- Image via Wikipedia
Having a video leak can make or break a career. In the case of Captain Honors, his videos might prove to be damaging to his career.
The gist of the story is that while Honors was second in command of the Enterprise (the carrier, not the starship) he appeared in various videos with somewhat questionable content.
While the Navy is condemning the videos, the situation doe raise some matters worth considering.
On the face of it, Honors would seem to have shown bad judgment in regard to the videos. The first error was engaging in that sort of immature behavior, the second having it filmed and the third was distributing it so the crew could see it.
A leader, it can be argued, needs to set a good example for those who would follow him (or her). While having a sense of humor is proper in a leader, he should not play the clown or the fool. This is not appropriate for someone who has to command respect and expect obedience. As such, Honors should not have participa
- Image via Wikipedia
ted in the videos.
Of course, it could be argued that a leader can, in fact, clown around in that manner and still maintain due respect from those under him.
What is the fact of the matter would, of course, depend a great deal on the nature of those under the leader and would largely be a matter for them to judge-after all, they would be the ones counting on him in battle.
Speaking of battle, it can also be argued that those serving in combat situations should be cut a lot of slack. After all, such situations create a lot of stress and if doing such things as stupid videos helps, then it would seem like a small price to pay. Of course, there is the obvious concern about whether such stress relief needs to be of the sort that appears in Honors’ videos.
Another concern is the matter of professionalism. While military professionals cannot be expected to live and behave like monks, it does seem reasonable to expect officers to act like professionals (and gentlemen/ladies). Being a professional means, in part, acting like an adult rather than (to use a stereotype) a frat boy or someone who is creating pilot videos for some awful new Comedy Central show. Of course, it could be argued that the lapse of professionalism in the videos is rather minor and hardly worthy of great concern.
After all, it could be argued, what matters is how an officer performs when on duty, not what sort of odd hobbies they might have. So, if Honors is a competent commander, then videos from years back should not be held against him.
On final matter is, of course, the concern that Honors used anti-homosexual slurs in his videos. Of course, that sort of thing is common fodder in comedy (this does not, however, justify the widespread practice). There is also the fact that when the videos were made, the military had a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. As such, it could be said that Honors was merely expressing more roughly the official policy towards homosexuality.
Thoughts?
DADT has been repealed. Does it or does it not now become the duty of current military leaders and followers to ensure the success.of the repeal? Wouldn’t they be risking their own positions if they didn’t?
Whether this film was produced pre-DADT or post- DADT, it’s out there now, and leaders have to deal with it in light of the new policy. What was “professional”*–or at least overlooked by most– under the old policy is “unprofessional” and matter for close scrutiny under the new. Those in command, leaders because of their competency, are now faced with determining how to deal with this. We’ll see.
*It would seem that some of those serving under Honors have complained in the past about his actions, and the complaints have been ignored. #4 I wonder who ignored them?
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/03/owen-honors-5-facts-about-the-navy-captain-drawing-fire-for-lew/
Civilians cannot understand the psyche of naval operations on a ship…! But everyone can understand that everything begins within the mind….
Being isolated, offshore on a ship…, the psyche is challenged…, I think that this leadership knew well how to handle the “Mind’s Eye” and “Planted Seeds”…, as well…, the stresses being under abstinence and alone, at sea… –They knew well how to defend against what seeds are planted within the mind:
To view something on video…, brings what’s being planted in the mind… to
light…, and that to then view it…, in its raw, bold form…, quickly stamps out
the evil seed…, and lifts up the healthful, good seed of the “Mind’s Eye”…,
strengthening all!!!
You should leave these matters to the navy…. And the Pentagon should support their own!!!
Put Captain Honors back at his post and duty.
It will be up to the Navy. And the Pentagon should do what’s best for the country, not blindly support their own (who specifically are “their own”, by the way? Those who initially went to Honors with complaints and were ignored (#4 in the following ) or someone else?
