en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/319516 Comments by AnotherLT http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/is-coast-guard-doing-anything-in-second.html#IDComment15909684 I think there is a difference between learning new technology and embracing it. Aside from blogging and web tools, there's a gap in general with regards to technology in the Coast Guard. The Commandant has said that electronic navigation is the primary mode of operation for cutters. Yet ATG still grades cutters primarily on their paper plot. Most white hulls may have SCCS but there's the corrected paper chart sitting out on the table. When asked why... well, the computer isn't always reliable. I've grown up with computers. I know they crap out from time to time- but I'm ready to switch over to electronic navigation. I understand that chart work is a good skill and an art form - but it's about damn time we catch up to the rest of the world with regards to this. If we can't embrace technology to make our lives easier... it's going to be awhile until we really embrace social media and it's various opportunities. Sat, 28 Feb 2009 03:21:56 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/is-coast-guard-doing-anything-in-second.html#IDComment15909684 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/open-discussion-tips-news-and-whatever.html#IDComment15871219 TJ responded to me somewhere on this blog that it was individuals talking about their own case. I think there is a fine line when doing that in the Civil Rights world. Usually there is someone you're accusing of harassing you or whatever it may be, or you are the accused. If the case is still active - then it's highly inappropriate whoever you are to discuss it on a blog. I don't know who the individual is above, and how they discussed their case on CGR - if I could put 2 and 2 together, and read the associated posts then I would decide. As an example of one case where I think a blog went over the line and is in the wrong.... is the Webster Smith case (if you haven't followed it - black cadet accused of sexually harassing/ possibly raping female cadets at the academy). There has been plenty written that I would say is well within reason. There is one blog (actually neither CGR or CGBlog) that came out and listed most of the female names. Now personally I was under the impression that rape victims were kept anonymous (legally), and most of those females are now officers in the Coast Guard. I'm sure the Courtsmartial was not fun for anyone, but I'm pretty sure they'd like to move beyond in and not have it impact their career outside the academy. I think that was well beyond the line - kind of I'll know it when I see it. As for them prepping for the hearing and not answering my questions.... fine. I hope they testify. I don't think anyone is going to walk out of there unscathed though. I don't think my questions were hard - and I'm sure they'll be asked to answer much harder. Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:11:37 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/open-discussion-tips-news-and-whatever.html#IDComment15871219 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/open-discussion-tips-news-and-whatever.html#IDComment15817824 If TJ was 100% correct in all of his allegations.... I disagree with his tactics, I don't support people posting about active cases on his site, but congratulations - hopefully we can begin to get it right over in that office. The middle ground.... Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because he got some things right about problems existing in the office doesn't make character defamation okay. How can you be a supporter of civil rights, but treat individuals you disagree with so poorly? I'd have a hard time rationalizing a means to an end. Let's put it this way. You have called out ADM Allen and RADM Blore, and said some not so nice things about them - but that's not how you initially got traction on the whole 123' thing. Most of your argument is based on data. The data you have on the 123' is kind of undeniable. Some of your data on the NSC and other Deepwater assets is sketchy but still data based. A lot of what TJ posts is he said/ she said and not data. Different means to an end - and I don't agree with the means. Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:10:47 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/open-discussion-tips-news-and-whatever.html#IDComment15817824 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/if-you-could-ask-anything.html#IDComment15817535 Where does she see the Office of Civil Rights going in the next 2-5 years? How is CG Modernization going to impact the office and how they do work? The report pointed out some deficiencies, what is her specific action plan to remedy those? Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:00:04 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/if-you-could-ask-anything.html#IDComment15817535 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/open-discussion-tips-news-and-whatever.html#IDComment15815434 In answer to your question: First scenario: OCR is how the BAH report states and TJ has been wrongly harrassing the office. Most Coast Guard programs have some level of outdated or improper training situation with them. Paperwork is far from flawless. For instance, I just finished working on a project today that hasn't been updated since 1996. Its something almost all cutters use, and in theory every manual/program should be reviewed every 4 years, yet 2009 is the first time it's being revisited. I couldn't even tell you which office really owns this - so frankly, not sure who is to blame. So, the Office was run by one person for 25 years, ran wild for 2 years, and now are trying to get their crap together and it's not going smoothly. I can sympathize because damn near every Coast Guard program has a skeleton in their closet that's fallen by the wayside and it takes someone breathing some life into it to become relevant again. Now if Terri Dickerson is working her hardest to correct this- and her employees are upset about doing work... and