<p>
</p>
<p>Unless of course you’re a football player! ;)</p>
<p>(Thanks for the help Luigi - I think I have this quoting thing figured out now!)</p>
<p>
Question: What do RAdm Tom Lynch, Lamar Owens, and Nate Frazier all have in common?</p>
<p>Answer: They each refute your premise that Superintendents give special treatment to athletes.</p>
<p>It doesn’t refute the fact that Jeff Fowler gave special treatment to a specific current football player, does it? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Tell us all again about “zero tolerance” and how it applies equally to all Midshipmen. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Fowler needs to go. Who cares about the ancient history you bring up to obfuscate the current discussion. A former Supe’s (Rempt) decision on the Owens case (an admitted rapist–he was recorded apologizing to the victim–who was not convicted of rape, but booted for conduct unbecoming of an officer) has nothing to do with Fowler’s handling of this case, does it? We’re talking about what is happening NOW, not 5 years ago.</p>
<p>Fowler has been made to look like an out-of-touch fool for believing such a preposterous story as “accidentally” smoking a blunt.</p>
<p>Go Navy! Rah Rah! 7.3 yds per carry! :rolleyes:</p>
<p>PS - anyone remember “Baghdad Bob,” the Iraqi Information Minister, who (during the beginning of Gulf War 1) continued to tell us on camera that the “Americans were not in Baghdad” despite the M-1 Abrams tanks rolling past him in the background? </p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>Frazier in fact reinforces the special treatment. He was also a multi-violator of the honor Concept. It took quite a bit to finally get him kicked out (approx. 3 violations, not sure off the top of my head). Additionally, Frazier was booted to being a Plebe after completely Plebe year for frat… During Plebe Summer with a Plebe in the 4/C Regt. He actually donned PEP gear (w/motivated socks and go-fasters) and chopped to a female Plebe’s room after lights out. The only reason he was caught was because of the CMOD on duty reporting it to his cadre.</p>
<p>Oh and ADM Lynch was relieved after the whole EE thing… Many say he’s the one who protected the core group of suspected violators, the Football team. Not those who by their Honor came forward when they noticed the similarities between the gouge and the exam.</p>
<p>“Drivelers” don’t make it to Vice-Admiral?</p>
<p>While I agree taht we simply don’t have access to all the facts, the notion that senior officers are omni-competent is completely misplaced. Regardless of the facts, this situation just plain LOOKS bad. Officers [and Mids] have been dismissed for actions and records that, seemingly, were less egregious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have you ever smelt marijuana? (I have never smoked anything personally, but this is from smelling it all over the potheads in high school) It is definitely different from the smell of cigarettes or cigars and easily identifiable. For Curry to say that he “didn’t know” he was smoking pot is ridiculous…and like someone stated before, the MIDN in Bancroft and anybody who is following this story are laughing their heads off at Fowler for believing him. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? What world are you living in? I can tell you the stories of three colonels right now who are about to pin on their star and definitely don’t deserve too. Weak officers make it to the top all the time. Like Bill said, the idea that all senior officers are not only omni-competent but perfect in all they say and do just because they have shiny stars on their shoulder-boards is a serious misconception. He is still human and still makes mistakes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s bogus, plain and simple. Sorry. There are set standards, one in the same, for each midshipman at USNA. If you do not meet the standards or are constantly in trouble, you do not deserve to be there. There are no second or third chances when a ship sinks due to constant errors in judgment so there is no reason why Curry should be given another chance when he has made multiple mistakes before. And I agree with Luigi, Fowler needs to go.</p>
<p>The Lamar Owens expulsion did not happen five years ago. It happened just prior to his graduation in 2007. If one has to lie and exaggerate to prove their point, it does not say much for the validity of said point. It happened just prior to Admiral Fowler’s arrival. Admiral Fowler arrived during the review/appeals process. Many alumni felt that Owens was being excessively punished because he was a star football player and hoped that Fowler would reverse the decision of Adm Rempf. He did not. If he were the pro-football supporter that is being portrayed on this forum, he could have. </p>
<p>Nate Frazier was much much more important to this past year’s football team than Marcus Curry will be to next year’s team. When he was expelled last summer, many thought the football season was over. Guess what? We still won ten games. Football is a team game. Football at Navy is especially a team game. MalachyMarine, you say he had a similar conduct history to Marcus Curry. This makes it even more relevant. Why was Frazier expelled and Curry retained? It doesn’t give credence to the portrayal that Adm Fowler is the pro-football supporter being portrayed here, does it? Had he so desired, he could have found a way to retain him.</p>
