US Navy Fires Captain "Matilda Brownweisser -90"

[dbackjon]

Link?

Define Charity. Contributing $500 to Pat Robertson may meet the official IRS definition, but it is not charity.

Also, charity is far more that $$ given.

The type of things people say who do not donate to charity.



http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/a ... tatistics/

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?

Donating to your church because they tell you the only way to get to heaven is to tithe is not charity, especially when the majority of that money doesn't leave the pastor's clutches.

[AZGrizFan]

The type of things people say who do not donate to charity.



http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/a ... tatistics/

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?

Donating to your church because they tell you the only way to get to heaven is to tithe is not charity, especially when the majority of that money doesn't leave the pastor's clutches.

It is to your precious, bloated government.

[Baldy]

The type of things people say who do not donate to charity.



http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/a ... tatistics/

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?

Donating to your church because they tell you the only way to get to heaven is to tithe is not charity, especially when the majority of that money doesn't leave the pastor's clutches.

Facts can be so inconvenient sometimes.

Try again, jon. Mouth the words if you must, or get a friend to help you understand.

Much religious charity, however, ultimately goes into sub-causes like relief for the poor, medical care, education, or aid sent to low-income countries or victims of disaster.

Keep in mind too that religious charities tend to have less access to supplemental funds than other nonprofits. Hospitals and colleges charge users fees to supplement their donated income; other nonprofits sell goods; many museums charge admission; some charities receive government grants. Churches and religious charities, however, operate mostly on their donated funds depicted in this graph.

[CID1990]

It is true that there are many denominational charities that largely funnel their money into what we would think of as real "charity"

One of the most highly rated charities out there is a religious one- the Salvation Army

Religious charities largely run the gamut (surprise) - just like NGOs and corporate charities


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

It is true that there are many denominational charities that largely funnel their money into what we would think of as real "charity"

One of the most highly rated charities out there is a religious one- the Salvation Army

Religious charities largely run the gamut (surprise) - just like NGOs and corporate charities


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My father in-law insists that we donate to the Salvation Army specifically and not to the Red Cross specifically. When he got off the boat from Okinawa the Red Cross tried to sell him writing paper and envelopes that the SA was handing out free to returning troops.

[CID1990]

It is true that there are many denominational charities that largely funnel their money into what we would think of as real "charity"

One of the most highly rated charities out there is a religious one- the Salvation Army

Religious charities largely run the gamut (surprise) - just like NGOs and corporate charities


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My father in-law insists that we donate to the Salvation Army specifically and not to the Red Cross specifically. When he got off the boat from Okinawa the Red Cross tried to sell him writing paper and envelopes that the SA was handing out free to returning troops.

Yep - the SA is very good, and there is a ratio that is used to measure charities which is based on the amount of money that actually reaches the charitable target vs the total amount given to the organization. The SA is almost always at or near the top, worldwide

Management changes over time, and therefore charities change over time, but for now the SA is pretty much the gold standard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[93henfan]

I would donate money if there was a Salvation Marine Corps. Screw the Army!

[andy7171]

Donating to your church because they tell you the only way to get to heaven is to tithe is not charity, especially when the majority of that money doesn't leave the pastor's clutches.

WTF? Is this the 1100's?? My church makes no mention of tithing? Nor giving money as a passageway to heaven?

[Chizzang]

Back on Topic:

[Chizzang]

[Chizzang]

[dbackjon]

Donating to your church because they tell you the only way to get to heaven is to tithe is not charity, especially when the majority of that money doesn't leave the pastor's clutches.

WTF? Is this the 1100's?? My church makes no mention of tithing? Nor giving money as a passageway to heaven?

You aren't Mormon. You can't go to the Temple unless you tithe.


You aren't Evangelical Christian.

[andy7171]

WTF? Is this the 1100's?? My church makes no mention of tithing? Nor giving money as a passageway to heaven?

You aren't Mormon. You can't go to the Temple unless you tithe.


You aren't Evangelical Christian.

Fuck them then!

[89Hen]

WTF? Is this the 1100's?? My church makes no mention of tithing? Nor giving money as a passageway to heaven?

You aren't Mormon. You can't go to the Temple unless you tithe.

