<p>This is the second setback this year for the Supe in his efforts to address the perception of the academy's "hostile" culture towards women.</p>
<p>There still isn't any word on the disposition of the Lamar Owens case.</p>
<p>GA</p>
<p>
[quote]
According to investigative documents, Black, while leading a training cruise to Norfolk, Va., made a reference to male arousal to describe his admiration for battleships while walking with several Mids past a ship.
[/quote]
Big woop. I guess Full Metal Jacket can't be played in the wardroom anymore, either. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
He then reportedly asked a female midshipman if the ships had a similar effect on her, referring to her breasts.
[/quote]
What a moron. Nothing a seriously-good butt-chewing wouldn't have resolved, though. But hey, this is America: CALL THE LAWYERS!</p>
<p>
[quote]
On other occasions during the trip, he used several expletives to describe his ex-wife
[/quote]
Nothing wrong with that. Probably accurate. Is foul language now going to be banned, too?</p>
<p>
[quote]
and made other vulgar comments, according to the documents.
[/quote]
Well, THAT'S specific. :rolleyes: </p>
<p>
[quote]
A female Mid tearfully testified in January that she was "appalled" by Black's statements.
[/quote]
Get a spine, sweetheart. Sadly, the world is full of creeps. Deal with it like an adult. </p>
<p>"Tearfully", over some stupid WORDS? Wow, makes me want to have HER next to me when the bullets start flying. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>She should have said something right then and there, with due regard to rank, which CAN be done. Probably would have earned her all kinds of respect from all present, too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
She said that she had accepted his apology but that she confirmed the incident when other female officers reported it and she was questioned by an academy lawyer, Maj. C.J. Thielemann.
[/quote]
In other words, she DIDN'T accept the apology. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I don't know which worries me more, the fact that we continue to see this whining sensitivity pervading the military, or the fact that some people just don't seem to understand when certain kinds of humor are acceptable and not. Sheesh. :mad:</p>
<p>Excellent analyisis.</p>
<p>Right with you Zaphod. This stuff bugs me to no end. It's the NAVY, not a tea party.The guy's a complete idgit for sure but good grief, it's just words. This kind of whining distracts attention from the legitimate complaints. </p>
<p>If you want to be part of a society of warriors, you need to understand that you won't always be in the company of Boy Scouts. Get over it.</p>
<p>If they didn't mess with my pay, advancement, or ability to have/do a job for which I was qualified, I didn't consider it harrassment. Actions are what counts. I had one CO who was very politically incorrect when it came to jokes, stories, comments. BUT....he was the one who allowed me to be the first female division officer in the maintenance department of my squadron. I loved him. Actions. Don't give a rip about the words.</p>
<p>OK. Let the hating start.</p>
<p>Oh Z....how dissapointing!!!! Sorry, but can't let this one just "slip by"....can't do it....you are parenting two lovely little girls of your own!!!! And you are just not getting it!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
What a moron. Nothing a seriously-good butt-chewing wouldn't have resolved, though.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obviously, not. This is not rocket science. Nor it is some new form of ediquette. Get with the program. You get one shot across the bow. It has already been fired.</p>
<p>
[quote]
On other occasions during the trip, he used several expletives to describe his ex-wife ...(you replied)...
Nothing wrong with that. Probably accurate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Might be accurate. Might even be funny. But NOT coming from a TEACHER to a STUDENT. Keep the dirty laundry at home, it does not belong in the classroom. Period. Save it for a beer with your friends. THESE ARE YOUR STUDENTS.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A female Mid tearfully testified in January that she was "appalled" by Black's statements. ....(you replied)....