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/03/owen-honors-5-facts-about-the-navy-captain-drawing-fire-for-lew/.
Clearly Honors’ choice of action didn’t “strengthen all”. It clearly pissed of a few–those who lodged complaints.
If the Navy and the Pentagon should decide that Honors was wrong, will he still be right in your eyes? This is crunch time for the military. They’ve got a difficult decision to make.The outcome should be ‘vellly velly intellesting’. My bet? No one’s got the balls to stand behind the repeal. Either the executive branch that signed the repeal, the legislative branch that on a bipartisan basis passed the repeal, the military that, with the exception of the Marine Corps, was reasonably certain the repeal could be done–one (I watched a large chunk of those hearings) one or all will cave. Because that’s the way they are. That’s the way we are. That’s the way it is.
It is the call of the Pentagon, but I certainly hope that Honors is treated fairly.
Sometimes people get caught in the middle of someone else’s “crunch time”. In this case, Honors played a large part in getting himself there.
Fairness is hoped for, but I’m betting there are a lot of officers out there who don’t want to damage their own careers by coming down of the wrong side of this thing. They too are caught in the middle, because they have to hope they don’t screw up when they’re choosing which side to play.
erik, the DADT repeal isn’t relevant to the videos; it’s the context of an action that determines its character, not the action itself. At the time, the Navy was openly homophobic — it can’t justifiably censure its officers for holding its own positions.
If the military has decided to defend homosexuality, that would only be relevant to Honors showing the videos now — which isn’t what happened.
The only issue is whether this was inappropriate conduct for an XO at the time and under the conditions where it was done. All wrongdoing involves harm — the question is was this harmful to the crew of the vessel or to Honors’ authority as XO, not whether it’s harmful to our sensibilities here, today, at home. Issues of taste aside, I don’t see that it was.
“Whether this film was produced pre-DADT or post- DADT, it’s out there NOW, and leaders have to deal with it in light of the new policy.* What was “professional”*–or at least overlooked by most– under the old policy is “unprofessional” and matter for close scrutiny under the new. Those in command, leaders because of their competency, are now faced with determining how to deal with this. We’ll see.”
*I can’t agree that the repeal isn’t relevant to the video or that the video isn’t relevant to the repeal. Decisions the leadership has to make now to uphold the repeal (it’s their job to do so,is it not?), will be affected– in the real world– by the emergence of the video.. It changes the landscape. It changes what’s relevant whether we wish it to do so or not.
Whatever action the brass takes, if they take any–and I’ve stated my guess on what that might be–will be affected by the video and by the repeal. Once the video appeared it was linked to the repeal in the public psyche. Honors has gone viral.
The sensibilities of the military are not the sensibilities of the civilian world; for a lot of reasons, they can’t be.
What you’re right about is that this is now a political issue. Have you seen the videos? They’re not homophobia in the military, they’re satire about homophobia in the military. If Honors loses his command, it will feel like a witch hunt to rest of the Navy.
The best thing the brass can do is to say, “These videos are a result of the culture the Navy had at the time they were made. Times have changed, and what matters now is not the past of the Navy or Capt. Honors, but their current and future performance” — and leave it at that.
Ultilmately, if this is a political issue, civilians have a significant role to play, whether their sensibilities are akin to those of the military or not.
If the Pentagon wants to get out in front of this, I’d recommend they take the approach you suggest in your last paragraph ‘and’, in addition, make some attempt to educate the ignorant public about what’s ostensibly going on in that vid.
“. . .what matters now is not the past of the Navy or Capt. Honors, but their current and future performance”
“Past Performance Is No Indication Of Future Results”
Sounds familiar. 🙂
It’s true of mutual funds. With people, not quite to the same degree. A significant segment of the population argues against the ability of prisons to rehabilitate criminals. But that’s a different issue. . . More leeway is given to Lohan and Sheen and Woods and Rothlisberger and Downey Jr. and Limbaugh and multitudinous politicians who disappear tainted from the stage and reappear 10 plus or minus years later to be appointed party saviors.
