<p>
</p>
<p>That should be readily apparent to any sane, thinking person reading your ranting, realizing anyone who’d spend their Thanksgiving time driveling and droaning on and on about how their half-fast opinion must be god-given “fact” and how everyone should cease and desist, and buy your bullony. 
</p>
<p>But, lest you don’t know, ask Nurse Wratchet to explain. :eek:</p>
<p>WP, instead of personal attacks, how about identifying specifically where you think I am ranting, driveling, and droaning with bullony.</p>
<p>Thanks for your concerns about my time management. I am flat on my back recovering from surgery attempting to balance a laptop on my stomach. What is your excuse for constantly ‘answering’ my posts before I can even get them edited?</p>
<p>However, I do consider time spent worthwhile to help clear up intentional false slanders against the Academy.</p>
<p>It’s also most curious when adults without interested hs students/mids/grads rant and rave for years on this forum. In fact, it’s downright creepy.</p>
<p>Amen, usna09mom.</p>
<p>While this article is namely about the Coast Guard Academy it has some bearing on this discussion.
[Despite</a> pact, few blacks at CG school - Navy News, news from Iraq - Navy Times](<a href=“http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/11/ap_blacks_in_cg_school_112409/]Despite”>http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/11/ap_blacks_in_cg_school_112409/)</p>
<p>^^^^^^^^^
</p>
<p>Cummings has done an outstanding job in his district and thusly, it does not need to be one of those to which the Academy must devote valuable resources in order to insure compliance. If all the other 40 black lawmakers shared his zeal and drive, we would not be having this discussion.</p>
<p>WARNING:
THE FOLLOWING POST IS BASED SOLELY ON MY OPINIONS AND WHAT I ‘FEEL’. ANY CONCLUSIONS I MADE ARE TOTALLY FROM CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.</p>
<p>I think by now that it is obvious, from the absence of anything of substance in their posts, that there are certain individuals who, not only not knowing any of the facts of the case, couldn’t care less about them. Furthermore, by attempting only ad hominem rebuttal, they are attempting to falsely discredit anyone who attempts to present an understanding of the case. How and why could this be? We all know that there are people who stand by the rail tracks wanting to see a train wreck, that ‘fans’ attend NASCAR events solely hoping to see a serious crash, that people chase ambulanes just to see blood and gore. I ‘feel’ that what we have here are posters wanting to see a train wreck. They want to see USNA brought to its knees, Admiral Fowler publically humiliated, Admissions ‘eat’ their perceived arrogance. They ‘demand’ an investigation. They deny any logical explanation, they attempt to ‘shoot the messenger’ for anyone who is not a part of their agenda. Unfortunately, with the advent of the internet, no matter the facts, recruiting these individuals, no matter how absurd their agenda, is relatively easy.</p>
<p>Well, guess what folks? You better pack a picnic because it is going to a long wait. Given current conditions, the train wreck is not going to happen. You ask why they don’t investigate? There is nothing to investigate. You ask why they don’t respond to the allegations? To publically respond would add unwarranted legitimacy to an issue that does not deserve same. However, they have carefully timed and worded innumerable releases which rebuts everything that has been alleged. As I stated earlier, one has to have a basic concept of the admissions process to understand the correlation. Maybe I should have added that they also need to have the ability to ‘add two and two to get four’. Obviously, there is not a requirement to understand admissions nor an ability to add to post on a blog.</p>
<p>Bottom line, if you want to understand the admissions process, reread my posts. If you want to see the Academy falsely discredited, join a blog. Maybe if the internet is powerful enough, they can recruit enough converts to fulfill their cause. Here is a good one to start with:</p>
<p>[CDR</a> Salamander: Diversity Thursday](<a href=“http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2009/11/diversity-thursday_26.html]CDR”>CDR Salamander: Diversity Thursday)</p>
<p>Of course, this being America, it is your choice.</p>
<p>mombee,
I don’t know if this is a duplicate user name as some suspect it is; if so, then you are in the same boat (so to speak) as the rest of the people who post here w_ the sole purpose of just being argumentative.
