-
Website
http://cgblog.org/ -
Original page
http://www.cgblog.org/2009/06/21/open-discussion-for-the-week-of-21-june-2009/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- Congratulations to VADM Robert J. Papp on being nominated the 24th Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard
- 1931 Christmas Dinner Menu USCGC Haida (WPG-45)
- Help a Coastie, Support the Coast Guard – Code Name: I’m for 1790
- Collision between Coast Guard boat and recreational vessel
- CG-1705 memorial bands, are you wearing one?
Ok, I'm done. The fact that I though his statement was funny has nothing to do with my character, other that the fact that I am able to find humor in life. Have a good night all.
Your response is no different than the MCPOCG's. And yes it most certainly does open up a window in to your character.
I will give you credit for though. You are being honest and are doing so named. Far better than most.
Beyond that, let's address when you said in an earlier comment It's no way to treat a patriot who is fighting a huge uphill battle for the good of the country. It's dispresectuful to me, my family and the country. in response to someone's comment. It is a bit of a potkettleblack situation since your own comments are increasingly disrespectful to Coast Guardsmen who have nothing to do with what is bothering you. You are actively engaging in insulting them and their service. Take a few steps back from the computer take a few deep breaths. I find this helps.
From my side what you see as self-righteousness is my firm belief based on my experience on this issue, in the Navy, in the State Department, in Lockheed and life in general. My approach in writing and verbally is also very direct which can be good and bad I suppose.
As for the land of what if. I am wired different than most. Doesn't make me better at all - just different. The vast majority of the population acts as I stated. It's not only my opinion but that of people who research such things and I bet if you looked at your life experience and were objective you would say the same. (Having said that I don't do well in some situations that most would. Again I am not better overall than most. Just different)
I used the patriot line much less to describe me than someone like me. I completely understand that it looks like self-promotion (which is why in 6 years I never said it before). My point was that most whistleblowers involved in defense work are patriots and more so than the average person who goes with the flow and doesn't make waves. People who whistle blow deserve a wide berth. Especially from those who lack the will, courage or ethical fortitude to do the same.
Which Coast Guardsman am I disrespectful to? The whole lot because I criticize the senior leadership? I hope that's not it because that's the usual be a team player no matter what BS. Do you feel that since I wasn't in the CG I can't comment on non-DW issues? I can see that point. I was never in the CG. But I was in the Navy, spent the past 26 years serving the government in one way or the other and have contributed a lot to watch the backs of the Coast Guardsman over the past 6 years. Does that give me the right to criticize those leaders - I think so. But I respect your position on it. (If anyone of probably hundreds of Coast Guardsman had courage they would have helped me and most of this would be avoided. So in that respect I deserve to comment more about the senior leadership than quite a few Coast Guardsman)
Whose service am I insulting? The senior leaders I call out by name? If that is who you are talking about you are correct. I feel my comments are direct and appropriate given the circumstances.
In closing I want to say i appreciate your push back. You obviously don't agree with me. But you are pushing back objectively, with respect and make some well thought out and reasoned points. Far better than the usual messenger shooting. Thanks
Allow me to leave this warning for the MSPOCG (and Ryan Erikson)
For every person that speaks up there are thousands who think the same things and don't speak up.
I too would prefer people post named. As many have attacked me I can simpathize with the feeling the master chief has but only to a point. It is simply not reasonable to expect most people to post named because of the real probability (not possibility) that there will be repercussions for those statement if they run counter to the party line. All the master chief did in lashing out was prove the point for many. His statement will only drive people further under ground. What the master chief should have done is empathize with those who want to speak out and are afraid to and to go out of his way to make them feel as comfortable as possible. He could have said that while he prefers people be named he realizes the pressures and realities associated and appreciates the feedback - as that feedback probably reflects the thoughts and feelings of many others. The MCPOCG blew the opportunity and demonstrated a serious flaw in his leadership capabilities.
The leadershiop of the Coast Guard has proven itself to be a group of good ole' boys who routinely put their own careers and politics ahead of the organization and the greater good.
Examples - Deepwater - the Civil Rights issues (of which there are many), the deplotrable conditions of the aging cutter fleet (a large portion of which should have been replaced by now) and the coddling of a senior officer who used cocaine.
