Frat boy Navy captain gets relieved

[Big Phil]

You're making up your own definition of a leader, huh? Okay...

I can do that too, you know. I THINK A LEADER IS SOMEONE WHO EATS TACOS ON TUESDAY AND MACARONI SALAD ON SATURDAY AND LIKES TO GO FOR WALKS IN THE PARK!!! YAY!

I don't even need to comment on that nonsense, it speaks for itself.

I'm glad you recognize that making up new definitions for things is nonsense.

AMT/Metahive/et al, are you seriously arguing that leaders cannot ever make mistakes or do something stupid?

Yes, they can do mistakes. Then they get knocked down a peg. Misbehaviour -> correction. What's your problem?
Of course, what you meant, don't they deserve some leniency and their misbehaviour to swept under the rug? Well, no. Leaders are supposed to behave examplatory in front of their men, and being a bigot makes for a crap example, no matter how much the straight, WASPy majority of his underlings loves him.

Again with the redefining... apparently leaders are supposed to be without sin.

I wasn't the one who brought up Patton to defend that guy, so my ass is not that Red Herring's destination. Keep your piscine manure to yourself.

All in all, no, I see no evidence that the guy was a military prodigy essential for any future american war effort which was the point of the people comparing that guy to Patton in the first place, don't forget that, so putting him behind a desk is no crippling loss to the USN. I also think it's a good thing showing that even decorated personnel don't have a bigotry privilege. As I already said, bigotry won't go away if its proponents and enablers are not met with firm rejection.

Patton was simply used because he's high profile and everyone knows who he is. I also gave examples of bosses I've had. Did you know that, in addition to being a very skilled military commander, Patton was also unfaithful in his marriage, racist, sexist, abusive to his subordinates, a homophobe, and a raging asshole? Thus your assertion that leaders must not offend their subordinates is clearly disproven.

If you don't like my Patton example, consider an NFL coach (Bill Cowher, Bill Belichek, Jon Gruden), or any sports coach. In order to motivate their players, coaches regularly insult them, question their sexuality, their birth, the promiscuity of their mothers, their masculinity, etc. This might make them assholes, but given the results (Super Bowl rings), only an imbecile would question the effectiveness of their leadership.

Also, before any apologist replies to me, I ask again as I did several pages ago, if Honors had instead called out the "niggers" and showed a few black crewmen chomping down on water melons and KFC buckets, would you still be so hellbent on defending him? Homophobia is nowhere less bigoted than that in my opinion.

Two reasons:

1) The language he used is absurdly common in ward rooms, and is more than likely how his subordinates regularly speak. "Fag" is regularly used in everyday language, and doesn't come close to being as offensive as "nigger." Furthermore, does he have a record of being homophobic (or racist, or sexist), or was it just a word he used trying to be funny?
2) This situation is political theater - it should have been handled four years ago when it happened. I don't disagree with the punishment, only with the timing and your absurd assertion that insulting a subordinate makes one a bad leader.

[Metahive]

Well, again, I'd have to ask you to show that the man has a history of prejudice against gays in order to back of this "he's a homosphobe" shit. Saying a word doesn't mean anything, but a history of saying "fag" along with harassing or malicious treatment towards gays does.

You claim you've watched the video, then you know he's not just calling them "fags" in the video, he's also showing a desperate crewman who wants to take a shower but can't because some "fags" and "dykes" decided to occupy the showering stalls to make out in just at that moment. "lol @ those faggits! Always thinking of da seks! rofl"

Answer me, why would a genuinely non-bigoted officer one day wake up and decide to bash homosexuals in that manner as entertainment for his crew? There's a slight disonnect you know and I'm lying by calling it "slight".

1) The language he used is absurdly common in ward rooms, and is more than likely how his subordinates regularly speak. "Fag" is regularly used in everyday language, and doesn't come close to being as offensive as "nigger." Furthermore, does he have a record of being homophobic (or racist, or sexist), or was it just a word he used trying to be funny?
2) This situation is political theater - it should have been handled four years ago when it happened. I don't disagree with the punishment, only with the timing and your absurd assertion that insulting a subordinate makes one a bad leader.

