Naval Academy defends move to adjust image on national TV

<p>

</p>

<p>mombee, my point is that you see two sides to a story and immediately take the position that the other person is either wrong, misguided, immature, misinformed, an outsider, a sea-lawyer, a sh**screen, or they are furthering some personal agenda…</p>

<p>Facts are facts, no doubt about that. A fact should be something that is indisputable, backed up with verifiable evidence or data.</p>

<p>But to question others who may (believe it or not) have information contrary to yours, just because it is different from yours, does not make their information “rumor” nor is it automatically to be assumed as a personal agenda. </p>

<p>Sometimes, other people may have an insight to a situation that may have not occured to you.</p>

<p>Luigi, you are correct. In the vast majority of situations, and I cannot think of an exception, I have simply attempted to clarify and expound upon the ‘official’ position on whatever the issue of the day happens to be. I also happen to believe that our military leadership is competent, want to do the ‘right’ thing, and, since I do not have all the facts, deserve the benefit of my doubt. 99.9% of the time, this proves correct. Often, I do not have all the facts and the fact that the main thrust of my comments is simply to go along with the Administration, might be overlooked. </p>

<p>One of the first thing a Plebe learns is that, while it is proper to question that which they think improper, they darn well better have their facts together before doing so. </p>

<p>The Marines have an old saying; “Order, counterorder, disorder.” I firmly believe that there is a way of doing something that is probably 100% correct. There is also probably a way that is 100% wrong. In between, there are dozens of other ways of varying degrees of rightness and wrongness. In support of the above Marine saying, if safety, of course, and a few other major factors are not an issue,to simply go along with whoever makes the decision, but perhaps learning something and adifferent way of doing it, when and if they are ever in charge, many times avoids a lot of ‘disorder’.</p>

<p>I love everything about both the Academy and the Navy. Both have been very good to me, and to our country. And yes, people who question everything about them without any of the facts, I have very little patience with.</p>

<p>Whistle Pig, I think you know the answer to the ‘honor concept’ question. There is an entire thread here devoted to it. I will be happy to continue a discussion there.</p>

<p>I got my NROTC scholarship to UC-Berkeley (Stanford) today!</p>

<p>I still love the Navy and I can’t wait to serve my country and see the world.</p>

<p>Something I cannot believe I am actually doing, a link to Cdr Salamander for an article by Bruce Fleming:</p>

<p>[CDR</a> Salamander: A Very Fleming Christmas](<a href=“http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2009/11/very-fleming-christmas.html]CDR”>CDR Salamander: A Very Fleming Christmas)</p>

<p>Five great book recommendations for the mid, mid-to-be, or their parent. Just in time for Christmas. I was particularly intrigued by his 5th pick:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I wonder if the displaced color guard mid was in Fleming’s class.</p>

<p>mombee …but what do you say of honor? </p>

<p>Would it be dishonorable if, let’s say, a poster knowingly, intentionally took on multiple identities on a blog/bulletin board? Hypothetically, of course. Would that be an honor violation in the game of life?</p>

<p>^^^^
roflol</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I would think that unless the name on your birth certificate is Whistle Pig, which, somehow I highly doubt, that it is all relative. Everyone here is an alias.</p>

<p>I would also assume that since you three have resorted to nothing but ad hominem tactics that you have conceded that you have nothing at all of value to the discussion.</p>

<p>Well, maybe mombe, but you didn’t really answer the question. </p>

<p>Ok, suppose the rules of a blog/bb/forum said something like …

</p>

<p>And a poster might have been booted …and takes on another identity …or maybe even a couple. And let’s suppose the poster was allegedly a USNA alum and ex-USN sailor or pilot. Oh, and the poster claimed being a BGO and thus counseling candidates for USNA on …let’s say the Honor Concept. Oh, and one more …the person alleges to teach Christian Sunday school to folks, emphasizing the sinfulness of fibbing, deluding and failing to be transparent and forthright…</p>

<p>Would that THAT be an honor violation on the stage of life? I’m just so confused about all of this? :confused:</p>

<p>

I agree. You most certainly are. However, I’m sorry that I cannot help you there. </p>

<p>Good luck in your quest for an alumni sailor or pilot who happens to be both a BGO and Sunday School teacher. I’m most positive that you would find his insight on the forum invaluable.</p>

<p>A suggestion perhaps if your confusion continues. You would probably find Ad Hominem to be a more suitable username. It would give new members a heads up as to your style.</p>

<p>Be like lookin’ in the mirror, huh, mom? Twins! I get to be Arnold. You can be Danny.</p>

<p>More to the point than analyzing Prof. Fleming’s preferred reading list …is the USNA admissions information he gleaned via purchase of data through the Freedom of Information Act. One of the more interesting points he exposes though was it’s revelation that the Whole Person Multiple, a rather complex combination/weighting of diverse variables long used to calculate and prescribe a candidate’s potential for USNA success and further competition as a USN officer among his peers, has not merely been re-configured, using skin color/race/ethnic/genes as the major part of the sythesizing. Rather, Fleming concludes that for diversity candidates, it appears to have been unemployed, i.e. not even used. Rather, he alleges self-identification by candidates, many of whom have been recruited like athletes (vs. showing initial interest0 and relatively modest scholastic success (being kind) allow for direct admission. No WPM “qualified” needed and furthermore, no nomination necessary. Thus the conclusion that in truth, there seem to be 2 very separate admission trax. Which he notes is both a violation of the Constitution (discriminating on basis of race) and thus against the laws of the nation. </p>

<p>Perhaps most interesting for candidates is his somewhat detailed explanation of the WPM. </p>

