gdp's Comments

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : Open Discussion for the week of March 8, 2009

Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:02:41 +0000

"Do you think the average enlisted person – maybe below E7 – is in a position logistically or economically to responsibility own a house?" What business of that is mine or yours? Should we limit the number of children an E-3 can have? What about the things they buy? Should we dip into your financial situation and decide what is prudent and not prudent for you to do? As for your suggestion that most in the enlisted ranks who try to own a home are not acting like adults... I'll just offer that rank does not necessarily commensurate with the capacity for maturity and/or responsibility. Not sure what bug has climbed down your throat lately Michael, what with going after MCPOCG and now annointing yourself arbiter of military housing, deciding that E-6 and below lacks the wherewithall for home ownership....

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : Open Discussion for the week of March 8, 2009

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 02:10:37 +0000

I had this same thought when I first watched it, but it really doesn't seem like they spill any procedures that aren't already on display or otherwise known or on display in some way. In fact, I think showing some of the night vision or other surveillance capabilities has some good deterrence value.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : Open Discussion for the week of March 8, 2009

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 23:56:44 +0000

I'd guess that service members are allowed to buy and own homes so they have a place to live. And I doubt that forbidding home ownership would be much of a boon for recruiting, especially if you're nixing BAH. And how would you handle those intending to separate or retire once they're tour complete or those who owned their home before they lived in signed up? What if they own their home outright?

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : USCG's Commandant does a Q&A Session

Fri, 6 Mar 2009 21:11:48 +0000

For me, it was the stuff like "As the leader of the enlisted community I would think you would be aware of when the senior leadership isn’t performing as they should and treat them accordingly" and "Part of your role is to go out of your way to make sure of that even if you take a hit. You should know that. As for the Commandant not reading the brief ahead of time I don’t buy that. Curious – is that the first time you introduced him like that – or even close?" Aside from the somewhat snide delivery in your response back to him, think about what you're implying with those statements: 1) That the MCPOCG isn't cognizant of his proper role, 2) that he isn't aware (at least by your standard) of the performance of senior leadership and 3) that he's being dishonest when he says the CCG didn't know the content of his introductory remarks beforehand. You're attacking his personal and professional integrity, not merely disagreeing with his remarks. Friendly thought: you become MCPOCG and then you can deliver your introductory remarks at the SoCG however you like :)

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : USCG's Commandant does a Q&A Session

Fri, 6 Mar 2009 16:31:31 +0000

You've got to be kidding me. Clearly, the MCPOCG has a long personal and professional relationship with CCG. That you even find it appropriate to comment on his opening remarks is just....well, it's not exactly classy. He surely doesn't need me to get his back and wouldn't know me from Adam, but I had to speak up anyway. You say none of your animosity is personal, but you go after the MCPOCG in a personal way a spend a third of your "analysis" telling him what he should have said? What a load.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : USCG's Commandant does a Q&A Session

Fri, 6 Mar 2009 01:00:33 +0000

+1 on the format. Lots of Q&A participants get off track or aren't exactly clear with the questions they are asking.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : Why the Coast Guard demands blogging in the clear

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:23:47 +0000

I applaud you for doing your best to uphold the Core Values of the USCG. I also think that forbidding anonymous posting will go a long ways towards elevating the conversation. OK, so then why do I post anonymously? It's NOT because I fear some sort of reprisal from the Coast Guard. Quite the contrary. I do believe CG leadership's encouragement to blog openly is backed up by "top cover" for those who do. I post anonymously here NOT because I'm afraid of the CG's response, I do it because I'm concerned about the use of my name by "the other blog." Call me paranoid or hypersensitive or what ever, but I'm not interested in having my name drug around in posts (like the "Dickerson 17") there, especially when a significant number of posts there are made by anonymous authors, typically in the name of "Staff." Just as I can comment anonymously here they can post whatever they want under whatever pseudonym they choose over there. But I also reserve the right to keep my name out of certain parts of the internet, to the best of my ability, when the option is available.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : Functional Reivew of CG Civil Rights posted to the Internet

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:55:56 +0000

So what are you, a double agent or something? :)

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : Functional Reivew of CG Civil Rights posted to the Internet

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:55:26 +0000

You mean the letter already posted on Rep. Cummings' website?

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : Functional Reivew of CG Civil Rights posted to the Internet

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:09:36 +0000

"I was actually legally prohibited from asking anyone, including Adm Blore, about anything until a week or so ago. I am now free to talk to the CG and the contractors." What's changed?

