Navy CO Trashed his Career

[04SCTLS]

We all need to try to abandon the "left wing, right wing" labels.
"Right wing" is a term that really has absolutely no meaning.

There's nothing "conservative" or libertarian about having a top heavy military. For example, there are no tea party members saying we need more admirals than ships. Supporting the military doesn't mean supporting a wasteful, self-sustaining, government bureaucracy.

Conservatives don't even want to discuss cutting defense spending, like it's unamerican or something.
If they would at least say that we have to cut defense it could be made less wasteful and more efficient.
Libertarians don't worship the military and guns the melodramatic way conservatives do.

 

[04SCTLS]

Foxy, you do know that Israel is not America, right?

It is a VERY different culture with very different political and social concerns. It is irrational to assume that anything that may work organizationally in their military (which includes mandatory military service) would work in our military or, more broadly, our culture.

The Jews know what it's like to be persecuted as a minority like gays are.

 

[Calabrio]

Conservatives don't even want to discuss cutting defense spending, like it's unamerican or something.

But does cutting spending necessarily mean addressing a brass heavy military?

Because when a regular person hears "cutting spending," it's usually involves stories about soldiers being unable to get body armor, or not being able to train with live ammo, running out of socks, or things of that nature. It's usually often also associated with military spending cuts used to help fund social program expanses.

I guarantee that you could go to ANY "pro-military" conservative, as you imagine that word, and ask them if they'd support restructure the military and making it less top heavy, they'd completely support such a decision. The savings could be used to trim the overall budget or shifted to better equip and train those on the front lines.

Do you think the Israeli army, which has allowed gay men and women to serve openly since 1993, is lacking in discipline shag? They usually are considered as one of the best fighting forces in the world.

Actually, they WERE considered one of the best small fighting forces in the world. That's not as widely a held view anymore. There's been a massive cultural and social shift in the country which, arguably, has weakened it and made it much more vulnerable.

Is the because of openly gay service members? No.
Does that have anything to do with the U.S. service or culture? No. It's really not relevant. The culture is quite different.

Do you think that this video reflects well on our Navy Cal? It doesn't, and the officer, an XO Cal, not some enlisted guy, should be held responsible for his lack of judgment.

I don't have to endorse the guys decision to make the series of videos to condemn the nature of the attacks on him. I think I've been pretty clear on that point.

- you better believe political correctness comes into play.

But it didn't.
Until the civilian media picked up on it. Until then, it was just harmless and stupid. Whether it was dignified, he was a respected officer and was in the process of being promoted. We can discuss managerial styles, but this wasn't a secret video in the military, and the guy was respected.

So the entire "outrage" seems disingenuous to me.

he should have been beyond college hi-jinks.

Be specific.
What was so horrible in the video that warrants ending his career.
And if it was so horrible, why wasn't it an outrage after the first video, not years after the last.

So, are you going after Rice - i believe he was in command of the Enterprise when this happened?

I'm not going after anyone.

So, if every officer knows that everything you do is public, why are you giving Honor slack? He should have known better - he should have used better judgment. He didn't.

I'm not giving him "slack," I'm using common sense.
It appears that he made some goofy videos presenting "movie night" with the intention of boosting moral and having a laugh.

The entire thing is being presented as "disgusting, homophobic, vile" rather than just sophomoric.

I have no idea. It should have been an issue since 2007 when Honor made the videos. The really appalling part is that it wasn't.

Appalling?
These videos are "appalling."
That's a very powerful word. Why?

I actually think it was about 6:1 at the end of WWII, if you go by anything from a destroyer escort up... and if you take out the escorts it would be about 4:1

I took that figure from the opening paragraph in the article from the Navy Times, where's you're 6:1 number from.

However you are correct, the entire military is top heavy - but people will consider you un-American if you want to cut the military Cal. Well, they won't think you are un-American, only I would be considered un-American for statingthe exact same thing...

I addressed this earlier in the post, but NO ONE thinks trimming and reorganizing the top heavy brass is "un-American." In fact, I know of no one that would take issue with such a thing. I've never heard anyone, even the most simple "right winger" say, "We need to spend more money on Generals and officers clubs, you commie!!" At worst, there's some defensiveness because the anti-military contingents traditionally cut funding, without addressing that bureaucracy, and it's the infantry and front line guys who feel the pain.

I posted the article from the late Col. Hackworth, he was hardly a liberal critic.

