New parachute integrated at Airborne School Mar 11, 2010

By Tiffany Nabors, The Bayonet 

Story Highlights

• This is the first cycle of Airborne students to be trained on the T-10 and T-11 parachute systems
• The T-10 system that has been used since the 1950s
• Many Airborne units will be fielded with the new T-11 by the end of the year

Photo credit Tiffany Nabors, The Bayonet 


Maj. Douglas Hoover, the Maneuver Center of Excellence Family Life chaplain, exits the 34-foot training tower for the first time during ground week in Airborne School on Fort Benning, Ga.

The 453 students in C Company, 1st Battalion (Airborne), 507th Parachute Infantry Regiment, exited the 34-foot training tower twice as many times as the normal requirement March 3.


The change is one of several resulting from the new T-11 parachute system integration at the U.S. Army Airborne School. The new parachute replaces the T-10 system that has been in use since the 1950s and will be phased out over the next 15 years, said 1st Sgt. Christopher Goodrow, C Co., 1st Bn., 507th PIR.


Goodrow said students are getting trained on both systems. They will jump six times with the T-10 and T-11 parachutes and receive eight passing evaluations instead of four.


The T-11 design should decrease injuries and has an increased weight tolerance for heavier combat loads and a decreased descent pace for softer landings, Goodrow said.


The square shape of the T-11 is easily identified compared to the T-10's circular shape, and it features a slider component that separates lines and reduces the possibility of inversion.


"It eliminates many of the malfunction possibilities we had with the T-10," Goodrow said. "This has been needed for a long time. For the Airborne community, I think this is a leap into the 21st century."


Few units have been conducting jumps with the T-11, but many Airborne units will see the new parachutes fielded by the end of the year, making this the right time to phase it into the school, said Capt. Dean Gibson, C Company commander.


"It's important to train students on the T-11 parachute system before they arrive at their units," he said. "So once they get there, their focus is on becoming combat-ready."


During week one, also known as ground week, Soldiers learn to put on a parachute, exit a mock door and perform parachute landing fall and recovery methods.


Adaptations have been required for instructors, known as Black Hats.


"We've been training for about six months," said Staff Sgt. James Patterson, a Black Hat for two years. "We had to relearn our classes and relearn our demonstrations before we could pitch the class to our students."


Maj. Douglas Hoover, the Maneuver Center of Excellence Family Life c haplain, who is currently in the school, said he admired the dedication of the staff.


"I feel more for the cadre because they have to get the same amount of material in on both systems," he said, adding he was excited about being in the first class of trainees.


Sgt. Michael Holbein, who is in the Air Defense Artillery branch, said he was a little nervous about exiting a plane, but its something he's wanted to do for a long time. "(The training) is repetitious, but it's beneficial," Holbein said. "It becomes muscle memory so that when I do jump, I'll know how to do the right thing."


Staff Sgt. Benjamin Thurman, who has been a Black Hat for 18 months and has completed 15 cycles, said the 34-foot tower used during ground week exposes students to the shock of free falling and the catch of the parachute and gives them a point of reference.


"This is a good time and a good place to conquer your height fears," Thurman said. "If you can jump from 34 feet, you can definitely jump from 1,250 feet."


During week two or tower week, the students will descend from the 250-foot tower.

Bookmark & Share

EmailPrint

RSSPodcasts

• Mobile
 
• Contact Us
 
• FAQ
 
• Create
 
• Accessibility
 
• Privacy & Security
 
• External Links
 
• FOIA

NewsNote: “In God We Trust” and “Under God” = “No Theological Impact?”

[This post is from Albert Mohler's blog.]

