(Capt Lou) wrote in message ...
When the Coast Guard was transfered into the Department of Homeland Security,
so was the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Now all auxiliarists have to be
fingerprinted, and if they want to volunteer as crew or for other jobs, they
have to pass a security background and criminal check. I know an auxiliarist
friend of mine who had long hair and was told to cut it. Does anyone feel that
the government is going a little overboard for civilian citizen volunteers?
What about the auxiliarist who has been volunteering for the past 15 or 20
years? Is he or she a security threat? Maybe it is time to consider the U.S.
Power Squadron and tell the USCGAUX enough is enough! I hear that 60% of the
auxiliarists in my division will not submit to the fingerprinting. That's a lot
of dues paying members dropping out!


Interesting. The comments at the 01N District meeting were the
opposite. Fewer than expected were opting out of the security check.
It's also hard to claim this is only Homeland Security. Since I
understand this security check to be the same as required by the CAP.

Now many of our members don't need a background check for the work
they actually do. And yes I doubt any of our 15yr plus members are
terrorists. But what about the newer members? And if we require
security checks for new members are you sure all those before XX/XX/XX
are safe? I don't think the National Bridge can answer that question.
Hence to be safe it is extended to all.

As for personal grooming. The AUXMAN has requirements while wearing
the Uniform. If you don't want to comply with the Aux Grooming
requirements then wear the Blue Blazer. Granted I can't make any
statements about the individual case you mention. But I have not
witnessed any actions concerning people who are otherwise neat in
appearance, but not be to the letter of the manual.

On 13 Jan 2004 15:01:06 GMT, (Capt Lou) wrote:

When the Coast Guard was transfered into the Department of Homeland Security,
so was the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Now all auxiliarists have to be
fingerprinted, and if they want to volunteer as crew or for other jobs, they
have to pass a security background and criminal check. I know an auxiliarist
friend of mine who had long hair and was told to cut it. Does anyone feel that
the government is going a little overboard for civilian citizen volunteers?

no one in the auxiliary is told to cut his hair. as to the security
check, we auxiliarists DO have access to secure/secret info. those who
think that, because we've volunteers, we DON'T have access, is kidding
himself.

and the active duty folks are very happy we are doing this. it's
protection for them, too.

What about the auxiliarist who has been volunteering for the past 15 or 20
years? Is he or she a security threat? Maybe it is time to consider the U.S.
Power Squadron and tell the USCGAUX enough is enough!

i agree, quite frankly. if you're gonna bitch and whine and **** your
pants when asked to serve your country, we don't need you. go join the
USPS. it's a fine organization. they simply don't do the work the USCG
does.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

On 13 Jan 2004 15:20:05 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

When the Coast Guard was transfered into the Department of Homeland Security,
so was the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Now all auxiliarists have to be
fingerprinted, and if they want to volunteer as crew or for other jobs,

they
have to pass a security background and criminal check.

I know an auxiliarist
friend of mine who had long hair and was told to cut it. Does anyone feel
that
the government is going a little overboard for civilian citizen volunteers?

If the jobs for which the Auxiliary members are volunteering normally require a
person to pass a background and criminal check, there's not really a problem.
The Homeland Security Dept would want to make sure that a bad actor didn't get
access to places ordinarily secured against public access by volunteering for
the USCG Aux.

absolutely true. can you imagine the complaining if an auxiliarist
were found to be a security threat ex post facto?


I know an auxiliarist
friend of mine who had long hair and was told to cut it.

Unless there are personal grooming standards that an auxiliarist agrees to upon
joining the organization, that's BS.

What were the circumstances of the order to cut hair? By what authority?

looks like an urban legend.


---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

On 13 Jan 2004 16:47:00 GMT, (Capt Lou) wrote:

Agree. But how about doing ordinary safety patrols? I am not talking about
entering restricted channels where military ships or secrets might be, and I am
not talking about entering channels or buildings where nuclear power plants are
located. Just ordinary patrols!

and what is an 'ordinary' safety patrol? what if we are on patrol and
an incident happens? do we bow out, saying that we ONLY volunteered
for the regatta/yacht club aspects of the auxiliary, and that, when
our nation needs us, it can go to hell?


My auxiliarist friend was ordered to cut his hair if he was to attend an
auxiliarist seminar at the Coast Guard Academy. Otherwise, he was told he would
not be welcomed to walk around the campus in uniform with the cadets.


no, he wasnt told to cut his hair. there's no one in the auxiliary
with the authority to do that. sorry.

---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:26:53 -0500, "JGK"
wrote:

"Capt Lou" wrote in message
...
When the Coast Guard was transfered into the Department of Homeland
Security,
so was the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Now all auxiliarists have to be

Just remember this is the same CG that let a Cuban Patrol boat tie up in Key
West harbor, the people on board with loaded gun went to a bar and had a few
beers before finding a cop and turning themselves in. Coast Guard didn't
even know they were there.


ah, the simplistic ignorance of people who expect perfection in all
things.

betcha HE'S never made a single mistake in HIS life...

---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message news:KkhNb.519

You're talking about the military. They need more people, so their
solution
snip
disregard ignorant rant.



I've read that when Intel was a young company, new hires used to walk by
Andy Grove's office, peek in, and scurry off to ask older employees about

When Intel was a young company, there weren't any older employees. Their
corporate portrait looked like a cast photo from "Revenge of the Nerds".

(Bob)wrote . as to the security check, we auxiliarists DO have
access to secure/secret info. those who think that, because we've
volunteers, we DON'T have access, is kidding himself.

Hey Aux Sparks! You're not doing your shipmates any favors with
statements like that,


and the active duty folks are very happy we are doing this. it's
protection for them, too.

Not any more, UD




http://community.webtv.net/capuglyda...inUglyDansJack

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:KkhNb.519

You're talking about the military. They need more people, so their
solution
snip
disregard ignorant rant.

Ya think? :-)

Five years ago, my neighbor's 18 year old nephew decided that more than
anything, he wanted to graduate from fixing cars, something he can do
blindfolded, to working on sexy fighter jets. But, he's ridiculously
nearsighted, so Air Force recruiters here (Rochester) told him he couldn't
join. He ended up having his congressman investigate, and found there was no
such exclusion for the job the kid was hoping for. The erroneous recruiters
wasted a year of the kid's life before being corrected. When I was 18, I
inquired about flying jets and was told the same thing about eyesight, but
at least that makes sense in the case of a pilot.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message news:RUuNb.935

......so Air Force recruiters here (Rochester) told him he couldn't
join. He ended up having his congressman investigate, and found there was
no
such exclusion for the job the kid was hoping for.

So what you had was a couple of recruiters who didn't know their stuff in
detail, which was an unfortunate occurrence for your friend's nephew. Your
earlier post made it sound as if such things were established general policy
among all the military services. That's not at all the same thing.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:RUuNb.935

......so Air Force recruiters here (Rochester) told him he couldn't
join. He ended up having his congressman investigate, and found there
was
no
such exclusion for the job the kid was hoping for.

So what you had was a couple of recruiters who didn't know their stuff in
detail, which was an unfortunate occurrence for your friend's nephew.
Your
earlier post made it sound as if such things were established general
policy
among all the military services. That's not at all the same thing.



Of course it's not a written policy. But, it's a major source of fodder for
comedians, movie makers and quite a few former soldiers who know that the
military mentality is often centered around nonsensical layers of red tape
and inefficiency.