Another career bites the dust due to stupidity

[LineInTheSand]

Captain Honors is a well-liked and respected skipper. He has been instrumental in getting the oldest ship in the Navy operationally ready for an extended deployment in the Mid-East.

The USS Consitution is heading to the Middle East?

 

[Mongo]

As LITS mentioned- if a JO had posted this stuff you could understand it, smack them around with a local letter of reprimand and counseling and make some allowances. But this is a Captain. An O6 making a video with this stuff in it, prefacing it by saying - "you will be offended" (and the inference is: "TS you are stuck with it it if you are"), and on one video insulting people who have complained about it for not having the guts to do it to him officially?? You are not supposed to have to make allowances for the antics of a senior commander- they are supposed to be above reproach- in fact the Commander has to be above reproach because as the UCMJ authority they are going to sit in judgement of others. In this case, you can already envision the defense for any fraternization or harassment issues including the command climate that the Captain established and encouraged with this foolishness.
NOT a chance in the world that this Captain has a career left or that this ship will leave port with him in command. Not only is his career toast- Right now the Navy has to be asking if the previous Captain - now RADM has a career left either for not having stopped this while he was in command.

Again, put yourself in charge of morale for a group of 5500 whose average age is 19 years old, in the Persian Gulf, working an extremely dangerous job 18 hours per day, every day, in 120 degree heat on the oldest operational ship in the Navy with very marginal climate control and amenities, and then criticize. In the mean time, consider that thinking 'outside the box' may be beneficial.

Interesting you mention UCMJ. On one of the remarks forums, his MAA Baliff for the two cruises is one of his biggest supporters, repeatedly mentioning his professionalism and his fairness. All NJP goes through XO's screening. For a MAA, whose normal complaint is that the XO/CO are way to lenient, to make these comments, speaks loudly.

I thought the skit with the 'fag' comment was extremely well done. And totally rellevant. The XO playing all three roles delivered a parody making fun of the two factions, brown shoes and black shoes, making fun of each other.

How long do you think a 19 year old can go without sex, even if it is with the one he loves most, himself? It is a reality. A lot better than the 5200 males chasing the 300 females on board. A little over the top for my Southern roots, but probably had it's value. My most memorable XO screening/Captain's mast was for an individual who went totally insane when, upon waking up, put on a still wet sock which his bunkmate had mistaken for his own. Hard to do a few of those without developing a sense of humor.

 

[Bullet]

I am really not upset by the contents of the videos. Mostly harmless. Even Corinne Reilly, the Ledger-Star reporter who broke the story, stated in an interview that she really saw nothing wrong with the videos, it was the seniority and position of the person who delivered them with which she had issues. Remember, these happened every Saturday night for sixteen or so months. The clips you are seeing is only someone’s idea of the very raunchiest.

Build a thousand bridges….

From my previous posts, I forgot to mention that the back-to-back extended deployments during which this is reported to have happened was in support of our efforts in the Indian Ocean, weeks and months of continuous operations in very hot conditions. Hardly the time or place for teamwork building morale exercises.

Certainly, but you would think a senior officer would show better judgment on what is an appropriate morale booster and what can give the Navy a black eye if released to the public.

After, between facebook and a few other sources, reading literally thousands of reader comments, a few things begin to emerge. He was a fair and competent leader. The troops, especially the enlisted, looked forward to these Saturday night episodes. Those who have been deployed under extreme conditions for extended periods understand the morale issues and how these videos can be productive and are in support of the skippper. Those most critical, for most part have never been on a ship or even served.

Those most critical are probably sitting at their desks in really nice offices on the E-ring of the building I’m in right now, overlooking the Potomac and asking themselves, “Is this guy for real? Even we make raunchy jokes, but we do it behind closed doors and don’t send it out via videotape to an entire Carrier’s worth of troops. Where is this guy’s judgment? I’m sure he’ll make a fine civilian.”

Captain Honors is a well-liked and respected skipper. He has been instrumental in getting the oldest ship in the Navy operationally ready for an extended deployment in the Mid-East. Both the Airwing and the ship have set several records during workups in preparation for this deployment. If Capt Honors is relieved, it will do irreversible damage to the well being of the crew and the ability to accomplish it’s mission. His superiors realize this. One or two with a little backbone and he may retain his command.