Let me translate that:
1. Everybody does it, and those "fags" are just way too touchy anyway
2. mumble mumble POLITICS mumble mumble

Thin.

[AMT]

1) The language he used is absurdly common in ward rooms, and is more than likely how his subordinates regularly speak. "Fag" is regularly used in everyday language, and doesn't come close to being as offensive as "nigger." Furthermore, does he have a record of being homophobic (or racist, or sexist), or was it just a word he used trying to be funny?

An officer is held to higher standards than a subordinate, and what is said in private is different then something broadcast throughout the ship. As for F*g being used in every day language, not where I'm from. Calling someone that around here would likely get you hit just as hard as calling someone a n*gger. Now if you're talking about the UK, where fag stands for cigarettes, maybe you'd have a case.

2) This situation is political theater - it should have been handled four years ago when it happened. I don't disagree with the punishment, only with the timing and your absurd assertion that insulting a subordinate makes one a bad leader.

And I disagree with the thought that calling someone a sexual harassament based slur is more than a simple "insult". Whether or not the man is homophobic is not the issue. The issue is that something which is completely inappropriate for someone of his rank to say or create is. That is the heart of the matter. Was it appropriate for an officer to do? I stand by viewpoint that no, it's not. And while I do not think it's appropriate at all what he did, the fact of the matter is that his position entails a higher standard. If he can't maintain it, then yes, by all means he should be punished for it.

[Big Phil]

AMT/Metahive - who in this thread is saying that Captain Honor should not have been punished?

[AMT]

AMT/Metahive - who in this thread is saying that Captain Honor should not have been punished?

Seeing as how the topic being debated is not whether or not he should be punished, but whether or not the reason he is being punished to the level he is is valid, I don't see how your question is valid.

[Lonestar]

Answer me, why would a genuinely non-bigoted officer one day wake up and decide to bash homosexuals in that manner as entertainment for his crew? There's a slight disonnect you know and I'm lying by calling it "slight".

Thin.

I'd say it actually depends heavily on whether or not he lets said bigotry affect his judgement. I had a DIVO who was homophobic, while we had a semi-openly gay guy in our division, and he would go to bat for that individual just as hard for the straights.

Mind, he called ALL of us "cocksuckers" at muster and used the phrase "that's pretty brokeback" freely. Typically any insult is acceptable to subordinates as long as you know that at the end of the day he takes care of his people.

[Mr. Coffee]

You claim you've watched the video, then you know he's not just calling them "fags" in the video, he's also showing a desperate crewman who wants to take a shower but can't because some "fags" and "dykes" decided to occupy the showering stalls to make out in just at that moment. "lol @ those faggits! Always thinking of da seks! rofl"

I've seen the same sort of shit in SNL skits, TV sitcoms, and major motion pictures yet I don't hear calls of the actors, writers, directors, and producers of such being called ragig homophobes.

Answer me, why would a genuinely non-bigoted officer one day wake up and decide to bash homosexuals in that manner as entertainment for his crew? There's a slight disonnect you know and I'm lying by calling it "slight".

I'm still waiting for you to show evidence that he man is a homophobe based on something more substantial than him saying "fag" in a comedy skit, so how about you answer that first. Fuck, I've only been waiting for what, five or six pages now for you to answer that one.

[Akhlut]

I've seen the same sort of shit in SNL skits, TV sitcoms, and major motion pictures yet I don't hear calls of the actors, writers, directors, and producers of such being called ragig homophobes.

Are you looking for such complaints or just going off of what you hear around your own person? I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that more than a few people have called for the various creative teams of such media to have some sort of punitive action taken against them.

Furthermore, a comedian can be boycotted for his actions. If I'm a sailor on that ship, well, I can't very well boycott my CO without having some very serious charges against me, can I?

