Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    A real officer and gentleman would not have committed the rape(s).
    Therefore your not going to get an answer from them. i.e. an officer
    who theoretically would admit to it would not have done the crime
    in the first place, and a non officer gentleman would not admit to
    it if he had.  
    
    I believe the legal system recognizes people who come forward and
    admit they are guilty vs. the person who has to be hunted down and
    had the crime proven by jury.  That is, in the first case the sentence
    is likely to be less severe.
    
    Appropriate punishments for rape?  I don't know as I want to get 
    involved with that rats nest of noters violent emotions which ranges
    from cut their XXXX's off to pay them and let them go. 
    
    Jeff

    Jeff

    The incidents were not rapes. What happened was that the men set
    up a gauntlet along a corridor and 'manhandled' the unsuspecting
    women who turned down the corridor from the elevator. In one case
    an aide to the admiral had been sent to that floor intentionally
    (or so it seems) to 'trap' her, and in another case the woman was
    being escorted by a man who led her to the gauntlet.
    
    The initial reaction to this appears to have been a sort of 'boys
    will be boys' and what's all the fuss about.
    
    Bonnie

    <an officer who theoretically would admit to it would not have done the
    <crime in the first place, and a non officer gentleman would not admit
    <to it if he had.  
    
    nonsense

    human beings don't obey some abstract model or definition.
    this could easily be explained simply by guilt
    That is to say, that somebody did it under whatever circumstances then
    felt guilty enough about it (say sober) to fess up.
    So is that person an officer and a gentlemen or not?
    
    Gee, now that i think of it perhaps you were trying to jerk our chain?

    Sort of a 'hazing' situation which sounds frought with sexual
    harrassment 'overtones'.  The military certainly is changing in
    its attitudes regarding 'appropriate' hazing of underclasspersons.
    I think that in the past the attude was way to lenient and outrageous
    (even criminal) things happened to the hazees. 
    
    Now lets hope that an appropriate balance can be attained.  Personally
    I think the hazing is/was unnecessary and simply an excuse to pick on
    people of lower military status. 
    
    Jeff

    Jeff
    
    These were fellow officers! I dont recall that the military has a 
    tradition of officer hazing officer. Further, two of the women were 
    civilians who were brought up stairs to the gauntlet by a male officer.
    
    And do you really think that grabbing women's breasts, disrobing them
    and grabbing their crotches, is just 'hazing'?
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .4  Jeff
    
    > Sort of a 'hazing' situation which sounds frought with sexual
    > harrassment 'overtones'. 
    
    Nope.  It was sort of a "sexual assault" situation with rape
    "overtones," actually.
    
    Many of those sexually assaulted were civilians.  The Naval personnel
    who were sexually assaulted were officers.
    
    > Personally I think the hazing is/was unnecessary and simply an excuse 
    > to pick on people of lower military status. 
    
    Nope.  It was an excuse to commit sexual assault (in a situation where
    they thought they'd get away with it.)

    rape overtones?
    
    why not murder overtones, too?

    I dunno, Mike, if a man pulled off my clothes and grabbed my
    breasts and crotch I'd find rape overtones in that, but not
    murder.
    
    

    RE: .7  Mike Z.
    
    >>> Sort of a 'hazing' situation which sounds frought with sexual
    >> harrassment 'overtones'. 
    
    >> Nope.  It was sort of a "sexual assault" situation with rape
    >> "overtones," actually.
    
    > rape overtones?
    > why not murder overtones, too?
    
    Why didn't you ask, "Hazing with sexual harassment overtones????"
    (My note was another way of asking this question.)

       re .7:
       
       > rape overtones?
       
       Why not?  Some writers have so cheapened the word 'rape' that it
       has come to mean almost any sort of affront.  Some time ago, a small 
       crowd of hystericals equated the insulting of women in their notes
       conference to rape -- if the word can be so thoroughly abused by
       those noters to denote anything that they find offensive, it
       surely would fit here when the meaning is a lot closer.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    RE: .10  Don Topaz
    
    > ...if a word can be so thoroughly abused...
    
    "Abused"???  Was this a case of physical assault or are you using the
    word "abused" in some other sense (the way other humans in the world
    sometimes do this)??
    