Lots of guys just like him (competent, good leader, well respected) also got themselves in hot doo-doo over the Tailhook scandal, mostly just for being there and not for participating in the more “questionable” activities. I’m sure he is well aware of what happened to their careers.

Look, like JAM stated I HAVE seen and participated in “boys being boys” behavior a time or two. Even during deployments and wartime. I just had (and still have) the common sense to participate in these activities NOT IN PUBLIC, to a limited audience I knew very well. The fact that this commander’s attitude was “I’m leading this “boys being boys behavior”--in fact, I’m going to shove it in my entire ship’s face. And Tough-Nookies to anyone who gets upset by it” just demonstrates his lack of common sense and judgment to those in his Chain of Command above him, who are probably right now planning his retirement ceremony for him.

Personally, I also grew up in a less-PC, pre-Tailhook military; I also wasn’t stupid and learned from that series of unfortunate events to keep this Animal House behavior only amongst those I knew wouldn’t 1) be offended, and 2) take it public. If this Commander’s idea of building morale for the enlisted young troops was to act like he was Otter from the Delta House, how can he not expect Dean Wormer (the CNO) not to put him on double-secret probation? Besides, I thought the Big E had “65” in big bold numbers on it’s bridge, and not the Greek letters Delta Tau Omega.

The motives for making this public now have been questioned. Rightfully so. Possibly a rival who felt he deserved the career this guy was on instead. Possibly a subordinate who held a grudge for a past offense or reprimand. The scenarios are endless. But the point remains, he loaded the gun that was used on to bring him down by himself—no one to else to blame for this friendly fire incident.

And as to “those who aren’t there don’t know what it is like”. Well, the only answer to that is the obvious – it doesn’t matter place, time, or scenario. It’s been beaten in our craniums since Tailhook that this behavior IS NOT acceptable ANYWHERE in the military. The leadership likes the public perception that our officer corps is populated only by warrior monks—smart intellectuals, chaste and pure in morals and character, fierce only on the battlefield. To act like you haven’t got this message (and in this case, like you don’t even care and give a damn if anyone gets offended by it) only brings into question your judgment and ability to lead.

A valuable lesson for all the future young officers who peruse these forums.

 

[Christcorp]

I thought the skit with the 'fag' comment was extremely well done. And totally rellevant.

Your rationalization is amazing. Have YOU ever commanded troops? If you're saying that these types of "moral boosting" is appropriate, then I'm quite glad that you were never in the air force. The quoted line does however explain some things.

I'm out of this one. Might as well start taking LSD. I can justify that mind altering experience better than this one.

 

[Pima]

I agree with others it would be one thing if he was a JO, but if I have done my math correctly the man was @45 years old!

Was this some type of mid-life crisis?

This malarkey of you need to understand back to back deployments and 8 months out at sea as a defense, is just that MALARKEY!

Should Cols in Iraq and Afghanistan that have been stationed there for 12-18 months also start videos like this for morale boosters?

I married into this community when it was that old school. I saw Canadian Rodeos at the O'Club on Friday nights. I saw more vulgar things than this video at the Clubs. However, there are big differences:

1. That crap ended back in 1990.
~~~The guy who did a Canadian Rodeo, got an article 15 and he was a JO.

2. It happened at the Club
~~~Booze was involved along with the heat of the moment.

Not saying that is an excuse, but take a 24 yo O2 and take a 45 O6 and it is different story.

Let me tell you, I have seen and heard these things happen, but at least for the AF they went buh-bye a decade ago.

For people who don't know old school as this guy is apparently a part of the community here are some things to comprehend on how it went ~ at least AF.

1. They would sing songs in the "combat bar" called the S & M man...it played off the tune of the candy man. You would have every guy singing it in unison.

2. If they were mild it would be Dennis Leary "I'm an A$$hole"

3. The reason they wear squadron boxers and socks on Fridays is for a "sock check"...and no you don't lift up the pant leg of your flight suit.

4. Play Crud...some of the penalty calls refer to body parts below the waist line.

5. Barstoolers...this was and is a secret society and to be in it you entered a new dimension past the cross line dimension.

6. If a wife called or entered the squadron on a Friday after the light went on in the bar, the guy got his arse called out and owed a bottle of Weed.

It was def. a testerone laden world. However, even back in the late 80's when this guy was a newly minted O3, I am sure his leadership was the same as ours...the Commander on Friday night held their AC meeting at 4, had one drink and left. He would go to parties that his squadron hosted, but would not stay for more than 1 drink.

