<p>Excellent post Luigi59 #22</p>
<p>As a previous Midshipmen, I would like to say that the Naval Academy places a higher value on sports than it does academics, or any other type of intellectual activity. </p>
<p>I know Midshipmen who were told to go to the Navy Basketball games over watching the President’s State of the Union address. </p>
<p>Because we all know, “athletics=money> everything else” at the academy.</p>
<p>I actually wasn’t surprised to see this article. Why is it every time news is published about the Naval Academy it’s always about theft, rape, drugs, assault, or cheating?</p>
<p>I remember back in November the Commandant had to call all the Firsties for a meeting. Basically he told them to get their **** together. Numerous instances with firsties having sex with plebes, firsties jumping off buildings when they were drunk, and having to have facial reconstruction as a consequence, and firsties getting into bar fights.</p>
<p>I would hope by the time you are a firstie at the academy, the Commandant wouldn’t have to be telling you this. I think this really shows how well the honor/conduct system works at the academy.</p>
<p>To all considering the Academy:</p>
<p>IF you had any of the expectations I had when applying and accepting an appointment for the Naval Academy, you will be very disappointed not only in the administration but a lot of your classmates. I want to advise you, that the Naval Academy is an average institution, hence the average officers it produces. </p>
<p>To all that were never within the walls of the Academy,
Just as many midshipmen on here stated, a lot of the stuff that goes within the walls does not get put out publicly. Some goood, some bad. A lot bad, actually. I know a lot of friends still at the Naval Academy who are not talking about this football player incident because they are being threatened with punishment for saying anything. Nazi Germany? I remember getting emails during the Color Guard incident that basically said for all midshipmen to shut up about the incident. The administration does a lot of work to try to keep all information about what happens within the walls secret.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your latest post pretty well shows that I did not misinterpret you at all. Go back and read my last post. I simply asked if your ideas were based on fact or were they preconceived? You still have provided no fact and your opinions remain preconceived. </p>
<p>First off, you pretend to acknowledge GoNavyXC in that there was only a single honor violation but I have taken the liberty of high lighting in your quote where you continue to make reference to three ‘incidents’ or ‘violations’. We all know the premise of most US law is that one is innocent until proven guilty. You seem unwilling to acknowledge this. With that said, and with absolutely no desire to draw GoNavyXC into the fray, we all know there are many instances of ‘guilt by association’. A classroom cheating situation comes readily to mind. It might be left up to the board to take statements and sort it out. I see you are a Woop. The USNA honor ** concept ** is basically a polar opposite to that of the USMA honor ** code **. USNA is based almost entirely on remediation and education. In the good old days, many incidents were handled informally. It appears that this trend is reversing itself. About fifteen years or so ago, USNA recognized a change in the moral fiber of the Brigade and commenced teaching ethics. I ask you, how can one justify the need for formal ethics training and then kick someone out in the fall of their plebe year for an honor offense prior to their having a chance to be exposed to this training?</p>
<p>Secondly, you ask me if I think he is guilty. Personally, I have absolutely no idea. I do not have the facts to support any decision whatsoever. I was hoping you did. Three days ago, I did not know what a ‘blunt’ was. Google is a wonderful thing. Unlike Salamander’s desire to have us believe that it is a handful of marijuana crudely wrapped with a tobacco leaf in a large cigar-shaped method, I have found out that the center of commercial cigars are hollowed out to accommodate the marijuana. The question as to why one would ruin both a good cigar and good marijuana to do this is answered by the reasons thereof. To camouflage the activity itself. To give the impression that one is smoking a cigar, both visually and aroma. Kind of a modern day marijuana brownie. Did you know there has been an urban legend around for years that some Cuban cigars, Monte Cristo’s specifically, that are laced with marijuana when they are manufactured. The nicotine buzz is that strong. So I suppose if the cigar was strong enough, the hollowed out portion was small enough, that one could accidentally ingest marijuana. To support my premise, I have been in duty free shops with young Naval Officers who refused to illegally smuggle Cuban Monte Cristos back in the states because they believed they contained marijuana. And, no matter how gross it seams, I have been offered drags on cigars by Naval Officers. So I suppose anything is possible. </p>
<p>However, this is all irrelevant. Back in the cold war era, one did not select subs by being stupid. One still does not make Admiral by being stupid. And one definitely is not entrusted with the molding of our future Naval Officers by having a background of stupid and foolish decisions. Admiral Fowler had ALL the facts available. He made a decision. In the absence of anything at all concrete, I will not discredit him. My only concern is a very few midshipman who have not learned the concept of chain of command who think they are ‘speaking’ for the entire Brigade and contact some anonymous blogger who should have been embarrassed out of business with his false ‘expose’ of the color guard instance. It should all have stayed in house and is probably the same ones who screamed loud and long because they knew someone a few years back who might have possibly had a meal where they missed one of the three major food groups during the mess hall renovation debacle.</p>
