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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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")

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?

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.

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.