    

    If I might add something this was an assault with sexual overtones. 
    Sounds like close to rape to me.  
    
    I suppose these same "gentlemen" haze each other by ripping clothes off
    and grabbing the private parts of men as well?  wht no? you mean that
    would be demeaning and sexual towards men?  Oh my.

    there she goes again

       Suzanne, are you being intentionally ignorant, or have you yet to
       learn the meaning of the word `abuse'.
       
       To abuse means to misuse.  Do you understand that?  Is anything
       unclear?  Abuse = misuse.
       
       Now, to abuse a word is to misuse it.  Still with me?  Good.
       
       When you misuse the word `rape', you abuse the word `rape'.  When
       you abuse the word `rape', you cheapen it.  A person who likens
       affronting women [in a notes conference] to rape misuses the word
       `rape', abuses the word `rape', and cheapens the word `rape'.  
       
       Get it?  
       
       Do us a favor, read this note over again, and listen to what's
       been said before launching a Suzanne-a-Screed.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    we should be so lucky

    RE: .14  Mr Topaz
    
    Geesh, Don, don't get hysterical.  I was just teasing you.  You've
    often signed your notes to me "Your pal," so I thought we were just
    nudging each other.  If you're seriously upset, I'll try to be more
    gentle with you in the future.
    
    Calm down in the meantime, ok?
    
    > A person who likens affronting women [in a notes conference] to rape 
    > misuses the word `rape', abuses the word `rape', and cheapens the word 
    > `rape'.  
       
    *If* such a thing happened, I suppose you'd have a point.  However,
    it appears you are too emotionally distraught to tolerate corrections
    on your mistaken impressions and/or faulty memory, so let's drop it.
    
    Take care of yourself, Don.

       
       Suzanne, it's just so gosh-darned difficult to tell when you're
       'teasing' and when you're just being good old Suzanne.  Why, if
       I'd had any idea that you were jes teasin' and funnin', showin off
       that finely-honed, thigh-slapping sense of humor for which you're
       so famous, I'da had me one good hee-haw at your note. 
       
       But on second thought, Suzanne, it strikes me as curious, indeed,
       that you find it ok to joke or tease when the subject is focussing
       on rape.  
       
       --Mr Topaz

    
    
    > you mean that would be demeaning and sexual towards men? Oh my.
    
    M_Evans,
    
        Yes! Thats why we don't do it. We demean each other(men) by acting
    like animals, by caving into our lower instincts. Of course we train
    these pilots to use there base instincts,they have to be killing
    machines with the lust for blood. Perhaps we cannot blame them for
    there caring the instincts of the lion from the cockpit to the 
    convention? Maybe we made them this way?
    
    
    David 

    RE: .17  Mr Topaz

    > Why, if I'd had any idea that you were jes teasin' and funnin', 
    > showin off that finely-honed, thigh-slapping sense of humor for 
    > which you're so famous, I'da had me one good hee-haw at your note. 

    Hey - glad to see you're already feeling better, Don!  (Your forced
    laughter doesn't even sound all that maniacal.  Yet.)

    > But on second thought, Suzanne, it strikes me as curious, indeed,
    > that you find it ok to joke or tease when the subject is focussing
    > on rape.  

    Well, seeing your notes just naturally puts me in a good mood (unless
    I have to start worrying about your emotional state, that is.)

    The subject in this topic isn't rape, anyway.

    When someone called the sexual assaults at the Tailhook Convention
    '' "hazing" with sexual harassment "overtones,"'' I responded with
    a parody of the remark:  ''"sexual assault" with rape "overtones."''

    Of course, I realized that my parody would be greeted with the
    usual crying and gnashing of teeth, but I thought I'd risk it.
    It's Friday.

    
    
    
     Ahem! I hate to break into this lovers quarrel here, but could we
    please chit can the " Neurotics are us" dialogue and turn a bit more
    towards the basenote.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Basenoter

    Well we've gone from 'rape overtones,' assault and abuse of women to
    abuse of the word rape. As always, the topic at hand is quickly
    dismissed and derailed.
    