Get a spine, sweetheart. Sadly, the world is full of creeps. Deal with it like an adult.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You have got to be kidding. There is not a doubt in my mind that she was TOTALLY AND UTTERLY APPAULED. No doubt so much so that she REACTED IN THE WAY SHE HAS BEEN TRAINED BY GENERATIONS OF WOMEN BEFORE HER...TO LAUGH IT OFF, TO SAY IT'S "OK"......</p>
<p>THE PROBLEM IS THAT IT IS NOT OK...NOT ANYMORE.....NOT BY A LONG SHOT. </p>
<p>HE is the adult. (IMHO, that can be argued). SHE is the STUDENT. HE has the power. SHE HAD NONE. She got her spine up....might have taken her a little time to find it, but find it she did, and good for her. Why should anyone have to "take" that bullcrap. I have faith that she will learn. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"Tearfully", over some stupid WORDS? ...(you replied)....Wow, makes me want to have HER next to me when the bullets start flying.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Dont' worry...now that she has been empowered to stand up for herself, you better watch what you say....those bullets will be "aimed" ......and fired!</p>
<p>
[quote]
She should have said something right then and there, with due regard to rank, which CAN be done. Probably would have earned her all kinds of respect from all present, too.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe. Probably not. The problem is, you see, is that HE is the teacher....HE has the power...SHE is the student....SHE was taken off guard....SHE PROBABLY COULDN"T BELIEVE WHAT SHE WAS HEARING... she is still learning that the world is full of morons....only she didn't expect to find them AS HER TEACHER AT THE UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY, EMPLOYED BY THE TAXPAYERS OF THE US of A.</p>
<p>You have no idea, do you?? Just what it is like being a lone female in a group of men, where crude comments are made, laughed at, added to, and you are expected to....what, join in???? Laugh? Ignore? Pretend you didn't hear????Say, "excuse me, SIR TEACHER, but you are being RUDE? OFFENSIVE?" Yeah- right!!! And she would have gotten...what did you say....RESPECT from her PEERS? Are you KIDDING???? What universe are you standing in?????? HER BUDDIES WERE STANDING THERE WITH HER.....WHERE WERE THEY IN WATCHING HER BACK??????????????? WHY DIDN'T THEY SAY SOMETHING????? Sure...she can depend on them for support!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get real!!!!! IT WAS HER FEMALE PEERS THAT SUPPORTED HER!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
She said that she had accepted his apology but that she confirmed the incident when other female officers reported it and she was questioned by an academy lawyer, Maj. C.J. Thielemann. ...(you replied)....
In other words, she DIDN'T accept the apology.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why should she? No doubt she did what 99.9% of the female population would have said at the moment....which is "that's ok...." because 1. they have not been empowered to do otherwise 2. they are too embarrassed in the circumstance to do otherwise 3. they are hoping that it will bring an end to the conversation and 4. they have been taken totally by surprise by the blatent ignorance before them.</p>
<p>What choice did she really have? To say to this idiot that "I'm sorry, but I find your analogy offensive?" Do you really think he would have stopped???? Do you really think she would have not been the receiptent of even more ridicule? </p>
<p>It is a sad day indeed, when it is only in NUMBERS that support can be found. Thank goodness she found support in her fellow female mids. Thank goodness that there is strength in numbers. THANK GOODNESS THAT SHE FOUND SUPPORT AMONGST HER PEERS....and what exactly happened to the other mids that gave license to this nonscense by their silence??? or worse, laughter??????</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know which worries me more, the fact that we continue to see this whining sensitivity pervading the military, or the fact that some people just don't seem to understand when certain kinds of humor are acceptable and not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>^^^^That is exactly the attitude that worries me. You don't get it. You are the parent to two beautiful girls and you still don't get it. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that the world looks very different to women then it does to men...and hopefully the mothers out there will continue to make inroads with each generation of young men as to what behaviors are no longer acceptable, under ANY circumstance. </p>
<p>Which is why I will be pulling the lever for Hillary. </p>
<p>Please, renew my faith in you....right now you have me speechless!!! (well, maybe not entirely!) :eek:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Right with you Zaphod. This stuff bugs me to no end. It's the NAVY, not a tea party.The guy's a complete idgit for sure but good grief, it's just words. This kind of whining distracts attention from the legitimate complaints.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>beg to differ with you. This is legitimate, that's the point.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you want to be part of a society of warriors, you need to understand that you won't always be in the company of Boy Scouts. Get over it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You get what you tolerate, therefore you get what you deserve. Did she deserve these comments????? Are you saying she should have tolerated them? </p>
