assignment...

So, last night saw my first opportunity to burn the cobwebs out of my head-case and figure out how to plan our next cargo load.

I've been asked to stuff a blivet- to stuff 10 lbs of shit into a 5lb bag. In terms of heavy liquid cargo, I have to carry a draft load- fill us to 98% capacity, which is the most we can legally stuff into our cargo tanks... in doing so, I have several concurrent issues to deal with:

1) We are discharging two products into each of three ships over the next few days, in another city- I have to segregate some products, which means that some of my cargo tanks can only be used for one ship's cargo, while others can be loaded on top- putting cargo destined for multiple ships in the same tanks.
2) I have to pray that the oil we load won't be too warm. Warm oil is less dense than cool oil. If the oil is too warm, we won't have the capacity to carry the required volume. If the oil is too cool, however, it won't flow very well, which means that it will take forever to get out of our tanks.
3). At the end of each job, we will need to have zero list (meaning that the port and starboard tanks have to match volumes) and zero to modest stern drag ( the difference in draft between the bow and stern. We're very low on fuel, so if I allow for too much stern drag, we'll suck air and kiss the generators and mains goodbye.
4). The volume in each tank at the start and finish of each job must be exactly as predicted and as it appears on the loading manifest- that is, after or between jobs, I can't gravitate cargo from a full to an empty tank in order to improve the stability profile of the vessel without voiding the cargo survey that will be performed before we sail. Further, getting a surveyor to sign off on an intermingled cargo will require an act of faith on his part if his employer doesn't own the entire contents of the tanks in question. So, I have to stuff oil into every available space, and pray that the first two ships we discharge into won't cut us off early.

Anyhow, planning the job took longer than it should have, but at the end, I felt somewhat more focused than I have of late. A good feeling.

back to work

After what was easily the most exhausting, emotionally wracking and truly devastating week of my 36 years to date, I have returned to work, ready maybe to lose myself in some honest labor. Don't really feel like talking about it.

I brought a chicken pot pie with me. Store bought. I don't know why I bother. Every chicken pot pie is the same. Take a big ass pan, fill it up with water and a little chicken broth, thicken it with flour, add 12 peas, 3 pea-sized carrot chunks and 3 ounces of chicken, then add dough to make the crust. Total material cost: $ 0.89. Sell for $9.99. Feeds 4 my left nut. I've brought up lung clams that weighed more than the chicken that was in my 9" diameter pie. Assbags. I would have been better off throwing it overboard and making a soup stock out of the lint under the fridge.

back later...

Taking a short break from here. My dad passed away, and I'm home among family and friends.

Is there anything worse...

...than having a bit of thread from a mooring line get under your glasses and lodged firmly into your eye? I'm having flashbacks to my days on a ship, where I could put on safety glasses, goggles and a face shield, and still have to fish bits of rust out of my eyes at the end of a needle-gunning session.

One very good shipmate, who passed away just last year (in his own bed, which is about all a sailor can ask for, I guess) used to be my go-to guy when something got in my eyes that I couldn't fish out myself. The first time he assisted me, after showing me the pinhead-sized bit of rust, he said (with an unforgettable Honduran accent) "Yes, but heem feel like a elephant." Now,when the occasion comes for me to pick out a bit of plastic lint, I always think of that moment, sitting under the flourescent lights in misery, with a male, non-family member waaaaay inside my 3-foot bubble.
Did the job, though.

One thing that did surprise me, when I was an Ordinary Seaman, was the decent variety of non over-the-counter remedies that were available in a time of need. Excluding the narcotic variety, which is none of anyone's business, there is also a good selection of ointments and unguents available to provide a decent level of first aid and palliative care.
My eyes being a magnet for foreign objects, I got very good at fishing stuff out of 'em. Every now and again, though, I'd get something stuck in the surface of my eye that didn't migrate out to the orbital membranes (the 'edge' of your eyes), and, since it's not possible to not flinch at a swab being passed over your pupil or irises, it was time for some serious help. We had an opthamological anaesthetic available that would 100% numb the eye, and I got to the point where I could swab a foreign object off of my own eyes in under a minute. Three times in 7 years I had this happen. I even kept a tube of antibiotic in my bag (from my own doctor) to provide aftercare.

