N A V Y - a global force of entertainment

[theohall]

I am not surprised at all... as is evidenced by my earlier posts. Were a Comedian to come onboard the ship and do the same Friday Night skits every week for 6 months, he'd be praised for supporting our troops.

But you wouldn't put those same comedians in charge of an aircraft carrier.

So being in charge of an aircraft carrier precludes you from making fun of life on an aircraft carrier???

[theohall]

And the stuff Rip is posting about what the videos are actually about contain the context which has been completely ignored by most - including those in this thread condemning the actions of a true leader.

Feel free to post all you want to about your opinions on this, but having been there and knowing the situation in which all of the videos were made and presented, I will not agree with anyone that firing him was the right thing to do.

[Zurai]

I am not surprised at all... as is evidenced by my earlier posts. Were a Comedian to come onboard the ship and do the same Friday Night skits every week for 6 months, he'd be praised for supporting our troops.

But you wouldn't put those same comedians in charge of an aircraft carrier.

The man was already in charge of an aircraft carrier. This is a false objection.

I think the whole furor over this is utterly moronic. Oh no! He said politically incorrect things! He must be demonized and dishonored!

If he'd done anything criminal, fine. As far as I know, even in the military, making jokes (even politically incorrect ones) isn't criminal. I rarely agree with Rip in terms of politics, but he's right, the furor over this reeks of a desire for political officers. Can't have our captains saying anything that might upset the government or the people, regardless of how good they are. Far better to have our military shackled by the bonds of political correctness -- at least then they can fail prettily.

[Odin]

So being in charge of an aircraft carrier precludes you from making fun of life on an aircraft carrier???

As with most things in life, it depends on how you go about it.

The man was already in charge of an aircraft carrier. This is a false objection.

No it isn't. Comedians have been able to get away with saying and doing things for hundreds or thousands of years that others in positions of authority could not without facing severe repercussions. The trade-off is that they're rarely put in those positions of authority. And once you're in that position of authority, you're expected to behave with a certain level of self-control and good judgment when it comes to trying to be funny. If you can't pull it off (and many of us cannot), you probably should avoid it entirely, or you put your job at risk. This applies in all walks of life when people are in positions of authority - military servicemen and women, police, politicians, corporate executives, airline pilots, etc., etc. There are things you can say and do that will be frowned upon just because it was YOU who said them. Sorry that life ain't fair.

For the record, I don't believe Honors should necessarily have been fired or lose his pension. Certainly as far as the pension goes, I object to that. It's not as if he shot somebody. It's hard for me to say what WOULD have been fair because I don't know what sorts of reprimands and punishments would be meted out to other offenses of greater and lesser import than this one, but being summarily kicked out of the military for it strikes me as overkill.

I do not, however, feel that it was in any way wrong for this to have been pointed at as an example of poor judgment and behaviour inappropriate to a senior naval officer.

[Kasey Chang]

A couple things to note, probably a rehash...

1) Military comradeship is hard to understand for civilians.

2) Military loves black and/or non-PC humor and language, many of which will just completely shock civilians.

3) Navy is comprised of SAILORS, who have always been known as foul-mouthed. I know it's a stereotype, but spending MONTHS at sea will do that to you. Their morning routine is known as "s*** and shower".

4) Morale boosters OFTEN involves non-PC humor. It never WAS meant to be disseminated outside of the carrier itself. For some fictionalized incidents, see

http://www.amazon.com/Sweetwater-Gunsli ... 253&sr=1-8" target="_blank

5) It happened YEARS ago

Carrier is a dangerous place. People who work on it do drudge work. If they have to make a few videos to raise the morale that's perfectly fine with me.

The person who should be sacked is the MORALE OFFICER, not the captain. The MORALE OFFICER is the guy who came up with this ****. However, it's much better for the media to go after the captain.

[Alefroth]

And the stuff Rip is posting about what the videos are actually about contain the context which has been completely ignored by most - including those in this thread condemning the actions of a true leader.

Feel free to post all you want to about your opinions on this, but having been there and knowing the situation in which all of the videos were made and presented, I will not agree with anyone that firing him was the right thing to do.

I'm pretty sure everyone here is OK with that. I don't think you'e OK with me thinking it was the right thing to do.

Ale

[Alefroth]

I am not surprised at all... as is evidenced by my earlier posts. Were a Comedian to come onboard the ship and do the same Friday Night skits every week for 6 months, he'd be praised for supporting our troops.

But you wouldn't put those same comedians in charge of an aircraft carrier.