 

[04SCTLS]

Eisenhour warned us about the Military Industrial Complex.
Many of these hugely expensive weapons systems are too exotic, ineffective in practice and not cost effective.
Instead of thousands of large capital weapons we get hundreds or less.
That's different than supplies for soldiers.
Top heavy brass sounds like typical government management.
A lot of military is for local makework in political districts.
Like a sort of welfare for the local economy.
That's why weapons systems are spread out to the states.
If something is made in most of the states it's very difficult to kill it if it turns out to be not worthwhile.

 

[shagdrum]

The Jews know what it's like to be persecuted as a minority like gays are.

???

Is this supposed to be some profound point because it comes across as sophistry.

 

[04SCTLS]

???

Is this supposed to be some profound point because it comes across as sophistry.

I look at and see things in ways you do not think of.
Maybe it's just a clever coincidental comparison.
DADT is dead so we shall soon see how it goes.

 

[Calabrio]

Top heavy brass sounds like typical government management.
A lot of military is for local makework in political districts.
Like a sort of welfare for the local economy.
That's why weapons systems are spread out to the states.
If something is made in most of the states it's very difficult to kill it if it turns out to be not worthwhile.

No argument with you there.

 

[foxpaws]

I don't have to endorse the guys decision to make the series of videos to condemn the nature of the attacks on him. I think I've been pretty clear on that point.

Do you think that Honor displayed good judgment when he made those videos Cal - yes or no.

Until the civilian media picked up on it. Until then, it was just harmless and stupid. Whether it was dignified, he was a respected officer and was in the process of being promoted. We can discuss managerial styles, but this wasn't a secret video in the military, and the guy was respected.

So the entire "outrage" seems disingenuous to me.

It was harmless and stupid according to whom? His superiors? And should an XO who displayed such obviously poor judgment be promoted? Maybe that is why it was released - there were probably people who thought that Honor shouldn't be promoted because he certainly hadn't shown good judgment, he didn't display the qualities many think that a CO should have.

Be specific.
What was so horrible in the video that warrants ending his career.
And if it was so horrible, why wasn't it an outrage after the first video, not years after the last.

Once again - I have no idea of why this hadn't been brought forward earlier. And again, Honor's poor judgment, his apparent lack of understanding what it takes to be a good CO (respect, setting an example), that is what this is really about. Is this a man we want to represent us on one of the jewels of the US Navy? This man will be meeting with dignitaries, state officials, etc.

I'm not going after anyone.

You said...

someone should have taken him aside and told him to cut it out.​

So, should that 'someone' be held responsible - that would have been Rice, his CO. Apparently Honor isn't responsible for his own actions - we need to look higher up.

I'm not giving him "slack," I'm using common sense.
It appears that he made some goofy videos presenting "movie night" with the intention of boosting moral and having a laugh.

The entire thing is being presented as "disgusting, homophobic, vile" rather than just sophomoric.

The press maybe presenting it as that - but I am not - The thing I have been questioning is judgment and lack of understanding of what it really means to be an officer of the line.

Appalling?
These videos are "appalling."
That's a very powerful word. Why?

Read better Cal -

It should have been an issue since 2007 when Honor made the videos. The really appalling part is that it wasn't.​

The fact that this has been languishing for 3 years is what is appalling, not the videos. The really appalling part is that it wasn't an issue... nothing about the videos Cal.

I took that figure from the opening paragraph in the article from the Navy Times, where's you're 6:1 number from

.

When you take how many larger ships are in the Navy today (destroyers and larger, and subs) - and compare them to the number of larger ships that were in the Navy at the end of WWII.

We don't use a lot of the ships that were still in commission at the end of WWII. They are obsolete, like the 500 PT boats for instance. I was going by destroyer up - to get the 4 to 1 ratio, or if you need to destroyer escorts - to get the 6 to 1 ratio. Your Navy Times author used a number posted at wiki - 289 "ships" on line - which doesn't take into account all of the smaller boats - such as cyclone class patrol boats, munition ships, supply ships, tenders, etc. However his 'big' ratio - the 130 to 1, does include the smaller"boats" in the fleet. We didn't have 28,000 "ships" at the end of WWII. We may have had a combination of 28,000 "ships" and "boats" then. He isn't comparing apples to apples.

I addressed this earlier in the post, but NO ONE thinks trimming and reorganizing the top heavy brass is "un-American." In fact, I know of no one that would take issue with such a thing. I've never heard anyone, even the most simple "right winger" say, "We need to spend more money on Generals and officers clubs, you commie!!" At worst, there's some defensiveness because the anti-military contingents traditionally cut funding, without addressing that bureaucracy, and it's the infantry and front line guys who feel the pain.