On the other hand, if you are truly only a member since July '09, then you are coming to the realization that for many people on sites such as this, they only post to be contrary. Having survived innumerable flare-ups over the past five years, I can tell you that you are absolutely correct in one observation: nobody like to let a few facts get in the way of their arguments.</p>
<p>The Academy admission system is quasi-political in nature. It is set up for a “diverse” group of students to be admitted. Diverse as to the student’s geographic location, academic background, military background, and, yes, ethnic makeup. This notion that the Academy should only admit the “best and the brightest” is something that exists only in people’s imagination. </p>
<p>In fact, the Academy’s mission statement does not suggest that it seeks to admit the “best and the brightest.” To the contrary, it implies that the Academy’s mission is to “develop” those who are not the best and the brightest. [Implicitly, the “best” would not need further development.]</p>
<p>“To develop midshipmen morally, mentally and physically and to imbue them with the highest ideals of duty, honor and loyalty in order to graduate leaders who are dedicated to a career of naval service and have potential for future development in mind and character to assume the highest responsibilities of command, citizenship and government.” </p>
<p>Further, the mission tasks the academy to “imbue” [as in “impregnate”] midshipmen with the “highest ideals.” This implies the expectation that applicants are accepted who do not have the highest ideals of duty, honor, and loyalty or else there would be no need to further impregnate them with such ideals. </p>
<p>But, none of this matters to those who choose not to accept the Academy’s own words. </p>
<p>This argument [and this thread] flare up from time to time. You could ask any one of the numerous posters how they would define “best” and you would get few responses that made any sense.
Admit only based on SAT score? Admit only based on class rank? Admit only based on some other quantitave score? College admissions is inherently a subjective process.<br>
The fact is, the admissions committee does the best it can under the circumstances it has been given, including oversight from a “diverse” Congress that demands a student body that is diverse. [Will be intersting to see how much Coast Guard leadership will squirm in the coming months over this issue.]</p>
<p>In brief after brief, the Academy often describes itself as a leadership laboratory. A laboratory in which leadership is nurtured and developed. If all the Academy did was admit the “best and the brightest” [or even only those who clearly and definitely oriented towards leadership], then there would be no need to experiment with various leadership opportunities. The NA experience could be catalogued and carried out year after year w/ no variation. The formula would be set. No laboaratory needed only a mechanized treadmill churning out leaders. I doubt this is what the Navy wants and it appears clear this is not what Congress [or the peoplewho vote] want either.</p>
<p>But, again, you are trying to reason w/ those who care not about reason.</p>
<p>Bill, good post. I agree with about 99% of it. However, one of my greatest endeavors was not to be argumentative. You question my success? Confrontational, considering both the issue and the opposition? Definitely. Attempting to draw out both sides of the issue? Absolutely. Attempting to present my case in the most absolute manner I know how? Of course. Argumentative? I certainly hope not. And if I was, I apologize.</p>
<p>Read the predicate “if so . . .” If no duplicate [rather falsified] user name, then the rest of the sentence does not apply. </p>
<p>I think [and can only sort of infer because I haven’t asked] some may think you may be a cover for previous posters who have been banned from CC for the the drawn out, insufferable, counter-claim-to-everything, know-it-all, type of posts to which you refer. Sometimes your postings resemble those but, more frequently, your writing style does not.</p>
<p>Questioning your success at not being argumentative? Nah . . .I don’t care about that. I only glance through most of the postings because I know where this is headed: nowhere.</p>
<p>^^^^^^^Whew, thanks. Confession. About an nanosecond after my ability to edit expired, I reread your post in it’s entirety and decided that I was over reacting.</p>
<p>I love your correlation of the dichotomy of only admitting the ‘best of the best’ and the ‘brightest of the brightest’ and the resultant lack of need for any further training. A corollary would, I assume, be that in order to brag that one received the best education in the world that it would be dependent on the fact that they had to suffer training with the ‘less thans’.</p>
<p>WOW. You people either have WAY to much time on your hands or need to take your meds more regularly. =]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UDMom, hopefully no one will ever make unsubstantiated false inflammatory accusations about anything you hold near and dear.</p>
<p>Agreed! :)</p>
<p>mombee:</p>
<p>My point is that the people writing dissertations on this forum are neither policy writers nor lawmakers. Their opinions are of no consequence. Your view need not be corroborated by strangers on a web forum to be valid.</p>
<p>Whistle Pig:</p>
<p>You should consider volunteering to coach debate at a local high school. It is something you would be very good at doing. You would argue the hind leg off a mule if you thought you could.</p>
<p>Ahhhhhh . . . you should have been around in the good ol’ days.</p>
<p>You probably haven’t noticed but the USNA thread used to be FAR ahead in number of postings compared to other SA threads. [of course, the only reason AFA is catching up is because of the daily countdown posting] WP and mombee have nothing on some of those people who could post, on average, 10 - 20 times PER DAY. [I mean even WP only has 2,600 posts over 42 months. Zaphod posted 3,800 posts in 24 months and I can tell you the vast majority of those were posted in teh first 18 months.] THOSE were the good ol’ days. [Not really, it became a pain in the neck to read all the countless charges counter-charges, etc.] AND, y ou know what: UDMom is correct; the opinions espouses were to no consequence. </p>
<p>Good to see that there is still so much time to waste here in America.</p>
<p>No UDMom, only when I’m right. 