Posted: Friday, March 12, 2010 at 12:46 pm ET

The famous words "In God We Trust" and "under God" are safe . . . for now. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled yesterday that those phrases from the national currency and the Pledge of Allegiance do not represent a governmental establishment of religion.
The court, one of the most liberal among the Federal courts, ruled against Michael Newdow, a Sacramento atheist known for previous suits against the phrase "under God" in the pledge.
Here is how the Los Angeles Timessummarized the decision:
Joined by other Sacramento-area parents opposed to the pledge, Newdow, a physician with a law degree, brought an identical challenge against the Rio Linda Union School District practice of leading daily pledges and secured a ruling in his favor from U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. The judge cited the 9th Circuit's holding that Congress rendered the pledge unconstitutional when it added the words "under God" in 1954, in a Cold War-era gesture against the godless communism of the Soviet Union.
Thursday's ruling brings the 9th Circuit in line with other federal appeals courts in upholding a school's right to conduct the patriotic ritual. That unity among the circuit courts makes it unlikely that the Supreme Court will again review the decision, both Newdow and those in favor of preserving the "under God" reference said.
This decision is good news, and comes as something of a relief -- especially considering the fact that the Ninth Circuit is involved. There is no substance to the claim that these two phrases violate the Constitution. Furthermore, they represent only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to such questions. This kind of language pervades official discourse - extending even to the phrase "the year of our Lord" in the dating of many government documents.
But, what does it mean? Christians should pay close attention to the logic employed by the court in these two decisions. Consider this section of the court's opinion in which it cites its own precedent in the case Aronow v. United States:
It is not easy to discern any religious significance attendant the payment of a bill with coin or currency on which has been imprinted ‘In God We Trust’ or the study of a government publication or document bearing that slogan. . . .   While ‘ceremonial’ and ‘patriotic’ may not be particularly apt words to describe the category of the national motto, it is excluded from First Amendment significance because the motto has no theological or ritualistic impact. As stated by the Congressional report, it has ‘spiritual and psychological value’ and ‘inspirational quality.’
In other words, the phrase "In God We Trust" as our national motto is theologically and religiously meaningless, having "no theological or ritualistic impact," but only a "spiritual and psychological value."
In the decision on the Pledge of Allegiance the court used similar logic and language:
We hold that the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause because Congress’ ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism and that the context of the Pledge—its wording as a whole, the preamble to the statute, and this nation’s history—demonstrate that it is a predominantly patriotic exercise. For these reasons, the phrase “one Nation under God” does not turn this patriotic exercise into a religious activity.
The court is arguing that the phrases in question are not really theological statements at all, presumably because if the court found theological significance in the phrases it would have been led to rule otherwise.
This legal logic is recognizable, but so is the theological dimension of all this. The court has ruled, in effect, that the language of these contested phrases represents what is rightly called "civil religion." In essence, civil religion is the mass religion that serves the purposes of the state and the culture as a unifying force -- a rather bland and diffused religiosity -- an innocuous theology with little specificity.
Christians must never confuse civil religion with the real thing. When our fellow citizens recite the pledge, it is not to be taken as a statement of personal faith in God. In that sense, Christians are rightly concerned that we make clear what authentic faith in God requires and means. Confusing civil religion with Christianity is deadly dangerous.
On the other hand, Christians are well aware of the constant danger of idolatry, and no entity rivals a powerful government in terms of the idolatrous temptation. In that sense, it is healthy and good that we employ language that relativizes the power and authority of the state. It is both important and healthy that our motto places trust in God, and not in the state. And the knowledge that the nation exists "under God" is no small matter.
So, we should welcome the decision of the Ninth Circuit panel but not read too much into the decision or the language at stake. Another legal challenge is always right around the corner. The task of defining true faith in God falls to us right now.
__________________________________
I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.
Carol J. Williams, "Pledge of Allegiance's God References Now Upheld by Court," theLos Angeles Times, Friday, March 12, 2010.
The opinions in the cases are available in PDF form from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

DoD DTM on Social Media

Home >> Army News, social media >> DoD DTM on Social Media

March 11th, 2010

Share

February 26 the Department of Defense released Directive-Type memorandum (DTM) 09-026, DoD policy on social media and Internet based capabilities. In the works for months, the policy opened up access to social media on the military’s non-classified network (NIPRNET) and offered broad guidance concerning social media use.

For those in Army public affairs or anyone in the military actively using the Internet to communicate with friends and family, the policy was a welcome sign that social media is here to stay and DoD isn’t just recognizing its importance, it’s embracing it as both a communications platform and a critical piece in keeping our Soldiers and families connected.