<p>The old adage is that those who don’t learn history are doomed to repeat it. Admiral Fowler knows the story of Admiral Lynch and I am sure does not want to repeat the consequences. Tom Lynch was captain of the 1963 Navy football team. The team that lost to Texas in the Cotton Bowl for the national championship. The team that had a young Heisman Trophy quarterback by the name of Roger Staubach. The love of all things football was etched in his genes. He was a rising star. He was selected to be Superintendent back when it was a career enhancing billet for up and coming Rear Admirals. In the fall of 1992, there was a ‘wires’ cheating scandal. Somehow the final exam was stolen from the copy room and passed around the brigade. Admiral Lynch bragged, in retrospect, a little prematurely, that no football players were implicated. He resigned from the Navy, a black eye on his entire career. Because of this very episode, the Superintendent selection process at all three SAs was changed by SecDef from being a stepping stone for the front runners to a twilight tour for the more senior. A twilight tour where their decisions would be their own, not hampered by outside influence with future promotions as a contributing factor.</p>
<p>
Well, it is not the high-school-junior world that your profile indicates that you are living in. If it wouldn’t be so laughable, I would ask you what personal observations and experience would cause you to arrive at this conclusion.</p>
<p>
Since you are responding to my ‘small’ untruths statement, I will address it as such. Let me preface by stating that I am by no means a psychologist. However, there is a type of individual who will never accept responsibility for anything. No matter how convoluted the story has to be, there will always be an excuse or reason, outside their control, why certain things happened. All of these reasonings will involve extraneous remarks, some even stretching the truth. They were raised this way. Will they make good Naval Officers? Perhaps. But first, they have to learn to be held accountable. Fifteen years ago, USNA recognized a need for an ethics department for just this sort of thing. Allow them to do their job. Incidentally, there are those who always feel compelled to talk, even though they do not have the experience or facts to support their views, who sometimes fall into this category.</p>
<p>
Navy discipline and leadership demands that this be the initial reaction. We don’t want junior officers sending emails to bloggers every time their senior officer gives the order to attack the hill, do we? Comply, if time critical, and then question IN PRIVATE via the chain of command. Very necessary to the support of good order and discipline. I sincerely hope each and every one of those mids who sent emails to Salamander , when they arrive at their first duty station, will have a young seaman who has figured out when the skipper takes smoke breaks and plans his break accordingly. About the third time that someone walks into his space questioning his decisions, a light bulb will go off. And Salamander, had he had the best interests of the midshipmen, the Academy, and the Navy in mind, would have emailed each and every one of these individuals back and suggested they take up their concerns via the chain of command.</p>
<p>Nero keeps fiddling, Rome keeps burning. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>And the Mids (especially Curry) keep laughing at the gullibility of Fowler.</p>
<p>The tarnish on this institution by the actions of Jeff Fowler will remain as long as he is the Superintendent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, no, I am not a junior in high school…I’m a freshman in college. Not that it’s much of a difference but I just wanted to set the record straight. I’ll adjust my profile so nobody gets the wrong information again. “If it wouldn’t be so laughable…” You sneer at my age but you have no knowledge of the experience I have. Just because I am young does not mean I have not experienced the incompetence of those at the top of the chain of command. First, I have lived on or by bases my entire life, I have grown up with the Air Force as the center of my environment. Now, truthfully, I did not get most of my experience from just being a dependent. I also did an internship for seven months and continue to visit and learn more about the squadron I worked in. Now, seven months of an internship does not equal 20 years in the military but it is enough to figure out which officers are weak and which ones are really going to make the military better. I will not give any personal information (names, bases, squadrons etc.) but trust me when I say, I DO have some experience. I can guarantee you I have more “real world Air Force experience” then most 4/c and possibly 3/c at USAFA and that’s the truth. </p>
<p>
That reaction might be demanded but I doubt that it is the “initial reaction.” It would be foolish to believe that someone makes all of the right choices all the time just because they are an officer of high rank.</p>
