PDA

View Full Version : Gay Man Nominated for USAF Undersecretary



F4CrewChick
09-17-2012, 11:31 AM
Gay Man Nominated for USAF Undersecretary (http://outservemag.com/2012/08/gay-man-nominated-as-undersecretary-of-the-air-force/)


President Obama nominated Eric Fanning as the next Undersecretary of the Air Force Wednesday.


Fanning, who is openly gay, currently serves as Deputy Undersecretary and Deputy Chief Management Officer of the Department of the Navy with considerable background both on Capitol Hill and within the Pentagon.


No jokes about 'undersecretary' either...

RS6405
09-17-2012, 11:40 AM
That is almost a set-up.... plus you left it wide open about his experiance in the Navy.

Gotta close the loop-holes!


***

Good deal though!

Robert F. Dorr
09-17-2012, 11:41 AM
No doubt former Pentagon chief spokesman Pete Williams is smiling.

F4CrewChick
09-17-2012, 11:52 AM
That is almost a set-up.... plus you left it wide open about his experiance in the Navy.

Gotta close the loop-holes!


***

Good deal though!
I know, I know...you could rent that loophole out as an airplane hangar. Morning RS!

F4CrewChick
09-17-2012, 11:54 AM
No doubt former Pentagon chief spokesman Pete Williams is smiling.No doubt.
How goes your coffee abstinence? (Which for the life of me I can't understand::::sipping my one big cup:::)

Shrike
09-17-2012, 12:43 PM
And?
.......

Pullinteeth
09-17-2012, 12:44 PM
A bit late to the party are we? This was discussed almost two months ago...

http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?1593930-Nominated-Under-Secretary-of-AF-is-Openly-Gay&highlight=Eric+Fanning

Floridaboy
09-17-2012, 01:24 PM
Gay Man Nominated for USAF Undersecretary (http://outservemag.com/2012/08/gay-man-nominated-as-undersecretary-of-the-air-force/)



No jokes about 'undersecretary' either...

Oversecretary? LOL. How do we now this isn't the first gay man in that position? LOL.

BISSBOSS
09-17-2012, 02:14 PM
And?
.......


BEST said! You beat me to it!

-BB-

71Fish
09-17-2012, 02:17 PM
What does "openly gay" mean anyway?

kool-aid
09-17-2012, 03:27 PM
"According to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Institute, to date, the Obama-Biden Administration has appointed more than 250 openly LGBT professionals to full-time and advisory positions in the executive branch; more than all known LGBT appointments of other presidential administrations combined."

And yet we are supposed to think this article is newsworthy? Who cares if someone is gay anymore? Quit beating everyone over the head with it. :rip

Jamethon
09-17-2012, 03:38 PM
What really does it matter? Will his status as a gay man have anything to do with the position? Was he chosen because he is gay?

I would hope all those answers are no. I have never seen a title saying "Straight Man Nominated for USAF Undersecretary" before. Why? Because it isn't necessary. He was probably chosen because of his qualifications and the president's confidence that he will be able to do the job. News sources are a major thing holding barriers, such as, race, color, gender, and sexual preference from moving on and becoming a non-issue.

AJBIGJ
09-17-2012, 03:53 PM
What really does it matter? Will his status as a gay man have anything to do with the position? Was he chosen because he is gay?

I would hope all those answers are no. I have never seen a title saying "Straight Man Nominated for USAF Undersecretary" before. Why? Because it isn't necessary. He was probably chosen because of his qualifications and the president's confidence that he will be able to do the job. News sources are a major thing holding barriers, such as, race, color, gender, and sexual preference from moving on and becoming a non-issue.

I think you're right, the mere mention of homosexuality in government and especially DoD-related issues propagandizes the event to the nth degree. I think in many ways the pro-LGBT community can be its own worst enemy in this sense, it is unfortunate. I undestand and appreciate the need to feel recognized as a way of saying "I can be here too"! But it's becoming rather complex because now the pendulum seems to be swinging over the other way as well where special status is almost the going-in expectation.

Pullinteeth
09-17-2012, 04:06 PM
"According to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Institute, to date, the Obama-Biden Administration has appointed more than 250 openly LGBT professionals to full-time and advisory positions in the executive branch; more than all known LGBT appointments of other presidential administrations combined."