What makes me want to hit myself in the head sometimes is the level of passive resistance I used to display regarding the wearing of eye protection on deck. When the mate on my ship began to really push the crew to wear eye protection 100% of the time on the cargo deck (and not just when chipping rust), I should have been the poster boy for that effort... instead I groaned and grumbled as much or more than the next guy. Stupid of me, really, though I did have my reasons. Safety glasses cost $1.99 a pair (the ones we used did, anyhow) at the tool supply shop near my house, but my employer sent only enough glasses to ensure that everyone had a pair. After a week of casual use, they were damn near impossible to see through, and I would get blinding headaches after about 30 minutes with a pair of shitty glasses. Asking for more was no problem... the limited supply was the problem, and I'm not kidding. Though my former employer tried very hard to create a safety culture, money was an issue. My ship used to receive the same number of gloves for a month's use (for 21-24 crew) that I receive now for 3 tankermen. My current employer is quick to remind us that once a glove no longer protects one from exposure to oil, they're actively keeping you exposed, and need to be disposed of ASAP.
Now, if you'll exuse me, my Visene is calling. I look like I have hay fever.

Security Theatre, Inc.

Well, today I finally sent off the final copy of an article I've been working on for the past 6 weeks. I don't feel like I've given birth, I feel like I just walked out of the bathroom, 2lbs lighter than I came in.
Discussing and dissecting operational-level maritime security was about as uplifting as a family funeral. The more I learned, the less secure I felt, and the more frustrating it was. The feeling of watching a puppet show became pervasive. The dark side to all this is that I'm now much more aware of the hand of the puppetmaster dancing 'round my unmentionables.
For the most part, I'm not motivated enough now to drop into professional mode here and actually tear up anyone's paper-mache security constructs. Some aspects common to all maritime security plans and noted goals, however, should be exposed to the light of day.

One misconception that I had going in was that security plans are made to enhance security on board ship. This is absolutely not the case- security plans are supposed to be simply a codification of actions and reactions based on common sense, and made to enhance communication by simply getting in situ personnel on the same page as the shoreside staff should there be an issue, and to maximize efficiency in forming and executing the response to an issue by all parties.
Unfortunately, creating a uniform response plan within an organization, port, or other archtype isn't enough to promulgate the creation of a new layer of industry, and thus, security plans had to grow in scope to justify the creation of security planners as an industry job, and this is where security plans start to suffer. Like a good Tiramisu, the creation of extraneous layers does nothing to enhance quality overall. Rather, it just improves the chances that the whole thing is going to go to pieces when pressure is applied.

So here we sit in the latter half of 2010. Ships and shipping are suffering from economic pressures. Security planners are buying the McMansions that ship managers lost in foreclosures earlier this year. And security plans have grown from modest documents to a reference library of 3-ring binders, which, for some obscure reason, have to be kept on paper, too, btb, and not on CD, here in our paperless society. As a result of the need for security planners to justify their own existence, security enhancement has become part of the stated goals of security planning, though the means of enhancing security don't actually merit discussion, beyond referring to common sense practices. This has led to our current practice of staging Security Theatre, where the need to do anything for visibility's sake has outstripped the need to improve security.
I've really tried not to be cynical as my knowledge base has increased on this subject, but I want you to know that it's hard. I see the root subject matter, and I see the need for security planning... but I have observed, as well, that efforts to contain the spread of the mandate of security planners are not being made. In all reality, on an operational level, the benefits of today's security planning efforts are actively undermining management-level job performance aboard ship, through making security theatre exercises part of ships' drills. This has none of the common-sense level of motivation for afloat staff, when compared to lifesaving drills, and that's a shame, because, in theory, enhancing security could be a lifesaving measure. Rather, we have the overwhelming need to look busy when the boss is watching. Any failure to measure up to standard can be squarely placed in the lap of the administrative-level of security planners, as the opportunity to do something positive has waned rapidly with the need to cover a host of subjects that are not germane to operational-level security enhancement.



