Here is what one thinks:http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...aks-out-in-support-of-capt-owen-honors/69017/What would they (homosexuals) think of the Honors' video?
Here is what one thinks:http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...aks-out-in-support-of-capt-owen-honors/69017/
Another interesting take on the whole thing:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...assioned-defense-of-capt-owen-p-honors/68878/
As always, in both, the comments are as or more interesting than the articles themselves.
Never once have I championed an idea because it was the political correct thing to do. Only because, in my opinion, it is best for the Navy and it's ability to do its mission the 21st century. That you continuously misinterpret my statements after multiple attempts to explain, is not my issue.It's tough the Navy has this policy ain't it?
This is what happens when you try to social engineer a highly technical and macho filled warrior world, with "feel good" policies. This is exactly what some were claiming would happen when these new "PC" policies went into effect, of which, you were a great champion of here, remember?
The Navy is by your accounts weakening (in this case the Big E, as you've clearly demonstrated here) and now we're off into uncharted territory for the future.
Again, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. You can't have it both ways.
Never once have I championed an idea because it was the political correct thing to do. Only because, in my opinion, it is best for the Navy and it's ability to do its mission the 21st century. That you continuously misinterpret my statements after multiple attempts to explain, is not my issue.
Mongo Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 940
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christcorp
I haven't commented on her motives; only her actions.
However, to deem her actions objectionable, one must examine her motives.
Don't Ask Don't Tell undercuts a long-standing honor code that has existed in the armed forces of this country for as long as there's been a military. There are numerous cases on the books where one has not told but was indeed asked. Therefore, to remain in service to their country, DADT, unlike any other policy or regulation before or since, demands that soldiers lie, a direct conflict with a code that demands otherwise, and therefore, contrary to what the policy's supporters claim, is itself damaging to unit cohesiveness. I think she, as a prospective candidate, accepted DADT at face value and did not realize the true dichotomy of her decision until she became embedded in the USMA Honor system. Bottom line, DADT as practiced in today's military and SA honor are incompatible. My opinion is that she is merely doing what she feels is an obligation to prevent other young men and women from making the same mistake that she did. I personally hope that the day after DADT is overturned, she reapplies to WP and is accepted. In the interim I certainly hope those of likewise persuasion adhere to her warnings.
And yes, we are in uncharted territory. But more importantly to this discussion, how far back do we go to purge the what has now become the sins of our fathers? When Truman integrated the services, did he purge every white soldier who had contentedly conformed to a segregated military?
Five years ago, keeping gays happy was not even on the radar. Insuring that they stayed in the closet was probably doing them a favor.
Failed to do his job based on your perception which, unless you are withholding information, is not based on any factual information whatsoever. To the best of my knowledge then Capt Rice is now retired and has not yet been interviewed. Retired, he has no career to protect. Retired, if supportive of Capt Honors, he may even sway his testimony of the incident in a favorable manner to his XO. You are basing acceptable punishment on a public apology. Is this the only acceptable atonement? Other than this we seem to be maybe not on the same sheet of music but perhaps in the same song book. Until we know the entire case from then Capt Rice's perspective, this episode is far from over.However, I do agree that Captain Honors would not now be relieved and would still be on track for that star if RDML Rice had not failed to do his job when he was CO of the Enterprise.
Political correctness could be the perceived cause for a policy change as could also be what is best for the Navy in the 21st century. Either would be on the front end of the policy change. Ramifications are on the backside. Different causes can cause the same ramifications. And undesirable ramifications must be measured against the overall worth of the policy change. Yes, what Capt Honors did would be totally unacceptable today on the eve of the implementation of the repealing of DADT. What about back in the day before DADT became a law? I would think not. Now for the gray area of the DADT era. We have different opinions. And since conclusions are being made based on incomplete evidence since we have never heard the testimony of Capt Honors immediate supervisor, I think some are prejudging. Maybe with ulterior motives. Because they hate Airedales. Because they want to watch the SNL skit making fun of the Navy over and over. Who knows?I'm sorry if you didn't fully understand the ramifications of a policy that you supported.
Political correctness could be the perceived cause for a policy change as could also be what is best for the Navy in the 21st century. Either would be on the front end of the policy change. Ramifications are on the backside.
Different causes can cause the same ramifications. And undesirable ramifications must be measured against the overall worth of the policy change.
Yes, what Capt Honors did would be totally unacceptable today on the eve of the implementation of the repealing of DADT. What about back in the day before DADT became a law? I would think not.
Now for the gray area of the DADT era. We have different opinions.
And since conclusions are being made based on incomplete evidence since we have never heard the testimony of Capt Honors immediate supervisor, I think some are prejudging.
Maybe with ulterior motives. Because they hate Airedales. Because they want to watch the SNL skit making fun of the Navy over and over. Who knows?
So far as the old quote which you dug up, if you are attempting to equate what you call boorish behavior to honor, we have a long way to go.
Since the press now runs the military, I think in my next life I will encourage my offspring and others to become homeless crackheads in Ohio. They will be treated much more positively than someone who has given over 30 years of his life in defense of YOUR country.
BTW, an Airedale is a dog. What you meant to say is that you hate airdales.
Ok folks. It seems we’ve hit that proverbial floor in a single circle dog fight: opposite sides of the circle, out of energy, neither with an advantage or weapons solution. Bottom Line: a stalemate in our arguments and points, with neither side willing to budge.
