Active Duty Army Officer wins title for the first time in history

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's not even from CO.....

Where is she from?

Arkansas. She went to the Air Force Academy in Colorado. She started the Miss America track when she was at the AFA, graduated last year, is doing a one-year program at Kennedy school (on the Air Force’s dime) and then will start fighter pilot school so she can pay back her college. At least that was the plan.

[Anonymous]

The Air Force Academy likes the positive attention to detract from serious sexual assaults there. But, beauty pageants put women in a subservient, " seeking the male gaze" situation. We the taxpayers paid for her Air Force Academy tuition, salary, and now the useless Harvard Kennedy School Policy Master's Degree. I saw her on the Today Show. Total grifter with poor grammar skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Air Force Academy likes the positive attention to detract from serious sexual assaults there. But, beauty pageants put women in a subservient, " seeking the male gaze" situation. We the taxpayers paid for her Air Force Academy tuition, salary, and now the useless Harvard Kennedy School Policy Master's Degree. I saw her on the Today Show. Total grifter with poor grammar skills.

She still has the required time commitment to serve. What’s the grift?

[Anonymous]

I posted earlier on this thread and no one seems to want to acknowledge that there is an ethics problem here - she is using her official position, and taxpayer money, for her own benefit. And the fact that DOD policy for decades was that they would NOT support beauty pageants because they were considered demeaning.

So who, or what, at DOD or Air Force changed decades of policy (which had been vetted with the Joint Ethics Regulations) to not support beauty pageants as it was demeaning and was endorsement of a non-federal entity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once upon a time, it was prohibited for any military servicemember to support or participate in beauty pageants in their official capacity - meaning using their position/uniform. That even included being uniformed "escorts" for beauty pageants as they walk down runways. The military uniform is not colorful window dressing for entertainment events.

The biggest reason is that the military used to prohibit this is they believed in the whole-person concept, and that people should not be judged on their looks. Not to mention the sexist/misogynistic elements especially for women's contests.

Self-aggrandizement used to be antithetical to military service. Since social media took hold of society, it's been an enemy the military services have not been able to hold back.

Another reason was the appearance of the military endorsing the organization. Photos of on official duty (in her taxpayer-funded aircraft and uniform) are the prime example.
If the pageant comes out with a political or social stance, will Miss American be making supportive statements? As a military member she is not supposed to be political in her official capacity.

Last but not least is the "hero" factor. When you put someone in a uniform up against all the other civilian contestants, there is a definite bias to judge that person as more worthy of winning since they are a "hero."

Thanks ChatGPT!

[Anonymous]

OMG people!

My daughter is a junior at USAFA and is proud of Maddison. She majored in Physics and was an honor student. She has accomplished so much. Those of you who are disparaging would likely have no problem celebrating her if she was trans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I posted earlier on this thread and no one seems to want to acknowledge that there is an ethics problem here - she is using her official position, and taxpayer money, for her own benefit. And the fact that DOD policy for decades was that they would NOT support beauty pageants because they were considered demeaning.

So who, or what, at DOD or Air Force changed decades of policy (which had been vetted with the Joint Ethics Regulations) to not support beauty pageants as it was demeaning and was endorsement of a non-federal entity?

This is the big question.

[Anonymous]

Being disabled doesn’t give you a free pass to be misogynistic and life is not contest of hardships. I’m sorry you have such an angry, hateful heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted earlier on this thread and no one seems to want to acknowledge that there is an ethics problem here - she is using her official position, and taxpayer money, for her own benefit. And the fact that DOD policy for decades was that they would NOT support beauty pageants because they were considered demeaning.

So who, or what, at DOD or Air Force changed decades of policy (which had been vetted with the Joint Ethics Regulations) to not support beauty pageants as it was demeaning and was endorsement of a non-federal entity?

This is the big question.

This is the only valid criticism and is worthy of an answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OMG people!

My daughter is a junior at USAFA and is proud of Maddison. She majored in Physics and was an honor student. She has accomplished so much. Those of you who are disparaging would likely have no problem celebrating her if she was trans.

Wrong, I would still have a problem with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OMG people!

My daughter is a junior at USAFA and is proud of Maddison. She majored in Physics and was an honor student. She has accomplished so much. Those of you who are disparaging would likely have no problem celebrating her if she was trans.

LOL no

[Anonymous]

Wow! Good for her. She is beautiful, accomplished and smart. As long as she does not marry a jerk, her life is going to be great.

[Anonymous]

Oh yes, anyone who defends an able person who accomplishes anything in their life is exactly like Weinstein. That’s it. Be crazy here if you want to but the sock puppeting is obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted earlier on this thread and no one seems to want to acknowledge that there is an ethics problem here - she is using her official position, and taxpayer money, for her own benefit. And the fact that DOD policy for decades was that they would NOT support beauty pageants because they were considered demeaning.

So who, or what, at DOD or Air Force changed decades of policy (which had been vetted with the Joint Ethics Regulations) to not support beauty pageants as it was demeaning and was endorsement of a non-federal entity?

This is the big question.

Yup.

Or, a question could be at what point did she read DOD into her extracurriculars? Was the train already moving down the tracks when they found out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted earlier on this thread and no one seems to want to acknowledge that there is an ethics problem here - she is using her official position, and taxpayer money, for her own benefit. And the fact that DOD policy for decades was that they would NOT support beauty pageants because they were considered demeaning.

So who, or what, at DOD or Air Force changed decades of policy (which had been vetted with the Joint Ethics Regulations) to not support beauty pageants as it was demeaning and was endorsement of a non-federal entity?

This is the big question.

Yup.

Or, a question could be at what point did she read DOD into her extracurriculars? Was the train already moving down the tracks when they found out?

Maybe. She's cute and some boys in blue with a star or two probably wanted to give her a pass, despite breaking laws. If a regular troop did this they'd get hammered and maybe discharged. I'd love to read all the background e-mails on this ...FOIA, anyone?

A. Personnel shall not use Government property for other than authorized purposes.
(5 C.F.R. 2635.101(b)(9))

B. Personnel shall not use public office for private gain. (5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(7))

C. Personnel shall not give preferential treatment to any private organization or
individual. (5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(8))

D. Personnel shall not participate in official matters that conflict with personal interests.
(5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.402 and 2635.502)

See, the 14 Principles of Ethical Conduct issued by Executive Order 12647 (4/12/1989) and
both the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch and the Joint
Ethics Regulation.