<p>you are right...this is not the boy scouts. THIS IS THE UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY AND HE IS A TEACHER. ARE THE TAXPAYERS EXPECTED TO TOLERATE THAT AS WELL????????</p>
<p>And she is in a society of warriors...and more and more of them are female, and they are dying in record numbers for our country. Do they deserve any less respect???????? </p>
<p>
[quote]
If they didn't mess with my pay, advancement, or ability to have/do a job for which I was qualified, I didn't consider it harrassment.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And generations believed that the world was flat. To repeat, you get what you tolerate, therefore you get what you deserve. You were a victim of your time; but look again, the world is changing. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Actions are what counts. I had one CO who was very politically incorrect when it came to jokes, stories, comments. BUT....he was the one who allowed me to be the first female division officer in the maintenance department of my squadron.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Allowed you????????? ALLOWED YOU???????????? Don't you mean that he recognized your abilities and promoted you to a position that you earned???????? Did he ALLOW your male counterparts?????????? Do you really still believe this?????</p>
<p>
[quote]
I loved him. Actions. Don't give a rip about the words.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actions may speak louder than words, but it only takes one poorly timed word to wound for a lifetime. Show me a bomb that has the capability of doing that.</p>
<p>This Midshipman did not ask for, solicit, request, desire, warrent or deserve such blatent, insensitive, rude, distasteful, disgusting, disrespectful sexual comments....not from ANYONE, let alone her TEACHER. She did not deserve this, so tell me WHY in God's name she should be expected to tolerate it!!! </p>
<p>As for him, he is getting off easy. Poster boy for unacceptable behavior? Perhaps....it that is what it will take, so be it. There has been enough warning on this matter already, and ignorance is no longer an excuse to be tolerated. I have no idea who he is- no doubt a wonderful person that had a lapse of common sense. I hope he finds it- soon, and elsewhere. A sincere thank you for your service, but it is time to change or move on.</p>
<p>I believe a nerve has been struck.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actions may speak louder than words, but it only takes one poorly timed word to wound for a lifetime. Show me a bomb that has the capability of doing that.
[/quote]
You can't possibly be serious....</p>
<p>
[quote]
This Midshipman did not ask for, solicit, request, desire, warrent or deserve such blatent, insensitive, rude, distasteful, disgusting, disrespectful sexual comments....not from ANYONE, let alone her TEACHER. She did not deserve this, so tell me WHY in God's name she should be expected to tolerate it!!!
[/quote]
Who said anything about tolerating it? I simply said either deal with it like an adult, or shut up and get over it. She didn't stand up for HERSELF (as you mentioned above), she got someone ELSE to do it. Children do that when they runn to Mommy. Adults do it when they run to lawyers first.</p>
<p>Now, ladies and gentlemen, you see the great divide that exists between the sexes in the military. In one corner, the sissy (in the story, not you 2010) that demands she be taken seriously, but gets all bent out of shape over some WORDS, to the point she begins CRYING over it? In the other corner, the Spidermom's of the world, who not only take it, but can dish it out, and do their jobs so well that they are respected for being who they are, not who they can sic onto you if they feel dissed.</p>
<p>I'd FOLLOW (leave alone stand alongside) Spidermom and any other woman like her into battle anytime, anywhere. By the same token, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the whiner in the story, who comes apart when faced with a crass jerk but is expected to lead others when life and death are on the line.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe a nerve has been struck.
[/quote]
LOL! Gee, ya think? :D</p>
<p>ETA: Oh, and since my daughters were brought up, I'll tell you exactly how I'd teach them to handle this. I'd teach them to walk up to the officer later and say simply, "Excuse me, sir, but I think I should let you know that some of the comments you made earlier today were troubling. I fully understand the charge you get out of seeing a ship at sea, and I get it too, but I would hope that we wouldn't need to get into commenting on my body or anyone else's. I just wanted to bring this to your attention, sir."</p>
<p>THAT is standing up for yourself. Running to tell on the guy isn't.</p>
<p>If standing up to him works, not only will the comments stop cold, but you will have earned REAL respect. If it DOESN'T stop, THEN it can legitimately goes up the chain. That apparently didn't happen here. (Oh, and this is from the Baltimore Sun, which has a collective orgasm any time it can print something even remotely negative about the Academy. The only reason the Academy has a "reputation" at all is because the Sun and the other usual suspects keep bringing "it" up as a topic to keep the Useful Idiot crowd motivated. I therefore doubt we've gotten even half the facts, and the half we've gotten is probably half wrong.)</p>