As odd as it may sound, I would like to congratulate you on lasting as long as you did in allowing people to post in the open. A site as high-profile as yours can only be expected to attract those who wish to get their own agenda on the docket, albeit disrespectfully, in order to create controversy. It was good while it lasted though.
I too am thinking about turning off the anonymous posting as to curtail the insults (though some may be justified…). Keep up the good work.
LT R. Erickson"
I should probably restate my comment. The MCPOCG lashed out. You supported it by stating what he said was "good work". I think that can be viewed as your lashing out - though not directly.
If you do, understand that the Second Deck of CGHQ will be very, very happy, because if you end anonymous posting, you will end the utility of this board as a vehicle for serious discussion of the problems facing the Coast Guard.
Which is just what the Coast Guard leadership would prefer, sadly.
I think a balance has to be struck between being "comfortable" and entertaining serious discussions, especially on the internet. If no one has an identity it can be very difficult to explore ideas or suggestions in good faith. And, as we've all seen here and elsewhere, it makes it very easy for "hit and run" commenting and general troublemaking.
OK, so why do I post anonymously then? It's my choice to do so. I don't come into these conversations expecting to change the world, so I don't feel the need to use my real name. I also don't trust some of the other anonymous folks that check in around the CG blogosphere from time to time because I have no idea who they are (ironic, I know), yet they could potentially make my life miserable. I could handle the "pressures and realities" of commenting in the open in my normal professional life, but I'm not willing to experiment with some of the unnamed folks in the unofficial CG blogosphere.
If the rules change here, I'll decide then what I want to do (I do like this blog, and would continue to check in either way).
I agree that some take advantage of posting anonymous and go tooo far - something they surely would not know if they were named. But it is the price to pay when someone who has the right intentions takes a shot, even anonymously, to make a statement in the hopes of improving things.
Again the MCPOCG went way overboard (pun intended) and not only squandered an opportunity but made things worse. Senior leaders are the ones who are supposed to do the right thing and keep his cool when things get tough. It's interesting to watch these senior leaders whose careers are based (usually) on handling tough situations in the field but they comppletely blow it when the situation gets politically difficult or even uncomfortable.
The MCPPCG should appologize and restate his commnet or rethink his career choice and pick something he can handle. He blew it in the EXACT situation we need master chief's to be able to handle. Shhoting all the anonymous meeseengers was uncalled for, counter productive and a big mistake. If the comments were out of line he should have taken on those specific posts while encouraging more posting - even if it has to be anonymous. He should be doing anything and everything he can to get more poeple involved. Not lashing out because his political skin is thin.
I disagree that Master Chief needs to apologize for what he said or the policy on the official CG blog. Speaking generally, internet trolls shouldn't be allowed to commandeer a discussion or a blog owners time by requiring constant moderation, and sometimes they're not entitled to a response. If a troll has something important or worthwhile to say, he/she shouldn't have any problem using their real name if the commenting policy directs as such.
Yes, anonymous bloggers can post in bad faith. But to label all who post in this fashion that way is not just wrong, it stifles the free exchange of ideas.
You want a Pollyanna blog? Ban anonymity. Everyone will agree with everyone else, and all will be well.
Right.....
The blog owner has every right to determine the direction and tone of their blog. If banning anonymous comments turns everything into a big lovefest, so be it. Start your own blog with your own comment policy or find one that has one you like and let the free exhcange of ideas flow.
Anthony D'Armiento - look that one up. he was harassed and held at gunpoint for transmitting a cleared document.
I know of several CG employees whose careers were harmed due to Deepwater
I know what things the senior leadership misled congress about. Some not public knowledge.
I know how the CG has treated me - both on and off the field. (Isn't it ironic that they lambasted me and said every one of my allegations was baseless and now I am the only party actively seeking their refund?)
Look at the MCPOCG's statement. Figure it's the first time he has taken that view? I would bet his career is littered with hammering people who rock his boat.
And finally I am just playing the odds.
As for me. Disgraced? Maybe you could provide a bit more on that? Everyone of my allegations relative to the 123s was proven accurate. Those relative to the NSC look pretty dead on too. And I am the only party actively seeking recovery of the 123 refund and for the contractors to be held accountible. Maybe you didn't read the latest news or our lawsuit?
