Another career bites the dust due to stupidity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey you guys...and you know who you are...go outside and get some fresh air.
Enough already.:eek:
 
Mongo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Maximus said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
I know I said I was done here, but I had a thought and wanted to share. I think it might add something to the discussion.

Anyway-

Is anyone else reminded of Gen. Patton and the famous slapping incident in Sicily in 1943?

The scenario, for those unfamiliar: Patton strikes a Private who is suffering from what we would now call PTSD (who later was found to also have malaria), and he does it in a hospital full of his subordinates. He calls the soldier a "gutless coward" (or something like it), and orders the trooper to leave the hospital. The situation was depicted in the 1970 Oscar-winning biopic of Gen. Patton.

The fallout: the media in the States got wind of the incident, and people were calling for Patton's head on a plate. There was a lot of anger at him, and many wanted him relieved from command. What happened?
General Eisenhower was rightfully furious at him, and reprimanded him harshly. He made Patton apologize to the GI. However, in Ike's eyes, Patton was too valuable of a leader to be forced out of the service.

The rest is history: Patton gets a fourth star and was instrumental in the relief of Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge, and he remains an icon of American military history. (aside-Patton wasn't in command of the D-Day landings, because they used him as a decoy due to the fear he inspired in the German military. It was a great deception)

This was over 65 years ago and then, as now, we were at war. Patton's behavior was about 100 times more egregious than that of Capt. Honors, and a reprimand and apology were appropriate for him. The incident did not derail Gen. Patton's career, although it did provide some humility for him, and he eventually was promoted.

I can't help but think that Patton wouldn't have made it past O-3 in the modern military, and the slapping incident probably would have landed him in Leavenworth. Maybe that is the right call, although I doubt it. I do know that the soldier who was slapped later said that he felt Gen. Patton was, like all of his men, "under a lot of stress," and that he considered him a "great General." He was satisfied with the apology he received.

I can hear the comments that "times have changed," and to that I don't necessarily disagree. I'm not sure the horrors of war change, though, just the methods by which they are levied. The military's mission is, and always has been, to make war. That requires leaders who are the most capable and who can get the most from their guys. I don't see an over-attention to political correctness as a trait that is valuable in such a leader. Frankly, if Patton is an example, I just don't buy it that a minor episode of "poor judgment" is enough to make someone an ineffective military leader (depending on the scale of the mistake). Thus, to me anyway, if we are to categorize Honors as having made a mistake (which I am not ready to concede), it is on the scale of a fart at the opera. It might stink for a bit around a couple of people, so you should probably say you're sorry. Then, sit back and enjoy the show.

He was eventually ordered to stop making videos, and he did. Probably, given that there were some complaints, he should have been made to apologize at a time in temporal proximity to the incident. That should have been the end of it. Then, he should have gone out and commanded Big E on her deployment.
 
Last edited:
Mongo,
I concede your point in the statement "The responsibility of the Commanding Officer for his or her command is absolute". I absolutely agree with you on this. I also firmly believe the XO stepped over the line.

Now let's look at the example provided by Sprog regarding General Patton. Patton stepped over the line and the press demanded his head. Yet at the time Eisenhower felt he could not lose his best general.

What is the difference here? Eisenhower punished Patton and ensured that that punishment was made public and also ensured that Patton made a public apology. Case closed. The war went on and Patton received another star.

I think we can all agree that Captain Honors stepped over the line by not cutting back after receiving complaints. But there is where the parallel ends. If the CO punished the XO, it doesn't appear to be on paper anywhere; and I don't believe the XO was made to publicly apologize to the crew members he offended. Even in the video that he states is "his last XO movie night", he tells people who may be offended to not watch.

Maybe Captain Honors is well loved by his sailors and a warrior on a level akin to Patton, but the CO (now RDML Rice) of the Enterprise was not Eisenhower. Because if RDML Rice had punished Captain Honors in a more formal manner, then the only thing the media could complain about at this time is why the punishment wasn't more severe. So instead of the focus being entirely on RDML Rice we now have the current media circus and the Enterprise deploys with a new CO.

Mongo I will not admit that Captain Honors was blameless and that his actions did not offend some of his crew and create a hostile work environment. 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.
 
Mongo said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if you didn't fully understand the ramifications of a policy that you supported. Yes I realize you calculate each word here and it's hard to nail you down on a quotabel statement but there have been a few:





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.
Click to expand...