<p>I now stand by to continue hearing how SpiderMom and I are relics of the past. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Seems to me I'm in good company. :)</p>
<p>You do get what you tolerate. Never said I'd let his comments pass. He'd have gotten my death stare and a long pause. If that wasn't enough and it persisted, I'd have told him straight that I didn't like it. Even as a student talking to a teacher. Yup. I'd have handled it right there on my level. No need to take it anywhere. </p>
<p>BTW, I've been in that position and done just that.</p>
<p>Different times for my captain who gave me the cool job. My captain took a risk in putting me in that slot. There was no precendent. He took flack. And honestly, I hadn't particuarly earned it. I was an ensign who hadn't done jack other than be really, really enthusiastic (I said I wanted to be close to the aircraft, he said he'd make me a tire chock :)) </p>
<p>Good point about the student-teacher thing. THAT's more to the point than the male-female thing. What a cruddy way to project yourself to those who should be emulating you.</p>
<p>Wound for a lifetime? Hehehe, not this woman! I've got a much thicker skin than that.</p>
<p>Oo-rah, Z. Hey, I'm finally not a new member!</p>
<p>OK, here's the view from a woman who was the only female officer in a squadron of 65 officers for over 2 yrs. </p>
<p>You are going to hear this kind of trash talk in life -- and especially in the Navy. You shouldn't, but you will.</p>
<p>People should check their brains before opening their mouths. But, many of us, at some point in our lives, don't. It's unfortunate, but it's reality. </p>
<p>You have to learn to tolerate some of it. That's life. Whether you're in the USN or someplace else, people will say things they shouldn't say. If you allow every joke, every comment to upset you, you're in for a very miserable life. </p>
<p>This does not mean that people should be able to say or do anything they want b/c they're "warriors." That was the Tailhook mentality and it's wrong.</p>
<p>Where the "line" is drawn is a difficult question and, frankly, changes over time. </p>
<p>Z -- you're wrong if you think the guy who made these comments was acting appropriately. But you're right that crying, running to lawyers, etc. is not the way to handle it. </p>
<p>Finally, consider this -- would any of you feel differently if the comments had been race-based rather than gender-based?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Z -- you're wrong if you think the guy who made these comments was acting appropriately.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Never said he was. While some of his statements I'm willing to allow to slide, others were quite clearly out of line by any measure. He deserved a real butt-chewing for those, and if they continued, then appropriate disciplinary action.</p>
<p>To answer your question, I don't base my opinions upon race, creed, color, or anything else except CHARACTER and PERFORMANCE. </p>
<p>Hell, I'm PROUD to be called a spic! I always answer back, "That's right! Spanish Person In Charge.........MENG!" :D</p>
<p>Some individuals on this thread need to reread the mission statement of USNA, and then ask themselves if this particular instructor (the one who is the role-model/expert sharing his wisdom/knowledge/experience with his students whom he will be grading) is behaving in a manner consistent with the mission of the United States Naval Academy? Conversely, look at another USNA leader, Admiral Rempt. Can anyone imagine him acting in a similar fashion? Absolutely not! Thats another thing that sets the service academies apart from other institutions; personnel and students are held to higher standards. Everyone there is living in a fishbowl, and if theyre smart they will conduct themselves accordinglyeven if its against their nature and upbringing. Granted, our children are being trained to be combat leaders, but my mid said that during plebe summer she was told, foul language is poor leadership. Also, its been my experience that people who are vulgar often have some unresolved issues with the opposite sex. </p>
<p>Id like to thank navy2010 for her impassioned responseIm with you 200 percent! USNA1985 said exactly what I was thinking: how would people react if this moron were spewing racial epithets instead of sexual innuendo? Dont know if the incident warranted courts martial, but Im sure it sent a loud and clear message to many about leadership, sexual harassment, and professionalism.</p>
<p>Z, appreciate your candor and clarity. </p>
<p>There are a great many women in this world who've bought into the 2010 posture and belief, along with both the explicit and implied notions put forth in the Baltimore Sun piece. Thearticulation so often is extremist in its tone. Appalled. Udderly. Speechless. Outraged. Many UPPER CASED words. It all minimizes those things which we should be truly outraged about but sadly aren't. For many, this has become the battlefield on which to take the last stand.</p>