The reason why was simple!

I want you to understand we are family, but I am your parent and not your sibling. Play and have fun...what I don't know won't hurt me or you!

This guy did not want to be the role model. He wanted to be one of them, so it goes back to was this a mid-life crisis?

Sure as Sh*t it wasn't a grown up, mature, intelligent, moment for someone of 45 years of age! I wonder if he has a DD who is in the military? Would he want her commander doing a skit like that? Would he tell her DD to stop being gutless?

 

[Mongo]

Again, we are only seeing snippets of three or four episodes when, to my estimation, there are probably 60 or so of them. And I am sure whomsoever compiled the montage, did so with what he thought was the most shocking.

A Naval ship is it’s own microorganism. They have their own autonomy, probably unlike anything else in the military. They take on the personality of primarily their skipper. I would guess that drastic morale measures were needed. The CO no doubt approved. Therefore, one could assume that the skits were serving their purpose, whatever the XO/CO deemed this purpose to be. Remembering that this happened almost five years ago, it would appear that the climate at the time supported these videos. First of all, the Air Wing Commander, a senior captain might have complained if he felt they were tasteless. Additionally, the Carrier Strike Group is embarked on the carrier and is in direct command and reswponsible. Led by an Admiral with probably four or so Captains on the staff, all obvious of the videos, who would have put a stop to them had they believed they were inappropriate.

I think a mountain has been made out of a molehill and unfortunately an officer who has served admirably will probably be sacrificed and a deploying battle group will be compromised.

And Christcorp, don't worry about me serving in the AF. Had I somehow landed there, I would have shot my foot off to avoid serving.

 

[Pima]

Quote:
I thought the skit with the 'fag' comment was extremely well done. And totally rellevant.

As most of you know I acknowledge that I am Polish so some things go over my cranium.

With that in mind can someone explain to me for Sh*ts, Grins and Giggles how a "fag" comment can be done well without offending anyone?

 

[Luigi59]

A Naval ship is it’s own microorganism. They have their own autonomy, probably unlike anything else in the military.

Please tell us when "fag" is an acceptable term on a ship of the United States Navy by the (then)Executive Officer/Commanding Officer.

 

[Bullet]

Again, we are only seeing snippets of three or four episodes when, to my estimation, there are probably 60 or so of them. And I am sure whomsoever compiled the montage, did so with what he thought was the most shocking.

You can have hundreds of landings on the carrier. It's the one bad one that usually has the most dire consequences.

A Naval ship is it’s own microorganism. They have their own autonomy, probably unlike anything else in the military. They take on the personality of primarily their skipper. I would guess that drastic morale measures were needed. The CO no doubt approved. Therefore, one could assume that the skits were serving their purpose, whatever the XO/CO deemed this purpose to be. Remembering that this happened almost five years ago, it would appear that the climate at the time supported these videos. First of all, the Air Wing Commander, a senior captain might have complained if he felt they were tasteless. Additionally, the Carrier Strike Group is embarked on the carrier and is in direct command and reswponsible. Led by an Admiral with probably four or so Captains on the staff, all obvious of the videos, who would have put a stop to them had they believed they were inappropriate.

That's what has the CNO and the Navy staff here so scared; if the ENTIRE Command structure of this Carrier Strike Group was aware of this, then this Commander's removal is just the tip of the iceberg. Heads are gonna roll..

I think a mountain has been made out of a molehill and unfortunately an officer who has served admirably will probably be sacrificed and a deploying battle group will be compromised.

I think this "molehill" has the potential to give the Navy (and the rest of the DoD) another black eye almost on the level of Tailhook. A good officer (potentially LOTS of good officers) did a really stupid thing, and will be going down for this lack of commomn sense and judgement. Defend their actions all you want, it ain't gonna change a darn thing. I particularly like your tap dance in your defense of the use of the term "fag" in so cavalier an attitude in this day and age.

And Christcorp, don't worry about me serving in the AF. Had I somehow landed there, I would have shot my foot off to avoid serving.

Whew. We (the AF) missed a bullet there! (no pun intended)

 

[Mongo]

I particularly like your tap dance in your defense of the use of the term "fag" in so cavalier an attitude in this day and age.

Where have I tap danced? In "this day and age", are you referring to today, on the eve of the repealing of DADT or five years ago? You know very well that in a setting such as this, the term 'fag' is used more as a light-hearted reference to masculinity than to sexual orientation. Don't pretend to be so naive and offended.