I have a clear bias toward social media but it’s my opinion that in a time when our Soldiers are spending 12-15 months away from their families we have an obligation to ensure they have every means of communication possible – including social media. While operations security and network security trump communication, we have to mitigate risks to allow our Soldiers to express the freedom of communication they’re fighting to defend.

The clearest benefit of the DoD DTM is allowing our Soldiers and families to communicate with one another, but there are also three interesting points I want to bring to your attention:

1. The DoD DTM opens up access across the NIPRNET. We’ve already stated it, but that means across the board access needs to be set at “open.” Whether you’re in Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti or Hawaii, you should be able to access social media from your government computer.

2. Restrictions on accessing social media sites can be placed but should only be done “temporarily” and restrictions must be commensurate with the risks. That means commanders still have the authority to shut down social media access but they must have a clear justification, and if they consider a long-term restriction the risk needs to justify it.

3. Public Affairs Officers (PAOs) should be aware of official social media presences but don’t have ultimate responsibility for every one. That means that spouse’s clubs, Family Readiness Groups, and other organizations that want to engage social media may do so. They should coordinate with their PAO but that PAO doesn’t need to administer every account.

The DTM creates a great opportunity for us but it also opens up a lot of questions. Over the next several weeks and months you’ll see additional guidance from the Department of Defense, Army Chief Information Office/G-6 and Army Public Affairs. We’ll keep you informed on those updates here at Army Live, and look forward to your questions, comments and feedback in our comments section.

Has social media access opened up at your post, camp or duty station, or is it still restricted? Let us know.

Lindy Kyzer, Army Public Affairs

Posted bylindykyzerinArmy News, social mediaDepartment of Defense, DTM 09-026, social media, Social Media Policy

The Scandal of Gendercide — War on Baby Girls

Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 5:44 am ET [This post is from Albert Mohler's blog.]