<p>For sure there's nothing to be condoned here in the instructor's behavior. Nor hers. (Not unlike the far more substantial circumstance of the USNA footballer and his complicit midshipwoman. In fact, while for another day and thread, one must ask, what will be HER punishment, if any, since logically, if he was determined not guilty of that which she alleged, then she must have lied. Cannot be both ways. Right? ) But back to this circumstance. One would think the USNA experience would be inclined to encourage her to address it as both an adult and an officer-in-training in the United States Navy. After all, and I'd like to believe this, we've been assured she's NOT like 99.9% of the little girls in this world. And that the Navy is not like the civilian workplace.</p>
<p>I am delighted when the Spidermoms out there show, tell, and teach my own daughter and other young women about how to live rather than becoming self-labeled victims, like some (I'm not convinced it's so many, only so vocal) would prefer. There are already way too many victims in the big bad world she's been born into. </p>
<p>btw, 2010, you should not be surprised that such lockeroom language and behavior is present even in the public, taxpayer-paid employee ranks. The man you would have as your "first lady" is the poster child for such abuse. But go ahead. Vote him back into the White House. </p>
<p>"I STILL did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." I somehow doubt ol' Hill used "appalled." And certainly not "speechless" when his behavior came to light, again. She probably sounded like a seaman who's been away way too long. </p>
<p>2010 did get that one right though when she said, " ... ARE THE TAXPAYERS EXPECTED TO TOLERATE THAT AS WELL????????"</p>
<p>Well, that depends on the meaning of "is" I spose. ;-)</p>
<p>wp, At least we had a balanced budget and 2,600 young Americans were still enjoying life during the time you're referring to. Explain that to your grandchildren when they're paying for Mr. Bush's War. </p>
<p>Obscene means different things to different people.</p>
<p>Yes, I guess we did. </p>
<p>Maybe Mr. Bush ought to deal with his interns like his predecessor? Ah, what the heck. The budget was balanced. Probly because he was sorely distracted by the Cuban crisis. </p>
<p>Well, you might get the chance to relive that magic. Truly, we should be mindful of that for what we wish.</p>
<p>Let me start by saying that I think Spidermom and I were separated at birth! :)</p>
<p>Dang, I feel really angry when I witness women trying to feminize men. I would like women to raise their girls to deal with the differences rather than trying to make boys more like girls, men more like women. </p>
<p>Excerpt from Judith Kleinfeld in reference to the flap over the gender gap at MIT (National Review), "But no one could be doing more to reinforce damaging social stereotypes about women than Nancy Hopkins, the MIT professor of biology who started this flap. She didn't offer argument or evidence. She flounced off, fearful of swooning. This is the behavior of a southern belle of another century, now designed for the quite contemporary political purpose of punishing speech she classified as politically dangerous. We're entitled to a higher level of civility in academic discourse than Hopkins displayed." HMMM, sort of applied here...</p>
<p>(Also, witness the whole conversation regarding what was termed as "pornography" last spring.) There is nothing wrong with guys, they are different. I am not saying that the guy was right, obviously his remarks were just plain wrong. However, I even teach my second and third graders that if you have a problem with a person you talk to the person first. </p>
<p>As to the empowerment issue, get serious. You're telling me that a stellar student with a laundry list of accomplishments cannot muster the courage to tell the guy "I feel uncomfortable and embarrassed when you use graphic sexual terms and explicit language. I would like you to refrain from using this terminology and language in my presence." No one can take your "power" unless you give it to them. </p>
<p>As to the core values, is it honorable to accept an apology and then renege? Also, it seems perhaps the others who came to her and to whom she confirmed the incident may have issues which they were using her to bring to light. Also not entirely honorable to use someone with a more vulnerable position to crucify someone you are (reasonably) angry with. Defend your own issues.</p>
<p>As to the "The guy is in charge of the girl..." Can you spell HYPOCRISY. Please. And Bill Clinton wasn't in power over Monica. How can you lionize the man who did essentially the same thing (oh, wait, it may even be worse than saying naughty words...) and villify this guy who used words in a most repugnant way?</p>
<p>I guess I am just used to standing up for myself since birth (2 older brothers, and I have been the only woman in my grade level for years) and doing it in a way which allows everyone to continue working together. And don't jump to the conclusion that my mid is some sort of misogynist. He and his father are gentlemen in the truest sense of the word and would not only not act like this boor but would take the guy out for a "discussion" post-haste. </p>
<p>Oh, and this is a lousy excuse for lousy teaching, but, as we have told our mid "You can learn just as much from a bad example as a good one. You just have to know which is which." In case someone can't tell, this guy is definitely not to be emulated. </p>