<p>
And how long were you a Midshipman?</p>
<p>You know I THINK CC has it’s own Robert Gibbs. And equally effective, I might add. ;)</p>
<p>A tough job that someone has to do, I spose. The good news? Just imagine the book that’ll be written when it’s over. :eek:</p>
<p>mombee - okay, first of all I’ll ask where the “fact” is that you’re providing as well? My opinions are a bit preconceived, but actually I haven’t read Commander Salamander at all. My son and a friend were at CVW last weekend at Navy, and stayed and worked out with football players. At that point, of course, this was the main topic of discussion, but also at that point, everyone was convinced, without a doubt, that he would be kicked out. And it seemed like they (mids in general, football team in particular) were very happy about that fact. Sounds like he doesn’t have a very good following from the brigade - or maybe they’re just tired of seeing “USNA smeared in the mud”. Guilt by association? Well, sure, I can see that happening once. But 3 times? Nope, sorry, that’s a pattern! </p>
<p>I spent a semester as an exchange cadet to USNA, which while I realize doesn’t qualify me as an expert on USNA, does at least mean I understood the differences in theory between USMA’s Honor Code and USNA’s Honor Concept. And to be honest, at that time at least, there really weren’t any other than the toleration clause (which doesn’t seem to come into play in this issue anyway). This whole “remediation/reeducation” thing is new at both academies, not just Navy. I actually found several things to much stricter in terms of the code/concept at USNA than WP. For example, at WP anything you entered in your calculator before walking into a test was considered fair game (keep in mind these weren’t the calculator/computers of today), whereas at Navy even having something in memory from another class could constitute cheating. At Navy, using an old test for a class to study was considered cheating; at WP, we collected and stored such tests to make study packets for future cadets - it was considered the prof’s job to change the tests from year to year (and shoot, even from day to day!). </p>
<p>If “personally you have no absolutely idea if he’s guilty”, how can you be certain he is not? Seems like you’re being just as biased in your opinions (not facts!) as I am! And your statement that (in effect) since Admiral Fowler made the decision it must be correct leads me to wonder as well. Do you believe that all leaders or those in power always make the right decision? That there’s no possible way that the “athletics=money” equation vvyh mentioned played into that decision? I think any rational person would question that decision, and as an Army fan, I’m certainly entitled to! ;)</p>
<p>Here’s the latest from the Washington Post: [url=<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012904149.html]washingtonpost.com[/url”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012904149.html]washingtonpost.com[/url</a>] Personally I consider them a little more credible than a “blog”, and it sounds like WP grads aren’t the only ones unhappy with the situation - more than a few mids/Navy grads aren’t as well. </p>
<p>I will concede that I too had no idea of what a “blunt” was until a couple days ago as well!</p>
<p>mombee:</p>
<p>When you look up, is the sky green?</p>
<p>Only if the Admiral says so. He’s definitely not stupid. Nor sadly, is he color-blind.</p>
<p>I always thought it was MOC (pronounced moke) and that it was a disparaging term used for the janitors but actually meant to poke fun at Marines. In other words, the janitors were called MOC’s, which stood for Marine Officer Candidate. I don’t think the term is used any longer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL. I have no opinion. Therefore, one cannot provide “facts” to support nothing. I am simply attempting to understand why someone, with no facts to support it, wholeheartedly supports the most damning of the hundreds of possible scenarios. And no, I am not going to list and examine the pros and cons of each of these many possibilities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you sure about this? Not sure about the late '80s, but both before and after it was not true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My entire point. And how can you be so sure he is? And if you are not sure, is it fair to the SAs to provide blind speculation?</p>
<p>I never said Admiral Fowler was correct. I simply said that he had all the facts at his disposal in order to arrive at his conclusion. You don’t.</p>
<p>With that said, with Admiral Fowler’s personality and leadership style, I would submit that the last thing he would ever do would be to make a decision based on a special interest group rather than what he believed personally.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL, again. Did you read the article? It is nothing more than a report on the blog itself along with two anonymous quotes. Nothing credible about it. However, I guess it alleviates possible future lawsuits. That, in itself, shows us the credibility which the WP affords Salamander.</p>
<p>This entire episode, beyond the fact that Curry popped positive, is based on absolutely nothing more than rumors from Bancroft Hall. And we all know that sometimes they can be less than factual. Maybe we should bring up honor offenses for any of these malcontents who leak anything other than the absolute truth.</p>