Furthermore, as Captain Honors own superior officer said and that SCRawl quoted: "While Captain Honors’ performance as commanding officer of U.S.S. Enterprise has been without incident, his profound lack of good judgment and professionalism while previously serving as executive officer on Enterprise calls into question his character and completely undermines his credibility to continue to serve effectively in command." - Admiral John C. Harvey Jr.

[Mr. Coffee]

Furthermore, as Captain Honors own superior officer said and that SCRawl quoted: "While Captain Honors’ performance as commanding officer of U.S.S. Enterprise has been without incident, his profound lack of good judgment and professionalism while previously serving as executive officer on Enterprise calls into question his character and completely undermines his credibility to continue to serve effectively in command." - Admiral John C. Harvey Jr.

Actually I quoted that before SC did, and I'll say the same thing now that I said back then... His actions while XO showed such a profound lack of judgment that they saw fit to promote his ass to CO of the same carrier. Really, it's just the media sensationalizing of the story and the resulting political pressure on the Navy that's making them do anything here. Was it appropriate for him to do? No, of course not. Should he be reprimanded for it? Of course. Is ruining his career and effectively ending any chance he has of promotion or future command proportionate to the harm cause by the incident? No, of course not.

[SCRawl]

Furthermore, as Captain Honors own superior officer said and that SCRawl quoted: "While Captain Honors’ performance as commanding officer of U.S.S. Enterprise has been without incident, his profound lack of good judgment and professionalism while previously serving as executive officer on Enterprise calls into question his character and completely undermines his credibility to continue to serve effectively in command." - Admiral John C. Harvey Jr.

Actually I quoted that before SC did, and I'll say the same thing now that I said back then... His actions while XO showed such a profound lack of judgment that they saw fit to promote his ass to CO of the same carrier. Really, it's just the media sensationalizing of the story and the resulting political pressure on the Navy that's making them do anything here. Was it appropriate for him to do? No, of course not. Should he be reprimanded for it? Of course. Is ruining his career and effectively ending any chance he has of promotion or future command proportionate to the harm cause by the incident? No, of course not.

And this puts you on the opposite side of the argument from a four-star admiral with 37 years of experience in the US Navy. I submit to you that his opinion carries more weight than yours.

[Big Phil]

And this puts you on the opposite side of the argument from a four-star admiral with 37 years of experience in the US Navy. I submit to you that his opinion carries more weight than yours.

Except that Admirals are consummate politicians, subject to media and political pressures, and not always known to make sensible or logical decisions. I'll bet privately you'll find dozens of Admirals who would disagree with the public opinion.

[SCRawl]

And this puts you on the opposite side of the argument from a four-star admiral with 37 years of experience in the US Navy. I submit to you that his opinion carries more weight than yours.

Except that Admirals are consummate politicians, subject to media and political pressures, and not always known to make sensible or logical decisions. I'll bet privately you'll find dozens of Admirals who would disagree with the public opinion.

You may well be correct there, but absent a publicly-released opinion it's something we'll never know. And unless you're prepared to label Admiral Harvey a liar, we have to take him at his word that his statement reflects his actual opinion.

[Akhlut]

Furthermore, as Captain Honors own superior officer said and that SCRawl quoted: "While Captain Honors’ performance as commanding officer of U.S.S. Enterprise has been without incident, his profound lack of good judgment and professionalism while previously serving as executive officer on Enterprise calls into question his character and completely undermines his credibility to continue to serve effectively in command." - Admiral John C. Harvey Jr.

Actually I quoted that before SC did, and I'll say the same thing now that I said back then... His actions while XO showed such a profound lack of judgment that they saw fit to promote his ass to CO of the same carrier. Really, it's just the media sensationalizing of the story and the resulting political pressure on the Navy that's making them do anything here. Was it appropriate for him to do? No, of course not. Should he be reprimanded for it? Of course. Is ruining his career and effectively ending any chance he has of promotion or future command proportionate to the harm cause by the incident? No, of course not.

Sorry about missing your earlier response, however, as others said, the apparent glacial pace of official actions from the Navy bureaucracy can slow things down dramatically, especially if he was promoted, and then this shit came out.