<p>87 people have probably posted while I wrote this, and 87 people will probably write me hate mail. Oy vey.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At least we had a balanced budget and 2,600 young Americans were still enjoying life during the time you're referring to. Explain that to your grandchildren when they're paying for Mr. Bush's War.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>usna09mon, this is just a bunch of left-wing BS (Barbara Streisand). You must be a member of moveon.org; this is right out of their talking points.</p>
<p>The truth is that we are in a war against Islamic fascism because of inaction by the Clinton administration. If you are interested in the truth, which I highly doubt, I suggest that you watch ABC's mini-series "The Path to 9/11" airing September 10th & 11th at 8/7c. The film is five hours in length without commercials and fortunately ABC is going to run this without commercials.</p>
<p>After this film was screened in Washington last week, Richard BenVeniste and a number of Democrats who were at the screening were just outraged at the way the Clinton administration is portrayed, and they were going to do everything they could to raise hell about it. The liberal blogosphere is going nuts over the film. They're countering it with "truths" they say they have about how hard Clinton fought terrorists and so forth.</p>
<p>The truth is that the Clinton administration was offered Osama bin Ladens head on a platter three times by Sudan. Madam Not-so-Brite (Madeline Albright) the former Secretary of State declined the offer. On another occassion, our special forces/CIA (Christians in Action) had an opportunity to kill Osam bin Laden and were not given the green light by Sandy Burgler (Sandy Burger) the former National Security Advisor.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We can relive the magic of having a President more concerned about having his knob polished by an employee of his young enough to be his daughter.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Lewinsky situation is referred to three or four times in this piece. ;)</p>
<p>Cyrus Nowrasteh, who wrote the script for the mini-seriest, says he bases its on the 9/11 Commission Report, and in the opening credits it mentions this. And quite a lot of the movie does come from the 9/11 Commission Report. The thing that struck me was the people I disliked the most are the enemy, and that's as it should be. The people that come under the most harsh criticism, the people that are made to look really evil and bad are the ones who should, and that is Al-Qaeda terrorists and their supporters.</p>
<p>The run-up to the movie starts in the early 1990s with plots hatched in the Philippines to blow up airliners over the Pacific Ocean. It goes through every attack. Well, it actually opens with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. This movie makes it abundantly clear -- and you know how people in this country are conditioned now to believe pictures: You see it, you think it's true. This movie makes it unarguable that all during the nineties, we didn't do diddly-squat, that nobody took this seriously. There were some people trying to: John O'Neill, who was with the FBI, who later got fired, a number of agents in the CIA. A lot of people were doing their damnedest to get this taken seriously and they were ignored, or they were opposed by various branches of government, various people in government, and it runs the gamut from the administration to the National Security Council, to the CIA and the FBI. George Tenet is portrayed here alternately good and pathetic. </p>
<p>Richard Clarke, as portrayed in this movie, comes across as one voice trying to get everybody to pay attention here. Sandy Berger comes across as gutless. In this one episode where bin Laden in 1998 is surrounded in his digs over in Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance and the CIA team have the house surrounded. They know exactly what building in this complex he's in. They are ready to go in and either kill him or capture him, and they don't get the approval from Washington. Berger says (summarized), "Nope, can't do it. If you guys do it you're going to do it on your own and if it falls apart you get the blame." In another incident similar to this where it was possible to take out bin Laden and perhaps other terrorists who were -- and this is before 9/11 -- planning 9/11, Madam Not-so-Brite and Sandy Bergler both refused to allow the CIA and the military to take any action whatsoever. </p>
<p>Not-so-Brite says, "The president is deeply involved in peace talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and if there is an attack on any Muslim or Islamic people right now, it will set that back." This is stunning because those negotiations never led to anything! It was all about fear. That administration was afraid of failure and what it would mean to their approval ratings, but there were problems throughout. All of the information that the FBI offices in Phoenix and in Minneapolis had that were transferred to New York FBI office and then the CIA, but they couldn't share the information. The Zacarias Moussaoui case is well gone into. </p>