In this skit, the XO was poking fun at the good-natured joking that goes on between SWOs and airdales. It was a skit. A SNL type skit. A skit in an informal setting. That is all. Surely you understand this. Very similiar to the type of joking that goes on between pilots and WSOs. The intent to refer to someone as homosexual is the last thing intended and the last thing interpreted.

 

[Bullet]

Where have I tap danced? In "this day and age", are you referring to today, on the eve of the repealing of DADT or five years ago? You know very well that in a setting such as this, the term 'fag' is used more as a light-hearted reference to masculinity than to sexual orientation. Don't pretend to be so naive and offended.

Wow. Just.... wow! You REALLY can't see the difference making these statements in private as a joke amongst friends, and saying this to 6000 people on video?

What's next? Videos of the XO acting as a Gangsta telling the rest of the ship "Wassup my n####s?" I mean, it all in jest, right?

I'm stunned. Yes, stunned.

In this skit, the XO was poking fun at the good-natured joking that goes on between SWOs and airdales. It was a skit. A SNL type skit. A skit in an informal setting. That is all. Surely you understand this. Very similiar to the type of joking that goes on between pilots and WSOs. The intent to refer to someone as homosexual is the last thing intended and the last thing interpreted.

Heck, what goes on in the privacy of the two-man cockpit stays in the cockpit. Of course I've particiapted in good-natured ribbing and bawdy name calling of guys either in the cockpit or behind closed doors in the squadron. Heck, I still do it here in the Pentagon.

I just don't videotape it and put it on YouTube so the rest of the base can get the full monty of my "humor". Not that stupid; too bad this XO was, it's gonna have a significant impact on the rest of us and what we are allowed to do in the name of "morale".

But, like CC, I just can't believe I honestly have to debate this. It just seems too obvious that what this XO did demonstrated poor judgment. Your defense of it, to include your assertations that the use of the term "fag" is fine for use as a morale booster is simply... stunning.

I'm out of this discussion...

 

[Mongo]

Wow. Just.... wow! You REALLY can't see the difference making these statements in private as a joke amongst friends, and saying this to 6000 people on video? ..................................................

Heck, what goes on in the privacy of the two-man cockpit stays in the cockpit. Of course I've particiapted in good-natured ribbing and bawdy name calling of guys either in the cockpit or behind closed doors in the squadron. Heck, I still do it here in the Pentagon.

So it is fine to compromise your integrity among coworkers and fellow aircrew but not okay to participate in a harmless skit where everyone knows you are acting?

I am just the opposite. I would never make such comments to a friend but would readily participate in a skit if I thought the message portrayed was necessary and good.

 

[LineInTheSand]

So it is fine to compromise your integrity as a bigoted homophobe among coworkers and fellow aircrew but not okay to participate in a harmless skit where everyone knows you are acting?

I am just the opposite. I would never make such comments to a friend but would readily participate in a skit if I thought the message portrayed was necessary and good.

Hmmmm, then I wonder why you don't post under a screen name that is your actual name....

 

[Pima]

You guys are treading on water for locking down a thread that has a lot of value for candidates/cadets and FNGs.

So it is fine to compromise your integrity as a bigoted homophobe among coworkers and fellow aircrew but not okay to participate in a harmless skit where everyone knows you are acting?

I am just the opposite. I would never make such comments to a friend but would readily participate in a skit if I thought the message portrayed was necessary and good.

Remove the emotions and think about what was posted.

~~~First off, you are stating that a bigoted homophobe openly talks about their opinion amongst every co-worker while at work.

Remember...off duty is off duty. They may be homophobic, but if they have a group that they hang with it, it is social!

They are not airing their opinions on the military network of 5K people

~~~Secondly,

Please, please, please explain to us morons how an O6 calling homosexuals FAGS is necessary for the good.

Statistically 10% (on the low end) of our society is homosexual. 5K people on the ship, means 500 were offended from a homosexual standpoint.

Now, add in the female crew, and he probably hit 10% more.

Hit the religious with the masturbation, and another 10%.

SO add it up together. 30% of 5K, means at least 1500 were offended by his MORALE BOOSTING VIDEO!

Mongo,

You are on my ignore list and the only way I see your posts is when people cut and paste them.