As for his career being ruined: shit, I wish someone would ruin my career so I could get a $96,000/yr pension.

Snark aside, is it proportionate to the offense? That's very contentious; his actions weren't just offensive, they had the very strong potential of creating a harmful workplace. The frivolous use of a slur among a population that likely includes somewhere between 30 and 300 (assuming roughly 3000 crew under his command) homosexual and bisexual people (not to mention straight people who find 'fag' horribly offensive) can create a very real and damaging effect on crew morale, not to mention his skit could make some of the homophobes and bigots onboard take it too seriously and take it way too far. So, I could certainly see a rational argument being made for this punitive measure being adequate and just on the basis of a man with that much experience should know better than to potentially undermine morale for perhaps 10% or more of his crew.

[Mr. Coffee]

And this puts you on the opposite side of the argument from a four-star admiral with 37 years of experience in the US Navy. I submit to you that his opinion carries more weight than yours.

Doesn't make his argument that the guy was apparently of questionable judgment yet still promoted any fucking dumber, SC. Obvious CYA double speak is still bullshit regardless of it's said by me or said by some doucherag with 37 year in.

As for his career being ruined: shit, I wish someone would ruin my career so I could get a $96,000/yr pension.

Yeah, he gets a shiny pension when he retires, he earned that, and that's a completely separate issue from what I'm talking about. From now untill he retares his career is effectively over, no more promotions, no more commands, and all the work he's put in training to be an effective officer (never mind the millions of tax dollars that went into that training) are now all gone right into the shitter.

[Mr Bean]

And this puts you on the opposite side of the argument from a four-star admiral with 37 years of experience in the US Navy. I submit to you that his opinion carries more weight than yours.

Except that Admirals are consummate politicians, subject to media and political pressures, and not always known to make sensible or logical decisions. I'll bet privately you'll find dozens of Admirals who would disagree with the public opinion.

You may well be correct there, but absent a publicly-released opinion it's something we'll never know. And unless you're prepared to label Admiral Harvey a liar, we have to take him at his word that his statement reflects his actual opinion.

I'll take a shot at this.

I Mr Bean (That not be my real name nor rank) do so claim that Admiral John C. Harvey, Jr is a liar of the first degree and that his comments on this case are not motivated by the truth but are in fact politically motivated.

I do state that Admiral Harvey has reached to high a level to speak frankly about anything. No less on a publicly viewable blog, as his current position is a politically appointed one and he has been serving at the will of Congress and not at the will of the President for over two years now. He has passed the point at which hard work and being an outstanding sailor can get you further advancement for over nine years now since he left the fleet and joined the DoD directly. His position and job are both political and his comments are motivated by his position and not his beliefs.

I do so state and affirm that the above is both my firm believe and expert opinion on this matter.

So help me God
Signed and dated in the year of our Lord 2010 on the 7th of January

[Mr. Coffee]

Bean, that was beautiful... Stay golden, man.

[Kamakazie Sith]

As I explained in the thread about transsexuality, it is my opinion that bigots who dare to proudly flaunt their bigotry outside their own four walls need to be met with firm rejection, pour encourager les autres. Two months pay off would be a mere slap on the wrist, depriving him of a very prestigious position however I consider acceptable. Consider, it's mainly his social reputation that's hurt with that punishment, not his livelihood, and as punishment for demeaning, anti-social behaviour that's about right.

I'd agree with you if you were able to establish that this man was actually a bigot. So far, that has not been established. I know it might shock some people but you can use slurs and still not be a bigot. Being a bigot has more to do with ones actions towards individuals than the words one uses.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yes, they can do mistakes. Then they get knocked down a peg. Misbehaviour -> correction. What's your problem?
Of course, what you meant, don't they deserve some leniency and their misbehaviour to swept under the rug? Well, no. Leaders are supposed to behave examplatory in front of their men, and being a bigot makes for a crap example, no matter how much the straight, WASPy majority of his underlings loves him.

Nobody is saying that his behavior should be swept under the rug. It's been pretty clear what we've been saying. I'm shocked that you aren't able to grasp it this far in. I strongly recommend you read the thread again to refresh your memory.

