Let's Clarify a few things
 

Nope, I'm not going to do the worship business here. I'll accept 100%
your account of the incident except for the implied analysis.

So you diverted 480 nm to get to this sailboat. Now what would you have
done using that fuel and time if not for this diversion? Oh, yeah, also
you hung around until the weather calmed.

So we have a diversion of about 500 nm, then a delay while you waited
the weather out. Let me ask you, if the sailboat was in such dire
distress, why could it survive the storm? Why do you say that the family
would have been in mourning if you didn't pull the guy out when the
storm passed? You mean, he and the boat could survive heavy weather but
not calm weather?

More to the point, is your existence in standard patrol or whatever you
were on when you 'diverted' the 500 nm useless? Do you serve no function
at all except to aimlessly cruise around in your cutter just waiting for
some clown to falsely claim being in distress so you can zoon 500 nm to
make some headlines and get good press?

So now tell me, what didn't get done while you were out watching this
sailboat bounce around in demonstrably safe conditions? I say safe
because it DID make it through didn't it? So the safety isn't
speculative, but demonstrated.

Let's Clarify a few things
 

Paul Cassel wrote:
hpeer wrote:

Paul,

The USCG is the ONLY military organization with a full time peace time
mission. Except for NOAA.

So if you are going to bash the USCG

Show me one area where I 'bashed' anybody. I only said the rescue wasn't
free in the sense of lacking any marginal costs.

"More to the point, is your existence in standard patrol or whatever you
were on when you 'diverted' the 500 nm useless? Do you serve no function
at all except to aimlessly cruise around in your cutter just waiting for
some clown to falsely claim being in distress so you can zoon 500 nm to
make some headlines and get good press?

So now tell me, what didn't get done while you were out watching this
sailboat bounce around in demonstrably safe conditions? I say safe
because it DID make it through didn't it? So the safety isn't
speculative, but demonstrated. "

Sorry Paul, it sounds like "bashing to me." If it were not intended so
then I guess we agree. The rescue was most certainly NOT free.

Howard

Let's Clarify a few things
 

I'm sure there are many in the Coast Guard who I would consider it an
honor to take out to dinner but:

my experience is being on a rented 14 foot fishing boat with a dead
motor approximately 1 mile west of the Santa Cruz Pier, CA around
2:30pm PST. A Coast Guard Cutter past within 1/4 mile of us going into
Santa Cruz and ignored our flares. If a sailboat anchored by the pier
hadn't responded to our smoke only god knows how long we'd be out
there. He was a cruiser just working his way down the coast.

Now if I were a Kennedy I'm sure congress would make sure the Navy was
there for me. :-)



On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:59:51 -0800 (PST), wrote:

I have to say this discussion is both hilarious and offensive.
Especially when a certain someone posts that the US Coast Guard would
have been "on leave or sitting around shining our shoes" had this case
not have happened. ................
.................................................. ..
Respectfully,
A United States Coast Guard Cutterman currently serving aboard CGC
TAHOMA

Let's Clarify a few things
 

hpeer wrote:

Paul,

The USCG is the ONLY military organization with a full time peace time
mission. Except for NOAA.

So if you are going to bash the USCG

Show me one area where I 'bashed' anybody. I only said the rescue wasn't
free in the sense of lacking any marginal costs.

Let's Clarify a few things
 

hpeer wrote:
The USCG is the ONLY military organization with a full time peace time
mission. Except for NOAA.

NOAA is not a military organization.

But to be honest the USCG is not really a military organization,

Huh? Funny, they have pretty big guns up front on their boats for not
being military. That's kinda like saying the National Guard isn't really
military because it also has a peacetime function.

The point is that all big organizations are relatively ineffective and
inefficient.

Within all military organizations as well as all government departments
and organizations at all levels (federal, state, and usually local as
well) there is usually massive waste and inefficiencies. To be fair
there has been tremendous improvement over the last twenty years or so
in the military and at the same time the civilian side has become much,
much worse. But as was pointed out by someone else, one mandate still
stands in all government departments and organizations - they are
usually ordered by their department heads to spend everything they get
and then some, or the following year's budget will go down. Even the
lower ranks feel this pressure at the end of the fiscal year.

Oh and one more thing, if the Coast Guard or any military unit does not
constantly practice, their skills and leadership will atrophy. The SAR
mission in question can easily be considered practice as well as a real
mission. Denying them those opportunities threatens their budget,
skills, and mission. Then what will you have left after a few
self-serving Congressmen decide they want the money for their own
districts instead of giving it to fund CG ops?
Just trying to clarify a few things.
Red
Hope everone had, or is having great holidays whatever they may be.

Let's Clarify a few things
 

Red wrote:
hpeer wrote:
The USCG is the ONLY military organization with a full time peace time
mission. Except for NOAA.

NOAA is not a military organization.