<p>No, you have provided no facts to support your most damning of all the possible scenarios except for the fact that you are a WP grad. The green eyed monster is ugly. There are two ways to have a successful football program; be good or make the others look bad. You should support the higher road of these two avenues.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Not sure the spelling or the origination and am not sure if it is disparaging. A quick survey of old Logs and Shipmates seem to indicate ‘moak’ as the preferred spelling. (The most current; see the August 2008 Class of 1960 Shipmate class writeup - moak).</p>
<p>The only reason it is back in my memory bank is that someone was introduced to me last fall who worked at the Academy. When I asked what he did, I was informed he was a moke/moak.</p>
<p>"I never said Admiral Fowler was correct. I simply said that he had all the facts at his disposal in order to arrive at his conclusion. You don’t.</p>
<p>With that said, with Admiral Fowler’s personality and leadership style, I would submit that the last thing he would ever do would be to make a decision based on a special interest group rather than what he believed personally."</p>
<p>I think this is the concern. It isn’t that a special interest group has gotten to him (maybe they did a while ago…). It’s that he really BELIEVES the drivel coming out of his mouth… This is more frightening to me.</p>
<p>“This entire episode, beyond the fact that Curry popped positive, is based on absolutely nothing more than rumors from Bancroft Hall.”</p>
<p>Yes the rumors from Mother B are always entertaining. However, there is always a degree of truth in them. Given my proximity (in years) to Mother B, I still have reliable eyes and ears there. These claims are based in fact. The Dant did recommend separation (I’ve actually stood in his office with Mr. Curry’s CoC, while he had one of his Honor Adjudications) along with his CoC. On occasion, specifically as a 1/c, one might happen to actually see another MIDN’s personnel file on MIDS. Perhaps if one needed to print off said “rap sheet” and include it in a adjudication package for the Dant. (i.e. the demerits are accurate)</p>
<p>
“Drivel” molded by a very successful thirty-something year Naval career. I believe in the system. Drivelers do not make Vice Admiral. He had his reasons and I find it impossible to believe that they were reasons he could not wholeheartedly defend. That the accused was a varsity athlete would be not be one of these reasons. </p>
<p>
And we both know that at breakfast when the 2/c leans to the classmate on his left and whispers the latest gossip, that when at evening meal the classmate on his right leans over and repeats the latest version, the original perpetrator would not recognize it. Your eyes and ears are only as reliable as their source. “A degree” is the proper ratio of credibility. </p>
<p>
Why? Without this knowledge, this statement means absolutely nothing. Not that I believe it whatsoever but what if the Commandant’s endorsement stated; “Even though there is an element of doubt as to whether he knowingly commited the act, since he is a varsity athlete, public hue and cry would not support anything other than dismissal”. With Adm Fowler’s personality, how do you think he would react to this?</p>
<p>
And we both know that there are many many reasons for demerits, some totally reprehensible, some unavoidable, and maybe even a few quite noble. As a matter of fact, almost half the voters in the United States last fall voted for someone with way more demerits than Mr. Curry. Probably some of the same ones who are now using the demerit argument to demand dismissal. The public does not know the reason behind these demerits which precludes them from making an accurate assessment as to his retainability. The same applies to the two honor acquittals.</p>
<p>I agree demerits aren’t everything. I have about 200 myself. However, the times have changed. Most MIDN get through USNA without a SINGLE demerit. I got mine for two major conduct offenses that I was extremely guilty of and readily admitted my mistakes. Perhaps it was the only reason I managed to graduate. Having 335 demerits is a significant issue. It doesn’t just happen overnight or because you forgot to shine your shoes or get a haircut. It signifies severe refusal to follow the rules. I know Mr. Curry. I had to work with him (and not just from the Honor aspect). I can tell you that he does not get it. He has no desire to serve as an officer, and I doubt that he even has any idea what an officer does other than order people around. Additionally, he is an habitual liar. While his history doesn’t indicate it, MIDN are very reluctant to accuse others of offenses so it isn’t fully indicative of his true nature. He regularly tries to say small ‘untruths’ in order to escape punishment or even admonishment. I would not trust him if he said he brushed his teeth in the morning. He is not fit to be a Naval Officer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Go Navy. Rah rah. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>What pride mombee must feel knowing that such a Mid is going to be an officer in the United States Navy. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Zero tolerance. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>mombee, make sure to cheer extra loud when he takes the field, as he exemplifies all that the USNA stands for, and is a Mid you can be proud of. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>After all, 7.3 yards per carry is HUGE :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Forget the 335 demerits, forget the one honor conviction and the two other honor accusations. </p>
<p>Oh and forget the positive drug test.</p>
<p>After all, it was an accident. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>(And Uncle Jeff bought it, so it must be true.)</p>
<p>“There is no presence of American infidels in the city of Baghdad.”