Oh yeah?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act ... 6732d6acee

But the church will be renovating the Kensington temple, starting in March 2018. And that means, as Bethesda Magazine noted on Monday, that there will be a brief window, when the renovations are complete and before the rededication, when the temple will not yet be dedicated and thus will be open to non-Mormons.

[andy7171]

You aren't Mormon. You can't go to the Temple unless you tithe.

Oh yeah?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act ... 6732d6acee

But the church will be renovating the Kensington temple, starting in March 2018. And that means, as Bethesda Magazine noted on Monday, that there will be a brief window, when the renovations are complete and before the rededication, when the temple will not yet be dedicated and thus will be open to non-Mormons.

[Grizalltheway]

You aren't Mormon. You can't go to the Temple unless you tithe.

Oh yeah?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act ... 6732d6acee

But the church will be renovating the Kensington temple, starting in March 2018. And that means, as Bethesda Magazine noted on Monday, that there will be a brief window, when the renovations are complete and before the rededication, when the temple will not yet be dedicated and thus will be open to non-Mormons.

That isn't THE temple.

[dbackjon]

You aren't Mormon. You can't go to the Temple unless you tithe.

Oh yeah?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act ... 6732d6acee

But the church will be renovating the Kensington temple, starting in March 2018. And that means, as Bethesda Magazine noted on Monday, that there will be a brief window, when the renovations are complete and before the rededication, when the temple will not yet be dedicated and thus will be open to non-Mormons.

They do that before they dedicate it with their secret ceremony. It really isn't a Temple until the dedication/rededication.

[89Hen]

Oh yeah?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act ... 6732d6acee

They do that before they dedicate it with their secret ceremony. It really isn't a Temple until the dedication/rededication.

I know Jon, lighten up. I'm just excited because I want to be one of the people who get to trod upon the new carpet before they pull it up and burn it.

[AZGrizFan]

Back on Topic:

So, the question has been answered, as the OOD on board the Fitzgerald has pled guilty to dereliction of duty.

The answer? Female driver.

[CID1990]

Back on Topic:

So, the question has been answered, as the OOD on board the Fitzgerald has pled guilty to dereliction of duty.

The answer? Female driver.

The OOD is ALWAYS going to go down when metal touches metal.

The Old Man too.

[AZGrizFan]

So, the question has been answered, as the OOD on board the Fitzgerald has pled guilty to dereliction of duty.

The answer? Female driver.

The OOD is ALWAYS going to go down when metal touches metal.

The Old Man too.

[BDKJMU]

No wonder th Navy has faced a rash of collisions- most of their junior officers can't drive ships...

"Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfalls in basic seamanship

A three-month internal review conducted by senior U.S. surface fleet leaders found some or significant concerns with the ship handling skills of nearly 85 percent of its junior officers, and that many struggled to react decisively to extricate their ship from danger when there was an immediate risk of collision, according to an internal message obtained by Defense News....."

Led by the Surface Warfare Officer School, officer of the deck competency checks were conducted on a random selection of OOD-qualified first-tour division officers (the newest officers in the fleet) in underway bridge navigation simulators fleet-wide between January and March. Of the 164 officers who were evaluated, only 27 passed with “no concerns.” Another 108 completed with “some concerns,” and 29 had “significant concerns,” according to the message, which was released by the Navy’s top surface warfare officer Vice Adm. Richard Brown.

Brown, who leads Naval Surface Force Pacific, termed the results “sobering.”

The evaluations raise distressing questions about the level of ship handling training junior officers get both prior to their arrival at their first command and when they arrive. In a Tuesday interview with Defense News at the Pentagon, Brown said the checks would be used to inform new training in development for young officers and that changes were already underway that show the Navy is serious about self-assessment and improvement in the wake of the twin disasters that claimed the lives of 17 sailors last summer.

Among the shortfalls identified in the checks:
*Officers struggled with operating radars and the associated tools at hand, an issue that emerged in the wake of the Fitzgerald accident.
*Officers had a firm grasp of the international rules of the road for navigating ships at sea, but struggled to apply them practically during watch standing, especially in low-visibility situations.
*Most officers were able to keep clear of close encounters with other ships in the simulator but those that found themselves in extremis “were often ill-equipped to take immediate action to avoid collisions” — a factor that was a direct contributor to the loss of life in both the John S. McCain and Fitzgerald collisions in 2017......."
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/ ... eamanship/

[89Hen]

* semenship

[AZGrizFan]

No wonder th Navy has faced a rash of collisions- most of their junior officers can't drive ships...

