Former Senator Jim Webb last night announced he would not be accepting a Naval Academy Alumni Association award because of recent protests from other alumni. At first, I thought Webb, whom I always respected as a military officer and politician (if that’s at all possible), had done something egregious, causing his fellow Naval Academy alumni to consider him undeserving of the award. And then, I find out that the “protest” was lodged by a horde of females because of an essay Webb wrote nearly 40 years ago.
That’s right. Apparently in the eyes of these shrews, Mr. Webb doesn’t deserve an award that honors lifetime service to the country, personal character, and significant contributions as leaders in business or government, because of an article he wrote nearly 40 years ago, claiming women shouldn’t serve in combat.
Now, this isn’t a debate about whether women can fight or not. It’s a completely separate issue here. I can see comments getting contentious already, so I’m saying this up front. In those days, the view that women have no place in combat was not an uncommon one. Women in many developed nations did not begin to integrate into combat roles until the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Germany opened all combat units to women in 2001, resulting in increased recruitment for female soldiers. By 2009, 800 female soldiers were serving in combat units.
The Australians didn’t start integrating women into combat roles until 2011.
A British Ministry of Defense study in 2010 concluded that women performed the same as men in land combat roles.
Israel and Denmark started exploring these options early – and by “early,” I mean in the mid- to late-1980s. In 1985, Norway became the first country to allow women in combat, but few of them were attracted by the opportunities.
Whether or not you agree with this report is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. Whether or not I agree with it is also beside the point. The point is that Jim Webb wrote an article stating his opinion that women do not belong in combat roles in 1979, when such views were nothing uncommon, and the raging, squealing shrews who represent today’s “feminism” are now claiming that his lifetime of service has been invalidated, because he wrote something which they disagree nearly 40 years ago, when most other military leaders agreed with him.
But let’s put all that aside for a moment. Let’s pretend Jim Webb is a misogynist beast, who wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, making sammiches for men. From what I gather, he is no such thing, but for the purpose of this exercise, let’s just say he is. The question is: does he deserve the United States Naval Academy Distinguished Graduate Award?
The Distinguished Graduate Award (DGA) program started as a concept first envisioned by Rear Admiral Ronald F. Marryott, USN (Ret.), Class of 1957, when he was president and CEO of the United States Naval Academy Alumni Association. Rear Admiral Robert McNitt, USN (Ret.), Class of 1938, helped develop the concept to its current structure. The Alumni Association’s Board of Trustees approved the DGA proposal and in May 1998 the selection committee met under the chairmanship of Admiral Carlisle Trost, USN (Ret.), Class of 1953 to determine the nominating process. Distinguished Graduates are the embodiment of what we strive to achieve in the U.S. Naval Academy’s mission:
“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.”
As an institution, we honor our Distinguished Graduates because of their:
- Demonstrated and unselfish commitment to a lifetime of service to our nation
- Personal character which epitomizes the traits we expect in our officer corps
- Significant contributions as Navy and Marine Corps officers, or as leaders in industry or government
Each of them serves as a beacon, lighting the way for our midshipmen as they begin to chart their naval careers. They also serve by example to motivate those alumni serving in the Fleet and Fleet Marine Corps. Our midshipmen can take away much from learning about our distinguished graduates. All the Distinguished Graduates honored – lived the traits of lifetime commitment to service, personal character and distinguished contributions to our nation.
Does Jim Webb check the boxes?
He graduated from the Naval Academy in 1968 and received the Superintendent’s Letter for Outstanding Leadership.
He was a combat veteran, who graduated first in his class from the Marine Corps Officer Basic School, earned the Navy Cross for heroism in Vietnam, has a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts, and was medically retired from the Marine Corps due to injuries received in Vietnam. Whatever else he may be, there’s no denying Webb is a war hero.
He graduated from Georgetown Law School with a JD, where he received the Horan Award for excellence in legal writing.
Webb worked as a staffer on the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, and also as an attorney represented veterans pro-bono.
Webb 1984-87 served as the nation’s first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs and was the first Naval Academy graduate to serve as the civilian head Navy Secretary in 1987.
And, let’s not forget that while the perpetually offended harpies are still crying about an article Webb wrote nearly 40 years ago, other females who served honorably, defended him – even back in 2006 when he was running for the Senate.
“He recognizes the crucial role that women have in the armed forces today, and the sacrifices that they’re making alongside their male counterparts in the toughest assignments in Afghanistan and Iraq,” said retired Army Lt. Col. Kate Wilder, a Democratic activist.
The military women yesterday said the television ads Mr. Allen is airing that criticize Mr. Webb for writing a 1979 magazine article questioning a woman’s place in the U.S. Naval Academy are “powerful” but “bogus.”