Also, again you say that Captain Honors is a bigot. Substantiate this or concede.

Also, before any apologist replies to me, I ask again as I did several pages ago, if Honors had instead called out the "niggers" and showed a few black crewmen chomping down on water melons and KFC buckets, would you still be so hellbent on defending him? Homophobia is nowhere less bigoted than that in my opinion.

You haven't shown that this man is homophobic. You're projecting your own bias onto him. Had Honors done what you described? I would have had to seen the video to get a feel if he meant it seriously.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You claim you've watched the video, then you know he's not just calling them "fags" in the video, he's also showing a desperate crewman who wants to take a shower but can't because some "fags" and "dykes" decided to occupy the showering stalls to make out in just at that moment. "lol @ those faggits! Always thinking of da seks! rofl"

You're reading way too much into that scene. Suppose it would have been a male and female in the shower at that time? Would that be different? Did he say anything about homosexuals being promiscuous? Did he protray homosexuals in a negative light during that scene? How do we know that those two men weren't a couple? We don't because nothing was said to who they are or what they were doing.

Though Metahive maybe you are on to something because I think there might be racism in the video. I'm speaking about a scene in which an african american girl is dancing to hip hop. Just like there are no homosexuals that enjoy sex...african americans do not enjoy hip hop.

[SCRawl]

You may well be correct there, but absent a publicly-released opinion it's something we'll never know. And unless you're prepared to label Admiral Harvey a liar, we have to take him at his word that his statement reflects his actual opinion.

I'll take a shot at this. (snip)

While you are in a better position to know the mind of an admiral than I am, I think you'll admit that your expert opinion is still just supposition. What would you expect the admiral to say if he genuinely believed that Capt Honors had acted improperly? I submit to you that it would sound very much like he said. And the only way to tell the difference between an honest admiral's statement and a political lackey's statement -- absent a private, frank conversation -- is to be able to read minds.

[Block]

You may well be correct there, but absent a publicly-released opinion it's something we'll never know. And unless you're prepared to label Admiral Harvey a liar, we have to take him at his word that his statement reflects his actual opinion.

I'll take a shot at this. (snip)

While you are in a better position to know the mind of an admiral than I am, I think you'll admit that your expert opinion is still just supposition. What would you expect the admiral to say if he genuinely believed that Capt Honors had acted improperly? I submit to you that it would sound very much like he said. And the only way to tell the difference between an honest admiral's statement and a political lackey's statement -- absent a private, frank conversation -- is to be able to read minds.

The point I think you're missing is that his public statement is irrelevent simply because you CAN'T get an open and honest one from 99.5% of Admirals, Generals, Chiefs of Staff, etc. in public. They MUST play the game, so even if he did think it was inappropriate, which he may well have, he's going to overstate it if that's what public opinion cries for, or understate it if public opinion cries for that. Basically treat statements like these as useless noise, just like you would a Senator, Congressman or President.

[Mr Bean]

While you are in a better position to know the mind of an admiral than I am, I think you'll admit that your expert opinion is still just supposition. What would you expect the admiral to say if he genuinely believed that Capt Honors had acted improperly?

He would have been saying nothing publicly and using his position to ensure that Captain Honors is punished to the extent he thinks is justified by the UCMJ. The fact he is commenting indicates his political stance rather than personnel stance. As a former CNP he knows all the phone numbers to call and the quiet corners to stand in if he wanted to see Captain Honors punished. He would not be making public statements about it but seeing him punished because that's how it works at that level. He's playing Paladin because that will look good the next time he goes before congress for his stint as the CNO, Secretary of the Navy or possibly even Secretary of Defense. To get any of those jobs he must have all the right opinions and failing to comment on this case would bar him from advancement just as much as defending Captain Honors when political opinion is so firmly set against him. While not on the level of say Tailhook scandal this has the markings of a major Navy embarrassment due to how it was handled so he must come out and decry him. If he wants to go farther he must.