The reality has been known for years now, though the Western media have generally resisted any direct coverage of the horror. That changed this week whenThe Economist published its stunning cover story -- "Gendercide -- What Happened to 100 Million Baby Girls?"
In many nations of the world, there is an all-out war on baby girls. In 1990, economist Amartya Sen estimated that 100 million baby girls were missing -- sacrificed by parents who desired a son.  Two decades later, multiple millions of missing baby girls must be added to that total, victims of abortion, infanticide, or fatal neglect.
The murder of girls is especially common in China and northern India, where a preference for sons produces a situation that is nothing less than critical for baby girls. In these regions, there are 120 baby boys born for every 100 baby girls. As The Economist explains, "Nature dictates that slightly more males are born than females to offset boys' greater susceptibility to infant disease. But nothing on this scale."
In its lead editorial, the magazine gets right to the essential point: "It is no exaggeration to call this gendercide. Women are missing in their millions--aborted, killed, neglected to death."
In its detailed and extensive investigative report, the magazine opens its article with chilling force. A baby girl is born in China's Shandong province. Chinese writer Xinran Xue, present for the birth, then hears a man's voice respond to the sight of the newborn baby girl. "Useless thing," he cried in disappointment. The witness then heard a plop in the slops pail. "To my absolute horror, I saw a tiny foot poking out of the pail. The midwife must have dropped that tiny baby alive into the slops pail!"  When she tried to intervene she was restrained by police. An older woman simply explained to her, "Doing a baby girl is not a big thing around here."
The number of dead and missing baby girls is astounding. In some Chinese provinces, there are more than 130 baby boys for every 100 baby girls. The culture places a premium value on sons, and girls are considered an economic drain. A Hindu saying conveys this prejudice: "Raising a daughter is like watering your neighbor's garden."
Midwives even charge more for the birth of a baby boy. But the preference for a boy rises with both economic power and the number of children born to a couple. The imbalance of boys to girls is no accident -- it reflects a prejudice that runs throughout the societies where the abortion and killing of baby girls is considered both understandable and routine.
Add to this the widespread availability of ultrasound imaging services. Even though the governments of China and India have officially declared sex-selection abortions to be illegal, they persist by the millions. (And, interestingly, the magazine notes that Sweden actually legalized sex-selection abortions in 2009.)
This sentence from the investigative report is particularly horrifying: "In one hospital in Punjab, in northern India, the only girls born after a round of ultrasound scans had been mistakenly identified as boys, or else had a male twin."
In other words, even as the spread of ultrasound technology has greatly aided the pro-life movement by making the humanity of the unborn baby visible and undeniable, among those determined to give birth only to baby boys, in millions of cases the same technology has meant a death warrant for a baby girl in the womb.
There are multiple factors that lead to the preference for boys over girls. In China, the government's draconian "one child only" policy has led to both forced abortions and an effective death sentence for baby girls when a couple is determined that, if their children are to be so drastically limited, they will insist on having a son. As the magazine explains, "For millions of couples, the answer is: abort the daughter, try for a son."
Consider this:
In fact the destruction of baby girls is a product of three forces: the ancient preference for sons; a modern desire for smaller families; and ultrasound scanning and other technologies that identify the sex of a fetus. In societies where four or six children were common, a boy would almost certainly come along eventually; son preference did not need to exist at the expense of daughters. But now couples want two children—or, as in China, are allowed only one—they will sacrifice unborn daughters to their pursuit of a son. That is why sex ratios are most distorted in the modern, open parts of China and India. It is also why ratios are more skewed after the first child: parents may accept a daughter first time round but will do anything to ensure their next—and probably last—child is a boy. The boy-girl ratio is above 200 for a third child in some places.
The social consequences of this imbalance are vast and uncorrectable. China and India now face the reality of millions of young men and boys who have absolutely no hope of a wife and family. In China, these young men are called guanggun or "broken branches." Just consider this -- the 30 to 40 million "broken branches" in China are about equal in number to the total number of all boys and young men in the United States.
These young men represent a looming disaster on the societal level. Young males commit the greatest number of criminal acts and acts of violence. Marriage has been the great taming institution for the social development of young males. Without prospect for marriage and a normal sex and family life, these multiple millions of unmarried young men are becoming a significant social challenge in China and India. Some observers even argue that this may lead to an increased militarism in the region.
Of course, the greatest disaster is personal for the young men and boys who face the future as "broken branches." The parents who insist on having boys are dooming their own sons to lives of brokenness, frustration, and grief.
And the future looks even more ominous for baby girls. Nick Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute points to "the fatal collision between overweening son preference, the use of rapidly spreading prenatal sex-determination technology and declining fertility." As the magazine adds, "Over the next generation, many of the problems associated with sex selection will get worse. The social consequences will become more evident because the boys born in large numbers over the past decade will reach maturity then. Meanwhile, the practice of sex selection itself may spread because fertility rates are continuing to fall and ultrasound scanners reach throughout the developing world."
While imbalances such as now found in China and India are unknown in the West, the practice of sex-selection abortion is found here as well. Indeed, there is no current law against the practice in the United States, where abortion is legal for any reason, at least in earlier stages of pregnancy. In reality, sex selection abortions happen here, too. After all, proponents of abortion in the United States infamously insist on a woman's unrestricted right to an abortion "for any reason, or for no reason."
The Economist is right to call this tragedy gendercide -- the targeting of baby girls for death and destruction simply because of their gender. The magazine deserves appreciation for its no-holds-barred report on this tragedy, and for forcing the issue to be faced. Furthermore, The Economist ends its editorial with the right message, "The world needs to do more to prevent a gendercide that will have the sky crashing down."
Will reports like this awaken the conscience of the world to the unspeakable crime and global tragedy of gendercide? If not, what will it take? The blood of millions of murdered and missing baby girls cries out to the world's conscience. Will we hear?
________________________________________
I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.
"Gendercide -- The Worldwide War on Baby Girls," The Economist, March 6, 2010. The extensive investigative report is available in the magazine's print editions but is available online only to subscribers.

The mystery of Hitler's 'spyclists'

By Sanchia Berg Today programme

Summer 1937. What could be more fitting in the cool afternoon of an English country lane than a group of cycling tourists steadily pedalling their way from one historic site to another, stopping to camp overnight in fields along the way.