    Afraid to face it, huh.
    
    M.
    

    I really do wonder if any of the naval officers who were involved
    in the incident found anything to be wrong with what happened after
    the fact.
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    -1 
    
      Good point! If it can be shown that they were conditioned to be this
    way should they be able to plead "Diminished capacity" not guilty! 
    
    
    David

    Granted, the woman in question Can go any where she wants. Its a free 
    country and etc. And I am not trying to do the boys will be boys
    crappie. But every one knows what this game is about. What the hell
    was she doing even in the same building if these boys were going to be
    buttheads?

    Men typically require a more precise and more narrowly defined context than
    women. In my opinion, any woman that doesn't understand that and act on
    it in her communications with men, is not making a sincere effort at
    communications but is -rather- harassing.

    .24
    
    I give up.
    
    M.
    

    re <I give up>
    
    good
    

.22>  I really do wonder if any of the naval officers who were involved
.22>  in the incident found anything to be wrong with what happened after
.22>  the fact.
    
.23>  Good point! If it can be shown that they were conditioned to be this
.23>  way should they be able to plead "Diminished capacity" not guilty! 

Hey, I'm sorry to have to tell you this but in NO WAY were the actions of this
mob defensible!  What can you possibly find to argue about?  If there was ever
an incident needed for females to rally around, this must certainly be it!

As far as appropriate punishment, the "gauntlet" should be made to "take" what
they "gave" and for this a certain Klingon ritual comes to mind...

    in re .24
    
    George
    
    *some* of the women in question were pilots attending the same
    conference as the men. sounds like a good reason to be in
    the same building.
    
    *some* of the women were down stairs in the hotel and had been
    asked upstairs by individual men. it is a public accomidation
    where the women had every right to be.
    
    *one* woman was an aide to an admiral who was 'sent' up to the
    third floor intentionally to trap her in the gauntlet (according
    to the newspaper account).
    
    I fail to see that any of the women so describe should be blamed
    for what happened to them.
    
    Do you honestly think it is perfectly all right for men to act
    in this fashion?
    
    Bonnie

    
    
     -1
    
       Odd answer. If they were conditioned in such away as to make this
    sort of behavior acceptable you would punish them! Shocked!!! Where
    is your humanity and forgiveness! Where is that inkling of liberal
    love that extends beyond the scratch the surface mentality of the
    news media? Perhaps the men had a good reason to do what they did?
    Maybe when a few good men are found we will here another side to the
    story that will add a different dimension to it?
    
    
    David

    
    thats a -1 -2 (oops)
    

    
    After reading .30 I think it would be a good idea for me not to go
    anywhere where you might be.  I can see no GOOD REASON for what these
    men did.
    
    I would really like to know what could be a good reason to lure women to
    a place where a large number of strange men can get their kicks by
    touching their private regions against their will.
    
    And I wonder what would have happened had it been men who walked up
    into that hall, and had women fondle theor parts.  Would that be OK
    too?
    
    Lisa

    Hey, DYBEN, if a group of women wanted to form a gauntlet with the idea
    of you passing through, I volunteer to spring for the cattle prods. 
    See how YOU like it...

    
    
    -1
       Ever hear of playing  The Devils Advocate". And to think I spent all
    the money on tickets to the south of France just to impress you. You can
    forget it now Lisa Gassaway :-)
    
    
    David           p.s. On a serios note. Would a feminist ever hold a
                    seminar on " How to love/help men thru the changes
                             we think they need to make" Or is it all 
                             just about hissing and saying" SINNNNNNNNNER"!

The admiral's aide had in fact been to previous "conventions" several years
before and had not seen any the type of behavior she was subjected to.  
Newspaper reports said that the gauntlet had been done in recent years, and
that it was also common for there to be prostitutes, pornographic films,
etc.

If in fact this sort of behavior was known about by officers in charge, it
is a sad commentary on the state of the military and the manner in which
all too many men try to oppress women.

			Steve

    
    
    God I swear every time I do a -1 someone cuts me off so it looks
    like I am addresing the wrong person!. Now regarding the cattle
    prod. I don't know you well enough yet:-) 
    
    
    David

    RE: .30
    
    > Perhaps the men had a good reason to do what they did?
    