“American military women have moved beyond Jim Webb’s … article,” Navy Capt. Barbara Brehm said.
The military women yesterday stressed that Mr. Webb’s point of view 27 years ago mirrored the sentiment that most men held at that time. They also think that Mr. Webb’s perspective changed, saying that in 1987 Mr. Webb opened more operational positions for women in the military than any other Navy secretary in history.
Wait… that sounds familiar. Didn’t someone closely resembling me say exactly this above?
In a characteristic show of class, which is something I’ve seen several times from Jim Webb, he declined to accept the award. “I am being told that my presence at the ceremony would likely mar the otherwise celebratory nature of that special day, and as a consequence I find it necessary to decline to accept the award,” he said.
Meanwhile, Kelly Henry, a 1984 Naval Academy graduate, wrote the letter to the alumni association asking the organization rescind Webb’s award, instead of graciously accepting her hollow victory, decided to double down on the cunt. After hearing his announcement Tuesday night, Henry said she was “absolutely stunned that he did the right thing,” as if she personally knew Webb to be a first class jerk with no honor or integrity – something I have never heard from anyone who has met him or worked with him.
Henry claimed Webb’s essay was highly-circulated while she was in Annapolis and it caused “harm” to many of her classmates, but interestingly enough didn’t have problems herself, so her offense is really on behalf of others. (On a related note, the other day a friend told me he saw a bunch of Black Lives Matter protesters downtown – all white kids.) Let’s also not forget that at the time, women at the Naval Academy were still a very new thing. The first class only graduated in 1980, and change, in general, is never easy, so laying the blame on Webb’s shoulders for the ostensible difficulties faced by a batch of brand new mids at the Academy for an article he published that likely reflected the common views of the times, is a stretch.
“The women will tell you that article was like throwing gasoline on the fire,” she said.
Henry said she was one of the “lucky” ones during her time at the academy and was in a company that welcomed the female mids. She said she was surprised to see Webb honored with the award, since 2016 marked the 40th year of women attending the Naval Academy.
She attended the academy’s celebration in the fall.
“At that celebration I felt we were embraced in the community,” Henry said. “We are no longer seen as something that tainted it, but now to see this? It completely takes away that feeling.”
So she was triggered by the Academy honoring a man who has dedicated his life to service, and who as Navy Secretary helped implement policies that actually created more opportunities for women in the service, because of an article he wrote in 1979, and when he graciously declined the award, because he didn’t want to mar the celebration with controversy, she went on to malign his character by claiming she was “stunned” that he did the right thing.
Really? Class. Do you haz it?
I may not like his politics. I may think he’s sometimes a petulant child, careening between political parties after they do something of which he disapproves. But do I consider him someone who is undeserving of an award that recognizes graduates who have “personal character which epitomizes the traits we expect in our officer corps” and have made “significant contributions” as officers or leaders in industry or government, all because he held and published a commonly-held view 40 years ago that is no longer popular? No.
I’m just not that petty.
Kelly Henry and her Sisterhood of the Glittery Hoo Ha apparently have long memories and embrace and nurture their grudges like Gollum embraces his precioussssssss.
No one needs assault weapons. Why do you need an AR-15? Only criminals need these high-powered assault guns designed to kill a lot of people very quickly!
That’s what gun grabbers will tell you. As arbiters of what you need, they arrogantly remind you that this evil, high-powered assault gun, which you can spray fire indiscriminately and consequently kill multiple nuns and small children, should be banned, because no one needs it.
Three would-be robbers were shot and killed Monday when an Oklahoma homeowner’s son opened fire on them with an AR-15, authorities said.
Wagoner County sheriff’s deputies were called to the home in Broken Arrow, southeast of Tulsa at around 12:30 p.m. local time. When they arrived, they found the three dead suspects and two uninjured residents.
Mahoney said the suspects encountered the homeowner’s 19-year-old son, who opened fire after an exchange of words. Two of the suspects died in the home’s kitchen while a third was found in the driveway.
Subsequent updates to the story say the shooter was actually 23 years old, and the suspects were armed, with one wielding a knife, and another brass knuckles. To give the Washington Post credit, they did not hyperventilate over “assault” weapon use in this incident. They didn’t even mention the word. It’s nice to see.
Meantime, the Demented Mommies, Bloomberg, and other assorted gun-grabbing trash, I’m sure, are assiduously ignoring this story.