So, lets watch the first new Tea Party backed representative or senator suggest cutting the military, starting with the brass.

 

[foxpaws]

Foxy, you do know that Israel is not America, right?

It is a VERY different culture with very different political and social concerns. It is irrational to assume that anything that may work organizationally in their military (which includes mandatory military service) would work in our military or, more broadly, our culture.

You really need to explain to me why DADT didn't destroy the Israeli Army, however it will ruin the American military system.

 

[Calabrio]

Do you think that Honor displayed good judgment when he made those videos Cal - yes or no.

I don't see it as a judgment issue, certainly not one of consequence.
Is telling a classic ethnic jokes in a crowded room the same kind of bad judgment as leading making some kind of catastrophic strategic judgment that costs the lives of seamen?

What about it is bad judgment?
Is it the "offensive" humor or the fact that he's marginalizing he's authority as XO?

The other question is, when did it become considered professionally bad judgment? Was it judgment warranting ending his career BEFORE the media ran with the story?

I don't know the full story, but it appears the videos were an introduction to the film shown on the ship for "XO movie night." I don't know how large the audience was or how well they were received. Clearly, Honor thinks he's funnier than he is, but inside humor like that usually doesn't play well with people like you or I who aren't familiar with the people or sharing the experience. But a lot of people presumably saw the videos YEARS ago and there was no problem.

I tend to speculate that the video was leaked by a competing officer, someone with a personal grudge, and/or a journalist with some contempt for military culture.

It was harmless and stupid according to whom? His superiors? And should an XO who displayed such obviously poor judgment be promoted

Those aren't questions for me to answer, merely speculate. Based on the actions of the military, it would seem that those answers were answered prior to the media story.
Are you arguing that the videos were not harmless and stupid? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Maybe that is why it was released - there were probably people who thought that Honor shouldn't be promoted because he certainly hadn't shown good judgment, he didn't display the qualities many think that a CO should have.

Maybe.

Once again - I have no idea of why this hadn't been brought forward earlier. And again, Honor's poor judgment, his apparent lack of understanding what it takes to be a good CO (respect, setting an example), that is what this is really about.

But I don't think this is what it is about, that's certainly not how I've seen it presented in the media. You keep reframing this as a leadership issue, essentially one of managerial styles. However, that isn't the tone of the story I've heard presented by the media. The focus is on the "offensiveness" of the material, not the arguably questionable leadership style of the man.

Furthermore, while you and I can speculate about how poorly this video reflects on his leadership style, are we right? Was there a breakdown in leadership or respect for the man in reality? Or, by chance, did this actually work as a way of improving moral and strengthening the relationship of the man with his crew? I don't know.

But until the media focused on the story, they thought enough of him to promote him, DESPITE the videos everyone apparently knew about.

Is this a man we want to represent us on one of the jewels of the US Navy? This man will be meeting with dignitaries, state officials, etc.

...a bit ironic coming from a woman who continues to support Bill Clinton.

So, should that 'someone' be held responsible - that would have been Rice, his CO. Apparently Honor isn't responsible for his own actions - we need to look higher up.

I don't think this story or these videos warrant a witch hunt or the kind of attention they are getting.

The press maybe presenting it as that - but I am not - The thing I have been questioning is judgment and lack of understanding of what it really means to be an officer of the line.

which may explain why we may well be talking past each other.

Read better Cal ..... The really appalling part is that it wasn't an issue... nothing about the videos Cal.

I understood what you said.
If it's appalling that nothing was done about it, it's reasonable to conclude that the videos are so shocking, so serious that they are "appalling" themselves. It wouldn't be "appalling' if nothing was done about something merely sophomoric.

And, I just discovered that something WAS done about it at the time- and the videos ceased.
However, despite everyone having known about it, everyone was still promoted in time. It just wasn't that big of a deal, UNTIL the media spun it.

He isn't comparing apples to apples.

Thanks for pointing that out then.

So, lets watch the first new Tea Party backed representative or senator suggest cutting the military, starting with the brass.

Funny you should mention that, when I was looking for the Navy figures and the old Hackworth article, I came across this MediaMatters link:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201009210004

If you must, skip right to 1:30.

 

[Calabrio]

To shift the focus back onto the media and not Foxpaws quarterly professional evaluation, here are some headlines I just found on Google:


Navy Investigating Lewd, Homophobic Videos by Commander of Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier

Navy Aircraft Carrier Commander Produced Raunchy Homophobic Videos For “Movie Night”

Will The Navy's Capt. Owen Honors Be Ousted For His Homophobic Anal Probe Videos?