<p>I doubt I’d find Fleming to my liking. Nor me to his. He’s been a chronic thorn for Academy officials. A tomcat screaming on the fence when most are trying to sleep. But his continuing service there in light of his expose(s) gives clear credence to the purpose and value of tenure. That contrarians might be heard without fear of being ex-communicated. And even hating to hear what he reports, doing so has to be healthy in constraining and balancing power, especially when it is purely political and seemingly discriminatory toward those supporting the venture and beyond.</p>

<p>How’s the saying go? “All that’s needed for tyranny to succeed is the silence of men?” Or something like that.</p>

<p>Here’re Fleming’s specific observations (if space doesn’t allow, additional post will follow);

</p>

<p>This is indefensible. This is mild racism. They should apologize and never do it again.</p>

<p>

It is so indefensible that AFA has recognized what USNA has done and is emulating them. It will continue. Totally legal in both the spirit and intent of all federal law. And the correct thing to do.</p>

<p>mombee …Didn’t your mombeeforyou ever inform you via the question …</p>

<p>“And if they jumped off a bridge would you?”</p>

<p>“Well, yea, probly. And it’s not illegal.”</p>

<p>And now, when the tank’s empty, no where to go and no way to get there, spit fumes, all the while confirming, “I’ve driven on E plenty of times, and never had this problem.”</p>

<p>Ad, you really do find it impossible to stick with the issues, don’t you?</p>

<p>We can either discuss the reasons or the methods. I would think that my AllNav on the other thread would explain the reasons. Here is the methods.</p>

<p>Fleming does not understand the nomination process. He speaks of half the class entering “direct’ and by passing the nomination process. This is a complete fallacy. True, the Superintendent does have 50 appointments and the Sec Nav does have 65 to cover all of NAPS to include football players and prioe enlisted. The Superintendent’s 50 must also cover the LOA or two without a nomination and the blue chip athletes. Everyone else basically is in the MOC nomination system either as a primary or as an alternate in the national pool.</p>

<p>Fleming disparages the Commandant for stating that MOCs can nominate exactly who they wish. The Commandant is correct. They have a commitment to their constituents. No way can the CGO dictate to a MOC who, other than the most qualified, is to receive the nomination. Between the MOC and his constituents, there would be an uproar.</p>

<p>Alternates in the national pool must be selected on the order of merit, the WPM. No exceptions, pure and simple. It is a well known fact that the SATs are racially, ethnically, and gender biased. Since the sole purpose of the test is to determine the probability of success only during the college freshman year, should a minority with a math score of 550, for example, and a white candidate with a score of 600 deemed to have exactly the same success probability their freshman year, not be given the exact same WPM? Anything else would be discriminatory. </p>

<p>All the hubbub is because USNA admissions went into the Congressional districts which have been historically underrepresented and assisted the MOCs in finding qualified candidates to nominate. Applications, for example, in NYC doubled last year. Qualified candidates were found and appointed from these 30 or so districts. Districts which haven’t been nominating. Nominees who will return in the following years and spread the word. Perfectly legal. Actually laudatory. Helping the MOCs to comply with federal law by having 5 midshipmen each matriculated. AFA is actually commencing training sessions with the MOC’s Academy reps from these districts.</p>

<p>There are no lies and no need to write letters. Perhaps we should write Fleming and ask him how the minorities he observed being selected back when he was on the board 10 years ago managed to graduate at almost the same rate as the majority?</p>

<p>Please see my post #2. Much ado about nothing. I am most sure that the member of the Brigade with the greatest lesson learned was the one who cried foul:</p>

<p>[Academy:</a> Lessons learned from color guard flap - Navy News, news from Iraq - Navy Times](<a href=“http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/12/navy_colorguard_120709w/]Academy:”>http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/12/navy_colorguard_120709w/)</p>

<p>The absurdity of “Cdr Salamander’s” logic became evident this weekend. And also proof that the truth is not his prime objective. Make your own conclusions as to their purpose. A major corollary of his position was that it was ridiculous to demand that a color guard go from six member so eight members without extensive practice. Anyone who has ever picked up a rifle for drill purposes realizes the stupidity of this argument. Imagine my surprise this weekend in Philly when the six man march on and prisoner exchange color guard suddenly metamorphosed into an eight person unit for presentation of the national colors. That they were able to both march on and exit the field, performing several turns, without either killing or embarrassing themselves must have surely been truly puzzling to the alleged good “Cdr”. My assumption that they probably had not practiced a great deal is that four of the eightsome rode up that morning from Annapolis while the other four came down from West Point. I am sure Salamander was beyond explanation. Perhaps one of his supporters could enlighten us on how this apparent highly competent evolution was possible without extensive practice.</p>

<p>Little known game fact. Next December when Army takes the field against Navy, there will not be a single Army member who has ever been on a team that scored a touchdown against Navy. Their last touchdown was in the waning moments of 2006 against a 4th string Navy defense.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course. With no facts beyond your personal opinion, you are to be believed. </p>

<p>Ok, right. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>

Having marched, having been a part of color guards, and knowing the mindset of both military leadership and midshipmen and cadets, I observed the Army buses arriving and the march on shortly thereafter followed closely by the Navy buses and their march on. The color guards were occupied separately until the presentation of the national colors for the National Anthem. Any previous practice would have required an expenditure of a great deal of time, effort, and money. Knowing the dynamics of a requirements of a practice, I am highly confident that no practice occurred.</p>

<p>And upon what facts do you base your attempt to disagree?</p>

<p>^^^^^^
Their Auxiliary.</p>

<p>General, what rock have you been hiding under for the past fifty or so years? Women are in the military now.</p>

<p>Women have been in the military for longer than that- but one doubts that Mombee is a female. I suspect that this moniker refers to “Mother Bancroft”.</p>