Let me attempt to bring this thread to a new vector, and provide those young men and women on these forums, the future leaders of our military, some lessons to learn from these events; focusing on what exactly this Commander did wrong, and why the Navy had no choice but to relieve him (and possibly expand the witch-hunt due to all the bad publicity it currently is dealing with):
So, what did this Commander do that was so bad? I mean, as it has been pointed out numerous times by some here, what this commander was doing was in jest and meant to boost morale for all on this ship. And let’s face it, just because we are (or were, or will be) officers in the military, it doesn’t mean we stop being humans, with all the standard human emotions, foibles, and flaws. Acting childish, playing the fool, being “one of the boys” happens all the time, even by those in the highest ranks, when we try to make each other laugh or relieve pressure; we’ve ALL been there.
But as professional officers, we should do this IN PRIVATE, either with our peers or with that small group of friends we interact with daily and can trust not to be offended by it. This Commander presented his humor IN PUBLIC, for ALL the Carrier personnel to see and enjoy (or be offended by). Nothing wrong with antics behind closed doors, but this Commander kicked those doors wide open and forced all to watch his foolishness. In this day of constant social media, constant judgment by the news, and examples of people humiliated by actions or speech caught on tape that they should have known better otherwise NOT to say publically, you need to know better. Mel Gibson ring a bell, anyone? Respected actor, director, and all around movie star now thrown to the trash heap because he got drunk and opened his mouth, and his words went viral. Same case here. Your military leadership EXPECTS you to hold a public image of professionalism at all times; this was not the case for this XO.
Was the XO’s video humorous? I’ll admit it, most of it was. Was it appropriate for a wide audience? No, it wasn’t. Let your sense of “would I want my Mom to see how I act when it’s only me and my friends” be your guide here. And that was this XO’s second mistake: his crew is NOT his friends; they are the people who look for him for leadership and judgment. Now, many of his crew and others familiar with him and “Navy ways” are rushing to his defense. But even with 99% of the people under him fully in support of his actions, what about the other 1% who found it offensive and inappropriate? Should they just “go hug themselves in a corner” as he suggests? Is this the way the Navy wants to foster inclusion and diversity? He WAS FULLY AWARE that some of his previous videos were offensive to a few, his own words prove this. But he not only ignored the complaints, he ridiculed them.
And that was his third mistake: he DID foster an environment of fear for some. For you parents out there with daughters considering a career in the Navy, would you want YOUR daughter to have to face the blatant and hostile sexism that this video displayed, where women were treated as sex objects (“and now, something we all want to see. Chicks in the shower”)? Again, some may consider it funny when they joke around with one or two guys they know won’t get offended by it. Not so funny if they perform this act in front of female crew members who may be offended (and rightfully so) by it. So, what could these femlaes who may have been offended do about it? They could complain, but it was pretty obvious to them that those complaints would not only fall on deaf ears, they would be ridiculed further. Nice work environment, huh? Full of fear that if you don’t accept “boys will be boys” you will just be treated worse.
Since Tailhook (another event where the justification that was attempted was “Well, you don’t understand. It’s just the way things are.”) the entire officer corps of the military has had it drilled into them that this type of behavior was UNACCEPTABLE for public consumption. I’ve personally seen several times where leaders failed to learn this lesson, and were shown the door because of it. Do almost anything you want in private, but take this type of behavior public, and you have no excuse for your stupidity. So, time for another lesson: watch what you say and act, to whom you say it to, and when you say it (especially if your going to RECORD it! It WILL get out to the public, and do you really want the world to see your YouTube video of the last time your friends and you were playing "boys will be boys"?)
The last lesson learned here: no one man or woman is bigger than the mission. Leaders are relived all the time, for a variety of reasons. Sure, it causes disruption. Sure, it causes loss of morale. Sure, it can be a pain as a leader to have to get your troops over this. But the mission MUST continue, and it will be YOUR job as a leader to ensure it does. No matter the environment, no matter the challenges. You get your troops to focus on the mission first, and don’t let side issues like these distract them from that. The Navy has taken the first steps to see that this occurs by immediately naming a replacement; it will be up those officers below him on the Big E to ensure it occurs.
Some good lessons overall as you prepare for careers of your own.
Yes, the video is crude. And immature. And while it would be inappropriate to air such shows in an ordinary workplace, an aircraft carrier is no ordinary workplace.
It is a place where people live and work, far from home, for months at a time in dangerous, stressful, and sometimes boring circumstances. And so the mirth of a Saturday night on an aircraft carrier cannot be compared to your typical Monday morning staff meeting.
This is not to say that the Navy should have ignored the videos.
Honors, perhaps, deserved a reprimand. (Although many rightly question why the Navy decided to punish him five years after the incidents.)
But can the Navy really afford to discard quality leaders with Honors’ level of expertise - leaders who took years and God knows how much money to train?
Must we jeopardize military readiness in a time of war, so as not to offend liberal civilian sensibilities?
click the link to read the rest.In an indication of just how seriously the Navy is taking the investigation into the racy shipboard videos aired four years ago aboard the carrier Enterprise, the scheduled Feb. 1 retirement of the ship’s captain at the time — now Rear Adm. Larry Rice — has been put on hold.
“His retirement has been deferred pending the outcome of the ongoing investigation,” Rear Adm. Denny Moynihan, chief of naval information at the Pentagon, said Thursday.
Rice, serving as director of strategy and policy for U.S. Joint Forces Command, would have brought a 31-year year career that included more than 3,700 flight hours in Navy fighter jets to a close next month. Instead, he will now report to Fleet Forces Command chief Adm. John Harvey, Moynihan said.
Harvey has launched an investigation into the production of the videos. Officials say it is focused on the actions of senior officers who at the time knew of the videos, and what they did or did not do in response.....................
Navy legal officials say Spicer could be called back to active duty to face court-martial charges.