And yet we are supposed to think this article is newsworthy? Who cares if someone is gay anymore? Quit beating everyone over the head with it. :rip

For the same reason it is "news" when it is the first female, second African American, 3,000th Hispanic woman, etc....etc...etc...

HollomanMSgt
09-17-2012, 04:19 PM
Maybe now when the undersecretary says he wants to have the backs of his troops, we will know it is actually true........... Bazingaaaa




Gay Man Nominated for USAF Undersecretary (http://outservemag.com/2012/08/gay-man-nominated-as-undersecretary-of-the-air-force/)



No jokes about 'undersecretary' either...

Absinthe Anecdote
09-17-2012, 04:25 PM
I don't get why there is a cause to celebrate either.

If a person shouldn't be judged by their sexuality in a negative way, then why would anyone want to do an end zone dance when a gay person is appointed to an office?

Absinthe Anecdote
09-17-2012, 04:25 PM
I don't get why there is a cause to celebrate either.

If a person shouldn't be judged by their sexuality in a negative way, then why would anyone want to do an end zone dance when a gay person is appointed to an office?

technomage1
09-17-2012, 06:12 PM
Gay Man Nominated for USAF Undersecretary (http://outservemag.com/2012/08/gay-man-nominated-as-undersecretary-of-the-air-force/)



No jokes about 'undersecretary' either...

You know I fully support equal rights....but I do reserve the right to snicker when the first openly gay man makes Rear Admiral.

There are just some things that are funny....

AJBIGJ
09-17-2012, 06:27 PM
You know I fully support equal rights....but I do reserve the right to snicker when the first openly gay man makes Rear Admiral.

There are just some things that are funny....

Yeah, especially when they get promoted from lower half to upper half!:peace

meatbringer
09-17-2012, 07:14 PM
If I were gay, I still wouldn't be open about it in the military. Only for the reason that all you hear about is how gay members are getting attention. It takes away from the fact that the person may have earned the title/position from hard work or credentials. I would be skeptical about every positive thing I received in the military, thinking it was only because of my sexual preference. It's like when you have 30 airmen (3 being female), up for BTZ and only 3 stripes to give out. chances are at least 2 of the females will receive BTZ. See it all the time. Reminds me of a few months ago when the Air Force was getting hammered with all the negative press from all of the mistreatment of female airmen. Next thing you know on the front page there is a picture of a female officer awarding another female with a bronze star. (finance troop to boot)

F4CrewChick
09-17-2012, 07:31 PM
What does "openly gay" mean anyway?
@ Pullin: Just read this story, sorry to repeat an already existing thread.


"Openly Gay" means someone who doesn't purposely hide their sexuality. I realize how that term and the fact that events like this attract 'news' attention can be confusing or even annoying. It is important to remember that being the first person or one of few is significant because NEVER before have these sort of milestones been acknowledged or accepted by the mainstream (for the most part). Certainly the people that are chosen to be 'items' may not be the 'first' ever, but they are firsts when it comes to PUBLICLY risking having something as mundane as your sexuality or race being a deciding factor as to one's competence, ability or access to any opportunity.

I too look forward to the day when there is equal access for EVERYONE and it is not a 'special' occasion when someone breaks through the lavender, glass, or any discrimination ceiling that keep people from advancing in life not because of skills or ability, but because of NONESSENTIAL, DISCRIMINATORY JUDGMENTS.

Anyone who is born into a 'privileged' class where meritocracy exists, needs to understand that it is easy to takes for granted what is the already existing, accepted norm. Those of us not born into those classes where one can and does advance in life based on what you actually do and the effort one puts into succeeding, have other hurdles to get over, if possible, before we are noticed for those attributes which ALL people should be be able to reach for the same goals.

Venus
09-17-2012, 09:38 PM
@ Pullin: Just read this story, sorry to repeat an already existing thread.


"Openly Gay" means someone who doesn't purposely hide their sexuality. I realize how that term and the fact that events like this attract 'news' attention can be confusing or even annoying. It is important to remember that being the first person or one of few is significant because NEVER before have these sort of milestones been acknowledged or accepted by the mainstream (for the most part). Certainly the people that are chosen to be 'items' may not be the 'first' ever, but they are firsts when it comes to PUBLICLY risking having something as mundane as your sexuality or race being a deciding factor as to one's competence, ability or access to any opportunity.

