in the navy
the ap has this story, and it's hard not to figure we're not getting the whole story. if nothing more than for the memory of shirley sherrod's old job as the usda, i'd be interested in giving this more time to play out before making the personnel move, but, hey, i watch snl and i don't think misty davis' comments at the end of the article should be ignored.
some observations:
the videos can't have been that bad--they were aired publicly throughout the ship, (navy guys can tell me if i have my "ship" vs. "boat" terminology correct--dad never got me clear on that one), and it seems clear based on grassroots expressions of support, that the crew didn't mind at all--in fact, it sure sounds like they loved them.
the videos can't have been that bad--the guy got PROMOTED to run the ship after they aired.
the videos, bad (or not) as they may have been, were shown 3 and 4 YEARS ago, and it's hard to fathom why this has to result in a personnel action NOW, especially while they weren't aired during this guy's tenure as CO.
the videos have been compared in nature to snl skits and the family guy. having seen will ferrell and rachel dratch carry on in the hot tub with various cast-mates and guests, i'm willing to believe it's entirely probable. (can't muster the time or inclination to do yet another animated adult comedy half-hour, so family guy fans will need to fill in for me on that one). hard to think that the navy is trying to be more tight-assed than the fcc, but here you have it.
this could be exactly what is worst from the combination of PC from the left and "family values" from the right, and we as a nation are quite likely losing our minds regardless of the outcome.
or, put another way--if al qaeda would hate it, it can't be all bad, and who are we to be doing al qaeda's business???
some observations:
the videos can't have been that bad--they were aired publicly throughout the ship, (navy guys can tell me if i have my "ship" vs. "boat" terminology correct--dad never got me clear on that one), and it seems clear based on grassroots expressions of support, that the crew didn't mind at all--in fact, it sure sounds like they loved them.
the videos can't have been that bad--the guy got PROMOTED to run the ship after they aired.
the videos, bad (or not) as they may have been, were shown 3 and 4 YEARS ago, and it's hard to fathom why this has to result in a personnel action NOW, especially while they weren't aired during this guy's tenure as CO.
the videos have been compared in nature to snl skits and the family guy. having seen will ferrell and rachel dratch carry on in the hot tub with various cast-mates and guests, i'm willing to believe it's entirely probable. (can't muster the time or inclination to do yet another animated adult comedy half-hour, so family guy fans will need to fill in for me on that one). hard to think that the navy is trying to be more tight-assed than the fcc, but here you have it.
this could be exactly what is worst from the combination of PC from the left and "family values" from the right, and we as a nation are quite likely losing our minds regardless of the outcome.
or, put another way--if al qaeda would hate it, it can't be all bad, and who are we to be doing al qaeda's business???
posted by kad barma at 10:44 AM
4 Comments:
I am thinking that the problem is that for a person in his position to do this sort of thing shows a certain lack of discretion, a lack of judgement. When you reach a certain point, in this day and age, you are expected to not engage in or encourage this kind of thing in a large, diverse group.
A retired Army Colonel I respect, a WWII vet, said: "The Navy captain in question lacks good judgment and common sense. His usefulness as a role model and mentor for young officers is nil. Good riddance."
I am not sure I would go as far as "Good riddance" but the rest of it is on the mark. What one does in private (or a small, intimate group or a local water spot) is one thing and what one does in the larger group is another. I don't think this is hypocrisy, but common courtesy.
Regards — Cliff
My reaction was sort of a cross between Kad's and Cliff's. On the one hand it's funny to hear that people are shocked -- SHOCKED, I tell you -- that Navy folk are out making crass jokes and using foul language. So much of our language comes from navy life, and the aspects of which develop when people are put out to sea in an enclosed space for long periods of time and develop ribald humor, language, and storytelling as a result (a mouth like a sailor, spinning a yarn, etc.)
The U.S. Navy has spent the past 225 years or so in a deployment state, and has changed drastically since 9/11 in terms of the balance between *liberty* (i.e. port calls) and deployed time at sea. People need to let loose, and they do.
That said, I wouldn't have been the least bit surprised to see something like this from junior officers, particularly pilots.
O-2s and O-3s in their mid- to late-twenties? Sure. They form things called JOPAs (Junior Officer Protection Agencies) where jackassery is a rite of passage. But it gets a little weird when it's being pushed by someone at the O-5/O-6 level, who might be nearly twice the age of a JO, and so boldly.
A carrier is a HUGE community...I wonder why Honors didn't think someone would blow the whistle, so to speak, and I'm surprised it took that long.
It's amazing, though, to hear about "how it was" before Tailhook, before integrated warships, and before 9/11. I was once regaled with stories by someone who'd been a sailor on Subic Bay for years, and I think I needed to go to confession afterwards.
And I'm not even Catholic.
Here is a comment from a very good friend of mine who held the same position CAPT Honor did when he did this sort of thing:
"What a putz....That said, the job of XO of a carrier is really unique in its own confined, tightly packed world. The CO leads the ship/fights the ship and the XO runs the ship, he/she is the face of "get the job done" and "get it done right." The CO is the face of the "attaboy" and positive feedback. If the XO walks through the ship looking pissed off, it quickly passes to everyone he/she passes, they pass it on to others, and within an hour the entire rest of the ship is pissed off. The XO walks through the ship with a happy face and the entire ship gets a boost. Know it sounds artificial, but these tiny passing links is what 90% of the 5000 get with the XO. It is enough for this 90%. Of course, the XO gets to spend 90% of his/her time with 10% of the 5000 and, as the face of discipline, most of that 10% is made up of with disciplinary tasks. As XO you keep trying to spend more time with the 90% of good, steady performers to let them know you are thinking of them and focusing on them--not just the shortball hitters. The guy I replaced used to dress up in a rabbit costume on Easter and carry candy to the troops throughout the ship, they loved it. I was not secure enough in my body/position to do the same when I was XO. The ship is full of kids (average age reported to be 19 for the Enterprise, which sounds too young to me, but for sure they are young) and that is who you are focusing your efforts on to boost morale. It is always a tough show, but his show was stupid; stupid in today's Navy and it would have been stupid in John Paul Jones' Navy."
So, here is sort of a peer review—and the person who wrote me this is not a prude.
I will say that I agree it should have been caught early and action taken (maybe just a serious discussion about what is appropriate), but given that it has lingered this long and the Navy has been firing skippers recently, I think this was the likely outcome.
Regards — Cliff
In my world, we have something to which we refer as a CML--"career-limiting move"--and I think it's fair to say that collective sentiment is that the videos were at least that. The judgment I would agree that was lacking is in having the ambition to become the head dude, but not the foresight to understand how to build that path the right way. Had he stayed at his lower-level post, I'd be rabid in my defense of the actions based solely on their positive effect on morale. That was his job, and by all accounts he did it extremely well.
My major discomfort is with there being no discussion about the judgment of those who promoted him. How does he get the promotion, if the right decision has to be to fire him after he gets it??? Is there no consistency in accountability here?
If I were S of the N, I'd feel compelled to fire the guy who fired the guy, or at least the need to resign myself for presiding over such a circus. You can't fault someone for doing his job well, and accepting a promotion. THAT much is completely wrong.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home