I submit to you that it would sound very much like he said. And the only way to tell the difference between an honest admiral's statement and a political lackey's statement -- absent a private, frank conversation -- is to be able to read minds.

And I say my expert opinion is based on more than my years in the Navy. Based on my years growing up in Pensacola. The fact my family is a Naval family and that my exposure to such politics began at a young age. To give you a small example my bootcamp graduation was attended by not only my grandmother but several of here good friends from my grandfathers Navy days including one retired(Rear Upper) and two active duty admirals (Rear Lower and Vice). Not an officer myself I know what is expected from them. I grew up in this environment and know what is expected of you in the dance of promotion and politic and how the game is played as I grew up in this environment.

To reiterate, I know that Admiral Harvey is lying because he has the means and ability to seen Captain Honors tossed out the service dis-honorably if he so wished. He is senior enough and spent time in the right commands to have Captain Honors quietly punished. That's how it's done at that level, when someone steps out of line unless they are being made an example of they are quietly eased out. One does not go around making public commendations unless your creating a scapegoat. That's how business is done in the naval service and that's how I know it's bullshit. He's not doing what someone who actually thought Captain honors actions were shameful would do.

[AMT]

So help me God
Signed and dated in the year of our Lord 2010 on the 7th of January

2010 on the 7th of January

2010

2010

2010!!!

My god, you sat on this a whole year, and didn't tell us!

(Sorry. Felt a little levity was warranted)

[Mr Bean]

I feel I need to expand on this point a touch.

The Navy is one big family, but within our family we have smaller families.
The senior NCO's are one, if the regular enlisted are a family of E1- to E6 then the chiefs (E7-E9 plus Warrents) are another smaller and much more tight family. The same goes with officers and senior officers. One you hit Rear Admiral (O7) and get that first star you hit a purely political world. Without Admirals to die in combat and accidents the only way to move up or down or even sideways is patronage. The friends you made on your journey from O-1 to O-6 were good friends and could put in a good word for you. But hitting O7 requires friends who are not O6 and below, they require friends who are also Admirals or have the title of "Senator". Without large scale combat to prove who's the better leader of men the only way to move up to the choice commands on the broad road of promotion is to fit into a mold and do what is expected of you.

In the Navy we have Captains who are crazy, out and out lunatics who everyone hates but you stick them at the pointy end and they will turn in the ships weight in drug smugglers or kick the shit out of other ship's Captains in joint operations. You can make it to Captain and still be a little off as long as your work is excellent. But you can't make Admiral unless you can play the game. And there is only one way to play the game. Admiral Harvey is playing the game as he has to if he wants to climb higher. And one does not make it to where he is unless he want to climb all the way. Remember we don't have any handy large causality wars to open up the billets with the best commands. The game commands how he has to react.

Look to the handling of the Tailhook scandel was handled, look how the Port Royal case was handled when Captain John Carroll ran it aground. There is a way these things are handled when they know they got someone who did wrong (Port Royal) and how the Navy handles things when they were complicit (Tailhook)

[Todeswind]

5th amendment protections could easily be used to not answer. Since that's a constitutional right I don't think it'd be infringed upon.

The fifth amendment isn't a magic spell to protect you from saying anything in court. You can only make use of the 5th amendment to protect yourself from self incrimination. It's up to you to determine what is or is not self incriminating but the only possibly self incriminating answer to the question "are you now or have you ever been a homosexual" in this particular situation is "yes." Your right to silence is unquestionable but in this case doesn't help you much because silence is potential career suicide.

To which I disagree, especially as DADT is on its way out. Either way, this doesn't change the original fact, i.e. sexual harassament in the form of being called a f*g is still sexual harassament whether you actually are gay or not, and that discrimination against a person for their sexual orientation (beyond DADT's employment clause which has been repealed) is not allowed.

The need for equal treatment is why the repeal of DADT is such a good policy choice. I don't even disagree that it would be sexual harassment. However while DADT was active it was dangerous for gay sailors to file any greviences relating to sexual harassment, which is why it's probably taken so long for this to happen.