The man was already in charge of an aircraft carrier. This is a false objection.

I think the whole furor over this is utterly moronic. Oh no! He said politically incorrect things! He must be demonized and dishonored!

If he'd done anything criminal, fine. As far as I know, even in the military, making jokes (even politically incorrect ones) isn't criminal. I rarely agree with Rip in terms of politics, but he's right, the furor over this reeks of a desire for political officers. Can't have our captains saying anything that might upset the government or the people, regardless of how good they are. Far better to have our military shackled by the bonds of political correctness -- at least then they can fail prettily.

Why the hell you do guys keep bringing up the legality of his actions? Is breaking the law the only way to lose your job in the military?

Ale

[Isgrimnur]

Things like this just put me even farther in support of the wiki-leaks like episodes. Might as well air the dirty laundry of all the people in public service who are in it for power and money while we are destroying the lives of the people actually doing it for honor and patriotism.

Nice to know your hatred for the chain of command in this country extends to support of a traitor and a foreign national bent on embarrassing this country at every turn. Because the career of one Captain is worth you turning your back on the Armed Forced and this country as a whole.

[Smoove_B]

The person who should be sacked is the MORALE OFFICER, not the captain. The MORALE OFFICER is the guy who came up with this ****.

Exactly. Though the fact that you're questioning the Computer has me worried for your future Kase-Y-Chang. As a loyalty officer, I can only suggest that the Team Leader shouldn't be the same person as the Happiness Officer. But question the Computer? Madness.

[Rip]

Things like this just put me even farther in support of the wiki-leaks like episodes. Might as well air the dirty laundry of all the people in public service who are in it for power and money while we are destroying the lives of the people actually doing it for honor and patriotism.

Nice to know your hatred for the chain of command in this country extends to support of a traitor and a foreign national bent on embarrassing this country at every turn. Because the career of one Captain is worth you turning your back on the Armed Forced and this country as a whole.

I don't support the leaker, but why should I care if some foreign national ridicules us in areas it is obviously well deserved. The person who cost Captain Honors his career was a leaker as well and went out side the chain of command. So clearly you are selective in the application of your support as well.

[Isgrimnur]

Things like this just put me even farther in support of the wiki-leaks like episodes. Might as well air the dirty laundry of all the people in public service who are in it for power and money while we are destroying the lives of the people actually doing it for honor and patriotism.

Nice to know your hatred for the chain of command in this country extends to support of a traitor and a foreign national bent on embarrassing this country at every turn. Because the career of one Captain is worth you turning your back on the Armed Forced and this country as a whole.

I don't support the leaker, but why should I care if some foreign national ridicules us in areas it is obviously well deserved. The person who cost Captain Honors his career was a leaker as well and went out side the chain of command. So clearly you are selective in the application of your support as well.

I am? Where did I say that I support the leaker in this case or any other? But I certainly do agree that there should be other avenues of approach when someone in your direct chain of command is doing something that you feel is outside of regulations. But I'm not going to withhold my opinion on a topic, no matter which way it goes, just because I don't agree with how the information was made available. I'd appreciate it if you'd keep your points on topic rather than trying to put words in my mouth.

You want a defined statement from me on the issue? Here you go. I think the videos are over the line in terms of being deliberately offensive to his colleagues, something he acknowledged in the subsequent videos and proceeded to disregard. Regardless of the issue, failing to address or suppressing complaints is something I find abhorrent in any organization. The sailors under his command had the right to seek redress through alternate options including the use of the Naval Inspector's General Office. I do not agree that leaking the videos to the media was the proper recourse unless all other options to address these complaints had been met. It is the Navy's job to investigate Captain Honors' conduct and ensure that his superiors were being followed properly.

That being said, as the subject of the videos in general, I'm fine with the command staff taking actions to attempt to improve morale on the ship. I question the manner in which Captain Honors chose to do so. I am not intimately familiar with Navy command structure, but it seems odd to me that the XO of a carrier in a war zone has the time and resources available to be this involved in something of this nature, that he did not have more pressing matters to attend to in the discharge of his duties.

I do not in any way think that Captain Honors should be denied any benefit of his long military career to this country. I do not advocate his dismissal, loss of pension, or court martial. That being said, the final disposition of his career is ultimately up to his chain of command. If they are receiving pressure from the civilian authorities, fine. That's what civilian authorities are for.

As for your contention that you do not care if a "foreign national ridicules us in areas it is obviously well deserved", I take issue with you and the military personnel that leaked those documents taking it upon yourself to determine what is "well deserved" and what is not. To me, this demonstrates a lack of respect not only for the civilian government, but also for your own military's chain of command.