 

[foxpaws]

I don't see it as a judgment issue, certainly not one of consequence.
Is telling a classic ethnic jokes in a crowded room the same kind of bad judgment as leading making some kind of catastrophic strategic judgment that costs the lives of seamen?

What about it is bad judgment?
Is it the "offensive" humor or the fact that he's marginalizing he's authority as XO?

The other question is, when did it become considered professionally bad judgment? Was it judgment warranting ending his career BEFORE the media ran with the story?

The fact that this XO thought he should spend a lot of time and government resources (he also used enlisted men for video production and camera work) making these videos. The fact that he should be garnering respect and not hoping that the men will 'like' him. The fact that he should be leading by example. All of those show poor judgment and indicate that this man may need to be looked at closely before advancement.

I don't know the full story, but it appears the videos were an introduction to the film shown on the ship for "XO movie night." I don't know how large the audience was or how well they were received. Clearly, Honor thinks he's funnier than he is, but inside humor like that usually doesn't play well with people like you or I who aren't familiar with the people or sharing the experience. But a lot of people presumably saw the videos YEARS ago and there was no problem.

There were problems - he states very clearly that people were complaining and that they were being chicken by not confronting Honors regarding their dislike of the videos. Perhaps he hasn't heard of 'chain of command'. If you don't like something you complain to your immediate superior - not the XO. That is how it works in the military - perhaps another check in his 'doesn't quite get it' when it comes to being an officer list.

I tend to speculate that the video was leaked by a competing officer, someone with a personal grudge, and/or a journalist with some contempt for military culture.

I imagine it might have been leaked by someone who thought that he shouldn't be taking command of the Enterprise. Probably someone who had seen the videos and was concerned that this man wasn't really the type of officer we want in command.

Those aren't questions for me to answer, merely speculate. Based on the actions of the military, it would seem that those answers were answered prior to the media story.
Are you arguing that the videos were not harmless and stupid? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

The videos themselves are harmless and stupid - the decision to make them was bad, and reflected poor judgment. This isn't something the XO of the Enterprise should be doing. And doing repeatedly - there are quite a few of these I guess.

But I don't think this is what it is about, that's certainly not how I've seen it presented in the media. You keep reframing this as a leadership issue, essentially one of managerial styles. However, that isn't the tone of the story I've heard presented by the media. The focus is on the "offensiveness" of the material, not the arguably questionable leadership style of the man.

Furthermore, while you and I can speculate about how poorly this video reflects on his leadership style, are we right? Was there a breakdown in leadership or respect for the man in reality? Or, by chance, did this actually work as a way of improving moral and strengthening the relationship of the man with his crew? I don't know.

But until the media focused on the story, they thought enough of him to promote him, DESPITE the videos everyone apparently knew about.

So, his superiors were making a bad decision as well - the media is suppose to bring forth stuff like this - the Navy then is held accountable, along with Honors. I don't like the homophobic/hateful spin that the media is putting on this - but, I also think that stuff like this should come out. Once again, I question Honors' judgment.

...a bit ironic coming from a woman who continues to support Bill Clinton.

Bill is now a celebrity - and usually doesn't represent the US in any official capacity. You might not like him Cal - but most of the rest of the world does. They love a celebrity - and Bill has risen above mere 'ex-President' to a personality in his own right.

I don't think this story or these videos warrant a witch hunt or the kind of attention they are getting.

I think it is timing more than anything - DADT just was repealed - the continued need for the military to be 'politically correct' in the eyes of the populace.

I understood what you said.
If it's appalling that nothing was done about it, it's reasonable to conclude that the videos are so shocking, so serious that they are "appalling" themselves. It wouldn't be "appalling' if nothing was done about something merely sophomoric.

Should an officer of the line and the XO of the Enterprise be making these videos - that is what is wrong - and what is wrong is that this wasn't taken care of 3 years ago. He gets taken off the command track and ends up in a desk job, where he belongs. He shouldn't be leading men and women - the content of the video, certainly shows that very well. He was making these as XO, not as a personal sort of thing. He thought professionally this was the right thing to do? Bad judgment Cal

And, I just discovered that something WAS done about it at the time- and the videos ceased.
However, despite everyone having known about it, everyone was still promoted in time. It just wasn't that big of a deal, UNTIL the media spun it.

So, things will change - I think for the wrong reason - not for the content of the videos, but they will change. I believe Honors isn't a good choice to command the Enterprise, he won't be.