    What reason would be good enough to excuse the crime of sexual
    assault?
    
    > Maybe when a few good men are found we will here another side to the
    > story that will add a different dimension to it?
    
    What "side" would be acceptable to you?  (How about, "We didn't mean
    any harm.  We just wanted to feel some breasts and genitals and knew
    they wouldn't let us do it unless we got into a violent gang and
    forced them..."?)
    
    What would make this incident seem ok to you?

    .29 No Bonnie I do not. But if it is a known fact, like ciggettes and
    lung cancer, why would anyone in their right or left mind even consider
    such a ludicrist thing? Would you jump off a clift if every one else
    was doing it? Even if they were Bungi(sp) jumping? These guys were
    known, a given fact, every year for some umpteen years. 

    
    Mr. Dyben,
    
    I really am glad to hear you were playing Devil's Advocate.  That would
    have been my first reaction, had I not been reading some of the other
    tidbits in Digital notesfiles where people really do, in all honesty,
    believe that harrassment must SOMEHOW be the fault of the harrassee, and
    not the harrasser.
    
    The sarcasm wasn't clear.  
    
    Lisa

    
    
    Lisa,
    
      I will try to have more exact sarcasm:-) Please answer the p.s.
    question in the previous.
    
    
    David

    RE: .38  RAUH
    
    The hotel (where this incident took place) had other guests besides
    the Tailhook conventioneers.  Some of these other guests (who had
    not heard of the previous behavior of these jerks) were sexually
    assaulted.
    
    The women Naval officers who were assaulted were *also* caught by
    surprise (literally ambushed as they got off the elevator.)
    
    Up to now, these incidents had not been reported in the press, so
    the prior incidences of assault were not public knowledge.

    
    
    Conlon,
    
      Flame -off ! Read " Devils Advocate".
    
    
    David

RE:          <<< Note 801.24 by AIMHI::RAUH "I survived the Cruel Spa" >>>

   > Granted, the woman in question Can go any where she wants. Its a free 
   > country and etc. And I am not trying to do the boys will be boys
   > crappie. But every one knows what this game is about. What the hell
   > was she doing even in the same building if these boys were going to be
   > buttheads?



   Well, ignoring for a moment all the other arguments that could be made here
   (and stating that I have not read all the other replies in the topic at 
   this point), I wonder what were these "boys" were doing in the Navy *and*
   what were *they* doing in that building if *they* were going to be "butt-
   heads".


   And, why shouldn't the women be in the building to begin with particularly
   since they were invited by Naval Officers?




 Jim

    
    
    Lisa,
    
      I did not ask you for " shoes on the other foot " examples! I asked
    if there are any NOW seminars designed to help men overcome the
    perceived problems. We have enough people to look at a drunk in the
    street and say " God what a drunk" but far to few do anything about
    it. If your answer is no please explain why. I must admit that if the
    answer is no then this issue will polarize  even more, someone needs
    to reach out a hand ( perhaps tough love hands) and start to solve the
    problem one insensitive male at a time.
    
    
    David

    I think that I understand the reason some of the men have been contrary
    and argumentative in this and another discussion.
    I think it is because they feel (if I am right) that some women came
    into the conference to pick a fight.
    
    				herb

    .43 Beats me Jim. I wasn't there, I am not in the Navy and I would
    not have clue one why any of the above took place. The only thing
    I can say is that If yha play with fire your going to get burnt.
    And that includes both Men <the boys> and women/wymin<the girls>.
    And this is a clear case of both playing with it.:) What else
    can you we make a mountain out of a mole hill for conversational sake.

    
    
    Herb,
    
      No i disagree. I think they all had different reasons, and picking 
    a fight probably wasn' wanna them, (accept maybe that meany Reinke :-)
    ).
    
    
    David

    Yep! Its Bonnies fault!:)) Fifty lashs with cat nine.:)

    
    how about fifty lash with nine cats..
    