I too look forward to the day when there is equal access for EVERYONE and it is not a 'special' occasion when someone breaks through the lavender, glass, or any discrimination ceiling that keep people from advancing in life not because of skills or ability, but because of NONESSENTIAL, DISCRIMINATORY JUDGMENTS.

Anyone who is born into a 'privileged' class where meritocracy exists, needs to understand that it is easy to takes for granted what is the already existing, accepted norm. Those of us not born into those classes where one can and does advance in life based on what you actually do and the effort one puts into succeeding, have other hurdles to get over, if possible, before we are noticed for those attributes which ALL people should be be able to reach for the same goals.

Chick I luv ya but I am getting tired of this whole sexual orientation thing. It would be nice if straights and gays, atheists and thumpers all went back into the closet. All these things are personal choices and it should stay personal, my matrix to judge a person is ability and personality. I like you not because your a lesbian, like you because your not an asshole and come to a battle of witts armed for bear and your sure not boring. This guy got there as polictical appointee to appease a voting base or he brought in alot of money or made some polictical deal happen and this is the payoff.

Jamethon
09-17-2012, 09:55 PM
Chick I luv ya but I am getting tired of this whole sexual orientation thing. It would be nice if straights and gays, atheists and thumpers all went back into the closet. All these things are personal choices and it should stay personal, my matrix to judge a person is ability and personality. I like you not because your a lesbian, like you because your not an asshole and come to a battle of witts armed for bear and your sure not boring. This guy got there as polictical appointee to appease a voting base or he brought in alot of money or made some polictical deal happen and this is the payoff.

There are already a bunch of thumpers in the closet.

Thank you, thank you. I will be here all week. :peace

F4CrewChick
09-17-2012, 10:42 PM
Chick I luv ya but I am getting tired of this whole sexual orientation thing. It would be nice if straights and gays, atheists and thumpers all went back into the closet. All these things are personal choices and it should stay personal, my matrix to judge a person is ability and personality. I like you not because your a lesbian, like you because your not an asshole and come to a battle of witts armed for bear and your sure not boring. This guy got there as polictical appointee to appease a voting base or he brought in alot of money or made some polictical deal happen and this is the payoff.
I do get it V. Just try and put the shoe on the other foot a a minute.

America is a compulsorily heterosexual culture. We who are 'different' generally notice it early on and we are INUNDATED from virtually every angle i.e., media, our families, friends, school, work, church, politics, social gatherings, in public, in advertising, and in almost every area of culture that we are REALLY different. That being the norm, it's of course understandable but that we now get sometimes get positive attention for 'firsts' or whatever in all these areas, makes most of us somewhat more comfortable in our skins. Please remember that you were surrounded by all these same influences and it SUPPORTED you you were growing into being and reflected you back to yourself--we had no such messages and in fact almost everything we used to hear (and often still do) is NEGATIVE.

So cut me a little slack when I get on my gay-activist-high-horse and practice a little patience, some of that thoughtful compassion and the brain for which I so adore you. I promise not to post another gay thing for a while (Though of course, I can't control the others...)

Thank you for reading and commenting.

71Fish
09-17-2012, 10:50 PM
Oh, they are able to hide it. So it's nothing like being openly black, openly female, openly Asian or openly handicapped.


@ Pullin: Just read this story, sorry to repeat an already existing thread.


"Openly Gay" means someone who doesn't purposely hide their sexuality. I realize how that term and the fact that events like this attract 'news' attention can be confusing or even annoying. It is important to remember that being the first person or one of few is significant because NEVER before have these sort of milestones been acknowledged or accepted by the mainstream (for the most part). Certainly the people that are chosen to be 'items' may not be the 'first' ever, but they are firsts when it comes to PUBLICLY risking having something as mundane as your sexuality or race being a deciding factor as to one's competence, ability or access to any opportunity.

I too look forward to the day when there is equal access for EVERYONE and it is not a 'special' occasion when someone breaks through the lavender, glass, or any discrimination ceiling that keep people from advancing in life not because of skills or ability, but because of NONESSENTIAL, DISCRIMINATORY JUDGMENTS.