Thanks for pointing that out then.

You had to understand Cal that there are more than 280 ships in the Navy - been to San Diego when the fleet is in? It is an amazing sight.

Funny you should mention that, when I was looking for the Navy figures and the old Hackworth article, I came across this MediaMatters link:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201009210004

If you must, skip right to 1:30.

So, when was Beck elected to be a representative or senator? Pundits may be calling for the reduction of the top of the military - but when do you think the tea party backed 'new' Republicans will? I noticed Beck must have read the same article that you linked to earlier - the whole 'more admirals than ships' line...

 

[SoonerLS]

The fact that he should be garnering respect and not hoping that the men will 'like' him. The fact that he should be leading by example.

How do you know he wasn't garnering respect or leading by example? Part of his duties as XO were to deal with morale issues, which appears to be what he was doing. The reports I've read and seen indicate that the sailors on the Enterprise did respect him, and many noted that he knew when it was time to work and when it was time to relax.

All of those show poor judgment and indicate that this man may need to be looked at closely before advancement.

You're assuming that it was not "looked at closely" before he took command. Again, the reports indicate that the Navy was well aware of the videos; obviously, they didn't think it was an indictment of his judgment, because they didn't take action on it until they felt the need to throw him under the bus. The Navy cutting and running like that is the most appalling thing about this whole affair, IMHO.

There were problems - he states very clearly that people were complaining and that they were being chicken by not confronting Honors regarding their dislike of the videos. Perhaps he hasn't heard of 'chain of command'.

Perhaps you haven't heard of "sarcasm" or "satire." I didn't see a single thing in that video that looked like it was supposed to be taken seriously (or to be offensive, for that matter).

I imagine it might have been leaked by someone who thought that he shouldn't be taking command of the Enterprise.

More likely, by someone who had an axe to grind. I don't think it's at all a coincidence that this (re)surfaced in the wake of the repeal of DADT.

The videos themselves are harmless and stupid - the decision to make them was bad, and reflected poor judgment. This isn't something the XO of the Enterprise should be doing. And doing repeatedly - there are quite a few of these I guess.
...
So, things will change - I think for the wrong reason - not for the content of the videos, but they will change. I believe Honors isn't a good choice to command the Enterprise, he won't be.

And you base that judgment of his capabilities as a commander on what, a few minutes of video? Were you on the Enterprise? Do you know what the situation was when he made those videos? What about the other 25+ years of his career? Can you not concede that they might have done exactly what they were intended to do (ie, boost morale)?

More importantly, what were the XO movie night videos like on other ships?

but when do you think the tea party backed 'new' Republicans will?

Ask Ron Paul if we should cut the military. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Rand Paul didn't feel the same way.

 

[shagdrum]

You really need to explain to me why DADT didn't destroy the Israeli Army, however it will ruin the American military system.

Not so much.

As I said, Israel is a different culture. You are misleading by intentionally framing the debate to compare apples to oranges.

 

[shagdrum]

I look at and see things in ways you do not think of.
Maybe it's just a clever coincidental comparison.

...or it is a point I have heard countless times before in various contexts and recognized it long ago as, at best, absurd and at worst, a means of moralizing that serves to circumvent critical examination.

It is essentially the old argument that you cannot judge someone unless you have had the same experiences. There is nothing "new" or "clever" about it.

Cleverness does not belong in any critical examination. In discussions like these cleverness can only be self-serving and avoids attempts to seek the truth. It is more a means of superficially setting yourself apart and of deceiving.

 

[04SCTLS]

...or it is a point I have heard countless times before in various contexts and recognized it long ago as, at best, absurd and at worst, a means of moralizing that serves to circumvent critical examination.

It is essentially the old argument that you cannot judge someone unless you have had the same experiences. There is nothing "new" or "clever" about it.

Cleverness does not belong in any critical examination. In discussions like these cleverness can only be self-serving and avoids attempts to seek the truth. It is more a means of superficially setting yourself apart and of deceiving.

You can make of this what you want.
I wasn't saying anything about walking in a man's shoes.
I was just drawing an analogy of Jews being more tolerant of homosexuals
because they faced a similar irrational discrimination unlike say a typical straight white american.
You said their culture was different and I was just backing you up bro
with my own take.

 

[foxpaws]

How do you know he wasn't garnering respect or leading by example? Part of his duties as XO were to deal with morale issues, which appears to be what he was doing. The reports I've read and seen indicate that the sailors on the Enterprise did respect him, and many noted that he knew when it was time to work and when it was time to relax.