    
    Messy,
    
    David

    
    I had this other reply here, but I'd rather say this differently.  I'm
    generally tolerant of other people's beliefs and the "difference in
    gender" etc.  But my tolerance ends when those beliefs start to make me
    feel uncomfortable, degraded, or worthless.  When I'm walking down a street
    minding my own business, and some guys pass in a car, and start screaming
    "woo-wee...shake it bay-bee", and then everyone else on the street
    turns around and stares, I get embarrassed.  If it happens at night, I
    get scared. What did I do to attract that attention?  I've had it happen 
    while I'm wearing sweatpants. What did those guys get out of that?
    
    If I'm talking about some serious issue with someone, and after I
    finish fully talking about my ideas, their response is, "Gee your
    hair looks nice today.", I might well have been talking to a wall.....
    Did what I say have any impact at all?  Was my opinion worth anything?
    
    I generally don't go for most of the hardcore "feminist" dogma.  The
    men I choose to associate with, don't pull the stunts that give "men in
    general a bad name".  If they did, they wouldn't be my friends.  There
    are good men out there and I'm not going to start with the "men are
    scum".
    
    SOME men are scum.  And believe me, if there were signs that said
    "Enter here for harrassment" you'd bet I'd stay away.  But there aren't
    signs like this.  It's almost impossible to tell sometimes who will
    turn out to be a lowlife and who won't.  Some folks probably don't even
    realize they're doing it.  All I can say is if you're wondering about
    the effect of some behavior, just reverse the roles.  If you'd be
    uncomfortable as the recipient of that action, then your intended
    "victim" would most likely be too.  
    
    You don't need a feminist course in "How to make men pliable", just use
    your head, show respect for those around you, and watch for feedback.
    Simple courtesy and communication skills.
    
    Lisa

    re .48,.49
    I didn't say that the women came to pick a fight.
    I said that I thought some of the men feel that way.

    
    Oops, now all the replies are out of place.
    
    I don't know of a specific course the teaches men how to behave, most
    likely because that's the job of their parents.  There are a zillion
    books, talk shows, courses, etc, to teach communication skills, and to
    make people aware of harrasing actions. 
    
    Of course there are the gray areas, but actually sticking out your hand and
    grabbing someone's genitals (without their consent) is unacceptable no
    matter WHO you are, male or female, Navy, Army, 4-H Club or Brownie.
    
    If I don't like a TV station, I can turn it off.  If I think you smell,
    I can walk away.  These women were not given the option of getting out.
    They did not know about what was going on up on the third floor (Do you
    really think that if they had known what was going on they would have
    gone up there?), and once they stumbled into it, they couldn't get out.
    
    Lisa

    
    As for "shoe on the other foot" examples, it was one way to make one
    aware of insensitive behavior.  If you don't like it being done to you,
    then don't do it to someone else.
    
    Lisa

    
    
    Lisa,
    
    
      Thank you ..
    
    
    David

    
    No problem, David.
    
    Lisa

    re:.10
    
    Well, "rape" can be any violation of the woman's space, any spatial
    penetration by a male is a rape of some sort.  Not the real kind, of
    course, just the figurative kind.
    
    In the past year I heard passive smoke referred to as "raping my
    lungs" and landfills as "raping the environment."  It seems as though
    some people have a rape fixation, and consider everything to be a
    form of rape on one level or another.

    RE: .57  Mike Z.
    
    > In the past year I heard passive smoke referred to as "raping my
    > lungs" and landfills as "raping the environment."  
    
    "Raping the land" (a variation of "raping the environment") is an
    expression from the 1960s.  If you've only heard this in the past
    year or so, I'd be really amazed.
    
    > It seems as though some people have a rape fixation, and consider 
    > everything to be a form of rape on one level or another.
    
    Nope, but people often react to the word as though they have some
    sort of obsession with it.  (For example, I used the word [in a
    figurative sense] only once in this topic - back in reply .6 - and 
    I wonder now if some folks here will ever recover from the shock.  
    We're already at reply .57 and it's still under discussion.)
    
    Obviously, the word has quite a bit of impact (even when it's used
    in connection with an incident of multiple sexual assaults by a
    violent mob of Naval aviators, which is very close to being rape
    in a literal sense.)
    