:eek: 
</p>
<p>In this specific case, a few debaters put forth the notion of “diversity” …which is like apple pie, the American flag, and my mama…fine and dandy, even desirable, a good thing …at the enormous expense of equitable treatment, fairness, and merit, apparently persuaded that how it all looks as the troops and more specifically their leaders look as they march off to war than how they might upon their return. Ironically, that position upends the very simple ideal and reality that the Armed Forces has been one of the last bastions of equity and merit, where skin color, family heritage, where one went to HS, was less important than one single factor…could one get the job done. Prove it. </p>
<p>Well, that’s been the traditional basis for admissions to USNA as well. Prove you are the best American. Apparently not so anymore. Now for some it’s prove you are the most colorful. Or the most Asian. Or …</p>
<p>I’m of the conviction that diversity must be deemed a desirable outcome not purchased with expending the best and brightest. And in the end, that’s what Professor Fleming argues, using USNA data. </p>
<p>And thus far, not a shred of hard, factual evidence has been provided in a credible forum to counter his case. By USNA officials or anyones else. I only wish they would. </p>
<p>So UDMom, you have nailed this with your point. …
We can go point-counter point until the ships come in. But the ONLY thing that matters is what Prof. Fleming has detailed vs. what USNA has said absolutely nothing to counter. Why won’t USNA corroborate? </p>
<p>And unlike this practice in a civilian college admissions office, or the HR dept of an insurance company, or in hiring for the IRS, this is literally about life and death. No game. </p>
<p>So …yes, unlike most other issues, this one merits lots and lots of debate, enlightenment, and attention. Especially as a public entity where there should be no place for nurturing unequal opportunity, setting artificial quotas. When lives are on the line, I want the best my money can buy. Don’t you? And …“best” has long been defined by USNA. And only recently been altered, it seems, absent any evidence beyond PC. </p>
<p>But back to the job. How much does it pay?</p>
<p>So …Agreed, again! Dittoes to your point 
And you, my dear, get 1st place in the tournament, with special points in logic and truth!</p>
<p>
Don’t we all? As Bill requested, define ‘best’. If ‘best’ can only be defined as the status quo and what has worked well in the past, as you indicate, we would probably still be waging war with longboats and oarsmen.</p>
<p>On one side of the coin, we have a group of highly trained individuals, a group that is the very product of the system of which you are attempting to defend, the best it has to offer, a group who, between all of them, has hundreds of years of experience observing and interacting with the entire spectrum of the products of the Academy, a group that has spent countless hours examining every nuisance of any possible conclusion which they must make, a group that is intimately familiar with all the background and inputs necessary to make an informed decision, a group which is intimately familiar with all the ramifications of that decision, a group that will be held accountable for the results of that decision as long as they live, a result that will affect the quality of the US Navy and hence the entire United States of America for longer than we both will live.</p>
<p>On the other side of the coin we have an individual who has never spent a single day in the fleet observing the product to which he has been entrusted to develop, being responsible for only a very minute portion of that development, an individual who doesn’t even understand the reasons for the decision, much less having examined them carefully, an individual, who for his accusations to have ‘merit’, must write all this off as simply only a desire for “PC”, an individual who spent a single semester at another unique institution and published a lengthy ‘study’ of what was ‘wrong’ with it, not what was good about it, an individual with a long history of being quick at finding fault.</p>
<p>Pick your side. I’m with USNA who feels that there is really nothing to ‘corroborate’ and will not even grant it the legitimacy of an acknowledgement.</p>
<p>No need to cover old ground. UDMom has nailed the answer to your question.</p>
<p>All one need do to figure this out is think a bit.</p>