Anyone who is born into a 'privileged' class where meritocracy exists, needs to understand that it is easy to takes for granted what is the already existing, accepted norm. Those of us not born into those classes where one can and does advance in life based on what you actually do and the effort one puts into succeeding, have other hurdles to get over, if possible, before we are noticed for those attributes which ALL people should be be able to reach for the same goals.

sandsjames
09-17-2012, 11:30 PM
Oh, they are able to hide it. So it's nothing like being openly black, openly female, openly Asian or openly handicapped.

+1...I've made this argument multiple times. It never works.

RS6405
09-18-2012, 12:10 AM
+1...I've made this argument multiple times. It never works.



Actually in a legal setting, there is a difference between being a minority by race & minority by gender by with the level of scrutiny is applied to a law affecting each one. As for the sexual orientation, that is yet to be clearly distinguished in the court systems, but my guess it that it will be intermediate scruitney.

Robert F. Dorr
09-18-2012, 12:49 AM
I like you not because your a lesbian, like you because your not an asshole and come to a battle of witts armed for bear and your sure not boring.

Apart from the spelling, Venus has a point.

F4CrewChick
09-18-2012, 11:17 AM
Apart from the spelling, Venus has a point.
I would think it was in spite of being a lesbian...

tiredretiredE7
09-18-2012, 11:37 AM
Actually in a legal setting, there is a difference between being a minority by race & minority by gender by with the level of scrutiny is applied to a law affecting each one. As for the sexual orientation, that is yet to be clearly distinguished in the court systems, but my guess it that it will be intermediate scruitney.

RS6405,

Please provide some UCMJ references where minorities are addressed when it comes to applying the law. Wouldn't this be a form of racism if there were any guidance to apply the law differently to minorities?

tiredretiredE7
09-18-2012, 11:46 AM
This guy got there as polictical appointee to appease a voting base or he brought in alot of money or made some polictical deal happen and this is the payoff.

Venus,
You are correct about being politically motivated. I still ask openly gay military members why Obama did not repeal DOMA along with DADT so homosexuals would truly have the same rights as heterosexuals. The truth is Obama could have (had 2 years of a supermajority) but would have alienated alot of heterosexual democratic voters and only repealing DADT would get Obama the gay vote and make him look good to both sides. Obama does not really care about homosexuals and the fact that DOMA was not repealed it proof.

F4CrewChick
09-18-2012, 12:28 PM
Venus,
You are correct about being politically motivated. I still ask openly gay military members why Obama did not repeal DOMA along with DADT so homosexuals would truly have the same rights as heterosexuals. The truth is Obama could have (had 2 years of a supermajority) but would have alienated alot of heterosexual democratic voters and only repealing DADT would get Obama the gay vote and make him look good to both sides. Obama does not really care about homosexuals and the fact that DOMA was not repealed it proof.Obama didn't repeal DADT--it was a process started in the congress many times and finally passed the house and senate as stand-alone bill authored by Congressman Patrick Murphy* (D-PA) and went through many committees: JCoS, DoD, Gates, SASC, and the input of 66,000 AD military before it was finally signed by the President. It took nearly a year before the repeal was implemented.

The POTUS is not a king and this is a democracy. DOMA repeal would take the same rigorous process.

*Rep Patrick Murphy is a veteran:

In 2000, Murphy went on active duty in the Army, joining the military faculty at the U.S. Military Academy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military_Academy) at West Point, where he taught constitutional law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_constitutional_law). He has also lectured at the U.S. Air Force Academy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_Academy), the International Institute for Humanitarian Rights in Sanremo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanremo), Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy), and at Widener.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Murphy_(politician)#cite_note-usliberals.about.com-4) After the attacks of September 11, 2001, Murphy volunteered for overseas deployment, serving in Bosnia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina) (2002) and inBaghdad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad) during the Iraq War (2003–2004). While in Baghdad as a JAG Corps attorney with the U.S. 82nd Airborne Division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._82nd_Airborne_Division), Murphy worked to reconstruct the justice system and helped prosecute Sheik Moyad (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sheik_Moyad&action=edit&redlink=1), a lieutenant of Muqtada al-Sadr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr). A graduate of the U.S. Army Airborne School at Fort Benning, dual Qualified as a Basic Parachutist and in Air Assault, Murphy was awarded the Bronze Star Medal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Star_Medal) for meritorious service.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Murphy_(politician)#cite_note-5) Following his service in Iraq, he returned to Fort Bragg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Bragg) and continued his service as a JAG officer before being released from active duty in 2004.