    The word isn't used figuratively very often at all.  It just seems
    that way because the reaction to a single use of the word seems
    endless sometimes.

    David Dyben, My first name is 'Bonnie' btw. I think that you and
    George are aware that I didn't 'come in here to pick a fight'...
    At least that's how I'm taking your remarks, thankyou.
    
    and Lisa thank you for expressing things so clearly. George, I hope
    you understand from my notes and Lisa's and Suzanne's that the
    women didn't know what was going on on the third floor before they
    were caught there. Nor did they know that this sort of behavior
    was part of the event.
    
    'that meanie Reinke' ;-)
    
    
    p.s. I have better things to do with my cats than use them for 
    lashes... ;-)

                <<< PEAR::DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                     -< SOAPBOX: Not So Humble Opinions! >-
================================================================================
Note 14.1371                       News Briefs                      1371 of 1371
MILKWY::ZARLENGA "Michael Zarlenga, DEC/FXO"          2 lines  26-JUN-1992 23:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Secretary of the Navy has just resigned over the incident at
    last year's Tailhook convention.

    re.0 the whole buch of 'em should resign their comissions.

If all they get are dishonorable discharges they should consider themselves
lucky.

				-- Bob

    re "Officer and gentleman".  Herb, that was an idylic model.... not
    real of course.  The way the definition of officer is SUPPOSED to I believe my model would apply THEORETICALLY.  And yeah it was
    a tongue in cheek quote.
    
    Jeff
    

    
    
    Bonnie, B-O-N-N-I-E,
    
    
      Okay,I guess first name are much more friendly:-) Now with that out
    of the way lets get to it. Listen here you FEMANAZI radical left wing
    male bashing,quote raping, apolegetic,,oh my GOD I can't believe I let
    loose like that :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
    
    YES I AM JOKINGGGGGGG,,
    
    
    LOVE DAVID

    	Question:  What would have happened had these perpetrators been
    enlisted men?
    
    	Further question:  Should a college degree and officer status make
    these people more or less responsible for their actions?
    
    	And still another question:  If these people should be more aware
    of the consequences of their actions, then why would enlisted men (IMO)
    be treated more harshly than these "officers and gentlemen?"
    
    larry
    former PO2

    
    
    
    -1
    
      good questions. Answer is that no a college degree should not
    make a difference, but reality is that we live in a caste system
    filled with meglo-maniacs.
    
    
    David

    
    
       Anybody heard anything new on the " Tailhooks " scandal?
    
    
    David

Well, let's recap, shall we?  

At a convention of naval aviators, 26 women, half of them naval officers, 
were groped and harassed in a motel hallway 'gauntlet' of around 70 naval 
officers.  The incident happened last fall.  Allegations around misconduct 
surfaced immediately, but a Naval investigation questioned 1500 naval 
personnel and found only two suspects, one of whom received 'counseling'.  
An Admiral's aide among the molested complained to her boss, who told her 
she "shouldn't have gone to that floor".  He has been relieved of his 
command.  The Navy has turned the investigation over to the DoD, admitting 
that they can't get any farther, ie, this is an institutional coverup.  The 
Congress has now held up the promotions and command reassignments of 4,000 
navy and marine officers until it can be determined where each one of them 
was on the night in question.  The Secretary of the Navy was in attendance 
at a party on the same floor, and went to the gauntlet hallway to get a beer 
at one point, giving him the appearance of condoning the incident, which has 
lead to his forced resignation.  The US Navy has ordered an unprecedented 
one day 'stand-down', whereby every unit will, in rotation, take an entire 
day off for the unit to receive training about sexual harassment.

Haven't heard anything else about it, recently.

DougO

    
    
    -1
    
      I'm sorry I didn't get that, could you please repeat it :-)
    
    
    David

the funky part is how the same congress that oh-so-quietly and deliberately
slandered and disrespected Anita Hill last fall during the Clarence Thomas
hearings is now so surprised and ruffled that the flyboys followed their lead,
that they're holding up navy promotions.  The incidents occurred within about
a month of each other.

DougO

One thing I've read is that two women are on the list to replace the Secretary
of the Navy.  One is member of Congress on the Armed Services Committee, the
other is  (I think) currently an Undersecretary of the Navy.  Both appear to
be qualified and have extensive knowledge of military matters.