The political ranting on stuff like this amuses me. 30 years ago, conservative-types would be upset that a commander was behaving this way, not to mention the sexual suggestiveness and partial nudity involved, while liberal-types would be on the commander’s side, defending him by saying that the military is too uptight, etc. Now it’s liberal-types (though not all) who are too uptight and conservatives (though mixed) who ask what the big deal is.
My thought is that this is another example of what happens when we erode the respect for earned authority. Society has mocked those who have tremendous responsibilities, at times deriding them for lacking a sense of humor. What rises to the top in such an environment are the types of people who are much less steadfast in their duties. If you have authority, you should act like it. At the very most, play the straight man, not the clown.
Honors is a disgrace to the United States Navy. Commanding officers are like the CEO of a company. Walking tall and have a judicial type personality. And the two women in the shower scene were officers as well. Little hotties, I bet this guy was banging them both at the same time in his stateroom. This is what you get when you put a brownshoe in Command. A line officer would never stoop to such sophmoric behavior. Immature, you need some attenton Honors? What is the crew your little fan club? Enjoy your admin work in Adec douchbag. Thanks for tarnishing the proud 9 years I served. Your a real mover and shaker, you like to rock the boat? Your so cool Honors everyone wants to be like you. What the hell is the matter with that guy? What amazes me is the entire crew hide this for a few years? 5000 people? Navy knew as usual and turned its head until it could not anymore. At least the Navy took quick action and fired that prick. I looked up to my Commanders with respect. I was in the Persian Gulf when war had yet to be declared but missiles were flying. We had no time for some yuck horse face Captain. We had a strong stern Leader that I respected.
He’s gone. Sacrificed to political correctness.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jAMXpxFzG3TrX_Cnuc0byPUTIJ6Q?docId=037e408bf99c4eb19bb3ca25b22b8dab
NORFOLK, Va. (AP) — Navy Capt. Owen Honors was an officer with a bright future, a hotshot fighter jock who rose to become commander of one of the most storied ships in the fleet, the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.
His undoing was a sense of humor that seemed a throwback to the Navy’s raucous, macho Tailhook days nearly two decades ago.
Honors, 49, was sacked as commander of the Enterprise on Tuesday for what the Navy called a “profound lack of good judgment and professionalism” in making and showing to his crew raunchy comic videos three or four years ago. In the videos, Honors used gay slurs and pantomimed masturbation.
Once on track to be an admiral, Honors has been reassigned to administrative duties. Military experts said his career is probably over.
Assuming that the old videos were the only evidence of a past lapse in judgment, that seems extremely harsh.
What is wrong with these people?
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Mark Twain wrote that “the difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter.” A new edition of “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and “Tom Sawyer” will try to find out if that holds true by replacing the N-word with “slave” in an effort not to offend readers.
http://www.wmur.com/entertainment/26370244/detail.html
Wrong? They hope to make money. They see a way to do so. It’s to their benefit, and in no way is it their fault, that society in general is confused by questions like these:
What is merely realistic? What is unacceptable? Do the answers to those questions shift over time? What is offensive? What is humorous? Do factors intervene that change the answers to those questions over time? Or are the answers carved in stone?
They’ll publish the book and succeed or fail. The free market will prevail.
Here’s a much better idea from the article you provide:
“Railton has an unaltered version of ‘Huck Finn’ coming out later this year that includes context for schools to explore racism and slavery in the book.””If we can’t do that in the classroom, we can’t do that anywhere,” he said.
Should be verrry interesting to see how school boards will respond to Railton’s book. Slavery and racism are universal evils, but I’ll bet some will argue you can’t teach that in school. . .using Huck Finn unbowdlerized.
