IntenseDebate - hardleftrudder

17 years ago @ CGBlog.org :: An Unoff... - Open Discussion for th... · 6 replies · +4 points

"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....

17 years ago @ CGBlog.org :: An Unoff... - Open Discussion for th... · 1 reply · +3 points

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.

17 years ago @ CGBlog.org :: An Unoff... - Open Discussion for th... · 0 replies · +4 points

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?

17 years ago @ CGBlog.org :: An Unoff... - USCG's Commandant... · 3 replies · +3 points

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 :)

17 years ago @ CGBlog.org :: An Unoff... - USCG's Commandant... · 5 replies · +4 points

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.

17 years ago @ CGBlog.org :: An Unoff... - USCG's Commandant... · 0 replies · +3 points

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

17 years ago @ CGBlog.org :: An Unoff... - Why the Coast Guard de... · 0 replies · +5 points

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.

17 years ago @ CGBlog.org :: An Unoff... - Functional Reivew of C... · 1 reply · +1 points

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

17 years ago @ CGBlog.org :: An Unoff... - Functional Reivew of C... · 1 reply · +1 points

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

17 years ago @ CGBlog.org :: An Unoff... - Functional Reivew of C... · 3 replies · +2 points

"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?

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with hardleftrudder

People I'm following

hardleftrudder