<p>This is like the little boy crying “WOLF!” Before he announces it, one can predict w/ 100% reliability that which is about to be professed. Even if it’s not true, and regardless of the sincerity and being seemingly informed. And there’s no doubt, the little boy means what he proclaims as “truth, honest!”, thinking he’s seen the wolf w/ his own eyes. Occasionally, as the fairy-tale eventually reveals, indeed a wolf was really present. His proclamation was true, at least on that occasion.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the one whose chronic cry of knowing the truth, no matter how well meant, and no matter how much he believes it, eventually loses its credibility and believability. And readability, revealing that he never learned the absolute truth …brevity is next to godliness, or something like that. Instead, the cry becomes just one more plea portending that there is a wolf , or no wolf, but definitely true, whatever the issue. Either way and in any and all cases, the truth gets lost in the predictability of the communicator’s position. Even though he is in many cases, telling the truth. </p>
<p>And the hearer/reader is not disinclined to listen and help because he’s insensitive, uncaring, or selfish. He’d be glad to help, but he’s not glad to waste his time w/ false alarms.</p>
<p>And so it is here. No matter the issue, the response is predictable well in advance of its being cried. And more unfortunately, the truth, when it is occasionally, even often cried, gets lost among readers mumbling, “Oh that’s just one more know-it-all cry, assuring us how smart and right and true it all is.” Why? Because the supe says so. That’s why. And the Supe’s an admiral.</p>
<p>Now, if we’re taking orders, the Supe saying so is both necessary and fully sufficient. But it doesn’t mean it’s true. It just means he said so.</p>
<p>And that’s the real issue here, imo. The little boy’s chronic cries disguise and dismiss any credibility, even when they might be. And all because the unbending position is loyal love.</p>
<p>I much prefer the notion that Mids should be taught to THINK and have the guts to call it when a wrong needs righted. Instead of simply, “Whatever you say sir. You’re right, the Japanese would NEVER attack Pearl Harbor, especially on a Sunday. I must have been watching birds on that new-fangled radar. Sorry sir.”</p>
<p>And I much prefer the idea that the way our beloved USNA gets better is not burying or subverting these issues. No, I believe real love discredits mindless loyalty.</p>
<p>I won’t undermine my own argument–and before Mombee points it out–like trackandfield does. BUt, I have worked with and around enough GS12s and O-6s and higher to know that the corrollary to th ePeter Principle [in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties" and adds that “work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence”] is well entrenched within the government. </p>
<p>With some notable exceptions, only those who could not think of or not find a better position remain in straight up government/military service after 20+ years.
In other words, if one can’t find or develop a position in the private sector as an executive vice-president in charge of North American Whatnots and/or as a non-scheduled government employee [cabinet level, under-secretary level, ambassador level or the equivalent] then most likely that person’s inadequacies are simply being obscured by the military/government machinery. </p>
<p>From what little I have seen, the Adm. seems a prime example. I’m willing to concede that we don’t know all the facts, but his consideration of appearances has regularly been tone-deaf. [Maybe it was all that silence/isolation in submarines that finally got to him.] The “initial reaction” to his decision? He has all the facts and we don’t. Subsequent reactions are that this is but one more decision that reflect the Adm’s incompetence.</p>
<p>Haha, reading what Bill said, I did go back and realize I did just undermined my own argument. I hate that you can’t really edit your posts on CC or if you can, I just don’t know how to. Anyway, regarding my previous post, please ignore it. My experience or lack there-of, is not the issue at hand and I really do not wish to argue about it when it has no relevance to what this thread is about.</p>
<p>I don’t believe the Adm is incompetent for one minute. In fact, I believe he has been given a specific, challenging, unpopular, politicized assignment. And he’s been aggressive if rather dated/antiquated and unimaginative in identifying and implementing his strategies and more so in communicating and selling them. It seems to me they are grossly transparent and fly in the face of the oldest, most valued traditions of the Navy. </p>
<p>But I’m guessing he’s determined to keep a low profile and leaving the damage control and PR to his successor. btw, my understanding is that word is out that he is now officially lame supe status, along w/ the 'Dant.</p>
<p>And …in fact, one can’t help but wonder if these men (unlike the Supe and his 1st inherited 'Dant who were like oil and water except both were oil) are really like Abbott and Costello, Burns and Allen, a hand and glove. The classic “good cop/bad cop” both working for the same outcomes and doing so w/ a very masterful strategy. </p>
<p>In any case, we know they are both loyal, devoted, capable company men with futures in politics when comes time to turn in the stars and stripes. They know how to steer around, thru, and with the DC currents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you are way way off here. I don’t know any more about civil service than you appear to know about the military but to lump them together is a gross injustice, maybe to both, but definitely to the Navy. The military, Navy specifically, has a strict up or out policy. Either one meets a promotion zone or they are forced to retire. Additionally, Adm Fowler, due to the downsizing of the military in the post cold war ‘90s, survived probably a 50% O-5 selection rate and a 30% or less O-6 promotion rate.</p>