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : Functional Reivew of CG Civil Rights posted to the Internet

Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:02:21 +0000

TJ: "How do you come up with that statement, have you read ALCOAST 458/08. I never asked for CG to police the Blog, I asked for via e-mail to the Coast Guard for comment prior to publishing of most posts. I did my job, Coast Guard declined to respond." Not sure how ALCOAST 458/08 comes to your rescue. You put a story together, asked the CG for comment, got none and posted it anyway. So you were either overly confident in your story/source or didn't think the CGs input was all that critical anyway. That's all on you buddy.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : Functional Reivew of CG Civil Rights posted to the Internet

Sat, 21 Feb 2009 04:07:10 +0000

Can you say "schadenfreude?" I can! Seriously though, the response from TJ tells you all you need to know about that blog. Nothing that happened is their fault, the much-maligned Coast Guard should've done a better job policing their content.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : The Coast Guard Image: Bertholf in San Francisco Bay

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:42:53 +0000

I think I'm reading it fairly. Ethics and leadership are important. What I'm saying is that those are two sides of the same coin, and when you're trying to fix a system of procurement leadership is not the root cause because correcting deficiencies there isn't likely to fix the whole problem. You basically write off the technical aspects of procurement because you think "what's the point? no one paid attention to them anyway? Any recreational boater would've been able to comprehend them!" but I think that's wrongheaded. I do get the impression that you want heads to roll, probably because you feel you've been wronged. You're not looking for a single sacrificial lamb, but you want to can every O-6 and above who may have more than a couple of minutes exposure to Deepwater. That's vindicative, not corrective. And what's the post-apocalyptic once you've gutted all those billets (likely not limited to procurement)? FWIW, I'm trying my best to be courteous in my disagreement with you....

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : The Coast Guard Image: Bertholf in San Francisco Bay

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:19:06 +0000

Part 2: You can take the best leaders the Coast Guard has to offer and put them in the acquisition office, but without the experience and the guidance you're not putting those leaders or the procurement efforts of the Coast Guard in a situation to succeed. In fact, I think a strong senior leader would look at a situation with a lacking operating procedure or requirements doctrine and say "Wait a second, we need good, logical policies in place. And we need people who know what they're doing." If you don't have the tools at hand, it's a lot more likely that "weak or bad" people are going to find themselves in positions of significant authority.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : The Coast Guard Image: Bertholf in San Francisco Bay

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:18:50 +0000

"As I have said before the contracts, requirements and process could have been better – but it wouldn’t have mattered." I think this almost gets it backwards. Strong experience, requirements and processes are not dispensable in the ways you describe because they inform and encourage the strong leadership you rightly contend is necessary. If you have good set of standards to conduct business by, we can determine that LT Butthead dropped the ball on this requirement or we need to rethink a process. Throwing LT Butthead out on the street and simply replacing him doesn't tell anyone what to fix. All you've done is provided a sacrificial lamb.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : The Coast Guard Image: Bertholf in San Francisco Bay

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 03:44:53 +0000

Whoops, just read that Marinette has withdrawn the second protest: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/02/coastguard_...

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : The Coast Guard Image: Bertholf in San Francisco Bay

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 03:44:11 +0000

Low risk AND high reward, preumsing that Marinette's challenge ultimately enabled them to win some part of the FRC contract. That contract looks like it's going to provide work to the contracted shipyard for some time. A lot of companies are looking for that right now. And I know this has been beaten to death, but Bollinger also built the 87 foot patrol boat. That's a significant part of the CG fleet. To my limited knowledge (and if I'm wrong I'm sure someone will speak up) Marinette has never built a patrol boat for the Coast Guard. So even though Bollinger has the 123 foot patrol obat problem, they also have supplied what are arguably the workhorses of the service, the 87 and 110 patrol boats.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : The Coast Guard Image: Bertholf in San Francisco Bay

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:48:40 +0000

imispgh (Michael): Presumably YOU could find information on the TEMPEST cost growth on your own, could you not? It seems like much of your insight on the issue isn't original..at least not anymore. Instead, you pull something someone else has written and theorize.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : The Coast Guard Image: Bertholf in San Francisco Bay

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:34:33 +0000

Quite a piece of commentary by Galrahn. Michael, we KNOW you haven't worked on the FRC or the OPC, but had you ever worked on the NSCs? Wasn't it just the 123 WPB you were working on?