SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Strategies & Market TrendsWorld Outlook


Previous 10 Next 10 
From: zzpat5/10/2018 10:03:50 AM
   of 26253
 
19 Global Indexes:

Global Indexes are green for the week
One index is down over the past four weeks - the US Dow.
Over the past three months, all indexes are green.

YTD - six indexes are red.
  1. China
  2. Switzerland
  3. Canada
  4. US Dow
  5. Japan
  6. UK
The rally continues to be global.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Don Green who wrote (18511)5/10/2018 10:24:07 AM
From: zzpat
   of 26253
 
I'm nearly certain they stopped the 100 work weeks. But, here's one of the accidents.

With the sky still black, Commander Sanchez noticed that the sailor steering the ship was having difficulty managing the helm and the complex arrangement of throttles that controlled the power to the McCain’s twin propellers. He ordered that the tasks be divided, one sailor steering at one station, another manning the throttles at another. The move, intended to make operating the ship more manageable, ended up taking away the helmsman’s ability to steer. A secondary and unnoticed effect of the commander’s decision was the inadvertent transfer of steering to the console now designated to control the throttles.

The helmsman, confused and with apparently no control of the ship, said he had lost steering. The ship began turning to the left. As those on watch failed to understand the events unfolding around them, Commander Sanchez ordered the ship to reduce speed. Yet when the sailor operating the throttles tried to slow the destroyer, he managed only to reduce power to one of the propellers, meaning only one reduced speed while the other continued at regular propulsion. The mismatch lasted for more than a minute, causing the McCain to veer left and into the path of the Alnic MC, a 600-foot merchant ship.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Don Green5/10/2018 12:03:40 PM
1 Recommendation   of 26253
 
Lt. j.g. Sarah Coppock pleaded guilty on Fitzgerald collision

Lt. j.g. Sarah Coppock was sentenced to receive half-pay for three months and a letter of reprimand.

The plea was the result of an agreement between Coppock and military prosecutors before a special court-martial was supposed to begin at the Navy Yard in Washington.


You take on huge responsibility as a JG. You're a division officer with people's lives in your hands. I essentially had command at LTJG, with 22 Sailors reporting to me. You stand watch at ENS.

This person was a Surface Warfare Officer. It's a hard job. It's SUPPOSED to be a hard job.

I've seen worse punishment for a Sailor keeping a rental car too long while on official travel.



https://www.587board.com/bbs/message/577484-lt-j-g-sarah-coppock-pleaded-guilty-on-fitzgerald-collision/2


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Les H who wrote (18512)5/10/2018 1:53:52 PM
From: Les H
1 Recommendation   of 26253
 
In the Middle East right now, all sides in this complex battle are staring at each other with increasing concern

An Israeli statement that the Iranians had missiles in Syria was surely made in concert with the Trump administration – it came within hours, and coincidences don’t run that close in the Middle East

independent.co.uk

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Don Green who wrote (18515)5/10/2018 2:48:03 PM
From: Don Green
1 Recommendation   of 26253
 
From: Maritime Executive

This is not in your article but is reported by "Stars and Stripes":

"Coppock described an unspoken culture on the ship not to follow the standing orders to contact the commanding officer when the ship is within 6,000 yards of another ship “especially in that specific area.”
“We would have called him every five minutes,” she said"


What a shame. Boo hoo.

My orders as commanding officer were 4000 yards; and I remember one night in the Singapore Straits spending all night awake and up and about to help my Officers of the Watch. That's what the CO is there for, whether he/she plans to be or is just called all the time.

And as for the so-called "punishment" I wonder what it would have been had the Officer of the Watch been a white male.

No doubt she pleaded guilty as a plea bargain to ensure the CO receives the full brunt.


BillyP notaluvviea day ago

Never mind the radar, faulty or not. Was Coppock responsible for positioning all three (!) of the Bridge lookouts on the Port (i.e. un-threatened) side? At what range did ANYone sight the boxboat looming on the FITZ's starboard side? Did ANYone observe that she was on a constant bearing - and closing - with the FITZ?
Re: Calling the Captain in these traffic conditions - of course the Old Man should have been called, maybe should have been there all along. As you observe, Notaluvvie, being in command carries with it a fair few responsibilities - and privileges, although always having a good night's sleep is not one of them.


https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/uss-fitzgerald-officer-of-the-deck-pleads-guilty#gs.WZlPgfs

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Les H who wrote (18512)5/10/2018 2:50:11 PM
From: zzpat
   of 26253
 
The long-term objective is to get oil prices up as far and as fast as possible. It's what republicans do. They hope sanctions on Iran will lower oil supply and cause prices to soar. They need to do this to help Russia which is very dependent on oil prices.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Don Green5/10/2018 3:18:08 PM
1 Recommendation   of 26253
 
USS Fitzgerald Officer of the Deck Pleads Guilty

dg> one of the many bizarre issues is how none of the other senior personnel on the bridge or in CIC " Combat" who are in most cases have much more experienced than the young OOD. they seemed to do nothing.