I feel for Honors. But “sacrificed to political correctness”? I may be misinterpreting, but for that to be true, DADT repeal must be, in your mind, simply another example of political correctness run amok. It must have nothing at all to do with human rights. Am I wrong? Not everyone is of the same opinion:
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/12/veterans-speak-out-in-ohio-on-dadt/
Honors played no small role in this outcome. DADT was in place when he made the vid. It’s been officially repealed . His video went viral soon after the repeal. People in high places (i.e. people with more rank) are tasked with making sure the repeal works. If Honors’ vid makes their job more difficult, do you think they’re not going to throw him under the bus? That’s not political correctness. It’s military politics and human rights and the real world working hand-in-hand.
“Wrong? They hope to make money. They see a way to do so.”
So you are on record as saying that you have no problem with any legal way people decide to make money?
Perhaps you settled on this approach because you don’t want to clear this up for me:”I may be misinterpreting, but for that to be true, DADT repeal must be, in your mind, simply another example of political correctness run amok. It must have nothing at all to do with human rights. Am I wrong?” So, to avoid answering that you choose to throw some dust and settle on this?? The answer is NO, I’m not saying that. I didn’t come close to saying that. I’m saying that “IN THIS INSTANCE” I’ve gpt no problem with THIS “legal way people have decided to make money.”
Let’s put it another way. Read Liar’s Poker and The Big Short and How Markets Fail. There are ways that you/we may not know of by which people who know the ropes can make tons of money ‘legally’ because regulations in place at the time are inadequate, or they’ve found a legal way around existing regulations, or there are simply no regulations that fit a new product (like mezzanine and mortgage backed CDO’s). These are products that few fully understood but many were foolishly willing to speculate on wildly and lose large amounts of cash on. It’s hard to imagine how easy it was to get Moody’s and Standard and Poor to reevaluate triple-B CDOs and make them triple-A. It was easier than getting David Copperfield to pull a bunny out of a hat.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ax3vfya_Vtdo
” Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama lay responsibility for the carnage with Wall Street itself. The Securities and Exchange Commission in July identified S&P and Moody’s as accessories, finding they violated internal procedures and improperly managed the conflicts of interest inherent in providing credit ratings to the banks that paid them. ”
They “violated internal procedures and improperly managed conflicts of interest”. No mention of law-breaking. Moody’s and S&P run merrily on. Nothing illegal (we know,for ex. that WS firms choose and compensate the firms of their choice to rate their products).Improper.Seemingly Unconsionable? Yes. In my opinion. Illegal? Apparently not
After reading those sources, I certainly wouldn’t say I “have no problem with any legal way people decide to make money.” And I didn’t say it, directly or indirectly in my previous post.
”I may be misinterpreting, but for that to be true, DADT repeal must be, in your mind, simply another example of political correctness run amok. It must have nothing at all to do with human rights. Am I wrong?”
I personally have no problem with the repeal of DADT, as long as we don’t end up with effeminate marines and soldiers holding hands, etc.
The few, the proud, the effeminate Marines. . .
I don’t think we have to worry about that after DADT is gone than we did before.
The military has historically been about getting the mission accomplished without worrying too much about the precise means. This is how wars are won.
As XO, it was Honors’s job to raise the morale of the crew, which by all accounts was dismal. He succeeded brilliantly–morale improved. He accomplished the mission.
Now, 3-4 years later, somebody decides that they didn’t like the way he accomplished the mission, and they fired him.
What message does it send to the next guy? Is it better to accomplish the mission or cover one’s ass? Message is clearly to CYA.
The books should be kept in the original for many good reasons.
First, there is the matter of respecting the artist and the integrity of the work. Second, there is the matter of history. And so on.
Exactly.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/why-our-best-officers-are-leaving/8346/1/
Why Our Best Officers Are Leaving
Why are so many of the most talented officers now abandoning military life for the private sector? An exclusive survey of West Point graduates shows that it’s not just money. Increasingly, the military is creating a command structure that rewards conformism and ignores merit. As a result, it’s losing its vaunted ability to cultivate entrepreneurs in uniform.