<p>They had his computer. He was the 20th hijacker. His computer had the data on the plans. It didn't have the date, but had the plans. The justice department said, "Nope, we can't open the computer. We don't have a warrant. We're not going to get a warrant. We're not going to violate this man's rights this way, so forth." It makes it clear that nobody was serious about dealing with this prior to 9/11. As for the Bush administration, they don't get off the hook here. They are not let off the hook. They, too, are portrayed as -- well, they're caught up and sort of hamstrung by the existing procedures that are in place. They haven't had a chance to change them, such as getting rid of the wall and this sort of thing. </p>
<p>In the hindsight, in the aftermath, when you watch the movie, you ask yourself, "Does some of this stuff still go on?" Well, we know it does. There's a whole party, the Democratic Party, which doesn't want to take this threat seriously at all (i.e., the Murthas of teh world). They're doing everything they can to sabotage any victory over this enemy, for purely political purposes. They are acting exactly as you will see government officials throughout the nineties in this movie act: unconcerned, gun-shy, afraid, political correctness ruling the day. Some of the CIA agents in this movie are really portrayed as frustrated and just beyond belief. Great intelligence came in from the leader of the Northern Alliance, and he had pretty good data on a major attack happening in this country within, you know, 30, 40 days from the time he gave it. He didn't know what it was going to be or where it was going to be, and nobody in government wanted to take it seriously. </p>
<p>Tenet, none of them wanted to believe it because there weren't dates, there weren't times, there weren't names, and so, "Until that, I can't take it anywhere. I can't take this to the president! I can't take this anywhere else. You gotta get me names." This is our best ally! This is a guy who has told us everything that's going to happen, has happened. Nobody want the to deal with it. Nobody wanted to deal with it: hitting the aspirin factory in Sudan is covered. Hitting the empty terrorist camp where bin Laden was supposed to be (Clinton administration moves here), both of those are covered, but you really come away from watching this with the idea that we face an evil enemy that hates our guts, and that's who you end up disliking the most. It's a tough call because when you see portrayals of inaction and obfuscation and cowardice and indecision. That's infuriating as well. Now, we watch this with hindsight knowing full-well what terrorists are capable of.</p>
<p>Everybody needs to watch this movie!</p>
<p>Been in nearly the same situation. I was one of very few female employees in the Maryland Correctional System for over 10 years. I worked primarily in an all male facility. We respected one another and watched each others backs, but by the same token, it was a male environment. Most times I was just one of the gang and held my own. Sometimes the talk and jokes got colorful, I had a line drawn in my mind. Light stuff I ignored, let slide, didnt join in. When it crossed the line, I spoke up.....usually "Whoa, that was over the line, too graphic, uncalled for, etc etc" "Or wait till I leave for that punch line, I really dont want to hear this" It only took one of two occassions of this before they got the message. Every once in a while a new guy would push it, but they got the eyebrow! Then my co workers would fill them in later and it stopped. I didnt tell off jokes, didnt indulge in cussing, I wasnt a prude but acted like I wanted others to treat me. Most times it worked well for me. I afforded others a basic respect (until they proved themselves asses) and they gave me the same in return. Actually this approach has worked for me for over 30 years. Granted most of the time it was with peers/co-workers not in unequal power situations. </p>
<p>I'm not sure if anyone taught me this approach or if I just worked it out. But I have tried to relay this to my daughters. </p>
<p>Just an observation.</p>
<p>Glad to see that everybody is still capable of having logical, informed discussions about circumstance of which they know little or nothing about. [should I put a smiley face that Z is so fond of using.]</p>
<p>It seems that everybody is ignoring what was right in the story about how the young woman reacted:</p>
<p>"She said that she had accepted his apology but that she confirmed the incident when other female officers reported it and she was questioned by an academy lawyer . . . "</p>
<p>WHEN OTHER FEMALE OFFICERS REPORTED IT . . . </p>
<p>What would everybody have her do? Deny it when questioned by an academy lawyer! SHE CONFIRMED IT! The story does not say that she reported the incident.
So, it appears she DID handle it in an adult fashion.</p>
<p>The suggestion was made that if his action continued he should be reprimanded further. Perhaps he has a pattern of such words and that is why "other female OFFICERS reported it." Perhaps his colleague OFFICERS were simply tired of hearing about his actions in front of young mids, of whom he could take advantage.</p>
<p>So, yes, it does seem that she DID accept his apology. Perhaps unwillingly, but the tone of the story suggests that she did nothing further about it UNTIL QUESTIONED BY ACADEMY LAWYERS, to whom she had an obligation to tell the TRUTH.</p>