So, using his time, and the ship's resources (including additional personal) to make these videos is a good example? The items I have read said that people did complain, and he didn't take those complaints seriously.

And would you respect the man in those videos? I know many officers, and I respect most of them, that man I would not.

You're assuming that it was not "looked at closely" before he took command. Again, the reports indicate that the Navy was well aware of the videos; obviously, they didn't think it was an indictment of his judgment, because they didn't take action on it until they felt the need to throw him under the bus. The Navy cutting and running like that is the most appalling thing about this whole affair, IMHO.

I think the Navy needs to know that behavior like this isn't acceptable. Did Honors really think that stuff he put on video wouldn't get out? That is really bad judgment - what you do on video will last forever. Maybe the entirety of the Navy can learn from this case of bad judgment.

Perhaps you haven't heard of "sarcasm" or "satire." I didn't see a single thing in that video that looked like it was supposed to be taken seriously (or to be offensive, for that matter).

As I said - I didn't find the video offensive personally, stupid, but not offensive. It looks like something college kids would do. What I felt was bad is that an officer of the US Navy did this, and not just any officer - an XO.

More likely, by someone who had an axe to grind. I don't think it's at all a coincidence that this (re)surfaced in the wake of the repeal of DADT.

Good - if it took a repeal of DADT to get this out in the open - good.

And you base that judgment of his capabilities as a commander on what, a few minutes of video? Were you on the Enterprise? Do you know what the situation was when he made those videos? What about the other 25+ years of his career? Can you not concede that they might have done exactly what they were intended to do (ie, boost morale)?

Is making fun of homosexuals a good way to boost morale? Is putting it on video tape for all of eternity good judgment? I don't care about his 25 year career, this was a terrible decision on his part - and it certainly shows that his leadership style is perhaps 'wrong' for today's Navy. Honors is a throwback to the Navy of 50 years ago. Today's officers are different, they are leading men and women of a different 'generation'. They need to be aware of the changing ideas and vision of society. I also base my opinion on the comments (see previous post) of my ex (USN Captain) and other line officers. Men who have held the same or similar positions. Everyone who wears the uniform, but especially officers, have a responsibility to uphold the very highest standards. Is this the type of man we want to be mentoring our troops? Do these videos show 'the very highest standards'? Have any officers come out in defense of Honors? Not crew - but other similarly ranking officers? I haven't seen any - but I could have missed something.

 

[foxpaws]

Not so much.

As I said, Israel is a different culture. You are misleading by intentionally framing the debate to compare apples to oranges.

So, by 'culture' what do you mean shag? That the Jewish cultural is more 'tolerant' of homosexuals serving in the military than our 'Christian' culture?

I would like a better definition of how you are separating the different cultures. Old Testament is more accepting than New Testament?

 

[Calabrio]

All of those show poor judgment and indicate that this man may need to be looked at closely before advancement.

Again, the issue being pounded by the media is not one related to managerial styles but homophobia and intolerance.

There were problems -

Now you're just spinning. Yes, in the video he makes a joke about people "complaining" about the videos to other people. Not issuing formal complaints. And, eventually, he was told to stop making that style of little movie.

But that's not the kind of "problem" we're talking about here. There was no punishment, there was no serious consequence. Apparently, he was just told to stop, and he did. Years ago.

The videos themselves are harmless and stupid -

Perhaps.

the media is suppose to bring forth stuff like this -

Is is the job of the media to find stories that are at least 3 years old, take them out of context, and then frame them in offensive and homophobic-baiting terms? Is that the job of the media? Really?

Is it the job of the media to supervise and regulate Navy culture and humor?

Best I can tell, the original woman who ran the story in Virginia covers military issues as her beat. I understand why she covered the story when it was presented to her. However, she's gotten quite a bit of attention out of the deal and the rest of the media has turned this into a gay-rights issue while crucifying this man in the process.

Bill is now a celebrity -

President Clinton was representing the company despite credible accusations of rape, sexual assault, and sexual activity with a intern. All the while this was known, he was representing this country overseas.

You made a point to say take issue with a man making goofy videos "represent us on one of the jewels of the US Navy." And taking issue with how "this man will be meeting with dignitaries, state officials, etc." yet you didn't mind a convicted perjurer and sexual deviant representing the entire nation as president.

That seems terribly inconsistent, doesn't it?

Should an officer of the line and the XO of the Enterprise be making these videos - that is what is wrong - and what is wrong is that this wasn't taken care of 3 years ago.