“Baghdad Bob,” the Iraqi Minister of Disinformation, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf
(as American tanks rumbled through the streets behind him)</p>
<p>
Back in the good old days he would have been forced to make a sign from a piece of string and attach it to the cardboard back of an 8 1/2 x 11 notepad, write “SEA LAWYER” on it and wear it 24/7 for a week. Probably the next time he was wont to make a small ‘untruth’ he would remember trying to explain to the little old touron lady what the sign meant. Now they go before the honor board. Which works better? I know mids who wore the sign that learned the errors of their way and went on to become successful and competent Naval officers. There are going to be midshipmen showing up like this every year. The newer kinder Academy has got to find a way to deal successfully with it. To simply dismiss them is the easy and lazy way out. </p>
<p>Retention vs dismissal is not a popularity contest.</p>
<p>
The pride I take is knowing that USNA is an institution with the capability of educating, training, and molding young individuals to become outstanding officers in the United States Navy. If they showed up perfect, there would be no need for an Academy, would there?</p>
<p>
The SA forums not like your disparaging of successful USNA Division I football so you bring it over here. The green eyed monster is ugly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’ve been banned there THREE TIMES under three different names - </p>
<p>USNA69, oldgrad, and mombee. </p>
<p>You must be proud. </p>
<p>btw - Nice attempt to deflect the issue.</p>
<p>A first hand account of a current Mid, with first hand knowledge, and you STILL question it.</p>
<p>While every Navy-related discussion site is filled with current Mids, former Mids, current Naval officers, former Naval officer, and future Naval officers — ALL of whom agree universally that the facts in this case clearly point to a Mid with serious issues who should not be attending the United States Naval Academy — yet you want to defend a drug using D1 football player…why? </p>
<p>Oh right, Beat Army! :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
Read his post. He is not a current mid. Previously, a current mid told us not to believe everything we read.
Read my posts. I have never defended him. I have, however, ask everyone, in the absence of any credible evidence whatsoever, not to jump to conclusions-and perhaps ruin a midshipman’s life prematurely. I have, in fact, defended someone who has given their entire adult life honorbly to service of their country, again asking posters not to jump to premature conclusions based on incomplete evidence.</p>
<p>I am bailing out for a while. It is not because I don’t enjoy this conversation but because, every since UD Mom ask me yesterday to look up to see if the sky was green, I got a mouthful of snow. It has stopped and I think the roads are finally clear so I can make it to the snowboarding slopes.</p>
<p>This is not about ruining his life. I am sure he will be afforded every opportunity to do great things in the future or not… However, he SHOULD have lost his chance at the Academy. That does not ruin his life. It simply prevents someone from being a Naval officer. Additionally, I agree with your statements about one who tells ‘small untruths’ or how the total tally of demerits does not tell the whole story or even maybe forgiving a failed drug test (as a exception). However, these are NOT three individual cases. It is ONE person who has consistently shown his lack of character. Exceptions should be held for the exceptional MIDN (who showed a one time lapse in judgment) not for a consistent miscreant.</p>