<p>Additionally, when one reports to their first command, they are competing for a ‘track’. The best and brightest get the best follow-on orders to enhance a successful career. The middle of the pack are given orders that will give them another opportunity to prove themselves. The bottom of the barrel are given orders which basically tell them to commence looking for another job. This process will continue throughout their entire career. With each set of orders and each promotion, the ‘A’ list gets smaller and the ‘B’ and ‘C’ lists are forced into leaving the military. A vice admiral Superintendent of the Naval Academy has been on the ‘A’ list for his entire career. All flag officers have not only been screened for each promotion but also effectively for each set of orders they were ever issued.</p>
<p>Lets examine the O-5 at the 20 year mark. They know, without a doubt, which ‘track’ they are on. Very very few of the ‘A’ trackers will retire. The already have a very fulfilling and rewarding career. Why go look for another. There are also viable Navy assignments for ‘B’ trackers. However, some who have never accepted that if they cannot be the best, don’t want to play, will explore other opportunities. The ‘C’ listers have seen the handwriting on the wall and, still being relatively young, will look for a second career. Those who decide to stay will be shuffled off into an assignment where they will do no harm.</p>
<p>It is a very viable system which gives continuous opportunities for the cream to rise to the top and only the best and the brightest to be placed in positions where they are required. However, perhaps the Navy ought to look at hiring trackandfield08. He might be on to something in that he can make a few visits and then decide where everyone should be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The mission of the Naval Academy:
</p>
<p>I assume there are those who feel that the portion of the mission which I have highlighted, should be removed from the statement and forwarded to the Admissions Department for compliance. Very very few candidates on I-Day are capable of preventing a ship from sinking. That is one of the reasons that they are trained for four years there.</p>
<p>I could have sworn I said to ignore my post as I could not find a way to edit it but since you replied mombee…my sinking ship event was an analogy…not to be taken in a literal sense. I know that they are trained for four years to do their job correctly, thank you so much for pointing out the obvious. Part of the mission is to “develop midshipman morally.” Seems like they haven’t gotten very far with the development of Curry’s moral standards considering this is the third honor violation he has been accused of. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not even going to try to comment on this. You’ll just use what I say to attack me personally…again. And by the way, I am a woman, not a male…guess you couldn’t see that I was a female from my profile but you had no problem in seeing what level of education I have completed. One small comment though: It doesn’t take 20 years of experience to tell who is a great leader and who is a poor one. I have talked to several members of the military who are on the lower end rank wise and could tell me what good officers are like and what bad officers are like. I have also interacted with officers of almost every rank and, although they are smart and mean well, do not have the presence of a true leader. This is coming from the daughter of an E9 and E8 in the Air Force, two people that have plenty of experience with all types of officers. From what I have heard of the Commandant at USNA…he sounds like a true leader. It’s the Admiral I am not so sure of. Anyway mombee, if you have an issue with my age, experience etc, PM me and we can discuss it in private but try not to berate me and subtly try to insult me on a public forum. I am trying to be respectful to you…please have the courtesy to do the same to me.</p>
<p>Trackandfield08, I think you suffer from one of the shortcomings for which you blame Midshipman Curry, the inability to accept responsibility for your actions. You come on this forum and, based on sitting around the coffee mess a few times talking to a few of the junior ‘ranks’, determine that three career military officers who have given their entire adult life to the service of their country, do not deserve promotion, and then want it to go away with no comments. Allow me to give you a small bit of advice. Good leadership is not based on some teenage version of a popularity contest. You do not deserve to carry the brief cases of these officers. However, relax, even though you deserve a lot more ridicule than I am prepared to give you, I will let it drop. So long as you do not continue to dig yourself deeper into a hole by laughably attempting to defend your position. However, if you plan a career in the sea services, you might want to learn the definition of ‘sea lawyer’. And I guess we can be thankful that your mom and dad are not doctors.</p>
<p>Mombee, sent you a PM. </p>
<p>To everyone else: I am sorry for cluttering up this discussion with the meaningless debate about my experience or lack thereof according to mombee. Please ignore the posts from myself and I will stop posting on this thread starting now. I have no wish to get into a public debate on a public forum that draws away from the topic of discussion. You know my opinion and I will leave it that way and not debate any longer.</p>