To say,

I would never make such comments to a friend but would readily participate in a skit if I thought the message portrayed was necessary and good.

States a lot.

The avg person would NEVER say or do anything that they would be uncomfortable saying or doing in front of friends.

That post stated to others this:

I would perform the skit, BUT I would never tell my friends I did it! Is that what you were trying to imply to everyone here? Are you implying that as an Officer you can play it both ways?

OBTW, I hope when you posted

So it is fine to compromise your integrity as a bigoted homophobe among coworkers and fellow aircrew

That you were not calling Bullet a bigoted homophobe.


IMPO,

Anyone is for the repeal of DADT and placing women in combat should be up in arms over the antics of this officer.

 

[Bullet]

So it is fine to compromise your integrity as a bigoted homophobe among coworkers and fellow aircrew but not okay to participate in a harmless skit where everyone knows you are acting?

I am just the opposite. I would never make such comments to a friend but would readily participate in a skit if I thought the message portrayed was necessary and good.

Well, since my integrity has been questioned, I will respond one last time...

Bigoted homophobe jokes? Nope, almost exclusively just deragotory name calling like "Hey, numb-n@ts" and "Yo, sh^t-for-brains", making fun of their ring-knocking obsessions and thier fascination with a future airline career, and the occasional "pull my finger" jokes. Nothing too bad, but still I wouldn't want my mom wathcing me do it, therefore I kept it private.

A shame this XO felt it was OK to take an even worse level of humor and make it available for all to see, and even worse made it SOP for that Carrier.

An even bigger shame you feel an even worse level of low-brow deragotory humor is "necessary and good" for the crew. I KNOW this XO was lacking in judgment-- your statements in support are reaching the same level of poor judgment as well.

 

[Mongo]

Well, since my integrity has been questioned, I will respond one last time...

Bigoted homophobe jokes? Nope, almost exclusively just deragotory name calling like "Hey, numb-n@ts" and "Yo, sh^t-for-brains", making fun of their ring-knocking obsessions and thier fascination with a future airline career, and the occasional "pull my finger" jokes.

The question was rhetorical, of course. I thought we were discussing the term 'fag' which some seem to feel is entirely derogatory, bigoted, and homophobic and should never be used. I didn't realize we were discussing "numb-n@ts" and "Yo, sh^t-for-brains", which I would never consider bigoted. Something along the lines of "Hey fag, pull the damn chocks" over the ICS to a copilot. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

If there is still any doubt, in the above example, substitute the "n" word for fag and tell me what it says both about the individual who makes the comment and his perception of the person to whom he is addressing.

 

[Luigi59]

You know very well that in a setting such as this, the term 'fag' is used more as a light-hearted reference to masculinity than to sexual orientation. Don't pretend to be so naive and offended.

So as a BGO, when your candidates bring up in their interview that they would rather go Navy Air than be a "SWO fag" do they get extra points for using it in a light-heated reference?

 

[bruno]

ok folks let's all come down- take a deep breath and stop directing posts at each other. If you can't make a post without impugning the integrity of one of the other members then DO NOT POST. It's news- but that doesn't mean that anything goes in how it is discussed. This thread will be discontinued if you can't keep from insulting each other.

 

[Christcorp]

Bruno; I understand where you're coming from, but this is a Catch-22. Yes, the entire thread is based on a "News Article". However, responses are based on personal opinion. If an individual pronounces that they don't find the particular accusations in the "News Article" as offensive, and states why s/he doesn't find it offensive, natural responses will be to the "offensive vs non-offensive" positions. In other words; unless 100% of the posters agreed one way or the other with the accusations, there's no way to not comment on poster's comments and stay with just the news article.

Basically; because the news article itself is being disagreed on, some latitude must be given on debating personal opinions. It must be. If not, then the thread might as well be closed. There should be threads designed to simply post "News Articles" with no option of giving opinions. But as long as we're allowed to give an opinion on a news article, we must be allowed to reply to the opinions. Mongo should have every right to give his opinion that what the XO (at the time) did was perfectly alright. And others should be allowed to disagree with that position. Bottom line is, there's no way to only comment on the "News Article", unless everyone of us happens to agree with it. I think this is one of those times where a little more latitude should be given. "Assuming we stay respectful of other's right to their opinion". mike....

 

[bruno]

I don't have a problem debating the validity of each other's opinions- I do have a problem with insulting each other. This needs to stay respectful and not immediately turn into a food fight.