So that's my 2 cents... and, like the day after submitting any article, I don't want to look at the subject for a while. Unfortunately, I'm floating around in my metal box, so I have to go and look at this months' security drill on board. Grrrrr...

anthropology lesson of the day-sex and fashion

For some ridiculous reason, Time, U.S. News, and other hemidemisemi-reputable magazines periodically feel the need to remind us of the link between sex appeal and genetics. This is like giving kids a lesson on why candy is appealing- it should be unnecessary, but it is fun to think about, especially when you're a science geek.


The one thing that puff-piece articles do get right is that it's worth teaching people that the reptilian part of our minds, as men, still plays a significant role in our modern lives. What escapes comments more often than not, however, is what a strong role genetic drives plays in all aspects of modern women's lives, as well. Unfortunately, most articles on this subject veer into Hollywood issues, isms, and quotations from no one who we care enough about to continue reading...so here's the cliff notes version for you, regarding sex and fashion, as compiled my me.

Look here, in the US, in 2010. fashion models are linear, with only modest curves about the breasts, and, for the most part, squared-off, spare hips. But look at fashion from 40 years ago... idealized women were curvy, with measurements that would require buying clothes from Lane Bryant today.
We're predisposed as men to like women with symmetrical facial features (to be passed to children who are more likely to find social acceptance because their features fit the standard), healthy boobs (which contain fat, to ensure that in the event of food scarcity, they'll be able to produce milk longer, which translates into greater survivability for children), and wide(ish) flared hips (greater survivability during chilbirth, for both mother and child, as the woman was the sole source of nutrition for the child for most of human history).

In this way, it is difficult to see how the genetic drive to create appeal for an attractive, robust woman has led to today's fashion models, who resemble coat hangers with mosquito bite boobs... except for lingerie models, who, unsurprisingly, look like women, since they're selling through the use of sex appeal.
Here's the thing, though. Female influence in fashion is on the rise. Women are buying clothes that are attractive to them, not to men. While fashion is intricately and wholly related to display behaviors, which is part of the mating ritual, there has come a false dichotomy whereby display behavior also is cridited primarily as only a show of social standing. The need for fashion to stimulate men into opening their wallets, or hearts without breaking social norms has declined. With increased spending power, the role of sex in fashion is not critical in all areas... except when it comes to sexy clothes, when, surprise, surprise, the models can't be mistaken for 12 year-old boys and still sell.

What is interesting, to me, is that the non-mating display rituals- buying clothes that are interesting and memorable, but not designed to attract a mate, are secondary mating ritual behaviors, as well. So, the woman who buys the expensive, overpriced, attractive but unsexy top that is modeled by another women who resembles Olive Oyl, isn't buying for the sake of sex appeal. She's buying because the nice shirt is also a status symbol. She can afford the clothes, they look nice to her. That's conditioned behavior, because no one needs an overpriced shirt. She's compelled to buy the shirt because making an effort to look nice is a competitive behavior. Competitive behaviors are a mating behavior, a war by proxy for breeding rights, in our case.

So, although clothes may be unsexy but attractive, solely for women, they're still being bought to attract mates, at the root of all things, denials notwithstanding, sex still sells, even when we're not talking about sex, because efforts to promote reproduction are still the cornerstone of humanity's longevity, and the primary driving force in most human behavior, even today.

Good News!

The Fox has declared that the henhouse is free of predators!


(OR, "Tijuana bar manager concludes investigation into presence of donkey show at his bar, finds no wrongdoing.")

DHS Inspector General reports clear USCG Judges of misconduct

Two reports by the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General clear Coast Guard Administrative Law Judges of misconduct or bias, but make 11 recommendations for improving the service's handling of mariner license suspension and revocation matters.

The reports, OIG-10-107 and OIG-10-108, stem from an October 2008 request by the Coast Guard's Vice Commandant for a review of allegations made May 9, 2007, by former Administrative Law Judge Jeffie Massey.

Report OIG-10-107 details recommendations made to address programmatic issues that while not directly related to Massey's allegations, were noted during the review of those allegations.