A few weeks ago, I stumbled across a New Boston Post article by someone named Kyle Reyes – President and CEO of The Silent Partner Marketing – that explained his firm’s somewhat unorthodox hiring practices. You see, The Silent Partner Marketing is apparently a pretty cool place to work. They have a bar, they have a personal trainer, they allow dogs – YES DOGS!!!! – in the office, which should actually alleviate stress levels and increase productivity. (Yes, I speak from experience. We employed a wounded warrior at my old job, who had an adorable German Shepherd seeing eye pup, and who acted as our office therapy dog whenever he didn’t have his harness on.) So being a cool place to work, the company obviously gets a lot of interest from prospective employees, who find the benefits appealing.
So how does a company ensure they hire the best and brightest, whose personality fits the culture?
I know what it’s like to have to wade through hundreds of resumes. Whenever my office advertises a position, we drown in a swamp of resumes – some stellar, and others… well… they might as well be written in crayon. I know we’re a great place to work, but it seems these days applicants think we need to sell ourselves to them, because they’re so smart/experienced/fabulous. Sometimes it takes all my will power not to remind the applicant that with the pay and benefits we offer, as well as the fascinating work that actually makes a difference, they should be the ones selling themselves to us. More often than not, the attitude is, “show me how great you are, and that you deserve me!”
NEWSFLASH, SNOWFLAKE! We are not here to impress you. We pay good money for good skills. We hire quality people and reward them accordingly, and we screen heavily to ensure said quality. Don’t like it? Don’t apply! We are certainly not here to adjust to your whims.
Since I can’t very well inform prospective applicants that they won’t be issued safe spaces, pussy hats, safety pins, and free days off to focus on their political activism, I weed out potential snowflakes by informing them of the true benefits of working in my office.
You get to do a truly fascinating job that allows you to challenge your assumptions and stretch your mental muscles.
No, you don’t get a masseuse or your own office, but we do have a table filled with chocolate, cookies, and all sorts of treats people bring – especially when they go TDY to a faraway place! And we do get to travel! Places like Germany, Singapore, Britain, Luxembourg, and Romania are just some of the neat places we’ve been able to send our employees! And yes, you need to learn customs and courtesies. And no, you don’t get to indulge your “I only eat organically-grown, locally sourced produce that certifies it wasn’t mean to animals” predilections. You will be polite to your hosts, always be on time, always keep situational awareness, and act like a grownup, or you don’t get to go again. Believe me, I’ve done it.
You do get to interact with senior policy makers, and keep them informed about critical issues that impact this nation. No, you don’t get to choose what you brief or how you brief it. No, you don’t get to decline because you don’t like a particular policy maker. No, you don’t get to shove your own political views into your analysis. You will, however, become a subject matter expert on various issues that are vital to our foreign policy and national security, and you will develop your knowledge and expertise. I call that self-fulfillment. You like it? Come show me why I should hire you for this unique opportunity! I won’t coddle you, but I will teach you and guide you, and I will make you the best you can be at your job.
But back to Kyle Reyes.
When I read Reyes’ strategy for weeding out those who don’t quite fit the corporate culture at his company, I nearly squeaked with excitement! He calls it “The Snowflake Test.” Since he published an article about “The Snowflake Test,” it’s gone viral. I’ve seen him on the news, and he’s been on a ton of various radio programs!
I sent Reyes a note shortly after the first article was published with a short kudos for his work. He was kind enough to respond, and we had a brief conversation in which I conveyed to him how much I wished I could administer his “Snowflake Test” to those who apply for open positions with me!
Some of the questions are somewhat eclectic.
- When was the last time you cried and why? (At my son’s Army Basic Training graduation. Tears of joy)
- You arrive at an event for work and there’s a major celebrity you’ve always wanted to meet. What happens next? (I do my job. Duh.)
- What’s your favorite kind of adult beverage? (Bloody Mary)
Others are obviously designed to gauge your respect for the views and beliefs of others or your love of this country.
- How do you feel about guns? (I carry an M1911. My G23 is my other carry pistol.)
- What are your feelings about employees or clients carrying guns? (None of my business as long as they practice common sense safety.)
- What does America mean to you? (*Long discussion about the opportunities this nation provided me – ones I couldn’t get as a Jew in the former USSR*)
- How do you feel about police? (Much like I feel about others who stand up. Thank you for what you do. Thank you for your sacrifices. Your badge doesn’t come with a halo, however, so don’t abuse your authority.)
Still others take a peek at your personality and try to gauge how you would perform your duties in a marketing firm.
- What’s the best way to communicate with clients? (Politely, respectfully, but honestly and directly.)