RS6405
09-18-2012, 12:35 PM
RS6405,

Please provide some UCMJ references where minorities are addressed when it comes to applying the law. Wouldn't this be a form of racism if there were any guidance to apply the law differently to minorities?

Tried, For clarification, that statement is in reference to U.S. Supreme Court cases addressing Equal Protection claims. UCMJ is NOT a reference point I draw from since I am not JAG, nor do I ever imply any competency to address military law (I have asked questions about military law due to my ignorance on the subject). While this is a military forum, certain topics that I address usually reaches beyond the boundaries of the military.

As for your question....

What I referenced is types of judicial scrutiny the Courts use to decide if a law violates someone's civil rights.



For a court to apply strict scrutiny, the legislature must either have significantly abridged a fundamental right with the law's enactment or have passed a law that involves a suspect classification. Suspect classifications have come to include race, national origin, religion, alienage, and poverty.

www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny




Compared to intermediate:


A legal standard to determine the constitutionality of a statute, when the statute applies to a quasi-suspect classification (such as gender). To determine if a statute passes the test, a court considers whether the statute involves important governmental interests and whether the law is substantially related to the achievement of important government objectives

www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intermediate_scrutiny

The reason for the difference of which judicial scrutiny to apply rest on several factors:


Strict scrutiny is applied to government action that affect groups that fall under a "suspect classification." The US Supreme Court has mentioned a variety of criteria that, in some combination, may qualify a group as a suspect classification, but the Court has not declared that any particular set of criteria are either necessary or sufficient to qualify.[1]

Some of the criteria that have been cited include:
--The group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.[1]
--They possess an immutable[2] and/or highly visible trait.
-- They are powerless[2] to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a "discrete" and "insular" minority.[3])
--The group's distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_class
Sorry it is wiki, but you really did not want me to break out all the various case law verbiage.


As for intermediate scrutiny, I cannot get my hands on the judicial language that explains the difference, so to summarize FROM memory the Courts distinguished that classification as being close to the strict standards, but not as infringed upon in the same manner.
The result is an absolute no discrimination, positive or negative, as it applies to race, aka no affirmative action, while gender can have discrimination as long as it substantially relates to a specific and important government interest. Examples: the military can and have excluded women from certain areas; a Mississippi nursing program could exclude men, and others cases.

****
As it applies to sexual orientation….
In Perry v Schwazenegger, a legal challenge on Prop. 8 in California, sexual orientation is considered a suspect class (or an immutable trait that sets that person apart based on that trait-- my words). In that case it had the rational basis test, but later cases touching on sexual orientation used intermediate scrutiny.

(Sorry for a long post – kudos for those that read past the 1st 3 lines!)

kool-aid
09-18-2012, 12:37 PM
+1...I've made this argument multiple times. It never works.

No, for some reason a lifestyle is thought of as comparable to people with actual physical traits and disabilities that can't just be left at home when you walk out the door. I am looking for the story where we recognize the first siamese twins, who are albino, super-obese midgets.

F4CrewChick
09-18-2012, 12:54 PM
No, for some reason a lifestyle is thought of as comparable to people with actual physical traits and disabilities that can't just be left at home when you walk out the door. I am looking for the story where we recognize the first siamese twins, who are albino, super-obese midgets.
Serious ignorance-of-the-facts rubbish Kool. Being GLB is not a "lifestyle" it is a sexual orientation which has a poly-genetic basis among other factors. In racial minorities, and among those with disabilities, there are people who can "pass" if they chose to. I won't get into this topic with you because anyone with common decency and a modicum of intelligence, comes armed with facts not opinion masquerading as fact.

We get it already--you don't like Gays. Move along already; nothing to see here.

kool-aid
09-18-2012, 03:42 PM
Serious ignorance-of-the-facts rubbish Kool. Being GLB is not a "lifestyle" it is a sexual orientation which has a poly-genetic basis among other factors. In racial minorities, and among those with disabilities, there are people who can "pass" if they chose to. I won't get into this topic with you because anyone with common decency and a modicum of intelligence, comes armed with facts not opinion masquerading as fact.

We get it already--you don't like Gays. Move along already; nothing to see here.