Think again:
http://www.noaacorps.noaa.gov/index.html

Let's Clarify a few things
 

Red wrote:
hpeer wrote:
The USCG is the ONLY military organization with a full time peace
time mission. Except for NOAA.

NOAA is not a military organization.


And jeff replied:
Think again:
http://www.noaacorps.noaa.gov/index.html

Think again jeff;
This is copied from the site above.
The NOAA Commissioned Officer uniformed services of the United
States. The service, consisting of approximately 299 commissioned
officers,is an integral part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

(Let's repeat that last statement... "an agency of the U.S. Department
of Commerce")

The Director of the NOAA Corps is Rear Admiral Jonathan W. Bailey, NOAA.
He is also the Director of the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations
(OMAO) which operates a wide variety of specialized aircraft and ships
to conduct NOAA's environmental and scientific missions.

The NOAA Commissioned Corps traces its roots back to the former U.S.
Coast and Geodetic Survey, which dates back to 1807 and President Thomas
Jefferson. The NOAA Corps today provides a cadre of professionals
trained in engineering, earth sciences, oceanography, meteorology,
fisheries science, and other related disciplines. Officers operate
ships, fly aircraft, manage research projects, conduct diving
operations, and serve in staff positions throughout NOAA.
Red
BTW, I worked for NOAA and I was not in any military organization at
that time. The officers are uniformed, just as is the top U.S. M.D. and
many other civilian/government positions. NOAA officers do not take the
military oath.

Let's Clarify a few things
 

Red wrote:
Red wrote:
hpeer wrote:
The USCG is the ONLY military organization with a full time peace
time mission. Except for NOAA.

NOAA is not a military organization.


And jeff replied:
Think again:
http://www.noaacorps.noaa.gov/index.html

Think again jeff;
This is copied from the site above.
The NOAA Commissioned Officer uniformed services of the United States.
The service, consisting of approximately 299 commissioned officers,is an
integral part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

(Let's repeat that last statement... "an agency of the U.S. Department
of Commerce")

So an agency of the Department of the Treasury (until recently) is
clearly military but and agency of Commerce is not? That's a pretty
lame argument - try again.



The Director of the NOAA Corps is Rear Admiral Jonathan W. Bailey, NOAA.
He is also the Director of the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations
(OMAO) which operates a wide variety of specialized aircraft and ships
to conduct NOAA's environmental and scientific missions.

The NOAA Commissioned Corps traces its roots back to the former U.S.
Coast and Geodetic Survey, which dates back to 1807 and President Thomas
Jefferson. The NOAA Corps today provides a cadre of professionals
trained in engineering, earth sciences, oceanography, meteorology,
fisheries science, and other related disciplines. Officers operate
ships, fly aircraft, manage research projects, conduct diving
operations, and serve in staff positions throughout NOAA.
Red
BTW, I worked for NOAA and I was not in any military organization at
that time. The officers are uniformed, just as is the top U.S. M.D. and
many other civilian/government positions. NOAA officers do not take the
military oath.

Oh really? I believe that the officers of the NOAA Corps take the same
oath as officers in branches under the Department of Defense. In fact,
all sorts of federal employees take the same oath as directly by 5
U.S.C. 3331. I took the oath (I think) when I worked at the
Smithsonian, and even postal workers take it.

Curiously, enlisted men take a different oath, where they agree to obey
orders. Officers (and Postmen) don't agree to follow orders, only
uphold the Constitution.

Here's the law:
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office
of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall
take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against
all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and
faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to
enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths
required by law.

BTW, if you're looking for a real significant difference, the NOAA Corps
are not bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice unless they are
attached to a military unit. Of course, that can happen pretty easily.

Let's Clarify a few things
 

I will only say that:

1. If the CG wasn't actually doing the rescue operation they would be
puttering around in an exercise which is based upon a "rescue operation"
or maybe something more exciting like "drug/terrorist interdiction".
2. Total cost to the taxpayers is the same either way.

Let's Clarify a few things
 

hpeer wrote:

"More to the point, is your existence in standard patrol or whatever you
were on when you 'diverted' the 500 nm useless? Do you serve no function
at all except to aimlessly cruise around in your cutter just waiting for
some clown to falsely claim being in distress so you can zoon 500 nm to
make some headlines and get good press?

So now tell me, what didn't get done while you were out watching this
sailboat bounce around in demonstrably safe conditions? I say safe
because it DID make it through didn't it? So the safety isn't
speculative, but demonstrated. "

Sorry Paul, it sounds like "bashing to me." If it were not intended so
then I guess we agree. The rescue was most certainly NOT free.

Howard

I did note that you didn't say what didn't get done while you went out
to do this rescue which, I infer, took a few days.

If I or my wife could spend several days away from our jobs with nothing
changed due to our absence (at regular intervals and w/o notice) I think
our employers would wonder what are there doing all day.

-paul