			Steve

    
    more stupid congresssional grandstanding.
    
    why should office staff who had zero to do with it
    (its a private, not government funded, function)
    lose their jobs. the accused should get every 
    right they are entitled to under the UCMJ, and
    oh by the way it forbids collective punishment.

    
    
    > it forbids collective punishment
    
     Congress is not obligated to follow the UCMJ. 
    
    
    David              p.s. I hope someone breaks ranks and confesses!
    
    
    

'lose their jobs'?  Who lost jobs, Robert?  Promotions are being held up.

There is no question that the navy stonewalling is an attempt to
coverup the crime of sexual harassment.  Lying to investigators en 
masse is forbidden by the UCMJ too, right?  Remember, the initial
navy investigation found 2 perpetrators.  2 guys molested all those
women all by themselves?  Set up a gauntlet all by themselves?  This
is an institutional problem and if it takes some amount of congressional 
grandstanding, holding those promotions and headcount hostage, then for
once their grandstanding may do some good.

DougO

    
    fack remains that congress critters are feeling heat and want
    to spread the misery to any convenient scapegoat, even to the
    point of screwing loyal law abiding (female yeomen, for example,
    and clarks) employees in the pentagon.
    
    i hope they sue the crap out of the services for wrongful termination
    or discharge. 
    
    where is the justice in terminating these people? the clear and 
    obvious answer is nowhere; in striving for the politically 
    correct response the critters resort to immoral and probably
    illegal scurrilious tactics like holding innocent pento employees
    jobs for ransom.
    
    
    
    

> screwing loyal law abiding (female yeomen, for example,
    and clarks) employees in the pentagon.

Nope.  It's OFFICER promos being held up.  And that's the price to their
institution of it's defense of the lawbreakers.

>    i hope they sue the crap out of the services for wrongful termination
    or discharge. 

oh, are you talking about the 10,000 headcount reduction?  FedGov is within
it's rights to RIF as a budget cutting measure.  But that one is not expected
to stay in effect, according to the merc; it'll be restored before the budget
is final, I'll bet.

> holding innocent pento employees

politics is for real, Robert.  Navy brass wants to stonewall, Navy brass is
gonna get it's fingers burnt, by congress burning their institution.  People
who work for FedGov can get sent to war.  This is considerably less of a
problem.

DougO

    
    Boston Globe said today that two women were being considered for the
    head-honcho Navy position.  CNN reported tonight that a John O'Keefe 
    has been appointed acting head-honcho.  O'Keefe is a pencil-pushing
    Pentagon CFO who's never been in the military.
    

    I believe the name is Sean O'Keefe, Deb.

    
    these are DoD military, or civilians? if civilians, then
    you may be sure that this attempt to cya will degenerate
    into a blizzard of wrongful dismissal suits. 
    
    of course basic fairness to people not to blame went out
    the window with that last reply.

    
    Sorry Z, like I said I just *heard* the name...and saw his picture.
    
    The women the Globe said were being considered were Assistant Navy 
    Secretary Barbara Pope, 40 and Rep. Beverly Byron, 59, Democrat of 
    Maryland and member of House Armed Services Committee.
    

O'Keefe has been named to the job for 120 days, with a permanent replacement
to be named later.  Cheney did not rule out the possibility of the two
female contenders being the eventual choice.

			Steve

>   these are DoD military, or civilians?

the articles I've seen on it didn't specify.

>   if civilians, then
    you may be sure that this attempt to cya will degenerate
    into a blizzard of wrongful dismissal suits. 

On what basis, against who?  If Navy doesn't have jobs for people on
account of Congress passing a budget appropriation LAW that says the
Navy shall have 10,000 fewer people in it, what's wrongful?  Congress
pays the bill, Congress gets to decide, Congress is deciding.  Navy
institution takes it in the shorts, Navy people are out of luck.  No,
it isn't fair to those individuals.  But neither was the original
crime fair, nor the official stonewalling that greeted the investigation.

Don't tell it to me, write your congressmyn.

DougO