- In a creative environment like The Silent Partner Marketing, what do you envision work attire looking like? (As long as you don’t come in with piercings all over your face, wearing leather chaps, no pants, and a tiara, I don’t care. Dress professionally. It doesn’t have to be a three-piece suit all the time, but if you come in wearing pajama bottoms and a torn t-shirt with fuzzy bunny slippers, I’ll personally escort you out.)
- Should “trigger warnings” be issued before we release content for clients or the company that might be considered “controversial”? (Nope. You hire us for our expertise and reputation. If you don’t trust us to release the very best content for your needs, maybe you should find someone else.)
Reyes apparently got a lot of flak from the very snowflakes he wants to avoid for weeding them out in such a rude and undignified fashion! After all, they shouldn’t be subjected to these intrusive questions or judged by their answers! They’re perfect candidates! They deserve an interview. They bring a lot to the table, and because they’re so special and perfect, the employer needs to sell the company to them. They’re special! They’re quality! How DARE he want to hire the best candidate possible for openings in his own company! Reyes’ attitude toward these entitled buffoons is the same as mine would be.
I was scolded by a woman on the phone yesterday who told me she wouldn’t take the test and “shame” on me for making people take a test to come work for us. She “demanded” I remove the test or risk losing out on “perfect employees” like herself.
Well, snowflake, it’s back to the heaping pile of applications for me.
I would probably send the woman a photo of her application in my circular file, because I’m not as nice as Kyle Reyes.
Rob wrote a great piece last night eviscerating David Shephard’s condemnation of conservatives who actually stand on principles on the Bull Elephant. You should really go read Rob’s fisk. He uses big words, and he didn’t drop the F-bomb even once! (Note: this is why I will never write for an actual news source or political site again. Too much effort to constrain my cursing.)
Shephard, whose claim to fame is apparently being a lobbyist in Richmond, claims that the House Freedom Caucus and its “conservative” members were never meant to be legislators, because they apparently never influence policy (Except for tanking the GOP’s shit show of a health care bill, of course. You’re welcome.) They should just hang out in think tanks and attend luncheons, proclaims a snot-nosed millennial whose contribution to the economy is lobbying and consulting.
If my eyes rolled back any harder, I’d need a pair of salad tongs and a team of Navy SEALs to retrieve them.
And that’s why, Shephard claims, Trump voters hate these guys, mmkay?
Because apparently people who want to examine legislation that has the power to affect millions of Americans and significantly impact our economy by using actual economic principles and rational thought don’t belong in government.
Rob rightfully excoriated this dick weasel.
The Trump voter, for the most part, is driven by emotion rather than logic. Trump, to his credit, seized on the undercurrent of frustration with business as usual in Washington, and rode it, against all expectations, including mine, to the White House. But let us not kid ourselves, Trump has little idea, even from moment to moment, of what he actually wants to ‘get done’. All he is interested in is ‘winning’. He is an ideologically unmoored populist. Steve Bannon, his chief political guru, has little ideological compass himself, and lacks the depth of knowledge to develop one. …And this is the guy who had the unmitigated gall to tell House conservatives in a meeting this past week “Guys, look. This is not a discussion. This is not a debate. You have no choice but to vote for this bill.” This administration will never be an effective leader for conservative principles as it stands right now.
I have, for the most part, avoided partisan discussion on this blog, choosing instead to focus on particular issues objectively and examine them from both sides. There’s a reason for this. Partisans focus on party. As Shephard shows, they care little for actual principle, and care only about advancing the party brand. Even when the party elite try to advance pure shit legislation that the majority of Americans recognize as dreck, winning is more important than what’s good for the country.
Don’t get me wrong. It’s not only a Republican problem. The majority of Americans also opposed ObamaCare, but the legisleeches back then cared more about passing legacy legislation than ensuring the good of the nation. But apparently Republicans have learned nothing from that disaster.
It’s apparently more important for them to appear to be keeping their campaign promises than to actually be keeping them. Winning. That’s how you win in politics. You manipulate public perception into believing you’re doing something, and you claim victory. It’s not about America. It’s about your party winning in Congress. So yes, when intelligent people step in and put a damper on your plans with actual facts and figures, you have no choice but to malign and bully them.
What really gets me is that Shephard has so little self awareness, that he actually thinks denigrating legislators who analyze legislation and consider its fiscal implications as worthless and “a waste of a desk and a chair,” while wrapping himself in the “conservative” mantle somehow reflects positively on him and the vapid establishment squishes who pride themselves on having no principles, but “winning” at the polls.
The Trump voters work for a living, he says in an obsequious attempt to lick the taints of the ignorant, as if the members of the House Freedom Caucus have done no real work in their lives.
