While everyone was focused on the dumpster fire that is Afghanistan, an innocuous NAVADMIN (a Naval message that relates to administrative issues) came out on the 23rd of August, subject line OPNAVINST 3100.6K. NAVADMINs are normally pretty boring. They cover policy like how you can use your GI Bill, when people get promoted, or various annual awards.
OPNAVINST 3100.6 is the instruction that covers situation reports (SITREPs). SITREPs are required reports that Navy units send when bad things happen. For example, if a Sailor is arrested for drunk driving, a unit would notify their immediate superior in command (the “ISIC”) by using a formatted message called a Navy Unit Sitrep. OPNAVINST 3100.6 gives you the exact format to send this message, which are also called OPREP-3 messages (short for Operational Report). The instruction covers more serious messages too. In those cases, units might send an OPREP-3 Navy Blue message. This message goes to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) office, as well as the ISIC and others. Incidents that require a Navy Blue are more serious or carry negative media attention, hence the need to notify the CNO lest he be surprised. A good example was when COVID-19 was first discovered, any Navy person that contracted it required an OPREP-3 Navy Blue message.
4. MAJOR PERSONNEL INCIDENT CHANGES INCLUDE: [SRB, EXTREMIST BEHAVIORS, BULLYING, ETC.] 4.A. ADDED PERSONNEL INCIDENT REPORTING FOR SUPREMACIST OR EXTREMIST BEHAVIORS.
Bullying? Supremacist Activity? Extremist Activity? Yup, these all require varying forms of Navy Sitrep messages. We don’t know what level (that’s not released), so we have to guess what becomes a Unit Sitrep and what becomes a Navy Blue. At a minimum, every time we have something resembling bullying, supremacist or extremist activity, a message must be sent out.
– an organization that espouses supremacist causes; – attempts to create illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, ethnicity, national origin, sex (including gender identity), sexual orientation or religion; – advocates using force or violence; – or otherwise engages in efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights.
Navy Discussion Guide on Extremism
So, if a Navy member participates in an Antifa protest, do we label him as an extremist? They certainly “advocate for the use of violence.”
What about Black Panthers?
A Black Panther Party member brings a shotgun into the state Capitol, May 2, 1967. He was one of two dozen armed Panthers who entered the building. (Photo: Walt Zeboski/Associated Press)
What if someone accuses Republicans of “depriving them of civil rights” (like we’re seeing with the voter registration issues)?
Vox headline
Is being a Catholic extremist because they won’t give Communion to someone that is openly living a homosexual lifestyle?
The problem with this broad definition is that it is broad and goal posts move all the time. People used to argue that homosexual unions would never impact Christians, until Christian bakers were sued for not making wedding cakes. Or the goal post moves the other way, and protests that burned down homes and businesses become “mostly peaceful,” and obviously didn’t incite any violence whatsoever. BTW, it’s been illegal to be in extremist groups since 1990, and people do get kicked out for racism (watch episode four of the PBS seriesCarrier for an example).
Besides, didn’t we make service members sit through training for this that covered:
Extremists don’t have a place in our Navy, but when we make the definition really broad, soon we’re all going to get painted as extremists. When that happens (and its a when now, not an if), why would you want to join the Navy? Remember that the Navy is constantly bringing in new people, to the tune of around 40,000 every year. People sign up for a variety of reasons, but one big assumption is the fairness and meritocratic environment that the Navy claims to have. When you remove that, or even appear to do so, it removes a large incentive to join. It’s already hard enough to get people to join, especially if you want people with high technical skills. I fear that this change is going to drive people to leave after a first enlistment and not bother staying around, if for no other reason then the worry they’ll be labeled as a bully or extremist.
This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.
There are only a handful of nations that possess the ability to manufacture and deliver a nuclear weapon. The US, Russia, China, UK and France are all members of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), which is designed to stop countries from developing nuclear weapons in exchange for using nuclear technology for peaceful ends. That hasn’t stopped countries like India, Pakistan and North Korea from developing their own weapons, and given this, its probably time to reconsider the NPT, because it might not be in the United States’ best interest to stay in this club.
The first obvious consideration is that no country that is pursuing nuclear weapons is friendly to the US. Iran continues to pursue nuclear technology despite having signed the NPT. Iran is probably receiving assistance from Russia and/or China, mainly as a way to undermine the U.S. in the Middle East. North Korea certainly hasn’t followed through on any nuclear promises. None of these are friendly to the US.
There are a number of countries that could develop nuclear as a real deterrent to real threats. Japan and Taiwan continue to be threatened by China. Both of these countries possess the people and resources to build nuclear weapons. What about South Korea? Rather than continuing to negotiate with North Korea, South Korea could easily build more nuclear weapons than North Korea ever could.
In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Kuwait could simply buy nuclear weapons as a defensive measure against Iran. Even better, the U.S. could develop a leasing option for weapons. Those countries could pay money for the U.S. to maintain weapons in a secure facility in the region for defensive purposes. The lease keeps the technology out of their hands while maintaining a legitimate threat of nuclear response.
Now, one might argue that this scenario is exactly what the NPT was trying to prevent. We don’t want to lower the threshold for nuclear weapon use to the point they become commonplace. But will this actually happen? India and Pakistan have still not yet exchanged nuclear weapons despite their hatred and both not having signed the NPT. I also find it hard to argue that countries like Japan and South Korea wouldn’t develop nuclear policy consistent with current U.S. policy.
The NPT worked when the countries of the world chose to follow it. Much like the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, when Russia and China continue to find ways to undermine the treaty, it doesn’t make continued sense to stay in, especially when it places our allies at risk of invasion. Dropping out of the NPT and arming our allies might be the simplest way to bring countries like Iran and North Korea to the negotiating table.
This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.You can purchase my new book, To Build a House, through this link at Amazon.
I’ve written all my life. As a young kid, I would often write letters to the editor for our local paper, typically to fight over points made by some previous idiot other citizen (which hasn’t changed all that much). I wrote plenty of essays and articles in high school and then college. I had to write plenty of manuals, white papers and technical descriptions for work in the Navy. I wrote over 200 pages for my thesis (which the Naval Postgraduate School controls, otherwise I’d give you a link).
It wasn’t until a few years ago I tried my hand at writing for actual money. I went ahead and published a book on Amazon talking about how to travel in the military. I knew it would never be a best seller, since it had a pretty narrow audience. The point in writing it was not to make a lot of money, rather, it was to learn about how to take an idea and compose it into a book that people other than my friends would be interested in reading and actually pay money to read. It did pretty well for being a simple eBook (and its still available if you want to read it).
Writing that book made me learn how to edit. My wife savagely removed every possible passive sentence from my written words. I learned how to edit out the boring parts, shaving sentences until it was all meat and no fat. I realized that readers don’t want long, incoherent run-on sentences (yes, William Faulkner, that means most of your novels suck), they wanted something interesting and meaningful.
But writing took a back seat for a while. In 2016 I spent 54 days in the NICU with our daughter, Rebecca, who struggled to survive from an early emergency birth, multiple heart defects and Down Syndrome. During that time, I found this blog, and since Peter was advertising for new writers, he said I could compete for a spot. So I wrote a piece about breastfeeding in public, which he was surprised hit a strong note with people. Eventually I made the cut and was able to regularly blog about things outside the Navy.
And then tragedy hit. Rebecca died. To add insult to injury, I was supposed to leave in a week to start house hunting for forever home, since the Navy would allow me to homestead to provide consistent medical care for Rebecca. Despite the agony, I went from planning a funeral to hunting for land to build a home. That journey became surprisingly epic in its own right. I learned some hard lessons about home building, the VA loan process, and city government. I nearly lost my house two or three times, yet somehow I was able to overcome those adversities and succeed.
So I decided to get back to my roots and write a book. By now, I realized people wanted to read stories. They wanted a hero to root for, someone who would overcome harrowing obstacles. But they also wanted this person to be relatable, which meant they had flaws that made it hard to succeed in their quest. People that face no challenges are boring and unrealistic.
That’s exactly what you get with my new book, “To Build a House: My surprisingly epic saga in custom home building.” It’s my tale about navigating the world of true custom home building: from picking a blank piece of land to signing forms, fighting the VA, signing builder contracts, sparring with the local city government, nearly pulling all my hair out, and yet in the end making it all work. Like a good movie, it has highs and lows. It doesn’t dwell too long in sad spots, but neither does it celebrate for long before new challenges appear.
The best part is that its all true. I couldn’t have made it up if I tried. I went back and checked timelines and emails to establish when things really happened. I don’t have to exaggerate, because it really was an epic saga to make it all work. Even better, it’ll be part of a series, because I had to stop the book at some point before it got too long. More “To Build” books will be coming.
Writing “To Build a House” taught me much about myself. I’m hoping the finished product will do the same for you.
This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.“To Build a House” is available now on Amazon Kindle and will soon have a paper and audio-book version.
Metal staples and indoor-grade wire. What more could you ask for?
When I first began working as an Ethernet cabling installer, I often worried that my skills weren’t “commercial grade.” It would take me a long time to snake cables through walls, install professional looking Ethernet ports, and properly hang, install, and setup a network box. I often thought to myself “I bet the professionals at Cox and Verizon do a way better job than I do.” That desire to be considered a “professional” drove me to keep improving my craft and learning something new every day.
Recently, I went to a potential clients house for a survey, and I opened up his fiber box to inspect the cabling. The Ethernet wire coming from the fiber box was haphazardly wired, and the installer stapled a non-outdoor rated cable to the bottom of the vinyl siding. Worse still, he simply drilled a hole straight through the outside wall to reach the clients living room, instead of running the wire in the crawlspace or in conduit. Sloppy work, from someone who probably considers himself a professional, and certainly from a company that should have higher standards.
Sadly, this poor installation is just a sample of low standards in industry. Journalism has suffered greatly too. My wife informed me of an article from The Catholic Virginian that talked about the recent changes to the Latin Mass. I’ve already written about these changes, and in general, I’m not a fan of what the Pope did. I also don’t read the Catholic Virginian, mainly because I find most Bishops incredibly dull and boring. Sorry for saying that out loud, but lets be really frank here: how often has your Bishop ever visited your church? I typically see his likeness once a year, during the Bishop’s Request for Funding…I mean, Annual Appeal.
Anyway, at my wife’s behest, I dug up the July 22nd article by Cindy Wooden. Now, I’m used to reading poorly written articles, but only because the Babylon Bee is making fun of them in some way. But Cindy? Her article is particularly lame. It might as well have been written by CNN. Let’s dive into this, section by section, because you probably need a good laugh for a Saturday afternoon.
Cindy starts off by quoting Archbishop J. Augustine Di Noia, who for the sake of fun we’re going to call “Archbishop Montoya” because it rhymes and allows me to make Princess Bride jokes. Cindy quotes Montoya, who says the Latin Mass ban “fearlessly hits the nail on the head: the TLM (Traditional Latin Mass) movement has hijacked the initiatives of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to its own end.” Now, that quote begs some questions. What is this TLM movement? Who runs it? And what exactly has it hijacked? Well, Cindy hints at this two paragraphs later, where she writes “When St. John Paul and Pope Benedict expanded the possibility of using the pre-Vatican II Mass, they were hoping to promote unity in the Church and to counter abuses that were widespread in the celebration of the post-Vatican II Mass…”
Now, an intelligent reader would then expect to hear a discussion about why the Latin Mass somehow didn’t promote unity AND didn’t address widespread abuses in the post-Vatican II Mass. Don’t worry about that second part…we’ll never get to it, since that might unwind some of Cindy’s arguments. In the next paragraph, we get the first point: that the Latin Mass allowance was made to try and bring in the currently outcast group of former Catholics called SSPX, or Society of Saint Pius X. The article continues to quote Montoya and suggests that the Latin Mass was allowed specifically to placate members of SSPX.
But is that true? Does Archbishop Montoya keep using words that he doesn’t know the meaning of? Apparently. It’s not hard to find that Marcel Lefebvre (the founder of the SSPX movement) objected to a lot of things about the post-Vatican II church. He even said so in his “Open Letter to Confused Catholics.” This isn’t hard to find. Lefebvre was mad that there was a joint Catholic-Lutheran Commission. He was mad that kids in Catholic schools barely knew their prayers or said grace before meals. He was mad that people didn’t pray in public. And on and on.
In short, Lefebvre had a fever, and the only cure was a lot more cowbell in the form of prayer, fasting, and a return to a lot of things done in the past. I don’t particularly like the guy, but after reading what he wrote, I can at least understand his viewpoint. He makes many valid points while going a bit overboard on others. More importantly, only one of his points was the Latin Mass. So it’s really disingenuous to say that was the whole reason for having the Latin Mass around. Don’t worry though, Cindy demonstrates true journalistic integrity when she lays out the next section, titled “Betrayal of two popes’ intentions.”
Cindy provides us a link to latinmassdir.org, which, like The Catholic Virginian, was something I didn’t know existed. Thankfully for me, I followed Cindy’s link and realized my church’s information was woefully out of date! I quickly created an account and updated it, including the links to the streaming Masses, since I was the guy that set those up in the first place. Certainly can’t have false information floating around on websites, otherwise we’d wind up like some flawed CNN-like publication….anyhow, back to the article.
Cindy quotes Montoya again, stating “…the intentions of the two pontiffs who permitted the celebration of the 1962 Missal to draw traditionalists back into the unity of the Church. What the Holy Father is saying is that the TLM movement is working for objectives that are precisely contrary to what St. John Paul and Benedict XVI hoped for.” Again, this implies the “TLM movement” (whatever that is) is outside the church. So this is talking about SSPX? But by SSPX’s own words, they had a whole list of gripes. Did we solve those? Did we fix Catholic education, or the whole list of other things Lefebvre had a fever over?
Not really. So are we surprised that it didn’t work?
The article ends with this quote from Montoya: “Pope Francis is right to see in the repristination of the pre-conciliar liturgy at best a form of nostalgic dalliance with the old liturgy and at worst a perverse resistance to the renewal inspired by the Holy Spirit and solemnly confirmed in the teaching of an ecumenical council.”
Ouch. I had to lookup “dalliance” because I don’t know what Montoya meant. Dalliance means “a casual or brief romantic or sexual relationship.” Man, good thing I don’t have to explain that word to my kids!
Let me just say it: this article is trash. It’s poorly resourced and poorly written, and I say that because:
It has one source (Archbishop Montoya).
That source, like pretty much all sources, has a bias.
It makes no attempt to bring in any counter arguments to balance the source bias.
It lumps a lot of people into the same group (we have words for that behavior that end in -ist).
It ignores other, similar things the Church allows.
Points 1 through 3 are pretty obvious. A good article challenges our thinking. It brings in contrary facts and demands that we sort these out in our head. I recently read an article about a man who used a sophisticated AI chatbot to “bring alive” his dead girlfriend. The article bounced between the obvious trauma someone feels when losing their loved one to the technical challenges of simulating humans to the ethical questions about whether it was right or not. In the end, the article made me cry a little and think a lot about the ethics and humanity behind it all. It brought in opposing viewpoints. It was smartly written. I’ll bet it’ll sit with me for a while.
Cindy’s article contains none of this. It’s obviously biased. It misses opportunities to ask other people for their thoughts. It certainly doesn’t challenge us to use our brains. And thus, like most of the other publications coming from the Diocese, it’ll be forgotten.
I addressed point 4 in my previous article about the Latin Mass changes. Yes, there are SSPX people out there that aren’t in Communion with the Catholic Church. And there are people in more traditional non-SSPX parishes that think Vatican II was the worst thing ever, and kids in public school have lice, and girls with skirts above their ankles are border-line prostitutes. Yup, those people exist. But there are a large number of people that just don’t want guitars and joking at Mass. They flock to the Latin Mass because its a bit more serious. More focused. More…religious? Many of these people send their kids to public school, and they don’t believe that the Illuminati took over the Vatican in the form of Pope Francis.
Lumping these people in with SSPX, which is exactly what Cindy Wooden does, is unfair, biased, and just poor journalism. It’s the racist equivalent of lumping black Africans in with black Haitians, or Japanese and Chinese people into one group and assuming they have similar backgrounds. It demonstrates low reporting standards. It’s the equivalent of a poor Cox or Verizon installation, and the editor should be ashamed for allowing it in the first place.
On point 5, the article ignores a pretty key point. The Catholic Church is mainly composed of the Latin Rite, but it has many others. There are plenty of approved deviations, including the Armenian Rite, Melkite Greek Catholic Church and others. We let these churches celebrate the same Sacraments slightly differently. Is it that hard to allow some parishes to celebrate in Latin? Wait, doesn’t the Pope celebrate Mass in Latin? Isn’t that, like, the official language of the Vatican?
I’ll end with a comparison. Marcel Lefebvre attempted to ordain priests and eventually a bishop without approval from the Pope. For these actions, on July 2nd 1988, Pope John Paul II excommunicated him, and rightly so. Ever since then, SSPX and the Catholic Church have been working to find a way to reunite. In 2019, Pope Francis reached a deal with the Chinese Communist Party to attempt to protect Catholics in China. In 2021, the CCP blocked the Pope from essentially having any say over the appointment of Catholic Bishops in China.
I ask the reader: what standards were applied?
“…hoping to promote unity in the Church…”
– Archbishop Noia
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
– Inigo Montoya
This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 