Tuesday, May 13, 2008

GI BIll change just around the corner?
Posted by Joe Coastie

Again I come across a story that's not entirely Coast Guard, but Military in general. It was announced yesterday, or at least reported on via GovExec, that a Congressional change, the first dramatic one since WWII, to the GI Bill may be just around the corner.

...a plan that would essentially guarantee a full-ride scholarship to any in-state public university, along with a monthly housing stipend, for individuals who serve the military for at least three years.

The proposal would give veterans 15 years to use the benefit, instead of the current 10-year limit, and would set up a new government program that matches financial aid by more expensive private institutions.

For a pricey public school -- such as Miami University in Oxford, Ohio -- that benefit might be worth as much as $31,000 per school year, compared to the maximum $9,900 benefit that veterans are given now.

That would rock! This would more than likely convince more recruits to join the ranks of the military.

So the next question is cost:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the proposal would cost $51.8 billion in the next 10 years.

However, there is always a catch...

President Bush is expected to veto the measure if it is sent to him with added domestic spending...

Oh well, it will be nice if they can get 'er through.

Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2008
1 comments Links to this post    

Labels: by Joe Coastie, Education

Thursday, May 1, 2008

More on the House authorization bill: Congressional nominations to be required for admission to the "College on the Thames"
Posted by Peter A. Stinson

I know this is old news, but what I find most interesting are the comments.

Yesterday at the New London Day, Jennifer Grogan wrote Bill Would Require Congressional Nod For Entry To CGA: House passes surprise measure 395-7; Cummings says one goal is broader diversity at academy.

In a move that caught the U.S. Coast Guard by surprise, the House has passed a bill that would require congressional nomination for admission to the Coast Guard Academy.

Unlike the nation's other military service academies, which admit students by nomination, the Coast Guard Academy has traditionally admitted students on the basis of academic merit, like civilian colleges and universities.

A provision in the Coast Guard Authorization Act, a bill that authorizes appropriations for the service for fiscal year 2008 as well as policy changes, requires applicants to the academy to obtain a nomination from an official source, such as a member of Congress or an authority from a U.S. territory.

Most readers of AN UNOFFICIAL COAST GUARD BLOG likely already knew this.

Old news. Okay, not stale news, but a couple of days old.

What I found most interesting about the article were the reader posts.

From Jack Sinks in Marietta, Georgia:

As a parent of a current cadet, I have long voiced the need for a congressional appointment process as a way of increasing the Academy's standing with the other military schools in the fight for national resources and servicewide respect. For too long, USCGA has been viewed as a small elite New England college that draws most of its students from a narrow geographic area and interest. I salute Representative Cumming for raising the issue and hope that this will finally bring the Academy the resources and cadets needed to meet the challenges of the 21th century.

I have to agree with his comment that the Academy "has been viewed as a small elite New England college that draws most of its students from a narrow geographic area and interest."

From R. Birnbaum in Stamford, CT:

As an Academy Admissions Partner and CG Auxiliarist, I wonder how all 535 members of the House & Senate are going to be given a slot considering the Academy only admits about 300 freshmen a year. Perhaps a slot every other year? Our freshmen class is as diverse as the qualified pool will permit. I agree that we would like more diversity but it may not be available.

Another great point.

What do you, gentle reader, think?

Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2008
7 comments
Links to this post    

Labels: by Peter Stinson, Education, joining the Coast Guard

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

What's all this LNG hubbub?
Posted by Joe Coastie

Within the last week or so there have been a few discussions on the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 2830) specifically here on CGBlog (oh, and welcome to the blog Jim). But the major discussion in the land of OZ is the threat by the Bush Administration to veto this bill if it made its way to his desk. Well as luck, or bad luck... either way, would have it, it passed with an overwhelming 395-7 vote- effectively makes it veto proof. Reading a story from The Daily Astorian I found the following somewhat inspirational:

President Bush threatens to veto the bill, both because of the Coast Guard's objections and because it amounts to an "unwarranted subsidy" to LNG firms.

I'm glad to see the President siding with our own, however, with a 395-7 vote, we're in it for the long hall. And with that, I went-a-diggin' through this wonderful bedtime story to find the controversial "LNG" deal breaker. Here's what I found- and what I, a humble servant to this organization, think it means to the CG.

SEC. 328. WATERSIDE SECURITY AROUND LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS TERMINALS AND LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS TANKERS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall be responsible for providing waterside security services around liquefied natural gas terminals and around tankers transporting liquefied natural gas in security zones established by the Coast Guard.

Thoughts: Plain and simple- el Commandanté will do this job and ensure a security zone is provided for such.