I have no problem with gay people, but will move along. Not interested in beating a dead horse. But I will say I do respect you and your opinions.

Rizzo77
09-18-2012, 09:11 PM
And?
.......

This. I hope he does well for the Air Force.

F4CrewChick
09-19-2012, 04:25 AM
I have no problem with gay people, but will move along. Not interested in beating a dead horse. But I will say I do respect you and your opinions.I thank you for your gracious response.

imported_chipotleboy
09-20-2012, 01:27 AM
I just hope this means better looking and better fitting uniforms. That, and building color schemes other than TAC brown and Air Superiority Gray.

Maybe base housing will be razed, and we can house our people in charming downtown Victorian houses redecorated as "painted ladies".

Pullinteeth
06-26-2013, 06:01 PM
He is now acting Secretary of the Air Force.....

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123353584

Sunshine52
06-26-2013, 07:05 PM
He is now acting Secretary of the Air Force.....

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123353584

Considering this guy only has a Bachelor's degree in History and a handful of years of government experience, it's pretty clear to me that his sexual orientation (i.e. "gayness") was a huge factor in his appointment. It used to be, SECAFs had advanced degrees in technical fields (i.e PhDs in Aeronautical Engineering) and/or ran large corporations and/or had dozens of years of senior-level government experience. This guy has none of the above.

He's a kid who hopped from job to job, including being an associate producer at CBS and working at 1800Homecare.com before landing a government job a few years back. Now somehow, with only 5 years of DoD expereince he's leading a Department?!! :wtf:

And I'm sure it'll only be a matter of time before we hear the pronouncements that Master's degrees are necessary for officer promotions frmo this same guy. The hypocrisy is legion :disgust:

http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=16721

DWWSWWD
06-26-2013, 08:19 PM
He is now acting Secretary of the Air Force.....

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123353584 and DoD is moving forward with benefits for same-sex couples.

Drackore
06-27-2013, 07:17 AM
Yay. Big deal. More flux, more fluff words (pun intended), nothing changes (at least for the better).

What is interesting in that article is the last paragraph. We have 50% of the active force as Civilian Do-Nothing-But-Soak-Taxpayer-Dollar Airmen-wannabes.

Pullinteeth
07-01-2013, 07:22 PM
Considering this guy only has a Bachelor's degree in History and a handful of years of government experience, it's pretty clear to me that his sexual orientation (i.e. "gayness") was a huge factor in his appointment. It used to be, SECAFs had advanced degrees in technical fields (i.e PhDs in Aeronautical Engineering) and/or ran large corporations and/or had dozens of years of senior-level government experience. This guy has none of the above.

He's a kid who hopped from job to job, including being an associate producer at CBS and working at 1800Homecare.com before landing a government job a few years back. Now somehow, with only 5 years of DoD expereince he's leading a Department?!! :wtf:

And I'm sure it'll only be a matter of time before we hear the pronouncements that Master's degrees are necessary for officer promotions frmo this same guy. The hypocrisy is legion :disgust:

http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=16721

THAT is interesting....

Donely;
EDUCATION
1972 U.S. Army Intelligence School, Fort Huachuca, Ariz.
1973 Defense Language Institute, Monterey, Calif.
1974 U.S. Army Airborne School, Fort Benning, Ga.
1977 Bachelor of Arts degree in international relations, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
1978 Master of Arts degree in international relations, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
1986 Program for Senior Executives in National Security, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=11336

Wynne;
EDUCATION
1966 Bachelor of Science degree in general engineering, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, N.Y.
1970 Master's degree in electrical engineering, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio
1975 Master's degree in business, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs
http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=7919

Geren (no bio available-from Wiki)
Geren attended Georgia Tech from 1970 to 1973 (where he was the starting center for the football team) and received his B.A. from the University of Texas in 1974 and his Juris Doctor from University of Texas Law School in 1978.

Dominguez (no bio available-from Wiki)
1975 Bachelor of Science, U.S. Military Academy, West Point
1983 Master of Business Administration, Stanford University
1989 Program for Senior Officials in National Security, Harvard University

Montelongo (no bio available-from Wiki)
1977 Bachelor of science degree in general engineering, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, N.Y.
1988 Master of business administration degree, Harvard Business School, Boston, Mass.
1992 U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

Teets (no bio available-from Wiki)
1963 Bachelor of science degree in applied mathematics, University of Colorado, Boulder
1965 Master of science degree in applied mathematics, University of Colorado, Denver
1978 Master of science degree in management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

Measure Man
07-01-2013, 07:46 PM
Considering this guy only has a Bachelor's degree in History and a handful of years of government experience


THAT is interesting....