TJ is just defaming her character - well, I have the bigger issue with TJ. I think that women are much easier to paint as b***hes, and especially if one comes in and tries to hold people accountable that haven't been for quite some time. So in essence - if she is really trying to do a good job and improve the office, he's making it a whole hell of a lot more difficult by ruining her reputation. Scenario 2: TJ is right, and the congressional hearings digs up a body... If someone who is deliberately harrassing 17 employees to the point that they leave the CG (and it's not about the quality of work or the employee's personal behavior) - then why the hell are they in charge of civil rights for the entire service? I would have a huge problem with that. Probably it's somewhere in the middle ground. I'm not saying Terri Dickerson is a saint. She may be an extremely difficult person to work for. There are a lot of tough bosses in the Coast Guard - she just happens to be one that is blogged about by name. Looks like she took over a tough position with a lot of work outstanding prior to her arrival. Oil and water don't mix, one thing builds on top of another, people keep blogging things about her and talking about civil rights cases, reports get written yadda yadda yadda... and here's where we stand today... I guess that we'll just have to see what the congressional hearing holds. Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:46:08 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/open-discussion-tips-news-and-whatever.html#IDComment15815434 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/open-discussion-tips-news-and-whatever.html#IDComment15814835 Well, I will be definitely waiting for these hearings to see a) if TJ is there testifying and b) who he really is and how he's related to the Coast Guard. I have seen he is blogging on the civil rights threads as well - he did say that he would ask on CGR for TJ to answer my questions (see a couple posts below). I have not seen that yet though. Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:22:59 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/open-discussion-tips-news-and-whatever.html#IDComment15814835 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-coast-guard-demands-blogging-in.html#IDComment15814715 Well MJT, I don't know if I have high hopes about Peter engaging with posters on this thread or offline. I emailed him via the global (I hope I have the right one as there is actually 2 listed) early this morning. As of yet, no email response. I followed up on my promise from my above post... we'll see if he keeps up his end of the deal (i.e. talking about "top cover") Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:18:48 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-coast-guard-demands-blogging-in.html#IDComment15814715 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/open-discussion-tips-news-and-whatever.html#IDComment15772084 I'll be honest. The only reason I got into this discussion was because you and MJT were going on about neo-nazi sites and missing the point I think he was trying to make: Does posting on CGR ultimately discredit your point of view? You said you didn't know about the whole topic or how the report discredited TJ, so I tried to clear it up with one statement from the report and what TJ had posted. Then I noticed a post had been deleted which led to another question. Then Rep Cummings posted his letter, which led to another question. You said you would look objectively if someone did the work - hence why I posted those questions. If I really wanted to shoot the messenger, I would go right down the BAH report, highlight statements where they got it wrong, and then go find the blogs on CGR where TJ posted incorrectly, as tedious as that would be. I think by the end of it you would find TJ was far from perfect. It seems that you're now siding on TJ's side, despite his inability to answer questions that you stated were reasonable enough to get an answer. If defending TJ is all in the name of Civil Rights here's the question I pose to you, say it comes out in the congressional hearings that 75% of what TJ posted was balderdash, and he wrongfully dragged Terri Dickerson's name through the mud. Does that 25% he got right make up for the fact that he 's ruined someone's reputation wrongly? Would you continue to post on CGR after that? These are all big what-ifs, but I'd like to see where you sit on the fence with regards to this. As for me. What would I do, call up Admiral Crea and say, "Viv, what's up with the Civil Rights program?" Call up Terri? I don't have a beef with the program - the few cases I've seen handled as a third party seemed to be handled in a logical way. Let them figure out their paperwork and their training - to each command their own. That's why there is a chain of command - we all shouldn't run around getting in each other's way. They know better than I about their own policies and if their sh** stinks. Whether TJ sits on higher ground than me? I don't think TJ is his real name. I'm unsure of his actual relation to the Coast Guard. I don't know that his blog has actually personally impacted to him. Who knows if I sit on higher ground than him? Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:22:17 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/open-discussion-tips-news-and-whatever.html#IDComment15772084 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-coast-guard-demands-blogging-in.html#IDComment15770116 I'll make my anonymous comments here as long as I can. When it ceases to be anonymous, I will cease posting as well. Peter, I'll take you up on your Global offer, and I'll send you an email, and discuss offline why I don't think top cover is legit in the Coast Guard, hence why I post anonymously. Wed, 25 Feb 2009 02:27:48 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-coast-guard-demands-blogging-in.html#IDComment15770116 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/open-discussion-tips-news-and-whatever.html#IDComment15769842 Why can't you speak with great detail anymore? Are you under a gag order? Or are you choosing not to respond to my questions? This is the first time you're mentioning a Criminal Investigation; is that why you can't speak? As for individuals discussing their own cases -they may or may not be in the clear. You can't discuss the details of a 4910 investigation while it's ongoing when you're either the accused or the accuser. HR investigations are pretty similar in that manner. Even saying something like I accused CAPT so-and-so of harassing me, he was found to be not guilty, and I disagree with that, and here's the details why - is flirting with releasing inappropriate personal info as that can easily be taken as slander/character defamation. Wed, 25 Feb 2009 02:21:09 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/open-discussion-tips-news-and-whatever.html#IDComment15769842 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/open-discussion-tips-news-and-whatever.html#IDComment15769581 I do not disagree that there are issues with the OCR. There seems to be an issue with training and standardization. Both of those are some of things that Coast Guard Modernization is taking a look to fix. Let's face it, LANTAREA and PACAREA are on completely different wavelengths. Now I know you haven't read the report, but in reading it, it seems that some of the problems OCR faces are age old problems that haven't been fixed in a long time. I'm not sure who you can attribute some of those problems to. But like I've said before, I don't have a dog in that fight. I do feel that Thomas Jackson does have something to answer for. One of his running themes through the blog has been that 17 people were fired directly at the hands of Terri Dickerson. That does not seem to be the truth, from not only the report, but by one of the individuals he claimed was fired/force retired. When he is calling for honesty and transparency; he needs to be honest and transparent himself. It does not appear that he is being honest about the 17 people, and by deleting the blog entry by Kenneth Bly, he isn't being transparent. I will give the OCR great credit for actually releasing the BAH report in entirety to the public. Many bet it wasn't going to happen, but they put it out there, blemishes and all. I'm not being the shooter here. I am asking legitimate questions here that were raised by the report, and as of yet, they have not been answered. Representative Cummings did put out a very pointed statement, and I will be interested with what comes out of the congressional hearings. I know that CGR probably wasn't expecting the stance the BAH report took in telling them they were wrong. I wonder if anything out of the congressional hearings will change their mind. While Rep Cummings statement raised some very good questions, his statements about confidential personal info being put on CGR wasn't exactly praising their activity. Wed, 25 Feb 2009 02:13:52 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/open-discussion-tips-news-and-whatever.html#IDComment15769581 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/open-discussion-tips-news-and-whatever.html#IDComment15769230 Sorry Ryan, my computer was acting up last night and wouldn't show them. My bad. Wed, 25 Feb 2009 02:02:25 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/open-discussion-tips-news-and-whatever.html#IDComment15769230 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/open-discussion-tips-news-and-whatever.html#IDComment15725807 Well it's a shame that this statement is being buried down here on this random thread. I was going to post my questions verbatim, but it appears that Ryan has closed even the viewing of the comments on the functional review. Well here they are in an abridged version: 1) The BAH report states that Terri Dickerson had nothing to do with the forced retirement/firing of 17 employees (found in Chapter 2). CGR has multiple postings that Terri was directly responsible. There was one posting within the past 2 weeks or so that named all (at that point) 18 employees. One of those employees, Kenneth Bly, posted that he was not forced into retirement and neither were at least 3 other employees. That post has since been deleted. So what's the real story? Is the BAH report and Kenneth Bly wrong? 2) In Chapter 2 of the BAH report, it's mentioned that sensitive ongoing cases were discussed openly on CGR. Even Representative Cummings' letter reads, "For example, the report indicates that web log content has contained confidential information and that, in some cases, information regarding complaint activity has been released." This is bad on the CG employees for discussing this publicly. This is bad on CGR for allowing this to happen. The earliest blog I can find, by Thomas Jackson himself is "Coast Guard Complainant Update" from December 10, 2007 which discusses a case about "Mr. C." Additional details can be found throughout December 2007 aside from the entire blog. So is CGR and Thomas Jackson ultimately responsible for this action? Ryan, I am not name calling. These are legitimate questions. Can you please open a new thread about the functional review? I believe a post about Representative Cummings letter is more than fitting. Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:40:42 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/open-discussion-tips-news-and-whatever.html#IDComment15725807 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/brown-hound-says-cnn-gets-it-wrong.html#IDComment15724099 Ryan Erickson posted that on "Open Discussion, Tips, News, and Whatever else". I clicked on it by accident. Nothing like transparency. Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:01:39 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/brown-hound-says-cnn-gets-it-wrong.html#IDComment15724099 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/brown-hound-says-cnn-gets-it-wrong.html#IDComment15721052 Ryan Erickson closed it at the request of other contributors. Apparently my legitimate questions to Thomas Jackson will never be answered. I guess he gets the moral high ground today! Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:28:52 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/brown-hound-says-cnn-gets-it-wrong.html#IDComment15721052 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/open-discussion-tips-news-and-whatever.html#IDComment15720690 I wrote legitimate questions for Thomas Jackson to answer about the functional review. None have been answered, and now thanks to this - they won't. Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:26:33 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2008/12/open-discussion-tips-news-and-whatever.html#IDComment15720690 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/functional-reivew-of-cg-civil-rights.html#IDComment15715852 Thomas Jackson, I know you are reading this blog. Then why aren't you responding to the questions that I have now asked twice about the 17 people that Terri Dickerson supposedly ran out of the Office, including why some of those people, like Kenneth Bly, dispute your claims? Also, as for the Representative Cummings letter, it states "For example, the report indicates that web log content has contained confidential information and that, in some cases, information regarding complaint activity has been released." He's talking about your blog discussing people's personal civil rights cases. What are you going to do to prevent such unlawful behavior from occurring? What do you have to say for yourself, since you were one of the people contributing to such behavior, starting with the entry December 10th, 2007 "Coast Guard Complainant Update" (actual spelling)? So far your silence has been deafening. Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:51:32 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/functional-reivew-of-cg-civil-rights.html#IDComment15715852 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/functional-reivew-of-cg-civil-rights.html#IDComment15682779 Well, please read my comment above where I talk about 2 of your posts and what the report has to say about the 18 people that Terri Dickerson "ran out of the Coast Guard". That's one example. Also, why is the post where Kenneth Bly told you he wasn't persecuted by Terri Dickerson as you claimed taken down? I think that's pretty specific, and Mr. DeKort asked for your comment on it as well. Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:06:52 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/functional-reivew-of-cg-civil-rights.html#IDComment15682779 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/functional-reivew-of-cg-civil-rights.html#IDComment15650398 I'm not going to look through a year and a half of posts and a 100 page document and go down every single point because that would be tedious for all of us. I will give you this though: Chapter 2 of the report does talk about CGR and their allegations specifically. More info is sprinkled throughout the document, but that addresses the bulk of it. If you look on page 2-3, under subtitle 1) it talks about CGR alleging that Terri Dickerson was responsible for 17 people departing the office of civil rights, and how that is untrue. If you look at a post on December 19th, 2008 about "Admiral Thad Allen: Constructive Discharge in his Office of Civil Rights" you'll see some of the allegations. I'll add this food for thought. There was a post on CGR within the past two weeks where they specifically listed all of the people by name. Kenneth Bly was one of those people, and he started posting back and forth saying that Terri Dickerson was not the reason that he left, and that there were at least 3 people on that list that had been promoted to better jobs. I tried finding that posting for you, but it has mysteriously been removed. The report does concur that the paperwork in the office is behind as CGR is reported. So yes there have been some truths with regards to this situation. The issue I have, and that is brought up in the report is the character defamation of personnel in that office. It's not a case of TJ supporting civil rights. He supports the 17 people who have been "wrongly" fired/forced to retire (some of those people like Kenneth Bly who don't want his support) and the report seems to state that it was not simply at the hands of Terri Dickerson as he has claimed. Let me make myself perfectly clear about this post. I don't know any of the people in the Office of Civil Rights, and have no dog in this fight. This is a completely outsider's point of view. Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:33:50 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/functional-reivew-of-cg-civil-rights.html#IDComment15650398 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/functional-reivew-of-cg-civil-rights.html#IDComment15646135 Michael, I think you're missing the point that MJT is trying to make. Coast Guard Report posted some pretty mean things about Terri Dickerson and the Office of Civil Rights. I read what they posted, and wondered myself, is the office that screwed up, and is Terri Dickerson that big of a heinous b****? Then the functional review came out, which I bet the folks at CGR assumed was going to be a validation of their opinions of Terri Dickerson. If anything, it showed her to be a difficult boss who took over a bad situation with some crazy employees. It really did not show her to be doing the things CGR suggested she did. At least that's my take after comparing the two sides of the story. What I think MJT is suggesting is that continuing to post on that site hurts your credibility. He could have done it more eloquently than talking about neo-nazi sites, but it is your responsibility to know what else is going on with that site. This functional review to most people tarnishes the credibility of TJ and CGR, and by going to the "fruit of the poison tree" argument, ultimately it tarnishes you. If I were you, I would educate myself quickly about what CGR published about the office of civil rights, and what the subsequent functional review said, and start my own blog dedicated to Deepwater. Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:02:45 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/functional-reivew-of-cg-civil-rights.html#IDComment15646135