[Rip]

I decided to get out at soon as they did away with beards. As PC as they are now I would never suggest anyone join our military again. They will soon be just as wimpy as our politicians.

Perhaps I should look into signing back up if they do this?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hairy-issue- ... 54841.html

Now that women in the Navy can wear ponytails, men want beards.

The Navy said last week that servicewomen could sport ponytails, lock hairstyles, or ropelike strands, and wider hair buns, reversing a policy that long forbade females from letting their hair down.

Servicemen immediately chimed in on social media, asking the Navy if they could grow beards. A sailor's Facebook post with a #WeWantBeards hashtag was shared thousands of times.

Beards were banned in 1984. The Navy wanted professional-looking sailors who could wear firefighting masks and breathing apparatuses without interference.

The Navy says that's still the case. Still, some hope the change in female grooming standards opens the door.

Travis Rader, a 29-year-old naval physical security officer, said allowing beards would boost morale for men, just like allowing ponytails and locks has for women. There are two things that would make many Navy men happy: beards and better boots, he added.

[stessier]

The Navy wanted ... sailors who could wear firefighting masks and breathing apparatuses without interference.

I've had enough breathing apparatus training to know this is a legitimate concern. At work, anyone who signs up for the ERT team can't have facial hair that extends past the corner of their mouths. If you consider everyone in the Navy to have to potential to need to wear masks to save other people, beards are out.

[LawBeefaroni]

[Isgrimnur]

Nothing like says quick response to an emergency like trying to fund your beard pins.

[Rip]

The Navy wanted ... sailors who could wear firefighting masks and breathing apparatuses without interference.

I've had enough breathing apparatus training to know this is a legitimate concern. At work, anyone who signs up for the ERT team can't have facial hair that extends past the corner of their mouths. If you consider everyone in the Navy to have to potential to need to wear masks to save other people, beards are out.

I had a beard for much of my career and had no issue with masks. The masks we used were full faced and were not an issue as long as the beard was well groomed.

[LawBeefaroni]

Undoubtedly these guys want "operator" beards. I don't care what kind of face mask you have, they'll interfere.

[Isgrimnur]

It's easier to have a blanket prohibition than to police individual compliance.

[Z-Corn]

"POLICE THAT MOOSTACHE!"

[LawBeefaroni]

I used drink with that guy.

[Rip]

Undoubtedly these guys want "operator" beards. I don't care what kind of face mask you have, they'll interfere.

Not true. It has been shown repeatedly that it is possible to have facial hair and a beard. Even the courts agreed.

https://community.fireengineering.com/p ... t%3A612808

In another early District of Columbia case, an appellate court overturned the termination of a D.C. firefighter who refused to remove a handlebar mustache and beard. Management could not ban beards but could require them to be short and neatly trimmed.

[stessier]

Undoubtedly these guys want "operator" beards. I don't care what kind of face mask you have, they'll interfere.

Not true. It has been shown repeatedly that it is possible to have facial hair and a beard. Even the courts agreed.

https://community.fireengineering.com/p ... t%3A612808

In another early District of Columbia case, an appellate court overturned the termination of a D.C. firefighter who refused to remove a handlebar mustache and beard. Management could not ban beards but could require them to be short and neatly trimmed.

You mis-state what was found. (Shocking, I know.)

The judge went on to state, "moreover, the Department has conceded that, for the vast majority of firefighter activity, a perfect seal between the face mask and the face is not required for safety." "The Department fully concedes that bearded firefighters have worn SCBA units for many years without incident."

So the seal is not perfect. For the vast majority of cases, that's fine. For the one's it is not fine, the person with a compromised seal is in real trouble.

[LawBeefaroni]

And it doesn't include operator beards. Which, let's face it, is what this is about.

They are not "short and neatly trimmed."

[Rip]

And it doesn't include operator beards. Which, let's face it, is what this is about.

They are not "short and neatly trimmed."

Navy people aren't looking for operator beards. We never had that while I was in, what they did have was a standard of short well groomed beards.

Even now while deployed on a sub (which is where the seal would count the most) is waived by many Captains.

The Navy ban on beards on Naval installations and operational vessels, including its submarine fleet, was reinstated in 1984 by CNO James D. Watkins.[citation needed] However, this rule is generally ignored on board deployed submarines at the Captain's discretion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_ha ... e_military

In fact I would challenge you to point me to a single submarine fatality from a beard causing an improper seal. It has literally never happened. They were donning face masks for decades without any problem.