(b) LIMITATION ON RELIANCE ON STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—Security arrangements approved as part of the facility security plan approved under section 70103 of title 46, United States Code, for an onshore liquefied natural gas terminal may not be based upon the provision of security by a State or local government unless the State or local government has entered into a contract, cooperative agreement, or other arrangement with the terminal operator to provide such services and the Secretary certifies that the waterborne patrols operated by State or local governments have the training, resources, personnel, equipment, and experience necessary to successfully deter all transportation security incidents (as that term is defined in section 70101 of title 46, United States Code).

Thoughts: $omeone was thinking out$ide the box on thi$ one. In it's simplest form, no one other than the CG is allowed to do this security work on the waterside- unless... (and here i$ the out$ide the box part) they are certified by the Secretary and furthermore trained. So? You may ask. Well for a private company to be so certified as to have it come from DHS itself, it has the option to charge a price for such a specific certification. So you read the part "State or local governments..." In the corporate world they call this outsourcing, in government, the call it finding a way to stimulate the economy.... Maybe I'm looking too deep into this one, but...

(c) ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY ZONES.—Security zones established by the Coast Guard around tankers transporting liquefied natural gas shall be enforced by the Coast Guard.

Thoughts: We are going to have some busy stations out there.

(d) CERTIFICATION REQUIRED FOR NEW LNG TERMINALS.—The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating may not approve a facility security plan under section 70103 of title 46, United States Code, for a liquefied natural gas terminal the construction of which is begun after the date of enactment of this Act unless the Secretary certifies that the Coast Guard sector in which the terminal is located has all of the assets it needs to provide waterside security around the terminal and to provide security around tankers transporting liquefied natural gas in security zones established by the Coast Guard.

Thoughts: This is the best part of this bill. Said LNG facility/terminal can not be built unless the CG sector has the assets to support the mission of securing the areas required. Nice, so will the additional 1,500 members authorized by the House legislation be enough to cover it? Um... not my specialty.

And before I go I wanted to bring up something I found in the Coast Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (S. 1892), the Senates version of the above (sort of), anyway, in section 917 labeled, ingenuously SEC. 197. ICEBREAKERS. I read that the wise ones on The Hill are, and I'm not joking here, asking for " [t]he Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall acquire or construct 2 polar icebreakers for operation by the Coast Guard in addition to its existing fleet of polar icebreakers." Wait... did I just read 'polar icebreakers?" As in the same ones they have out in Seattle, as in the same ones the CG doesn't actually get direct funding for? Riddle me this one Bat-Coastie: Why? Oh that's right, the Commandant asked for it, but that still doesn't answer the questions as to payment for operation. Oh, but I'm sure it will work itself out.

And just something for you to know, hubbub is a real word.

Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2008
0 comments
Links to this post    

Labels: by Joe Coastie, Education

Saturday, March 8, 2008

FYI: Collision vs. Allision; what's the difference?
Posted by Ryan R. Erickson

So it dawned on me a few days ago that this medium we call a blog isn't just a place for us to rant about the bad, and praise the good, we can also use it as a learning tool. I'm sure there are at least one or two other folks out there who are in the same boat (figuratively) as I am when it comes to things nautical. I do have my specialties, but I'll tell 'ya, most (not all) of them have anything to do with nautical know-how. So I have decided to take you along with me on my quest to become for knowledgeable in the world of the Coast Guard and naval knowledge. Not all things, such as today, are CG specific, but they will teach some of you something. I hope you enjoy this opportunity to learn, and by all means comment, ask questions, and correct me if I'm wrong (it WILL happen).

So to start off this adventure I would like to start with some words that have gotten me confused, as well as me confusing others by using them wrong.

Defined, an allision is the act of dashing against or striking upon; it is often used to describe the action of one boat hitting against another, or of the sea dashing against a boat. The word is commonly used in place of "collision" to distinguish that one of the objects was fixed (and that's how we are using it today). Well whata' you know, we just happen to have a great example (well great as in good, not GOOD) of just that. If you will recall the great M/V Cosco Busan incident from a few months ago- you know, the cargo vessel that stuck the footing of the Bay Bridge and spilled 58,000 gallons of fuel into the bay.


So let's examine what we have here, 1) we have a vessel (Busan), or boat/ship per our definition, and 2) we have an object that is fixed (Bay Bride). Our photo above/left is our vessel, an our photo here on the right is that of our fixed object.



To our next one, defined, a collision is the violent (or not so violent) act contact of one vehicle — such as an automobile, ship, or boat— with another vehicle. Hmm... simple enough, when one vessel runs into, on, over, or under (think submarines) another we have ourselves a collision. And I tell ya, I couldn't find a better picture it illustrate what a collision is better than the one on the left here. In fact the name on this photo is "tbone."

Well that's about it for this lesson. I hope you were able to learn something, I did. Not sure what to go over next time (It's not like a have lesson plan), so if you have a suggestion let me know, otherwise you are at the mercy of my imagination.


Here's just another photo of an allision. You know that sucks.

Posted on Saturday, March 08, 2008
1 comments Links to this post    

Labels: by Ryan Erickson, Education