The only problem was, that summer, some of those groups of teenage boys were Hitler Youth.
In an era without satellite photography, when detailed ordnance survey maps could be hard to come by and when tension in Europe was rising, MI5 were worried that this innocent cyclo-tourism was a cover for spying.
MI5 had been told that Hitler Youth groups visiting abroad were asked to complete a detailed questionnaire, including questions on terrain, population, and political views of the population.

Hitler regarded his youth movement as the kernel of an Aryan 'master race'

They were asked to take photographs, especially of industry, and to get lists of names of all those taking part in anti-German movements.
In May 1937, the British "Daily Herald" paper had printed an article about "spyclists" - based on translation of the Nazi Cycling Association's advice to members travelling abroad.
It too asked travellers to try to note carefully the features of the countryside they visited:
"Get into your head all landmarks like steeples and towers and all fords and bridges and acquaint yourself with them in such a way that you will be able to recognise them by night"
And one of the senior figures in the Hitler Youth had moved to London at the start of the year, ostensibly to study. MI5 suspected that Joachim Benemann's real object however was to develop the Hitler Youth in the UK.

Local papers speculated on the real reason for the visits

On an earlier visit, undertaken in 1934 and 5, he had set up joint Anglo-German youth camps, one at Bryanston School, and he had tried to develop links between the Hitler Youth and the Boy Scouts, without much success.
So the head of MI5, Colonel Sir Vernon Kell, decided to try to track visiting Hitler Youth cycling groups. Chief Constables were asked to monitor them, to try to find out what their planned routes were, without questioning the leaders.
From the file, it appears they identified seven substantial groups, each of about twenty young men. These were generally the older members of the Hitler Youth: in their late teens or early twenties.
Their itineraries were usually built round visits to the great English historic sites - Oxford, Cambridge, London. Though one party was touring Scotland and another finished in Wales.
MI5 did not shadow the cyclists closely, so it is not recorded exactly where they stayed and who they met. There was some reporting in local papers though: the Boston and Spalding Free Press reported that the Spalding Rotary Club laid on a special dinner for one group, who thoroughly enjoyed their sausages and mash, and charmed the local people with their good manners.
'Hitler salute'
The Hitler Youth who travelled to Britain had been specially selected - a number had even had been to training camps before the visit.
Some of them met or shared camps with British Boy Scout groups. The most striking was the Tamworth Scout troop - for whom this was a return visit. They had already been guests of the Hitler Youth in Hamburg earlier in the summer, thanks to their very pro-German Scoutmaster.

It was like a Roman legion Les Fardon, former Boy Scout

They had stayed at a Hitler Youth camp and even taken part in a torchlight rally. One of the boys, Les Fardon, told Radio 4's Document Programme ten years ago: "It was like a Roman legion," he said. "You had these long banners and you were marching to tune... it was very stirring and frightening"
Another of his fellow Scouts remembered it as being a very exciting trip, and he recalled how even the British boys fell into doing the "Heil Hitler" salute. "They liked you to do it," he added. Both boys made friends with some of the Germans.
When the Hitler Youth came to visit them, it proved controversial, and prompted intense debate in the pages of the local paper, the Birmingham Post. The head of MI5 asked to see the letters. The most pro-German was R. Charles Lines who wrote about the farewell supper for the Hitler Youth:
"Many remarks passed to me by Tamworth residents showed very plainly what a wonderful impression these boys have made during their stay. There is no doubt that Tamworth has thoroughly enjoyed entertaining them and I know how splendidly local people have risen to the occasion"
Which prompted a tart response from another correspondent, "WFA", who wrote: "Is it not easily understandable that when one has first hand information of the persecution and cruelty meted out by youthful Nazis at home, one is suspicious of their perfect behaviour abroad. One is bound to ask oneself "is it a confidence trick?"
The charm offensive was being carried out at a far higher level too. In November 1937 Lord Baden Powell met the Chief of Staff of the Hitler Youth at the German Embassy. The elderly Chief Scout had long been an admirer of the Hitler Youth, and was keen to develop closer links.
Baden Powell was asked if he would visit Hitler personally, and did not demur, telling the Germans that he was "fully in favour of anything which would bring about a better understanding between our nations"
The British government stepped in to stop that though. A note on the file shows that Lord Cranbourne, Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, called Lord Baden Powell's chosen successor, Lord Somers, around a fortnight later. He "strongly deprecated" close relations, runs the note.