What is your issue?
Are you disagreeing with his management style or are you offended by the material. You seem to switch your emphasis back and forth based upon convenience and how it serves the perception your trying to create.

I would question that managerial judgment of his actions, but I do not have the experience of knowledge to conclusively say if it was effective or not. Nor do you. What was he trying to accomplish with the introductions? Did it work? How was morale? He apparently was respected based upon his career path following the movies.

And I don't find the material to be offensive at all.

He thought professionally this was the right thing to do? Bad judgment Cal

Would it have been bad judgment had he not appeared in the introductions?
Again, be clear, is your issue the content OR the perception of his leadership?

I believe Honors isn't a good choice to command the Enterprise, he won't be.

However, others felt differently until they felt political pressure and a sensational media.

So, when was Beck elected to be a representative or senator?

Obviously he's not an elected representative, but that doesn't represent "tea party" recognition of some wasteful organizational problems with the military being discussed openly.

I noticed Beck must have read the same article that you linked to earlier - the whole 'more admirals than ships' line...

The Hackworth article is over 10 years old and widely known.

 

[shagdrum]

So, by 'culture' what do you mean shag? That the Jewish cultural is more 'tolerant' of homosexuals serving in the military than our 'Christian' culture?

Does America have mandatory military service?

Is America under the same degree of pressure to have a military ready to defend itself that Israel does?

Does Israel have a politically aggressive gay agenda aimed at breaking down traditional social bonds and the institutions that nurture them by any means necessary?

There are countless ways that the cultures are different. These simply happen to be some of the more prescient ones.

 

[shagdrum]

I was just drawing an analogy of Jews being more tolerant of homosexuals
because they faced a similar irrational discrimination unlike say a typical straight white American.
You said their culture was different and I was just backing you up bro
with my own take.

To grasp what I am saying, you need to get beyond the focus of homosexuals simply as victims. The reality is far more complex then that.

The whole oppressors/victims dynamic needs to be discarded for the overly simplistic, unrealistic and misleading notion that it is.

 

[shagdrum]

Answer me this; how would you explain the recent child abuse scandals in the Catholic church? Beyond all the finger pointing of who should have done what in regards to ending it, how did that phenomenon arise in the first place?

 

[foxpaws]

Again, the issue being pounded by the media is not one related to managerial styles but homophobia and intolerance.

However, once again - that isn't my stand. He trashed his career - by showing poor judgment.

Now you're just spinning. Yes, in the video he makes a joke about people "complaining" about the videos to other people. Not issuing formal complaints. And, eventually, he was told to stop making that style of little movie.

But that's not the kind of "problem" we're talking about here. There was no punishment, there was no serious consequence. Apparently, he was just told to stop, and he did. Years ago.

And more should have happened - that is what this should be about - the Navy's lack of response when an officer of the line did something like this. This is not just the Honors' story - this is a story of how the Navy responds to things like this - like Tailhook. They need to learn - and if being exposed in the media works - then so be it.

Is is the job of the media to find stories that are at least 3 years old, take them out of context, and then frame them in offensive and homophobic-baiting terms? Is that the job of the media? Really?

Is it the job of the media to supervise and regulate Navy culture and humor?

Best I can tell, the original woman who ran the story in Virginia covers military issues as her beat. I understand why she covered the story when it was presented to her. However, she's gotten quite a bit of attention out of the deal and the rest of the media has turned this into a gay-rights issue while crucifying this man in the process.

Yes it is the job of the media to dig up stories - even three years old. It was wrong 3 years ago, it is wrong today.

Anyone who thought those videos were a good idea, 3 years ago, needs to be questioned on their judgment capabilities.

President Clinton was representing the company despite credible accusations of rape, sexual assault, and sexual activity with a intern. All the while this was known, he was representing this country overseas.

You made a point to say take issue with a man making goofy videos "represent us on one of the jewels of the US Navy." And taking issue with how "this man will be meeting with dignitaries, state officials, etc." yet you didn't mind a convicted perjurer and sexual deviant representing the entire nation as president.

He was impeached - he paid the price. I do like how he was a sexual deviant in your mind though Cal... hmmmmm.... And I don't think I have ever stated how I felt about having Bill in office after he was impeached - you are assuming quite a lot here Cal. If the congress thought it was bad enough they would have removed him from office. it was a republican congress - but, somehow they forgot to do that part... The watchdogs made their own decision in both cases. In the case of Honors - they relieved him of command, in the case of Clinton, they impeached him.