I would have been pounding the commanding officer door like Jack Lemmon in Mister Roberts" youtube.com


7 sailors were killed and a 1/2 billion warship was taken out of commission. At least 2-4 people should be in prison for this.


Fm:Military.com

Interesting comments

Unbelievable. She destroyed a Navy ship, get 7 sailors killed by her admitted gross negligence and gets a slap on the wrist? So much for females in the military. Was there a junior officer on the other ship when it crashed? I thought they would at least put her in jail for a few years and a DD on the way out. This is admitted gross negligence. But it all is justified becasue he got a tatoo, right. I now understand why the Navy is in such tough shape. No adults in charge. This is basically a sweep it under the rug and what is for lunch today deal.

A qualified LTJG OOD has the following 17 responsibilities;

Keep continually informed concerning the tactical situation and geographic factors that may affect safe navigation of the ship, and take appropriate action to avoid the danger of grounding or collision according to tactical doctrine, the Rules of the Road, and the orders of the commanding officer or other proper authority.
Keep informed concerning current operation plans and orders, intentions of the officer in tactical command and the commanding officer, and such other matters as may pertain to ship or force operations.
Issue necessary orders to the helm and main engine control to avoid danger, to take or keep an assigned station, or to change the course and speed of the ship according to orders of proper authority.
The ship's command structure senior enlisted and junior officer watch standers failed this officer and their shipmates by allowing this collision to occur. This was not their first watch underway.

There is more here than the charge of "dereliction of duty" addresses. Some attitude that overlooked the crew and ship safety was afoot and making a JG "look bad" is the least of this failed crew's pathetic performance resulting in seven dead shipmates.

The "Collision Alarm switch" is manually acutated by any of the bridge crew and the CO was only steps away, in his cabin.

The "Asleep at the Wheel" crew should be fully admonished and penalized for those seven dead shipmates.
:(

I could not disagree more with this. There is no "list of duties" fon an OOD. There is one duty: keep the ship safe during your watch. It's pass/fail. The Navy JAGs seem to have convinced this young officer that is was somehow the CO's fault and not hers that she was going too fast for the conditions. It was CIC's fault and not hers that she didn't take approprite manuvering actions. It was someone else on the bridge team's fault and not hers that the collision alarm was not sounded. And in the end Benson's cilvilian lawyer is going to make these JAG pretenders ook ridiculoaus and no one's getting any more than a slap on the wrist. Fail...Navy.


Ultimately the Commanding Officer of any Navy ship is responsible for anything and everything that happens aboard that ship whether or not he actually has knowledge of the occurance. Those responsibilities haven't changed since the first days of the Navy.

The Officer of the Deck has ONE responsibility and you hit on it ... keep the ship and her personnel safe. This doesn't change whether you're underway on the high seas, at anchor or moored in port or with the ship sitting on blocks in a drydock. The OOD, regardless of rank or rate (enlisted) is the Commanding Officer's deputy in that duty. When that OOD gives an order, even to someone senior in rank it is as if the Commanding Officer gave the order. If you disobey that order, no matter who you are then be prepared to explain to the Captain why. And if the Captain determines that the OOD was in the right ...

As a PO1 I had the honor and responsibility to serve as an OOD (in port) in two ships, also qualified as Conning Officer (underway) and CIC Watch Supervisor in a destroyer while earning my ESWS.

I remember the night orders my first skipper left with the OOD on when to call him. His final instruction was "If you are ever in doubt about whether or not to call me, CALL ME. I'd rather lose some sleep than lose my ship and my crew."

Why the hell didn't LT(jg) Coppock or the CIC Watch Supervisor / Officer call the Captain? Or did they follow that old, unwritten instruction "When in danger or in doubt run in circles, scream and shout."