“Chief Cam”-From Deployment to School

Share

Aside from his many day-to-day duties as Chief of Staff of the Army, General George W.  Casey enjoys talking with Soldiers as he travels around the world. Check out his most recent ”Chief Cam” as he talks to a Soldier who has recently transitioned from deployment in Iraq back to Hawaii, and who is planning her next steps in education.

Want to see more “Chief Cams?” Visit http://www.youtube.com/soldiersmediacenter.

Posted byashmccallunderArmy News, SRTV, Soldier StoriesChief Cams, Chief of Staff of the Army, General George Casey, U.S Army| Comments (0)

March 3rd, 2010

Deploying Soldiers Get a New Look

6Share

MultiCam in Afghanistan. Photo by: PEOSoldier

Soldiers deploying to Afghanistan will be getting a gear make-over beginning in July of this year.  They will be issued the new “MultiCam” fire-resistant Army Combat Uniform  with new Mountain Combat Boots and MultiCam-patterned Modular Lightweight Load-carrying Equipment.

The decision to field and develop an alternative camouflage for uniforms in Afghanistan came out of the realization that the Army’s current Universal Camouflage Pattern, or UCP, did not meet all of the concealment needs for Afghanistan’s multiple regions.

“Afghanistan is a unique camouflage challenge because it’s such a terrain-diverse country,” explained Col. William E. Cole, project manager for Soldier protection and individual equipment at the Program Executive Office, or PEO, Soldier on Fort Belvoir.  He also confirmed that the uniforms and gear in MultiCam will for now only be used in Afghanistan.

Similar to the Battle Dress Uniform woodland print, the new MultiCam is a combination of seven different shades which “takes in surrounding colors.”

This change came after months of developing and testing new camoflauge options were initated. About 750 Soldiers who had recently deployed to Afghanistan were  asked to judge the uniforms in the photos based on their detectability, blend-ability, and rank them from best to worst.

MultiCam in Afghanistan. Photo by: PEOSoldier

The MultiCam, while cut in the same style as the ACU, will have several upgrades including a reinforced seat, buttons on the trouser cargo pockets, be constructed of flame-resistant fabric (like the newer ACUs), and treated with permethrin. New Mountain Combat Boots will also be issued to deploying Soldiers, which feature a tougher, more durable sole for gripping the mountainous Afghan terrain.

What do you think about the  “new look?” Leave us your thoughts.

Posted byashmccallunderArmy News, Current EventsMultiCam uniforms, new uniforms, U.S Army| Comments (4)

March 2nd, 2010

Is the Reformation Over?

[This post is from Albert Mohler's blog.] 

Posted: Friday, February 26, 2010 at 5:36 am ET

The Rev. Eric Bergman thinks he has seen the future -- and it isn't Protestant. Known as Father Bergman now, Rev. Bergman became a Catholic priest after serving for years as an Episcopalian minister. His conversion to Roman Catholicism came, he relates, after he began to ponder the moral and theological issues related to contraception. Looking back, he dates the fall of the Anglican tradition to 1930, when the Church of England accepted birth control. "Out of that," he says, "came a confusion about the roles of men and women, a theology of androgyny."
We know all this thanks to an article by Charlotte Hays, whose writings are always thoughtful and perceptive. She serves as editor of a very interesting journal, In Character, but this article was published in Friday's edition of The Wall Street Journal. In "The Beginning of the Reformation's End?," she fires a salvo at mainline Protestantism.
She writes of a Washington gathering of "ex-Episcopalians, curious Catholics, and a smattering of earnest Episcopal priests in clerical collars" who were drawn to an Evensong and Benediction service sung according to the Book of Divine Worship, which Hays describes as "an Anglican use liturgical book still being prepared in Rome." In the main, it follows the order and language set down by Thomas Cranmer almost 500 years ago.