"Troubling US Navy review finds widespread shortfalls in basic seamanship

A three-month internal review conducted by senior U.S. surface fleet leaders found some or significant concerns with the ship handling skills of nearly 85 percent of its junior officers, and that many struggled to react decisively to extricate their ship from danger when there was an immediate risk of collision, according to an internal message obtained by Defense News....."

Led by the Surface Warfare Officer School, officer of the deck competency checks were conducted on a random selection of OOD-qualified first-tour division officers (the newest officers in the fleet) in underway bridge navigation simulators fleet-wide between January and March. Of the 164 officers who were evaluated, only 27 passed with “no concerns.” Another 108 completed with “some concerns,” and 29 had “significant concerns,” according to the message, which was released by the Navy’s top surface warfare officer Vice Adm. Richard Brown.

Brown, who leads Naval Surface Force Pacific, termed the results “sobering.”

The evaluations raise distressing questions about the level of ship handling training junior officers get both prior to their arrival at their first command and when they arrive. In a Tuesday interview with Defense News at the Pentagon, Brown said the checks would be used to inform new training in development for young officers and that changes were already underway that show the Navy is serious about self-assessment and improvement in the wake of the twin disasters that claimed the lives of 17 sailors last summer.

Among the shortfalls identified in the checks:
*Officers struggled with operating radars and the associated tools at hand, an issue that emerged in the wake of the Fitzgerald accident.
*Officers had a firm grasp of the international rules of the road for navigating ships at sea, but struggled to apply them practically during watch standing, especially in low-visibility situations.
*Most officers were able to keep clear of close encounters with other ships in the simulator but those that found themselves in extremis “were often ill-equipped to take immediate action to avoid collisions” — a factor that was a direct contributor to the loss of life in both the John S. McCain and Fitzgerald collisions in 2017......."
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/ ... eamanship/

As a graduate of SWOS and a qualified OOD, I can tell you the amount of actual “ship handling experience” received at SWOS is extremely limited. There’s a TON of classroom time and very little time actually spent on the water...and what time IS spent is on little YP boats (about 40-50’ long, fairly easily maneuverable) that never get out of sight of land.

As far as shiphandling time underway, I joined my ship in the yards and qualified OOD without every being underway on my ship (two one-week crossdecking stints on the USS Texas and I was a qualified OOD). After three years in the yards, I was OOD on the transit out of the Straits of Juan de Fuca with about 5 hours of “sea time” on my ship.

Out at sea, my opinion was that waaaay too much control was retained by the paranoid captain—and my paranoid captain was NOT unique in that regard, having to call at any hour of the day or night on any contact where CPA (closest point of approach) was going to be within 10,000 yards, etc., etc. It was a lengthy, cumbersome process where you were reporting your course & speed, contacts course & speed, CPA and time to CPA, along with a recommendation for a course/speed change to extend the contact outside the 10,000 yard circle. Fairly routine during the day, but usually being attempted with a groggy captain just woken from a deep sleep in the middle of the night. I routinely ignored the night order because by the time I got the captain coherent enough to understand the litany of things I had to tell him the situation would have changed dramatically. My captain was a control freak, and RARELY accepted the OOD’s recommendation, always coming up with a different course & speed recommendation without even being on the bridge or having looked at a radar screen. Situation awareness (IMHO) was limited, at best.

On my ship the captains ‘at-sea” cabin was on the starboard side just aft of the bridge, so after a couple situations that could have been easily avoided but that he “navigated us into” while in a sleepy stupor, I just learned to adjust course or speed to make all contacts pass down the port side so he wouldn’t see their running lights.

I could tell some stories that would curl your hair.

[CID1990]

I was never OOD qualed but I spent a LOT of time on the bridge and in CIC on tin cans - and I remember that all of that CPA work was done on the charts with ruler and paper. It was intensive, constant work - but I am convinced it kept people alert and on their toes

Today, the nav equipment does it all for you - you enter tolerances and let it run itself. The systems will let you know when you are CBDR

I think that when everything comes out, we are going to see bridge watch officers and skippers being lulled into complacency by automated nav systems - and only doing the paper and pencil calculations when it is necessary to do so to demonstrate the ability, or check off a box for the ESWS or SWO pins


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk