama doesn't do nearly enough globetrotting. I'm glad to see Obama finally taking advantage of some of those perks the GOP has been enjoying for the past decade.

    8. Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... by toddhisattva · · Score: 1

      Obama's junket must be funded by the United States taxpayers because Saddam Hussein is dead and can no longer buy Democrats.

    9. Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      he costs should be borne by their campaigns.

      I'd agree with that in the context of Obama's trip to Europe but I have no problem with taxpayer dollars going to send him (or McCain) to Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

      Do you really see it as a waste of taxpayer dollars to give the candidates (or our other elected officials for that matter) a view of the war that they will have to contend with once in office?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... by Codex_of_Wisdom · · Score: 1

      yeah, now I know why I decided not to join...

    11. Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... by Trackster · · Score: 1

      O.K. I'll Bite.

      It's pretty stupid when people accuse Obama of "political theatre" when he makes trips abroad, yet they consider McCain's trips of the same type to be purposful manifestations of his supposed foreign policy prowess. They consider it "presidential" of him.

      McCain and his lackies make the idiotic accusation, the media repeats it as though it has any grounds, and idiots among the masses simply parrot it.

      Wonderful... Just wonderful.

    12. Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... by shark+swooner · · Score: 1

      Except Congressional travel is typically not paid for by taxpayers. Part of the reason why only wealthy candidates from wealthy parties enter Congress.

    13. Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Waste, Fraud, and Abuse is rampant in the larger commands, and the Air Force is the worst of the services. Its bases are nothing but manicured lawns, its offices full of leather chairs, hell their barracks in Qatar were practically 4-star hotels. Having lived in condemned WWII barracks in the states, I just find it all appalling.

      Don't forget Air Force mess halls, with carpeted floors, upholstered booths, and actual choices when you get your food. My favorite was the people they hired to bus the tables. In the Army and Marines, you dump your tray and hand it to the dish washer. AF personnel are apparently too delicate to participate in that process, so they just get to leave their stuff on the table and walk away. Pansies! :)

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    14. Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... by imamac · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but that's just falsehoods. I stayed at the barracks in Qatar and Balad, Iraq. Saying they're resorts is ludicrous. The AF does, however, take better care of its people. There's nothing wrong with that.

    15. Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... by oodaloop · · Score: 2, Informative

      The barracks in Al Udeid Air Base set aside for personnel staying 9 months or more is rather luxurious by my standards, and also new so perhaps it wasn't built yet when you were there. They also built an exchange that looks like a mall, complete with a fountain, food court, Starbucks, game room, etc. Building something like that in the middle of the desert must have cost in the tens of millions. Then I have to hear these airmen bitch about how hard it is there, when airmen in Iraq come there for R&R.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    16. Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... by imamac · · Score: 1

      There will always be some that complain no matter what, but it's not the majority. Once again though, the AF takes care of its people. They know that well-rested people do a better job at work. And I've been to the exchange--by American standards it's hardly a mall and calling it that gives a completely wrong picture to those who have never been there. It sounds like you may be a little bitter about being assigned at a more forward location instead of Al Udied. I do however think your /. user name is cool. :-)

    17. Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      No...the BAM in Doha, Qatar is a mall. The BX was a big tent type facility with a few trailer buildings with the barbers, fastfood (Subway/BK/Pizza Hut) and a few other vendors.

      The "game room" was a MWR facility run by the military (SVS) for all there, as was the bar at the "bra" (those that have been there know what it is!) along with the gyms, "library" and education center. The "DFACs" (chow halls to most older GIs) required you turn in your trays (ala the other branched) because it is a deployed location. At home station, we have people who do clear your plates. Note: at homestation, very few officers are allowed to use the chow halls on AF bases, and so this "luxury" is afforded the enlisted corps primarily.

       

    18. Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      I guess you never made it to the other side of the base. The side you are referring to is for transients. I stayed in a 40-man tent last time. The other side has a world-class gym, beautiful chow-hall, mall, luxuriant quarters, etc. I've gone through the transient side of AUAB several times and didn't even know about the other side. This last time, I was there for 2 weeks actually doing work and not just passing through and found about it through talking to permanent personnel.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    19. Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      No..I was assigned to Al Udeid on my last deployment. Had 2 man room in a trailer (which had 20+ rms) by a Cadillac nr the Post Office. I worked in Ops Town and went to the CAOC frequently when planning missions downrange in the AOR. I went off base frequently and the food was better offbase (found many good restaurants there of all types of cuisine). Plus, as I said, there are many malls off base.

      "Luxury" is not what I would call the Deid. "Okay" is the best I would give it. Khandahar, Afghanistan and Eskan, Saudi Arabia were both better than the Deid was/is.

      Or are you referring to the Army Post in Qatar? Their BX was better than the Deid's and they had a better DFAC. If so, that is part of NOT AL Udeid.

    20. Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      I didn't stay on any Army post or any other base in Qatar. The area I'm refering to is (I'm almost certain) called the BPC. It was right next to the Coalition Compound, where the tent exchange, Subway trailer, bar, movie theater, etc are. When you come in the main gate of the CC, you see the flagpoles by the bar straight ahead. If you were to go left about 3/4 of a mile or so, you would be on the BPC. The Ops Town and CAOC buses both go through the BPC and CC, roughly half on each side. Once in the main gate, the Ops Town bus goes clockwise, going through the CC, then the BPC, before leaving through the gate. The CAOC bus goes counter-clockwise through the BPC then through the CC before leaving through the gate. It looks like just a bunch of large brick buildings, but they are the permanent quarters, chowhall, gym, exchange, etc. They are permanent buildings like you expect back home, not flimsy trailers (I stayed in those too one time). They were originally for officers and senior enlisted only, then those staying 1 year or more, and now that capacity has expanded I beleive to anyone staying 6 months or more (space available, I'm sure). Most of the housing, in terms of numbers of personnel, is still in trailers on the CC. On the BPC side, the rooms are spacious with personal bathrooms, kitchens, common areas, etc. No, the CC side is not luxurious to me. The BPC side is.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  15. Congress told them? by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The USAF doesn't report to Congress. Since their Commander in Chief treats Congress like a jizz rag, it's unreasonable to expect anyone in the armed forces to show them any respect. They won't cut budgets, and the most that they every do is write Sternly Worded Memos, or go running to the courts like little snivelling bitches, wailing "Pretty please make everyone obey the law."

    I swear, the USA is one lost staring contest away from a bloodless military coup. I mean, if it hasn't already happened. How would we tell the difference?

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Congress told them? by pimpimpim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In a coup, the existing rulers are thrown over, aren't they. Does anyone have an idea what the existing rulers where then ;) As you say, it's hard to tell the difference.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    2. Re:Congress told them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since their Commander in Chief treats Congress like a jizz rag,

      Why should Bush treat them any different then the lobbyists do? Oh wait, the lobbyists at least pay them for their services.

    3. Re:Congress told them? by debrain · · Score: 1

      I swear, the USA is one lost staring contest away from a bloodless military coup. I mean, if it hasn't already happened.

      It wouldn't be the first time ... Business Plot.

      How would we tell the difference?

      Your life would be mired by hopelessness.

    4. Re:Congress told them? by TwoScoopsOfPig · · Score: 1

      Your life would be mired by hopelessness.

      It isn't already?

      --
      #include <disclaimer.h>
      #include <beer.h>
    5. Re:Congress told them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmmm.

      Yeah! 'Cause they got chairs and stuff!

      Why next thing you know those rat bastard military types will want a frigging **couch**!!

      And WTF? They want to be comfortable flying 15+ hours in a military aircraft that normally is a cargo aircraft? Screw them!

      How dare they wish they were traveling as well appointed as coach class.

    6. Re:Congress told them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not always the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup

    7. Re:Congress told them? by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Seeing the popularity of Congress and the Senate, I don't think most Americans would object.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    8. Re:Congress told them? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I swear, the USA is one lost staring contest away from a bloodless military coup. I mean, if it hasn't already happened. How would we tell the difference?

      First you'd notice a rapid increase in government efficiency, then you'd notice the government actually following the constitution and the laws; trust me you'd notice.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    9. Re:Congress told them? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      The USAF doesn't report to Congress.

      For the purpose of budgets and appropriations, they absolutely do.

      Idiot moderators strike again.

      I swear, the USA is one lost staring contest away from a bloodless military coup. I mean, if it hasn't already happened. How would we tell the difference?

      Perhaps by military leadership making domestic policy decisions? Refusing to carry out laws passed by Congress? It wouldn't be hard to spot the difference.

  16. Drops in the ocean by MassiveForces · · Score: 1

    But the question is, how much is this in relation to all their funding? A drop in the bucket, or could that much money achive something substantial they aren't already doing? I think the reference to training more personell etc needs to be backed up, do they not already have enough money for their intake levels?

  17. Some of this stuff is absolutely necessary! by unassimilatible · · Score: 3, Funny

    What about fluoride filters for the generals' water? Did you ever think of that?

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    1. Re:Some of this stuff is absolutely necessary! by dcollins117 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Occasionally, to interrogate the truly hardened terrorist suspect, one may have to resort to soft cushions or the comfy chair.

    2. Re:Some of this stuff is absolutely necessary! by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Why? All air force generals drink pure grain alcohol and rain water. Rain water has no fluoride.. (thanks for the reference btw, made my day!)

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    3. Re:Some of this stuff is absolutely necessary! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      What about fluoride filters for the generals' water? Did you ever think of that?

      Fluoride is still an issue for USAF Generals? I thought we defeated the Reds back in the early 90s? ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Some of this stuff is absolutely necessary! by Minwee · · Score: 1

      No, Fluoride is definitely a conspiracy, and it is alive and well today.

    5. Re:Some of this stuff is absolutely necessary! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All together now....

      "I didn't expect the comfy...."

    6. Re:Some of this stuff is absolutely necessary! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nooooo, not the comfy chair!

  18. Hrm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Guess you can't fight terrorism without your comfort fix, eh?

  19. Ambiguous Headline by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Did anybody else read the headline and think cyanide pills?

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:Ambiguous Headline by ElAurian · · Score: 0

      Yep.

    2. Re:Ambiguous Headline by Tom9729 · · Score: 0

      Yes

    3. Re:Ambiguous Headline by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I was actually thinking it was a sedative at first. I had to read on because initially I was thinking, "Wow, I know war is stressful and some people take this 'fight on terrorism' very seriously but if they're needing to give out Prozac they ought to be looking for more stable people to do the job." But, well, then I read the summary and the article.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    4. Re:Ambiguous Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did anybody else read the headline and think cyanide pills?

      Yes

    5. Re:Ambiguous Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I did not. My first impression was something vaguely sexual.

  20. And they beat me up for not wanting to pay taxes.. by flajann · · Score: 1

    Now ask me again why I hate paying taxes. It's not OK for me to not pay taxes, but it is PERFECTLY OK for our officials to squander our precious hard-earned bucks -- well, wait, the bottom is dropping out of the USD right now, so our hard work is worth even less. Oh well...

  21. As a member of the Army... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that has attempted to "work" with members of the Air Force, this does not surprise me at all.

    Once, while we were getting ready to deploy to Iraq, we were going through some training at Fort Dix, NJ. Some Air Force officers were assigned to our barracks and were actually paid an allowance to stay in our "sub standard" barracks. We're not talking about condemned WW2 barracks, or anything.

    I could give several more examples of how the Air Force thinks their shit doesn't stink, but I'll leave that for some other AC's.

    1. Re:As a member of the Army... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could give several more examples of how the Air Force thinks their shit doesn't stink, but I'll leave that for some other AC's.

      I was TDY at Lowry AFB when it was open in Colorado. As an E-3 from an army unit I was afforded my own room and bathroom. I thought it had to be a quirk (coming from four man rooms), then I went to their recreation facilities and had a cow. Our gym facilities in the army sucked at every base I've been to (normally old equipment and not enough of it for supposedly physically fit soldiers), and this place was like Star Trek compared to us. I was looking for a martial arts class at my old base and there were none.. not even the lamest of Tae Kwon Do, let alone something useful. The friggin' gym at Lowry had Karate, Kung-Fu, Judo, and (I loved this) Ninjitsu.

      Their chow hall looked like a nice restaurant. Ours looked like it belonged in a prison. And yes, their food was better.

      I could go on, but I will corroborate as an enlisted soldier in the 1988-1992 time frame that the airmen also received the "substandard" allowance since our barracks were not up to snuff. I walked in and from the outside their barracks looked identical to ours, but on the inside they had CARPET! Holy cow. I went back to my barracks and grabbed the buffer and got busy. ;)

      I don't hate the Air Force guys, but as a prior electronics tech I think it's cute how their techs think they're better than the other services. We pretty much could troubleshoot them under the table and fabricate parts if need be, and we definitely weren't the best the military has to offer (we were close though). For that, my hats off to the ETs of the U.S. Navy. Those guys are tech-studs. I always liked watching Air Force card swappers with a soldering iron.. hilarity ensues!

  22. ...and a full-length mirror by denzacar · · Score: 5, Funny

    "comfort capsules"..."aesthetically pleasing and furnished to reflect the rank of the senior leaders using the capsule," with beds, a couch, a table, a 37-inch flat-screen monitor with stereo speakers, and a full-length mirror.

    Dear USAF,
    For the last time - NO, you CAN NOT use taxpayers money to fund your personal fuck-rooms.
     
    Sincerely yours,
    US Congress

    Lt. Col. Brilliant: "General, I have an idea! Lets call them "comfort capsules" instead."
    Gen. Protection Fault III: "Comfort capsule...? CC... umm... catchy... BRILLIANT Brilliant! Write that down and start ordering. I'll be in my f... in my comfort capsule."

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:...and a full-length mirror by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      But, they don't tend to have hot women on those flights, so do they... do they fuck each other?

    2. Re:...and a full-length mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Colonel Panic: Make sure you don't comfort up the report, Brilliant! Will you be fucking in your comfort capsule, Sir?
      Gen. Protection Fault III: Comfort off, Colonel!

      Un-comforting-believable!

    3. Re:...and a full-length mirror by denzacar · · Score: 1

      You are forgetting the first rule of comfort capsules: If you build it - they will come.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    4. Re:...and a full-length mirror by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Nope, they assfuck the taxpayers.

      Well it's that, or they just lawyer up.

    5. Re:...and a full-length mirror by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you really can't call them "fuck rooms" when used by the USAF. Now, when they start selling these things to the IDF Air Force, then it's a fuck room!

      In case you haven't heard, IDF brass have seen lots of scandals about sexual harassment and affairs with young enlisted women in recent years.

  23. Why didn't they outsource to Martha Stewart? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah, I forgot. No government contracts to convicted felons. What these people need are comfort suppositories. Don't ask, don't tell... See JE

    --
    What?
  24. That's because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you lack imagination, or just make it a habit of being obtuse, or suffer from a combination of the two. Karma Kamilian you ain't.

  25. I gotta get into military contracting. by goodmanj · · Score: 4, Funny

    You pay me $16.2 million.
    I go down to the local RV salesman and buy a couple 30-foot travel trailers.
    I spend another couple thousand to paint UNITED STATES OF AMERICA on the side.

    You roll 'em right into your planes and lash 'em down.

    I pocket $16.0 million.

    1. Re:I gotta get into military contracting. by morari · · Score: 1

      It's going to take you a couple of thousand dollars just to paint some patriotic crap down the side of several RVs? I think you could cut that expensive down and pocket even more cash for yourself!

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    2. Re:I gotta get into military contracting. by goodmanj · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh, but it's bulletproof paint.

    3. Re:I gotta get into military contracting. by ShogunTux · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not to mention the racing stripes to make it go faster.

    4. Re:I gotta get into military contracting. by mortonda · · Score: 1

      Wow, seriously, why not? (Except the pocketting 16 million part). Buy the very best RV that will fit in the cargo plane. If you have to balance the weight, attach some weights, re-trim the outside to look patriotic, attach it to the proper transport pallet and viola!

      If they would just do it on the cheap like this, I doubt anyone would care.

    5. Re:I gotta get into military contracting. by jez9999 · · Score: 2, Funny

      And it's made in America.

    6. Re:I gotta get into military contracting. by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "It's going to take you a couple of thousand dollars just to paint some patriotic crap down the side of several RVs? I think you could cut that expensive down and pocket even more cash for yourself!"

      Priced even a shitty single-color car paint job recently? A couple of grand is cheap for several sets of large graphic work.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  26. Watch Yes Minister by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Or rather, the sequel, Yes Prime Minister.

    It should be mandatory viewing because among other things it shows how little real power politicians have.

    After all, how long does a general serve compared to a senator? And the general doesn't have to fight a war every 2 years and defeat his rivals.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Watch Yes Minister by pikakilla · · Score: 1

      Minor nitpicking for the fellows overseas:

      Senators are elected in the United States every six years
      Representatives are elected every two years

      So it would be not senators who have to face their rivals every two years, but representatives

    2. Re:Watch Yes Minister by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "After all, how long does a general serve compared to a senator? And the general doesn't have to fight a war every 2 years and defeat his rivals."

      The military will retire you after a specified age. Members of Congress only leave office by acts of God or grand juries.

  27. Obvious question: by Barkmullz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Obvious question:

    Does the comfort capsules come with a companion cube?

    --
    Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
    1. Re:Obvious question: by Atari400 · · Score: 1

      No, they come with blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the comfort capsules...

      --
      IBM doesn't play chess with the Universe.
    2. Re:Obvious question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the comfort capsules come with a companion cube?

      (1) Companion Cubes, eh. I believe the policy for that is: "Don't ask, don't tell." (2) Comfort Capsules obviously come supplied with Comfort Women.

  28. Fire Them by camperdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So congress told the Air Force not to guild these things, twice, and they went ahead and did it anyway? Obviously, the Air Force thinks it is in charge. Now, either congress has to discipline them, harshly, or the Air Force really is in charge. If the Air Force is in charge, then you've got the beginnings of a military state on your hands.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Fire Them by monopole · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...then you've got the beginnings of a military state on your hands.

      Um, you've not been following the news much. We're in the degenerate luxury phases of a military state at this point. We've already hit the point of comfort women. Nothing surprises me now.

    2. Re:Fire Them by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We've already hit the point of comfort women [dailymail.com]. Nothing surprises me now.

      Oh give me a fucking break. You are comparing three women who were raped by their co-workers to the Japanese comfort women of WW2? Were those women kidnapped by our military and forced into that role with the approval of our Government? No? Then it's a bullshit comparison and little better than a bad Nazi reference.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Fire Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the military so much as the Air Force. They're notorious among the branches for wasting money on frivolous crap, to the point that they can't afford the things they _need_, then asking for more money for necessities. Which, obviously, they get.

      Whereas the other branches spend money on their needs first, ask for more for their "comfort" items, then get told to piss off.

    4. Re:Fire Them by mrogers · · Score: 1

      I'm considering an amendment to Godwin's Law: every Wikipedia link in a thread halves the expected number of posts before a comparison to the Nazis is made. Corrolary: eventually, searching for Nazis on Google will turn up nothing but Wikipedia articles. At which point Wikipedia will presumably be bought by the History Channel.

    5. Re:Fire Them by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      At which point Wikipedia will presumably be bought by the History Channel.

      You mean the Hitler channel? ;) That's what we used to call it. Go back about 5-6 years and all History ran was specials about WW2 -- most of which focused on the Western Front, cuz god knows there wasn't any other story to WW2 besides D-Day and the Allied drive across the Rhine. No Eastern Front, no Pacific War, no Winter War, no Italian campaign. It was all decided in France and Germany.... or at least that was the impression you got after watching some of those old shows for a few weeks.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Fire Them by mrogers · · Score: 1

      Exactly! They must have got a bulk price on Hitler footage and decided to make the most of it...

    7. Re:Fire Them by demachina · · Score: 1

      "If the Air Force is in charge, then you've got the beginnings of a military state on your hands."

      From what I've read recently the wheels have been falling off the Air Force for a while. That's a reason why Gates fired the Air Force Secretary and the Chief of Staff, the cililian and military chiefs of a service have never both been fired at once in history. They've had major breakdowns in controls on nuclear weapons, including flying a set of armed cruise missiles cross country by mistake and delivering secret warhead parts to Taiwan by accident. There was something about a corrupt $50 million dollar contract for some Thunderbirds shows that was thrown to a retired 4 star general through cronyism, etc. If you can't maintain discipline in controlling nuclear weapons it tends to indicate you can't maintain any discipline at all and this might be indicative of that.

      They've also been accused of largely taking a pass on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the "War on Terror" in general at least since Shock and Awe ended. You get the impression the brunt of its fallen on the Army, Navy and Marines. I'm sure their are Air Force personnel serving honorably in those places but I gather they have been extremely resistant in adapting to the low intensity warfare which is most warfare these days. In particular Gates wanted them to put more resources in UAV's and to supporting troops on the ground with intelligence, like spotting people infiltrating borders of Afghanistan and Iraq for example. From Newsweek:

              Getting more UAVs in theater, Gates said recently, has "been like pulling teeth."

      Apparently the Air Force will only allow UAV's to be piloted by pilots and pilot availability is slowing deployment of UAV's to the war zones. As I recall the Army gave up in frustration and is developing its own UAV's now. I suspect Air Force pilots want to be in the cockpit of gold plated fighters and bombers(there is a next gen secret bomber under development apparently) and not sitting in a trailer someplace flying a UAV look for guerrillas. They are still arming and training to fight a Soviet Union that doesn't exist any more.

      I've often wondered if they extent to which the Air Force Academy has been overrun by born again Christians hasn't had a negative influence on the officers ranks in the Air Force. You have to wonder if the officers are rising through the ranks based more on their willingness to pray the same as their fellow officers instead of on their qualifications and ability to their jobs. I wonder if officers who are spending all their time praying together are reluctant to discipline their fellow church members.

      It could also be the corruption that seems to have been the hallmark of the Bush administration has infected the Air Force like every other branch of government under the control of the executive branch. America made a pretty serious mistake electing Bush and it remains to be seen if it proves to be a fatal mistake that it may not recover from.

      --
      @de_machina
    8. Re:Fire Them by db32 · · Score: 1

      Yes...what a terrible military state we will have. Run by that out of control Air Force making comfort capsules instead of using those counter-terrorism funds for weapons or spying like they were meant to be used.

      Not that I advocate for a military state by any stretch, but lets be real here. It wasn't the military that fucked this up to such an amazing degree from day 1. It was our wonderful Executive and a bunch of Congress Critters. All of which are non military. So...the illegal extradition stuff...CIA...not military. The wiretapping...also not military. The "papers please" mentality at our airports...also not military. Eminent domain where the government seizes your land for other use...nope...still not military. I mean really now...please...feel free to show me how our domestic situation has gotten worse due to direct military action not specifically ordered by civilian leadership. To be honest, I don't think the military has had much of anything to do with our failing domestic situation. Shit...even the military is pissed that these defense contractors are getting so money and free reign. You are likely to have a hard time finding many military folks that care for those blackwater clowns.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    9. Re:Fire Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the fact that nothing is done to KBR (often the victims are disciplined) employees or corp. and the gov is complicit, I think it's an apt comparison.

  29. Congress has control over spending by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Congress has full control over spending. "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law." - U.S. Constitution, Article 1, section 7.

    Congress can exercise detailed control over spending when they so choose. Sometimes bills will contain language like "No federal funds shall be expended upon...", and that's binding on the executive branch. It's not unusual for Congress to explicitly turn off some project in this way.

  30. Something to consider by cryptodan · · Score: 0

    Its no different then a CO or XO aboard a Naval Vessel to have their own boat to take out on rest and relaxation time. Admirals also have their own boats to take from Command to Boat and Boat to Boat. So why can't the USAF have something similar?

    1. Re:Something to consider by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      They probably could if they budgeted it in with their own funds. But instead they tried to use counter-terror funds, were told no, and did it anyway.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Something to consider by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      So why can't the USAF have something similar?

      Because Congress told them no and in this country Congress has the power to regulate how taxpayer dollars are spent?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Something to consider by cryptodan · · Score: 0

      They probably could if they budgeted it in with their own funds. But instead they tried to use counter-terror funds, were told no, and did it anyway.

      They could always use the following excuse: "Our senior staff needs to have certain comfort given to them in the event of a terrorist attack. Also, our senior staff need to have their own comfort capsules when in transport to important meetings at various bases dealing with counter-terrorism issues, and to make sure other bases are following Counter-terrorism measures as outlined in Defense Directive(or some other official statement)."

  31. Best place for them... by ClarisseMcClellan · · Score: 1

    You can imagine it, the 'top brass' person gets loaded into his little pod (presumably windowless) and then gets hoicked into the back of the C130. Bump, bump, thud... 37" plasma screen accepted, this mode of travel is as bad as how illegal immigrants travel and a tad antisocial. What type of person would want to travel like that in the first place? Sounds a bit silly.
    Regarding the general expense, the outlay is nothing compared to the $2 billion (or is it $11 billion) currently being spent upgrading the doomsday planes that only ever saw any real action on 9/11 - but *that* was denied somewhat...
    More generally, Air Force 1 and the rest of the U.S. fleet is beginning to look like a bad movie-set accessory. Soon Roman Abramovich will be getting an Airbus A380 as a personal jet, to go with the 767 and 737 (for small runways).

    1. Re:Best place for them... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      What type of person would want to travel like that in the first place? Sounds a bit silly.

      Ah... I can tell you've never riden on a military flight. It aint like a ride in a well presurized commercial transport. The pilots don't care if you're comfortable 'cause you're not paying their salary and your comfort isn't at all important to them - your survival is. So, yeah... I'd want to ride in one but I'm often considered silly.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  32. Hypocrisy? by Sniper98G · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find it kind of odd that congress told the Air Force that when a four star general flies to the AOR they cannot make use of a higher class accommodation on board a military aircraft but whenever a member of congress flies their they get their own personal high class commercial aircraft. I'm not saying that the Air Force is right here, I don't think any of our public servants should be getting first class rides at taxpayer expense.

    1. Re:Hypocrisy? by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Nicer accomodations for ALL servicemembers flying would be nice while we're at it. I'm a contractor in Iraq now and have flown several times in C-130s and C-17s. Saying that they suck doesn't quite cover it.

      This last time, we were crammed in like sardines in a C-130, knee to knee with the opposite row with full body armor and helmet in 120 deg heat with no AC, waiting for takeoff for at lest 15 minutes. Then they said we had to make room for 5 more. After we all crammed in some more, they said false alarm. Another 20 minutes and we're finally in the air. I don't want to ever have to do that again. At least when I leave in the fall it will be cooler.

      That being said, there's no reason it has to be "world class" either. We have Waste, Fraud, and Abuse laws and I hope some people go to jail over it. It wouldn't be the first time. They have no right to use counter-terror funds for this.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Hypocrisy? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Even if it is hypocrisy I'm hard pressed to see that as justification for the USAF to ignore a lawful Congressional mandate.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Hypocrisy? by Ironpoint · · Score: 1

      Seriously? You're supposed to be acting like you're participating in a war, remember?

      You're going to blow the whole thing. No more $700 million per day money spigot.

    4. Re:Hypocrisy? by Ironpoint · · Score: 1

      Any four star general that wishes to live a lavish civilian lifestyle can give up their rank and run for congress, otherwise they can deal with they military life they chose.

      If for some reason you think rank holds some sort of implied status in society, lets remember that a four star general holds absolutely no command, rank, or power over the majority of the 300 million inhabitants of the US. You're confusing this country with another well known country of the past which got to the point of producing its own fine military dinnerware.

    5. Re:Hypocrisy? by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      Public servants? Those bozos in Washington? Excuse me while I die laughing.

      99.9% of them either seek to funnel wealth into their own pockets, or make it impossible for them to lose power or influence. We've gone from representatives who actually try to represent our interests to a new aristocracy demanding tribute.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    6. Re:Hypocrisy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Members of congress don't get "their own personal high class commercial aircraft". At least not in the country I live in. Where do you live? What aircraft do they fly?

  33. Write your congrescoundrel. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not only a waste of money, it's horrible leadership. Any officer in the military pushing for this kind of thing should be immediately railroaded out of the military - being a good military leader and seeking this kind of fluff are absolutely mutually exclusive. Some pig high ranking General lavising in luxury while ordering people to risk their lives and live in cramped air carrier quarters is fucking disgusting.

    1. Re:Write your congrescoundrel. by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not only a waste of money, it's horrible leadership. ... Some pig high ranking General lavising in luxury while ordering people to risk their lives and live in cramped air carrier quarters is fucking disgusting.

      CEO's regularly do this when their company is in a bad spell. They fly around all cushy while laying off rank-and-file. And they have a golden parachute even if they half the company.
           

    2. Re:Write your congrescoundrel. by rwillard · · Score: 1

      There's a much smaller risk of your employees actually dying while you're flying around being a prick, though.

    3. Re:Write your congrescoundrel. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It's the same attitude working its way in different situations.

    4. Re:Write your congrescoundrel. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely agreed, there. Shareholders (and board of directors) should hold them similarly accountable. The company will pay for normal business travel, if you want above and beyond that pay out of your own pocket.

  34. Wtf? by HalAtWork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What about war is comfortable exactly? And why are we trying to shield officers and civilians from reality (even further)? Why isn't this being spent on the comfort and (psychological/physical) well being of our troops?

    1. Re:Wtf? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      What about war is comfortable exactly? And why are we trying to shield officers and civilians from reality (even further)?

      How exactly is traveling to and from a destination in reasonable comfort 'shielding them from reality'?
       
       

      Why isn't this being spent on the comfort and (psychological/physical) well being of our troops?

      There's a few bleak spots (mostly due to years of neglect because Congress wouldn't pay for proper upkeep after the cutbacks of the early 90's), but millions of dollars a year are spent on on the comfort and (psychological/physical) well being of our troops. Hell, the barracks of today are considerably ahead of the ones I lived in during the 80's. (I know a guy living in the same room I was in 1988... The room is now wired for cable and phone, neither of which I had, for example.) The barracks I lived in during Sub school (crappy WWII era) and during SWSEA school (1970's era) have been demolished and replaced with modern barracks. Etc. Etc.

    2. Re:Wtf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are they participating in reality if they have comforts that others don't?

  35. Mirror in case of slashdotting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post reports, 'The Air Force's top leadership sought for three years to spend counterterrorism funds on "comfort capsules" to be installed on military planes that ferry senior officers and civilian leaders around the world ... Air Force documents spell out how each of the capsules is to be "aesthetically pleasing and furnished to reflect the rank of the senior leaders using the capsule," with beds, a couch, a table, a 37-inch flat-screen monitor with stereo speakers, and a full-length mirror.' Congress told the USAF twice that they could not spend the money on this frivolous project, but they did it anyway."

    1. Re:Mirror in case of slashdotting by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, I really hate it when the summary gets /.'ed. Thanks for mirroring that for us AC!

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  36. Was it fitted out with something like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "1 .45 automatic.
    2 boxes of ammunition.
    4 days' concentrated emergency rations.
    1 drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills.
    1 miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible.
    100 dollars in rubles.
    100 dollars in gold.
    9 packs of chewing gum.
    1 issue of prophylactics.
    3 lipsticks.
    3 pairs of nylon stockings" :-)

  37. already done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you read the arcticle carefuly it explains that this money was going to be used to 'improve' the provisions already in place for Executive officers. I am a crew chief in the military and i will tell you that we already have these things. They are basically 'silver Bullet' campers with a bit of some overhauling on the inside. We already have these things in place, and they are being used. Forget the fact that 102 soldiers fit on board uncomfortably with the center line seats. But i have an idea. why not stop the medical evac missions with their wasted space of 36 litters and just put the 'silver bullets' on board so that General skippy won't spill his F*king martini.

    1. Re:already done by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      One sensible comment in a sea of drivel. Aluminium skinned Airstream campers last forever, but they still need the occasional overhaul.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  38. That's sillyness. by raehl · · Score: 2, Funny

    By that logic, we should dramatically increase the budget of the Department of Window Breaking.

    Or the Department of Hole Digging and Filling.

    Money that gets spent locally - but for which we get no benefit.

    1. Re:That's sillyness. by NickNameCreateAccoun · · Score: 1

      Money that gets spent locally - but for which we get no benefit.

      -Hey it's economics, why do you need a reason?

    2. Re:That's sillyness. by davolfman · · Score: 1

      We'll call it the Newer Deal.

    3. Re:That's sillyness. by Gryle · · Score: 1

      ...the Department of Window Breaking.

      I dunno about you, but I'd be willing to work for the Department of Defenestration. "What do you for a living?" "I throw people through windows."

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
  39. Re:And they beat me up for not wanting to pay taxe by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Um. They were ordered not to do it. Twice. They then ignored it. (so, in this case, congress was being GOOD!)

    This won't go down well.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  40. Sounds like a case of scope creep by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Reading from the story, the original idea was good but things got out of hand when people start deviating from the original objectives. The Air Force saw that there was a growing need for top brass and government officials to work and rest on long military flights. They have some planes for this purpose but in some areas for the world (and for security reasons), it would be more practical for these officials to fly on military transports like C-17s. Transports can be fitted to carry troops and personnel but they have the most basic of seats. So modules could be built and put into these transports like UPS or Fedex modular containers but are not made for packages but personnel.

    With the idea of a traveling office in mind, some basic elements are probably necessary. Chairs and table for work. Bed for sleep. The module should probably be sound proof/vibration proof as much as possible because these transports have no shielding from either. For communications, the module might need to be plugged into the airplanes communication or its own separate feed. The module probably requires some modest power for equipment. Everything should be bolted down for obvious reasons.

    After basic requirements, then it got out of hand. Certain generals wanted leather upgrades to match color. The chairs went from being standard commercial airline chairs to ultra-luxurious first class. TVs and DVD players were added. While a TV/monitor might not be a stretch if used to convey information (video uplinks), it is frivolous if used for entertainment.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:Sounds like a case of scope creep by westlake · · Score: 1
      Reading from the story, the original idea was good but things got out of hand
      .

      The story made the news because the brass tried to fund the capsules through the GWOT - Global War On Terrorism - the combat mission and off the budget for basic transportation.

      The obsession with details of carpeting and upholstery was a gift - pure gold - to the late night comic.

    2. Re:Sounds like a case of scope creep by jthug · · Score: 1

      I was actually assigned to duty supporting a 4 and 3 star USAF general around Europe. When I read this story for the first time I was exceedingly annoyed at the lavishness of it, but I agree with your point. These guys were in their 50s. They still flew the aircraft sometimes. Best pilots I've ever seen. But generally they were preparing for their arrival. Which included briefings, and much paperwork. Generally it was the Gen, myself as Comm support, a aide for aide things, security person, and 2 or 3 people to brief the general/translate. I never got to see the man get any real rest. We went to one eastern europe country and he slept in his shower because they were doing construction outside his room all night. They were right and honorable men and I'm proud to have served with them. I don't mind them getting something like this. Though it is extravagant with the 37 in tv an all. The generals quarters when I've been deployed have all had multiple tvs all on news channels. The full length mirror also makes sense. Usually it's right off the plane and into some high-level meeting/ceremony. In the end some aide thought they would make a good impression by changing the color and the wood. Or some general was a stuck up ass. That's what disgusts me, and the arrogance infront of Congress. Especially after we just got kicked by Sec. Gates firing the tippy top brass. We had one 'careerist' where I'm at, before I started traveling. You weren't allowed to bump into him on the C-21. Which is barely larger than a suburban. He's gone, and got fired... er.. resigned from his university job. Fly, Fight, Win! JT

    3. Re:Sounds like a case of scope creep by Mike1024 · · Score: 1

      With the idea of a traveling office in mind, some basic elements are probably necessary. Chairs and table for work. Bed for sleep. The module should probably be sound proof/vibration proof as much as possible because these transports have no shielding from either. For communications, the module might need to be plugged into the airplanes communication or its own separate feed. The module probably requires some modest power for equipment. Everything should be bolted down for obvious reasons.

      You can get a 40' shipping container for about $2000. Let's say $500 to carpet it and another $500 to plasterboard the walls and paint them. $500 should be more than enough for a 12v lighting system hooked up to the airplane's power system. Let's add in a $500 power inverter to give 110v for a laptop or whatever. I was in Ikea today, and you can get a nice sofa for about $700, $600 sets you up with a bed and mattress, a desk about $400, a leather office chair about $300, $200 for some shelves, $150 for linen and pillows. Shove in a $2000 macbook pro, $800 for a 27 inch Dell screen, so you'll be sorted for playing DVDs.

      That totals $9150. Round it up to $10,000 for anything I've forgotten.

      McMahon said the program has recently been downsized from 10 capsules to three, plus the four pallets fitted with swiveling leather chairs, [...] Because of the cutback in the number of capsules and pallets, the program is currently estimated to cost $7.6 million.

      I can understand a certain increase in cost due to inefficient military procurement and some complexity getting power and data connections. But even if you slap a big premium on them, those three capsules are costing seventy-six times too much. If you want to know how the military and government get a reputation for wastefulness and inefficiency, this is it.

      --
      "Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
    4. Re:Sounds like a case of scope creep by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      You forgot that ALL furnishings that are designed to be placed in Aircraft MUST meet certain requirements by US Law and FAA regulations. THAT is what costs the money.

  41. Actually, this really could be legitimate... by raehl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We're talking about high-level military executives here. Guys who have to make Really Big Decisions.

    Now let's say you have one of these Generals in Washington, and they need to go to Iraq.

    How do you get them there?

    Do they fly commercial? Probably not very regular commercial service from DC to Baghdad.

    So you fly them military.

    Now, do you fly them in the jump seat of a cargo plane?

    That might work for your average soldier, but do you really want the guy in command of all your forces arriving somewhere absolutely tired? Do you want to provide them with a work area for the 12-24 hours they're going to be in the air?

    Regular troops have the luxary of not having to go straight from getting off the plane to directly into the battlefield. Generals are high-level decision-making executives who have to be effective all the time.

    Capsules give those personnel a work-area where they can be productive on planes, and a sleep area so that when they do get wherever they're going, they're not running on a day of no or crappy sleep. There's a reason that in the commercial sector businesses pay thousands of dollars for business class seats that employees have a chance to sleep in isntead of hundreds of dollars on a coach seat. If they're flying their staff to someplace, it's important, and they don't want their staff operating on poor rest when they arrive.

    So, what makes more sense: Spending millions of dollars on aircraft for moving around top military personnel, or spending tens or hundreds of thousands on some pods that can convert any standard-issue cargo plane into a flying office?

    Give the guy in charge of keeping 150,000 people in Iraq alive a bed and a desk when he's got to spend 20 hours in the air. That's not a waste of money. And it sounds like building pods might actually be the least expensive way to provide those facilities.

    1. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by wellingj · · Score: 1

      I'm not all for this, but think of the buisness men who might like to use this kind of technology...
      There is some trickle down here, but not as much as say, better body armor.

    2. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we send the guy right to the front line, I'm all for your idea. With more top level Generals where the fighting is, we'll probably have fewer wars in the long run.

      Thinking about it, we could send some hothead politicians there, too!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I seriously hope you're joking...

      Bed, table, okay...

      But: beds, a couch, a table, a 37-inch flat-screen monitor with stereo speakers, and a full-length mirror... That's 20 inches more than you need on your monitor, a lot more mirror than you need, and definitely more couch than you need. How about you give them a bed, small table, and spend the rest on the troops.

    4. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by ClassicG · · Score: 1

      Sir, I salute your courage in posting a devil's-advocate viewpoint such as this. While I still disagree, your comment at least puts things a bit more in perspective.

      --
      I game, therefore I am...
    5. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by Maxmin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't join the military for a life of luxury, you join to serve your nation. Luxury accommodations are out-of-scope. A poor example for those under your command, and a bad precedent for where the U.S. command is headed.

      The question isn't jump-seats versus a luxury suite. First-class airliner seats, six to ten grand, and that they already have. Mil-spec, hardened laptops, five, six grand, standard equipment. Good quality food and drink, gronk.

      Multi-million dollar traveling accommodations? Quit the government, join the corporate world, and earn your way up to rewards that come from generating profits, not being a tax-paid decision-maker. The senior officers I've admired most are the ones who drive their own cars, and don't try to lead the pampered life on the taxpayers' dime.

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
    6. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seriously hope you're joking...

      I'd say the same of you.

      ... a couch, a table, a 37-inch flat-screen monitor with stereo speakers, and a full-length mirror... That's 20 inches more than you need on your monitor, a lot more mirror than you need, and definitely more couch than you need. How about you give them a bed, small table, and spend the rest on the troops.

      A couch? Yeah totally inconceivable that there might be more than one person in the pod.

      A 37 inch flat-screen? Again, totally inconceivable that there might be more than one person and a presentation that needs to be viewed. Out of the question that it might have sound. (And a 17 inch monitor isn't that great. Mine was wonderful when I upgraded from a 15 inch monitor 8 years ago. These days it is sadly lacking.)

    7. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by negRo_slim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's 20 inches more than you need on your monitor

      More Screen = More Data Displayed = More better work.

      and a full-length mirror

      When your profession requires a uniform or suit with a strict attention to detail that seems like a given for someone highly paced in such organizations.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    8. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by user-hostile · · Score: 1

      So you fly them military. Now, do you fly them in the jump seat of a cargo plane?

      Hold on, there. There's a wide range of military aircraft seating between "jump seat" and "comfort capsule". Except for the web-seating in planes like C-130s, many, many Air Force planes have good ol' commercial airliner type forward-facing, reclining, padded, etc. seats. I think the most obvious wrongdoing with this story is that the brass feel they're above even the type of aircraft seating the rest of the public gets.

    9. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 1, Insightful

      More Screen = More Data Displayed = More better work.

      Yes, because I'm sure that it's mostly used to display data, and not the latest blockbuster movie or porn. ;)

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    10. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by raehl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have 3 20" monitors, and they're used entirely to display data.

      And I just code. Seems perfectly reasonable that someone in charge of military planning might have a good use for lots of screen real estate - like battlefield maps, for example.

    11. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Now let's say you have one of these Generals in Washington, and they need to go to Iraq.

      How do you get them there?

      Do they fly commercial? Probably not very regular commercial service from DC to Baghdad.

      I gave up mod points to reply here. I hate to tell ya, but most troops fly commercially in and out of Iraq. The reason so many troops (the vast majority) fly commercially is because it costs the military about 4x the cost per seat to do the same trip in their own planes.

      Unless they are a high level cabinet member flying in high profile, there is no excuse for them to fly on anything other than a commercial jet, just as everyone else does.

    12. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by freesword · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are other possible legitimate uses for something like this as well.

      It could be used for secure and clandestine meetings with foreign VIPs. Some don't take well to sacrificing comfort and ostentation in the name of secrecy. This would allow such meetings to remain secret without ruffling feathers.

      Say for example said VIP is meeting with a foreign head of state (or other high profile figure). The meeting needs to be top secret (no publicity or press knowledge). Said foreign VIP goes to visit airbase (US plane with our VIP and comfort pod is there waiting). While out of site of press in secure area, hops into Comfort Pod which looks like generic cargo container and is loaded into plane. Plane takes off and flies around for meeting to maintain security then returns to airbase. Foreign VIP is happy with comfort level and feels special while security is maintained.

      VIP aircraft stand out. A cargo plane on a military airbase does not. When you don't know whether or not the other side is watching, make it harder for them to spot what they are looking for.

    13. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by cnettel · · Score: 1

      Consider, though, that resolution tops out at 30" at 2560x1600 (and don't tell me that their needs merit a non-COTS display).

    14. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by Gorobei · · Score: 4, Funny

      A high-level air force officer can easily waste 5 or 6 hours a week trying to get a good hookup with his secretary.

      This fuck-capsule idea is brilliant, and cost-saving to boot. It's got the bed, the porn-screen, and the full-length mirror. Just need a carry-on for the DVDs, lingerie, and booze.

      This is the sort of outside-the-box thinking that made me happy to vote Bush the last two elections.

    15. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      you do have a point that a convertible cargo container office would be just the thing... make each seat 3-4 people and make them "stackable" so you could put more than one on a plane.

      Thing is they wanted luxury seats and custom ones for "special" guests. That seems to be the sticking point. These guys play the "accustom" card.. they have offices with $5000 desks and couches, so they need those in a plane to be "refreshed". They wouldn't want "Hampton Inn" quality, they want "4 Seasons"... all the time.

    16. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by Viadd · · Score: 2, Informative

      So, what makes more sense: Spending millions of dollars on aircraft for moving around top military personnel, or spending tens or hundreds of thousands on some pods that can convert any standard-issue cargo plane into a flying office?

      Except that if you RTFA, these things cost more than a million dollars each ($7.6M for 7, assuming no further overruns). They spent $68,240 just to change the leather seat upholstery from brown to blue.

    17. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      beds, couch, tables, even mirrors are all pretty cheap... Even a 37" flat TV is justified because these are pretty cheap and you need news/data in the air for 12+ hours. The idea of a box they can stuff in a cargo plane to add just 1 office rather than chartering a separate passenger plane is also a good thing.

      But the whole point is that they won't buy "hotel" grade stuff like all these business hotels buy up for $100/nite business-class rooms, they'll have each unit with custom, high-end everything inflating the price to executive office levels... and the pod will be assigned by ranks, jobs, so they won't be "common use" they'll be flown around EMPTY most of the time to get the Pods to the "appropriate" people.

    18. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by seeker_1us · · Score: 1

      How about welding a bunk to the wall for a fraction of the cost?

    19. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by GeckoAddict · · Score: 3, Interesting

      While that's a perfectly reasonable and logical response, it's completely irrelevant. The issue is not the fact that they want to have these nice pods, it's the fact that they wanted to use money specifically given to them with the explicit purpose of using it for counterterrorism to do it. It's a more like your local city offical using the money your city got for a grant for new police equipment on cars and drivers for anyone in city hall. It's wrong, and it should be called out publicly.

    20. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by raehl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Depends what the use profile is. If they're setting these things up with sofas, they may be designed for more than one person, in which case 37" would be helpful for collaboration, since they probably are not going to also have conference room pods.

    21. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by Detritus · · Score: 1

      I've ridden in those "commercial airline seats" on military aircraft. The seats were OK, but the deafening noise and horrible climate control made the flights a miserable experience.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    22. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by dave420 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Work area & bed != Leather seats, 37-inch TV, etc. etc. You make good points, and I agree, but this is a bit more than a work area and a bed.

    23. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Generals typically tend to stay away from the front lines because they know what a monumental pain in the ass their staff entourage is for the guys actually trying to do some work. The reality is in order to become a General or Admiral you need not only exemplary military skills but phenomenal people skills.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    24. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Exactly right. It makes sense for high level decision makers (especially since these are older guys and gals, not in the primes of their lives) to have a certain level of comfort while traveling. Enabling them and their staffs to do work while traveling, even better. But they don't need high end and expensive leather swivel chairs while they're in the air, that's just overboard.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    25. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by Repossessed · · Score: 2, Informative

      Resolution maxes out, but a bigger display allows you to use max resolution without everything being tiny. (I had to move from a 15 inch to a 19 inh display myself, so that I could actually see at a higher resolution).

      That said, the problem doesn't really seem to be what they are buying, as much as where the money is coming from.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    26. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by Salgak1 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Except there have been "comfort pallets" with regular airline seats, and have been for years.

      And there is an entire FLEET of VIP jets, from biz-jets up to 747-class birds for them to use.

      Converting a CONEX container to a flying office, with a couple of bunks and a worktable, that's reasonable. Even comm hookups make sense.

      But there's a massive difference between a comfortable work environment you can roll into the cargo bay of an airlifter, and this boondoggle. . read the details: 68K for change of table wood and seat leather color ?? That's a complete and utter waste of taxpayer money. .

    27. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by rdl · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wrong. Troops fly military charter (airlines like World Airlines, ATA, etc....flying B747/767/etc.) to Kuwait, and then C-130 or C-17 from Kuwait to Iraq.

      It is illegal for US troops to fly on foreign-flagged aircraft (DOD policy). It is also illegal for US-flagged commercial/charter operators to fly into Iraq (FAA policy)).

      I've personally flown on just about every kind of aircraft in and out of Iraq/etc., including non-US flagged crappy old Russian charters, commercial non-US airlines, and all manner of military aircraft.

      It's true that charter is about cost savings OUTSIDE Iraqi airspace. It's also about limited tactical aircraft asset availability, and keeping them for cargo and other critical missions.

      (military cargo ALSO/often flies in on Russian aircraft, operated by charter carriers; it's just PAX and special cargo (munitions, sensitive items, bodies, etc.) which have to fly on US flagged aircraft)

    28. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      The mistake is in the luxury - the 37" screen really is over the top in this situation, and it's all about appearances - increasing from 21" to 37" might have raised the total cost by less than 0.1%, but it just looks posh.

      Oh, and calling it a "Comfort Capsule" doesn't help - first thing I thought of was a Japanese airport hotel room with Geisha included.

    29. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      In other words, you not only have to know how to stab people in the back but also how to crawl into their rectums.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    30. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by couchslug · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The cost/silliness is really the issue.

      The same goal for seating pallets could have been accomplished by modding heavy-duty pallets with reclining airliner seats and other accessories, and it could have been done "local manufacture" by any major AFB Fabrication flight.

      AAR Corp make most of the containers used for USAF air transport, and could have easily whipped up a "capsule" based on existing ISU container designs. It is basic fabrication, not brain surgery.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    31. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Who paid you to write this?

    32. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have seen an loaded 1 type of these "Comfort Capsules". I don't know how many of you guys have seen the inside of an Air Force cargo jet. They are no where like a commercial jet. On the other hand, most generals do have their own jets which do provide most of what is in the capsules, but like defensive measures that are found on the C-5 and the C-17. Do they need all that stuff, no, but they do need to be able to have the necessary information presented to them.

    33. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We're talking about high-level military executives here. Guys who have to make Really Big Decisions."

      Big decisions indeed, from the article:

      "I was asked by Gen. [Robert H.] McMahon what it would take to make the [capsule] . . . a 'world class' piece of equipment," an officer at the service's Air Mobility Command said in a March 2007 e-mail to a colleague, referring to the mobility command's top officer then. "He said he wanted an assurance . . . that we would be getting a world class item this week."

      There very well may be a genuine need for something practical, but world class? It is not uncommon in the military for flag officers to procure themselves "world class item[s]."

      I'll spend weeks/months as enlisted personnel fighting like crazy trying to get approval to replace a $50 broken chair. But if a flag officer wants a $1500 executive leather chair, it would be delivered the next day.

    34. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the way it DOES work... is that EVERYONE flies together, as a unit, commercially from their home base in the states, to a HUB, and to Kuwait (with a comfort/refuel stop in europe), then from Kuwait to Baghdad.

      Now I don't know if you know this... but the IMPORTANT people (having a high rank does NOT mean you're important) usually have a leer jet they'll fly in if need be... Although, considering it is about a 14-18 hour flight over the Atlantic... they're going to fly commercial, since its cheaper for the government and its not all too often that USAF has cargo planes flying from the states to Iraq. Usually they fly from Europe with needed supplies.

      And remember, Everyone (with the exception to doctors/dentists) works from the bottom to the top. They've been through the 'usual' and shouldn't have a problem with it. And if they're a real leader, they would rather fly as their men would, and fly with them. They'd endear the same struggles, with them, and live the same way they do. But... this is the US chair force you're talking about, they do like to pamper themselves in every way. But hey, a desk jockey will always be looking for ways to improve their cubicle.

      And btw... when we land in country, we do go straight to the battle field. Maybe we'll get a few hours to eat and take a nap.. but the battle isn't going to stop for us, so we wont stop for it.

    35. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by Premo_Maggot · · Score: 1

      mod up parent for truth.

      --
      Good karma sticks to me like velcro on a piece of plexiglass.
      Move along, citizen.
    36. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by forestbrooke · · Score: 1

      That might work for your average soldier, but do you really want the guy in command of all your forces arriving somewhere absolutely tired? Do you want to provide them with a work area for the 12-24 hours they're going to be in the air?

      Regular troops have the luxary of not having to go straight from getting off the plane to directly into the battlefield. Generals are high-level decision-making executives who have to be effective all the time.

      Capsules give those personnel a work-area where they can be productive on planes, and a sleep area so that when they do get wherever they're going, they're not running on a day of no or crappy sleep.

      Yes, thats why they have '37 inch LCD TVs with stereo speakers'. To aid in the decision making process and get a shut eye.

    37. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Regular troops have the luxary of not having to go straight from getting off the plane to directly into the battlefield.

      While I agree with most of the rest of your post, I think some soldiers may disagree with this part.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    38. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Actually, 68k for a change of table wood and leather color seems reasonable. Hear me out.

      Everything that is intended to be used and mounted to an aircraft... including this "comfort pallet"... has to be air certified and put through crash tests and all kinds of other "nonsense" to show that it can handle the conditions in flight as well as in emergency situations.

      It has to meet higher standards for being a flame retardant and other issues that standard leather used on a Lazyboy recliner simply isn't going to have to go through.

      Documenting those changes, hiring engineers to look at those changes, evaluating new materials to meet the aviation standards and other similar issues can easily hit the 68k cost alone. Being a government contract adds about 50% or more to the cost just because of the government accounting standards, not to mention hiring the accountants to keep track of all this spending and others to verify and keep track of this paperwork.

      Honestly, I think 68k for a change of that nature is quite cheap if you look at all of the things involved. Is it wasteful? Yeah, but imagine how much waste there would be if these accounting standards weren't there? Most of the aviation standards have been established mainly through the death of some unfortunate souls because somebody was careless and thought you could grab any sort junk from a local hardware store and make it work in an aviation environment.

      While in this case it may be excessive, don't blame what you perceive as simple requirements here to what are long standing aviation standards that in the long run do protect passengers, crew, and cargo where even minor mistakes can and do result in death or serious injuries, or causing injury to additional folks like you and me as these vehicles go flying over our heads. I for one am glad that these standards are in place even if in this case it seems absurd.

    39. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by slyborg · · Score: 1

      It's actually "inside the box" thinking. But yeah.

    40. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      Regular troops have the luxary of not having to go straight from getting off the plane to directly into the battlefield.

      hahahahahahahahahahahaha... whew.... ahahahahahahahahahaha

      Thanks for the laugh. I needed that.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    41. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine. Then give them a fucking container. With 2 chairs and a table purchased at Staples. And a decent bed. That's it.

      I'm so sick of the 'executives need more' crap. Maybe they don't. Maybe they ought to sit with the grunts and see it from their angle.

    42. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about high-level military executives here. Guys who have to make Really Big Decisions.

      Now let's say you have one of these Generals in Washington, and they need to go to Iraq.

      How do you get them there?

      Do they fly commercial? Probably not very regular commercial service from DC to Baghdad.

      So you fly them military.

      Now, do you fly them in the jump seat of a cargo plane?

      That might work for your average soldier, but do you really want the guy in command of all your forces arriving somewhere absolutely tired? Do you want to provide them with a work area for the 12-24 hours they're going to be in the air?

      Regular troops have the luxary of not having to go straight from getting off the plane to directly into the battlefield. Generals are high-level decision-making executives who have to be effective all the time.

      Capsules give those personnel a work-area where they can be productive on planes, and a sleep area so that when they do get wherever they're going, they're not running on a day of no or crappy sleep. There's a reason that in the commercial sector businesses pay thousands of dollars for business class seats that employees have a chance to sleep in isntead of hundreds of dollars on a coach seat. If they're flying their staff to someplace, it's important, and they don't want their staff operating on poor rest when they arrive.

      So, what makes more sense: Spending millions of dollars on aircraft for moving around top military personnel, or spending tens or hundreds of thousands on some pods that can convert any standard-issue cargo plane into a flying office?

      Give the guy in charge of keeping 150,000 people in Iraq alive a bed and a desk when he's got to spend 20 hours in the air. That's not a waste of money. And it sounds like building pods might actually be the least expensive way to provide those facilities.

      To all the capsule haters.... pwnd

    43. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      That might work for your average soldier, but do you really want the guy in command of all your forces arriving somewhere absolutely tired?

      Yes, they shouldn't be willing to send the soldiers that way if it's not good enough for them.

      Then maybe they'll think twice about invading oil fields under false pretenses of "democracy and freedom and puppies for all" next time.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    44. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by db32 · · Score: 1

      I actually talked to a retired general's aide that said the general would frequently decide that he wanted to drive and would tell his aid to go get in the back and enjoy getting driven around by a general. This only ever caused problems when they went through the gate because the guards were understandably concerned why the general was driving with the aide in the back. (Think potential hostage).

      Ironic isn't it, that the senior leadership most deserving of a little comfort and pampering from time to time is the least likely to pursue or accept it. Yet at the same time it inspires the people who work for them to try to offer it more.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    45. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by db32 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Congratulations. You managed to get a post defending the military +5 on slashdot. It is hard enough to do that when it is defending an action that IS important, let alone the comfort capsule.

      I imagine your assessment is at least mostly correct. I suspect that there was extra funds dumped into the luxury part that shouldn't have been. And then also that whole being told no you can't use that money for it.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    46. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by green1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >> Honestly, I think 68k for a change of that nature is quite cheap if you look at all of the things involved

      If you know the change will cost $68,000... don't you think you could live with brown leather instead of blue?

    47. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by Teancum · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unfortunately, and I've seen this so many times even in private industry it makes me want to scream, those who order these kind of changes often don't realize the expense that goes into them.

      In an ideal world such accounting issues would be brought forward, but often logic seems to fall apart on some of the most stupid of issues.

      I don't think that this ought to result in a court martial or other such nonsense for the officers involved, but it is an unfortunate waste. I've seen worse waste of government spending even on a municipal level, so when I see something like this on a federal level I think: "Wow, somebody is paying attention here!" instead of "isn't this a shame!"

      For a federal project, this is small potatoes and essentially something to ignore for the most part. If you want to stop wasteful federal spending, there are many much bigger fish to fry than a few Air Force generals trying to make their life more comfortable when commanding their officers.

    48. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      My suggestion is that leaders wanting to send others to die, should have to risk their own lives first for the war: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=619491&cid=24263283

      This puts them in the frontline, leading the charge in spirit.

      In modern times it is not necessary to have your "kings" leading the charge physically. In fact it is likely to be counterproductive.

      --
    49. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      The point still stands so I'm hardly wrong. The last mile doesn't matter.

    50. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by rdl · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're right about them using commercial resources where appropriate.

      An individual traveler just takes the DIRECT United flight in C/F from IAD-KWI, then does a military hop, unless he's a top VIP, in which case he flies on a VC aircraft, dedicated, to a base in Kuwait, Doha, or Bahrain or somewhere and then switches to a tactical aircraft. (also, someone with an entourage is more likely to use a VC, or otherwise conduting meetings/business enroute)

      I really don't see a VIP taking a C-17, even in a luxo-box onboard, from CONUS to the CENTCOM AOR (with 1-2 fuel stops) all the way to a base in Iraq.

    51. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? I've seen countless movies from the Bond Movies to the Bourne Ultimatum and it's obvious that anything less than a floor to ceiling screen is a compromise when it comes to catching bad guys.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    52. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by senorironclad · · Score: 1

      But the couch dammit! What of this needless sofa!

    53. Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      and spend the rest on the troops. Or, just not spend it. Radical idea, I know.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  42. Who Cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. so, what? how much does this cost per plane? like a few thousand dollars?

    2. how is this news for nerds? just because it mentions a flat screen TV?

  43. Brilliant ! by Joebert · · Score: 1

    Fill the plane with virgin stripers and they might be able to trick terrorist hijackers into thinking they're already in wherever terrorists think they go long enough to land the plane safely.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  44. Yeah, no surprises here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a current Air force member, that's not shocking, comfort and quality of living are very high on the Air Forces list of priorities. Sometimes it seems like it's a little too high for being a military organization.

    Then again what do I care? I get all those things plus high speed internet access when I'm deployed in Iraq. Army, eat your heart out, I'll curl up in my queen size bed and take a nap.

    1. Re:Yeah, no surprises here by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Then again what do I care? I get all those things plus high speed internet access when I'm deployed in Iraq. Army, eat your heart out, I'll curl up in my queen size bed and take a nap.

      I grew up as an Army-brat and never quite understood why the other services have no respect for the Air Force..... until now ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  45. Comfort pills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At first I thought this was going to be some sort of plan by the military to drop pills or medication on the population (eg. water supply) or something to make everyone happy and docile.

  46. The Only Reason Congress... by WED+Fan · · Score: 4, Informative

    The only reason Congress is upset with this is they didn't think of it first. When I was in the USAF, we routinely hosted VIP's that included top civilian employees (GS15+), political figures and aides, and of course, senior military officials. Some of the Generals would eat what we ate on the flights, "boxed nasties", usually a box lunch of a sandwich, chips, fruit, drink, and some dessert (Hostess or Little Debbie). None of the political people would even stoop to the level of eating what us lowlies had to eat. And don't get me started on "demanding". As a crew chief, I'm not an in-flight steward, but they treated all of us, including the flight crew as if we were their hired servants rather than the other way around, with them as our elected servants.

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    1. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "...to reflect the rank of the senior leaders using the capsule..."

      It always bugs me how the military treats the 'senior military officials' better than the soldiers even though the soldiers are the ones putting their lives on the line. Pay increase for going from soldier to non-soldier should be only a lower risk of life, nothing else. What makes it worse is all these 'support our troops' and 'spend money on the military' types don't even realize that the troops are getting shit on.

    2. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      It always bugs me how the military treats the 'senior military officials' better than the soldiers even though the soldiers are the ones putting their lives on the line.

      I suspect that, somewhere out there, there's a quote by one of the guys that helped write the U.S. Constitution warning that this sort of thing is one of the dangers of having a standing military in peacetime.

      What makes it worse is all these 'support our troops' and 'spend money on the military' types don't even realize that the troops are getting shit on.

      Hell, I was there and saw that stuff in person, and I still forget to add a prohibition against it when I espouse the opinion that the military should have the resources it needs to do its job.

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    3. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by budgenator · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This isn't for those guys this is for

      for use by four-star generals, fleet admirals and federal officials at the level of assistant secretary and above.

      ; You honestly don't think they are going to ferry Obama for 36 hours inside on of these C-17 Globemaster III sitting on nylon webbing seats and staring at palletized cargo in the center isle.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    4. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, if it would mean ferrying fewer "tourists" (i.e. people who just want to smile into some cameras and pose as if they really were in the "war zone" to brush up their image) to areas where people are supposed to fight instead of polish their shoes so they look nice for some press date, something could get done.

      It's horrible when generals meddle with the affairs of politics. It's equally horrible when politicians meddle with the way a war is handled. Didn't the US learn anything from Vietnam?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Pay increase for going from soldier to non-soldier should be only a lower risk of life, nothing else."

      Brilliant career soldier retention move there...

      The move up in hassle and responsiblity is no joke, be it from junior enlisted to mid-level enlisted or through officer career progression. The bennies that go with rank, such as they are, are cheap compared to civilian executive compensation.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    6. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by Haxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

        When I was in the Marine Corps we had nothing but ancient rifles and flack jackets, and we are the ones who die.

    7. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by SageMusings · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't forget the ear plugs and the cold. Yeah, I've been there.

      The worst ride was a C-141 with four rows of web seating and having my knees interlocked with the Marine on either side....for 6 damned hours.

      Then there was the ride back form Iraq to Kuwait in a C-130 after the end of the war in 2003 (at least the formal war); the pilot was hooking and jinking to avoid potential ground threats while Marines around me puked into their kevlar. I would rather sit in human feces than accept another ride from my "brothers in blue" again.

      --
      -- Posted from my parent's basement
    8. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Pay increase for going from soldier to non-soldier should be only a lower risk of life, nothing else.

      Well, we certainly can't have the higher-ups in our military structure actually being alive, now can we?

    9. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 1

      Didn't the US learn anything from Vietnam?

      What they "learned" from Vietnam: the idea that if they just stay a little bit longer they will win!

      --
      We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
    10. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by msromike · · Score: 1

      Ridiculous. Spoken by someone who appears to never have been in the military. Or at least someone who didn't really "get it" while he was in.

      Of course you need to treat them different. How else are you going to get the best and brightest? There has to be an incentive for the General to stay in the Army rather than become the CEO of some firm that sells equipment and services to the military.

      Troops rarely begrudge perks offered to flag officers if he is squared away. In fact they will lay down their life based on his word. If they don't trust him then they will be less likely to perform and he won't be there long anyway.

      Leaders are killed in combat continually. The ratio may be less but that is the nature of warfare. The resources they need to control the battle are expensive and cannot be risked by placing them on the front line. These assets are relatively immobile and must be protected by distance from contact with the enemy in order to provide reaction time to move when threatened.

      So now you know a little more about how it really works instead of some half baked ideas of why "the military just sucks."

    11. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Not longer. More efficiently.

      Vietnam was a prime example what disaster it can be when politicians make war. I said it before, I say it again: Generals have no business in politics, politicians have no business in a war. Keep them separated and things will run smoothly.

      Vietnam was a disaster because the US tried to wage a "humane" war. You know what the "humanest" war is? A short one. They wanted to show that they're the good guys, who just want to defend and to protect. Bullcrap! Either go to war like you mean it or forget about it altogether.

      War is never nice for whoever is in it, but it isn't the intensity that is worst (let's stay with conventional warfare. Yes, a nuke would certainly "solve" any issue immediately, but the lasting effects outlast any length a war could have). What's worst is the length. If you want to wage a "humane" war, make it snappy and short.

      Actually, the longer an asymmetric war takes, the more the superior power suffers. You have to invest a lot more than your opponent, so the longer it takes, the more he bleeds you dry. You have costs that run in the millions per day, your opponent didn't have those millions to start with, but he has time on his side. Your expenses are way higher than his. So who wins in a war when it takes longer?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It always bugs me how the military treats the 'senior military officials' better than the soldiers even though the soldiers are the ones putting their lives on the line.

      Class warfare, read up on it.

      The soldiers' job is 100% to protect and further the advantageous lifestyle of their 'betters'. Stop idealizing the soldiers, they're just tools, and stop believing their masters, they just want the tools to have good morale so they'll be more productive.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    13. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by db32 · · Score: 1

      Wait wait wait. This is the Air Force. There is a wonderful joke about which branch has the smartest enlisted related to this as well. The gist is after the call for war the Army, Marines, Navy are all greeted by the ranking officer and he tells them "Give em hell men". The Air Force members are greeted by the ranking officers and they all jump to attention and salute and say "Give em hell sir!" (Air Force pilots are all officers).

      In all likelyhood someone is going to get their balls in a vice over this one. Someone once told me "The military needs a war every so often to remove all of the cowards and bureaucrats out of the services". The problem is during extended times of peace it is the political weasels that do shit like this that rise through the ranks. When rubber hits the road and shit gets hairy those people typically quit or get fired and people with real leadership qualities step in and start making things right. This process also leaves us with military leaders that understand the horror of war. Eisenhower has some pretty powerful words about the horror of war, the stupidity of a "preemtive" war, and so on. He didn't learn that shit reading text books. The problem is that this process is slowed considerably given that this administration rewards the political weasels.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    14. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Vietnam was a disaster because it was a civil war that the US treated as a conventional war between nations. While the US was under the impression it was somehow preventing the takeover of the country from a foreign force, it was instead fighting against the country's citizenry, attempting to subjugate an unwilling populace. Beyond a straightforward occupation, there is no way to "win" in this scenario, and an occupation isn't acceptable by any metric.

      Did the politicians screw up? Sure. But the Military would have done no better left to its own devices either. It would not have "occupied" Vietnam, it would have simply turned up the force used against the Vietcong. There would have been more blood shed, the people of Vietnam would have become even more resolute against both the South and the US, and "victory" would have been further away than ever. I put the word "Victory" in quotes because there was never any chance of a victory as the US defined it. It saw Vietnam strictly as a situation where the country needed to be saved from a foreign power to prevent other countries from falling from the same foreign power. But there was no foreign power, even if the Vietcong - AFTER the US involved itself - had some material support from Red nations. The reality was the entire thing was a tilting at windmills thing, the US being Don Quixote, but with higher stakes and horrific results. You can't win a war where victory is technically impossible.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    15. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Guerrilla wars last until the guerrillas win, period. No opposing force has ever defeated guerrillas.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    16. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by WED+Fan · · Score: 4, Informative

      When I was in the Marine Corps we had nothing but ancient rifles and flack jackets, and we are the ones who die.

      You post really well for someone who died.

      Look, when I first went in Carter was President and we had crap for equipment. I was part of a new doctrine and provided what was call Air Base Ground Defense. This was the USAF way of taking care of the "other side of the perimeter", an Air Force infantry, if you will. My M16 was Vietnam era, and may have actually been in the thick of it. My flack vest was from the same era, and when I was issued my gas mask, I was told there were no filters available. I had an old steel pot helmet and all the vehicles we were driving started with a "72-" number or lower (BTW, International made one Hell of a pick up that would take all kinds of abuse.

      Reagan came into office, despite my voting for John Anderson, and we got tons of money. I was issued a new M16, newer but still era flack vest, and my gas mask was new, and we had tons of filters. If I needed or desired training, my orders were cut and funded before I could finish asking my Flight Chief. As a result of the increased recruiting, I ended up at the Basic Training School pushing troops through.

      I cross trained into aircraft maintenance, first as a gun specialist on the A-10, then into Avionics. After the Gulf War, I ended up on the transports and took over my own aircraft.

      George Bush started to cut funding and closed bases. It started to get difficult to feel confident about sending the aircraft out. When Clinton came into power, it became damn near impossible to get spare parts and I was beginning to have my doubts about signing off the red X's.

      I got out under Clinton because it was no longer a functioning military that I was part of. Between him and his congresses, including the Republicrats, the USAF had been gutted. The pointy end of the spear we worked so hard to maintain had become an unreliable dried brittle poking device.

      We had a few politician Generals and Admirals out there, but the true problem were the plain politicians.

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    17. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If a sizable portion of the population opposes your invasion and would rather die than live under your rule or even cooperate, you cannot win. The only way you could remotely win such a war is to kill everyone. Every single person. Now, besides the moral argument, you don't really win a lot that way. Besides some land that most likely has no infrastructure to speak of anymore after you're done.

      You can "win" a war against guerrillas if you manage to cut them from the support of the people around them. If you win the people, you can win such a war. Guerillas are dependent on support by the local population. This, in turn, is very, very hard, mostly because guerillas are usually, well, the local people. How do you tell someone that they shouldn't support their boys, their sons, their fathers, their husbands? Guerilla warfare is also very dependent on guerillas believing in the cause they fight for. You can't really uphold the rigid military structure necessary to ensure everyone fights for you whether he wants to or not.

      But yes, when you have guerrillas determined to fight 'til the end with the support of their people, pack and go home. You have already lost. You can have more firepower than the rest of the globe combined and you will simply not win.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 1
      That's an interesting if bold claim, I can think of a few examples of guerrilla organizations that have been defeated:
      1. Sendero Luminoso (Peru)
      2. MRTA (Peru)
      3. Revolutionary Vanguard (Brazil)
      4. Malayan Races Liberation Army (Malaysia)

      I'm sure there are more out there...

      --
      We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
    19. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      You are using a different definition of guerrilla than I am. A guerrilla force is one that operates, with the support of a civilian population, attacks an opposing or occupying army, and then blends back into the population.

      Key words being 'support of a civilian population'. Everyone who doesn't wear a uniform, and makes short targeted attacks, and blends back into the population, is not a guerrilla. They're only guerrillas if the population is supporting them. Otherwise they're spies (If attacking military), or terrorists (If attacking civilians.).

      The MRTA were terrorists, which is basically the exact opposite of guerrillas. They attacked civilians, and were the remnants of a military in the first place! They never had any local support.

      Shining Path, OTOH, did operate as a guerrilla organization for a while, but then went rather loony and is more notable for killing allies than enemies, in addition to random civilians. It wasn't 'defeated', it collapsed when they captured its cult-of-personality leader.

      Like I said, that's actually terrorism, not guerrilla warfare. Shooting at an occupying army or an unpopular government, with the support of the general population, is guerrilla warfare. Blowing up the general population in an attempt to dismantle an elected and popularly supported government is terrorism. (Before someone starts yammering about 'points of view', there is a very very very clear defining line, and it has to do with support of the general population.)

      As for Malayan Races Liberation Army...dude...they won. I know the history books say they lost...but they won. Ethnic Chinese were granted the right to vote, and then Malaya became independent. Which is almost entirely what they wanted. They, being backed by China, wanted a Communist independent Malaya.

      However, the general population was happy with a Capitalist independent Malaya. So the population, which had supported them until that point, stopped supporting them, so they 'lost' at their ultimate goal.

      But I didn't say that guerrillas couldn't lose anyway. I said they couldn't be defeated by the opposing force.

      They can easily lose if they lose the support of population, like all your examples did, either by pushing for changes no one wanted, or attacking civilians and harming their reputation.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    20. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      You said that much better than I did. If the population likes the guerrillas better than you, You. Have. Lost.

      You may not know it, it might take fifty years and 100,000 men, but you've lost. The only possible way to win is to get the population to like you better than the guerrillas.(1)

      And, as the guerrillas are hiding in the population (With the population's permission.), that means you have to attack the general population, which is unlikely to make them like you.

      Alternately, you can choose not to attack the general population. Which means you will constantly be shot and killed. That would be an interesting way to 'fight' a guerrilla war. Maybe you can win the population's love out of pity. :)

      All cases in which a guerrilla war has stopped are cases in which the general population became happy enough with their situation to want the fighting to stop. This is because the occupying force has done what the guerrillas wanted them to do in the first place.

      That is only 'defeating' the guerrillas if you're crazy. Most sane people consider it the guerrillas' winning.

      1) Which, admittedly, is technically possibly through the simple means of killing the entire population, and then introducing a new one that likes you better.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    21. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, well argued...

      --
      We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
    22. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your post, you really did a good job of summarizing the last 30 years of the USAF. I got in around 90 and then out aroung 1998 for the same reasons you posted. Clinton had us so thin, but there was still a surplus of good people even if equipment, housing, medical care, etc went down the drain very quickly. When I got in, I was ashamed of how retirees were treated at the morning medical call. When I got out, I was ashamed of how the retirees AND dependants were treated, and I was very certain active duty was very close to being next.

      I came back in as an officer in the ANG in 2003, in the same career field (Space and Missiles) and was shocked at the decline. I actually saw a report from a 2-star that showed a curve heading steeply downward labeled, "System Knowledge", and another going steeply up saying, "System Complexity". At the intersection, it was marked "Mission Failure". The class I entered (the very same organization I helped stand up in 1996) had its instructors proudly claim, "This class has the lowest class averages," which at the time I thought was intended to put levity into studying. Within the first two weeks I figured out why. No real system experts teaching, TDE shop at odds with instructors and blind leadership (Lt Col commander actually said to me, "No one has ever complained about this class." hahahahahaahahahahah You can have the VERY BEST class in the entire world and at least ONE person will complain...). The study material would say satellites would rotate 90 degrees during a certain manueuver, and then the slides would say 180. When I asked, "Which is it?" I got no answer. I was extremely frustrated, saddened, depressed, disappointed, etc, because the ONLY reason I got back in was because I missed the "Type A" personalities that got stuff done (despite leadership's best efforts) and the rewards for making things better. During my last month on active duty I had so many passes from being Airman of the Quarter, ALS Distinguished Grad, ALS Academic Acheievement, and from fielding a new website for the entire training Group (again, this was around 1997, when the internet was very new), that I only worked a couple days. This work ethic and dedication to excellence seems to be the exception rather than the norm. I HQ'd my eval for becoming Mission Certified and you'd think I just took out the trash well. Guys I pulled crew with back in the 90s, who were Captain Flight Commanders for crews I worked as a Senior Airman, are now Lt Col's equally frustrated and getting out. I ran into two during a graduation and had a long frank discussion about my work ethic, the direction of things, and other professional deveoplment topics. It was very difficult to stay positive on the last two topics.

      If you really listen to mid-level leaders and within the defense acquisitions fields, it actually looks even more bleak no matter which guy wins in November. At least we'll stop having Bush taking swipes at GS (civil service) workers.

    23. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by NateTech · · Score: 1

      That's how the troops weed out the good leaders and the bad, don't you know? The good ones turn down the perks and live like the rest of the troops.

      Makes smelling a brass-ass from a mile away real easy for anyone paying attention.

      --
      +++OK ATH
    24. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by NateTech · · Score: 1

      You mean like Obama?

      --
      +++OK ATH
    25. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No idea. Is he going down there? Then yes. Actually, whoever candidate does not fly for a pointless press appointment down to "our boys" (ok, your boys) to keep them from doing their job would get a bit of credit in my books.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    26. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by NateTech · · Score: 1

      Wow. A slashdotter who isn't a Democrat hiding in fake-Libertarian clothes! Refreshing! (GRIN...)

      --
      +++OK ATH
    27. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by emilper · · Score: 1

      Vietnam was merely unpleasant for US.

      Vietnam was a disaster for those supporting the North Vietnamese (Eastern Europe, Soviet Union, China). We spent a fuckload of resources there that we had use for at home.Getting control of South Vietnam was a pyrrhic victory for the Communist camp.

      You lost Vietnam, but you won the war. Learn to live with it: it might be difficult for the American psyche to accept that even wars that are not exactly just can be won, but sometimes you'll have to get to that.

    28. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It doesn't really matter where I am in political matters. What is important, and what everyone should do who doesn't just want to be a die hard $party head who will call the worst farts of their candidate perfume, is to take a critical look at the actions (not the words, words are cheap, the actions) of their politicians.

      Take a look at your party. Just because they did the right thing 20 years ago doesn't mean they still do. People change. Party lines change. Are they still the party they pretend to be? Do they live up to their own promises? Do they heed their own alleged party line?

      Hell, are they still what they claim to be?

      I hate stereotyping. Just because someone is from party X doesn't make everything he does pure genius and perfect, no matter how much I may like the general ideas party X puts forwards (or the person in question). Keep a critical eye on your candidate. Even more so than on the other.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    29. Re:The Only Reason Congress... by NateTech · · Score: 1

      I only have a party on paper so I can vote against any twit who's actions are so bad they should be removed in a primary election.

      Otherwise, 100% agreed with your comments. Look for integrity in actions, and vote against the rest!

      --
      +++OK ATH
  47. It is all in the name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how do you feel about the label .. president .. senator .. governor .. general .. mayor .. leader .. your honor .. etc.
    with all these glorified and self important labels is it any wonder they want glorified treatment .. and believe that they are important and special .. they are just another human being ..

    they are all civil servants .. and that is how they should be addressed by individuals .. between each other and referenced in the media .. civil servant bush .. it would change whole picture of world .. and continually remind them of who and what they are .. civil servants ..

  48. comfort capsule == pleasure dome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Xanadu ---- To stand within The Pleasure Dome
    Decreed by Kubla Khan
    To taste anew the fruits of life
    The last immortal man
    To find the sacred river Alph
    To walk the caves of ice
    Oh, I will dine on honey dew
    And drink the milk of Paradise

  49. drop em over the pacific by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brilliant idea, get the politician to come into the comfort capsule, lured by the fancy TV etc, then, over the pacific, open the bomb bay, and, one less problem.

  50. CHAIR FORCE by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Gains a new dimension in perverse accuracy for the Banana Republic States of America.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:CHAIR FORCE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Chair Force"? Sounds like they should hire Ballmer.

    2. Re:CHAIR FORCE by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Too active.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  51. The Psychology of Generals by jamrock · · Score: 5, Informative

    Generals and admirals are a peculiar breed, but USAF generals in particular seem to be afflicted with a sense of entitlement. It mostly appears to affect those officers typically derided as "careerists", whose personalities and actions are focused on their own advancement above all else, and once they reach general rank, they grab with both hands at the privileges denied more junior officers. That's when some of them begin to display genuinely eccentric behavior, as well as cultivating the attitude that no mere civilian can tell them what to do.

    I highly recommend that everyone here read "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War", Robert Coram's superbly-written and excellent biography of Col. John Boyd, the maverick officer whose theories reshaped the U.S. military's warfighting strategy. Boyd was one of the great original thinkers of the 20th Century. His Energy-Maneuverability Theory of aerial combat is the foundation on which all modern fighter jets were designed, and he has been called the father of the F-15, the F-16, and the F/A-18. He was also the creator of the OODA Loop, a decision-making tool with great utility to any organization, and is largely credited with devising the strategy that liberated Kuwait during the first Gulf War.

    The most interesting parts of the book to me, were those that dealt with Boyd's stints at the Pentagon, and the eye-opening look at the inner workings of the military bureaucracy. The comparisons of a general's staff to the "court of a pasha" are quite humorous, as well as the details of some of the eccentricities and personal foibles of some of the Air Force's (unnamed) senior officers of the time.

    - There was the general who decided that he didn't like the fact that all the stop signs at his command seemed "incomplete", so he ordered that the backs of all of them be painted brown;

    - For some reason, another couldn't abide facial hair, so none of his subordinates were allowed to grow a mustache (he couldn't legally enforce this requirement, but his authority was never challenged);

    - Then there's the one who would wear different uniform headgear throughout the day, and required his staff to follow suit for the sake of uniformity. His staff were never notified beforehand when he was going to change his hat, so they were all forced to bring to work all their headgear so they could change them at a moment's notice.

    - This is the one that killed me, and in my opinion this man had mental problems. This general was so determined to control who saw him that whenever he left his office, he'd press a button that flashed a red light in the outer office. This was the signal for the entire staff, including those walking the corridors around his command suite, to vacate the area and find themselves behind closed doors immediately. That way, when the great man emerged, he was met with absolutely empty offices and corridors and no plebes around to sully his presence with their eyes.

    I served in the Army, and even the greenest recruit could immediately spot the difference between the careerist officers, and those who put their responsibilities above all else. These were the men, including generals I've met, who bunked with their troops in the woods during wargames, stood in the chow lines and used the communal showers, along with everyone else. The careerists were those who segregated themselves from the enlisted men and more junior officers, and seemed more concerned with enjoying the perks that their positions allowed them. Three guesses which ones the troops would follow to hell. If the mindset and culture pervading the upper echelons of the Air Force is that of the careerist, it should come as no surprise that something as minor as "comfort capsules" was authorized in direct defiance of civilian oversight.

    1. Re:The Psychology of Generals by jthug · · Score: 1

      In my experience this is usually relegated to the fighter pilots. The other pilots don't seem to have this problem as much, though some certainly do.

      Of course the 3-star I worked with was a C130 guy, and a Mac fan. Maybe there's something else wrong with him... =)

      He was very professional, and he and his wife were very concerned about us enlisted Airmen.

      JT

    2. Re:The Psychology of Generals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember one of the proper officers (non-careerist 3-star gen.) when I was in AIT before I ended up getting out. He was at the post for inspection, and all of us were incredibly pissy because we'd just spent the past week cleaning the shit out of our barracks. He hopped in the chow line a couple of peeps back from me, and after I and one of my platoon mates sat down, grabbed one of the only remaining empty seats with us, after *asking* us if we didn't mind. Dude was incredibly chill and didn't even give us any rhetoric or bullshit about not being at our duty station or any such nonsense, even joked about hating doing stupid inspections and whatnot.

  52. if they ignore it by unity100 · · Score: 1

    you, as citizens, are going to take up arms as per your constitution states, and make them obey by congress/senate's will.

  53. so ? by unity100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i dont see the point here. your president, secretary of state, commission members in senate all HAVE to do such trips, and they do it. its necessary to do that kind of travel when you are at the helm of anything important.

    barack obama, is a very high chance, your next president. EVEN if he is not, he is practically the top democrat in the nation, and therefore can probably replace any other democrat in their duties, being the leader of the party that holds the majority in the congress.

    you better be funding his trips with taxpayer money. you didnt do it with the last president, and he has made a fool of himself with his ignorance, and a mess of the world.

    1. Re:so ? by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you didnt do it with the last president

      Current president, actually, however you are correct. Bush has made a fool of himself with his ignorance, and a mess of the world.

  54. The USAF used to use an Airstream trailer by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The previous VIP container, called "Silver Bullet", actually was an Airstream trailer, minus the wheels and with an aircraft pallet base added. The new "Steel Eagle" thing was designed based on an aircraft-qualified shelter module, which is basically an empty metal box on a pallet base. Then the USAF had to engineer an aircraft interior into the box, with lighting, HVAC, comms, and furnishings. It was a tight fit (the Airstream was bigger) and much custom engineering was required to cram everything in.

    Looking at the pictures, one can see how the project got out of hand. They're doing the engineering required for an aircraft interior, but only building two or three units. There are companies that do luxury private aircraft interiors, and they would have had this done years ago at a lower cost, but the USAF apparently did this in-house, which ran up the costs.

  55. Sounds reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - Can I offer you something, Scotch, Bourbon, Martini? - Oh thanks, Sg. Linda, just a double scotch, please. I'm on duty. - Your welcome, Sir. - Ahhh...that's great. Now how's the situation? - Sir, we've reduced the insurgent attacks in Iraq by 2%. - Splendid, splendid. Sergeant, would you mind getting me this copy of Playboy magazine, you know that '69 issue with Claudia Jennings on the cover. - Of course, Sir.

  56. F that. by msauve · · Score: 1

    If someone in the military isn't tough enough to fly a troop transport, they don't belong there in the first place.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:F that. by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe, but I have to think that Generals tend to be in their 50s and 60s rather than late teens and early twenties. I'm only approaching 30, but I find that my body isn't quite as good at bouncing back after a bad flight or short night's sleep as it used to be. In twenty more years... I say give the guy his comfortable quarters.

      The thing I *Don't* like is that they're using funds that they were explicitly forbidden to use.

      I also question how much terrorism danger this country is really in if they figure the counter-terrorism funds can be better used on window dressing. That's why Congress is mad (other than because they were ignored): The military is shooting the cash cow.

    2. Re:F that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone want to take odds the parent has never been in the military?

  57. Clearly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly I am supposed to feel morally outraged, yet I do not.

  58. Anything like a time capsule? by Zwicky · · Score: 1

    I suppose what I'm asking is: Can we bury these 'special' people in them and dig them up in fifty years' time?

    --
    "Three eyes are better than one" -- Lieutenant Columbo
  59. why don't by hansoloaf · · Score: 2, Informative

    we put the wheels on these capsules.
    When the plane reaches flight altitude, open up the back and let the capsule slide out.

    1. Re:why don't by barzok · · Score: 1

      No need. Those cargo planes have rollers on the floor so the pallets roll right out.

  60. r2k_in_the_vortex by r2kordmaa · · Score: 1

    that or counter terrorism funds, its a waste of money anyway

  61. gay by Sam36 · · Score: 1

    how dare these high ranking officials have any sort of comfort! What have they done to deserve it anyway? Serve in the services for 30+ years? pffft! That is so lame. And while I am thinking about it, how dare any american corporation make a profit! That should be highly illegal! Stupid freaking liberals and children under 45. Ain't got a clue at all. Whine whine whine, nag nag nag. Don't even know your own place in a class based system. Probably why you are sitting in front of a computer in the first place. I hope you all die

    1. Re:gay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who gives a shit if they served thirty years. Most good true soldiers do not make that much TIS(time in service) because you are asked to leave before then if you haven't made the correct political ties and friends to keep you in office that long. No true soldier should have these ties in the first place since the business of being a soldier is either going to war or training for war--ass. As far as profits no one on this forum would begrudge a company making profits--its when companies make profits by deception or poorly made products that will fail miserably in a short time period or how about a product that you bought AS SEEN ON TV that is just shite. Companies would argue that if the customer bought an inferior product it is because the consumer did not do their homework. I would argue that companies should be allowed to sell shite period and consumers wouldn't have to have a college education to tell which tickle me Elmo is the real thing and which is going to poison their child. Fucking old people who are over 45, shit on the rest of us and then complain when we catch on to your tricks. By the way I am tired of changing your adult Depends diaper, could you hurry up and progress with your alzheimers so that I can put you in a home and watch YOU DIE

  62. What's wrong with that? by raehl · · Score: 1

    The military brass has a lot more stuff to get done on their flights than a family flying to Disney world.

    The pods are not about comfort, they're about productivity. Although productivity does go up with comfort - I get a lot more work done in my office than I do on my laptop on a plane.

    1. Re:What's wrong with that? by user-hostile · · Score: 1

      The pods are not about comfort, they're about productivity.

      I'm sure those guys are real productive when they're lying in the beds or the sofa in these capsules.

    2. Re:What's wrong with that? by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Do you want your high-end decision makers to arrive tired? He's got a very valid point.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    3. Re:What's wrong with that? by user-hostile · · Score: 1

      Do you want your high-end decision makers to arrive tired? He's got a very valid point.

      No, you're both _missing_ the point. If it's good for the "decision makers" to arrive rested, then it should also be good for the "people actually doing the job" (i.e., the warfighters) to arrive rested. In other words, if it's such a great idea to make these guys so _productive_, then those actually carrying out the mission should receive the same benefit. Decision makers should not be elitists.

    4. Re:What's wrong with that? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Ever been on a 36 hour flight?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    5. Re:What's wrong with that? by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      You...do know that soldiers get a couple of days of acclimation time when being deployed before being sent into the field, right? A general usually doesn't have the time to wipe his ass when he's off the plane before he has to be at work.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    6. Re:What's wrong with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in the Air Force. I worked with the protocol office on my base for about six months, which basically meant I ferried VIPs from the airport to whatever function they had to do. These guys got off their flights usually late in the afternoon, and immediately headed to their first meeting. This is a base on our soil in a popular tourist spot, so many times they'd fly first-class commercial and bring their families. Most of the time, I would pick them up from the airport, drop their families and luggage off at the temporary lodging we had for them, and then drive the VIP to several hours of meetings and conferences.

      Contrast that with the five or six families(warfighters, that is) I've sponsored onto the base. They're arriving as a PCS to actually stay and work for years here...they get a full month of "permissive tdy", which is basically vacation, while they get established and moved in. They fly coach, but when they get here they get to go to bed and recover before working.

      The way the USAF payed for these work pods seems to have been pretty scummy, but having a pleasant place for a general or the CMSAF to work or sleep on a 20-hour flight is not at all an exorbitant luxury. Oh, and 37"? Please. My desktop machine has four 22" screens on arms, and it's not enough for my coding.

  63. It's not about tough. by raehl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's about productive.

    There are generals. Presumably, they're generals because they have important shit to do.

    If you are flying your general around, do you want him able to work, or do you want him twiddling his thumbs in an airplane seat?

    The idea behind the capsules is that you can fly generals around WITHOUT it having to take them 'out of action'. They can be on the plane and doing all the things they could do if they were not on the plane.

    Hell, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars making sure the President can be productive on his 747. A few hundred thousand for the next level down in the command chain doesn't seem unreasonable.

    1. Re:It's not about tough. by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      A few hundred thousand for the next level down in the command chain doesn't seem unreasonable.

      I agree, it's not unreasonable. However Congress specifically forbade USAF from using this money for this purpose, and USAF did it anyway.

      If USAF wants to spend money for this that they're allowed to spend for this, by all means -- I also have no problem providing high-ranking officers with better quarters, within reason.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    2. Re:It's not about tough. by acil · · Score: 2, Informative

      FTFA

      In a letter of complaint sent yesterday to Gates, POGO asserted that the new capsules will provide no special communications or work capabilities beyond those already available for top officials on Air Force transport aircraft.

      The idea behind the capsules has nothing to do with their productivity, it has everything to do with their comfort. I didn't read about one thing in that article that would help them work better or faster.

      This is a ridiculous use of funds.

    3. Re:It's not about tough. by Scannerman · · Score: 1

      This doesn't sound much different from the Crew rest modules that are fitted on to a lot of commercial planes - If the second pilot is taking over mid-flight he needs to be rested.In this case there is an office/study component as well. I do enough intercontinental travelling to understand how valuable this could be.

      You can argue about decor standards, but that's pretty trivial.

      If they need to do this travelling as part of the counter terrorist effort then why shouldn't it be in the budget?

      OK I think the whole 'war on terror' is bullshit, but I can't see a particular issue here.

    4. Re:It's not about tough. by quantaman · · Score: 1

      It's about productive.

      There are generals. Presumably, they're generals because they have important shit to do.

      If you are flying your general around, do you want him able to work, or do you want him twiddling his thumbs in an airplane seat?

      The idea behind the capsules is that you can fly generals around WITHOUT it having to take them 'out of action'. They can be on the plane and doing all the things they could do if they were not on the plane.

      Hell, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars making sure the President can be productive on his 747. A few hundred thousand for the next level down in the command chain doesn't seem unreasonable.

      I think the objections are coming from the fact that the name is "comfort capsule" and the requirement is to be "aesthetically pleasing and furnished to reflect the rank of the senior leaders using the capsule", this suggests the objective is much more comfort than productivity.

      Of course making them comfortable can also them more productive, but there was no evidence of that reasoning in the article (of course the article could be biased).

      --
      I stole this Sig
  64. Better here than there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who is glad they're wasting the money on pork rather than wasting it to invade everyone's privacy and kill the innocent people whose kids will want to kill our kids?

  65. BS. by msauve · · Score: 1

    Productivity doesn't require "a 37-inch flat-screen monitor with stereo speakers, and a full-length mirror". Nor does it require a trip to some insulated "front line" to market PR for some war which has nothing to do with national defense.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:BS. by raehl · · Score: 1

      Is it the monitor you object to? You realize it's going on a plane, right, where space and weight are at a premium? Who buys monitors that are NOT flat-screen?

      As for 37", this is the military. I'd imagine that if you're a military general, you can probably make pretty good use of a large HD monitor. Don't you watch the movies? They normally use entire walls of mini-arena sized control centers!

      And who cares if they spend $20 on a full-length mirror?

    2. Re:BS. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      37" TV/Monitor is barely large enough to for general map work by three-four people. Try finding a 37" flatscreen monitor/tv WITHOUT speakers today.

      Full length mirror? Many of these officers rub elbows with foreign military and other dignitaries. Many of whom are very status/appearance conscious.

      My personal objection isn't so much for the capsules, but the sheer expense wasted on them. We could of had a couple small VIP planes for that price.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:BS. by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      37" TV/Monitor is barely large enough to for general map work by three-four people. Try finding a 37" flatscreen monitor/tv WITHOUT speakers today.

      Full length mirror? Many of these officers rub elbows with foreign military and other dignitaries. Many of whom are very status/appearance conscious.

      My personal objection isn't so much for the capsules, but the sheer expense wasted on them. We could of had a couple small VIP planes for that price.

      I think you're missing the point here. The Air Force already has planes... what they need is a quick way to convert a little part of a big cargo plane into a VIP kennel. They can throw a VIP and something worth transporting on the same plane. In other words, planes are already going in and out of these locations, and they're already there. These planes already have crews and defensive systems and everything else they need. Why buy two new VIP planes when you can buy 100 general kennels and use them on the planes you already have?

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    4. Re:BS. by ORBAT · · Score: 1

      Considering that it's government spending we're talking about, that 20$ mirror will magically transmogrify into a 5000$ one.

    5. Re:BS. by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      And who cares if they spend $20 on a full-length mirror?

      I doubt that mirrors supplied to the military in this context are going to cost $20. Some zeroes are missing there IMO.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    6. Re:BS. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstood me. I'm not objecting to the existence of the capsules - I'm objecting to the cost of the capsules. As for the 'quick' part - if the capsule isn't on hand(and it's not likely to be, if they only have seven of them), it's no faster than flying a VIP plane in.

      At the current expense, we could replace every 'kennel' with a plane and still come out ahead.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  66. If I may play Devil's Advocate by istartedi · · Score: 1

    What happens when $person meets with "the general" on his plane, and they get admitted to a shabby office? What kind of a psychological impact does that have on the person on the other side of the table? On the general?

    What happens when top brass gets tired of schlepping around in a shabby office, and decides to go work for Halliburton instead? You might retort, "we don't want generals who can be persuaded with money and perks, we want loyal dedicated staff". Well, even the best get loyalty and dedication fatigue at some point. In some respects, the military is a corporation that needs to extend the proper perks to retain executives.

    Like it or not, some of this shit is necessary, and everybody knows it.

    If anything concerns me, it's that the brass was either: 1. Not aware that a project like this needs to be flown under the RADAR. or 2. Not smart enough to figure out how to do that. Given that the reports on this story indicate efforts were made to change the language in the specifications, case 2 seems more likely.

    So. The Devil's advocate has to ask, "why can't we get smarter people in these positions?" and "why are we taking away the perks that help retain them?".

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:If I may play Devil's Advocate by argent · · Score: 1

      What happens when $person meets with "the general" on his plane, and they get admitted to a shabby office?

      What "office"? This is a bleeding seat on an airplane. His office is on the ground, on a military base, at the other end of the journey.

  67. How does this happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quote from the parent comment: "How does this happen?"

    It happens because the voters and Congress no longer control the U.S. government. Voters are not even allowed to know who controls the government.

    Example: The U.S. government is already fighting a war with Iran. There is talk of "diplomacy", of course, but that is only to stop complaints. The situation is the same as before invading Iraq. There was talk of diplomacy, but the leaders in Iraq knew that the U.S. government would invade, no matter what was said.

    The purpose of invading Iran is the same as the purpose of invading Iraq: To suppress the supply of oil even further, so that oil prices will rise even further.

    Note that Nancy Pelosi, head of the Democrat party, has Jewish heritage. Many Jews want the U.S. taxpayers to provide security for Israel. That's apparently why she supports the Bush administration, rather than the citizens of the U.S. who vote for Democrats.

  68. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually My name is Janet Merner a MTF Transsexual Woman from Ontario, Canada.

    This really pisses me off as a Canadian we have troops with the Americans in Afghanistan. The American Military cannot afford proper equipment for the poor bastards on the ground, putting his or her's life in unnecessary peril. but they can take funding that should go to the guy or girl who is putting their ass on the line and spend it on a better bed for top military brass. I would not agree with general Macarthur on many things but even he from his grave is probably saying what a bunch of pansies.
    Look you enter into military life to serve your country not be pampered to. If you don't like that leave, and let a real man or woman who actually cares for their country not themselves take your place. I can hear the arguments now, " Well! we need to take care of our best senior people." Listen your best senior people are not the career jackasses who want to be treated like royalty, but the person who leads the charge themselves into battle and expects nothing more for themselves than to be treated like the people who serve under them. Like what was commented earlier these are the kind of people that you are willing to die for not some suck ass pansy in an easy chair.

  69. Gotta love military logic... by BUL2294 · · Score: 1
    From the article:

    McMahon said he does not recall intervening on the leather color change, but said he was sure it was unrelated to the Air Force's color. He said that it was probably because blue would not show dirt as much as tan or brown would.

    Blue leather shows tan or brown-colored dirt less than tan or brown-colored leather??? Seriously, what imbeciles are running our military? No wonder they can't find Osama and manage to forget to remove nuclear warheads from planes...

    --
    Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
  70. Help me out. by Ropati · · Score: 1

    The article says:

    An Air Force document specified that the capsule's seats are to swivel such that "the longitudinal axis of the seat is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft" regardless of where the capsules are facing.

    The statement is pretty convoluted. I would think that the longitudinal axis of a seat is vertically through the seat (the long way). I know the longitudinal axis of a plane, but a seat really doesn't have a defined longitudinal axis. I suspect they are talking about beds.

    Are they trying to say that no matter how this thing is installed, all the seats can be slept in and the brass can face there feet (or head) forward?

    Why? If they do sleep why must so much space be wasted so each seat can do the longitudinal thing regardless of the capsule orientation?

    I suggest they bolt them to the wall, and force the capsule so the wall is perpendicular to the aircraft longitudinal.

    --
    machinator omnis sine licentia
    1. Re:Help me out. by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      For take off and landings, fixed seats must face directly forward or back. Jump seats do not have this requirement. Hence, the seats must be able to be swiveled to face forward or backwards in relation to the cockpit of the aircraft used.

  71. Decision makers should be elitists. by raehl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A tired grunt gets himself and maybe his buddies killed.

    A tired general gets hundreds or thousands of grunts killed.

    You're also missing another aspect.

    Your general is going to be making mission-critical decisions on-arrival, or maybe even on the plane. The people 'actually doing the job' have buffer time between when they arrive and when they are in mission-critical environments.

    Or put another way, when the 'people doing the job' get off the plane, they get a chance to get a night's sleep before they're involved in battle. That's not a luxury available to your military brass.

    1. Re:Decision makers should be elitists. by user-hostile · · Score: 1

      A tired grunt gets himself and maybe his buddies killed. A tired general gets hundreds or thousands of grunts killed.

      Jeez, you don't get it. "A tired grunt"?? Like only _one_ soldier is on the plane? And how about all the other troop transport flights with ALL lower-ranks and NO brass? None of them deserve to be "rested"?

      So you're saying that until these comfort capsules are installed, our military stands no chance of success? And so the absence of comfort capsules (and all the lost sleep of the generals) explains why so many have died in our wars? Your logic is really distorted.

      You have a very melodramatic concept of how military operations work. These generals are not little babies that need to be treated with kid gloves. They're smart, hearty people who do not need to be pampered in order to think clearly! However, I guess it's human nature to accept pampering if someone's determined to pamper you.

    2. Re:Decision makers should be elitists. by user-hostile · · Score: 1

      Oh, and BTW, Congress told the AF NOT to do this.

    3. Re:Decision makers should be elitists. by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      The Congress has absolutely zero authority to tell them that anyway. The USAF takes orders, as do all branches of the military, only from the President.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    4. Re:Decision makers should be elitists. by user-hostile · · Score: 1

      The Congress has absolutely zero authority to tell them that anyway. The USAF takes orders, as do all branches of the military, only from the President.

      LOL! You've never been to Senate hearings with AF brass dripping flop-sweat all over the floor because they're getting their clocks cleaned by the Senators' (legal and justified) grilling.

      In any event, you're saying the President is the person behind this (reduced to) $7.6 million debacle? I rest my case.

    5. Re:Decision makers should be elitists. by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      The Congress has absolutely zero authority to tell them that anyway. The USAF takes orders, as do all branches of the military, only from the President.

      Yes, they take ORDERS from the President, but they take BUDGETS from Congress... it's that whole "checks and balances" thing. Every penny that the military spent is authorized in a congressional appropriations bill or supplement or something similar. Congress absolutely does have the authority to say what taxpayer money can or can't be used for.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    6. Re:Decision makers should be elitists. by Teancum · · Score: 1

      On the contrary. Congress controls how much money is spent and how. Indeed, the Constitution explicitly notes who can start appropriation bills (the U.S. House only... the Senate only votes up or down on a house bill once it has been sent over) and even has a strict limit that all debts must be settled by the Army at the end of each fiscal year. The USAF was set up as a separate branch in part so they could get around this constitutional issue and be able to purchase aircraft that took more than one year to build.

      If Congress didn't give authorization for a USAF general to spend money in a certain way, he is violating the law and misappropriating the money.

      If the President gives an order to a USAF officer to act contrary to the will of Congress, it sets up a constitutional crisis and could result in the President getting impeached.

      It is also a good thing, as it gives direct civilian oversight for military matters and diffuses the authority over the military to not just the President but also the 435 members of congress that literally demand and get accountability for how tax money is being spent.

    7. Re:Decision makers should be elitists. by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      In theory, yes (and I agree with you; it'd be a great system...if it worked right). In practice, that's not how it ever really works.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    8. Re:Decision makers should be elitists. by Teancum · · Score: 1

      OK, explain to me how "reality" works if this isn't how "the system" really works?

      The President simply doesn't have the authority to order the Pentagon to build a new ship or airplane on his own. He needs approval from Congress, and the funding that comes with it.

      So again, how does it "really work"?

  72. Re:Actually, Pot, kettle, black by aoeu · · Score: 1

    Have you seen any pictures of the capitol?
    Congress treats itself like royalty.
    Members Only.

    --
    All your database are belong to U.S.
  73. Stereo speakers, I'm impressed by jholster · · Score: 1

    "-- 37-inch flat-screen monitor with stereo speakers --" I reguarly see the word "stereo" mentioned with speakers. In 2008, is stereo still such a big deal? Have you seen any flat screen with integrated _mono_ speaker?

  74. The Mine-Shaft Gap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [Strangelove's plan for post-nuclear war survival involves living underground with a 10:1 female-to-male ratio]

    General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

    Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

    Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.

  75. Living on tick. by chris_sawtell · · Score: 1

    Don't worry about any of this, it's not going to go on for ever.

    The US has been living on tick from Beijing for a long time. Sometime in the relatively near future the tick is going to run out and Beijing is going to foreclose. At that moment the US population - all of you - are going to learn how to live under the command of a New Colonial Master, and I assure you that the PLA High Command is not going to put up with any of this sort of nonsense.

    btw, exactly how is this "News for Nerds"?

    Do the Top Brass run Linux, a BSD, or a similar o/s on their laptops connected to that enormous screen?

    When I first read the words "comfort capsule" I thought they meant something like the giant diaper astronauts use.

    Finally why can't the USAF Top Brass fly first class on a commercial flight from the US to Dubai or Bahrain and then on to the theatre of war in a small plane?

  76. How do you know? by user-hostile · · Score: 1

    Are you a general?

    You all are oblivious to facts such as spending $68,240 to change the capsules' seat colors and pockets. If you think that's justified because these "brass" need to be as comfortable and productive as possible, you're an idiot.

  77. Wheels up, rings off! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone should look into the "Corona" conferences that are attended by all the Air Force general officers. My wife's company used to have the janitorial contract at one of the conference sites. It's amazing what the "silk scarf" crowd will say in front of a "nobody" cleaning up the bathroom -- such as exchanging notes on their supermodel-type secretaries and assistants, and how they're carrying on affairs while they're away from their spouses. As the old saying goes: "Wheels up, rings off."

    We had a colonel at our base get sued in the 1990s (Mackey v Milam) for sexually harassing a subordinate. However, since the victim was also junior military, the US Gov't actually took the position that sexual harassment occurred "within the scope of employment" and the Feres Doctrine prevented the victim from suing.

    The system is corrupt -- unfortunately, the people even higher up are even more corrupt.

  78. I approve by Richard_J_N · · Score: 1

    The more money the US pours down the drain, the less remains for them to do harm. If a general watches a DVD, not only does it divert money that would have been spent on weapons for killing people, it also takes an hour of his time away from planning the next crime against humanity.

    (I am reminded of the old joke about the fire at the offices of the Inland Revenue Service: the fire-department's prompt response meant that it was extinguished before any serious good could be done.)

  79. Good by Meneth · · Score: 1

    You know, considering how they're using the rest of their (counter-)terrorism funds, I think this is a relatively good idea. :)

  80. Do they come with by mkcmkc · · Score: 1
    --
    "Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
  81. The Beginning of the Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. But ah with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years."

  82. If you're going to lose, why not lose with style by heroine · · Score: 1

    Let the politicians fight the wars. Hillary should be first.

  83. Re:If you're going to lose, why not lose with styl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is a fucking retarded post and i cannot believe that you even got a 2 for scoring. I vote since you are a heroine that you should already be dead. Because everyone who has been in the army knows the only true heros are dead. Because they were stupid enough to put the head up in a bad situation or made a judgment that got them killed. How many living congressional medal of honor winners are ther? And if asked of the living ones how many actually believe they deserve it?

  84. Not Just Generals... by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

    During PLDC, we had a field training exercise, Fort Knox in February. After reaching our bivouac site, we set up our pup tents. A cold front arrived the first night, bring 6 inches of rain and soaking us to the bone in our pup tents. Didn't really matter to the cadre NCOS, as they had a heated GP medium tents. By the next morning the rain was gone and the cold front moved in, everything froze (nothing like trying to open a soaked, frozen sleeping bag).

    The weather continued to worsen as cold front came trough, bringing wind and snow. The overweight, out-of-shape cadre sergeant that was one site (the rest were at home in their comfortable beds) called a formation from his heated GP medium, saying "We are all cold out here, but we have an exercise to complete." I wonder how many of us were looking for live ammo at that time. :)

    As people started getting medevaced for frostbite and hypothermia, they called the exercise.

    So yes, any recruit can tell a careerist from someone who actually gives a shit in a heartbeat, and this applies to all ranks.

    --
    "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
  85. Deadwood? by rickshaf · · Score: 1

    The fact that junior officers leaked this story to the Washington Post is ample evidence that the corps of senior officers in the USAF is totally out of touch with the fact that we're in a war. Of course senior officers should be more comfortable than their juniors. After all, we DO want them well rested and ready to make decisions that may very well save lives in the long run. HOWEVER, I'd tend to doubt that the above justifies the extremes to which this program has gone. The SecDef has just fired the Chief of Staff of the USAF and the SecUSAF. Looks like he needs to prune some more deadwood!

  86. Follow procedure in the manual by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    ...

    It just seems like common sense to have a real bathroom. At the very least you don't want the pilot distracted by a large load he can't dump.

    The load can be dumped only over hostile territory, and preferably onto the target.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  87. Re:Smells fishy by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    Pork anyone?

    TFA says the comfort level of the capsule depends on the rank of the occupant. Porking companions are supplied only for full generals and senators. Light generals and representatives rate a BJ.
    However, congressleeches who tend to vote against military procurement may find nothing is procured on their behalf.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  88. Most of these 'legit" arguments... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    ... assume that the Bigwig who is flying in that capsule must get better rest than the rest of the troops in order to be effective at their jobs.

    But people! Can't you see that THEY HAVE NOT BEEN EFFECTIVE AT THEIR JOBS ANYWAY???

    If we had a real important general who was going to win the "war" in Iraq or elsewhere, then WHERE THE HELL IS HE/SHE???

    I will answer my own question: that person does not exist.

    The people who have made the U.S. soldiers overseas effective at their jobs have been U.S. engineers. THEY have been doing their jobs properly. But the higher officers, and the generals, and the President, have not managed to put together a strategy that is making this absolutely awesome and historically unprecedented tool -- the current U.S. military -- a winner. There has not been an effective lead of the U.S. military overseas since the first invasion of Iraq. The current leaders of our presidential administration and military also are obviously inept. Either that, or they do not actually want us to win.

    So I say, give the capsules to the people who actually earned them, and who will actually make a difference: the engineers.

    Until these rich fatass Republican appointee generals start earning their living, let them sit in webbing and piss in the corners like all the other soldiers.

  89. RHIP by karlandtanya · · Score: 1

    This is SOP, folks. Just keep sending in your money.

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
  90. A better idea by TheLink · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    What you should do is have leaders _lead_ the frontline in _spirit_.

    Basically, if leaders are going to send troops on an _offensive_ war (not defensive) there must be a referendum on the war.

    If there are not enough votes for the war, those leaders get put on deathrow.

    At a convenient time later, a referendum is held to redeem each leader. Leaders that do not get enough votes get executed. For example if too many people stay at home and don't bother voting - the leaders get executed.

    If it turns out later that the war was justified, a fancy ceremony is held, and the executed leaders are awarded a purple heart or equivalent, and you have people say nice things about them, cry and that sort of thing.

    If it turns out later that the leaders tricked the voters, a referendum can be held (need to get enough signatories to start such a referendum, just to prevent nutters from wasting everyone elses time).

    This proposal has many advantages:
    1) Even leaders who don't really care about those "young men on the battlefield" will not consider starting a war lightly.
    2) The soldiers will know that the leaders want a war enough to risk their own lives for it.
    3) The soldiers will know that X% of the population want the war.
    4) Those being attacked will know that X% of the attackers believe in the war - so they want a war, they get a war - for sufficiently high X, collateral damage becomes insignificant. They might even be justified in using WMD and other otherwise dubious tactics. If > 90% of the country attacking them want to kill them and their families, what is so wrong about using WMD as long as it does not affect neighbouring countries?

    You might consider use of WMD evil, well I consider war evil. If a large majority of the people want a war, then they should get one, and too bad if they get completely wiped out in the process. Right now the problem I see is countries starting wars when most of their citizens don't actually want one.

    --
  91. So ... you want them to fly commercial? by Rick+Bentley · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure I see the problem. It looks like business class seating for what would typically be a business class passenger. When Air Force "brass" have to travel, should we stick them in the cargo hold of a C-130 and tell them to hold on until the flight is over, or should we sit them at a desk and tell them to earn their paychecks and keep working?

    We could buy them business class tickets instead, I suppose, but can they then really do their jobs in such a public environment? I'd rather not have our military leaders discussing strategy in seats E4 and E5 on United.

    Oh, and hey, for the record, if there is a war I want to be sure that the top of the command chain can travel AND command at the same time. Call me old fashioned...

    --
    My favorite quote doesn't fit into 120 characters. Now no one will like me.
  92. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be fun to airdrop them, though...

  93. garbage by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    You don't want politicians to see the wars they're making policy for because, why, exactly? And, judging by your sig, nothing more than a lame excuse to trash Obama.

  94. this is dumb, but could be worse by ObamaRama7 · · Score: 1

    This sounds like a pretty stupid use of money. I mean yeah I understand the arguments that these officers need to be pampered, massaged and played soothing melodies to keep them in tip top decision making shape... but like really aren't there more important problems we could solve with that money? Opportunity Cost anyone?? Aw well this is boring, im gonna watch some political humor at http://www.digitalfuntown.com/

    --
    -- Hot chick + lightsaber = http://tinyurl.com/sxtmsg
  95. The Bipartisan Bridge by Bipartisan+Bridge · · Score: 1

    This smells like another typical example of outrageous spending improprieties and poor contracting procedures at the Department of Defense. Unfortunately, it is so common that it is not surprising. However, it reinvigorates the need for substantial, meaningful reforms to the way that the DOD does business. The Bipartisan Bridge (www.BipartisanBridge.org) has posted a proposal to address these and other shortcomings in DOD contracting. Please view the proposal titled "Exempt From The Rules: Defense Contractors?" at: http://www.bipartisanbridge.org/S4C11.html Visitors to the website are also invited to post their own bipartisan ideas on the Your Bipartisan Ideas tab.