Report OIG-10-108, focused on the review of Massey's allegations, says that DHS OIG inspectors found there "is no evidence supporting ALJ Massey's claim that the Chief ALJ held improper conversations with other ALJs about desired outcomes in specific cases or otherwise deprived mariners of due process in administrative proceedings."

The report also states that the Office of Inspector General:

Found that Massey repeatedly failed to follow Coast Guard regulations;

Found that Massey had in one instance, openly refused to follow Coast Guard precedent;

Was not able to substantiate Massey's allegations;

Did not determine that the Chief ALJ (Judge Joseph Ingolia) and others made remarks alleged by Massey;

Did not identify any evidence that the Chief ALJ told subordinates how to rule or attempted to control case outcomes;

Did not uncover evidence that the Chief ALJ expects ALJs to rule in favor of the Coast Guard or directed them to do so.

Found no evidence supporting Massey's allegation that the Chief ALJ directed a subordinate ALJ how to rule.

"The Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge Program welcomed this independent and thorough investigation which exonerates the ALJ program of alleged misconduct," said Rear Adm. Karl Schultz, director of governmental and public affairs for the U.S. Coast Guard. "These current findings are consistent with an earlier GAO audit which found the ALJ program to be unbiased and that Coast Guard ALJs fairly adjudicate the interests of those who come before them."

Report OIG-10-107 provides the service with 11 recommendations on how to improve the Coast Guard's handling of merchant mariner suspension and revocation matters.

The Coast Guard concurs with each of the following recommendations:

1. Evaluate current procedures for training ALJs and create a formal training program.

2. Develop formal written procedures for investigating allegations of misconduct against an ALJ.

3. Create formal guidelines for the Chief ALJ to follow when deciding how or whether to discipline an ALJ.

4. Revoke any obsolete policy guidance and consolidate current policy guidance into a manual.

5. Develop a standard format for the issuance of policy guidance that establishes to what extent an ALJ is required to follow the guidance.

6. Administer a formal orientation and training course that investigating officers complete before handling suspension and revocation cases.

7. Make available or require, if necessary, ongoing or advanced skills training for investigating officers who seek or need to improve their prosecutorial skills.

8. Promote the use of the Center of Expertise to ensure that investigating officers have access to training and legal support.

9. Take steps to decrease the length of time required to issue Commandant's Decision on Appeals.

10. Create a database of Commandant's Decision on Appeals and ALJ decisions in which the public can use a topic or key word to locate relevant Coast Guard precedents.

11. Develop formal procedures governing interactions between personnel in the ALJ program, the Judge Advocate General's Office and the Office of Investigations and Analysis.

"The swift implementation of the DHS IG recommendations, which is already underway, is beneficial to all participants of the adjudication system," said Schultz. "This investigation is in fact the second independent review of the Coast Guard ALJ Program within a 12-month period. These reports provide the facts that help our merchant mariners and the American public to confidently place their trust in the fairness and integrity of the Coast Guard's suspension and revocation program, our Administrative Law Judges and the staff who administer a program that is vital to maritime safety."

Massey's allegations were reported in a series of Baltimore Sun articles and repeated during Congressional testimony. The allegations were also relied upon in three, civil lawsuits seeking to reverse Coast Guard actions and up to $31 million in alleged damages from ALJs and others. The lawsuits were dismissed, and the dismissals were affirmed on appeal. Two plaintiffs re-filed their suits which were again dismissed. Those dismissals are on appeal before the 5th Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals.

(Via Marinelog.com)

Congratulations again, to the ALJ's, and their impressive 99% conviction rate... of course, it's easy to judge a man guilty when your boss tells you to find him guilty... come to think of it, why do we call them "Judges?" Shouldn't they just be referred to as prosecutors? Further, shouldn't mariners have the opportunity to allow their peers to judge them, rather than an employee fiscally bound to and institutionally trained by the same people who sign their paychecks, and more disturbingly, their pensions?

This is a fantastic argument for the growing movement to strip the US Coast Guard of the power to levy judgement, and shift the mandate for adjudication to the NTSB , returning the USCG to their goddamned job of fishing people out of the water and inspecting ships, the only two things they're good at, anyhow.