en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/267463 Comments by imispgh http://www.cgblog.org/2009/04/open-discussion-for-week-of-april-5.html#IDComment18489596 Who is PJO? Who is Jackson Thomas? Who is Hardleftrudder ? Please – that argument is petty and hypocritical. While I would prefer everyone be named - they aren't. Maybe TJ has a good reason? Maybe he works for the CG, has a family and doesn’t want to risk the repercussions? Who knows? But let me tell you who should get the benefit of the doubt here. People who get involved, doing righteous things who do risk something for the greater good. Not cowards who play Monday morning quarterback who sit on the sidelines, in safety and anonymity, risking nothing while they wrongfully condemn and shoot the messengers who jeopardize their careers, twisted morality and misplaced loyalty. PJO – are you on high enough ground to make the point you made? You have risked what to take on what greater good? Going after TJ for selective and very precise actions etc may be warranted but going after him relative to his overall accomplishments and intent relative to the civil rights issues is petty, hypocritical and unethical. This site’s not being able to separate the message, the endeavor or the accomplishment from the messenger and posting about the issue and accomplishment itself, not the man who drove it, is petty as well. Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:09:59 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2009/04/open-discussion-for-week-of-april-5.html#IDComment18489596 http://www.cgblog.org/2009/04/open-discussion-for-week-of-april-5.html#IDComment18460435 You are correct this is not my blog. I chose to post under Open Discussion - which should be permitted. CG Blog may very well have a wider focus. But the rule doesn't excuse the exception. The issue and the hearing seemed to be at least significant enough to mention. I think it wasn't on purpose and the reasoning behind that is probably not sound, is possibly suspect and is certainly disappointing. You are correct I did not follow the civil rights issue closely. My subject was not that issue but how someone who championed the right cause had been treated. Maturity, professionalism and a high ethical standard mandate one acknowledges the good even when those who do good are not on your Christmas card list. Quite often I have acknowledged good points made by people who routinely shoot at me. It's the right thing to do. (Like I am doing here) The message can and should be separate from the messenger. TJ did the right thing overall and that right thing helped the CG and the country. In spite of personal feelings some may have for him and even in spite of some of his tactics some find questionable - his intent, pursuit and the relevant accomplishments should be recognized and applauded. Additionally vilifying him in this area was unfair, inaccurate, in bad taste and disrespectful. A more mature, accurate, proportionate and fair response would have been to acknowledge the good while also calling out what you believe to be the bad. Taking the high road is often difficult - that's why it's the high road. Thu, 9 Apr 2009 23:16:29 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2009/04/open-discussion-for-week-of-april-5.html#IDComment18460435 http://www.cgblog.org/2009/04/open-discussion-for-week-of-april-5.html#IDComment18389011 Is this an Open Forum or not? Also - I completely understand this site not covering the civil rights hearings as much as the other site. But to not cover it at all is wrong and says something. Something that shines a negative light on this site. (There wasn't even a simple mention with a link). Additionally people used this site to go after TJ and others. So why would it not be fair, given the actual facts of the matter, to suggest that TJ was mostly right, did a good thing overall and is owed some sort of an apology from those who went WAY too far and slighted him, his actions and his motivations? I am not defending everything he did. Having said that there seems to be no sense of honor and fair play here on this issue. It's simple. Stop the Open Discussions and/or any messenger shooting of any kind or let people respond. I think this site is heading towards a slippery slope and taking sides where it should not. in not even mentioning the civil rights news and clamping down on me you are choosing sides - by commission and ommission. (Up to this point I thought this site did a pretty good job of playing it fair. As I stated before I defend, to a point, some of the messenger shooting etc. But choosing who can do it AT ALL and who can't is choosing sides.) Wed, 8 Apr 2009 23:51:06 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2009/04/open-discussion-for-week-of-april-5.html#IDComment18389011 http://www.cgblog.org/2009/04/open-discussion-for-week-of-april-5.html#IDComment18325318 I said overwhelmingly not completely and I am correct. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and pick away at others who risk something to try to improve things. I'm pretty sure there has never been any whistleblower who did things perfectly. While those who snipe, shoot and condemn from the sidelines can master the art to perfection - as it takes no courage and nothing is risked. Thomas Jackson's actions, as a whole, were justified and played a major role in helping to shine a light on a problem not being adequately addressed. Tue, 7 Apr 2009 23:03:34 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2009/04/open-discussion-for-week-of-april-5.html#IDComment18325318 http://www.cgblog.org/2009/04/open-discussion-for-week-of-april-5.html#IDComment18323214 The RAND report and the hearings overwhelmingly supported TJ's cause and actions. They noted 10 years of serious lapses and issues. There would have been no study and no hearing without him. There would have been no new positions to fill, no changes, no admitting there was anyhting wrong, no nothing had he not done what he did. Tue, 7 Apr 2009 22:27:14 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2009/04/open-discussion-for-week-of-april-5.html#IDComment18323214 http://www.cgblog.org/2009/04/open-discussion-for-week-of-april-5.html#IDComment18266357 Jackson Thomas. . . .The litany of people with "anonymous in their name". . .All of those who said there were no civil rights issues, that Thomas Jackson was wrong and his site is a joke etc.. Where are