Fired - correct
Disgruntled? I don't think so. Unhappy yes. But not disgruntled. And even if I were I assume you figure that feeling wouldn't be appropriate, fair or earned?
Let's say you had gone about blowing the whistle on Deepwater anonymously, and never revealed who you were. For the sake of argument, put aside the lawsuit and let's just pretend that no one would've been able to confirm your identity.
Do you think your efforts would have been more or less effective had you been anonymous, rather than putting your name out there?
If it wasn't for a guy named "Deep Throat" it's possible that Richard Nixon could have finished out his term as President, and quite frankly we all might have a different view of him as far as history goes. Anonymity has it's place and can be quite effective...
But in presenting your case, even from the very beginning when you first took on management and changed your career path, I get the sense you would agree that doing it in the open was more productive than if you had done so anonymously.
Most people will do the quick math, figure out their odds of success and career failure and decide not to get involved at all much less submit an anonymous note. Look at how my case went. Three ethics investigations all concluding every one of my allegations was 100% baseless. Then I had no job. People see that stuff happen all the time and it just firms up their resolve to stay quiet or be anonymous. When is the last time any big company volunteered to come clean? We live on a planet where ethical standards are situational. Short of obvious and immediate death to someone (and even then in most cases) people don't get involved. This is why company policies, bumper stickers and slogans are BS. The key in all of this is who is the local leader and what does he/she believe. if they are ethical and strong when the crap hits the fan everyone else will be. If he/she is not then the lemmings will line up. It's all human nature unfortunately.
As for the people who posted anonymous on the MCPOGs blog. They could very well have been disgruntled, wrong and insubordinate. But that's the price to be paid to have a system where a couple good posts come in you would never see otherwise. All the master chief had to do was single out bad behavior and encourage the good.
1. CWO Porter NOT arrested and still doing TEMPEST certifications for CG.
2. No NSC gear removed "under dark of night" to pass inspections as you continue to falsely accuse.
3. No SCIF on the NSC even though you keep talking about one.
4. NSC received ATO for class gear which was validated and verified by an independent party.
These are just a few of the things you are wrong about.
1 - Porter and the whole event is still being looked in to. Do you doubt he illegally and improperly waived things he should not have? If so I would be glad to post proof - again.
2 - You are correct nothing was apparently removed. it was worse - it was never there. So the CG and ICGS didn't appear to remove equipment to misrepresent the truth they just misrepresented the truth without the equipment being there. A situation that was worse than I thought.
3 - No there is not a SCIF and there should be. I don't understand the point.
4 - I was told the NSC received an ATO under the same circumstances that the 123s received theirs - illegal and improper waivers. of course now that we have sued ICGS etc on behalf of the government and the NSC issues are part of the complaint we will get discovery to look in to that and more. And should anyone stonewall us or BS us we will head to the court, on behalf of the government, and work that out.
So yes I have had a small detail or two incorrect. overall I have either been dead on or the final judgment has yet to be determined.
So the equipment was "never there"?!? What equipment would that be Sherlock? For months, you insisted that equipment was removed so that they could pass certification. That is patently false and you have absolutely no proof to back up those accusations.
So now, in your crazy little mind, both the COMDT and MCPOCG should resign? Because you're a "patriot"?!? You are the hack sir and your obsession with this just proves it.
Seriously, you need to get professional help. Anyone who would listen to your insane rantings should have their heads examined as well.
It's going to be funny watching LMCO lawyers bitch slap you and your bogus lawsuit right out of court.
The CG admits the equipment wasn't there. the congressional committee said that as well. CG personnel have posted on these sites and said it was missing. IT IS STILL MISSING. (Most of it is SCIF related). Adm Blore stated to POGO and the CG has made press briefings saying it won't be in and tested for another year. They also admitted they would have to retest the secret side when it is.
Yes they should both resign and it has nothing to do with me. Fine line between seeing something through and obsession I suppose. I never expected perfection but what has occurred to date is not nearly enough. No one held accountable, the refund is still not paid. There are significant problems with the NSC that shouldn't exist etc.