That is rather curious...sure, it's Ivy League, but still.

I don't think it necessarily proves his sexual orientation was a factor, though. Maybe his outstanding job performance overcame his lack of Graduate education.

CrustySMSgt
07-02-2013, 07:04 AM
That is rather curious...sure, it's Ivy League, but still.

I don't think it necessarily proves his sexual orientation was a factor, though. Maybe his outstanding job performance overcame his lack of Graduate education.

Exactly!

Sunshine52, Do you know who else was interviewed for the position and their qualifications?

And the CMSAF got awarded his Bachelor's degree after being selected for the position. So...? Just another case of people bitching about the amount of attention getting an education gets and the pressure to get it, until someone gets an important job and doesn't have what everyone thinks they should have and suddenly education is important. :hmmm:

Pullinteeth
07-02-2013, 12:50 PM
I don't think it necessarily proves his sexual orientation was a factor, though. Maybe his outstanding job performance overcame his lack of Graduate education.

Ok, for this one, I will just do the ones selected not acting...

Fanning (last 22 years);
1. 1991 - 1993, research assistant, U.S. House Armed Services Committee, Washington D.C.
2. 1993 - 1996, special assistant, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington D.C.
3. 1996, associate director, Political Affairs, The White House, Washington D.C.
4. 1997 - 1998, Associate Producer, Foreign and National Desks, CBS News, New York City, N.Y.
5. 1998 - 1999, Senior Associate, Robinson Lerer and Montgomery Communication, New York City, NY.
6. 1999 - 2000, Senior Vice President of Operations and Strategy, 1800HomeCare.com, Cleveland OH.
7. 2001 - 2007, Regional Director, Senior Vice President for Strategic Development, Business Executives for National Security, Washington D.C.
8. 2007 - 2008, Managing Director, Communication Management Group, Washington D.C.
9. 2008 - 2009, Deputy Director, Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism, Washington D.C.
10. 2009, Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for White House Liaison, Washington D.C.
11. 2009 - 2013, Deputy Under Secretary and Deputy Chief Management Officer, Department of the Navy, Washington D.C.
12. 2013 - present, Under Secretary of the Air Force, Washington D.C.
13. 2013 - present, Acting Secretary of the Air Force, Washington D.C.

Donnelly (36 yrs exp prior to selection);
1972 - 1975, U.S. Army, XVIIIth Airborne Corps and 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Bragg, North Carolina
1978 - 1979, Editor, National Security Record, Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C.
1979 - 1981, Legislative Assistant, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
1981 - 1984, Professional Staff Member, Senate Armed Services Committee, Washington, D.C.
1984 - 1987, Director of Defense Programs, National Security Council, The White House, Washington, D.C.
1987 - 1989, Deputy Executive Secretary, National Security Council, the White House, Washington, D.C.
1989 - 1993, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management and Comptroller), Washington, D.C.
1993, Acting Secretary of the Air Force, Washington D.C.
1993 - 1996, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, Va.
1996 - 2005, Senior Vice President at Hicks and Associates, Inc. (a subsidiary of SAIC) McLean, Virginia
2005 - 2008, Director of Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C.
2008 – 2013, Secretary of the Air Force, Washington, D.C.

Wynne (39 years exp prior to selection);
1.June 1966 - June 1973, Air Force officer
2.July 1973 - May 1975, Principal, Research Analysis and Development (RAD), Inc.
3.July 1975 - May 1994, Various Executive positions with General Dynamics
4.June 1994 - March 1997, Lockheed Martin, Denver
5.July 1997 - October 1999, Senior Vice President, General Dynamics, Falls Church, Virginia
6.December 2000 - July 2001, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, IXATA Group, McLean, Virginia
7.July 2001 - October 2005, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Washington, D.C. (May 2003 - April 2005, also served as acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics)
8.April 2005 - June 2005, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Washington, D.C.
9.November 2005 - June 2008, Secretary of the Air Force, Washington, D.C.