You can't say something like that [above] and then be mad that a senior Naval Officer, that should have know better, gets fired for being a sexist homophobe.


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?
Click to expand...

Truman? Please stay on topic, blacks are a race, women and sexual orientation are not, there is a huge difference.

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.
Click to expand...


Saying that it was OK to call homosexuals in the military disparaging names waaaaaaaaay back in 2007, is not true.

Again, you reap what you sow.
 
Navy1981 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Maximus said:
I'm sorry if you didn't fully understand the ramifications of a policy that you supported.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Mongo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right, Captain Honors is a casualty of the backside, the Military didn't just "Outlaw": homophobic speech, fraternization and [possibly] dereliction of duty last week.

Different causes can cause the same ramifications. And undesirable ramifications must be measured against the overall worth of the policy change.
Click to expand...

Platitudes such as this are what cause ramifications. Again, you can't have it both ways. A wise person, using common sense, can see the unintentional or undesirable ramifications and possibly open something up for debate, again. Not just charge ahead with the political correctness tide on his side.

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.
Click to expand...

Back in the day, people had "social conscience", at least the people I dealt with :confused:

Now for the gray area of the DADT era. We have different opinions.
Click to expand...

DADT is clear, it's in the American society where it's gray, not the Military.

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.
Click to expand...

The only incomplete evidence is: Captain Honors' superior officers word. I'm sure mums the word with him because, whether or not he's retired, his reputation is at stake. Rice doesn't look like the kind of man that wants his reputation tarnished. As far as Honors? What more do!!!!!! you need?


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?
Click to expand...

Wow....

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.
Click to expand...

Could you please clarify the word honor you wrote above? Do you mean Honors?

If so, maybe some female JO, one on the ship at the time, was crushed by Honors and his draconian system, now feels vindicated after being the butt of many jokes while she was forced to be on that: "hot" ship, full of a hormonally charged sailors (heterosexual population) you describe a few posts back? I wonder how miserable her already hard job was after Honors' policy?


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.
Click to expand...

You are mincing words again :biggrin: Please don't make this about me, it's a great discussion and many issues can be debated. You seem to take these discussions personally and you obviously comb over these details very, very closely. I think you might be a little close to the project to be objective?

For the record, I have the greatest admiration for pilots, I still take lessons to this day and had my son in flight lessons at 16 so; why would I hate Airdales? BTW, I capitalized the word out of respect :wink:
 
OK folks- ' we have kind of reached the end of the string on this Thread. Posts that are directed at each other rather than the topic pretty much indicate that we have run out of new things to say about the merits of the topic and are now about to engage in personal back and forth which is best left to PMs.
Please do not post any more on this thread unless there is actually something new that comes out about it.
 
I don't care what anyone says. I still prefer "French Toast" made with Egg Nog instead of just plain Milk.

:thumb: Hee Hee. Sorry; just had to do it. Mike....
 
Bullet said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of the 20 pages worth of material here, this is only post I found worth reading. Captain Honors made a mistake, he paid the price, end of story.
 
Finally a media type that seems to "get it". And a female from Boston:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/co...2006-07_indiscretions_didnt_merit_his_ouster/

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 to expand...
 
Apparently they can afford to discard it. And many disagree with what you cited. A number of "uniforms" talked about it in my office. Was the general themes or behavior abnormal aboard a ship (or likely in the military in general)? Nope, not at all. I would say that humor and language is fairly common place. Leaving my ship, I had to make a real effort to tone down the frequency of my f-bombs.

That said, it was inappropriate coming from the XO of a ship, simple as that.

Maybe the timing is suspect, but the material is ALL his, and he's paying for it now.

And of course...there are these opinions too...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/05/preble.honors.videos/index.html
 
Last edited:
God I hate "Egg Nog" French Toast. Like the old egg and cream whipped and dipped in the bowl and then on the pan. Sorry! Just can't stand that egg nog stuff. Have we taken this enough far afield.:biggrin:
 
Retirement of Admiral on hold......

New Update:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/01/navy-admirals-retirement-on-hold-011311w/


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.....................
Click to expand...
click the link to read the rest.
 
Can we all say Tailhook 21st Century?

Read that link even further

Navy legal officials say Spicer could be called back to active duty to face court-martial charges.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top