Why is the suit bogus? Did you read it? I assume you believe there was no fraud and LM/NG did great by the CG and the country? I'll give you one example. In the DHS IG 123 report they confirmed the topside equipment failure issue was purposefully withheld from the CG until the summer of 2006. Shall I post that. (Please try calling my bluff) Years after the NRE was paid and after 8 boats were delivered. Shall I post that for you? 1/3 of the suit is to get the 123 refund back. The CG rejected the entirety of the 123s - C4ISR and all. Would you suggest the government not get that $. If so then I would be the only hope at thins point because the CG failed to get it and punted and the DoJ deferred. Right now me and my attorney's are the only parties actively trying to get that $ back.
If LM wins the CG and the country lose. I am a small player in that - at least relative to any recovery.
Nice to see you are in favor of contractors treating the CG and the country the way these have post 9/11. Nice to see your loyalties are in the right place. Given those standards I have no problem being called a hack by you.
Who do you work for? The CG? One of the contractors?
Again, just because you say it was illegal doesn't make it illegal.
The SCIF wasn't missing, the initial design of the NSC had NO SCIF! No equipment removed or missing to pass certification. Wrong again. Stick with what you know. Which at this point, doesn't seem like much.
You've definitely crossed the line from seeing something through to being obsessed. And throw in a good dose of paranoia to boot. Accept the fact that you will be the only one to lose their job because LMCO delivered a crappy product to the CG (123's). Your demands for the COMDT and MCPOCG to resign only make you look like a bigger fool than you already are.
Contractors like you and LMCO/NGSS screw over the government every day of the week. No surprise there.
The SCIF and the associated secret comm TEMPEST testing were supposed to be done by DD-250 and they were not. If you drop the SCIF out of the equation the secret side was over a year late. (First promised to be done in the winter of 07, then the spring of 08, then by DD-250, then by August 08). The CG did that to avoid having to carry the fact they they had no secure comm capability as a DD-250 major item. All so they could get the boat delivered without anyone challenging them. (During that period the Navy Times, POGO and others wrote stories on the CG changing their story on this along the way. i will post some of them if you wish)
The SCIF has been part of the design since 2003 when we frist started to design the NSC systems. Why the need for the ECP if it was part of the contract in 2003? How much extra $ did LM get paid for this and what else did the money go for? Changing the secret side to bail LM out of the mess they created for themselves on the 123s? (LM stated TEMPEST was not part of the 123 effort - so they needed that changed for every other ship in order to CYA. of course TEMPEST and the secret systems are clearly called out in the spec - and are not "guidance")
Your comment about my being paranoid ar exaggerated. Simply going with what has happened, not happened and the pattern of the CG and the contractors misrepresenting the truth or not providing the complete story. I do however think about this endeavor, how I should handle it and if I should end it a lot. I have never expected perfection as a resolution. The problem is the CG and congress didn't get close enough. The NSC has problem it shouldn't have, the CG and taxpayer are paying way too much for things they should not have, the refund has not been paid and no one has been held accountable. (Yes stopping the LSI held the organizations to account somewhat. At the end of the day it is some loss of $ for the contractors and some loss of face but not necessarily a bigger deal than that. LM and NG are still in the game working the NSCs and maybe the OPCs all while the refund has not been paid, the contractors maintain they did nothing wrong - including fraud - and no individulas have been held accountable) And now it appears that if I don't hang in there the CG will never get it's refund nor will anyone be held accountable or pay for their actions. I will stop when I agree to stop, am satisfied with the resolutions presented or run out of options. Right now the lawsuit, the book and blogging are still available to me -so I will keep going.
As for resigning. Yes I believe the Commandant should have resigned his commission. Not only for what is publically known but for events that are not. (Which will come out in my book and I would assume our lawsuit proceeedings if the powers that be don't get their acts together). As for the MCPOCG I am only calling for him to resign his position not the service.
I agree that LM and NGSS screwed the government I don't quite see how I screwed the government how? I served in the Navy, the State Department (including the counter terrorism group) and then 13 years of LM DoD programs. As far as I know I did a professional and honorable job at each. Then I took on an effort to make the DW program right. During that the LSI practice stopped, the CG asked for a refund and there were many other changes. Seems to me I had a hand in all of that. Again - exactly how did I screw over the government? Does that question mean you are questioning my service to my country? If you are going to go that far please include your full name in your post. (And just in case you bring up the fact that i use my Yahoo handle I signed in using my name this time)