What is your issue?
Are you disagreeing with his management style or are you offended by the material. You seem to switch your emphasis back and forth based upon convenience and how it serves the perception your trying to create.

I have always stated I disagree with his management style, his lack of judgment. Again - you need to check where I have over and over stated I didn't find the material particularly offensive Cal. I think it was inappropriate for an XO to be making this sort of 'video', and that is where his judgment comes into question.

I would question that managerial judgment of his actions, but I do not have the experience of knowledge to conclusively say if it was effective or not. Nor do you. What was he trying to accomplish with the introductions? Did it work? How was morale? He apparently was respected based upon his career path following the movies.

No I don't know if it was effective, but that is beyond the point Cal. Cutting off your arm might make it so you don't chew your fingernails - but is it the correct solution - no. Did it increase morale - perhaps among some less mature sailors - but, at what cost? Do they now think that this appropriate? Do they think the example set by Honors is one to follow?

And I don't find the material to be offensive at all.

Well good for you Cal. But, do you think this management style was appropriate for the US Navy in 2007? Do you think that Honors showed that he had 'good judgment'?

Would it have been bad judgment had he not appeared in the introductions?
Again, be clear, is your issue the content OR the perception of his leadership?

And once again - I have stated over and over again - it is his judgment, or lack thereof that I question. Along with the fact that this certainly isn't behavior becoming an officer. Officer's lead by example. This example sucks.

Obviously he's not an elected representative, but that doesn't represent "tea party" recognition of some wasteful organizational problems with the military being discussed openly.

But, he isn't beholding to his constituents Cal - when the votes are on the line - where will the tea party backed reps stand? Appearing to be anti-military, or continuing to spend, albeit somewhat foolishly, in maintaining status quo when it comes to the military? It will be interesting to find out what happens.

The Hackworth article is over 10 years old and widely known.

and obviously wrong at least in one very 'quotable' aspect.

 

[foxpaws]

Does America have mandatory military service?

Not currently - but what difference does that make shag? If you are required to serve, then you have to make allowances for gays in the military. But, wouldn't that still damage the military? Does having gays serve openly in the Israeli army damage it?

Is America under the same degree of pressure to have a military ready to defend itself that Israel does?

Nope - we go off and fight our wars away from the homeland - what difference does that make Shag? If our shores where threatened (oh wait, what about 9-11) then it would be OK for gays to serve in the military openly? What is 'special' about having to 'defend' themselves, and why does it make it then less harmful for gays to serve openly in Israel?

Does Israel have a politically aggressive gay agenda aimed at breaking down traditional social bonds and the institutions that nurture them by any means necessary?

Yes they do - there is quite the active gay community in Israel- pushing for expanded rights. They have gay rights parades, and in fact a couple of years ago had a terrible confrontation where a few gay teenagers were killed for taking part. They maybe are somewhat further along in being granted equal rights - but they aren't just sitting by the sidelines - they are very active politically, and quite 'in your face' if that is what you call aggressive.

There are countless ways that the cultures are different. These simply happen to be some of the more prescient ones.

So, because you 'have' to serve in the military at some point, and your homeland has to be 'defended' against aggression, those are the real reasons that the Israeli army hasn't fallen apart by allowing gays to serve openly?

Shag - that is ridiculous.

Our military will not fall apart because we are going to allow gays to serve openly. Honesty is always the best policy.

 

[shagdrum]

Not currently - but what difference does that make shag?

This is why I see no chance of honest dialog with you.

It seems you are already dismissing ideas that are foreign to you before they have been fully articulated. I simply laid out the groundwork for some basic premises and haven't even connected the dots to form the entire argument yet.

An honest interest in productive dialog would look to simply understand the argument in it's entirety before attempting to shoot holes in it. No legitimate critique of an argument can come from someone who doesn't understand the argument. However, if someone is not interested in honest discourse, they will look for any and every excuse to dismiss the idea regardless of weather or not it has been fully articulated. That includes attempts to poison the well.

It is rather easy to see these attempts by establishing premises first. If the person you are talking to tries delegitimize any point made regardless of weather or not the broader argument has been articulated, then that person is not discussing things in good faith. The more it seems they are "grasping at straws" and looking for any excuse to dismiss the point, the more transparent their attempts to subvert discourse become.

Mandatory military service is simply one of countless factors for which we CAN NOT know the full effects of, especially in regards how it effects and defines a culture. Yet you cavalierly dismiss it as a factor that strongly influences a society.

I really see no reason to continue this charade.