Mark Meadows, the current Chairman, started a small restaurant in North Carolina, and later sold it to start a successful real estate development endeavor in Florida. Yeah, what a failure!
Brian Babin of Texas is a dentist. Obviously, he can’t relate to the working man.
Rod Blum – with his degrees in finance and business administration obviously has nothing to contribute to the conversation about legislation that would affect this nation’s people and economy, and neither does economist Dave Brat.
The caucus includes businessmen, military veterans, doctors, realtors, small business owners, as well as lawyers. Obviously, they have nothing to contribute to the health care legislation debate, and they certainly don’t have anything in common with those Trump voters who work for a living, right, jackass?
Conservatives should not be defined by the number of notches they carve in the “win” column. Conservatives should specifically defined by their principles and ideology, which shouldn’t changed based on the way the political wind is blowing. If Shephard is correct, and the typical Trump voter wants results that will “improve our country,” they should be thanking the members of the House Freedom Caucus for ensuring that the GOP’s dumpster fire health care legislation, which did nothing to reduce government dependence and kept much of what Americans hated about ObamaCare in the first place firmly in place, never saw the light of day.
Members of the House Freedom Caucus were elected for a reason. They were open and transparent about their views, and their constituents selected them to represent their views in Congress. Maybe they were tired of politicians who told them what they wanted to hear, and then fell right in line with the usual bullshit once they got to Washington. There’s a reason they sent the calculating, ambitious, unprincipled Republican Eric Cantor home in favor of the educated, passionate, pro-freedom economist Dave Brat, despite Brat’s considerable disadvantage in the fundraising department. There’s only so many times you can betray the principles you claim to hold, before your constituents say, “ENOUGH!”
Congress needs more ideologically committed conservatives (and liberals), not fewer. We need less notches on our political bedposts and more actual wins. We need people who stand behind what they believe and rely on knowledge and experience, not their FEELZ, and who won’t be threatened and intimidated into backing down and doing anything less than what they objectively understand to be good for the country. They shouldn’t care that some carnival barker threatens to primary them, because this shouldn’t be a career from which to profit, but an honor to serve the people who put them in office.
The fact that these are men who stood up and opposed a bill that would have been awful for the country despite attempts to threaten and intimidate them speaks volumes about their love of their country and their respect for their constituents and yanks the curtain open on the puppetmasters, shining a stark spotlight on their lack of values and respect for America.
Trump promised us during the election that we would win so much, we’d get tired of winning.
Perhaps our definitions of “winning” need a tweak.
I think this story tells us volumes about the principal of Trinity Lutheran School in Racine, as well as the pastor and the school board – certainly more than it tells us about the kid implicated in this sordid tale.
Here’s the BLUF.
Kid gets permission to sell water snake wigglies at school.
In case you’re unfamiliar, they’re plastic toys – bags essentially – filled with water and sometimes confetti or glitter that are wiggly and hard to hold. They’re fun little toys. I’m sure at least some of us have played with them in our youth.
Sexually repressed, possibly mentally unstable principal accuses 12-year-old child of selling “sex toys” in school, and apparently yells at her at a basketball game for selling them evil,perverted sex toys.
Child is suspended for three days.
Father goes on a crusade (pun fully intended) to clear his daughter’s name, as well he should.
…the principal at Trinity Lutheran School accused the student of selling what she thought were sex toys.
The school’s pastor, David Gehne, said this issue already went before the school board, which sided with the principal.
Now, look. I suppose anything can be used as a sex toy these days if you’re ambitious enough. There are enough inventive perverts out there to make hardware stores mean something completely different. Apparently this principal, this pastor, and this school board have some… uh… predilections (alternately, the lot of them is incredibly inexperienced and probably dull as shit in bed), if they’re considering something specifically designed to be difficult to hold on to as a sex toy.
But to ruin a kid’s administrative record with a disciplinary action, because of inexperience, personal perversions, or just plain ignorance? That’s just a no!
The school has also doubled down on the stupid and blamed students for “sexualizing” these toys, claiming this was disruptive to learning.
They claim they tried to shut down the sale of these
evil sex toys water wigglies.
They claim the student had no permission to sell these toys.
Oh, and parents complained, because their kids, being kids and all, were snortling childishly at these toys, because PENIS!
So a kid who ostensibly got permission from a teacher to sell these fun little stress-relieving toys was punished because a) 12 year old kids were being 12 year old kids b) some idiot parents were disturbed that their 12 year old kids were being 12 year old kids, and c) because the principal, the pastor, and the school board are closet pervs, who think anything remotely phallus shaped is shameful! Freud would be so proud!
Add this to the zero tolerance extra stupid, I guess. So grateful my kids are all grown up!