We won't know the whole truth until the CO and XO stand trial; but, I'm willing to wager that a weak command climate was THE KEY contributor to this young officer's failure. Why was she the least bit hesitant to call the CO or XO to the bridge as soon as she sensed any loss of situational awareness. Was there some weakness in the wardroom's leadership that made junior officer's feel deficient for recognizing they need help and asking for it. I still have nightmares about my third midnight transit of the Malaccan Straits as a destroyer OOD. I had never seen so much traffic and the number of close-aboard contacts became overwhelming. I called our sleeping CO, "Captain I need you on the Bridge...NOW...Sir!" He was beside me in all of ten seconds... IN HIS UNDERWEAR! After about 30 minutes we got the OPS Boss out of bed to beef-up the assistance coming out of the Combat Information Center and things seemed to have settled down to the point I felt comfortable telling the CO that I was confident I could handle matters on my own from there. Before departing the Bridge, he put his arm around me and whispered, "This is why I want YOU on MY bridge on MY ship when any tactical situation might become critical. You might not be my best tactician or best shiphandler; but, I can count on you to never let your ego put my command or the lives of our shipmates at risk." There most certainly were some things seriously wrong aboard USS FITZGERALD that night - I wager that this young female's skill and experience as Officer-of-the-Deck were NOT among worst of them.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/05/08/fitzgerald-officer-deck-pleads-guilty-court-martial.html

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Don Green5/10/2018 6:43:27 PM
   of 26253
 
Hearing: Series of errors by junior officers contributed to Fitzgerald collision, deaths

By DIANNA CAHN | STARS AND STRIPES Published: May 10, 2018

WASHINGTON — A preliminary hearing for two junior officers at the controls when the USS Fitzgerald and a merchant container ship collided highlighted a series of errors in the busy waters off the coast of Japan.

The collision killed seven sailors in the early hours of June 17. Until just moments before the strike, the accused officers in the Combat Information Center several levels below deck were unaware of the danger from nearby ships. On that, the government and the defense at Wednesday’s Article 32 hearing agreed.

But that’s where the stories diverge.

In an 11-hour hearing at the Washington Navy Yard, prosecutors painted a picture of Lt. Irian Woodley, the ship’s surface warfare coordinator, and Lt. Natalie Combs, the tactical action officer, as failing at their jobs, not using the tools at their disposal properly and not communicating correctly. They became complacent with faulty equipment and did not seek to get it fixed, and they failed to communicate with the bridge. Had they done those things, the government contended, they would have been able to avert the collision.

“Imagine the Crystal, a 29,000-ton container ship, suddenly takes up the entire (radar) screen,” prosecutor Lt. Cmdr. Katherine Shovlin told the hearing officer, who will decide whether to recommend that the accused officers face courts-martial.There was not a breakdown of communication. There was …. no communication.”

Defense attorneys countered, saying the officers were strong performers whose equipment didn’t work properly. The radar and the Automatic Information System they were working with were in a “degraded” state, so many of the ships around the Fitzgerald did not appear. The officers were completely unaware of the other ship’s approach. DG> There is a similar surface radar on the bridge and if the one in CIC was not working properly there should have been more look-outs assigned and a great deal of conversation about what is seen from binoculars and not seen on radar. Also if this was a problem the Captain of the ship should have been advised and he would of certainly been on the bridge.

The problems were systemic, the defense argued, with operational tasking so intense that the ship had no time to train or do repairs.

“The Fitz was a wreck of a ship – I do not state that lightly,” said David Sheldon, Combs’ civilian attorney. “And the U.S. Navy knew that.”

“The blame here lies not just with the (Commanding Officer) or the (Executive Officer), it lies with the Navy. And the Navy is putting its head in the sand and not dealing with a ship that should never have gotten underway. Instead it wants to hold these officers responsible,” he said.

Woodley is accused of not carrying out his duties, which were to maintain an accurate picture of all the vessels around the Fitzgerald, oversee other surface watch standers in the combat center and share information and recommendations with those navigating and driving the ship. Combs was in charge of the combat center. Her job was to serve as the commanding officer’s eyes and ears, support the bridge with vital contact information and make sure watch standers in the center were doing their jobs properly.

Both face three charges: dereliction in the performance of duties through neglect resulting in death, negligent hazarding of a vessel and negligent homicide.

The hearing officer has 15 days to make his recommendation on whether all or some of those charges should go forward in a court-martial. It will be up to the convening authority, Adm. Frank Caldwell, to decide whether to accept those recommendations.

cahn.dianna@stripes.com
Twitter: @ Diann

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Don Green5/10/2018 8:17:03 PM
   of 26253
 
The FBI’s Shocking Disrespect for Congress
When I was at the bureau, lawmakers’ requests for information got prompt responses.

COMMENTARY
By Thomas J. Baker......