Roche (41 yrs exp prior to selection);
1960–1983, commissioned United States Navy officer, retiring with the rank of captain
1983–1984, Democratic Staff Director, Senate Armed Services Committee, Washington, D.C.
1984–1989, Vice President and Director, Analysis Center, Northrop Grumman Corp., Washington, D.C.
1989–1991, Vice President and Special Assistant to the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Northrop Grumman Corp., Los Angeles, California
1991–1992, Vice President of Advanced Development and Planning, Northrop Grumman Corp., Los Angeles, California
1992–1996, Chief Advanced Development, Planning, and Public Affairs Officer, Northrop Grumman Corp., Los Angeles, California
1996–2001, Corporate Vice President and President, Electronic Sensors & Systems Sector, Northrop Grumman Corp., Baltimore, Maryland
2001–2005, Secretary of the Air Force, Washington, D.C.

Peters (30 yrs exp prior to selection);
1. 1969 - 1972, U.S. Navy Reserve officer, Fleet Intelligence Center Atlantic, Norfolk, Va.
2. 1972 - 1973, Frank Knox Traveling Fellow, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
3. 1975 - 1976, president, Harvard Law Review
4. 1976 - 1977, law clerk to the Honorable J. Skelly Wright, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Washington, D.C.
5. 1977 - 1978, law clerk to the Honorable William J. Brennan, Jr., Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C.
6. 1978 - 1984, associate, Williams & Connolly Law Firm, Washington, D.C.
7. 1984 - 1995, partner, Williams & Connolly Law Firm, Washington, D.C.
8. 1987 - 1994, member, Legal Ethics Committee, District of Columbia Bar, Washington, D.C.
9. 1988 - 1990, adjunct lecturer, government contracts, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.
10. 1990 - 1995, adjunct professor, advanced criminal procedure, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C.
11. 1991 - 1993, member, Department of Defense Advisory Committee on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Law, Washington, D.C.
12. 1991 - 1996, chair, Rules of Professional Responsibility Review Committee, District of Columbia Bar, Washington, D.C.
13. 1993 - 1995, member, Rules Committee, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Washington, D.C.
14. 1995 - 1997, Principal Deputy General Counsel, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C.
15. 1996 - 1997, government representative, Defense Science Board study on vertical merger policy, Washington, D.C.
16. 1997 - 1999, Undersecretary of the Air Force, Washington, D.C.
17. 1999 - present, Secretary of the Air Force, Washington, D.C.

Not sure what story it tells, just for comparison...

fufu
07-02-2013, 01:59 PM
That is rather curious...sure, it's Ivy League, but still.

I don't think it necessarily proves his sexual orientation was a factor, though. Maybe his outstanding job performance overcame his lack of Graduate education.

You know job performance is meaningless, he probably led 3 Pentagon bake sales and 1 chili cook-off! Thats why he got the job, he displayed that whole person the AF so desperately desires.

grimreaper
07-03-2013, 08:58 PM
That is rather curious...sure, it's Ivy League, but still.

I don't think it necessarily proves his sexual orientation was a factor, though. Maybe his outstanding job performance overcame his lack of Graduate education.


No, it doesn't prove his sexual orientation was a factor. But, I do think it's safe to say that he has possibly one of the weakest resumes to ever hold that position. You would think at least a Masters Degree would be a needed "square" to fill to hold that position.

71Fish
07-03-2013, 09:05 PM
He didn't even earn an honorary CCAF.

Measure Man
07-03-2013, 09:10 PM
No, it doesn't prove his sexual orientation was a factor. But, I do think it's safe to say that he has possibly one of the weakest resumes to ever hold that position. You would think at least a Masters Degree would be a needed "square" to fill to hold that position.

I agree.

His only "acting" though... :-)

grimreaper
07-04-2013, 07:30 PM
I agree.

His only "acting" though... :-)

True. I would bet that a majority of undersecretaries have had graduate degrees as well though. Another interesting thing...basically every O-5 and above has more education than he does.

Sunshine52
07-09-2013, 06:55 PM
Exactly!

Sunshine52, Do you know who else was interviewed for the position and their qualifications?


I don't, but considering how thin his resume' is, its hard to believe he was the most/best qualified candidate out there. I'm even more qualified than this guy, how come I wasn't considered? Oh that's right, I'm a heterosexual.