you??????????? Mon, 6 Apr 2009 22:54:58 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2009/04/open-discussion-for-week-of-april-5.html#IDComment18266357 http://www.cgblog.org/2009/04/open-discussion-for-week-of-april-5.html#IDComment18202600 Where are the posts and apologies relative to the Civil Rights issue/hearings? The committee referred to the bloggers in a positive light – with not a single comment that they had done something wrong. Thomas Jackson is owed an apology from some on this site. And the fact that none have been forthcoming and there has been no major posts about it demonstrate a significant ethical, moral and intellectual lapse not to mention the acute hypocrisy. It’s a shame that the Kool Aid drinkers and messenger shooters don’t have the courage to apologize and admit when they are wrong. It is also a shame the authors of this site did not make a point of highlighting this and the outcome off the issue itself and the hearing. Those that I am referring to had barely any credible ground to stand on before (and that includes Deepwater) – now they have none. Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:36:14 +0000 http://www.cgblog.org/2009/04/open-discussion-for-week-of-april-5.html#IDComment18202600 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-15.html#IDComment17363705 I don't agree with it but the Art Bell comment is a good one. Sat, 21 Mar 2009 19:32:02 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-15.html#IDComment17363705 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-15.html#IDComment17363692 Of course they care. They have responded to my posts or press statements on maybe a dozen occasions. What you should wonder about is why they do – why they feel the need to respond so often. Sat, 21 Mar 2009 19:31:35 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-15.html#IDComment17363692 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-15.html#IDComment17346600 Thanks I do understand the point about relevancy. The CG posted the information I posted here this month. As such the information is new. As a matter of fact I rarely post something purely as a complete repost without something new. The CG posted that data on their blog and I am responding. Maybe someone should tell them to stop doing that? Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:36:45 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-15.html#IDComment17346600 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-15.html#IDComment17345442 This is an Open Discussion right? Maybe you should call it an Open Discussion except for Deepwater? Or maybe go one step further and call it an Open Discussion except for Deepwater and Civil Rights issues? Or maybe just call it an Open Discussion except for those people who do not agree with and defend everything the current senior leadership team does? Peter – what is your call? Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:44:32 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-15.html#IDComment17345442 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-15.html#IDComment17345377 Then don't respond Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:41:25 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-15.html#IDComment17345377 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-15.html#IDComment17311181 Proof the CG is not contractually in charge of DW “The Coast Guard Acquisition directorate manages 22 major acquisition projects, of which 15 are from the old Deepwater program. Little, except the name, remains of the original Deepwater commercial integrated lead system integrator (LSI) concept, and this is exactly the direction the Commandant has led the Coast Guard in acquisition reform. All of the major asset procurements under the LSI contract with Integrated Coast Guard Systems (ICGS, the Deepwater joint venture) have been awarded. The Coast Guard will continue working with ICGS on some systems engineering wrap-up work as it continues to transition legacy Deepwater programs and efforts to full and open competition, or directly with appropriate manufacturers (e.g. such as including the Coast Guard within Navy contracts, partnering with Customs and Border Protection, going directly to providers, etc.). While the procurements previously awarded to ICGS will continue under the oversight of the Coast Guard through delivery of those assets and capabilities, the original LSI contract expires in January 2011, and the Coast Guard will not renew it. “ Look at the last sentence. The LSI contract is not up until 2011. That is exactly what I stated. I have been saying for weeks that no one has provided proof that the CG is currently contractually in charge. I also posted data from the associated websites of Lockheed and ICGS showing they stated they were still in charge contractually. If things are as the Coast Guard says why not terminate those parts of the contract now like they terminated the 123 contract? They could restructure the contract to pay for the spin up help they will need and kill the LSI parts. If the CG can’t get the 123 refund they won’t be able to actually terminate the ICGS relationship unless ICGS allows for it. (If you can’t get $96m back you don’t have what it takes to change a contract that means much more $ than that.) They also won’t be able to award most of the major work left to outside parties. If ICGS doesn’t voluntarily step aside the CG won’t push them out. Doing so would risk ICGS fighting back and the CG doesn’t want that to happen. There is way too much they don’t want the public to know to allow that to happen. So what we have is the CG acting tough and ICGS looking like they are getting beat up a bit – all for show. Look at who wins what, who hasn’t been held accountable for what and who wins what work to see what is really going on. (I think ICGS survived the hearings, news reports, the blogs and losing a little face just fine. I bet the amount of money they lose in the end is in the single digits percentage wise. They will make most of the money they set out to and pull the Coast Guard’s strings to do it.) Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:40:22 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-15.html#IDComment17311181 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-8.html#IDComment16876410 My position did not state it could never be done well. I never said it implied it was inconceivable. My comment was that across the services and for most service members – especially the junior or mid-level enlisted – it is normally not a wise move financially or logistically – for the member or the service as a whole. As I stated – if the CG has a situation where it is largely unavoidable then fine. (If someone thinks that is the case I would like to know why buying a house is a more available or smarter option than renting a house or an apartment). Still no one has addressed my actual point. Everyone is twisting it in to some kind of attack on someone or the CG. That is nonsense. Or you are responding by exaggerating my point and saying I said it could never be done right and then providing the minority case examples when it is. Don’t stray off topic. Address my actual point. Is it wise for most service members and the services for service members to own a house given the financial and logistical challenges? Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:35:56 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-8.html#IDComment16876410 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-8.html#IDComment16876101 I never attacked the service or any individual. I used the original post to bridge to the larger topic of service members owning houses in general. Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:22:48 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-8.html#IDComment16876101 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-8.html#IDComment16876066 I am pursuing Deepwater as a service to my country. I am pursuing the Qui Tam as a service to my country. As a matter of fact sacrifice wise it is far more than I ever sacrificed in the Navy or State when I worked in counter terrorism. (At least hardship wise). On my financial situation. First – I started work this week so my financial position is fine and bankruptcy is off the table. What does my financial situation have to do with someone who is over extended on their debt due to a house? (I am not singling out the original poster or the CG. The original post made me think about my GENERAL problem with most military personnel owning a house) Are you somehow equating my decision to take a financial hit in order to pursue the DW issues the same thing as getting myself over extended on a house or ARM? So you think I made the wrong move, a boneheaded move or at least one that you consider stupid? The two examples have nothing to do with one another. As for my being in the Navy and State. I never expected or wanted anyone to be impressed. I was responding to someone stating that people in the services defend my right to make a comment they felt was stupid. As I did my time in the Navy etc I was making the point that I had done the same. As such the comment and the message behind it are not applicable to me. I have had TEMPEST right the whole way and still do. Care to state a specific area I had wrong? I am in the know – just not in the know and tell mode. Soon I will be as much in the know as the senior CG and ICGS leadership – maybe more so. Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:21:12 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-8.html#IDComment16876066 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-8.html#IDComment16862260 Excellent shot. I am not against home ownership. I am for it - but responsibly. As such I think service members situations and salaries preclude this more often than not. If the money is there and the logistics are reasonable then go for it. I just think having the combination of those two is rare - rarer than is probably occuring. it's a sacrifise one makes over their civilian couterparts - one of many. Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:42:26 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-8.html#IDComment16862260 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-8.html#IDComment16859044 As for my being ignorant of TEMPEST - Would you like to tell me exactly where that is or are you just firing a shot and going along with the flow? I am sure you will be giving me examples in order to demonstrate you are not ignorant about the subject and are not calling the kettle black? Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:43:27 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-8.html#IDComment16859044 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-8.html#IDComment16859030 My comments have nothing to do with CG vs Navy or any other service. I am talking about across the services. I didn't say or even suggest enlisted people weren't or aren't generally responsible or smart. I think most are. I am talking about the individual cases. It hurts the services much more than the general society when a member is having financial problems etc. As such the guidelines should be tighter and members should not have as much freedom of movement. There are many areas where the services set its own limits to make sure they are being run right. Hence the UCMJ etc. The government, in general, doesn't owe anyone in the service a situation that ensures the ability to buy. Now if in the CG that means the members use public accommodations much more than the other services OK. In that case the member should look to rent first. If that is not doable then I understand there could be situations where ownership is the most accessible. If that is the case here my general comments would not apply. If you are telling me the situation dictates ownership in most cases because of how the CG operates I will cede the point and move on. Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:42:55 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-8.html#IDComment16859030 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-8.html#IDComment16858914 You are exagerating my point and taking it to ridiculous extremes. As I state above there are limits the services have to oppose on their memebrs for the good of the service - these go well beyond civilian laws etc. Hence the UCMJ etc. Owning a home should be one of them unless the situation dictates otherwise. Most do not (and I am talking about across the services not the CG. it may very well be different in the CG). ALstly it has nothing to do with "wherewithall". It has to do with financial and logistical capbility or pridence. Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:38:31 +0000 http://ucgblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-discussion-for-week-of-march-8.html#IDComment16858914