Wall Street Journal. May 10,2018

Last week we learned that some Re­pub­li­can mem­bers of Con­gress are con­sid­er­ing ar­ti-cles of im­peach­ment against Deputy At­tor-ney Gen­eral Rod Rosen-stein if he doesn’t hand over cer­tain Fed­eral Bu­reau of In­ves­ti­ga­tion doc­u-ments. In Jan­uary, House Speaker Paul Ryan had to threaten the deputy at­tor­ney gen­eral and FBI Di­rec-tor Christo­pher Wray with con­tempt to get them to com­ply with a House sub­poena for doc­u­ments about the Steele dossier. I spent 33 years in the FBI, in­clud­ing sev­eral work­ing in the Of­fice of Con­gres­sional and Pub­lic Af­fairs. The re­cent de­te­ri­o­ra­tion in the bu­reau’s re­la­tion-ship with Con­gress is shock­ing. It truly is a change in cul­ture. For­mer Di­rec­tors William Web­ster (1978-87) and Louis Freeh (1993-2001) in­sisted that the FBI re­spond promptly to any con­gres­sional re­quest. In those days a con­gres­sional com-mit­tee didn’t need a sub­poena to get in­for-ma­tion from the FBI. Yes, we were par­tic­u-larly re­spon­sive to the ap­pro­pri­a­tions com-mit­tees, which are key to the bu­reau’s fund-ing. But my col­leagues and I shared a gen­eral sense that re­spond­ing to con­gres­sional re-quests was the right thing to do. The bu­reau’s lead-ers of­ten re­minded us of Con­gress’s le­git­i-mate over­sight role. This was par­tic­u­larly true of the so-called Gang of Eight, which was cre­ated by statute to en­sure the ex­is-tence of a se­cure ve­hi-cle through which con­gres­sional lead­ers could be briefed on the most sen­si­tive coun­ter-in­tel­li­gence or ter­ror-ism in­ves­ti­ga­tions. On Aug. 27, House In­tel­li­gence Com­mit-tee Chair­man Devin Nunes asked the FBI to de­liver cer­tain doc­u-ments im­me­di­ately. The bulk of the doc­u-ments weren’t ac­tu-ally de­liv­ered un­til Jan. 11. I can’t imag­ine Mr. Web­ster or Mr. Freeh tol­er­at­ing such a de­lay. One of the doc­u­ments Mr. Nunes re­quested is the elec-tronic com­mu­ni­ca­tion be­lieved to have ini­ti-ated the coun­ter­in­tel­li-gence in­ves­ti­ga­tion of Don­ald Trump in July 2016. The FBI had pre­vi­ously pro­vided a redacted text of that com­mu­ni­ca­tion, but the In­tel­li­gence Com-mit­tee wanted to see more. On March 23 the bu­reau es­sen­tially told the com­mit­tee it wouldn’t lift the redac-tions. There are le­git­i-mate rea­sons why the FBI would want cer-tain por­tions of a sen­si­tive doc­u­ment redacted, such as when in­for­ma­tion comes from a for­eign part­ner. But there are ways around such dif­fi­cul­ties. Se­lect mem­bers of Con­gress have in the past been al­lowed to read highly sen­si­tive doc­u­ments un­der spe­cific re­stric-tions. For­mer FBI Di­rec-tor James Comey didn’t even in­form the Gang of Eight that the bu­reau had opened a coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence in­ves­ti­ga­tion into the cam­paign of a ma­jor-party can­di­date for pres­i­dent. He tes­ti­fied on March 20, 2017, that he had kept Con-gress in the dark about the Trump in­ves­ti­ga-tion be­cause he’d been ad­vised to do so by his as­sistant di­rec­tor of coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence—due to “the sen­si­tiv­ity of the mat­ter.” The Gang of Eight ex­ists for pre­cisely this pur­pose. Not us­ing it is in­ex­plic­a­ble. This isn’t the way a law-en­force­ment agency should be­have un­der our sys­tem of sep­a­ra­tion of pow­ers. At­tor­ney Gen­eral Jeff Ses­sions must push Mr. Wray to get the FBI’s re­la­tion­ship with Con­gress back on track. It won’t be easy, but the Amer­i­can peo­ple de­serve it and the Con­sti­tu­tion de-mands it. Mr. Baker is a re-tired FBI spe­cial agent and le­gal at­taché.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Les H who wrote (18516)5/10/2018 11:09:39 PM
From: Les H
   of 26253
 
The US Plan to Target China

counterpunch.org

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10